WOW! Amazing how badly you could miss the point.

​@@jacoblee5796 What possible "point" could arise out of that quote that makes the argument have any rationality at all!?

False equivalence. The difference between multiple gods and your exam is that you know for sure that at least one of the alternatives of every question is true. In the case of deities, you don't know for sure that any of them are true. Even worse, chances are that all are false, since all deities are creations of the human mind when faced by the Unknown.

@@richardgomes5420 "since all deities are creations of the human mind when faced by the Unknown." That seems to be under the hidden assumption that all gods are created in our minds, which assumes the conclusion. It seems you're arguing in a circle.

​@@richardgomes5420the very definition of god doesnt leave the door open to multiple faces. God can only be one. You keep saying this to avoid the actual question that is wether theres an endless being beyong our universe or not. If you want to question wether christianity is true that has nothing with the claim the god exists.

Lol that is a good point! Thank your for your openness haha. Honest historians will agree that Jesus of Nazareth was, at the very least, a real person. You can debate the validity of his miracles all you want, but you would be factually foolish to say "Jesus isn't real." Even the Romans and Pharisees who hated him agreed he was a real person!

@@sandstorm7768 Jesus is the most important person in history for a reason.

i've got a children's lexicon when i was 6, and it was issued after the USSR regime. it started the "Jesus Christ" article as "probably was a real person". then i listened mass for years. you can not imagine how elevating was it when i realized it's not "probably", it's "certainly".

@@brianw.5230 _"...and Jesus was a real historical person!"_ Provide the single-best evidence you have that Jesus existed.

@@twitherspoon8954 the scholarly consensus.

There are no "experts" at unbelief. It doesn't make the _slightest_ difference to me what Harris and Dawkins say. I was an atheist before I'd ever heard of them (I was an atheist before Sam Harris was even born!), and I'll continue to be an atheist as long as theists don't seem to have even *one* piece of good evidence that their gods are real. How about _you?_ Do _you_ have *one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself,* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one?* Why is *one* always too much to ask? PS. I'd also accept *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Just *one.* And I will _give_ you a guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans. Again, why is *one* always too much to ask?

OUR culture? What culture are you a part of? Now if you were to say "atheist culture" then I would agree 100%

@@melchior2678 I’m talking about American culture embracing those idiots for being an authority on atheism

​@@melchior2678 atheism has no culture it's simply stating that atheists lack evidences for their various god, gods and goddesses.

@@ronbernardi false. Atheist culture is pretty closely intertwined with gay culture.

Dang that’s a good quote!

The quote is attributed to a number of people including Francis Bacon, but nobody knows who first said it. That being said, the statement has value no matter who said it.

Another famous Catholic scientist (who was also an Augustinian monk) was Gregor Mendel, the creator of genetics and one of the most important 19th century scientists.

Pasteur basically just said "Always presuppose God."

If Allah exists and Islam were true, would you become a Muslim? If Ganesha exists and Hinduism were true, would you become Hindu? If Satan exists and Satanism were true, would you become a Satanist? Frank Turek's question is pretty stupid, isn't it? How about one piece of good evidence that your god really _does_ exist? How about one piece of good evidence that Christianity really _is_ true? Just *one,* please, but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. Why is *one* always too much to ask? If _any_ god is demonstrated to be real, I'll no longer be an atheist. Whether I'd follow that god or not would depend on who that god was, what that god was like, and what he'd do to me if I _didn't._ Is your god going to torture me for eternity unless I kiss his butt? Then I'd probably kiss his butt. Wouldn't _you?_ Of course, Christians are all over the place on what they think about Hell - even about whether or not it actually exists. Some Christians tell me that _everyone_ goes to Heaven, with no exceptions. I assume that you're one of those people? _You_ clearly don't believe in Hell, since you think your god lets us not believe in him, huh? Well, I don't care about any of that, not without even *one* piece of good evidence any of this is actually true. So, again, how about *one?* Why is *one* too much to ask?

Mic drop

That’s pretty good

Let’s just grant the idea that God is a dictator. Now what? He’s still God…

@@jkm9332 it is interesting because if God is a dictator, then that must be a good thing because He is the objective moral authority

Thank you for your testimony.

Congratulations my Brother in Christ, what a great story. When you pray the rosary as an atheist that's pretty boss, most Catholics don't even do that. Glad the Blessed Mother brought you here.

So you believe in the objective morality of the Bible? So how many slaves do you have? Do you beat them correctly

That’s amazing my friend. Stay strong in the faith and keep learning. Trent’s channel is an invaluable resource for me.

Praying for your conversion to be blessed.

That is a horrible analogy

@@guym1234 because...?

I thought it was funny.

​@@guym1234 That could sound stupid only because the initial argument is stupid. The analogy shows that clearly.

​@guym1234 it actually isn't stupid. The analogy actually perfectly demonstrates the logical flaw in the argument. The argument that atheists use is as follows 1. Christians are athiests when it comes to other gods. 2. Atheists are athiest when it comes to every God. Conclusion. Christians might as well be atheists to every God. Now, the second argument is as follows 1. Married people are unmarried when it comes to other people 2. Unmarried people are unmarried when it comes to every person Conclusion. Married people might as well become unmarried people. Same line of reasoning applies in both arguments. And in both cases, the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.

They don't seem to understand the "God can do anything" part. I'm pretty sure God can entertain even the most easily bored of people!

This is a better response than the one given in the video. I wish he would pin this.

I was the same way, which is why I don't believe people are "born" homosexual - the seed of the desire might be there, but I doubt the desire actually is.

reddit circa 2015

Tell me you haven't read Job without telling me you haven't read Job. 😂

@@phillipcummings3518 - I know right? Scholars say that it's linguistically at least, the oldest book in there, and yet people think that this argument is novel? Lmao, it's only novel cuz it's been answered for like 3,500 years 👉😎👉

Lol. This channel called Orthodox meme squad posted a short by responding: "If God not real, why Good thing happen?"

​@@Tzimiskes3506 A better question is, "If God's not real, on what basis can we determine what's good or not?"

that's not how I talk!!!

Gervais is not funny. At all.

It’s a widespread problem. People learn about God and the Bible as kids, but they never allow their beliefs to grow up with them. They keep the “kiddy version” of theology through their whole lives.

Don't forget Stephen Fry.

​@@jaegercat6702If I have a kid I'm going to go all out in faith education. None of the kiddy stuff. No Santa Clause. No Shamrock Holy Trinity. I will make sure he can debate adults. The mind is like a muscle. Just because you start out inflexible doesn't mean your mind can't be trained to do harder work. All it takes is practice, which modern kids with their non practicing parents don't have.

Even when I was 13 I still had more understanding than him.

Haven't seen much of them but 2000s atheism definitely had a more hostile flavor to it. Nice to see more level-headed dialogue nowadays, for the most part.

Yeah, new atheism is just anti-theism

@@snowcat9308 Some of the head figures may be more logical, but the fanbase is just as condescending and elitist as ever. The remnants of the "New Antitheist" movement are still left.

@@thesnatcher3616 People on the internet are always going to be hostile as long as there is a screen between them and the person they're addressing. I don't think atheists are particularly special in that respect.

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I read that in his voice too 😂

*You may have outsmarted me, but I outsmarted your outsmarting.*

Some people need an introduction to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to see how ridiculous they really sound.

​@@MultiMustafa7do you have proof of the flying spaghetti monster? Contrary to popular belief there is far more proof for theism, and then, a next step, Christianity, than you want to admit.

@@user-bp6zy3zx2n Yes, I do. There is massive overwhelming proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is evident in every atom of organic matter that has been touched by his noodly appendage. Scientists refer to it as the Field of Genetics. On a more serious note, If God really exists, and is everything theists claim he is, then all he has to do is come and say hi. Funny how the first to ask for proof is often the last to provide it. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is literally the bane of your belief; anything that goes for your god, goes for the big bundle of spaghetti and his noodly appendages. There is more proof for Theism than I want to admit? admit what? Bruh; go to a children's hospital. There, pray to God to cure a few of the ones clinging to life. Specifically the ones that have no chance of surviving; not the ones that'll 'miraculously survive by the hand of God', no. Specifically the ones that modern scientific medicine can do nothing for. Then, when your God mysteriously refuses to answer your prayers, have a nice time explaining how he works in 'mysterious ways' and how 'it is all preordained by the will of god', and it is 'good'. Solve the paradox of free will. Solve the problem of hell. Solve Euthyphro's Dilemma, or can it. There is less proof for the existence of your God than you'd like to admit.

The idiocy of atheism never ceasea to amaze me

Yeah? Well, I'm not a "new" atheist, since I'm 72 years old. Heh, heh. But I _am_ an atheist. From Nebraska, too. (I had to comment when I saw your name.) But my only critique of Christianity is that there seems to be no good reason to think it's actually _true._ After all, evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking, and I've yet to see/hear even *one* piece of good evidence that a god is real - _any_ god, let alone yours. All I ever hear are vague claims from theists, not even *one* piece of good evidence specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself (not anything that holds up to scrutiny, certainly). Other than that, I can't really critique "Christianity," since Christians can't even agree with _other Christians_ about much of anything, even when they're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to them by the same supposedly all-knowing deity. So it's hard to tell _which_ "Christianity" to critique, you know? But how about _you?_ Do _you_ have one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself? Just *one?* Why is *one* always too much to ask? PS. The first church service I ever remember was Catholic - back with it was all in Latin. Heh, heh. Wow, _that_ was a bizarre experience! We ended up going to the Methodist Church, instead. :)

Exactly why Aquinas is so great, he shores up the arguments against Christianity so well in order to refute them that his opponents said he made better arguments against Christianity than they did - and was still able to handily refute them lol

@@Bill_Garthright So there's two big issues that you bring up, theism and Christianity. The evidence for theism is mostly abstract logic, whereas the evidence for Christianity is more historical. I should furthermore mention that I am an amateur, so make sure you look this stuff up for yourself, as these are both clearly very existential topics that carry a lot of weight. It's also best to look up experts on both sides, and really my favorite thing to do is watch a debate between two experts (there's a good one between Trent Horn and Alex O'Connor on theism that, while certainly not ending the discussion, did address some of your concerns). So theism first: is there a God? There are probably 1,001 logical arguments for the existence of God or a God-like entity (an intelligent, immortal creator being that has no beginning or end) out there, probably a good place to start is Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways. Some of his ways seem really dumb to me but others (like the argument from causation or motion) seem genius, so I guess you kind of have to look at it yourself and see what you think of his logic. There's other arguments as well, like the moral argument, which I also suggest you look up yourself because explaining any of these arguments would take up way more of my time than is currently available, as they are all serious philosophical stuff. There's also the kalam argument that Aristotle was a big fan of, I believe he also pioneered the first version of the argument from motion. Then there's the modal argument, which is a mathematical proof, but that one never made any sense to me at all so again I suggest you look at it yourself. As far as non-abstract, scientific evidence goes, things are more dicey, because God is a nonphysical entity. That obviously doesn't mean He actually doesn't exist, because lots of nonphysical things do actually exist, like your memories for instance, or the number two. But there is one serious piece of scientific evidence for God: fine-tuning, or the fact that life exists. Mathematically, the chances for the existence of any kind of stable universe are something like one in 10 trillion or something, because if the universe had expanded any faster or slower at all then it would have collapsed. So it's kind of like a guy in front of a firing squad with ten trillion men, all ten trillion shoot, but somehow the guy is still standing there after. Naturally, he's going to wonder why he's still there, and he might think there is a conspiracy, like maybe the men missed on purpose or something. In the same way, the fact that life exists at all is so unlikely that many people have posited that perhaps there IS something up there that wants life to exist. Now for Christianity. The evidence that Jesus existed is better than almost any historical figure from that time period. For instance, we only know that Alexander the Great ever lived due to two papers written about him like 400 years after the fact, and we only have copies of those histories from 400 years after they were supposedly written, whereas with Jesus we have dozens of different papers written about him by close associates and associates of associates within 100 years of his death, and we have copies of those written as early as a hundred years after they were supposedly originally published. For the ancient world, this is literally about the best evidence we have for anyone, other than maybe figures who had statues made out of them during their lifetimes. The second piece of evidence is that many of the people who claimed to witness the Resurrections (Peter, James, Thomas, for instance) were later killed for doing so. When given the chance to refute their beliefs, they didn't, continuing to claim that Christ had risen from the dead, to the point of being speared, stoned, and (in Peter's case) crucified upside down. This is very powerful eyewitness testimony, especially as the apostles had nothing to gain except martyrdom. And of course, keep looking into this for yourself, even the topics I've already mentioned, because I am just an amateur who spends too much time on KZfaq.

@High Priest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster The five ways of Thomas Aquinas, definitevely. All "refutations" of it I've ever found just missed the points of the arguments entirely.

​@High Priest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster How would that be a straw man?

Going to make a poster of this thumbnail for my future child’s room

I'll reiterate a comment I made about the thumbnail here. It's ludicrous that Trent portrays himself as some kind of comicbook superhero with superhuman glowing laser red eyes with superpowers he uses to defeat his opponents when his opponent's arguments are already weak to begin with. For somebody who wishes to be taken seriously by academics as a scholar, it just isn't a good look.

@@Jay-bp1yx great way to give your kids nightmares for the rest of their childhood.

@@melchior2678 Is this your first time on the Internet, good sir? The thumbnail in question that portrays Trent Horn with glowing red eyes is based on a kind of funny internet meme, so it is merely used to be funny - for the “hahas”, if you will. Therefore, there is no need, I assure you, to look too deep into these things when it comes to memes. God bless, and a pleasant day to you

Is that the same piece people use as “evidence” to attack Mother Theresa? I’ve seen bits and pieces of something floating around about her, but could never find the time nor motivation to look into it myself.

Yes, Hitchens was the main progenitor of the "Mother Theresa was evil" calumnies that have latched themselves onto popular consciousness

​@@jendoe9436Looking more into it, there was a study done in 2013 looking into the criticism Mother Teresa faced called "Les côtés ténébreux de Mère Teresa." It's in French, but it talks about her "suspicious" management of money, fundamentalist views on abortion and contraception, and the unhygienic conditions documented by doctors in her homes for the dying.

That would be good I liked Hitch the most of the new atheists.

@@gmenu8032 it was India so that’s kinda normal for the time.

Harris recently said he didn't care if Hunter had corpse's in the basement and that the laptop story needed to be silenced...

Angry at a God they don't believe exist🤷

@@choosejesus1910 I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. No atheist is angry at a god. I'm not, certainly. Of course, I _am_ angry that faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. I _am_ angry that the Christian Taliban controls the U.S. Supreme Court. I _am_ angry at Muslim fanatics who murder atheists. (Christians have stopped burning us alive, at least.) I'm definitely angry at the actions of many theists - Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, etc. - based on beliefs which seem to be backed by nothing but wishful-thinking. That doesn't mean I'm angry at the supposed gods themselves, though. Because I see no reason to think that any of those gods actually _exist._ Tell me, please, do _you_ have one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge if for myself, that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one?* Why is *one* too much to ask?

And cheetos

agreed! they ALL come over as being really sad, bitter people and angry at a God they SAY they don't believe in.

People can say they believe things because science has revealed it and leave it at that, as to say reason prevails; but often they forget or don’t realize that they are putting faith/trust in the scientist to have done their job properly without malice or mistake. Reason can only take us so far, eventually our full assent to a truth requires trust.

​@@killianmiller6107... and also the third party who relayed the data from the scientists to the person. The vast majority of what we know wasn't acquired directly from the doctor in the lab. "Science reveals..." is a religious statement

I'll never not be able to hear that

Good.

His logo also looks like a mii.

We demand a Trent Horn Mii character

@@yeetmaestro575 I 100% want to see this

Right. You can be confident that Hell is filled with parasites, cancer, turds, and other wonderful stuff, huh? :) Luckily, since it all seems to be imaginary, you can imagine whatever you _want._

​@@Bill_Garthright Imagine a square circle. I don't mean conceive of it, but IMAGINE it. Picture it in your mind. Congrats, "you can imagine anything" has been refuted.

The Scriptures say it will be without sickness or death, it will be solace, it will be where God "wipes every tear from our eye." It is not sitting on clouds and singing hymns all day. It is full unity with God, which means it is all the best parts of life. Family, friends, laughter, food, etc. We will have new bodied as well! Hell is rejection of God. Therefore it will be everything bad in the world. All the worst parts of life. Pain, warring, bitterness, greed, etc. That's why God DOESN'T want us to go there.

@@Bill_GarthrightAs I said in my other reply, yes, Hell will be all the worst parts of life, because it is the realm of rejection of God. "Seems imaginary?" You wish it was, friend. Everyone who has died and been revived and seen Hell in the process consistantly say: *I never want to go back there again.* They relay nothing but pain and terror and fear. You don't get what you want by imagining God doesn't exist. He's been our living reality for 2000+ years. Men older than us and wiser than us have believed He is real. I take that with great humility.

​@@Bill_Garthrighthell is not a place of physical torture, your condescending attitude in face of your glaring lack of education is an embarrassment to yourself. Mockery is the best way to prevent yourself from openly engaging with something. Are you afraid you may find out that god is real and objective morals are too?

Jesus is a fictional character.

@@twitherspoon8954 is a fictional character

@@twitherspoon8954 Anti-divine Bart Erhman and atheist Matt Dillahunty will laugh at you.

@@conservativecatholic9030 _"twitherspoon is a fictional character"_ I have pictures of my birth, baptism, a zillion baby pictures, school, band, and sports pictures and records, driver and pilot license, college records, social security enrollment, income tax returns, passport, employment, voting, medical, dental, and vision records, credit cards, utility, phone records, mortgage and auto loans, legal records including court apperances, professional and business licenses and marriage certificate, my DNA can be traced to my extended family and geographically to my place of birth, and the internet protocol address used for this reply can be traced to me. But there is no evidence God was walking around town for thirty years. Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts or description of him. Wouldn't you think if a baby was recognized as God at birth, and met dignitaries, and this God was walking around town for thirty years, performing 36 miracles and raising the dead, and was publicly executed and then his body disappeared from a secure tomb, and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and walked into town, and the sun went dark for three hours, that someone at the time would have noticed and memorialized it in some way?

@@conservativecatholic9030 If you have evidence that the Bible figure known as Jesus existed, provide it. However, it is an absolute fact that there is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever existed. Paul made up the Jesus fiction in 48 AD after the Daniel 9:25 prophesy failed to fulfill. Shouldn't we expect that if God was walking around town for thirty years that the locals would have noticed at the time? Fun fact: none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.

So are you ready for hell

@@2tallyGr8 It is also one way to guarantee no one will ever take them seriously lol

​@@dmech7171Yoo chill

also a muslim, and really enjoyed this too!

Anyone say that quote to you, just give him the 'ol 3 names: Hitler, Stalin, Mao.

@@vincentthendean7713 Throw in Pol Pot on there for good measure.

@@vincentthendean7713 I understood that you believe that Hitler, Staling and Mao are all good people, correct?

@@vincentthendean7713 HItler was a believer, by the way. Next time, replace Hitler by someone else.

@@richardgomes5420 Hitler notably was not a believer in fact he was a believer in a form of Christianity he made up. he devoutly hated Christians and Jews. why atheists claim this just shows the lack of study and knowledge of denomination. Turns out when you change the Bible to what you want it to say like God said not to your logic falls apart.

"You're a theist too. I'm just a theist to one god more"

Great points! 👏👍

Also if you're cheating on your partner you're not really cheating. Because after all you're partner is only sleeping with one person fewer than you so you're doing basically the same.

or the difference between metaphysics and Metaxa :D

It's over now. But since you mentioned it, why do Catholics celebrate Easter on the same day as Protestants?

@@melchior2678 I'd probably say Protestants celebrate on the same day as Catholics. I'm pretty sure Catholics celebrated Easter long before Protestants came on the scene. Gods Bless

Sounds more like Big Chief Redskin Dawkins

Sounds like atheism to me. 😂😂😂

@@melchior2678 Ah. Anti-science *and* racist.

Some could've been, but I think idols were just objects

I don't think that's the case, *some* pagan deities were very obviously demons, but others were probably made up. Chesterton makes a distinction between 3 types of paganism in The Everlasting Man: mythology, philosophy, and demon worship. In his opinion mythology was pretty much make-believe, stories to make the world more interesting. Philosophers tried to figure out what makes the world tick, and usually coexisted with mythology while operating in a completely different framework. Demon worship on the other hand might bear some similarities to mythology (namely the belief in many deities), but it mostly occurred in very advanced civilisations (like Carthage), involved much darker practices (like human sacrifice), and were transactional in nature (someone offering an animal to Zeus did it because of tradition and maybe some sense of obligation, someone offering a child to Moloch did it expecting the prayer to be answered, or in other words they "bought" a certain outcome). The last point is pretty interesting because even though mythologists prayed to their gods for stuff too, it was probably something of a wishful thinking - maybe it'll come true, maybe not, the gods are unpredictable. Demons on the other hand were considered much more effective, which might be because they're real while the gods of Olympus are not.

Disagree in peace, I'm Catholic and I don't believe that every single 'god' worshipped existed. Not everything is demons.

@@martinarooney228that’s because it’s always aliens

Brother, I implore you to do more research on the solid scientific and philosophical evidence, and also historical and archaeological evidence, to strengthen your faith. And trust the Lord! If such silly rhetorics that hold no weight can shake your faith, you must surely strengthen it! God bless!😊😊😊

Well, it's always easy to cherry-pick "quotes and memes" from a group - atheist or theist alike - and dismiss them. Obviously, if he _couldn't_ do that, they wouldn't be included in the video. Because he's just picking out whatever he _wants._ I would just ask him - or you - for one piece of good evidence that your god is real, rather than just imaginary - just *one,* but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. Because that's why I'm an atheist. Likely, it would take more than one to convince me, but I can't even take it _seriously_ without even *one.* And it's always just vague claims, indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. Worldwide, faith-based people _overwhelmingly_ tend to believe in whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as a child. That's exactly what we'd expect if all gods were just imaginary. It's certainly *not* what we'd expect if there really _were_ a god who wants people to know that he's real, don't you agree? But if theists had actual *evidence* that their beliefs were true, that would be different. As far as I can tell, they have nothing distinguishable from wishful-thinking, though. Or do _you_ have something distinguishable from wishful-thinking?

@@Bill_Garthright dude, he’s gone in depth while strongman-ing atheist arguments so many times, just watch some of his videos. Bold of you to call him “cherry-picking” when you don’t even mention (or don’t bother to look for) his videos that disprove the claim you just made against him. All he did was address a couple of particularly weak atheist arguments and give us some understanding of them so we can have that knowledge going forward, just like he’s done for STRONG atheist arguments. He’s also done legitimate debates with atheists, so 🤷🏽‍♀️

​@@Bill_Garthright "Quotes and memes" is in the title. So he's doing what he says he will do. If the video was about disproving atheist beliefs and proving Christian ones the title would be "Disproving atheist beliefs and proving Christian ones"

@@littledrummergirl_19 OK, so... *nothing,* then? Well, that's why I can't take your religious beliefs seriously. It's not just _you._ As far as I can tell, it's _every_ theist - certainly every Christian and Muslim I've ever talked to. Claims are easy. That's why _every_ religion makes claims.

@@whatever1068 _"Quotes and memes" is in the title._ Yeah? So what? How is that a reply to _anything_ I said in my comment?

What is the most common responses? I might try this

​@HedgeHodge a big response is "God has been defined in so many ways throughout history so I can't answer this", which I respond "so you don't know what it is you actually reject? And you don't have criteria set that would change your mind? You effectively just admitted you argue in bad faith." Other responses are "something worshiped", which I respond "so the Grateful Dead are gods then. They unite a bunch of unrelated people in an experience of joy and occasional mysticism." A better response was "personal", although it's not all encompassing and would necessarily exclude things like the Tao or Neoplatonic One

​@@HodgePodgeVids1 if you keep pressing and the interlocutor is good faith, you eventually get to excluding pretty much every pagan pantheon.

@@newglof9558 And then they start to see the Judeo-Christian God is unique and distinct from all the other non Abrahamic religions

​@@HodgePodgeVids1 I wouldn't say it gets that far (you'd have to edge out Islam) but like Trent said, it narrows it down considerably and gets the gears turning outside of meme responses.

"Based chad"? If Trent is an effective apologist and/or eminent scholar why not say so instead resorting to juvenile buzzwords like " chad" ? Is it typical of Trent's audience to use such trendy child language or is this just a fringe example? I mean you already have about 25 likes in less than 24 hours so I'm assuming it may be typical.

You know what? Now that I think of it, this all makes sense when looking at the thumbnail of this video. Trent portrays himself as some kind of comic book super hero with glowing red eyes as though he possesses some kind of super powers that he uses to subdue his opponents, which is ludicrous really when taken into account how weak the arguments of his opponents are already.

@@melchior2678 bro it was a youtube comment

​@@melchior2678on the compliment being of a sophomoric nature, you're not incorrect. Regardless, the greater point is that it's a compliment.

@@ironymatt mate, calling someone a based chad is a bloody good compliment. I'd be honoured.

BIBLE HISTORY ???? is there such a thing History is History, The bible has nothing to do with that

@@martinkuliza Of all the comments to go after in this comment section, this is like the least objectionable one lmao

@@snowcat9308 LOL its funny though, it's like saying The History of the Seven Dwarfs or The History of Cinderella THERE IS NO HISTORY OF THAT The thing with the bible though is it contains fragments of facts, such as egypt existed, Ethiopia existed but then since it did and they have a history you can't just spew some bullshit and say this is bible history Here is bible history Once upon a book was written to control the masses they fell for it and it generates lots of money, THERE YOU GO... BIBLE HISTORY

@@martinkuliza "Hey mister Homer specialist guy, please do more odyssey history content" -History????? History is History, the Odyssey has nothing to do with history

@@lothara.schmal5092 "Homer Specialist Guy " ??? LOL...... What the fuck, Where did that come from ? History is History, the only thing that the bible has to do with history is............ IT WAS WRITTEN AT SOME POINT The problem is, it's not god's word it's the word of the one that wrote it (The publishing companies that put it together) the bible itself as a book, Is not a record of what happened in history

😆😆😆😆😆😆

That analogy makes zero sense lmao

Is there free will in Heaven?

@@ArchlordZer0 yep

@@thefiringsquadtfs6392 Can I slap someone in heaven?

I like Trent's response. But if you need to imagine in a concrete way, maybe try imagining you are on a vacation to every place you ever wanted to visit, at the same time as being Home?

Thanks for the comment! -Vanessa

Dunno who would say that. The selfish gene was pretty illuminating and biologically true

@@jhoughjr1 false

I think the argument is "because it's fiction it will be different" vs "science is always the same". Jervais' assertion is a bit meh, because the scientific books will be different, but will end up with the same result. However I suspect that the same would be true for religious scriptures.

"Evil" is what our society (or even the individual) determines to be bad for social cohesion. "Good" is what our society (or even the individual) determines to be good for social cohesion. Please tell me if I need to elaborate.

@@snowcat9308 So when Hitler (an individual) and the Nazis (a society) said they were purifying the Aryan race when they killed their millions, we should believe them, right? After all, who are we to push _our_ morality on _them?_

@@Mark-cd2wf No, I never said we should just take everyone's word equally. If your morality causes you to being undue suffering to people, ideally you should and would be stopped. And we a decent people who don't wish to our fellow humans suffer. That's who we are to "push our morality on them". Who is a police officer to stop a thief from stealing? He's going to stop this person because of the harm that theft brings to society, not because of some deeper moral imperialism he's trying to enforce on an innocent theft believer. Just because morality is relative, doesn't mean that each moral framework deserves the same respect.

@@snowcat9308 Why? How are we to judge between societies if, as you say, morality is relative? We can fight the Nazis because we don’t want them to conquer and kill us, but we _can’t_ say what they’re doing in the Holocaust is really _wrong._ For who says undue suffering of others is wrong? Why should I care about “the good of society” instead of Old #1? If I choose to amass enough power in this life to do whatever I want, who are you to tell me I’m being selfish? What if I don’t _care_ if I make others suffer? If morality is relative as you say, then all you can say about my selfishness is that you don’t _like_ it. Not that selfishness is wrong. If there is no God, then what Hitler did was merely a matter of opinion.

There is no problem of evil for atheists, at least not for moral nihilists. Evil and good are just concepts.

^ a good one

He straw manned some of those or misrepresented their purpose as if they were supposed to debunk God

I suspect that you're just imagining whatever you want about quotes cherry-picked specifically to be easy to refute in a theist's video. But it doesn't matter in the slightest to me what some _other_ atheist thinks, anyway. If you want to talk, let's talk. I enjoy talking to intelligent people who disagree with me about religion. Am I "absolutely certain" about anything? I don't think so. I mean, I would never claim to be infallible. I _can_ be wrong. How about you? Do you think that _you_ are infallible? Isn't it possible for _you_ to be wrong, then? The thing about certainty is that it has nothing to do with the truth. You can be absolutely certain, but still wrong. Or you can be very uncertain, but right. There's simply no necessary connection between certainty and accuracy. And that's _especially_ the case if you're certain for bad reasons (for example, just because you were taught to believe in a particular religion as a child, and now you really, really _want_ it to be true). Of course, even if you do have good reasons, you can still be wrong. But _do_ you have good reasons? How about *one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself,* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one,* please. Why is *one* too much to ask?

@@Bill_Garthright You are free to give your evidence for atheism any time you like. You might also wish to consider that Darwinism is a failed hypothesis. “Signature in the Cell” by Dr. Stephen Meyer. The burden of proof is yours. No scientific method can prove or disprove the Being of God. 😊

@@Bill_Garthright “Am I absolutely certain about anything? I don’t think so…”. You just refuted your whole position right there! 😂

@@petertherock7340 "Evidence for atheism"? What are you _talking_ about? That makes no sense at all. I asked you for one piece of good evidence that your god is real, rather than just imaginary - *one.* But *one* was one more than what you've got, apparently. Well, that's why I can't believe it. And that's _all_ I need to not believe your unsupported claims. _Maybe_ a god exists. _Maybe_ it's even the particular god you were taught to believe as a baby. But the time to believe that is _after_ there's good evidence that it's actually true. And you clearly have none. After all, I asked you for *one* specific piece of good evidence, just *one.* But you didn't even _try._ _You might also wish to consider that Darwinism is a failed hypothesis._ Heh, heh. Again, what are you _talking_ about? What does "Darwinism" have to do with the existence of a god? Are you just panicking, because you realize you have _nothing_ distinguishable from wishful-thinking, so you're just throwing out everything you can think of, in the hope that something will stick? Well, I'm sorry, but that's just silly. (When you grow up, I recommend getting an education in biology. You'll find out that biology is science, not religion. Thus, you can cling to the magical stories you were taught to believe as a baby while still accepting reality to _that_ extent. Lots of Christians do it.) _You just refuted your whole position right there!_ Wow, you must be younger than I thought. I didn't realize I was talking to a child. No, admitting that we're not infallible doesn't "refute" anything. Indeed, I'd be skeptical of people who claim otherwise! Well, please get back to me if you ever come up with _anything_ distinguishable from wishful-thinking, if you ever come up with *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

@@SheepofChrist818 _If God doesn’t exist nothing could exist._ *Evidence?* I asked for evidence, not another unsupported claim. _If at one point in time there was nothing, nothing can come from that nothing._ So what? Who says "at one point in time, there was nothing"? I don't say that. I certainly _didn't_ say that. Scientists don't say that, as far as I know. I assume that _you_ don't believe it. So where did it come from? Did you just make it up? Or have you been listening to a religious apologist who made it up? That's just a strawman, when you simply make up whatever you want the other side to say. Why not reply to what I _do_ say? _Also, how are humans born with morality without being taught? How do birds know how to build intricate nests without seeing the creation of one?_ That's also a logical fallacy. Just because you don't know something - or you don't believe what the scientists who study those things have to say about it - that doesn't mean that _your_ explanation is automatically true. Just because you don't know what the Sun is - or you don't believe what scientists say about the Sun - that doesn't mean it has to be Jesus driving a golden chariot across the sky. That's a logical fallacy. And it's _certainly_ not evidence! _God’s law is written on our hearts. That’s where we get our conscience._ *Evidence?* Again, how about *one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself,* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? After all, evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. Alternately, I'd accept *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Your choice. And I will _give_ you a guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans. Why is *one* specific example too much to ask? Why do you believe this stuff if you have nothing at all? Is it just because you were taught to believe it as a child, at the same time you readily accepted Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, and you really, really _want_ magic to be real? Thanks for the reply, but I'm still going to need evidence backing up your claims.

When I went, I confessed to missing mass and that was it. My priest didn't really engage with the why, but more interested in admitting guilt.

If you want to get that guilt off your chest, I would phrase it more along the lines of “I wasn’t a good witness to my family.” Priests sometimes will ask further questions, not to interrogate you but get a better idea what’s going on. I often can’t pinpoint specific instances of serious sin, but I know when I am being overall un-Christian in my conduct. I normally go with “I’ve been uncharitable to someone and have engaged in damaging gossip.” From there, the priest can either feel called to ask for specifics or let you continue on to something else. With your family missing church, just say you missed church and don’t mention the family part. Everyone makes their own choices at the end of the day and just because you or they feel like not going to church, doesn’t mean it’s all on you. Maybe start off with “I have not been a good witness” and see where the conversation will go. As long as you mention missing mass for yourself, that’s what matters in the end.

@@jendoe9436 Just be yourself and tell it like it was to the Priest. He is the one trained in Spirituality and Scripture not you. Try not to nit pick. Let the Priest help you.

i'd frame it like "i neglected my familiy's religious grow"

... many answers 2 + 2 wrong there no answer

Pro child predator Ray Comfort? Are you kidding? Hes a monster.

Never heard of Strobal. But Ray Comfort and Ben Shapiro have something extremely significant in common.. They're both Zionists. And I wonder if Trent Horn is also. It wouldn't surprise me.

Comfort and Strobel are embarrassing. Comfort doesn't understand anything; he is banana man. Strobel's The Case for Christ is a litany of fallacies. You're better off with Council of Trent or WLC.

Ray Comfort? Lmao you must be a bastion of irrationality and a fallacy machine if you think so.

All of the faiths that believe in a god believe in a god? _That's_ what you're saying? Heh, heh. Sorry, but can't you understand why that's not a valid argument?

@@Bill_Garthright Why do you think you are smart, cause you aren't

Yea basically, that’s kind of a premise 1. Atheists don’t believe in a God, so by saying “I believe in one god less” they make a category error.

@@resvero8342 Heh, heh. I assume that you're quite young, so I won't laugh at you _too_ much. But that's a very silly reply.

@@Bill_Garthright Why can't you think straight? Did your mom drop you as a infant?

Now you do: “fides quaerens intellectum”

@@diegobrand6970 from college Spanish, the phrase looks like Faith wants intelligence or intellect. Which sounds beautiful and poetic in its own way.

Easy answer: was Thor a real man with real disciples from a real country who really died and really came back to life? Do even his enemies admit he was a real person? Because even the Romans and Pharisees admitted and feared Jesus.