If atheism is an acid, theism would be a base/based.

Hey Trent, could you please make rebuttals of Hinduism? Note : Hinduism is more than just a polytheistic religion. There are Pantheistic, Monotheistic, Dualistic, and even Atheistic types of Hinduism. The term 'Hinduism', itself is messed up. It means A LOT of different things

Great as always, just a reminder to put the link you mention in the description below.

Thanks for everything Trent!

Another interesting and thoughtful video from Trent Horn.

Fantastic video Trent

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 🤖 Atheism becoming a "universal acid" explained. 01:14 🛡️ Atheistic arguments undermining multiple beliefs. 03:19 💼 "If God told you to kill me" argument's limitations. 08:50 🛡️ Bible's alleged unreliability and parallels in ancient history. 11:08 💼 Questioning the cause of God as a challenge to explanations. 12:47 🛡️ "One less god" argument criticized for oversimplification. 16:12 🛡️ Brain chemistry explaining belief can be overly reductionist.

Good argument, Trent.

This is wonderful. Super enjoyed it. Not gonna read the comments or I’m certain I’ll get sucked in lol

Love the videos Trent! I agree with the sentiment that if taken to its conclusion different atheist arguments have a sort of domino effect that changes other things. I think this is what's uncomfortable about the ideas of atheism because its hard to JUST belive in any one idea and not everything that would have to follow from that. Like how if morality is subjective and there is no ultimate morality, that would be an uncomfortable thing to come to terms with. Or how if evolution is true, that leads to many other things you'd have to accept. Another comment mentioned how atheism is descriptive and theism is prescriptive and I think that's so true. Atheists (should) follow observation, which is what leads them to their beliefs, however uncomfortable. Theists will be more than happy to be descriptive as long as it matches their religious prescriptions until there is a contradiction and they have to either deny the observations or belive that the prescriptions were just poetic, or metaphors (young earth creationists vs theists that accept the age of the earth for example) Again I find your videos so interesting, much love!

When is Trents next debate with an atheist?

Maybe I'm just numb to all the philosophical talk regarding religion/atheism but these types of questions aren't really what interests me anymore. As an agnostic I've been comparing the synoptic gospels in Greek and seeing what was changed/added/removed by Matthew and Luke and it's been rewarding and a fun dive into early Christianity. These kind of questions just aren't that engaging for me anymore and like you said with the first question, you could bring up to an atheist that if they felt the need to take a life they would have to be convinced it was for a good reason, just like a Christian. So they really shouldn't be trying to ask a question to elicit an emotional response since they are in the same boat. But just to respond to that first question, I find it weird Christians can't just say "yes" to that question. Although at the same time, and this will imply Christians aren't consistent or are weak Christians but, I don't actually think most Christians would respond the same way that Abraham did when he was told to kill someone. I understand God stopped him before he did, but he was convinced God told him to do it so he went about doing it. Now because I think most Christians are level headed, empathetic, reasonable and not psychopaths, I think they would seriously question their mental capacities if they thought God told them to kill someone. I just wish when they answered the question they would say "If God ordered me to (since he has ordered people in the past) then I would but it would be because God can take life and would have sufficient moral reason to command that. But don't act like you (mr./mrs. atheist) wouldn't do the same if you thought it was what was right. You're just asking that question for shock value." And for the second question. The contradictions in the bible should show you that the bible is not perfect and you have to use tools OUTSIDE of the bible, the historical method, to figure out what actually happened. And history presupposes methodological naturalism. If you want to believe the miracles on faith or because you had a personal experience then fine. But the books in the NT are subject to critique just like other books of antiquity, and often have mistakes/contradictions as well.

Trent didn't say "you don't believe in monarchy", very interesting :)

I would use 'unconditional skepticism' or just 'skepticism' maybe instead of atheism here as the universal acid, but I agree with the overall sentiment.

I really hate it when Atheists act like a single contradiction is enough to overwhelm the entirety of a positive case for the Reliability of Gospels. It's really irritating and rigid.

Hi Trent, really like your videos, especially ones that deal with atheism and islam. Hope you will also cover some other religions. P.S. I've been wondering when your new book (the one where you talk to your inner sceptic) comes out ? Thank you for your work it has helped me a lot.

Max Tegmark's "mathematical universe hypothesis" is probably the best multiverse argument, as far as they go. His proposal sort of sidesteps the issue of why a random universe generator should exist, by saying there is no such thing as "physical reality," the universe is just a mathematical structure (like a mathematical concept, something that exists in the same way the number 2 does) and we, being part of it, experience that mathematical structure as physical reality. But when you get down to what matter really is, it seems to be best described as numbers, vectors, and other mathematical objects. On this view, all conceivable mathematical structures exist, just like we'd agree that all the (infinite) natural numbers exist, even though nobody can count that high. They exist in some Platonistic realm which, like the laws of logic, has necessary existence. There are some statistical objections to this view, and it's barely testable at best. It still fails to explain fine tuning except by vaguely gesturing at the anthropic principle, which as we know is not an explanation but an excuse for ignoring fine tuning. I don't subscribe to it, but the thing I like about this view is that in some ways it's compatible with hylomorphism or dualism. Unlike the dominant strains of naturalism, it has a decent explanation for how conscious creatures can exist with their own private seats of experience, rather than automatons that have neural activity, sensory inputs and physiological outputs, but no subjective experience. On the mathematical universe hypothesis, it's at least _more_ conceivable that something like a soul could exist and be causally connected (through quantum mechanics or something) to their bodies. Personally, I think subjective experience is so bizarre that it can't really be explained as a mathematical object either. It's better than physicalism, but it still seems quite strange that experience could naturally exist. But anyway, the appeal of this hypothesis is that the universe is less physical and more "conceptual," and that you'd get an infinite multiverse of all logically consistent mathematical structures, which would have necessary existence in the same way we say logic necessarily exists. While I think this hypothesis is motivated by a desire to explain reality without God, it's interesting that it is also compatible with God. This mathematical structure isn't so different from what we tend to think the universe is: a set of objects conceived by God and sustained in existence by him. From God's perspective, I suppose the universe really is a mathematical structure. I prefer to think there are no laws of nature. The laws are just our descriptions of how things normally behave, but those things are sustained in existence by God, so it stands to reason that the behavior of everything in physics, from gravity to quantum mechanics, is just God unfolding his creation, moving the pieces, etc. And mathematics perfectly describes the orderly way in which God ordinarily operates his creation, notwithstanding the occasional miracle that deviates from the usual patterns. Those deviations aren't violations of law, since the universe is not simply a set of objects that move on their own according to laws. It's a board with pieces controlled by God. Since God is perfect, he normally moves the pieces in an orderly way, but he has every right and power to do otherwise whenever he wants. Even time itself does not unfold automatically; the pieces are pushed along time by God. So I don't mean to suggest that the universe really is a self-sustaining mathematical structure; just that it seems plausible because God does things in a logical, comprehensible way. Anyway, this theory seems like something we should be thinking about how to respond to. Before I became a Christian, I found it to be the most attractive explanation of reality. It does have serious challenges from physicists and mathematicians, but they're mostly challenges to its falsifiability, or more accurately challenges to its claim to being more testable and realistic than other multiverse hypotheses. If you don't believe in God, and you do your research, you eventually get forced into speculating about a multiverse. And most people aren't bothered by falsifiability. In choosing a provisional worldview, they are forced to choose between unfalsifiable positions, because no explanation of the rock bottom ground of existence is directly testable in the here and now. But you still need some way to organize your thoughts. So people will pick what seems appropriate to them. Falsifiability is more of an ad hoc story that scientists tell after they've already adopted a paradigm, or a weapon they wield against innovative ideas that threaten the paradigm. As a principle, it doesn't actually guide the development of science, much less physics (which has spent the last 50 years mostly pursuing unfalsifiable theories of everything like superstring theory). So I think we do need a clear answer to the mathematical universe hypothesis and other similar conjectures.

Great video. About number 4# the people who use that lousy argument are guilty of hienous crimes because they only committed one less murder, rape, etc than the other people.

Numbers 3 and 4 both problems with LDS also. Infinite regress of Mommy and Daddy gods with planets, don't meet definition of being God at all.

ありがとうございました

So true!

Sometimes I think theist-atheist conversations are often stagnated by one side speaking descriptively and the other prescriptively. Theists approach their arguments as "God exists because He did X", i.e made the world, is the most maximally great being/, is existence itself, made morality/logic/mathematics/law/whatever transcendental category, etc." Choose an argument and this likely applies. Atheists approach it as "God does not exist because if He did, He would do x". X can be remove evil, show Himself hanging out in the sky, do a magic show for whoever asks, cure world hunger, show Himself on a screen in a lab, say "yoohoo, it's me, God" to someone... again, choose an argument. It's as if both sides appeal to prescription to some degree, but disagree on the prescriber (atheists make it themselves, theists make it God)

there are many 'universal acids' in philosophy, atheism being one. But the universal acids all eat themselves too, Dennett's musings are the equivalent of brain-rot and nonsensicality to his brain first, and then to those who listen.

Sartre knew this quite well, if God doesn't exist then life _must_ be absurd. As a christian, reading through "Existentialism Is a Humanism" comes across as desperate coping. The last thing people are willing to let go of is their pride, even when they have conceded it's an absurd thing.

Beautiful video, the fact their arguments do this has always driven me insane. Great commonsensical points

I would recommend not saying"beliefs you want". There are a number of things I believe that are deeply unsettling but I believe them because reason leads me to professing them to be true. That we actively rebel against God, and that one day we will all die. I don't want to believe these things but I do because they are true.

🔥💯🔥

The title is agregious trent. You asked earlier if your titles are too clickbaith and i said thaf you should only yitle what you publish but sometimes your titles are much more alike to an attack themselves. Your content is great howrvet and i only write this because i respect what you produce. I only would wish that your titles werent such an attack upon others though.

My brain hurts....

You should do a response to DarkMatter2525. He has some videos about Christianity and I would want to see your response, he is an atheist. He has a big number of followers.

#RejectTheSecularState #Leviticus2013

The main difference of the bible to most of other ancient literature is the use of it. Very few people build their life around the teachings of julius ceasar or the odyssey. But if you do that with the bible and life descisions are centered around it you should be pretty sure it is accurate and reliable. And it is not.

5:28 Answer #2 doesn’t work, because people using this argument ALSO throw out books about aliens, etc., but they KEEP books about basic math, etc. All they’re rejecting is anything related to the supernatural, whether that be from the past or the present.

ADS at 2:44. Modal collapse

Y

Was it morally perfect when God commanded the genocide of amalakites, etc, in the old testament? "Women, children, including cattle"?

"What caused God?" - This line of thinking kinda infuriates me, because the usage of the word "God" already means there is NO higher being... Any questioning on its "creation" is basically moot.

This is off topic, but I would like to start a petition to refer to Jay Dyer and those like him as "Orthodorks" rather than "Orthobros" as we should only refer to the Orthodox who are cool as "Orthobros".

Thank you for making this video, Trent! 3:56 I would encourage everyone (including Trent) to look up why the consensus in philosophy is moral realism and why the consensus in philosophy is atheism. Moral Naturalism solves all of your "atheist morality" objections and it solves the euthyphro dilemma that plagues religious versions of objective morality. 6:50 yes, there are contradictions in other works of antinquity (including the bible), we dont throw them out we just decrease our confidence in their reliability/accuracy 7:35 yes, many other writers didnt include sources (just like how Luke doesnt include sources) so again we dont throw them out, we just decrease our confidence in their reliabilty 8:28 yes, bibliographers today dont cite every reference, but at least they explicitly cite one (unlike Luke). I think citing some sources is the standard we apply today for reliability and we shouldnt lower our standards for Jesus. Doesnt mean jesus didnt perform miracles and all that, we just shouldnt have high confidence. 10:50 ultimate explanation = brute fact for the trilemma presented. Ultimate just means "god" which reduces to being a brute fact when asked "why does God exist?". God existing as an ultimate explanation/brute fact is the same explanation naturalists apply to "nature" existing. One just requires a number of unjustified ontological assumptions, one does not..... 17:50 this is why skepticism is the default position. Something existing in the brain, but having no evidence of existing in reality (ie God) can be tentatively assumed to be purely conceptual. Similarly if an image of your friend exists solely in the brain, but has no evidence of existing in reality, your friend can tentatively be assumed to not exist in reality. Most of the time though we do have evidence that your friend exists in reality. Most of the time we do NOT have any evidence that God exists in reality. 18:50 almost as if we are bilogically predisposed to hear voices when there are none or FEEL as if we are communicating with people/gods that are not there.....

“I believe in one God less than you” assumes something about theistic belief which ignores the principle that one man cannot have two masters. It’s impossible to be a Christian and a Hindu at the same time because the two contradict each other in truth claims. As such, there is not a degree or spectrum of the number of Gods you believe in going from 0 to 1 to 33 million or so. To go from 33 million to 1 is the same leap as to go from 1 to 0, not numerically, but qualitatively.

I do believe in Zeus Allah and Quetzalcoatl though! I don't believe they merit worship, but I believe they exist! lol.

First "acid" test: No. The fact that the person of the Christian god issues decrees and mandates by adjudicating morality through its reactions to events it paradoxically knows in advance (the same being that expresses and acts upon regret, anger, hatred, jealousy, contempt, malice, vengeance, and occasionally mercy in biblical scripture) and supposed plan is not the same as a non-theist whose standard is situational, rational, and consequential. The god of the bible does decree murder, and Christians justify its immoral character through disturbingly inhumane apologetics or by deflecting to the all-sufficient non-answer: "we trust god's plan." Non-believers can never justify murder because murder is by definition unjustifiable. The biblical god's get out of morality free card, however, allows for anything: with god, all things are permitted. Talk to the subsector of atheists who belief in ultimate or absolute morality, and don't strawman atheists.

Thoughts on each of the 5 scenarios raised in the video: 1. If my standard of morality told me to do something that I considered evil, I would say...whelp, guess it's time to revise or replace that standard. I would then do this and continue going about my day. 2. Historical texts/accounts are not regarded as flawless. For example, historians consider the referenced works of Herodotus to be good sources, but certainly not perfect nor the only information used to piece together our knowledge of history. So we can interpret history to the best of our knowledge, with the understanding that we might be wrong about some things. 3. I agree with the Universal Acid idea here to some extent, as I believe claiming some scientific explanation to the ultimate beginning of the universe would be just as difficult as claiming it has something to do with a god. Personally, I don't think we'll ever be able to "prove" something on this front, and I don't much care - but I do think it is beneficial to humans overall to keep asking the question. 4. Morals and systems of government develop independently of organized religion or belief in any one god - that's why groups of people can learn to get along even though they come from vastly different cultural backgrounds. These things are valuable whether or not a god is present in the equation, removing god does not undermine them to the point of anarchy. 5. The Shook quote used in the video pretty much sums it up. I doubt many people are trying to use this brain study as sole evidence to disprove the existence of any deities, much less the very existence of reality itself. Thanks for the discussion, it was a fun exercise to think through these points. TL;DR, the fabric of our society isn't in danger of being destroyed by my agnostic views.

It just doesn’t make sense that God would tell someone to kill another, since it breaks the fifth commandment.. defend yourself for sure, but not to kill others out of cold blooded injustice.

I have never told anybody that they shouldn't believe in what they believe. I have pointed out inconsistencies if the discussion comes up. Or I have explained how certain biblical stories are just 100% impossible, when they try to pass them off as factual information, but I have never told anybody that they shouldn't believe. Also I would never discredit the entire Bible based on one of the stories within it. Though many of the stories can been proven to never happened.

Is that any different from "presupositionalism"? I understand this theist position as saying basically the same. In the end there's no way to escape God, unless one is ready to escape reality.

If their standard of mortality suggested them to do something of that nature, then to them, in their understanding of what is good and evil. They would not perceive it as morally evil. In their brain they would not be committing an evil act. Whether or not something is absolutely wrong depends on who you ask. Seeing as morality is 100% subjective. There are people in this world who see nothing wrong with murder, or rape, or racism. In their mind, these things are necessary I certain situations.

"I only believe in one less god than you." Well then, we're practically twins. So why are you obsessing so much about how terrible God and especially those who invoke him are and yelling at me about it? Maybe because he really IS a big deal? This is like saying the woman with the triple digit body count is practically the same as a virgin because the virgin goes only .000001% of the male population further. Proof that you can use impeccable logic to arrive at ridiculous conclusions.

I dont really think you can wave away contradictions or changes by pointing to other ancient texts. No one is basing their lives or laws off of the Odyssey.

What I don't get about atheists is that they hold moral dogmas, that are curiously identical to those of the current regime, and can't admit that religion is adaptive or the ways in which they act religious, that their beliefs have the same underlying social framework as the traditional religoois they hate. They also don't acknowledge that the bases for their beliefs, like history, are totally warped by the current ruling ideology. It's amazing how many atheists uncritically accept various works on history that are on par with journalism. Part of this is that leftists are extremely prone to lying and the current dispensation is left wing. They simply lie especially about recent history to fit their narrative including applying their views anachronistically

1. The Christian can't just say "God would never command me to kill" because God clearly has done many times in the Bible...as well as rape and enslave. 2. The difference is no one is claiming that ancient history is inerrant, and no one is basing their entire life on whether ancient history is true. If ancient history is 85% accurate, that might be good enough for all intents and purposes, but the same can't be said of a book claiming to be the perfect word of God.

I disagree on your 2nd point. The point in not trusting ancient history/bible is that they are not the same trust. All we have of ancient history is unreliable and often exaggerated writings. This gives an impression of history but I'd struggle for anyone serious to call it 100% authentic proof. People assume that the great fire happened, but that is different to knowing it was 100% factual and building an entire religion around something.

According to your own mythology god commanded Abraham to murder his child. And as the knife was plunged to the chest it was stopped by an angel, showing that Abraham had every intention to obey the command. Now apply this cozy scenario onto your first argument "if god told you yo murder someone, would you do it?" You answered "my god would not do that" Your own "holy scripture" clearly says that was exactly what your god did.

I do believe in those other gods, almost all of them.... they are just demons

You should treat the Bible like any other book at first. Give it a good read, or listen to other people who have studied it. Once you've done that, you can toss the Bible out and can get on with your day. And it is perfectly fine to say the universe is ultimate. There is no cause for the electric field that gives rise to charges and so on.

1. I think the Euthyphro dilemma is still potent, but I'd bite your bullet: of course moral realism is absurd. We have no reason to think an ultimate standard exists. Even if we did, we'd be no closer to having a workable method of accessing these ethereal moral facts. This refutation can't undermine my ultimate standard of morality because I don't have one. I think that question misunderstands what morality is, and how and why we make moral judgements. 2. Eat away at ancient history in general? No, it won't. The things that are well attested, we believe. Question: on what grounds do you reject the Quran? 3. 11:42 To me that's intellectual dishonesty. If we care about truth we *don't* make up explanations. When we don't know, we say we don't know. We learn to live with unsatisfying answers. Otherwise, just for the sake of explaining the thing we don't understand, we end positing a god throwing lightning bolts and claim it as truth. 4. The tribal war god of the Bible is very much like other tribal war gods. There's nothing remarkable. The whole theology around who god is radically changed during the Old Testament. It seems just as make-believe as Zeus. The Yale lecture series on the OT with Christine Hayes is one of the best things on the interwebs. Christians would do well to treat the Bible in a detached, scholarly, critical way. And to loop back to point 2, note how much we learn from it. Rejecting it as supernatural and treating it like any other text isn't going to undermine history. 5. brain science already knows why people have out-of-body experiences, what parts of the brain shut down under what conditions. We understand the neurology of NDEs. If you don't like natural explanations, that doesn't make them false. Yes, I feel love. Yes, it's absolutely chemical reactions in my brain. It's okay. Knowing it's oxytocin doesn't make it less real. But it does mean thinking a post-hoc supernatural explanation of any phenomenon is likely true, is just lazy. The answer has never been magic. This exercise, as a whole, is to excuse not caring enough about truth. ---edited for typos and clarity

Well, I am an atheist, but I have no ultimate standard of morality, since my position in that regard is philosophical better described as moral anti-realism. And thus my moral views have no agency on its own and thus it cannot demand anything, like killing people. So, the first point doesn't affect me. I do not dismiss the bible out of hand, I just take it with a grain of salt, and I do take any other ideological driven text the same way. In the end I look at all texts basically as narratives (even including maths and science). But some texts seem to better describe reality than others, and yet I would not blindly believe any text. Guess another point were I feel the issue is not affecting me. The universe itself might not started to begin, all we have the big bang, which is an expansion of space, but that doesn't man that the contents of the universe were then caused. Thus if you exclude your deity as not requiring a cause, then you can do the same for the universe. Also, you cannot say that there has a reason for existence itself, for all we know non-existence might not be even an option, and thus there never was nothing and hence no creation or creator necessary. And of the tree I take the option that there is no explanation, since any explanation that answers a possible why is indeed pointless, and since the laws of nature might be worked differently in before the big bang there is reason to assume we could get an answer to how it happened. Guess that is another point where I am not affected by this supposed acid. Perfection is a delusion, and well, it seems that in Buddhism the only perfect state is found in nirvana -- the nonexistence. Thus a perfect deity would inherently have to be not existent. And the Christian deity definitely doesn't look perfect to me, screwing up multiple times in the Bible, allowing things to go o the rails, losing power to some evil entity that it created themselves, always gets people killed in the attempts to fix things, cannot forgive without sacrifice. How is that entity perfect? And no, I don't think the negation of deities means the that negation is the default. Since the negation of your deity doesn't negate the existence of belief systems, and politics, and morals and thus things are surely equally abstract but they still would still keep existing under the premise that we through out fictional beings. So, it seems you confuse the atheism with the notion of being inherently also anti-religious, but the above mentioned Buddhism shows that religion can exist without deities. Also, there are people who have no moral intuition (you know, sociopaths/psychopaths), which shows that there are people who just have one fewer moral system than others. But like I said, I am not a moral realist, and thus I have no issue with the notion that all moral systems are constructed anyway and are not inherently something that exist outside of human minds. Nihilists also exist, and well again like the deities and morals, they are all constructed anyway, if that is satisfying or not to you doesn't make that any less true. I don't have to defend anarchism, I accept that some people feel that way, since all the other political systems are also just social constructs I have no issue with people rejecting them all. I can have my morals, my purpose in life, my political opinions all without the need of then basing on some ultimate truth, since that is not what I believe in in the first place, thus again, this acid doesn't affect me. The last point seems to be the only interesting here, glad that it was not all for nought. But first let us make a review of the first four points, the killing question is not tied to atheism and thus the proposal that atheism would work like a universal acid is not given. The reliability of history has nothing to do with atheism, and thus the statement that atheism works like a universal acid is again false. The question of a first cause or explanatory power of one's epistemology in not intrinsic relevant to atheism, and thus again the argument falls flat. The lack of fundament or even post hoc justification for one's views and ideology is of no concern for atheism, and thus again this was basically moot. And now we are at brain chemestry... which also has nothing to do with atheism and thus it fails again to establish atheism as this universal acid. Sure, there are atheists who make such nonsense statements that get rejected here, but those are arguments of individual atheists, not an intrinsic part of atheism itself and thus you can criticise the atheists make such statements, but you cannot proclaim atheism in itself would hold such stance, since like you even mentioned in the video, atheism is about not believing in deities, and that is it, there are no further dogmata or teachings or what have you in atheism, and thus opinions on morality, on history, on causation, on epistemology, or on brain chemestry are all independent from the lack of deities the atheists believes in. Now, I will go and think a little about the implications of the last point... but one last point, would if the argument would be indeed have some merit, this then not also mean that answering any question with a deity did it be just as much of a universal acid and thus all the points against atheism not be exactly as valid against theism? No need to answer this, was rhethoric in nature, we all know the answer...

"Our" god requires no introduction. "Their" god is all contradiction. LOL

The acid that dissolves those beliefs is reason and logic. Not atheism. 1) An atheist does not listen to supernatural beings incomprehensible by nature. That is why an atheist will reflect on his acts without supernatural coercion. A believer does not know why God thinks something is evil. A believer accepts what the supernatural being tells him even when it goes against his nature. It is true that atheists cannot say with certainty why something is absolutely wrong, but believers cannot say why God considers something to be absolutely wrong either. The absolute moral standard of believers has not prevented them from doing any of the evils that non-believers also commit. Its lack of effectiveness is remarkable to come from an absolute morality. 2) The supernaturality of a supernatural book must be justifiable on some rational basis or it must be accepted that it is only religious faith. 3) Not understanding how causality works in reality does not justify holding that the universe is contingent on an external cause. 4) Atheism is not defensible. I don't think that God exists. The idea "god exists" is not in me. How could I defend the absence of an idea? Absurd. 5) But the second part of the study proves that suggestion can produce mystical experiences? :)

Isn't saying an objection is a "universal acid" the same thing as saying an objection "proves too much"?

Penn Jillette's version of the first one, paraphrasing: If you wouldn't kill me, you're an atheist, if you would, you're dangerous, stay away from me.

As the resident agnostic atheist in Trent's comments section, I think that I am obligated to say the following: "An acid is a molecule or ion capable of either donating a proton, known as a Brønsted-Lowry acid, or, capable of forming a covalent bond with an electron pair, known as a Lewis acid. Because atheism is neither a molecule nor an ion capable of either donating a proton or forming a covalent bond with an electron pair, atheism is not an acid, universal or otherwise." (Heavy sarcasm implied) But now more seriously: 1. I feel like your problem here is with moral anti-realists, which is not entailed by atheism. 2. I think that your problem here is with mythicists, which is also not entailed by atheism. 3. This argument is silly and tired - I agree it’s a poor argument. But again, nothing in atheism entails that an atheist must think that “Well who make God??” is a good argument haha 4. I think that the people who say this are using it as a rapport building technique. “See, you and are aren’t so different!”. The argument isn’t that “Since its only one less, then this is reasonable”. This is why this doesn’t translate to anarchism. If an anarchist wanted to build rapport with a non-anarchist, then sure, but this says nothing about the soundness of the argument. 5. I mean, this is a truism. If all of the brain chemistry in your brain ceased, you wouldn’t believe anything anymore since you wouldn’t be capable of thinking. I agree that this is a silly argument, but this has nothing to do with atheism.

I like your analogizing "the problem of inference" as "a universal acid." I call it "retreat to the possible." Many people use this tactic and it's entirely unproductive. Here's my responses as an atheist to your points. 1. That's the point. That there isn't an "ultimate" morality. The wish that there is is as a fool's dream, It's like wishing you could always know what the best path through a forest is. At best we can only find local maxima based on agreed upon shared values. 2. That's a straw man. People rarely say "therefor you shouldn't trust the bible" they mean "therefore we shouldn't treat it differently than you would other historical writings." No one would say that the bible stands or falls as a monolith, that's just be powerfully dumb. 3. Atheists do sometimes use this badly formulated response, using the word "cause," I'll admit. But I think the core idea is sound, that being "I don't accept your opinion on what counts as a satisfying explanation." After all, it's the theist who's asserting that they're unsatisfied with the idea that it could be brute. Even if it had a beginning, that doesn't mean it "began to exist" or that it needs an explanation. 4. This response is cheeky admittedly, but I think there's a nugget of truth if you steel-man it, and that's the reminder that humans invent fictional beings that they call gods. That places at least some initial burden on theists to show that their conception isn't imaginary because otherwise they'd have to accept that all similar conceptions exist. You say you reject the similar conceptions (Allah and others) on various grounds, and that's good. It sounds like you've accepted the burden that this argument places, as you should! The other point I would make is that this helps culturally normalize atheism, because back then and less so now, people would give you a look if you were atheist, as though their mere incredulity was sufficient to dismiss you. Look at Steve Harvy's response to atheists for instance. This argument is a defeater of this unfounded bigotry theists sometimes have towards atheists because it shows the them that they have some work to do before rolling their eyes. 5. This is a weird argument, but I think your assessment is fair. Atheists should not say this argument. The most that could be said about the "god helmet," drugs, suggestion, meditation and other physical ways to induce spiritual experiences, is that some spiritual experiences are caused or induced by physical events. The problem for theism is that if the specifics of these spiritual experiences vary by individual, esp depending on culture, than that offers us reason to believe there isn't a singular spiritual realm being accessed, but rather part of that individual's brain that's being accessed.

Xian morality sucks. There's no such thing as "atheist morality" any more than the morality of those who don't accept ghosts. But as an atheist, you are free to adopt a moral outlook that puts Xian morality to shame. I say slavery is _never_ moral; that killing the women and children of captured enemies is _never_ moral; that mind-controlling people to attack others is never moral; that torturing people to death is _never_ moral; that killing people for changing religions is _never_ moral; that killing people for complaining that they are starving is _never_ moral; that killing people for complaining that your killings are getting out of hand is _never_ moral. Xians can't agree with any of these. That would be admitting that their god acted immorally in the bible, a strict taboo. Morality isn't rocket science. "Don't do to others what you wouldn't like," as Confucius said long before Jesus, is 99% of it. No gods required. Is it ever moral to punish - let alone kill - people for what others did? Me: "Never!" Xians: "Well...mostly not. But if those killings are condoned, commanded or committed by God, that's a different situation." What's that called? _Situational ethics!_

Atheism is no more than a conclusion that there are is not a god or gods. Every theist is an atheist, unless they are a pantheist of some type. So, that “universal acid” is everywhere, asking for evidence for baseless claims. Trent then tries to claim tht some “atheist arguments and slogans” will also eat away at other things that atheist might want to believe in. Hmm, that’s curious since atheism is just about gods. But let’s take a look at his claims. “first one ifgod told you to kill me would you?” Hmm, not sure how this is an “atheist argument or slogan”. Now, per the bible, this god commands various people to kill others, and they do it without question or this god stops themat the last moment. So, would Trent obey his god or not? Christians do indeed have a lot of different ways that they offer on why this isn’t an immoral act for this god to command the killing or commit the killing of humans. Plenty of Christians adhere to what Trent calls a “very very simplistic divine command theory” and they claim that morality is only dependent on god’s will, that their god is thesource of objective morality. Mark 7 is quite clear that morality come from this god. Trent is right, a Christian is stuck: either god is the objective source of morality, or it is not. And you have to decide: will you obey it or not. This is not an attack against morality itself, it simply shows that Christian morality and obedience is a problem when you are stuck with the violent bible god. The rest of us have no problem with subjective morality, which can get better. There is no “ultimate standard” of morality, so Trent fails. Alas, a Christian can’t say that their standard would not allow violent action, since their god is supposedly documented in asking for the very thing than an atheist decries. There is nothing showing that this god is “all good”, only a claim from the worshippers who can’t agree on morals this god wants. The question “first one if god told you to kill me would you?”” is not a “gotcha question” at all. However, it is indeed a question that Christians fear since their god could indeed ask them to kill someone, per their own belief system.

#2 Miracles/magic/the supernatural are all a great reason not to believe in any religion that says they are real. The idea that the impossible is possible is absurd.

The only atheists stumped by this are in middleschool. When I was becoming atheistic I did have some arguments that destabilized my worldview, but that just led to me changing my worldview. If a universal acid just means uncomfortable conclusions to you, then I know why you are a theist. Just because ideas get uncomfortable doesn't mean you do moral dumbfounding at them until they go away.

Why not simple address the actual elephant in the room and the _only_ issue of importance? I have never encountered any evidence or sound argument that suggest the existence of a god.

It’s the bad ideas of individuals that is the acid, don’t fallaciously equate atheism because the person is a well known atheist, but I’m sure you already know this Trent, why mislead, is my question?🤷🏻

Your definition of "universal acid" seems to be "something that changes everything it touches." In that respect, skepticism about the magical claims of religions _would_ probably do that for faith-based people - and in a very good way. But let's see what your 5 ways might be. (OK, later you specify that it's not _atheism_ you're talking about, but only particular "arguments and slogans" that some atheists use. That's a very big distinction.) _1. "If God told you to kill me, would you?"_ You didn't answer the question. Why not? More importantly, if God told you to kill _your child,_ would you? After all, _that's_ the Bible story which Christians praise. According to most Christians, God _did_ do that. Anyway, your rephrasing of the question- "If your ultimate standard of morality told you to kill me" - doesn't work, because I don't _have_ an exterior "ultimate standard of morality" who is going to "tell me" to do anything. I have to decide what's right and what isn't on my own. No excuses. It's _my_ decision. _2. "You shouldn't believe in the Bible because..."_ Because what? The part _after_ the "because" is pretty important, you know. Admittedly, that's not how you should approach _any_ book - just believing everything that it says. (You seem to agree with that, yourself, later.) So, no, this isn't a problem for me. And it would *not* destroy ancient history or ancient literature. That's just silly. I can enjoy and admire _The Iliad_ and _The Odyssey_ without thinking that the magical stuff actually happened. And I can believe that Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great actually existed without believing that they were divine - without believing _any_ of the magical stuff in ancient stories about them. Extraordinary claims simply require better evidence than mundane claims. That's just... basic. If you tell me that you own a pet dog, I'll probably believe you. If you tell me you own a pet fire-breathing dragon, I'm going to need some pretty good evidence of that! _3. "If everything needs a cause, then what caused God?"_ No. That's just a reaction to theists who claim that everything needs a cause, that's all. If you don't _claim_ that everything needs a cause, then why would I even ask it? Of course, Christians generally try to claim that everything needs a cause _except_ for their god, which they exempt from that requirement because... well, actually, because the whole _point_ is to get to their predetermined conclusion, of course. Depending on what you _do_ say, I would reply to that. That's all atheism is, after all. It's just a reaction to theist claims. When it comes to "explanations of reality," I tend to find that Christians always leave out the most important one: "I don't know." Face it, there are a lot of things we don't know. In fact, we don't even _know_ what we don't know. So there's always the possibility that it's something we haven't even considered yet. For me, I readily admit that I don't know when I don't know something. But "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it." _4. "I just believe in one less God than you."_ Or _two_ fewer gods, I guess, if you believe that Jesus was "God's son." :) (Yeah, I know that Christians have their weird rationalizations of this stuff, wanting to believe that Jesus was a god while also believing in only _one_ god. It's not just us atheists who find that silly. Do you never talk to Jews or Muslims?) But this isn't a "universal acid." If you're the person making the claim, then you have the burden of proof, that's all. And pointing out that you don't seem to be consistent would definitely be valid. I'm sorry, but this one is _really_ silly. You have the burden of proof, because you're making the claim. If I claimed that gods _don't_ exist, then I'd have the burden of proof. I don't do that, because I'm evidence-based, meaning that I try to apportion my beliefs to the evidence. And I can't even _imagine_ what kind of evidence there could be - even hypothetically - that an invisible, Immaterial, magical being _doesn't_ exist,... somewhere. Heck, I don't even claim that magic leprechauns _can't_ exist, because I try to be consistent. I just can't take magic leprechauns _or_ gods very seriously without evidence. _5. "You only believe in God because of brain chemistry."_ Well, _every_ belief is a matter of brain chemistry, I suppose. But I wouldn't say that describes _everything_ about beliefs. It certainly says nothing about whether or not a belief is true. Frankly, I've never heard this one. Have you actually heard an atheist say this, or is this just what Christian apologists say that atheists say? Scientists _can_ induce such feelings artificially in human brains. That's a fact. But we already _know_ that drugs can affect our minds. And we already know that brain injury or disease can destroy or drastically change nearly everything about our minds - our memories (short- and long-term), personality, perception, reasoning abilities, beliefs, etc. The evidence is abundantly clear about that. Heck, have you never known anyone suffering from Alzheimer's disease? None of that means that _some_ beliefs aren't true. Why would it? I'm sorry, but this one is pretty silly, too. OK, I tried to make this as brief as possible. I kept going back and deleting large chunks of it, because you said _so_ much stuff that seems wrong to me. So this is just a bare-bones reply. Really, _so_ much of this seemed ridiculous to me. But then, I'm an atheist, so we clearly look at this stuff differently, huh? :)

Atheism - I'm not convinced a god exists. Why would I have to defend that? This video is strawman after strawman.

You have the right to believe in what you want. I have the right to believe it’s ridiculous. - Ricky Gervais

Proof your religion is a ficion: In Reference to Deuteronomy 32:8-9 "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8). With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance.6 It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting." ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Canaanite pantheon was conceived as a divine clan, headed by the supreme god El; the gods collectively made up the Elohim. Through the centuries, the pantheon of Canaanite gods evolved, so that El and Asherah were more important in earlier times, while Baal and his consorts came to fore in later years. Asherah - early semitic Mother goddess, "Lady of the sea," consort of El, also called Athirat, the mother of 70 gods El - the chief deity, god of the sky, father of many lesser gods and ruler of the divine assembly, also worshiped by the Israelites El Elyon -Special title of El as "God most High" The Book of Genesis itself describes the patriarch Abraham as a worshiper of El-also called El Shaddai and El Elyon -- building altars, offering sacrifices, and paying tithes to him. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Deuteronomy 32:8 When Elyon (El) gave to the nations their allotted inheritances, when he divided the sons of Adam, he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El (El and Asherah had 70 sons and in line with the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 (70 nations) each son (Elohim) received a particular territory or people like the Canaanite god Chemosh in Numbers 21:29) Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob, the lot of his allotted inheritance (Yahweh was given Israel by his father, the chief Canaanite god El). Psalm 82 ’Elohim (Yahweh) stands in the council of ’El (chief Canaanite god) In the midst of the gods (Elohim) he holds judgment. “How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Render justice to the weak and the fatherless; vindicate the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding; they walk around in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods (Elohim), sons of Elyon (El), all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.” Rise up, O ’Elohim (Yahweh), judge the earth; for you shall inherit the nations! Google "The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins" based on the majority scholarly consensus.

The Bible is not seen by people as being just another collection of ancient books. This guy in the video is being ridiculously dishonest.