I Say Fundamentalist Churches Are CULTS. A Debate With Apologists? Here Is Why I Never Will.
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 03. 2024
- A few commenters ask me if I'm so smart why I won't debate one of their own fundamentalist apologist types. Am I just afraid of them?
If you would like to read a novel about what I think the Apocalypse would be like if Christ ever returned (a tale the fundamentalist will despise) click the link below. And may God bless you---just not the God that floods an entire world.
THE SECOND FALL. By Charles Hurst
www.amazon.com/SECOND-FALL-Ch...
Thanks for watching and smash that bell like I smash the fundamentalist. For a tale I admit is fiction check out THE SECOND FALL. The offbeat Armageddon sure to offend more than a few.
www.amazon.com/SECOND-FALL-Charles-Hurst/dp/B08RR9SJFM
I think formal debates can be extremely valuable. Mostly because its really easy to tell when someone hasnt thought through their argument or they use a bunch of fallacies. Its cowardly to simply refuse to debate.
I've downloaded The Case For Christ. I haven't finished it yet but it's puerile, his reasoning and writing style are childish. I'm also of the opinion that he was never an atheist because, what I've read, was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias. There was no balance starting from a base of scepticism in his "research".
Even as a Christian I thought it was bad and never got past the 2nd chapter
Trying to debunk points of the Bible to a fundamentalist is like trying to herd cats. They refuse to use rational and critical thought because it would destroy their fantasy world built on a flimsy deck of cards.
That might be an insult to cats. Cheers, DCF
I think you mean a Pride of Lions. Kitty Cats are easy to manage (well most of the time anyway). 😅
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon-it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
I agree, don’t debate fundies. They have no academic honesty, they don’t actually debate it’s more of an open arguement, they just claim victory no matter what, and ultimately debates don’t determine facts and reality but research does.
I'd debate them, but not in front of a stacked audience or where they have control of the debate. I never understood why people would go on news shows for example, and debate the host. You're not going to win, because even if you do, what ends up on air, wont be you destroying their host. They'll edit it and if they can't edit it enough to make their host look good, they wont air it.
Apologists are liars at the core. Debating them is like debating a titanium wall. They CANNOT debate honestly for the simple reason that to bring their faith into doubt is at the same time to (in their minds) jeopardize their core salvation. If they lose a debate, they potentially lose their savior and their souls. So they are committed to fundamentalist lies, never to the whole truth/and/nothing but the truth.
That's why "Mr. Deity" calls them "Excuse-agists".
@@WingDiamond Very nice!
:)
What? Have you not watched Craig or Lennox or many other apologists? They love it when people question the scriptures it's encouraged. But you have to be READY to actually support your claim. Not just make a claim and move on to another.
@@christianthechristian8569 I've watched them many times. They're all spin doctors and not worth the time. Their arguments are logically flawed, historically ignorant, and utterly flimsy.
No Christian ‘jeopardises their salvation in their minds’ talk about not knowing that the hell you’re talking about.
‘In their minds’ 😂
I wouldn't debate a fundamentalist, or anybody else for that matter because I just can't think fast on my feet. The closest I had was when a coworker tried to convert me. My counter argument was that the concept of eternal damnation was proof that the Christian God couldn't be loving or just. She didn't have an answer to that so I shut down that conversation.
That whole concept Darwin is a huge problem with me. Cheers, DCF
They are utterly dishonest and not worth anyone's time
religious spiritual abuse - narc abusive behaviors against the most vulnerable community - children, single moms, seniors, etc. - meanwhile all is very well known. Sexual abuse from children!
I refer to "apologists" as "excusists" because I'm pretty sure they aren't sorry. They should be, but they aren't
Eyyyooo mad respect
Sounds like you are Mr Scared. 😢😢😢
“Christian churches are a cult” is not a surprising statement from you, given the name of your channel.
I am personally opposed to the cult that says the universe began as this egg that exploded, everything of fall from it, and life, a Rose, spontaneously without cause, and for no reason. The two Commandments of this cult are: (1) believe without question everything you were told about this cult (2) ridicule everyone who does not without question except everything they are told about this cult.
what we have here folks is the pure definition of projection.
@@cliftongaither6642Yes, projection and creating a strawman argument simultaneously. If one does not have the integrity to accurately describe another's position, it seems very telling.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 agreed
I argue with fundamentalist constantly on evolution and the age of the earth, it’s interesting to see someone who I’d assume is on my side as those two topics use the exact same logic as them. That is, Saying your opponent has no evidence while dismissing the evidence presented to you as not real evidence. Maybe losing a debate or two would help you learn intellectual honesty and substantiate your claims without sounding like a child
Define fundamentalist. Don't lump any group under a label as if they are monolithic in their beliefs. I'll bet atheists aren't identical either.
The common definition is one who interprets the Bible literally and goes by the genealogical method of dating the Earth to between 6000 and 10 000 years old. I get not wanting to be lumped in with idiots but here you are, no offence intended. No wonder there are hundreds if not thousands of sects, you guys can barely agree on the basics.
@@LesActive I'm a Christian and kind of agree with you. :) I have noticed you can't leave a cult without retaliation and I've left lots of churches amicably.
@@jeczaja5347 How many cults have you left exactly? That's quite a claim for having no evidence.
@@littlebitofhope1489 That's my point-have left many churches (moved a lot) and none ever retaliated. If you research cults (and they are not all theist) one thing they have in common is they won't let you leave without exacting revenge.
Hard to believe people think magic, superstition and woo woo is reality in 2024. I bet by 4024 they'll be laughing at the silly ancient christians just like we laugh at the silly ancient Greek god worshippers now. 😂😂😂
Making fun of religious beliefs isn't a great way to convince people. Personally I find Greek mythology to be fascinating, even though it isn't true. The Ancient Greeks were simply trying to explain things they didn't understand. Even though the stories aren't true, a lot of them convey very significant meaning.
@@bridgetgress So, it's just like christianity then. And thinking thunder and lightning are gods is a bit silly.
@@TheTruthKiwi No, Christianity is quite a bit different. The Greek Gods are not real. At the very least Jesus was a historical figure.
@@TheTruthKiwiExcept if this was the case there would be no reason to be a Christian instead of a Jew.
@@Mario_Sky_521 Death is a part of life. I know some people can't handle that and want to be immortal. I'm only interested in what is most likely to be true that's all and I'm not interested in giving people false hope.
So you won't debate anyone because you don't like that people make videos saying atheists own which in the atheist sphere of CZcams they do the same in the opposite direction. So that's a weak point. Also I don't think you know how debates are actually structedred then. Also why does the audience matter? Good arguments shouldn't rely on the audience. It sounds like excuses rather then proof. Also who are you to tell Strobel what he did and didn't belive before? For not wanting to debate well organized apologist like Craig and Lennox seems like the same ridiculous reasons Dawkins gives for not wanting to debate Craig. Basically I know I'm right so I don't have to debate them. Like that's not how that works.
"I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing." -WLC
That's enough of a reason to not want to debate him. If he's willing to accept such odds against him then he's not operating within the sphere of rationality, imo.
John Lennox is another kettle of fish who attempts to make science and faith into comfortable bedfellows. Scientists can make accurate predictions about phenomena and so proving its usefulness. Faith can easily lead you astray and cause one to make predictions that are unfalsifiable and so proving its uselessness in the here and now. Science is useful for the here and now, religious faith is only useful for hope in the unknowable alleged afterlife.
@chadtyrone Except the Bible has had the biggest impact on the world. Spiderman and Batman have not. You get made of your moral ethics from that supposed "comic book" and the Bible inspired Christians to contribute a lot to science, the first hospitals and universities were mostly Christian! And so much more. If not for Christ the world would be a lot different we would be at least 800 years in the past.
@chadtyrone somehow in that pea sized brain of yours, you believe 6000 editions of a book were all falsified across time and culture and hundreds of witnesses all made it up, independently, conspiring to write the exact same details without knowing eachother, or in many instances, not even speaking the same language.
The most read, most witnessed, most written, most cited book in history isn't believable to you because... batman?
I'm guessing most of your brain function is dedicated to remembering to inhale and exhale. With limited cognitive facilities such as yours, I doubt there's room for much else up there.
Why debate people who make silly claims with zero evidence? You said it yourself. Good arguments don't rely on audience, they rely on EVIDENCE, and you don't have any.
@@christianthechristian8569 No, MONEY has had the biggest impact. If Christians did not have it, they would have no impact.
Agreed. It's why I don't debate these idiots either. Debates aren't set up to find truth, they exist to score brownie points with the audience and those audiences are artificially inflated by the religious so their side can cheer loudly. That doesn't make anything they say true and I care only about truth. I'm entirely fine with discussions on neutral ground, but the religous tend to run away from that, as someone I've been in a discussion with right now is clearly doing. They have no rational response, so they'd rather head for the hills.
No shit. The "winner" of any debate is not necessarily who is right. That's just how debates work.
@Mario_Sky_521 let's not pretend that all Christians are blissfully happy people simply because they're "saved". Lol
@@DaveGreen-ft2vyThey're not. In fact, I rarely find people so miserable as the religious. They just make excuses. "This is what God intends for my life!" No, you're just an idiot.
@@DaveGreen-ft2vy Then debates are pointless wastes of time, which is why I don't engage in them. I care only about the truth.
@@BitchspotBlog I disagree. Debates get the audience thinking, regardless of who "wins"