Absolutely brilliant yes lmao

Lol 733

Sadly we all thought that it couldn't get worse than George Lucas losing his mind and making parts 1-3. Then we saw parts 7-9, and much to our horror, knew that it could, and did, get SO much worse than parts 1-3.....

@@SirReptitious didn't Lucas sell to Disney? there was this massive media display about that half that year

@@ShawnJonesHellion Yes, after he made parts 1-3 he didn't want to make anymore himself. Lucasfilm was his company and so he had the right to sell it to whoever he wanted. I just wish he had sold it to any other movie studio than Disney.

Can u explain that joke plz i didn't understand. Edit: i get it now. Thanks.

@@erebus3059 He could've easily said "God put that there" but went with a "science did it" answer.

@@erebus3059 "just some random mutation in the watermelon's genetics" means Evolution happened, many Christians reject Evolution

@@tom-qj6uw To be precise, random mutations are the basis of evolution, but it also requires selective pressure--that which sorts out the survivors from the others.

@@tom-qj6uw lmao. That joke flew past me. I though only Creationist denied Evolution. Catholics Denying Evolution is a first for me.

its kenham in a nutshell lol

It fits perfectly the Milgram experiment :-)

@@maerosss Not really no

@@TheMaxORyan Well, not "perfectly", but it's kinda there.

@@maerosss not really, if anything religion disproves milgram, because people are obedient to a distant entity / one that they can't interact with at all

more like a big dick energy amirite?

@@totigerus that's a might big python you got down there

A bit on the smart side of Monthy id say

@@totigerus You mean Biggus Dickus energy, right?

@@noneofyourbusiness5134 pffff

You weren't ready

The -Lord- algorithm works in mysterious ways

It's a sign!

The algorithm is never late or early. It is always on time. It knows when you’re ready. It shows you the door. You have to walk through it.

Bit odd, innit? Algorithm is trying to bring back everyones sense of humor cuz it realizes how miserable we've all made each other! Brilliant!

Its actually Ivan

@@maxraimi9378 Well, now it is.

Mitchell's atheism was the perfect cover.

He's the Myth Child. Of course he is.

Come on. God is pretty good, but he is no David Mitchell.

It's no secret!

Well he is everywhere...

Nyarlathotep for the win !

That's numberwang!!!

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZmYlJRptJfIcX0.html&ab_channel=RATIONALItees

@@helphelpimbeingrepressed9347 Thank you, you bloody peasant.

@@DennisMoore664 Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?!

this must be related to that old saying "I wouldn't want to be a part of any group that would have me as a member"

Who in the four Gospels snd Acts said atheists aren't going to the afterlife or atemporal life?

if you haven't seen this! you should XD kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mceImKR-2MvalWQ.html

Funfact: A Catholic Priest invented the theory of the big bang.

@@bud389 bud, that comment is a decade old. Move on.

@@bud389 AKA Choirboy "leapfrog"

@@cranknlesdesires I'll move on when people stop implying that small protestant factions that deny science represent all Christians. Are you aware he also invented Hubbles Law before Hubble?

@@robcompton6099 Funny you should mention that, since the Greeks which were so renowned for their sciences were pederasts.

What is that based on? They're all lovely people.

As we all know, atheists are renowned for how peaceful they are, never expressing anger on the internet or media against other believers. Never advocating for violence or violating other people's rights. Nope no way.

@@johnw574 the point went over your head, you got on the defensive, and you decided to just go full moron

So basically you are admitting to being unhappy and angry all the time.

​@@johnw574 Indeed. Not as accepting and tolerant as Christians though.

David Mitchell is not God, he's just a very naughty boy.

@@michaelginever732 yeah, well I'd call drowning everyone "naughty" so the point stands, Mitchell is God.

I enjoyed the clip. But here's some historical context. Human sacrifice was not a "new idea" but a rampant custom of the Sumerians that Abraham was running away from. His idea that he had to do the same to his son was a remaining vestige of his former culture that God was trying to finally rid him of. Hence God dramatically stopping the sacrifice and saying "never again" and "don't worship me in the same bloody and sacrificial fashion that the Sumerians worship their gods", was the true meaning of the story. I am not alone in saying this. There are some Jewish scholars who subscribe to this alternative view. Thus the big three religions are not based on human sacrifice, but just the opposite, on putting an end to human sacrifice. Breaking ties with Mesopotamian idolatry of the past. Big difference. Keep questioning! Happy travels.

@@farrukhalavi5460 It was also a clear example of what's to come. Abraham tells Isaac "God will provide the lamb" and yet what they find in the bushes is a ram, not a lamb. Jesus the Christ was the Sacrificial Lamb God would and did provide, sacrificing His Son. It helps to emphasize Father's love for us, to ponder the binding of Isaac and compare it to thr crucifixion.

@@farrukhalavi5460 So you don't personally favour Kierkegaard's insane interpretation?

@@farrukhalavi5460 thing is, there have indeed been times and places where human sacrifice creeps into abrahamic traditions. in the "time of abraham" it would have indeed been fairly common. other members of the pantheon that generated yahveh (the god of abraham) did indeed have such sacrifices in their traditions. fairly sure even yahveh's followers also did such things. however, by the "time of king david," the yahvist priesthood had dominated the kingdom of israel, and had already started to erase the existence of the rest of the pantheon. they didnt wipe it out though. worship of the goddess that was yahveh's wife persisted until the "time of jesus."

Way to go! Please continue - even though, I know we can't share maps and charts and timelines and facts and figures easily on KZfaq and we're all pretty much strangers here...

Yep. At some point this sunk in, and they thought they'd better write the new testament, and hope no-one noticed the massive dichotomy. Subtle.

To all religions would be more helpful Its a all bats

some might say that some of these entries are metaphors, on the other hand I completely agree with you.

Did you actually want an answer?

It was in the sketch. It's a test. Work out the bits that are true and have a fulfilling life. Accept all of it and go straight to hell.

@@glennmartin6492 In matters of salvation the Bible is infallible, as historical works however, the various books in it relevant to those subjects are literary first, and factual second, though this is also partially just because that is how things were done at the time. Bible is best understood as it was meant to be understood, that is a body of literature which is to help in the teaching and apostleship of the masses, in conjunction with the liturgy, sacred tradition, and the deposit of faith.

@@joecostner1246 To be fair that’s what Joseph thought at first too, hence why he was going to low-key send her away, until a angel appeared to him and told him not to do that. You’re right in that virgins usually don’t give birth, not even a little, hence why it was a rather notable event.

Will Sterben No!

Yeah, it kinda does. In a nutshell.

It's certainly a good idea to question all your beliefs- religious, political, otherwise. The Christian approach to Abraham and Isaac is normally that God had promised Abraham a son by Sarah, even though both were past childbearing age, and that through that son Abraham would be "father to a nation". Abraham reasoned that, even if he killed Isaac, God could raise him back to life, and would do so, as God had kept all His promises up to that point. Hence God tested Abraham's faith. Obviously, I understand the concerns about religion, and the unquestioning idiocy of the characters in this video is amusing here and troubling in real life. And I apologise for Robin's attitude.

Also worth noting David Mitchell has said that he is agnostic, not an atheist. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rqdoaK-H0tfLYIE.html This is his attitude.

Robin Gilliver care to elaborate, moron?

that was brilliant i didn't notice that

get a tele mate

and don't forget to pay your tv license!

@@superchroma what would you do that for? Who needs tele nowadays with the internet, BBC content is mostly shit (not worth 140 quid) and you can watch everything else an hour later or the next day

I don't have a television, and I streamed all of Mitchell and Webb years ago.

@@John.Not-Jack.Daniels dude man, please, guy get a god damn tele brother

Robin Gilliver What's your problem with atheists?

I was told this bullshit, never believed it for one second.

I too feel that it be much easier and less a painful existence unfortunately once you realise Santa ain't real ain't no putting that toothpaste back in the tube

@@xMrAmity Santa wasn’t real, but Saint Nicholas was, and he spent his whole life giving as much as he could, performing miracles, and bitch slapping Areas.

And did you pass on the bullshit to your own kids?

"Not interrupting, am I ?" 😀

diebydeath we both know you haven't done any biblical study.

No part of any biblical or scientific study contradicts the existence of a supernatural being. They only contradict aspects of different religious beliefs. for example a God who abandoned the universe at the moment of the big bang is not contradicted in any way. We have no reason to believe it, but no reason not to. We have no data on the universe before the big bang, so any claim is pure speculation.

No part of any biblical or scientific study contradicts the existence of Bigfoot. They only contradict aspects of different religious beliefs. for example a Bigfoot who abandoned the universe at the moment of the big bang is not contradicted in any way. We have no reason to believe it, but no reason not to. We have no data on the universe before the big bang, so any claim is pure speculation.

McSuperfly you repeat that as if what the person before you said was completely wrong. You saying that there is NOT a God holds the same amount of weight as someone saying there IS a God.

@@McSuperfly101 You think you sound smart however all you did was equally prove the validity of @James H 's comment. Nice try.

Interesting enough this is similar to how many scientific theories work that are typically taught as facts.

@@KnightGlint Citation needed.

@isle9 Of course! How silly of me. I should have realized. :)

@@KnightGlint Evolution is a theory, but there is enough evidence to say it exists. Can we prove that chimps and humans evolved from the same genetic lineage, no, we don't have first hand proof, but the evidence we do have supports the theory (genetic sequencing and archeological records), and doesn't for example support other ideas such as Lamarckism or orthogenesis. So, Evolution is a theory, but its the best damn answer that ties together what we do know, till we get unequivocal proof. There is no belief in Science, hypothesis are created, and tested, and then test again a different way, and tested again by others, and then checked against new information. If it falls at any part it's not part of the scientific acceptance. Scientists may believe, but Science doesn't. Science is a process of rigorous understanding of the natural world. The theory of general relativity (e=mc2) is questioned but still stands, and we use its to predict things that we cannot know, but then test and do know. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190725150408.htm When you can use a 'theory' to predict what you will find, you can probably take it as fact. If you are learning that belief is strong in science, you either are being taught incorrectly, or completely misunderstand what science actually is.

Of there are logical arguments to made on a topic. And I can't think of any subject that doesn't have its logical arguments.

No you didn’t

@@Dilkingt0nne Yes I did!

@@andreassumerauer5028 Then you did a rather poor job of it, Abraham was very much not gung ho about the idea, but seeing as he only had Isaac in the first place because of the Lord, he viewed it as just as much God’s right to take his son away. I won’t deny that Mitchell and Web are funny, and the sketch is really funny, but it’s funny in the same way it would be funny if I made a sketch about Muslims praying constantly or being cartoonishly misogynistic. That is it’s based on some broad misunderstanding or stereotype, without any deeper understanding of the thing being mocked, which for a sketch show is perfectly OK, but is about as far from theology or understanding in this matter as one can be

​@@allthenewsordeath5772 Or maybe he was just psychotic. I have to admit my tolerance for any atrocities justified by religious tradition is about zero. And yea, I'd say the glorification of attempted child murder is among those.

@@andreassumerauer5028 I mean you’re going to be really upset about what God had done to his own son then. On a more serious note you kind of missed the point of the thing, namely that God explicitly does not demand human sacrifice. Atheists often accuse us believers of cherry picking the Bible, and some certainly do, especially those who pretend like Christianity is all about feeling good, and being wishy-washy, and only following the things Jesus said that sound nice to our modern sensibilities, but atheists also have a pretty bad habit of cherry picking the Bible, using passages without any context, and just twisting it to suit their narrative, without taking into account Christian teaching, or the book from which the passage is taken as a whole. Also if you think a belief system leads to atrocities being committed, as virtually all belief systems inevitably due to lesser or greater degrees, because humans are kind of shitty, then it would make far more sense to want to understand sed belief system, and why some would use it to that ends, rather than refusing to engage with it out of a superstitious fear.

Aptly biblical choice of words

@@Dilkingt0nne I was about to ask if they had cheated on their spouse, actually 🙂

It probably came from ( earlier?) story of Idomenus, king of Crete, who sacificed his son after he returned from Troy, or some mesopotamian or Egyptian myth.

Why do you say nonsense?

​@@JohnCephas- It's nonsense because God, with the powers claimed for Him, would already know the result of the test - as He should have with Adam and Eve - so there's no need for it. The story's a good example which shows that the Bible was written for Man by Man, and not by a supreme intelligence.

@@Malt454 There's no need for God Himself to be tested, but for the limited creatures which He created - don't you see value in the opportunity for them to grow and learn in their own limited knowledge and capacity?

@@JohnCephas- It's not God Himself who supposedly WAS being tested (duh) - but Abraham was already the man he was regardless, and God supposedly already knew that. The only thing that anyone should really "learn" from taking this story literally is that God is an asshole, despite supposedly having unlimited knowledge, wisdom and love. Then again, it was just a stupid story created by stupid people for even more stupid people.

@@Malt454 I suppose the point went over your head, that's a shame. Well, i invite you to dialogue about it but otherwise you know the saying... Don't cast pearls before..?

And he accepted the sacrifice of Jephthat's daughter.

ZER0 Not at all.

The Free Will Paradox.

Depends on whether you subscribe to determinism or free will. Determinism would say, yes, absolutely pointless because Abraham was destined and planned not to kill his son. Hence why determinism mostly died out after the Renaissance. Free will would dictate that there was a chance he wouldn't, so God only intervened at the last moment when he was sure of what the result would be. Funny sketch though.

It's worse than that - If God is all-powerful, then he cannot be all-knowing, because when stuff goes wrong, he has to intervene with miracles to set the undesirable event right. If he was all-knowing, then he'd have already known the undesirable event would happen, and that he was going to have to fix it with a miracle, which means he has no choice about what happens or when he will intervene with miracles, and therefore couldn't be all-powerful.

@@K1lostream alternatively he is all powerful and he is all knowing. He's just extremely sadistic and enjoys punishing and destroying things which, to him, are basically mindless automatons. Of course this goes against what all the Abrahamic religions teach, so it seems they might have gotten something wrong.

I love their take on the Good Samaritan. Highly recommended!

As smart as a Unicorn.

And god is dog backwards, and there is no dog in the sketch either. Coincidence?

Yeah I really don't like any non-voluntary permanent procedures done on children that are not for valid medical reasons. If they come of age and decide without coercion they want it - fine. Nothing above is intended to project hate at any specific groups - I don't like that I was christened at the age of 1. Should of been my choice! (and it would have been NO).

Imagine having such poor hygiene that mutilating your schlong is a better alternative than finding some way to keep clean... that's the kind of geniuses who wrote the Bible, that many modern humans consider a fountain of wisdom. People who had no idea what smegma was, let alone how the universe came into being.

Also made for an awfully difficult religion to convert to. Fuck if I am going to cut my penis just to pray to this prude god. I am worshipping Baccus, getting drunk and having sex.

As a thinking human, I don't know what to make of you, an "agnostic preacher". (Sorry, was too irresistible - unless you were making a joke and I didn't get it). ✌️

Lol agnostic preacher.

As a Solipsistic, i was the one who came up with that joke.

@@jackkraken3888 Many ministers of religion who start out as believers become agnostic or atheistic as they read more deeply into their religion. Some will not quit because their house and income come with the job, and perhaps their family, friends and too much of their self-identity too. So there are many agnostic and atheist preachers; I even know of a mutual support groups for Christian ones, with several hundreds (now thousands?) of members.

@@SpeckleKen I see your point.

*supposed magical being I can take a pretty safe bet that I'm more qualified than Dobby the House Elf in multiple fields.

That's not really the _funniest_ thing about this sketch..

I'll tell you what's sick, a secular society saying abortion is okay because a woman has a "right" to be a slut and murder unborn children because she doesn't feel like taking responsibility for her actions.

@@bud389 Lol. We have a time traveller here - what’s it like back in the dark ages? The present day must be awfully confusing to you, with its rights for women and lack of mass slavery. Plus the iPhones and stuff.

@@bud389 Emmm, yeah. It's all the fault of those "slutty" women isn't it bud? Don't worry - you'll get a girl someday. Or die a hero while finally carrying out that incel rampage you're constantly living out in your head..

"Actually no, it's a horrific story that some people celebrate for some reason. It's quite sick really." You didn't get it, every religion that condemns human sacrifice has the same kind of story, why people shouldn't kill their infants for this one super amazing being and every story of this kind i heard so far, doesn't make any sense at all and are actually quite hilarious. And the sketch points that wonderfully out.

Well, it *is* a good excuse to dodge taxes, though...

Ethics generally has more to do with the SOURCE of morality itself, not from which we ourselves find guidance to those morals. It's a nuance but an important one, one which leads to the questions of whether any morals can objectively exist.

@@Trevor_Hill It is interesting to think about. Does objectivity exist? I guess it does exist in the sense that we created a meaning to the word - but does 'true' objectivity exist? Ethics are defined by moral humans. You don't have to be moral to follow ethical rules, but how do you make ethics without morals? Does the cosmos somehow contains ethics by default, before man?

There really isn't that much logic to the Christian faith tbh. They'd probably don't see anthropomorphism as limiting, and think God is all-knowing, all-powerful etc. and thus can overcome any problem you suggest, without any explanation of how he overcomes it.

We don’t believe in any more of an anthropomorphic God than you do. The Bible, specifically the Old Testament, speaks of God using anthropomorphic language but this is just analogy to help us to understand. It’s like when the psalm says that we rest beneath the wings of God, we don’t think that God is a chicken or anything of the sort. Much like Muslims, or my understanding of the Islamic faith at least, we hold God to be pure being itself, a unity, purely simple, all powerful, all knowing, all good, eternal, etc etc. I don’t believe either the people who made this believe in the Christian faith, so I wouldn’t take this sketch as representative of it.

@@joesiemer3937 I see. Glad to hear from you.

Alternatively, knowing that all religion is made up bollocks solves all of the issues Hence why all religions attempt to indoctrinate children from birth and brainwash them before they're old enough to reason things for themselves This is the definition of child abuse, and should be outlawed

the fact that you believe that this is in any way actually ridiculing religion shows that you don't understand an ounce of British humour.

No, the commandments were given to Moses in the book of Exodus which is believed to be set around 13-14th century BC. Abraham, who appears in the book of Genesis is dated to around the 20th century BC.

​@@3irikurallegedly

@@noncompulsoryl It was probably all a bit made up by people who were scared of the sky

And yet The Heavenely Father sacrificed His Own Begotten Son... Perhaps the binding of Isaac was to show us something!

@@JohnCephas Maybe the idea was that Abraham failed the test because that was not his place, but it was God's place? Idk. I like to learn about the theory of it but I am not an expert, haha

@@Noah-wx7fm Well, it certainly works as showing us even if we tried we don't need to do what only God can. Yet we are meant to follow Him and His Begotten Son

@@JohnCephas yeah, makes perfect sense 🙄 No matter how guilty and evil a person is if they but believe in Jesus all is forgiven and they get to spend an eternity in bliss with Yahweh. No matter how innocent and good a person is if they don't believe in Jesus then they get tortured forever in Hell. Never mind that belief isn't a choice and outside peoples control. Furthermore, why can't Yahweh just forgive sins unconditionally as he commanded us to forgive sins unconditionally? I can come up with a better plan of salvation. A person must make seek forgiveness and restitution from those they've actually harmed. It's impossible to harm Yahweh in any meaningful way. Those who do good will be rewarded and those who do bad will be punished. After they've been punished for a time that matches their sins then they and those who did good get three choices. A) Spent eternity with Yahweh B) Spent eternity in comfort elsewhere C) Cease to exist See how much more fair and just my system is compared to Yahweh's? His is neither just nor merciful.

Peace be with your breath. I am not sure what gave you that impression about salvation, perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I had written up a response for ya, but it seems that backspacing with shift deletes the whole message. Anyway, if you are interested in mutually beneficial dialogue i can continue this discussion with you!

David Mitchell is an Atheist.

@@paperviewcast No he's not. He is an agnostic, he doesn't know if God exists or not. He talked about it many times. Like in this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rqdoaK-H0tfLYIE.html

@@Trucmuch Atheist and Agnostic aren’t mutually exclusive positions because the first addresses belief (theism) and the second addresses knowledge (gnosticism). Personally, I consider myself to be an Agnostic Atheist because while I don’t claim knowledge that a god doesn’t exist, I see no evidence to suggest one does and therefore I don’t _believe_ one exists.

@@shelbyvillerules9962 I have never understood this stupid combination of two contradictory terms, they absolutely are mutually contradictory. You absolutely cannot be an Atheist Agnostic. You either believe there could be a god, or you don't. Any Atheist will tell you their mind will change with evidence, but that does not add the Agnostic part to Atheist.

@@Youchubeswindon Theism = Belief Gnosticism = Knowledge If I told you that I had a pet dog for instance, you might take my word for it and just believe me since it’s a pretty arbitrary claim, or on the other hand you may not. But to claim _knowledge_ that I have a pet dog requires actual evidence that you find to be sufficient.