Every Argument For God Is Really DUMB (Redeemed Zoomer)

At least, according to todays video, all the arguments for godboi... are really really silly ones that have been repeatedly refuted and are frankly kind of dumb... its not my fault that's the case sorry not sorry.
I DO NOT DO GIVEAWAYS if anyone replies with my name/picture (but not highlighted) in the comments telling you you have won something, it is 100% a scam. Dont give them anything but a block and a report.
Mrs Sics Channel (Spoonstaff Stories): / @spoonstaffstories7061
Join Sics Whisky Club (KZbin Membership) for $5 a Month: / @sirsiccrusader
Merch Store: represent.com/...
Support Me On Directly Patreon: / sirsic
$10+ Supporters (Who were happy to be associated with my dumb arse. Check your patreon messages if you're a 10+ supporter and you want to be in this esteemed list :D )
In no particular order:
What Jesus?
Joshua Garza
Questionmark
lukas_dox
Ultima9
CoolGuyGrant
DogOfKrondor
Julian layzell
Sami Kay
Fritzy Fox
Lane0525
Soxxly
Robert L
Odd Fellow One
Myster-M
follow @SirSicCrusader on Twitter: / sirsiccrusader
Channel art Created for me by Extellus
/ extellus
Intro and outro music created for me by Galactic Bubble Productions
/ galacticbubblep
/ @galacticbubbleproduct...
#Atheism #Arguments #Smart

[@SirSicCrusader]

So we have gone from stable to slowly inching down on the ol video performance of late, so if you want to help out the channel, be sure to like subscribe and all that jazz and also, share the videos around with your friends enemies and everyone in between, really appreciate you guys, cheers!

[@Mayhamsdead]

You got 3k views in one hour. Don't be a baby, Sir Sic!

[@BunhieKleever]

What about the enemies of my enemies? Or the friends of my friend's enemies? The enemies of some friends friend's enemies? Why do "friend" and "enemies" look like weird words now?

[@lonecar144]

The problem is that both theists and atheists alike are under the assumption that the bible (KJV) teaches that this earth is God's first and only rodeo. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made >THAT WAS MADE

[@eleycki]

Haven’t seen a vid come up in ages? Is YT filtering?

[@The_Kronicus]

​@@BunhieKleeverIt's because of all the whiskey.

[@Bmarkb]

My old pastor used to say "According to atheism (first red flag,) we're all just bags of chemicals interacting with other bags of chemicals, so there is zero reason I shouldn't be allowed to poke holes in other bags of chemicals, if that's all they are." My knee-jerk response was: "Your home is just a pile of bricks and wood, so you probably wouldn't mind if I ran over it with a bulldozer, would you?" Emergent properties are a thing. Or: Something can be more than the sum of its parts.

[@goldenalt3166]

Mine was "The Bible is made of only words therfore the Bible is just a pile of words?" The "only" is dumb.

[@HateshWarkio]

This is exactly why I am of the idea that we shouldn't even try to argue against God because if somebody somehow actually achieved the disproving of the Christian God, Christians would start running rampant and destroy the whole world due to their meltdown and absolutely nothing, no promise of eternal torture, holding them back

[@goldenalt3166]

@@HateshWarkio Their prison sentences will at least show them down.

[@minaashido518]

@@HateshWarkiothere are quite a few things that would stop them actually, guns, to be precise

[@manatwilight8434]

@@HateshWarkioI mean it already is disproven. All the evidence says it’s not true. You have to have a very low bar to believe in it, at this point. Is one thing to believe in a god, quite another to believe in a specific one. The problem is all the BS that comes with it. You wanna believe in a god, fine. You wanna believe in a god, and push that BS onto the rest of the world, harming people, then we have issues.

[@Eric_Hunt194]

"You can't have infinite pizza" Not with that attitude!

[@SirSicCrusader]

hahaha

[@lnsflare1]

Code Geass Theme Song intensifies.

[@thetypingape2073]

Everything is pizza if you try hard enough. Just ask Terry Pratchett.

[@LucareonVee]

Maybe if you lived in Gravity Falls. 😉

[@MeMyselfI-BSG]

I've never ran out of pizza supply. When I want more I just order it. Then it arrives. The pizza will never end!!!

[@darkranger116]

Atheist : "so prove god exists then.." Christian : "well..." Jew : "well..." Muslim : "well..." Zoroastrian : *points at the sun*

[@StantionJeremy]

Morality is universal Natural evolution is not realistic when actually applied

[@pootispencer9765]

least based zoroastrian moment

[@zerq4558]

Zoroastrians are too based for our world

[@ego8330]

Zoroastrians be lit(pun intended)

[@zackdrake8735]

Your alive and embrace a sense of purposelessness, despite that god answers each and every one of his followers, without god there is very well no meaning but mathematics and wave functions, y'all think about it.

[@AnnoyingNewsletters]

*_”Every argument for the existence of God is a logical fallacy, and every logical fallacy has been used as an argument for God.”_* -Aron-Ra

[@SirSicCrusader]

dern

[@victzegopterix2]

I mean, there's technically only 10 real groups of arguments for god existing (all bullcrap obviously) but way more logical fallacies. You want the list don't you? - *Attributive arguments* (The "god is necesserly the cause of civilisation/morals/conscience" bullcrap, the revelation bullcrap argument, aka "it's true because bible says it's true", also counts as that.) - Pascal's wager (This bullcrap is technically an argument for belief instead of for god. Thought technically Pascal had a lesser known but still bullcrap wager for that.) - *Teleological arguments* (The "the world is perfect for our existence because god made it like that and things like that" bullcrap. Other more specific examples are the watchmaker bullcrap argument, the contingency bullcrap argument, and the "the world is too perfectly designed" argument.) - *Consensus argument* (The "god exists because most people have/had a religion" bullcrap.) - *Anthropical argument* (The "order cannot emerge from chaos thus god", and "creatures that aspire to god's existence cannot emerge in a world where god doesn't exist" bullcrap.) - *Improbabilty argument* (Do I really need to present it? The one and only, the famous, the inimitable, the indescribable, the insufferable "You don't think everything exists by chance don't you???" bullcrap!) - *Ontological argument* (the "god exists because I defined it as existing (because he's perfect and stuff) lol." bullcrap.) - *Cosmological argument* (The "Eeerything that starts to exist has a cause and the universe started to exist trust me bro so it has a cause which is obviously not just god but the one god I believe in" bullcrap.) - *Ignorance argument* (The "there are still things we don't know, god is one of them (and science will eventually prove it)" bullcrap. That notgood old god of gaps bullcrap.) - *Definition of god* (When all the rest fails, do the ultimate bullcrap: "You can only refute one definition of god and not the idea of god!". Note how in this process a definition of god is either never given or designates something that is not god, or it's definied as something with no effect on reality which is thus by definition fictional.) Bonus ones that are not for the existence of god but still often comes while still being bullcrap: - The "respect my opinions" (just ignore how religious opinions make people with good intentions make horrible things due to the sacred texts being interpretable in every way kinda as if those revelations reveal nothing) bullcrap. - The "belief in god is beneficial for society" bullcrap. How do I know it's bullcrap? I mean it's not as if someone that would idk have "Holy Koolaid" as the KZbin pseudo made a vid series totally debunking in total rigor this saying, right?

[@victzegopterix2]

I mean, there's only 10 groups of theological non-arguments (attributive, Pascal's wager, teleological, consensus, anthropic, improbability, ontological, cosmological, ignorance, and definition of "god") but way more logical fallacies than that.

[@martinnyberg71]

@@victzegopterix2 Yep, the goddy folks compete at how many types of fallacies they can cram into one single syllogism. Some of them are really accomplished at fallacying. All of them get participation trophies. 🏆 🙃

[@AnnoyingNewsletters]

Participation trophies, nothing. Apologists took gold 🥇 in Mental Gymnastics, Jumping to Conclusions & Moving the Goal Posts.

[@mwestenfeld86]

The problem with his Moral Cannibalism is that I don’t remember a single verse in the Bible that says eating people is bad. And then there is the whole “this is my body, take and eat” and “this is my blood, take and drink” that is actually in the Bible.

[@marcdc6809]

you're on to something, the entire bibleworship club is a cult of the 'blood for Ba'al gang'... remember, the deceiver rules this world, nothing happens here without him having a stake in it, that includes books that are written... the bible also alludes to how incest is cool, adam and eve, noah and the ark, and Lot and his daughters... 3 occasions where without incest there's no way these people would have repopulated the earth, except for Lot where it's really happening... I remember a nice gotcha moment where somebody told me adam and eve had other children, so it's not like eve had children with Cain... surely not, but definitely with Eve's daughter that didn't make it to the bible? and it's still a gotcha moment if god also created some other people that then populated the earth, because then who gives a damn about Adam and Eve passing the sin to their offspring... something's got to give in that story...

[@Marialla.]

That's what I was coming here to say! We agree cannibalism is wrong WITHOUT the bible telling us it is.

[@MrBudPuphin]

Cannibalism is mentioned multiple times in the bible, and while it doesn't flat out say it's bad, it is heavily implied. Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Jeremiah 19:9; Lamentations 2:20; 4:10; Ezekiel 5:10; 2 Kings 6:28-29

[@nataliaborys1554]

​@@Marialla. We also agree that slavery is wrong, while the Bible outlines how a good believer should treat his slaves

[@stevenswitzer5154]

Its hard to get a Catholic to admit they are part of a blood cult.... Even seconds after they drink of his blood.

[@dhwyll]

"Imaginary" numbers are real and have physical effects. They are unfortunately named because it makes them seem "fake."

[@Dedelblute3]

Imaginary numbers are just as real as negative numbers which are just as real as positive numbers: Not. Numbers aren’t real. They don’t exist, you can’t touch them. You can touch what they represent, but you can’t touch a number itself. It’s a made up system, but one that works perfectly because we designed it to be identical to how our universe works.

[@dog-ez2nu]

yeah, its like calling atoms 'stupid balls' and never changing that name.

[@MrPhukawf]

As a concept, all numbers are imaginary. You have a number of things. The things are real, the number is a concept to represent how many things there are

[@dhwyll]

@@MrPhukawf And all the mathematicians are shaking their heads. The nature of the universe is mathematical. What makes a carbon atom different from a nitrogen atom? The *number* of protons in the nucleus. No, I can't hand you a "6" as if it were some independent object, but I can't hand you a "wind" as if it were something separate from the air molecules, either, or a "red" as if it has nothing to do with a photon. The objects we study in mathematics are highly abstracted, yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't manifest in reality.

[@Dedelblute3]

@@dhwyll You missed the point. Numbers don't exist. That's definitively proven. You can't touch 1. You can't see it either. A number without a unit means NOTHING. You can see 1 *car* but you can't see just 1 on it's own modifying nothing. All numbers are just as imaginary and just as real as all others. All a number can be is a representation of something else. That isn't to say numbers don't mean anything, oh no, quite the contrary as you indeed pointed out. It's just to say that calling some numbers real and only some imaginary is contrary to the facts. All numbers are imaginary, but what they represent is real.

[@reformCopyright]

He wants cannibals to stay away from him? What a surprise! Me too, and that's how we determine that cannibalism is bad.

[@SirSicCrusader]

I mean

[@brucebaker810]

Yes, but is it still bad on the dark side of Proxima Irridani 4?

[@lnsflare1]

He should first stay away from any church that believes in transubstantiation, too.

[@zackswitch9656]

@@brucebaker810is there a social group that thrives off if cooperation and social bonding

[@brucebaker810]

@@zackswitch9656 Yes. But social bonding is...substantially different than you can conceive with a carbon-based brain.

[@reformCopyright]

He sounds more like a bad parody of an apologist than a real apologist.

[@SirSicCrusader]

damn

[@HateshWarkio]

Wait, I thought he was anti-apologist and poking fun at their arguments

[@ratdog6317]

Part of me wonders if he really is just a troll trying to rile people up

[@johngavin1175]

He's dumbing at .75 Powells. I hope he never goes full Powell.

[@johngavin1175]

​@@ratdog6317Some of these people have to be trolls. At least thats what I'd like to think.

[@RonaldDump_real]

I’d like to imagine our creator is a 4th dimensional being and made us for a science project that he only got a B- on because of “unoriginality”

[@brucebaker810]

@@RonaldDump_real Derivative. Stole a lot from Timmy's universe.

[@insanitycrafter8553]

They kept adjusting variables to random values until it worked - I think they could've optimized their code a lot better though, and this thing still has some bugs.

[@andrewolson5471]

To quote Aron Ra: if something doesn't exist within reality, it cannot exist in reality. Redeemed Zoomer had absolutely mastered circular arguments and presupposition.

[@SirSicCrusader]

ouch

[@Nahbruz]

@@SirSicCrusaderpenis

[@kellydalstok8900]

Shouldn’t that be: if something doesn’t exist in reality it cannot react with reality?

[@gerboiremoncopaing933]

That's actually an idiotic statement. Something that doesn't exist in reality means just that, that it currently doesn't exist, it does in no way means it cannot exist.

[@andrewolson5471]

@@gerboiremoncopaing933 reality is what *is* real and can be demonstrated as such. If an argument for the existence of something is that it exists outside of what is real, then *it isn't real.*

[@EugenieBeaublanc-sf9wg]

Hey, mathematician here, he's wrong about the math thing, like all of it.

[@sthed6832]

Not a mathematician, but took plenty of it, and he should look at the equations for irrational numbers. Infinite number of terms, very finite description. I bet he got an F in math even if he was home schooled.

[@EugenieBeaublanc-sf9wg]

@@sthed6832 Lfmao, and it shows such a lack of interest in both math and making coherent arguments. I mean it would take a single fucking google search to learn about the applications of imaginary numbers(and they are EVERYWHERE in physics and engineering) but he doesn't because he is so incurious about literally everything.

[@lunarjetwoman6580]

This is easily settled with an example of an imaginary number. …..Twelvety. I don’t judge anyone for not understanding how I figured that out .. my IQ is nixtysive

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

There are an annoying amount of people like him in philosophy discords these days.

[@Quick15]

@@EugenieBeaublanc-sf9wg That misspelling was definitely a mistake but now I've spent too much time thinking about the implications of it

[@laszlokaszas1003]

-If Santa Claus is real, then objective morallity is real. -But objective morallity is real. -Therefore Santa Claus is real.

[@StantionJeremy]

You mean Saint Nichols from ancient Rome

[@ChronoMoth]

@@StantionJeremy more so his magic clones that deliver presents at Xmas in the modern day

[@StantionJeremy]

@@ChronoMoth buddy that doesn't stop morality from being objective... And Saint Nicholas never professed to be God... Let alone magic

[@Jozsef0rsos]

​@@StantionJeremyHe was making fun of the moral arguement's reasoning by demonstrating that this reasoning can be applied to anything and make sense, without the necessary causation of things by just using correlation, which is not necessarily causation. Examples of this, that are logical, even though they are avoiding actually pointing out what causes the statement to be true: - If unicorns exist, then millionars are existing. - But millionars exist - Therefore unicorns exist too. - If cartoon charachters are real, then pigeons are real. -But pigeons are real. - Therefore cartoon charachters are real. And i could go on and on, but i think you get the gist of it. Just because something makes sense by someones logic, does not make that logic true. They would need to find evidence(s) for that logic's validity as well

[@StantionJeremy]

@@Jozsef0rsos like morality being demonstrably universal... I don't really see how that can be applied to people, which is already a subjectively contrived concept

[@roccondil5]

The cosmological argument can be easily refuted as such: Everything that exists must have a cause. God doesn't have a cause. God doesn't exist.

[@SirSicCrusader]

I see

[@danielkeizer4174]

Actually sound logic...

[@brenta2634]

But special pleading!

[@danielkeizer4174]

@@brenta2634 I'm taking offence. There was nothing special about these pleadings. They were quite common, almost ordinary even.

[@victzegopterix2]

Lmao, never saw that one before. It's excellent. 😂

[@voorindeklas]

Objective morality: Thou shall not kill is objectivly bad. But then in an other part of the bible: If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, both shall be put to death. So now killing is good? If in 1 case it is bad and in an other it isn't you can't say it is objectivly bad.

[@SirSicCrusader]

ah

[@chezeus1672]

basically anything carries the death sentence in levitical law, so a more accurate translation of that commandment is: "thou shalt baselessly accuse thy victim of random shit instead of killing them thyself."

[@bonk747klm]

imagine taking the bible literally couldnt be me

[@Ash_Wen-li]

That's because the writers of the Bible weren't writing it with "objective morality" in mind.

[@frylopers4232]

Give me The context of these Two, pls

[@JustaBunchofGoofs]

“If your pizza gets infinitely great it will turn into god” Is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard

[@kabalanstef9636]

I love all the " if we define god as existing, then he MUST exist" argument from literaly braindead adults too scared to face reality.

[@SirSicCrusader]

damn

[@Llortnerof]

You mean "braindead children in excessively old bodies".

[@juanausensi499]

I define the "God Killer" as existing, so God doesn't exist now

[@johngavin1175]

I define my bank account as "overflowing and with many monies." 😅

[@Quick15]

I define my social life as thriving and active

[@DJ_Sycottic]

Tell the survivors of Uruguayan air force flight 571 that cannibalism is bad, the team of rugby players that crashed in the Andes in 1972 that had to eat the dead to survive. Oh and yes they were super religious too..

[@SirSicCrusader]

damn

[@simongiles9749]

Quite a few culture across the world practice(d) cannibal rites as a way to honour the dead, mostly across South America. The degree to which the dead were eaten varied, often it was more using cremation ash or ground bone to make a kind of bread. As far as I an tell only the Fore people of Papua New Guinea ate any squishy parts. But in those cultures, it was a way of honouring the dead, a correct and moral thing to do.

[@jaybeemhardscrote7466]

For some reason my brain first saw 'they were super delicious too.'

[@Jack_Slate]

There was a certain battle in China at some point in history that was won because of cannibalism. I didn't want to read too much into the wiki on it because it was disgusting, so maybe I'm simplifying it too much.

[@SuperWikiMan]

True story: when I was growing up, we had chickens. We used to feed them scraps. I personally thought it was wrong, and still do to this day, but my mother used to feed them leftover chicken. She was one of those narcissistic Christian parents, you know the kind -- the kind that think their kids shouldn't be allowed to have their own ideas. My point is that Christians are probably more divided than they realise on the issue of whether or not cannibalism is actually wrong.

[@PoH42069]

I am currently doing my biology homework. One of the key terms is emergent properties. Watching this guy's bit about atoms and consciousness, I don't think he's ever taken this class. It's in chapter 1, bruv

[@stevenpike7857]

LOL - "Eyewitnesses died for their faith so it must be true." So, all the people in the Heaven's Gate cult died for their belief, therefore, what they believed in was true..... ???? Plenty of people die for beliefs that aren't true in reality.

[@SirSicCrusader]

I mean...

[@grahvis]

More to the point, where are there any first-hand eyewitness accounts?

[@madtabby66]

The comet was real. I saw it.

[@stevenpike7857]

@@madtabby66 Yup, and there was an alien spaceship hiding behind it- ready to take you to "the next level"

[@prismiemona]

​@@stevenpike7857 i guess we're going back into the backrooms today, folks!

[@JoelFroehlich]

I like the cosmological argument because it's basically "Everything HAS to have a cause, but it's impossible for EVERYTHING to have a cause..."

[@SirSicCrusader]

heh

[@minaashido518]

The universe must have been created! But god doesn’t need to be created Absolutely fantastic logicians those Christians are

[@juanausensi499]

I like it because infinite regressions are 'obviously impossible' but a dude having infinite everything is perfectly ok.

[@suicune2001]

@@juanausensi499 And for no reason, too. How could they even attempt to explain how a universe with nothing could create the ultimate life form that not only is all-powerful but all-knowing on top of it. And why would the universe only do it once and not infinitely? Did the empty non-existent universe run out of character slots after the first one?

[@QuintarFarenor]

@@SirSicCrusader Apart from this message, are these non-answers really driving engagement?

[@tomperone9338]

To his credit, he's convinced me there's a God Pizza.

[@Quick15]

This is a god I can get behind

[@wheatyes2104]

If pizza is a god I am going straight to hell

[@luh0604]

​@@wheatyes2104 whyyy

[@salsichacosmica690]

So it all goes back to God being stereotypical Italian food.

[@wheatyes2104]

@@luh0604 I desecrated it's holy delicious relics

[@yadabub]

Being all stupid is greater than only being partially stupid.

[@SirSicCrusader]

hehe

[@Ywabag]

RZ really took this to heart

[@JustinJulian-00]

This is what infinite stupidity is and it's a guilty pleasure to not take them seriously

[@sussekind9717]

Cannibalism? Seriously? That has to be the worst argument for objective morality I have ever heard. No mention of survival cannibalism or cultural cannibalism? (Just stay away from the brain and spinal cord, because Kuru).

[@SirSicCrusader]

damn

[@frankpulmanns6685]

I don't know this guy's denomination, but doesn't catholicism (the largest Christisn denomination) practice ritual (thankfully fake) cannibalism weekly?

[@utes5532]

Yeah, that was my first thought. "Cannibalism" isn't immoral in and of itself, it only becomes immoral when you harm others to practice it.

[@RomeroTangoLima]

He also participates in a religious ritual where he symbolically eats his savior's flesh and drinks his blood.

[@verdantvixen96]

Right? I came here for this argument. I do have a lot of logic-based arguments against cannibalism, but if push came to shove I know to refrain from munching on the CNS because prions is bad.

[@Xenobears]

2:40 I said it once and I’ll say it again: we don’t have hundreds of eyewitnesses, we have a religious document penned by a highly motivated member of the faith _claiming_ hundreds of eyewitnesses. The “but hundreds of people saw it, honest!” claim is about as effective a piece of evidence for the existence and divinity of Jesus as any random panel in a Spider-Man comic featuring a crowd of people watching Spidey fight is for his existence. Actually, the comics show the witnesses, so they might be better evidence of Spider-Man.

[@kellydalstok8900]

You can’t talk to them because they live in Canada.

[@benshulz4179]

Many myths are legends are exactly like modern day comic books. You know, stuff like romans making shows about gods and heroic characters. Christians and muslims just break the 4th wall in their myths, which was a new narrative discovery at the time. It's like believing in Deadpool because he talks to the audience.

[@digital_gaming8568]

No, because the letter was addressed to the people of the time, basically saying if you don’t believe me ask them.

[@amadman8149]

This man's circular arguments are making my head hurt! He's only proving that I need to drink more whiskey!

[@SirSicCrusader]

savage

[@Eric_Hunt194]

Worse than that, he's using comic sans unironically. Even whiskey can't help me, I need tequila!

[@Win090949]

​@@Eric_Hunt194the usage of comic sans is a reference to the "all X explained" videos. And I guess it stuck around.

[@AnnoyingNewsletters]

*_Baptism only works if you do it until the bubbles stop._* 😵☠️

[@SirSicCrusader]

fek

[@kellydalstok8900]

Is that you, David Sowerbutts? Don’t forget to put some Matey in first.

[@sashadoom]

Relevant: How do you make a DB float? ... ... Take your foot off its head.

[@nono9543]

I went to a lot of the same discords with this guy. He's been on Jay Dyer's discord. The dude was essentially brainwashed by OrthoBro grifters. I understand some people need a discipline community to deal with their addiction issues but the fact that these people feel as if their way of getting cured is how everyone should get cured is presumptuous and prideful.

[@tyleri55]

I've scrolled the comments on this video for 10 minutes to find this detailed comment and why am I not surprised

[@Elysium_the_Bard]

Wow, right out the gate the guy goes straight to "is cannibalism good?" Which is hilarious considering the whole idea of the Last Supper is that Darth Jebus shared his flesh and blood with his disciples. So, Mr. Chrimbian...IS cannibalism bad OR is your religion bad?

[@SirSicCrusader]

dern

[@haroldshea3282]

maybe his type of x-ianity rejects doctrine of real presence

[@mitchellminer9597]

"God is defined ..." really means, "Because we say so."

[@hackman669]

What they do on the week end no one wants to know.😅

[@TQFMTradingStrategies]

That thing comes up a lot. Middle age thinkers would often like an Austic kid spend the first half of their argument trying to pen down every term and nuance in the argument instead of just spitting out what they are trying to say. “God is everything in the universe, to begin we must first define god and the universe and everything and even the term in just so I don’t feel like your getting it wrong” No MF we know what you mean get to the meat, Lol just a personal beef of mine with a lot of those writings, and people talking about em get hung up on it, it’s literally just filler/fluff/just how they wrote in the 13th-17th century

[@brunogomez2984]

​@@TQFMTradingStrategiesY?

[@TQFMTradingStrategies]

@@brunogomez2984 they had this hang up where they all wanted to be cool and sound like Aristotle and other people and for awhile writing in general just devolved into people copying older styles while writing critiques/opinions about older texts…..

[@brunogomez2984]

@@TQFMTradingStrategies ah, bueno

[@dannyslag]

The only real use for Pascal's wager is essentially as a Turing test to see who's an idiot.

[@juanausensi499]

It's a false dichotomy plus the concept that faking belief is the same as believing plus a consequentialist argument that also assumes objective/absolute morality

[@UTU49]

@danny I like that idea. I like using Pascal's wager to argue that you should follow NO religions... or ALL religions... just in case that's most beneficial to your fate.

[@NoodleKeeper]

​​@@UTU49 Yeah, the most apparent and obvious flaw with Pascal's is the inherent assumption that YOUR religion is the correct one to hitch your wagon to.

[@nealjroberts4050]

I call it Pascal's Roulette

[@UTU49]

@@NoodleKeeper You can use Pascal's Wager to argue in favor of literally anything at all... just in case you can pick up some advantage by believing some particular thing. And I don't think there can be any arguments against that.

[@charleslipscomb2567]

George Carlin: "Now if you were God, would you want a guy like that going around describing you?"

[@jøy_what_riley_loves_the_most]

I wouldn't mind. This is why I'm a deist. God doesn't mind about us... for now.

[@tbeast151]

A skeptic channel ACTUALLY discussing religious topics, and not crying about culture war nonsense in lock-step with the religious right??? AMAZING VIDEO 💜

[@merikijiya13]

I feel like you’re talking about someone?

[@TheBrickWhisperer]

@@merikijiya13 every skeptic video 10 years ago

[@AB-ku4my]

Having experienced one of the two, I can instantly dismiss anyone who knows not the difference between a "near death experience" and an "out of body experience". Neurochemistry is a fascinating subject.

[@DigitalLife3000]

Reddit Atheists after converting to Christianity:

[@rubberduckyoverlord6300]

This is honestly genius and a perfect description.

[@theabsolutesigma]

I mean...I'd rather have a Reddit Christian friend than a Reddit Atheist friend.

[@jeanTonicplusultra]

​@@theabsolutesigma you do you, but i'd take an atheist all day

[@SamuelAfonso-q5q]

@@jeanTonicplusultra Why they are both in cults 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@DigitalLife3000]

@@theabsolutesigma so you can be constantly moralized and ridiculed?

[@zackswitch9656]

The cosmological argument according to him „If god exists then he has to exist, therefore he exists“

[@ornitorincodigenova4260]

Man did I see a 2rπ reasoning there

[@dtkedtyjrtyj]

That is a lot better than the usual formulation. At least the single premise has the possibility to lead to the conclusion. Usually it is along the lines of "things exisst: -> GAAAAAWD!"

[@impulsiveman5901]

i thought the argument was solid, maybe not the way he said it but at it's core it's just "everything needs to come from somewhere" which makes sense. Christians believe that if you keep going back in the chain of origin it goes back to God and atheists think that the beginning of the chain was the Big Bang and they are still trying to find the origins of mass and energy and how the speck that became our universe got there.

[@alexcrouse]

Pascal's Wager is the best argument, but it also is completely defeated by the fact that multiple religions exist...

[@deadend5479]

but..but..but.....Christianity is not a fake relegion like all those other ones that are made up. no, you must understand that our religion is the true one, so pascals wager works

[@Phrive]

So this is basically him saying lots and lots of bad arguments added together makes a super big brain argument. When really all he's done is demonstrated a complete lack of skepticism.

[@SirSicCrusader]

damn

[@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00]

Yeah, it's like a mathematician thinking "if I just add up enough zeros, I'll eventually get to the number 1"

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Gishgalloping. Some people turn their critical thinking off when approached with too much information, then default back to faith. Usually abused people with nutritional deficiencies.

[@dyamonde9555]

also a complete lack of proof. Everything just pure sophistry.

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

@@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00 You're not adding up zeros, you're adding up insufficient but positive evidence. Cummulative case type arguments for god ultimately fail, but they *are* a legitimate way to argue for something.

[@8xbbie]

1:26 as a Software Engineer with a degree in Computer Science, I can confirm. Computers do indeed use witchcraft

[@kacperkonieczny7333]

And there are daemons inside them.

[@phantomdergwulf]

@@kacperkonieczny7333 LMAO i laughed for a solid 3 minutes because of this

[@TheSYLOH]

You are writing words of power in an arcane language onto a pattern traced in gold, in order to produce illusions, divine the future or cause otherwise inanimate object to come to life. If that doesn't count as witchcraft, I don't know what would. Source: me, a fellow witch.

[@jaylebo2025]

All morality is contextual. Always. If someone survives a plane crash, and they are faced with the choice between consuming the flesh of their fellow passengers who’d died in the crash while waiting for rescue or die horribly from starvation, I don’t believe anybody reasonable is going to get too judgemental over the decision. Objective moral evaluations don’t have exceptions. No moral positions are without exception. Therefore, objective moral values do not exist.

[@nealjroberts4050]

Technically you could have objective AND relative moral values. We all have experience of morals being relative (the various ways lying can be good for example). We don't have experience of moral values being independent of our preferences or opinions therefore only subjective morals.

[@robertsouth6971]

God can be a pure consequentialist. Humans can't. We don't know the actual full consequences of our actions, so we have to go by probabilistic rules of thumb and let God handle the exceptional situations when some counterintuitive action may produce good results.

[@MagicGonads]

@@robertsouth6971 except that consequentialists must come up with a model of value to weigh the consequences, and their distribution. This choice is well established to be arbitrary, so is ultimately the subjective element.

[@jaylebo2025]

@@nealjroberts4050 it doesn’t matter how technical or pedantic we get in arguing. As far as I can tell, there is no objective moral value that can be demonstrated to actually be true.

[@jaylebo2025]

@@robertsouth6971 consequential morals are in direct contradiction with objective morals. All you’re doing is engaging in a special pleading fallacy. It doesn’t matter if you are fully aware of the potential consequences for your actions, if your intent is to cause harm to others for your own benefit, it’s immoral, period, end of story. If God slaughters a bunch of babies who have done no wrong, it doesn’t matter if He knows they’ll do wrong in the future (unless they have no free will to do otherwise, in which case He was immoral to allow/cause them to be born in the first place knowing He’d kill them in infancy). He killed them for His benefit, which makes Him evil. The results being counterintuitive are irrelevant. By arguing for greater good, you’re arguing AGAINST objective moral values, not in favour of it.

[@mattheweagles5123]

He's managed to make bad arguments seem even worse, which is almost impressive.

[@hackman669]

Florida education system. 😅

[@Theflowingcurrent]

From I don’t believe this to how do you believe this gibberish?

[@dieseldave2273]

I always get a giggle when apologist try to use Pascals Wager. It's like they don't know that according to thier bible, believing in god just incase is as bad as not believing at all. The least you can do as an apologist is know the rules of what you're attempting to argue for.

[@SirSicCrusader]

I see

[@SirSicCrusader]

indededed

[@CMDRZero01]

Right? That's always bothered me too. It's like, why would they get more credit for being fake than I would for being just honestly wrong because there wasn't enough evidence to reason with the mind this god gave me.

[@dieseldave2273]

@@CMDRZero01 because reasons and stuff. 🤷

[@martinconnelly1473]

The other thing is they tend to rely on the King James bible. That definitely had a creation date that is quite recent in the history of humanity, yet is supposed to the word of a god that has been around forever. It also had a very human purpose as King James wanted a bible that would stop the squabbling between two factions of christians. I have never heard an apologist go to the original sources for any of this mythology of theirs.

[@Kurt-Flanders]

Being Drunk > Being Sober Therefore god is infinitely drunk. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[@joekrampus1154]

This would actually mesh with reality better than what they’re going with now.

[@Quick15]

What if god does exist, and the world is so bad because after he created whisky hes been drunk for the past few billion years. This would explain a lot.

[@Theflowingcurrent]

@@Quick15And when he created humans and they thought about something he became that because if something exists it’s infinite

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

that's right i came to your ted talk

[@laszlokaszas1003]

Being smoking hot sexy must be better than being a 5/10 so it means god must be sexy.

[@keithbaker7097]

If god is everything then that means hes not just all good but also everything evil. Absolute power currupts absolutely after all

[@madtabby66]

The Bible openly says this. They ignore it.

[@patrickhackett7881]

I would say that a pizza of infinite size is not the greatest pizza because it would probably collapse the universe in a Big Crunch due to its gravity. The greatest possible pizza is large enough to be satisfying but not so large as to give me indigestion if I try to eat the whole thing.

[@SirSicCrusader]

I mean

[@kellydalstok8900]

I love a crunchy crust on a pizza.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

if there is an infinite pizza theres first an infinite layer of crust u cannot hope to pass, but it can be varieties of crust, such as stuffed or garlic.

[@Forest_Fifer]

Mmmm, pizza crunch... In case you don't know, that's a battered half pizza, deep fried. You'll be no doubt completely unsurprised to hear that it's a Scottish invention.

[@Theflowingcurrent]

The best pizza is a 12” Italian sausage extra cheese pizza YUMMY

[@iluvtacos1231]

I kept thinking "surely he's said the dumbest thing now" and kept being disappointed.

[@Soylent1981]

Objectivity is not merely consensus. If the argument for objectivity is that it leads to consensus, then there should not be any moral disagreement. Ontological argument: I bought a new car. I made sure it came with existence because it’s a better feature than non-existence.

[@SirSicCrusader]

HAH

[@coba23513]

Perfection is not an inherent property of the car

[@DrDoompenguin]

​@@coba23513Perfection is not an inherent property of anything at all. It also just does not make sense when applied to multiple traits, especially ones humans made up, many of which are in contrast with another. The concept of perfect only makes sense in a mathematical sense. You could have a perfectly round circle and you could have infinite perfectly round circles. The concept of perfect only works when comparing it to something else.

[@solosynapse]

​@@coba23513It's not an inherent property of the Biblical God, either; perfection & omni-everything were added by the Catholics in the 12th century. The Bible even states that God was powerless against iron chariots, and regretted his actions a couple of times (which a perfect being wouldn't do, because they'd have no mistakes to regret).

[@Soylent1981]

@@coba23513 I wasn’t saying the car is perfect. I was pointing out that existence doesn’t add anything to the concept. If you buy a new car you might describe the features of it like colour, make, model, price, engine specifications, seating, and etc. There are countless attributes that you can use to describe the car, but existence doesn’t add anything to the concept. You don’t buy a car and ask them to include some of that amazing existence. Existence is the state of being for the concept. A greatest conceivable being is described by the predicates like omnipotent, omniscient and so forth. Existence does not add anything to the concept.

[@thecatattheend2250]

This guy is going to race through every worst argument for religion without understanding anything about them.

[@SirSicCrusader]

indededed

[@hackman669]

Guy cannot read. He didn't pass kindergarten.😅

[@SuiGenerisBrewing]

"we can't investigate consciousness scientifically"...yeah, other than literally a whole fucking century and thousands of scientific articles on the topic. You'd think he'd run a Google search before writing his script... but if he did that consistently he'd probably not be making these videos.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

he will just be like 'well u need to differentiate conscious and subconscious' then u can then he will just invent more bullshit because their defense mechanisms are literally dissociation. It makes their faith stronger, until it breaks anyhow.

[@Ash_Wen-li]

I find it interesting that his idea of consciousness supports the idea of a human soul, but just humans. Apparently animal consciousness doesn't count

[@zdravkogeorgiev7201]

I think he means that we can't study our consiousness because we have to use it in order to study it

[@sortesnogmrstayathomedrago4150]

a pig can tell you if it likes its pen and if its happy, a beluga whale can tell you its name - and a raven can be your freind for life

[@SirSicCrusader]

And a sir sic almost knows how to make good videos... remarkable animal

[@kellydalstok8900]

But why is a raven like a writing desk?

[@jonathanj8303]

​@@kellydalstok8900only if it's an ex-parrot.

[@stephenluttrell8958]

Ravens can also be your enemy for life. In fact, they can pass that knowledge onto other ravens so you can literally have ravens as your nemesis for generations of ravens.

[@jonathanj8303]

@@stephenluttrell8958 "Vote raven, or else."

[@CharlesPayet]

Ooooh, Redumbed Zoomer again! What fun this will be!

[@SirSicCrusader]

damn

[@johngavin1175]

Fun like constantly face palming and shouting at my phone when he says that evolution cant explain physics?

[@CharlesPayet]

@@johngavin1175 exactly that kind of fun! 😎😁

[@ramirezthesilvite]

The Mandelbrot Set was especially funny to bring up. "It has infinite complexity despite not having a designer, therefore it must have a designer." Talk about a reach.

[@transient_]

It certainly has a designer, two actually, the mathematicians who thought of it, Brooks and Matelski.😁

[@ramirezthesilvite]

@transient_ yeah, but that isn't what he said lol

[@xfom4008]

​@@transient_ This goes into philosophical issues of mathematics - but practically speaking they haven't. When you go ahead and study mathematical structures, you don't know what they. There is a real disconnect between the rules of how the Mandelbrot set is defined and what you end up seeing when you plot it.

[@GredelsRage]

And when you Assume, what are you actually doing? Making an ASS of U and ME

[@SirSicCrusader]

shonk

[@mikelapine1]

All arguments for God’s existence belong squarely in trash tier. Change my mind.

[@SirSicCrusader]

OOF

[@jonathanj8303]

Yup. No evidence, no reason to accept the proposition.

[@brenta2634]

Not as bad as evolution denialism.

[@Kualinar]

So, 14 tiers bellow the F tier. That looks about right.

[@ahall9839]

The doofus in the video admitted it himself, no one is religious because of a logical argument for god. It's all personal experience. On top of that, logical arguments do not prove the existence of anything in reality. Why would anyone think you could logically prove god, let alone come up with dozens and dozens of "arguments" that have never convinced anybody? They are for those that already believe. It cements their belief, because they are already half resmarted and don't understand them anyway. But the fact that they exist gives them a fallback to regurgitate in conversation or times of doubt. And since they don't understand them, it doesn't matter if they are debunked.

[@matthewadams1674]

The funny thing is, I could just think the "greatest possible pizza" would in fact be finite and breakable. It's limitedness would simply amplify its greatness as it wouldn't be great if there was an infinite amount of it. And it's breakability makes it edible, thus enjoyable and thus greater than one I couldn't eat. Almost as if greatness is a subjective term that attaches different qualities to different things.

[@deathsyth8888]

A "Redeemed Zoomer"? Can't wait to see what Redeemed (Gen) Alphas have to say in the future. It will be "Yo, not believing in gawd is so skibidi Ohio. No cap. frfr"

[@SirSicCrusader]

godamnit...

[@brucebaker810]

I am so rekt. 💯

[@toastcrunch9387]

i think that would be pretty conclusive proof of the absence of anything god-like in the universe.

[@Szadek23]

very sigma of you

[@Randomasiandude2763]

+100000 Aura

[@lidbass]

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but basically all of his arguments come down to: I think this is a banana, therefore it _is_ a banana. although the fact that it might be a carrot, cucumber, eggplant, or nothing at all has not occurred to him.

[@SirSicCrusader]

shonk

[@robertpv6639]

After the headache clears, you have to admit it takes a certain skill to move so fast from introducing a topic, to jumping to a conclusion, over and over again.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Confirmation bias is proof of low logic stamina. Its not skill so much as moving like a worm on the fucking ground. Like, sure, he can do the worm. I guess. Thats something lol.

[@fanofentropy2280]

I'm against cannibalism if I'm the meal. If I'm the starving cannibal, then I'm okay with it. Objective morality is as real as gods.

[@SirSicCrusader]

yup

[@ieattwiceaday4116]

17:40 oh no, you see, a single atom can't be set on fire. Two atoms can't be set on fire. A bunch of atoms can't be set on fire. So even if you have a log of wood, it's still just a complex arrangement of atoms. So where does the ability to be set on fire come from? Well clearly, there is a fire spirit somewhere outside our universe, which gives objects the ability to be set on fire! What a genius I am!

[@DetectiveWraith]

Well define fire… because fire is technically just superheated particles glowing and emitting heat, meaning that a single atom could be on fire, or I guess could be fire. Their argument is that consciousness is different, which… is a lot more complicated than fire, and something I don’t think is possible to properly explain.

[@Lemony123]

​@@DetectiveWraith cmiiw, but fire is not a superheated particle but is actually a process called combustion (hence sun is not actually a fire).

[@Lemony123]

I believe this also means that consciousness is actually a process as well

[@unicornstabs]

Even the cannibalism argument falls apart with a little context. Is it "bad" to kill and eat your neighbor? Yeah, that's pretty universal (though technically the bigger "wrong" is the killing). But suppose you're on a plane that crashes in the Andes Mountains and you're stuck up there for 72 days and the only thing to eat are the bodies of those who didn't survive the crash? I'd argue cannibalism in a survival situation like that isn't wrong at all.

[@Ash_Wen-li]

I mean "Thou shall not kill" coming after a worldwide flood to eradicate 99.9% of all life is already a moral contradiction. Christians used to not be able to eat pork (before Jesus) so God changed his mind?

[@human498]

Equivocation is so infuriating. It's especially infuriating that he finally figured out he was misusing the word "potency", started using the correct word, "potential", & still left the section in where he kept saying "potency".

[@RandomCityBlues]

Was looking for someone that noticed his dumb use of "potency"

[@solosynapse]

Dumb people trying to sound smart only end up making themselves sound dumber.

[@afrovarangian]

I see where you're coming from and this bugged me at first too but he's referencing an older use of those words. He's referencing Aristotelian gibberish. But he also just doesn't understand Aristotle either haha. In Aristotle's theory of forms those words basically mean the same thing. Aristotle's theory of forms basically revolves around cause and effect. He wanted to theories why something like an apple seed would specifically become an apple tree. He eventually came to a proto-DNA theory in that something within the apple causes it to become a tree. Something within itself tells it how to and what it can become, naturally. The seed then has the potential or potency to actually become or actualize it's apple treeness. But the apple seed doesn't actually become red (according to Aristotle anyway). Because not all apples are red. It's just something tacked on that helps you identify an apple. Because "being red" or "redness" aren't essential to being an apple, apples do not become the colour red. These tacked on things are called the predicate. Also also philosphers aren't always involved in religious matters. Theologians are however always involved in religious matters. I've always seen the idea that Aristotle "tried to prove God" as historical revisionism by Thomists and Neoplatonists.

[@utes5532]

My favorite response to the cosmological argument is to propose the "special particle". The singularity existed without time in a state of stasis until the special particle, which is eternal and outside of time, eventually bounced into it, destabilizing the singularity and kick-starting the big bang. If you get to special plead, I get to too. I have just as much evidence for my special particle as you do for god, so we'll stalemate until one comes up with better evidence

[@dyamonde9555]

and the special particle is much more plausible than god. none of these extra asumptions like personal and aware and bullshit.

[@ornitorincodigenova4260]

Name it Jerry

[@theveganduolingobird7349]

@@ornitorincodigenova4260all hail Jerry the infinitely small mega particle that caused it all

[@lnsflare1]

The objective authority that tells you that cannibalism is bad, and also eat of the flesh of its human Avatar.

[@lourdespachla6516]

Give me your skin.

[@Theflowingcurrent]

@@lourdespachla6516No u

[@deathsyth8888]

Happy (late) birthday Sir Sic! May your rants be long & glorious, your wit as on point & sarcastic as ever and your glass of whiskey never go empty. Cheers!

[@SirSicCrusader]

Thanks :D

[@urielpolak9949]

Birthday?? 3 september?? Thats would be a prove of god

[@HikariMagic20]

One of these days I'll figure out what I'm not supposed to touch, even if it kills me.

[@tomokolovecraft3792]

You're not supposed to touch the

[@AlexanderShamov]

the

[@AlexanderShamov]

damn

[@solosynapse]

And it will!

[@hackman669]

​@@tomokolovecraft3792what you guys do no one needs to know.😅 joking

[@ArakkoaChronicles]

Dude literally said "if your pizza becomes infinitely big it becomes God".

[@warmachineuk]

The subject argues something must exist, then arbitrarily labels with it a pre-existing concept with pre-existing attributes that matches the subject's religious belief. So much for logic.

[@SirSicCrusader]

dern

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

You have to realize, it was never about logic. Its about confirmation bias and 'looking impressive'.

[@Starhawke_Gaming]

Off topic: Are you aware that @Logicked has a Whiskey Tree? You need to sneak in there and transplant it into your own castle grounds 😜

[@SirSicCrusader]

i is

[@xipheonj]

"I assume you agree with the one that thinks cannibalism is bad, if you don't please stay away from me." He LITERALLY just proved where morality comes from, what a lolcow. "I don't want to be eaten by a cannibal" is a subjective reason for thinking cannibalism is wrong.

[@LessThanLucid]

As an Atheist, when I talk about baby pizza 👶 🍕, nobody bats an eyelid. But mention putting pineapple on pizza 🍍🍕, and suddenly everyone goes nuts!

[@SirSicCrusader]

ah

[@Eric_Hunt194]

Do not put your nuts on a pizza...

[@preachercaine]

Why would you put ketchup on ice cream?

[@perryjohnson7529]

You monster! Pineapple, sheesh.

[@frankpulmanns6685]

Pineapple? Try banana...

[@dasbus9834]

4:54 Canniblaism sounds cool actually. And yes typos are the least of this video's problems.

[@SirSicCrusader]

nom nom nom

[@perryjohnson7529]

It's when you smoke a lot of weed, then blather on for hours, right?

[@dasbus9834]

@@perryjohnson7529 That must be it! 👍

[@johngavin1175]

​@@perryjohnson7529Ever heard of the band Cannibis Corpse?

[@solosynapse]

Canni-blazin'

[@iluvtacos1231]

If "smug" was an Olympic category, he'd takez gold, silver, AND bronze.

[@hackman669]

If hot air were a sport he would be the front runner. Along with politicians, cults and con artists.😅

[@jasonellsworth4046]

-cringe talking head picture -swarmy self righteous voice -atheism The 2012s are so back!

[@backonlazer791]

I don't remember who it was, maybe Prophet of Zod, but I remember watching a video that had a part about "demonic possession". Apparently there have been times when the victim had been talking in languages they haven't studied. However, when investigated beyond "oh my gorsh dem speeking in tongues" it turns out they make grammatical mistakes and have a clear accent, weird that demons would have problems like that. I also find it weird that some religious circles find talking in tongues good, while it is bad when demon possessed. I guess they think it's a form of divine possession? 🤔

[@johngavin1175]

Zod is awesome. Loved his vid on J Warner Wallace and his latest where he does a parody of sorts.

[@ॐIo]

Speaking in tongues is not seen in good light in all religions. Mainstream Islam for example simply denotes it in a negative light

[@backonlazer791]

@@ॐIo I'm by no means saying that, which is why I said some. I wasn't even aware that some glorify it until recently.

[@SuperHGB]

redeemed zoomer when he sees a stick that looks like a gun: "Someone must've made a gun out of wood, this is evidence that there were people in the past who made wooden guns, and since we know these people are real, this must be a real gun"

[@nonna_sof5889]

I love he's trying to use a mathematician believing in god to try to argue. Mathematicians have a bad tendency to be batshit insane. Nash was a paranoid schizophrenic, Gödel was so afraid of being poisoned he starved to death when his wife was hospitalized and couldn't cook for him, and Newton would forget to eat if his caretaker didn't remind him.

[@SirSicCrusader]

Is ee

[@johngavin1175]

Would Boltzmann be apart of this group as well?

[@lastyhopper2792]

Newton is just me

[@corporatecapitalism]

Newton is me fr fr

[@timolynch149]

One of these days I will watch an apologist bring a new argument, I guess. Mind you... first asserting that the universe is a machine therefore god and later then claiming the brain is not just a machine because we can't break it down into all of its components was a bit special.

[@SirSicCrusader]

NEVER!

[@CharlesPayet]

@@timolynch149 HA! Not a chance.

[@timolynch149]

​@@CharlesPayetWhen you look close enough they are all still fielding Aquinus. First cause, fine tuning, human behaviour / morals, consciousness, complexity, watchmaker - it all really boils down to 'stuff exists, therefore god' with more or less words OR 'I'm so special, therefore I get to exis forever therefore God' OR 'I hate [insert group of people] so I jizz my pants at the thought of them getting tortured for eternity therefore hell therefore god'

[@timolynch149]

​@@SirSicCrusaderBUT I finally found something that makes me more betterer than you: for me to be handsome SEVERAL big glasses of whiskey are necessary which is better than just one, so I win, right?

[@jonathanj8303]

I wouldn't put money on it.

[@CartoonHero1986]

That guy that always speaks in a sarcastic tone was a skit on Kids in the Hall a Canadian Sketch Comedy series from the late 80's early 90's David Folley plays the character. "No this is just how I speak, I can't help it. Wait where are you going? Come back! I'm so lonely..."

[@stevejones9905]

Thousands have seen Elvis after he was dead. So Elvis is God?

[@SirSicCrusader]

ah

[@johngavin1175]

🎵A Hucka hucka burnin damnation🎵

[@StrikingAlexa]

Hes better at maths than Eric "16+16=34" Hovind to be fair to him

[@tomschmidt381]

Sir Sic really hit it out the park on this one. This is one of the few time I've heard someone state a triple-omni entity would not be motivated to do anything since there is nothing they can do that will increase any aspect of their being. In addition creation is a temporal event, the thing did not exist and then it did. Hard to image how that happens without time.

[@NoelMcGinnis]

Yep. Circular logic = god. And I knew the stupid cannibalism analogy was going to be a jab at our morality only existing “because god though”. Still waiting for something original from these quacks.

[@SirSicCrusader]

damn

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

You could get more original arguments from atheists for faith, then them. But then you would have to load it with a million caveats, So its poison for their faith anyways, but then it'll get misrepresented and lead people to you anyways.

[@JamesJas85]

His cosmological example was “your crush rejected you” think there’s a lot of projection and misunderstanding going on here

[@SmallGreenPlanetoid]

If a pizza is so big and vast that no one person can ever see the end of it, it cannot be assumed that it is a finite pizza.

[@brucebaker810]

The number 5 corresponds to 5 apples. But complex, irrational numbers... The number pi corresponds to pie apples. The irrational number delicious corresponds yo delicious apples. ...delicious apple pie. Nom nom.

[@SirSicCrusader]

:0

[@madtabby66]

Delicious are not the apples you want to use for pies. They’re not firm enough. Granny Smith are better.

[@brucebaker810]

@@madtabby66 I agree. Sometimes recipes and risibilities don't mix well in a bowl.

[@Alakaizer]

I bet the thing we're not supposed to touch is whiskey.

[@prussiansoup]

God wont let me drink and drive so ill stay atheist

[@Eric_Hunt194]

A "baptist" is what they call a "cobtist" two towns over, and a "barmcaketist" two towns beyond that.

[@SirSicCrusader]

damn

[@diskgrinder]

Bdumtist

[@cthomaspeasant3059]

I have no arguments as to why I steal Sir Sics whiskey but do I need one?

[@SirSicCrusader]

no arguments only a death wish :P

[@robertoso8796]

they all essentially lead directly to an assertion that their imaginary friend is really real.

[@clemstevenson]

If fallacious reasoning had been an Olympic sport, Redeemed Zoomer would be a gold medallist. This is a veritable Gish Gallop of fallacious assertions.

[@hackman669]

If morons who never passed high school without cheating had a spokesperson, this guy would be it.😅

[@MisterIncog]

Fun fact about Euler’s identity: it’s just a special case of an equation with infinite solutions with a period of 2pi. Meaning that e^i*(3pi) + 1 is also = 0, and so is with 5 pi, or -pi, or -12309237 pi, etc. just replace a coefficient before pi in that equation to any other odd number and you’ll get a correct equation

[@martinconnelly1473]

There are some good KZbin videos about the derivation of it. It is the 3 axis one that was of most interest to me.

[@theblinkingbrownie4654]

​@@martinconnelly1473oh can you write the name of the video?

[@martinconnelly1473]

@@theblinkingbrownie4654 I recently watched one called "The most beautiful equation in math, explained visually "

[@jeffl.9633]

"You can't have the greatest possible pizza." I suspect that the kid claims that doesn't count because we can actually *make* 'the greatest possible pizza'. (The exact details of that pizza will vary by person, but so do the details of a god.)

[@bodan1196]

It is an interesting observation; that christians are so very capable of making claims about God, which when taken as a whole, adds up to God be completely irrelevant. He can't change. He can't move. From which there is no other conclusion that God can not interact with anything, and therefor can not matter. And as we all know, when something doesn't really matter, it is very easy to argue about. As you are "safe" even if you are wrong.

[@SirSicCrusader]

damn

[@johngavin1175]

They are like their close cousins,the self debunking flat earthers

[@Dr_Wrong]

6:01 “It needs to be all powerful…” Ever hear of a crowbar??

[@SirSicCrusader]

heh

[@seraphonica]

one of the conclusions he reaches is "nothing can do anything to God" oh good, so I can't offend God? cool, see y'all in Heaven!

[@CasuallyCompetitive2]

This is an underrated comment.

[@Theflowingcurrent]

Like if god want us to go to heaven then let us 🫤

[@desmondcampbell3126]

It’s really sad to see the lack of understanding of God or the Christian faith. You don’t go to hell because you offend God. We go to hell because of sin. Sin separated us from him. Tho I know none of you will likely give it’s an honest chance.

[@CasuallyCompetitive2]

@@desmondcampbell3126 I actually am agnostic, but I enjoy his delivery, not his message. Also, some of the criticisms he mentioned I also agree with.

[@theveganduolingobird7349]

@@desmondcampbell3126god does directly murder people he doesn’t like for the smallest slight though. Killed a bunch of kids for calling someone bald for example, or Isaac

[@Llortnerof]

"The 5 most important numbers" as identified by somebody whose last contact with math was in elementary.

[@starblight22]

Pizza being unable to be broken would make it the worst pizza possible. Pizza is intended to be eaten, if it cannot be broken it cannot be eaten.

[@starblight22]

A gear isn't the same as a car just as a neuron isn't a brain????

[@IanM-id8or]

The eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection are every bit as real as the crowd who watched the Quidditch game in Harry Potter :-)