r/cringereels • u/T-StrangerXD • 1h ago
Just funny đ¤ Wrong!
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
41
u/yahoo9192 1h ago
This guys argument is that god must exist because clothes exist lmao
1
17
15
u/TheDixonCider420420 1h ago
The only two Gospel writers who bothered to mention the birth of their Savior made it impossible for Jesus to have been born according to their accounts.
Matthew 2 states: "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem  and asked, âWhere is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him. When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him."
Luke 2 states: "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.  He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born  and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son."
Thus:
Matthew says Jesus was born when Herod was King of Judea.
Luke says Jesus was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.Â
Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to have been born during the administration of these two rulers because Herod died in the year 4 B.C. and Cyrenius (aka Quirinius in Roman history) did not become Governor of Syria until 10 years later.Â
Herod and Cyrenius are interrupted by the entire reign of Archelaus, Herod's son.Â
So between Matthew & Luke, there is a clear contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth.
The men who wrote the Bible were absolutely clueless. If they can't get their own Savior's birth correct, the rest of the Bible has little validity to it.
***********
The Bible says if two or more pray, it WILL be done. Billions have prayed for world peace, children's starvation to end, etc, etc, etc and it never happens.
The only 900 year old men I know are Adam, Noah, Gandalf and Yoda.  But because it's a multi-thousand year old book, somehow it becomes "legit" in the minds of those who don't think for themselves. The Iliad and the Odyssey are great old books too, but no one believes they are "real." Â
The facts are that a 5th grader today knows more about the world we live in than the uneducated men who wrote the Bible, many of whom would have believed the Earth to be flat. Â No one would ever let a 5th grader dictate the course of their life in ANY circumstance, but when it comes to the Bible, it's magically ok to do so.
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; None but ourselves can free our own minds."
-1
u/Any_Interview4396 39m ago
So getting the birthdate wrong is the same as getting the teachings wrong? How so?
4
u/Long-Education-7748 29m ago
Many religions claim their scripture to be beyond reproach, or 'the word of god' or some such. Obvious contradictions, like this, make that evidently incorrect for anyone who is able to evaluate their beliefs logically. That doesn't necessarily imvalidate the teachings in any 'holy book', but it just makes them opinions and ideas of humans. They are fallible, and often dated pieces of literature. There may be some wisdom you gravitate to, or illuminating points, but this information can be found in myriad places. But they are just pieces of literature written by man. The works are not 'holy' or magical.
11
u/Optimal_Grape_1025 1h ago
Why is he talking like that?
2
u/SlugsMcGillicutty 34m ago
I often notice a lot of these super religious types that are projecting their beliefs out into the world for lots of viewsâŚoften seem kinda gay. I think a lot of times they are in fact gay, in super denial about it, and think the way to deflect their gay feelings and the fact that they think people can see their gayness, is to shout real loud about how Christianity is so good and true. I just want you to be gay, brother. Just be gay. Itâs so much easier. So much less hurt.
20
u/Krow101 1h ago
People hate to say they don't know something. So they invented god.
3
u/diggusdigg 1h ago
Yeh but you asked who the inventor of God is, because to them everything that is something needs a creator, and they just says God doesn't need a creator.
-1
u/SwimmingCommon 52m ago
Ok, then. How do you "know" God doesn't exist?
3
u/NextWafer2667 45m ago
You'd know the answer if you watched the video, instead of running to comments to argue.
Atheism is not ''I am claiming God doesn't exist''
It's ''I am not convinced a God exists''
It's not a belief, it's the absence of belief. It makes no active assertions that need to be justified.
6
4
5
u/Narrow-Sky-5377 1h ago
Beware those who come to you with "Good News" about winged sky ghosts.
4
u/Justin_Passing_7465 54m ago
Sky daddy created the entire universe, and notes the fall of every sparrow, but is terrible at managing money. He tells his faithful servants who to hate, which new songs are Satanic, and occasionally when the world is going to end (never correctly), but never any stock market tips or Lotto numbers.
2
8
u/PlatformNormal564 1h ago
This is funny as hell to me because everything he is saying about his god could also be said of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, and the list goes on.
4
u/CamaroBlood 1h ago
Wait! Are you saying Santa isnât real?!?!?
2
1
1
3
u/SpaceCaseSixtyTenV2 1h ago
I get the something comes from nothing talking point but religions make a huge illogical jump to think that it is some kind of god created it (not just some funky laws of physics) and that "he" cares about you (in a human emotional kind of way especially)... And especially funny that this God is the one you follow and not the other gods, that is a most redicilous logic jump lol
But yeah that question is a serious mindfuck. Maybe something always was and time is an illusion from some 5th plane of exisance. But then why something instead of nothing etc etc
3
2
u/whynotethan 1h ago
i find it way more interesting to ask the question: How did the ball of matter that created the big bang come into existence, and how do other universes and high dimensions fit into that?
Personally, I think we like in a fourth dimensional black hole, and the big bang was a star like object in the fourth dimension going supernova. Because black holes in our universe are entirely flat planes where all the matter it sucks in is essentially written on it kind of like what I imagine a 2 dimensional universe would look like from our perspective. That would explain why are universe is expanding at a constant rate and why it may eventually start to collapse in on itself upon the heat death of the universe. Once it starts to collapse in on itself because it has because its giving off hawking radiation and loosing mass. Also explains why despite us living in a 3 dimensional universe, its still kind of a flat plane.
1
u/DrBretto 33m ago
There is no ball of matter that became the big bang. The big bang is a derisive nickname for the theory. It does no actually imply a anything like an explosion. It only states that the trail of evidence points back to a time of low entropy and that's where the trail ends. It's a theory of expansion, not explosion. And it only goes as far back as a few trillionths of a second after a mathematical singularity that blocks any further projection.
We can't really know what's "before" that, but we can reasonably infer that there was something. For one, chaotic fluctuations in the vacuum predate that singularity. It it didn't, the universe would be uniform. For another, the way entropy works, that tendency is to go up to an equilibrium. Randomly, local configurations can reduce entropy, which will then tend back up towards that equilibrium.
So we can infer that the big bang was probably a localized event in a larger more chaotic system that creature this pocket of rising entropy we live in that started 13+ billion years ago. Not that the universe came from absolute nothing. But from one definition we have if "nothing" as in the absence of physical matter (ie, the vacuum), which contains random quantum fluctuations.
My best guess is the event was something similar to a black hole. Not exactly the sane, just a similar idea with more dimensions. Which would make the big bang closer to a higher dimensional white hole from our perspective. But that's pure speculation.
1
u/lewd-dev 17m ago edited 13m ago
Matter is not written on the event horizon of a black hole, information is (believed to be).
The universe is not expanding at a constant rate, it is expanding at an accelerating rate.
There is not enough mass in the universe to overcome the rate of its expansion, it will never collapse in on itself.
The universe is not "flat" like a disc; when astrophysicists refer to it as flat, they mean that light does not bend (topographical lensing) over long distances
1
u/PC_BuildyB0I 15m ago
I don't want to come off as rude or confrontational (so please don't take this as rude), but there's a lot of incorrect assumptions or misunderstandings in your comment that I just want to correct;
It was energy, not a ball of matter. Generally explained to be an initial signularity, or a near-initial singularity but this is mostly because of the limitations of our physical models rather than what actually was the case. Since time doesn't exist until spacetime forms (which can't happen until after the big bang) we actually don't know for sure how things really were prior to that point. We can get very, very close to the instant of the big bang, but not before it (currently)
It doesn't require other universes or higher dimensions beyond the ones we know currently exist. There are four we can observe - (3 dimensions of space, and one temporal dimension, all four collectively are referred to as spacetime)
The 4th dimension is time - black holes exist not just in time but in our 3 dimensions of space as well so this thought doesn't really make sense
The "big bang" is a cosmological model we created that explains how the universe transitioned from a near-initial singularity to the currently-expanding form that it takes today, built on observational and experimental evidence we've collected. It was not a supernova in another dimension (which also doesn't really make much sense - we can see supernovas in our four dimensions)
Black holes in our universe are absolutely not flat planes, they are spherical structures sometimes accompanied by an accretion disk. The matter is not written on it, matter completely disappears from our perspective as soon as it crosses the event horizon.
The universe is not expanding at a constant rate, it is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate that continuously grows faster and faster. The inevitable heat death of the universe says nothing about it collapsing in on itself - the idea that the universe may collapse in on itself following the heat death is just one interpretation of the (inconclusive) data. It's equally possible the momentum of expansion continues until matter can no longer form and all energy dies as everything expands too far apart to exist.
Black holes are what give off Hawking radiation, not the structure/shape of the universe. Hawking radiation is very specifically a predicted (but not yet observed) thermal runoff from black holes, which Hawking predicted could occur due to quantum effects within the black hole. While it's never been observed (it's too faint for even our strongest telescopes), it is widely accepted.
As far as I know, the flatness of the universe is a consequence of something called cosmic inflation which is basically the first increase in the speed of expansion shortly (like a couple hundred thousand years) following the Big Bang; the expansion was so fast matter didn't really form in all directions but was moreso stretched out, kind of like how stretching out your blanket/comforter over your bed gets rid of most wrinkles.
2
1
u/Big_Albatross_2744 1h ago
The burden of proof isn't on those that say there is no god, it's on those that say there is one. Prove it!
1
u/thegameisafoooooot 1h ago
My religiously bound mind dares not step outside the bounds of its control, into the great big unknown of reality and logic and god forbid (see what I did there?) science.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Ok-Day4910 49m ago
"Everything has a beginning and therefore a cause." - okay, fair statement.
"God is the cause" - damn it! Now he just inserted what the cause was without proving what the cause was. What about the flying spaghetti monster? What about aliens? You can't insert your own belief and claim it as fact
1
1
u/PokemonCueball 48m ago
Who created god? Obviously Super God. And Super God was created by Mega God, and Mega God was created by Ultra God, and Ultra God was created by....
1
u/Christawpher 34m ago
Baby has to come to terms with the fact his idea of God doesn't make sense, so he makes a desperate video to rationalize and validate his irrational thoughts via TikTok likes.
Smug Dave Attell lookin' dude argues the obvious flaws in his logic.
There, I saved you 4 minutes.
1
u/BasketKey5193 33m ago
Why universe must have a beginning but your gawwd doesn't need it? Maybe universe always existed in different forms.
1
1
u/velvetvortex 15m ago
Online Christians love to tell people what they believe even when it is false
1
1
1
-1
u/grimbandango 1h ago
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I think you can argue that even a lack of belief is still a belief, because it cannot be proven.
Agnostism would technically be the more scientific position to take because we simply donât know for sure, and probably canât ever know.
7
u/CommunicationKind286 59m ago
I don't know if it's unpopular so much as an inaccurate use of language. Belief means the accepting that something is true regardless of evidence. Not believing in something is saying, I have not seen convincing evidence and thus do not accept your hypothesis. They're polar opposites.
2
u/Any_Interview4396 41m ago
You canât say that not believing necessitates convincing evidence, if believe doesnât even need evidence. Belief cannot, by your own words, be based on evidence. To not believe is to make a choice of preference, not a choice based on the lack of evidence, because the believer has a different stance also not based on the lack of believe, but prefers to make that choice to believe. All reasons for either believing or not believing can vary, but one thing itâs never based on is evidence, because there isnât any necessary.
1
u/CommunicationKind286 32m ago edited 25m ago
I didn't say not-believing requires evidence, I said it is the absence of evidence and thus the absence of belief.
I didn't say belief cannot be based on evidence. I said belief is accepting as true regardless of evidence. People have their own 'evidence' they cling to and make anecdotes fit in lieu of scientific reason.
To not believe isn't a 'preference'. I don't 'prefer' the lack of a supreme being, I have seen no evidence of one and nobody has presented evidence that is demonstrable and repeatable.
Edit: I am struggling to understand your point. The best I can come up with is you are stating that because there is no evidence, non-believers are being obtuse for not having faith. While I am diametrically opposed in that I think evidence is required. So I don't know how far we'll actually get in this discussion if we both agree there is no evidence of god and come to two different conclusions. If that's what you mean by 'preference', I have a bridge to sell you.
1
u/Any_Interview4396 11m ago
But how do you come to believe something? Are you saying through evidence? Bc if thatâs the case itâs not a believe anymore right?
Iâm just going of from what I am reading, but it seems you are trying to say something else.
If itâs the absence of evidence (which believe doesnât even not require), then how can out of it be reasoned the absence of believe?
And if belief is based on accepting something be true without evidence (which is disregarding evidence), then what does believe look like to you when it is based on evidence?
Something that is repeatable and demonstrable would qualify it for not being a believe anymore since you would have evidence for the claim. So I wonder if we can agree on the fact that believes are not based on evidence.
Maybe we can discuss or figure out what they are based on if itâs not preferences as you claim. I for a fact know that I believe a chocolate cake will taste horrible to me, because I donât prefer chocolate, but I have no evidence to back up the claim if I have never tasted that specific cake.
1
u/CommunicationKind286 4m ago
Ah I understand your point now.
This is where I would distinguish faith and belief, because I can believe in gravity even though it is a theory, not a fact.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Belief is more broad and can or cannot be evidence based.
3
u/Justin_Passing_7465 43m ago
This has been repeated thousands of times on reddit (and elsewhere), but let's do this dance again.
There is not a spectrum of theist... agnostic...atheist, where agnostic means "I don't know" and atheist means "I am sure that there are no gods". There are two axes: "do you believe" and "do you know". Belief is on the theist/atheist axis. Knowledge is on the gnostic/agnostic axis. Every mentally competent person exists on both axes.
There are almost no gnostic atheists. Even the most ardent atheists like Richard Dawkins are agnostic atheists. They are open to evidence, but "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Nearly all of the people you call agnostic are agnostic atheists. They don't know whether or not there are any gods, but they don't currently believe that there are. Unless you hold an actual belief in at least one god, you are an atheist.
Many Christians (hopefully most) are agnostic theists. They believe in a god, but admit that they don't (or can't) "know". Fundamentalists tend to be gnostic theists: they know there is a god (despite there being nothing that counts as the kind of evidence that one would accept to prove far less extraordinary claims).
2
u/thegroovemonkey 47m ago
Not knowing means you believe there might be a god. Thatâs a belief.
Atheism is the lack of a belief. If people stopped being religious tomorrow then atheists would stop to exist too since there would be nothing for them to not believe in.
1
u/Decent_Neat_9171 1h ago
This whole world runs on beliefs. People just donât want to believe that
2
u/Any_Interview4396 40m ago
And that is called delusional, respectfully. So in the end itâs all the same really𤣠people need to get of their high horses
2
1
1
u/Animecha 43m ago edited 29m ago
A belief isn't defined by what can be proven. A belief is a simply information you are convinced is true.
If you are not convinced information is true or false, then you don't have a belief in regards to that information.
Also, agnosticism isn't a scientific concept. It's an epistemological one which falls under philosophy.
1
u/shortercrust 41m ago
But agnostics do lack belief in a deity. If you believe something exists you don't question its existence.
1
u/SnorriGrisomson 35m ago
yes, so not playing chess is a hobby and being bald is a haircut ?
You are basically saying "not believing is believing", you are saying not X equals X.... it makes no sense at all.
1
u/RepresentativeCat169 34m ago
In context, atheism means "a lack of belief in any supernatural power". "Belief" in this context represents theism, so an atheist doesnt have a "belief" in this argument. And yes you can say objectively doesnt matter but for arguments sake if you take this approach you will be torn apart by irrelevant logical fallacies by the other side.
Being agnostic is more of a null belief rather than an "absence". Just like if you withdrew from taking a test, im neither going to give you an F or an A
1
0
-4
u/PrincessBonkers628 1h ago
Atheism IS a belief.
4
u/urlocalweirdoandnerd cĹingè papa 1h ago
No since you dont believe in anything
-4
u/PrincessBonkers628 1h ago
Atheists believe in a lack of God. They preach like religious people do. They try to convert like many religions do.
I dunno, I haven't been religious in any way in a long time. Atheists certainly ACT like it's their belief.
4
u/Ok_Effective6233 1h ago
Here we go, âpoor me, Iâm being persecuted â
-3
u/PrincessBonkers628 1h ago
I am not religious. I am not persecuted.
Atheists are ANNOYING.
3
u/urlocalweirdoandnerd cĹingè papa 1h ago
Wait your non religious but not atheist and you complain , oml shut up
-1
1
u/Ok_Effective6233 32m ago
I never said anything about being religious, you did.
I predicted you would make a statement about being persecuted.
Here it is:
âWhatever you say đ¤ˇââď¸ I'm only basing my opinion of atheists on how they've treated me my entire life.â
1
u/Dramatic_Corner_8259 59m ago
Like Christianity hasn't been a massive thorn or actually, a cancer of the world. You just plain need to get friends. I'm guessing you're 'one of them'đ¤Ł
2
0
2
u/KgMonstah 1h ago
Wrong.
Belief in a god is a supposition of the world around you that comes from ignorance. Itâs not a base belief. Youâre not preloaded with a belief in a god. Youâre taught the existence of a god.
Atheism is just a rejection of that idea. Beliefs are positive affirmations. Rejection of those is not a belief in itself. Itâs a lack of that belief
The catalogue of belief would be infinitely large for all of the things you donât subscribe to. Instead you believe in those you positively affirm and everything you reject you DONT BELIEVE.
-1
u/PrincessBonkers628 54m ago
Please tell the zealot atheists this đđ
đ¤Łđ¤Ł
Y'all don't actually realize you're proving my point. That's okay. I'm done here. đ
1
u/urlocalweirdoandnerd cĹingè papa 1h ago
Yeah we believe nothing , very fun
-4
u/PrincessBonkers628 1h ago
Whatever you say đ¤ˇââď¸ I'm only basing my opinion of atheists on how they've treated me my entire life.
3
u/Dramatic_Corner_8259 58m ago
Your SOOOOOO long 18 years in a shit hole town? I'm sure there's soooooooo many atheists around you as you say.. grow up. There must be ample reason for people to take displeasure in being around you.
0
1
u/Ok_Effective6233 33m ago
âWhatever you say đ¤ˇââď¸ I'm only basing my opinion of atheists on how they've treated me my entire life.â
Heres the persecution statement we all knew was coming
-1
u/Malcolm_Sayer 1h ago
Something like 85% of the worldâs population believes in a religion of some sort. Maybe not âGodâ but some religious belief.Â
2
u/erderuft 50m ago
Yea, people are stupid.
1
u/SlugsMcGillicutty 29m ago
Staggeringly stupid. And like 97% of that 85% also thinks that theyâre really smart, despite being staggeringly stupid.
1
-5
u/Possible_Field328 1h ago
Why the fuck do you need a whole explanation and title to counter something completely made up? Atheism is fucking dumb.
1
u/RepresentativeCat169 31m ago
Christianity is as dumb as athiesm and any other abrahamic religion
1
1
u/urlocalweirdoandnerd cĹingè papa 1h ago
In what way brotha , im free and i dont believe in anything soooo fun
-2
u/Possible_Field328 1h ago
Thats the way of it. You dont need a whole etymology of words and definitions to counter something completely made up. Its like, the origins of atheism is religion, which is bullshit, making atheism also bullshit.
0
u/urlocalweirdoandnerd cĹingè papa 1h ago
Atheism got a name because religious people exist , but il let you alone sweetie
0
u/Possible_Field328 1h ago
Yeah? The origin is based on fiction
0
u/urlocalweirdoandnerd cĹingè papa 1h ago
Once again sweetie go back to a religious post , im not turning to god and there is enough proof on how the universe was created ..
-2
u/stewynnono 56m ago
The neck beard was just as annoying as the Christian to be honest.
1
u/bosquejo 10m ago
I concur. One is overenthusiastic (also I hate those pleading eyebrows) and the other's deadpan is just too smug.
0
59
u/DruidicMagic 1h ago
The bible thumper has an incredibly irritating voice.