When did a Christian see god create the world or make one thing in the universe. Ohh,,,never,,,,right...silly little scared Christians.

Why are American Christians so dumb. To deny evolution is to deny all modern science, especially modern farming and medicine. They are hilarious.

Destroyer kept getting hung up on "there are only 2 options" shen Tjump repeatedly specified that there are more options Destroyer wasted over half the time due to not understandong what Tjump was saying. Which should have been easily fixed if he listened, or watched any of Trump's previous videos on morality The "I shouldnt have to do homework. You should just explain it to me" shows his laziness and density

This guy is so sensitive! Lol

The geust has a pleasant sounding voice. Also he works really hard to elequently say things that are meaningless.

You would certainly not be Flung-off the Earth!🌎LOL.🤣The Earth is rotating on its axis, turning around once a day. Points on the equator are moving in a circle more than 1,600 km/hour (1,000 mph). This creates a centrifugal force that pulls regions of the equator outward and flattens the poles. The radius of the Earth used to calculate centrifugal force, specifically at the equator where it is strongest, is approximately 6,378 kilometers (3,963 miles). The magnitude of centrifugal force is directly proportional to the radius of rotation. The Centrifugal force at the Earth's Equator is only approximately 0.034 Newtons per kilogram of mass. This means that for a person weighing 70 kilograms, the centrifugal force at the equator would be around 2.38 Newtons or .034N (Newtons) = 3.4670344 gf (gram force) or .0076435041 lbf (pound-force).

You can tell blue beard here is thinking about some of these ideas for the first time, which raises the question: how did he even end up here in this debate?

Thanks Guys! Very good discussion and I hope you both have another one soon. One of the better discussions on the topic.

This was silly

My biggest problem with Detroyer is the same issue that I have with most arguments about philosophy. He creates a scenario to argue that doesn't match the real world. "You only have two options!" That's not something that matches the real world and I reject any hypotheticals that fail to model to the real world.

The entire presup argument is pointless... They claim there's an entity that knows everything and reveals things to them. They themselves don't know everything, so how the fuck did they come to the conclusion that some other entity knows everything?!? The rest of their script is just time wasting trolling designed to frustrate the other person.

If theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that, isn't it?

The core question is, is this god concept something people made up. That does not require explaining everything about reality. Gods can be made up, AND we can not know everything else. The theist insisting we must provide an answer is honestly putting the cart before the horse. The problem is not, what can I explain with a god or what can a god do. It is, does a god exist?

Breaking up bad.

TIL Tjump has no idea how moral philsophers use the term 'subjective'.

Sorry, but when you start a sentence with "on atheism" I know you havent got a clue.

Damn, sorry i missed this live, iv got questions. Lol

I like your theory. A lot, I don't think its wrong. But I don't think it covers everything. This very much feels like a subset of morality. There are ways to act, that we would all catagorise as immoral, that does not involve imposition of will.

Tjump once again being lost.

The live chat is bizarre how can they not comprehend what he's saying , I don't accept his objective morality model but thers no logical contradictions in it and its coherent .... " Grey Knight " ... 🙈😂🤡

I'd argue that not imposing on someone's will is neither objective or useful as the basis of a moral system.

Presuppositionalists are broken sad humans, who lack the emotional wherewithal to accept they might be wrong. They're bully toddlers.

56:14 You can’t convince him that sin exists until you first convince him that God exists. Sin is entirely dependent on the concept of God; without God, the idea of sin doesn’t hold. You have to start with God, as sin only makes sense within that framework.

50:38 He is also positing an unknown thing.

42:40 It does seem far more likely that we’ll witness Tom’s event happening than Jesus returning in our lifetime. Every generation of Christians seems convinced that theirs is the one in which Jesus will come back. It’s a bit strange, isn’t it? This repeated claim, made for centuries, starts to feel less like prophecy and more like wishful thinking or a cultural pattern.

35:37 I’m genuinely curious what’s going through his mind. Does he think that by simply reading the Bible, he’s achieved something meaningful in the conversation? I don’t get why Christians often do this-they act as if quoting or referencing the Bible inherently strengthens their argument. If I were to quote from another holy book, would that somehow make the Christian position less credible? If those other texts don’t challenge their beliefs, why would the Bible challenge an atheist’s perspective? No one starts believing in God because of the Bible itself. People already have some belief in God, and then they read the Bible to confirm and reinforce that belief. It’s a process of validation, not a starting point for belief.

Jump, there is no "one race or another". So right there is a reason why youre misunderstanding something here i think. Race, doesnt exist. These effects you gestured towards, ocurr bc of cultural and social reasons them are fallacious pinned on something that doesnt exist, race. Also .. stop and frisk is absolutely racist and was exposed as such..im disappointed in this video jump. Im surprised you havent heard of the cases in ny

30:58 Is this the first time this guy has heard of determinism and randomness? He’s acting like it’s the most groundbreaking concept ever, as if no one’s discussed these ideas before.

27:49 He believes the supernatural can produce the natural, yet by the same logic, non-life should be capable of producing life. If the argument is that something must inherently possess a property (like life) to create that same property, then you can’t consistently claim the supernatural, which lacks natural properties, can produce the natural. It’s a double standard that undermines the logic of his argument.

27:09 He’s a poor apologist if he genuinely thinks atheists believe in "nothingness." While he hasn’t outright said it, it’s baffling how often Christians claim atheists believe “something came from nothing,” when no atheist actually says that. It’s a misrepresentation of the position, which tends to focus on natural processes or explanations grounded in evidence, rather than relying on a strawman argument about “nothingness.”

26:10 You can't make decisions if you are timeless. Timeless entities cannot act, because to act is to initiate change, and change requires time. Without time, there can be no progression from one state to another. Decisions inherently involve a transition-choosing one option over others-making them impossible for anything that exists outside of time.

22:11 If Tom is defining leprechauns as magical, then they are magical by his definition. When he says they aren’t physical, then they must not be physical under his framework. You asked for Tom’s understanding of leprechauns, so you can’t argue with his definition-it’s his concept. If you’re trying to redefine what Tom means, he could turn it around and reinterpret your idea of God, claiming your God isn’t eternal. If you’re asking someone what they mean by something, you can’t then tell them their meaning is wrong.

You cannot state that "it's possible there's a god"....you don't know if it's possible or not.

The ending is incredible, with him spazzing out at the chat 😂

I used this for 50 minutes as background noise to mask the neighbour or her dog barking. Then, it was revealed to me, by the Dog himself, that the presup kid was embarrassing.

The kid seems a little slow

i'm not a native english speaker so i got this question. when he asks "do you really think that?" is this what is referred to as gaslighting?

This sure was a big nothing burger! 🤣😂 And he even admitted he doesn’t understand…

You don't know therefore, God.

1, hes not street level hes gutter level apologetics 2 , can tell he's used to monolguing from his book alot 3 , he's the double of a Boselecta charactor PLEASE ......Google Craig David Boselecta 🙈😂🤣👍

Talking to confuse and say mothing from christians is unrivaled!!! You cant win an argument with an idi*t, they will beat you with experience in being an idi*t!!!

at least the child minded christian was polite. very dumb though. like woah. so uneducated and unprepared for an adult conversation. this guy was so empty and vapid. no real understanding of the world around him.

The focus on intent is interesting. He really sees the world as a series of events driven entirely by intent, and without that intent, nothing would happen. He is pretty civil too, but he needs to realize that along with the nice parts of his religion, he also thinks people deserve hell for being honest. He not only believes it, but feels it is correct.

Anytime you have 5 minutes for your argument, and you start talking about the other person and their position, YOU ALREADY LOST. I am 1:24 in and this kid is clueless.

It's quite sad to see how low foxy has sunk since he joined darths little sewer.

I'm just... well basically disappointed in humans that some chuckleheads don't find Darth Dawkins vile, and actually think he 'wins' arguments. Its almost up there with voting for the Nazi party. (Well not really, but hyperbole)

“What tells you you are going to be able to get life from non-life? What tells us that you are going to be able to get ordered systems? … that’s why you have to posit some unknown thing …” He clearly doesn’t realize that the development of religions is nothing more than positing some unknown thing. It’s a big problem when you are arguing that something doesn’t make sense when you are doing exactly what you are arguing against.

The criticism of Vocab is warranted, but shouldn't be cruel. Vocab's arguments are banal but are used constantly be apologists. Praise to Tjump for the thoughtful criticism.

The dude just rambled on. Boring. Didnt even watch half

God of the gaps.