Responding to Cringe Atheist Memes

Introduction and Why These Atheist Memes Are Cringe

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today we're gonna do something a little fun and edumacational, okay? I have collected a wide variety of memes, atheist memes, that I have found to be rather cringy, and if I can give just a quick shout out, I found it on an atheist Facebook group called Anti-Theist, okay?

And I guess it's just a bunch of anti-theists and atheists and all these, you know, sorts of people posting a bunch of memes and things and posts against religion, Christianity, oh, oh, you, you, you, if it crosses your mind, you're like, oh, I think I saw, it's probably from this, from this Facebook group.

So they're pretty bad, but at the same time, I do know that memes are pretty popular, and so it might be useful to kind of plow through some of these. They're pretty bad, and what makes it difficult is when reading through it, or if you kind of go through the posts, like on social media, people post this as though, like, this is like some profound insight, okay?

They're pretty bad. If I were an atheist, I would still find these cringe. Some of them are more cringy than others. Others, it's kind of like, okay, you know, let's interact with that a little bit, but for the most part, they're pretty bad, and it's a good, I think, a good opportunity to apply some, some logic to, you know, the fallacies inherent in many of them, and, you know, you can do things, you can do this in any number of ways, right?

So I don't typically interact with people on Facebook threads, especially in these specific groups, because you can kind of get a feel that, you know, people post certain things. They're probably not the kind, that's probably not the best context to kind of engage in, like, a debate, okay?

But maybe, maybe it is. Maybe that's your cup of tea, and you've had some great discussions in that context. For me, I have not found them to be very useful, although I would imagine that there are exceptions, but for the most part, I just see these things online, and, and, you know, I shake my head, and sometimes I take the time to do the work so that you don't have to, okay?

So, so there you go. So just waiting a couple of moments here for people to kind of hop on this live here. Once again, my name is Eli Ayala. I am the founder of Revealed Apologetics. I am a Christian apologist, YouTuber, speaker.

When I'm not doing this, I am a full-time teacher, and when I'm not teaching, I travel the country, speak at different events, teach in various capacities, apologetics, theology, and sometimes I'm even invited to preach at churches, which is always enjoyable as well.

So if this is your first time here, please subscribe to the channel. That would be greatly appreciated. Folks who have been listening for quite some time, if you're looking to support Revealed Apologetics, you can do so by going to revealedapologetics .com.

There's a donate page. That'd be greatly appreciated, and I also offer some educational content. I have created courses on apologetics that cover a wide variety of topics that folks can check out on my, my channel, but if you're just here and you're kind of like, I don't need any of those things.

I'm just here to kind of listen in. That's perfectly fine as well. I appreciate you being here. So let's dive right in. We don't want to waste too much time, okay? First, I'd like to say hello to people in the comments.

I love you, Eli. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Yes, they may come for me, and I don't care. What, what, what I find interesting is, as I mentioned before, I don't typically get into too much of the comment sections in my videos or posts and things like that, because I don't want to get sucked into the black hole, so to speak, but it's always interesting because I get notifications on my phone when someone posts a message.

There, these people will write these long posts, almost like essay worth, you know, of writing. It's, again, commenting, you know, Eli, you know, you're, you know, stupid or your view is, you know, whack or whatever, whatever they write, and I feel so bad for them because, you know, I'll scroll through them like, man, this is really long, you know, and I don't read it, so literally the person wasted, wasted their time sitting at the keyboard writing this long thing.

When someone writes a comment geared towards me, and they start with an insult, then I typically don't read it. Now, you do have people who don't agree with me, and they're really respectful, and I read that, and I say, you know what, maybe I'll interact with this person because it looks like they could actually have a mature conversation, and I know that Christians can be guilty of that as well, so other Christians who disagree with me start a comment with an insult.

I typically don't engage face-to-face. I don't mind engaging, but I don't get sucked into the comment section. It is a very dark, very dark, dark place. So, all right, well, let's jump in. I'm going to minimize myself.

I don't want you guys to be scared off. I'm a big old face. On the screen, we'll minimize here. There we go. Let's see here. Aaron says, everything atheists say is bad. They just don't have the knowledge necessary to properly critique Christianity because it takes effort to know Christian theology.

I can't say that for every atheist, but yes, a large portion of atheists, definitely within the, where I got these memes from, that would very much categorize a lot of the folks that post there. They don't have the background knowledge to accurately critique the view, and there are some good ways to critique Christianity.

Obviously, I think they fail, but there can be better ways to go about it that show an understanding of at least what we're trying to say in some basic areas. But I think a lot of, some people, they hate Christianity so much, and they're so convinced that religion and Christianity are just this dumb mythological fairy tale stuff that in disrespecting the view they're critiquing, they don't actually do their homework and properly represent the view that they're critiquing, and then they end up having egg on their face as a result.

So, yeah. All right, well, let's jump right in. We have meme number one. This meme is, this is a fun one, right? This person posted someone holding up a sign, and this meme reads, there are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.

There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds. Well, if you're reading that, there are a couple of things that should pop up into your mind, right?

First, just take the statement, there are no gods, right? That's a very strong assertion of knowledge, right? The claim is essentially stating that God doesn't exist, okay? God or gods don't exist. And so the critical question here that we're going to ask, okay, if someone said this in conversation, or if you feel compelled to interact in this, you know, on a post that might post something along these lines, you're going to want to ask, how does one defend that claim?

There are no gods, there are no devils. How do you know that? How do you know that? Right? Now, of course, the common, you know, village atheist response might be something along the lines of, well, there's no evidence for God, right?

Okay? And of course, we're going to disagree with that. I think that everything is evidence for God. I won't rehash the reasons why I think that here, but you guys know my position, hopefully. But let's suppose, let's kind of bite, for example, let's just bite the comment here.

Suppose it were true that we didn't have evidence for God's existence, right? Even in that scenario, the lack of evidence doesn't logically entail or logically conclude that God doesn't exist. As the saying goes, right?

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's true. And so the claim remains unjustified and indefensible, right? As it stands, how would someone defend that? You can put up a sign, right?

But putting up a sign and making an assertion doesn't demonstrate your view is true, nor is it evidence that your view is true, right? Now, let's kind of move on a little bit. So the meme also says, there is only our natural world, okay?

Again, that is a statement about literally the nature of reality, that nature is all there is, right? But how can one assert that with certainty on their own perspective? On what basis do they claim exclusive knowledge about the nature of reality?

You see, for the Christian, you don't have to believe what the Christian says, but at least it makes sense within the Christian system that we could make assertions about the nature of reality and that within our worldview, it makes sense because we hold the idea that there is a God who created and defined reality and revealed aspects of reality to us such that we could know it.

Now, you don't have to believe that, you could reject that, but within the Christian worldview, that makes sense that we could know various aspects of the nature of reality. But on an atheistic worldview, how could an atheist stand there and assert that there are no gods, there are no devils, there are no angels?

I mean, how would they know that? Now, one way that they could argue is that the idea of God is logically incoherent, but I'd be interested to hear that argument, right? But I don't see how someone could actually demonstrate that in any meaningful way.

A lot of these atheist types, these popular atheist types often hold to kind of like an empirical epistemology in terms of which knowledge is gained through sensation and experience. But even on that view, you cannot demonstrate empirically that there are no gods or no devils or no angels.

So this is, again, it's just an assertion with no foundation, no way of defending such an assertion, okay? Now, the meme continues, religion is but a myth. Again, once more, how do we know this, right?

The blanket statement lacks any substantiation whatsoever. It fails to engage a lot of what Christians and religious people often say when defending their view. There are some pretty lame arguments out there on the Christian side and the side of those who hold to religious perspective, but let's be honest.

I mean, not everyone who believes in a God, right, gives like these completely idiotic and stupid reasons why they believe it. I mean, obviously, this is a debated issue. You have intelligent people on both sides debating the issue.

So to hand wave and just say, oh, it's all a myth. I mean, that's just intellectual lazy, which ironically is what Christians are often accused of being, okay? So when someone says religion is a myth, you know, cool, that's an assertion.

Your assertion needs an argument alongside it so that we can actually engage in the details, okay? Now, it claims that religion is, this meme here, religion is a superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds, okay?

And so here we face another problem, okay? If God does not exist and atheism were true, okay, what does it even mean to harden a heart? Are we talking about the literal organ in the chest, right? Atheists often use kind of these metaphorical language without accounting for the philosophical implications of those metaphors.

They can't even justify the metaphorical notion of a hardened heart. You see, within a biblical worldview, the heart doesn't refer to the organ in your chest. Rather, it is the center of one's being or the seat of the will.

It could even refer to the mind or even the soul if you want to take it that way. From within a Christian worldview, hardening hearts makes sense, okay? There's a sense in which it's metaphorical and there's a sense in which, yes, a person's heart can be hardened.

But on atheism, what does that look like to harden someone's heart, okay? What does it look like to harden someone's brain functioning, right? Everything they say with respect to their atheism is just something their brain is fizzing out because of the laws of physics acting upon us, okay?

So hardened hearts, softened heart doesn't matter, right? If atheism were true and metaphysical naturalism is the case and all that exists is matter and motion, what does it even mean to harden a heart, okay?

Now, when someone says that religion enslaves minds, okay, it's interesting here because enslaving of the mind obviously has kind of pejorative undertones, right? It seems like the person is implying here that it's not good that minds are enslaved, right?

They're making a sort of implicit moral judgment here. But again, we need to ask the question, in a godless universe, by what standard are they appealing to? If there's no God, right, there's no God who serves as the foundation for moral objectivity, on what basis can this person argue that enslaving minds is a wrong thing to do, okay?

There's no objective standard, right? So if one rejects the existence of God, what grounds do they have to criticize religion for allegedly hardening hearts and enslaving minds, okay? Again, the interesting thing here is they reject God with their mouths, yet they assume things that only make sense if God exists, okay?

And so again, you know, this is filled with statements and assertions, but it doesn't really give us anything interesting, okay? All right, I see some people here commenting. Let's see if there's anything worth clicking on.

All right, okay, sorry, there we go. All right, let's move on to meme number two, okay? Boom. Okay, so here we have, we have a quote here, okay? Let's read through this here. This is a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche, okay?

It says, hatred of the world. Well, let's read, let me read the whole thing before I kind of break it down. So it says here, Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as faith in another or better life.

Hatred of the world, condemnations of the passions, fear of beauty and sensuality, a beyond invented, the better to slander this life. I mean, okay, all right. I mean, it sounds profound, but I mean, sorry, I know Friedrich Nietzsche is considered a smart guy, but again, this doesn't seem, you know, to have any weight at all, right?

Hatred of the world, right? Condemnations of the passions, fear of beauty and sensuality, a beyond invented, you know, to better, to slander this life, as he says here, okay? Well, let's take a look at this, okay?

It's not the biblical position to hate this world, okay? Now, well, you know, we're not supposed to love the world. Yes, words have meaning in their context, right? We're not called to hate the world as though, like, this existence.

When the Bible says that we are not to love the world, it talks about the worldly systems, the worldly and ungodly philosophies and ways of thinking, the elementary principles and so forth. It doesn't literally mean to hate this existence as we long for, you know, some blissful future, right?

Okay? When God created everything, the Bible says that he said it was good, right? And we acknowledge that sin has corrupted the world and there are many things wrong with it, but Christianity doesn't teach us to despise the world in favor of some nebulous afterlife, okay?

This is a common misconception, but in fact, God calls Christians to be active and engaged in the here and the now, not to be so preoccupied with heaven that they become ineffective here on earth, okay?

If people think Christianity teaches to hate the world, they're just simply mistaken and not understanding what the Bible means when it speaks of not loving the world, okay? Context. It's simple. This isn't even, like, a hard thing, but, you know, when someone comes off very confidently, you know, they'll post these things, they think they're saying something profound, but it's not really the case.

Now, regarding Nietzsche's mention of hatred of the world, condemnations of the passions, I think it's important to clarify what is meant by these terms, okay? Christianity doesn't promote a blanket condemnation of the passions, okay?

Nor does it instill a fear of beauty and sensuality. I mean, that just sounds, that's right. We fear beauty. I mean, this is so dumb, right? Christianity recognizes beauty and sensuality as good and valuable within their proper context, right?

The concept of beauty presupposes an objective standard by which we can distinguish between what is true and beautiful and what is not. What is false, what is ugly, all these sorts of things. We have a standard by which to measure.

Sensuality as well. Sensuality within Christianity is viewed as a positive aspect of human experience when it is aligned with moral and spiritual guidelines laid down in God's Word, okay? Now, when sensuality is detached from those standards, then of course it's going to lead to moral chaos and going to lead to harm, right?

I hope Nietzsche's not arguing that all senses of sensuality are good and virtuous. I mean, I'd be interested to hear his view on that, okay? Does he hold to a complete freedom to unleash our sensuality and so forth in any way that we want?

If so, and there's no objective standard, then there's a problem there. So, the better to slander this life, right? We need to kind of look at this for a second. So here's my question. How does he know that the concept of an afterlife is merely an invention, right?

People say this is a fairy tale, okay? That's an assertion, okay? Now, Christians can provide evidence for the afterlife, okay? Part of our evidence can be, we can, there's nothing wrong with referring to the resurrection of Jesus.

I think the historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus are very powerful and persuasive, but of course we can't speak endlessly about the historical data because we do know that there are people who reject the evidence and data that we put forth because, of course, there are deeper issues at play here, issues of presuppositions, right?

People presuppose certain things that are going to dictate how they understand that data. So it's useful in one sense, but in another sense, we need to go at a deeper level. But to say we offer no evidence of it, I mean, that's, I would challenge that, okay?

So if you say it's afterlife as an invention, again, that's an assertion in need of an argument, okay? And so he's not, Nietzsche's not in a position to definitively know whether an afterlife exists or not, right?

His assertion pretty much presupposes the truth of his own perspective, and so I think he's inherently begging the question there, unless he offers some kind of argument in somewhere, I'm not a Nietzschean scholar, so maybe he gives arguments elsewhere, but as it stands here, as it is this, it's a meme here with just a quote, and I don't have context here, that's what I have to say about this here.

I don't find it convincing, I don't find it profound, it just seems like assertions and the misunderstanding of how Christianity understands the things that apparently he thinks, you know, religion or Christianity specifically, you know, doesn't like, right?

We hide from beauty, right? We invent things, right? Oh, well, give me an argument, right? I mean, isn't that fair to ask for an argument? Yeah, I think it is. All right, let's see here. Meme number three.

Let's go here. Boom. All right, this is a fun one. This is a fun one here. Okay, so now this third meme says the following, right? A little girl is asking her mother, why do people believe in God, mom?

And the mother responds, God is a coping mechanism for people who feel insecure, fearful to ask questions and cannot deal with the harsh realities of life. Okay, this someone actually posted this, okay, is actually posting it, okay.

This someone actually put this here and thought it was it was a good thing to post. I mean, this is this is this is cringe. This is when I say cringe, this is one of the ones that I find very cringey.

Okay. Now, the reason why I think this is so cringey, if you think of it from a purely logical perspective, okay, I think it's ineffective as an argument or an assertion or, you know, something to put forth.

I think it's ineffective because the statement is entirely reversible. Isn't that true? Okay, what good is a statement, an assertion, an argument or whatever, when it's reversible? Okay, what? Why can't I say that atheism is a coping mechanism for people who feel insecure and are fearful about one day being judged by a God who will hold them accountable for all that they've done?

Right? Why can't we argue that atheists cannot deal with the harsh realities of a God who is righteous, holy and just, and who will one day judge them? Right? Of course, they resort to disbelief as a coping mechanism to make themselves feel better.

You see, we can we can do the same thing, right? It says this isn't, this isn't anything profound. Okay. Now, an atheist is going to is most likely going to reject that characterization just as a theist is going to reject, you know, the characterization of of their own beliefs, right?

But the fundamental problem with statements like this is that it's entirely reversible, and therefore it lacks any substantive value as, you know, in terms of offering a perspective, okay? It doesn't engage in actual reasons and evidences and arguments that people put forth for their position.

It just tries to give kind of a psychological analysis. Well, name that tune, right? I mean, you can give a psychological analysis and so can I, right? You know, someone's like, oh, religion is cognitive dissonance.

Okay. Atheism is cognitive dissonance. Oh, no, it isn't. You're misrepresenting me. Okay. Well, then religion isn't cognitive dissonance. You're misrepresenting me. You see how silly this is? Very surface level.

Okay. And it's unfortunate because on the internet, apparently this passes for many as good argumentation or, you know, somehow, you know, the person posting this is making some profound point. But, of course, it really is very, very shallow.

All right. All right. Let's jump to our next meme. Let me see here in the comments. What? Oh, your comment is worth clicking on. Okay. Stingray says, hello, all. Our brain fizzes one way and one another.

What's the difference? Whatever it is, it can't be moral in a godless universe. Why is my comment not worth clicking? Well, it is worth clicking, so I clicked it. So, there you go. There you go, Stingray.

L. Ron Hubbard, Scientism, and the Burden of Proof

All right. Let's move on. All right. Let's see here. What do we got? What do we got? Let's see. Boom. All right. Let's take a look at this one over here. Okay. So, this meme says, you don't get rich writing science fiction.

Actually, you can get rich writing science fiction if it's good, right? Anyway, you don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion. And this apparently is from L. Ron Hubbard, whose name should be familiar to some people.

All right. Well, let's break this down. So, what's the problem here, right? As I see it, the problem with this statement is that even if we assume it's true, right, that some people get rich by starting religions, notice that that has no bearing or logical connection on whether any particular religion is true, right, including Christianity.

Okay. Some people use religion to get rich, but that's irrelevant as to whether it's true. Okay. The misuse and abuse of a religious perspective does not speak to its falsity, right? There are individuals who use religion as a means to gain financial wealth.

And heck, I was just accused in the last video that I'm in this for the money. Okay. That's why I do this, apparently. Okay. So, you know, I do it for the money. I try to take advantage of ignorant people.

I mean, you know, of course I do it for the money, right? You guys see the bling-bling that I wear, you know, is bling-bling actually a thing? Maybe I'll edit that out of this video. But you get what I'm saying, right?

Even if it were true that someone tried to get rich by, you know, using religion, it doesn't mean the religion's false. And if the implicit claim in this is that Christianity was invented so as to get rich, I mean, historically, that's demonstrably false.

Okay. I mean, historically, it's false, right? There is substantial historical documentation indicating that early followers of Jesus didn't get rich. In fact, many of them faced persecution and suffering.

And this would include the apostles, okay, who endured all sorts of hardships and martyrdom and so forth. Okay. Now, someone could say, well, all that is myth and it's unreliable. I mean, you could say that, but that does, you know, saying so doesn't make it.

So I think history is on the side of the Christian at that point. Okay. So again, so this meme doesn't provide us any meaningful insight into the truth of any religious perspective. It's just making an assertion that is really irrelevant to whether a particular religious perspective is true.

All right. So again, it's pretty bad. All right. Let's see what we got next here. Ah, okay. This one, this one's a fun one. All right. Let's take a look here. Now this one says religion stops us from asking questions and there's almost like an indignant and it has held us back from too long, held us back long enough.

Okay. All right. So I'm not sure what this person is referring to. I mean, as a religious person myself, I mean, I'm a Christian, right? My faith hasn't stopped me from asking questions, right? Believing that God created all things doesn't mean I stop inquiring about his creation, right?

This just doesn't follow at all. Okay. The belief in a creator actually encourages my questions and exploration of the world that God created, right? Just because I know God created the world doesn't mean I understand everything about how the works.

I mean, this should be obvious, right? Now within the Christian worldview, the belief that God created an orderly universe, as I've argued in this channel before provides a foundation for science itself.

Okay. It suggests that the world operates according to consistent laws that can be discovered and understood. Right. And historically that belief has driven many scientists to ask profound questions and seek answers about the natural world.

Okay. So, um, it doesn't make us stop asking even though God did it. Okay. That doesn't mean we always know how God did stuff. Right. And science is a wonderful tool to use to explore the beautiful intricacies of God's creation.

Okay. So for the Christian, the exploration and questioning that comes through scientific inquiry and investigation actually leads us to glorify God all the more, right? Very, very superficial about, well, if God did it, right, then we don't need to ask any more questions.

That's just stupid. And it's false. It's just, this is plain false, right? The assertion that religion stops us from asking questions seems to imply that religious answers such as God did it discourages asking questions, but even if one ultimately attributes creation to God, right, this doesn't negate the pursuit of understanding from a scientific perspective, the mechanisms and processes through which God operates, right?

Science, philosophy, history, and, you know, other disciplines are rich fields of study within a theistic framework, right? Where each discovery seen as revealing more about God's design, his purpose and so forth.

Okay. And so, yeah, Aaron says here, as if some of the greatest minds in history, weren't Christian, and then we're going to be led to believe that their Christianity is, is incidental to their, you know, their accomplishments.

It was just a side thing. It really didn't. It's again, this is the superficial level of argumentation that we're going to find in people who kind of think along these lines. Okay. So again, pretty, pretty bad.

All right, let's, let's move along. What else do we got here? I told you these are pretty bad, bruh. These are pretty bad. Let's see here. Okay. Oh, here's what, what movie is that from? I don't. Okay.

Okay. So here's what this meme says here. It says, uh, I used to think that people were rational and you could just show them facts and evidence, and they would be open to new ideas. Then I learned about cognitive dissonance, doublethink, and the herd mentality.

Okay. That is pretty cringe. Now, if someone is so naive as to think that atheists don't engage in cognitive dissonance, doublethink, and herd mentality, they need to wake up to reality. They need to crawl out from under the rock that they've been living under.

Okay. These are issues that everyone, including atheists can and do engage in. Okay. This isn't some particular, this isn't particular to, uh, Christians and religious people. Okay. The meme, the meme says, I used to think people were rational and you can just show them facts and evidence.

Right. I mean, look how naive that is. Okay. I keep using this term. It's true. Okay. This perspective pretty much assumes that facts and evidence simply just speak for themselves. Right. But of course we know that this is demonstrably false, right?

This is a surface level philosophical error that ignores how facts and evidence are interpreted within the context of one's worldview, which I've stated a bajillion times. It's not really original to me.

It's not original to Van Til or Bonson. All right. This is, this is standard stuff to recognize that our paradigms impact how we interpret evidence and facts. Okay. So we don't simply show people evidence and facts and like, oh, I thought people were rational.

They just are shown facts and they, and they're open to these ideas. No, of course not. We have our bias. We have our interpretive grids. I mean, isn't that obvious? I mean, this isn't, this isn't hard.

Okay. To not recognize the interpretive role of presuppositions and pre-commitments is to be philosophically naive. Our worldview shapes how we understand and integrate facts and evidence to form conclusions about things, right?

Simply presenting facts and evidence without considering the underlying worldview assumptions that come along with that is, it's just dumb. It's not, it's, it's not smart. Okay. All right. And issues of cognitive dissonance, you know, they mentioned double talk and herd mentality can apply to any belief system, including atheism.

Wait, wait, wait. Atheism is not a belief system, right? It's a lack of belief, right? Okay. All right. So, um, so there you go. So basically the meme oversimplifies human rationality and fails to acknowledge the complexity of how beliefs are formed and maintained.

Okay. It doesn't provide anything of substance. And so there really is nothing more to say about that particular meme. I mean, this is pretty bad. All right. Let's continue on. What do we got? Let's see.

All right. There you go. This one's a fun one. Uh, let's see here. So this is, I think that's Squidward from SpongeBob, right? And so Squidward, it looks like Squidward is holding a blank piece of paper with the caption, uh, which says an exhaustively comprehensive list of scientists who proved a God or gods.

And then of course, you know, the paper is empty and there's, there's no, uh, there's no names on it. Again, this meme obviously is attempting to mock the idea that any scientist has ever proven the existence of God, pretty much suggesting that the paper is blank because there's no such proof.

Okay. Again, this is superficial. It's, uh, ignorant. Okay. And actually, uh, is committing implicitly committing a fallacy. Okay. Um, think about it. Science is a method of investigating the natural world.

Okay. I have, I affirm that as a Christian. Okay. It focuses on observable and testable phenomena, right? And so expecting science to prove the existence of God who is supernatural is a category error.

Okay. From within the, from the, within the Christian perspective, God is a supernatural being and thus not subject to empirical methods of science designed for the natural world. Okay. So someone's like, well, see, well, there's no, there's no proof for God.

No. Well, no, unless you assume that the only valid way of proving something. Okay. Is through scientific experimentation, right? If that's your position, then that's, that that's a problem. Okay. If you think the only way to demonstrate something is through a proof, that is a fallacy.

And unfortunately, many online atheists who think along these lines believe precisely that, that unless you prove something scientifically, you really can't know it. And so our knowledge of things comes through scientific demonstration or scientific proof.

Okay. Now, if you want, if you want the label for this, uh, this is often referred to as scientism. Okay. Knowledge, uh, you know, only things that are demonstrated by, um, scientific demonstration, uh, are things that we could know so on and so forth.

And there are different versions of scientism, but, but here's the problem. If you hold to the position that only things that are demonstrated scientifically, okay. Are true. Well, here's the question.

Did you demonstrate that namely the proposition that all things are known through scientific demonstration? Did you demonstrate the truth of that through a scientific demonstration? Well, of course you didn't.

And so if it's true, it's false. I mean, this is, this is like low level kind of, you know, reasoning here. Okay. I don't, I don't, I don't want to be, I don't want to sound mean, but I mean, this is, again, this is just really, really bad.

Okay. Now, does this mean that science has no connection to God? Well, of course, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, the very foundations of scientific inquiry itself, such as the existence of truth, the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, personal identity over time.

Okay. Which is required to engage in experiments and draw conclusions, right? The person has to do it, do the work, right? These are, I argue in this channel and I've argued before those are best explained within a Christian worldview and those transcendental categories presuppose a reality that aligns with Christianity, not atheism.

Okay. And so while science itself doesn't directly prove the existence of God, the ability to do science at all is grounded in principles that presuppose a Christian theistic framework. So think about that.

I don't use science like the scientific method to prove God, because that's not what science is used for. However, the principles that science presupposes, I would argue, requires a transcendent God and more specifically, not a generic God, one that is reflective of, it requires the Christian God specifically.

Okay. Reasons that I will not get into detail here. If you guys watch my channel, I've discussed this ad nauseum in various other contexts. Okay. All right. Let's continue on. Let's see here. Let me see if there are any comments here.

Alyssa Scott says, atheist stops us from asking, how do you know? Yeah. And many atheists have a problem with asking why I think it was even Richard Dawkins who said like, you know, the why question is, is uninteresting.

Like, dude, what are you talking about? It's uninteresting. I don't know about you. I think asking why is super interesting and super important. So, all right. Frank Odom asks, will this show be available later?

And it's yeah, of course this is live. So when I do my videos live, as soon as I'm done, it is already on YouTube, the whole video there. So you can go back and watch it. Okay. All right. Let me pull that down.

The Human Brain, Religion, and Materialism

All right. Let's continue. Let's continue here. All right. Here is our next one. Okay. So this next meme here, it's a picture of a brain and it says, it says the human brain is capable of imagining magnificent out of this world and bizarre things.

Religion is one of the bizarre things. That's so cringe. So again, so this meme attempts to dismiss religion, you know, Christianity, maybe religion in general as merely a bizarre product of human imagination.

Okay. But think about this. All right. Use your, use your noggins now, right? The silliness of this mean again, and we mentioned this before with respect to other memes lies in its reversibility. Isn't that right?

The human brain is indeed capable of imagining magnificent out of the world and bizarre things by this logic. Atheism is one of those bizarre things. You see what I did there? Okay. Uh, it's just so easily reversible, right?