You're just way off beam with your comments re the definition of the word atheist.
The prefix 'a' denotes being without. e.g Asymmetrical means without symmetry, asexual means reproducing without sex. amoral means without morals - unaware or indifferent to right and wrong.
Babies certainly are atheists. It is the default position. (they're amoral too!)
It is a strictly religious perspective to consider 'denying the existence of gods' to be equivalent to 'denying the gods'.
Atheists are just as illogical and annoying as any other followers of any other religion.
Plus, they get offended to easily. There was once a statue of the ten commandments put up at a courthouse and it had to be removed because it "offended" people. If atheism is really logical and so far "above" religious conviction, why the hell do they get offended by statues?
There's nothing wrong with you finding atheists annoying, but illogical, why? The main thing I want to point out is your implication that atheism is a religion. Even if atheism is the belief that there is no god (and I happen to support this case), it is NOT a belief system and thus not a religion. I like this analogy-
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour.
Is is possible to scientifically prove the existence or non existence of a god? (Think Carefully, and remember that Most Christians today Accept the scientifically known age of the universe and evolution.)
Plus, is'nt an athiest complaining about a statue akin to a bald man complaining about local barbershops being replaced by hair salons?
No. What you're saying is akin to the complaint about not having absolute certainty. It's a red herring because we can't be absolutely certain about ANYTHING. How is this relevant to this exchange anyway?
And no, the complaints are not alike, because an atheist would not complain about such a statue inside a church. But having such a statue in a courthouse is a blatant violation of church and state.
Well, somewhat. It's not like finding a legal technicality though, I don't live in the US, but if I did, I would want to see the secularity of its government maintained.
But, putting up a statue has no affect on how the government is run or how laws are enforced. If you want to see secularity maintianed would you not be more converned with actualy lawmaking or judgement? Why worry about decorations that have absolutely nothing to do with how the government is run?
But the statue implies that those are the laws everyone has to live by. It's still a violation, but of course that's not to say it's the most important thing to be concerned about.
Look, have I said anything about getting mad about this? Have I said anything about organising protests and rallying in the streets? No. A statue of the ten commandments in a courthouse is not a big deal, but it is grounds to make some kind of complaint because it is a violation of church and state.
If the statue was in the context of some kind of display of all kinds of different moral beliefs from different cultures, that would be great, but to single out one religion and give it special...
@mmysama Because then they will say, well we have the 10 commandments statue in the court house why not make it law. There is no blured line between secularism. Church and state are seperate no matter what that includes decorations and law.
Atheism is a belief that bows down to evolution although evolution doesn't even explain the origins of life itself. It assumes that life somehow evolved from matter which is totally absured. Atheism is an illogical cult that requires its believers to have some arrogance to not be able to think rationally, but to choose to believe in what they cannot prove, but think that this belief is somehow a "default" or superior belief than any other belief system.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the non-accptance of the false beliefs of others.
Evolution is the explanation of how life changes through time. It doesn't claim to explain the origin of life (Straw Man argument fallacy). Chemistry does that.
Humans have used electricity to create life from matter. Get a subscription to Omni or Science, and stop spouting untruths from ignorance.
It must be hard to fit so many ignorant falsehoods into 500 characters, but you pull it off every time.
Did you just say, "Humans have used electricity to create life from matter."?
Umm..."Frankenstein" was a science fiction movie (not sure if you realize that)!? If you have evidence that "life" (living organisms) was created Frankenstein style, I would love to see the reference!!
Check out the video by "Turpis Heraeticum called something like "the origin of life made easy" on my "my favourites" page. Or subscribe to Omni. Or buy a first year university biology text.
Scientific knowledge is so complex that new information is the realm of those with highly specialised knowledge. You and I have a hard time getting access to it, let alone understanding it all. However, just because you are unaware that humans have figured something out doesn't mean we haven't.
I am aware of the Miller experiment that used an intelligently controlled environment to attempt to create living organisms. It turned out to be a great failure by only creating a tar like compound composed of a few amino acids--something that is not too difficult to create, but they were never able to create a living organism or even a protein.
You are familiar with the steps required in making life. Yet you pretend that evolution can't be true, because although it explains how life changes, it doesn't explain its origin.
Since you're interested in all this, you probably know that the explanation of life is the study of biogenesis, not evolution. So, are you pretending not to know the difference, to confuse less intelligent theists reading this; or are you genuinely unaware of the difference?
Repetition of straw man arguments indicates that you are not genuinely interested in answers to your questions.
Evolution explains how life changes with the passage of time. Biogenesis studies the origins of life.
Atheism is not a belief.
I'm not a biochemist, I don't know off-hand how genetic information increased through evolution. If you're interested in this, start surfing the internet and you'll find out.
Stop being a typical theist, and asking others to think for you.
"Stop being a typical theist, and asking others to think for you."
As a typical Atheist, you are under the assumption that Atheism and evolution are correct, and it's upto theists to prove otherwise. If you can't answer a simple question challenging your belief in evolution and you don't want to critically think about the question, but just toss it back as being my burden to defend evolution for you then that shows you are a blind believer in atheism and the theory of evolution.
Your comment is nonsense. You have not been asked to defend something you don't accept (or understand).
Ask a simple question, if you claim to be doing so. If the answer is already available, then go find it, rather than pretending it doesn't exist - unless you are not really interested in the answer, and, as I have already pointed out, are only interested in perpetuating lies for less-intelligent third parties that may read these comments.
Evolution requires no blind belief. Atheism requires no blind belief. They require is understanding. Historical perspective too mabye. Like medicine. And agriculture. And Gravity. And Atomic Theory.
Your attempts to equate things that aren't equated displays lack of understanding.
You also apparently need to learn the difference between how science treats the word hypothesis (unproven idea) and theory (proven hypothesis).
Sorry, seathanaich, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you once again. A theory is not technically a "proven" hypothesis. Science does not speak of proof - only evidence. Mathematics is the only area we can get PROOF.
I suspect you know this and just misspoke. I have to give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't think ALL atheists are dumb. (Unfortunately, most DO have blind faith in evolution against all evidence though.)
There is no course called "Atomic Law." There is, however, Atomic Theory, taught in every university. Atomic Theory, though proven, will never graduate to "Atomic Law". Nor does it need to.
The same applies to Germ Theory, the Theory of Gravity, etc. Theists don't rail against these theories, because they have already reconciled their religion with them. It's just the reality of biology they can't accommodate.
So no, I didn't "mispeak" - just using "theory" the way science does.
I understand all that. What I meant was that you referred to a "theory" as a "proven hypothesis." Nothing in science is ever "PROVEN." We speak of "evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt."
Here, let me show you:
"There is no 'evidence' for MACROevolution - only MICROevolution."
or
"The evidence for God can be demonstrated 'beyond reasonable doubt.'"
See how easy that was? ;^) (Just screwing with you again. Atheist hate logical arguments.)
Oh, come on seathanaich. Theists DID NOT invent "micro" evolution. I have proven that elsewhere on another video. (Be careful. Your ignorance is showing.)
I only used an Uppercase "A" for Atheist at the start of a sentence. (Call me a stickler for grammar.)
How did I use "reasonable doubt" incorrectly?
And oh, by the way - I'm from Canada too. I actually think we'd get along quite well if we knew each other. We both appreciate reason and logic. Imagine that coming from a theist.
Theists use micro/macro as if it were a divider; scientists as a continuum. Your usage was invented by evolution deniers.
Of course we'd get along. My best friend = fundy Baptist.
You're right about the capital a.
We all use logic in some of our activities. If everyone applied it to religion, like they do to rival religions and other elements of daily life, religion would die more quickly.
Reasonable doubt is when lots of evidence exists, not no evidence.
Ah, you see that's where we differ. I think there IS plenty of evidence for any reasonable, rational thinking and non-biased person. You lose credibilty when you say there is no evidence. That's like me saying there is no evidence for evolution. I don't say that. I say the evidence that we have points to small changes. I'm not willing to make the leap of logic to say that "micro equals macro - just give it time." That's a Darwin-of-the-Gaps argument.
All current experimentation and observation leads to the conclusion that MACROevolution just does not happen. I'll gladly change my mind if I'm proven wrong. But I haven't seen it yet (and I've done a lot of research). I think it takes looking at the evidence critically and asking yourself "what have they REALLY proven here and what are they claiming to have proven." I used to believe in evolution until I critically examined the evidence.
The fossil record shows the creation of new species. You either get it, or you chose not to get it due to religious reasons. This is about understanding, not evidence. The theists who accept evolution are those able to separate biogenesis from evolution, and understand the difference. Really, it's not rocket science. Even atheists that aren't very bright don't have a problem figuring out evolution; yet many intelligent theists do, so intelligence isn't the obstacle. Religion is.
The fossil record is an embarrassment for evolution. No informed evolutionist uses it as evidence because he knows it doesn't support his theory. Yes, we HAVE observed speciation - breed a donkey and a horse and you get a mule - a new species. But that is NOT MACROevolution. It actually hurts your case. Every example of speciation demonstrates a loss of genetic information, not a gain. That's a prediction Creationists would make. Darwinists would not. One point for our side - the side of reason.
Is your knowledge of biology from creationist handouts from cults like the Jehovahs Witnesses? Seriously! If you read anything even remotely mainstream, maybe a science magazine or high school text book, you will discover that your fixation with denying fossils, evolution, and biology is shared only by, well, morons. Among educated people this isn't even debated. Are you still insisting the earth is flat, too?
Much of what is written in high school biology textbooks has been discredited - in some cases over 100 years ago. I'm not denying anything. Ever heard of Stephen Jay Gould? Punctuated Equilibrium? That hypothesis (not theory) was concocted to cover up for the spotty fossil record. I'm quoting Darwinists who often say in debates that no one relies on the fossil record as evidence for evolution. The Bible predicts a spherical Earth. The notion that theists thought the Earth was flat is a myth.
Okay, so without directly answering my simple question, you've answered it. Your information on biology DOES come from 4 page handouts from the Jehovah's Witnesses.
If "much" of high school biology text info had been discredited, it would be removed. That's the beauty of a process that seeks truth - it's self-correcting. Unlike apology for dogma. Any other conspiracy theories you want to publicly endorse?
Sorry, sea. None of the above is correct. Not Jehovah's Witness. Not home schooled. And not self-correcting.
Ken Miller's biology textbook still has Haeckel's faked drawings that were discredited in 1874 and many textbooks still push the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" idea. Miller has refused to take it out even though all evolutionists now know it is wrong.
I like the "evolutionists" smear. Really clever. Unfortunately, innaccurate like everything else you have written. Nobody worships evolution, though I can understand why the theist can't comprehend a world without worship. No, understanding evolution is no different than understanding plate techtonics. It's only religious dogmatists that choose not to understand modern biology, and we all know why.
I'm using the term "evolutionist" to differentiate between those who accept MACROevolution and those who don't. It has nothing to do with worship and I didn't intend it as a smear. Sorry if I offended you.
I wouldn't be offended if you called me a creationist. In fact, it's possible to be both a creationist AND an evolutionist (theistic evolutionist). I just think those that are, haven't examined the evidence. If they do, they usually end up rejecting MACROevolution. It happened to me.
So, what evidence did you reject? Embryology, the study which shows the steps that all vertebrates go through, and which illustrates that all came from the same early vertebrate ancestor? The fossil record, which consists of bones so old they have turned into stone? The animal kingdom, with related species everywhere? Or did you even study any of these things?
These things are all more fascinating than the reliance upon unexplained magic that religion offers.
I just proved that the evidence from embryology was proven wrong in 1874 yet they still teach it and apparently YOU still believe it. (Thanks for proving my point.)
Fossils can be created very quickly - less than 100 years in the right conditions. I can prove that too.
A "species" is a man-made, faulty construct. Dogs and wolves are different species but shouldn't be because they can interbreed and create fertile offspring.
Embryology isn't disproven; get a high school text book, and look at the pictures. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't stick their fingers in their ears and repeat "I'm not listening" over and over again.
It appears your creationist propaganda dates from 1874. Are all of your opinions based upon information that is over a century out of date? Since your religion is 2000 years out of date, that would be consistent. I can't imagine what it's like to feel so threatened by modernity and knowledge.
That's my point. It's still in the textbooks after being proven wrong in 1874 which I proved already. I don't know if you are in denial or intentionally lying but your attitude is really getting old.
You seriously need to open your mind like I did and examine the evidence critically. It is YOU who is putting your fingers in your ears like an infant and repeating "I'm not listening" over and over again.
You have demonstrated the very definition of "BLIND FAITH."
You have made public your stupidity by parroting creationist propaganda that is 135 years old, and as obsolete as your religion.
All you have "proved" is your inability to differentiate between good and bad sources of information; and that religion forces people to do this.
All you seem capable of doing is accusing others of your own failings. I've already named this debating tactic. It's called mirroring. It's ironic that, to insult me, you label me with the failings of your own dogma.
"Creationist propaganda that is 135 years old?" What the hell are you talking about? It's not "creationist" propangada. It's about Haeckel, an evolutionist, and his recapitulation theory - disproven 135 years ago. And all modern scientists know it. Yet you apparently still believe it. That should tell you something.
Wow. So, a hypothesis was disproven. Over a century ago. Thanks for the cutting-edge update.
Here's a newsflash. That's how science works. I haven't mentioned the word "recapitulation" once, and neither have you. We were discussing "embyology". Feel free to google it.
Just to keep you up with "current" events, Newton's Law of Gravity was replaced by Einstein's Theory of Relativity about a century ago. I know you and the Fundy Think-tanks will need a little time to digest that.
Are you even checking out this evidence I present? It doesn't come from creationists. Your lack of knowledge and unwillingness to examine the evidence by parroting Dawkins and the like is making YOU look stupid. I'm sure you've got too much pride invested to admit you are wrong. But those who understand and appreciate reason will see the truth.
I've twice asked you to provide sources or links, and even invited you to do so by sending me a longer email. You have done none of these things.
FYI, eminent biologist Richard Dawkins is respresentative of the entire academic world. He is only labelled stupid by theists who fear what his works have done to further erode the ranks of their co-religionists. In the UK the majority now reject god-belief because of the good work of educators and scientists like Dawkins.
You should know all this stuff if you've studied evolution. Oh yeah, that's right. They don't teach the evidence against evolution because they want kids to have blind faith. If the public knew how little evidence their really was, scientists would lose their funding.
The evidence you're naming proves you haven't done any research. Otherwise, you'd know even most Darwinists don't agree with the evidence you're presenting because it was proven wrong years ago. You've bought into a LIE.
They don't teach the "evidence" against evolution because there is none. In the Dover court trial Catholic Kenneth Miller crushed Behe's "evidence" to the satisfaction of a conservative Christian judge. Open-minded Christians can understand evolution when required to study it objectively.
The best "evidence" that could be provided by creationists failed completely in US court.
You still haven't addressed your lies about religious persecution of those who said the earth was round.
Your comments on one of Kenneth Miller's text books is obviously from a creationist web site. You can provide the link if you want me to check it out; but, having seen the "scholarship" displayed by such sites umpteen times already, it can probably be dismissed without even being viewed. But I'll humour you if you provide a link to your source. Assuming it's not a Jehovah's Witness pamphlet.
Science is supposed to be self-correcting but unfortunaely, it doesn't always work that way.
Scientists are flawed like all human beings and sometimes cannot let go of a theory even when the evidence fail to support it because of their philosphical presuppositions. I have plenty of evidence to support this in relation to Darwinism from Darwinists themselves so it's not just a conspiracy theory (technically hypothesis). What have you got?
Scientists "cannot let go of a theory even when the evidence" fails? Actually, the opposite is true. Newton's Law of Gravity was superceded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity, etc, etc a thousand times in every field of study.
In contrast, the dogamatic mind (whether in religion or politics) is the one that clings to hypotheses that have been proven false. Like, oh, creationism.
The thing is that a truly scientific mind doesn't reject science when it disproves dogma.
"The notion that theists thought the Earth was flat is a myth."
Then why did the Christian Church burn, kill, muzzle, and imprison people for suggesting that the earth was round, IN CONTRAST to both Biblical quotes and Church dogma? Some myth.
Your ability to lie so blatantly to rationalise your religious beliefs is amazing, but hardly unique. The lies that are required to continue the origin lie of religious belief just seem to spiral out of control, to the outside observer.
On the contrary, it's theists who would likely have an aversion to lying because they believe in moral absolutes. Therefore, lying is wrong.
Atheists, however, know lying is wrong (God has written it on their hearts) but will do so if the end justifies the means.
Understand, I'm not saying atheists can't be moral (many are more moral than some theists). They just have no justification for morality. It's all relative (which is self-refuting, BTW).
No, many theists are quite prepared to lie to prop up their belief system. You have done so here, and completely avoided answering my question about the historical persecution by Christianity of those who said the earth was round.
Your tactic of projecting the flaws in your position (ie lying) onto your opponents is a tactic called 'mirroring'. Unfortunately, when it is exposed it can completely discredit both you and your position to any third parties reading these posts.
Why must atheists insist on resorting to ad hominem attacks such as "flat earth" nonsense and "dark ages" and such? If you're so confident about your position, provide some evidence. That's why the theists win the debates because they don't stoop to that level. They don't have to because logic reason and evidence is on their side.
The fact that the comparison is not one that you like doesn't render it invalid. Pretending it's an ad hominen attack when it's an appropriate analogy is illogical.
Provide some evidence of what?
What debate do theists win? I'm waiting to see one.
Your comments have degenerated to claims that you have logic and evidence, yet you demonstrate neither. Your god remains a figment of your imagination, and you do not take me up on my offer for you to provide evidence by direct email.
I thought I was going to be able to reason with you but I guess I was wrong. The best kind of evidence is when a hypothesis makes predictions that turn out to be valid and correspond with reality. Give me specific predictions Darwinism makes that correspond with evidence for MACROevolution.(Don't bother to include any that count for MICROevolution.)
I'll give you some that Christianity makes that correspond with reality as well. Let's see who can come up with the most. Betcha I win. Go.
Okay, provide one piece of evidence. I've yet to have one presented to me that's persuasive, despite an interest and a lot of reading on the subject. Email me personally, if you want to, because this is a serious proposal, not grandstanding for third parties.
"Okay, provide one piece of evidence. Email me personally, if you want to."
Will do. Give me a few days. Very busy right now. But I wanted to answer personally and in depth because I want to respond to some very interesting ideas you brought up in your letter. Thanks for that, by the way. I was touched (and not in the Catholic priest kinda way, if y'know what I mean.)
Hey, seathanaich. BestValue here. We discussed the definition of faith on another video. You'll recall that you tried to change the dictionary definition of faith by calling it "belief without evidence." (You'll also recall that I proved you wrong.)
But since you like dictionaries, the same dictionary I referred to (Oxford) calls atheism "the belief that God does not exist."
So, of course, atheism is a belief. Every negation confirms its opposite. It's a law of logic. Sorry, buddy.
"Atheism is not a belief. It is the non-accptance of the false beliefs of others"
If only I can get a dollar for every time I heard/read an Atheist say that. It really shows the shallow and sometimes lack of logic of most Atheists. I've been able to explain this to a few Atheists who later admitted that they were actually Agnostics. Let me try to explain this to you as simple as I can. Atheism makes a claim that states, "God does not exist". Theists also make a claim that states, "God exists"
No matter what the claim, nevertheless, it is a claim. When you make a claim and cannot provide evidence for it, then believing in such a claim will be solely based on faith. If I made a claim that aliens do not exist then I would be making a claim based on faith since I wouldn't be able to provide evidence for such. The same goes for anything else. Agnosticsm, however, is very different from Atheism as Agnostics say that they simply don't know if God exists or not; hence, no claim is ever made.
This has been answered ad nauseum elsewhere. It is typically theist to want to force your definition onto others, rather than accepting theirs for themself. Theists do this all the time with their "there are no real atheists" nonsense, and this is just a continuation of that sort of thinking.
1). Agnosticism is a good logical position, but not a good religious stance. Every person of logic would say that we can't know for sure if God exists, but it would be laughably stupid to say "I dunno.." as a religious stance.
2). You are oversimplifying the issue. Atheists support their view of reality on evidence. We find no evidence of the Judeo-Christian God (or any God), so, we don't accept it. We aren't "positive" god doesnt exist, but where is the evidence? Nowhere.
Athesists would like us to believe that "Atheism" and "Agnosticism" are somehow synonymous. It's like a duck trying to bark like a dog. No one said Agnocticism is a religious belief; however, any logical and reasonable person can't deny the fact that Atheism IS a belief system. Atheists can whine and cry all they want, but a duck is a duck and a dog is a dog. Atheism is not synonymous with Agnosticism. Call yourself whatever you want, but just don't try to keep one foot on each side of the fence
Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. (Jeremiah 2:27)
"War is upon us, and all our friends: a war in which only the use of the Ring would give us surety of victory. It fills me with great sorrow and great fear; for much shall be destroyed and all may be lost." Gandalf, from The Fellowship of the Ring.
Now that's a book worth quoting. What ZigZag has quoted is Bronze Age mythology - Tolkien's 20th Century mythology is an infinitely better and more moral story.
I find it really insulting knowing you gave Him a book that bashes religion,but you didn't give Him "Creation's Tiny Mystery" which clearly says how evolution is wrong. It's like saying to a prisoner Your choice is either plead guilty or get killed and honestly for the sake of the argument, say there is a hell and you converted someone to atheism and you see them in hell screaming and crying, and it flashes back to you you converted him, if you don't fill remorse for him you should burn in hell.
I'm sorry but I don't understand your analogy and your point, please clarify it.
Of course I would feel remorse if my friend ended up in hell (at least in part) because of me. Honestly though I don't think I would have made any difference to that, I just gave him clarity.
What is the imaginary line between macro and micro evolution? Evolution is genetic change. There is no "magic stop line", and the evolution of new species has not only been observed in single-celled organisms within the past 50 years, but in every type of plant and animal over the past millions. Are you unaware of what fossils are? Human fossils alone show speciation.
Curiously, the religious completely denied dinosaurs and evolution a mere 30 years ago - now they realise they are undeniable.
I asked for evidence of macro evolution and you cannot provide any. Yes, I know what fossils are. Did they talk to you and tell you that they evolved? Dinosours are specifically mentioned in the book of Job in the Bible, so not sure what religion you are refereing to, but these creatures are mentioned numerous times in the Bible as "Lavathion" and "monsters".
Dinosaurs in the bible? HA HA HA! When I was in school, my churchy friends were told "dinosaurs are fake" by their priests. In the last 20 years Xian fundies have stopped denying dinosaurs existed (even STUPID people can understand how fossils formed) and had to EVOLVE their religious beliefs. I'm in my 30s, and I've been alive while that shift in "orthodoxy" occurred. Go ahead, try and deny that. It's the same as finding the earth was round, disease wasn't caused by demons, etc, etc.
Congratulations on your first convert. Make sure you have your friend recite the statement of faith in Atheism, "There is no God but the Big Bang and evolution is its apostle."
If I make a claim that aliens do not exist, you would think I'm crazy, right? Why? Because I don't have proof to backup my assertion although there are far more believers in God than aliens.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb 11:1) Atheism is faith. You hope it's true, but you just can't prove it.
Atheism is not faith (belief without evidence). It is opinion based upon evidence. No atheist "hopes" atheism is true.
The non-existence of gods, and the falsity of all religions, is information that's been available for centuries. Atheism is not something requiring proof: however, god-claims do require proof they have failed to provide.
In contrast, with such a large number of solar systems, alien life is a logical possibility.
Your idiocy is very clear in your writings. You define faith as "belief without evidence". I agree, but then you say that "Atheism is not something requiring proof"; however, Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God. If you said Agnosticism does not require proof then I would agree with you since Agnosticism does not make a claim or belief statement either way. What makes Atheism so superior than all beliefs that it doesn't need proof??
Atheism is not belief in the non-existence of gods: it is the non-belief in the existence of gods, because no evidence has been provided for them.
Bald is not a hair colour. Not-collecting-stamps is not a hobby. Atheism is not a belief.
Atheism is not a belief, it is merely the acceptance of the world as it is. The proof for it is the same as the proof for a-unicornism and a-leprechaunism - that there is no proof for Yahweh, Thor, Zeus, or any other human god. So why pretend otherwise?
"Atheism is not a belief, it is merely the acceptance of the world as it is"
This statement helps me make my point. As an Atheist, you make the assumption that you know the world "as it is", but how do you know for sure? Have you looked in every single part of the world to see that there is no God or even that there is no unicorns? Your Atheism requires assumptions or a leap of faith since you cannot know for sure; hence, you are a believer in Atheism.
Dream on. Your argument is the "onus of proof" fallacy? Yawn.
You agree with me that your god is in the same category as Zeus, Thor, Isis, leprachauns, unicorns, and trolls? It is not my job to disprove any of these fictional things - it's yours to prove yours.
Atheism requires no leap and no faith - that is what believe in your parents' god requires. Your god does nothing, says nothing - acts EXACTLY like everything else that doesn't exist.
You fail to grasp a basic logical point which I made to you in several different ways. I will try one more time and if you still fail to grasp it, I will give up on you. point: Any claim requires proof whether belief or non belief. I was using the unicorn as an example. Being a logical person, I know I cannot make a claim that unicorns do not exist because there is no way for me to prove it. It is so much more difficult to say the same thing about God considering the amount of evidence.
Thank you for finally admitting that asking for disproof of nonexistent things is impossible. The evidence your god Yahweh is identical to that for unicorns - anecdotal fairy tales. Oh course, adults cling to religion because of their fear of death.
"Grasp,", "logic" etc. Your misunderstanding and misuse of such terms is why you cling to a religion that other intelligent people in all "western" nations have either abondoned or are in the process of abondoning.
Lol. Yeah Dawkins definitely deserves a lot of the credit. I did talk to my friend about it quite a bit though. Then again, I wouldn't be identifying as an atheist myself today if it weren't for Dawkins.
Everyone is born without religion but being an atheist is more than that.
To be an atheist you actually have to refuse the belief of the existence of Gods, and usually this also means believing there are no Gods. People are not born with that.
I'm in the process of making a video explaining this. I should have it uploaded by Tuesday.
Kudos!
julzabro 3 years ago
People should learn that science is the law of the universe. The supernatural (religion) is all a lie and doesnt exist.
mitchewawa2 3 years ago
You're just way off beam with your comments re the definition of the word atheist.
The prefix 'a' denotes being without. e.g Asymmetrical means without symmetry, asexual means reproducing without sex. amoral means without morals - unaware or indifferent to right and wrong.
Babies certainly are atheists. It is the default position. (they're amoral too!)
It is a strictly religious perspective to consider 'denying the existence of gods' to be equivalent to 'denying the gods'.
neuronstorm 3 years ago
Atheists are just as illogical and annoying as any other followers of any other religion.
Plus, they get offended to easily. There was once a statue of the ten commandments put up at a courthouse and it had to be removed because it "offended" people. If atheism is really logical and so far "above" religious conviction, why the hell do they get offended by statues?
mmysama 3 years ago
Separation of church and state?
SonicPsycho 3 years ago 2
hahaha you so just owned mmysama
Mozza314 3 years ago
There's nothing wrong with you finding atheists annoying, but illogical, why? The main thing I want to point out is your implication that atheism is a religion. Even if atheism is the belief that there is no god (and I happen to support this case), it is NOT a belief system and thus not a religion. I like this analogy-
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour.
Mozza314 3 years ago
Is is possible to scientifically prove the existence or non existence of a god? (Think Carefully, and remember that Most Christians today Accept the scientifically known age of the universe and evolution.)
Plus, is'nt an athiest complaining about a statue akin to a bald man complaining about local barbershops being replaced by hair salons?
mmysama 3 years ago
No. What you're saying is akin to the complaint about not having absolute certainty. It's a red herring because we can't be absolutely certain about ANYTHING. How is this relevant to this exchange anyway?
And no, the complaints are not alike, because an atheist would not complain about such a statue inside a church. But having such a statue in a courthouse is a blatant violation of church and state.
Mozza314 3 years ago
So, because you don't like some decor, you find legal grounds on which to have it removed?
mmysama 3 years ago
Well, somewhat. It's not like finding a legal technicality though, I don't live in the US, but if I did, I would want to see the secularity of its government maintained.
Mozza314 3 years ago
But, putting up a statue has no affect on how the government is run or how laws are enforced. If you want to see secularity maintianed would you not be more converned with actualy lawmaking or judgement? Why worry about decorations that have absolutely nothing to do with how the government is run?
mmysama 3 years ago
But the statue implies that those are the laws everyone has to live by. It's still a violation, but of course that's not to say it's the most important thing to be concerned about.
Mozza314 3 years ago
So, did this court try to ratify the ten commandments into state law?
mmysama 3 years ago
I assume not.
Mozza314 3 years ago
So, what was the problem? Do you people rally against interior decor because you are so logical and scientific?
mmysama 3 years ago
Look, have I said anything about getting mad about this? Have I said anything about organising protests and rallying in the streets? No. A statue of the ten commandments in a courthouse is not a big deal, but it is grounds to make some kind of complaint because it is a violation of church and state.
If the statue was in the context of some kind of display of all kinds of different moral beliefs from different cultures, that would be great, but to single out one religion and give it special...
Mozza314 3 years ago
... treatment is a violation of church and state. You *know* this, what don't you understand about that?
Mozza314 3 years ago
@mmysama Because then they will say, well we have the 10 commandments statue in the court house why not make it law. There is no blured line between secularism. Church and state are seperate no matter what that includes decorations and law.
DemonAMVs 1 year ago
Atheism is a belief that bows down to evolution although evolution doesn't even explain the origins of life itself. It assumes that life somehow evolved from matter which is totally absured. Atheism is an illogical cult that requires its believers to have some arrogance to not be able to think rationally, but to choose to believe in what they cannot prove, but think that this belief is somehow a "default" or superior belief than any other belief system.
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
Atheism is not a belief. It is the non-accptance of the false beliefs of others.
Evolution is the explanation of how life changes through time. It doesn't claim to explain the origin of life (Straw Man argument fallacy). Chemistry does that.
Humans have used electricity to create life from matter. Get a subscription to Omni or Science, and stop spouting untruths from ignorance.
It must be hard to fit so many ignorant falsehoods into 500 characters, but you pull it off every time.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Did you just say, "Humans have used electricity to create life from matter."?
Umm..."Frankenstein" was a science fiction movie (not sure if you realize that)!? If you have evidence that "life" (living organisms) was created Frankenstein style, I would love to see the reference!!
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
Check out the video by "Turpis Heraeticum called something like "the origin of life made easy" on my "my favourites" page. Or subscribe to Omni. Or buy a first year university biology text.
Scientific knowledge is so complex that new information is the realm of those with highly specialised knowledge. You and I have a hard time getting access to it, let alone understanding it all. However, just because you are unaware that humans have figured something out doesn't mean we haven't.
seathanaich 3 years ago
I am aware of the Miller experiment that used an intelligently controlled environment to attempt to create living organisms. It turned out to be a great failure by only creating a tar like compound composed of a few amino acids--something that is not too difficult to create, but they were never able to create a living organism or even a protein.
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
You are familiar with the steps required in making life. Yet you pretend that evolution can't be true, because although it explains how life changes, it doesn't explain its origin.
Since you're interested in all this, you probably know that the explanation of life is the study of biogenesis, not evolution. So, are you pretending not to know the difference, to confuse less intelligent theists reading this; or are you genuinely unaware of the difference?
seathanaich 3 years ago
Umm...if evolution doesn't try to explain the origins of life then why do so many Atheists use evolution as "proof" for their belief?
Also, can you explain to me how the genetic information increased through the process of evolution?
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
Repetition of straw man arguments indicates that you are not genuinely interested in answers to your questions.
Evolution explains how life changes with the passage of time. Biogenesis studies the origins of life.
Atheism is not a belief.
I'm not a biochemist, I don't know off-hand how genetic information increased through evolution. If you're interested in this, start surfing the internet and you'll find out.
Stop being a typical theist, and asking others to think for you.
seathanaich 3 years ago
"Stop being a typical theist, and asking others to think for you."
As a typical Atheist, you are under the assumption that Atheism and evolution are correct, and it's upto theists to prove otherwise. If you can't answer a simple question challenging your belief in evolution and you don't want to critically think about the question, but just toss it back as being my burden to defend evolution for you then that shows you are a blind believer in atheism and the theory of evolution.
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
Your comment is nonsense. You have not been asked to defend something you don't accept (or understand).
Ask a simple question, if you claim to be doing so. If the answer is already available, then go find it, rather than pretending it doesn't exist - unless you are not really interested in the answer, and, as I have already pointed out, are only interested in perpetuating lies for less-intelligent third parties that may read these comments.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Your understanding of terms and ideas is weak.
Evolution requires no blind belief. Atheism requires no blind belief. They require is understanding. Historical perspective too mabye. Like medicine. And agriculture. And Gravity. And Atomic Theory.
Your attempts to equate things that aren't equated displays lack of understanding.
You also apparently need to learn the difference between how science treats the word hypothesis (unproven idea) and theory (proven hypothesis).
seathanaich 3 years ago
Sorry, seathanaich, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you once again. A theory is not technically a "proven" hypothesis. Science does not speak of proof - only evidence. Mathematics is the only area we can get PROOF.
I suspect you know this and just misspoke. I have to give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't think ALL atheists are dumb. (Unfortunately, most DO have blind faith in evolution against all evidence though.)
bestvalue 3 years ago
There is no course called "Atomic Law." There is, however, Atomic Theory, taught in every university. Atomic Theory, though proven, will never graduate to "Atomic Law". Nor does it need to.
The same applies to Germ Theory, the Theory of Gravity, etc. Theists don't rail against these theories, because they have already reconciled their religion with them. It's just the reality of biology they can't accommodate.
So no, I didn't "mispeak" - just using "theory" the way science does.
seathanaich 3 years ago
I understand all that. What I meant was that you referred to a "theory" as a "proven hypothesis." Nothing in science is ever "PROVEN." We speak of "evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt."
Here, let me show you:
"There is no 'evidence' for MACROevolution - only MICROevolution."
or
"The evidence for God can be demonstrated 'beyond reasonable doubt.'"
See how easy that was? ;^) (Just screwing with you again. Atheist hate logical arguments.)
bestvalue 3 years ago
Theists invented "micro" evolution to stop the loss of those who can no longer reconcile church dogma with scientific reality.
Atheists (please use lower case "a", we're not a cult) hate logic? Logic is what is killing religion in educated societies. We love it.
Your inability to understand what "reasonable doubt" is is evident from your example.
Canada has crossed the 25% mark for people who don't believe in gods. The USA lags at 18%, but at least you're on the right path.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Oh, come on seathanaich. Theists DID NOT invent "micro" evolution. I have proven that elsewhere on another video. (Be careful. Your ignorance is showing.)
I only used an Uppercase "A" for Atheist at the start of a sentence. (Call me a stickler for grammar.)
How did I use "reasonable doubt" incorrectly?
And oh, by the way - I'm from Canada too. I actually think we'd get along quite well if we knew each other. We both appreciate reason and logic. Imagine that coming from a theist.
bestvalue 3 years ago
Theists use micro/macro as if it were a divider; scientists as a continuum. Your usage was invented by evolution deniers.
Of course we'd get along. My best friend = fundy Baptist.
You're right about the capital a.
We all use logic in some of our activities. If everyone applied it to religion, like they do to rival religions and other elements of daily life, religion would die more quickly.
Reasonable doubt is when lots of evidence exists, not no evidence.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Ah, you see that's where we differ. I think there IS plenty of evidence for any reasonable, rational thinking and non-biased person. You lose credibilty when you say there is no evidence. That's like me saying there is no evidence for evolution. I don't say that. I say the evidence that we have points to small changes. I'm not willing to make the leap of logic to say that "micro equals macro - just give it time." That's a Darwin-of-the-Gaps argument.
bestvalue 3 years ago
All current experimentation and observation leads to the conclusion that MACROevolution just does not happen. I'll gladly change my mind if I'm proven wrong. But I haven't seen it yet (and I've done a lot of research). I think it takes looking at the evidence critically and asking yourself "what have they REALLY proven here and what are they claiming to have proven." I used to believe in evolution until I critically examined the evidence.
bestvalue 3 years ago
The fossil record shows the creation of new species. You either get it, or you chose not to get it due to religious reasons. This is about understanding, not evidence. The theists who accept evolution are those able to separate biogenesis from evolution, and understand the difference. Really, it's not rocket science. Even atheists that aren't very bright don't have a problem figuring out evolution; yet many intelligent theists do, so intelligence isn't the obstacle. Religion is.
seathanaich 3 years ago
The fossil record is an embarrassment for evolution. No informed evolutionist uses it as evidence because he knows it doesn't support his theory. Yes, we HAVE observed speciation - breed a donkey and a horse and you get a mule - a new species. But that is NOT MACROevolution. It actually hurts your case. Every example of speciation demonstrates a loss of genetic information, not a gain. That's a prediction Creationists would make. Darwinists would not. One point for our side - the side of reason.
bestvalue 3 years ago
Is your knowledge of biology from creationist handouts from cults like the Jehovahs Witnesses? Seriously! If you read anything even remotely mainstream, maybe a science magazine or high school text book, you will discover that your fixation with denying fossils, evolution, and biology is shared only by, well, morons. Among educated people this isn't even debated. Are you still insisting the earth is flat, too?
seathanaich 3 years ago
Much of what is written in high school biology textbooks has been discredited - in some cases over 100 years ago. I'm not denying anything. Ever heard of Stephen Jay Gould? Punctuated Equilibrium? That hypothesis (not theory) was concocted to cover up for the spotty fossil record. I'm quoting Darwinists who often say in debates that no one relies on the fossil record as evidence for evolution. The Bible predicts a spherical Earth. The notion that theists thought the Earth was flat is a myth.
bestvalue 3 years ago
Okay, so without directly answering my simple question, you've answered it. Your information on biology DOES come from 4 page handouts from the Jehovah's Witnesses.
If "much" of high school biology text info had been discredited, it would be removed. That's the beauty of a process that seeks truth - it's self-correcting. Unlike apology for dogma. Any other conspiracy theories you want to publicly endorse?
Let me guess, you were home schooled.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Sorry, sea. None of the above is correct. Not Jehovah's Witness. Not home schooled. And not self-correcting.
Ken Miller's biology textbook still has Haeckel's faked drawings that were discredited in 1874 and many textbooks still push the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" idea. Miller has refused to take it out even though all evolutionists now know it is wrong.
bestvalue 3 years ago
I like the "evolutionists" smear. Really clever. Unfortunately, innaccurate like everything else you have written. Nobody worships evolution, though I can understand why the theist can't comprehend a world without worship. No, understanding evolution is no different than understanding plate techtonics. It's only religious dogmatists that choose not to understand modern biology, and we all know why.
seathanaich 3 years ago
I'm using the term "evolutionist" to differentiate between those who accept MACROevolution and those who don't. It has nothing to do with worship and I didn't intend it as a smear. Sorry if I offended you.
I wouldn't be offended if you called me a creationist. In fact, it's possible to be both a creationist AND an evolutionist (theistic evolutionist). I just think those that are, haven't examined the evidence. If they do, they usually end up rejecting MACROevolution. It happened to me.
bestvalue 3 years ago
Fair enough.
So, what evidence did you reject? Embryology, the study which shows the steps that all vertebrates go through, and which illustrates that all came from the same early vertebrate ancestor? The fossil record, which consists of bones so old they have turned into stone? The animal kingdom, with related species everywhere? Or did you even study any of these things?
These things are all more fascinating than the reliance upon unexplained magic that religion offers.
seathanaich 3 years ago
I just proved that the evidence from embryology was proven wrong in 1874 yet they still teach it and apparently YOU still believe it. (Thanks for proving my point.)
Fossils can be created very quickly - less than 100 years in the right conditions. I can prove that too.
A "species" is a man-made, faulty construct. Dogs and wolves are different species but shouldn't be because they can interbreed and create fertile offspring.
bestvalue 3 years ago
Embryology isn't disproven; get a high school text book, and look at the pictures. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't stick their fingers in their ears and repeat "I'm not listening" over and over again.
It appears your creationist propaganda dates from 1874. Are all of your opinions based upon information that is over a century out of date? Since your religion is 2000 years out of date, that would be consistent. I can't imagine what it's like to feel so threatened by modernity and knowledge.
seathanaich 3 years ago
That's my point. It's still in the textbooks after being proven wrong in 1874 which I proved already. I don't know if you are in denial or intentionally lying but your attitude is really getting old.
You seriously need to open your mind like I did and examine the evidence critically. It is YOU who is putting your fingers in your ears like an infant and repeating "I'm not listening" over and over again.
You have demonstrated the very definition of "BLIND FAITH."
bestvalue 3 years ago
You have made public your stupidity by parroting creationist propaganda that is 135 years old, and as obsolete as your religion.
All you have "proved" is your inability to differentiate between good and bad sources of information; and that religion forces people to do this.
All you seem capable of doing is accusing others of your own failings. I've already named this debating tactic. It's called mirroring. It's ironic that, to insult me, you label me with the failings of your own dogma.
seathanaich 3 years ago
"Creationist propaganda that is 135 years old?" What the hell are you talking about? It's not "creationist" propangada. It's about Haeckel, an evolutionist, and his recapitulation theory - disproven 135 years ago. And all modern scientists know it. Yet you apparently still believe it. That should tell you something.
bestvalue 3 years ago
Wow. So, a hypothesis was disproven. Over a century ago. Thanks for the cutting-edge update.
Here's a newsflash. That's how science works. I haven't mentioned the word "recapitulation" once, and neither have you. We were discussing "embyology". Feel free to google it.
Just to keep you up with "current" events, Newton's Law of Gravity was replaced by Einstein's Theory of Relativity about a century ago. I know you and the Fundy Think-tanks will need a little time to digest that.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Are you even checking out this evidence I present? It doesn't come from creationists. Your lack of knowledge and unwillingness to examine the evidence by parroting Dawkins and the like is making YOU look stupid. I'm sure you've got too much pride invested to admit you are wrong. But those who understand and appreciate reason will see the truth.
bestvalue 3 years ago
I've twice asked you to provide sources or links, and even invited you to do so by sending me a longer email. You have done none of these things.
FYI, eminent biologist Richard Dawkins is respresentative of the entire academic world. He is only labelled stupid by theists who fear what his works have done to further erode the ranks of their co-religionists. In the UK the majority now reject god-belief because of the good work of educators and scientists like Dawkins.
Yawn. More mirroring.
seathanaich 3 years ago
You should know all this stuff if you've studied evolution. Oh yeah, that's right. They don't teach the evidence against evolution because they want kids to have blind faith. If the public knew how little evidence their really was, scientists would lose their funding.
The evidence you're naming proves you haven't done any research. Otherwise, you'd know even most Darwinists don't agree with the evidence you're presenting because it was proven wrong years ago. You've bought into a LIE.
bestvalue 3 years ago
They don't teach the "evidence" against evolution because there is none. In the Dover court trial Catholic Kenneth Miller crushed Behe's "evidence" to the satisfaction of a conservative Christian judge. Open-minded Christians can understand evolution when required to study it objectively.
The best "evidence" that could be provided by creationists failed completely in US court.
You still haven't addressed your lies about religious persecution of those who said the earth was round.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Your comments on one of Kenneth Miller's text books is obviously from a creationist web site. You can provide the link if you want me to check it out; but, having seen the "scholarship" displayed by such sites umpteen times already, it can probably be dismissed without even being viewed. But I'll humour you if you provide a link to your source. Assuming it's not a Jehovah's Witness pamphlet.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Science is supposed to be self-correcting but unfortunaely, it doesn't always work that way.
Scientists are flawed like all human beings and sometimes cannot let go of a theory even when the evidence fail to support it because of their philosphical presuppositions. I have plenty of evidence to support this in relation to Darwinism from Darwinists themselves so it's not just a conspiracy theory (technically hypothesis). What have you got?
bestvalue 3 years ago
Scientists "cannot let go of a theory even when the evidence" fails? Actually, the opposite is true. Newton's Law of Gravity was superceded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity, etc, etc a thousand times in every field of study.
In contrast, the dogamatic mind (whether in religion or politics) is the one that clings to hypotheses that have been proven false. Like, oh, creationism.
The thing is that a truly scientific mind doesn't reject science when it disproves dogma.
seathanaich 3 years ago
"The notion that theists thought the Earth was flat is a myth."
Then why did the Christian Church burn, kill, muzzle, and imprison people for suggesting that the earth was round, IN CONTRAST to both Biblical quotes and Church dogma? Some myth.
Your ability to lie so blatantly to rationalise your religious beliefs is amazing, but hardly unique. The lies that are required to continue the origin lie of religious belief just seem to spiral out of control, to the outside observer.
seathanaich 3 years ago
"Your ability to lie so blatantly..."
On the contrary, it's theists who would likely have an aversion to lying because they believe in moral absolutes. Therefore, lying is wrong.
Atheists, however, know lying is wrong (God has written it on their hearts) but will do so if the end justifies the means.
Understand, I'm not saying atheists can't be moral (many are more moral than some theists). They just have no justification for morality. It's all relative (which is self-refuting, BTW).
bestvalue 3 years ago
No, many theists are quite prepared to lie to prop up their belief system. You have done so here, and completely avoided answering my question about the historical persecution by Christianity of those who said the earth was round.
Your tactic of projecting the flaws in your position (ie lying) onto your opponents is a tactic called 'mirroring'. Unfortunately, when it is exposed it can completely discredit both you and your position to any third parties reading these posts.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Why must atheists insist on resorting to ad hominem attacks such as "flat earth" nonsense and "dark ages" and such? If you're so confident about your position, provide some evidence. That's why the theists win the debates because they don't stoop to that level. They don't have to because logic reason and evidence is on their side.
bestvalue 3 years ago
The fact that the comparison is not one that you like doesn't render it invalid. Pretending it's an ad hominen attack when it's an appropriate analogy is illogical.
Provide some evidence of what?
What debate do theists win? I'm waiting to see one.
Your comments have degenerated to claims that you have logic and evidence, yet you demonstrate neither. Your god remains a figment of your imagination, and you do not take me up on my offer for you to provide evidence by direct email.
seathanaich 3 years ago
I thought I was going to be able to reason with you but I guess I was wrong. The best kind of evidence is when a hypothesis makes predictions that turn out to be valid and correspond with reality. Give me specific predictions Darwinism makes that correspond with evidence for MACROevolution.(Don't bother to include any that count for MICROevolution.)
I'll give you some that Christianity makes that correspond with reality as well. Let's see who can come up with the most. Betcha I win. Go.
bestvalue 3 years ago
Okay, provide one piece of evidence. I've yet to have one presented to me that's persuasive, despite an interest and a lot of reading on the subject. Email me personally, if you want to, because this is a serious proposal, not grandstanding for third parties.
seathanaich 3 years ago
"Okay, provide one piece of evidence. Email me personally, if you want to."
Will do. Give me a few days. Very busy right now. But I wanted to answer personally and in depth because I want to respond to some very interesting ideas you brought up in your letter. Thanks for that, by the way. I was touched (and not in the Catholic priest kinda way, if y'know what I mean.)
bestvalue 3 years ago
Hey, seathanaich. BestValue here. We discussed the definition of faith on another video. You'll recall that you tried to change the dictionary definition of faith by calling it "belief without evidence." (You'll also recall that I proved you wrong.)
But since you like dictionaries, the same dictionary I referred to (Oxford) calls atheism "the belief that God does not exist."
So, of course, atheism is a belief. Every negation confirms its opposite. It's a law of logic. Sorry, buddy.
bestvalue 3 years ago
"Atheism is not a belief. It is the non-accptance of the false beliefs of others"
If only I can get a dollar for every time I heard/read an Atheist say that. It really shows the shallow and sometimes lack of logic of most Atheists. I've been able to explain this to a few Atheists who later admitted that they were actually Agnostics. Let me try to explain this to you as simple as I can. Atheism makes a claim that states, "God does not exist". Theists also make a claim that states, "God exists"
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
No matter what the claim, nevertheless, it is a claim. When you make a claim and cannot provide evidence for it, then believing in such a claim will be solely based on faith. If I made a claim that aliens do not exist then I would be making a claim based on faith since I wouldn't be able to provide evidence for such. The same goes for anything else. Agnosticsm, however, is very different from Atheism as Agnostics say that they simply don't know if God exists or not; hence, no claim is ever made.
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
This has been answered ad nauseum elsewhere. It is typically theist to want to force your definition onto others, rather than accepting theirs for themself. Theists do this all the time with their "there are no real atheists" nonsense, and this is just a continuation of that sort of thinking.
seathanaich 3 years ago
A few points:
1). Agnosticism is a good logical position, but not a good religious stance. Every person of logic would say that we can't know for sure if God exists, but it would be laughably stupid to say "I dunno.." as a religious stance.
2). You are oversimplifying the issue. Atheists support their view of reality on evidence. We find no evidence of the Judeo-Christian God (or any God), so, we don't accept it. We aren't "positive" god doesnt exist, but where is the evidence? Nowhere.
HegAndCapGood 3 years ago
Athesists would like us to believe that "Atheism" and "Agnosticism" are somehow synonymous. It's like a duck trying to bark like a dog. No one said Agnocticism is a religious belief; however, any logical and reasonable person can't deny the fact that Atheism IS a belief system. Atheists can whine and cry all they want, but a duck is a duck and a dog is a dog. Atheism is not synonymous with Agnosticism. Call yourself whatever you want, but just don't try to keep one foot on each side of the fence
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. (Jeremiah 2:27)
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
"War is upon us, and all our friends: a war in which only the use of the Ring would give us surety of victory. It fills me with great sorrow and great fear; for much shall be destroyed and all may be lost." Gandalf, from The Fellowship of the Ring.
Now that's a book worth quoting. What ZigZag has quoted is Bronze Age mythology - Tolkien's 20th Century mythology is an infinitely better and more moral story.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Please give me a good reason why I shouldn't mark this as spam.
Mozza314 3 years ago
i dont know if 'convert' is the proper word. when someone becomes an atheist, they merely stop being delusional. congrats anyway :)
ExDevoutChristian 3 years ago
Cheers, 'deconvert' (as has been suggested earlier) would have been better, oh well.
Mozza314 3 years ago
I find it really insulting knowing you gave Him a book that bashes religion,but you didn't give Him "Creation's Tiny Mystery" which clearly says how evolution is wrong. It's like saying to a prisoner Your choice is either plead guilty or get killed and honestly for the sake of the argument, say there is a hell and you converted someone to atheism and you see them in hell screaming and crying, and it flashes back to you you converted him, if you don't fill remorse for him you should burn in hell.
jrocksc01 3 years ago
Oh, what makes you think evolution is wrong?
I'm sorry but I don't understand your analogy and your point, please clarify it.
Of course I would feel remorse if my friend ended up in hell (at least in part) because of me. Honestly though I don't think I would have made any difference to that, I just gave him clarity.
Mozza314 3 years ago
"Oh, what makes you think evolution is wrong?"
Micro evolution is fact; however there is no evidence WHATSOEVER to prove that macro evolution ever happened. Do you have such evidence?
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
What is the imaginary line between macro and micro evolution? Evolution is genetic change. There is no "magic stop line", and the evolution of new species has not only been observed in single-celled organisms within the past 50 years, but in every type of plant and animal over the past millions. Are you unaware of what fossils are? Human fossils alone show speciation.
Curiously, the religious completely denied dinosaurs and evolution a mere 30 years ago - now they realise they are undeniable.
seathanaich 3 years ago
I asked for evidence of macro evolution and you cannot provide any. Yes, I know what fossils are. Did they talk to you and tell you that they evolved? Dinosours are specifically mentioned in the book of Job in the Bible, so not sure what religion you are refereing to, but these creatures are mentioned numerous times in the Bible as "Lavathion" and "monsters".
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
Dinosaurs in the bible? HA HA HA! When I was in school, my churchy friends were told "dinosaurs are fake" by their priests. In the last 20 years Xian fundies have stopped denying dinosaurs existed (even STUPID people can understand how fossils formed) and had to EVOLVE their religious beliefs. I'm in my 30s, and I've been alive while that shift in "orthodoxy" occurred. Go ahead, try and deny that. It's the same as finding the earth was round, disease wasn't caused by demons, etc, etc.
seathanaich 3 years ago
HOW DARE YOU YOU DISGUSTING BLASPHEMING HEATHEN
lol, jk...
RocketMichael1892M 4 years ago
Congratulations on your first convert. Make sure you have your friend recite the statement of faith in Atheism, "There is no God but the Big Bang and evolution is its apostle."
zigzagzoo12 4 years ago
You really don't think you can be an atheist without faith? Why is that?
Mozza314 4 years ago
If I make a claim that aliens do not exist, you would think I'm crazy, right? Why? Because I don't have proof to backup my assertion although there are far more believers in God than aliens.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb 11:1) Atheism is faith. You hope it's true, but you just can't prove it.
zigzagzoo12 4 years ago
ZigZag. Time for a lesson in rational thought.
Atheism is not faith (belief without evidence). It is opinion based upon evidence. No atheist "hopes" atheism is true.
The non-existence of gods, and the falsity of all religions, is information that's been available for centuries. Atheism is not something requiring proof: however, god-claims do require proof they have failed to provide.
In contrast, with such a large number of solar systems, alien life is a logical possibility.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Your idiocy is very clear in your writings. You define faith as "belief without evidence". I agree, but then you say that "Atheism is not something requiring proof"; however, Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God. If you said Agnosticism does not require proof then I would agree with you since Agnosticism does not make a claim or belief statement either way. What makes Atheism so superior than all beliefs that it doesn't need proof??
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
Atheism is not belief in the non-existence of gods: it is the non-belief in the existence of gods, because no evidence has been provided for them.
Bald is not a hair colour. Not-collecting-stamps is not a hobby. Atheism is not a belief.
Atheism is not a belief, it is merely the acceptance of the world as it is. The proof for it is the same as the proof for a-unicornism and a-leprechaunism - that there is no proof for Yahweh, Thor, Zeus, or any other human god. So why pretend otherwise?
seathanaich 3 years ago
"Atheism is not a belief, it is merely the acceptance of the world as it is"
This statement helps me make my point. As an Atheist, you make the assumption that you know the world "as it is", but how do you know for sure? Have you looked in every single part of the world to see that there is no God or even that there is no unicorns? Your Atheism requires assumptions or a leap of faith since you cannot know for sure; hence, you are a believer in Atheism.
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
"This statement helps me make my point."
Dream on. Your argument is the "onus of proof" fallacy? Yawn.
You agree with me that your god is in the same category as Zeus, Thor, Isis, leprachauns, unicorns, and trolls? It is not my job to disprove any of these fictional things - it's yours to prove yours.
Atheism requires no leap and no faith - that is what believe in your parents' god requires. Your god does nothing, says nothing - acts EXACTLY like everything else that doesn't exist.
seathanaich 3 years ago
You fail to grasp a basic logical point which I made to you in several different ways. I will try one more time and if you still fail to grasp it, I will give up on you. point: Any claim requires proof whether belief or non belief. I was using the unicorn as an example. Being a logical person, I know I cannot make a claim that unicorns do not exist because there is no way for me to prove it. It is so much more difficult to say the same thing about God considering the amount of evidence.
zigzagzoo12 3 years ago
Thank you for finally admitting that asking for disproof of nonexistent things is impossible. The evidence your god Yahweh is identical to that for unicorns - anecdotal fairy tales. Oh course, adults cling to religion because of their fear of death.
"Grasp,", "logic" etc. Your misunderstanding and misuse of such terms is why you cling to a religion that other intelligent people in all "western" nations have either abondoned or are in the process of abondoning.
seathanaich 3 years ago
Good job, you brought somebody to the light side of the force. I hope the guy you converted to Atheism becomes an excellent Jedi.
Dharma2012 4 years ago
Not to detract from your achievement, but if you just gave your friend the Dawkins book then you didn't actually convert him did you.
Prof. Dawkins did.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all we had to do to rid the world of the mind disease of theism would be to give the theists copies of Dawkins work.
zybch 4 years ago
Lol. Yeah Dawkins definitely deserves a lot of the credit. I did talk to my friend about it quite a bit though. Then again, I wouldn't be identifying as an atheist myself today if it weren't for Dawkins.
Mozza314 4 years ago
hahah 02:00
"Just one of these things... I would like to CUM from these videos!"
Oh shit I honestly didn't hear anything else from all the laughter! lol hahaha, awsum dood
TAKENnameARGH 4 years ago
you will burn in hell for that lol
rachidizere 4 years ago
And you will burn in hell for not hunting me down and having me executed for it :P
Mozza314 4 years ago
Well done. You have done a great and good thing in liberating your friend. May you repeat this kindness throughout your life. 5*
tenneral 4 years ago 2
you cannot "become an atheist" everyone is born without religion
thats why the entire concept of religion is so futile
the majority of the "categorised" religious followers have based the beliefs that control their lives on other men's words.
i find it the most frightening thought..
anyways good videos! just saying you should not say you "became an athiest"
jamespearson 4 years ago
Of course you can become an atheist.
Everyone is born without religion but being an atheist is more than that.
To be an atheist you actually have to refuse the belief of the existence of Gods, and usually this also means believing there are no Gods. People are not born with that.
I'm in the process of making a video explaining this. I should have it uploaded by Tuesday.
Mozza314 4 years ago
Good on you!
Ghouma 4 years ago
WOW! you need a hobby
noelia1048 4 years ago
"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby. " Beautiful
ShayneHoff1 4 years ago 2
lol yeah... but don't give me the credit, I read it somewhere else. Not sure who originally said it.
Mozza314 4 years ago
Maybe referring to them as being enlightened.
klangsteiner 4 years ago
I would call them "deconverts"
Fletch6 4 years ago
De-converted? Deprogrammed?
No matter - it is wonderful you have been able to help someone think clearly.
askegg 4 years ago
I call them freed from religion.
Magusim 4 years ago 2
I love this approach to it. I think I'll use it as referring to myself as being freed from religion, although I've never had one.
solorzam 4 years ago 2
are your family athiests as well, or just you?
LovelyELK 4 years ago
Ummm... My mum and step-dad are atheists, so is my sister, not sure about my dad but I have a step-mum and step-sister who are both Christians.
Mozza314 4 years ago
hahaha, christians are funny
LovelyELK 4 years ago 2