 I was today years old when I found out that I'm not actually an atheist. See, I've been an atheist for years, but apparently I'm not because Candace Owens checkmated me and all atheists because she says we don't exist. And the logic that she uses is absolutely sound. It's bulletproof. And I don't think anyone could see this and not be persuaded that they don't exist if they are atheists. Take a look. But there's no such thing as an atheist, right? You may not believe in God, but you will recreate. People need to believe in something. And so for him, government and has become God, right? So it's harder to manipulate. I interesting, interesting point into something else. So it's either climate, interesting point. You're at the Church of Climate Change and COVID is now a religion. It's a religion for people. It's, you know, they've got their symbols. It's the mask. It's all this up in the face of all of the evidence in front of you that you're not going to die. They're committed to the idea that they are going to die. So I actually philosophically believe that there is no such thing as an atheist. Fair enough. That is an interesting point to be charitable. So the logic is that, you know, you only think you're an atheist because you're, you know, you're just going to fill in the void of God with something else, perhaps climate change, COVID-19, because everybody wants to have a pandemic, rule their lives, of course, naturally, but this doesn't really make a lot of sense because you can apply this to anything. I could say she's not really a capitalist because capitalists don't actually exist. They only think that they're capitalist, but because we're all the product of brainwashing by the mainstream media, governments, social conditioning. We're only believing in this economic system that is detrimental to the survival of our species because we've been brainwashed, but we don't actually believe in capitalism. We just think we believe in capitalism. I mean, why doesn't that argument apply to other things? And also, you know, by her own logic, you know, maybe she is religious, maybe she isn't. I'm not necessarily sure what her religious predispositions are. But she's an anti-vaxxer, so perhaps anti-vaxxers, that's a religion. I'd say it's probably more of a cult, a death cult to be specific, but maybe that's a religion. Why can't that also be a religion? And she says specifically here, you know, there's no such thing as an atheist. You may believe in God, but you will recreate because people need to believe in something. No, I don't prove it. Why do I have to believe in something? I can't believe that there's no God. I have to believe in your religious dogma. Why is it so absurd to think that when we die, nothing happens? I mean, I don't necessarily know. I can't prove that that is indeed the case. But before we were conceived, we don't remember that. Do you remember that we just simply did not exist? So why is it so absurd to think that after we're gone, when we die, we just go back to that state of non-existence? Cardiopulmonary death is when the heart, the lungs and the brain all cease function. So at that point, if you can no longer think your consciousness goes away, you simply don't exist. You exist in the minds of people who you were around, who you influenced, but you just don't exist. Why do we have to believe that something happens, that we go somewhere? Why do we have to believe in something grander than ourselves? Perhaps the thing that drives us is love, human compassion. I don't understand why she believes this has to be the case. She's kind of just projecting her own worldview or possibly she's not. Because the way she kind of talks about this implies that people end up believing in false things if they don't believe in God. So, you know, you can believe in climate change. Perhaps that fills the void of God. You might believe in COVID-19 and masks. So the assumption is that people end up believing in false things and that to her constitutes a religion. So she's kind of telling on herself here because if she believes that believing in something false is tantamount to subscribing to a religion, then isn't she essentially saying that religion itself is bullshit? I don't know if she's religious. Maybe she's she's not. But if she is a Christian, she's kind of telling on herself here. Is she not? She's kind of saying that any belief in something that is false is a religion. So do you not believe in God? Maybe you're an atheist yourself, Candace Owens, and you don't even know it. I could apply the same argument to you. You think you're a Christian, but you, you know, just chose to believe in that because that's the way that you were raised. Again, I'm just assuming that she's religious. I have no idea what she actually believes. But I mean, her whole argument is kind of self-defeating because, one, you can apply it to everything. And two, if you assume that false beliefs in things are religion, then you're saying religion is the false belief in something. I mean, I'm assuming that her audience is comprised disproportionately of evangelicals, religious people. So don't they feel offended that she just said that religion, essentially, based on her definition, is the false belief in something? Or maybe that's not the case. Maybe I'm being a little bit too uncharitable here. Maybe it's the case that she believes that the only religion that's valid is her religion and her audience's religion. But any belief in something other than God by definition is a false religion. I'm not sure. But either way, this is a really bad argument to put it lately. This is a very dumb argument. It's very stupid. It makes no sense because it's false on its face to say that atheists don't exist is dumb because you can actually prove the existence of atheists. I'm an atheist. I debunk your argument by merely existing. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in anything. I don't believe there's evidence for a God. So I alone disprove your argument. So what's the point of this argument? I love how Dr. Robert Malone, too, just kind of like nods along point taken. Really, you're supposed to be like this intellectual for the anti-vaxxer movement, and you believe this simpleton argument really I just conservatives. They don't use any logic or reason to make their arguments. They just kind of make these logical fallacies. They make claims that are easily, you know, verifiably false on their face. And yet people think that they're intellectuals. People think that the way that they think is actually, you know, really intelligent. There are people who actually look up to Candice Owens and think that she is a thought leader, not just among conservatives, but just in general in the United States and throughout the world. It's sad, but unfortunately, you know, that's the state of affairs. So I think that it's really important for individuals like me to use my platform to highlight how silly their arguments are. You know, it's not really going to make that a big of a difference at this point based on how big she is compared to me. I'm basically just farting in the wind, but it still is important in hopes that maybe one of Candice Owens fans would come across this and realize, yeah, when I think a little bit longer about the arguments that she makes, not just this one, but perhaps other arguments, maybe they are a little bit simplistic, maybe they are two reductions. Maybe they're just flat out dumb. So, you know, you know, all that I'm asking for people who are fans of Candice Owens is when she says something rather than applauding and just clapping like a seal, perhaps think a little bit about this. Let what she's saying really marinate. Try to digest what she's saying. And all you have to do is think a little bit about it. And you'll probably pretty quickly realize, if you have at least a modicum of common sense, that what she's saying is stupid. And I'm not saying stupid to insult her. I'm saying that her ideas don't make logical sense. The things that she says oftentimes are just disprovable and dimwitted. And, you know, I'm not trying to make an ad hominem attack of her. I think that clearly she is at least intelligent enough to articulate sentences. They may not necessarily be cogent points. Maybe what she's saying is completely incoherent, but I think that at least she's talented and intelligent enough to cultivate this following. So, you know, I'm not saying that she's dumb, but the ideas that she has when she shares them should get people to think twice if they thought that she was actually a thought leader.