My Response to Braxton Hunter's "10 Questions for Atheists"

[@jonathandill3557]

I am extremely comfortable with not knowing the origin of the universe.

[@rickc2102]

That's a great way of putting that.

[@jonathandill3557]

@@rickc2102 I have to confess that years ago, as a former deist I devoured books on cosmology and it seemed very important at the time. However, true happiness is not a product of having all the answers. True happiness comes from learning to embrace uncertainty. You do not need to have all of the answers in order to be happy.

[@markhackett2302]

@Language and Programming Channel You're also a lunatic. Covid wasn't manufactured, for example. It is one claim you don't appear to be willing to be wrong, on, however.

[@JM74239]

Yeah, that one was a headscratcher for me. He seemed to think it unlikely that not "knowing" how it started would ignite some existential itch --- in everyone. I think it's an interesting, heady avenue for scientific revelation, and I get all goosebumpy when they feel like they've figured out this or that small piece of the cosmic puzzle, but I lose zero sleep over the origins of the universe. "What are the odds that the universe that we find ourselves in is just so, and just so perfect for us?" Well, with a data set of 1, the odd seem to be 100%.

[@hamjaro2920]

@@JM74239 Can be sooo easily countered by just uttering one phrase "begging the question". In case you don't know what I mean by that, basically if the solar system and Earth weren't perfect then we wouldn't be here to ask the question in the first place. And unless they can prove there is 0% chance of life existing in the universe, there is no counter. Even if there is a 0.00000001% chance of life coming into fruition, that argument is invalid. But I do agree with you and OP, I am entirely comfortable not knowing the origins of the universe, seems like a silly thing to focus on when it's seemingly unfathomable.

[@utubepunk]

I never got why theists believing their religion accounts for all these things somehow makes it more valid. Having an explanation does NOT equal having the truth.

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

You can use their own logic in a different contex and - without exception - they are going to reject it. They either don't know how logic works, or they don't care.

[@Orsonfoe]

it worse when it comes to purpose and meaning of existence. you go from all the possibilities of the universe and joys of life to having only one meaning. and that meaning is to love and worship god cause God made you too love him. and if you dont love him you go to hell.

[@g.reynolds5610]

There are 2 things you can't reason with FAITH and FEAR..

[@TsunamiNR]

I wonder what they’ll say when I say my atheist worldview is « we live in the matrix »... my worldview can account for all things extremely well.

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

@@Orsonfoe That's what they will repeat, yes. But if you listened them describe heaven, they rarely will even mention praying orgies.

[@nicholasmccarty4185]

"Hear me out, maybe the reasons christian's give....aren't good." Classic. I loved that.

[@jacketrussell]

To an apologist, a fictional answer is more acceptable than no answer.

[@nicolasandre9886]

That's not limited to apologists, preferring a made up answer to no answer at all is probably one of the reasons that keeps many people believing in a religion.

[@SpecOpsCM]

To an atheist, straw-manning is better than iron... manning

[@jacketrussell]

@@SpecOpsCM Projection much?

[@nicolasandre9886]

@@SpecOpsCM . sure, because we've certainly never seen an apologist making false claims about atheism to make it easier to criticize, like all atheists believe nothing created everything.

[@starfishsystems]

@@SpecOpsCM It's called "steelmanning" and it is a legitimate (though difficult and not always productive) dialectical practice. Most of us exercise an important aspect of steelmanning when we try to reflect back what we have heard the other person say. That way, each of us can feel heard, which helps us to develop trust as social animals. But unsound arguments are still unsound, even when clearly heard and understood. It's therefore really only possible to steelman a sound argument. Flawed arguments, or dishonest ones, are non starters for steelmanning. Those, unfortunately, seem to be all that theists can present. At least, this has been consistently and tediously true in the past. It's too bad. But some day, a theist may develop a sound argument, in which case it deserves to be heard out. Therefore theists owe it to their case to stop presenting bad arguments, so that we aren't all worn out and cynical from having heard so much nonsense that we fail to recognize something truly insightful when it's finally presented.

[@dienekes4364]

Actually, the best response to Braxton's #1 is this: everything. "Magic" doesn't account for anything, which is the main difference between his "world view" and an atheist's "world view". Just because he _has_ an "answer" for certain questions, doesn't mean that answer is right, or even rational.

[@marshallahonen]

He has a response, not an answer, not an explanation, not a hypothesis, not a probability, nothing but a response.

[@pauligrossinoz]

Yeah. *Magic doesn't **_reasonably_** account for anything.* His magic "accounting" is as useless as Islamic magic "accounting". Appealing to magic is used when there is simply no _reasonable_ explanation for his worldview, and it's merely a last, desperate ploy for him to avoid the obvious: *His worldview is plainly wrong.* Of course, the other reason to appeal to magic is if that person is suffering from delusions...

[@BenYork-UBY]

I would have said: religion itself. Athiesm lets you understand why religions, cults, folklore, ghost-stories and prophesies all form in human society. Not as real encounters with the supernatural but rather as products of the human imagination as we try to contemplate existence. But religion does a terrible job of explaining why all these different religions exist in spite of each other. So I say athiesm explains religion better than religion explains religion

[@MrYondaime1995]

When he said that the christian worldview can account for everything, even other religions, I could only think that *every other religion claims to do the same*. I can literally create a religion right now who has "answers" to all of these questions christianity is supposed to answer and it would mean nothing.

[@PaulaBean]

Atheism is not a world view, just a lack of belief in god(s). Braxton lost me there already.

[@danielsnyder2288]

70% of ex Christians, when asked, say the #1 reasons for giving up faith was that they actually read the bible

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

It makes for a snappy statement, so much is sure, but I think it's usually more a "waking up" to the dichotomy between the word in the book, the words from the pulpit/mouth of your fellow believers and the values of society outside of church. Very few Christians actually act as if they truly believe what they claim to believe. For example, if Hunter sincerely believes lying is a sin, why are half of his "questions" insincerely worded? Lying for Jesus is just as sinful as lying out of selfish reasons. Or think of funerals... WHY would any Christian ever shed tears about people, NOW BEING WITH GOD in eternal bliss and happiness? In many cases it gets even weirder when they like to invoke "god's mysterious plan"... if you are convinced such a plan exists and that god is so much wiser than you and knows everything... isn't then any PRAYER except saying thanks sheer hubris? Asking god to "help you find your keys" seems a bit preposterous when EVERYTHING is his plan all along... and it goes beyond vanity prayers like your sportsball team should win and such... what about world peace? Why would YOU asking for it change god's mind about it? Shouldn't he already know it's a good idea and try to make it happen? And there are countless such "wait a moment, why didn't I ever think about that" concepts in faith... which if you start truly sincerely thinking about it will shake your religiosity down to the foundations... Reading the bible can help to find such conflict points, but it's not unique as thought-starter in those regards and just makes for a convenient shorthand in most contexts.

[@cfletcher1030]

@Language and Programming Channel Agreed. When I was a theology student I found it odd that not many church members were interested in scholarly deep dives re: the Bible. It turns out that exegetical/scholarly learning can often be at odds with the pulpit and popular 21st century Christianity. One of the key differences is that the scholars are often not 100% sure of their positions. The good ones assess arguments for and against their positions and propose what they think is the best interpretation or synthesis or etc. Sometimes it’s as basic as inferring what an unknown word may mean (since some words only occur once in the Bible). The many instances of scholarly uncertainty help to dampen faith in “the divine word.” I’ve found that the people who would benefit the most from exposure to scholarship are also the most resistant to it (fundamentalist “true believer” types). In fairness I used to be a fundamentalist type myself. Glad I’m not anymore now, the path to honesty involved seriously weighing the Bible in the balance and finding it wanting. This isn’t an invitation for wandering theists to argue.

[@stevenf927]

Reading the OT taught me that their god was an asshole and evil. What they show in church are the "good" parts, and they skip things like God's support of slavery and killing children.

[@robp2253]

I read the Bible several times. I eventually realized that there was a developed in God's behavior and personality from the Genesis to Malachi (or II Maccabees if you prefer). God basically "evolved." Then the god of the New Testament was nothing like the god of Genesis. When I mentioned this to a few people they insisted I was mistaken. Unfortunately, I was not. I just accepted it because it was in the Bible and tried to incorporate this observation into my theology. It was not easy but I think I would have been successful at it had I not been sincere in my faith.

[@robp2253]

@@cfletcher1030 My experience and resulting conclusions are similar to yours. I learned that most so-called Christians prefer to be spoon fed their theology rather than study for themselves. They are just lazy and do not care to think too much about it. After all, if they did read their Bibles they would have to actually start making changes in their lives to be godly. But they prefer to live like hell during the week and then seek forgiveness on the weekend so they can go on and repeat the process. They do not mean to be irresponsible, they just prefer not to change. They do not want to pay the true cost of a Christianity with self-imposed morals. The way people like Mr Hunter prefer to go after "sinners" to prove what a good Christian he is instead of actually studying the Bible and applying its lessons to himself. But that has to do with non-practicing Christians. I always recognized that deficiency in most Christians. My road to atheism was paved with applying the lessons of the Bible to myself with all sincerity. In hindsight, it is obvious to me now that atheism is the natural result of earnestly studying the Bible.

[@TheKyrix82]

That tenth question always upsets me "If you found out the Bible were true, would you become a christian?" No, I'd become a fucking god-slayer, because the universe is in the hands of the ultimate supervillain.

[@SilverMKI]

Send me a message as and when god is "proven" and I will join you.

[@jtheist32]

"You have my sword..."

[@jtheist32]

For real though - I love this reply.

[@pauljimerson8218]

Revelation sure has a lot of finger snaps to stop

[@cy-one]

OP fell into the trap of the question. OP answered "If you found out God exists..." not "If you found out the Bible were true..." The latter also includes God being omni-benevolent and worthy of worship (amongst other contradictory things). And I doubt anyone who would truly believe God to be worthy of worship would not worship him.

[@taylorlibby7642]

It's always kind of amazing to me. They honestly think they're being "open and honest" when they're actually being smug and condescending.

[@magmacube8689]

@Language and Programming Channel Because if they weren't, they would fall apart.

[@jemborg]

"Holier than thou". Sanctimonious.

[@sunnydae3914]

I said this before I read this 🤣

[@dwaneanderson8039]

They are being open and honest about being smug and condescending.

[@awm9290]

Maybe this will help. If you were to go read the comment sections of Braxton’s channel or even this one. How quickly does it turn to mockery and strawmanning of the others’ positions? Pretty quick right? It puts people into a certain polemic mindset rather than the one they think they’re projecting. I think Braxton is imagining he’s talking to the guy who calls explanations involving God as “magic” instead of a being that Aristotle himself reasoned must exist due to the nature of the universe. He’s not imagining he’s talking to people like Zod , or maybe even you, who is deeply considering the questions being asked and responding accordingly. Braxton is imaging the person looking through their screen is the guy reacting emotionally. Which is a complete tactical mistake. Even though most of us aren’t the guy who is always ready to deeply consider the other position. We almost all see ourselves as acting rationally and considerately. Most of us lack the humility to realize when we’re not completely dealing with everything being said and are just getting defensive. Myself included. It’s almost always what’s being heard, more than what is being said. Everyone is so completely certain of their views, most people really don’t take the time to consider them as Zod said here. They feel a certain way, and respond accordingly, usually defensively. It’s not fun having your world view challenged. It has been scientifically proven that the stress of it all burns a ton of calories (I think that’s amazing btw, and explains a lot of why certain human interactions, no matter how nice you are, necessarily won’t go well). Hope you’re having a great 2021.

[@OscarSommerbo]

Was this Braxton being "non-combative" and not employing "gotcha-questions"? If so his regular style must be pretty damn aggressive.

[@Apanblod]

@Paul Simon McCarthy He's still one of the most tolerable online apologists out there in my opinion. On rare occations he can even be quite affable and make a few good points in between the more egregious stuff he's preaching. His bullying side-kick Pritchet on the other hand.. the less said the better.

[@Apanblod]

@Paul Simon McCarthy He's an.. aquired taste. Many things he says can come across as condescending and snarky, but having listened to him for quite a while now I think he's genuinely trying to get his message across while promoting more productive discussions. If you want to remain calm you shouldn't check out the videos with Pritchet (sorry, professor Pritchet). But if you do you'll think Braxton is the most humble, gentle and intelligent apologist in the world by comparison 😅

[@timmyr345]

Your ability to articulate things that I have “felt” but have not been able to say myself is the reason I subscribed. Thank you.

[@Dustin_Bins]

Thank the non existent god for older people with more experience in specific areas of life.

[@taylorlibby7642]

Good on you for realizing what the truth is even though you may not have the perfect words yourself. Lotta courage there. Happy New Year!!

[@MadHatter42]

Zod’s ability to pick apart the nuances and intricate, technical workings of theist bullshit is nothing less than a science in its own right.

[@codyhanson1344]

You mean to tell me this video wasn't a fluke in that regard? (This is my first video of his that I watched) if so, I might as well subscribe right now.

[@secularargument4588]

That’s how I felt when first watching Matt Dillahunty. PoZ is just as electrifying!

[@corwin32]

*Rant Warning* I am SO TIRED of all these lists of logistical questions! I am 100% calling Russell’s Teapot on this. I am under NO OBLIGATION to disprove their unsubstantiated claims. Until they present repeatable, measurable, and disprovable evidence, we are done.

[@billasswhole9995]

That's a mic drop.

[@NirielWinx]

The more I hear that shit, the more I think they're just making random noises. Maybe I'll adopt the label of logical positivist for myself because I'm pretty much all in by now. You should all binge AntiCitizenX's channel once a year, that's good for your sanity.

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

I hate to be a contrarian, but I don't believe this type of video are actually for atheists, and have no point other than to convince other theists that watch Trinity Radio, that Braxton is being honest, open and sincere with atheists. He's asking questions that he will either never respond to the answers of, or will pick the most condescending, and insulting answer, to play harder into his narrative about how atheists don't have answers to his questions that don't rely on insults. He's not looking for thought out or thought provoking responses, because then he'd have to answer those responses. If he did so, it could lead people to an honest evaluation of what they believe. In short, he didn't make the video to be responded to. He made it to make those Christians that agree with him watch it, and clap him on the back, assuring themselves no atheist has a "worldview that accounts for" the answers Braxton poisoned the well with. That no atheist became an atheist out of anything but a desire to sin. That atheists know god exists, but refuse to make God their king because they'd rather be godless heathens in control of their own life.

[@corwin32]

@@Thoron_of_Neto You’re not being contrarian. I know it’s not for the atheist community. My fear is that by responding, they are given a veneer of legitimacy they don’t deserve. That said, PoZ does an excellent job of them

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

@@corwin32 thank you, and I see your point for sure. Unfortunatrlh, whether we address them or not, they're out there. By addressing them, people like PoZ are inviting those with a curiosity that puts them in the outer edge of their religion, to come and hear actual answers. Sure it gives legitimacy, but it also is like a lightouse on a cliff for people like I was, who believed but had questions. A bright beacon that they can latch on to, and know that land is in sight. Once the fog clears, they can go and find more. You're right, and I, nor anyone else should ever ask you to give your justification justification lacking a belief, because that's nonsensical and backwards. You're also right, PoZ did a phenomenal job, because paradoxically, his response is for budding atheists, or even uncomfortable christians, and were it not for people like him, VR, Matt Dillahunty, Jen Peeples, Tracy Harris, Paulogia, and Logicked, I'd probably still be a christian, sailing around in the fog of apologetics that makes you feel comfortable, because you haven't hit land... yet

[@ramigilneas9274]

It’s cute how Braxton tries to look so serious while asking very dumb questions.😂

[@Apanblod]

He's Lex Luthor's lesser known brother who weren't quite as intelligent and had to make a different career choice!

[@jessiealexander6190]

his questions seem awkwardly worded and lots of word salad

[@is-qs2ej]

I find it disgusting.

[@pmtoner9852]

@@Apanbloddoes that make him a Luthoran

[@Slytail]

#9 bugs me a lot. He might as well have just said "Since you can't believe in an omnipotent omnipresent being that people claim interaction with, you obviously need to read more books", where if it were such a pervasive scientific phenomenon, there would be a simple experiment you could do at home for demonstration.

[@ProphetofZod]

Yeah, my kids don't need to read an endless, ever-changing list of books to realize I exist and interact with me.

[@ricardolopez88]

This is just one of the typical accusations christians do when one becomes atheist: 1. He just wanted to sin 2. He didn't have enough fait 3. He wasn't a real christian 4. He "fell" because he wasn't prepared/mature enough He is lowkey pointing number 4, as condescending as he can be.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

@@ricardolopez88 He's trying to be polite, ok, yes, ok, BUT that one positive point wont help his overall grade when even his first Point is already so silly. "The Bible Accounts for many Things, including Science" ignores the fact that being debunked by Science isnt accounting for it. The Bible clearly is at Odds with Reality and so is at Odds with Science. Being debunked by Science all the time and having Science and Reality say about your big claims especially, like the Flood, objectively never happened, isnt you """accounting""" for stuff.

[@necrosunderground]

I'd say it's even simpler than that, really. If the Christian claim is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and it contains His full message to his creation, why would you even *need* to read more books if, at best, you just don't buy what it says, or, at worst, reading it is the direct cause of you not believing that God is real? Like, if the "actual" message straight from the horse's mouth doesn't do the trick, why would reading a book from the horse's ass, like Frank Turek, say, do the job? Isn't that kinda implying that an all-powerful deity can't do a better job than one of his minions?

[@snooganslestat2030]

@@necrosunderground That's why ultimately I find apologetics so ridiculous. Their careers & lives are centred on explaining the book they claim is perfect!

[@leyrua]

_"You only converted to Christianity because you wanted to EAT PORK."_ 🤣

[@tetsujin_144]

Pretty messed up, Jesus actually commanded people to obey all of Yahweh's commandments, so Christians also should not eat pork.

[@CeezGeez]

@@tetsujin_144good thing it’s all made up

[@darkstarr984]

It really is that ridiculous. I’ve never seen anyone do that - if someone wants to eat pork despite the ban they’re going to very secretly.

[@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh]

Read as "bacon"...

[@JustOneFletch]

Why do I have to explain where the universe came from, but you don't have to explain where God came from?

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

God of the gaps and special bleeding...I mean, pleading

[@munstrumridcully]

Cuz God is eternal by definition, silly. The Christian apologists, by and large, have defined and redefined God of the Abrahamic faiths as a spaceless, timeless, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent(while spaceless and timeless...go figure) omnibenevolent, all just, etc...etc...being. This allows them to disingenuously side step questions like "where does God come from?" .

[@munstrumridcully]

@The anti-anti-intellectual x lol, right? Yes, God definitely evolved over time in Judeo-Christianity--from a much more anthropomorphic deity to a much more nebulous, unfalsifiable mess. :)

[@munstrumridcully]

@The anti-anti-intellectual x PS--the "firmament"--which is more than just "sky" but includes a sort of crystal dome over a flat earth that holds all the water in space away from the earth--is a big problem for any Christian or Christian sect that accepts science at all to take literally, so the idea and connected verses are largely ignored, imo.

[@munstrumridcully]

@The anti-anti-intellectual x I hear you. I have been arguing with theists for twenty years and I get the sense that at least most of them were dishonest in one way or another.

[@Werrf1]

"The religious person can take comfort that his or her beliefs provide answers to deep questions of human existence that are beyond the powers of science, and the atheist can take comfort that there is absolutely no reason to expect those answers to be right." Terry Pratchett was a genius when it came to cutting through bullshit.

[@sbushido5547]

_"Decent, well-intentioned Christians like Braxton."_ I'm so glad there are people around like you to say these sorts of things. Because when I watch videos like his with this "isn't it a little disingenuous to act like our imaginary friend isn't a good answer to some of the biggest questions in science" garbage, I can't help but feel like my reaction would fit their angry atheist stereotype to a tee.

[@cafeeineaddicted8123]

As a former Christian who was not from the American Protestant / Pentecostal / fundamentalist culture, listening to atheist former believers from those cultures is pretty much my only reason to accept that a lot of the arguments I'm hearing are uttered sincerely. In many cases I used to want to tell people "I think you're lying to me, because if feel it would be a greater insult to you that I think you really believe what you just said." Now I usually stay silent in those times.

[@amurape5497]

The problem is Braxton is not well-intentioned... I think he believes his intentions are good, but they actually pretty sick. He is open about his only goal being converting people and combating doubt, because he fears doubt and believe it's highly destructive. Ironically, by that he introduces truly destructive stuff like teaching thought stopping techniques and taking advantage of vulnerability of people going through de-conversion...

[@sbushido5547]

@@amurape5497 _"The problem is Braxton is not well-intentioned..."_ I probably didn't communicate it well, but that was my point. Based solely on these questions and the way he frames them, his intentions don't seem to be any different than any other apologist looking to reassure their flock that the atheists "just want to sin!" But at least there are people like Zod around who will give them the benefit of the doubt so that believers don't see nothing but assholes like me mocking the ridiculous nonsense they repeat constantly.

[@Phourc]

"So I want to treat his questions in good faith." Me, having seen Braxton's video: "Good luck, Zod. Good luck..."

[@ProphetofZod]

Well, I tried to assume he means well, regardless of what comes out of his questions. It just shows what fundamentalism can do to a person's approach to others.

[@Phourc]

@@ProphetofZod Oh absolutely, and as far as I've watched you're doing a good job. I just recall being blown away by the assumptions baked into each and every question - the one about atheists putting sex workers on a pedestal _like they should be doing with the military_ stick out to me in particular, haha.

[@Skeptical_Numbat]

@Prophet of Zod Many thanks for your cogent & honest attempts to respond to Braxton's questions. As usual, I appreciate how your history as an Christian turned Atheist really helps to parse out his actual meanings from some fairly malformed queries. ~ ~ ~ However, I'm not sure I can agree with Braxton meaning well in all of his questions. While it is clear that his thought processes are being filtered through his indoctrination into Faith-Based Reasoning (making it somewhat difficult to communicate back to him on the level of Methodological Naturalism / Evolved Empathy / Secular Humanism / etc.), I find his phrasing (as you pointed out) contemptuous of anything to do with Atheism. He also - consciously or subconsciously - bundles Atheism in with concepts which have nothing to do with a lack of faith in a deity. I also can't really see that one question in particular - where he obliquely refers to the pathetic Christian trope of "Atheists just want to sin" (saying he won't mention it, then promptly mentioning it), before smarmily equating "sex before marriage" with prostitution (including a weird Non Sequitur about the military), etc. - as anything other than a carefully planned attack on the Morals/Ethics of Atheists (& a likely dog-whistle to his fundamentalist Christian audience). ~ ~ ~ It's actually pretty sad to see how he struggles with our ignorance of how the universe came into being. Personally, while I find the current research about the origin of the universe to be certainly intriguing, our lack of complete understanding in this subject (Advanced Astrophysics & Big-Bang Cosmology) is hardly going to keep me up at night. As well, while I hope that science may one day answer this question (preferably within my lifetime), I'm ok with admitting that "I don't know". Braxton, on the other hand, seems to find any alternatives to a God creating everything to be literally painful.

[@shriggs55]

@@ProphetofZod Yeah.It sure messes with your head!

[@jursamaj]

I can't assume *any* apologist operates on good faith. I've observed too many apologists to start from that assumption.

[@hamanime]

question 8 still bothers me the most. Braxton doesn't even consider people who never believed in any kind of god from the beginning. I never believed in a god, because I was raised in a non-religious family. I liked reading books of greek mythology or the stories of the Germanic tribes as a kid, but that was not different from Grimm's fairy tales.

[@KaiHenningsen]

You are me.

[@jasonsabbath6996]

Exactly! These types always assume we were exactly like they are. They can not see or understand any views outside of their own.

[@cy-one]

Yep. When I was around 14-16 I had some spiritual and mystical ideas, but even those I wouldn't have counted as believes. They were more-so "maybe [this] is a thing" not "[this] is a thing." And that was the closest I ever was to not being an atheist.

[@TheVeryHungrySingularity]

To be fair, I'm one of the athiests that originally lost faith because of moral reasons; I grew up in baptist churches and they had so much hate about people that I didn't feel comfortable going anymore. Turns out, if you don't constantly engross yourself in the church it's a lot easier to see how weak and unreasonable belief in the divine is.

[@wocxdid8068]

I am by your side. I was the same more or less

[@SpecOpsCM]

Turns out, the more you distance yourself from God, the more he distances himself from you. Good luck finding your way.

[@wocxdid8068]

@@SpecOpsCM I'm done believing in your imaginary friend. Can't you just leave us alone? Thanks, good day.

[@TheVeryHungrySingularity]

@@SpecOpsCM You're saying the only way to believe in God is to be constantly reminded to believe in God? Fascinating and not at all creepy cult-like.

[@Revanbzn]

@@SpecOpsCM it’s like. He doesn’t really exists and you keep believing because you keep close to your ideas

[@gregcampwriter]

So many people have answered his questions in the comments to his video, and he has ignored them. I'm weary of these apologists who claim to be looking for an honest discussion, then close their eyes and ram their fingers in their ears.

[@timorieseler276]

Singing lalala... 😂

[@orionred2489]

For me, the one that did them all in was Bob Enyart on real science radio. There entire objective is to get someone to say something so they can then drive over it with their preloaded responses to gin up their listeners. All about ratings.

[@Oswlek]

So you're weary of all of them then?

[@Faint366]

For real. In his very first question he says atheists can’t account for beauty, morality, or even near death experiences. There’s no way on earth I’m going to believe that he’s never once heard an atheist explain any of these things

[@jasonsabbath6996]

I really wish theists would stop assuming all atheists were Christians. I was NEVER Christian. Not all of us are exactly the same. We are not Stepford Atheists! Many of my positions in life have changed as I have grown up and had nothing to do with my atheism. We are not all Christians who want to "sin". Talk about a straw man.

[@campakilla1]

I'm in this category too .. never found religion convincing, and struggle to understand why people do in the modern world tbh ! As soon as they stray in to word salad..I just think nope , this isn't convincing.. and I don't think you should be convinced either 🤔

[@Bill_Garthright]

Yup. I was never a Christian - as far as I remember, at least. I was raised Christian, nominally. I didn't know a single other person who _wasn't_ a Christian - as far as I knew, certainly - throughout my childhood, at least through high school. I just don't remember ever believing it. And I _do_ remember believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I'm 69 years old, so I'm not going to guarantee my memory of so long ago! However, as I recall, our church wasn't big on the whole "sin" thing (and I don't ever remember hearing scary stories about Hell, either). But at that age, if I really wanted to "sin," wouldn't I have rejected Santa Claus? :)

[@waynesitarz424]

"When you became an atheist...". I always was buddy and I'm not buying into your cult(s).

[@lusti6511]

we are born atheist and teached believe.

[@batbiebel]

@@lusti6511 That's not true. We are born without the capability to even understand such a concept. Up until the moment you can you can't be an atheist, an agnostic nor a theist. Same goes for the absurd "babies are born with the knowledge of god engraved in their heart" many christians seem to support.

[@commentorrlsv2707]

@@batbiebel THANK YOU!

[@lusti6511]

@@batbiebel o really? Do we regard a newborn as innocent because its not capable of doing things to make itself guilty or not understanding the concept of guilt/innocence? You're born not believing, regardless of the concept or capabilites. An not believing equals atheism. That's why people like me, never teached about god, are atheists.

[@batbiebel]

@@lusti6511 I don't label babies as innocent. To me you can't be innocent without any qualifiers. If I claim "I'm innocent." out of the blue, I'd expect to either be asked the question "innocent of what?" or be accused of something. Discussions like these in my experience only lead to pointless arguments about which definition is or should be used for atheism. You can use whatever definition you want, but try be consistent (not claiming you're not!). For example when you define atheism as merely a lack of belief in god(s) you can't also state that atheism is only the reaction "i don't believe you" to a "god exists" claim without being internally inconsistent. Using the "merely lack of belief" definition to me feels like defining a word to misrepresent reality in order to fit a certain view and that to me is a dishonest tactic I mostly see used in theist apologetics. That's why I won't use it unless it is useful to continue a conversation. Just fyi: I'm also someone who is lucky enough to have been raised without deity related dogmas and now I hold the belief that no god(s) exist.

[@davidwatson8118]

"Origin of the universe " We dont know is the answer, not a god of the gaps.

[@lusti6511]

Yeah, that point always buggers me. The fuck, the whole history of science and knowledge is based on the answer "i don't know". This answer alone is the reason we go out and figure out stuff. That's intellectual honesty and not make believe imagination.

[@leeheishman5422]

Good reply . I hope trump gets 4 more years . We the people have been robed

[@lusti6511]

@@leeheishman5422 yeah no. Another thing is to follow the evidence and not to follow when there^s none. If there's no evidence for something, there usually isn't something. I would suggest Trump to bring the evidence and i would suggest to you (and to me and everyone else), to wait until he has provided it. As by now, there's nothing to follow.

[@davidwatson8118]

@@leeheishman5422 What does Trump have to do with any of this? In case you missed something, Trump has been given the arse and good riddance to the worst president in US history. The people have spoken.

[@rickc2102]

@@lusti6511 trump is a lousy president and shitty person, but I've no reason to believe he actually believes in the bible, etc.; his adoption of an evangelical persona was entirely political.

[@MrAustrokiwi]

What really gets me is the theists insistence that we need to explain the existence of evil. It is only a belief in god that demands an explanation of Evil/suffering.

[@Phourc]

Yup. "Bad things happening to good people" is 100% consistent with a universe without a guiding intelligence behind it - but it does cause problems for anyone telling me said intelligence loves me, haha.

[@Phourc]

@@SpecOpsCM Wow, such a compelling sales pitch. /s

[@Revanbzn]

@@SpecOpsCM or not since there is freaking hell for not being like you

[@fcchannel6162]

the world was curse i think the first book of the bible made that pretty clear.

[@MrAustrokiwi]

@@fcchannel6162 ROFLMAO You theists really don't get it. We don't need to explain suffering/ evil, because its just the state of the natural world. However when you guys state there is an all knowing all powerful God who has planned everything, you are the ones who end up with the problem of needing to account for suffering. Then you make the stupid( and it really is STUPID) mistake of saying because you have to explain suffering we do! By the way why don't you actually read the bible... you might be shocked to find in the first book the reason for Adam and Eve (by the way it is an allegorical story not a historical one) being kicked out of the Garden of Eden was not "sin". The Gods(the word used is "we") didn't want HUmans to eat from the tree of life... because we would have become gods ourselves. Read the story of the civilizing of Enkidu( pre dates the first book of the bible) it is also allegorical in both Enkidu's story and "Adam and eve" the base line is that it is woman who civilizes man. BTW the story of David and Johnathan is a reflection of the story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

[@utubepunk]

Big thanks to Prophet of Zod for properly framing his questions. Often theists smuggle in so much by the framing & we concede so much without knowing it.

[@jasonsabbath6996]

His 1st mistake is assuming all questions actually have answers. By his logic, every question does have an answer, god. That's a fallacy right off the bat. Also, just because you may have a bad answer, that doesn't mean you're correct.

[@shawncoonville3028]

Exactly.......if we started answering each unknown question with "The all powerful unicorn", he would have lots of follow up questions. How do you know this unicorn could do such a thing. How did this unicorn come into existence. Etc, Etc. But they will not afford us the same questions. They don't understand that just because you can provide an answer...........doesn't mean that answer is the truth. Which is interesting considering that many of them(Braxton included) claim they want to know the truth.

[@jasonsabbath6996]

@@shawncoonville3028 thanks, now I want to worship The All-Powerful Unicorn! All hail the unicorn! 🦄

[@SpecOpsCM]

Oh hey fallacy man, you didn’t realize that your first sentence is a fallacy. Nice to see the education you’ve received in your lifetime really paid off.

[@jasonsabbath6996]

@@SpecOpsCM 1st, thank you for calling me fancy! I've been called many things but never fancy! I like it. 2nd, what fallacy? And what does that have to do with education? For all you know, I was home schooled. Or have a PhD. Or I'm 13 and haven't gotten put of middle school yet. Or I'm 120 years old. Or I'm the reincarnation of Einstein. See, I can make random statements too. Because I'm FANCY! Like Iggy Azealia. 👨‍⚕️👨‍🎓👨‍🏫👨‍⚖👨‍🍳👨‍🔧👨‍🏭👨‍🚀👨‍✈️🕵️‍♂️🦸‍♂️🎅👼🧜‍♂️🧝‍♂️

[@jtheist32]

@@SpecOpsCM How to identify people who are pretending to be smart: They call something a fallacy without explaining what fallacy and why it is a fallacy. They are uneducated, so they try to mimic those around them, but don't quite get the idea. Here, we have you wanting to appear intelligent, so you try to dismiss something as a fallacy because you don't understand them, and think that calling something "fallacious" is a get out of jail free card to dismiss an argument when it is exactly the opposite.

[@dda40x1]

When I threw off the yoke of religion at age 11 I didn't think "now I can really sin" !!

[@robp2253]

Most Christians have no problem sinning. They just refuse to admit that they are practicing sinners and that they prefer it that way. I do not mean this as a judgement only as an observation.

[@bellezavudd]

dda40x1 Right. I only remember thinking ' how can I get away from this horrid creep fest before it infects me further. '

[@JM74239]

Ha! I got you beat. I was a month and a half from turning eleven. : ) *fist bump to my fellow preteen de-covert*

[@Locust13]

"you have a blind spot concerning the origin of the universe, but we have God as an explanation" Is functionally no different than someone several thousand years ago saying "You have a blind spot concerning how the tides work, but I have Poseidon as an explanation" Those things are not explanations, they have no explanatory power. It is a desperate attempt to solve a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery

[@gitfiddlio]

Tide goes in, tide goes out ...

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

Religion isn't a rational enterprise. They will pretend it is, but never take their word for it.

[@2thousand336]

Oh that is soo good Hewett!

[@MaliYojez]

This Christian speaks like a fish who is explaining how men pretend to breathe without water. Perhaps this is common for Christians? Living in secular Britain, the few believers I know generally keep their faith private.

[@AmandaTroutman]

I like this description a lot.

[@joqiii3]

Must be nice living in a primarily secular society.

[@NirielWinx]

Wow, you know believers. I met ONE in the past five years. He was from the US.

[@MaliYojez]

@@NirielWinx A coworker, a lesbian lady with a non-church going faith. She once mentioned it in passing, I made a vague acknowledging comment, and the conversation moved on to other things. It’s mad, when you think about it after a vid like this appears in your recommended list. The majority of Americans actually believe that an all-powerful sky god is looking down and judging us. It’s a medieval crazy town, insane in the extreme. It must be terrible for those who realise the truth, having to then be strong against the badgering of the lunatic masses, many of whom they love and trust.

[@MaliYojez]

@@masongalioth4110 I don’t expect this will make you feel better about it but America’s mask is well and truly off now. It was slipping with the invention of the internet showing us all your dirty laundry and now trump has ripped that fucker right off. We now see the lie behind California sunshine and the home of the brave. Anything America says is now suspect, the religious nonsense doubly so. At least, that’s how I see it.

[@davidbudge8359]

I love your deeply thought out ideas to Braxton's disingenuous questions. I hope everyone has a Happy and Healthy New Year

[@robp2253]

POZ puts more thought into his response than Mr Hunter put into his questions.

[@Burtimus02]

The clarity and thoughtfulness of your responses to Braxton are greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to address these “non-gotcha” questions.

[@munstrumridcully]

He acts like it is insane to say that there is "nothing wrong with prostitution". If consenting adults have the right to give away sex freely, why would charging for it be suddenly immoral? What kind of morality is he even talking about? If morality is at all tied to the wellbeing of people, then imo the only thing about prostitution that has any relevance to morality is using condoms to protect yourself and others from stds

[@rojh9351]

Agreed - this appears to be a morality argument from personal disgust.

[@munstrumridcully]

@@rojh9351 ah, argumentum ad fastidium... Always a fallacy somewhere in apologetics *sigh*

[@cafeeineaddicted8123]

Its an argument from "you just wanna sin". He regards prostitution as a sin, and treats that as a given.

[@galacticbob1]

Does anyone here know who Braxton of referring to, that argues that "we should put sex workers up on a pedestal"? That's pretty far beyond the usual "we should decriminalize sex work," argument that I hear.

[@cafeeineaddicted8123]

@@galacticbob1 I couldn't say who it is, although I suspect it won't include the term 'pedestal' and more to do with the comparison to the military. I can see an argument that sex workers perform a service to society comparable in importance to the military.

[@suziwolf4830]

Am I the only one who Mr. Hunter strikes as more than a little passive aggressive?

[@Phourc]

He might not be. This might be him being as open and genuine as is possible with the sheer amount of unfounded assumptions loaded on him by his religious beliefs.

[@suziwolf4830]

@@Phourc Fair point; I was just curious if the impression was just me or not

[@Phourc]

@@suziwolf4830 There's definitely a lot of _something_ in those questions that makes conversation difficult, I don't think you'll find any atheist who'd disagree. :P

[@DonDueed]

If not in Question 1 - 9, definitely in Question 10.

[@kathryngeeslin9509]

I find him very passive aggressive; he may well be unaware of it, it's so ingrained in some religious groups. That question 10 was infuriating. "The" Christian God (?), which one, each denomination has a different described version with different requirements for us. And how could I (if I chose to cowardly do so) convince an all-knowing God that I "loved" the horrifying monster portrayed in the Bible?

[@togborne]

Braxton strikes me as being very insecure. Also, what are “pop” level books and is he not a KZbinr?

[@ProphetofZod]

This question serves as a potentially unintentional moving target that lets you assume people who don't believe your thing are uninformed.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

I would assume "pop level" means "explanations on a pop culture level" in contrast to scientific attempts to explain things?

[@TheHikariLP]

I think he is conflating theism and christianity on that one. How many books has he read on Islam and Hinduism? Aside from theistic books how many counter-theism books has he read? My guess would be 0 though he would have to tell you. Another problem is he is expecting every single atheist on earth to potentially give money to theists to read their best arguments over those of other religions, because let's face it most of the books he will propose will be for christianity not theism or deism, as if the internet doesn't pretty much have most if not all arguments considering how many theists there are. Not only that but christians are making a claim and they have to give the evidence, not just tell us to search for it. Also why would they not give out their best arguments freely? Aren't christians compelled to give the best ones? Isn't that why missionaries exist for example? Surely they can't say that because their arguments are incredibly bad everywhere on the internet that it's just because every single one of them is keeping up with some form of copyright so that we all have to read their books. And lastly of course as Zod pointed out, it's a moving and blurry target. Imagine you read 20 books and then a christian tells you you have to read a book in the vatican secret archives or some obscure book on amazon for $200 or another book and then another and then another. It also depends on what flavor of christianity they prefer meaning that another christian will come along and propose other books.

[@pansepot1490]

@@ProphetofZod you should have asked him why he wasn’t rather interested in knowing if atheists have read the Bible cover to cover. The Bible is supposedly the inspired word of god. If atheists don’t find the word of god convincing it’s pretty unreasonable to expect them to be convinced by some random human, however good with words they might be.

[@suziwolf4830]

@@pansepot1490 Reminds me of something I saw on Twitter recently (I'm paraphrasing): Christian: Have you read this book by this apologist? Atheist: Well, no... Christian: Then you don't really get what Christianity is about. God: But... the atheist read MY book...

[@ancientfoglet9600]

I've been atheist pretty much all my life, and I never even think about "sin". It baffles me every single time, when this argument "you only choose atheism because you prefer sin" comes up and I cant think of it as anything else but a confession. It's almost comical if it wasnt so sad. Those poor dudes probably wanted to kiss another boy as a kid and now that thought haunts them for the rest their lives. I feel bad for them, I really do - religion is cruel.

[@Wholelottaparker]

Wait so you're telling me santa clause isn't real? Then who tf took the whiskey and pot brownies i left out on xmas eve?!?

[@clintholmes2061]

Where do you live? I know who is going to take the pot brownies next year.

[@SimianJack]

That was Jesus.

[@yoshi6421]

How do you think Rudolph got his nose?

[@SpecOpsCM]

Probably the addicted alcoholic living in your house.

[@melkhiordarkfell4354]

It's one of those funny things, they always have "10 questions for Atheists" or "5 Questions Atheist can't answer" when Atheists have just one question that Theists can't seem to answer "What evidence do you have".

[@sobertillnoon]

I left religion because of facts. I am disgusted by the religious because of their stance on social issues. This is my simple answer to number 8.

[@australianandrew128]

Here in outside America (in my case Australia) religious stances are not pressed into general social issues. Its just not an issue out here.

[@Salululations]

​@@australianandrew128 well that's not true.

[@rip7562]

I'm repeatedly mystified by the underlying assumptions in Christians' and Muslims' questions to atheists. They fundamentally assume atheists had once been theists who were attracted to their "worldview" because they want to somehow escape the morality imposed by their religion. I have yet to see them consider atheists who have never been theists such as myself. Having been raised in a secular household religion has never been anything more that a cultural artifact for me, a curiosity worthy only of historical value and examination for its effects. Yours and others' videos in the same vein are to me a testament to the perhaps ongoing difficulty many atheists face in a world overwhelmingly populated by people they once agreed with. I wonder if Hunter's questions would be any different when posed to one as myself. I wonder if you might not address that issue yourself.

[@jasonsabbath6996]

This! These types always assume there is only one type of atheist. It's frustrating!

[@cafeeineaddicted8123]

Former believers pose an existential threat to religions that lay claim to absolute truth. That is why apologists focus on those "lost sheep". You're not a lost sheep, you're next week's catch. Non-adherents are what missionaries are for.

[@TVeldhorst]

Exactly what has been bothering me a bit being a raised humanist in a less religeous country... thank you for wording it. I find these kind of (respons)videos from the atheist community very interesting, but I can't relate so much, as I never had to justify to myself or others why I don't believe in deities. I find religions and myths fascinating, but 'belief' does just not compute with me.

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

I think Hunter would simply preach to you, because he would assume, that simply making the claims, is all it takes. Maybe add some repetition, shouting, tears, emotional appeals, accusations and such. If things get tough, add circular reasoning and arguments from ignorance. That should do it! And if for some reason you are not convinced, it's your fault.

[@andrewholdaway813]

In a nutshell... How *_DARE_* you not believe in (my) god.

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

Good summation of all the questions, a bit cheeky, but it gave me a chuckle lol.

[@庫倫亞利克]

Fearmongering at its finest. One of the telltale signs of a religion being evil is that it utilizes fear as its most potent weapon. "Obey me or you'll burn. Just warning ya." Hardly a religion of love, I would say.

[@LordPhoenix140]

"What should matter most is the truth and not what we might prefer that the truth were." It's amazing that he can say that line and not see how it applies to his position.

[@ProphetofZod]

If only fundamentalists could watch themselves tripping over their own irony.

[@gregcampwriter]

I have a suspicion that non-believers in Christianity tend to be much better informed about the arguments of theologians than believers. As I said to Hunter, I have read the whole Bible--not just the Protestant version--several non-canonical texts, writings of the Church fathers and of medieval theologians, the apologetics of Lewis and Tolkien, and a number of modern apologetic books. My rejection of Christianity does not come from ignorance.

[@Bill_Garthright]

That's great. Seriously. But it shouldn't be required. And I don't want to spend _all_ of my time reading every supposed 'holy text' in the world. (I'm 69 years old, and I'd much rather be playing computer games!) After all, Muslims often tell me that, before I can question Islam, I have to read the entire Quran - in the original Arabic! I've never read the entire Bible, though I've tried a few times. (One of those times, I blogged about my progress. Maybe it would have gone quicker if I hadn't thought so much about what I was reading?) It just gets really boring. Besides, it's hard for me to understand how anyone can take it seriously right from the start. To me, the OT reads just like those ancient Greek myths I used to love to read as a child. And there are so many parts of it that are _obviously_ nonsense (like the three separate stories about the guy pimping out his wife to a king). After all, the people who _believe_ it aren't experts. They were just taught to believe it as children (as I was, though it didn't take with me). I've been surrounded by Christians my entire life. I didn't know a single other person who _wasn't_ a Christian throughout my childhood - at least through high school. I'm _still_ surrounded by Christians. And I've never actually met a Christian who _wasn't_ raised to believe it. So, again, I think it's great that you guys are so well-informed about this particular religion, but... I don't think it's necessary. Typically, I ask Christians (and Muslims) for *one piece of good evidence* that their god actually exists. Alternately, I tell the Christians that I'd accept *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. As long as they have nothing (and they never do) that's all I need - not to deny that their god _can't_ exist (I don't even claim that magic leprechauns _can't_ exist), but just to take the claim as seriously as I take unsupported claims about any _other_ supposed magical being.

[@gregcampwriter]

@@Bill_Garthright My point was that a lot of non-believers who are willing to discuss the topic on social media are well informed, contrary to the claims of apologists. I'm not saying that you have to know a lot about the religion to be a valid non-believer.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@gregcampwriter Yes, I know. Maybe I gave the wrong impression there.

[@SpecOpsCM]

Sounds like you were ignorant while reading the texts, and you’re still ignorant today.

[@SpecOpsCM]

@@Bill_Garthright prophecy

[@cuzned1375]

I know it’s not how you are, but when you said, “Anyway, those are my answers,” my brain automatically added a “bitch. ” on the end. ‘Cause that’s how _i_ am. XD

[@stephenwodz7593]

I gave up believing in a loving God when I found out that a thousand children under the age of five die of malaria every day. Either God doesn't exist, or he's a monster.

[@hakureikura9052]

based on the bible, in which god did a lot of things we consider as evil. and based in reality, wherein a lot of bad things happen to good people. the theists only really have two choices, either god is real but evil or there is no god at all.

[@Phourc]

Don't forget about the worms that live exclusively in human eyeballs! :P Actually no, that's entirely consistent with the old testament God, haha.

[@ProphetofZod]

Yeah, that's really something to think about. When working in mysterious ways so clearly mimics what you'd expect to see happen in a naturalistic universe, you wonder why people see God in the situation. Well, actually, you don't have to wonder, because they were raised in a religion.

[@Robert-yc9ql]

If God exists he is either ignorant, impotent, evil... or all three.

[@kathryngeeslin9509]

A novel I read once portrayed the Goddess as kind, caring, and a bit insane: "she'd have to be to continue creating life in this universe" over and over again.

[@AeronPrince]

I saw Braxton on another channel's response and don't think I can talerate that condescension a second time. You are a champion PoZ! Edit: I'm glad I watched all the way through on this one. Thank you

[@BigTwitchy]

"...I want to hear what the most sincere amongst you have to say..." Translation: I will cherry-pick those comments that fit into my expectations or are easiest for me to refute with my rhetoric, whilst ignoring genuine and well-thought out responses. They'll just go into the "Too Hard" basket to be ignored.

[@wadler00]

Christians should really practice saying "does your world view, that includes being anti stamp collecting due to your non stamp collecting hobby....".

[@NDHFilms]

25:34 Who needs movie theaters when you have PROJECTION like this?

[@pauljimerson8218]

Lets all go to the lobby and get ourselves a snack

[@NDHFilms]

@@pauljimerson8218 Apol-o-gist elite! The Kalam can't be beat "You just want to sin" is so dandy, "Atheist worldview" is handy, So let's all go to the loooobyyy... to get ourselves a treat!

[@edluckenbill377]

Only problem he will cherry 🍒 pick your answers on his show .Dishonest

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

If he responds to PoZ at all. He has a plethora of off the cuff answers he can play off as condescending and rude, he won't need to respond to the calm, measured and scripted ones. It'll prove the unspoken point he's made, that atheists can't answer his point honestly and fairly, to his audience who won't go digging, they'll watch his response to the "vile" atheists and slap his back for putting up with all the hate to expose atheists as sinners and blasphemers.

[@franktherealist481]

So, all I got from Braxton was, we don't know, therefore God. And there's nothing that favors theism at all. You know what would? This God revealing himself to all atheists. For an omnipotent being such as he, it wouldn't be beyond his ability. And my deconversion started with history.

[@minskghoul]

Something, something, free will. Even though the Abrhamic God Braxton believes in repeatedly doesn't give a sh*t about humans' free will in the Bible.

[@minskghoul]

P.S. Thats putting aside the fact that free will is oxymoron.

[@franktherealist481]

@@minskghoul what makes me bobble head about the free will claim they tout in religion is that they also claim God planned it all out before everything and everyone was created.... how oxymoron is that? To quote the orange one... "YUGE".

[@ProphetofZod]

And even revealing himself once would be well below the bar of other beings we believe in. We encounter humans literally every day, and they are part of our regular existence. God appearing once would be by its nature a weird aberration from normal observed reality, and not a lot to shape your life around.

[@martenw757]

His modesty & humility are oozing out of the screen A truly fine specimen of a christian We should have more of those ... ; )

[@ArgentavisMagnificens]

That guy's video was oozing appeal to emotion

[@fcchannel6162]

and atheist don't man y'all are filled with emotional agruements.

[@starfishsystems]

"Doesn't [uncertainty about the origin of the universe] destabilize you a little bit?" No, not even a little bit. Why should it? It's delightful to feel the sense of awe at being in such a vast universe that some of its deepest questions remain mysterious. On the contrary, I think it would be far MORE destabilizing to need to believe something on bad evidence, or to need to believe IN (construct an emotionally laden edifice of thought upon) something on bad evidence. Such wishful thinking is an inherently brittle source of stability which must also tend to encourage rejection of evidence to the contrary, even strong evidence. I get that, in a childlike way, we might want unconditional reassurance that all is well. But as adults we have to take responsibility to notice that sometimes all is not well. Avoiding this basic responsibility towards reality would be like staying in a house that's on fire because we can't bear to let go of its associations with our childhood. But we're no longer in our childhood, we're in a house that's on fire. The foolish waste of a life, now THAT is what I call destabilizing.

[@barryschwarz5960]

Braxton does not seem to consider, I don't know, as a valid answer.

[@tdtexas1934]

Always great to hear your take. Appreciate your content.

[@ProphetofZod]

Thank you! I really appreciate it.

[@robertplatt1693]

Worst pickup line ever: "Explain why you should not be dating me."

[@spectrepar2458]

Hey, some people like to date arrogant A-holes

[@JesseRitchey]

Does not the Bible count as a “top-notch” argument, shouldn’t it be the most top-notch?

[@ProphetofZod]

Yeah, that's the weird thing. I can't imagine how an atheist could read the entire book that God supposedly gave us as his perfect and complete expression of everything he wants us to know (as I have) yet still be accused of not having done their due diligence because they haven't read enough other books by Chrisitans.

[@Im_Hugh_Jass]

yeah imagine having to read dozens of books justifying why History Book X should be taken seriously. Just make a new history book!

[@frankwhelan1715]

@@ProphetofZod And other books to explain those books.

[@joqiii3]

Exactly!

[@Chance57]

And then some might even turn directly around on you for believing "the words of man" instead of god if you even hint at science. I have explained that I believe the Bible is included in "the words of man" but that seems to be a bridge too far. I guess the words of man is a pretty convenient thing when they want you to but AiG books.

[@GeorgeLocke]

"Is there anything your worldview accounts for better than christianity?" Important to be clear about what makes a "better account." A conspiracy theory can account for anything "well" in the sense that the theory can explain how any fact could come about. A "better" account, then, should be parsimonious in its premises.

[@nagranoth_]

And this is a theist thinking he's not judgmental and not using gotcha's....

[@theoskeptomai2535]

I know, right?

[@SpecOpsCM]

Are you hurt because you feel judged? Scripture must be wearing you down.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@SpecOpsCM What are you blabbering on about?

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

The only difference I've seen between apologists is the ratio between smugness, arrogance and condescension

[@MatecaCorp]

“These aren’t meant to be ‘gotcha’ questions” What a liar.

[@peterearden]

Here’s my thing on apologetics: that which is self-evidently true doesn’t require apologetics.

[@cy-one]

Pfff, you say that. Why am I paying 15€/month to the GravityApologetics(r) then?

[@MinecraftMartin]

Question #5 - lack of understanding why something exists doesn't justify chalking existence up to magic.

[@TimeKitt]

wow, actively leading then question to such a point as to disallow a request for evidence. and he does ask us to accept a particularly bigoted version of god. Most christians I know wouldnt obay his god.

[@gerrye114]

I watched a couple of Braxton's videos (starting with this one). He seems to have real trouble understanding the difference between A god existing and HIS god existing. I mentioned that in answers to a couple of these questions on his channel

[@potatolegs3505]

As much as I enjoy watching channels who react to these sorts of videos off-the-cuff (its cathartic I guess), I really really enjoy your scripted response, POZ. You're really good at explaining what a lot of us are thinking but don't know how to put into words.

[@ProphetofZod]

Thanks, I really appreciate it! I couldn't do what those channels do (different skill sets), but I put a lot of work into what I do and am glad my angle helps in its own way.

[@starfishsystems]

@@ProphetofZod It's evident that you put not only a lot of intellectual care into this work, but also a lot of honest introspection. It's the complementarity and integration of the two that really stands out for me.

[@SilverMKI]

"A system of stories designed to answer many questions thrown up by reality 'explains' that reality". Great, now demonstrate your system of stories is true.

[@ZephyrusAsmodeus]

How many fucking books should it take to convince us of an omnipresent, omnipotent being in the first damn place

[@TE-ow8wk]

As far as question 8 goes I’d say moral issues can get you questioning. Seeing the damage done by Christian morality can cause you to want to investigate it more thoroughly to see if it’s true.

[@ProphetofZod]

That's true. That's where evaluating moral issues can be part of a reasonable critique of Christianity's plausibility, not just a preference driven thing divorced from "all this talk about evidence."

[@theyoutubeanalyst3731]

#5 left me kind of speechless. The origin of the universe was never a problem for me (I rather consider it a mystery than a blank I need to fill with whatever answer), and I dont understand why he seems SO sure we all, at the end of the day, are... forcing ourselves to not believe, against our better judgement, I suppose?

[@darkstarr984]

I’ve considered it a moot point from the time I could imagine it - ultimately everything had to start existing, and if it was God who started everything He still had to start existing at some point. So it’s an entirely irrelevant question to almost all people. It’s irrelevant to me and I’m interested in evolution!

[@zachariousoftroy]

Hi there, apostate who has actually read a good chunk of the top-notch theist literature and scholarly research here. In my deconstruction story, social issues and lack of evidence were indeed large parts of my reasoning. But another large part was that literature itself. It turns out that while you can’t get straight answers for important questions from christians around you, you also can't get much better answers from the ones who are supposed to have them. Being told all my life that some christian out there was smart enough to have figured out why we believe what we were taught, and that the teachings and apologetics just logically stemmed from those deeper truths even if we didnt understand them as laypeople, and then finding out the "scholarly" reasons for belief are not much better than apologistics like this, was just as big a blow to my faith as the social issues I sought answers for in the first place. So even if you do go out of your way to get to the very bottom of things, it may very well just end up being another reason not to take any of these people seriously, regardless of their knowledge or status.

[@suicune2001]

The idea there are "scholars" on a fictional book just blows my mind. Can I become a scholar of Santa Claus? And in the end, I think ALL theist arguments boil down to 2 points: "You can't prove me wrong so therefore I'm going to assume I'm right and you're wrong, (and going to hell AND YOU DESERVE IT)" "Nuh uh! I don't believe that!" In the end, that's all there is. Atheists can't prove there is no deity but no religion has ever produced their deity, either. And whenever you point out logic, science, or evidence, they just respond with denying it outright saying they don't believe it. They literally just believe whatever they want to believe regardless of evidence or lack thereof.

[@zachariousoftroy]

@suicune2001 you really can't logic someone out of something they didn't logic themselves into. Some people are open to changing their minds when presented with better evidence, and others will always downright refuse. I think the trick is knowing which you're talking to, and knowing when you're wasting your time.

[@suicune2001]

@@zachariousoftroy Yeah that's a good point. You might as well be talking to a wall with some people.

[@rebeccazegstroo6786]

The focus on sexual rules always puzzled me. Why would a person who had sex outside marriage be just as condemned as a powerful person who caused misery to many?

[@darkstarr984]

There’s a reason Dante had those people wandering around a field with potent wind while people who caused enormous suffering had a different and even worse punishment. Because Dante wasn’t so enormously anti-sex as these people.

[@xerxBreak]

The final "question" is rather impossiböe, since "christianity" cant be "true" due to all the conflicts and contradictions within

[@MadHatter42]

It seems like most of these questions can be boiled down to “Give me a good reason as to why you’re not a Christian”, and the response is “I don’t need a reason; YOU’RE the one making the positive claim, it’s YOU’RE job to provide a good reason, not mine”

[@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh]

Anyone who fails to properly distinguish between the contraction YOU'RE (=You are) and the possessive pronoun "your" is a grammatical butt-head. You insist on revealing your [NOT "You are"^^] error within the space of a single sentence, and thus your reasoning prowess is likely in abeyance. Don't be a grammatical butt-head, dude...^^

[@wdsbhb]

If god exists and wants a personal relationship with me, I shouldn’t have to read top level scholarship on the subject. My kids don’t have to read my biography to get to know me, because they talk directly or me!

[@spiritualanarchist8162]

I grew up in the Netherlands , and when i didn't work or travelled abroad, I mostly lived in Dutch cities. Even tough I used to teach religious history , I viewed Christianity as a dying phenomena . The few Dutch 'christians' i know , believe in science, evolution, etc and see the bible as mostly symbolic..A spiritual guide, not a rule book. I lived in some South American countries that were very Catholic, but their faith didn't influence their lifestyle very much. Anyway, then I went to live and work in the U.S for a while..(This was pre- social media).And boy was surprised how many Christian with a capital C i encountered in this Western world !! . They are everywhere ! Huge mega churches that looked like sportstadiums , filled with people who mixed God, guns and patriotism in their faith. Ironically I also met my first real Atheist with a capital A. Though most Dutch people i know are atheists or agnostic, they don't see themselves that way. They often hardly know anything about religion, and/or just don't care. It's often seen as obvious superstition .Now i have been generalizing it a bit, however I find these constant online wars between (mostly American) Christians and Atheists both fascinating and surreal. These arguments going back and fort between people who live in completley different realities.

[@waterblonk]

I don’t know the last time you came back to the motherland but yeah indeed, religion, while being very much tolerated, is nonexistent over here in the NL.

[@spiritualanarchist8162]

@@waterblonk I'm back now, and with the exception of a few 'Zwarte kousen dorpjes' it's pretty much secular...Thank god ! 😉

[@darkstarr984]

I think what threw me off finally of late was that I genuinely don’t think, if the Christian god exists, that that god is worth worshipping as somehow perfectly good.

[@timothymulholland7905]

We needed your contribution!

[@ProphetofZod]

Thank you!

[@debunkosaurus8228]

One of the things that annoys me from apologists is the unsaid assumption that I was, at one time, a theist. I have always been atheist. I didn't "lose my faith".

[@SimianJack]

Same. I was aware of bible stories in the same way I was aware of Sinbad, Jason and the Argonauts, and similar tall tales the likes of which ray Harryhausen filmed. The biblical tales were simply...far less satisfying, to say the least. What was really disturbing was when I realized the people telling these stories actually believed in them and hellbent on me believing them as well.

[@davidwatson8118]

And the bible is a story book that no kid or intelegent adult could be bothered reading.

[@boovbalgutma1688]

Its actually kinda gross too. Like: “My insanity is inside you too. You always believed in my religion.” Gives me the heeby jeebies

[@terryriley8963]

10 questions for Atheists? Just keep asking ‘Why don’t you believe in magic’ ten times.

[@Ecsa0014]

Trying to use not knowing the origins of the universe as a gotcha by claiming "we have an answer and you don't" seems incredibly stupid to anyone who legitimately seeks the truth. Far too many fail to understand that often the most honest and intelligent answer for many things is "I don't know". Having an answer means nothing if that answer isn't rooted in objective reality.

[@yadabub]

Braxton taking testability off the table as a way of providing evidence for his god is telling. "You can't test God" is pretty good sign that it doesn't exist. So far as I can tell, the Christian god doesn't respond to *anything*, ever.

[@Phourc]

And even if he does exist but just uses his omni powers to perfectly hide from observation, wouldn't that still mean that we'd be unjustified believing in him? :P

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

He only did it so he could make the claim that scientists sometimes make assertions without testable repeatable experiments. Of course this only applies if you use the AiG definition of science, wherein to be testable and repeatable, you have to actually recreate the event in order to observe and test it.

[@aaronbredon2948]

the reason he takes repeatability of experiments off the table is that is the primary scientific prerequisite for evidence, and thus the only evidence accepted by methodological Naturalism. He is saying "what evidence (excluding scientific evidence) would change your belief", which translates to "what evidence that is not evidence would change your belief", which means "what false statement would change your belief' to a methodological naturalist, as only repeatable experiments are evidence and thus evidence that is not evidence means evidence that satisfies (X= NOT X). in other words he wants us to tell him what proof of 1=2 we would accept.

[@garryfounds3737]

A more accurate title for his video would be “10 Questions for Atheists from People Who Have Never Bothered to Consider Any Opposing Views Openly and Seriously.”

[@robertkaslow3720]

Apologists seem to triple down, on the flood too much, I have watched several different atheists, they have never tripled down on any story of fiction.

[@anthonysmith8800]

When I listen to Braxton words like smug, arrogant, condescending, insincere spring to mind. Excellent responses you gave Zod

[@edwino6655]

When it comes to the second question, as an atheist I do struggle with the morality of sex work. While I have no problem with it in theory, as I do believe women should be allowed to sell this 'service', but the practicality of sex works, pretty much universally, does give me pause. I do believe that the best way to protect women from those practices is to completely legalize the practice, but even at that point I don't think I'd personally ever make use of their services, because I'd feel there is no real way to make sure a woman is doing this completely unforced.

[@Revanbzn]

But at least if you give them a way to report abuse and not be dismissed or ignored. Of course it won’t fully stop people from kidnapping east European women or Italian men from going to Asian or African countries for the young women forced to do work there

[@moodyrick8503]

I was turned onto your channel by watching Paulogia. Love your calm mature reasoning abilities. Keep pushing back, bro !!!

[@MaliYojez]

Long ago, Frith made the world. He made all the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars. He made them by scattering his droppings all over the sky and this is why the grass and the trees grow so thick on the world. watershipdown.fandom.com/wiki/Lord_Frith

[@debbys-abqnm4537]

Long ago, did Frith's mother have to come clean up after him, thus creating the idea of recycling?

[@johnrichardson7629]

I rejected Christianity on moral grounds. I am frankly aghast that anyone doesn't reject it on moral grounds. The theistic question is independent of the "is Yahweh creepy AF?" question.

[@johnsheehan5109]

Funny how Braxton dismisses the comparison of Santy, the E bunny, and god as all being fairy tales made up by folks who are afraid of dying...

[@ProphetofZod]

I don't get what he was driving at with that comparison anyway, as it has nothing to do with whether or not god exists.

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

@@ProphetofZod I have found that Christians do this a lot when confronted with beings they dismiss out of hand as not existing, but for which the same arguments they use to shift a burden of proof to atheists who believe their god doesn't exist apply. Compare god to a unicorn, saying that christians can't definitively state that unicorns *don't* exist, and instead of evaluating their shift of burden of proof, they'll retreat to the position that the comparison isn't apt, because "god is an all powerful being and a unicorn isn't." They'll ignore the fact that they just presupposes gods existence demonstrating their whole problem.. The ever shifting goal posts of discussing/debating somethings existence with someone already convinced against all reason and evidence, is not an easy task.

[@ObjectivelyDan]

My favorite response to Braxton's video so far. I hope he and other apologists sees this

[@marshallahonen]

"...massive blind spot..." Right.

[@skybrad5988]

Thanks for responding to a Braxton video. I find his videos to be some of the more interesting Apologetic videos I have seen lately. He approaches some arguments from a different angle than I am used to, and more than any other apologist in the last year has made me think harder about some issues. However so many thing about his videos make them very hard to respond to. Like how many of them are over an hour long. How he seems to think his very specific version of Christianity is the only one, and thus dismisses arguments against other believes as invalid even if they were not aimed at him. And other things make it very difficult to make a proper response video to his ideas. I was very impressed with how well you handled it. I hope you find more ways to respond to his videos, as difficult as I can see that must be.

[@davidwatson8118]

Gods don't exist. Until proven otherwise.

[@davidwatson8118]

@Language and Programming Channel Scientific theories 🤔 Please look that up.

[@SpecOpsCM]

Oh my God, you just blew my mind with YOUR profound genius. How in the world did we ever think that God exists without US proving HIS existence first? Damn, I guess we better change our dating system until we figure this one out.

[@Revanbzn]

@@SpecOpsCM the church chose the dating method not your puny god

[@davidwatson8118]

@@SpecOpsCM Which dating system are you referring to 🤔? Are you aware that there is more than one?

[@davidwatson8118]

@@SpecOpsCM " how in the world did we ever think that god exists without us proving HIS existence first" Which god? How? We havn't. "HIS" you know its gender ? How?

[@RowanTreeArt]

to braxton's credit on question #8 the straw that broke the camels back for me was the fact that my having premarital sex did not make me burst into flames or even feel like a bad person. it didn't change anything fundamental about myself the way i had been led to believe it would. but even though that was one of the final things that perpetrated my leaving christianity, i had a whole host of other doubts that i had been ignoring since i was in high school that were based on things other than sexuality and to a lesser extent, morality.

[@taurusfiend5836]

"sex workers should be put up on a pedestal like the military" dude..... no ones said this. we just want it to be... legal. thats it. people should be able to do what they want with their body.

[@exiztent818]

98% of Biologists and geologists are Atheist. 92% of physicists are Atheist. For Math and Engineering, the number is somewhere in the mid to high 80s. This is according to a UN study (if im not mistaken) that I saw on Fareed Zakaria's GPS. It is the best, most accurate and most current figures on the rate of religiosity among the sciences. Hearing this should have you thing about only one thing... Why is the figure so high for the life and earth sciences specifically. This will then lead you to the question: is there something inherent or specific to the life and earth sciences that MAKES THOSE STUDYING IT LOSE THEIR FAITH. What is it about these two disciplines that seemingly turn people into non-believers. As a former biology major, I can attest personally to the countless times I learned something about life and it's processes that called into question certain things about religion.

[@alancham4]

There are unknowables that no human knows and will never know... and can’t “know”. A primary characteristic of cultists is they think these things can be known and that they know them. They do not.

[@MarkJones-fw3mo]

I've never made a list but here's my list.