Occam is my favourite scholastic philosopher. As well as the famous razor, he also had a definition of existence: a thing can exist "in re" (as an actual thing), "in intellectu" (as an idea) and "in nomine" (as a mere name). I think where he was going with this was that Baal (say) exists only "in nomine" (we know nothing about him except his name); the biblical god exists "in intellectu" (as an idea and a social reality), but the Razor rules out his existence "in re". A closet 14th-c atheist.
@sfyr Pretty much.Since theism is this, and atheism is only a response to theism, something that is only rooted in human's imagination, it can't really be anything more than the disbelief in any statements made by the original wordplay, now can it?
You're not even presenting a case for me to be "strong/weak" atheist to and I was simply making an observation about why atheism would seem like wordplay to you when it's contrasted to a christian point of view.
(Also agnosticism isn't a weak form of atheism, it's an "unsure" form of any position, christian included)
Used to be religious, but I started disliking church.
I didn't believe it was a holy institution.
Then I realized I didn't quite agree with the bible, and I realized it could very well be a man-made book. So, there was no reason for me to believe it was god-inspired.
Finally I asked myself, if I'm didn't subscribe to the church or believe the bible was truthful, what do I really know of god and why would I believe in it.
What do you really know of god and why do you believe in it?
@sfyr I know all this.But the doubt remains the same: If the thing which lead me to believe in a god in the first place isn't correct, why even suggest a god in the first place?
As for the cosmological argument, it's as simple as to ask what's the source of the creator. Where did god itself come from? How does this make sense?
Ever seen "A Universe from Nothing" here on Youtube?
The "zero-energy universe "hypothesis is much more apt to describe our origin and it's observable.
h@sfyr Of course it's a genetic fallacy if you try to apply it to anything else, I'm talking about my own experience, not trying to make a general statement outside of the context of that particular experience.
And still, you said it yourself, Christians aren't the only ones suggesting a creator.
Why would your belief have any more weight to them than their own, in an obvious manner, as to deserve condemnation?
@Ebvardh "As for you knowing the bible can very well.." Again.. genetic fallacy.. "As for you really knowing nothing tangible.." Here's how I think about it.. Science tells us the universe had a beginning.. Time and Space had a beginning.. Which means whatever caused the universe was outside time and space.. Outside time = Timeless = Eternal.. Outside Space = Immaterial.. since matter cannot exist outside Space.. The universe isn't a grain of sand.. so the cause most be Powerful..
You said it itself, before the universe began, the laws of cause and effect weren't existent.
Why is a sentient being needed for anything to begin when the laws that force stuff to "need" a source weren't yet?
Now, you're suggesting a being which is timeless and immaterial, because of existing outside of time and space. How is that any different from an unreal one?
And if he's eternal, he's basically reality. You're simply calling reality "god"
@sfyr Can you actually point out the effect in question? I mean, you said yourself we sin because we have free will and we're corrupted so we "sin" regardless of god's will. Which effect?
.
I'm saying there cause is the effect, so whatever caused the universe didn't necessarily have to consciously establish how it behaves. The "rules" of the universe are simply observations we have regarding how the universe behaves, not actual rules.
.
What knowledge could we even develop from such theory?
@sfyr "All Im saying is.. the God hypothesis has more going for it than other theories..` Ehm no it doesn´t. It only hypothesises WHO created the universe. It says nothing about HOW.
@sfyr Let me make this very clear. Atheism is simply and exclusively not believing in gods, deities or divinities. Any attitude, behaviour, theory, belief or value apart from that is not, specifically, a function of atheism. This isn't dumbing down the definition of atheism, this is what atheism means. Play with words all you like, but the singular thing in common amongst all atheists is that they don't believe in gods, deities or divinities.
@ryoh01 Theoretical physics has not explained why there are three generations of particles that make up matter. Maybe string theory will come up with an answer for this.
Now Enayze is trying to use the loaded argument as "Everything in this universe has a design". This is a circular argument because it starts off with the underlying presumption that signs of order or consistency is the same as conscious "design" and thus a "designer"...which is what is trying to be proved in the first place!
The whole world and universe has a design that is more complex than any computer or invention that man has made or will make. With this being said it is safe to say that everything came into existence by a big explosion and by nothing everything was created randomly and by chance. Makes perfect sense
@Enayze Ya thats true but that does not mean that you can automatically assert that an all powerful being called God created it. Just because you don't know how it happened or why does not justify your claim that God did it.
Notice how like many uneducated creationists, Enayze here: 1) is completely ignorant of what the Big Bang model actually proposes (it wasn't "a big explosion"), and 2) further uses this ignorance to dishonestly up the false dichotomy of "either it was random chance, or my deity did it". Or as it's reiterated later, "either someONE created it, or it is a coincidence". Those of us who actually read books other than the Bible know that these aren't the only two explanations.
@geezerbill First off dont call me uneducated, I am more than sure my intelligence is more than comparable to yours, if you even have any. In any case you do not know me, and more importantly in the scheme of things, you have no idea what your are talking about. I am more than aware of the what Big Bang proposes about the Universe expanding and continuing to do so. Everything in this universe has a design, so therefore please give me your explanation of why smart guy.
@Enayze Why does the universe have a certain design? Because of the natural laws that govern our universe. This question is answered in more detail in Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design! All you're doing is spreading ignorance!
@FallofDarkness55 I am not spreading ignorance, stop being so defensive. I support research, science, and figuring the history of mankind. However I also realize that life and the universe is a very complex structure. Therefore I have no problem with accepting that God created everything and accepting that he established the laws the govern the Universe, by whatever means. This does not mean that now I support or advise everyone to stop diving in to find answers of how things operate
@Enayze From my perspective, you are ignorant! Your argument that god always existed is very ignorant. That's like saying humans who have created fish tanks for fish must have always existed because from the fish's perspective, their universe is so complex.
@FallofDarkness55 Comparing mortal beings in humans to creating something infinitely less complex than the Universe and earth itself in fish tanks is about as poor of a comparison of God to man as you can get. I dont actually see this going anywhere, therefore I guess we will just find out at death. And when that happens I hope you have a pardon to excuse you of righteous judgement.
@Enayze Your irreducible complexity approach is one argument from ignorance. The less complex something is the more we understand it. The more complex something is the less we understand it but that does not mean you have to invoke some intelligent designer! You're such an ignoramus!
@Enayze "I guess we will just find out at death" Why do people like you always have to end an argument with this childish, stupid tactic of trying to scare people into believing what you believe? This only further convinces us of how baseless and and based on emotions your argements are.
You better hope the muslims or hindus or any other of the thousands of religions didn't get it right, but I guess you'll find out when you die...I hope you have a pardon to excuse you of righteous judgement.
@83Hammerhead If the Muslims or Hindus get it right, I will still be ok. If the Christians get it right, you better hope, matter of fact Christians will have it right, and if God ever gave you a warning, let this be it. You will be subject to judgment, and no, you can never say no one ever told you so. Don't hate me, or anyone else who says this to you, they are relaying a message. And as much as you might not like the message, it still does not make it incorrect.
@Enayze "If the Muslims or Hindus get it right, I will still be ok" No you won't, because many of the rules and commandments that other religions have come up with are in direct contradiction with the ones you're following. You would be punished.
"Don't hate me" Why would I hate someone I kind of feel sorry for? I'm more angry at the people that taught you all that crap.
"you might not like the message, it still does not make it incorrect" Doesn't make it correct either.
That's possible. However, I have not seen the evidence to support Christianity's status as a fact. I require more data than most people before I am convinced of a proposition. A large number of subjective experiences and a book of questionable veracity is not a particularly convincing argument. I've seen similar arguments from the New Age movement, which also has many texts and personal experiences.
It seems like arguments of reason are a gigantic waste of time when it comes to religious people. They are visible to us, which is in fact the only thing we have in common, but they live in an alternate reality. Having a conversation with them is like having one with a fish.
@saburius Not entirely. It was somebodys argument to me that got me to think more and in return I left religion. They pointed out how my views didn't make sense and I studied them actually expecting to get answers and prove them wrong. Then a lightbulb went off and I saw the answers weren't definitive. I studied even more and there went my religion. Needless to say I'm glad this person argued with me.
Matt has a habit of speaking too fast- when you're explaining something as technical as 'god doesn't exist' and atheism, you need to be slooow and easy
@zero13o "umm when you said i "disregard that the TRUTH that the world COULD'VE just been created without a creator" . I dont think you understand what truth means. True things are actual facts not either or, the VERB "ZCOULD" means its possible. It doesn't necessarily mean it is the truth. think of it this way TRUTH=FACT and Could=non certainly a fact, possibly. but no hard evidence backing it up. So yeah......
Atheism is a world view. No matter how these guys like to phrase it in a puzzle of words. Atheists r hypocrites, in the sense that believers shud present proofs. N yet what they believe likewise does not have substantial proof to make a decision that god exists. Big bang theory falls apart midway. Existence of creation means it has a creator. Like wise foot prints in sand point to the conclusion of someones passed by recently. I like how atheists start playing games with words when asked for p
@kamina77 did you know that the big bang theory was created by a priest? Existence of creation does not mean it has a creator especially when there no evidence that said creator existed to begin with. The existence of the universe does not prove that it was created by an all powerful being sure it could've begun or always existed for all we know that's why we have science to help us understand the fundamentals of our universe
@zero13o and i am definetley all for science and understand of whats hidden unseen or discoverable. btw when u say creation, u already are acknowledging that a creator is involved. whether u believe it or not. my faith encourages us to look and seek truth and ponder at the creation so that we may remember god by seeing how majestic his powers are. also i could give a rats ass about whoever came up with big bang theory, its plausible but can only b complete with gods intervention
@kamina77 No, I am not acknowledging that a creator is involved at all, I was simply restating what you say in your last statement. When you say your faith encourages you to look, seek and ponder the truth yet you disregard that the truth that the world could've just been created without a creator. lets just say the universe is a big place and that we are here on this planet and thats it.
I like smart callers. Callers that challenge these idiots that have the habit of rejecting any proof of God. Obviously, because no matter how logical the proof is, ie the consmological argument, their worldview doesnt allow it, because to them they know God doesnt exist. What fucking morons
The only thing that you have is a story in the Bible, and that is the SOURCE of the claim. Since the Bible is making the claim, it cannot be used to verify the claim. Where is any corroborating evidence?
@MrFungus420 Ill admit, theres no evidence to prove that the evidence is legit. However, its still evidence, and if looked upon from a logical perspective, one can logically conclude that since the new and old testiments contain the eye witness accounts of over 500 people, it has a pretty good level or reliability in my opinion.
If your best friend comes along and says he witnessed something pretty amazing happen, you'll most prob believe him even tho he can be lying.
@MrFungus420 Ill admit, theres no evidence to prove that the evidence is legit. However, its still evidence, and if looked upon from a logical perspective, one can logically conclude that since the new and old testiments contain the eye witness accounts of over 500 people, it has a pretty good level of reliability in my opinion.
If your best friend comes along and says he witnessed something pretty amazing happen, you'll most prob believe him even tho he can be lying.
@bendlor No, it is not evidence. It is a claim. The story in the Bible CLAIMS that 500 people saw it. There is not a single testimonial from any of them, not one eye-witness account. All that you have is a story in a book that says that there were 500 people who saw it.
And this is a book that has been edited, translated and changed innumerable times. There are parts that are not in the oldest manuscripts (for example John 7:53-8:11).
Furthermore, we don't have the originals to check. That means that we can never be sure which translation or version is the most accurate (or, least inaccurate). There are literally thousands of discrepancies in the different versions.
And you think that this is reliable and that it is logical to make conclusions based on this???
@MrFungus420 Could it be because these eye witness accounts created alot of controversy or maybe they werent perfectly preserved in a time frame of 2000 years? Does it mean that we should ignore them? Absolutely not. Furthermore, are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?
And also there are things like prophecies and stuff like such which help indicate that there IS infact some truth to all these documents.
@bendlor Again, what eye witnesses? You have one story in one book that claims that there were witnesses.
Without any evidence to support that claim, I see no reason not to ignore it. I see no reason to think that it is anything more than a story.
Pretty much the exact same way you feel about every other religion's stories. I see no more reason to believe the Resurrection than to believe that Thor died after defeating the Midgard Serpent at the battle of Ragnarok.
@bendlor And we don't have the space to get into contradictions and prophecies. I can agree that there are some purported contradictions that have a credible explanation, but by no means every one.
And there are a great many problems with prophecies...from vagueness to circular reasoning to being wrong (like Tyre, continuously inhabited since 2750 BCE, notably not destroyed to never be rebuilt, and yes, I know that there are apologetics for that too, but, I said, we don't have space for that).
@MrFungus420 You get my point though dont you? Either its ALL a lie, which is highly unlikely, or there IS infact some truth to these historical events(eye witness accounts and so on). Let me ask you this: What if there is a God? Are you willing to take the huge risk of blindly believing that all this evidence is false only to find out that youre wrong after you die and spend eternity in hell?
@bendlor I will agree that there are some facts in the Bible, some real places and people are mentioned. That does not differentiate it from any other story that does the same, from Tom Clancy to Stephen King And how do we know that there are real places and people? Because we have other sources to corroborate it.
Let me ask you: What if god is Allah? Are you willing to take the huge risk of believing the Bible only to find out that you are wrong and end up spending eternity in Hell?
@MrFungus420 Yes, but whats in the Bible happened 2000 years ago, just because we cant "scientifically" prove that its legit info doesnt mean that its all false. You either chose to believe your best friend when he tells you something or simply say he's lying, its up to you.
So basically what youre saying is you refuse to believe in God because you dont know what religion is the right one? Do you see how thats unreasonable? What religion is the right one is an entirely different debate.
@bendlor My point is that there is no reason to accept it as anything more than a story. There is no reason to think that it is true.
And this has nothing to do with any particular religion. The only reason that I mentioned Allah was to demonstrate how ridiculous your threat was (well, not your threat, it's Pascal's Wager...another tragically flawed argument for belief in God).
You keep saying that there are testimonies of over 500 people, but you don't have any testimonies, nobody does.
You have a story in a book That story says that there were 500 people. That story is where the claim of 500 witnesses originated. You cannot use that story to verify that story.
If that was valid, than any book could be used to prove itself. It would be valid to use the Lord of the Rings to prove that hobbits and Mordor exist.
@MrFungus420 Thats the point i was trying to make from the start. You cannot prove the Bible to be false much like you cant absolutely prove it to be true. Is it possible that it is telling the truth? Well certainly. But since you are Atheist, you identify yourself by what you don't believe in, and your presupposition(that God doesnt exist) will not allow you to see and accept the evidence. Id suggest you do some research from a neutral standpoint, and make a logical assessment of the evidence
@bendlor Nice way of shifting the burden of proof. Fungus is not saying your book is absolutely false, he is saying there is no reason to believe it. There is a difference between believing something is false and not believing something is true. Not believing something is true also incorporates being unconvinced. Atheists lack belief in any gods. I've been an atheist all my life, not believing in any particular god (non religious parents) but I've only come to believe there is no god last year.
@sharkjack Bottom line is this: The Bible is evidence. There is no evidence to verify the evidence, ill give you that. But again, just because your friend doesnt have any evidence for the amazing story that he told you doesnt mean that he is lying. If you believe that the Bible is false, fair enough. If it is true, then you will go to hell for eternity.
Are your thoughts real? Well yes. Can you scientifically prove it?
@bendlor Pascals wager oh damn, hadn't thought of that before, oh wait no I have. Mr Fungus already talked about the quran and what if they're right, but even so, do you really believe in a god who can't see through a little probability calculation that betting on belief is better than betting on disbelief? I cannot believe the stuff in the bible and no punishment you tell me will come of that is capable of changing my mind.
@sharkjack Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.
@bendlor The purpose of evidence is to convince those who are unconvinced/convinced of contrary position.
That's like saying I have an argument, but unless you already agree with my conclusion you won't accept it.
If someone doesn't agree with you, you build an argument based on premises you think your opponents agrees on already. If they don't, you have to provide evidence to back up the premise.
Evidence that requires preexisting belief in the claim it supports is not evidence at all.
@sharkjack If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited.Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don't you see?
@bendlor Why are you still trying to prove the bible with the bible? If I don't accept textual evidence of miracles and if the only evidence for a book is found in the book itself, how can you not see that as circular reasoning? You've already said multiple times you have nothing to back the bible up with.
This doesn't just go for religious books, I don't believe Socrates existed either. He might have, he might have not, but belief is not justified based on the available evidence.
@bendlor I do NOT presuppose that a god does not exist. I just see no reason to accept that claim.
Again, what evidence are you talking about. You talked about testimonies, you have none. You just have a story that says that many people saw it. A story that is the source of that claim. Since it is the source, it cannot be used as evidence to support the claim. Again, using that argument, I can prove that hobbits and Mordor exist.
@bendlor And there are many parts of the Bible that are demonstrably false.
Tell me, why do you believe a book that has magic, talking animals, giants, unicorns and dragons?
Why do you accept, as accurate, a book that says that a man survived in a giant fish's stomach for 3 days (that means 3 days without food, water or AIR while resisting being digested)?
Try your own advice. Look at it from a neutral standpoint.
@MrFungus420 See? There you go. You just confirmed what I was stating. what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.
I could give you many reasons why i believe the Bible is true, but since we both view the evidence from different perspectives, we could argue all day. Lets go back a few steps . Again, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?
@bendlor "Again, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?"
Evidence that would NOT require to believe first to accept a god's existence. Some kind of observable evidence that can be tested by ANYONE. I'm not talking about things like trees, water, nature, even your own body. This "God" has to be a separate entity, ESPECIALLY if it's intelligent & coherent. And certainly it has to be outside any book.
Simply, a god has to present itself as evidence to EVERYONE.
But guess what? A god is NEVER going to present itself as evidence, because gods don't exist. No supernatural, mythological creature exists outside of the imagination of human beings (unless of course they write about these creatures in a book).
BastEternal, what would you say to people who've had near death experiences? Most of them talk about a being of light, exuding complete love and acceptance.
So far, the evidence says that you're wrong. Ignorance and arrogance are a bad combination.
Personal experiences that are open to interpretation aren't proof or evidence of anything.
All you have to back up your claim is what other people have claimed to have happened to them.
Not good enough.
When you can provide evidence of this "light" and not have it depend on a "near death experience" when the brain is going through trauma, then we can talk.
You accuse me of ignorance and arrogance when all you've offered are second hand claims?
People are passionate about these topics, really? Who cares about your opinion... my opinion or anyone elses. But hey, whatever makes you feel better about yourself at the end of the day...
@thatamazinggeek Fine. However just before we part, would you mind telling me exactly where I lied about Dawkins? Or indeed where you perceived I lied with regard to any scientific theory? Take care.
@thatamazinggeek Ahh when the arguments break down...lets seek refuge in profanities. Where are the lies? which scientific quotes are dubious? Hoyles??? And why are you sick of people like me? Perhaps because when faced with logical argument your point of view no longer seems as black and white as you originally thought?
True investigation is where you leave your mind open to the possible. While it may seem "cool" to be a member of the Faith Bashing community it isn't necessarily sustained.
@thatamazinggeek "It has been calculated that the probability of amino acids forming, by chance, even the smallest and simplest protein, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal environment and allowing 100 billion years (10 times the estimated age of the earth) is 1 in 10 to the 67th against. "
The above calculation is not based on unspecified number of possibilities. It is based on Finite factors such as 10 times the age of the Universe.
@thatamazinggeek Two renowned scientists, Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, calculated that the chance of obtaining, randomly, all two thousand enzymes necessary for life was 1 in 10 to the 40,000th. That is a figure consisting of 1 with forty thousand zeros after it.
Don't you think this is a pretty good reason to believe that there is an intelligence at work here?
@thatamazinggeek " the only reason you need not to believe in god is that there is no good reason to do so"
I'm sorry but that statement is simply ridiculous. The laws of probability alone would contradict this. The existence of the Universe itself are grounds to consider a Creator. The altruistic nature of humanity that contradict the laws of natural selection is another unexplained phenomenom (something again that Dawkins admits to having no explanation.) Closing doors to investigation?
@spireman50 Mathematicians generally accept that any odds greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th have a zero probability of ever happening.
It has been calculated that the probability of amino acids forming, by chance, even the smallest and simplest protein, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal environment and allowing 100 billion years (10 times the estimated age of the earth) is 1 in 10 to the 67th against.
@thatamazinggeek Btw Hawking never said that the Universe HAD to come into existence without God. He purported a theory suggesting it COULD have done so.
@thatamazinggeek You say there is no reason to believe....I give you a reason (as agreed by Richard Dawkins) ..and you say "Doesnt mean its a good enough reason" ???? I am not offering you proof of God...I'm offering a very scientifically based reason to believe. To someone who does not want to admit to the possibility of God there can never be a "good enough" reason. Equally I could argue that there is certainly not good enough reasons NOT to believe in God.
@thatamazinggeek I am well aware of what Richard Dawkins is. I have written a book in answer to his "God Delusion". He DID indeed admit to the validity on argument for God. Dawkins when talking about Antony Flews converrsion to Deism stated " As some people claim, the laws and constants of the Universe are too finely tuned to be an accident. That would not be a wholly disreputable reason for believing in some form of supernatural Deity". Again you can check that out here on youtube.
@thatamazinggeek I am not saying that it MUST be true. I am saying that given all the arguments , I BELIEVE it to be true. I do so based not only on blind faith but also on scientific principles.
Whether you choose to accept what William Lane Craig argues, I still think it is worthwhile to listen to his opening arguments on his debate with Antony Flew. See on youtube: Does God exist ? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew. Even Richard Dawkins admits the argument for God on this basis.
@thatamazinggeek "the Big Bang theory does not posit that the world came from nothing." Tell me then, what does the Big Bang theory suggest? As for your suggestion that I am arguing from ignorance.....again tell me why? I have no problem with Science. I embrace it. I do not see faith and science as mutually exclusive. There is nothing in my faith that is at odds with science. Angry atheism chooses to ridicule where there is no cause for ridicule.
@thatamazinggeek How do you "demonstrate" that God is true? You are quite correct ...it IS a matter of Faith. With regards to the Universe.....Science has no explanation as to the "beginning" of the Universe. From a logical point of view I believe it is more reasonable to assume that the Universe at the time of the Big Bang had a "cause". To accept that the Universe came from "nothing" takes a greater leap of faith than Christian belief. Nothing comes from nothing.
@thatamazinggeek I am sure thousands! But so what? How does this affect me as a chrisitan? It just shows Satan is working Hard and you are buying it.
Now please can you provide evidence for the claim "that's what people do when they are ignorant and want to explain the universe: god did it." ? No assumptions please.
@brendanerday To respond to something is an action correct? an action is a verb correct? Atheism is a noun correct? How is a a verb the definition of a noun?
@Onetruthrgv No, an "action" is still a noun, what the action really is is the verb. So the nouns Atheism and response are nouns that do something, Atheism and responses themselves are still nouns. And like you said, a verb can't be the definition of a noun thus a verb cannot define Atheism and responses.
and its really off putting if you laugh when someone tells you something important to them, but I don't want you to become defensive in relation to these comments, if this causes a negative reaction just relax, I am probably reacting a bit also, I don't wish to increase tension.
But it is insensitive to laugh, even at "stupid people".
and statement like "wow" (.. this guy is stupid) can create a reactive defensive state in the person you are battling with, sorry I mean talking to. It is harder to communicate with people in defensive states.
My only question is how good are you at helping theists understand your opinion, do you honestly do your best to help them see your point. I am sure that you win in the sense that your argument seems better, but is this the victory you sought.
The Christian is right. I go around every day disproving Thor, Zeus, pixies, bigfoot, The Wizard of Oz, and everything else for which there is no evidence and in which someone either believes or might believe. My life is quite exhausting.
Its very simple; if the Christian god reveals himself, or undeniable proof of his existance is provided, atheists will believe, I know I sure would.
Many Christians ignorantly believe that atheism is a denial that gods exist when it is nothing of the sort. Not at all surprising that Christians can't seem to get that straight.
I feel really bad for this guy. It's like a light weight fighting a heavy weight, there was just no hope for this guy. I would call him an idiot, but lots of people are plagued by this type of religious nonsense.
I think Matt made a category error here. "Anti-theism" is not an "assertion of innocence" with respect to the courtroom analogy. It's still a "not guilty" claim. Even Matt himself is an Anti-theist who doesn't flatly say "God doesn't exist." Anti-theism is just a type of Atheism which adds: "I not only reject the claims of God's existence, but I HOPE they are untrue, because the implications of those claims don't suit me." It doesn't "gnostically" assert God's non-existence anymore than Atheism.
The study that Frank Sulloway and Michael Shermer did about why people believe and why they think other people believe, showed that people believe in god based on unintellectual reasons and then later attempt to justify their beliefs based on intellectual ones. In essence, they try to find reasons to believe. Smart people actually make the best believers because they become skilled at defending the beliefs they initially gained by non smart reasons.
I'm not bold enough to say that god doesn't exist (of course it depends on how one defines god). There's just not enough evidence for me to believe in god. I don't wear my non belief on my sleeve. I don't try to talk people out of their belief, but I do like to point out that they have absolutely no evidence for their views.
Occam is my favourite scholastic philosopher. As well as the famous razor, he also had a definition of existence: a thing can exist "in re" (as an actual thing), "in intellectu" (as an idea) and "in nomine" (as a mere name). I think where he was going with this was that Baal (say) exists only "in nomine" (we know nothing about him except his name); the biblical god exists "in intellectu" (as an idea and a social reality), but the Razor rules out his existence "in re". A closet 14th-c atheist.
gspaulsson 4 days ago
Good Video.. Thanks for shared. I like this
Spasatcom 1 month ago
Comment removed
Spasatcom 1 month ago
Shouting, "You moron!", "You idiot!" at callers only make you both look like a couple of asses with absolutely no debate skills whatsoever.
doug65536 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@doug65536 I agree. Except that's not all they did.
Ebvardh 1 month ago
Wow!!!
Atheism = Word-Play...
sfyr 2 months ago
@sfyr Pretty much.Since theism is this, and atheism is only a response to theism, something that is only rooted in human's imagination, it can't really be anything more than the disbelief in any statements made by the original wordplay, now can it?
Ebvardh 1 month ago
@Ebvardh
"..rooted in human's imagination.."!!!
Ever heard of the Cosmological argument???
sfyr 1 month ago
@sfyr Of course I have, and I even heard Occam's razor. Aren't I a peach? Still, it's not like you honestly have a case of for anything, do you?
I simply wanted to refrain from doing the classical "Atheism isn't this, it's this..." argument.
But you'll probably disregard it.
Ebvardh 1 month ago
@Ebvardh
So you're not a strong-atheist..
you're a weak-atheist.. aka an agnostic..
is that it??
sfyr 1 month ago
@sfyr No, but what difference would it even make?
You're not even presenting a case for me to be "strong/weak" atheist to and I was simply making an observation about why atheism would seem like wordplay to you when it's contrasted to a christian point of view.
(Also agnosticism isn't a weak form of atheism, it's an "unsure" form of any position, christian included)
Ebvardh 1 month ago
@Ebvardh
Im not a christian.. Im a diest..
I dont believe in the bible.. but i believe in a creator..
sfyr 1 month ago
@sfyr I'm not.
Used to be religious, but I started disliking church.
I didn't believe it was a holy institution.
Then I realized I didn't quite agree with the bible, and I realized it could very well be a man-made book. So, there was no reason for me to believe it was god-inspired.
Finally I asked myself, if I'm didn't subscribe to the church or believe the bible was truthful, what do I really know of god and why would I believe in it.
What do you really know of god and why do you believe in it?
Ebvardh 1 month ago
@Ebvardh
'The bible is wrong'.. doesn't equal.. 'there is no creator'..
"What do you really know of god.."!
We dont need to know EVERYTHING about the creator to believe in it..
"..why do you believe in it?"
I can easily refute the bible.. but can't refute the cosmological argument..
The scientific explanations are really interesting..
but the god hypothesis just makes more sense..
sfyr 1 month ago
@sfyr I know all this.But the doubt remains the same: If the thing which lead me to believe in a god in the first place isn't correct, why even suggest a god in the first place?
As for the cosmological argument, it's as simple as to ask what's the source of the creator. Where did god itself come from? How does this make sense?
Ever seen "A Universe from Nothing" here on Youtube?
The "zero-energy universe "hypothesis is much more apt to describe our origin and it's observable.
Ebvardh 1 month ago
@Ebvardh
"..If the thing which lead me to believe in a god in the first place isn't correct.."
That's a genetic fallacy.. and Christians are not the only ones
claiming that there's a Creator.. have heard about the God gene??
"..it's as simple as to ask what's the source of the creator.."
Well.. since God created time.. he/she/it is timeless.. aka eternal..
so doesn't need a cause/source..
'A Universe from Nothing'!!.. sounds interesting.. will check it out..
sfyr 1 month ago
h@sfyr Of course it's a genetic fallacy if you try to apply it to anything else, I'm talking about my own experience, not trying to make a general statement outside of the context of that particular experience.
And still, you said it yourself, Christians aren't the only ones suggesting a creator.
Why would your belief have any more weight to them than their own, in an obvious manner, as to deserve condemnation?
Ebvardh 1 month ago
@sfyr As for you knowing the bible can very well be wrong, why should anyone believe any assertions of god made on christian logic then?
As for you really knowing nothing tangible or sure about god, why would you believe whatever assertions you make to yourself about the subject then?
Ebvardh 1 month ago
sfyr 1 month ago
@sfyr But why would something have caused it?
You said it itself, before the universe began, the laws of cause and effect weren't existent.
Why is a sentient being needed for anything to begin when the laws that force stuff to "need" a source weren't yet?
Now, you're suggesting a being which is timeless and immaterial, because of existing outside of time and space. How is that any different from an unreal one?
And if he's eternal, he's basically reality. You're simply calling reality "god"
Ebvardh 1 month ago
@Ebvardh
"How is that any different from an unreal one?"
The real one has an effect >> the universe..
"..the laws of cause and effect weren't existent."
What if.. the moment at which god created the universe
is the moment at which the universe came into being..
Are you saying cause and effect can't be simultaneous???
I get where you're coming from.. God's existence can't be proved..
All Im saying is.. the God hypothesis has more going for it than other theories..
sfyr 1 month ago
@sfyr Can you actually point out the effect in question? I mean, you said yourself we sin because we have free will and we're corrupted so we "sin" regardless of god's will. Which effect?
.
I'm saying there cause is the effect, so whatever caused the universe didn't necessarily have to consciously establish how it behaves. The "rules" of the universe are simply observations we have regarding how the universe behaves, not actual rules.
.
What knowledge could we even develop from such theory?
Ebvardh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ebvardh
"..observations, not actual rules."
Disagree.. The universe has FIXED laws..
What knowledge could we even develop from such theory?
The truth is the truth.. it doesn't have to make us more 'knowledgeable'..
Give me your BEST argument against the existence of a Creator..
The reason why Im a deist is cus I never heard a good argument against 'god'..
sfyr 1 month ago
@sfyr "All Im saying is.. the God hypothesis has more going for it than other theories..` Ehm no it doesn´t. It only hypothesises WHO created the universe. It says nothing about HOW.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis
Hmm.. Does that make it a false theory???
sfyr 1 month ago
@sfyr Let me make this very clear. Atheism is simply and exclusively not believing in gods, deities or divinities. Any attitude, behaviour, theory, belief or value apart from that is not, specifically, a function of atheism. This isn't dumbing down the definition of atheism, this is what atheism means. Play with words all you like, but the singular thing in common amongst all atheists is that they don't believe in gods, deities or divinities.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@sfyr And you still have not shown us how the god hypothesis is logical or more supported than any other theory out there.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@Ebvardh
What's your worldview:
1 - God does not exist
2 - I have no clue
sfyr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sfyr `What's your worldview:
1 - God does not exist
2 - I have no clue` Neither is a world view.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@Ebvardh
cont..
Immaterial, Eternal, Powerful = The Creator..
sfyr 1 month ago
assholes.
jhNNNNNNNy 3 months ago
"M-theory has been proven without a shadow of a doubt we are not the only universe".
Priest "Um, oh shit! (flips through bible) Oh, um, geez, sorry guys, I got nut'n."
Crowd "CHOKE, CHOKE, CHOKE, CHOKE!!!!!"
ryoh01 5 months ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
@ryoh01 Theoretical physics has not explained why there are three generations of particles that make up matter. Maybe string theory will come up with an answer for this.
Proven without a doubt?
MrItchyElbow 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FIVE Step Atheist/Satanist Shill Training:
1) Walk to Nearest Military Graveyard
2) Piss on the Graves of Patriots Who Died to Provide Freedom & US Constitution
3) Use the US Constitution as Toilet Paper
4) Hold it up and Show God
5) Promote Lies & Fraud, like Satanic Nazi Traitors
ATHEISTS/SATANISTS = ENEMIES OF GOD & THE US CONSTITUTION
ATHEISTS/SATANISTS = ENEMY WORLD TERRORISTS
waketheoblivious 5 months ago
The caller(john) is clearly not listening...
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 7 months ago
I imagine the caller making the face of the minion in Despicable Me saying "Whaaaaat?" at 2:16 when Matt answered his question and he went silent.
:)
Moreba 7 months ago
These people are playing mere word games but there are far more compelling arguments they could have made.
Alalias 7 months ago
@Alalias Yes they do a live show every week. Just google the thinking atheist and you will find their website.
zooryanzoo123 7 months ago
Jen is so hot. I wish she was straight. Or that I was a woman... Hmmm
zebra0456 8 months ago
Now Enayze is trying to use the loaded argument as "Everything in this universe has a design". This is a circular argument because it starts off with the underlying presumption that signs of order or consistency is the same as conscious "design" and thus a "designer"...which is what is trying to be proved in the first place!
geezerbill 8 months ago
What truth and evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct? Ha Ha just kidding I'm not a fucking moron like the caller.
baxtar1963 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
#OMG the most #SWAG #BASED vid on youtube search : i swag by yasha swag.
ranielitoncarvalho 8 months ago
@Enayze where is your evidence for this assumption
rockaholick37 8 months ago
@Enayze I
rockaholick37 8 months ago
The whole world and universe has a design that is more complex than any computer or invention that man has made or will make. With this being said it is safe to say that everything came into existence by a big explosion and by nothing everything was created randomly and by chance. Makes perfect sense
Enayze 8 months ago
@Enayze Explosions dont happen in space, no air homie.
ShroomFuu86 8 months ago
@ShroomFuu86 Explosions do not require air to occur, fire on the other hand does.
Enayze 8 months ago
@ShroomFuu86 What do you call a supernova?
Enayze 8 months ago
@Enayze Ya thats true but that does not mean that you can automatically assert that an all powerful being called God created it. Just because you don't know how it happened or why does not justify your claim that God did it.
rockaholick37 8 months ago
@rockaholick37 obviously someone created it, it is not a coincidence. If you are so afraid of the word God then how about a creator.
Enayze 8 months ago
@Enayze ok even if a "creator"did create the universe what created created the "creator"?
rockaholick37 8 months ago
@rockaholick37 If the creator created the Universe then I would assume he is eternal, and therefore always existed.
Enayze 8 months ago
Notice how like many uneducated creationists, Enayze here: 1) is completely ignorant of what the Big Bang model actually proposes (it wasn't "a big explosion"), and 2) further uses this ignorance to dishonestly up the false dichotomy of "either it was random chance, or my deity did it". Or as it's reiterated later, "either someONE created it, or it is a coincidence". Those of us who actually read books other than the Bible know that these aren't the only two explanations.
geezerbill 8 months ago
@geezerbill First off dont call me uneducated, I am more than sure my intelligence is more than comparable to yours, if you even have any. In any case you do not know me, and more importantly in the scheme of things, you have no idea what your are talking about. I am more than aware of the what Big Bang proposes about the Universe expanding and continuing to do so. Everything in this universe has a design, so therefore please give me your explanation of why smart guy.
Enayze 8 months ago
@Enayze Why does the universe have a certain design? Because of the natural laws that govern our universe. This question is answered in more detail in Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design! All you're doing is spreading ignorance!
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 I am not spreading ignorance, stop being so defensive. I support research, science, and figuring the history of mankind. However I also realize that life and the universe is a very complex structure. Therefore I have no problem with accepting that God created everything and accepting that he established the laws the govern the Universe, by whatever means. This does not mean that now I support or advise everyone to stop diving in to find answers of how things operate
Enayze 8 months ago
@Enayze From my perspective, you are ignorant! Your argument that god always existed is very ignorant. That's like saying humans who have created fish tanks for fish must have always existed because from the fish's perspective, their universe is so complex.
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago 2
@FallofDarkness55 Comparing mortal beings in humans to creating something infinitely less complex than the Universe and earth itself in fish tanks is about as poor of a comparison of God to man as you can get. I dont actually see this going anywhere, therefore I guess we will just find out at death. And when that happens I hope you have a pardon to excuse you of righteous judgement.
Enayze 8 months ago
Comment removed
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Enayze Your irreducible complexity approach is one argument from ignorance. The less complex something is the more we understand it. The more complex something is the less we understand it but that does not mean you have to invoke some intelligent designer! You're such an ignoramus!
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
@Enayze "I guess we will just find out at death" Why do people like you always have to end an argument with this childish, stupid tactic of trying to scare people into believing what you believe? This only further convinces us of how baseless and and based on emotions your argements are.
You better hope the muslims or hindus or any other of the thousands of religions didn't get it right, but I guess you'll find out when you die...I hope you have a pardon to excuse you of righteous judgement.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead If the Muslims or Hindus get it right, I will still be ok. If the Christians get it right, you better hope, matter of fact Christians will have it right, and if God ever gave you a warning, let this be it. You will be subject to judgment, and no, you can never say no one ever told you so. Don't hate me, or anyone else who says this to you, they are relaying a message. And as much as you might not like the message, it still does not make it incorrect.
Enayze 8 months ago
@Enayze "If the Muslims or Hindus get it right, I will still be ok" No you won't, because many of the rules and commandments that other religions have come up with are in direct contradiction with the ones you're following. You would be punished.
"Don't hate me" Why would I hate someone I kind of feel sorry for? I'm more angry at the people that taught you all that crap.
"you might not like the message, it still does not make it incorrect" Doesn't make it correct either.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago 9
@Enayze
"matter of fact Christians will have it right"
That's possible. However, I have not seen the evidence to support Christianity's status as a fact. I require more data than most people before I am convinced of a proposition. A large number of subjective experiences and a book of questionable veracity is not a particularly convincing argument. I've seen similar arguments from the New Age movement, which also has many texts and personal experiences.
Draginvry2 7 months ago 3
@Enayze
"You will be subject to judgment"
Who would judge me wrongly for having an opinion?
Who would judge me as bad because I was born with parents of one religion as opposed to another?
If God would judge someone badly based on those things then God is clearly immoral and a bully.
Ergo not worth our worship
boyinthedrain 7 months ago 5
the bible is true cuz the bible sayz so derp
SandvichGuy 8 months ago
It seems like arguments of reason are a gigantic waste of time when it comes to religious people. They are visible to us, which is in fact the only thing we have in common, but they live in an alternate reality. Having a conversation with them is like having one with a fish.
saburius 9 months ago
@saburius Not entirely. It was somebodys argument to me that got me to think more and in return I left religion. They pointed out how my views didn't make sense and I studied them actually expecting to get answers and prove them wrong. Then a lightbulb went off and I saw the answers weren't definitive. I studied even more and there went my religion. Needless to say I'm glad this person argued with me.
DisWldFrk90 9 months ago
Matt has a habit of speaking too fast- when you're explaining something as technical as 'god doesn't exist' and atheism, you need to be slooow and easy
funincluded 9 months ago
@zero13o "umm when you said i "disregard that the TRUTH that the world COULD'VE just been created without a creator" . I dont think you understand what truth means. True things are actual facts not either or, the VERB "ZCOULD" means its possible. It doesn't necessarily mean it is the truth. think of it this way TRUTH=FACT and Could=non certainly a fact, possibly. but no hard evidence backing it up. So yeah......
kamina77 9 months ago
Btw Quran is right
kamina77 9 months ago
Masters of word manipulation, ignorance n hypocrisy
kamina77 9 months ago
Atheism is a world view. No matter how these guys like to phrase it in a puzzle of words. Atheists r hypocrites, in the sense that believers shud present proofs. N yet what they believe likewise does not have substantial proof to make a decision that god exists. Big bang theory falls apart midway. Existence of creation means it has a creator. Like wise foot prints in sand point to the conclusion of someones passed by recently. I like how atheists start playing games with words when asked for p
kamina77 9 months ago
@kamina77 did you know that the big bang theory was created by a priest? Existence of creation does not mean it has a creator especially when there no evidence that said creator existed to begin with. The existence of the universe does not prove that it was created by an all powerful being sure it could've begun or always existed for all we know that's why we have science to help us understand the fundamentals of our universe
zero13o 9 months ago
@zero13o and i am definetley all for science and understand of whats hidden unseen or discoverable. btw when u say creation, u already are acknowledging that a creator is involved. whether u believe it or not. my faith encourages us to look and seek truth and ponder at the creation so that we may remember god by seeing how majestic his powers are. also i could give a rats ass about whoever came up with big bang theory, its plausible but can only b complete with gods intervention
kamina77 9 months ago
@kamina77 No, I am not acknowledging that a creator is involved at all, I was simply restating what you say in your last statement. When you say your faith encourages you to look, seek and ponder the truth yet you disregard that the truth that the world could've just been created without a creator. lets just say the universe is a big place and that we are here on this planet and thats it.
zero13o 9 months ago
I think this guy may have been reading a list of apologetics tips.
havvyweponsman 9 months ago 22
Religion is way too easy to argue. This is just the tip of the iceberg if your taking a Philosophy class.
WhiteRoarBlack 9 months ago
your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence.
bendlor 9 months ago
"Define evidence"
Matt Dilahunty > " WOW "
johnbgroovy 10 months ago
they got kinda antsy after awhile huh lol
sexychula19 10 months ago
I like smart callers. Callers that challenge these idiots that have the habit of rejecting any proof of God. Obviously, because no matter how logical the proof is, ie the consmological argument, their worldview doesnt allow it, because to them they know God doesnt exist. What fucking morons
bendlor 10 months ago
@bendlor Such as?
Who would be a smart caller?
HarrysSecret 10 months ago
@bendlor The Cosmological argument is logically flawed. It relies on special pleading, an argument from ignorance and non-demonstrated premises.
Instead of trying to use word games (like the Cosmological argument, the Ontological argument, etc.), why don't theists try to present some evidence.
MrFungus420 10 months ago
@MrFungus420 How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion?
bendlor 10 months ago
@bendlor Where are the testimonies?
The only thing that you have is a story in the Bible, and that is the SOURCE of the claim. Since the Bible is making the claim, it cannot be used to verify the claim. Where is any corroborating evidence?
MrFungus420 10 months ago
@MrFungus420 Ill admit, theres no evidence to prove that the evidence is legit. However, its still evidence, and if looked upon from a logical perspective, one can logically conclude that since the new and old testiments contain the eye witness accounts of over 500 people, it has a pretty good level or reliability in my opinion.
If your best friend comes along and says he witnessed something pretty amazing happen, you'll most prob believe him even tho he can be lying.
Think twice buddy.
bendlor 10 months ago
@MrFungus420 Ill admit, theres no evidence to prove that the evidence is legit. However, its still evidence, and if looked upon from a logical perspective, one can logically conclude that since the new and old testiments contain the eye witness accounts of over 500 people, it has a pretty good level of reliability in my opinion.
If your best friend comes along and says he witnessed something pretty amazing happen, you'll most prob believe him even tho he can be lying.
Think twice buddy.
bendlor 10 months ago
@bendlor No, it is not evidence. It is a claim. The story in the Bible CLAIMS that 500 people saw it. There is not a single testimonial from any of them, not one eye-witness account. All that you have is a story in a book that says that there were 500 people who saw it.
And this is a book that has been edited, translated and changed innumerable times. There are parts that are not in the oldest manuscripts (for example John 7:53-8:11).
(cont)
MrFungus420 10 months ago
@bendlor (cont)
Furthermore, we don't have the originals to check. That means that we can never be sure which translation or version is the most accurate (or, least inaccurate). There are literally thousands of discrepancies in the different versions.
And you think that this is reliable and that it is logical to make conclusions based on this???
MrFungus420 10 months ago
@MrFungus420 Could it be because these eye witness accounts created alot of controversy or maybe they werent perfectly preserved in a time frame of 2000 years? Does it mean that we should ignore them? Absolutely not. Furthermore, are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?
And also there are things like prophecies and stuff like such which help indicate that there IS infact some truth to all these documents.
bendlor 10 months ago
@bendlor Again, what eye witnesses? You have one story in one book that claims that there were witnesses.
Without any evidence to support that claim, I see no reason not to ignore it. I see no reason to think that it is anything more than a story.
Pretty much the exact same way you feel about every other religion's stories. I see no more reason to believe the Resurrection than to believe that Thor died after defeating the Midgard Serpent at the battle of Ragnarok.
MrFungus420 10 months ago
@bendlor And we don't have the space to get into contradictions and prophecies. I can agree that there are some purported contradictions that have a credible explanation, but by no means every one.
And there are a great many problems with prophecies...from vagueness to circular reasoning to being wrong (like Tyre, continuously inhabited since 2750 BCE, notably not destroyed to never be rebuilt, and yes, I know that there are apologetics for that too, but, I said, we don't have space for that).
MrFungus420 10 months ago
@MrFungus420 You get my point though dont you? Either its ALL a lie, which is highly unlikely, or there IS infact some truth to these historical events(eye witness accounts and so on). Let me ask you this: What if there is a God? Are you willing to take the huge risk of blindly believing that all this evidence is false only to find out that youre wrong after you die and spend eternity in hell?
bendlor 10 months ago
@bendlor I will agree that there are some facts in the Bible, some real places and people are mentioned. That does not differentiate it from any other story that does the same, from Tom Clancy to Stephen King And how do we know that there are real places and people? Because we have other sources to corroborate it.
Let me ask you: What if god is Allah? Are you willing to take the huge risk of believing the Bible only to find out that you are wrong and end up spending eternity in Hell?
MrFungus420 10 months ago
@MrFungus420 Yes, but whats in the Bible happened 2000 years ago, just because we cant "scientifically" prove that its legit info doesnt mean that its all false. You either chose to believe your best friend when he tells you something or simply say he's lying, its up to you.
So basically what youre saying is you refuse to believe in God because you dont know what religion is the right one? Do you see how thats unreasonable? What religion is the right one is an entirely different debate.
bendlor 10 months ago
@bendlor My point is that there is no reason to accept it as anything more than a story. There is no reason to think that it is true.
And this has nothing to do with any particular religion. The only reason that I mentioned Allah was to demonstrate how ridiculous your threat was (well, not your threat, it's Pascal's Wager...another tragically flawed argument for belief in God).
MrFungus420 10 months ago
@MrFungus420 So there is no reason to believe the testimony of over 500 people to a living Jesus?
bendlor 10 months ago
@bendlor You don't have any testimonies. You have a story that says there were 500 people.
MrFungus420 10 months ago
@MrFungus420 So? How do you know its all a lie?
bendlor 10 months ago
@bendlor I didn't say that.
You keep saying that there are testimonies of over 500 people, but you don't have any testimonies, nobody does.
You have a story in a book That story says that there were 500 people. That story is where the claim of 500 witnesses originated. You cannot use that story to verify that story.
If that was valid, than any book could be used to prove itself. It would be valid to use the Lord of the Rings to prove that hobbits and Mordor exist.
MrFungus420 10 months ago
@MrFungus420 Thats the point i was trying to make from the start. You cannot prove the Bible to be false much like you cant absolutely prove it to be true. Is it possible that it is telling the truth? Well certainly. But since you are Atheist, you identify yourself by what you don't believe in, and your presupposition(that God doesnt exist) will not allow you to see and accept the evidence. Id suggest you do some research from a neutral standpoint, and make a logical assessment of the evidence
bendlor 10 months ago
@bendlor Nice way of shifting the burden of proof. Fungus is not saying your book is absolutely false, he is saying there is no reason to believe it. There is a difference between believing something is false and not believing something is true. Not believing something is true also incorporates being unconvinced. Atheists lack belief in any gods. I've been an atheist all my life, not believing in any particular god (non religious parents) but I've only come to believe there is no god last year.
sharkjack 9 months ago
@sharkjack Bottom line is this: The Bible is evidence. There is no evidence to verify the evidence, ill give you that. But again, just because your friend doesnt have any evidence for the amazing story that he told you doesnt mean that he is lying. If you believe that the Bible is false, fair enough. If it is true, then you will go to hell for eternity.
Are your thoughts real? Well yes. Can you scientifically prove it?
bendlor 9 months ago
@bendlor Pascals wager oh damn, hadn't thought of that before, oh wait no I have. Mr Fungus already talked about the quran and what if they're right, but even so, do you really believe in a god who can't see through a little probability calculation that betting on belief is better than betting on disbelief? I cannot believe the stuff in the bible and no punishment you tell me will come of that is capable of changing my mind.
sharkjack 9 months ago
@sharkjack Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.
bendlor 9 months ago
@bendlor The purpose of evidence is to convince those who are unconvinced/convinced of contrary position.
That's like saying I have an argument, but unless you already agree with my conclusion you won't accept it.
If someone doesn't agree with you, you build an argument based on premises you think your opponents agrees on already. If they don't, you have to provide evidence to back up the premise.
Evidence that requires preexisting belief in the claim it supports is not evidence at all.
sharkjack 9 months ago
@sharkjack If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited.Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don't you see?
bendlor 9 months ago
@bendlor Why are you still trying to prove the bible with the bible? If I don't accept textual evidence of miracles and if the only evidence for a book is found in the book itself, how can you not see that as circular reasoning? You've already said multiple times you have nothing to back the bible up with.
This doesn't just go for religious books, I don't believe Socrates existed either. He might have, he might have not, but belief is not justified based on the available evidence.
sharkjack 9 months ago
@bendlor I do NOT presuppose that a god does not exist. I just see no reason to accept that claim.
Again, what evidence are you talking about. You talked about testimonies, you have none. You just have a story that says that many people saw it. A story that is the source of that claim. Since it is the source, it cannot be used as evidence to support the claim. Again, using that argument, I can prove that hobbits and Mordor exist.
What evidence?
MrFungus420 9 months ago
@bendlor And there are many parts of the Bible that are demonstrably false.
Tell me, why do you believe a book that has magic, talking animals, giants, unicorns and dragons?
Why do you accept, as accurate, a book that says that a man survived in a giant fish's stomach for 3 days (that means 3 days without food, water or AIR while resisting being digested)?
Try your own advice. Look at it from a neutral standpoint.
MrFungus420 9 months ago
@MrFungus420 See? There you go. You just confirmed what I was stating. what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.
bendlor 9 months ago
@bendlor That depends on what definition you are using for "god". So, first you have to define the god that you want to try to provide evidence for.
But, let's try something a little different. Just one little question:
Why do you believe the Bible is true?
MrFungus420 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I could give you many reasons why i believe the Bible is true, but since we both view the evidence from different perspectives, we could argue all day. Lets go back a few steps . Again, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?
bendlor 9 months ago
@bendlor "Again, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?"
Evidence that would NOT require to believe first to accept a god's existence. Some kind of observable evidence that can be tested by ANYONE. I'm not talking about things like trees, water, nature, even your own body. This "God" has to be a separate entity, ESPECIALLY if it's intelligent & coherent. And certainly it has to be outside any book.
Simply, a god has to present itself as evidence to EVERYONE.
BastEternal 9 months ago
@bendlor
But guess what? A god is NEVER going to present itself as evidence, because gods don't exist. No supernatural, mythological creature exists outside of the imagination of human beings (unless of course they write about these creatures in a book).
BastEternal 9 months ago 36
BastEternal, what would you say to people who've had near death experiences? Most of them talk about a being of light, exuding complete love and acceptance.
So far, the evidence says that you're wrong. Ignorance and arrogance are a bad combination.
AppleSouffle 2 months ago
@AppleSouffle
Personal experiences that are open to interpretation aren't proof or evidence of anything.
All you have to back up your claim is what other people have claimed to have happened to them.
Not good enough.
When you can provide evidence of this "light" and not have it depend on a "near death experience" when the brain is going through trauma, then we can talk.
You accuse me of ignorance and arrogance when all you've offered are second hand claims?
Please!
Next!
BastEternal 2 months ago
@bendlor "I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them."
Why? If you have evidence of god's existence, another person's presuppositions shouldn't matter. Either you have evidence, or you don't.
By asking someone their presuppositions, it looks you're trying to tweak your evidence so that it appears to fit.
That's dishonest.
Share your evidence about this god, or not. Don't make the evidence contingent on a person's presuppositions. They shouldn't matter.
BastEternal 9 months ago
I wonder how long it will take for atheists and theists to become two separate species.
Judging from John's level of intelligence, I don't think it will take very long.
There are obvious behavioral barriers between theists and atheists if you know what I mean...
MunkyDrag0n 10 months ago
People are passionate about these topics, really? Who cares about your opinion... my opinion or anyone elses. But hey, whatever makes you feel better about yourself at the end of the day...
thatonedude100 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek Fine. However just before we part, would you mind telling me exactly where I lied about Dawkins? Or indeed where you perceived I lied with regard to any scientific theory? Take care.
spireman50 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek Ahh when the arguments break down...lets seek refuge in profanities. Where are the lies? which scientific quotes are dubious? Hoyles??? And why are you sick of people like me? Perhaps because when faced with logical argument your point of view no longer seems as black and white as you originally thought?
True investigation is where you leave your mind open to the possible. While it may seem "cool" to be a member of the Faith Bashing community it isn't necessarily sustained.
spireman50 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thatamazinggeek "It has been calculated that the probability of amino acids forming, by chance, even the smallest and simplest protein, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal environment and allowing 100 billion years (10 times the estimated age of the earth) is 1 in 10 to the 67th against. "
The above calculation is not based on unspecified number of possibilities. It is based on Finite factors such as 10 times the age of the Universe.
spireman50 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek Two renowned scientists, Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, calculated that the chance of obtaining, randomly, all two thousand enzymes necessary for life was 1 in 10 to the 40,000th. That is a figure consisting of 1 with forty thousand zeros after it.
Don't you think this is a pretty good reason to believe that there is an intelligence at work here?
spireman50 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek " the only reason you need not to believe in god is that there is no good reason to do so"
I'm sorry but that statement is simply ridiculous. The laws of probability alone would contradict this. The existence of the Universe itself are grounds to consider a Creator. The altruistic nature of humanity that contradict the laws of natural selection is another unexplained phenomenom (something again that Dawkins admits to having no explanation.) Closing doors to investigation?
spireman50 10 months ago
@spireman50 Mathematicians generally accept that any odds greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th have a zero probability of ever happening.
It has been calculated that the probability of amino acids forming, by chance, even the smallest and simplest protein, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal environment and allowing 100 billion years (10 times the estimated age of the earth) is 1 in 10 to the 67th against.
spireman50 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek Btw Hawking never said that the Universe HAD to come into existence without God. He purported a theory suggesting it COULD have done so.
spireman50 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek You say there is no reason to believe....I give you a reason (as agreed by Richard Dawkins) ..and you say "Doesnt mean its a good enough reason" ???? I am not offering you proof of God...I'm offering a very scientifically based reason to believe. To someone who does not want to admit to the possibility of God there can never be a "good enough" reason. Equally I could argue that there is certainly not good enough reasons NOT to believe in God.
spireman50 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek I am well aware of what Richard Dawkins is. I have written a book in answer to his "God Delusion". He DID indeed admit to the validity on argument for God. Dawkins when talking about Antony Flews converrsion to Deism stated " As some people claim, the laws and constants of the Universe are too finely tuned to be an accident. That would not be a wholly disreputable reason for believing in some form of supernatural Deity". Again you can check that out here on youtube.
spireman50 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek I am not saying that it MUST be true. I am saying that given all the arguments , I BELIEVE it to be true. I do so based not only on blind faith but also on scientific principles.
Whether you choose to accept what William Lane Craig argues, I still think it is worthwhile to listen to his opening arguments on his debate with Antony Flew. See on youtube: Does God exist ? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew. Even Richard Dawkins admits the argument for God on this basis.
spireman50 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek "the Big Bang theory does not posit that the world came from nothing." Tell me then, what does the Big Bang theory suggest? As for your suggestion that I am arguing from ignorance.....again tell me why? I have no problem with Science. I embrace it. I do not see faith and science as mutually exclusive. There is nothing in my faith that is at odds with science. Angry atheism chooses to ridicule where there is no cause for ridicule.
spireman50 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek How do you "demonstrate" that God is true? You are quite correct ...it IS a matter of Faith. With regards to the Universe.....Science has no explanation as to the "beginning" of the Universe. From a logical point of view I believe it is more reasonable to assume that the Universe at the time of the Big Bang had a "cause". To accept that the Universe came from "nothing" takes a greater leap of faith than Christian belief. Nothing comes from nothing.
spireman50 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek How many Gods have become flesh??? Christ. As regards the Universe....whats your explanation?
spireman50 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thatamazinggeek I am sure thousands! But so what? How does this affect me as a chrisitan? It just shows Satan is working Hard and you are buying it.
Now please can you provide evidence for the claim "that's what people do when they are ignorant and want to explain the universe: god did it." ? No assumptions please.
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago
@thatamazinggeek Wow your cool. Just as long as it has the word god its bullshit.
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago
Atheism is a response to a claim? Since when do nouns do the job of a verb?
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago
@Onetruthrgv There are no verbs, both "Atheism" and "response" are nouns.
brendanerday 11 months ago
@brendanerday To respond to something is an action correct? an action is a verb correct? Atheism is a noun correct? How is a a verb the definition of a noun?
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago
@Onetruthrgv No, an "action" is still a noun, what the action really is is the verb. So the nouns Atheism and response are nouns that do something, Atheism and responses themselves are still nouns. And like you said, a verb can't be the definition of a noun thus a verb cannot define Atheism and responses.
brendanerday 11 months ago
@brendanerday I agree. I realized my argument failed a few weeks ago. I forgot about this comment
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago
and its really off putting if you laugh when someone tells you something important to them, but I don't want you to become defensive in relation to these comments, if this causes a negative reaction just relax, I am probably reacting a bit also, I don't wish to increase tension.
But it is insensitive to laugh, even at "stupid people".
quodin 11 months ago
and statement like "wow" (.. this guy is stupid) can create a reactive defensive state in the person you are battling with, sorry I mean talking to. It is harder to communicate with people in defensive states.
My only question is how good are you at helping theists understand your opinion, do you honestly do your best to help them see your point. I am sure that you win in the sense that your argument seems better, but is this the victory you sought.
quodin 11 months ago
Simply state an atheist is someone who is not certain.
I think the jury example was unnecessarily complicated.
Keep it simple, "I am not cetain gods exist."
More elaborate examples don't make this idea easier to comprehend.
quodin 11 months ago
It could be simpler, simply state as an atheist you have no certainty.
I am an atheist I am not certain that gods exist.
I personally think that the jury example made this more complicated than necessary.
quodin 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
can you define evidence.
bitchiknowyouloveme 11 months ago
OK, Matt. Now can you define 'definition'?
Talamasca124 1 year ago
WOW this guy just DOES NOT GET IT. this would be funny if it werent so sad.
Computernerd545 1 year ago
white male religion, I knew it :s
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
fairies do exist. look at edward cullen.
WolfenGamer69 1 year ago 19
@WolfenGamer69 yea and one day "eli" will find me an i will be the happiest men in the universe ;)
legolasgreenleaff 9 months ago
The stupidity of Christians...can't...take...much more...
2b3the1 1 year ago
The Christian is right. I go around every day disproving Thor, Zeus, pixies, bigfoot, The Wizard of Oz, and everything else for which there is no evidence and in which someone either believes or might believe. My life is quite exhausting.
greyeyed123 1 year ago
Its very simple; if the Christian god reveals himself, or undeniable proof of his existance is provided, atheists will believe, I know I sure would.
Many Christians ignorantly believe that atheism is a denial that gods exist when it is nothing of the sort. Not at all surprising that Christians can't seem to get that straight.
nosajj12345 1 year ago
"Can you define evidence?"
"WOW".....ROFLMAO!! funniest $hit i've heard all week..hahahaha
ether150 1 year ago
So by this guy's argument "fairies, Leprechauns, Nessie and Sprites" are real until someone demonstrates they don't exist.
I guess then my faith in mermaids and "Ariel the Chosen One" would be okay with this guy as well.
sol3a1 1 year ago
I feel really bad for this guy. It's like a light weight fighting a heavy weight, there was just no hope for this guy. I would call him an idiot, but lots of people are plagued by this type of religious nonsense.
decoren45 1 year ago
I think Matt made a category error here. "Anti-theism" is not an "assertion of innocence" with respect to the courtroom analogy. It's still a "not guilty" claim. Even Matt himself is an Anti-theist who doesn't flatly say "God doesn't exist." Anti-theism is just a type of Atheism which adds: "I not only reject the claims of God's existence, but I HOPE they are untrue, because the implications of those claims don't suit me." It doesn't "gnostically" assert God's non-existence anymore than Atheism.
instereovideos 1 year ago
One of the best videos of the Atheist Experience.
Really sums it up.
asaf92 1 year ago
The study that Frank Sulloway and Michael Shermer did about why people believe and why they think other people believe, showed that people believe in god based on unintellectual reasons and then later attempt to justify their beliefs based on intellectual ones. In essence, they try to find reasons to believe. Smart people actually make the best believers because they become skilled at defending the beliefs they initially gained by non smart reasons.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
I'm not bold enough to say that god doesn't exist (of course it depends on how one defines god). There's just not enough evidence for me to believe in god. I don't wear my non belief on my sleeve. I don't try to talk people out of their belief, but I do like to point out that they have absolutely no evidence for their views.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
this is shit.
pinbac92 1 year ago