I don’t agree with everything in this video, particularly about the denominations objection, but it’s otherwise a pretty good apologetics scattershot of atheist objections.
Obviously any single objection would require more than a 10 minute meme video to really explain.
0:38 is wrong, it’s entirely possible to go through life without a metanarrative, and is a much happier way to live.
That’s just your metanarrative.
The rebuttals here are stupid, and you should not use them, everything in this video is a hand wave to feel okay, right or not, this video and anybody that uses it for anything, is making the world dumber.
Per my description it’s a pseudo-meme video with oversimplified apologetics. That being said most of what was mentioned is a fair ELI5 one sentence response behind which are tomes of argumentation to dive into. I’m not suggesting this video solves apologetics against atheists.
That was a really rough watch. Most of these aren’t arguments that atheists make…they’re invented stances because the narrator thought of a zinger. Some are real (and argued against poorly) but the majority are just strawman
science only deals with the physical
So the video creator doesn’t know anything about science. How unsurprising.
Medically documented cases of demonic possession
No there’s not lmao
“It makes a lot more sense for that first cause to be a personal god who caused things for a reason rather than some random impersonal force”
Why does that make more sense? No justification, just “it makes a lot more sense”?
“We deserve it”
To quote the narrator, that’s not the gotcha you think it is. The all-powerful God made us capable of evil so we can prove our love for him by not being evil. Cool guy!
[Comparing evil to physical substances]
Evil is largely defined by the actions of the individual. Intent matters but the road to hell was paved in good intentions, after all. God unfortunately meets the definition by knowingly giving kids cancer and creating evil humans.
Why did God let evil exist at all? Because he’s glorified in defeating it
So…he invented a problem in order to get praised for solving it? What is he, a middle manager?
[loving your wife is brain chemicals and your wife is real]
People fall in love with stuff that’s not real all the time so what point is this trying to make?
[Drug trips and near death experiences feel different]
An acid trip feels different than a mushroom trip. Hmmm it’s almost like the specific chemicals matter…
[Faith is trust]
My mans can’t even Google a definition. Those two words are not interchangeable
-
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
-
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
That was a really rough watch. Most of these aren’t arguments that atheists make…they’re invented stances because the narrator thought of a zinger. Some are real (and argued against poorly) but the majority are just strawman
I’ve personally heard quite a few of these and even asked some of the more embarassing ones when I was younger.
So the video creator doesn’t know anything about science. How unsurprising.
He is scratching at Empiricism with a capital E. The scientific method is ultimately about observation and measurement. If a scientist is talking about something that can’t be observed or measured then it’s a theory/metaphysical concept. The refutation is usually to ask someone to epistemically justify why science (aka empiricism) should be considered the source of knowledge/arbiter of truth etc
Medically documented cases of demonic possession
I don’t know much about this topic
Why does that make more sense? No justification, just “it makes a lot more sense”?
The justification (usually The Transcendental Argument for God) for this would have to be a video in and of itself. Jay Dyer uses TAG in his debates.
To quote the narrator, that’s not the gotcha you think it is. The all-powerful God made us capable of evil so we can prove our love for him by not being evil. Cool guy!
“We deserve it” is a very neo-Catholic interpretation. The Orthodox perspective is suffering didn’t exist until man separated himself from God by sinning. Sin = Death. Reunion with God will end all suffering until then we live in a fallen world of our own making. The purpose of life is life is Theosis. (In short, living according to the commandments in the earnest hope of becoming as much like Jesus Christ as possible.)
Evil is largely defined by the actions of the individual. Intent matters but the road to hell was paved in good intentions, after all. God unfortunately meets the definition by knowingly giving kids cancer and creating evil humans.
I wasn’t expecting the “If God why bad thing happen?” objection after your first criticism but the reason God allows suffering is because we are in a fallen state and suffering is key to the spiritual transformation necessary to commune with God. Have you ever met someone who went through trauma and came out the other side with a newfound humbleness, perspective or charitable nature? As a friend of many addicts I can assure you that adherence to their recovery programs, which involve submitting to a higher power, unveils staggering perspective that they would never have otherwise. It’s the same with art, music, writing. Often times overcoming great pain is when we discover who we are and what it means to be human. We are images of Christ who suffered and died on the cross to sanctify our nature.
So…he invented a problem in order to get praised for solving it? What is he, a middle manager?
He explains this well. “Evil is just a lack of good” God gives us (and heavenly beings) the ability to make choices. The result is the possibility to act outside the boundaries of God’s commandments including evil. He is glorified for overcoming it because despite the evil that we commit in life he loves and forgives us.
People fall in love with stuff that’s not real all the time so what point is this trying to make?
I would categorize the atheist objection he’s responding to as one of the dumber ones.
An acid trip feels different than a mushroom trip. Hmmm it’s almost like the specific chemicals matter…
But then again…
My mans can’t even Google a definition.
Truth is analogous to faith here. I’m not sure why you’re picking at that point. You’re acting like he doesnt know the dictionary definition of faith which is, ironically, a bad faith rebuttal. It’s almost like I don’t trust your intentions now… 😉
I’m snoozing on a lot of these but there’s one point I feel needs addressing: most recovery programs no longer teach the “higher power” thing the way you think. The higher power refers to powers outside of your control, not a supreme being. Source: best friend is an atheist who is heavily involved with AA (recovery and then working for them). I know a couple dozen people from there now and all of them are atheists/agnostic
My best friend went through the NA program and he is, to the best of my knowledge, an atheist. NA is less overtly religious than AA. He did have to acknowledge things outside of his control and you are correct that the acknowdgement of a higher power does not have to be God. In his case it was “the universe”. They don’t talk about religion but it is a spiritual program that begins by submitting to something greater than yourself. Relinquishing control and submitting to the vulnerability of admitting that one’s life has become unmanageable is still a key part of the program. Admission of failure, forgiving and seeking forgiveness are as well. These secularized concepts are rooted in Christianity. What’s interesting is that no scientific approach with drugs etc has reached the level of success as these programs.
AA started as a Christian group and they’ve since dropped that association because nobody likes getting preached to
What’s interesting is that no scientific approach with drugs etc has reached the level of success as these programs.
Uh…what do you think sociologists do for a living? Psychologists? Though if you mean there’s no drug that can be administered to cure someone, that’s because addiction is first and foremost a social issue. People don’t relapse because of the chemical addiction, they do it because they feel hopeless. It’s a lot closer to homelessness than cancer
AA started as a Christian group and they’ve since dropped that association because nobody likes getting preached to
It made sense to secularize the program so that it could be applied to a wider audience. AA is extremely widespread in Iran for example.
Uh…what do you think sociologists do for a living?
I suspect a non-trivial amount of them teach sociology
Though if you mean there’s no drug that can be administered to cure someone, that’s because addiction is first and foremost a social issue.
Social issues are definitely a part of the disease of addiction but it’s also a spiritual issue. It’s not like if every toxic relationship was “fixed” they would stop using. My friend in particular came from a loving household where every basic need was met. There are many cases like his where no matter how amenable the circumstances the addiction rages.
People don’t relapse because of the chemical addiction, they do it because they feel hopeless.
The memory of the rush is part of it but I agree that hopelessness is the tipping point. It’s the moment the addict gives in.
It’s a lot closer to homelessness than cancer
I guess. My point is that there is that recovery programs address, primarily, a spiritual issue. It’s not materialistic or empiricist. It is social, sure, but also metaphysical. That’s what makes the difference. It’s the reason participants have to “work the steps”. Transformation comes from working through suffering. It’s an intensely personal experience of accepting shortcomings, submitting to a higher power and only then, in the company of others, working to rebuild your life step by step. Much like the battle against sin the battle against addiction is a daily struggle and we all fall short.
-