@MrStripeyDog Proof how society is brainwashed into Atheism, hence how the majority of morons has shifted from Theism to Atheism. None of them seem able to defend their own belief system, yet they enjoy attacking Theism as if they COULD prove it.
Now, if Aronra states..."If you make a statement, it better be accurate, you better be able to check the figures. You can't get away with nonsense." Now, I would like to find out how his philosophy that faith is inherently dishonest, is true. I would like to see HIS FIGURES. Because if he can't show them, then according to his own statement, he's letting himself get away with nonsense.
@Christistruth1 I think figure #1 would be a talking snake. (Might be a few before that, but I only read 16 pages of the Bible and had to put it down before I went insane, so I probably missed a couple.
@tjstevens74 I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about Aronra's philosophy. Finding something hard to believe doesn't prove it's false. In fact, was it a snake that spoke or was it Satan that took shape of a snake? The Hebrew word translated serpent in Genesis 3:1 is used 31 times in the Old Testament and is never translated any other way. But it comes from a root meaning “to practice divination.” As a noun this root is translated “enchantment” and in its verb form, “enchanter.”
@tjstevens74 cont...Whatever confronted Eve probably came to be called a serpent because of the judgment God pronounced upon it, that it would crawl on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life.(Gen. 3:14) But what it looked like before its judgment is anybody’s guess, except that it almost certainly didn’t look like a snake. Satan himself is called “that ancient serpent” in Rev. 12:9 but nobody thinks of him as looking like a snake.
@tjstevens74 finally...We don’t know what form the devil took on to have his chat with Eve, but whatever it was didn’t frighten her. Nor did she appear surprised to find herself conversing with it, but was persuaded by it’s logic, though flawed, and the authority with which it spoke.
I've debated Aronra, I have videos that I put together dismantling his arguments. And in the end he just choose to ignore me. Now, in one video which I have, he says...that "According to my philosophy, faith is inherently dishonest." Now, he's stated that if anything is true, it requires scientific evidence to back it up. Then I asked him what was the scientific evidence for his philosophy that faith is inherently dishonest true? He couldn't answer, and just attacked me. Now this is interesting
I particularly liked the guy discussing the Free Will Defence to the Problem of Evil who claims that the FWD is only legit if at least more than half of the people made it into heaven. Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.
Well, he took it so hard he made a response video trying to vindicate himself which is equally hilarious. What's even more hilarious is he thinks he's got three arguments against Plantinga's free will defense. Even though he still cannot comprehend why picking 50% is on a par with picking any number out of his arse. On top of that he misrepresents the Christian doctrine of creation and purpose. At least some of the others don't try pretending they can do theology!!
Sorry to break it to you but there is NO law in logic which states that 50% is the level of moral viability. Both he and you just pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Most people don't consider the lottery immoral and yet millions play only for a tiny % to ever win. Most nations on the planet enter the Olympics and yet only one nation will win. Is that "immoral"? Of course not.
Sorry to break it to you but there is NO law in logic which states that 50% is the level of moral viability. Both he and you just pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Most people don't consider the lottery immoral and yet millions play only for a tiny % to ever win. Most nations on the planet enter the Olympics and yet only one nation will win. Is that "immoral"? Of course not.
Sorry to break it to you but there is NO law in logic which states that 50% is the level of moral viability. Both he and you just pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Most people don't consider the lottery immoral and yet millions play only for a tiny % to ever win. Most nations on the planet enter the Olympics and yet only one nation will win. Is that "immoral"? Of course not.
Sorry to break it to you but there is NO law in logic which states that 50% is the level of moral viability. Both he and you just pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Most people don't consider the lottery immoral and yet millions play only for a tiny % to ever win. Most nations on the planet enter the Olympics and yet only one nation will win. Is that "immoral"? Of course not.
Sorry to break it to you but there is NO law in logic which states that 50% is the level of moral viability. Both he and you just pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Most people don't consider the lottery immoral and yet millions play only for a tiny % to ever win. Most nations on the planet enter the Olympics and yet only one nation will win. Is that "immoral"? Of course not.
What you have done, no doubt unawares to yourself, is make a huge presupposition. You have presupposed the validity of a very crude version of utilitarianism and, using this as your meta-ethic, you are suggsting it's just common sense. The truth is it's not and even most utilitarians today reject this crude form you espouse. Even Bentham would have rejected it as oversimplistic.
i was between jailbreaking appletv videos, is how i got here. Got to 6 anyway, should of done top 3, would have been more epic. Looks like were having difficulty finding 10. I dont get the dislikes, maybe it was the high pitched sound effects!!
Lame...We're not out there passing laws that the religious crazies have to believe in reason and logical consistency, so if they could just stop cramming their fairy tails down our throats there'd be no problem. By the way, if "we" made a car crashy video involving religious people it'd be way more funny......or not :O
This is so sad. Half of them aren't even mistakes, let alone embarrassing. And if poor grammar discredits the beliefs that person has, I have 2 and a bit words for you. George W. Bush.
Logical fallacies and naive assumptions = mild verbal errors? I NEVER said it invalidates everything they think now did I? Perhaps you inferring that from my video demonstrates your thinking can be just as sloppy? Thanks. ;)
@TheCartesianTheist What you call a logical fallacy is typically something alien to your way of constructing reality. This video is largely insubstantial nonsense. I call anything short of deism irrational.
Giving your life up to a church and a rigid set of "moral" rules to an invisible "god" is about as stupid as giving a Chimp some PCP and a fully loaded AK47 and shoving him into a crowded shopping mall!
Funny analogy that since it's weapons in the hans of the non-religious who did most of the killing in the twentieth century! ;)
Might as well not go to church, make up my own moral pick and mix combo, or better still embrace moral relativism, and do whatever the heck I like with my life with no sense of duty over me whatsoever?
@TheCartesianTheist Bullshit. I take it you're referring to the USSR and the PRC? The number of people they killed is exaggerated and deaths from famines caused by weather or flooding included in the totals. If you look at the murders of Hitler, the USA, and the numerous atrocities by conservative religious governments, I think the balance of death swings back to you. And that doesn't include the slave trade or massacres of indians by catholics.
Well once you make a solid case for all those incredible assertions you just made then maybe you'll have the beginnings of a case but as they are, currently, mere assertions, and I'm sure you would not want anyone to believe them on the basis of your authority, then there's not much to respond to. Same with the "insubstantial" criticism. You give not one example to support yourself which does not look good.
Neither Rebecca nor Angie made mistakes in the clips you showed. They made good points. It is reasonable to expect that everyone would be aware of an ultra-powerful being that wanted to be known. People have believed in unicorns and sasqatches and fairies. In terms of evidence for their existence, they are indistinguishable from gods.
Could you please explain? I know that the claim "Atheist exist therefore there are no gods" would be naive, but that is't what Angie said. It was closer to "The existence of Atheists is inconsistent with some popular definitions of God." This is true.
Rebecca was making a point that people who assert things have the burden of proof, and the burden has not been met for unicorns or deities. If you have a rebuttal to this point, please give it or direct me to it.
@krobust this guy is immune to logic and reasoning. its best not to try to hard in responding to him because the nonsense would drive any rational person insane.
On the Darkantics one: What he was saying was pretty simple. If more people are saved than condemned, the plan was "justifiable." It's simple mathematics. If you subtract the damned people from the saved, you are still in the positive. He is not condoning the eternal torture of anyone, he is just saying that God's plan is fundamentally flawed if the majority of his children get tortured forever. I suppose you think it doesn't matter how many people burn forever as long as some are saved.
It's not the mathematics in his quote it's the assumption which is not justified but slipped in. Why should anyone accept that the justifiablity level needs to be 50% +? What is more important then numbers is a world where people may make real choices and be free enough to reject God if they wish to do so. DM states it like it's an obvious fallacy when, clearly, it's not.
I think the point is that his plan yields a negative outcome as opposed to a positive. In this scenario, God has created a system where the majority of his children will not get into Heaven.
I think DM is placing more value on getting into Heaven than on having free will. I haven't seen the video in a while so I could be wrong.
But that's the whole point. You cannot calculate a postive / negative outcome on the basis of those figures alone. Life is not a football match!! And the reductionistic utilitarian philosophy being employed is, after all, assumed and not stated. God only needs to create a world where people have the freedom to accept or reject him. If you set figures on it then God cannot allow free-will any longer. So his 'thinking' is flawed.
Yes, fair enough. If God's goal was for people to have free will no matter what, I guess so.
DM was assuming that God wanted to maximize the amount of people he saved. It seems like God could pick many different options that resulted in nobody going to Hell, but that's irrelevant to the argument.
And now "moron"; that's just wonderful. I assumed you made the video because of your somewhat "shrill" defense of it. However, your wholehearted support for it seems tantamount to the same thing in the end. I am not "trolling" as you put it; I watched the video, disagreed with it's nonsensical motivations, and questioned them. That's all I'm doing, and I'm the only one, not to put too fine a point on it, who decides when I'm "done".
Well, THAT'S certainly a "christian" attitude you've got there; I draw your attention to the fact that you have now referred to me both directly (an idiot), and indirectly (illiterate) in an insulting manner. Why would you make a video refuting only "certain" atheist youtubers, if not to prove some higher point? Was it only to insult their unrehearsed comments, grammatical and subjective errors? If so, I state again that that seems a complete waste of time.
No, it doesn't say anything about that; that's why I asked, certainly not because I'm illiterate. What I saw in the video was a lot of grasping at straws and contextualizing. So therefore, I thought I'd ask what the point was. You really didn't prove anything here, sorry. Besides, the people you featured are not the only atheists in the World, nor do they represent their opinions. So it seems like it was a waste of time.
Why did you select "outspoken atheists"? Statement number two leads back to this question. Be specific; you cannot expose a person's "thinking" any more than you can guess when he'll die; what you take issue with is what they said and/or how they said it, which I found highly selective. Statement four leads back to this statement. No, you certainly didn't, and so you should offer such a disclaimer. Yes, and I am permitted to expose ignorance and an agenda when I see it.
There is an obvious agenda in your actions, whether or not you choose to admit it. I have no intention of going through that video again with a fine-toothed comb, suffice it to say that what I heard were grammatical and ancillary subject errors that many people make when speaking unrehearsed. Their points (what you allowed us to hear of them) seemed valid to me. Now, do you suppose that "exposing" such things will REALLY help to "deter" other atheists? THAT'S absurd.
Thank you for now admitting that having accused this video of quote-mining you are now saying you are not going to bother substantiating that claim. Therefore your claim is nothing more than an assertion and need not be taken seriously. And that fact that you think their points are valid shows that the amount of non-thinking people on YT is increasing by the day. Thanks anyway.
@TheCartesianTheist how about sustaining the claim that there is a god who loves us and cares for us and if we are good, sends us to heaven. its kind of funny how you use logic against his comment but completely fail to use it in your own belief system. you religious folks are funny sometimes but mostly are kind of sad to watch.
But you have just created a God who is morally inferior since he has no sense of justice and that makes your god concept less than good. Funny how you accuse of failure to think and yet don't point out clear examples of such?
@TheCartesianTheist whats with the pointless nitpicking? the bible says those things about god. okay then let me rephrase the comment, how about sustaining the claim that the god that YOU believe exists?
@TheCartesianTheist ive watched some of your videos, they are ignorant and uninformed. you cannot support your claims with facts and evidence, you can only support it with assertions. i really do wonder why darkmatter bothers to even argue with you. you are not interested in finding answers, you are only interested in confirming your own biases. i am ready to be proven wrong by anyone at anytime, just give me viable evidence and i will change my mind.
Funny then how you cannot give me even one example of where the ignorance or uninformed moment was though isn't it?! Dm bothers arguing with me because he knows all too well he's been answered on previous matters and is still trying hard to
prove himself. Tell us what you mean by "viable" evidence exactly please.
@TheCartesianTheist when i say "viable evidence" i mean anything thats actually real and observable and tested and proven and peer reviewed. if you can provide this with any of your claims, then i will believe whatever your claim is.
Okay, in that case I would like viable evidence that one is only justified to believe something where there is "actually real and observable and tested and proven and peer reviewed" evidence for it." Please provide the viable evidence for this please.
@TheCartesianTheist why would you want to believe anything that you dont have good enough reason to believe? i could believe that my mouse is somehow a magical lamp that i can get a genie to come out of. your basis for belief seems to be where, if you believe in it hard enough, you can somehow convince yourself that its true. then once you do that, no matter what anyone says to you, you are fixed on that thought pattern. you are not interested in answers, only in arguing. prove me wrong.
Sorry but no. You cannot simply make a huge epistemological claim and then state I have to prove you wrong. If you read objectively you will see you did not even try answering my actual question. I asked, and ask again:
"I would like viable evidence that one is only justified to believe something where there is "actually real and observable and tested and proven and peer reviewed" evidence for it." Please provide the viable evidence for this please."
@TheCartesianTheist here are a few definitions of evidence to help you out, not that it would help anyway seeing as how you just want to fight.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
Thanks for the definitions but I did not ask for them. Neither am I asking for a "fight" so where you get that from I don't know! You made a claim and I have asked you TWICE some some evidence.
Let me spell it out a third time. You said that truth claims ought to have "actually real"/"observable"/"tested"/"proven" and "peer reviewed" evidence. Okay then - that is quite some truth claim. So I want those 5 pieces of evidence for your truth claim. This is the third time!
@TheCartesianTheist you obviously have no grasp on what i am saying, or you just want to avoid answering the question (that i asked first) and dance around it. what i am saying is that you told that other guy that he needed actual proof for what he told you. my comment was asking you to provide the same for your beliefs. if you required evidence from him to know his claim was true, then why cant i ask you for evidence for whatever you claim? how do we know something is true without evidence?
I seriously doubt I asked anybody to prove anything - unless, of course, I was mirroring a demand of theirs back to them since I do not hold that anything can be proven. Your comment was NOT to ask simply for evidence, as you are now watering the demand down I notice, but for a very specific type of evidence, which is why I called you out on that and is why, no doubt, you have now backed down from that type of evidence since you have realised it cannot be given.
@TheCartesianTheist okay how about this. since this is going nowhere, i am going to start completely over on a clean slate with you just so you have no trouble following me. you asked a guy for evidence for his point of view, i am asking you for your evidence for your theological point of view. please provide me with evidence for the things that you believe so that i may understand why you believe it.
No, no. It appears you are having serious problems following me. You already stated five criteria necesssary for accepting a truth proposition. I am questioning your methodology. You see, if your methodology is faulty from the very beginning then there's no basis for the discussion. If you cannot, yourself, justify you own truth propositions according to the five criteria you tell me I must provide then clearly I have demonstrated that your method is faulty.
@TheCartesianTheist okay, the way i worded the comment was faulty, i will admit that. now, since i gave you the definition of evidence, you should know what it is. so i will ask my question again, please answer it. you wanted the guy to give evidence for the point he made in his comment, otherwise you refused to believe him. i am asking, could you please give me your evidence that your theological viewpoint is actually true and reliable? without actual evidence, i have no reason to believe you
Thank you for backing down on that claim. I hope you can see just how important that moment is. The reason is because when making demands of other people and their beliefs one must not set criteria to meet which one cannot even meet for one's own beliefs. That would be, of course, highly hypocritical. The evidence I would cite would be most of the traditional arguments for the existence of God as well as arguments regarding the best explanation of human phenomena.
Then I would also defend my view based on a comparison of worldviews and internal consistency within them. I would also defend the Bible on the basis of archaeological support and textual attestation. But there are other types of important reasons for believing what one does as well which cannot be discounted and those are personal reasons which also play an important part of my beliefs but which cannot be used to convince others.
@TheCartesianTheist i have researched into the bible, its claims, and the reliability of those claims and they all fall dreadfully short of any real integrity. but, you are allowed to believe what you want to believe, just as I am allowed to question your beliefs. if anything, i am trying to make sense of your beliefs. i do not understand why one would believe in something so vague that doesnt even have any real observable evidence.
I guess I don't really understand where you're coming from either. I mean, you believe in objective truth [the idea that something is true whether anyone believes it or not] and not just that people can make up their own truths - yes? And yet if I asked you where the "real observable evidence" is for objective truth what are you going to point me to? There are things for which we can have reasons for believing them which do not rely upon physically observable evidence.
As it is there is actually plenty of physical evidence which validates the writers of the Bible. Go and see the pool of Siloam for yourself [people used to think the reference in John's gospel was made up until they actually found it]. Or go to the British Museum sometime and look at the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III and the Taylor Prism. I mean all three of those you can see with your eyes and they help validate historical Biblical writings.
@TheCartesianTheist Sorry for interupting but i find your post interesting. So would it be possible that Homers writings are true? What is your take on that? There is physical evidence that would make his stories true. The illiad is based on the ten year trojan war.
Well that's an interesting one since these findings have caused a great deal of debate amongst ancient historians as to what degree Homer is actually basing his stories on real places and actual events. That's exactly the point. The evidence suggests he didn't completely make everything up [like, say, Tolkien did for Lord of the Rings for example]. He has, at least, borrowed actual places and possibly some events too and this view is held by historians of Homer.
@TheCartesianTheist Worth the research and thought, I think. Thanks for the upload and insight. Oh, good luck with the argument from the guy who does not believe in the historical Jesus, should be fun!!!
@TheCartesianTheist im glad you asked, i have a very good video by a scholar David Fidgerald. you can google his credentials you want (ah the wonder of human technology). here is the video /watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE&feature=BFa&list=FLTPwntHJ0SoKwLAaskn0uyQ&lf=mh_lolz .(youtube.com goes before the slash)
I was disappointed you didn't comment on most of what I just said but glad you responded with your view although I was disappointed again when you simply referenced me to a video. Even greater was my disappointment when I clicked on it to find that this guy is seriously [???] going to try to argue there was not a historical Jesus? What next? Zeigeist videos? Please, I thought you were going to come back with something serious!
I will at least concede that I practically expect theist videos to have ratings/comments disabled, and that this exception to a largely general rule is refreshingly honest. The original poster seems to have a decent rate of responding to posters (even my drunk comment toward the top), and so he/she is thus far a good sport.
@TheCartesianTheist I couldn't find the original clip by Rebecca Watson (name of the video you excerpted would help). As I'm confident that you remember, she said, "I don't believe in God or unicorns. You can compare them, while they may differ, in a lot of ways they're the same. For instance, some people believe they [God and unicorns] exist."
I'd be curious as to where she was going with this, and what other common attributes she assigned them, but I'd need the entire video.
If you say something as if you have researched it and make it sound like a fact to an unknowing audience then you have lied. You have clearly overlooked that any decent definition of a lie includes the bluff and that's what this lad does.
"where does it include they are outspoken."
If you knew any of the names on there you would know this.
Your source on AronRa doesnt include the religion or former religion of the epistemologists. Even if it did, and you found a proponent of epistemology was either a current christian or a had always been atheist/agnostic/etc, it wouldnt show that AronRa "lied". It would show he didnt research every proponent of epistemology out there. Also, to be a proponent of epistemology, which is a philosophy (meaning...any can adhere to it), it doesn't have to be a primary field of study for you.
No it shows he didn't do his homework properly since several of them are outspoken Christians. He himself, says if you're going to say something you better get your facts straight. Even after I pointed this mistake out to him he still could not apologise or admit he made an error. So it appears that he's quite happy with lying too.
One thing to remember as well: you used a young women's image for the thumbnail without her consent; Wouldn't that be against the bibles teachings?
So how are you a good christian for stealing peoples images and using them when they tell you not to? If anything your actions show you as just another evil self titled theist who proves that religion and the people who practice it are evil.
And for the record that video you try to send people to defend this as a "parody" explicitly says your breaking the law, as this is not a parody and you have yet to prove otherwise.
You should know that because you used clips without permission, many of the people in this video can easily file a DMCA as you have not used their works under fair use guidelines. Please remove it.
Oh man, I would so have liked to see Hume facepalming.
On a serious note, some of these I disagree with /big woop, see my name xP) but I am absolutely shocked by the rest. So yeah, my favourite car crash is the one where Hume should be facepalming :P
@TheAtheologian to clarify, I meant they I disagree with their placement on the list, in the sense that I think some of them were paraphrased badly and I know of plenty of examples of worse people.
Btw, I tried laughing, although I was leaning on crying...
Demonstrate how just one of these people got quote-mined out of context to the point where they were actually saying something very different from what it sounds like in this video. If you can. ;)
@TheCartesianTheist How about letting us hear all of Angie's quote? Two separate AronRa quotes spliced together? Rebecca Watson? Anyway, what is wrong with her quote? She is simply (and slightly sarcastically) pointing out the fact that there is little difference between the invisible and non-existent. Believing in celestial, invisible and undetectable beings because of what it says in a barbaric and contradictory 2000yr old book is unbelievably irrational and laughably absurd.
@TheCartesianTheist I've just watched the first 15 mins of that documentary and so far Mr. Cunningham has given us the ultimate answer (from Philo) to the many contradictions found in the bible: "Don't take them at face value but look for a deeper meaning". How convenient! Also, what a filthy slander to call Dawkins an 'extremist' and a 'crusader' and to compare him to the morons on the creationist side. He is looking to educate people and free them from ignorance and superstition. A bad thing?
Yes there are contradictions IF READ LITERALLY! Did you not listen properly or what? The principle of charity is alsmot universally used in approaching serious literature so why not here? Then there's the literary parallelism in chapter one and the repetition and the way yom is used in differing ways between chapters 1 and 2. All clear indications we need to be careful not to read it over-simplistically.
@TheCartesianTheist Even if I did agree with you regarding these YT atheists, the points you raise pale in comparison to those of you and your theist friends.
I see that you accept the theory of evolution, which, of course, directly contradicts the Genesis account. May I ask on what authority you decide which sections of the bible are metaphorical and which are not and how you can take your bible a la carte?
@TheCartesianTheist Oh, and the final Atheist Exp clip. I've seen that clip and the whole reason they hung up on that caller was because they had repeatedly asked him for proof of the existence of god which he said he had, yet failed to produce. Quote mined, methinks.
This: "...it's quite possible for perfectly rational people to come to an area like philosophy or theology and just not manage to be rational in that area"... implies that these isolated (and contextless) quotes indicate a larger problem with their thinking on these matters... and that hasn't been adequately demonstrated. So... what exactly ARE you trying to accomplish with this video?
"so you got idiots like ray comfort... and we got our own idiots to"
This is a genuine question, but are there any notable *philosophically competent* atheists that you can be proud of? As far as I'm aware, the atheists in the philosophical specialty are just as vocally critical of New Atheism, or even more so than the theists.
@TheCartesianTheist Are they wrong? How do you know they are wrong? How did you arrive at your conclusions? Why did you believe they were correct? What are you using as a benchmark for your reasoning? How do you know that is right? Demonstrate that you have evidence for that conclusion.Give empirical proof to support that.(and around and around and around we go) Then..
Did you think it warranted making a video? (then start again from above) ;]
Okay - the first clip then. The guy on the right says the formulation of the CA is that "everything" which exists requires a cause of its existence. Find me ONE philosopher who formulates it this way. The guy on the left states this is PALEY's argument. FInd me ONE quote from Paley to that effect. If you can do that then I'll take the video down and hang my head in shame. Good luck!!
Indeed, you are correct... theists using the CA don't apply it to everything, and that's the problem: God gets off that hook by definition... which screws that pooch.
That does not mean to say that horse-drawn carriages are exceptions to the rule. They are nothing to do with the rule. Similarly with all major version of the CA. God is not an exception to the rule - he simply does not apply to the rule at all.
Nonsense. If this god does not apply to the rule, this god does not apply to the proffered system of causality that requires continuity; by getting him off the hook, you effectively make him impotent to effect causal change... unless you'd like to make an exception, and special plead like you've been wanting to do all along.
No, you merely asserted that it wasn't the case, you did not argumentatively defend it, and even if you could have, the same result occurs: this god becomes irrelevant to the entire causal schema, while you still try and use him as a magic solution to your non-problem.
Those people are indeed stupid, right up there with the person who made this video and the majority of the other morons who try to preach one way or the other over youtube. It's fucking youtube, for christs sake. This world would be such a better place if people would quit trying to cram their beliefs down each others throats.
Those people are indeed stupid, right up there with the person who made this video and the majority of the other morons who try to preach one way or the other over youtube. It's fucking youtube, for christs sake. This world would be such a better place if people would quit trying to cram their beliefs down each others throats.
Those people are indeed stupid, right up there with the person who made this video and the majority of the other morons who try to preach one way or the other over youtube. It's fucking youtube, for christs sake. This world would be such a better place if people would quit trying to cram their beliefs down each others throats.
@PrimeJustice40 If we were half as brilliant as we believe we are, we'd have already have won her over to our side, and be passing her around amongst ourselves like our favorite blunt.
But wait- I thought atheists were intelligent people? Surely everything I have been taught about atheists is still true? -that they're the ones to aspire after, due to the way they always pursue reason and logic whilst being a skeptic about everything. Surely, their arguments aren't fallible! Surely in real life *they're* not the ones who use flawed logic to draw absurd conclusions, and simultaneously try to find any excuse for no god. Oh no, my worldview has completely turned upside down!
@wazpoppin9: atheists can be skeptic about religion all they want, but what they are not aware for obvious reasons is why is there too many illogical concepts about the "flawed" theiistic origins. It's nothing but an inexcusable effort to argue and debate about the existence of God without claiming the views of evolution.
@TheCartesianTheist Well that's because his epistemology is shall we say fundamentally "Objectarded," thus it literally pervades all of his thinking. Thus it's not a surprise.
If you get a robot and run it on malware of course you're going to get a Randroid.
10. Finally, an actual car wreck. Only took you 10 tries.
Seriously Cartesian, you could do way better if you tried. I mean, if these are the TOP TEN car wrecks? Atheists are doing pretty good. :) Especially since the top ten christian car wrecks include things like "The Grand Canyon was formed in about 5 minutes."
I'm not claiming they are the most awful top ten ever. Just the top ten from my 'stupid atheist folder'. And, well I could have been unfair and made all ten from Objectivism [since that is the atheist version of Young-Earth creationism] but I was kinder than that and branched out. Going after Objectivism is just too easy you see. Trouble is most atheists, by contrast, only know how to go after YECs. [As for the rest. I don't have the time to school you - sorry.]
@TheCartesianTheist I know you don't, as the amount of time it would take to try would take forever. :)
Seriously though, if objectivism is the atheist version of young earth creationism...we've got you beat there too. At least there are SOME tenable parts to objectivism. Young Earth Creationism's a bigger joke than...well...I don't even have a point of comparison it's so bad.
"Asking if you're sure if you exist is the statement of an ignoramus" isn't near as bad as "Grand canyon: 5 minutes."
@TheCartesianTheist The difference is, one's simply a useless tautology. The other is, and is a direct result of, scientific illiteracy, blind faith, anti-science propaganda, and dogmatic assertions of truth.
8. Yeah...if you would have shown the clip, that's not a car wreck. The guy calls in saying he can prove god exists, and Matt shrugs and says, "You have a minute" because...well...the show was ending. Not a car wreck...just public access TV restrictions.
9. I hate TJ. I think he's an awful representative of atheism. But...even in this clip, I have to side with him. What exactly is the car wreck here? If we all agree as to some core rules, then what morals we choose from there...
8.Could be true.The guy shouldn't have acted liked he defeated him because he couldn't do it.That factor is what makes it a car wreck.
9.I agree with you on TJ.But, I disagree with your defense.He made that voice that was sarcastic trying to say that it wasn't possible in the world were morals are formed from societies that horrible laws like rape,murder,cannibalism, and human sacrifice are ok,if the majority agree.Goes against everything in history and historians would laugh.
@ninetailschris 8. He didn't. So...if that's the factor that makes it a car wreck, it's not a car wreck. You clearly never saw the clip in question...I have.
6. Again, a slip up is hardly a car wreck. Besides, saying something that's untrue doesn't = lie. Can I call that a car wreck from you? I'm betting you'd say it's not a car wreck.
7. Is she wrong? Is there not a similarity in that people believe in fantastically absurd things with no regard as to critically investigating whether or not they're true? I'm sure you think atheists are in that position...so...yeah.
Pure gold!
MrStripeyDog 9 hours ago
@MrStripeyDog Proof how society is brainwashed into Atheism, hence how the majority of morons has shifted from Theism to Atheism. None of them seem able to defend their own belief system, yet they enjoy attacking Theism as if they COULD prove it.
Indeed, pure gold!
MrVirtualCoder 58 minutes ago
Now, if Aronra states..."If you make a statement, it better be accurate, you better be able to check the figures. You can't get away with nonsense." Now, I would like to find out how his philosophy that faith is inherently dishonest, is true. I would like to see HIS FIGURES. Because if he can't show them, then according to his own statement, he's letting himself get away with nonsense.
Christistruth1 5 days ago
@Christistruth1 I think figure #1 would be a talking snake. (Might be a few before that, but I only read 16 pages of the Bible and had to put it down before I went insane, so I probably missed a couple.
tjstevens74 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjstevens74 I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about Aronra's philosophy. Finding something hard to believe doesn't prove it's false. In fact, was it a snake that spoke or was it Satan that took shape of a snake? The Hebrew word translated serpent in Genesis 3:1 is used 31 times in the Old Testament and is never translated any other way. But it comes from a root meaning “to practice divination.” As a noun this root is translated “enchantment” and in its verb form, “enchanter.”
Christistruth1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjstevens74 cont...Whatever confronted Eve probably came to be called a serpent because of the judgment God pronounced upon it, that it would crawl on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life.(Gen. 3:14) But what it looked like before its judgment is anybody’s guess, except that it almost certainly didn’t look like a snake. Satan himself is called “that ancient serpent” in Rev. 12:9 but nobody thinks of him as looking like a snake.
Christistruth1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjstevens74 finally...We don’t know what form the devil took on to have his chat with Eve, but whatever it was didn’t frighten her. Nor did she appear surprised to find herself conversing with it, but was persuaded by it’s logic, though flawed, and the authority with which it spoke.
Christistruth1 2 days ago
I've debated Aronra, I have videos that I put together dismantling his arguments. And in the end he just choose to ignore me. Now, in one video which I have, he says...that "According to my philosophy, faith is inherently dishonest." Now, he's stated that if anything is true, it requires scientific evidence to back it up. Then I asked him what was the scientific evidence for his philosophy that faith is inherently dishonest true? He couldn't answer, and just attacked me. Now this is interesting
Christistruth1 5 days ago
I particularly liked the guy discussing the Free Will Defence to the Problem of Evil who claims that the FWD is only legit if at least more than half of the people made it into heaven. Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.
theycallhim 1 week ago
@theycallhim
Well, he took it so hard he made a response video trying to vindicate himself which is equally hilarious. What's even more hilarious is he thinks he's got three arguments against Plantinga's free will defense. Even though he still cannot comprehend why picking 50% is on a par with picking any number out of his arse. On top of that he misrepresents the Christian doctrine of creation and purpose. At least some of the others don't try pretending they can do theology!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist
He picked 50% because because of logic. If say 51 people had to die/burn to save 49 how the fuck can you say that's at all moral?
If god is all knowing why would he create so many people that he knew he was going to have to torture for eternity?
Tyjohnable 4 days ago
@Tyjohnable
Sorry to break it to you but there is NO law in logic which states that 50% is the level of moral viability. Both he and you just pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Most people don't consider the lottery immoral and yet millions play only for a tiny % to ever win. Most nations on the planet enter the Olympics and yet only one nation will win. Is that "immoral"? Of course not.
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist
OMG how could you even compare the lottery to this?
Let me ask you this would the lottery be immoral if you killed all the losers?
Tyjohnable 34 minutes ago
@Tyjohnable
Sorry to break it to you but there is NO law in logic which states that 50% is the level of moral viability. Both he and you just pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Most people don't consider the lottery immoral and yet millions play only for a tiny % to ever win. Most nations on the planet enter the Olympics and yet only one nation will win. Is that "immoral"? Of course not.
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@Tyjohnable
Sorry to break it to you but there is NO law in logic which states that 50% is the level of moral viability. Both he and you just pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Most people don't consider the lottery immoral and yet millions play only for a tiny % to ever win. Most nations on the planet enter the Olympics and yet only one nation will win. Is that "immoral"? Of course not.
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@Tyjohnable
Sorry to break it to you but there is NO law in logic which states that 50% is the level of moral viability. Both he and you just pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Most people don't consider the lottery immoral and yet millions play only for a tiny % to ever win. Most nations on the planet enter the Olympics and yet only one nation will win. Is that "immoral"? Of course not.
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@Tyjohnable
Sorry to break it to you but there is NO law in logic which states that 50% is the level of moral viability. Both he and you just pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Most people don't consider the lottery immoral and yet millions play only for a tiny % to ever win. Most nations on the planet enter the Olympics and yet only one nation will win. Is that "immoral"? Of course not.
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@Tyjohnable
cont.
What you have done, no doubt unawares to yourself, is make a huge presupposition. You have presupposed the validity of a very crude version of utilitarianism and, using this as your meta-ethic, you are suggsting it's just common sense. The truth is it's not and even most utilitarians today reject this crude form you espouse. Even Bentham would have rejected it as oversimplistic.
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist
The only way I can see getting around 50% number is if some lives have more value than others and I reject that idea.
That kind of thinking has led to some of the worst atrocity's in history.
Tyjohnable 23 minutes ago
This is excellent, YouTube atheists are HILARIOUS.
theycallhim 1 week ago
@theycallhim Have you seen many creationist YouTube videos?
phurt89 6 days ago
i was between jailbreaking appletv videos, is how i got here. Got to 6 anyway, should of done top 3, would have been more epic. Looks like were having difficulty finding 10. I dont get the dislikes, maybe it was the high pitched sound effects!!
ichoosenoname 1 week ago
Lame...We're not out there passing laws that the religious crazies have to believe in reason and logical consistency, so if they could just stop cramming their fairy tails down our throats there'd be no problem. By the way, if "we" made a car crashy video involving religious people it'd be way more funny......or not :O
NATTypeStrick 2 weeks ago
This video is a car wreck. You can't prove that any of these people are wrong. In fact, they are quite the opposite. Good try.
Chipotle3333 2 weeks ago
@Chipotle3333
I notice you bottled giving one example though eh?!
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
This is so sad. Half of them aren't even mistakes, let alone embarrassing. And if poor grammar discredits the beliefs that person has, I have 2 and a bit words for you. George W. Bush.
JayEmSea 2 weeks ago
@JayEmSea
I notice you could not show that even one of them is not a mistake though!
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@burnlaugh Both is seems.
ParaPsyopticNerve 2 weeks ago
@ToothpickMcBrainy
Logical fallacies and naive assumptions = mild verbal errors? I NEVER said it invalidates everything they think now did I? Perhaps you inferring that from my video demonstrates your thinking can be just as sloppy? Thanks. ;)
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist What you call a logical fallacy is typically something alien to your way of constructing reality. This video is largely insubstantial nonsense. I call anything short of deism irrational.
ToothpickMcBrainy 2 weeks ago
@ToothpickMcBrainy
"What you call a logical fallacy is typically something alien to your way of constructing reality."
Also, you never backed that claim up with anything at all to support your contention which could be seen as a fallacy of assertion. ;)
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
On the Atheist Experience one at 3:30, they easily can prove they exist in 60 seconds; I can see them!
IseeRightThrough2you 3 weeks ago
@IseeRightThrough2you
And your eyes never deceive you?
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
Giving your life up to a church and a rigid set of "moral" rules to an invisible "god" is about as stupid as giving a Chimp some PCP and a fully loaded AK47 and shoving him into a crowded shopping mall!
larsonb33 3 weeks ago
@larsonb33
Funny analogy that since it's weapons in the hans of the non-religious who did most of the killing in the twentieth century! ;)
Might as well not go to church, make up my own moral pick and mix combo, or better still embrace moral relativism, and do whatever the heck I like with my life with no sense of duty over me whatsoever?
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Bullshit. I take it you're referring to the USSR and the PRC? The number of people they killed is exaggerated and deaths from famines caused by weather or flooding included in the totals. If you look at the murders of Hitler, the USA, and the numerous atrocities by conservative religious governments, I think the balance of death swings back to you. And that doesn't include the slave trade or massacres of indians by catholics.
ToothpickMcBrainy 2 weeks ago
@ToothpickMcBrainy
Well once you make a solid case for all those incredible assertions you just made then maybe you'll have the beginnings of a case but as they are, currently, mere assertions, and I'm sure you would not want anyone to believe them on the basis of your authority, then there's not much to respond to. Same with the "insubstantial" criticism. You give not one example to support yourself which does not look good.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
Neither Rebecca nor Angie made mistakes in the clips you showed. They made good points. It is reasonable to expect that everyone would be aware of an ultra-powerful being that wanted to be known. People have believed in unicorns and sasqatches and fairies. In terms of evidence for their existence, they are indistinguishable from gods.
krobust 3 weeks ago
@krobust
If you think neither of them made incredibly naive points then you need to do a sophomore level critical thinking course.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Could you please explain? I know that the claim "Atheist exist therefore there are no gods" would be naive, but that is't what Angie said. It was closer to "The existence of Atheists is inconsistent with some popular definitions of God." This is true.
Rebecca was making a point that people who assert things have the burden of proof, and the burden has not been met for unicorns or deities. If you have a rebuttal to this point, please give it or direct me to it.
krobust 3 weeks ago
@krobust this guy is immune to logic and reasoning. its best not to try to hard in responding to him because the nonsense would drive any rational person insane.
mattakudesu 2 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
I notice you cannot actually point to anything contrary to the technical standards of logic. ;)
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
On the Darkantics one: What he was saying was pretty simple. If more people are saved than condemned, the plan was "justifiable." It's simple mathematics. If you subtract the damned people from the saved, you are still in the positive. He is not condoning the eternal torture of anyone, he is just saying that God's plan is fundamentally flawed if the majority of his children get tortured forever. I suppose you think it doesn't matter how many people burn forever as long as some are saved.
someonenobodycares 3 weeks ago
@someonenobodycares
It's not the mathematics in his quote it's the assumption which is not justified but slipped in. Why should anyone accept that the justifiablity level needs to be 50% +? What is more important then numbers is a world where people may make real choices and be free enough to reject God if they wish to do so. DM states it like it's an obvious fallacy when, clearly, it's not.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
I think the point is that his plan yields a negative outcome as opposed to a positive. In this scenario, God has created a system where the majority of his children will not get into Heaven.
I think DM is placing more value on getting into Heaven than on having free will. I haven't seen the video in a while so I could be wrong.
someonenobodycares 3 weeks ago
@someonenobodycares
But that's the whole point. You cannot calculate a postive / negative outcome on the basis of those figures alone. Life is not a football match!! And the reductionistic utilitarian philosophy being employed is, after all, assumed and not stated. God only needs to create a world where people have the freedom to accept or reject him. If you set figures on it then God cannot allow free-will any longer. So his 'thinking' is flawed.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Yes, fair enough. If God's goal was for people to have free will no matter what, I guess so.
DM was assuming that God wanted to maximize the amount of people he saved. It seems like God could pick many different options that resulted in nobody going to Hell, but that's irrelevant to the argument.
someonenobodycares 3 weeks ago
@EnlightenedReader
And now "moron"; that's just wonderful. I assumed you made the video because of your somewhat "shrill" defense of it. However, your wholehearted support for it seems tantamount to the same thing in the end. I am not "trolling" as you put it; I watched the video, disagreed with it's nonsensical motivations, and questioned them. That's all I'm doing, and I'm the only one, not to put too fine a point on it, who decides when I'm "done".
jerico641 3 weeks ago
@EnlightenedReader
Well, THAT'S certainly a "christian" attitude you've got there; I draw your attention to the fact that you have now referred to me both directly (an idiot), and indirectly (illiterate) in an insulting manner. Why would you make a video refuting only "certain" atheist youtubers, if not to prove some higher point? Was it only to insult their unrehearsed comments, grammatical and subjective errors? If so, I state again that that seems a complete waste of time.
jerico641 3 weeks ago
@EnlightenedReader
No, it doesn't say anything about that; that's why I asked, certainly not because I'm illiterate. What I saw in the video was a lot of grasping at straws and contextualizing. So therefore, I thought I'd ask what the point was. You really didn't prove anything here, sorry. Besides, the people you featured are not the only atheists in the World, nor do they represent their opinions. So it seems like it was a waste of time.
jerico641 3 weeks ago
@jerico641
1. They are ten outspoken atheists on YT.
2. Some of these atheists have huge followings on YT.
3. I expose each of them for shoddy thinking.
4. If you can demonstrate that the context redeems them please demonstrate how exactly with verbatim quotes.
5. I never said they were the only atheists in the world.
6. It may seem a waste of time to you but, in my opinion, it was not. You are permitted an opinion but so am I.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Why did you select "outspoken atheists"? Statement number two leads back to this question. Be specific; you cannot expose a person's "thinking" any more than you can guess when he'll die; what you take issue with is what they said and/or how they said it, which I found highly selective. Statement four leads back to this statement. No, you certainly didn't, and so you should offer such a disclaimer. Yes, and I am permitted to expose ignorance and an agenda when I see it.
jerico641 3 weeks ago
@jerico641
Because many of them are atheists whom other atheists consider to be pillars of their online community - that's why.
"...you cannot expose a person's "thinking" any more than you can guess when he'll die..."
That's absurd. Especially since you directly contradict yourself by the end of the same post by trying to expose my thinking faulty! Whoops.
Again I ask you - if they were taken out of context - show it. Where's the evidence? I'm still waiting.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
There is an obvious agenda in your actions, whether or not you choose to admit it. I have no intention of going through that video again with a fine-toothed comb, suffice it to say that what I heard were grammatical and ancillary subject errors that many people make when speaking unrehearsed. Their points (what you allowed us to hear of them) seemed valid to me. Now, do you suppose that "exposing" such things will REALLY help to "deter" other atheists? THAT'S absurd.
jerico641 3 weeks ago
@jerico641
Thank you for now admitting that having accused this video of quote-mining you are now saying you are not going to bother substantiating that claim. Therefore your claim is nothing more than an assertion and need not be taken seriously. And that fact that you think their points are valid shows that the amount of non-thinking people on YT is increasing by the day. Thanks anyway.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist how about sustaining the claim that there is a god who loves us and cares for us and if we are good, sends us to heaven. its kind of funny how you use logic against his comment but completely fail to use it in your own belief system. you religious folks are funny sometimes but mostly are kind of sad to watch.
mattakudesu 3 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
But you have just created a God who is morally inferior since he has no sense of justice and that makes your god concept less than good. Funny how you accuse of failure to think and yet don't point out clear examples of such?
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist whats with the pointless nitpicking? the bible says those things about god. okay then let me rephrase the comment, how about sustaining the claim that the god that YOU believe exists?
mattakudesu 3 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
"...how about sustaining the claim that the god that YOU believe exists?"
Watch my videos and the videos of the channels I recommend. That would be a good start.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist ive watched some of your videos, they are ignorant and uninformed. you cannot support your claims with facts and evidence, you can only support it with assertions. i really do wonder why darkmatter bothers to even argue with you. you are not interested in finding answers, you are only interested in confirming your own biases. i am ready to be proven wrong by anyone at anytime, just give me viable evidence and i will change my mind.
mattakudesu 2 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
Funny then how you cannot give me even one example of where the ignorance or uninformed moment was though isn't it?! Dm bothers arguing with me because he knows all too well he's been answered on previous matters and is still trying hard to
prove himself. Tell us what you mean by "viable" evidence exactly please.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist when i say "viable evidence" i mean anything thats actually real and observable and tested and proven and peer reviewed. if you can provide this with any of your claims, then i will believe whatever your claim is.
mattakudesu 2 weeks ago
@mattakudesu evidence vs proof paradox
ParaPsyopticNerve 2 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
Okay, in that case I would like viable evidence that one is only justified to believe something where there is "actually real and observable and tested and proven and peer reviewed" evidence for it." Please provide the viable evidence for this please.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist why would you want to believe anything that you dont have good enough reason to believe? i could believe that my mouse is somehow a magical lamp that i can get a genie to come out of. your basis for belief seems to be where, if you believe in it hard enough, you can somehow convince yourself that its true. then once you do that, no matter what anyone says to you, you are fixed on that thought pattern. you are not interested in answers, only in arguing. prove me wrong.
mattakudesu 2 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
Sorry but no. You cannot simply make a huge epistemological claim and then state I have to prove you wrong. If you read objectively you will see you did not even try answering my actual question. I asked, and ask again:
"I would like viable evidence that one is only justified to believe something where there is "actually real and observable and tested and proven and peer reviewed" evidence for it." Please provide the viable evidence for this please."
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist here are a few definitions of evidence to help you out, not that it would help anyway seeing as how you just want to fight.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
mattakudesu 2 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
Thanks for the definitions but I did not ask for them. Neither am I asking for a "fight" so where you get that from I don't know! You made a claim and I have asked you TWICE some some evidence.
Let me spell it out a third time. You said that truth claims ought to have "actually real"/"observable"/"tested"/"proven" and "peer reviewed" evidence. Okay then - that is quite some truth claim. So I want those 5 pieces of evidence for your truth claim. This is the third time!
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist you obviously have no grasp on what i am saying, or you just want to avoid answering the question (that i asked first) and dance around it. what i am saying is that you told that other guy that he needed actual proof for what he told you. my comment was asking you to provide the same for your beliefs. if you required evidence from him to know his claim was true, then why cant i ask you for evidence for whatever you claim? how do we know something is true without evidence?
mattakudesu 2 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
I seriously doubt I asked anybody to prove anything - unless, of course, I was mirroring a demand of theirs back to them since I do not hold that anything can be proven. Your comment was NOT to ask simply for evidence, as you are now watering the demand down I notice, but for a very specific type of evidence, which is why I called you out on that and is why, no doubt, you have now backed down from that type of evidence since you have realised it cannot be given.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist okay how about this. since this is going nowhere, i am going to start completely over on a clean slate with you just so you have no trouble following me. you asked a guy for evidence for his point of view, i am asking you for your evidence for your theological point of view. please provide me with evidence for the things that you believe so that i may understand why you believe it.
mattakudesu 2 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
No, no. It appears you are having serious problems following me. You already stated five criteria necesssary for accepting a truth proposition. I am questioning your methodology. You see, if your methodology is faulty from the very beginning then there's no basis for the discussion. If you cannot, yourself, justify you own truth propositions according to the five criteria you tell me I must provide then clearly I have demonstrated that your method is faulty.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist okay, the way i worded the comment was faulty, i will admit that. now, since i gave you the definition of evidence, you should know what it is. so i will ask my question again, please answer it. you wanted the guy to give evidence for the point he made in his comment, otherwise you refused to believe him. i am asking, could you please give me your evidence that your theological viewpoint is actually true and reliable? without actual evidence, i have no reason to believe you
mattakudesu 2 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
Thank you for backing down on that claim. I hope you can see just how important that moment is. The reason is because when making demands of other people and their beliefs one must not set criteria to meet which one cannot even meet for one's own beliefs. That would be, of course, highly hypocritical. The evidence I would cite would be most of the traditional arguments for the existence of God as well as arguments regarding the best explanation of human phenomena.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@mattakudesu
cont.
Then I would also defend my view based on a comparison of worldviews and internal consistency within them. I would also defend the Bible on the basis of archaeological support and textual attestation. But there are other types of important reasons for believing what one does as well which cannot be discounted and those are personal reasons which also play an important part of my beliefs but which cannot be used to convince others.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist i have researched into the bible, its claims, and the reliability of those claims and they all fall dreadfully short of any real integrity. but, you are allowed to believe what you want to believe, just as I am allowed to question your beliefs. if anything, i am trying to make sense of your beliefs. i do not understand why one would believe in something so vague that doesnt even have any real observable evidence.
mattakudesu 1 week ago
@mattakudesu
I guess I don't really understand where you're coming from either. I mean, you believe in objective truth [the idea that something is true whether anyone believes it or not] and not just that people can make up their own truths - yes? And yet if I asked you where the "real observable evidence" is for objective truth what are you going to point me to? There are things for which we can have reasons for believing them which do not rely upon physically observable evidence.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@mattakudesu
As it is there is actually plenty of physical evidence which validates the writers of the Bible. Go and see the pool of Siloam for yourself [people used to think the reference in John's gospel was made up until they actually found it]. Or go to the British Museum sometime and look at the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III and the Taylor Prism. I mean all three of those you can see with your eyes and they help validate historical Biblical writings.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist Sorry for interupting but i find your post interesting. So would it be possible that Homers writings are true? What is your take on that? There is physical evidence that would make his stories true. The illiad is based on the ten year trojan war.
ichoosenoname 1 week ago
@ichoosenoname
Well that's an interesting one since these findings have caused a great deal of debate amongst ancient historians as to what degree Homer is actually basing his stories on real places and actual events. That's exactly the point. The evidence suggests he didn't completely make everything up [like, say, Tolkien did for Lord of the Rings for example]. He has, at least, borrowed actual places and possibly some events too and this view is held by historians of Homer.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist Worth the research and thought, I think. Thanks for the upload and insight. Oh, good luck with the argument from the guy who does not believe in the historical Jesus, should be fun!!!
ichoosenoname 1 week ago
@mattakudesu
So who and what did you read in your research on the Bible exactly?
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist im glad you asked, i have a very good video by a scholar David Fidgerald. you can google his credentials you want (ah the wonder of human technology). here is the video /watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE&feature=BFa&list=FLTPwntHJ0SoKwLAaskn0uyQ&lf=mh_lolz .(youtube.com goes before the slash)
mattakudesu 1 week ago
@mattakudesu
I was disappointed you didn't comment on most of what I just said but glad you responded with your view although I was disappointed again when you simply referenced me to a video. Even greater was my disappointment when I clicked on it to find that this guy is seriously [???] going to try to argue there was not a historical Jesus? What next? Zeigeist videos? Please, I thought you were going to come back with something serious!
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@mattakudesu
I discovered he has a degree in history but that he has no other formal qualifications.
None in ancient history btw. Peer reviewed work on Jesus? Any?
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
BUY NOW....
If your not happy with your God can't follow the rules and can't just change them.
Pick a new one there are plenty on offer and with just the same IQ draining effect.
Call now on 1800 godbullshit and recieve 6free steak knives.
VideoAudioDisco09 4 weeks ago
Angie did not make a great case but thats it. I guess when your desperate you grab at straws.
VideoAudioDisco09 4 weeks ago
What exactly are you trying to prove here, that your god exists?
jerico641 4 weeks ago
I will at least concede that I practically expect theist videos to have ratings/comments disabled, and that this exception to a largely general rule is refreshingly honest. The original poster seems to have a decent rate of responding to posters (even my drunk comment toward the top), and so he/she is thus far a good sport.
themediocrenontheist 4 weeks ago
Nice cherry-picking on the out-of-context clippings, broseph.
themediocrenontheist 4 weeks ago
@themediocrenontheist
Funny how you couldn't give one example to support your claim!
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist I couldn't find the original clip by Rebecca Watson (name of the video you excerpted would help). As I'm confident that you remember, she said, "I don't believe in God or unicorns. You can compare them, while they may differ, in a lot of ways they're the same. For instance, some people believe they [God and unicorns] exist."
I'd be curious as to where she was going with this, and what other common attributes she assigned them, but I'd need the entire video.
themediocrenontheist 4 weeks ago
@generosos87
If you say something as if you have researched it and make it sound like a fact to an unknowing audience then you have lied. You have clearly overlooked that any decent definition of a lie includes the bluff and that's what this lad does.
"where does it include they are outspoken."
If you knew any of the names on there you would know this.
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
Ohh your dog...I mean god . You are just a drone of faith .
jonerkinch 1 month ago
@jonerkinch
Thanks for your incredibly insightful comment. You make the likes of Kent Hovind appear pretty rational by contrast!
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
Your source on AronRa doesnt include the religion or former religion of the epistemologists. Even if it did, and you found a proponent of epistemology was either a current christian or a had always been atheist/agnostic/etc, it wouldnt show that AronRa "lied". It would show he didnt research every proponent of epistemology out there. Also, to be a proponent of epistemology, which is a philosophy (meaning...any can adhere to it), it doesn't have to be a primary field of study for you.
generosos87 1 month ago
@generosos87
No it shows he didn't do his homework properly since several of them are outspoken Christians. He himself, says if you're going to say something you better get your facts straight. Even after I pointed this mistake out to him he still could not apologise or admit he made an error. So it appears that he's quite happy with lying too.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
Fail at knocking down Atheists.
skorthase 1 month ago
This is funny. :)
sWeepingsAnd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One thing to remember as well: you used a young women's image for the thumbnail without her consent; Wouldn't that be against the bibles teachings?
So how are you a good christian for stealing peoples images and using them when they tell you not to? If anything your actions show you as just another evil self titled theist who proves that religion and the people who practice it are evil.
In short you prove yourself wrong.
honestduane 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And for the record that video you try to send people to defend this as a "parody" explicitly says your breaking the law, as this is not a parody and you have yet to prove otherwise.
honestduane 1 month ago
Comment removed
honestduane 1 month ago
Comment removed
honestduane 1 month ago
Comment removed
honestduane 1 month ago
Comment removed
honestduane 1 month ago
Comment removed
honestduane 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You should know that because you used clips without permission, many of the people in this video can easily file a DMCA as you have not used their works under fair use guidelines. Please remove it.
honestduane 1 month ago
Oh man, I would so have liked to see Hume facepalming.
On a serious note, some of these I disagree with /big woop, see my name xP) but I am absolutely shocked by the rest. So yeah, my favourite car crash is the one where Hume should be facepalming :P
TheAtheologian 1 month ago
@TheAtheologian to clarify, I meant they I disagree with their placement on the list, in the sense that I think some of them were paraphrased badly and I know of plenty of examples of worse people.
Btw, I tried laughing, although I was leaning on crying...
TheAtheologian 1 month ago
What a (mainly) quote mined load of shite.
crabbit101 1 month ago
@crabbit101
Fallacy of assertion I'm afraid.
Demonstrate how just one of these people got quote-mined out of context to the point where they were actually saying something very different from what it sounds like in this video. If you can. ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist How about letting us hear all of Angie's quote? Two separate AronRa quotes spliced together? Rebecca Watson? Anyway, what is wrong with her quote? She is simply (and slightly sarcastically) pointing out the fact that there is little difference between the invisible and non-existent. Believing in celestial, invisible and undetectable beings because of what it says in a barbaric and contradictory 2000yr old book is unbelievably irrational and laughably absurd.
crabbit101 1 month ago
@crabbit101
Still, after all your blustering, you have still failed to demonstrate by way of direct quotations that I have, even once, quote-mined.
Watch the programme I recommend on the historical understanding of Genesis called 'Did Darwin kill God' and educate yourself a little.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist I've just watched the first 15 mins of that documentary and so far Mr. Cunningham has given us the ultimate answer (from Philo) to the many contradictions found in the bible: "Don't take them at face value but look for a deeper meaning". How convenient! Also, what a filthy slander to call Dawkins an 'extremist' and a 'crusader' and to compare him to the morons on the creationist side. He is looking to educate people and free them from ignorance and superstition. A bad thing?
crabbit101 1 month ago
@crabbit101
Yes there are contradictions IF READ LITERALLY! Did you not listen properly or what? The principle of charity is alsmot universally used in approaching serious literature so why not here? Then there's the literary parallelism in chapter one and the repetition and the way yom is used in differing ways between chapters 1 and 2. All clear indications we need to be careful not to read it over-simplistically.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Even if I did agree with you regarding these YT atheists, the points you raise pale in comparison to those of you and your theist friends.
I see that you accept the theory of evolution, which, of course, directly contradicts the Genesis account. May I ask on what authority you decide which sections of the bible are metaphorical and which are not and how you can take your bible a la carte?
crabbit101 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Oh, and the final Atheist Exp clip. I've seen that clip and the whole reason they hung up on that caller was because they had repeatedly asked him for proof of the existence of god which he said he had, yet failed to produce. Quote mined, methinks.
crabbit101 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist
This: "...it's quite possible for perfectly rational people to come to an area like philosophy or theology and just not manage to be rational in that area"... implies that these isolated (and contextless) quotes indicate a larger problem with their thinking on these matters... and that hasn't been adequately demonstrated. So... what exactly ARE you trying to accomplish with this video?
plightweisgoff 1 month ago
dear cartesiantheist... so you got idiots like ray comfort... and we got our own idiots too.. what is your point?
hobaleo 1 month ago
@hobaleo
Thanks you for understanding the point of the video - it was exactly that.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist why should you people and your brilliant apologists like WLC provide ammo for muslims to use and continue oppressing their women?
hobaleo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hobaleo
"so you got idiots like ray comfort... and we got our own idiots to"
This is a genuine question, but are there any notable *philosophically competent* atheists that you can be proud of? As far as I'm aware, the atheists in the philosophical specialty are just as vocally critical of New Atheism, or even more so than the theists.
Calenfeyn41 1 month ago
It's obvious that these insignificant subjective observations would seem like crashes to you - you are a theist!! Home goal!!
stratocaster539 1 month ago
@stratocaster539
The fact that you cannot see the errors here is you conceding the match. ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Are they wrong? How do you know they are wrong? How did you arrive at your conclusions? Why did you believe they were correct? What are you using as a benchmark for your reasoning? How do you know that is right? Demonstrate that you have evidence for that conclusion.Give empirical proof to support that.(and around and around and around we go) Then..
Did you think it warranted making a video? (then start again from above) ;]
stratocaster539 1 month ago
@stratocaster539
Okay - the first clip then. The guy on the right says the formulation of the CA is that "everything" which exists requires a cause of its existence. Find me ONE philosopher who formulates it this way. The guy on the left states this is PALEY's argument. FInd me ONE quote from Paley to that effect. If you can do that then I'll take the video down and hang my head in shame. Good luck!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Indeed, you are correct... theists using the CA don't apply it to everything, and that's the problem: God gets off that hook by definition... which screws that pooch.
plightweisgoff 1 month ago
@plightweisgoff
If I said:
'All cars which function have engines.'
That does not mean to say that horse-drawn carriages are exceptions to the rule. They are nothing to do with the rule. Similarly with all major version of the CA. God is not an exception to the rule - he simply does not apply to the rule at all.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist
If this god does not apply to the rule, then it (god) is inadmissible (and irrelevant) by default.
plightweisgoff 1 month ago
@plightweisgoff
That's an unreasoned assertion - nothing more.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Nonsense. If this god does not apply to the rule, this god does not apply to the proffered system of causality that requires continuity; by getting him off the hook, you effectively make him impotent to effect causal change... unless you'd like to make an exception, and special plead like you've been wanting to do all along.
plightweisgoff 1 month ago
@plightweisgoff
I already explained how that's not the case. Enough wasting of my time Earl Hickey!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist
No, you merely asserted that it wasn't the case, you did not argumentatively defend it, and even if you could have, the same result occurs: this god becomes irrelevant to the entire causal schema, while you still try and use him as a magic solution to your non-problem.
plightweisgoff 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Those people are indeed stupid, right up there with the person who made this video and the majority of the other morons who try to preach one way or the other over youtube. It's fucking youtube, for christs sake. This world would be such a better place if people would quit trying to cram their beliefs down each others throats.
Deadheartsdie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Those people are indeed stupid, right up there with the person who made this video and the majority of the other morons who try to preach one way or the other over youtube. It's fucking youtube, for christs sake. This world would be such a better place if people would quit trying to cram their beliefs down each others throats.
Deadheartsdie 1 month ago
Those people are indeed stupid, right up there with the person who made this video and the majority of the other morons who try to preach one way or the other over youtube. It's fucking youtube, for christs sake. This world would be such a better place if people would quit trying to cram their beliefs down each others throats.
Deadheartsdie 1 month ago
These aren't car crashes, this is a retarded girl.
SCIFIguy64 1 month ago
@SCIFIguy64 AngietheAntiTheist is an insult to a retarted girl.
ahmarsidd 1 month ago
My favorite are Renee's BOOBS!
shizzleman8 1 month ago
@shizzleman8 Lol! yes only god can create something as beautiful as that!
PrimeJustice40 1 month ago
@PrimeJustice40 If we were half as brilliant as we believe we are, we'd have already have won her over to our side, and be passing her around amongst ourselves like our favorite blunt.
shizzleman8 1 month ago
3:23
This is hilarious!
3:35
And, if the guy tried to do it, Jeff Dee would probably spend out 55 seconds of that time interrupting him.
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
But wait- I thought atheists were intelligent people? Surely everything I have been taught about atheists is still true? -that they're the ones to aspire after, due to the way they always pursue reason and logic whilst being a skeptic about everything. Surely, their arguments aren't fallible! Surely in real life *they're* not the ones who use flawed logic to draw absurd conclusions, and simultaneously try to find any excuse for no god. Oh no, my worldview has completely turned upside down!
wazpoppin9 1 month ago
@wazpoppin9: atheists can be skeptic about religion all they want, but what they are not aware for obvious reasons is why is there too many illogical concepts about the "flawed" theiistic origins. It's nothing but an inexcusable effort to argue and debate about the existence of God without claiming the views of evolution.
Ringvireot 1 month ago
@Ringvireot Ok Im going to be honest, I really don't understand what you're saying..
wazpoppin9 1 month ago
@wazpoppin9: I was talking about why atheists can't determine proper facts about the existence of God. :)
Ringvireot 1 month ago
Where's Dhorpatan? I guess he would have been all ten.
seinfan9 1 month ago
@seinfan9
LOL - You could pick ANY of his videos and you'd find at least one car wreck on there. He could have a top 100 all on his own.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Well that's because his epistemology is shall we say fundamentally "Objectarded," thus it literally pervades all of his thinking. Thus it's not a surprise.
If you get a robot and run it on malware of course you're going to get a Randroid.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@seinfan9 Classic +rep.
SPR4GOD 1 month ago
I assert that assertions are worthless! wow.. good job buddy lol
TheRightOffensive 1 month ago
10. Finally, an actual car wreck. Only took you 10 tries.
Seriously Cartesian, you could do way better if you tried. I mean, if these are the TOP TEN car wrecks? Atheists are doing pretty good. :) Especially since the top ten christian car wrecks include things like "The Grand Canyon was formed in about 5 minutes."
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi
I'm not claiming they are the most awful top ten ever. Just the top ten from my 'stupid atheist folder'. And, well I could have been unfair and made all ten from Objectivism [since that is the atheist version of Young-Earth creationism] but I was kinder than that and branched out. Going after Objectivism is just too easy you see. Trouble is most atheists, by contrast, only know how to go after YECs. [As for the rest. I don't have the time to school you - sorry.]
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist I know you don't, as the amount of time it would take to try would take forever. :)
Seriously though, if objectivism is the atheist version of young earth creationism...we've got you beat there too. At least there are SOME tenable parts to objectivism. Young Earth Creationism's a bigger joke than...well...I don't even have a point of comparison it's so bad.
"Asking if you're sure if you exist is the statement of an ignoramus" isn't near as bad as "Grand canyon: 5 minutes."
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi
"Seriously though, if objectivism is the atheist version of young earth creationism...we've got you beat there too."
ROFL - You're funny.
5 minute Grand Canyon vs. "existence exists"!
That's like two girls fighting each other with limp flowers - c'mon!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist The difference is, one's simply a useless tautology. The other is, and is a direct result of, scientific illiteracy, blind faith, anti-science propaganda, and dogmatic assertions of truth.
...I think the tautology wins.
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi
Exactly, I would say the tautology is equally worthless. The creationist is ignorance of empirical data, the objectivist is ignorant of reason itself.
UncannyRicardo 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist After reading BigLundi's last comment I think you should have had 11 in your list ;) Nice video man!
ahmarsidd 1 month ago
8. Yeah...if you would have shown the clip, that's not a car wreck. The guy calls in saying he can prove god exists, and Matt shrugs and says, "You have a minute" because...well...the show was ending. Not a car wreck...just public access TV restrictions.
9. I hate TJ. I think he's an awful representative of atheism. But...even in this clip, I have to side with him. What exactly is the car wreck here? If we all agree as to some core rules, then what morals we choose from there...
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi
8.Could be true.The guy shouldn't have acted liked he defeated him because he couldn't do it.That factor is what makes it a car wreck.
9.I agree with you on TJ.But, I disagree with your defense.He made that voice that was sarcastic trying to say that it wasn't possible in the world were morals are formed from societies that horrible laws like rape,murder,cannibalism, and human sacrifice are ok,if the majority agree.Goes against everything in history and historians would laugh.
ninetailschris 1 month ago
@ninetailschris 8. He didn't. So...if that's the factor that makes it a car wreck, it's not a car wreck. You clearly never saw the clip in question...I have.
9. I don't understand your rebuttal.
BigLundi 1 month ago
6. Again, a slip up is hardly a car wreck. Besides, saying something that's untrue doesn't = lie. Can I call that a car wreck from you? I'm betting you'd say it's not a car wreck.
7. Is she wrong? Is there not a similarity in that people believe in fantastically absurd things with no regard as to critically investigating whether or not they're true? I'm sure you think atheists are in that position...so...yeah.