The Religious Ads on My Atheist Videos Are Ridiculous

These Christian ads are all over my channel whether I like it or not, so I might as well make a response video to them. Thousands of you guys have written me comments and messages about the religious advertisements playing on my atheist videos. I assumed most of those ads were there to try to discredit atheism in order to convert atheists and skeptics, but it seems the ads running at the moment are there to keep questioning Christians in the faith. In that way, they're staying true to the mission of Christian apologetics.
"What Would You Say?" creates intentionally short videos, so their format has limitations, but their content needs work if they want it to answer big questions for Christians, provide solid arguments for God's existence, or defend the faith from skeptics. Here, I discuss their video, "Do You Have to Choose Between Science and Religion?" and touch on questions like: "Do science and religion conflict?" and "Is faith reliable?" as well as concepts like God of the gaps, science literacy, equivocation fallacies, atheistic religion, evolutionary theory, and moral psychology.
Original video: • Do You Have to Choose ...
Pledge here to see my Patreon exclusive live stream: / geneticallymodifiedske...
------------------------------------------FOLLOW------------------------------------------
Twitter: / gm_skeptic
Facebook: / gmskeptic
Discord: / discord
------------------------------------------SUPPORT------------------------------------------
Patreon: / geneticallymodifiedske...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/GMSkeptic
------------------------------------------Resources for atheists in need------------------------------------------
Find a Secular Therapist: www.seculartherapy.org
Recovering from Religion helps connect those who are leaving or have left their religion with support, resources and community: www.recoveringfromreligion.or...
Resources for Ex-Mu’s: exmuslims.org/join-us/
This video contains 100% therapeutic grade skepticism.*
*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

*Clicks on atheist video about religious ads, gets religious ads on the video* If you want to see me debunk more ads like this, check out my Patreon exclusive live stream on June 29th at 5pm Central patreon.com/GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic

[@Remake5182]

You know you are not the only one. Apostate Prophet gets religious adds too, but they are Islam based. Funny, they seem to target the leavers of the faith.

[@alejandrovallejo4330]

Genetically Modified Skeptic funny thing is. I just got a religious add before this video started 😂😂😂

[@TheGamerbeasts101]

I'm so glad I pay for youtube premium, I have for the past 8 years, and even completely forgot ads on youtube were a thing. And you still get paid when I watch, even if your video is demonetized. : - D

[@jiralishu]

2:40 Wait, I actually got an ad for What Would You Say? on this video... This is hilarious.

[@brett3612]

A HA, JOKES ON THEM, I HAVE ADBLOCK!!

[@trashaimgamer7822]

He litterally gets paid by the people he's debunking. Now that's what I call a next level move.

[@Crusader-tg1wx]

*6D Chess Moment*

[@giuseppe_cascio]

"Checkmate Christians!"

[@deadly_dave]

Agree. Also an atheist channel is the best place for religous adds to go to die.

[@BluDynamo]

Good point.

[@charthezombiehound8952]

I just gave you the 666th like... I hope it stays that way for a long time to mess with all the christians.

[@etherealsalad2698]

"Science was founded by Christians" *Ancient India has left the chat* *Ancient China has left the chat* *The Middle East in the Middle Ages has left the chat*

[@LLCCB]

Ancient Greece and Egypt are also out of here

[@TheLegendaryPug]

@Sandcastle • so you're going to disregard what those nation's have done to advance science?

[@carsonfujita-turnbull4549]

@Sandcastle • * Cough * MATHEMATICS IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL SCIENCES * cough *

[@Nai61a]

@Sandcastle • It appears that Sandcastle ("this channel has no content") has left the chat. Not before time, in my opinion.

[@etherealsalad2698]

@Sandcastle • science started when i made a paper mache volcano in 3rd grade

[@marklondon9004]

Church: "Earth is flat" Science: "No, its not" Church: "OK, but it's immovable" Science: "No its not" (dies by holy execution) Church: "OK, but you can't explain disease" Science: "Yeah, we can for a lot of them now" Church: "See, science doesn't know everything!"

[@calebfasnacht8698]

The Church believing the earth is flat is a myth. We thought that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Everything revolved around it.

[@sanukatharul1497]

@@calebfasnacht8698 huh, wat

[@thehoneygrabberz]

The church never thought the earth was flat, but they did believe that it was at the center of the solar system

[@fidelluz2942]

@@calebfasnacht8698 still wrong and the church killed Giordano bruno for saying they were wrong

[@merekcook573]

@@fidelluz2942 I mean technically none of you are wrong, you are all stating facts.

[@flixelgato1288]

Religious ads are hilarious to me. Living in Europe, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a religious ad. America is wacky.

[@merekcook573]

Its a little ironic if toy think about it, they are using things "worldy things of the devil" like money to bring their teachings against money to more people. It's a very small far fetched contradiction, but it's still funny.

[@Rachel98246]

I live in the UK, and I’ve seen quite a few religious ads. Just last night, I got an ad from a channel centred around Judaism. I think it can depend on where you are and what you watch, since most of the religious ads I’ve had have been on DarkMatter2525 videos. :)

[@thescooshinator]

@@Rachel98246 Same for me. I live in the UK and the majority of Religious ads I've seen are on Atheist videos, like DarkMatter2525. It's crazy how the ads we get are so similar. It's almost like they don't want you to be Atheist or something.

[@fgregerfeaxcwfeffece]

I grew up in the community of the bible hokage (also known as the pope, I call him bible hokage since I learned he can cast buffs with a one handed ninja hand sign). But in Europe. So even when I still believed everything ion the bible is historical fact. I still thought nobody is actually this insane. As you know, televangelists, like Kat. (western border to Belgium/Luxembourg of Germany)

[@cheryldeboissiere7824]

Lucky you, never seeing religious ads. There are many I have seen that are stupid and insulting. Religion, I am encountering of late is tyrannical and sick in its conformity. Hateful and nasty, I made a serious mistake leaving agnosticism & atheism behind. Religious people who use to vary from sweet to ‘well at least it has ethics’ are revealing themselves constantly to be deranged and sadistic. Judging others, judging and forbidding thoughts and ideas, spreading slanders and lies all seem to be religious hobbies. Every few days some child is persecuted and pushed into suicide. Last one, earlier this month, was a sweet looking blond little nine year old who liked pink and painted his fingernails. Really sad, very dead. No one actually does a count on these poor children...

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

Ok anyone who mentions adblock is going to hell

[@hithere7080]

Adblock

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

*Straight to the fiery depths with you*

[@sashakononova8968]

*trembles in fear* a d B l o c c?

[@darkoleskovsek2558]

lol

[@luxource]

Can I mention KZbin Premium instead? No annoying ads, but creators are still supported.

[@miguelcarmona3036]

Can we talk about how "offensive" it would be to get atheist ads on a religious video?

[@Apollorion]

What are 'adds'? I know/understand 'ads' is the plural of a short for _advertisement_ and henceforth a short for _advertisements_ by itself, but what are 'adds'? Is that a short for additions!?

[@DrownedInExile]

The shit-fit theists would throw would be awesome!

[@aliceaandrea]

Apollorion oh hell you know what Miguel here saying. What do you gain from leaving comments like this? Smart ass.

[@jacketrussell]

@@Apollorion Grammar Nazi.

[@12201185234]

What atheist ads?

[@tarniabook3076]

"Science can't explain the purpose of life!". Philosophy also tries, and I feel it's much less oppressive while at it.

[@ahumanwithinternet2761]

@IN REGENERATIONE that's a nice way of thinking. being alive is enough.

[@aeircrown7994]

@IN REGENERATIONE eeyyyy an absurdist thinker I see lol.

[@wickedguppy3715]

Scientific inquiry never asks our purpose for being here. This thought presupposes that there is some unknown entity that issues purpose to humans like traffic tickets. Life's purpose for any individual is what they make of it and nothing more. A sense of purpose is an emergent property of an individuals brain.

[@EndymionThemightyMasterofMagic]

I dont think theres really any purpose for life, but my personal purpose is to live a good life I can one day look back on with good memories

[@loturzelrestaurant]

Logic and Religion bite each other so much; HENCE why Atheist-Channels have endless supply of valid questions.

[@gryffindorgeorgi]

I actually spit out my soda when the ad stated that Galileo was a “Christian” - no dude, he was persecuted by the church!

[@wickedguppy3715]

But he was a Christian never the less. If you wanted friends, a job, your life, you needed to be Christian.

[@jdmitchell6559]

He was persecuted by the church because he deliberately insulted his former friend and ally, the pope, and in print too ! Called him a simpleton. It wasn't a conflict between science and religion, it was Galileo being an a*sehole and the church responding in kind.

[@asagoldsmith3328]

@@jdmitchell6559 oh yeah of course. Obviously Galileo was prosecuted by the church just because he dissed the pope, not because he was teaching heretical science that contradicted the Bible. Yeah, produce the actual letter you are referring to, and show that it was sent before there was any pushback or accusations from the church. And even if that somehow was the REAL reason they tried him, and his heretical teachings were only used as an excuse, how do you think the church would have reacted to any other person going around teaching heliocentrism?

[@jdmitchell6559]

@@asagoldsmith3328 Feel free to show me where I referred to a 'letter', because I didn't. The whole, complicated story is described in the Wiki article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair and the bit about insulting the pope is about half way through under 'Modern Views'. Yes, I agree there were plenty of factions in the church that did persecute people who held the heliocentric view, but pope Urban VIII gave Galileo permission to publish his book "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" and Galileo used the opportunity to insult the pope in it - allegedly. That's what got him banged up. Yes, the church was an ass, but so was Galileo.

[@francesconicoletti2547]

@@jdmitchell6559 ah yes. Galileo mocks the pope’s intellectual beliefs in a book, the church arrests Galileo threatens him with torture, makes him sign a document recanting his beliefs, ban his work, and puts him under house arrest for the rest of his life. On a scale where the usual response would be burning at the stake I suppose if you step far enough away the church’s response is “in kind “, but perhaps a more reasonable response to an academic dispute, even by a pope would be to publish a rebuttal.

[@robertfelton8374]

'Science can't explain everything: religion explains nothing."

[@victzegopterix2]

And philosophy explains what remains.

[@tanishqpandey9564]

@@victzegopterix2 philosophy just give more theories without proof.

[@victzegopterix2]

@@tanishqpandey9564, I doubt that you know what is philosophy. Could you try to define what it is just to be sure.

[@tanishqpandey9564]

@@victzegopterix2 yeah I had a vague definition of philosophy in my mind so I went to check out what is philosophy could u tell me in brief

[@victzegopterix2]

@@tanishqpandey9564, philosophy is a field of study that tries to establish knowledge with logical reasoning and rational approches. You may think definition is, in some way, incorrect because it includes science, but, actually, no. Science is a branch of philosophy, and if you doubt on that, just look at Newton's most known book's title: _Mathematical Principles of _*_Natural Philosophy_* , that's right, not _science_ , _natural philosophy_ , that's the name that science had before being a full-fledged field of study, when it still was philosophy. Obviously, finding a definition of philosophy is harder than that but this one is a really good one.

[@patricku2825]

Everyone: gets religious ads Me: gets ads from a turkish guy teaching you how to build bombs Is KZbin trying to send a message

[@VenusFeuerFalle]

Well I am getting esoteric Videos About how to meet my angel^^

[@JuanEsquivel-ex8nv]

Before i moved to the states, I always got videos of indian trap music and arabian news channels for no reason (i was in south america)

[@analogicaleuphimism2078]

_Who ever said that was not religious?_

[@TripleA_Battery]

I got a fitness ad

[@daviti4611]

That is kind of part of religion *wink *wink

[@krisjanistimermanis981]

Science doesn't know exactly how life came to be, but I think Shrek made us from his earwax. I have a theory, but science doesn't, therefore I'm correct.

[@rydrakeesperanza5370]

How many hypotheses does your (jokingly I assume) theory contain?

[@noname-gd9gk]

Hail the *SHREK*!!!🙏🛐🤲

[@kevinquiroz5384]

I'm doubting about Shrek creting life with his earwax, the only I'm sure is that he did use it to create fire.

[@Chris-hx3om]

So who created Shrek? This is the problem with creation, who created the creator... Since that question can only result in an endless paradox, it makes no sense, and all we are left with is that there is no god, because 'who made god?' Our current understanding of our universe it that the energy of the system (our microsecond old universe) was immensely higher than it currently is, and most of that energy was converted to matter (in accordance with E=MC2). This is the answer to the oft asked, "how can you get something from nothing?"... The answer is that there was never 'nothing', energy is 'something'. Creationists, bite me!

[@dylanbrooke8911]

@@Chris-hx3om Shrek is allp owerful, earth is flat

[@nixim8086]

its almost ironic some of the scientists he left out would include Mendel and Darwin

[@joiscode3832]

Lol yah

[@vhawk1951kl]

You are about to demonstrate that you have not the faintest idea what science or a scientist might be, but you don't know that yet. Darwin based his idea on a fundamental misapprehension which he was later good enough to concede when it was pointed out to him that his supposed mechanism of heritability could not possibly work, and he never suggested anything remotely like what contemporary fanatical unrollers(evolve means unroll) suppose- also mistakenly; there is no mechanise for inheriting supposedly advantageous traits(which are pronounced trays by all with wits learning and breeding that know that the T is silent as in restaurant). The hilarious thing is that those that -rightly,reject the mister god fantasy have replaced it with the equally fanciful and anthropomorphic mister Unrolling who is also supposed by the loons to have likes and dislikes wants and not wants. There is something about men(human beings/dreaming machines)that they are forever inventing various 'misters', mister god or mister evolution which they suppose to be men like themselves - You might say that anthropomorphism or the tendency thereto is endemic in the strange creatures that also have a predisposition to accept without question(or believe) which they do passively mechanically faute de mieux. Darwin set a hare running which the loons have chased into all sorts of absurdities which never crosed his mind; the word evolution was not a word that he used initially and to which he had occasional resort only later when he too clearly went quite mad. He would not have recognised what contemporary fanatical flowers of the religion scientism call evolution -I doubt anything so absurd crosed his mind. The contemporary fanatical loons now worship two of their fantastic(the stuff of fantasy) misters: Mister science and mister evolution(unrolling) but the men men creatures are much given to that sort of anthropomophic mumbojumbo; if it's not mister god it's Some other mister of their own invention.When they are not dreaming up their various religions they dream up equally fantastic(what they-call" sciences" and before you can say knife their greatest weakness and stupefying factor- their predisposition to passive mechanical acceptance-without-question, is in full swing, it is supposed because for whatever reason yet to be determined they are and have no choice but be, the abject slaves of their functions with which they identify or suppose themselves to be, but of course the poor creatures are not only blithely unaware of that- or even that they have functions, clearly because they live in a dream-like state of semi-consciousness or sleep, but if that is pointed out to the creatures one or another of their functions reacts mechanically(means choicelesly) automatically and they be become as is- said " livid and immediate start calling whoever is foolish enough to point out to them the what-is-and- cannot- be- different of their situation names, as the writer supposes he is about to discover, but he is used to the creatures and their mechanisms(which he shares) and has developed a relatively thick skin. Now there are contemporary Lilliputian big-enders and little -enders calling themselves creationists-whatever the fcuk that is supposed to mean and non -creationists or some similar tosh but big-enders and little-enders will serve as well. Both sets of lilliputians are equaly the slsves of their rmotional)like/dislike) function and equally hypnotisse by their assciciative dreaming function and simply have no-choice-but, to identify(say*I* to) the reactions of those functions in which they hsve no say whatsoever and can no more *not_identify* with their functions than can the writer.

[@vhawk1951kl]

what makes you imagine that Darwin was any kind of whatever-you-mean-by-but-have-no-idea" "scientist"?

[@ashurean]

"Modern science was started by Christians" *Looks at South America's development of astronomy and trigonometry* *Looks at early Greece* *Looks at Rome* *Looks at China* *Looks at the Islamic Golden Age* *Glances at Christianity, still cleaning up from it's 500-year long hissy fit during the Dark Ages*

[@risyanthbalaji805]

Indians : Am I a joke to you. Yes indians invented pytagoras theorem before pytagoras

[@78anurag]

@@risyanthbalaji805 Indians just KNEW it. Pythagoras actually proved it. Coming from an Indian myself

[@advaygiradkar9708]

The church actually held back scientific progress for about 100 years in the renaissance age

[@rinzhler6922]

@@advaygiradkar9708 So did every other aggressive religion with numerous followers

[@advaygiradkar9708]

@@rinzhler6922 yes

[@kaltogi6645]

“science demonstrates you can’t pray the gay away” What a beautiful quote.

[@rowanfernsler9725]

Eris Socratou I don’t know, an angle grinder does some magic in converting gays

[@mattioverla7918]

There is a song about this. It's a good one

[@0816M3RC]

@@rowanfernsler9725 People will say whatever they can to avoid being killed. Many people in the past got converted to Christianity at the point of a sword.

[@sophieirisviel4100]

0816 M3RC i dont believe he meant it like that, i took it as a joke on turning a person “straight” using an angle grinder, same way you would with a piece of wood

[@mirandalyneetestewart3083]

Dave Does that make it, dark humour?

[@piratefangirl6802]

Thank you for saying that you can be religious and not believe in god. I’m Jewish because I wanted to connect with my family and it made me feel good to be in my synagogue. I don’t believe in god, I believe in my community and the love they’ve given me. I believe in my Rabbi and mother, who helped me to have a batmitzvah because I loved the Hebrew language and connection to my roots it brought me. I’m a Jew who doesn’t believe in god, and that’s all there is to it. 😊

[@KiraNightshade]

I really appreciate hearing your perspective as someone who grew up Catholic and went through a long process of doubt and questioning to landing in agnostic pseudotheism I guess. I am in flux where I sometimes think there may be a God, there may be something we cannot explain, but also realizing my God is a God of the gaps. Then thinking the universe is God, then thinking it's okay to not have a God at all. Wondering if this means I'll never see my dead loved ones ever again. I always wanted to meet God so I could get answers to my questions and meet people from history. And now it seems to be that this probably is all I've got.

[@sholahverassa8582]

@@KiraNightshade All I can suggest is to focus on those loved ones who are alive still and fond memories of those gone. And maybe on trying to leave more fond memories for others. There are questions that probably won't get answered anytime soon, but we can still do our best. Gods are irrelevant in this respect, they also can't answer anything that you can't answer yourself.

[@diomandcyborg4182]

The first of the ten commandments is belief in hashem. You can't be a Jew without doing that one thing. And you can be in a community without being religious. This is coming from a Jew.

[@sholahverassa8582]

@@diomandcyborg4182 Without looking religious, you mean? xD

[@moragslothe6449]

That has little to do with religion and everything to do with the people around you. Don't conflate the two.

[@gladysbatten822]

12:43 Actually speaking as a theist and a psychologist, I would argue that science is getting quite good at explaining why we desire to do things we know we shouldn't do.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Really, what would be a *good-or clear *example* of"Science getting quite good at explaining why we desire to do things we know we shouldn't do," or science explaining why we desire to do things we know we shouldn't do."? What exactly do you mean by " should" or shouldn't" and know? Who the fcuk is "we"?-You, and which specific identifiable interlocutor? Is there a " we", and how could " we" know"? the same we way " we" have an headache? Do let me know the next time we " know" anything or *"we"*have an headache. You are a kinderlander(mercan/american) are you not?That explains much, for the kinderlander cannot bear to contemplate that there is no " we". Interesting that you suppose hat whatever-you- mean -by, but -have- no idea "science"concerns itself with the normative( all that should/ought mumbo jumbo) What exactly do you suppose*"science"* to be? Do you know what the word" science" means? You are about to demonstrate that you have no idea on either core, or so my left pocket bets my right pocket, but- as the blind man said" we shall see"

[@Torpito0]

I was waiting for the Mom to tell her daughter "God is making the water boil"

[@mrsuzan533]

He's boiling the hell out of it yes, uncreative and I'm leaving

[@KunaiGore]

@@mrsuzan533 That's how to create holy water xD

[@_MrNoob]

same

[@merekcook573]

@@KunaiGore WAIT SO LIKE... I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS

[@merekcook573]

@@KunaiGore Does that mean clouds are the essence of hell? Being boiled water essentially. But doesn't that also make the heavens where hell is?!?! Does that also mean, God throw down hell apon everyone when he made the world flood???? Does that mean he have power over hell and evil??? If God has power over evil doesn't that make him evil, "for good trees can't bear evil fruit". DOES THIS MAKE GOD EVIL?!?!?

[@treves489]

"Science asks 'How' and Religion asks 'Why'. Thats why they are complementary" Well my dear religion friend, there is a thing call *Philosophy* that does the same question "Why", but not sloppy like your religion view.

[@mutagen8837]

The difference between religion and philosophy is that in philosophy you get further than "God did it"

[@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643]

Tell that to Dr. William Lane Craig a Christian apologist who holds a PHd in Philosophy.

[@cntom8233]

@@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643 .... and? Good for him. Regardless, Christian reasoning is sloppy.

[@martinlag1]

@@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643 You might be interested to notice WLC seriously struggling with the realization that Jesus was WRONG by believing in a literal flood and literal Adam and was THEREFORE not divine (all-true). If Craig did not have such a massive congregation, he would logically have to become a muslim or more likely a deist.

[@blarglemantheskeptic]

@@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643 the irony of WLC's "great work", the Kalam, is that when examined closely, *disproves* the god that he claims it proves. In order to avoid the obvious _Special Pleading Fallacy,_ he adds characteristics to the nature of God: 1. Beginningless: itself a special pleading fallacy 2. Changeless: how can something that is without change, change? A: because God. (Special pleading fallacy again) Change is necessary to potentiate "The Decision" to create the universe. WLC's "free will" add-on is simply a post hoc failure to fix this problem. 3. Immaterial: see 5. 4. Timeless: for something to be timeless, either time doesn't pass (i.e. identical to 2) or all of time is simultaneous and concurrent (really, this should thus be called "timeful"). In this case, either: A) God must be actually countably infinite, which WLC argues against being possible, since it doesn't leave God outside of time, but experiencing all of it. However it does allow for the "decision" to exist to create the universe, but breaks Kalam because of the countable infinity problem. Or, B) all thoughts/decisions exist simultaneously, preventing the "insufficient" (no decision made) from being separated from the "sufficient" (decision) in any way, preventing "The Decision" from being possible. 5. Spaceless: sounds post hoc and only existing to plug a gap, rather than being inherently true. If expect this to be justified separately, otherwise it simply _begs the question._ 6. Enormously powerful: some hints of 3 and 5 (i.e. not independently proven, but likely to be easier to accept, at least philosophically). That is, because WLC's argument requires these characteristics to get from "cause" to "god" but since at least 4 out of 5 fail, there *can be no God found in the Kalam.*

[@paulanocu3711]

"it cant explain how life began" ciano-bacteria billions of years ago: HEY! You forgot about me!

[@merekcook573]

@Don don although I think the main theory is that a chemical chain that reproduces by some means was created. Then the chemical chain mutated and became bacteria. However that would explain it, doesn't mean it's true. Just warning you... Edit: fixed some of my spelling

[@mrpedrobraga]

@@merekcook573 We'll only know when it repeats.

[@merekcook573]

@@mrpedrobraga LOL, you just described experimentation. You're right, it's just a theory untill it can be replicated...

[@witchBoi_Connor]

It can't explain it in a way they respect

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why do you suppose that whatever-you- mean -by, but -have- no idea " life" *began* ? Can you detect the tacit premise in "how life began"? No, I rather thought not. What is the " It" in "it can't explain how life began" How do you know that whatever *It* may be what it can and cannot explain? Why doe you suppose that whatever-you- mean -by, but -have- no idea "life" " *began*- Do you have *any* idea what you are assuming by that asinine assertion "It can't explain how life began"? How the fcuk could you that are what? *Know what it can and cannot explain? You are what?-some insignificant little clerk/shopgirl? Either way you are clearly entirely innocent of any sort of intellectual ability or accomplishment.

[@michaelevans7491]

I think its hilarious that chritians help pay your bills.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Unlikely given there *Are_no* christians*Could-not-be* any christians.

[@vhawk1951kl]

No, mummy and daddy pay the puppy-mouse's bills

[@guyg.5013]

"Science was founded by Christians" *Aristotle has left the chat*

[@lxstyexr349]

Ancient Egypt and Persia ..

[@lxstyexr349]

Ancient Egypt and Persia ..

[@albertmozart6086]

China. India.

[@rebelscumcustomsweathering5584]

To be fair he said modern science

[@xenon8927]

aristotle was actually completely wrong about almost everything he said scientifically tho?

[@technomage6736]

The irony is that advertising on atheist videos is a waste of their money. In the end, they're actually paying the atheists 😆

[@jebushypocristos2037]

I play their ads on mute so GMA can get paid.

[@jamiefalconer8037]

@@jebushypocristos2037 thats actually pretty clever, i dont know why i didnt think of that

[@seanhall8914]

As a chirstain I don't care about atheists most of us don't hate you so calm down

[@spiritbx1337]

Not if the people watching them a religious people questioning their beliefs.

[@seanhall8914]

Well bucko you've just explained lots of peaple and what's his opinion on religion if he doesn't care

[@0o0Anyuna0o0]

My grandfather was a (liberal) Methodist pastor: when he heard that some claimed climate change denied God, he double-facepalmed. He believed that conclusions should fit evidence & was always happy to say "I don't know", and he listened & respected the beliefs of others. Great man, miss him dearly.

[@hellothere-ij2ij]

That's what i call the wisdom of age Unlike some...

[@vhawk1951kl]

Your granpa did not by any chance observe that the climate not only*is* always changing but that it appears that it *has* always changed and been changing if only because the factors influencing it are them selves always changing and that of all the asinine religions that men are forever inventing none are as asinine as the religion of climate-change/global warming_ism?

[@Soulsphere001]

I love how you said that maybe KZbin is trying to send people a message about their search habits. LOL, that was so perfectly worded. EDIT: I've never understood the religious standpoint against human influenced climate change. As far as I understand, there is no conflict in the Christian bible regarding human influenced climate change.

[@shadowbonbon3]

It might be because a thing made in gods image just can’t be destroying the whole gallery

[@ACharmedEarthling]

I can explain it for you in three words: the Koch brothers.

[@vhawk1951kl]

How do you define religion/religious? Can you improve on religion is: Any worldview based on any set of related *unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms( which latter embraces all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbojumbo)*necessarily* involving any attachment to the idea ofgod, there being numerous religions that make no reference to god whstsoever, some examples being , socialism , modernism and their various sub-religions such as wimininism, homosexualism/sewerism, and of course climate-change/globalwarming_ism) Long version or the shorter simpler: Any worldview based on any set of related *unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms? If you can improve on that I would be infested in how since a good definition must be able to embrace all instances of what it seeks to define, which is why Dicey's definition of law as: " the command of a sovereign backed by a sanction" is in some respects inadequate, but not all are lawyers that have studied jurisprudence(the philosophy of law)

[@ACharmedEarthling]

​@@vhawk1951klnice bait dude but try harder.

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@ACharmedEarthling You have told all in one word child,now let us try a little game and see it you can re-arrange the following wordsinto a well-known phrase or saying:off fcuk. if it uses the asinine word'dude' you can be certain it is a kinderlander imbecile child;that one word says it all.

[@catisioo]

>10:36 >"Molecules of the water" >shows propane molecules

[@realdonaldjtrump5024]

I never would’ve caught that imagine if they used LSD or something 🤣

[@pilaracevedo2078]

I knew there was something wrong there, H2O is shorter

[@meredithnavin1358]

I WAS LOOKING FOR THIS COMMENT. Chem major here and I'm like: "do you _want_ to die?"

[@brucebaker810]

"Science is silly. Religion is wise. I am thirsty. Here is a clear liquid. Water is a clear liquid. So this is water. Glug glug."

[@krumblemumble8628]

Creators of the video: We want to use an interesting graphic to represent water. *finds a random molecule* Ooohhh! ✨Prettyyyyy✨ *copy and paste* 😋

[@ScottJB]

"All the scientists before 1700 were religious" Yes, and there was nobody else to do the job at that point. Nobody was allowed NOT to identify with the state church (or maybe another "accepted" Christian religion).

[@monus782]

Newton kept most of his religious views private, in part because they'd been seen as heretical and maybe he'd have lost his job.

[@elainelouve]

There were also some atheist scientists, but they got burned on stake.

[@aristotelian3098]

@@elainelouve no, they didn't. Give examples.

[@aristotelian3098]

There's quite a space between being part of a state church and being religious. The private writings of scientists often show that they were religious as well as members of the state church. They were, of course, unevenly religious, as all people have been and are still, but they were quite often devout: Maxwell, Lavoisier, Boyle, Copernicus, Mendel, Newton, Riemann, Dalton, Barkla, Lemaitre, Fisher, Euler, Faraday...

[@aristotelian3098]

@@monus782 Not so private. He published a commentary on the Books of Daniel and of the Revelation (he seemed fascinated by spectacle). He was not always exactly orthodox, but he was interesting.

[@gabiausten8774]

LOVE how they call science a ,,Belief“. I could believe I can fly when I step out of a 10. floor window, but I scientifically KNOW that gravity will make me fall.

[@vhawk1951kl]

You have no idea that that is a tautology have you? It is also semantic gibberish. Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Garn, give it a try and*really* prove your point; it's not as if you will be missed, is it?

[@vhawk1951kl]

It is gratifying to learn that you do not " believe_in" atoms electrons and ll that sort of mumbo jumbo , presumably because you have no direct immediate personal experience of atoms electrons, etc. No doubt you adopt the same apptoxch to the cannon of the religion scientism, so no " big bang " , no unrolling(evolution) eh titch?If only you hade the wits learning and Latin to know what the word " science" means, but you are about to demonstrate that you have (absolutely_no* idea what science *is* nor what the word " science" means. In semantic terms science is an empty box for you is it not titch?-You have the word but absolutely_no* idea what it means-it being an empty word for you as you are about to demonstrate.

[@reubenmanzo2054]

I remember my aunt telling me I had to choose between science and religion. In that moment, I chose science, because I understand science, I know how it works.

[@chimp5411]

How did she react to that

[@reubenmanzo2054]

@@chimp5411 At first, both her and her husband were bombarding me with Christian related stuff. A few years ago, they moved and now all I hear from them is an occasional letter at Easter, Christmas, birthdays.

[@viktorbazina]

Your aunt:"You cannot appease us and yet continue to pursue this blasphemous path. You must choose between science and religion. (They'll chose religion for sure)." You:'Science!" Your aunt:"Okay plan b send the holy bombardment."

[@reubenmanzo2054]

@@viktorbazina Something like that.

[@CteCrassus]

Here's the kicker: *Even if* science was incapable of answering those questions that doesn't mean religion is more suited to do so instead.

[@cockroachv]

If there is no god who created our brains, why pursue the truth at all? It is just one brain fizzing with neurochemicals against someone else's neurochemicals. So steal, kill, and enjoy until we die. Everything is permissible.

[@stylis666]

@@cockroachv If there is no god who created the water, why would it make waves at all, it's just a bunch of atoms in an ocean of atoms. See how dumb your question is? I thought not. Everyone else does. Go sit in the corner and play with your ball. Religion gives no explanations. Explanations are verifiable; not unsubstantiated claims. Religions only make unsubstantiated claims that require and encourage the reliance on heuristics and logical fallacies to maintain and is therefore unsustainable and damaging to the whole of society and this will never change. Religion belongs in a museum. _"Everything is permissible."_ Again, I expect you to be too stupid to understand, but others are not as dumb as you are and perhaps you will surprise me and show to be more intelligent than you seem. Right now you seem less intelligent than the average monkey. Under religion everything is permissible because it relies on interpretation and heuristics and logical fallacies to rationalize said interpretations and has therefor no basis or method to show any other interpretation wrong and can be and is used to overthrow, ignore and undermine rational and evidence based reasoning, making religion the most useless and dangerous "basis" for beliefs and choices. If instead we rely on rationality and evidence to make our choices, then we can actually show what serves a purpose better or worse. I can show that if we prefer well being over suffering that refusing basic rights to LGBTQ+ will increase suffering and decrease well being and that we should extend all human rights to all people regardless of gender or (a)sexuality. What have you to show that equating showing love in a physical way to another enthusiastically consenting adult to murder and rape and saying that all three categories are equally deserving of death is a good thing when both of the people in the sexual act are men, like is written in Romans 1? Can you show that homosexuality is bad or can you show my interpretation of the verses to be false? Of course I don't expect anything like an answer and only angry dismissals, insults, projections and more childish short sighted and stupid straw men from you, but should you find your brain somewhere, think about those questions and try not to rationalize and dismiss them but honestly try to answer them. I don't expect that that's within your capabilities, but who knows? Maybe I just caught you on a bad day.

[@cesarwitha_t]

@@stylis666 You should really go to jail. You just murdered that little boy's ass.

[@HabitsRabbits]

Setekh GET THAT MAN AN AMBULANCE

[@ShonicBurn]

This argument goes both ways though. The reason people can say these things is that it's a logical fallacy rooted in people being ignorant of both religion and science. Religion doesn't answer questions and if that's what you expect from it then you misunderstand the fundamentals of religion as a whole.

[@Dynoids]

"Science doesnt explain where matter came from ... etc." And.. neither can religion.

[@DuckInGameStop]

don't they just say "god did it" anytime they can't explain anything?

[@criesandthrowsuponthefloor608]

@@DuckInGameStop they do.

[@BOFRDASLEEPER]

@@DuckInGameStop yes

[@78anurag]

Quantum Fluctuations and entanglement: *Am I a joke to you?*

[@davidvarley1812]

Contemporary science can't explain where matter came from but scientists will endeavour to find out its origins. Science is on the never ending road of discovery.

[@Eztli__Void]

This really reminds me of how i keep getting homophobic ads on lgbtq+ centered videos lol

[@vhawk1951kl]

ds that are afraid of *the_same*?- H ow queer?

[@tmf866]

Prayer studies involving the recovery rates of hospitalized subjects actually show that prayer performs *worse* than placebo - the people performing the study theorized that people in the hospital may feel pressure to recover when told they're being prayed for, and that this pressure can have a negative impact on their recovery. So other studies were performed in which people *weren't told* if people were praying for them, and *those* studies showed no difference.

[@vhawk1951kl]

I don't have a dog in this fight, buy who*told*you that "Prayer studies involving the recovery rates of hospitalized subjects actually show that prayer performs worse than placebo," and why do you believe them ?Whst the fcuk is a " prayer study"?

[@femto02]

I got an Ad in this video , the one he was talking about. Perfect

[@joshuacredeur5592]

So did I lol

[@justingrover4030]

Oh boy I'm currently a few minutes away from the first mid roll, can't wait

[@justingrover4030]

Well I got a "catholic militant" ad that, in so many words, said if you vote "wrong" you'll go to hell so you have to buy their voting guide. And get this. The book is called "saving civilization". So thats fun

[@noahtabor9399]

Same, about pinecones and the church

[@toastiesburned9929]

I got hershey kisses and nerf guns

[@katyungodly]

The reason people say religion and science are incompatible is because people keep offering religious reasons for things that literally contradict the scientific facts. They did not cover this in their video.

[@walkingonneedles]

cute hair

[@katyungodly]

MikaIzScene ty!! It’s actually pink now, but the green/blue/purple/blonde was my favorite :)

[@lucasterrasemnomezuado3785]

@@user-ep1hp7vj6p My religion is that all dogs should be patted, bet you can't debunk that

[@sipherys1961]

@@lucasterrasemnomezuado3785 nice religion, i support

[@anondimwit]

MikaIzScene simp

[@emeraldnickel]

I can’t believe they’d use Galileo as an argument for “christians invented science” when it was the Catholic Church that put him on trial for believing the Earth goes around the Sun.

[@xhaterkillerx]

Everyone else: gets ads for Christianity or religion. Me: gets ad for a Steve Hordsford, whoever that is.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

Anti-Science is a Rising Problem. And so is the non-identical-but-bloodrelated Issue of Fake-Science. So much so that the channel simply named 'Spirit Science' misueses this word, has 1,16 mio subs, and is growing. So much of a social problem that actively damages our Planet and the human-species that i have even tried to report them. But for a simple factor, it didnt work yet: Not enough people do the same i do. Not enough report such a big channel, thinking 'Ah, it wont do anything anyway, so why even try'. Yeah, 'why even try'... thanks for that mindset... ... Sorry for the long comment but it woul be cool if you use the reportsystem of YT as it was once intended: to help 'us'.

[@KaiserCrocer]

Everyone: getting religious ads Me:gets a Hershey’s chocolate ad and and an asmr ad Welp- all hail the almighty Hershey’s chocolate. but don’t do to loudly

[@monus782]

And I just keep getting ads from Liberty Insurance. I've seen worse so I don't mind.

[@carsonfball4]

I got an ad for CAD software.

[@UltimateCheetah-zs2iw]

Hail to the sugar, the milk, and the cocoa bean.

[@ghuttsmckenzie4269]

All I get is soap ads, I want soda, gun, chocolate, and HBO ads!

[@roguepsykerhaaker4813]

I got an add for tampons once... I'm a guy by the way

[@tbirdparis]

- "Science is good for answering "how" questions and religion is good for answering "why" questions." Replace the word "religion" with "philosophy" and we're done here. Humanity can move on.

[@blaster-zy7xx]

No. Religion makes countless claims about how the natural world works that is simply incorrect. Period. So if religion is demonstrably wrong about that which is demonstrable, why beleive in the claims that are not demonstrable?

[@jamiegilliam3658]

@@blaster-zy7xx what claims are those?

[@blaster-zy7xx]

@@jamiegilliam3658 (I assume you meant, "What claims are those?" ) Claims such as the order of creation according to Genesis that are wrong, claims about of Noah's Ark that are impossible; worldwide flood, man created in his current form, woman created from man's rib, man living inside a whale (or fish or whatever) etc.

[@jamiegilliam3658]

@@blaster-zy7xx How are they wrong?

[@blaster-zy7xx]

@@jamiegilliam3658 REALLY? This is why religion is detrimental. Let's start with human evolution. Humans are evolved primates with common ancestors with other hominids (great apes including humans). This is accepted science and demonstrated by DNA analysis of endogenous retrovirus markers that not only demonstrates common ancestry but also a perfect genealogical hierarchy that places our ancestral divergence into proper chronological order. Humans poofing magically into existence in our present form is a superstitious religious myth completely rejected by modern science.

[@joiscode3832]

"You cant pray the gay away" the funniest shit iv heard today

[@maulikbishwokarma6034]

Well it’s true

[@loturzelrestaurant]

@@maulikbishwokarma6034 Can you watch the video of ‚Illuminaughtii’ named ‚ What is The Flat Earth Society? Corporate Casket’ fully and till the end and then tell me your honest opinion, especially about the end-thoughts? I want to 'gather opinions' here, if you know what that means...

[@StoutShako]

@@loturzelrestaurant Oh, sweet! An Illuminatii watcher!

[@bluefiresillymouse]

@@StoutShako you too?

[@freakanime5385]

Religious explanation is just saying "because god made it that way" or "only god knows why" This two sentences are why i started doubting my religion chistianity and now want to devote my life to science

[@loturzelrestaurant]

Anti-Science is a Rising Problem. And so is the non-identical-but-bloodrelated Issue of Fake-Science. So much so that the channel simply named 'Spirit Science' misueses this word, has 1,16 mio subs, and is growing. So much of a social problem that actively damages our Planet and the human-species that i have even tried to report them. But for a simple factor, it didnt work yet: Not enough people do the same i do. Not enough report such a big channel, thinking 'Ah, it wont do anything anyway, so why even try'. Yeah, 'why even try'... thanks for that mindset...

[@vhawk1951kl]

What exactly do you seek to convey when you use the word "Science"? As you are about to demonstrate, you have no idea whatsoever.

[@thunderspark1536]

@@vhawk1951kl Simple, you explain scientifically how something happened. You never just say "Science did it" or "Science knows", because you can just say the actual explanation. Like gravity for instance, it's bending spacetime. That answer was found using observation and calculation, both of which anyone saying god cannot provide. Example: God created the earth. We find out it was made through a process like any other planet, a mixture of gas and dust coalescing into a single mass. God created the solar system: A solar mas formed and gathered dust around it. God created the universe: A large explosion from a single point. God created the big bang: We don't know the answer yet. Once we find what caused/created the big bang, they'll simply move onto the next thing we can't explain.

[@vinegarman4205]

@@vhawk1951kl religious clown🤡

[@vhawk1951kl]

You defining religion/religious exactly how? You have no idea? This you are about to demonstrate

[@dmytrokosynskyy2445]

Me : Watching this KZbin: Christian singles in your area

[@roombabot-0320]

Same

[@ExcretumTaurum]

Would be a shame not to at least try to their god's name repeatedly

[@azuretiger-kfpmarketingstr6018]

"oh god, oh god, oh god" "Pretty sure you're just having an orgasm." "Shut up! Baka!"

[@ToonamiT0M]

I love that these religious ads are actually putting money in GMS's pocket.

[@susanmaggiora4800]

ToonamiT0M Me too. I don’t understand why people get upset about it. I think it’s hilarious

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@susanmaggiora4800 Yup. I agree. Now, the ad I'd love to ban is that "soap for men" ad that's been running non-stop for me in recent weeks. That seems designed to be annoying, but also, I can't imagine how _anyone_ would be dumb enough to buy soap from that guy.

[@poplionandrew5803]

@@susanmaggiora4800 Everyone has their own triggers -- how we interpret and react to certain situations

[@poplionandrew5803]

@@Bill_Garthright "dumb"? want to know someone for their money, and the person with money is dumb enough not to know it

[@Santisima_Trinidad]

@@Bill_Garthright you can block ads, sort of. There should be a little i button at the bottom left hand corner of the ad. That button brings up a menu where one of the options is "stop seeing this ad", you are then asked why, and given four options, click one and you can submit, and you shouldn't see that as again. If you do just repeat the process and after a couple of repetitions KZbin will stop showing you that ad.

[@spencerbanks4026]

Thanks for giving your take on this! I really like your attention to detail. The way you define belief, faith, and religion separately is something that I identify with.

[@S1nwar]

i love how well formulated your arguments are. its stuff i heared a million times over the last decade on youtube, but its always nice to have a fresh new perspective

[@loturzelrestaurant]

Anti-Science is a Rising Problem. And so is the non-identical-but-bloodrelated Issue of Fake-Science. So much so that the channel simply named 'Spirit Science' misueses this word, has 1,16 mio subs, and is growing. So much of a social problem that actively damages our Planet and the human-species that i have even tried to report them. But for a simple factor, it didnt work yet: Not enough people do the same i do. Not enough report such a big channel, thinking 'Ah, it wont do anything anyway, so why even try'. Yeah, 'why even try'... thanks for that mindset... ... Sorry for the long comment but it woul be cool if you use the reportsystem of YT as it was once intended: to help 'us'.

[@geoden]

"Belief is meaningless to all but the believer, knowledge is meaningful and available to all" - GWD 2011

[@LegDayLas]

knowledge is meaningless to the faithful though, If it disproves anything they agree with it is a false conclusion.

[@khytron06]

"Knowledge without proof isn't a knowledge" D.C Khmer

[@brucebaker810]

Garynt Wynn-Davies?

[@vhawk1951kl]

You neither can- nor seek to , define "Knowledge, as you are about to demonstrate. Moreover you do not trouble yourself to define belief either. "Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect, whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided,once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too. A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonanceand then to imagine that he has understood it. To bring home what has just been said, an excellent example is provided by the word so often used by every contemporary man-”world.” If people knew how to grasp for themselves what passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word ”world,” then most of them would have to admit-if of course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries no exact notion whatever for them. Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, world, I know what this is,” and serenely go on thinking. Should one deliberately arrest their attention on this word and know how to probe them to find just what they understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said “embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together, that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they had not thought of it before. If one has the requisite power and could compel a group of contemporary people, even from among those who have received so to say “a good education,” to state exactly how they each understand the word “world,” they would all so “beat about the bush” that involuntarily one would recall even castor oil with a certain tenderness."

[@vhawk1951kl]

You have *absolutely_no*idea of the flaw in that the gibberish: "Belief is meaningless to all but the believer, knowledge is meaningful and available to all", have you?But what the hell, if you are indeed wholly innocent of*any* kind of wits and learning, why not flaunt it, or ape one even more innocent than yourself?

[@emc8476]

Why are Christians insisting that a good part of Scientists are Christians and that means it is the true faith? I've met a lot of doctors that smoke and sometimes drink. There is no person that knows more about the danger of smoking than the doctors, but they choose to smoke.

[@autobotstarscream765]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKnFpaiajKtlrbM

[@dpage446]

That means smoking is good for health and cures cancer! Big Pharma is hiding this from us!

[@barkYdarkATFB]

It’s like married people who are adulterers. Of course you can be both, but the fundamentals lead in different directions. Or priests who are pedophiles. It’s doable, but not truly symbiotic, not compatible.

[@vhawk1951kl]

I smoked roughly twenty cigarettes per day for seventy years thus smoking is clearly *Not dangerous, and given that from the moment you are born you do the*exact_equivalent of either jumping from or be pushed from the top of a very tall building or cliff, do you *really* suppose that smoking cigarettes on the way down could possibly make the slightest difference to the old 32 ft persecond per second?. If you think about it you are pretty much dead from the moment you jump or are pushed, and loath though I am to employ universals, everyone that was born is dying or( if you take the view that what must and *will* happen*Has* happened), what difference could it make if a dead man smokes a cigarette.It's a bit silly to speak of danger to a man hurtling towards the adamant at high sped is it not But if of course if you suppose your (for yourself) destruction forever *not* to be a *C-e-r-t-a-i-n-t-y*, that rather smacks of one or another form of dreaming- call *that* what you will. You*Must* die titch and you*Must die *Of_Something*. Does it really matte or signify *of_what? Your perhaps better question is does it ntter whether not you die as-is-said like-a-dog What do you call a dead man/human being/dreaming machine? Meat or dust will serve as as well. Does it mater or signify if dust/meat smokes cigarettes? In the words of the salesman joke: " What the fcuk do *you*think?- Not that you can or could think There is a certain naive charm in your supposition(in practice religious belief, that men(human beings/dreaming machines ever have a what-you-call choice. There is only one word for the suggestion that smoking tobacco "*causes*"cancer and that word is *Lie* for were it otherwise yshp - your servant here prsent would have died of cancer long long ago, thus it is not repeat *Not otherwise res ipsa lquitur. Smoking tobacco does not not, not *"cause*" cancer and those that say it does are wht we lawyers call *Lying* You and I find ourselves in the amusing position of the man that(having jumped from the top of a skyscraper) smiles and waves at a man looking out of a window half way down and says:" So far so good".He was dead from the moment he jumped was he not? *That*describes your and my position perfectly does it not? So far so good. Is* it right to say that what must, *will* and cannot *Not* happen *Has* happed, and if not *W-h-y* not?

[@karlrschneider]

Science can't explain everything; religion can't explain ANYTHING.

[@alanlittlemoon8194]

Consistently rigorous argument is a very nice change of pace from most discussion on these topics. Keep up the excellent work.

[@247tubefan]

Early scientists were the religious trying to use it to prove God. But when the evidence repeatedly kept not pointing towards a God. That's when the division began.

[@GrimSleepy]

They were trying to prove the Sumerian God's existence not realizing Romans, and other European scribes and scholars drastically changed some texts and outright removed others, because it didn't fit their "Earth is center of Universe, Human is perfect being" rhetoric. So scientists were just running into the facts that were already known, but Government (religion run back then) couldn't inform the masses, knowledge is power. Have to keep the sheep down, don't even teach em' to read!

[@baronvonbon9669]

I dont know about that but scientists like aristotle and davinci went ahead with theor studies trying to disprove the current religions back then like how da vinci used fossil evidences to quickly dispatch the noah's ark story and tge like

[@BlurpGooDiJabba]

you find god by reading the bible with a humble disposition. thats how faith works. its stands in opposition to manmade logic and its by design.

[@BlurpGooDiJabba]

@@baronvonbon9669 why wouldnt noahs ark have been able to have been real? how difficult is it to build a big boat in like 40 years... the hebrew word translated as the earth (aretz) can also be translated as "the land" which can refer to a specific land in which the adamic descendants lived in. this of course very much allows for the biblical narrative to be true. the bible is the perfect inspired word of god. but we the interpretors arent perfect and get things wrong sometimes. the flood myth is very prevelant in many old religions and writings which points to there being a flood at some point but the bible does not explicitly claim that it covered the entire globe. get your facts straight before you start bashing things you know nothing about. research scripture. every single prophecy is true if you properly identify who is who and what means what in the bible.

[@baronvonbon9669]

@@BlurpGooDiJabba Do you mind pointing out several links to justify yoyr claim of there being a flood in the first place? There has been no such proof and archeological evidences easily disprove of the flood myth since of the sinple fact that cultures all around the earth are intact and unscathe with not even the alightest hint of flooding on a typhoon scale at the least a flood that lasted for 40 days in total would have easily amhiliated any previous signs of life or history of that sort The story of babylon for instance couldnt have been possibly been true since there have been little refferences to floods and stories like the pagan story epic flood was something cometelh different and was basically the super saiyan mode of the hero but in flood form Do try to send me evidences to disprove my logic Note: Christian and catholic scholars agree that the flood occured around 2500 bc or something of that sort i likely got it wrong but i am open to correction

[@corwin32]

Also, Christians founded modern science? Eratosthenes, al-Khwarizmi, and Brahmagupta would like some words, Colson

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

that was not really "modern" science as they meddled around without a formulated scientific method at their hands. Sure they got results science still correlates to and mostly will confirm as at least close to correct, but it was still the age of trial and error, not of systematic methodology of research.

[@corwin32]

Ugly German Truths You and I will have to agree to disagree on that. To pick one, Eratosthenes developed a question based on a theory (the world is round, how big is it?) and then conducted a careful experiment to derive the answer. He was not mucking about.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

And Muslims say they invented math

[@AlexanderShamov]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "modern". The origins of the scientific method can be traced back to the Islamic Golden Age, but the first precise, quantitative scientific theory would probably be Newton's laws of mechanics and gravity.

[@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643]

Yes Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. He invented the scientific method.

[@echo8077]

I have watched probably about 30 vids by this channel and on this video I got my first religios ad. This is great.

[@sfc3439]

OOOOOOF the ending is the perfect definition of a mic drop !!! WP Drew.

[@pedrolopes3542]

The irony... The "Israel Institute of biblical studies" is advertising at the beginning of this video.

[@ET-jv1wm]

Love this one. It talks about reading the original bible verses in the original Hebrew....... yet the bible wasn't written in Hebrew originally lol!

[@ryavix]

And here I thought that IIBS stood for Insufferably Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

[@TreespeakerOfTheLand]

@@ET-jv1wm The books in the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew with parts Aramaic, to be honest. It's mainly the New Testament books which were originally written in Greek and probably other languages.

[@jonathanfriedel]

Israel is a special exception, they are going after drew directly. When he and Mrs GM Skeptic were in Israel working on documentaries, they fit in so well Israel has never been the same since they left... so the advertising I think is personal in this case ;)

[@Vrangelrip]

I know

[@ArielMTayar]

He basically says that "because we don't understand the big bang, women must dress with long sleeves and men shouldn't have sex together" (~Y.N. Harari)

[@KnakuanaRka]

Ariel M. Tayar Yeah, talk about skipping over a sh*t ton of steps; even if we can’t provide a good explanation for the universe’s start, that doesn’t make any other argument without good evidence more valid, especially not a religious one, and double especially not your specific book of myths.

[@danieldelanoche2015]

"And we'd also like to just definitely not comment on women having sex with other women."

[@elijahcarrillo2358]

@@KnakuanaRka Nice comment but that username gave me a stroke

[@deductivereasoning4257]

The big bang was discussed by Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates; they were just discussing something others had been discussing for at least a thousand years; which means over 3000 years now people have discusses something from nothing. I hope the poster doesn't believe these atheist videos that don't specify times and dates; which is all because: These atheist video creators know their past thoughts on the subject of the big bang theory being created by atheists in the 20th century is as ignorant as thinking adhesives didn't exist during the time of Noah - even though, science says cavemen used adhesives and the oldest piece of evidence is carbon dated at over 250,000 years old. On a side note, something from nothing is easy to answer, I could do it in one word - but why should I help belligerent idiots that can't figure out something so simple?

[@clarkwilmerding4343]

Deductive Reasoning here’s a fun challenge for theists that that i heard from @nonstampcollecter as a response to the cosmological argument. prove without a doubt that there was one creator. and not two or three or ten. you can use anything except the bible (i hope i don’t have to explain how that’s a circular argument)

[@jonasgeerthsen6005]

Another perk of being Scandinavian: No religious adds. ;)

[@wickedguppy3715]

Get yourself a VPN with a server in the US. You too can experience the joys of fundamentalist Christian idiocy. Personally, I'm trying to learn Danish on my VPN.

[@Myth-jj5po]

I think it’s crazy that Christians say that the only way you can become religious is if you grew up religiously. My brother and I were grown up in a irreligious house. My grandfather was more scientific and open about how things can change. But my brother became religious and I have not. With Christian’s logic shouldn’t my brother have become atheist too??

[@-gemberkoekje-5547]

Also, how did Christianity ever spread if this was true?

[@ChantingInTheDark]

That “science and religion are complementary” ad is Christianity getting desperate. They realize they can’t win by beating science, so are trying this “we can coexist” strategy. It’s so transparent.

[@patricioaroncastrillonross8372]

Its the same thing they did with pagan rituals

[@davidvarley1812]

Religion and science aren't at war. Its ridiculous to assume those of faith aren't interested in scientific enlightenment or think all scientists are athiest, their not.

[@AlgeArid]

Hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[@davidvarley1812]

Those who take the Bible/Koran literally have been in conflict with anyone and everyone else for thousands of years. However not all Christians take their Bible literally and not all religions follow the Hebrew text, so religion and science aren't at war.

[@davidvarley1812]

@Aditya Chavarkar Maybe but they'd be wrong. Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism along with many other beliefs are classed as religions. Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism along with most religions and people of spirituality, including mainstream (Christians ) are not in conflict with science.

[@DavyCDiamondback]

“Modern Science is distinctly Christian”... Al-Khwarizmi and Einstein have something to say

[@erikjarandson5458]

Islamic scholars based their work mostly on the literature and learning of Christian lands that they conquered. Of course, in fairness, those Christians based their work on the Greek philosophers. Einstein, as well as other European Jewish scientists, was deeply steeped in European academia, which evolved within universities, which were originally Catholic institutions. I'd be more insulted on behalf of Hindus than on behalf of Jews and Muslims. What Islamic scholars didn't get from the Christian world, they got from the Hinduistic world. The base-ten positional numeral system, for instance, was directly fetched from Hinduistic scholars. Of course, one could argue that, in spite of significant scientific discoveries, Hinduistic scholars didn't develop the scientific methodology. Importantly, "distinctly Christian" technically means only that Christians have left a clearly discernible impression on it. That's true, but it's also true about every other view of religion, whether Judaism, paganism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, or the several that I've omitted for brevity's sake. Christianity can claim somewhat more influence than average, though; the final step into _modern_ science took place in Europe, which was dominated by Christianity. Largely, this was due to unrelated factors, ranging from geography to socioeconomics, with a lot in between, and a dash of coincidence on top, but some of it might be due to some aspect of Christianity. Certainly, the Catholic Church was involved, effectually or not, for better or worse. So, modern science is distinctly Christian. It's also distinctly everything else.

[@mhertin660]

@@erikjarandson5458 I mean much of what was inherited by medieval Islamic scholars comes directly from the Hellenistic era too, since Greek ideas spread far under Alexander and his successors. And many Greek ideas were inherited from the ancient Near East too, such as Babylonian ideas. Science is really just an accumulation of knowledge and methods from all over - ideas spread further than people!

[@IsraelCountryCube]

@@mhertin660 I wonder who should we kill off first science or religion? or both!

[@mhertin660]

@@IsraelCountryCube whoah, I never said I had any desire to eliminate either 😂😂

[@IsraelCountryCube]

@@mhertin660 im serious whats so funny about it? is someone tickleing you are am i a comedian?

[@thatonestickfigure5105]

I respect everything of what you do but at the same time I still hold my beliefs as a Christian because I enjoy your content and your views on this religion while respecting that you have your own. I really do not understand what these first wave Christians try to accomplish by making those comments posted in the beginning of the video though. I myself have been agnostic before and have struggled to be Christian often and have a pagan girlfriend. I like challenging my beliefs and being diverse with what I view. I definitely appreciate all you do and hopefully whatever happens I'll see you or someone like you in a future life. I love everything you do and keep it up.

[@vhawk1951kl]

What leads you to suppose that you are - or could possibly be a christian?

[@Veronensis]

What I notice with a lot of these things is that the religious content matter comes across as extremely simplified and "dumbed down". Resorting in oversimplified analogies, they sound like they are speaking to a child. On the other hand, the atheist or scientific content, and especially your explanations, explain your point in a mature and nuanced way. I think this speaks volumes about the way they both perceive their respective audiences.

[@originalhazelgreene]

"your theology is little more than a placeholder in the ever-shrinking gaps of scientific knowledge" -- Brilliant 😁👍

[@jimothyworldbuilding3664]

KZbinr: *makes video advocating for atheism* Religious apologetics: Shut up and take my money.

[@aplaceholdername901]

Nice pfp

[@natthekiwi7074]

Your pfp is quite fine n dandy 👌

[@AnexoRialto]

That's what I thought. If christian youtubers wants to subsidize atheist videos. Well, fine.

[@LegDayLas]

@@AnexoRialto They probably think atheists are the demographic that "need saving" so that's why they do it. It's tone deaf though because the people curious enough about religion are the ones that search out these videos, and curiosity does not coincide with the conformity of religion.

[@aglitch3146]

i love that pfp, connor is the best SCP

[@rookooful]

I just watched the add for covenent eyes on their site and that is single handedly the funniest and highest quality Christian sorta add I have ever seen. Kudos to them for making my night.

[@kavinunethsarakoswattage3516]

I mean, Christians do realize there are many religions in the world, with their very own gods and/or philosophy. I mean, if their religion could be true, mine could be too. So how have they determined that their religion is the right one?

[@txvoltaire]

Imagine the horrified screaming if it were the other way around!

[@zkull9982]

*clicks on how to pray in 5 easy steps* THIS IS WHY RELIGION IS DUMB

[@uwuifyingransomware]

@@zkull9982 sounds like something that would happen in my Christianity class, like the teacher gets up a guided prayer and there's an unskippable ad on the flaws of Christianity

[@calebfasnacht8698]

@The Prime Star parents spank their children. They hear them cry. They caused their tears. Obviously they are abusive sickos. All kidding aside, I am a Christian, and the doctrine of Hell is the thing that causes me the most amount of doubt about my faith. It seems incongruous in a lot of ways. I still believe though. Just thought you would like to know that most Christians aren't happy about Hell either. I'm confident that neither is God.

[@royalblanket]

@@calebfasnacht8698 What does that first statement mean? You are aware that spanking is harmful, right?

[@spartianknight.]

txvoltaire - yeah it is the other way around. I would watch videos from a street preacher and see beer ads or others I know the guy wouldn't endorse, while the atheist girl I watched got religious ads. Sort of funny.

[@ComplexFlower]

I got THIS first video as an ad in the middle of this video. I was like, “wait, why did he start the video over?” 😂😂😂😂😂

[@michaelgoldstein8516]

So weird. I never get religious ads on your videos. Can’t wait to start.

[@viri6958]

i kinda hate how angry i am with the christian religion. ik it’s not something to get upset over but i’ve recently just discovered your channel and how the process of the modern day christianity has a hold on society. plus my parents are kind in my face about and believe i’m “broken” and “lost” bc i don’t wanna attend church. So as much as i live for watching these, sometimes i’m hesitant bc of knowing that an ad like that could send me into a spiral. pretty sure it’s freshly discovered religious trauma but idk for sure 😟🦅

[@alistairlacaille]

So discovering this thing called Covenant Eyes threw me for a loop... Looking it up and learning that the premise was to let friends and family shame you into conformity by allowing them to monitor your screentime blew my mind... Seeing that price tag friggin floored me! Turns out God is hella expensive! Who knew?

[@calebfasnacht8698]

I'm almost convinced Covenant Eyes is run by religiously neutral people. They simply have this app, made it cost a fortune, and prey on the fears of Christian parents. I can't say for sure though. I just like conspiracy theories.

[@sebastianb.3978]

@@calebfasnacht8698 Liking Conspiracy Theories is one thing. Actually buying into and trying to spread them like you do is stupid and dangerous.

[@Nocopybl]

@@sebastianb.3978 they literally said they weren’t sure so idk what you mean by that or why your so toxic about it?

[@MarioSantos-zx4bj]

Matin Ludero, that's why he started Protestantism

[@englishmotherfucker1058]

"science was started by Christians" * angry Hyppocrates noises *

[@victoriadantas8479]

English Motherfucker To be fair some Christians think the Greeks were Christians... That's what happens when you believe in the bible, you actually believe the world first religions and beliefs acknowledged a male creator.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

@@victoriadantas8479 lol so ignorant haha XD

[@aristotelian3098]

_angry Hyppocrates noises_ Hippocrates taught the four humors He taught that a woman's womb would move from place to lace in her body. How scientific.

[@faizalqorni3611]

@@aristotelian3098 yeah and in the good old christian scientist ages provided by the video throwing shit to the consumption water source is still a thing, the big leader of religion might do some sins, someone's failure is not enough reason to cancel one's achievement. It's like saying H.P. Lovecraft is shit just because he is bigoted "yeah lovecraft is racist how sophisticated of him huuuuuh"

[@Gerolinger]

V. J. Daan so you really want to tell me that some Christians think a society that is much older than Christianity, believed in Christ ? Wtf

[@suprisedbeeiscute]

"Why is it like that?' 'We still dont know' 'We dont either - GOD!'

[@matthewhead1465]

Sorry, late to the party. My favourite part of the KZbin algorithm is getting a 47 minute sermon as an ad in the middle of a 20 minute video I’m watching. Thankfully they don’t make it unskippable.

[@MostlyBuicks]

"Believing in" science implies that people who do, do so because Christians may see it as an alternate "authority". Whereas most people who rely or use science prefer it because of the evidence or proof it provides, rather than an authoritative institution or belief system.

[@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643]

What evidence do you have for your claim?

[@Nerdsammich]

Right? As I always say, if you believe in science, you're doing it wrong.

[@skeptischism1324]

@@Nerdsammich doing science wrong? Not sure what you mean.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Science provides nothing. Occasionally an instrument measures something; but what that measurement MEANS is still a human construction.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@skeptischism1324 He means that science is not supposed to be about "belief" but accurate, anyone-can-repeat-it measurements. It's okay to provisionally believe a scientist until you can verify the claim, but then it is just another religion waiting for verification of claims.

[@sabrinastrauss9065]

I actually want to add something about the "modern christians" like Newton: if they believed in a higher power, often they were just deists. This was huge during the Enlightenment. Generally speaking, they believed in a higher power to help explain things, but did not necessarily consider that being to be the Christian god. Importantly, deists rejected the idea of divine revelation. Newton, specifically, believed this higher power created all of the laws of the universe, set it into motion, and walked away. That is...not Christian. But of course, as you stated, to escape persecution, it was easier to still say you were Christian. Deism itself is a really interesting topic. I just feel that video is disingenuous calling all of them Christians.

[@indominuswrex9465]

Of course it's disingenuous lmao look who presented that "fact".

[@robertomondello2447]

Yup. Some scientists and philosophers that they were believers, is not the God of the traditional religions

[@ActivelyVacant]

Seems pretty unfair that advertisers get so much control on what video can be monetized while the video creators have no say on what kind of advertisers get associated with their channel.

[@Anarchnid]

I clicked on this video, and the first thing I see is an ad for a seminar.

[@sofiabennett2845]

You can't "believe" in Science, you either understand or fail to understand it.

[@Frost_Saber]

Their whole world view is usually built around belief, its no wonder they'd think science is also just a matter of belief.

[@Rhiannon_Autumn]

No reputable scientist would ever claim that they understand science. They'll say things like I know the maths, and I can make predictions based off of our current understanding (key word "Current" ). New information is coming all the time from experiments both big and small. But I get your point.

[@MarioSantos-zx4bj]

@Rhiannon Young Yes, but they will never claim that they "believe" in science, they'll say they know about science. Since believe implies it not being real

[@vhawk1951kl]

I appreciate that you have idea, but what exactly does" believe in" in" science" *mean* what do you mean by science Elsie?I'd be better off asking a dog than you would I not titch?

[@Thunderscreamer]

I love these ads. They’re free mental exercise. Pop quizzes. I like to pause the video at various points to provide objections/answer rebuttals on my own as though I’m making my own reaction video. If I’m not capable of rebutting one of these ads on my own, what am I even doing here?

[@SamuelStokesMusic]

I actually got an ad for T.G.I. Fridays and was thinking about how hungry I am through the whole video, and now I have to watch it again.

[@pengine6096]

Me: Watches countless atheist/lgbtq+ videos KZbin Advertisers: Here's an ad telling you to pray!

[@dirtywhitellama]

"what is our purpose?" "why does the universe exist?" these questions presuppose that there IS a purpose...that there IS a reason for the universe. Maybe...it just is.

[@dope8878]

Even if the universe just “is” there has to be a reason. There couldn’t have been nothing at one point and if there was we probably evolved out of some other dimension or realm or some weird shit. I’m not saying we have a purpose per say but we definitely came from somewhere random chance or not. Without life and consiousness technically nothing that exists exists so for all we know we are living in some weird quantum matrix land from some other realm. Tbf I do a lot of hallucinogenics but I think they are the scientific link to anything that could prove or deny a god or otherworldly phenomenon.

[@AbandonedVoid]

As much as you might dislike it, humans are not and can never be wholly rational creatures. For any action to be made, we need motivation and discernment to decide to act. That's really what people are asking when they're asking about purpose. They're looking for meaning in their lives. The classic way of creating meaning in psychology is by creating a narrative, hence the emphasis on creation myths in most religions. The scientific narrative by itself does not provide this meaning. It does not give you away to discern what actions to take, or any motivation to pursue. These are irrational needs for us to even function and not having them causes distress. There is, luckily, naturalistic religions, philosophies, and political ideologies, even if these can never find objective answers.

[@AbandonedVoid]

Although, as a perennialist, I do think that all religions converge if you look at their esoteric mysticism towards Scientific Pantheism, which does give value to the cultivation of holistic well-being. I've found that a lot of occultists, Thelemites, Theosophists, Sufis, Kabbalists, Rosicrucians, Taoists, Neopagans, Gnostics, and Yogis agree with me on this one. I think Humanists tend toward this understanding as well, and we're seeing it emerge in Game Theory and meta-ethics. So I think there's a good system to work with there.

[@dirtywhitellama]

@@AbandonedVoid I can't say I completely understand your comments, but I do agree that humans are irrational and will always look for meaning. Looking for one doesn't mean there's one to look for, however. It doesn't mean there's not, either. Nothing wrong with looking, just... to assume that there *is* an answer to be found is a fallacy by itself. Doesn't have anything to do with what I like (or don't.) I tend toward optimistic nihilism myself. Summed up by this quote in Gunship's "when you grow up your heart dies": "There is no fate but what we make for ourselves." If nothing matters, then there's no point in not making the best of it we can, for what we get, right? I also tend to enjoy a side helping of objectivism in the form of I try to be and do the best I can in everything I do because I enjoy excellence. But these are my answers, they're subjective to me and what I've experienced, others may feel differently.

[@dirtywhitellama]

@@dope8878 Why does there have to be a reason? Why couldn't there have been nothing at one point? I agree that there is no measure of existence except the consciousness of it. Maybe nothing actually 'exists' like we think it does and we are just perception. Maybe each of us lives in our own bubble of perception and everything we perceive is an illusion of some kind (somewhat true by any measure, honestly, although I mean altogether disconnected). Maybe you are all figments of my imagination. There's really no way to answer these questions, although I tend to think that the last one isn't the case. (Still, maybe we're all bits of Bahamut or something, putting on a giant play for our own amusement?) I enjoy wondering about the 'true' nature of reality. But nothing can be assumed.

[@Deviraux]

"science can not tell you the purpose of life" this statement assumes there is some logic,reason or design to life in the first place. removing that assumption I am comfortable with the idea that there is not predefined purpose and my purpose is simply what I chose it to be

[@dope8878]

But in and of itself that is purpose. I agree with you but I always thought if we had a purpose in life it’s to experience all it has to offer. If someone created us it was to see what their plane of existence is like. So maybe your purpose is to live your life according to you and when you die you aren’t judged by some dude with a beard and are instead judged by your own ego.

[@ix-jy1vo]

People don’t understand. “Why” where here is irrelevant. It’s how.

[@kivets]

It’s funny because God hasn’t told us our purpose yet

[@BY-bj6ic]

@@kivets Apparently it is to stoke his fragile ego and do everything he says. No wonder some christians worship donnie

[@BY-bj6ic]

That was my thought as well. circular reasoning. Stating that science can't tell us the purpose of life presupposes that the is some purpose (except to pass our genes to the next generation). It is similar to Descartes famous phrase "I think therefore I am". This presupposes that we already exist and have an individual identity. Can't be used to refute that we are just dreams in the mind of something/someone else.

[@riazijabar5296]

I was asked to go to jummah prayers, and when the scholar said “search for truth” i got a notification from your video.

[@viatoraether]

the way i literally got an ad for hallow on this vid. sobbing

[@orionh7201]

The biggest problem I have with religions that have demons is that they use demons to explain mental disorders. It's so traumatic and doesn't help those who have disorders :(

[@midgetwaffles8635]

Being a lesbian, I feel the exact same way! I feel that it also enables anti-vaxx/typical karen moms, as it acts as justification to not vaccinating/not properly treating their children, because they don't want to have their child possessed by said "dEmOnS."

[@lionelladvelino4795]

@@midgetwaffles8635 are you sure religious people think that because I don't even think that

[@midgetwaffles8635]

​@@lionelladvelino4795 What I'm saying is, it just gives people more excuses to discriminate, regardless of their actual beliefs.

[@lionelladvelino4795]

@@midgetwaffles8635 oh, ok but even though I am religious I hate those anti vax Karen's and I also hate the religious ads that try to convert atheists because I think that people should just choose if they want to believe in something or not

[@FRD357]

@@lionelladvelino4795 Of course, any and all religious beliefs are "not all X...". Not all religious people believe any one thing, you'll always find one who disagrees because it's a large and diverse group and Believers are people too. But, many religions or at least religions organization have or have had explained mental illnesses to be the result of actual demons (see: jesus driving away the demons in the bible)

[@TheJaguarthChannel]

They also forgot cognitive dissonance, People can have conflicting beliefs.

[@anemu3819]

If YHWH exists, then the reason he doesn't intervene as much as he did when the events in the old testament were happening

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

By the Law of Explosion in Logic, then, anything is justified to do or say to those people no matter what they say.

[@davidnewland2461]

I've never seen a religious ad on KZbin. Thank God.

[@mikailahamilton5735]

Grew up Pentecostal, was getting more and more fundie before totally falling out a few years ago. Love your videos.

[@grantdunn2544]

An alternative answer to the question "what is love?": Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

[@sheepketchup9059]

@Cool Dude a combination between oxytocin, dopamine and serotonin if you want to be pedantic.

[@lonnierh0dgejr41]

@Cool Dude i prefer to identify love as chemical and electrical signals within the brain.

[@davidmandell1727]

I'll take A Night at the Roxbury for 200, Alex.

[@myrmesuwu607]

@Cool Dude Scientifically love IS dopamin and your evolutionary instinct kicking in.

[@redballoon9007]

And then there’s Aromantics-

[@red-clad-vlad]

Since pagans were mentioned, I'd like to make note of something: people who practice pagan religions and traditions tend to be much more chill about it than most who follow the abrahamic religions. Maybe it's due ti the smaller sample size, but literally zero pagans have ever tried to "convert" me. They don't have the cultish behavior that is present among certain christian sects. It generally makes them more pleasant to talk with about faith, religion and the world.

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

I have some pagan friends and definitely agree with this statement. They fight against religious harm like I do, so that’s an added bonus

[@notapplicable6985]

I think it is the shared experince of being in the minority.

[@heteroclitus]

@@notapplicable6985 It's also that their religion doesn't tell them they should evangelise.

[@robertmiller9735]

@@notapplicable6985 Possibly. Though I wonder how they'd behave if they ever achieved the supermajority Christians have. Humans, y'know.

[@sandeman1776]

@@robertmiller9735 true that. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

[@memyself1448]

You’re an intelligent, well read and well spoken young man. Keep on keepin on

[@susandmelli9273]

It's ur channel right? 😅

[@noname-by3qz]

I was getting crazy loud music on my phone late at night and I'd have to get up and see a picture of Jesus that said "God wants you to have a Bible app on your phone". Beneath that, there was a yes button wiggling, and a no button that wouldn't work. I finally realized I could report it. I had to tap "other" and wrote "religious harassment". It stopped. Finally!

[@hanzo6778]

“U cant pray the gay away” sounds like a chant from an LGBT protest

[@saggybobby3733]

Ummm... Whats your point?

[@arcadeinvader8086]

No you totally can when he/she comes over to you just assume the prayer position and go "Dear God please make this person leave" and like magic they walk away

[@Ashley-mx1uw]

@@arcadeinvader8086 😂😂😂

[@rileytubegaming9065]

@@arcadeinvader8086 XDDD

[@Viking_Luchador]

Happy Pride Month!

[@Karmasu_L]

“...It's more like lerning to walk and chew gum.“ Walking get's you somewhere. Admittedly something to places others don't want you to be. Chewing gum gives you a flavor of your choice and some people stick their gum to places where they really don't belong.

[@matthewfitzpatrick4290]

Also, Occam's Razor. You can't explain a mystery by introducing a bigger mystery

[@scheeny]

Reasoned discussion, requiring > 15-second attention span. Admirable!

[@nate162ismyname5]

If god were real they wouldnt need to advertise "his word"

[@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643]

That's no different from saying "if atheism were factual then channels like this wouldn't need to exist." Congratulations, you played yourself.

[@leontalbuquerque8281]

@@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643 Yes it is. Piece of advice: it's better to be silent and let people think you're a fool, than to speak up and let them be sure of it.

[@unknowndane4754]

@@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643 How can "Atheism" be factual, atheism is a statement of "I am not convinced of this"

[@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643]

@@unknowndane4754 is that a fact?

[@toarrestsomeoneistoviolate2643]

@@leontalbuquerque8281 Your rebuttal is an ad hominem fallacy. Have any more fallacies for us?

[@jmanpolo5611]

Y'all are getting religious ads while I'm over here getting ads about Alzheimer's and I'm 17..

[@stthomasaquarius]

Hey that's got to be a little less annoying than when they get the ad targeting right. I'm stuck with ads that basically say, "Hey Gen Xer. Remember this Ben Harper song from when you were in your twenties and life wasn't a terrifying collection of economic, political, and environmental disasters? Cool. And since you're the last generation that has any disposable income, buy this car that has nothing to do with any of that." Good times.

[@dianamarie3214]

I get those Dr Squatch soap for men videos, and I'm a woman. The ads are hilarious though, so it's not as bad as the PureFlix ones

[@tatiana4050]

@@stthomasaquarius I have a terrifying story, my period was 4 days late and I got an ad for pregnancy test, two days later I bought pregnancy test, I was pregnant... If they know everything they could have just told me I'm pregnant and spared me the trip to the shop.

[@stthomasaquarius]

@@tatiana4050 Damn. My Ben Harper story seems like a tiny inconvenience.

[@Reshiyosh]

I keep getting political ads

[@brandonhowe5017]

8:39 "...basically science demonstrates you can't pray the gay away." I hope you know how great that sounded, I just about lost it!