@stallion4life And intelligent people will continue to laugh at you. How does it feel that the only people on your side are bible belt rednecks who failed middle school.
@Devos154 Of course, and all these intellectual giants are posting YouTube comments, right? Newton, Aquinas, Riemann, Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard... they're all just chumps compared to the YouTube atheists!
Seriously, you're pathetically ignorant. Go read an actual book outside of the new Atheist canon, you might get a glimmer of how much yet you have to learn.
@stallion4life I'm actually open to ideas that disagree with me. These ideas just require proof. I'm open to the idea that there could be a God but everyone fails to provide proof. Just like flying space unicorns and demonic leprechauns, God doesn't exist to me until there is proof. The bible doesn't count as proof because there is no proof it was divinely inspired. It's the religious who are not open. "Evolution must be wrong because it goes against my belief" is what many believe.
there is NO evidence to support many of the claims made by the holy bible! not only is there no evidence but there is contradicting evidence that falsifies those claims, the fact that you still hold on to your bible and chant that it is true is just plain ignorant!
We should not get bogged down in the semantics and battle over a word. If the author of this channel is looking for evidence that people against his position utilize, then even a simple Google search will do. There are many people who claim that Yahweh is non-existent, if that is what you are looking for. As for ShockofGod... his definition of Atheism seems to be different than anyone else in the world (including Christians), so it would make sense that no one can answer to his satisfaction.
@FurtherDriven I'm certainly not blaming God for anything, and you're making a lot of presumptions about my personal failings. I'm a Christian, and I like attractive women, so I make Christian videos with attractive women... that's all there is to it.
@shockoflogic Bullshit. An atheist is a person who disbelieves in God. Christians believe in God. Ergo, Christians are not atheists.
(although, if atheism isn't a claim, it can't be logically exclusive to the claim that God does exist, which is a confusion I've asked you about three times now and you still haven't cleared up.)
@stallion4life the christians rejected the greek gods and so the term "atheos" was coined to describe them. you should look it up for yourself. i'm not keeping you from the truth. :)
atheism is the rejection of a particular claim, the one stating that particular gods exist, and is not a claim unto itself. clear enough?? rejection is not a claim. an example of this could be that i refuse to believe that you own a dog, that doesn't mean i deny the possibility that you may have one.
@shockoflogic I have heard that as well. Maybe the Greeks din't understand the Abrahamic God, but calling Christians atheists (at least in the sense the word is understood today) is erroneous. You're likely working from the moronic atheist claim that "we are all atheists to countless gods". Wrong. Either you believe in God- or several gods- or you believe in none. Either/or. Binary. There's really no grey area there
@shockoflogic As I said, beliefs are mostly probabilistic. Of course it is possible that I own a dog if you reject the belief that I do, and it is even possible that you allow for the possibility that I do. However, your rejection of the claim is logically incompatible with the claim that I *do* own a dog, so it is necessarily asserting a truth value.
It is impossible for a person to be both an atheist and a theist, so atheism must therefore make a claim (4th time now! Address this point!)
@stallion4life" No, an atheist is a person who disbelieves in God, just like every dictionary in the world tells us. The nonexistence of God is their claim." - you obviously don't know what disbelieve means. i you knew what it meant, you'd understand the point.
you don't even understand your own definition of "atheist!" lol! you said that atheists are defined as people who lack a belief in a god, which is not an assertion either way, and go on to say that a rock can be an atheist.
@shockoflogic "to hold not worthy of belief : not believe"... exactly what I meant.
That atheism is a "lack of belief in God" is NOT my position, and in fact is the exact point I DISPROVED. Learn to read. The "lack of belief" definition is an article of faith among atheists, however, and I assumed it was the premise you were arguing from.
@shockoflogic As long as the belief of atheism is logically incompatible with the belief that God exists, then atheism is making a claim to the negative, whether they think God's existence is impossible or merely improbable. A person who doesn't make a claim, and who thinks the probability of God's existence or nonexistence is 50-50, wouldn't qualify as an atheist.
If atheism didn't have a claim, what would all these atheist videos on YouTube be trying to persuade anyone of?
@shockoflogic Atheism doesn't *have* beliefs, atheism *is* a belief-- namely, the belief that God does not exist.
I wonder, if you really think atheism is a non-belief, what exactly atheists hope to convince Christians of in their attempts to deconvert them. Or explain how this supposed non-belief can be exclusive to the belief that God does exist, if in fact it is not making any claims.
@stallion4life all atheists do is defend themselves from proselytism.
atheism is not a belief, it's a disbelief. there's a large, notable difference between believing something doesn't exist and disbelieving something's existence. disbelief isn't a claim. atheists don't try to "deconvert" anyone, many simply express their frustration with those who try to convert them.
@stallion4life both the belief in god's existence and the belief that god doesn't exist are unwarranted beliefs. to say that you don't believe in one idea doesn't necessarily mean that you automatically believe in the other, because both beliefs can be rejected. i, like many atheists, reasonably reserve my beliefs for what can be proven. god's existence has neither been proved nor disproved, so i reject both ideas.
@shockoflogic Most of the time, when we say we believe or disbelieve, it is a probabilistic assessment. Otherwise, we'd say we know. An atheist can say they're not sure whether or not God exists, but that's not what makes them an atheist (Google "agnostic theism".) What makes them atheist is the ADDITIONAL assumption that God's existence is unlikely. Now can you state the reasons behind this assumption?
@shockoflogic What might be tripping you up is the common atheist assumption that the nonexistence of God is the "default position", by virtue of being stated in the negative. This is false. I don't have any proof that shockoflogic owns a car, so would the default assumption be that you don't? Now if you're going to throw out the usual daffy examples of things we don't believe in, I can give good reasons why I believe (to choose an atheist favorite) there is NOT a teapot orbiting the earth.
@grahamgeons You're mixing up your insipid little atheist soundbites. The original quote was that atheism is a *religion* in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
But a belief that God does not exist *is* a belief, which should be apparent to anybody with two brain cells to rub together. The fact that the assertion is negative in form does nothing to change the fact you're still assigning truth values. Do Holocaust deniers get off the hook because they "aren't making a claim"?
@stallion4life So not believing in unicorns is also a belief? How about dragons, pixies, ghosts, fairies and yetis. Using that logic, anything made up (including things you don't know about) must be a belief. Also notice I'm not insulting you, insults over the internet turn people into children and I've already had my fun as a child.
@grahamgeons Yes, if you don't believe in unicorns, that is a belief in unicorns' nonexistence. I'll have to guess at what you meant by the second sentence, but for any mythical creature whose existence I've never pondered, it can properly be said that I "lack a belief" in such a thing. Once I consider the question of its existence, I decide whether I believe or disbelieve in it.
You atheists are really doing your own heads in with this "lack of belief" nonsense. Give it up already!
@stallion4life "Once I consider the question of its existence, I decide whether I believe or disbelieve in it." That is where we differ, I understand that what I am reading is fantasy and don't even need to consider its existence in the first place. I don't decide whether I believe in it or not, I will not believe in it until it is proven otherwise. The original thought cannot be a belief because its existence is not even considered.
@grahamgeons Again, your writing is confusing. I have no idea what "the original thought" refers to. What I am saying is that an atheist who has heard theists speak of God, and has rejected their claim, is different from a pygmy in a remote tribe who has never even heard of God, and has therefore not considered the possibility of His existence, or a rock which is incapable of considering at all. A person who considers God and truly withholds judgement is an agnostic, not an atheist.
@stallion4life "the original thought" means the first thought, as I had two thoughts going at the same time, sorry if you could not follow that. Your example is rather silly as there is no difference between the two. If I have never heard of god before you would label me an atheist because I didn't know about its existence. Then you tell me about god and I ask for you to show me god. You say you can't, thus I'm still in the same state of mind as before you told me about god.
@grahamgeons Sure, your shitty writing is my fault.
No, if you had never heard of God, I would not label you an atheist. That's the point I've been making. Even shockoflogic sees this is wrong, he knows atheism involves a REJECTION of a claim. I can provide you with evidence for God, and you can accept the evidence or reject it, but in any case you must either accept the claim of God's existence, reject the claim, or be agnostic. Atheism is not the "default position."
@stallion4life "accept the evidence or reject it" if you had any evidence, then I would need to think on it, as you don't the thought never even crosses my mind. You seem very defensive considering I never blamed you for my writing format, I know its difficult to follow sometimes. That's what happens when you need to write in a scientific format instead of a literary format as a norm.
@grahamgeons Well I do have evidence, some of which is explained in this video.
Example: You've gone you're whole life not thinking about my car. Now I tell you I own a car. You ask for evidence, and let's say- worst case scenario- I refuse to present any. Now if you REJECT the claim that I own a car, are you really "in the same state of mind as before"? Would you not agree that rejecting the claim is asserting a truth value? Realistically, would such a rejection be a reasonable response? Why?
@stallion4life That example only works if I don't know cars exist, because I know cars do exist and many people own them I would not need evidence for your cars existence. If you told me you owned a dragon I would not need to ask you for proof as I know you suffer from some sort of mental illness. Not that I'm calling you mentally ill, however if you told me you owned a dragon I would.
@grahamgeons Ahhh.... so you acknowledge that you're making implicit assumptions about the claims being made-- implicit assumptions that lead you to reject the claim of a dragon, but remain neutral about the claim of a car. So we see that the negative is not necessarily the "default position", and that nonbelief (like the nonbelief you had in my car before I mentioned it) is not the same thing as disbelief (the rejection of the claim that I own a car, which here seems unreasonable.)
@stallion4life I don't assume dragons don't exist, I understand biology, physics and chemistry and know they can't exist. The claim on the car is irrelevant because when you tell me the car exists, the fact of its existence is not relevant in my head. The existence of the car is possible so its existence doesn't need to be proven to me. The difference being you know whether your car exists or not before telling me but you don't know if your god exists or not before telling me.
@grahamgeons Are you just going to ad hoc your entire argument? What I know or don't know is irrelevant. This is a discussion about what it means to be an atheist. The existence of a car is possible, certainly, but, according to your logic, the existence of my car would HAVE to be proven to you for you not to reject the claim that I own one.
So if you "understand biology, physics and chemistry" enough to know dragons don't exist (I won't ask how), where is your evidence that God does not exist?
@stallion4life As I said before the existence of your car to me is irrelevant, you tell me it exists, I don't care if your lying to me or not because I know cars exist. I don't have to provide evidence god doesn't exist because he may very well exist, in a deists interpretation of a god. I will never dispute a deists claims on a god existing, a christian god however I will always dispute. 3v3danc3 and nonstampcollecter have both debunked the christian god many times over.
@stallion4life As to how dragons don't exist, an Alpha predator as large as a dragon would no be able to remain unnoticed by humans for as long as there has been recorded history. If they were single celled organisms or something around that size they could have easily gone unnoticed until now. That's the most obvious way of putting it.
i reject the belief that a god exists and, also, the belief that god doesn't exist because there is no justification for either belief. i reserve my beliefs for what has been proven. atheism is a rejection, not a claim, belief or assertion. this is why atheism is incompatible with christianity; it rejects christianity's claim, but doesn't make a counterclaim.
By conceding that Atheists make videos trying to persuade people of something, wouldn't you logically believe that they attempted to provide something to their claims? I mean... you may not accept their arguments, but you can't have it both ways. Either they never tried to prove something or they made videos trying to prove something. What do you think Sam Harris does at his debates? sell Amway products.
@stormblast49 Oh, I never denied that the question is answerable, in theory at least. It's not meant to be a trick question. Quentin Smith, for instance, attempted a logical disproof of the belief that God created the Universe. Now how successful he was depends on whether or not you accept his premises, but in any case he gets an 'E'-for-effort from me. At least some atheists realize that "You can't prove a negative" is bunk.
Even if your points were accurate, his challenge is not valid in that he always redefines the meaning so no one can answer. Example he debated someone who put forth deductive logic premises of why he believes no supreme being can exist. Shock said you didn't even say atheism in your response, so you proved God. So by saying God can't be ect. ect, therefore there can be no God, is not making a case for Atheism... According to Shock. The intent of the person asking is relevant!
Even though you have drawn from the wikipedia article that "making a claim" requires the burden of proof, you have failed to understand this point. The concept of the burden of proof is that the person making the claim (ie. God/Nessie/Zeus/Thor/bigfoot exists) is the one required to provide proof - everyone else takes the negative position of that claim until proof is shown. That's how the world works - no one starts with a belief in every possibility until it is proven wrong to them.
@TheSobek Atheists make a claim. Their claim is that God does not exist. Ergo, the burden of proof is on them to prove this claim. It's not that difficult to understand, really!
@stallion4life No, the negative of something existing is not a claim. It may be a claim grammatically, but never philosophically. If it were, the phrase burden of proof would have no meaning - there would just be proof. As I already said, people do not start with a belief in every possibility and wait for them to be disproved but start with disbelief and wait for proof. The same is true of god.
@TheSobek People don't start with disbelief, people start not even knowing what it is they're supposed to believe or disbelieve. Atheists are people who became familiar with the concept of God, and decided they didn't believe it.
I'm really tired of atheists giving the same kindergarden objections over and over and over, thinking they're being original and that they're going to blow my mind. I've already explained why your objections are wrong in the very video you're responding to.
@stallion4life I know you think you've explained why my objections are invalid, I am trying to explain to you why you are wrong. The point of burden of proof is that the one making the claim that something happened or that something is real is the one on whom the burden rests to provide proof. There would be no point in the concept existing if it applied to everyone. The burden of proof is not on atheists anymore than it is on people who don't believe in leprechauns.
@TheSobek The burden of proof lies on anyone who makes a claim. ANY claim. Period. If you feel this is incorrect, please cite a reference material that claims otherwise (hint: you won't be able to.)
You don't have a burden of proof for holding a belief, but only if you try to convince others of your belief, whether its a positive or negative belief.
If someone claims they saw leprechauns for themselves, and you want to convince them they're in error, you'd better have a good argument why!
@stallion4life Obviously this is beyond explanation for you. The burden lies with THE person making the claim. As in ONE person. If the counterclaim is simply that the claim is not true then no burden of proof exists for the counterclaim BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. The idea that one should be required to prove that leprechauns do not exist is patently ridiculous.
@TheSobek Yes, the burden lies with any person making a claim, and in a debate, both parties are making opposing claims. "It is impossibly to prove a negative" is a blatant falsity, and just shows the depth of your ignorance. I even disproved the point in the video, which you obviously replied to without watching.
You haven't told me anything I haven't heard a million times before, you're just recycling the same crap from the same atheist videos and blogs. Read a fucking book for once!
@stallion4life I am sorry if I'm merely repeating what others have said, but that doesn't make me wrong. It is not my fault that you fail to understand the point or, perhaps, have understood it and chosen to go with your own interpretation anyway. While one can logically explain that God almost certainly doesn't exist, it is difficult to provide proofs beyond this. The atheist's proof is the theist's lack of it and we are all atheists about most gods, some of us just go one extra.
@stallion4life Obviously this is beyond explanation for you. The burden lies with THE person making the claim. As in ONE person. If the counterclaim is simply that the claim is not true then no burden of proof exists for the counterclaim BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. The idea that one should be required to prove that leprechauns do not exist is patently ridiculous.
Your proof for your religion is a fictional book and drugs/hallucinaton, and your reasoning for us needing to prove something is your own stupidity. Makes a lot of sense.
Before saying that we need to prove our claim, maybe it's best to find out what our claim is, which is nothing for anyone who doesn't specifically claim something like "There is no god".
@stallion4life A person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no god is most likely only an idiot. An atheist doesn't believe in it because of the lack of evidence.
There is very unlikely for there to actually be a god, and even less likely for the christian god to be the right one if there actually is, but that doesn't rule out the possibility, therefore the only logical thing to say is that you don't believe in it.
@sandvikboy94 You don't have to be 100% certain there isn't a God to qualify as an atheist. That would make you a "soft atheist" as opposed to a "hard atheist."
The fact that you think it is unlikely for God to exist makes you an atheist. May I ask how you arrived at the conclusion that God's existence is unlikely? Are you able to quantify exactly how unlikely it is? (Doesn't Dawkins say something like < 4%?)
If you were able to do that, you'd be on your way to proving that atheism is correct.
@stallion4life As i said in my lat comment, there is absolutely no evidence for any god's existence, making it very unlikely. If there existed a god that wanted people to worship it, then the least it could do would be to provide some evidence for it's existence. It would probably give some evidence even if it didn't want to be worshipped, just to prevent every idiotic act that is caused by different views on religion, yet no one has ever come across anything.
@stallion4life The fact that I said this doesn't mean that sog's challenge is valid, because disbelief is still disbelief no matter what you say. The fact that you said you don't have to be 100% sure contradicts your statement that an atheist has to claim that god doesn't exist, which made you destroy the point of your video. Not believing in something while keeping an open mind for any evidence isn't the same as claiming that something doesn't exist.
@sandvikboy94 You believe God doesn't exist, but you're not 100% sure of it. This is not contradictory… in fact, it's the very definition of "soft atheist".
If you wish to convince someone else of the unlikeliness of God's existence, the burden of proof would be on you.
Now it's possible for a person not to be 100% sure of God's existence, but still believe it is probable. Is this person an atheist too, by your definition? If they're a theist, then do they not also have a burden of proof?
@stallion4life There's a difference between not being sure and believing in something, and not being sure and disbelievin something. As long as you believe, you're a theist, and when you disbelieve, you're an atheist. The fact that you are claiming with this video that there is evidence, but you are using the bible, and you are talking of that as "for one thing", meaning that there should be more. When you say you have proof, show it, don't just talk about what you think others are claiming.
@sandvikboy94 BTW, my video takes pains to include people who merely think God's existence is unlikely under the rubric of "atheist", so I don't understand how you think my comment "destroys the point of my video".
You still haven't explained how you arrived at the conclusion that God's existence is improbable. Surely you just wouldn't throw a statement like that out there without good reason, would you?
@sandvikboy94 If the evidence doesn't rise to your threshold of belief, that's fair enough. If you debate the veracity of the evidence presented, that's fair as well. But it is ignorant to say there is "absolutely no evidence" for God existence.
@stallion4life That is something I said because it's incredibly annoying to explain why I don't believe, and then be ignored. It's not really appealing to take the time required to form a proper argument if the counterpart is just going to ignore it anyways, as you are doing here. There isn't any evidence that says there has to be a god, therefore I see no point in believing in it.
And if you reply one more time while ignoring at what I have written, I see no point in continuing this.
@sandvikboy94 Please tell me what you said that you think I ignored.
You said, "there is absolutely no evidence for any god's existence, making it very unlikely" which is both an invalid argument and is based on an unsound premise. I have "absolutely no evidence" that you don't own a car, but that doesn't make the fact that you own a car "very unlikely". If I go around trying to convince people that you don't own a car, or even that you *probably* don't own a car, I have a burden of proof!
@stallion4life A car is a physical object that's easy to prove that you own. A god is a supposedly invisible being that has no more proof of it's existence than what people think of as evidence. If you do not consider those things proof because you think logically enough to know it doesn't necessarily prove a god, what reason do you have to believe?
Also, i said i disbelieve gods because of lacking evidence that says there has to be a god, which you apparently found fitting to ignore.
@sandvikboy94 You missed the point entirely. I have no evidence YOU own a car, therefore, according to your logic, I must believe that it is "very unlikely" that you own a car, I have no burden of proof if I tell others so. As I said in the video, the "burden of proof" doesn't mean you have to prove your claim 100%, just that you have to present evidence.
I have dealt with your claim that there is "absolutely no evidence" for God several times. It is a bald, completely unsubstantiated assertion
@stallion4life As i said, for the car, it would be easy to provide evidence, but you are free to disbelieve it until I provide it.
And for the absolutelu\y no evidence, that was something I said to maybe make you look at what I actually wrote. I said there's no evidence thatsays there's no other way to interpret it than an evidence for a god, and therefore i choose not to believe. It's not that there's no evidence, and if there is any, it hasn't been found yet, and is irrelevant.
@sandvikboy94 It doesn't matter if the evidence is easy to provide or not. The fact of the matter is, right now, I don't have any evidence that you own a car. So should I, according to your logic, assume that it is "very unlikely" that you don't? Do I not have a burden of proof in saying that you probably don't? Please answer these questions!
Most of the arguments for God are probabilistic, nobody is denying that. There are cosmological arguments that may, however, prove God is necessary.
@stallion4life What matters is evidence. If evidence is provided for something, you know it's true, if it isn't provided, you believe what you want, but if you're not a person who believes anything you're told, you wont believe it without the evidence. It's the person that claims it that must prove it.
And what cosmological arguments were you thinking of? If it's something that's just not known yet, I may not reply to your comment, as I will think of you as nothing more than an ignorant fool.
@sandvikboy94 Of course we believe what we want, the question is: are we *justified* in what we believe. You say God probably doesn't exist, I say sandvikboy94 probably doesn't own a car. You really believe that neither are claims, and that neither incur any burden of proof for their speakers?
The Kalam cosmological argument is pretty well-known. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a debate over God's existence should at least be familiar with it: watch?v=yGWuZ0h4DN8
@stallion4life I say that there's no evidence saying that there has to be a god, therefore I don't believe in it. If you recall from earlier, i said there's a chance some god might exist, but i refuse to believe it before i see some evidence for it.
Also, the kalam argument is probably one of the worst arguments to prove a god. It's basically an argument from ignorance. If everything needs a cause, a god needs one to. It doesn't matter if people say their god is eternal.
@sandvikboy94 Ah, yes, your amateur philosophizing refutes the argument satisfactorily! I'm so glad a random YouTube bozo was able to disprove a respected thinker like Craig in five minutes!
You don't seem to understand what an "argument from ignorance is", just like you don't seem to misuse the term "logic".
@sandvikboy94 Also, just for shits and giggles, I want to chart out four positions on the existence of God, and your apparent belief on what requires a burden of proof.
100% sure God doesn't exists- has burden of proof
Thinks God exists, but isn't sure- has burden of proof
Thinks God doesn't exist, but isn't sure- has NO burden of proof
100% sure God doesn't exist - has burden of proof
Doesn't this asymmetry seems a little odd to you? Doesn't it seem a little suspiciously convenient for you?
@stallion4life You need no proof as long as you don't try to push your belief on someone else. I don't try to make people disbelieve, I just find people trying to make others believe by giving man-made evidence annoying.
Also, I didn't disprove Craig. What he said just doesn't count as proof, as it's nothing more than something he said based on belief. If we don't know how the universe was formed yet, we should say we don't know. We shouldn't just say that only a god could do it.
@stallion4life Upon reading your "chart" comment again, I see that you clearly haven't realized what atheism is yet. Atheist don't think that there is no god, we do not believe that there is a god. There's a big difference between those. If you think there's no god, that would require something to base this assumption on, but not believing in a god is the result of the lacking evidence that a god exists.
Apparently, you are a coward or an ignorant fool, but most likely both.
@sandvikboy94 Ugh. You're pushing that same old tired "atheism is a lack of belief" line, that's as incorrect that thousandth time as it was the first. If you had bothered to watch the video, you'd know I disproved that point, as there are people (as well as animals and inanimate objects) that "lack a belief in God", that nonetheless can't be categorized as atheists. Atheists ACTIVELY believe there is no God. If you don't like that definition, take it up with Merriam-Webster.
@stallion4life That's the definition of a strong atheist, which I am towards the gods of religions on this planet, but you can be a strong and a weak atheist at the same time. I can claim that your god doesn't exist, as nearly everything you use as evidence is things from the bible which is already disproven, like the age of the earth.
I can't say for sure that there is absolutely no gods, but strangely enough, there's no one who claims the existence of any god that wasn't invented by humans.
@sandvikboy94 Wrong. There are many philosophical appeals to the existence of God that have nothing to do with the Bible. And the Bible has been "disproven"!?! Really!?! So why do almost no scholars of antiquity doubt the historicity of Jesus?
You're speaking from gross ignorance. Read a book and stop getting all your information from YouTube videos.
@stallion4life Also, as you apparently refuse to accept the difference between strong atheists and atheists in general, I see no point in dragging this further, as you will only accept your own interpretation of atheism, which you made up in your head based on one of two definitions from a dictionary. I will therefore not reply to any more of your comments, at least if you refuse to accept something as simple as the definition of a word.
@sandvikboy94 Lol... I've underlined the difference between hard ("strong") atheists and soft atheists every step of the way. To varying degrees, they both disbelieve in God, per the definition provided by just about any dictionary.
You're the one who refuses to accept the definition of a word. I gave citations from a dictionary. You can give citations for your definition from what… a bunch of illiterate YouTube atheists who are trying to weasel out of justifying their position?
@stallion4life So no, I actually said something fitting for what you wanted, but you chose to interpret it in your own way, or just ignored what was actually written.
@stallion4life Very well made video, coming from an atheist. Many times, people of any faith create videos like: "hey, atheists suck and god is so awesome cuz I read about him in a book" or likewise for atheists bashing Christians.
You actually brought up a coherent, well thought out argument, and brought it up in a civilized manner. I can't fit my rebuttal in a comment, but I will PM you. Just thought I'd say in public I give two thumbs up for this video, but not for the content :)
STALLION4LIFE i will gladly take on your challenge but 1st we need some ground rules. What will you accpet as valid evidence that prooves the veiws of an Atheist is accurate & correct?
This is so like trying to convince someone that the sky is blue...
The sky is blue...no it isnt... yes it is!....not if its cloudy....it is still blue past the clouds.... not at night...it's blue on the other side of the world at night...not if I can't see it for myself.
Denial of what is real will only make you play word games and give you false hope for something that just simply is not there. Atheists just want to help you shake your fear and egotism and get on with life.
2) Your silly little challenge is the equivalent of me asking the question "do you believe in reincarnation?" If you answer "no" I then turn around and ask "can you provide proof and evidence that your a-reincarnationism is accurate and correct?" Is yours now the burden of proof? I can give all the same evidence for reincarnation as you did for Christianity. As an a-reincarnationist why do you provoke people so much who just want to believe blah blah blah. Get the point yet?
1) The thing with this challenge is it is inherently dishonest. Shock doesn't want an answer. That's why he systematically blocks everyone from his site and videos. Even after he has subscribed to their channel. The other reason is you have to redefine atheism to suit your needs. You put the simple definition up for all to see but it seems you didn't read it. Atheism is the negative response to an assertion nothing more nothing less. It's not a religion or political ideology. It's a "no" answer.
"I don't believe there are any gods" != "I believe there are no gods"
Agnosticism/gnosticism has nothing to do with atheism:
Atheism/theism = About belief
Agnosticism/gnosticism = About knowledge
And thus you can be agnostic atheist, which means "I lack the belief there are any gods. The existence of any gods is unknown to us". A stereotypic fundamentalist is a gnostic theist: "I believe there is my particular god, AND I KNOW IT FOR A FACT, AND YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESNT EXIST"...
There are different levels of atheism. I am an atheist. Those atheists who claim there is no possibility of any kind of God whatsoever, are making an assertion. Atheists who claim they do not believe there is a God because there is a lack of evidence do not have the burden of proof.
@stallion4life Ok then. So if an atheist is just minding his own business, not trying to convince anyone of anything, and shockofgod comes up to him and does his challenge, is it still valid?
@schreck425 Not any more than if an atheist asked a theist who was minding their own business to provide proof of their beliefs. The burden of proof is an criterion of persuasion, not of belief.
@stallion4life Was that a yes or no? Yes I agree with you that if an atheist wants to persuade shockofgod that god isn't real then the burden is on the atheist to provide reasons why. Proof is still impossible for claiming something doesn't exist though, just like proving dragons do not exist. The only thing an atheist can do to persuade is to one by one knock down the theist's reasons for believing with proof/evidence/reasoning until the theist no longer has any good reasons to believe.
@stallion4life Except that atheism is a disbelief of God not a claim that he does not exist. Where as theism IS a claim that he DOES exist. This is why the theist has to provide the proof and until he does this is why a non belief of God is justified because atheism is not making a claim while theism is. This is why "He who shall not be named"s question is indeed invalid. I truly hope for your sake you see "he who shall not be named" for the dishonest asshole that he is and free yourself.
Extend the straw-man all you'd like, but it's still a straw-man: atheists do not absolutely assert that a god doesn't exist... they simply recognize that believers have insufficiently supported their claims with evidence, particularly when what is proffered as evidence has not been shown to be authoritative/effectatious to the task of verification. For ex... why would uncorroborated accounts of seemingly miraculous biblical events validate a metaphysical claim (Jesus=sonogod)?
I believe that dragons are real. If you want to convince me that I'm wrong then the burden is on all of the adragonists out there to show me proof and evidence that dragons are not real.....? Am I hearing this correctly?
@schreck425 Yes. If you believe in dragons, and I wish for you not to believe in dragons, then I'm going to have to persuade you that they aren't real. It's self-evident, really.
Atheism mean lack of belief in gods. So you want me to prove that I lack belief in gods? Ok, I really, really, really don't believe in gods. Is that a compelling enough case for you?
The ONLY follow up question to this answer is "why don't you believe".
@scorand "Atheism is merely a lack of belief" is apparently an article of faith among atheists. They never bring any arguments to support it, they just assume it as axiomatic. Well if you watched this video, you'd know that I proved that atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God, but also a belief that God does not exist. It is an assertion, and thus carries a burden of proof.
there are weak atheists ("there is no proof to intelligently validate any claims regarding the existence of a god"), and strong atheists ("I believe no god exists").
Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Stephen hawkings, Brian cox (and myself) are all examples of weak atheists.
It's resoundingly stupid that theists insist the argument "you have no proof of your god" is a belief. it's not. it's a fucking fact.
@stallion4life not at all.. it just means that some dont believe your assertion therfore no burden of proof is required, however since the religous have been asserting that god does infact exsist then the burden of proof falls on you. its up to you to connvince us that he does. claiming that we have to prove he doesnt is circular and very flawed logic
@stallion4life " is apparently an article of faith among atheists". Theism=belif in a god or gods. A=without. Atheism=without belief in a god or gods. What else do you need? it's a lack of belief. Atheism is not a belief that god doesn't exist Per se. If you don't believe in gods because nobody told you for example, you are an Atheist, you are without belief in a god or gods. There are thousands of gods you don't believe in, regarding those gods we are both Atheists, I just go one god further..
@DocStrange0123 How many clichés can you shoehorn in one comment? If you have a problem with my definition of atheist, take it up with Merriam-Webster. Your "lack of belief" definition would mean that agnostics, people who have never even considered the issue, and inanimate objects all count as atheists.
@stallion4life Wrong, Gnosticism and Agnosticism regards KNOWLEDGE, Theism and Atheism regards BELIEF, maybe it's you who haven't got your definitions straight, if you don't believe in a god or gods (for any reason, implicitly or explicitly, an that includes not believing AND/OR denial of the ixistance of a god, is not just exclusively an explicit denial Per Se), if to the question "Do you believe in the god X"? you asnwer is Yes, theist, anything else, Atheist, is that easy and that simple.
@stallion4life Those definitions are not accurate, don't trust some sources, this word had/have bad conotations. Go for the ethimological mening of the word. There is no doctrine in Atheism, "Atheist" only describes the position of an individual regarding the concept of deities thus being: without belief in deities. This can be Explicit or Implicit. Atheism and Theism regards belief, only congnitive sentient beings are capable of believe or not believe something (Implicit: a baby. Explicit: me)
@DocStrange0123 You just contradicted yourself. You said "Atheism and Theism regards belief", but you also said atheism is defined only by the *lack* of a belief.
@stallion4life Nope, to the question "do you BELIEVE in the god X?" if you anser Yes, theist, anything else, Atheist. That is on the realm of belief, either you believe something or you don't (including not being sure). If you don't believe in something you lack that belief, doesn't it? There are many thing you don't believe in. Do you believe in Shiva? what does that makes you? you don't belive in Shiva therefore you lack that belief, there are 99.999 gods in human history you don't believe in.
What was the question again? How many licks, does it... wait, it was proof and evidence that atheism is true and correct or something or other.
I wonder if there was a way to make a comparison if there would be an equal amount of hypocrite atheist as there are hypocrite christian fundamentalist. Somehow I doubt it.
To paraphrase your evidence- god is real because there is a book and christians feel him working in their lives. This evidence then is proof that Islam, Buddhism and Hindu and true as well. They all make similar claims. The bible has all the hallmarks of being written by man and man alone. It has contradictions, the timelines are inconsistent at times, It is largely based on oral stories that become mythical over time, the nt predictions about jesus actually refer to people alive in ot times.
I know youve probably hear this before but Can you provide evidece that Ateapotism is accurate and correct, I assume you dont believe in the cosmic teapot do you? The default position is not accepting a cliam that something exists till there is good reason to believe. If there was a Boy in India that never believed in Krishna or any gods, You think he need to prove that Krishan doesnt exist to be justified in not accepting it does exist?
@Greathiway Based on my experience, teapots are made by people, and it would be unlikely to find them in space, since as far as we know people only live on Earth. If, however, some astronauts reported that they did in fact see a teapot in space, I might be inclined to defer to their first-hand experiences. If I wanted to convince them that they are in error, and that there is no teapot, the burden of proof would be on me, the person making the assertion.
@stallion4life "Based on my experience, teapots are made by people" EXACTLY, Arnt all gods (except your teapot) made by people? Can you show me one example of a disembodied mind?
""see a teapot " Thats ridiculous Dont you know anything about Bertrand Russell cosmic teapot? It is too smal and far be be detected by even our most powerful telescopes and Astronauts have not explored any significant amount of space.
"burden of proof would be on me" Ok then what is your evidence for Ateapotism?
@Greathiway So, since nobody has any way of ever detecting a teapot in outer space, I approach this, not as a claim anyone would make, but strictly as a hypothetical, right?
If so, my inductive argument that teapots come from people would be sufficient. I'd have an argument against teapots, with no arguments for teapots.
But drawing an equivalency between a mundane, inconsequential object *in* the Universe, versus a transcendent first cause *of* the Universe, is absurd in the first place.
@stallion4life "any way of ever detecting a teapot " No its real, but we cant detect it because wearent omniscient & we might not ever have proof if its existence, But its a hypothesis just like the god. If I believed in the teapot would that mean you need to provide evidence of your Ateapotism?
"my inductive argument that teapots come from people " Again Gods come from people. But i can show you an ex of a tepot you can show an example of a mind without a brain? So I have evidence more evidenc
"equivalency between a mundane, inconsequential object" Right Its much more likley that a common thing exists in a place we havent been but know existd like space Than a super ordinary thing like a cosmic intelligence in place we dont know exists.
"versus a transcendent first cause " Your saying you know there is a first cause and this is must be transcendental and this trans frist cause is a specific god? There are layers of unjustified assertions here.
@stallion4life 'Based on my experience, teapots " Right but just like if I said the moon was mad of green cheese , it wouldnt be illogical or impossible, But from what we know about what cheese is, Its not likely or remotly reasonable to believe the moon is made of it, Same with gods, We know minds are the product of brains. Im not saying a nonphyiscal mind is impossible Just that it makes no sense givein what we know.
@Greathiway Minds may be an emergent product of brains, but mind is still nonphysical.
"Based on my experience, X only comes from Y" is a weak argument to begin with, but when it goes up against absolutely no evidence to the contrary, it wins. Now, like I said, if someone had seen a teapot (or some hunk of metal in the shape of a teapot, since this teapot obviously can't be used to serve tea) for themselves, then yes, I'd need something better to convince them they were mistaken.
@stallion4life "Minds may be an emergent product of brains, but mind is still nonphysical." On that view then nothing is actaully physical. H2o may have the property of being wet is wetness is non-physical? Same with a spin of an electron, all properties of matter are may not themselves be physical, But the properties are what the physical things are they are a electron is indistinguishable from something that has the properties of an electron.
@stallion4life "but mind is still nonphysical." So a mind being non-physical is just and assertion there are no examples of disembodied minds. If minds were non-physical why are they always Dependant on brains.
Minds are what brains do. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?
"if someone had seen a teapot " People have seen teapots I can send you links or you can type teapot into google images, Teapots exist. and so does the vastness of space. You have no examples of anything like a god
Ok if I make the claim that god is a logical imposibilty due to the way he is put down by (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) and then provide proof that he is a assertion that he is beyond logic must then be proved before any future debate continues correct? If so then I have defeated shocks question.
For all I know, shockofgod does not actually believe that (Christian) theological claims are accurate/correct, but claiming he does. He might be a atheist being a Poe, and by so doing showing the weakness of the (Christian) theological stance. How can we prove that within shockofgod's belief structure there does NOT exist the belief "God does not exist."?
@Voidsworn "For all I know"!?! There are only two important considerations here A) Is this something you actually believe? B) Is this a position you are interested in defending? If both A and B, the burden of proof is on you to show this position is warranted.
@stallion4life If I was a theist then the perfect answer to Shock of God's challenge is Proverbs 26 4-5:-
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
MrSitemaster2 6 days ago
Christians are so delusional lol. We don't care that you hate homosexuals, science, and reality so stop posting videos on the internet.
Devos154 1 week ago
@Devos154 I don't have any of those things, and I'll post what I want on the internet. So there. :)
stallion4life 1 week ago
@stallion4life And intelligent people will continue to laugh at you. How does it feel that the only people on your side are bible belt rednecks who failed middle school.
Devos154 1 week ago
@Devos154 Of course, and all these intellectual giants are posting YouTube comments, right? Newton, Aquinas, Riemann, Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard... they're all just chumps compared to the YouTube atheists!
Seriously, you're pathetically ignorant. Go read an actual book outside of the new Atheist canon, you might get a glimmer of how much yet you have to learn.
stallion4life 1 week ago
@stallion4life An actual book like the bible? I'm sure I can gain a ton of knowledge from an ancient book made by superstitious people.
Devos154 1 week ago
@Devos154 With all your "rational" prejudices in line, you'll never have to be exposed to an idea that disagrees with yours ever again!
stallion4life 1 week ago
@stallion4life I'm actually open to ideas that disagree with me. These ideas just require proof. I'm open to the idea that there could be a God but everyone fails to provide proof. Just like flying space unicorns and demonic leprechauns, God doesn't exist to me until there is proof. The bible doesn't count as proof because there is no proof it was divinely inspired. It's the religious who are not open. "Evolution must be wrong because it goes against my belief" is what many believe.
Devos154 6 days ago
@oseart5556 "This crap" is the same insipid atheist arguments that are given over and over and over.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life bro.. u got as much evidence to say its real as we have to say its fake... meaning ... none...
oseart5556 2 months ago
Comment removed
stormblast49 2 months ago
there is NO evidence to support many of the claims made by the holy bible! not only is there no evidence but there is contradicting evidence that falsifies those claims, the fact that you still hold on to your bible and chant that it is true is just plain ignorant!
qickimart 2 months ago
@qickimart [[but there is contradicting evidence that falsifies those claims]] Shoot away.
MayonR 2 weeks ago
@MayonR Don't hold your breath... lol!
stallion4life 2 weeks ago
We should not get bogged down in the semantics and battle over a word. If the author of this channel is looking for evidence that people against his position utilize, then even a simple Google search will do. There are many people who claim that Yahweh is non-existent, if that is what you are looking for. As for ShockofGod... his definition of Atheism seems to be different than anyone else in the world (including Christians), so it would make sense that no one can answer to his satisfaction.
stormblast49 2 months ago
hey, everybody, check out this uploader's other videos.... anybody else find them a bit... lustful???
FurtherDriven 2 months ago
@FurtherDriven Who's fault is it that Christian women are so beautiful! :)
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life according to you, that would be god's fault for blessing them... so you blame god for your sins??
for shame......
FurtherDriven 2 months ago
@FurtherDriven I'm certainly not blaming God for anything, and you're making a lot of presumptions about my personal failings. I'm a Christian, and I like attractive women, so I make Christian videos with attractive women... that's all there is to it.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life i wonder if you even know who the first atheists were...
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic The Epicurians? I dunno. Educate me. :)
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life here's your little knowledge nugget for the day: the first atheists were christians. :)
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic Bullshit. An atheist is a person who disbelieves in God. Christians believe in God. Ergo, Christians are not atheists.
(although, if atheism isn't a claim, it can't be logically exclusive to the claim that God does exist, which is a confusion I've asked you about three times now and you still haven't cleared up.)
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life the christians rejected the greek gods and so the term "atheos" was coined to describe them. you should look it up for yourself. i'm not keeping you from the truth. :)
atheism is the rejection of a particular claim, the one stating that particular gods exist, and is not a claim unto itself. clear enough?? rejection is not a claim. an example of this could be that i refuse to believe that you own a dog, that doesn't mean i deny the possibility that you may have one.
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic I have heard that as well. Maybe the Greeks din't understand the Abrahamic God, but calling Christians atheists (at least in the sense the word is understood today) is erroneous. You're likely working from the moronic atheist claim that "we are all atheists to countless gods". Wrong. Either you believe in God- or several gods- or you believe in none. Either/or. Binary. There's really no grey area there
stallion4life 2 months ago
@shockoflogic As I said, beliefs are mostly probabilistic. Of course it is possible that I own a dog if you reject the belief that I do, and it is even possible that you allow for the possibility that I do. However, your rejection of the claim is logically incompatible with the claim that I *do* own a dog, so it is necessarily asserting a truth value.
It is impossible for a person to be both an atheist and a theist, so atheism must therefore make a claim (4th time now! Address this point!)
stallion4life 2 months ago
@shockoflogic Umm... I know what it means. Stop being coy, what's your point? How is my refutation of what you said in error?
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life" No, an atheist is a person who disbelieves in God, just like every dictionary in the world tells us. The nonexistence of God is their claim." - you obviously don't know what disbelieve means. i you knew what it meant, you'd understand the point.
you don't even understand your own definition of "atheist!" lol! you said that atheists are defined as people who lack a belief in a god, which is not an assertion either way, and go on to say that a rock can be an atheist.
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic "to hold not worthy of belief : not believe"... exactly what I meant.
That atheism is a "lack of belief in God" is NOT my position, and in fact is the exact point I DISPROVED. Learn to read. The "lack of belief" definition is an article of faith among atheists, however, and I assumed it was the premise you were arguing from.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life i completely agree. fortunately for us, atheists, neither of those definitions imply any kind of claim.
now that you've admitted what atheism actually is, try to understand it...
shockofgod's challenge is defeated once again... :)
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic As long as the belief of atheism is logically incompatible with the belief that God exists, then atheism is making a claim to the negative, whether they think God's existence is impossible or merely improbable. A person who doesn't make a claim, and who thinks the probability of God's existence or nonexistence is 50-50, wouldn't qualify as an atheist.
If atheism didn't have a claim, what would all these atheist videos on YouTube be trying to persuade anyone of?
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life wrong again... big surprise. lol.
atheism doesn't have any tenets or beliefs. i'm interested in hearing what you think they are though. :)
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic Atheism doesn't *have* beliefs, atheism *is* a belief-- namely, the belief that God does not exist.
I wonder, if you really think atheism is a non-belief, what exactly atheists hope to convince Christians of in their attempts to deconvert them. Or explain how this supposed non-belief can be exclusive to the belief that God does exist, if in fact it is not making any claims.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life all atheists do is defend themselves from proselytism.
atheism is not a belief, it's a disbelief. there's a large, notable difference between believing something doesn't exist and disbelieving something's existence. disbelief isn't a claim. atheists don't try to "deconvert" anyone, many simply express their frustration with those who try to convert them.
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic Okay, please explain the difference between believing something doesn't exist and disbelieving in something's existence.
And yes, atheists proselytize... AGGRESSIVELY! What are Dawkins, Meyers, etc. if not proselytizing?
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life both the belief in god's existence and the belief that god doesn't exist are unwarranted beliefs. to say that you don't believe in one idea doesn't necessarily mean that you automatically believe in the other, because both beliefs can be rejected. i, like many atheists, reasonably reserve my beliefs for what can be proven. god's existence has neither been proved nor disproved, so i reject both ideas.
atheism = disbelief, not belief
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic Most of the time, when we say we believe or disbelieve, it is a probabilistic assessment. Otherwise, we'd say we know. An atheist can say they're not sure whether or not God exists, but that's not what makes them an atheist (Google "agnostic theism".) What makes them atheist is the ADDITIONAL assumption that God's existence is unlikely. Now can you state the reasons behind this assumption?
stallion4life 2 months ago
@shockoflogic What might be tripping you up is the common atheist assumption that the nonexistence of God is the "default position", by virtue of being stated in the negative. This is false. I don't have any proof that shockoflogic owns a car, so would the default assumption be that you don't? Now if you're going to throw out the usual daffy examples of things we don't believe in, I can give good reasons why I believe (to choose an atheist favorite) there is NOT a teapot orbiting the earth.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life Saying god doesn't exist isn't a belief just like non stamp collecting is not a hobby, and non soccer playing is not a sport.
grahamgeons 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@grahamgeons You're mixing up your insipid little atheist soundbites. The original quote was that atheism is a *religion* in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
But a belief that God does not exist *is* a belief, which should be apparent to anybody with two brain cells to rub together. The fact that the assertion is negative in form does nothing to change the fact you're still assigning truth values. Do Holocaust deniers get off the hook because they "aren't making a claim"?
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life So not believing in unicorns is also a belief? How about dragons, pixies, ghosts, fairies and yetis. Using that logic, anything made up (including things you don't know about) must be a belief. Also notice I'm not insulting you, insults over the internet turn people into children and I've already had my fun as a child.
grahamgeons 2 months ago
@grahamgeons Yes, if you don't believe in unicorns, that is a belief in unicorns' nonexistence. I'll have to guess at what you meant by the second sentence, but for any mythical creature whose existence I've never pondered, it can properly be said that I "lack a belief" in such a thing. Once I consider the question of its existence, I decide whether I believe or disbelieve in it.
You atheists are really doing your own heads in with this "lack of belief" nonsense. Give it up already!
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life "Once I consider the question of its existence, I decide whether I believe or disbelieve in it." That is where we differ, I understand that what I am reading is fantasy and don't even need to consider its existence in the first place. I don't decide whether I believe in it or not, I will not believe in it until it is proven otherwise. The original thought cannot be a belief because its existence is not even considered.
grahamgeons 2 months ago
@grahamgeons Again, your writing is confusing. I have no idea what "the original thought" refers to. What I am saying is that an atheist who has heard theists speak of God, and has rejected their claim, is different from a pygmy in a remote tribe who has never even heard of God, and has therefore not considered the possibility of His existence, or a rock which is incapable of considering at all. A person who considers God and truly withholds judgement is an agnostic, not an atheist.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life "the original thought" means the first thought, as I had two thoughts going at the same time, sorry if you could not follow that. Your example is rather silly as there is no difference between the two. If I have never heard of god before you would label me an atheist because I didn't know about its existence. Then you tell me about god and I ask for you to show me god. You say you can't, thus I'm still in the same state of mind as before you told me about god.
grahamgeons 2 months ago
@grahamgeons Sure, your shitty writing is my fault.
No, if you had never heard of God, I would not label you an atheist. That's the point I've been making. Even shockoflogic sees this is wrong, he knows atheism involves a REJECTION of a claim. I can provide you with evidence for God, and you can accept the evidence or reject it, but in any case you must either accept the claim of God's existence, reject the claim, or be agnostic. Atheism is not the "default position."
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life "accept the evidence or reject it" if you had any evidence, then I would need to think on it, as you don't the thought never even crosses my mind. You seem very defensive considering I never blamed you for my writing format, I know its difficult to follow sometimes. That's what happens when you need to write in a scientific format instead of a literary format as a norm.
grahamgeons 2 months ago
@grahamgeons Well I do have evidence, some of which is explained in this video.
Example: You've gone you're whole life not thinking about my car. Now I tell you I own a car. You ask for evidence, and let's say- worst case scenario- I refuse to present any. Now if you REJECT the claim that I own a car, are you really "in the same state of mind as before"? Would you not agree that rejecting the claim is asserting a truth value? Realistically, would such a rejection be a reasonable response? Why?
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life That example only works if I don't know cars exist, because I know cars do exist and many people own them I would not need evidence for your cars existence. If you told me you owned a dragon I would not need to ask you for proof as I know you suffer from some sort of mental illness. Not that I'm calling you mentally ill, however if you told me you owned a dragon I would.
grahamgeons 2 months ago
@grahamgeons Ahhh.... so you acknowledge that you're making implicit assumptions about the claims being made-- implicit assumptions that lead you to reject the claim of a dragon, but remain neutral about the claim of a car. So we see that the negative is not necessarily the "default position", and that nonbelief (like the nonbelief you had in my car before I mentioned it) is not the same thing as disbelief (the rejection of the claim that I own a car, which here seems unreasonable.)
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life I don't assume dragons don't exist, I understand biology, physics and chemistry and know they can't exist. The claim on the car is irrelevant because when you tell me the car exists, the fact of its existence is not relevant in my head. The existence of the car is possible so its existence doesn't need to be proven to me. The difference being you know whether your car exists or not before telling me but you don't know if your god exists or not before telling me.
grahamgeons 2 months ago
@grahamgeons Are you just going to ad hoc your entire argument? What I know or don't know is irrelevant. This is a discussion about what it means to be an atheist. The existence of a car is possible, certainly, but, according to your logic, the existence of my car would HAVE to be proven to you for you not to reject the claim that I own one.
So if you "understand biology, physics and chemistry" enough to know dragons don't exist (I won't ask how), where is your evidence that God does not exist?
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life As I said before the existence of your car to me is irrelevant, you tell me it exists, I don't care if your lying to me or not because I know cars exist. I don't have to provide evidence god doesn't exist because he may very well exist, in a deists interpretation of a god. I will never dispute a deists claims on a god existing, a christian god however I will always dispute. 3v3danc3 and nonstampcollecter have both debunked the christian god many times over.
grahamgeons 2 months ago
@stallion4life As to how dragons don't exist, an Alpha predator as large as a dragon would no be able to remain unnoticed by humans for as long as there has been recorded history. If they were single celled organisms or something around that size they could have easily gone unnoticed until now. That's the most obvious way of putting it.
grahamgeons 2 months ago
@stallion4life lol. i've already answered you.
i reject the belief that a god exists and, also, the belief that god doesn't exist because there is no justification for either belief. i reserve my beliefs for what has been proven. atheism is a rejection, not a claim, belief or assertion. this is why atheism is incompatible with christianity; it rejects christianity's claim, but doesn't make a counterclaim.
sorry you don't get it. *shrugs*
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic Hate to break it to you, but you're not an atheist, you're an agnostic.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life an agnostic atheist, and you're an agnostic theist. :)
i'm glad we could come to an understanding.
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@stallion4life
By conceding that Atheists make videos trying to persuade people of something, wouldn't you logically believe that they attempted to provide something to their claims? I mean... you may not accept their arguments, but you can't have it both ways. Either they never tried to prove something or they made videos trying to prove something. What do you think Sam Harris does at his debates? sell Amway products.
stormblast49 2 months ago
@stormblast49 Oh, I never denied that the question is answerable, in theory at least. It's not meant to be a trick question. Quentin Smith, for instance, attempted a logical disproof of the belief that God created the Universe. Now how successful he was depends on whether or not you accept his premises, but in any case he gets an 'E'-for-effort from me. At least some atheists realize that "You can't prove a negative" is bunk.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life looks like you ran out of things to say. =P
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic Either make an argument or shut up. I'm not going to play games with you anymore.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@shockoflogic Uh, you just made a series of assertions, you didn't make an argument.
A rock lacks a belief in God.
If atheists are defined as people who "lack a belief in God", then a rock qualifies as an atheist.
BUT… a rock is not an atheist!
Therefore, "lacks a belief in God" is not an adequate definition of atheist.
No, an atheist is a person who disbelieves in God, just like every dictionary in the world tells us. The nonexistence of God is their claim.
Who's "painfully stupid" now?
stallion4life 2 months ago
Even if your points were accurate, his challenge is not valid in that he always redefines the meaning so no one can answer. Example he debated someone who put forth deductive logic premises of why he believes no supreme being can exist. Shock said you didn't even say atheism in your response, so you proved God. So by saying God can't be ect. ect, therefore there can be no God, is not making a case for Atheism... According to Shock. The intent of the person asking is relevant!
EdwardScissorHead 2 months ago
Even though you have drawn from the wikipedia article that "making a claim" requires the burden of proof, you have failed to understand this point. The concept of the burden of proof is that the person making the claim (ie. God/Nessie/Zeus/Thor/bigfoot exists) is the one required to provide proof - everyone else takes the negative position of that claim until proof is shown. That's how the world works - no one starts with a belief in every possibility until it is proven wrong to them.
TheSobek 2 months ago
@TheSobek Atheists make a claim. Their claim is that God does not exist. Ergo, the burden of proof is on them to prove this claim. It's not that difficult to understand, really!
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life No, the negative of something existing is not a claim. It may be a claim grammatically, but never philosophically. If it were, the phrase burden of proof would have no meaning - there would just be proof. As I already said, people do not start with a belief in every possibility and wait for them to be disproved but start with disbelief and wait for proof. The same is true of god.
TheSobek 2 months ago
@TheSobek People don't start with disbelief, people start not even knowing what it is they're supposed to believe or disbelieve. Atheists are people who became familiar with the concept of God, and decided they didn't believe it.
I'm really tired of atheists giving the same kindergarden objections over and over and over, thinking they're being original and that they're going to blow my mind. I've already explained why your objections are wrong in the very video you're responding to.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life I know you think you've explained why my objections are invalid, I am trying to explain to you why you are wrong. The point of burden of proof is that the one making the claim that something happened or that something is real is the one on whom the burden rests to provide proof. There would be no point in the concept existing if it applied to everyone. The burden of proof is not on atheists anymore than it is on people who don't believe in leprechauns.
TheSobek 2 months ago
@TheSobek The burden of proof lies on anyone who makes a claim. ANY claim. Period. If you feel this is incorrect, please cite a reference material that claims otherwise (hint: you won't be able to.)
You don't have a burden of proof for holding a belief, but only if you try to convince others of your belief, whether its a positive or negative belief.
If someone claims they saw leprechauns for themselves, and you want to convince them they're in error, you'd better have a good argument why!
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life Obviously this is beyond explanation for you. The burden lies with THE person making the claim. As in ONE person. If the counterclaim is simply that the claim is not true then no burden of proof exists for the counterclaim BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. The idea that one should be required to prove that leprechauns do not exist is patently ridiculous.
TheSobek 2 months ago
@TheSobek Yes, the burden lies with any person making a claim, and in a debate, both parties are making opposing claims. "It is impossibly to prove a negative" is a blatant falsity, and just shows the depth of your ignorance. I even disproved the point in the video, which you obviously replied to without watching.
You haven't told me anything I haven't heard a million times before, you're just recycling the same crap from the same atheist videos and blogs. Read a fucking book for once!
stallion4life 2 months ago
@stallion4life I am sorry if I'm merely repeating what others have said, but that doesn't make me wrong. It is not my fault that you fail to understand the point or, perhaps, have understood it and chosen to go with your own interpretation anyway. While one can logically explain that God almost certainly doesn't exist, it is difficult to provide proofs beyond this. The atheist's proof is the theist's lack of it and we are all atheists about most gods, some of us just go one extra.
TheSobek 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stallion4life Obviously this is beyond explanation for you. The burden lies with THE person making the claim. As in ONE person. If the counterclaim is simply that the claim is not true then no burden of proof exists for the counterclaim BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. The idea that one should be required to prove that leprechauns do not exist is patently ridiculous.
TheSobek 2 months ago
This video is a pile of shit.
I will refute it with the same language the video creator speaks....
HOO HOOO HOOOO HEEE HEEEE *bangs chest* HOO HOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOO HEEE HEEEE *beats chest and stamps feet*
Judicial78 2 months ago
Your proof for your religion is a fictional book and drugs/hallucinaton, and your reasoning for us needing to prove something is your own stupidity. Makes a lot of sense.
Before saying that we need to prove our claim, maybe it's best to find out what our claim is, which is nothing for anyone who doesn't specifically claim something like "There is no god".
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 Your assertion that the Bible is fiction is just that... and unsubstantiated assertion. I've never taken hallucinogens.
If you don't claim "There is no God", then you are not an atheist. Again, look at the dictionary definition.
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life A person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no god is most likely only an idiot. An atheist doesn't believe in it because of the lack of evidence.
There is very unlikely for there to actually be a god, and even less likely for the christian god to be the right one if there actually is, but that doesn't rule out the possibility, therefore the only logical thing to say is that you don't believe in it.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 You don't have to be 100% certain there isn't a God to qualify as an atheist. That would make you a "soft atheist" as opposed to a "hard atheist."
The fact that you think it is unlikely for God to exist makes you an atheist. May I ask how you arrived at the conclusion that God's existence is unlikely? Are you able to quantify exactly how unlikely it is? (Doesn't Dawkins say something like < 4%?)
If you were able to do that, you'd be on your way to proving that atheism is correct.
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life As i said in my lat comment, there is absolutely no evidence for any god's existence, making it very unlikely. If there existed a god that wanted people to worship it, then the least it could do would be to provide some evidence for it's existence. It would probably give some evidence even if it didn't want to be worshipped, just to prevent every idiotic act that is caused by different views on religion, yet no one has ever come across anything.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@stallion4life The fact that I said this doesn't mean that sog's challenge is valid, because disbelief is still disbelief no matter what you say. The fact that you said you don't have to be 100% sure contradicts your statement that an atheist has to claim that god doesn't exist, which made you destroy the point of your video. Not believing in something while keeping an open mind for any evidence isn't the same as claiming that something doesn't exist.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 You believe God doesn't exist, but you're not 100% sure of it. This is not contradictory… in fact, it's the very definition of "soft atheist".
If you wish to convince someone else of the unlikeliness of God's existence, the burden of proof would be on you.
Now it's possible for a person not to be 100% sure of God's existence, but still believe it is probable. Is this person an atheist too, by your definition? If they're a theist, then do they not also have a burden of proof?
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life There's a difference between not being sure and believing in something, and not being sure and disbelievin something. As long as you believe, you're a theist, and when you disbelieve, you're an atheist. The fact that you are claiming with this video that there is evidence, but you are using the bible, and you are talking of that as "for one thing", meaning that there should be more. When you say you have proof, show it, don't just talk about what you think others are claiming.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 BTW, my video takes pains to include people who merely think God's existence is unlikely under the rubric of "atheist", so I don't understand how you think my comment "destroys the point of my video".
You still haven't explained how you arrived at the conclusion that God's existence is improbable. Surely you just wouldn't throw a statement like that out there without good reason, would you?
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life I already said why I don't believe in a god. There's absolutely no evidence for it.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 If the evidence doesn't rise to your threshold of belief, that's fair enough. If you debate the veracity of the evidence presented, that's fair as well. But it is ignorant to say there is "absolutely no evidence" for God existence.
watch?v=LgwqgSmIdHY
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life That is something I said because it's incredibly annoying to explain why I don't believe, and then be ignored. It's not really appealing to take the time required to form a proper argument if the counterpart is just going to ignore it anyways, as you are doing here. There isn't any evidence that says there has to be a god, therefore I see no point in believing in it.
And if you reply one more time while ignoring at what I have written, I see no point in continuing this.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 Please tell me what you said that you think I ignored.
You said, "there is absolutely no evidence for any god's existence, making it very unlikely" which is both an invalid argument and is based on an unsound premise. I have "absolutely no evidence" that you don't own a car, but that doesn't make the fact that you own a car "very unlikely". If I go around trying to convince people that you don't own a car, or even that you *probably* don't own a car, I have a burden of proof!
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life A car is a physical object that's easy to prove that you own. A god is a supposedly invisible being that has no more proof of it's existence than what people think of as evidence. If you do not consider those things proof because you think logically enough to know it doesn't necessarily prove a god, what reason do you have to believe?
Also, i said i disbelieve gods because of lacking evidence that says there has to be a god, which you apparently found fitting to ignore.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 You missed the point entirely. I have no evidence YOU own a car, therefore, according to your logic, I must believe that it is "very unlikely" that you own a car, I have no burden of proof if I tell others so. As I said in the video, the "burden of proof" doesn't mean you have to prove your claim 100%, just that you have to present evidence.
I have dealt with your claim that there is "absolutely no evidence" for God several times. It is a bald, completely unsubstantiated assertion
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life As i said, for the car, it would be easy to provide evidence, but you are free to disbelieve it until I provide it.
And for the absolutelu\y no evidence, that was something I said to maybe make you look at what I actually wrote. I said there's no evidence thatsays there's no other way to interpret it than an evidence for a god, and therefore i choose not to believe. It's not that there's no evidence, and if there is any, it hasn't been found yet, and is irrelevant.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 It doesn't matter if the evidence is easy to provide or not. The fact of the matter is, right now, I don't have any evidence that you own a car. So should I, according to your logic, assume that it is "very unlikely" that you don't? Do I not have a burden of proof in saying that you probably don't? Please answer these questions!
Most of the arguments for God are probabilistic, nobody is denying that. There are cosmological arguments that may, however, prove God is necessary.
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life What matters is evidence. If evidence is provided for something, you know it's true, if it isn't provided, you believe what you want, but if you're not a person who believes anything you're told, you wont believe it without the evidence. It's the person that claims it that must prove it.
And what cosmological arguments were you thinking of? If it's something that's just not known yet, I may not reply to your comment, as I will think of you as nothing more than an ignorant fool.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 Of course we believe what we want, the question is: are we *justified* in what we believe. You say God probably doesn't exist, I say sandvikboy94 probably doesn't own a car. You really believe that neither are claims, and that neither incur any burden of proof for their speakers?
The Kalam cosmological argument is pretty well-known. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a debate over God's existence should at least be familiar with it: watch?v=yGWuZ0h4DN8
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life I say that there's no evidence saying that there has to be a god, therefore I don't believe in it. If you recall from earlier, i said there's a chance some god might exist, but i refuse to believe it before i see some evidence for it.
Also, the kalam argument is probably one of the worst arguments to prove a god. It's basically an argument from ignorance. If everything needs a cause, a god needs one to. It doesn't matter if people say their god is eternal.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 Ah, yes, your amateur philosophizing refutes the argument satisfactorily! I'm so glad a random YouTube bozo was able to disprove a respected thinker like Craig in five minutes!
You don't seem to understand what an "argument from ignorance is", just like you don't seem to misuse the term "logic".
stallion4life 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 Also, just for shits and giggles, I want to chart out four positions on the existence of God, and your apparent belief on what requires a burden of proof.
100% sure God doesn't exists- has burden of proof
Thinks God exists, but isn't sure- has burden of proof
Thinks God doesn't exist, but isn't sure- has NO burden of proof
100% sure God doesn't exist - has burden of proof
Doesn't this asymmetry seems a little odd to you? Doesn't it seem a little suspiciously convenient for you?
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life You need no proof as long as you don't try to push your belief on someone else. I don't try to make people disbelieve, I just find people trying to make others believe by giving man-made evidence annoying.
Also, I didn't disprove Craig. What he said just doesn't count as proof, as it's nothing more than something he said based on belief. If we don't know how the universe was formed yet, we should say we don't know. We shouldn't just say that only a god could do it.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@stallion4life Upon reading your "chart" comment again, I see that you clearly haven't realized what atheism is yet. Atheist don't think that there is no god, we do not believe that there is a god. There's a big difference between those. If you think there's no god, that would require something to base this assumption on, but not believing in a god is the result of the lacking evidence that a god exists.
Apparently, you are a coward or an ignorant fool, but most likely both.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 Ugh. You're pushing that same old tired "atheism is a lack of belief" line, that's as incorrect that thousandth time as it was the first. If you had bothered to watch the video, you'd know I disproved that point, as there are people (as well as animals and inanimate objects) that "lack a belief in God", that nonetheless can't be categorized as atheists. Atheists ACTIVELY believe there is no God. If you don't like that definition, take it up with Merriam-Webster.
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life That's the definition of a strong atheist, which I am towards the gods of religions on this planet, but you can be a strong and a weak atheist at the same time. I can claim that your god doesn't exist, as nearly everything you use as evidence is things from the bible which is already disproven, like the age of the earth.
I can't say for sure that there is absolutely no gods, but strangely enough, there's no one who claims the existence of any god that wasn't invented by humans.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 Wrong. There are many philosophical appeals to the existence of God that have nothing to do with the Bible. And the Bible has been "disproven"!?! Really!?! So why do almost no scholars of antiquity doubt the historicity of Jesus?
You're speaking from gross ignorance. Read a book and stop getting all your information from YouTube videos.
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life Also, as you apparently refuse to accept the difference between strong atheists and atheists in general, I see no point in dragging this further, as you will only accept your own interpretation of atheism, which you made up in your head based on one of two definitions from a dictionary. I will therefore not reply to any more of your comments, at least if you refuse to accept something as simple as the definition of a word.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@sandvikboy94 Lol... I've underlined the difference between hard ("strong") atheists and soft atheists every step of the way. To varying degrees, they both disbelieve in God, per the definition provided by just about any dictionary.
You're the one who refuses to accept the definition of a word. I gave citations from a dictionary. You can give citations for your definition from what… a bunch of illiterate YouTube atheists who are trying to weasel out of justifying their position?
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life So no, I actually said something fitting for what you wanted, but you chose to interpret it in your own way, or just ignored what was actually written.
sandvikboy94 3 months ago
@stallion4life Very well made video, coming from an atheist. Many times, people of any faith create videos like: "hey, atheists suck and god is so awesome cuz I read about him in a book" or likewise for atheists bashing Christians.
You actually brought up a coherent, well thought out argument, and brought it up in a civilized manner. I can't fit my rebuttal in a comment, but I will PM you. Just thought I'd say in public I give two thumbs up for this video, but not for the content :)
soulevs 3 months ago
STALLION4LIFE i will gladly take on your challenge but 1st we need some ground rules. What will you accpet as valid evidence that prooves the veiws of an Atheist is accurate & correct?
theELUSIV 3 months ago
This is so like trying to convince someone that the sky is blue...
The sky is blue...no it isnt... yes it is!....not if its cloudy....it is still blue past the clouds.... not at night...it's blue on the other side of the world at night...not if I can't see it for myself.
Denial of what is real will only make you play word games and give you false hope for something that just simply is not there. Atheists just want to help you shake your fear and egotism and get on with life.
rednecktrucker1969 3 months ago
2) Your silly little challenge is the equivalent of me asking the question "do you believe in reincarnation?" If you answer "no" I then turn around and ask "can you provide proof and evidence that your a-reincarnationism is accurate and correct?" Is yours now the burden of proof? I can give all the same evidence for reincarnation as you did for Christianity. As an a-reincarnationist why do you provoke people so much who just want to believe blah blah blah. Get the point yet?
ptango101 3 months ago
1) The thing with this challenge is it is inherently dishonest. Shock doesn't want an answer. That's why he systematically blocks everyone from his site and videos. Even after he has subscribed to their channel. The other reason is you have to redefine atheism to suit your needs. You put the simple definition up for all to see but it seems you didn't read it. Atheism is the negative response to an assertion nothing more nothing less. It's not a religion or political ideology. It's a "no" answer.
ptango101 3 months ago
"I don't believe there are any gods" != "I believe there are no gods"
Agnosticism/gnosticism has nothing to do with atheism:
Atheism/theism = About belief
Agnosticism/gnosticism = About knowledge
And thus you can be agnostic atheist, which means "I lack the belief there are any gods. The existence of any gods is unknown to us". A stereotypic fundamentalist is a gnostic theist: "I believe there is my particular god, AND I KNOW IT FOR A FACT, AND YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESNT EXIST"...
Gekkibi 4 months ago
There are different levels of atheism. I am an atheist. Those atheists who claim there is no possibility of any kind of God whatsoever, are making an assertion. Atheists who claim they do not believe there is a God because there is a lack of evidence do not have the burden of proof.
MrNicMachiavelli 4 months ago
More specifically, fire-breathing dragons.
schreck425 4 months ago
I challenge you to provide proof and evidence that dragon's do not exist.
schreck425 4 months ago
@schreck425 I'm sorry, I don't have any.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life Ok. Fair enough. Do you think fire-breathing dragons are real because you can't provide proof and evidence that they DON'T exist?
schreck425 4 months ago
@schreck425 No, that's the argument from ignorance, which I've taken pains to explain has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life Ok then. So if an atheist is just minding his own business, not trying to convince anyone of anything, and shockofgod comes up to him and does his challenge, is it still valid?
schreck425 4 months ago
@schreck425 Not any more than if an atheist asked a theist who was minding their own business to provide proof of their beliefs. The burden of proof is an criterion of persuasion, not of belief.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life Was that a yes or no? Yes I agree with you that if an atheist wants to persuade shockofgod that god isn't real then the burden is on the atheist to provide reasons why. Proof is still impossible for claiming something doesn't exist though, just like proving dragons do not exist. The only thing an atheist can do to persuade is to one by one knock down the theist's reasons for believing with proof/evidence/reasoning until the theist no longer has any good reasons to believe.
schreck425 4 months ago
@stallion4life Except that atheism is a disbelief of God not a claim that he does not exist. Where as theism IS a claim that he DOES exist. This is why the theist has to provide the proof and until he does this is why a non belief of God is justified because atheism is not making a claim while theism is. This is why "He who shall not be named"s question is indeed invalid. I truly hope for your sake you see "he who shall not be named" for the dishonest asshole that he is and free yourself.
TheAnimeAtheist 3 months ago
@TheAnimeAtheist Did you not watch this video? I explain why all of this is wrong.
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life I can only put so much in a single comment. Do you want me to step by step debuckle this in a pm?
TheAnimeAtheist 3 months ago
@stallion4life
Extend the straw-man all you'd like, but it's still a straw-man: atheists do not absolutely assert that a god doesn't exist... they simply recognize that believers have insufficiently supported their claims with evidence, particularly when what is proffered as evidence has not been shown to be authoritative/effectatious to the task of verification. For ex... why would uncorroborated accounts of seemingly miraculous biblical events validate a metaphysical claim (Jesus=sonogod)?
plightweisgoff 4 months ago
I believe that dragons are real. If you want to convince me that I'm wrong then the burden is on all of the adragonists out there to show me proof and evidence that dragons are not real.....? Am I hearing this correctly?
schreck425 4 months ago
@schreck425 Yes. If you believe in dragons, and I wish for you not to believe in dragons, then I'm going to have to persuade you that they aren't real. It's self-evident, really.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life Do you think I'd be incorrect in believing in fire-breathing dragons?
schreck425 4 months ago
Atheism mean lack of belief in gods. So you want me to prove that I lack belief in gods? Ok, I really, really, really don't believe in gods. Is that a compelling enough case for you?
The ONLY follow up question to this answer is "why don't you believe".
peronkop 4 months ago
its not valid in any way shape or form.. athieism is a lack of belief. you need to prove your version is correct to us..
scorand 4 months ago
@scorand "Atheism is merely a lack of belief" is apparently an article of faith among atheists. They never bring any arguments to support it, they just assume it as axiomatic. Well if you watched this video, you'd know that I proved that atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God, but also a belief that God does not exist. It is an assertion, and thus carries a burden of proof.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life
sigh.. guy?
learn the words okay?
there are weak atheists ("there is no proof to intelligently validate any claims regarding the existence of a god"), and strong atheists ("I believe no god exists").
Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Stephen hawkings, Brian cox (and myself) are all examples of weak atheists.
It's resoundingly stupid that theists insist the argument "you have no proof of your god" is a belief. it's not. it's a fucking fact.
learn what we say, FIRST okay droog?
TheRealityofNature 4 months ago
@stallion4life not at all.. it just means that some dont believe your assertion therfore no burden of proof is required, however since the religous have been asserting that god does infact exsist then the burden of proof falls on you. its up to you to connvince us that he does. claiming that we have to prove he doesnt is circular and very flawed logic
scorand 4 months ago
@stallion4life " is apparently an article of faith among atheists". Theism=belif in a god or gods. A=without. Atheism=without belief in a god or gods. What else do you need? it's a lack of belief. Atheism is not a belief that god doesn't exist Per se. If you don't believe in gods because nobody told you for example, you are an Atheist, you are without belief in a god or gods. There are thousands of gods you don't believe in, regarding those gods we are both Atheists, I just go one god further..
DocStrange0123 4 months ago
@DocStrange0123 How many clichés can you shoehorn in one comment? If you have a problem with my definition of atheist, take it up with Merriam-Webster. Your "lack of belief" definition would mean that agnostics, people who have never even considered the issue, and inanimate objects all count as atheists.
stallion4life 4 months ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 4 months ago
@stallion4life Wrong, Gnosticism and Agnosticism regards KNOWLEDGE, Theism and Atheism regards BELIEF, maybe it's you who haven't got your definitions straight, if you don't believe in a god or gods (for any reason, implicitly or explicitly, an that includes not believing AND/OR denial of the ixistance of a god, is not just exclusively an explicit denial Per Se), if to the question "Do you believe in the god X"? you asnwer is Yes, theist, anything else, Atheist, is that easy and that simple.
DocStrange0123 4 months ago
@DocStrange0123 So you're saying rocks are atheists? Go to 1:03 in this video to see the m-w definition of atheist... it means DISbelief.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life Those definitions are not accurate, don't trust some sources, this word had/have bad conotations. Go for the ethimological mening of the word. There is no doctrine in Atheism, "Atheist" only describes the position of an individual regarding the concept of deities thus being: without belief in deities. This can be Explicit or Implicit. Atheism and Theism regards belief, only congnitive sentient beings are capable of believe or not believe something (Implicit: a baby. Explicit: me)
DocStrange0123 4 months ago
@DocStrange0123 You just contradicted yourself. You said "Atheism and Theism regards belief", but you also said atheism is defined only by the *lack* of a belief.
I think I'll trust the dictionary, but thanks.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life Nope, to the question "do you BELIEVE in the god X?" if you anser Yes, theist, anything else, Atheist. That is on the realm of belief, either you believe something or you don't (including not being sure). If you don't believe in something you lack that belief, doesn't it? There are many thing you don't believe in. Do you believe in Shiva? what does that makes you? you don't belive in Shiva therefore you lack that belief, there are 99.999 gods in human history you don't believe in.
DocStrange0123 4 months ago
What was the question again? How many licks, does it... wait, it was proof and evidence that atheism is true and correct or something or other.
I wonder if there was a way to make a comparison if there would be an equal amount of hypocrite atheist as there are hypocrite christian fundamentalist. Somehow I doubt it.
TheMassdistortion 4 months ago
BTW ,christian or not, Jenkins is hot! Sorry about that, hormones are being reigned in as I speak.
TheAtheistJones 4 months ago
@TheAtheistJones Finally, someone here is talking some sense! lol
stallion4life 4 months ago
To paraphrase your evidence- god is real because there is a book and christians feel him working in their lives. This evidence then is proof that Islam, Buddhism and Hindu and true as well. They all make similar claims. The bible has all the hallmarks of being written by man and man alone. It has contradictions, the timelines are inconsistent at times, It is largely based on oral stories that become mythical over time, the nt predictions about jesus actually refer to people alive in ot times.
TheAtheistJones 4 months ago
Drivel. You haven't proven anything. It's a nonsense question from a nonsense person. Or rather simply a nonce.
Christheatheist1 4 months ago
I know youve probably hear this before but Can you provide evidece that Ateapotism is accurate and correct, I assume you dont believe in the cosmic teapot do you? The default position is not accepting a cliam that something exists till there is good reason to believe. If there was a Boy in India that never believed in Krishna or any gods, You think he need to prove that Krishan doesnt exist to be justified in not accepting it does exist?
Greathiway 4 months ago
@Greathiway Based on my experience, teapots are made by people, and it would be unlikely to find them in space, since as far as we know people only live on Earth. If, however, some astronauts reported that they did in fact see a teapot in space, I might be inclined to defer to their first-hand experiences. If I wanted to convince them that they are in error, and that there is no teapot, the burden of proof would be on me, the person making the assertion.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life "Based on my experience, teapots are made by people" EXACTLY, Arnt all gods (except your teapot) made by people? Can you show me one example of a disembodied mind?
""see a teapot " Thats ridiculous Dont you know anything about Bertrand Russell cosmic teapot? It is too smal and far be be detected by even our most powerful telescopes and Astronauts have not explored any significant amount of space.
"burden of proof would be on me" Ok then what is your evidence for Ateapotism?
Greathiway 4 months ago
@Greathiway So, since nobody has any way of ever detecting a teapot in outer space, I approach this, not as a claim anyone would make, but strictly as a hypothetical, right?
If so, my inductive argument that teapots come from people would be sufficient. I'd have an argument against teapots, with no arguments for teapots.
But drawing an equivalency between a mundane, inconsequential object *in* the Universe, versus a transcendent first cause *of* the Universe, is absurd in the first place.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life "any way of ever detecting a teapot " No its real, but we cant detect it because wearent omniscient & we might not ever have proof if its existence, But its a hypothesis just like the god. If I believed in the teapot would that mean you need to provide evidence of your Ateapotism?
"my inductive argument that teapots come from people " Again Gods come from people. But i can show you an ex of a tepot you can show an example of a mind without a brain? So I have evidence more evidenc
Greathiway 4 months ago
"equivalency between a mundane, inconsequential object" Right Its much more likley that a common thing exists in a place we havent been but know existd like space Than a super ordinary thing like a cosmic intelligence in place we dont know exists.
"versus a transcendent first cause " Your saying you know there is a first cause and this is must be transcendental and this trans frist cause is a specific god? There are layers of unjustified assertions here.
Greathiway 4 months ago
@stallion4life 'Based on my experience, teapots " Right but just like if I said the moon was mad of green cheese , it wouldnt be illogical or impossible, But from what we know about what cheese is, Its not likely or remotly reasonable to believe the moon is made of it, Same with gods, We know minds are the product of brains. Im not saying a nonphyiscal mind is impossible Just that it makes no sense givein what we know.
Greathiway 4 months ago
@Greathiway Minds may be an emergent product of brains, but mind is still nonphysical.
"Based on my experience, X only comes from Y" is a weak argument to begin with, but when it goes up against absolutely no evidence to the contrary, it wins. Now, like I said, if someone had seen a teapot (or some hunk of metal in the shape of a teapot, since this teapot obviously can't be used to serve tea) for themselves, then yes, I'd need something better to convince them they were mistaken.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life "Minds may be an emergent product of brains, but mind is still nonphysical." On that view then nothing is actaully physical. H2o may have the property of being wet is wetness is non-physical? Same with a spin of an electron, all properties of matter are may not themselves be physical, But the properties are what the physical things are they are a electron is indistinguishable from something that has the properties of an electron.
Greathiway 4 months ago
@stallion4life "but mind is still nonphysical." So a mind being non-physical is just and assertion there are no examples of disembodied minds. If minds were non-physical why are they always Dependant on brains.
Minds are what brains do. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?
"if someone had seen a teapot " People have seen teapots I can send you links or you can type teapot into google images, Teapots exist. and so does the vastness of space. You have no examples of anything like a god
Greathiway 4 months ago
I Know You Haven't Got Soul
watch?v=NrbFPSznUDA
Greathiway 4 months ago
Ok if I make the claim that god is a logical imposibilty due to the way he is put down by (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) and then provide proof that he is a assertion that he is beyond logic must then be proved before any future debate continues correct? If so then I have defeated shocks question.
ebilly99 4 months ago
Oops, that should say "How can SoG prove that within his belief structure there does not exist the belief "God does not exist"?
Voidsworn 4 months ago
For all I know, shockofgod does not actually believe that (Christian) theological claims are accurate/correct, but claiming he does. He might be a atheist being a Poe, and by so doing showing the weakness of the (Christian) theological stance. How can we prove that within shockofgod's belief structure there does NOT exist the belief "God does not exist."?
Voidsworn 4 months ago
@Voidsworn "For all I know"!?! There are only two important considerations here A) Is this something you actually believe? B) Is this a position you are interested in defending? If both A and B, the burden of proof is on you to show this position is warranted.
stallion4life 4 months ago