Idk man, I had been an atheist since I was around 14, 15. I'm 22 now and I didn't convert until somewhat recently, and it was to a different religion entirely.
@@willj1598I’m interested. What have theist argued that lost your debate. Personally I like to stick to there creation myth they have zero credibility for.
That's exactly how religion started. Questions for which there are no answers (yet). Creating your own answers. Which is what almost every culture did. That's why there are so many different religions.
That's probably because we're atheists. Ask a pagan and it'll be "I used to be a Pagan." Apparently, all proselytizing Christians used to be whatever the person they're trying to convince is.
Well, technically they're right, everyone born has no knowledge of any gods/deities. It's not until they're indoctrinated into religion, that they start to believe in the fairytales of gods/deities.
And if you then ask for details it usually at best amounts to a certain degree of a crisis in faith, not absence of any faith... they are so terrified of doubt, that even a sliver of it is seen as complete betrayal.
This guy is a genius: he is trying to gaslight the audience by making nonsensical claims, but only succeeds in gasligthing himself instead. And of course he will be none the wiser and remain genuinely convinced he destroyed atheism with irrefutable proof.
Pretty bold of him to say "Even Stephen Hawking said the universe had a begging!" When Stephen Hawking himself also said "God simply does not exist" Taking things out of context,some theists never change....
It’s a bait and switch. The universe having a beginning is not the same as saying it was created. You’ll notice in the video he quoted Hawking using the word “beginning,” but then a few seconds later he changed it to “created.”
It’s my understanding that (if this is the same argument that I’m recalling) he said the geometry of spacetime could be such that there was no time before the beginning. In other words it’s not necessarily certain that time existed before the beginning of the universe. For example, if you travel north, north doesn’t continue forever. It ends at the singularity at the north pole because that’s how spherical geometry works. If you travel back in time, it is possible that time ends in a similar geometric singularity (not the same as a gravitational singularity like the center of a black hole. ) Now this is totally speculation because actual knowledge of what happened before the expansion of the universe began is lacking due to there being no observable evidence to test the hypothesis against. Many theists then to take these theoretical hypotheses and conflate them with empirically supported theories as if they’re on the same level. This is merely a theoretical extrapolation that has potential because the rest of the theory is empirically confirmed but this specific hypothesis is beyond that sort of confirmation. Gravity and the curvature of spacetime has been experimentally confirmed and is used in daily life every time you use a GPS. For confirmation of a geometric singularity at the start of time there would have to be specific predictions that can be confirmed by observation for that hypothesis to be confirmed. There are many competing hypotheses like this that don’t confirm one way or another what happened before the observable universe came into being. These hypotheses are merely there as thought experiments for discussion. You can’t say that these are things all atheists believe since they don’t measure up evidence wise. Which is why the “something from nothing” argument is so fundamentally baseless. There are plenty of other hypotheses where something existed before the Big Bang which always gets ignored by those arguments.
I had to giggle when he seemed to suggest that having the word "evidence" written in a book makes it evidence. I hope he doesn't read any Stephen King, poor thing.
Hey, I teach science at the college level. I tell students we don't accept "proof" in science, and science isn't a collection of absolute facts. So he's lying about science and science education.
During college, I worked in the Writing Studio and two times a year I got to explain to a couple hundred first-year Bio students that they wanted to use the word "evidence" in their lab reports, and why "proof" was inappropriate. And that was a crappy, small, state liberal arts school. The idea that science pretends to "prove" things is frustrating.
Fortunately I studied mathematics at college and had the luxury of developing proof. In pure maths, anyway; in applied maths and statistics we had to evaluate a shit-tonne of bounds and live with a big fuzzy cloud of probabilities.
@@RichWoods23 I did computer science. So I did my fair share of math, but I actually enjoy the more applied statistics over developing proofs. To each their own!
Theist “I'm right because I say so!” Atheist “Wow, a whole new perspective. I'm going to think about that.” or what he also said is that God is reality and reality exists, therefore God exists.
theists always say, " i used to be an atheist" then proceed to say that it was a passage in the bible or praying that brought them back to being a theists.
They obviously missed a lot of passages that would have kept them being an atheist!! It's absolutely so funny that they don't realize or understand!! 😂
While someone, who at some past time in their life, thought no gods existed or weren't convinced of any god claims, can call themselves an atheist, many aren't convincing. I'm calling such people liars because they come out with having been such a bad person: drink, drugs, sex etc. I think they are lying to make it sound better for their audience with the Jesus saved me crap.
I had a preacher (when I was a child and stupid and I still noticed this) that he use to be an atheist and then in the next breath said that he was raised in church
You know what they say, if you’re skydiving and your parachute isn’t working, you have the rest of your life to fix it. I can be atheist my whole life and convert to Christianity before dying and cheat fate. The system is broken.
"Can you put love on a scale and weigh it?" Technically you probably COULD but it would be really hard seeing as love is a chemical reaction that could be measured.
I like his car analogy. Because of course the existence of a car doesn't actually do anything to demonstrate keys for it exist. The ignition interlock would have had a key for it manufactured, but that doesn't mean the key still exists. You can also remove the interlock from a car and it will function. Though it would be illegal to have on the road in most places.
The car analogy used here is also funny because it presumes the car is one that needs an ignition key. You know, I wonder if those who use the Watchmaker Argument specify what kind of watch they found in the sand... I always presume it' a pocketwatch myself, I wonder if they think it's a wristwatch?
@@darththeo When you say "keyless", do you mean using radio frequencies, or something else? Apart from my girlfriend's old car (and even that doesn't use a metal key) and the cars of a few pupils, I haven't inserted a key into a car in years. I don't approve of the cars that automatically unlock when you're close, though, as that's a security risk.
I can be atheist without having given any thought to the beginning of the universe. My two thoughts: The universe is still pretty much nothing. This universe could be the rotting corpse of a preceding universe.
It's truly impressive how something as simple as a request for evidence turns into 20 minutes of Christian angst. They can't even just describe what evidence THEY had. Not, instead it turns into some bs justifications for their decision, not the reasoning of it. It's almost like THERE ISN'T ANY.
He said (to himself), “I want proof.” He then said (to himself), “Okay, I will give you proof.” “Give me the proof” (to himself). His response (to himself), “there’s no such thing as proof.” 🤪
"You have a car, there must be keys that exist." Not if the keys were destroyed. If I melt them down, they aren't keys anymore. No I have a car with no keys. Is it possible to make a car without keys? Yes. So the existence of a car in now way proves the existence of keys.
8:32 Holy hell, the simulation hypothesis is a “woke” position now? I feel like I’m in that one episode of SpongeBob SquarePants. “What kind of fool do you take me for? This is woke? That’s woke? Those are woke? I’m woke! Are there any other woke things I should know about?!”
Sounds like my experience with encountering the Prop 65 warning on the back of the motel room door. *_This room contains substances known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm._* WHICH ONES⁉️ Is it the bed? The shower? The toilet?!
2:19 no, no it doesn't. Through the power of "I don't know" I can simply admit I don't know things. You feel a pathological need to think your god removes all uncertainty, probably because you're too scared to face the unknown. 4:27 this is, by definition irrational. It calls for believing a thing is true with no evidence that it is. A small child can be forgiven for thinking believing something hard enough means it's true but I'm an adult. Call me when you have actual evidencs. 4:37 that's not the definition of evidence. All you have is word games you think are clever isn't it? 7:09 okay he kinda got that right, now let's wait a few seconds for him to veer off into absurdity. 7:29 Science is a method for studying the world around us and reaching well supported conclusions with the caveat that those conclusions must be abandoned if further evidence proves said conclusions wrong. It's not a static thing. 20 seconds by the way. 8:45 "chaotic insane place" A universe we can study and predict with ever increasing accuracy is far less chaotic than one at the whims of a magic entity who genocides those who oppose him and violates the very rules of physics whenever he likes. 8:57 present your "evidence" then. You haven't shown any yet This guy's getting too silly, I'm out. "Metaphysics"
Haha tapped out at the same point. Started to become to street preachy for me. Just disingenuous babble to make themselves look smart and the other side look dumb and ignorant. Despite the fact they are not really saying anything.
@Toni-lo9ms, have you never seen _The Red Green Show?_ If you have, you know about "The three little words men find so hard to say . . . ." That said, I grew up in a place and time in which people generally didn't speak about religion publicly. It wasn't until I attended a 'revival" in my town that I had any conscious idea of this thing people called "god". Until then, I wouldn't have been convinced by the ". . . fool knows in his heart". It didn't take long for me to realize that I still didn't believe. Decades later, I learned about mutually constructed social realities. I also became convinced that religions are about behavior much more than they are about beliefs.
_"...too many people as school were taught science in terms of being absolute facts..."_ Uhhh, no they weren't. If that's what you took away, you were a bad student.
Religious arguments summed up. Religious people in the year 0024: "We have no idea how life and the world around us works, so the only way we could exist, is by the will of god! HE created life and the world around us! That is 100% the answer! No need to look into it further!" Scientists in the year 2024: "Look at all this amazing evidence we've discovered through rigorous study, testing, and demonstration, using ever-advancing, MODERN DAY science and technology! We have OVERWHELMING evidence that shows us how life and the universe around us started using natural, observable processes. We don't have ALL the answers, and that's why we ABSOLUTELY need to look into this further!" Religious people in the year 2024: "What an absurd claim! You sound ridiculous! What a CRAZY religion! This 2000 year old book says 'The only way we could exist, is by the will of god! HE created life and the world around us!' So that is 100% the answer! No need to look into it further!" 🤔.... Seems legit.
I had experiences in my life that let me conclude that god either doesn't exist or is a sadistic asshole. Worshipping that god is just lost time, and so is arguing with believers.
They're presuming the car is one that needs keys and isn't a keyless car. Or a toy car. Or a racecar bed. There are many ways a car is designed and operated and they picked one particular model and assume everyone has the same one or all cars are exactly that. I wonder what the watch is in the Watchmaker Argument. Is it a wristwatch or a pocketwatch?
@@stylesrj can be a digital watch too, or even a sundial made out of a stick on your wrist can be called a watch if we want, and there are no makers other than you taking a stick from the ground and marking lines on your wrist
Him being funny is highly debatable. Ive watched alot of hes videos and im yet to laugh or even smirk. And i still wonder why he keeps looking at the camera and somewhere else like theres someone pointing a gun at him or something
In his own comment section, buddy wrote that he used to be an atheist, but then in the SAME comment said that atheists refuse to accept God... like... which one is it?!?
What I don't like about these "atheist" characters is that they're always willing yo go long with just enough and give up pushing back just enough to make the creationist seem logical and have "overpowering evidence" by the end due to all the points that the "atheist" just conceded.
A car without keys? There are tons of cars that start and stop by pressing a button. And what about a car where the keys were destroyed? It’s a bullshit example.
Exactly. The argument presumes that because there is a car, it must have a key... when there are indeed cars that don't have keys... Huh, much like their argument about gods. Huh, was the watch in the sand a pocketwatch or a wristwatch?
Looking out at the vast, endless expanse of space and considering our cosmic insignificance the being at the end of his argument would logically be some sort of incomprehensible Lovecraftian Outer God.
I'll be honest, this is the best atheist strawman I've ever seen, he was so close. His atheist arguments are real things I've seen atheists say and they're all better than the counter arguments he comes up with to answer them.
Slightly disappointed that you just let him get away with the biggest BS move in the video. "So emotions are metaphysical?" "No" "See? You believe in a metaphysical thing!" When the guy can't even debate in good faith with his own strawman, you know he's doing something wrong.
The weirdest thing about him using the Kalam is that he already argued against both of its premises earlier in the video: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause.”: At best, this is an observation, on the same level as gravity that he argued against earlier. “The universe began to exist.”: this is an assumption that he has no proof or evidence for. And it’s an assumption that I do not accept.
5:25 Funny, that my parents told me these words when I was asking too many questions about religion. With a side of "if you keep asking questions, you'll go to hell!" To which, I thought for a second that if true I'd end up in hell anyway so might as well know why, so I asked "but why though?". The death stare with the loud silence was quite funny in hindsight.
He went for the LOVE analogy and thought he had a point lol not knowing that yes we can measure love. Look how proud he is thinking its an air tight argument lmao
You know what? He's convinced me. Everything he said applies to Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe, leaf be upon her, so i must believe in her and reject the god he foolishly believes in. There isn't even a book to use to prove the book is true in saying it's true, which is a bonus point towards her existance.
The reason why creationists have to make up fake atheists to debunk is because no real Atheist would concede most of his points even for the sake of argument
I'm sorry, I have to disagree. 4/10 for the acting. Guy mucked up his lines. 1/10 for writing. Forgot who his characters were and they were unbelievable.
Someone ought to tell the guy who made this ridiculous video that "I am that I am" is _NOT_ the Christian god's name. First, the Hebrew verb typically translated as "am" is actually tenseless. So "I am that I am" _could_ be "I am that I _was",_ "I am that I _will be,"_ or any of a number of of variations. Rabbis often say that "I am that I am" is just a way the god of Tanakh could avoid telling Moshe His name. And why, you may ask, does that make a difference? Because in some systems of magick, knowing a being's true name would give you power over it. And you know who wouldn't stand for that?
Odd, I'm pretty sure the atheist with the glasses won the debate. And the theist is wrong about "proof." Mathematics is where proofs come from and mathematics is a form of science, When you attack science, you lose.
Yes, and anything can be called evidence, but that doesn't make it so. He skipped right over the substance of things hoped for too. But things hoped for don't necessarily have any substance. It's a shameless endorsement of wishful thinking and that's the 'evidence of things unseen'. So another words dream up the fantasies you wish for. Pretend they have substance and make believe they are evidence for the unseen (things for which there's no evidence).
"now that we know the metaphysical realm exists..." Narrator: but, he didnt know for a fact the metaphysical realm exists..he was simply talking out his metaphysical know-hole...
"...you're not smart enough to be an atheist" Well, my theist guy, you are the one who wrote the character, so i guess you are to blame for that.
I was an atheist before seeing him make his arguments and now I’m an annoyed atheist.
Me too!
When you argue with yourself, the only loser is you!
To be fair, you're also the winner of the argument. I'd call it a wash.
@@CAustin582he's a winner alright !
"I used to be an atheist."
Yup, until your parents assigned you to a religion.
Idk man, I had been an atheist since I was around 14, 15. I'm 22 now and I didn't convert until somewhat recently, and it was to a different religion entirely.
@@HotBaraDad666that doesn’t make any sense.
@@HotBaraDad666 May the force be with you
@@HotBaraDad666great now we know you were never an atheist.
@@HotBaraDad666I didn’t suddenly decide to be an atheist, I simply stopped believing in the supernatural.
This theist should argue with me. I’ve been in hundreds and hundreds of arguments while I was in the shower, and I’ve NEVER lost.
I wish I could say I never lost, you must be a better debater than me.
His debates are more the toilet bowl kind, where copious amounts of toilet paper are needed afterwards.
Bidet; checkmate!
@@willj1598It helps that my opponents were all idiots.
@@willj1598I’m interested. What have theist argued that lost your debate. Personally I like to stick to there creation myth they have zero credibility for.
whoever told this guy he's funny violated the commandment against bearing false witness
Oh that’s funny!
@@TheSkepTick You'd know about funny, you clown
They can't imagine that some people don't just make things up when they don't know the answer to something.
Sadly my mother is the same. While she is not in the slightest bit religious, it is still every bit as frustrating listening to her sometimes.
That's exactly how religion started. Questions for which there are no answers (yet). Creating your own answers. Which is what almost every culture did. That's why there are so many different religions.
Bottom line he's a theist using words to define a God into existence because he has no evidence to support his religious claim.
One of the most common phrases used by proselytizing christians: "I used to be an atheist."
That's probably because we're atheists. Ask a pagan and it'll be "I used to be a Pagan." Apparently, all proselytizing Christians used to be whatever the person they're trying to convince is.
Well, technically they're right, everyone born has no knowledge of any gods/deities. It's not until they're indoctrinated into religion, that they start to believe in the fairytales of gods/deities.
Because athiests are more trustworthy?
@@somersetcace1 At least I can be honest since I don't care about proselytizing.
And if you then ask for details it usually at best amounts to a certain degree of a crisis in faith, not absence of any faith... they are so terrified of doubt, that even a sliver of it is seen as complete betrayal.
This guy is a genius: he is trying to gaslight the audience by making nonsensical claims, but only succeeds in gasligthing himself instead. And of course he will be none the wiser and remain genuinely convinced he destroyed atheism with irrefutable proof.
But he will have achieved his goal, fluffing his ego.
his arguments are so bad even against himself that already believed everything they don't work
Trying to argue both sides of the question, failing miserably at it...
Doesn't "gaslighting yourself" just _mean_ "being religious" though?
That's what happens when you're not smart enough to be an atheist.
I like how, despite deciding what the "atheist" would say, he still couldn't counter the arguments. 🤣
Lol
He DID say that he isn't smart enough to be an atheist.
Life is so simple when seen through the eyes of a toddler.
Pretty bold of him to say "Even Stephen Hawking said the universe had a begging!"
When Stephen Hawking himself also said "God simply does not exist"
Taking things out of context,some theists never change....
It’s a bait and switch. The universe having a beginning is not the same as saying it was created. You’ll notice in the video he quoted Hawking using the word “beginning,” but then a few seconds later he changed it to “created.”
Stephen Hawkins. Totally different guy. Lives in a van down by the river.
*beginning
@@jamiemarshall4641 tbf that only happened the *_2nd_* time he mentioned the name (15:01)... he managed to get it right earlier (12:59). 🤪
It’s my understanding that (if this is the same argument that I’m recalling) he said the geometry of spacetime could be such that there was no time before the beginning. In other words it’s not necessarily certain that time existed before the beginning of the universe.
For example, if you travel north, north doesn’t continue forever. It ends at the singularity at the north pole because that’s how spherical geometry works.
If you travel back in time, it is possible that time ends in a similar geometric singularity (not the same as a gravitational singularity like the center of a black hole. )
Now this is totally speculation because actual knowledge of what happened before the expansion of the universe began is lacking due to there being no observable evidence to test the hypothesis against. Many theists then to take these theoretical hypotheses and conflate them with empirically supported theories as if they’re on the same level. This is merely a theoretical extrapolation that has potential because the rest of the theory is empirically confirmed but this specific hypothesis is beyond that sort of confirmation. Gravity and the curvature of spacetime has been experimentally confirmed and is used in daily life every time you use a GPS.
For confirmation of a geometric singularity at the start of time there would have to be specific predictions that can be confirmed by observation for that hypothesis to be confirmed. There are many competing hypotheses like this that don’t confirm one way or another what happened before the observable universe came into being. These hypotheses are merely there as thought experiments for discussion. You can’t say that these are things all atheists believe since they don’t measure up evidence wise. Which is why the “something from nothing” argument is so fundamentally baseless. There are plenty of other hypotheses where something existed before the Big Bang which always gets ignored by those arguments.
Wow that was entire ballet of strawmen at the word salad dinner theatre.
At least they'll have plenty of fiber
I like the cut of your logic !
I love the part he says he's going to prove God then goes and says how nothing can be proven
I had to giggle when he seemed to suggest that having the word "evidence" written in a book makes it evidence. I hope he doesn't read any Stephen King, poor thing.
You can't play chess for both sides without being tempted to favour one.
Stealing this
God began to exist, so therefore had a cause, and we even know what that cause was - humans a few thousand years ago.
Imagine losing an argument with yourself. Not only that, an argument you scripted.
Very embarrassing for him.
But you also won the argument.
@@HungryWardenExcept he really didn't. He played a stupid game and won the prize of stupidity.
Hey, I teach science at the college level. I tell students we don't accept "proof" in science, and science isn't a collection of absolute facts. So he's lying about science and science education.
He has no idea what he's talking about.
During college, I worked in the Writing Studio and two times a year I got to explain to a couple hundred first-year Bio students that they wanted to use the word "evidence" in their lab reports, and why "proof" was inappropriate.
And that was a crappy, small, state liberal arts school.
The idea that science pretends to "prove" things is frustrating.
Fortunately I studied mathematics at college and had the luxury of developing proof. In pure maths, anyway; in applied maths and statistics we had to evaluate a shit-tonne of bounds and live with a big fuzzy cloud of probabilities.
@@RichWoods23 I did computer science. So I did my fair share of math, but I actually enjoy the more applied statistics over developing proofs. To each their own!
Proofs are for math and printing.
“You have no proof there is not a god, therefore there is.”
Yep, I am completely convinced…
Forgot to add the /s... :p
@@irrelevant_noobbecause it isnt sarcasm I mean I am totally convinced.
@@irrelevant_noobthis isn't reddit
You have no proof there is not a unicorn, therefore there is.
@@EnverHalilHoxha1917 too bad you're not the OP... guess you weren't convinced enough to post that statement on your own?
Theist “I'm right because I say so!”
Atheist “Wow, a whole new perspective. I'm going to think about that.”
or what he also said is that God is reality and reality exists, therefore God exists.
_Just look at the trees, though._ 🤦♂️
God is magic, magic isn't, therefore God isn't.. buybull refuted. 😊
“I can prove god exists and I’ll do with without the Bible”
“Actually, you technically can’t prove anything, so god exists”
theists always say, " i used to be an atheist" then proceed to say that it was a passage in the bible or praying that brought them back to being a theists.
They obviously missed a lot of passages that would have kept them being an atheist!! It's absolutely so funny that they don't realize or understand!! 😂
If some of them were atheist, they weren't atheists that cared about facts and logic.
While someone, who at some past time in their life, thought no gods existed or weren't convinced of any god claims, can call themselves an atheist, many aren't convincing. I'm calling such people liars because they come out with having been such a bad person: drink, drugs, sex etc. I think they are lying to make it sound better for their audience with the Jesus saved me crap.
I had a preacher (when I was a child and stupid and I still noticed this) that he use to be an atheist and then in the next breath said that he was raised in church
@@olivemetal9112Everyone is born an atheist.
What about love?
Chemically no different than consuming large quantities of chocolate. 🍫
That's because chocolate is love.
@@WhiteScorpio2without chocolate, love couldnt exist.
You don’t need a parachute; believe me, you will not fall to your death. All you need is faith.
You know what they say, if you’re skydiving and your parachute isn’t working, you have the rest of your life to fix it. I can be atheist my whole life and convert to Christianity before dying and cheat fate. The system is broken.
"Can you put love on a scale and weigh it?"
Technically you probably COULD but it would be really hard seeing as love is a chemical reaction that could be measured.
Whoever wins this video argument, we all lose (a few brain cells)
Yep, now I need some coffee to compensate. 😂😂😂
I like his car analogy. Because of course the existence of a car doesn't actually do anything to demonstrate keys for it exist. The ignition interlock would have had a key for it manufactured, but that doesn't mean the key still exists. You can also remove the interlock from a car and it will function. Though it would be illegal to have on the road in most places.
There are literally keyless cars on the market too. They aren't very common, but they exist. My aunt own one.
@@darththeo They're becoming more common though.
The car analogy used here is also funny because it presumes the car is one that needs an ignition key. You know, I wonder if those who use the Watchmaker Argument specify what kind of watch they found in the sand... I always presume it' a pocketwatch myself, I wonder if they think it's a wristwatch?
@@darththeo When you say "keyless", do you mean using radio frequencies, or something else?
Apart from my girlfriend's old car (and even that doesn't use a metal key) and the cars of a few pupils, I haven't inserted a key into a car in years.
I don't approve of the cars that automatically unlock when you're close, though, as that's a security risk.
I'm convinced, my turn on the joint.
I'm with you man...puff puff pass for gog...😅😂😂😂😂 I ment dog FFS😂😂😂
The ones that hurt the most is when their strawmen actually provide valid arguments, so somewhere in their subconscious they know how it works.
I can be atheist without having given any thought to the beginning of the universe. My two thoughts:
The universe is still pretty much nothing.
This universe could be the rotting corpse of a preceding universe.
It's truly impressive how something as simple as a request for evidence turns into 20 minutes of Christian angst. They can't even just describe what evidence THEY had. Not, instead it turns into some bs justifications for their decision, not the reasoning of it. It's almost like THERE ISN'T ANY.
Everything must have a creator.
Ok what created God?
Oh no he’s an exception of course!!!
He said (to himself), “I want proof.” He then said (to himself), “Okay, I will give you proof.” “Give me the proof” (to himself). His response (to himself), “there’s no such thing as proof.” 🤪
Also, he said (to himself), "You're not smart enough to be an atheist."
This fool thinks that there is always a solution to a math problem? I'm done.
Or that there's no such thing as "proof". Guess he never took theoretical Comp Sci. ^^
"You have a car, there must be keys that exist." Not if the keys were destroyed. If I melt them down, they aren't keys anymore. No I have a car with no keys. Is it possible to make a car without keys? Yes. So the existence of a car in now way proves the existence of keys.
The christers really love their blind watchmaker argument.
8:32 Holy hell, the simulation hypothesis is a “woke” position now? I feel like I’m in that one episode of SpongeBob SquarePants.
“What kind of fool do you take me for? This is woke? That’s woke? Those are woke? I’m woke! Are there any other woke things I should know about?!”
Sounds like my experience with encountering the Prop 65 warning on the back of the motel room door.
*_This room contains substances known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm._*
WHICH ONES⁉️ Is it the bed? The shower? The toilet?!
@@AnnoyingNewsletters Hope you didn't eat the nightstand.
@@Llortnerof I guess that explains all of the birth defects 🤷♂️
@@Llortnerof
The nightstand should be OK to eat... the Gideons isn't.
2:19 no, no it doesn't. Through the power of "I don't know" I can simply admit I don't know things. You feel a pathological need to think your god removes all uncertainty, probably because you're too scared to face the unknown.
4:27 this is, by definition irrational. It calls for believing a thing is true with no evidence that it is. A small child can be forgiven for thinking believing something hard enough means it's true but I'm an adult. Call me when you have actual evidencs.
4:37 that's not the definition of evidence. All you have is word games you think are clever isn't it?
7:09 okay he kinda got that right, now let's wait a few seconds for him to veer off into absurdity.
7:29 Science is a method for studying the world around us and reaching well supported conclusions with the caveat that those conclusions must be abandoned if further evidence proves said conclusions wrong. It's not a static thing. 20 seconds by the way.
8:45 "chaotic insane place"
A universe we can study and predict with ever increasing accuracy is far less chaotic than one at the whims of a magic entity who genocides those who oppose him and violates the very rules of physics whenever he likes.
8:57 present your "evidence" then. You haven't shown any yet
This guy's getting too silly, I'm out. "Metaphysics"
Well said, Toni!! ❤👍🏼
Haha tapped out at the same point. Started to become to street preachy for me. Just disingenuous babble to make themselves look smart and the other side look dumb and ignorant. Despite the fact they are not really saying anything.
@Toni-lo9ms, have you never seen _The Red Green Show?_ If you have, you know about "The three little words men find so hard to say . . . ."
That said, I grew up in a place and time in which people generally didn't speak about religion publicly. It wasn't until I attended a 'revival" in my town that I had any conscious idea of this thing people called "god". Until then, I wouldn't have been convinced by the ". . . fool knows in his heart".
It didn't take long for me to realize that I still didn't believe. Decades later, I learned about mutually constructed social realities. I also became convinced that religions are about behavior much more than they are about beliefs.
Great post, but what was the "20 seconds" referring to?
@pineapplepenumbra Look at the time stamp when I wrote let's wait a few seconds
Well, at least this is how Theists say their conversation went.
Science can never be proven. Knowledge cannot be certain to exist the same way in the future. So that means my book is real!
If Turek charged a dollar every time someone says a title of his book, he'd be a billionaire. Oh wait.....
Turek is living proof no benevolent god exists, and he's not the only one.
_"...too many people as school were taught science in terms of being absolute facts..."_
Uhhh, no they weren't. If that's what you took away, you were a bad student.
Or your school was bad.
He's not smart enough to be an atheist. It goes without saying that he's not smart enough to be a scientist.
@@HotBaraDad666you believe in imaginary friends dude
Thanks!
I've said the "Lisa" line in a few discussion boards, and with some friends, convinced some people to come check you out! I'M DOING MY PART!
You’re a legend
@@TheSkepTick (bows in Decepticon)
@@megatronjenkins2473 Leaf be upon you! 🌈🦒 (More 🐔!)
"I will give proof of God's existence by saying that proof doesn't exist."
Wut.
Religious arguments summed up.
Religious people in the year 0024:
"We have no idea how life and the world around us works, so the only way we could exist, is by the will of god! HE created life and the world around us! That is 100% the answer! No need to look into it further!"
Scientists in the year 2024:
"Look at all this amazing evidence we've discovered through rigorous study, testing, and demonstration, using ever-advancing, MODERN DAY science and technology! We have OVERWHELMING evidence that shows us how life and the universe around us started using natural, observable processes. We don't have ALL the answers, and that's why we ABSOLUTELY need to look into this further!"
Religious people in the year 2024:
"What an absurd claim! You sound ridiculous! What a CRAZY religion! This 2000 year old book says 'The only way we could exist, is by the will of god! HE created life and the world around us!' So that is 100% the answer! No need to look into it further!"
🤔.... Seems legit.
Thanks! You have my Fusion Cannon!!!
I had experiences in my life that let me conclude that god either doesn't exist or is a sadistic asshole.
Worshipping that god is just lost time, and so is arguing with believers.
He better be weeping for what has his followers has done.
sorry but i grew up in a bad neighbors,
even cars Do Not Always Need Keys
INDEED a large flat blade screw driver works.
They're presuming the car is one that needs keys and isn't a keyless car. Or a toy car. Or a racecar bed. There are many ways a car is designed and operated and they picked one particular model and assume everyone has the same one or all cars are exactly that.
I wonder what the watch is in the Watchmaker Argument. Is it a wristwatch or a pocketwatch?
@@stylesrj can be a digital watch too,
or even a sundial made out of a stick on your wrist can be called a watch if we want,
and there are no makers other than you taking a stick from the ground and marking lines on your wrist
You said he was funny but I couldn't help but feel sad for him.
I find it mostly annoying, but that's just me. 😂
@@MrCanis4 you are not alone :D
Him being funny is highly debatable. Ive watched alot of hes videos and im yet to laugh or even smirk.
And i still wonder why he keeps looking at the camera and somewhere else like theres someone pointing a gun at him or something
I think he’s reading a script
it's only "funny" in a "this is so sad and disappointing" way
You know what would make his comedy skit better? Comedy.
Saying love is metaphysical is like saying driving a car is metaphysical because you can’t measure the process of driving a car on a scale.
In his own comment section, buddy wrote that he used to be an atheist, but then in the SAME comment said that atheists refuse to accept God... like... which one is it?!?
What I don't like about these "atheist" characters is that they're always willing yo go long with just enough and give up pushing back just enough to make the creationist seem logical and have "overpowering evidence" by the end due to all the points that the "atheist" just conceded.
He might be a "comedian, " but he's definitely not a cosmologist❗️
And those quotation marks are doing some _heavy_ lifting.
A car without keys?
There are tons of cars that start and stop by pressing a button.
And what about a car where the keys were destroyed?
It’s a bullshit example.
Exactly. The argument presumes that because there is a car, it must have a key... when there are indeed cars that don't have keys...
Huh, much like their argument about gods. Huh, was the watch in the sand a pocketwatch or a wristwatch?
Uh, my first thought was 'did the first cars at the end of the 19th century have 'keys'? 😂😂
@@MrCanis4 Most carriages back then had no keys. But you had to get the horse(s) out of the stable… which might be locked. Does that count?
@ The watch in the sand was a stick or something that made it into an impromptu sun dial with no markings.
“Every thing needs a creator” then immediately breaks that rule with there god.
The Hypocrisy that the universe can't create itself and must have had a beginning. But God always existed and doesn't need a creator.
Looking out at the vast, endless expanse of space and considering our cosmic insignificance the being at the end of his argument would logically be some sort of incomprehensible Lovecraftian Outer God.
I'll be honest, this is the best atheist strawman I've ever seen, he was so close. His atheist arguments are real things I've seen atheists say and they're all better than the counter arguments he comes up with to answer them.
He's the kind of guy that charges a training dummy and ends up on his back.
I respect that.
The best part is when he says that he isn't smart enough to be an atheist.
It is amazing how much effort these people put into rationalizing ignorance.
I’m not smart enough to be an atheist but at least I’m not stupid enough to be a Christian
God: the greatest hide-and-seek champion of all time
Some philosophers and neuroscientists debate whether humans have 22 to 33 senses
Slightly disappointed that you just let him get away with the biggest BS move in the video.
"So emotions are metaphysical?"
"No"
"See? You believe in a metaphysical thing!"
When the guy can't even debate in good faith with his own strawman, you know he's doing something wrong.
I mean, I touched on it being measurable, so I assumed if he saw this, he’d get that they’re clearly not metaphysical.
@@TheSkepTick tbf, his strawman already told him that, and he didn't listen to him, either xD
The weirdest thing about him using the Kalam is that he already argued against both of its premises earlier in the video:
“Everything that begins to exist has a cause.”: At best, this is an observation, on the same level as gravity that he argued against earlier.
“The universe began to exist.”: this is an assumption that he has no proof or evidence for. And it’s an assumption that I do not accept.
Also it's a composition falacy. What's true for parts of a whole is not necessarily true for the whole itself.
"this is an observation"
Not really. We have never observed things actually beginning to exist, only to change form.
@@WhiteScorpio2 that’s why I said “at best”
Imagine that guy did the script, recorded it, cut and everything and in the end he was like: fuck yeah!…and clicked upload.
5:25 Funny, that my parents told me these words when I was asking too many questions about religion. With a side of "if you keep asking questions, you'll go to hell!" To which, I thought for a second that if true I'd end up in hell anyway so might as well know why, so I asked "but why though?". The death stare with the loud silence was quite funny in hindsight.
He really won big... against himself.
Just like I beat an imaginary grandmaster at chess today. And I dont even play chess!
He went for the LOVE analogy and thought he had a point lol not knowing that yes we can measure love. Look how proud he is thinking its an air tight argument lmao
Amazing video, man. He just straw manned atheists the entire time. Can you also say my name nice and slow? Thank you.
He's reading in both versions. . . Guess he doesn't have FAITH in his argument
Cars often have keyless ignition
Metaphysics is as real as unicorn farts
"Can you touch love?" "As long as they're a consenting adult, yes."
This is painful, he keeps bringing up objections that only apply to religions and then fails to apply them to his religion.
Not all math problems have a solution. There is a whole set of math just proving there is no solution to some problems. It is very interesting.
You know what? He's convinced me. Everything he said applies to Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe, leaf be upon her, so i must believe in her and reject the god he foolishly believes in. There isn't even a book to use to prove the book is true in saying it's true, which is a bonus point towards her existance.
The reason why creationists have to make up fake atheists to debunk is because no real Atheist would concede most of his points even for the sake of argument
I'm sorry, I have to disagree. 4/10 for the acting. Guy mucked up his lines.
1/10 for writing. Forgot who his characters were and they were unbelievable.
B-but Theist = Calm, cool, collected; Atheist = Irrational, irrelevant, irritating to listen to!
Someone ought to tell the guy who made this ridiculous video that "I am that I am" is _NOT_ the Christian god's name. First, the Hebrew verb typically translated as "am" is actually tenseless. So "I am that I am" _could_ be "I am that I _was",_ "I am that I _will be,"_ or any of a number of of variations. Rabbis often say that "I am that I am" is just a way the god of Tanakh could avoid telling Moshe His name.
And why, you may ask, does that make a difference? Because in some systems of magick, knowing a being's true name would give you power over it. And you know who wouldn't stand for that?
Hi that I am, I’m dad!
Odd, I'm pretty sure the atheist with the glasses won the debate.
And the theist is wrong about "proof." Mathematics is where proofs come from and mathematics is a form of science,
When you attack science, you lose.
There's even a whole *_theory_* about proofs and how to formalize them. :)
I'm not sure I would consider maths science, mainly _because_ it's possible to prove things for certain in maths.
Math isn't science. It is, however, used in science. It is its own thing, however.
There was something there, it was very, very small though.
It's pretty easy to win when you're arguing against someone who can't defend themselves
4:34 Calling "faith" evidence really.. uh.. fails to understand what "evidence" is.
Yes, and anything can be called evidence, but that doesn't make it so.
He skipped right over the substance of things hoped for too. But things hoped for don't necessarily have any substance. It's a shameless endorsement of wishful thinking and that's the 'evidence of things unseen'.
So another words dream up the fantasies you wish for. Pretend they have substance and make believe they are evidence for the unseen (things for which there's no evidence).
Congrats on converting yourself to agnosticism, Tim.
And I now have a bruised forehead.
It's easy to convince yourself that you're right when no one is there to challenge you
I can always defeat my imaginary enemies! Now fear me or some kind of goat man will burn your ghost!
7:29 bro is one of those people who heard the word "myopic" once in philosophy 101 and went "Aha! A new weapon!"
"now that we know the metaphysical realm exists..."
Narrator: but, he didnt know for a fact the metaphysical realm exists..he was simply talking out his metaphysical know-hole...
I can build a car without keys, so there is no god...
The visual representation of a straw man fallacy.
“Unlogically miraculous” and that is supposed to be from the smart one.
"God wants a relationship with you."
"That's flattering but I'm worried about the age gap."
Have you noticed that the "theist side" is looking down at the camera? That's a choice.
He's trying to elevate himself, that's the point.
Theist: “I will not bring out the Bible, and PROVE to you that God exists.”
Later…
Theist: “Did you know there’s no such things as PROOF?”🤓
7:02 evidence is proof 8:25 always doubt 8:59 and ignore it all and use it to support god
The whole relative truth thing is a conversation I have only ever heard from douchey philosophy bros and theists pretending to be atheists.