The Failure of Atheism to Account for Rationality

[ihforever696]

Despite an argument you have clearly thought through well, you insult the viewers intelligence by discussing rational thought given your beliefs. I have no way of proving what I believe is right and/or what you believe is wrong, and nor do you. However I find it more rational to say "I don't know" than to claim I do and I feel no more need to justify myself for standing against your beliefs than I would if someone told me that clowns created the Universe.

[Autumn6]

You say anything about Atheism, you're like/dislike bar will be filled with red.

[FriendofDaishonin]

Furthermore, I get BETTER results internally(feeling "full" and not depressed, life is alive and full of meaning) by meditation than by "turning it over to God" and following the Bible to the letter. Why would I of all people EVER partake of the circus that is Christianity? Why would I be willing to raise my hands up and shout praises waiting for my life to improve when I could go meditate and feel a hell of a lot better than dealing with that zoo and in the process improve my life quicker?

[FriendofDaishonin]

We condemn all the Charles Mansons and David Koreshes of the world because they murder people, yet the patriarchs of Judaism abided by laws that allowed rape, child murder, genocide, racism, slavery, etc etc. So how were the patriarchs any different than people like Charles Manson?

[FriendofDaishonin]

Not to mention these people are so arrogant. They accuse us of being arrogant but when we use common sense to explain things, they arrogantly disregard common sense in favor of what the Psychiatric field would call(if someone claimed to hear god) if it happened today(IE Abraham, Noah, Saul, King David, etc etc) they would be labeled as schizophrenic or possibly having a delusional disorder combined with hallucinations.

[FriendofDaishonin]

The simple matter is that the ego of a Christian can't bear the though that they aren't special. It is so obvious when they ignore the glaring contradictions in their scriptures and lie about them doing mental gymnastics contradicting the very book they are trying to uphold. It is so pitiful that I friend of mine I had when I was a fundamentalist Christian told me I have no basis for morality. I explained my common sense morals and he IGNORED what I told him. It was a slap in the face.

[BrendanIsCool]

Is death really that scary to people that they defend fervently a magical desert spectre?

[LatinRockerx]

Using big words doesn't make you right.

[WorthlessSix]

Alright look. The laws of logic are not some independent scripture. They are incidental. Consequences of the universe. Physics and gravity create these laws, not the other way around. People wrote these laws. It's like what Freud did for psychology. The disorders he discovered didn't just NOT exist before he wrote about them. Freud just made them known and gave them labels. This is no different for logic.

I don't know why I bother explaining though. It's not like you'll listen.

[limpy601]

0:40 the law of excluding Lidl??

[cyberpup1000]

I must admit, the verbiage is impressive. I'm not really sure what it all has to do with not believing in a god mind you

[hab99rry]

I don't need to account for anything. Atheism is simply a disbelief in a god. Saying "we don't know" is more truthful than pretending to know from some ancient book.

[BraunBrothers]

"Truth comes ONLY from facts, not logic or philosophy." - highest rated comment.

Is that statement a universal truth? If not, why should we adhere to it? If so, can you back up that statement by proving it to be observable, verifiable, falsifiable, and repeatable?

I would be interested to see whether "ShadowSaberBaroxio" can back up his own statement.

[KnotL00]

Total self pwnage at 1:04

[FiverBeyond]

What the speaker of this video suggests as the "Law of the Excluded Middle" is ridiculous. Every statement is either true or false, eh? Great! Try this one on for size:

"This statement is false."

[FiverBeyond]

Logic is simply a construct... it's a set of axioms and rules that people agree upon before engaging in logical discussion. I am quite happy to agree that these foundations do not have any logical support themselves, and I think it silly to try to support logic with logic.

For this reason, Theists have no logical support for the rules of logic either.

[DiatonicSoul]

@FiverBeyond yes like we know the sky is blue, that is pretty simple to construct.

[atheistprophet5760]

You tell on yourself when you say "IF these universal laws change......"

In fact these universal laws DO NOT CHANGE, and no god is required for that.

You obviously do not understand how logic works. A rational statement is one that has the right form ie., that it is valid, and the premises must be sound. ie. they must be true. The forms are universal--they DO NOT change. Science is also dependent upon logic and the H-D method.

Mr. Slick--you need to take refresher course in logic.

[80095]

He is trying to get to u becaus u guys that argue prolly think that religion is an interesting topic. Well I think God is trying to speak to u through this.

[80095]

Have any of u atheists that have commented thought that God is trying to get to u through conversation of other people. J

[bestinfadel]

why would someone try so hard to prove there is no god , whats the point ,who gives a shit about wether its true or not ,believe or dont believe whats the problem , how sad spending all your time trying disprove religon , atheists seem to be more interested in religon than anyone else , people with faith really dont care and enjoy there lives .do something thats constructive

[bestinfadel]

the greatest scientists in the worlds history were all believers in a creator , and athiests love to quote tthem to lol, why would having a religon be irrational.

[gedediah]

Boy, you really tie yourself in knots in this video. Logic has no bearing on truth. Statements are accepted as true where there is evidence to support them. No truth claim can be absolutely proven one way or another (mathematical proofs for example are abstractions). Evidence is all we have.

[Hufflewaffle]

Its hard to understand what is being said here. If human minds are 'limited', 'different' and 'contradict each other', how can we even understand logical absolutes let alone agree on them?

[cuscardo]

who or what is "god"?

[Venaloid]

Statements can be true or false because they apply to the universe and to hypothetical situations that progress logically (keeping in mind that you passively accepted for the sake of argument that the other laws COULD be derived from the universe). If, however, you made up a hypothetical story that had no common ground with logic or the universe, then no statement about it could be said to be true or false.

[722marine]

@NWOSupporter2012 Who are you to pass judgment on God? And as far as The Big Bang, Evolutuion and Abiogenesis for that matter, all they have proven is far a man will let his imagination will take him in the hope of escaping the judgment of God. There are more holes in these theories than Detroit Lions defense.

[boootts]

@722marine But the Bible is completely imagination and billions have fallen for it, so since the science theories have some solid science knowledge behind them, why are they less believable?

[jarak36]

@Tobsy1981 everytime obama speaks he says nothing.

[benaberry]

white noise - shhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhh­hhshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhhhhshshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhs­hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh­hshhhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhs­hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhh­hhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhh­hhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhh­hhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhh­hhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhssss­sshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhh­hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhh­hhshhh

[AMN200768]

why is his printer next to the fishtank, thats illogical

[franky1901]

Hey Matt, is the statement "This statement is false" true or false?

[damaniseman]

Be nice if you could give an example. But we all know you won't because it will be ripped to schreds in a matter of moments.

[Hufflewaffle]

Atheism cannot account for anything. Atheism is not a worldview!!!, its simply a theist's term for describing someone who is intellectually neutral. Its a rejection of a moronic claim to knowledge without proof. Religious people are so wrapped up in finding a 'meaning' for everything that they miss the fact that many of us simply get on with experiencing life and expressing it in our own way.

These videos are pseudo-intellectual, patronizing nonsense

[symsee]

"Logic is of the mind" and "[logical] truth statements agree with reality", ergo logic is based in reality.

Logic is a formal language by which we reason without resorting to opinion, yet logical formalisms also encompass non-monotonic reasoning which are subject to revision.

Rationality and logic do not require a universal overmind, but rather evidence.

Can you not see that logic set in reality debunks the case for faith: there are NO grounded expressions or axioms for God's existence.

[jocylean]

What do you mean atheism can't "account" for rationality... its a product of the mind we have minds that can be "rational". If a rock was the only thing in the universe then a statement couldn't be said, thought, written down etc... so there wouldn't be logic, simple.

By the way who was the author of the law of non-contradiction?

[boootts]

Good grief!!!! How could someone supposedly so well educated be so absolutely wrong and confused? He commits one of the worse acts against logic by making the statement that absolute truths come from God. You don't defeat an atheist's logic by stating that they are illogical to make statements against what God says. For an atheist there is no God. Matt's rationale here is at about a kindergarten level or below.

[722marine]

@boootts Hi, just wanted to say I respectfully disagree with you. For the atheist there is a God, even though they don't believe that He exists, doesn't change the fact that He exists. I'm sure you would agree that any fact, or truth, or reality will remain so regardless of wether they are accepted or rejected.

[boootts]

@722marine Hi, certainly I agree completely with you that the truth remains so regardless of what people think about the truth. However, it also applies that a God that doesn't exist in reality, remains non-existent for both believers and non-believers, though I know from experience and observing others, that believing has its own set of 'benefits' even if they are imaginary. However 'evidence' or no evidence still favors the atheist position.

[722marine]

@boootts Hey! To say that God does not exist is to say that you have all knowledge, about all things, in all places, and we both know that that's not the case. I however can look at the collection of writings that we call the bible and independently analyze for myself wether or not there is any evidence to validate the bible. And there is an overwhelming amount of information found in archaeology, the writings of unbelievers,and in history books that authenticate the historicity of the bible.

[boootts]

@722marine Actually, that point is absolutely false and has been widely reported. Where did you get the information that there is lots of outside info to prove the Bible. Even many very devout and famous theologians claim we can only belief on faith, because we have no evidence at all. Do you really believe today that all humans would not now be following God and the Bible is someone had absolutely confirmed the stories in the Bible?

[boootts]

@boootts Sorry for a couple of spelling errors in the above. Hopefully they don't distort significantly what I was attempting to say.

[722marine]

@boootts You know like I do that people are stubborn and some people will oppose or disagree with you no matter what you say or show them. Some of the people who saw Jesus perform miracles with there own eyes were the same ones who plotted to kill Him.Matthew 12:10-14. Some just will simply not believe no matter what. Our faith is not a blind faith it is a faith based on evidences the primary of which is an encounter with the risen Lord :)

[boootts]

@722marine I have not yet met anyone that has actually encountered in person the risen Jesus. Stories of ancient people doing so are not verifiable.

[722marine]

@boootts You have encountered one, me! Just as sure as sure can get, I'm telling you the truth, that Jesus Christ is risen and I know Him personally. I don't care how it sounds to you, it is what it is. I am glad that I am saved because it is going to be a terrible thing to stand before God after He has reached to man for so long and to be rejected and laughed at, mocked, ridiculed and blasphemed He is not going to be in a good mood.

[boootts]

@722marine Besides you stating these things, can you show me evidence that I would understand, so that I would then understand? I am an university science graduate, with a IQ level of roughly 130, so I can probably understand most things that are obvious. That wasn't intended to elevate me, but rather as a reference so that you had some idea of my background. Perhaps I told you all that before.

[722marine]

@boootts You have an I.Q. of 130 and you can look a single strand of of human DNA, which has roughly 660,000 pages of information, and say that it formed itself. That it is a random act that just happened on it's own. Now look at the entire spectrum of known life and it's ecosystem and you still say that there is no God?

[boootts]

@722marine I am afraid that you are not going to find many people with high IQs who have beliefs in the unknown. Not saying there are none, but they wouldn't be common. Looking at a strand of DNA came a bit after my formal education, but referring to your question, there is no reason why looking at that should in any way make one assume that there is a God, except we have been indoctrinated for thousands of years that way. I am not suggesting that these things came about by random (cont)

[722marine]

@boootts I see, so people who are more intelligent, or have higher I.Q.'s are smart enough to know that there isn't such a stupid thing as God? Mostly dumb people believe in God? These are rhetorical questions or course because although you did specifically use these words they are no doubt implied. You know pride was the cause of satan's downfall. For every atheist scientist you can name I can name two who were theists in some way.

[boootts]

@722marine Certainly a higher IQ doesn't imply that a person will not believe in God, just that the level of thought process is somewhat related to the level of IQ plus education. If you have a 300 level IQ but no education at all, you will be rather limited in information with which to think about things. Only 5% of biological scientists believe in God - these the are the scientists that study life, which is sort of God's territory. Your second last sentence again beg the question (cont)

[boootts]

@722marine (cont) If God doesn't exist, which is the topic of our debate, then a comment about satan's downfall is irrelevant. I am assuming of course that you consider God and Satan as part of the same topic. Sort of the opposite ends of it so to speak. If God doesn't exist, I am assuming Satan doesn't either. Until we have both agree that God exists, something that God is responsible for is meaningless to the debae.

[boootts]

@722marine One of Matt Slicks greatest weaknesses is using the topic of logic to prove God, but he attempts to do so by using logical errors, I assume his thinking being that his opponent is not as smart as he is and thus won't catch on. I really can't offhand name a lot of well-known scientists; my 5% figure was taken from what several info references online give as the beliefs of biological scientists, but they were not named. The numbrs were based on a study or pool I assume. (cont)

[boootts]

@722marine (cont) If you want to get the numbers for atheists in all areas of science including those that don't delve into the origin of life at all, the the 5% figure is way low. I have seen much higher figures for general scientists believing in God. I think there is some significance though to only 5% of the scientists whose specialty is related to how life is formed would beleive in God. If one wants an opinion wouldn't it make most sense to get it from someone who does research in that.

[boootts]

@722marine (cont) but there is certainly no logical reason that as man discovers more and more about how things are made and how they function, that we would go further and further into the supernatural to explain them. Suggesting that God is the creator of this very complicated pattern of life, only provides one of likely billions of possible imagined explanations that one might arrive at. We need to hone our knowledge not our superstitions.

[722marine]

@boootts Your very good at averting my appeals to intellectual reasoning with stereotypical arguments of superstition, fairytales, and myths and every other pre- determined answer that you and other so called critical thinkers give. It's sad really. For you to even talk about "how things are made and how they function" is a contradiction to atheism. For something to be made and have function means that, that thing serves a purpose, and purpose means thought. God's thoughts are higher than man's.

[boootts]

@722marine Sorry if I appear to be one of a group that uses the stereotypical arguments, however what else should we use? The arguments beings used are valid. They follow the rules of logical reasoning. You state that you are appealing for intellectual reasoning. I am very open to that. One of the meanings of intellectual is: guided or developed by or relying on the intellect rather than upon emotions or feelings; rational. Can you show me how one is led to the conclusion that God exists?

[boootts]

@722marine (cont) To go from how material things that humans make on this earth, after millions of years of trial and error, trying out various things, and finally arriving at some ideas of how to build things, would hardly logically suggest that everything that there is in all of existence came about the same way. Even if we could agree on that it must prove a creator, what then leads us to think that this creator is the God of the Bible, rather than some gods of other man-made religions. (C

[boootts]

@722marine (cont) Without giving up what you personally believe, but just sitting it off to the side for purposes of discussion, does it not seem reasonable to you that man deciding that something that is made must have someone to make it seems reasonable, but it is a great leap of faith to suggest that the God that man some 4000 or so years ago imagined, is this creator, rather than some God imagined say 100,000 years ago? Or for that matter why would this power have to be a god at all? (con

[boootts]

@boootts This comment should say 'setting' rather than 'sitting'. The fingers and the brains are not always directly connected.

[boootts]

@722marine It seems that the argument of there must be a creator is attempting to describe God in terms of human attributes or characteristics. If this is such a terrific power, why would it have to function according to the way humans function at all? The argument by people like Slick (who in my mind is extremely lacking in common sense) is that there must be a mind behind everything and therefore that mind is God. Is that mind God because Matt Slick says so?

[722marine]

@boootts If Jesus were walking the Earth today many people would still not believe in Him or follow him. Just like back then many Jews and gentiles rejected him even though they saw the miracles first hand. Why, because people do not want to submit to Gods authority over their lives. ppl enjoy living in sin. Drunkenness, having sex outside of marriage, lusting,gettin high, being prideful, lying, cheating, stealing etc... Christ demands holiness and nobody wants it or Him, that's the bottom line

[boootts]

@722marine With 2000 years of knowledge about Jesus, and most western people at least having a background in Christianity, if Jesus was walking the Earth today, and He was able to verify himself, rather than some Jim Bakker claiming to be the second coming, many people would believe. Surely an entity with the power of God could present Himself in a manner that there would be no doubt about his authenticity. Of course, that isn't going to happen, so neither of us can prove our statements.

[boootts]

@722marine Obviously I don't have all knowledge about all things, nor does any other human. That amount of knowledge is likely more than one human could get into one brain in a lifetime. I however know that there is a total lack of evidence to support anything of a supernatural nature, written about or talked about in books such as the Bible and Quran. I also know that both the Bible and Quran have a lot of statements which believers accept as facts that have been 100% proved to not be true.

[722marine]

@boootts Your philosophy is still flawed because you say that God does not exist in reality, as though you know everything, about all things, everywhere and you don't. That fact that the universe even exists is evidence that there is a God. Life and it's sustaining environment, in all their complexities and it's orderly functions, point to the existence of a God. He is supreme in intellect and wisdom. Powerful beyond compare. How can the benefits be imaginary if they are evident to all?

[boootts]

@722marine I know 100% that you nor any other human can give me verifiable evidence of the existence of God, because such evidence has never been discovered before. I don't know everything obviously, but I do know the above statement is a true fact as is recorded in the world today, and is proved by the fact that the world as a whole does not have proof that God exists. Suggesting that what we do know exists is only feeding into the God of the Gaps theory which is false logic.

[stephe1987]

It's really funny how many high school and college students become atheists to suit their "free" agenda and to rebel against parents/society/etc. And then when they finally mature a bit, they end up believing in God again. Also, it's not religion that causes problems, it's the abuse and misinterpretation of religion.

[boootts]

@stephe1987 Actually I don't find that funny at all, but rather it is tragic. Yes, kids do rebel against their peers. That has always been the case in most situations. But reverting back to religion after you have looked at atheism is a sign that you were not an atheist to start with, but rather just rebelling. If the child does some research on his own and subsequently convinces himself that God does exist, then by all means go back to his religion, but how many do the research?

[Handsdown09]

@stephe1987 sure, it isnt religion...wait, christians are supposed to stone their wives to death if they find them not to be virgins on their wedding night, and lets not even get into Islam....but your right, it is only the misinterpretation right.....

[722marine]

@Handsdown09 Can you give me the scripture where it says that in the bible please, I would like to read it for myself.

[Handsdown09]

@722marine Deuteronomy 22:13-21

[722marine]

@Handsdown09 Thanks for the passage I just read it. Well just to clarify for you something about the bible that I think will help you understand it a lot better, there is something called dispensation. Dispensation means that God instituted certain things at certain times in history for His people. The breaking of certain laws within the "Law " given to Moses, was punishable by death. Christians are not under the Law of Moses, we are under grace, Jesus fulfilled the Law for us being perfect

[Handsdown09]

@722marine Unfortunately there exists a large body of christians who fail to interpret this like you have. This is what happens when you declare a book holy. People misconstrue it, interpret it in ways they shouldn't, do vile things in its name and embrace ignorance due to its comfort. That is not freedom my friend, and it is certainly not balance.

[boootts]

@722marine Do you think that a perfect God who was always perfect; not just gradually became that way with practice, would order man to stone their wives or sons in one period of history, then make an about change and just require that they accept Jesus as Savior a few thousand years later?

[boootts]

@722marine I don't off hand know the verse for the comment about stoning the wife, though I agree that the Bible does say that somewhere, but if you read Deuteronomy 21, you will see that God clearly commands parents to have their sons stoned to death, if the son becomes disrespectful to them, and neither of them are able to make him correct his behavior. I have to confess that I disobeyed that command when my son was young and for that he has become a doctor and has 5 kids.

[boootts]

@Handsdown09

Yes, both Christians and Muslims are disobeying a lot of what they are instructed to do.

[kyledavidbyron]

Come up with something new please. This argument is washed up.

[powerinstars6]

"Logic is based upon universal truth statements which we call laws of logic." I can't even agree with this statement. He's basically saying universal truth statements are laws of logic. (UT=LL) And universal truth statements are what logic is based off of. "For every action, there is opposite and equal reaction." That's universal truth statement. Laws of logic? He can't even account for why the aristotelian laws are the ONLY "universal truth statements" for logic and not others.

[Necro7777777]

@Tobsy1981 This is pretty much five minutes of "if a tree falls in the forest, and nothings around to hear it, does it make a sound?".

[ShadowSaberBaroxio]

Truth comes ONLY from the facts, not logic or philosophy. There are statements which can be neither true nor false, but these statements are irrational (i.e. blue sleeps faster than Wednesday is neither true nor false, but irrational). A rational statement is one that has the possibility of being true or false.

To be a Universal Truth a fact would have to be observable, verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable. That being said, Science is the ONLY road to REAL Truth, all else is just speculation.

[722marine]

@ShadowSaberBaroxio By your own statement your cannot except the Big Bang,Evolution (including punctuated equilibrium) nor Abiogenesis. Non of these supposed events has been observed or repeated therefore they are not verifiable. So really your version of science is just speculation isn't it?

[ShadowSaberBaroxio]

@722marine First of all, Big Bang Theory and Evolution Theory are accepted scientific theroies throughout the entire sceintific world. Even the church accepts and agrees with them. In fact, both theories were created by theists, so I don't know what you're talking about. Abiogenesis is not a thoery (yet) so thats also moot. Unlike the Bible, theories are always based on observable and verifiable evidence. For the Big Bang, look up the doppler effect and redshift. For Evolution, look up geneolgy.

[meeene4]

@ShadowSaberBaroxio Logic can be used to determine facts.

[HairyHu]

@ShadowSaberBaroxio Yes, logic cannot tell you what is true! That is the first and biggest mistake a lot of people make. Logic only able to infer things but it cannot tell it is true or not. e.g. P1 All pigs can fly. P2 Percy is a pig. QED Percy can fly. This is a perfectly correct logical statement. But, since P1 one is not true the inference that Percy can fly is not true also.

The proof that logic did not came from God is that it is NOT perfect! Why is it not perfect? Logical PARADOXES!

[youthrevival101]

@ShadowSaberBaroxio most the science is theory though? so yo like believe you came from a monkey? but its just a theory...

[prime440]

@ShadowSaberBaroxio averoes <defined logic as "the tool for distinguishing between the true and the false;therefore your statement that "Truth comes ONLY from the facts, not logic or philosophy."contradicts itself therefore making your statement irrational.

[MrFF39]

Can you scientifically prove that Science is the only road to real truth?

[OpenAirAtheist]

Logic describes the nature of reality. reality /existence is truth ,and truth statements are descriptions of reality . logic does not require god or gods .

[AppliedApologetics]

@ShadowSaberBaroxio - You can't have a universal truth which is observable unless you have universal experience. That would make you God. As you say, "all else is just speculation."

[NoneBeforeNoneAfter]

It is completely and totally illogical to say that at some point in the past there was Nothing. We must believe there was always something to even begin to make any logical assessment of Time Space and Matter and where it came from. To even begin to comprehend between Finite and Infinite that rule must be in effect. I like this guy because he always goes to the root of the problem. The root of Mans problem is Sin by the way. When there is no sin there is no problem. But there is alot of SIN.

[YurNotSpecial]

The metaphysical is not rational.

[tommyaceshow]

Massive FAIL - talking about a the Rock.. Atheism doesn't need to account for who created the universe you douche. Christianity provides an assumption upon Faith, not Fact. Atheism Works with Facts Alone, Logic & Science. There is no ability to debate this, you can either be mind fed this garbage and believe God is the answer to everything in your own arrogance or you can get educated by learning about the true age of the world, evolutionary traits & how we can ACT for Today.

Not Wait for death

[seanraybuck]

@tommyaceshow Faith in Christ is based on historical facts and logic, not blind faith. Jesus Christ existed in history, had over 500 eye witnesses, detailed description of his life and works, and that has everything to do with how we ACT for today. There is room to debate.

[rsxfreak03]

@seanraybuck 500 eyewitnesses? Where are their testimonies? It's nonsense to say their are eyewitnesses when these eyewitnesses have no testimony. Try doing that in a court of law. Say you have eyewitnesses, fail to provide their testimonies then demand this is evidence for the validity of your claim. Please try it. Let me know how that works out. Why do you need faith if you have facts? You do realize that is a contradiction?

[blagh9mm]

dude this guy is tarded

[NoneBeforeNoneAfter]

WHY? Because of what he says? If so what part? Is it because of his Faith? If so why?

[blagh9mm]

@NoneBeforeNoneAfter yes its what he says... you ask what part... all of it yes its his faith in religion... because faith is a disease it has caused most of the largest scale atrocities known to man the spanish inquisition the crusades men screaming god wills it as they slaughter by the thousands religious faith caused the slaughter of thousands of christians in the roman empire and the list goes on and on too many to name. "intelligent design" is an oxymoron no intelligence in killing

[NoneBeforeNoneAfter]

What many of those crusades did was against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Contrary to Christianity. Jesus Christ said "Love your Enemy and do good to those who persecute you". and "Take the BEAM out of your own eye before taking the mote that is in your borthers. Jesus Christ said "ALL are welcome at my fathers table" He defended a Prostitute saying "He that is without Sin may throw the first stone at her" and when everyone walked away he said.. "GO and sin no more"..

[ChevaliersEmeraude]

Althought I agree that Atheism fails to account for rationality, this video, in the end, also says that Christianism do not fail there. That is so false! They BOTH fail!

For a concept to be rational, it must be possible to demonstrate its validity throught logic. However, on BOTH sides, it is absolutely impossible to demonstrate the validity of atheism nor religious faith with logic. Which means neither really account for rationnality

But I don't like this video. Christianity=rational? LOL

[Entropy56]

You and Matt Slick conflate Logic with the Laws of Logic. Just as Christians would say it is absurd to ask the question, "why or how does God exist", is the same reason why it is absurd to ask why or how do the Laws of Logic exist. They are what they are and no mind is required for them to exist. Mind is only necessary to recognize what they are and to extrapolate from them logical statements. The Laws of Logic are not the same as Logic.  The Laws are transcendent but Logic is not.

[Entropy56]

ProudToBLoud said, "if there were no people tommorow [sic] on earth then nothing would still equal nothing and nothing would not equal everything, thus the laws of logic exist independent of man, and the atheist cannot provide an explanation for where these laws came from."

My response:

If there were no God tomorrow then nothing would still equal nothing, thus the laws of logic exist independent of God, and the theist cannot provide an explanation for where these laws came from."

[herbiepop]

If logic was absolute it would apply in all places at all times on all scales.

[herbiepop]

There are no 'logical absolutes'. We derive our logic from our manipulation of the material macroscopic world where causality appears to hold. However these 'laws of logic' do no apply on a quantum scale where a particle can behave as a wave and can be in many places at the same time and where notions such as the 'same' and 'different' cannot apply to individual particles where the arrow of time and causality do not apply in the the same way.

[Godlessons]

Well, unfortunately for you, that's what the evidence says. What evidence is there that it was created by a deity?

God tries very hard to cover his tracks it seems. It's rather odd that he would make everything look like there is no God necessary and yet punish people for believing there is no God. Kind of like pretending to throw a ball for your dog and punishing him when he goes looking for it and can't find it. Kind of a cruel trick from an "all loving" being.

[Godlessons]

The result of chance that orders itself. If you think evolution, whether cosmological or biological, is believed to happen by chance, you would be mistaken.

[Godlessons]

Okay, keep thinking that.

[Godlessons]

Brains are inherently logical because of their nature. Things are either true or false. Just like in a computer, if you tell it two things are true that can't be true at the same time, it rejects it. The human brain is not different. True and false is the very core of logic, and that's why we call computer circuits logic circuits.

Now, you insist on misinterpreting what I say, and arguing from a strawman. You should actually stick to what I say and not make stuff up. It's easier.

[Godlessons]

Nope, I never said that. You go look at what I said and figure it out properly. When you understand it, then we can have a discussion. If you think it's circular reasoning, you are inserting something into what I said that I have not said. Therefore, strawman argument.

[Godlessons]

Also, you seem to be confusing the objectivity of logic with logic itself. Look up category mistake too.

[Godlessons]

No, because brains exist that understand the things that exist, logic exists. You need to brush up on your logical fallacies. Look up strawman while you're at it.

[Godlessons]

So, since you can't defend your argument, you attempt to say my logic fails? I also never said that logic is subjective. The difference is, I believe that the source for objectivity of logic is the things that exist, not some make believe entity somewhere.

I will take your childishness as a concession of the point on your part.

Thanks

[Godlessons]

The "laws" of logic are not somehow written down somewhere. If you observe a circle and describe it as the set of points on a plane with an equal distance from a center point, that would immediately rule out a square from being a circle.

It is obvious what things are and what they are not, and that is not a law created by an intelligence, it is just reality. You may want to confuse reality with a deity, but your account for logic fails logic.

[Godlessons]

The shape of the earth is not logic. The concept of the shape of the earth is derived with logic. You misunderstand what logic is. The existence of things is not dependent on logic. Logic, in short, is the manipulation of concepts. When you look at the earth and say it is spherical, you are actually responding to stimulus by your eyes and manipulating that stimulus inside your mind. The manipulation in the mind is the logic, not the earth.

[auriciangelescu]

A theist mentioning "rationality", this makes me laugh; when you believe the earth is 6,000-12,000 yrs old, you should stop invoking reason, for the sake of decency!!!

[Doggieman1111]

If you skip all the blather this guy's central argument says that rationality depends on "universal truth statements" which humans couldn't have thought up because humans are limited. However his argument fails because he begs the question that logic must be "universally" true for it to be valid. In fact, logic must merely be internally consistent to be valid. Humans create internally consistent processes all the time.

[cadman2300]

"Atheism fails to deliver."

Well unfortunately, so does Slick. It's just more of him redefining logic to suit his own arguments and he redefines it so often in this video that he keeps tripping on his own words.

Again, logic is just how we humans make sense of the world. It's not physical, it's subjective, and the only area where there are logical absolutes is in mathematics.

And I can tell instantly that it's all bogus when he keeps saying how Christianity is the one true faith.

Fail.

[jasonoatmeal]

so my dog can't use logic??? sr, you are FULL OF HORSE DUNG. WHAT About all us buddihst's we are athiest. and our relligan is baced on logic , reason, and the universal truth

[Godlessons]

The truth about a statement does not exist without a mind to think it. Minds create the laws of logic from the observations we make. The laws of logic do not exist independently of the mind thinking about them.

Confusing the things statements talk about with the things themselves causes the argument to become circular, a form of begging the question.

[alaskaoalaska]

So all is conceptual, so God MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST.

Yes you proved atheism is wrong, and Christianity wrong in the process too.

and logic can be altered by chemical process, it's called autism.

[alaskaoalaska]

This definitely just proves agnosticism.

and has anyone noticed what he said about the rock?

what in the hell?if a rock is the only thing that exists, there can be no minds anyway so nothing would ever be able to speak, but besides the point he just said that If a rock is the only thing that exists in the universe, it is true that a rock is the only thing that exists right before he said saying that doesn't mean shit, so that just saying that you can't just say god exists, or anything exists.

[goph000]

this video just proved agnosticism

[JimmyFaust]

I'd like to hear why you believe that athiesm is a "philosophy" or "world view", although I'm not sure if you're capable of understanding the difference.

[chasingerrors1]

Christians are far worst then us atheists. they think they are perfect but far from it. we are human and we make mistakes.

I don't understand why they have to make us believe god is real. leave us the fuck alone.God does not exist. if he did great things would still be happening and guess what they don't so there is you proof. i prayed to stop this video and guess what it keep playing. I wonder did i not say it loud enough.

[chasingerrors1]

Why is it the Christians are always trying to prove god lives and is here to stay heres the true answer. Money the church needs money, other countries need money, and of course the minister always needs money. so if god is out of the picture all this money will be lost forever. and you better dam well believe that money will never leave there side since it is tax free. I once saw a home less man go into a church and ask for food. the paster said if you don't go here No what about a ride No

[Godlessons]

I love how Matt keeps holding to his TAG argument even though he has been proven wrong in 2 debates that I know of. Those happen to be the only 2 debates I have seen, so from my perspective he has a 0% success ratio upholding it.

The most obvious problem is that he can't prove that logic exists outside the mind. He can only theorize. Second, even if true, why is logic not just a law of the universe like gravity? Just because we can't explain a source of a thing doesn't make it God.

[InsaneRemo]

What about a cold-blooded hitman who kills people for money? What about a pack of wolves who hunt? They use logic to hunt down people/prey . You have no way of proving those universal truth statements are from god unless you were there or god saw you do it and yes logic can be altered by brain chemistry. This can cause parnoia and they use logic to justify it or can do other things etc No answer is certain including the answers of christainity according to logic ^ . ^

[BonabooUNT]

Matt, Logic and "Logical Absolutes" are not the same thing. The brain process that lead to logical thinking do not equate to those logical absolutes. One is conceptual and one is not. Why don't you get that?

[vernuf]

In this video, Matt Slick engages in the following logical fallacies:

Straw man (several times)

Argument from incredulity.

Circular logic

Argument from verbosity

Red herring

False Dilemma

Along with several unsupported assertions.