The discussion offers a rigorous exercise in theological hermeneutics, yet it often feels like an elaborate attempt to intellectualize away the inherent moral contradictions of ancient texts. It is a masterclass in how high-level apologetics navigates the most uncomfortable corners of scripture through complex semantic shifts.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
God is evil, Change my mind FT: (Catholic_Thinker)
Added:realizing the crawling through the catacombs of every sermon that Now every state of mind.
[screaming] >> What's up, Kevin?
If he's really in the room, no more in the dark. No more.
[screaming] >> What's up, goat? How you doing?
from whereassy.
[screaming] >> All right, >> everyone tap the like buttons. Get this out there. Repost over on Tik Tok.
Get those repost out.
>> Let's get this stream going.
[screaming] >> If you're secureity >> stream there on Tik Tok for [music] some reason.
He's a lucky coin for the stream. That's funny. Hell >> yeah.
YOU WANT DEVOTION? GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT YOU EXIST CUZ I'M DONE SIGNING BLAME CHECKS TO AN EMPTY ABYSS. IF FAITH IS ALL YOU GOT, THEN WHY YOU SO AFRAID OF PROOF? IMPRESSIONS ARE THE REASON WHY I LOSE.
TOLD THE RIVER sticks fairy. [laughter] >> Awesome.
>> All right, keep liking the stream. Get it reposted so that we can get as many callers in today as possible.
Welcome in. Welcome in. Welcome in.
>> Yeah, we'll get you up in just a second.
And I'm going to give [music] it a little bit more time for people to get in here till the song is over.
All right, we'll get the first caller up real quick. Oh, you dropped down, bud. I told you to get you up here in a second.
[snorts] If you want to get back up here, you can re-reest, man. Talk about lack of patience. That was 15 seconds.
The Taint brothers got arrested.
Evidence of God.
[cough] Andrew Tate's back in prison.
God needs money. Yeah.
It's the only way that works work.
How's everyone doing today?
We got um some Bible scriptures up that uh I know I don't usually go through scripture, but um look at we ball. Let's get uh our first guest up here.
What is up, Dis?
>> Hey, >> you over the age of 18, man?
>> Yeah.
>> All right. And which God do you believe in?
>> One true God. Christian God.
>> Okie dokie. What you got for me?
I mean, the prompt's pretty stupid because you're assuming a moral standard while not having one. So, that's a contradiction.
>> I don't have a moral standard. Define morals.
>> Yeah.
>> It's the realms of what is good and what is evil.
>> Incorrect.
They are morals are principles to determine what is right and wrong. What are principles?
Principles could be all kinds of things.
>> Yeah. They are going to be subjective to the mind and thinkers ideas and what makes something. So morals are subjective [cough] [clears throat] and I subjectively believe that slaughtering innocent children is evil.
Do you agree or disagree?
>> So it's a preference.
>> Wait, I just asked you. Do you agree or disagree that slaughtering children is evil?
Is it a preference of yours?
>> I'm asking you a question. Are you too scared to answer?
>> I asked you also a question.
>> I asked you a question first and this is my show. So you can answer or just get booted because you're a waste of time.
Is slaughtering children good or bad?
>> For humans? Yes.
>> Oh, for God. It's good.
>> Yes.
>> Oh, so he's able to break his own commandment of do not kill. That's crazy. So your God is evil. No, his commandments, his commandments are for people.
>> So, it's okay to slaughter people if God understand that commandments have specific people.
>> Slaughter people if God says so.
>> God can command to take.
>> So, it's okay to slaughter people if God says so.
>> Also, under God, >> so it's okay to slaughter people if God says so.
>> In the Old Testament, that was the time when there that was commanded. Yes.
>> Does God change?
No.
>> Okay. Therefore, the Old Testament is still the New Testament God. Correct.
>> God doesn't change. His commandments can change based upon the people.
>> When did his commandments change?
>> And when we went uh under the new covenant.
>> False. Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law." Dumnut. You should read your Bible. So So you believe it's okay to slaughter people if God says so.
So slaughtering people is good in your opinion.
>> False. Dumnut. So in our theology is that theology is false. Jesus said, "I came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."
>> So, you're the authority.
>> Correct. Did Jesus say this?
>> Are you the correct or false? Did Jesus say this?
>> Your your scripture is the authority on your religion. So, correct or false?
Correct.
>> Are you are you capable of listening?
>> Don't crash out. It's okay. Don't crash out. Don't crash out. It's okay.
>> Are you capable of responding?
>> How do you know that?
>> Is your scripture the authority on your religion? Yes or no? You're not going to answer any of my questions?
>> This is my show. Is your scripture the authority on your religion? Yes or no?
>> Yes, but not your interpretation.
>> Okay, there you go. So, did Jesus, yes or no, say, "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Yes or no?
>> He doesn't mean what you mean by that.
>> Did he say I love my scriptures? You're just a homosexual guy trying to >> Did Jesus say, "Don't crash out. Don't crash out. It's okay, buddy. I'll hold your hand through this [ __ ] beating.
Did Jesus say yes or no? I did not come to abolish the law. Yes or no?
>> He doesn't mean what you mean by it. He said that. Yes.
>> So what does it mean to say I did not come to abolish something? What does that mean? Does that mean he came to abolish it?
>> No, he fulfills it. He fulfills the true meaning of the law.
>> As in he still upholds it. Uh remember in Paul still says you still have to obey the commandments. But thanks to the fulfillment of Jesus Christ, you now have grace. Remember that part. Have you ever read the Bible?
>> Do you understand that the >> Have you ever read the Bible? That was a question. I apologize. I apologize. I apologize. I apologize. I apologize. I apologize. I apologize. I apologize. I asked you a question.
>> I answered you.
>> No, you didn't.
>> Yes, I did.
>> Have you ever read the Bible?
>> Of course.
>> Okay. Do you remember where Paul said that it's fulfilled by Jesus, but you still have to obey the commands?
>> Was that before or after the destruction of the temple, >> brother? After throughout the entire New Testament, you still have to obey the commands. Have you ever read the Bible?
>> When Paul wrote this, was this before?
>> Oh, it's even after Paul, too. So, have you ever read the Bible?
>> Because even in Revelation, you still have to obey the >> command. Paul writed before after the destruction of the church.
>> Pay attention. Pay attention. Don't crash out. It's even in Revelation, you still have to obey the command.
>> I'm not crashing out. You're not answering any questions.
>> Revelation, you still have to obey the commands. Today, you still have to obey the commands.
>> Nowhere in the Bible.
>> What you say?
>> Nowhere in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say do not obey this anymore.
>> How do you know?
>> Point to me the scripture that says do not obey the old old testament.
>> How do you know?
>> Show me in the Bible where it says do not obey the old commandments.
>> So, you have no answer. Show me in the Bible where it says do not obey the old commandments. You can pivot all you want. It's just pathetic on your part.
>> I'm asking you an epistemic question.
You understand what?
>> Show me in the Bible where it says do not follow the old commandments.
>> Explain what an epistemic question is.
>> Show me in the Bible where it says do not follow the old commandments.
Are you capable of having a conversation?
>> You're not going to have a conversation.
>> Are you capable of having a conversation? Yes or no?
I'm not going to.
>> Are you capable of having a question? A conversation? Yes or no? Are you capable of having a conversation? Yes or no? Are you capable of having a conversation?
Yes or no?
>> You said it's okay to slaughter children. I don't care about your opinion. Are you capable of having a conversation? Yes or no?
>> You have no moral standard to say it's wrong.
>> I say it's wrong based on subjective reasoning. Based on the idea that human being lives matter because I am a social hey.
When I'm in the middle of explaining, you have to learn how to shut the [ __ ] up and pay attention.
>> I don't need to pay attention. I already know what you're going to say.
>> What am I going to say?
>> You say you will say it's subjective.
>> I was explaining why.
>> I was also explaining where I derive my morals from.
>> Are you paying attention?
>> It's subjective.
>> Do your morals come from the mind of God?
My morals come from the uh from the being of God, from the essence.
>> Yeah. Does he have thoughts?
>> Not like humans.
>> He doesn't think. So, how does he tell you to do things or not to do things if he can't think?
>> Uh by him being all powerful, he can do all things.
>> Yeah. But how can he tell you to do something if he can't think?
>> He doesn't need to do >> Wait, if he's all powerful, he therefore thinks. Correct.
>> His thoughts are not like human thoughts. They're not temporary.
>> Does he have thoughts? Does he think things?
Did I ask anything about time?
>> His thoughts are his energies.
>> Yeah. Where did I say anything about time?
>> I don't know. You didn't You brought that up. So, so you need to pay attention. Are you capable of paying attention? I'm trying to help you out here.
You're trying to lure me into a guard shoot. No, I'm trying to help you something. I'm trying to teach you. You have to learn.
>> You can't help me. You can't You cannot teach anybody. You don't know anything about philosophy.
>> I don't know anything about anything.
>> I don't know anything about philosophy.
>> I don't know anything about philosophy.
Really?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. How is it possible for an atmporal being to interact with temporal time?
>> By it being all powerful. It doesn't need a mechanism.
>> I don't know anything about philosophy.
Correct. Pause. Pause. Pause. Pause.
Pause. I don't know.
>> I'm going to meet you if you don't pause.
>> Okay. Good boy. So, I don't know anything about philosophy, correct?
>> Yeah.
>> Is God all powerful?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Is he strong enough to Is he all powerful enough to make a rock too heavy for himself to carry?
>> Oh, man. This is like 30 years Reddit stuff.
>> Are you really dumb?
>> Just answer the question. Don't add hump. You still don't add hump. Don't add hump. You just said that I don't know philosophy.
>> You still believe stupid argument argument. Embarrassing.
>> Is God all powerful? Is he strong enough?
>> Powerful enough to create a rock. Too heavy to lift.
>> You think all powerful means able to do contradictory things?
>> He's able to do all things.
>> Is God able?
>> Are contradictory things.
>> Oh, he's not able to do contradictory things.
>> Are they things? So he's not able to do contradictory things abstract or concrete.
>> So he's not able to do contradictory things >> are contradictory absurdities.
>> So he's not able to do contradictory things.
>> I hope you know things concrete or >> let me show you. You have no power.
You have no power. I know this works on your wife who you beat and for the people that you wish you could own because you're a slave condoning genocidal douchebag [ __ ] But you have no power here. And I'm going to put you in your place. You're incapable of conversation. I'm going to bully you because you're disgusting. You said that it's okay for children to be slaughtered. You're disgusting. You don't I don't owe you any respect. [ __ ] you. Pay attention and stop talking over me. Is God capable of creating a rock too heavy for himself to lift? Answer the question or I'm moving on to the next person.
>> Such a rock is an impossible.
>> I hope you have the day you deserve, loser.
Just for everyone that was new to that call, first thing he said was that it is okay to slaughter innocent children if God says so. People aren't allowed to do it of their own free will, but if God says so, it's okay.
That's why I was an [ __ ] He didn't deserve kindness.
And then running away every two seconds from every single question and trying to talk over me on my own show is just laughable. Let's get Heli in here.
If God knows all and his knowledge is correct, he is just a doll dancing to where fate strings connect. A that's beautiful. I love you. Go. What is up, man? How are you doing today?
>> I'm doing all right. How about yourself?
>> Doing all right, brother. Are you over the age of 18?
>> Yes, sir. I'm 22 and I'm a Christian.
>> Awesome. All right. One second. I'm going to get you up on my notes real quick. Okay.
All right. What you got for me today?
>> Why do you think God is evil?
>> Yeah, I think that it is evil to cause unnecessary unjust harm unto children.
>> And why is that?
I subjectively put a lot of uh value into children because we are social creatures and if we have no children we have no future.
We need children for the human species to continue on. And since I am of the human species, I would like my own species to continue on purely out of subjective moral reasoning.
>> Oh, okay. I'm glad you admit that it's subjective moral reasoning.
>> Oh, yours are too.
Well, it depends on what I mean by subjective.
>> Define subjective, but >> it's according to one's own beliefs regardless or it's dependent on one's own beliefs. It's not an object >> that's independent of anyone's beliefs.
>> So, the definition is going to of subjective is going to be changes in accordance to feelings, tastes, and opinions and or stance dependent.
>> Let me let me further add. Do you believe that God has a mind?
>> Yeah. And his thoughts are how you have your morals. Correct?
>> Yeah.
>> Therefore, you trust subjective morals because it's dependent on his taste, feelings, and opinions through his mind.
>> No, it's dependent on his nature.
>> Through his thoughts, feelings, opinions, and tastes. Correct. It's subjective by all definitions. So, we'll move on. Why is it okay for slaughtering of children?
>> Because God didn't slaughter children for no reason.
>> Yeah, he did. When is there ever a good reason to slaughter a child?
so that they can go to heaven quicker.
>> Wow.
>> Now, why do you think that's wrong?
>> Wow.
>> Is wow reason for thinking that is wrong?
>> This dude literally just said it is okay to slaughter children so that they go to heaven quicker.
>> Yeah. Why is that wrong?
>> Wow. Oh, I need a second to register the fact that you said it's good to kill people so that they go to heaven. One sec. I'm amazed that Jeffrey Dmer just joined my [ __ ] chat.
>> Okay, take your time.
Wow.
And I'll wait for some reasons why you believe it's disgusting.
>> So, it's okay for you to take away their free will of life if >> it's for a good reason. Yeah.
>> Wow.
Is grape okay?
>> I don't know. That's a good question.
>> You don't know if grape is okay?
>> Yeah, >> it depends honestly. I mean it depends if like this woman like say if Hitler was a woman, right? Would you think that it would be okay for Hitler if she was a woman to get raped based off of the horrible things that she did? I think in that case it would be okay to rape someone. Yeah. Or like if you were a pedophile in prison, you get raped by the inmates, then yeah, I think that's okay cuz you molested children. So yeah, I think in certain uh contexts rape is okay.
But why don't you think so?
>> I'm actually way too angry to chat with you, so I'm going to let my Christian friend chat with you.
>> Okay.
>> Um yeah, two wrongs don't make a right. Um Jesus himself condemned the whole idea of um retri uh retri retributive justice where you are just the whole point of justice is a punishment like he got rid of that idea and denounced it. um with the whole turn the other cheek and then also when the command was given in the Old Testament about the genocide of the Amalachites and the other things that happened that you said well if they go to heaven um yeah that idea of or that theology of there existing an afterlife did not exist in the Old Testament when they were writing down that command. So for the Jewish people when they received that command, they did not believe that they were sending these children to heaven. Um so that idea is being added on and it's just a horrible horrible apologetic and is not bringing people closer to Christ.
>> Those are all assertions. I'd like justification for those.
So we have historical documentation that when that the Jewish people did not have a belief in an afterlife. In fact there is and that's why you had the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection of the body or even um you know an afterlife. Uh that's why they were testing Jesus with the whole there was a man who married a woman and he died and he had seven brothers and the each one of them died but each of them married the same woman. So in heaven when we're all together, who is the she married too? Because they're trying to prove to him that the idea of there existing an afterlife did not exist.
>> So >> sorry, I wasn't tracking for much of what you just said. [snorts] >> I literally just gave you the justification within the scriptures themselves as to why within the Torah and the first five books of the Bible where the genocide that is being referenced You said that the Jews didn't believe in an afterlife, but that's not what I asked.
>> You asked for the just You asked for the justification of the statements that I said, that being one of them.
>> What was the statement you said? I honestly lost track because of how long you were talking.
>> So, you don't care about leading people to truth? I do care, but I just have >> Then you would have been listening to me when I was telling you that what you're doing >> is not leading people to truth and you are saying things contrary to the scriptures.
>> But you're assuming that your scriptures are true.
>> You're Christian, right?
>> Yeah.
>> We have the same scripture. [laughter] >> No, we don't >> really. So when I reference to the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, as well as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, those aren't the same scriptures.
>> You're Catholic. I'm Orthodox. You guys have more books than we do.
>> Uh Orthodox have the same books as the Catholic Church. Uh the whole thing with the you're thinking of Protestants who have took out books from the Bible, but you and I have the exact same books of the Bible as put forth from the Council of Rome.
>> Okay. But you guys still have more books than we do.
>> No, we don't. You're thinking of our You're thinking of the councils for one.
[laughter] We have more councils than you do. Sure. We also >> in y'all's opinion have a disproportionate appreciation for Thomas Aquinus and Scholastic Thought and not enough of an appreciation for the mystery of God. But as far as the books of the Bible are concerned, we have the same books.
>> Nope. You guys read third Mcabes. We only read first and second.
>> Uh we only have first and second Macabes.
>> Nope. You guys have third Maccabes. I mean, >> Yep. You do. I don't know what kind of Catholic you are, but you guys have for second and third Mcabes.
[clears throat and cough] >> You can just go on Google, Safari, any uh search engine.
>> I am on >> I'm [ __ ] It's the other way around.
Okay, I take everything I said right back. It's the other way around.
>> It's the other way around. We have third mcabes. You guys only have first and second.
>> So, you have more books than us.
>> Correct. But my point's still the same.
We don't have the same amount of books.
But it you said we one, we don't have the same Bible. Two, the books that I'm referring to, you and I both share. So that's irrelevant.
>> Okay.
>> Three, you accused me of not knowing my own faith when you're the one who >> I didn't accuse you of not knowing your own faith. I think you know your faith, but and I think I think the point that you brought up about we both have Leviticus, that's fair. It's a fair point, honestly.
Okay. So, um, so what was your point from all that? We were talking about how the Jews don't believe in a afterlife and so that's why they killed the Canaanites. Is that what you were saying?
Hello.
Maybe his mic's not working.
Yeah. Catholic. Uh, he's off the app.
Give [clears throat] him a second. I'm not so sure about the islander as is.
Maybe more on top to balance it out.
That would look [ __ ] great.
Absolutely, man.
[cough] Excuse. [snorts] >> Catholic, you back.
>> My audio cut out cuz I was getting a phone call, but I'm back.
>> Okay. So yeah, we were talking about how the Jews don't believe in an afterlife and that's why they >> no at the time of the that the Torah was written that the and that command was written they did not have a belief in an afterlife and we have evidence historical evidence even as well as scriptural evidence.
That's why you have the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection or an afterlife.
And >> you have Yeah.
>> Wow.
>> That is that is >> that is why the Sadducees brought up the whole thing of like, hey, when there was a man who married a woman and he had seven brothers and he died and in accordance with the law, she married the next brother and then he died and then she married the next brother until eventually she married all of them. when they die and are in heaven, who is she actually married to? They were using that as a way to discredit this idea of a belief in an afterlife because there is no mention of heaven, hell, or anything like that in the first five books. So, the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife because they only believed in the first five books of the Bible.
And then by the time the Babylonian exile occurred, when you started having like the books of the prophet Daniel being written um and things like that, that is when the Jewish people started having an idea of an afterlife. We literally have historical documentation of that. And that is why the Pharisees believed in an afterlife and a resurrection of the body because those ideas are listed out after the first five books of the Bible.
>> Okay? And Mr. Catholic, I'm not trying to accuse you of not knowing your own faith or anything, but I want to give you a chance to retake everything you just said because uh shield is actually mentioned in the Bible in the Old Testament specifically approximately 55 to 66 times.
>> Which books of the Old Testament?
>> Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Psalms.
>> So where in Genesis? Where in Genesis?
>> Genesis 37:35. Let me pull it up real quick.
>> Okay. And what does it say there?
It says shall which is a dwelling place of the dead.
>> So hold on. No, no, no. I want the like you saying the whole verse in context.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm flipping to it.
37 verse [snorts] it's a big ass book.
Verse 35. Thus all his sons and daughters arose. This right? Yeah.
Chapter 37:35. Thus all his sons and daughters arose to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. And he said, "I shall go down into the grave to my son in mourning." So his father wept for him.
>> Yeah. Grave, not afterlife. I will go to my death in mourning.
>> Okay.
>> Has no mention of an afterlife.
>> Okay, that's fair. Let's go to Psalm 16.
Oh, Psalm is that remind me is which is that one of the first five books of the Bible. [laughter] >> So you only accept the first five books of the Bible.
>> No, that's what the Sadducees accepted.
And the decree that the host is talking about is from the first five books of the Bible. And that was my claim was that at the time that that >> Okay. Okay. Um is numbers part of the uh five books?
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.
>> Okay. All right. Let me go to Numbers 16. Let me see if this says something about >> Is that where you had the um uh the group of Israelites who rebelled against uh Moses and so they stood on two separate sides of the camp and the earth opened up and swallowed them up?
>> I I don't know. I'm looking it up right now.
16 >> cuz that's not in reference to an afterlife or an underworld.
>> Okay. Um let's see which verse.
So number six specifically in verses 30 and 30. So numbers 16 verses 30- 33.
Let's read what it says. But the Lord will show by a sign from heaven that opening its mouth, the earth shall swallow them down with their houses, their tents, and everything belong.
>> Exactly what I was talking down and hold on. And they shall go down alive into a >> Then you shall know these men provoke the Lord. And now he finished speaking all these words. Hold on. I'm not finished reading. Yeah. The ground split apart from under them and the earth opened and swallowed them down with their houses and all the men with kora and their tents. So they went and all of them went down alive into Hades and the earth covered >> Hades is not sh which is what you said earlier.
>> This is referencing the same thing.
>> No, it's not. Hades and shiel are referencing two different ideas in Jewish thought.
>> How do you know? In fact, Haiti, Shiel, and Gehenna are all three different uh theological concepts within Jewish. Uh >> can you provide evidence of that using only the first five books of the Bible?
>> Uh let's see. So, um as far like I literally did with the whole thing with the Sadducees, like that was their whole argumentation about the lack of an afterlife.
>> Uh five books though.
Well, again, this is based on historical context. So, are you a solo scriptorrist?
>> Not according to the Old Testament, which is what you said you were going to use to support it.
>> No, no, no. Hang on. Are you a solo scriptorus?
>> You're pivoting and that's fine.
>> No, I'm not because I said I said at the beginning we have historical. So, I didn't say >> fact it up.
>> You just made an assertion without backing it up. And that's fine. Like we can change the topic like I'm not a solo script tourist.
>> Then why did you and when I said that it wasn't I wasn't appealing only to soloscriptor. Why did you try to hold me to that?
>> Because you said you were going to use it in the Old Testament.
>> No, I said that the first one when I appealed to the first five books of the Bible, you said, "Well, we don't have the same Bible."
>> Yeah.
>> Which would be irrelevant because we're referring to the same.
>> I would agree. I conceded that point already.
So, what I'm pointing out is that like just look up, did the Sadducees believe in a resurrection of the dead?
>> That's fine. Look, if that's the type of evidence you want to use to support, that's fine. But that's not from the Bible. So, you're now you're using a source that somebody else wrote about which hadn't had any contact with the Jews to try to say that >> yes, this is from Jew this is from the Jewish people themselves. Like this is >> this is Jewish theology >> today. Jewish Jewish theology.
>> It's Jewish theology. You numbnut.
>> There's no need to insult people here.
It's Jewish people from modern day.
>> It's Jewish people from the modern day, right? Not Jewish people from back then.
So they're interpreting what the Jewish people back then thought in today's lenses.
>> We literally have the documents stating this.
>> That's today.
>> That's fine. They're still written from today.
So, you're saying that 4,000 years ago the Jewish people believed in an afterlife?
>> I'm not saying they did or didn't.
You're the one that's claiming that they did.
>> Yes. Yes, you did. By your defense of, well, that's they would go to heaven.
>> Show me the clip where I said that I believe the Jewish people believed in an afterlife. by your ass assertion that it is okay for God to command the death of these children because they would go to heaven.
>> That wasn't believed when that book was written.
>> And that does not imply whatsoever that the Jews themselves believed in an afterlife.
>> An afterlife is believe in it or not. It kind of does because if they >> really believe that they were doing an >> something that you and I would both say is evil.
>> I'm sorry, Catholic. You cut out for like 5 seconds. Can you repeat what you just said?
It does matter because if they did not believe in an afterlife then they believe that they were murdering these people and they were either getting in sent into annihilation or by your reference to Gehenna a place of suffering.
>> Okay. But >> and they thought that was okay.
>> Okay. But even >> so the justific the question that the host is asking for is for you to demonstrate why a god would command something that to the person receiving that command would be that abhorrent >> because God has a plan for their souls in the afterlife regardless if the Jews believe in it or not.
>> I don't know why that's such a crucial point.
>> So So you think that God would give a command to someone that >> Sir May I ask you something really quickly? Do you believe that an afterlife can exist regardless if Jews believe in it or not?
>> Oh, sure. But my point about the Jews believing in the afterlife it does matter because you're matter whatsoever.
>> You're ignoring the points of the host.
I got to take care of something. I'll stay on but because it'll be quick but I'm going to mute up real quick.
>> Sure.
>> Okay. [clears throat] >> Which commandment does God say do not kill?
Uh he says, "Thou shalt not murder in the Old Testament ten commandments."
>> It's killing someone out of pure hatred.
>> It's unjustified [clears throat] killing, >> which is killing someone out of pure hatred.
>> Not necessarily.
>> That's why you don't have to hate someone to kill them or Yeah.
>> Not to kill them. I agree with that. But to murder someone, yeah, you have to hate them. Murder means unjustified killing. Unjustified taking up the life.
>> [sighs] >> That's your definition, man. I don't know how >> your definition is wrong. Then if you want to go down that route, if you're going to say mine is wrong, yours is wrong. [ __ ] you. Oxford dictionary says you're full of [ __ ] The Bible says you're full of [ __ ] Theology says you're full of [ __ ] So murder is unjust because you just said that killing children is okay. [ __ ] you. [ __ ] your feelings. [ __ ] your opinion. You're going to be my good little [ __ ] and do as I allow you.
>> So you think that it's okay to slaughter innocent children, which is murder because it's unjust. How is it just to take the life of a child?
>> Because they're going to the afterlifeh.
He It is against God's own will. It is against God's own character. Therefore, a contradiction to his character to unjustly slaughter children.
>> He also says, "Whoever harms He also be a good boy and listen." He also says, "Whoever harms the hair of a child, it is better for them to be drowned."
>> Okay?
>> And he does it. So he contradicts himself. He's evil. He just did it for shits and giggles.
>> Nope. It's not what happened. You can >> Did God say it's wrong to harm children?
Yes or no?
>> In certain context. Yeah.
>> Nope. He didn't say in certain context.
He said period.
>> He didn't say period.
>> Where in where in the verse did it say in context?
>> Be a good boy and pay attention.
>> Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I'll be a good boy.
>> Which part of that verse where he's saying it is better to have strung around your neck and thrown into the waters. Did he say in context?
Because I believe the context was if you harm a child period.
>> Yeah. Well, if he didn't correct correct correct if you harm a child, period, it is wrong. Correct. Oh, you don't agree.
All right.
>> Disagree. I mean, >> well, you've been disagreeing a lot and getting you No, no, no. You've been disagreeing a lot and getting proven wrong. left and [ __ ] right. You should learn to read your Bible.
>> Yeah, you're right. I've been getting proven on this whole time.
>> Oh, yeah. You were just schooled. You were absolutely bent over and rhetorically got back shots.
>> Yes, I did.
>> Yeah, I'm a I'm such a low tier, bro. I received so many rhetorical back shots, so many ad homs. Oh my gosh. I just got absolutely slaughtered.
>> Remind me again who claimed that who claimed that the Catholic Church had makabe third Mcabes.
>> I I already took back that statement, brother. I already said I was.
>> And then remind me again who uh was trying to who thought I had claimed that uh hell was never mentioned at all in the Bible when my point was only about the first five books. And >> made that claim.
>> Yes, you did. cuz you cuz you cuz you started referring to Psalms and I'm like no no no no and you even said do you want to take back your statement that uh hell never shows up in the Old Testament. And I'm like that was never my claim. It was the first five books.
Um and who also was ignorant on the position of the Sadducees on their denial of in fact that I believe >> never justified that claim dude.
>> Yes. I I believe that >> justified it.
>> Um >> what?
>> Uh can you look up I believe it's in Matthew but it's but I believe in in Matthew in in Matthew it literally says the Sadducees who do not believe in a resurrection went up to Jesus and asked him a question.
>> Okay. That's an interpretation that you got from >> No, no, no. It's literally right there in the Bible.
>> Show me.
>> I am on my phone. Um, can you uh Google >> This is what I'm saying. Every time I ask for, you're just like, uh, uh, you know, it's just so hard to actually justify it.
>> Oh, here. I got you, though. I got you, though. I got you, though. Matthew 18:6.
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. And then [clears throat] you have Luke 17:1.
It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea. Then he should cause one of these little ones to sin. Mark 9:42. Whoever causes Okay.
Over and over and over and over and over. Proverbs 22:6.
>> Okay. Yeah. Go for it.
>> Where's one of these little ones?
>> Can you look up the Sadducees um going up and asking the question about the >> uh man with seven brothers? Before we talk about that question, >> asking a question about No, you can be a good [ __ ] and be quiet for a second.
>> Okay. I forgot. I was >> asking question what? I'm sorry.
>> Okay. [clears throat] No.
>> Sadducees. Ask Jesus.
>> Oh my gosh. Are we going to have a twoon one? Can I Can I address someone one at a time?
>> Oh, well, you already defended Grape, so we're just going to grape you right now by twoon oneing you.
Oh my god.
>> According to you, it's okay. Catholic.
>> Shut the [ __ ] up. Catholic. What were you asking?
[laughter] uh look up the uh if you just Google um Bible passage Sadducees asked Jesus about uh man with seven brothers. That should pull up the verse.
>> Okay, so I didn't give you permission to talk. Shut up.
>> Okay, they refer to the Mosaic law of [clears throat] leverite marriage. Is that what we're talking about?
Deuteronomy 255 which required the father to marry.
>> It's going to be one of the gospels.
It's it's going to be the one of the gospels.
>> Matthew 22.
>> Um because it's the Sadducees asking Jesus a question.
>> Matthew 2223 23 uh states that the Sadducees who do not believe in the resurrection approach Jesus with a question about marriage and resurrection.
>> Exactly like I said that the it literally says in the Bible that the Sadducees do not believe in a resurrection.
>> Yep. Matthew 22:23. So, you've been proven wrong like a million times. So, uh >> here we have a chance to respond.
>> No, you don't. You don't think it's [laughter] not in the Bible that it's extrapulation. And I showed you time and time again that >> you're just incorrect on the very statements that you're saying.
>> Yeah. And you said it's okay to take away people's free will. So, [ __ ] you and your free will. So, Proverbs 22, train up a child in the way he should go. Even if he is old, he will not depart from it. Psalm 127, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb of reward. Matthew 19:14, let the children come non to me. Do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. Mark 9, whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me. It is all about protecting children over and over and over. If you harm a child, you are better off just being drowned with a millstone around your neck in sin and/or physical. And then when we look at let's look at 1st Samuel 15.
Okay. Can I just respond to y'all's points real quick though?
>> You don't believe in free will. [ __ ] yours. All right. Let's look at this.
I mean, what point can you respond to when it's the black and white text and you're just mistaken about the black and white text?
>> Okay, so I want to respond to what the host was saying about Matthew, Luke, and the verses talking about how if anyone sins against these little ones, let a s millstone be hung around.
>> Yeah. What's a sin?
>> So, you're assuming Yeah. What's a sin?
Yeah. What's a sin? Yeah. What's a sin, brother? Oh my gosh. What's a sin?
>> Can I speak?
>> No. What's a sin? You can reply.
>> Okay, that involves speaking, my friend.
Anyways, what is a sin is something that's unjustified.
>> Yep.
>> No, that's not even true even within the theology. A sin >> isology or orthodox theology.
any sin that removes God's grace >> or any act that removes God's grace.
>> And the mark of the commandments as well.
>> Oh my days. What am I dealing with here?
>> No, this is what it feels like when you take away someone's free will. So again, I'm going to take yours away cuz [ __ ] you. So it would be a sin to break one of the commandments.
>> Which one of the commandments? Nope. You can be a good boy. So it is a sin to murder. Um so if it's a sin to murder, which is to unjustly take the life of another person, unjustly meaning having no justification behind it, then it is wrong to slaughter children.
>> Can I ask what happened to you? Like >> are you going to respond to what I said or do I need to keep taking your free will away like you love to do to others?
>> Well, if you keep taking away my free will, how >> Nope. You can respond to my question. So you think it's okay to slaughter children?
Yeah.
>> Why is it wrong?
>> Defend that. Because the Bible says so.
>> Tell me why it's wrong.
>> Because the Bible says so. Because the Bible says so. No, it doesn't. Yeah, it does. No, it doesn't. Yeah, it does.
Says do not murder.
>> Do not murder. It doesn't mean say do not kill them.
>> Yeah, it is. Do not unjust Do not unjustly kill. Yeah. Do not unjustly take away the life.
>> So, go on ahead and defend child slaughter again.
>> Go for it.
>> Okay. So, do you believe that if someone breaks in your house, you have the right to kill them?
>> You are justly defending yourself. You are not unjustly murdering and taking their life.
>> Yes.
>> And actually, I would argue that it is wrong to take their life even if they are breaking into your house. I would argue that it actually is wrong to take their life if they're breaking into your house.
>> What's >> I'm against guns. I'm against killing I'm a vegan. I'm against killing animals.
>> Oh, morals. My subjective morals.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, subjective. Right. Right. Okay.
>> Yeah. It's grounded in us being social.
>> You do realize You do realize, Halumi, that if you claim that morality is objective, which you should be, >> which Yeah, we both believe in. Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, hang on. Which means that there cannot be like what you're appealing to for like killing and self-defense.
That's the principle of double effect.
You are preserving your own good without intending the removal of the other good which is the loss of the other individual life. Tell me what situation satisfies the principle of double effect for the slaughtering of a child.
>> What's the principle of double effect?
I'm stupid.
>> Um I'm sorry. Were you not the one coming up here insinuating that I don't know my own faith?
>> I wasn't. In fact, that's literally what I said. I wasn't. You know, you No, you literally said you literally literally what I [ __ ] said.
>> No, I I said in No, I said insinuate.
>> No. Do you know what insinuate means?
>> Like instigate, I'm assuming.
>> No, insinuate means to hint at without outright saying.
>> I'm not trying to hint at anything, brother. I'm just trying to have a open, honest conversation here. And you guys have been nothing but hostile to me. So by the way, by the way, by the way, oh your feelings are hurt. Oh, you [ __ ] [ __ ] So the Hebrew word rasak, which means to intentional and unlawful killing, which is what is used for the sixth commandment of do not kill. It is intentional, which he intentionally slaughtered children, and unlawful. It was unlawful for him to slaughter them.
So your god contradicted his own commandment.
>> Does slaughter mean murder?
>> When it says that he killed them to kill them all. Yeah.
>> Nope. Killing does not mean murder.
You're equivocating >> halumi. Halumi.
>> My days.
>> You >> Catholic. May I ask you a question for one?
>> Does Does it Does it feel bad when your free will is taken away? Is Is it upsetting you that your free will is being taken away? Is it something I should stop doing? Should I stop taking your free will away? Should I stop bullying you? Should I stop graping you?
Is grape wrong? Is it wrong to grape?
>> I mean, if you want to have a conversation, >> is it wrong to grape? That's what I'm asking you.
Sometimes.
>> Sometimes. Wow.
>> What is What? So, >> wow.
>> Here's the thing. Halumi.
>> Wait, Catholic, can I ask you a question for once? Actually, >> n I'm sorry. You've been asking me a bunch of questions.
>> [ __ ] you. You think murdering children and grape is okay? Shut the [ __ ] up. You asked I mean you asked me a bunch of questions as well like if I knew about second or third Mcabes and about the Sadducees but go ahead.
>> Do do you think that God was justified in slaughtering the Canaanites?
>> Do I think that God was justified in slaughtering the Canaanites? What I think happened for a lot of especially because I'm not uh an Aaronist which means that I believe that the Bible is not the direct dictation of God.
>> Holy [ __ ] Holy [ __ ] >> No, that is exactly what the teaching of divine inspiration is. It is not that God spoke to the authors of the Bible and told them exactly what to say. What divine inspiration says is that the authors were freely allowed to write about the events of salvation history as they saw fit. So for example, the Amalachites um I was actually speaking with a practicing uh Jewish believer and apparently according to their understanding the Amalachites never existed and we even I even looked it up. They never existed historically.
The Amalachites are a reference or a fictitional group of people to represent the evil residing within the Jewish people's own community. So when God is telling the Jewish people, hey, hey, you need to slaughter the Amalachites, what he's talking about is remove the evil from within your community. Not a literal slaughtering of the people, but to remove the people from within your or remove the evil within your community.
So that way then you are a holy nation to the Lord.
>> Wow. Um well there's many problems with that argument. Number one, it explicitly says God said to the Israelites and number two it also says hold on >> please please. Number one, >> you think Grape is okay? Stop acting like you have any free will here.
>> I'm just about to.
>> Yeah, leave.
>> I hope your [ __ ] ass leaves.
Okay, I just want to respond.
>> [ __ ] you.
>> I love you.
>> [ __ ] you.
>> I love you.
>> Can I talk to Catholic now?
>> He was in the middle of talking. Shut the [ __ ] up and let him finish.
>> Catholic? Are you friends with this guy?
>> I actually like Catholic's interpretations on things. Catholic. If I were to grant the biblical God at all, I would only listen to Catholic's interpretations.
Okay. So, what I was going to say was number one, it says explicitly in the old >> You think grape is okay. You're going to first talk about that.
>> All right. I'm out of here. Have a good one.
>> Don't run, [ __ ] Don't run. A The [ __ ] left. The grape condoning genocide condoning loser left.
>> Can you hear me?
>> Yeah.
All right. Pathetic little [ __ ] left.
That was 5155.
He lasted way too long. I was hoping he'd be rage baited and leave even sooner. God, that was gross.
>> Ludicus, no we don't.
>> Yeah. [clears throat] No, he Catholic does not agree with that at all.
You can come up here and chat with him about it and he'll absolutely destroy you.
>> Never teaches that. [laughter] You should request up.
Request up, blood. Have a chat with him.
Get schooled.
>> As far as like an atheist automatically send someone to hell, like that's that's not the Catholic position. We also have what's being termed as hopeful universalism with which you absolutely can't.
>> I do have a caller over on Oh, go. Are you trying to You're not trying to debate.
And I'm not going to let up. Hi, cuz that's not a name and I'm not taking that serious for a serious conversation.
Hi. If you'll change your name um and then put in chat while you're uh calling in and um yeah, so my subjective morals and I'm not even against objective morality.
I have nothing against that. I like a lot of objective moral arguments. I don't grant them as um necessarily objectively true, but I do like them and I do think that they can be uh granted.
But since I hold to subjective morality, how I ground that is I am a social creature in society. Without being social, without helping one another, we die off. So, it is in my best interest for survival of me and my species to continue being kind and helpful to one another thanks to empathy.
All right, Max, I got you up and you are unmuted. How you doing?
>> Yo, what's good? I'm a huge fan, bro.
Like, what's up? I love your videos.
>> I'm just not religious or anything, but I just want to say uh nice videos. Keep it up.
>> Hell yeah, man. I appreciate you hopping up and saying hi.
>> Yeah, >> you gave yourself a good day, man.
>> Yeah, you too, bro.
>> That was a kind guy. W for that guest.
>> The CT has not convinced me of theism.
No, I like his arguments. He's got possibly the greatest arguments I've ever heard.
>> That presented you one of the best arguments you've ever seen. Yes, I think that CT has the possibly the greatest argument for God that exists in my personal opinion.
All right, let's do D. That looks like it might be a filib. I know Liam is a biblical person. I believe Liam is biblical. We're going to get Liam in here. See if he wants to chat about the Bible.
Liam, how you doing?
>> What's up, guys? It's been a fat minute.
You are theistic, correct?
>> Um, yeah. I believe that that Jesus Christ is God.
>> I believe that he um he came down as flesh and dwelt among us amongst sin, was tempted by sin and everything else that the world lays upon man every minute of every day. wickedness and he conquered it all.
>> God, >> no, no, no, no, no. I don't want to do that. My quick question would be, Catholic, can you explain to me what the Bible says about someone who knows the gospel and mocks it and rejects it? What happens to that person?
>> You're not going to like his response.
[snorts] >> I like his response.
Oh, if if someone has a misunderstanding.
>> No, no, no. I didn't say a misunderstanding.
>> I said no is I said no is the gospel.
Don't use my words against me. I said >> don't know is the gospel.
>> Don't crash out. Don't crash out.
>> All right. Good try. Know the gospel.
All right. Yep.
And know rejects it. Knocks it.
Okay. [snorts] So, what's your definition of no?
>> Um, a complete understanding.
>> Okay. Does anyone have a complete understanding of >> Oh my gosh, the pivoting is amazing.
>> These are called clarification question.
>> I'm asking You asked me You asked me You asked me to respond to >> Did Paul and you're out. Did Did Paul the Apostle know the gospel?
>> Not until he was thrown off his horse.
>> So there was a time in his life while he was walking the earth. Yes. That's he was Saul. Okay, we understand. Okay. Did Paul know the gospel when it was revealed to him?
after it was revealed to him and when he decided to have his conversion and >> when it was revealed after what are you gonna are you going to engage >> I am >> you wait are you a Christian are you a Christian >> yes >> then why are you then why are you doing this to make friends with an atheist that you're literally deceiving is that what >> I believe um again if you can pull this passage up if you can pull this passage up I believe it's in Matthew Jesus does say when John the Baptist came to you, he fasted and uh ate locusts and y'all basically made fun of him. When the son of man came to you, he ate, drank, and and was with sinners and prostitutes and y'all called him a drunker. Yet the results speak for themselves. I believe that is in Matthew.
>> What results? What results are those?
uh the fact that they left their sin, they left like we see that with uh uh Zakayas the tax collector. Jesus said nothing to him, said nothing to convert him, just said, "Hey man, let me hang out."
>> Okay. So, no, you're no Catholic. You're making a good point. You're actually saying there is hope for those who actually know the gospel re adamantly reject it and mock it. You're saying that those people can like the host can come to Christ, right? You're saying they're lost. They're lost in their sin and there is there is possible redemption for them through uh repentance.
>> 1 Peter 3:15.
>> Yeah. [clears throat] >> So, you're saying that you're up here, you're your goal is to save this person that's on the panel up here with you, right?
more of showing that theists are not the ignorant people like the guest that was up here earlier and that there are good reasons.
>> So you are nice pivot again. Nice pivot again.
>> He was given a very good explanation. Is there a point?
>> Is there a point in your friendship with the host where you are going to say, "Hey, brother, >> you need to come to >> you need to come to the realization."
>> He does every time we debate.
>> You are that you are ho host. Listen, >> every time we have debated, he told me this.
>> You're the one that needs repentance.
Okay? So, calm down.
>> Hey, Liam, calm down. Calm down. Calm down. It's calm down. Calm down. Calm down. Liam, it's okay. It's okay. It's okay. Liam, calm down. It's okay. So it's not every time means he like a little good little boy sitting down.
>> Calm down. It's okay. Don't crash out.
Don't crash out. Don't crash out. Don't crash out. Oh. Oh. Oh. I am your god now. Oh no. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh.
>> Oh. That's blasphemy. This is what you go.
>> Oh my [crying] god. It's a crying little [ __ ] Okay. So yeah, every time me and CT have debated, he has told me that he would like to see me in heaven and that he hopes that I someday come to become a believer. Yeah, he does spread the gospel to me, but he does it in such a way that it's actually reasonable to listen to and he actually uses logic and critical thinking for his arguments. So, he's actually >> Okay, wait. Can I ask that >> real quick? So, CT CT, you said you would like to see him in heaven. Can you show me in the gospel where it says you will be seeing >> um someone like the the atheist here who rejects God in heaven? I wouldn't be anist if I end up converting to that passage where it says you and >> don't crash out. Don't crush out bonding in heaven.
>> Don't crash out to God.
>> In the parable of the goats and the sheep where Jesus or the son of man divides the goats on his left and the sheep on his right. A thing that always stood out to me is the sheep did not recognize Christ. They had no idea who Christ was. Yet that because they were still doing good things, they were welcomed into heaven even though they did not recognize or understand who Christ was.
>> What were those good things that they were doing?
>> Feeding the the poor or uh feeding the poor, clothing the naked or giving to the poor, uh clothing the naked and uh feeding the hungry. And then you >> weren't they were so they weren't they weren't like saying they weren't like saying to people like sit down and be a good little [ __ ] and I'm your god.
>> I mean Jesus Jesus >> I'm your god and now now I'm taking your free will away. These weren't these weren't the the parable of the goats and the sheep. Is that what you're saying?
>> Jesus cursed too.
>> Jesus Jesus called Herod a [ __ ] Jesus called the Pharisees a brood of vipers which the best English translation.
>> Wait a minute. Is that because they were? Is that because they were?
>> It's almost like you are.
>> You came in here hot and heavy.
>> That's what it is.
>> You came in here roller up here hot and heavy and I am I am reciprocating your energy. I am reciprocating your energy.
>> Are you reciprocating your energy? You came in here hot and heavy at you one time.
>> Oh, you've been saying a lot worse than cursing. I don't even think cursing is bad. To curse is okay. There's nothing wrong with cursing. That's why I have this as 18 and older. You're supposed to be 18, which you have the mind of a 12-year-old. But it's okay. We're We're teaching you. CT.
>> Man's man's subjective law is okay. As long as man is manmade, you love it, huh, dude?
>> Because the morals are rock solid there.
Right. Actually, can we do a little test of >> You can be an atheist and have objective morals.
>> Before you run away and try >> be an atheist and have objective morals, buddy.
>> No, no, you can't. No, you can't.
>> Yep. What does objective mean?
>> What does objective mean?
>> Mhm.
Uh, it means mind dependent.
>> Objective dumnut.
>> Oh, subjective or objective?
>> For the third time, you drunken loser.
Objective.
>> It's like absolute. You need It's an absolute truth. It's like 2 plus two is four.
>> Yeah, it is independent of the mind. It is stance independent or >> I get it, dude.
Which means we're subjective.
Subjective. Subjective means dependent on the stance and feelings and opinions of the person.
>> So you can be atheist and have an axiom grounding your foundational morals which would make it >> by definition objective. So you can be atheist, theist, agnostic, whatever the [ __ ] you want to call it, and have objective morals. I don't grant that morals are objective just because of my foundations for them. I don't think that there is a axiom that is self-evident because I only grant self-evident axioms. But I do grant many many objective moral arguments. Especially there's a creator on here named Ian who has an amazing objective moral argument.
>> Oh yeah, we've had a couple of runins for sure.
>> Yeah, he's got a great he's got a great argument for objective morals. I don't grant it because I don't grant the foundation for it. Axiom, but you can still be atheist and have objective morals. You just have to have >> Yeah, but he he likes to say that people are taking back shots when he debates.
So I don't reciprocate appropriate reciprocating. Yeah. No. No. He's being a fool.
>> He never comes out and just goes off on people. He's >> recip he's never done that to me when I've debated.
>> CT comes in with extreme respect knowing that it's not his house. And even [ __ ] he's got a little power here. If he told me to kick you, I would kick you. Like >> CT CT, I will say this, CT definitely doesn't interrupt that much. He um >> seems to be respectful. He know he knows his place around atheists. I get that.
You know, >> he doesn't know his place. He's just coming in as a peer instead of like you, a douche coming in, raising your voice, immediately saying [ __ ] You came in here hot and heavy, loud as [ __ ] talking over us immediately, getting angry immediately at the first thing CT said. You came in here hot and heavy. I I unlike CT am going to match your pathetic little [ __ ] energy. And you don't like it. You don't like your own energy. That's kind of sad. You should [ __ ] fix your [ __ ] You should fix your [ __ ] You should fix your [ __ ] You should fix your [ __ ] You don't like your own energy cuz I'm matching your energy, dude. Dude, dude, stop talking.
Stop talking.
>> Well, shut the [ __ ] up.
>> Chill the [ __ ] out and I won't match your energy anymore. Stop being a [ __ ] dick and I won't be a dick.
Check this out. Boom. This ain't your house. Remember when you said this is your house and the daddy is talking?
Actually, [ __ ] I'm going to match your energy again. Daddy is now talking and you're not allowed to talk unless I allow you to. See, I was being kind and then I started matching your energy. You don't like your energy.
You're getting mad that I'm matching your energy. You're getting mad at your own energy being thrown back in your [ __ ] pathetic face. So, how about you chill the [ __ ] out and then I'll chill the [ __ ] out. This is my show. I'll be as angry as I want.
>> Okay, let's chillax. You and me. We'll chill.
>> Chill.
>> Chill.
>> Are we understood?
Are we at a good understanding now? Can CT continue his conversation?
>> Sure. Go ahead, CT.
>> Yeah. I mean, it's just the one of the slogans that I have tried to live my life by is preach the gospel at all times and when necessary use words.
>> Can it okay? Can it can it be um can it be okay to be a Christian and and be angry?
There's justified anger. Yes.
>> Is there a scripture that talks about justified anger?
>> When Jesus in anger made the whips and overthrew the tables of the money lenders in the temple.
>> Yeah. Christ said Christ said to be angry and sin not. Is that right?
>> Well, hang on.
>> Did he not say that?
Anger, just an justified anger is when you are in response to seeing injustice >> like mock like someone mocking um God, right? Would you say that you could get angry for that and about that and not sin? Is is that justified?
>> I mean, if the person knows that what they are doing is wrong, then sure. But if they don't know what they're doing is wrong, then there's no injustice taking place.
>> Immoral actions require >> Stop yelling. You need to take your mic out of your throat. So what CT's point is is me, even if I purposefully mock your god >> in accordance with CT's uh philosophy. I am not in the understanding that what I'm doing is actually objectively wrong.
You need to pay attention to his arguments and stop deepthroating your mic. I know you guys are very scared of gay people, so I'm just going to help you come out of the closet. Um, do you want to come out of the closet or it's a safe place here?
>> You know, I actually prefer the m the muting. It just makes my argument.
>> Take take your mic out of your throat.
>> Yo, awesome. Do it again.
>> There you go. Now it's better.
>> Mute me again right now.
>> You got You got to stop deep throwing the mic.
>> No, I'm I'm I'm >> You got to stop deep throwing the mic, buddy.
>> My good boy.
>> You got to stop. Thank you. You got to stop deep further in the mic, buddy.
So, do you understand what I just said and what CT's been saying? Cuz you're not comprehending what CT's argument here is at all. And I just broke it down in layman's term for you.
>> I mean, I was having a great little conversation with CT and then you >> started yelling and talking over me again before.
>> Yeah, I was yelling.
>> Yeah, you're deep throtting your mic, dude. That's why I keep [ __ ] muting you.
>> Yelling. Okay, this is rich.
That is Yeah, Lud is putting up a very good point. Even Lud, who is completely against both CT and me, is able to comprehend what CT is putting down.
>> Oh, Lud thinks is saying that >> CT, was I was I sinning up here when I was yelling?
>> I didn't say that you were sinning. I just said that you were yelling.
>> Okay. So, I can yell, but which I wasn't. But I could yell.
>> No, you denied that you were yelling.
No, you denied that you were yelling and I was saying that you were and that you overtalked me. I was pointing out that what you said wasn't factually correct.
>> Is there a verse?
>> It might not have been a it not it might not have been a lie because you might not have been you might have been mistaken or misremembered, but I was pointing out that what you claimed wasn't factually correct.
>> So, I've come up here as supposedly your brother in Christ, right? Can we can we at least agree on that, CT?
>> And brothers in Christ are supposed to point their own brothers.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Iron sharpen.
[clears throat] Iron sharpens iron. I'm not coming up here for for you to glaze me and have this, you know, ridiculous conversation. No. I would love for you to kind of challenge me and my belief so I could leave this conversation stronger. Okay? And I would like the host to actually humble himself and actually listen to all of us. I have to He's humbled himself to me when I showed that I actually knew what I'm talking about. I got to mute myself.
>> He's humbled himself to you. Okay, good.
>> Oh, I'm always humble and I always admit when I'm wrong when someone actually proves that I am wrong.
>> So, does that happen like like what how often does that happen?
>> It happens quite often. I've been schooled a lot on the Bible because facts don't give a [ __ ] about your feelings or my feelings. Your feelings do not matter here, nor do mine. My feelings, my opinions do not [ __ ] matter. Objective reality and absolute facts matter.
Science and religion. Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings.
Oh god, that's so [ __ ] [laughter] Oh, he dropped.
He dropped.
Here we go. He lasted what, like 20 minutes?
He lasted less than the um the grape condoner.
He bravely ran away.
He was playing pool in the morning.
Yeah, he definitely sounded a little drunk.
I think that is like three people we've had up today that defend genocide and rape.
It's kind of crazy.
If you guys have not followed already or subscribed over on the YouTubes, go on ahead and do so. Like this video and repost as well. The repost get us uh more callers. Um and that helps that helps us have better conversations.
Yeah, I'm glad that CT is back as well.
Bro had a long hiatus. Yeah, CT needs to stay. [ __ ] greatest Christian there is.
By the way, everyone on Tik Tok and YouTube, if you have Tik Tok, go follow Catholic Thinker on Tik Tok. [ __ ] awesome videos, great logical arguments.
How many Christians does it take to screw in a light bulb? We don't know.
They all sit in the dark and pretend it's on because the Godzilla let there be light once.
When is CT going live? I feel like it's been forever. That's a good question.
He's currently doing something. Once he gets back, I'm sure he's more than happy to answer that question.
I already follow him. Hell yeah.
Everyone needs to be following him.
Guys, like the stream. Exactly. Listen to Issa. Like the stream, subscribe if you haven't. Follow along if you have not. And also for all the super chats today. Appreciate you guys. You guys are making it to where I can continue doing what I am doing, deconstructing and uh throwing back in their face the attitude that they always give us.
They deserve it. Especially the Phil bros. Those guys definitely deserve it being thrown back in their face. Waiting for order for Door Dash to be ready.
That's valid as [ __ ] man.
Okay, for those on YouTube that didn't read it, CT will be back streaming in August.
He's been busy with work.
Also, for all of the uh skeptic followers that I have, um CT's got some pretty good arguments for God. Um obviously I am not a believer, so I don't grant everything about them, but if you do want a good little mind puzzle, go to his channel and watch his uh arguments for God. They're really solid.
In my opinion, there are obviously some gaps and me and CT have talked about that many times. Um but I still think that they are really good. the pinned post, the pinned post on his uh Tik Tok channel is a really really awesome argument.
Also, his interpretations on um afterlife and all these biblical atrocities that we always call out, he's got really good arguments for those as well, too. So, if you guys want a brain teaser, go watch those.
Is it logically possible that some atheist will burn for eternity?
Logically possible doesn't mean going to be or is true, dude.
He knows it's not real. No, no, no. CT is a Christian. He's he he is a Catholic. He is a Catholic. He He absolutely believes in God.
Yeah. He's not atheist. He is not atheist at all. He's full atheist. He just has really good arguments.
I'm sure Russell convinced a lot of people convinces a lot of people they don't think they're great arguments and the proof is that they ultimately reject them.
I only don't think they're good ar no I actually do think they're really good arguments. Um I just can't grant um some of the jumps that we have cuz right there's different foundational thinking when it comes to philosophy especially with you logic guys out there. You have different foundations for the way that you think. You have different foundations for what counts as evidence.
You are different foundations for what you think counts as justifications etc. I have not found an argument that is good enough to um convince me that there is any justification for me to believe a metaphysical being exists in an empirical world or that I should believe in a metaphysical being when there's absolutely no evidence other than maybe logical coherence that it exists because I can make a logically coherent argument for uh metaphysical unicorns as well and none of us believe in that.
Russell convinces people to be atheists because he's such a dog [ __ ] debater. I So, anytime me and Russell have had a one-on-one um I I defend him a little bit. I think that same as me, I'm extremely ignorant in some of these uh conversations. Um, I think the only difference between me and Russell is when I'm proven wrong, I change my mind and he kind of holds on to what he's saying. But when you're when I've been respectful with Russell, he's been respectful as well. So unlike a lot of the Phil bros, I actually have respect for Russell there.
So CT's arguments are dumb. No. Even if I don't agree or grant his arguments, it doesn't mean that I think they're dumb.
I think CT's arguments are really good.
Led, you got to remember what Jesus said when asked how to get to heaven. Did he say you have to be a theist?
Is that what he said?
Yeah, that's fair. Less, that's absolutely fair. Boogie just brought me a lizard. I picked it up by the tail to bring it back outside and the tail fell off. [laughter] That's awesome.
Yeah, there there is some differences in the uh Catholic and Christian theologies. Yeah.
When I when I'm saying Christian, I'm not only talking about like actual denominational Christians. I'm talking about all believers of the Abrahamic faiths. I call Muslims Christians as well.
Another $85 re instance. If one Christian prays for rain and another one prays for no rain and then it snows, who won the prayer war? The third one that watched the forecast.
>> [laughter] >> That's a good one. I like that.
That's a good one. Every everyone liked that one. Everyone click that like button. That was pretty funny.
He's not a deceptive Roman Catholic lud.
He's He's reading it based on actual theology.
His arguments are really solid, man. You should debate them.
Do you mean that he is timeless? What?
BBC in our time by Melvin Bragg has spoiled us in Britain for decades with the best philosophers. Britain does have some good philosophers. That is incoherent. You know a Catholic thinker or his argument is good but just not convincing. Um so his first argument first and foremost of describing divine simplicity I grant like basically all of it. Um, it's it's getting from a regular argument for complexity, divine simplicity, or even pantheistic god, Spinosa's god, to a personal god, where I'm not able to grant once once we get past um the foundational work of his argument for a personal god, I grant like all of his points. All of his points on the Bible I grant. All of his points on theology I grant. Like I have no problem with any of his beliefs at all. The only thing I have a problem with is getting from Spinosa's God to personal. That's the only thing that I'm not cool with because that's when you're going into metaphysics and purely strict metaphysics and you can't empirically justify metaphysical claims. So it's basically impossible to prove a metaphysical being that does or does not interact with the universe without empirical data.
So that's basically all arguments run into a god of the gap/ special pleading uh fallacy. But dependent on what foundation you hold um or your epistemic justification, you can grant it dependent on what you hold. I have not had a convincing argument and as to why I should hold some other form of epistemology to grant those arguments.
Yeah, that's that's relatable. Midnight, I need to go get some coffee, too, but I don't want to leave you guys stranded for a minute.
What do you all think about absolute nothingness? It cannot exist.
our thinker the damn thanks for the reply.
[clears throat] Yeah, CT's arguments are phenomenal. his theology as well.
His his theology is possibly I I think cuz I've I've always said this, if I were to be a Christian, I would be a Catholic and then after meeting CT, I think not only would I be a Catholic, but I would be whatever uh denomination of Catholicism CT is.
>> Uh that would be Roman Catholicism.
And but even within Catholicism, like all of the different rights believe the same thing.
>> RIS, >> at least the same faint.
>> Uh what?
>> Ri Tes, correct? Not R I G.
>> Yeah, Rit Tes. Um the um they all believe the same foundational things like so there are certain things that I believe even within Roman Catholicism that others don't. like my hope for an empty hell. Um it's a permitted teaching within the Catholic Church um but not a required one. So you'll meet Roman Catholics who don't hold to hope for an empty hell but believe in uh fewness of the same. Um the way that the Catholic Church tends to operate is less of hey here are the mandatory things that you must believe but more of hey here is the circle of things that your beliefs reside and as long as you're within that circle you're good.
>> See that's [ __ ] awesome. Last question. Do you think we need it? Do we need really? I would actually argue um and that that that really depends on your outlook on what is good and that gets into a semantical argument because if your argument for what is good is what is best for people in the current time then I would actually argue that um religion is extremely important because the more religious societies have higher uh happiness and um families and whatnot. Um but if we look at society as a whole um secular atheistic secular societies have better education, better health, better etc. But they tend to lack in um happiness when it comes to like social uh places. So it really depends on your semantic for what is good for people do lantern on YouTube. He's going to get brutally knowledgemoged.
[snorts] I've never heard of that guy. Dawa Lantern.
Who's really fun to have up here is when we get up some Muslims and M shows up.
Those are some fun arguments.
Weekly D and D should replace Weekly Church. I've never played it, but I really want to play it.
Well, he comes here saying you like [ __ ] Now I'm curious. What's wrong with [ __ ] Y'all are haters.
He is most scientific Muslim. What?
>> M.
>> I don't know if he's talking about M or Dawa cuz M isn't a Muslim.
>> Oh, you might be.
>> I think he's talking about Dawa. Yeah.
Most scientific Muslim. I do think that um the Quran has some not the Quran the interpretations that they have for the Quran are pretty um strong if the problem is they're so good >> except they're hermenatics.
>> Yeah, exactly. Because they've I mean Christians do it too like you can look at like certain parts of the Bible and be like yeah this lined up six times and then this next sentence is six times and the next sentence is six times therefore this chapter is about the devil. Like you could do the same thing with the Bible, but Muslims do it a lot with the Quran.
>> Well, um I will like one thing that I do appreciate like um is the history within the Catholic faith. Um the because like a common critique is oh Catholic or Christians are reinterpreting the Bible because uh especially like the creation account of Genesis um because of scientific discoveries of evolution.
>> But I can point to St. Augustine, who was reading the Bible in basically the same way that I'm reading today, you know, a non literal interpretation of it. Like he didn't believe it was a six day creation account. Um, now his interpretation still I don't think is perfectly in line with the scientific understanding, but we can see that early Christians were already doing this and engaging with the text to account for the science of as they understood it at the time from the beginning.
Um whereas I'm not like I and maybe uh you know the same thing happens in Islam uh because I'm not as familiar with it, right?
>> But I'm not sure if that same history exists um within Islam.
>> I don't think so.
I don't think so because I know that like you can be a Christian and still believe in evolution. Mhm.
>> I don't know if you can necessarily be a Muslim and follow the Quran and accept it as well.
Very, very biologically untrue, especially when they're all super biblical literalists or Quran literalist, however you want to call it.
>> Scriptural literalists.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Scriptural literalists. I don't think I've met a single Muslim that's not a scriptural literalist.
>> So, there's some history there that's kind of fascinating. Um, so this actually took place before Thomas Aquinus. So, like around um like 900 to 1,000 AD. uh you had um different Islamic philosophers, you know, because if you look in history, uh Islamic countries had many great contributions to math and science and philosophy and then it just kind of stopped. Um and the reason for it is you had uh an Islamic theologian by the name of Al Gazali and he wrote something called the incoherence of philosophy and it is a very early version of the tag argument >> but applied not to logic and knowledge and reason but to cause and effect. Um, basically saying, "Hey, it like when I kick the the chair over, what caused the the chair to fall?" My foot. No, my foot's not a cause. My foot is my foot.
>> Yeah. Wait.
>> Um, so where's the that cause? You you philosophers can't answer for it, but I can. It is Allah.
Now, granted, this is an extreme summation of it.
>> Okay, we got you. Got you. But that's the gist of his argument. And from there and afterwards you had a veroise um who was trying to counter it and I love the title of his book. So remember uh Avisa wrote no I'm yeah Avisa no Al Gazali wrote uh the book titled the incoherence of the philosophers and of wrote the incoherence of the incoherence trying to argue against and the need for philosophy and how arisatilian philosophy could work within Islam. uh basically doing uh what Thomas Aquinus did for Catholicism and the Islamic leaders then kind of got together looked at the two things and they decided to go with um Al Gazali's argument and abandon philosophy which is why the contributions to like the maths and sciences and philosophy stopped around that time period.
It's very >> which then leads to now you still have just like within um uh Catholicism you have different rights uh you have um different rights or practices within the Islamic faith community the one that followed um Algazali was the major one the largest one so you still have some pockets who hold to the AoE camp but they're not as prevalent Um but yeah, so that's why so many of them are um literalist. And it's interesting with like you'll have more literalist with Protestants who also broke away from the scholastic tradition with the Protestant Reformation. Like they still had some attachments to it, but they broke away from a lot of the quote unquote man-made traditions that came from the Scholastic traditions.
And now they you have a lot of uh biblical literalists within the Protestant faith community. So there I think there's a correlation between abandoning philosophy and reading a literal interpretation of your scriptures.
>> Yeah, I think that'd go along with like higher education less because like statistically it's like the higher the education you have the less theistic we find people to be. And like in philosophy 66% are um atheist and then like 18% are theistic.
>> Yeah.
>> That that's I think the number one thing for me is like okay first and foremost I [ __ ] love the paranormal and supernatural. Um it's like on a daily basis I spend a quarter of my day trying to see if I can prove to some degree um anything paranormal, anything supernatural, any sort of god, like any god of any religion, any anything of the sorts. And the problem is [clears throat] what it always comes down to 100% of the time in my studies has been even with me biasly trying to prove it true. Even with a bias of I want this to be true, I still hit walls of how do we know? And those walls are not at least today not capable of being broken down without faith. So it seems to be that you have to have this belief without absolute and I don't even like to use the word absolute evidence, without certainty of evidence.
>> Yeah. I think I did a video once um kind of touching on this um I think the title of it was um the false virtue or something like that.
>> Um but the idea like because don't get me wrong being a skeptic or at least not accepting things blindly is a virtue like doing your due diligence looking into it. And we even see that like for the Christians in in the chat, we even see that in the scriptures where Paul says, "If you have someone come up to you, test them, >> right?
>> Investigate it."
>> Yeah.
>> Look at what what look at what they're saying and look at what we're saying and if they don't match us, don't listen to them. Like, so he's talking about like being >> a quote unquote skeptic.
>> Um, but a lot of people I think go overboard in their skepticism. And so this one, this that video was a lot more speculative on me, but um Aristotle makes an interesting argument for the natures of like virtues and vices, where virtue isn't the opposite of a vice.
It's more of the perfect balance between two vices. And the common example I like to use is courage. Most people say the opposite of courage is cowardice. But on that spectrum, you can also be too courageous to the point of being full hearty. So courage is the balance between those two.
>> Now it's not necessarily in the perfect middle, but it like it could be closer to whole hearty than it is to the cowardice spectrum, but it's somewhere in between the two.
>> And when trying to move from a vice to the virtue to that perfect balance, um people tend to overshoot it, which is necessary because if you're a coward and you're trying to be courageous, you're going to do things that feel foolhearted.
So, someone who ra was raised up in a very dogmatic um no questions asked uh blindfaith household for their faith and now starts being skeptic can sometimes be a little bit too extreme >> in that skepticism >> to the point where like and I I know >> and I'm not trying to do uh a dig at you or anything but like for example >> No, that's definitely Uh well, I was going to say the uh uh denying the historical existence of Jesus.
>> Yeah.
>> Um you know, there's sufficient reason to believe at least a person by that >> identity who might have had later myths thrown onto that person.
There's sufficient evidence to hold to that. But due to the level of skepticism that some people hold, they are over they are overly skeptic uh unjustly. So, >> but that's through no fault of their own in my opinion based on just you know human psychology and human >> that I think uh so like I'm still a mythicist but I think um >> so first and foremost whenever I have a discussion with someone and we're like specifically arguing mythicism I hold to mythicism but I have nothing against granting an existence of a yeshua.
>> Yeah, >> if that makes sense. So like it's it's more of like a I can grant that it could be true. So I can argue with the idea that it is true but for my own subjective personal uh studies I don't find it convincing enough to fully grant uh objective truth to it if that makes sense. So I can grant it for the sake of argument >> but yeah like >> you go ahead.
>> Um yeah no I was going to say you know and that's and that's a a fair approach.
It was just more like I said it was just I think that's a good example because I think even >> even within the uh academic sphere um it's accepted.
But >> the the odd thing about that though is like whenever I talk to like GE um uh or um Jiren so like other mythicists uh depend you know there's different like levels or whatever mythicism and different information but whenever I talk to them um >> it the the information that I'm finding which is very intriguing I haven't actually studied this at all but the consensus holder for the scholars that uh claim and vote in for this consensus among what their studies once they retire or are about to retire lately as well. A lot of them publish either an article or an entire book kind of receding um their consensus and basically saying the reason we allowed it is to for the sake of our career to not end it seemed which is very interesting.
>> Interesting.
>> Yeah. No, that that is interesting. Um, and I know that like what like and whether or not like that actually like that quote unquote persecution actually exists. I know perception is reality so to speak.
>> Um, because even like Daycart um, after what happened with Galo, I think he overreacted, but it wasn't an unfair overreaction.
And I have a suspicion that he wasn't actually a theist even though he wrote >> as such because his >> Yeah. Because his argu Yeah. Because his argument for God is almost circular.
>> Oh, it's 100% circular >> the way that he gets to it. But when you look at like and it's such a weak and poor argument that it almost seems like lip service in regards to the way that he did the rest of his argumentations.
and he wanted a job a job teaching theology because that was like the quoteunquote lawyer and doctor of the day. That was the highpaying highle high prestige job. Uh now it is debated but and that's like I don't have like there isn't a concession on it but there is some support to suggest that he might have been a closet atheist especially when you look at his rules >> of not causing waves.
>> Okay. Sure. Yeah. Sure.
Interesting. I'm going to have to reread his uh meditations and other books.
Interesting. Yeah. I I stopped reading his meditations once I got um not I didn't even get to the end of the meditations cuz I was like reading it.
I'm like, "Oh, this really works. This destroys the brain of the vat argument."
And then I was like, "Wait a second.
>> I got to mute up real quick."
>> Oh, okay. You're good. Um Jujolo, um I actually grant that quite I that's something I've been arguing with myself and um other people that I chat with here on a daily basis.
um uh abnormal experiences. It's like subjective experiences. It seems to me there's no philosophical way to get to a personal creator god. I think it is possible to get to a um personal god um that interacts with you just because there are experiences that are anomalous um paranormal. There are some paranormal experiences that are unexplained, unexplainable.
Maybe not even unexplainable, but unexplained. And whenever um skeptics, critics, scientists test these experiences, they don't even they're not debunked, but they come up null. Like they didn't find anything. And because science is so rigorous, um that is why we can't grant them. But they happen enough to people that we then have to look into the psychology. Um, so I don't think philosophy or logic can get you to a god. But I do think that you yourself are the only way that gets you to a god. Cuz like I've said this before on my channel, if I had a crazy out of this world unexplainable experience, I I could possibly believe in a god again. Um, I think uh I I would like to say that I would be skeptical, but I am not in control of my psychology, right? So I feel like if I had some sort of an experience that I wasn't able to explain, I couldn't find a philosophy for and it held up logically or even if it didn't hold up logically. Um the experience itself is so great. So I think experience is one of the greatest justific justifiers for any belief system. The problem with that is it's not an objective justifier. So it's like you can have this experience and for you yourself that could be seem to be evidence for something but I can't grant it as an objective truth to reality. So when people believe in a god because of an experience I can't shut them down. I can say it could have been this, it could have been this. But a lot of times there's actually it's it's impossible to determine that. And there's even points where it could not have been this and it could not have been that. But we also still don't know if it was this deity. So things like that I think um I'd say it's fair to personally and subjectively believe that there is something higher in accordance with experiences like that but it doesn't I I can't grant it as it is therefore objectively true that this thing does exist. I think it's fair to assume that it's subjective.
>> It's why when I was doing my lives I never like the title of it was uh one can be have reasonable belief in God.
>> Yeah. Um because I do agree like if I was to like do I think what like my belief in God as far as like even before getting into whether it's a personal uh creator etc like just at the base level of there is uh a necessary being whose identity is existence like just at that level I believe that that is objectively the case >> right >> but because of the heavy metaphysics and that that argument is formulated in, >> right?
>> That's hard to justify to another. That doesn't make it less objective or >> or or anything like that. But >> yeah, >> um that's why, you know, people say why why do we care so much about validity?
Validity is important in logical arguments because let's say you and I are talking and we don't know if premise one is true objectively. So, but let's say you believe that object premise one is true and you believe that premise two is true even though we don't objectively know it. And if as long as the conclusion follows from those two, >> right, >> you have to follow it to be consistent within your worldview. Uh it's why I love Ian's approach so much because he doesn't get bogged down into proving premise one, premise two, so to speak.
He just says, do you accept premise one?
And if they say yes, he moves on. If he they say no, he then asks, okay, what premise or what version of this premise do you accept?
Hm.
>> He cares more.
>> Have you have you spent time with you?
Have you chatted with him?
>> Oh, yeah. A lot. Like >> they they were how I got in the >> Gotcha. Gotcha.
Yeah. Very interesting.
Yeah. I think that's fair. Like cuz like I like I always defend you with kind of the same argument. I'm like, if I grant your foundation, then I have to grant everything else because everything else is coherent, everything else is sound, everything else works. Like the theology works, the ideas work, the philosophy works. The only problems that I have is personally going from um an empirical world to the metaphysical thinking and how if we can uh if if if possible how to um prove or justifiably believe in something metaphysical that's not like definitionally um prescribed because like we we have to grant definitions, right? And they're metaphysical. Um and we grant mathematics and whatnot and they're definitional.
um their descriptions though the problem with that is though mathematics has axioms which are external of the mathematics itself but things like bachelors right that's that's a metaphysical thing that we we grant based on definition so that that'd be a little bit different from a metaphysical unicorn right um I I I have a problem with getting an actual being an actual entity um and granting any objective truth to the metaphysical existence I think that there's too much of a gap there that is at least currently incapable of being filled with epistemic justification or epistemic soundness I should say.
>> Sorry, I got a phone call from my girlfriend real quick. But um to finish what what I was saying um yeah Ian was how I got into like the Tik Tok debate sphere. And it was funny because I was in a Catholic Discord server community.
And the joke is that I I replaced their uh Thomas Aquinus bot because I joined the community right around the time that the bot broke down.
>> Hell yeah.
>> Um but the Anyway, so someone said, "Hey, can someone uh debate this guy?"
you know, I feel, you know, um, you know, talking about Ian and so I'm not a big fan of like Holland shows because just, you know, I saw all the cliff farming and I'm just like, >> but um, I checked out some of their content. I joined their community before even debating uh, them for the first time and I was just like, no, Ian's actually smart. well reasoned and respectful and just slowly getting exposed to more and more uh creators through Ian.
>> Yeah, Ian makes me feel like the dumbest son of a [ __ ] to ever walk the earth.
>> Yeah, him and Justin. Holy [ __ ] And then when you get like um so like me and um I I butt heads a little bit with Blitz on like um energy conservation.
Obviously, I'm ignorant as [ __ ] but like it's like there's there's certain things I butt heads with these guys with and it's like, ah, son of a [ __ ] But if they're so smart and then I have to remember to myself that we don't trust the authority, we trust the evidence.
And I'm like, a [ __ ] man. Now I'm my own person. And I can't look up to somebody.
Yeah, it's definitely an interesting balance of like, all right, you know, when when is it an appeal to an authority and when is it just me trusting their expertise, so to speak, because I don't have the time >> because I don't have the time and energy to to do the work that they did.
>> Sure. That's where I actually do grant my like hardcore skepticism cuz I feel like especially with me having a social media presence, I have to be internally consistent with my own words and thoughts. So like when I say that I don't grant anything without evidence, I mean that like literally. I don't even grant gravity unless I go and look at the math, look at the equations myself, and to some degree understand it. So, like when it comes to like conservation of energy, as much as I'm able to read it is as much as I'm going to believe.
And uh grant now, if if Blit if I were to do a one-on-one with Blitz, for instance, and he broke it down really simply for my stupid layman, ignorant ass to be able to understand, I would probably grant it. But it's like cuz like um let's say if I'm going to tell someone I don't believe in their ghost experience because I haven't >> been able to test it, then I can't hold to my own claims if I haven't tested it.
So I I feel very strongly about that like being very consistent as much as humanly possible.
Let's not trust our senses and believe that really is fake and nothing is real.
That'll get us closer to the truth. Next time I want to get roped into a pointless argument, someone please call me a [ __ ] Zen losing their zen.
>> Seems like a slow day for guests.
>> It started out pretty good, but um with that less gentleman, I said enough words that I got a uh I got off taken off of the for you page. So, I'm actually probably going to end now and then stream a little later tonight.
Let's see. Yeah, we're going ahead and end stream now, guys. That was a good two hours. Got a quite a few clips, actually. I think I got How many conversation was that? Got three conversations there that can be uh put up. And then I've got another Conjuring video to make.
Yeah, got another Conjuring video to make and a couple of uh other paranormal videos that I'm planning on making. So, we're going ahead and end it here. CT, I appreciate the hell out of you. Again, guys, if you haven't followed CT, even if you're over on YouTube and you have a Tik Tok, >> I've got YouTube as well. Same same handle.
>> Okay, awesome. Guys, go subscribe to uh CT on YouTube as well, Catholic Thinker.
We got about 50 of you in here right now. Um, we'll have another what, 500 views.
>> Yeah. Just make sure it make sure it is Catholic_thinker because I did find out it is inactive, but there is a Catholic_thinkers plural. Gotcha.
>> But there is a Catholic_thinker. It's the same uh profile picture as I got here on Tik Tok.
>> Hell yeah. So, go check him out. I know you guys are a little bit more hardcore than me a lot of times. But uh be kind.
He's been showing love. Time to tie Cody to the desk. It sounds hot. [laughter] All right. Appreciate you, brother. I will see you next time. All right.
>> Yep.
>> All right. Adios, Tik Tok, YouTube. Appreciate you guys. Go check him out if you guys uh want to give him a chance. Um just show love, be kind, especially in his comments. I know a lot of you guys aren't going to agree with him and there's some angering things, but he's a cool guy. Already subbed on the alt. Hell yeah. Yeah, go throw him a sub. Super dope person. Hype up his videos and whatnot. I'll see you guys tomorrow. All right, you guys have a uh have a good rest of your day. I may or may not do a late night stream tonight.
Not going to lie. So, I'll see you guys later. Pro possibly. If you're in Discord, you'll know.
Related Videos
0:33
Philosophy
Open Tab is a new interview series hosted by Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie
Hypeflicksss
1K views•2026-05-21
27:53
Philosophy
Street Epistemology: Maritza (1) | Student Demands the Truth (Valuation)
magnabosco210
124K views•2019-06-27
1:18
Philosophy
Nel Noddings | Feminist philosophy and education | Whiteboard Video
studioninety9110
3K views•2019-10-13
18:20
Philosophy
LEGAL METHOD CLASS: Law, Order, Justice & Freedom | Understanding the Concept of Law in Society
LAW-MADE-SIMPLE.c
371 views•2025-11-22
1:26:44
Philosophy
Does evolution DEBUNK morality?
MajestyofReason
7K views•2025-03-06
47:07
Philosophy
How the Gospels Pass the Historical Test | Tim and Lydia McGrew
TheAaronRennShow
713 views•2025-12-02
1:03:26
Philosophy
Pluriversal Design SIG Book Club 13: bell hooks' Theory as Liberatory Practice
pluriversaldesignsig2851
777 views•2022-05-24
1:37:10
Philosophy
NICK LAND MEETS THEORY UNDERGROUND (w/ Michael Downs and David McKerracher)
PhilosophyPortal
9K views•2023-10-23
Trending
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
22:40
Business
Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23
1:19:25
Biology
LIVE NOW! Cellular Structure and Functions | Complete Cell Biology Lecture | Anatomy & Physiology
MukhtarAliyu-t7m
387 views•2026-07-23