What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

[EquALLity]

No.

Then link the videos, I guess.

He chose to make it his job and be financially dependent on views. If he had a part time job, he could ignore his audience when they ask for stupid things, and improve the quality of his videos if he chose to do so.

Good point. But he still does make good content (at least, in my opinion), he just also makes irrelevant content (and really, it's still pretty hilarious to me).

Because the real issues associated with that video are free-will, spiritual gnosis, and the theism of rationalists who believe the truth of God can be derived through reason (it can't be). He won't address those because he's anti-intellectual. He makes a number of false assertions in addition to completely missing the point, although I don't like to do Apologists' work for them.

He either does not understand theism, or deliberately represents theology in order to mock it more easily.

His lack of listing every argument doesn't render the ones presented invalid.
God sending good people to Hell is an issue also, and many Christians believe that faith is all it takes to get into Heaven, or at least, something necessary, and that Hell is eternal torment and anguish.

That's not an argument, that's a question. It's also one which theology has answered in a number of ways. It's almost the equivalent of Christians asking "If man came from Monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" as if that debunks evolution.

TJ either does not understand the issues, or he is misrepresenting them deliberately (maybe for his audience). Either way, I see nothing of intellectual value there.

Why can't something by an argument in the form of a question? Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? Why would that be the case?

And in what way does theology logically answer this challenge?
I asked this question to my mother once, and here is what she said:
"If people go to Hell, there is a good reason they went there!"
What a fricken answer.

That's not really almost the equivalent of asking that question. The question not only fails to understand evolution, but even if evolutionists did believe man came from monkeys, the question still wouldn't make sense.

Maybe I really do not understand modern Christianity, because I think the argument is valid.
Why do you think it is invalid?

He has such a large audience, there are bound to be a few rare examples (although that was somebody who had already lost faith, and apparently it was a question only Hitchens could address).

They just said they were questioning their faith.

That's not really a good reason to think he's anti-intellectual, because you think Dawkins is an intellectual, and Dawkins (obviously) isn't Hitchens.

The issue, however, is more of efficacy. In order to get the people who need to realize it to realize it, you have to get theists to laugh at themselves and their own beliefs; that requires a certain element of diplomacy, rather than ranting and offending the people whose minds you need to change (they need to be offended a little to be exposed to other ideas and desensitized, but I don't think enough theists really watch his videos to make that very effective either).

Well, how do you know he doesn't do this? How do you know George Carlin did do this? Is there any way it could really be confirmed?

Yes, George Carlin, bless the late diplomat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ

Did Dawkins lie about doing something when he doesn't?

How do you know TJ was lying? He could have messed up the wording, and have just meant that he reduces or something.

Oh, probably so. They had some ignorant theists on there, so I automatically assumed it was Fox. He did a good job in that interview (although it was short).

Hahahahaha!

If TJ is a closet intellectual, he should drop the bad clown act and start being himself. Yes, he would lose money and have to get a part time job, but he would gain a bit of dignity and respect.

From who?

[brimstoneSalad]

Then link the videos, I guess.

I don't know what you're asking.

Good point. But he still does make good content (at least, in my opinion), he just also makes irrelevant content (and really, it's still pretty hilarious to me).

If you find it funny, that's fine. I don't. I also don't watch Sponge Bob, or whatever. I get it, but I don't like it. I don't find Bill Maher funny either.

His lack of listing every argument doesn't render the ones presented invalid.

It's called a straw-man fallacy. He's misrepresenting the issues, and arguing against something that isn't an unaddressed issue, or even a serious problem, in theology if he understood it at all.

God sending good people to Hell is an issue also,

In most theology, god never sends good people to hell (they would also say people send themselves there, because it's a choice). According to Gnosis, we all have magical knowledge of god's existence, certain knowledge deep in our hearts, and in order to be atheists we have to actively reject that knowledge and deny it, and we do this out of pride or so we can sin, which makes us bad people.

Theology's definitions of good and bad are completely different than those arrived at by reason, which look at the consequences of your actions. This is an issue with theology, and it's one of the GOOD arguments that can debunk theology as evil. That's an issue -- theology's bad definitions of good and evil. It has nothing to do with hell.

and many Christians believe that faith is all it takes to get into Heaven, or at least, something necessary,

This is the doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone. Is it a point of contention in religion, and many theologians disagree with each other on it. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

In the General Council of Trent the Catholic Church stated in canon XIV on justification that "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema (excommunicated)."

Necessary? Well, if you already knew that god existed when you were born through magical knowledge, it takes no faith to believe it. According to most Christian theologians, it takes faith to actively reject that divine knowledge and be an atheist.

and that Hell is eternal torment and anguish.

Many theologians reject that view of hell; probably most. Some believe that atheists simply cease to exist after death (many, actually), others that the soul lives on in various planes as in Dante (which is approaching cannon for some theologies), others that the soul lives on, and that hell is considered the metaphysical separation from God (by choice).

You will find few views in theology as diverse and divided as those on hell.

Why can't something by an argument in the form of a question?

That would be Socratic, but it's a longer method that requires listening to the answers to the questions, and then poking holes in those answers with more questions. That's a good method, but it's one TJ does not use, because he ignores the answers to the simple questions he asks which are widely available.

And in what way does theology logically answer this challenge?
I asked this question to my mother once, and here is what she said:
"If people go to Hell, there is a good reason they went there!"
What a fricken answer.

She is saying that only bad people go to hell. Christians reject the notion that good people can or do go to hell.

That's not really almost the equivalent of asking that question. The question not only fails to understand evolution, but even if evolutionists did believe man came from monkeys, the question still wouldn't make sense.

Which is what makes it equivalent. Christians don't believe that good people go to hell.
It's a question that misunderstands their theology.

That's not really a good reason to think he's anti-intellectual, because you think Dawkins is an intellectual, and Dawkins (obviously) isn't Hitchens.

I don't know what you're talking about. He's anti-intellectual, that's just how he is. It's like the sky being blue- it's based on what it does (scatter blue light, while what TJ does is ignore intellectual arguments). I didn't say he's anti-intellectual because Dawkins is an intellectual, and Dawkins isn't Hitchens. Hitchens was an intellectual too; although he leaned more rhetoric than logical argument, he understood them and could make them where needed.

Well, how do you know he doesn't do this? How do you know George Carlin did do this? Is there any way it could really be confirmed?

You have to look at the audience.

How do you know TJ was lying?

We discussed this. It's always possible to avoid factory farmed meat.

He could have messed up the wording, and have just meant that he reduces or something.

That's completely changing what he said. He didn't say that. He chose his words carefully, and he could have edited it or corrected himself if he made a mistake. It's a youtube video, not a surprise interview.

From who?

From intellectuals, from his educated opposition, from academia in general. From a lot of people whose respect he does not want because he's anti-intellectual. It's a position he has taken over the years.

[EquALLity]

Oh snap, you responded before I got to respond to your second post.
Ok, here we go, then.

don't know what you're asking.

I was asking you to link the videos where you recall TJ doing that.

If you find it funny, that's fine. I don't. I also don't watch Sponge Bob, or whatever. I get it, but I don't like it. I don't find Bill Maher funny either.

Well, TJ's videos are not like SpongeBob, because I get things from them.
UPDATE: I want to clarify; I wasn't saying his good content was irrelevant, I was saying he makes good content, and then he also sometimes makes irrelevant content (which is still funny).

It's called a straw-man fallacy. He's misrepresenting the issues, and arguing against something that isn't an unaddressed issue, or even a serious problem, in theology if he understood it at all.

Well, maybe the ones he presented were in fact invalid. But that doesn't really address what I said.
"His lack of listing every argument doesn't render the ones presented invalid."

Out of curiosity, do you think George Carlin was an anti-intellectual also? I'm asking because he made the Hell argument.

In most theology, god never sends good people to hell (they would also say people send themselves there, because it's a choice). According to Gnosis, we all have magical knowledge of god's existence, certain knowledge deep in our hearts, and in order to be atheists we have to actively reject that knowledge and deny it, and we do this out of pride or so we can sin, which makes us bad people.

Oh, the choice thing. Hahaha, I saw something on that recently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJgLBoB_Pw

Theology's definitions of good and bad are completely different than those arrived at by reason, which look at the consequences of your actions. This is an issue with theology, and it's one of the GOOD arguments that can debunk theology as evil. That's an issue -- theology's bad definitions of good and evil. It has nothing to do with hell.

Ok, but I don't argue with theologians much. When it comes to Christians, I just argue with the average church-goer, and none of them ever make this case.

And I think that TJ kind of did address this, perhaps inadvertently. He was asking why God would make a test that causes an intellectual child to go to Hell, and a dumb one to go to Heaven. So he points out that God's ideas of good and evil are absurd.

This is the doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone. Is it a point of contention in religion, and many theologians disagree with each other on it. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

Ok, I'll view that after I finish writing this.
Don't the majority of Protestants believe this? I was taking a test about my knowledge of religion a while back, and I remember it saying this.

Necessary? Well, if you already knew that god existed when you were born through magical knowledge, it takes no faith to believe it. According to most Christian theologians, it takes faith to actively reject that divine knowledge and be an atheist.

I know what they mean now when they say it takes faith to be an atheist, hahaha.

Well that's strange, though. Nearly every Christian I've debated has told me to just "have faith". Perhaps everyday Christians are out of touch with theologian views?

Many theologians reject that view of hell; probably most. Some believe that atheists simply cease to exist after death (many, actually), others that the soul lives on in various planes as in Dante (which is approaching cannon for some theologies), others that the soul lives on, and that hell is considered the metaphysical separation from God (by choice).

You will find few views in theology as diverse and divided as those on hell.

Out of curiosity, do you talk with theologians on the regular? I've only spoken with one.

Well, I'm starting to believe that many Christians don't really know about theology, either. I hear this Hell nonsense all of the time.

That would be Socratic, but it's a longer method that requires listening to the answers to the questions, and then poking holes in those answers with more questions. That's a good method, but it's one TJ does not use, because he ignores the answers to the simple questions he asks which are widely available.

Where? I've never heard anyone make these arguments you are telling me about.

She is saying that only bad people go to hell. Christians reject the notion that good people can or do go to hell.

Not really, I don't remember when, but during this conversation, she said, and I paraphrase, "You better change your ways, because you're gonna be going somewhere real hot soon!!!111" (this is because I didn't take the Holy Water at Church, when I was still going because I had just very recently become an atheist)
But then, maybe she just thinks all non-believers are bad. Well, that sucks, then. I don't think it's that deep, but maybe.

I don't know what you're talking about. He's anti-intellectual, that's just how he is. It's like the sky being blue- it's based on what it does (scatter blue light, while what TJ does is ignore intellectual arguments). I didn't say he's anti-intellectual because Dawkins is an intellectual, and Dawkins isn't Hitchens. Hitchens was an intellectual too; although he leaned more rhetoric than logical argument, he understood them and could make them where needed.

Well, you said that apparently, only Hitchens could answer the question. I was assuming you were using this as an argument for TJ being an anti-intellectual. So then I was saying that you'd be setting the bar too high.

You probably didn't really mean this, re-examining it, but I felt it odd that you said that out of the blue.

You have to look at the audience.

Ok, but how? In what way would you be able to do this? Is there a George Carlin forum where you can start a poll or something?
Oh my god, there is. http://www.georgecarlin.com/forum.aspx

That's completely changing what he said. He didn't say that. He chose his words carefully, and he could have edited it or corrected himself if he made a mistake. It's a youtube video, not a surprise interview.

Actually, it kind of was. See the attachment.

From intellectuals, from his educated opposition, from academia in general. From a lot of people whose respect he does not want because he's anti-intellectual. It's a position he has taken over the years.

Educated opposition? The theologians? I doubt he cares about their respect.

He likes Hitchens, so it's not really fair to say he doesn't care about intellectuals' opinions.

[brimstoneSalad]

I was asking you to link the videos where you recall TJ doing that.

Like I said, I really don't know what you're asking me. But there's no way I'm watching TJs videos to try to find something in particular.

That would be like me asking you to go to a few dozen church sermons and sit through them, and make explicit citations of mention of hell, or something like that.

Well, TJ's videos are not like SpongeBob, because I get things from them.
UPDATE: I want to clarify; I wasn't saying his good content was irrelevant, I was saying he makes good content, and then he also sometimes makes irrelevant content (which is still funny).

I know, but I don't think he does make good content. The content you see as his good stuff, I still see as juvenile and poorly informed.
I just don't think you should be getting anything from his videos. Like people shouldn't be getting their news from Fox.

In thousands of videos, it is possible he has made an insightful and compelling video on something. I have not seen it, however, and I'm not about to forgive the rest in search of it. Bill O'Reilly has even said some insightful things. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Well, maybe the ones he presented were in fact invalid. But that doesn't really address what I said.
"His lack of listing every argument doesn't render the ones presented invalid."

He doesn't have to list every argument, but he's making a straw-man argument. That's a problem.

Out of curiosity, do you think George Carlin was an anti-intellectual also? I'm asking because he made the Hell argument.

I don't know; I never got that impression from his work. George Carlin made jokes; I haven't seen him frame many serious arguments.

Ok, but I don't argue with theologians much. When it comes to Christians, I just argue with the average church-goer, and none of them ever make this case.

Most Christians understand as much about theology as most Atheists understand about science; which is, next to nothing.
The vast majority of people, whether theistic or atheistic, are extremely ignorant about what they claim to believe. It's a systemic problem of humanity.

And I think that TJ kind of did address this, perhaps inadvertently. He was asking why God would make a test that causes an intellectual child to go to Hell, and a dumb one to go to Heaven. So he points out that God's ideas of good and evil are absurd.

I didn't take it that way; he was responding to the "God is testing us" thing. I've never seen him make a compelling argument that demonstrated any real understanding of theology.

Don't the majority of Protestants believe this? I was taking a test about my knowledge of religion a while back, and I remember it saying this.

Yes, but not all.

Not really, I don't remember when, but during this conversation, she said, and I paraphrase, "You better change your ways, because you're gonna be going somewhere real hot soon!!!111" (this is because I didn't take the Holy Water at Church, when I was still going because I had just very recently become an atheist)
But then, maybe she just thinks all non-believers are bad. Well, that sucks, then. I don't think it's that deep, but maybe.

Her views are not consistent with themselves, if you ask her about it. But that is basically it. All atheists are bad people for rejecting god, and they all not only will go to hell, but deserve to go to hell and it's the right thing.

It's substantially disturbing that she would think her own child is a bad person, and believe that you deserve to go to hell, siding with an imaginary friend over her daughter. And yet, that is what she believes, which is why it is so stressful for her. She has probably convinced herself that you're going through a phase, and that you'll accept Jesus when you get older -- that is likely the only way she can live with her frankly wicked beliefs.

All of this is not evidence that god does not exist, or evidence that god is evil; but in light of the fact that their religion is false and their god does not exist, it's evidence that Christians are evil people for choosing to believe these things about their fellow human beings (the ones who do). They don't have to believe these things; nobody is holding guns to their heads. God is imaginary, and if they'd bother to think about it they could come to that realization pretty easily if they wanted to. They don't want to; they prefer to believe these things about their brothers, sisters, and even their children.

Ok, but how? In what way would you be able to do this? Is there a George Carlin forum where you can start a poll or something?
Oh my god, there is. http://www.georgecarlin.com/forum.aspx

I haven't been able to find a poll, but there are a lot of Christian fans of George Carlin (even Born-Again Christians)

Google pulls up a bunch of them on blogs and such.
http://www.thewordslinger.com/posts.php?id=35

As was, anecdotally, the case while he was alive. If you'd have polled the audience, you probably would have found that most were liberal theists who were willing to laugh at themselves.

He probably has more liberal and atheist-deist fans, but no shortage among conservatives and Christians. Why? Because he was funny. And he was also right about a lot, which his fans admit (while still disagreeing with his conclusions).

[EquALLity]

Like I said, I really don't know what you're asking me. But there's no way I'm watching TJs videos to try to find something in particular.

That would be like me asking you to go to a few dozen church sermons and sit through them, and make explicit citations of mention of hell, or something like that.

I was asking you to link me to specific videos that include TJ saying that he wasn't going to talk about Justin Bieber again, and then ranting about it.

Well, the difference is that that's not the only way I can prove what I'm saying to be accurate. And he only has 20 videos in his Justin Bieber playlist.

Actually, he did just make one, which I suppose hurts my argument, eh?

He actually starts it by saying that he doesn't think he makes a lot of irrelevant content (but that some people completely disagree), and that Justin Bieber is the one subject he really does that on.

He also made one about whether her not he is a character, which I think is interesting. Here's that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXwWIXkJWbI

I know, but I don't think he does make good content. The content you see as his good stuff, I still see as juvenile and poorly informed.
I just don't think you should be getting anything from his videos. Like people shouldn't be getting their news from Fox.

In thousands of videos, it is possible he has made an insightful and compelling video on something. I have not seen it, however, and I'm not about to forgive the rest in search of it. Bill O'Reilly has even said some insightful things. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Have you seen the one I linked in the discussion about the legalization of marijuana? I thought that was a pretty good one with tons of points, and there are even sources in the description.

Unless you really want one on theology. Then, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYRMLbfcihI

I'm going to respond to your critique of his other video, btw. Someday... ;D
But seriously, I will. Probably.

He doesn't have to list every argument, but he's making a straw-man argument. That's a problem.

Well, ok, yes, I see now it does misunderstand theology.

And even if most Christians don't understand theology, and so don't understand the flaw in that argument, it's still intellectually dishonest to make that argument, eh?

Most Christians understand as much about theology as most Atheists understand about science; which is, next to nothing.
The vast majority of people, whether theistic or atheistic, are extremely ignorant about what they claim to believe. It's a systemic problem of humanity.

Oh, that's probably me a bit, but I don't claim to be an expert on science.
I know what I learn in science class, and I've seen some cool lectures/debates of evolution on YouTube.
The Big Bang theory is just confusing.
"What caused the Big Bang?"
"Nothing, there was no time and space before the Big Bang, because the Big Bang created time and space."
What? So then how did it happen?

UPDATE: Oh, and then there's multiverse theory, also. So then just our Universe's space and time didn't exist, or something. Perhaps you could explain it more?

Anyway, I don't really have trouble with this when debating theists. It's not really useful for me to know at the moment (I mean, I would still like to).
Theist- "Well if God didn't create the Universe, where did it come from?"
My usual response: "Just because I don't know doesn't mean you can make it whatever you want without any logical basis. And where did God come from?"
There.

I didn't take it that way; he was responding to the "God is testing us" thing. I've never seen him make a compelling argument that demonstrated any real understanding of theology.

He was asking why God would create a test that a compassionate person would fail, and that a mean person would pass, and then proceed to make the consequence of failing eternal torment.

It's substantially disturbing that she would think her own child is a bad person, and believe that you deserve to go to hell, siding with an imaginary friend over her daughter. And yet, that is what she believes, which is why it is so stressful for her. She has probably convinced herself that you're going through a phase, and that you'll accept Jesus when you get older -- that is likely the only way she can live with her frankly wicked beliefs.

Hahaha, my dad used to tell me this story about this 'crazy' atheist who dared ask for evidence, like I do.
But then, her father died, and she converted and became a nun.
And then he would conclude saying I'd be the same, and that I should still go to CCD, because then when I converted back to Christianity, I would have all the sacraments done. Sigh.

I kind of feel bad for them, really.

All of this is not evidence that god does not exist, or evidence that god is evil; but in light of the fact that their religion is false and their god does not exist, it's evidence that Christians are evil people for choosing to believe these things about their fellow human beings (the ones who do). They don't have to believe these things; nobody is holding guns to their heads

I don't know about that. Do you choose what you believe?
I guess you can choose to seek out information, with the idea that the information might change your beliefs, but you can't really control what you believe. I couldn't choose to believe in God if I wanted to, because I understand it's bullsh*t.

I haven't been able to find a poll, but there are a lot of Christian fans of George Carlin (even Born-Again Christians)

Perhaps they liked his earlier material? He didn't really start talking about religion until his later years, correct?
I remember my mom saying she liked George Carlin once, to my surprise. But then another time, she said he was a holy man.
I almost shat in my pants.

Oh god, it's still hilarious.

I'll check out that link!

[brimstoneSalad]

He also made one about whether her not he is a character, which I think is interesting. Here's that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXwWIXkJWbI

That's probably the most insightful thing I've heard him say.

I think he is pretty self-aware about the issue, regarding irrelevant content. He's probably also aware that he's misrepresenting a lot of theism, and doesn't care about that. He knows he's not an intellectual; he's filling a particular niche of rabble rousing for young atheists on the internet. That's an important niche to fill, I would just like if he would do a better job of it and provide better educational content instead of arming them with strawman arguments and perpetuating misunderstanding.

Well, ok, yes, I see now it does misunderstand theology.

And even if most Christians don't understand theology, and so don't understand the flaw in that argument, it's still intellectually dishonest to make that argument, eh?

Correct. Like I said before, it's like the bad arguments against evolution; those kinds of arguments even convince some atheists that evolution is wrong and make converts, but they're based on a shared misunderstanding of evolution, and they're ignorant at best, and more likely dishonest, since those people make the choice not to understand evolution.

But he doesn't care about intellectual honestly, because he's anti-intellectual. He's just making arguments he thinks people will buy, or will be seen as compelling, even if they aren't accurate. It's the same way he has attacked vegetarians. Lots of rhetoric and no fact checking.

An intellectual is concerned about getting things wrong, checks facts, and is embarrassed when mistaken.

"What caused the Big Bang?"
"Nothing, there was no time and space before the Big Bang, because the Big Bang created time and space."
What? So then how did it happen?

It didn't happen, that's a misunderstanding of time. You need to think about time non-linearly. Imagine "now" as a page in a book. The next page is tomorrow, the previous page is yesterday. Now, look at the whole book. It's like a time-line. That book is our universe, as we experience it.

UPDATE: Oh, and then there's multiverse theory, also. So then just our Universe's space and time didn't exist, or something. Perhaps you could explain it more?

The multiverse is the library. It is timeless. It contains every possible version of every possible story.
Time is a sort of illusion experienced by the characters in those books.

Yesterday is only gone for us, because this perspective is from the next page, but that page of yesterday is still there, and there's still a you on that page wondering about tomorrow. It's relative.

Nothing can happen outside of time, and nothing does happen outside of time. That, in particular, is why there's no god there; even if there were, it would be frozen and without thought or action. All of those things only occur across time.

The multiverse was not created, and did not form; it's just what is -- the sum of all possible universes, as a wave phenomenon.

I don't know about that. Do you choose what you believe?

When people are delusional, they choose to remain delusional. It is relatively easy to learn about reality, and the logical proof against their beliefs. It's harder to go the other way, from reality to delusion.

Christians choose to believe in their religion, because there's a very simple way to stop believing in it if they don't want to: just learn about reality.

It's the same way Christians think Atheists choose to be atheists. There is one key difference, though, which makes all of the difference: They are, in fact, wrong. When one learns about reality, it's a one-way street.

[EquALLity]

I think he is pretty self-aware about the issue, regarding irrelevant content.

Well, he has said he doesn't believe makes a lot of irrelevant content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFdapkW6w-g
(2:10)

arming them with strawman arguments and perpetuating misunderstanding.

Yes, he has some bad arguments. But he also has good ones, like the unfalsifiable argument he made, for example.

But he doesn't care about intellectual honestly, because he's anti-intellectual.

I seriously doubt he knows that the argument is a strawman, because he probably doesn't go out and debate theologians. He's not an anti-intellectual for being misinformed.

I mean, if Christians don't agree with theologians on things, doesn't it make sense to argue against their specific belief system?
Before I thought it was intellectually dishonest, but now I'm thinking, the Bible is up for interpretation, right? If most Christians have a different perspective than theologians, doesn't it make sense to argue against those perspectives?

What's the use in making arguments to them that don't address their beliefs?

It didn't happen, that's a misunderstanding of time. You need to think about time non-linearly. Imagine "now" as a page in a book. The next page is tomorrow, the previous page is yesterday. Now, look at the whole book. It's like a time-line. That book is our universe, as we experience it.

I still don't think I understand.
If the Big Bang didn't happen, how would you describe it?

The multiverse is the library. It is timeless. It contains every possible version of every possible story.
Time is a sort of illusion experienced by the characters in those books.

Yesterday is only gone for us, because this perspective is from the next page, but that page of yesterday is still there, and there's still a you on that page wondering about tomorrow. It's relative.

Nothing can happen outside of time, and nothing does happen outside of time. That, in particular, is why there's no god there; even if there were, it would be frozen and without thought or action. All of those things only occur across time.

The multiverse was not created, and did not form; it's just what is -- the sum of all possible universes, as a wave phenomenon.

What is the idea that yesterday is still happening based off of? And where is it happening? In another Universe?

When people are delusional, they choose to remain delusional. It is relatively easy to learn about reality, and the logical proof against their beliefs. It's harder to go the other way, from reality to delusion.

Why do you think they can all learn? You don't think some are too far gone?
They use faith as a justifiable reason for believing what they do.

And they already have faith they have found the correct way, so why would they go out and seek others?

[EquALLity]

Dawkins is an intellectual. If you could reach him with some solid criticism, he would respond in a very different way.

Also, Peter Singer did reach Dawkins with some solid criticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti-WcnqUwLM

So Dawkins either didn't look into factory farming after this, even though he admitted that he believed factory farming conditions are probably very bad, or he did, and yet still didn't alter his diet.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, he has said he doesn't believe makes a lot of irrelevant content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFdapkW6w-g
(2:10)

I was complimenting him on being self-aware at least. But I'll take that back, I guess if you think he isn't. I can't watch that video.

Yes, he has some bad arguments. But he also has good ones, like the unfalsifiable argument he made, for example.

That's not a good argument.

Unfalsifiability is only an empirical matter; it doesn't make something not true. It's also not apparently true that there are any logically unfalsifiable arguments. Theism has been falsified, repeatedly, because the metaphysical models they build are internally contradictory.

I seriously doubt he knows that the argument is a strawman, because he probably doesn't go out and debate theologians. He's not an anti-intellectual for being misinformed.

Oh no, he has had his fair share of theologians replying to his videos. He has made a point to ignore them. If he's uninformed, it was a concerted effort to remain so.

I mean, if Christians don't agree with theologians on things, doesn't it make sense to argue against their specific belief system?

No, because most Christians don't know what they actually believe, since they aren't good students. When they don't know something, what do they do? They go to church and ask a more qualified theologian. Who then reveals that TJ was making a strawman argument, and puts their mind to ease that atheists are ignorant at best, and dishonest servants of the devil seeking to trick Christians away from god at worst.

Is that useful?

Before I thought it was intellectually dishonest, but now I'm thinking, the Bible is up for interpretation, right?

Yes, and every Christian sect has a canonical interpretation which IS the correct interpretation for the members of that sect.
When you are debating against theist claims, you're debating many different specific versions of god, and you have to contextualize that.

If most Christians have a different perspective than theologians, doesn't it make sense to argue against those perspectives?

As much sense as it makes to argue that evolution is wrong because there are still monkeys, because most people who blindly accept evolution think that's a real challenging issue and don't know the answer to it.

What's the use in making arguments to them that don't address their beliefs?

They don't know what they believe. If he's going to make arguments against their theology, he needs to first explain to them what they believe, and then argue against it.

If a theist wants to make arguments against evolution, he or she has to first understand what evolution actually is, and then formulate an argument against it.

If the Big Bang didn't happen, how would you describe it?

Think of it like a place, frozen in time, it's the edge of the universe.

What is the idea that yesterday is still happening based off of? And where is it happening? In another Universe?

Not in another universe, in this one, in another time. Stop thinking of time as time, and think of it as space instead.

Nothing is happening, except for as you move through time, when you stand still and look at it all, it's frozen.

Why do you think they can all learn? You don't think some are too far gone?

They're too far gone if they choose to be.

It's part of who they are because that's the person they chose to be.

And they already have faith they have found the correct way, so why would they go out and seek others?

They don't need to seek it out; it's pounding the door down all of the time, and bracing against it and covering their ears is all they can do to hold back the flow of knowledge.

Also, Peter Singer did reach Dawkins with some solid criticism

Semi-solid, anyway. Perhaps some kind of pudding-like consistency, possibly slightly crusted over like pudding gets, making it more solid on the outside, but still gooey on the inside.

or he did, and yet still didn't alter his diet.

He recognizes that eating meat is wrong,

"You're a much more moral person than I am and I have to say that" were his words.
"I don't find any very good defense"

[EquALLity]

I was complimenting him on being self-aware at least. But I'll take that back, I guess if you think he isn't. I can't watch that video.

Is that because you are busy, or because of the title, hahaha? I gave you the time mark for a reason, but if you believe me, then whatever.
He is aware that people think he makes irrelevant content, he just disagrees.

Unfalsifiability is only an empirical matter; it doesn't make something not true. It's also not apparently true that there are any logically unfalsifiable arguments. Theism has been falsified, repeatedly, because the metaphysical models they build are internally contradictory.

He was using this argument against people who claim that atheists can't prove there is no God. It's true, in the sense that we can't disprove the deistic God. But TJ's point is that you can come up with tons of preposterous things that cannot be falsified, just like the deistic God, and that the burden of proof is on the people who make the claim a God exists.

Oh no, he has had his fair share of theologians replying to his videos. He has made a point to ignore them. If he's uninformed, it was a concerted effort to remain so.

He has, really? How do you know that?

No, because most Christians don't know what they actually believe, since they aren't good students. When they don't know something, what do they do? They go to church and ask a more qualified theologian. Who then reveals that TJ was making a strawman argument, and puts their mind to ease that atheists are ignorant at best, and dishonest servants of the devil seeking to trick Christians away from god at worst.

Is that useful?

Hm, good point. I don't know, do they really do this, though?

Yes, and every Christian sect has a canonical interpretation which IS the correct interpretation for the members of that sect.
When you are debating against theist claims, you're debating many different specific versions of god, and you have to contextualize that.

Theologians are the arbiters of interpretations of scripture in their religions? I never saw them as such when I was religious. Why do you think they are?

As much sense as it makes to argue that evolution is wrong because there are still monkeys, because most people who blindly accept evolution think that's a real challenging issue and don't know the answer to it.

Evolution isn't really up for interpretation like religion. I know there are disagreements within the scientific community on things within evolution, but theology isn't based off of facts. Bible stories are subjective, no? So many religious folks disagree with each other about their religion.

"Christianity is ok with gay marriage!"
"No, God hates fags!"
"Abortion is ok!"
"No, it's murder, and against God!"
"Evolution is real, God just guided us through it! Genesis is just subjective!"
"No, creationism!"

They don't know what they believe. If he's going to make arguments against their theology, he needs to first explain to them what they believe, and then argue against it.

Why do you think they all just accept what their preachers tell them? There are liberal Christians who take the Bible metaphorically.

Think of it like a place, frozen in time, it's the edge of the universe.

The edge? So it surrounds the Universe?

Not in another universe, in this one, in another time. Stop thinking of time as time, and think of it as space instead.

Nothing is happening, except for as you move through time, when you stand still and look at it all, it's frozen.

Hm. What is this based off of? I'm not familiar with it.

Perhaps I should just do some research? I have the Internet right at my fingertips, after all, unless you don't mind.

They don't need to seek it out; it's pounding the door down all of the time, and bracing against it and covering their ears is all they can do to hold back the flow of knowledge.

Like where? I've never walked into Target and seen some evolution posters.

"You're a much more moral person than I am and I have to say that" were his words.
"I don't find any very good defense"

And still he doesn't change his actions, while understanding eating meat is wrong.