This is my proof for God. The prophets predicted JESUS CHRIST first coming to the exact year 483 years before he came. The prophets predicted on what street christ would be born 700 years before he came. I know you athiest will say but people wrote the new testament to match the old. well than look at the new testament prophecies that are coming true today. rev 17 said the anti christ would sit with the harlot chruch in rome behold the pope and catholic church. JESUS predicted the NWO
Tough on the spot like that but he should have responded:
'I don't have solely faith in her existence; I know she exists as evidenced by her physical presence. If you're asking about my perception of her fidelity, then yes, I have faith in my wife, but I don't see the relevance to the debate.'
Well you can prove that love exist, certain chemicals are elevated in the body, our state changes, we all have certain types of people that arouse us!
And we can feel that to great or less of extent to more people.
look the only way in which john lennox can understand atheism is through his own viewpoint of belief. Dawkins is irreligious. there is no comparison, or maybe there is
@sreymind Heb. 11:1- "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. 2 ..." By way of illustration the earthquake and receeding tides is the "evedent demonstration" of the "unseen reality" of a Tsunami. Scientist have faith in the atom, subatomic particles, blackholes. The "unseen reality" is "demonstrated" by "evidence" of mathematics, brownian motion, gravity lensing
Err.. Don't think so - it's just good bit of banter. (If I remember correctly) they're both good guys from Oxford University and they get along very well.
Recommend also 'Hitchens versus Lennox', too - though your editing will have to make that an EVEN shorter video (because it was a knockout to Christopher ;O) That 'debate' was also conducted in the right spirit
Ah, so this is some new definition of the word "owned" with which I was not familiar. So shaking one's head in disbelief is being "owned"? I'll put that in my pocket dictionary for use when dealing with folks who don't deal with reality very well.
@MrAudacious21 - I agree with some of what you are saying. For one i do think that my reasoning was superior on this particular point as Richard Dawkins was most certainly not "owned". The comment put forth by Mr Lennox was a sharp and amusing comeback but rather than answer the question put forward it simply took the dabate off on a tangent. Now the fact that you come to the conclusion that i am closed minded on the basis of this one observation just makes you a victim of your own argument.
@gotnygurners I watched the whole debate. He was owned. What atheists argue is absurd, Lennox isn't arguing, he's patronizing Dawkins, because he's childish. I grew out of being an atheist when I was 18, Dawkin's still hasn't grown up and he still thinks he's intellectually superior to the billions of people who lived before him that concluded there must be a God. I would speak to him the same way as I would to a fifteen year old who keeps stating he's going to be rich and famous one day.
@12Ominous Well possibly i'd have a difference of opinion if i'd seen the whole debate. I would actually like to believe that there is such a thing as God. My problem is that when i look around i see a world in which the greedy, the power hungry and the ruthless prosper, Whilst millions of poor, innocent people are bombed, left to starve and be oppressed by the likes of Colonel Gadaffi. It diminishes my faith in mankind and casts doubt on writings which scare people into obediency.
@gotnygurners I think of God as a spectator, not a mediator. Also just because God doesn't conspicuously intervene in worldly affairs doesn't mean he doesn't unnoticed. A perfect world would not be worth living in. Problems, challenges and struggles are vital to human growth and development. When you think about why suffering exists, it makes perfect sense why a God would choose to not intervene.
So basically, you're admitting that Lennox only one-upped Dawkins, which is totally different from winning an argument. You win arguments with facts and logic, but since you agree that Lennox wasn't arguing, then he couldn't have won the argument.
It's interesting that you claim that Dawkins is arrogant, then claim that you're smarter than he is. Ironic much?
@sleazybtd He wasn't arguing, in this scene. I never claimed to be smarter than he is, but you have to question what his motives are for so vehemently and obstinately spreading his world-view. He's a scientist, not everyone is, he's not going to get a world where everyone wants to work in a lab and believe in nothing. It's not human-nature.
[I grew out of being an atheist when I was 18, Dawkin's still hasn't grown up]
Your 2 statements seem to contradict each other.
What is the christian/muslim motive for vehemently and obstinately spreading the word of god/allah?
He's not trying to get everyone to become scientists, he just wants everyone to think. A thinking populace is better than a populace which believes whatever they're told.
@12Ominous So you believe in god because you're more mature and not insecure?
So Richard Dawkins does NOT believe in god because he's less mature and insecure? That makes absolutely no sense.
Be honest, your original intent was that you believe that you're smarter than Richard Dawkins, therefore you believe in god. Please stop bearing false witness, I think that's one of your big rules or something.
@sleazybtd Of course it does. One of the biggest indicators of insecurity is a need to impose your beliefs onto others. No, I believe human beings are all of relatively the same level of intellect but that intellect present itself in different ways. Some have great insight and can see the larger picture, others like Dawkins see the details of one aspect of the picture but in exchange don't see the whole picture.
@12Ominous I only see christians and muslims forcing their beliefs onto others. Christians make laws to ban gay marriage and force intelligent design into science classes and deny that it's religion.
@sleazybtd Not ALL Christians are! You may as well just say that all Atheists do the same. I know I certainly don't! I protect gay rights and I would never ask for theology in a class that was unrelated. This is a mistake I see many Atheists make. To think that all believers are moronic and discreminatory is, in itself, discreminatory.
@Mayeflower7 When did I ever say that ALL christians pull that crap. The fact that this country is about 80% christian, and the fact that just over 50% of the population supports gay marriage is proof that there are a lot of christians that support gay marriage.
My point is that of the 50% of the people in this country who want to ban gay marriage, at least 95% of them are christian. The people trying to force their beliefs onto others are almost always christian.
Dawkins was talking about faith as belief, while Lennox's response was about faith as in trust.
Typical christian nonsensical arguments. First you misuse the word "theory", now you try to misuse the word "faith". Maybe one day, you guys will actually come up with a good honest argument.
@sleazybtd - Good comment. Thanks for flying the flag of sensibility. It's kind of funny that some of these relegious folk seem intent on making us lose our faith in humanity as well as in God.
@sleazybtd Excellent point. For atheists semantics is an obstacle in debate i.e. getting our points and concepts across is constrained by lexicon. Yet theists use this as a tool, to muddy, to obfuscate. This video is a very good example.
But of course there IS evidence. They always attempt to equate trust and faith as though the two are one and the same but they are indeed not synonymous. I trust my wife because of the fact that she does not lie to me. I trust her because of the subtle body language. I trust her because of a multitude of reasons.
Excuse me but how is that being owned? Richard Dawkins put forward a well thought out contention only to be rebuttled by a stupid question about his wife.
The very fact you have posted this video along with your ill conceived comments clearly demonstrates how closed minded you really are.
@gotnygurners & your comment demeaning his/her close mindedness reveals your close mindedness about being close minded. There for your ill conceived comment clearly demonstrates how close minded you really are. Applaud & praise me! For I, like Dawkins & Hitchens, have used pretty, complicated sounding axioms to produce logical nonsense! :D Woohoo!
@MrAudacious21 @MrAudacious21 Pleases explain to me how that demonstrates my closed mindedness when the comment doesn't even highlight what my own opinion is? I'm glad to hear that in the past you have used well informed dialogue to make your case clearly understood and put forth a good argument, but i'm afraid jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts is exactly why we're having this debate in the first place. Besides, "logical nonsense" is a contradiction in terms.
@gotnygurners Must I really explain how you have demonstrated your own circular reasoning? Goodness. You accuse someone of being close minded & that within and of it self is done so by assuming your reasoning is superior to the one at hand, no matter what your actual opinion is, your implication is that it is superior & therefore you too have committed the act of being close minded.. As for the tautology, exactly my point. Glad you were able to recognize at least that much. So, yes.. Woohoo! ;)
@gotnygurners a stupid question makes the other party look smarter not more stupid does it?,the question wasn't stupid. if it was stupid it will make Dawkins look good, but Dawkins looked like an idiot. i guess we can reverse your comment and rephrase it.
@discipulo123 So.. -- assuming you don't believe in the tooth-fairy -- I take it I can call your position towards the tooth-fairy a religious stance? Have you ever heard of a non-stamp collector?
And to answer the former stupid question Lennox asked. Just watch Dawkins and his wife for couple of months. Surely, you could gather plenty of evidence for the faith Dawkins holds for his wife.
Love is just a word that we use to describe a feeling. But there are many ways to prove and show evidence that you love someone...your actions are the evidence. that other guys point about that was completely irrelevant. I can prove and show evidence that I love someone...but show me the proof and evidence of your god...rite...you can't. And how does it take a leap of faith to be an atheist?...thats the same thing as saying it takes a leap of faith to believe there is no monsters in my closet
Hes just sick to death of having to refute the same stupid assertions. Talking to theists is exhausting - not because of the cleverness of their argumments but because of the effort required to remain civil in the face of total stupidity. I get a crick in my neck having to constantly get down to their level.
It's obvious that this video has been cut in order to show ONLY 'evidence' for YOUR side of the argument. And I fail to see any evidence for Dawkins being "owned" in the video.
@manof1001faces Yes, yes & yes again. To be fair this is a humurous exchange. I doubt that Lennox would suggest Dawkins was stumped as the video title says.
Religious faith is not evidence based! Stating that other types of faith can be evidence based is irrelevant. So what if Dawkins was momentarily stunned by the vacuousness of Lennox's argument?
Oh, I get it. Logic proves there is no god. Why should I not believe in god? Becaues you don't, or Richard Dawkins writes a few books about it? Logic and science are man's way of explaining away what they cannot explain. One more thing, can't you come up with something better or more original that flying spaghetti monster?
Logic does NOT prove there are no gods, logical reasoning along with common sense suggest's there is no reason to believe in gods because there is no evidence to support that gods exist.
@jimster46 Your statement lacks logic. If everybody used logic regarding a definitive subject they would all agree. Its illogical claiming the sky is white.
@jimster46 I CAN come up with something more original than the flying spaghetti monster Can you come up with something more original than god?There are 3000 gods in mythology and they all have names.
Faith in something tangeable and relatable to, such as faith in a loved one is DEFINITELY NOT the same 'faith' that generates belief in something some people believe and then expect others to likewise believe. I know, because I USED TO MAKE THE SAME STUPID ARGUMENT MYSELF. Then I decided to ...I dunno... open a book and read. I DO believe in God, but I'm 100% supportive of the Atheistic position because it's stupid to just believe something without REASON. Lennox is VERY disappointing.
@ntr10me I appreciate your openness and accepting behavior towards the Atheist position, but are you not disgracing your own logic? Saying "I DO believe in God" and "stupid to just believe in something without REASON." seem contradictory. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, what is your reason for believing in God?
@Midfield401 Ah, there it is, ya. The REASON, the JUSTIFICATION, the EXPLANATION. This is the hardest question to clearly answer I think in part to the poverty of the English language. All phrases and expressions and sentences explaining one's belief in god ALWAYS sound SOOOO cliched and sci-fi-esque that it's not worth bothering with.. I spent my university years as a closet atheist. My reasons for my belief in god are very personal but based on experiences that I can't unexperience.
@Midfield401 pt.2, It IS an ongoing challenge to reconcile what feels like two diametrically opposed points of view. I have never felt compelled to convince people to believe in anything I believe. I think religious people ARE closed-minded, arrogant AND IGNORANT in such conversations. But I find no solace among atheists because, though atheism is clear, rational and curious, too many atheists are quickly dismissive and show a similar arrogance making the whole conversation undiscussable.
This isn't Richard Dawkins "getting owned". This is him having a massive face palm moment. You know that feeling you get when you have been arguing for a while and the theist is using their dodgy definitions for words like faith, evolution and evidence. You realise that if you continue the next big part of your day is going to be taken up by an argument about the meaning of words. Nothing will get achieved. These idiots wonder why we don't accept there debate challenges.
I fail to see why believers feel it is necessary to argue with non-believers about God, evolution and creation. God tells us not to cast pearls before swine. It is apparent that atheist and other non-believers will not be convinced of the truth until they are either satisfied NOW with complete physical proof by God Himself or later at Judgment Day. Of course the Bible states that it will be the latter. I suggest we leave them to their beliefs and move on to more important things.
Well based on 'science' we can more than half ass prove reality. Faith in our wives fidelity I believe would be based on her psychology and have little to do with the grand sceme of the universe..
Atheism is not a faith. Atheists are not making claims that "something" exists, therefore they don't carry the burden of proof. Creationists make claims that there is a god... WHERE is the proof? Do you believe in hot pink elephants? How come? Probably because you've never seen one. What if I told you I saw one, and what if I told you many people have seen them. Is your disbelief a faith? Absurd! Listen people.. wake up and smell the coffee... this world is fucked if we keep thinking like this.
@ganalisto well if that was true then way are you then making a claim? If you weren't making a claim you wouldn't claim there isn't any proof. I would ask can you prove there isn't any proof? Your comment falls under the fallacy called argument from ignorance meaning since as you claim there isn't any proof therefore atheism is the default postion. So can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that you looked at all all of the arguments and there is no proof to God? Be honest
@FamousDave2186 Absolutely, I have looked at all the proof and I have not found any proof of God. Atheism is indeed the default position. I will move from that position if I am presented with evidence that God exists. Why would anyone believe anything without proof?
@ganalisto "Absolutely, I have looked at all the proof and I have not found any proof of God." Two things I can say just from this about you. You're either a liar or you don't know that there's a lot more than you think. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt I haven't seen all the proof there is and for you to make such a claim is flat out wrong. Next so atheism is a fallacy then. By your statement, anything that is a default position is argument from ignorance by its very definition.
@ganalisto conti: "Why would anyone believe anything without proof?" So what proof and evidence then do you have that makes atheism accurate and correct then. You must have proof then otherwise you wouldn't have made such a comment.
@FamousDave2186 Atheism is not claiming that a God does not exist. Atheists state that there is no conclusive evidence to support those claims and therefore, we shouldn't make premature conclusions. Science is based on this model. One may have a strong feeling that there is a God, but the truth is those feelings are unfounded. The Bible should be considered but only with skepticism (at best) and claims should be proven without a doubt so as to not pollute our knowledge base.
@ganalisto "Atheism is not claiming that a God does not exist. Atheists state that there is no conclusive evidence to support those claims and therefore, we shouldn't make premature conclusions." No its not according to the standard encylopedia of philosophy it states the denial of the existence of God. If you're statement is right then what's agnosticsm then? You haven't answered my question. You stated who would believe something without proof but you're doing the exact same thing. Tell me...
@FamousDave2186 Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well. In other words, agnosticism is a subset of atheism.
@ganalisto Atheists do deny the existence of God. Tell me do you live your life like there might be a god? No you don't otherwise if you did you be a theist. So that's an inaccurate statement. Second an agnostic doesn't argue that God doesn't existence like you just did. They claim they don't know. I picture a real agnostic at least trying to learn if the existence of God is real or not. If he or she claims agnosticsm but then argues that its impossible that's a contradiction on there views.
@ganalisto conti: what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct. If you cannot then you must concide the argument. You haven't addressed my point when I stated that atheism is argument from ignorance since you claim its a default position. You don't address anything I've stated. Give me proof and evidence as you clearly stated it "why believe in something without proof." You first.
@FamousDave2186 He who makes a claim has the burden of proof. Christianity has the burden of proof in this case because they claim a God exists. If I told you aliens exist would you believe me? Would you assume I'm telling the truth or would you ask for evidence? The default position is to not believe unless undeniable evidence is present.
@ganalisto conti: "He who makes a claim has the burden of proof." Ok give me some proof then. You stated and I quote " Atheism is not a faith" So it must have some proof and evidence for without it its just blind faith. All you are doing is shifting the burden of proof. I can tell you why aliens do not exist that's why you hold the position not to believe someone, I still need some proof for my thinking as to why aliens don't exist. Otherwise I couldn't say they don't exist. Now answer my...
@ganalisto conti: question if you cannot then this converstation is over. What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct? If you think you're gonna get people to "wake up" then you got to do a better job than just to claim a default position which any freshman philosopher (and no I'm no philosopher) can tell that's argument from ignorance.
@FamousDave2186 Why do you believe in God? What proof do you have that he exists? My position is that I don't believe in God because I haven't found any evidence to support the existence of God. If you have proof of his existence please share it with me. If you can provide evidence and proof of his existence then I will change my position. Ball is in your court.
@ganalisto And here we go, now we have to shift the burden of proof. I asked you earlier have you looked at all the evidence you claim yes and I asked you to prove it. Never did prove that one. So before I answer your question, let me ask you, are you conceding then that you have no proof and evidence as to why atheism is accurate and correct?
@FamousDave2186 I have to completely agree with Zerosupernatural on this. I shall quote "Arguing with a theist is like playing chess with a pigeon. FUCKING POINTLESS!
The pigeon will knock over the chess pieces and shit on the board then strut around with its chest puffed out claiming victory." Game over.
@FamousDave2186 "What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?" Ah, the good old shockofgod, dishonest theist, shifting of burden of proof bit. So because we don't believe your evidence for your choice of deity then some how we have the burden to prove it wrong? I don't think so. Our atheism is a direct result of your crappy evidence. You don't get to make a claim and just sit back. You have burden of proof. Deal with it.
@ptango101 "Ah, the good old shockofgod, dishonest theist, shifting of burden of proof bit." Ah the good old ad homenim, poor tactic atheist, shifting the burden of proof bit. Maybe we'd all stop laughing at you guys if you actually gave some proof and evidence as to why we're wrong. You don't get to make a claim and just sit back. You have burden of proof. Deal with it. Otherwise you're not convincing me of your beliefs.
@FamousDave2186 What ad hominem? If you have a problem with the accurate portrayal of yourself and that idiot shocks debating techniques then that's your problem. If I said that we are genetically manufactured throw backs from a species of ET that lived on a planet called oma-thetacron 6 you would probably disagree (rightly so) for many reasons. Would you think it was OK if I said "you have to prove why these aliens don't exist". "Prove your disbelief in the aliens from O-T 6"
@ptango101 the part where you said that Shock is dishonest (talking about his "character" even though you have no proof of this claim). I can be the worst person in the world but still be right. It does nothing to the argument. Second yeah I can give many reasons as to why aliens don't exist but lets say someone does say they do exist. They give arguments for it, not only do I have to debunk these arguments, but I also have to explain why my reasoning is the more plausable explaintion
@FamousDave2186 I have proof of shocks dishonesty and hypocrisy. Also I am not asking about the evidence for or against the aliens. I am asking you if you think that is an acceptable debating/ arguing technique. I have made a huge claim but shifted burden of proof to you because of your disbelief. Is that OK to you?
@ptango101 I know exactly what you were saying, and I explained to you why your point wasn't a good debate technique. No it is not ok, I asked the other guy to show proof and evidence and he can't do it. You jumped in and made the claim you don't have to, so why should anyone then accept atheism (your worldview) to be true then if you can't prove it? If something can't be proven then it can't be accpeted. No proof + No evidence = No Atheism.
@FamousDave2186 I am not making a positive claim. I am reacting to your evidence. Once again I say that my position is not a world view, a system of ideology or a religion. You put forward the evidence for a deity and I say "no, I don't think that is a valid argument". You theists keep putting forward that ours is the burden of proof when it is you who are making the claims. I could put forward no proof+no evidence= no TC6ism. Do you think that is valid?
@ptango101 Doesn't matter if you're making a positive claim. Are you or are you not arguing with me and saying that God doesn't exist? If you weren't making any claims you wouldn't be arguing with me here now would you? But instead your claiming that you're right and not explaining why. All you're doing is shifting the burden of proof, try going into a debate like that. Nope I don't need to provide proof and evidence for my position. You'd get laughed right out of the building. So are you then..
@FamousDave2186 I am arguing with you because you are the one making claims about the existence of your deity but shifting burden of proof to those who think you claims are ridiculous. This is your story not ours. It is not up to us to disprove anything. You have to prove your story.
@ptango101 I asked could you prove that God doesn't exist, a yes or no answer would be fine. Second all I did was ask a question, you guys on the other hand have turned this into I don't need proof to be right. So how could anyone just say you know you are right. It sounds like to me the only reason you're an atheist is because you don't want God to exist. But just because you want something doesn't make it true. And last I do have arguments but again in a debate you have to present arguments...
@FamousDave2186 I can't make a 100% claim like you but yes I can show how it is very unlikely that your god exists. However once again this would be a rehash of your evidence. I can argue why the ontological argument is invalid for instance. I can argue how the bible is so inconsistent with describing your deity that it basically becomes meaningless.
@ptango101 conti: as to why you are right to say that God doesn't exist. At least Hitchens in his debate with Dr. William Lane Criag tried but even atheist websites like commonsenseatheism admit that he lost badly. Since you can't provide proof and evidence this converstation is over. Unless you can actually argue why I'm wrong your position stands on argument from ignorance which doesn't win any debates and shouldn't win people over to their point of views (but sadly it does). Look up some of..
@ptango101 conti: arguments from Dr.William Lane Craig and you can see the evidence. I'm asking you to be open minded and not closed minded like you are for not providing proof and evidence to your worldview. Goodbye. Get the last word in I don't care. I think we can all see there is no proof and evidence as towards why we should reject God and accpet atheism instead.
@FamousDave2186 Do you also see that your positive arguments for supposed evidence come from debates. These things rely on a vote being taken to decide who one. Do you think just because you win a debate by default that makes what you were arguing for correct? Real inquiry needs real evidence.
@ptango101 conti: stating that there is no proof and evidence for atheism. Because if you're claiming that its a default position then it would fall under the fallacy argument from ignorance. Just prove on the contrary is right. If you cannot do this then atheism is unprovable and shouldn't be accpeted. If you admit that there's no proof and evidence then why do you force others for their views to have proof and evidence when you don't have any?
@FamousDave2186 It's the default position because when a claim is made without evidence the default is non-acceptance. To say otherwise is to say you believe every single claim about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc. until they're specifically disproven.
Remaining skeptical of a positive claim which is not supported by evidence (god exists) does not in and of itself require evidence.
@TheScienceFoundation No you have to explain why bigfoot doesn't exist. Now if I just say bigfoot exist and give no explaintion for it I would look foolish and it would be easily refuted however since there is arguments for the existence of God you not only have to try and debunk the arguments but you also have to show why atheism is the more plausable explaintion. That is what I'm trying to get through to you guys if you can actually give an argument for it I can not only try to debunk the...
@FamousDave2186 No, not accepting the claim that bigfoot exists does not require any evidence. There are arguments for gods existence, but no evidence.
@TheScienceFoundation If someone argues with you that bigfoot does exist and explains why bigfoot does, what are you going to do just say no it doesn't than that's it? You not only have to explain why his or her view is wrong to make that claim but you also have to give reasonable argument as to why. If you watch a debate, one side gives their argument while the other side not only explains why their side is wrong but also explain why his or her side is right.
@FamousDave2186 Except that the claim of bigfoot (god) hasn't been explained or evidenced in any way, it's a bare assertion. You only need as much evidence to dismiss a claim as has been presented to support it, in this case, none.
@TheScienceFoundation "Except that the claim of bigfoot (god) hasn't been explained or evidenced in any way, it's a bare assertion." Can you prove that statement, or is that just a bare assertion?
@TheScienceFoundation conti: argument but also give reasons why Theism is the more plausable explaintion. Otherwise you're position falls under the fallacy argument from ignorance. Prove it wrong otherwise don't go around here and bash people for there positions is what I'm trying to get through to you guys.
@FamousDave2186 No, the onus is not on the skeptic, you're trying to shift your burden of proof here. I don't have to prove your unsupported claim wrong to justify not accepting it.
@FamousDave2186 dude your argument is wack. atheism is not a position of assertion. we don't assert that this is no god. were just still waiting for the evidence.
@ikov then way are you arguing with me then if you're not asserting anything then? How about actually giving me an argument as to way I'm wrong. Is it really that hard for you guys. You all seem to enjoy ganging up on me but you'll all just saying the exact same thing and I'll continue to keep saying the exact same thing to all of you. Show me why atheism is more plausable than theism. I'm still waiting for that proof and evidence for way atheism is accurate and correct.
@Zerosupernatural Neither because both definitions of the terms are incorrect. According to the standard encylopedia of philosophy atheism is the denial of the existence of God, where theism believes in the existence of a god. Nice try but you got to do better than that. So is the definition incorrect? Do you live your life like there is no God because you live how you believe.
The definition you provided is correct, but your interpretation is incorrect. You need to distinguish the difference between the words denial and belief. Answer this question, do you live your life like there is no flying spaghetti monster because you live how you believe? Pointless question is it not?
@Zerosupernatural I live my life like God is my Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ God's Son is my Lord and Savior that's how I live my life. As you've stated my definiton is correct that's all that matters then in my statement and since its right that would mean you're saying that there is no God which requires proof. How do you know you're right? A simple dictionary can tell you the way I'm using the words. Answer my question. Do you live your life like there is no God? Yes or no?
@Zerosupernatural "I did NOT state that your definition was correct!! I stated that the definition you provided was correct" What's the difference? Last I checked that ment the same thing but please educate this poorly educated bigot (which makes no sense because I'm not hating on anyone you on the other hand with the insult are). But notice how you don't answer my question whatsoever. In fact you completly dodge it and instead go for an insult. I reject those false gods because of historal
@Zerosupernatural conti: reasons. Christianity on the other hand is supported by history. Jesus really did exist even Bart Ernhart (an agnostic by the way) agrees with this. Look up the historal accounts of Jesus on reasonablefaith.o.r.g. (take out the periods) and you'll see the argument. Now to debunk this anyone, you not only have to explain why I'm wrong this argument is wrong, but you also have to state why atheism is then the more plausable explaintion. Now answer my question.
There is NO point trying to educate you when you ignore truth, logic and reason. If your willing to seek the truth then I'm sure people will spend the time to explain.
@FamousDave2186 We have tried our best at explaining the truth with logic and reason yet you still refuse to accept or you innocently just do not understand. Most likely the former. NOW that you have confirmed you are a bigot you have confirmed you are wasting our time assisting you to understand logic.
Debating bigots like yourself is like playing chess with a pigeon, you knock over the pieces, shit on the board, then strut of with your chest out claiming victory without making a single move.
@Zerosupernatural How am I a bigot. A famous movie said it best: " I do not think it means what you think it means." You're like a broken record player just keep repeating the exact same thing. I don't need proof and evidence, you're uneducated bigot you can't even give me an argument for your position so how is that the truth then when I haven't heard anything that could prove atheism. Last I told you to look at the argument at the website I gave you. If you're unwilling to do this well it...
@FamousDave2186 If you acknowledge the facts presented to you I would not have to keep repeating myself. This debate is not my opinion against your opinion, it is fact against your opinion which quite frankly is not an intelligent debate. I will say yet again. The person making the assertion has the burden of proof!!! (THIS IS FACT NOT MY OPINION) This fact applies to any argument whatever the subject.
Its simply illogical to apply this rule to people rejecting/denying the assertion.
@Zerosupernatural conti: shows you're not very open minded as you guys like to claim you are. Since you won't give me anything expect shifting the burden of proof which is intelligently dishonest in any discussion. Try arguing with someone without the insults and then actually give an argument as to why your views are right. Otherwise it doesn't make you look good in any debate. I'm done with you. Get the last word in it won't make you right since I know you won't give me an argument.
If there was just one piece of evidence to prove gods exist, I would change my position, that is what being open minded is all about. If you want to enter into an intelligent debate I will happily engage, but you refuse to acknowledge the facts that are presented to you. And you are countering with your personal opinions instead of facts. I am not insulting you, I am presenting the facts and with all due respect you are insulting me with your refusal to acknowledge.
@Zerosupernatural I guess that there is no evidence that god exists, there is also no evidence that he does not. I know I just stepped in it with that remark but I'd like to err on the side of faith if nothing else. What have I got to lose?
@jimster46 When you accept faith, you reject logic, so what have you got to lose? YOUR REASONING!! Change the word god in your statement to flying spaghetti monster and you will suddenly have reason. Your view is commonly called the pascals wager.
Claiming Christianity is supported by history is not evidence to support it, btw Christianity is one of the most recently invented religions perhaps only 2000 old years at most!
When you can acknowledge the facts and points that people have presented to you only then will I happily engage your questions. Your bigotry shields you from truth.
I did not state "you're" definition was correct, I stated that the definition you provided was correct and added your interpretation is incorrect which is the point your ignoring.
@Zerosupernatural how would my interpretation be incorrect if my definition of the word is correct. I'm using the word exactly how its describe you're not making any sense and what truth have you argued? You've given me no reason, logi,c and truth as to why atheism is the more plausable explaintion. All you've done is claim its a default position which would then fall under the fallacy argument from ignorance look it up its real, and then shift the burden of proof and claim you don't need proof.
This has been flagged as spam show
This is my proof for God. The prophets predicted JESUS CHRIST first coming to the exact year 483 years before he came. The prophets predicted on what street christ would be born 700 years before he came. I know you athiest will say but people wrote the new testament to match the old. well than look at the new testament prophecies that are coming true today. rev 17 said the anti christ would sit with the harlot chruch in rome behold the pope and catholic church. JESUS predicted the NWO
cuvinteleluitati 1 hour ago
Being dumbfounded by stupidty is hardly the same as being owned.
TimSurrey 2 hours ago
That's it? Weak sauce. "Dawkins" and "owned" don't belong together in the same sentence.
saucywalnutz 11 hours ago 2
@saucywalnutz what about "Dawkins owned ..."
MetalDoneMoreForME 4 hours ago
@13donner you're kidding, right? Paleflarelight is right. Dawkins wasn't owned, he was dumfounded.
DrYashArya 1 day ago 2
You're mistaking being owned with being dumbfounded at the stupidity of the opponent
paleflarelight 1 day ago 3
@paleflarelight Rubbish!! He got owned full stop!
13donner 1 day ago
@13donner How?
paleflarelight 15 hours ago
Tough on the spot like that but he should have responded:
'I don't have solely faith in her existence; I know she exists as evidenced by her physical presence. If you're asking about my perception of her fidelity, then yes, I have faith in my wife, but I don't see the relevance to the debate.'
sreymind 2 days ago
out of thousands of scientists in the world what makes Dawkins so special?
AraP800 2 days ago
@AraP800 He's not 'special', he's just accessable.
m88888 6 hours ago
@AraP800 because he dosent compromise he tells the truth as it is
TheFlyWaier 4 hours ago
@jesse8857 You really have a cognitive comprehension problem don't you?
ptango101 3 days ago
Dawkins owned? Are you fucking serious?
xtro1969 3 days ago
Wow - a whole video quote-mine. This really is desperate.
dj2baduk 3 days ago
In the actual debate Dawkins went on to explain why having faith in his wife is not relevant.
prefuffle 3 days ago
Well you can prove that love exist, certain chemicals are elevated in the body, our state changes, we all have certain types of people that arouse us!
And we can feel that to great or less of extent to more people.
celpabedn 4 days ago
look the only way in which john lennox can understand atheism is through his own viewpoint of belief. Dawkins is irreligious. there is no comparison, or maybe there is
churchjamespeter 4 days ago
Atheism is a faith as well.. so true.
Ozzi4Japan 4 days ago
@Ozzi4Japan No it isn't. Faith is a belief without evidence. Atheism is absence of belief, therefore it cannot be a faith.
sreymind 4 days ago
@sreymind faith is belief with sufficient evidence for one's sensibility. Atheism is a belief with sufficient evidence for one's sensibility.
ToolsnFire 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sreymind faith is belief with sufficient evidence for one's sensibility. Atheism is a belief with sufficient evidence for one's sensibility.
ToolsnFire 4 days ago
@sreymind FAITH IS AN EVIDENCE = why the heck would anybody believe
in some thing as terrifying & unquantifiably invisible as a Supreme
being who controls everything, determines your birth, course
of events in your life & your death? That said, if Faith did not exist
in the world I would then ask why we abondoned a basic need?
Atheism on the other hand is not an absence of belief, it's just
an absence of belief in a thinking deity. Many Atheists believe
in evolution - a FORCE of nature.
protectorian 4 days ago
@sreymind Heb. 11:1- "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. 2 ..." By way of illustration the earthquake and receeding tides is the "evedent demonstration" of the "unseen reality" of a Tsunami. Scientist have faith in the atom, subatomic particles, blackholes. The "unseen reality" is "demonstrated" by "evidence" of mathematics, brownian motion, gravity lensing
kylekataryn 3 days ago
Err.. Don't think so - it's just good bit of banter. (If I remember correctly) they're both good guys from Oxford University and they get along very well.
Recommend also 'Hitchens versus Lennox', too - though your editing will have to make that an EVEN shorter video (because it was a knockout to Christopher ;O) That 'debate' was also conducted in the right spirit
Tj930 4 days ago
Ah, so this is some new definition of the word "owned" with which I was not familiar. So shaking one's head in disbelief is being "owned"? I'll put that in my pocket dictionary for use when dealing with folks who don't deal with reality very well.
integral 5 days ago
Shaking your head and being dumbfounded at someone's ignorance is far from the same thing as being stumped.
capitalknockers666 5 days ago
Maybe if we cut the video before Dawkins reply we can title it a pwn! Genius!
Thigwum 5 days ago
he was off his game he was banging the milkman
yeah man not woman
MustafaLorenzo 6 days ago
He wasn't stumped, he was just dumbstruck that someone with a reputable TV presence said that "Atheism is a faith".
PandaBasher 6 days ago
@MrAudacious21 - I agree with some of what you are saying. For one i do think that my reasoning was superior on this particular point as Richard Dawkins was most certainly not "owned". The comment put forth by Mr Lennox was a sharp and amusing comeback but rather than answer the question put forward it simply took the dabate off on a tangent. Now the fact that you come to the conclusion that i am closed minded on the basis of this one observation just makes you a victim of your own argument.
gotnygurners 1 week ago
Comment removed
12Ominous 6 days ago
@gotnygurners I watched the whole debate. He was owned. What atheists argue is absurd, Lennox isn't arguing, he's patronizing Dawkins, because he's childish. I grew out of being an atheist when I was 18, Dawkin's still hasn't grown up and he still thinks he's intellectually superior to the billions of people who lived before him that concluded there must be a God. I would speak to him the same way as I would to a fifteen year old who keeps stating he's going to be rich and famous one day.
12Ominous 6 days ago
@12Ominous Well possibly i'd have a difference of opinion if i'd seen the whole debate. I would actually like to believe that there is such a thing as God. My problem is that when i look around i see a world in which the greedy, the power hungry and the ruthless prosper, Whilst millions of poor, innocent people are bombed, left to starve and be oppressed by the likes of Colonel Gadaffi. It diminishes my faith in mankind and casts doubt on writings which scare people into obediency.
gotnygurners 5 days ago
@gotnygurners I think of God as a spectator, not a mediator. Also just because God doesn't conspicuously intervene in worldly affairs doesn't mean he doesn't unnoticed. A perfect world would not be worth living in. Problems, challenges and struggles are vital to human growth and development. When you think about why suffering exists, it makes perfect sense why a God would choose to not intervene.
12Ominous 5 days ago
@12Ominous [Lennox isn't arguing, he's patronizing Dawkins]
So basically, you're admitting that Lennox only one-upped Dawkins, which is totally different from winning an argument. You win arguments with facts and logic, but since you agree that Lennox wasn't arguing, then he couldn't have won the argument.
It's interesting that you claim that Dawkins is arrogant, then claim that you're smarter than he is. Ironic much?
sleazybtd 5 days ago
@sleazybtd He wasn't arguing, in this scene. I never claimed to be smarter than he is, but you have to question what his motives are for so vehemently and obstinately spreading his world-view. He's a scientist, not everyone is, he's not going to get a world where everyone wants to work in a lab and believe in nothing. It's not human-nature.
12Ominous 5 days ago
@12Ominous
[I never claimed to be smarter than he is]
[I grew out of being an atheist when I was 18, Dawkin's still hasn't grown up]
Your 2 statements seem to contradict each other.
What is the christian/muslim motive for vehemently and obstinately spreading the word of god/allah?
He's not trying to get everyone to become scientists, he just wants everyone to think. A thinking populace is better than a populace which believes whatever they're told.
sleazybtd 5 days ago
@sleazybtd More mature/not insecure = smarter? Hmm.
12Ominous 5 days ago
@12Ominous So you believe in god because you're more mature and not insecure?
So Richard Dawkins does NOT believe in god because he's less mature and insecure? That makes absolutely no sense.
Be honest, your original intent was that you believe that you're smarter than Richard Dawkins, therefore you believe in god. Please stop bearing false witness, I think that's one of your big rules or something.
sleazybtd 5 days ago
@sleazybtd Of course it does. One of the biggest indicators of insecurity is a need to impose your beliefs onto others. No, I believe human beings are all of relatively the same level of intellect but that intellect present itself in different ways. Some have great insight and can see the larger picture, others like Dawkins see the details of one aspect of the picture but in exchange don't see the whole picture.
12Ominous 5 days ago
@12Ominous I only see christians and muslims forcing their beliefs onto others. Christians make laws to ban gay marriage and force intelligent design into science classes and deny that it's religion.
sleazybtd 4 days ago
@sleazybtd Not ALL Christians are! You may as well just say that all Atheists do the same. I know I certainly don't! I protect gay rights and I would never ask for theology in a class that was unrelated. This is a mistake I see many Atheists make. To think that all believers are moronic and discreminatory is, in itself, discreminatory.
Mayeflower7 4 days ago
@Mayeflower7 When did I ever say that ALL christians pull that crap. The fact that this country is about 80% christian, and the fact that just over 50% of the population supports gay marriage is proof that there are a lot of christians that support gay marriage.
My point is that of the 50% of the people in this country who want to ban gay marriage, at least 95% of them are christian. The people trying to force their beliefs onto others are almost always christian.
sleazybtd 3 days ago
@12Ominous [Some have great insight and can see the larger picture]
So you ARE saying that you're more intelligent.
sleazybtd 4 days ago
Semantics.
Dawkins was talking about faith as belief, while Lennox's response was about faith as in trust.
Typical christian nonsensical arguments. First you misuse the word "theory", now you try to misuse the word "faith". Maybe one day, you guys will actually come up with a good honest argument.
sleazybtd 1 week ago
@sleazybtd - Good comment. Thanks for flying the flag of sensibility. It's kind of funny that some of these relegious folk seem intent on making us lose our faith in humanity as well as in God.
gotnygurners 1 week ago
@sleazybtd Cry.
12Ominous 6 days ago
@sleazybtd Excellent point. For atheists semantics is an obstacle in debate i.e. getting our points and concepts across is constrained by lexicon. Yet theists use this as a tool, to muddy, to obfuscate. This video is a very good example.
sreymind 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But of course there IS evidence. They always attempt to equate trust and faith as though the two are one and the same but they are indeed not synonymous. I trust my wife because of the fact that she does not lie to me. I trust her because of the subtle body language. I trust her because of a multitude of reasons.
seansalvador1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well i don't think it's semantically correct to call a creationist an intellectual.
LOGANUVA 1 week ago
i was hoping he'd turn round and say, "what about your momma!"
dieseluk2k 1 week ago
The amount of stupidity from Richard Dawkins is too DAMN High!!!
tjaikbenhet 1 week ago
Excuse me but how is that being owned? Richard Dawkins put forward a well thought out contention only to be rebuttled by a stupid question about his wife.
The very fact you have posted this video along with your ill conceived comments clearly demonstrates how closed minded you really are.
gotnygurners 1 week ago
@gotnygurners & your comment demeaning his/her close mindedness reveals your close mindedness about being close minded. There for your ill conceived comment clearly demonstrates how close minded you really are. Applaud & praise me! For I, like Dawkins & Hitchens, have used pretty, complicated sounding axioms to produce logical nonsense! :D Woohoo!
MrAudacious21 1 week ago
Comment removed
gotnygurners 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAudacious21 @MrAudacious21 Pleases explain to me how that demonstrates my closed mindedness when the comment doesn't even highlight what my own opinion is? I'm glad to hear that in the past you have used well informed dialogue to make your case clearly understood and put forth a good argument, but i'm afraid jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts is exactly why we're having this debate in the first place. Besides, "logical nonsense" is a contradiction in terms.
gotnygurners 1 week ago
@MrAudacious21 Oh and i forgot.........Woohoo!
gotnygurners 1 week ago
@gotnygurners Must I really explain how you have demonstrated your own circular reasoning? Goodness. You accuse someone of being close minded & that within and of it self is done so by assuming your reasoning is superior to the one at hand, no matter what your actual opinion is, your implication is that it is superior & therefore you too have committed the act of being close minded.. As for the tautology, exactly my point. Glad you were able to recognize at least that much. So, yes.. Woohoo! ;)
MrAudacious21 1 week ago
Comment removed
discipulo123 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gotnygurners a stupid question makes the other party look smarter not more stupid does it?,the question wasn't stupid. if it was stupid it will make Dawkins look good, but Dawkins looked like an idiot. i guess we can reverse your comment and rephrase it.
how simple is to defeat sophisticated stupidity!
discipulo123 1 week ago
He is not stumped, you twat!
He was just struck by the ignorance of Lennox.
What's missing (what you probably cut off) is the standard reply: "It is your faith, then, that there is no tooth-fairy, then?".
ttcmp0 1 week ago
@ttcmp0 wao! i`m struck with yours
discipulo123 1 week ago
@discipulo123 So.. -- assuming you don't believe in the tooth-fairy -- I take it I can call your position towards the tooth-fairy a religious stance? Have you ever heard of a non-stamp collector?
And to answer the former stupid question Lennox asked. Just watch Dawkins and his wife for couple of months. Surely, you could gather plenty of evidence for the faith Dawkins holds for his wife.
ttcmp0 1 week ago
Love is just a word that we use to describe a feeling. But there are many ways to prove and show evidence that you love someone...your actions are the evidence. that other guys point about that was completely irrelevant. I can prove and show evidence that I love someone...but show me the proof and evidence of your god...rite...you can't. And how does it take a leap of faith to be an atheist?...thats the same thing as saying it takes a leap of faith to believe there is no monsters in my closet
bwcomment777 1 week ago
this is sad
FL1CK3R 1 week ago
Hes just sick to death of having to refute the same stupid assertions. Talking to theists is exhausting - not because of the cleverness of their argumments but because of the effort required to remain civil in the face of total stupidity. I get a crick in my neck having to constantly get down to their level.
mikelheron20 1 week ago
ohhh! right in your ass crack dawkins!! lol
WarbladeX1 1 week ago
It would've been nice to see Dawkins' reply.
It's obvious that this video has been cut in order to show ONLY 'evidence' for YOUR side of the argument. And I fail to see any evidence for Dawkins being "owned" in the video.
CorellianSmuggler 1 week ago
Way to cut off the video dumbfuck
watler 1 week ago 2
He's not stumped, he's exasperated.
manof1001faces 1 week ago
@manof1001faces Yes, yes & yes again. To be fair this is a humurous exchange. I doubt that Lennox would suggest Dawkins was stumped as the video title says.
gextvedde 1 week ago
Religious faith is not evidence based! Stating that other types of faith can be evidence based is irrelevant. So what if Dawkins was momentarily stunned by the vacuousness of Lennox's argument?
shumble32 1 week ago
Oh, I get it. Logic proves there is no god. Why should I not believe in god? Becaues you don't, or Richard Dawkins writes a few books about it? Logic and science are man's way of explaining away what they cannot explain. One more thing, can't you come up with something better or more original that flying spaghetti monster?
jimster46 1 week ago
@jimster46
Logic does NOT prove there are no gods, logical reasoning along with common sense suggest's there is no reason to believe in gods because there is no evidence to support that gods exist.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@Zerosupernatural Perhaps some peoples logical reasoning doesn't match up with yours.
jimster46 1 week ago
@jimster46 Your statement lacks logic. If everybody used logic regarding a definitive subject they would all agree. Its illogical claiming the sky is white.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimster46 You said "Logic and science are man's way of explaining away what they cannot explain."
That is a paradox which clearly proves you have no logic.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
Comment removed
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
Comment removed
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimster46 I CAN come up with something more original than the flying spaghetti monster Can you come up with something more original than god?There are 3000 gods in mythology and they all have names.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@Zerosupernatural you're right 3000 gods in mythology because they are a myth.
jimster46 1 week ago
Comment removed
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@jimster46 Precisely! its simply illogical to claim that some gods are NOT myth.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
He's not stumped at how the other guy rocked his world; he's dumbfounded by the stupidity of it.
Stellaeborealis 1 week ago 2
Faith in something tangeable and relatable to, such as faith in a loved one is DEFINITELY NOT the same 'faith' that generates belief in something some people believe and then expect others to likewise believe. I know, because I USED TO MAKE THE SAME STUPID ARGUMENT MYSELF. Then I decided to ...I dunno... open a book and read. I DO believe in God, but I'm 100% supportive of the Atheistic position because it's stupid to just believe something without REASON. Lennox is VERY disappointing.
ntr10me 1 week ago
@ntr10me I appreciate your openness and accepting behavior towards the Atheist position, but are you not disgracing your own logic? Saying "I DO believe in God" and "stupid to just believe in something without REASON." seem contradictory. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, what is your reason for believing in God?
Midfield401 1 week ago
@Midfield401 Ah, there it is, ya. The REASON, the JUSTIFICATION, the EXPLANATION. This is the hardest question to clearly answer I think in part to the poverty of the English language. All phrases and expressions and sentences explaining one's belief in god ALWAYS sound SOOOO cliched and sci-fi-esque that it's not worth bothering with.. I spent my university years as a closet atheist. My reasons for my belief in god are very personal but based on experiences that I can't unexperience.
ntr10me 1 week ago
@Midfield401 pt.2, It IS an ongoing challenge to reconcile what feels like two diametrically opposed points of view. I have never felt compelled to convince people to believe in anything I believe. I think religious people ARE closed-minded, arrogant AND IGNORANT in such conversations. But I find no solace among atheists because, though atheism is clear, rational and curious, too many atheists are quickly dismissive and show a similar arrogance making the whole conversation undiscussable.
ntr10me 1 week ago
Still waiting for the owning.
MrNeodarwinian 1 week ago
This isn't Richard Dawkins "getting owned". This is him having a massive face palm moment. You know that feeling you get when you have been arguing for a while and the theist is using their dodgy definitions for words like faith, evolution and evidence. You realise that if you continue the next big part of your day is going to be taken up by an argument about the meaning of words. Nothing will get achieved. These idiots wonder why we don't accept there debate challenges.
ptango101 1 week ago
I fail to see why believers feel it is necessary to argue with non-believers about God, evolution and creation. God tells us not to cast pearls before swine. It is apparent that atheist and other non-believers will not be convinced of the truth until they are either satisfied NOW with complete physical proof by God Himself or later at Judgment Day. Of course the Bible states that it will be the latter. I suggest we leave them to their beliefs and move on to more important things.
areyouready22 1 week ago
Atheist can cry sob and bitch but Lennox is no dummy!
666TheBloodLust666 1 week ago
Well based on 'science' we can more than half ass prove reality. Faith in our wives fidelity I believe would be based on her psychology and have little to do with the grand sceme of the universe..
jumpingmap 1 week ago
Atheism is not a faith. Atheists are not making claims that "something" exists, therefore they don't carry the burden of proof. Creationists make claims that there is a god... WHERE is the proof? Do you believe in hot pink elephants? How come? Probably because you've never seen one. What if I told you I saw one, and what if I told you many people have seen them. Is your disbelief a faith? Absurd! Listen people.. wake up and smell the coffee... this world is fucked if we keep thinking like this.
ganalisto 1 week ago
@ganalisto well if that was true then way are you then making a claim? If you weren't making a claim you wouldn't claim there isn't any proof. I would ask can you prove there isn't any proof? Your comment falls under the fallacy called argument from ignorance meaning since as you claim there isn't any proof therefore atheism is the default postion. So can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that you looked at all all of the arguments and there is no proof to God? Be honest
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 Absolutely, I have looked at all the proof and I have not found any proof of God. Atheism is indeed the default position. I will move from that position if I am presented with evidence that God exists. Why would anyone believe anything without proof?
ganalisto 1 week ago
@ganalisto "Absolutely, I have looked at all the proof and I have not found any proof of God." Two things I can say just from this about you. You're either a liar or you don't know that there's a lot more than you think. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt I haven't seen all the proof there is and for you to make such a claim is flat out wrong. Next so atheism is a fallacy then. By your statement, anything that is a default position is argument from ignorance by its very definition.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@ganalisto conti: "Why would anyone believe anything without proof?" So what proof and evidence then do you have that makes atheism accurate and correct then. You must have proof then otherwise you wouldn't have made such a comment.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 Atheism is not claiming that a God does not exist. Atheists state that there is no conclusive evidence to support those claims and therefore, we shouldn't make premature conclusions. Science is based on this model. One may have a strong feeling that there is a God, but the truth is those feelings are unfounded. The Bible should be considered but only with skepticism (at best) and claims should be proven without a doubt so as to not pollute our knowledge base.
ganalisto 1 week ago
@ganalisto "Atheism is not claiming that a God does not exist. Atheists state that there is no conclusive evidence to support those claims and therefore, we shouldn't make premature conclusions." No its not according to the standard encylopedia of philosophy it states the denial of the existence of God. If you're statement is right then what's agnosticsm then? You haven't answered my question. You stated who would believe something without proof but you're doing the exact same thing. Tell me...
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well. In other words, agnosticism is a subset of atheism.
ganalisto 1 week ago
@ganalisto Atheists do deny the existence of God. Tell me do you live your life like there might be a god? No you don't otherwise if you did you be a theist. So that's an inaccurate statement. Second an agnostic doesn't argue that God doesn't existence like you just did. They claim they don't know. I picture a real agnostic at least trying to learn if the existence of God is real or not. If he or she claims agnosticsm but then argues that its impossible that's a contradiction on there views.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@ganalisto conti: what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct. If you cannot then you must concide the argument. You haven't addressed my point when I stated that atheism is argument from ignorance since you claim its a default position. You don't address anything I've stated. Give me proof and evidence as you clearly stated it "why believe in something without proof." You first.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 He who makes a claim has the burden of proof. Christianity has the burden of proof in this case because they claim a God exists. If I told you aliens exist would you believe me? Would you assume I'm telling the truth or would you ask for evidence? The default position is to not believe unless undeniable evidence is present.
ganalisto 1 week ago
@ganalisto conti: "He who makes a claim has the burden of proof." Ok give me some proof then. You stated and I quote " Atheism is not a faith" So it must have some proof and evidence for without it its just blind faith. All you are doing is shifting the burden of proof. I can tell you why aliens do not exist that's why you hold the position not to believe someone, I still need some proof for my thinking as to why aliens don't exist. Otherwise I couldn't say they don't exist. Now answer my...
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@ganalisto conti: question if you cannot then this converstation is over. What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct? If you think you're gonna get people to "wake up" then you got to do a better job than just to claim a default position which any freshman philosopher (and no I'm no philosopher) can tell that's argument from ignorance.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 Why do you believe in God? What proof do you have that he exists? My position is that I don't believe in God because I haven't found any evidence to support the existence of God. If you have proof of his existence please share it with me. If you can provide evidence and proof of his existence then I will change my position. Ball is in your court.
ganalisto 1 week ago
@ganalisto
Arguing with a theist is like playing chess with a pigeon. FUCKING POINTLESS!
The pigeon will knock over the chess pieces and shit on the board then strut around with its chest puffed out claiming victory.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@ganalisto And here we go, now we have to shift the burden of proof. I asked you earlier have you looked at all the evidence you claim yes and I asked you to prove it. Never did prove that one. So before I answer your question, let me ask you, are you conceding then that you have no proof and evidence as to why atheism is accurate and correct?
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FamousDave2186 I have to completely agree with Zerosupernatural on this. I shall quote "Arguing with a theist is like playing chess with a pigeon. FUCKING POINTLESS!
The pigeon will knock over the chess pieces and shit on the board then strut around with its chest puffed out claiming victory." Game over.
ganalisto 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 "What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?" Ah, the good old shockofgod, dishonest theist, shifting of burden of proof bit. So because we don't believe your evidence for your choice of deity then some how we have the burden to prove it wrong? I don't think so. Our atheism is a direct result of your crappy evidence. You don't get to make a claim and just sit back. You have burden of proof. Deal with it.
ptango101 1 week ago
@ptango101 "Ah, the good old shockofgod, dishonest theist, shifting of burden of proof bit." Ah the good old ad homenim, poor tactic atheist, shifting the burden of proof bit. Maybe we'd all stop laughing at you guys if you actually gave some proof and evidence as to why we're wrong. You don't get to make a claim and just sit back. You have burden of proof. Deal with it. Otherwise you're not convincing me of your beliefs.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 What ad hominem? If you have a problem with the accurate portrayal of yourself and that idiot shocks debating techniques then that's your problem. If I said that we are genetically manufactured throw backs from a species of ET that lived on a planet called oma-thetacron 6 you would probably disagree (rightly so) for many reasons. Would you think it was OK if I said "you have to prove why these aliens don't exist". "Prove your disbelief in the aliens from O-T 6"
ptango101 1 week ago
@ptango101 the part where you said that Shock is dishonest (talking about his "character" even though you have no proof of this claim). I can be the worst person in the world but still be right. It does nothing to the argument. Second yeah I can give many reasons as to why aliens don't exist but lets say someone does say they do exist. They give arguments for it, not only do I have to debunk these arguments, but I also have to explain why my reasoning is the more plausable explaintion
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 I have proof of shocks dishonesty and hypocrisy. Also I am not asking about the evidence for or against the aliens. I am asking you if you think that is an acceptable debating/ arguing technique. I have made a huge claim but shifted burden of proof to you because of your disbelief. Is that OK to you?
ptango101 1 week ago
@ptango101 I know exactly what you were saying, and I explained to you why your point wasn't a good debate technique. No it is not ok, I asked the other guy to show proof and evidence and he can't do it. You jumped in and made the claim you don't have to, so why should anyone then accept atheism (your worldview) to be true then if you can't prove it? If something can't be proven then it can't be accpeted. No proof + No evidence = No Atheism.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
Comment removed
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 I am not making a positive claim. I am reacting to your evidence. Once again I say that my position is not a world view, a system of ideology or a religion. You put forward the evidence for a deity and I say "no, I don't think that is a valid argument". You theists keep putting forward that ours is the burden of proof when it is you who are making the claims. I could put forward no proof+no evidence= no TC6ism. Do you think that is valid?
ptango101 1 week ago
@ptango101 Doesn't matter if you're making a positive claim. Are you or are you not arguing with me and saying that God doesn't exist? If you weren't making any claims you wouldn't be arguing with me here now would you? But instead your claiming that you're right and not explaining why. All you're doing is shifting the burden of proof, try going into a debate like that. Nope I don't need to provide proof and evidence for my position. You'd get laughed right out of the building. So are you then..
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 I am arguing with you because you are the one making claims about the existence of your deity but shifting burden of proof to those who think you claims are ridiculous. This is your story not ours. It is not up to us to disprove anything. You have to prove your story.
ptango101 1 week ago
@ptango101 I asked could you prove that God doesn't exist, a yes or no answer would be fine. Second all I did was ask a question, you guys on the other hand have turned this into I don't need proof to be right. So how could anyone just say you know you are right. It sounds like to me the only reason you're an atheist is because you don't want God to exist. But just because you want something doesn't make it true. And last I do have arguments but again in a debate you have to present arguments...
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 I can't make a 100% claim like you but yes I can show how it is very unlikely that your god exists. However once again this would be a rehash of your evidence. I can argue why the ontological argument is invalid for instance. I can argue how the bible is so inconsistent with describing your deity that it basically becomes meaningless.
ptango101 1 week ago
@ptango101 conti: as to why you are right to say that God doesn't exist. At least Hitchens in his debate with Dr. William Lane Criag tried but even atheist websites like commonsenseatheism admit that he lost badly. Since you can't provide proof and evidence this converstation is over. Unless you can actually argue why I'm wrong your position stands on argument from ignorance which doesn't win any debates and shouldn't win people over to their point of views (but sadly it does). Look up some of..
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FamousDave2186
Think about it
If I claimed and believed that the flying spaghetti monster exists, there is NO way you could ever prove me wrong.
The burden of proof is with the believer.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@ptango101 conti: arguments from Dr.William Lane Craig and you can see the evidence. I'm asking you to be open minded and not closed minded like you are for not providing proof and evidence to your worldview. Goodbye. Get the last word in I don't care. I think we can all see there is no proof and evidence as towards why we should reject God and accpet atheism instead.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
Comment removed
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 Do you also see that your positive arguments for supposed evidence come from debates. These things rely on a vote being taken to decide who one. Do you think just because you win a debate by default that makes what you were arguing for correct? Real inquiry needs real evidence.
ptango101 1 week ago
@ptango101 conti: stating that there is no proof and evidence for atheism. Because if you're claiming that its a default position then it would fall under the fallacy argument from ignorance. Just prove on the contrary is right. If you cannot do this then atheism is unprovable and shouldn't be accpeted. If you admit that there's no proof and evidence then why do you force others for their views to have proof and evidence when you don't have any?
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 It's the default position because when a claim is made without evidence the default is non-acceptance. To say otherwise is to say you believe every single claim about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc. until they're specifically disproven.
Remaining skeptical of a positive claim which is not supported by evidence (god exists) does not in and of itself require evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation No you have to explain why bigfoot doesn't exist. Now if I just say bigfoot exist and give no explaintion for it I would look foolish and it would be easily refuted however since there is arguments for the existence of God you not only have to try and debunk the arguments but you also have to show why atheism is the more plausable explaintion. That is what I'm trying to get through to you guys if you can actually give an argument for it I can not only try to debunk the...
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 No, not accepting the claim that bigfoot exists does not require any evidence. There are arguments for gods existence, but no evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation If someone argues with you that bigfoot does exist and explains why bigfoot does, what are you going to do just say no it doesn't than that's it? You not only have to explain why his or her view is wrong to make that claim but you also have to give reasonable argument as to why. If you watch a debate, one side gives their argument while the other side not only explains why their side is wrong but also explain why his or her side is right.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 Except that the claim of bigfoot (god) hasn't been explained or evidenced in any way, it's a bare assertion. You only need as much evidence to dismiss a claim as has been presented to support it, in this case, none.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation "Except that the claim of bigfoot (god) hasn't been explained or evidenced in any way, it's a bare assertion." Can you prove that statement, or is that just a bare assertion?
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation conti: argument but also give reasons why Theism is the more plausable explaintion. Otherwise you're position falls under the fallacy argument from ignorance. Prove it wrong otherwise don't go around here and bash people for there positions is what I'm trying to get through to you guys.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 No, the onus is not on the skeptic, you're trying to shift your burden of proof here. I don't have to prove your unsupported claim wrong to justify not accepting it.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186
This scientific foundation guy is a hoot.
His name is faith based and he doesn't even know it.
ivlfounder 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 dude your argument is wack. atheism is not a position of assertion. we don't assert that this is no god. were just still waiting for the evidence.
ikov 1 week ago
@ikov then way are you arguing with me then if you're not asserting anything then? How about actually giving me an argument as to way I'm wrong. Is it really that hard for you guys. You all seem to enjoy ganging up on me but you'll all just saying the exact same thing and I'll continue to keep saying the exact same thing to all of you. Show me why atheism is more plausable than theism. I'm still waiting for that proof and evidence for way atheism is accurate and correct.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 *why
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186
Easy
Atheism rejects gods on the grounds of NO evidence.
Theism believes in gods in on the grounds of NO evidence.
Which view is more accurate and correct?
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@Zerosupernatural Neither because both definitions of the terms are incorrect. According to the standard encylopedia of philosophy atheism is the denial of the existence of God, where theism believes in the existence of a god. Nice try but you got to do better than that. So is the definition incorrect? Do you live your life like there is no God because you live how you believe.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186
The definition you provided is correct, but your interpretation is incorrect. You need to distinguish the difference between the words denial and belief. Answer this question, do you live your life like there is no flying spaghetti monster because you live how you believe? Pointless question is it not?
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@Zerosupernatural I live my life like God is my Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ God's Son is my Lord and Savior that's how I live my life. As you've stated my definiton is correct that's all that matters then in my statement and since its right that would mean you're saying that there is no God which requires proof. How do you know you're right? A simple dictionary can tell you the way I'm using the words. Answer my question. Do you live your life like there is no God? Yes or no?
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
Comment removed
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zerosupernatural "I did NOT state that your definition was correct!! I stated that the definition you provided was correct" What's the difference? Last I checked that ment the same thing but please educate this poorly educated bigot (which makes no sense because I'm not hating on anyone you on the other hand with the insult are). But notice how you don't answer my question whatsoever. In fact you completly dodge it and instead go for an insult. I reject those false gods because of historal
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@Zerosupernatural conti: reasons. Christianity on the other hand is supported by history. Jesus really did exist even Bart Ernhart (an agnostic by the way) agrees with this. Look up the historal accounts of Jesus on reasonablefaith.o.r.g. (take out the periods) and you'll see the argument. Now to debunk this anyone, you not only have to explain why I'm wrong this argument is wrong, but you also have to state why atheism is then the more plausable explaintion. Now answer my question.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186
There is NO point trying to educate you when you ignore truth, logic and reason. If your willing to seek the truth then I'm sure people will spend the time to explain.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@Zerosupernatural conti: is that what really passes for truth, logic, and reason in todays world? Goodbye.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 We have tried our best at explaining the truth with logic and reason yet you still refuse to accept or you innocently just do not understand. Most likely the former. NOW that you have confirmed you are a bigot you have confirmed you are wasting our time assisting you to understand logic.
Debating bigots like yourself is like playing chess with a pigeon, you knock over the pieces, shit on the board, then strut of with your chest out claiming victory without making a single move.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@Zerosupernatural How am I a bigot. A famous movie said it best: " I do not think it means what you think it means." You're like a broken record player just keep repeating the exact same thing. I don't need proof and evidence, you're uneducated bigot you can't even give me an argument for your position so how is that the truth then when I haven't heard anything that could prove atheism. Last I told you to look at the argument at the website I gave you. If you're unwilling to do this well it...
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 If you acknowledge the facts presented to you I would not have to keep repeating myself. This debate is not my opinion against your opinion, it is fact against your opinion which quite frankly is not an intelligent debate. I will say yet again. The person making the assertion has the burden of proof!!! (THIS IS FACT NOT MY OPINION) This fact applies to any argument whatever the subject.
Its simply illogical to apply this rule to people rejecting/denying the assertion.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@Zerosupernatural conti: shows you're not very open minded as you guys like to claim you are. Since you won't give me anything expect shifting the burden of proof which is intelligently dishonest in any discussion. Try arguing with someone without the insults and then actually give an argument as to why your views are right. Otherwise it doesn't make you look good in any debate. I'm done with you. Get the last word in it won't make you right since I know you won't give me an argument.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186
If there was just one piece of evidence to prove gods exist, I would change my position, that is what being open minded is all about. If you want to enter into an intelligent debate I will happily engage, but you refuse to acknowledge the facts that are presented to you. And you are countering with your personal opinions instead of facts. I am not insulting you, I am presenting the facts and with all due respect you are insulting me with your refusal to acknowledge.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@Zerosupernatural I guess that there is no evidence that god exists, there is also no evidence that he does not. I know I just stepped in it with that remark but I'd like to err on the side of faith if nothing else. What have I got to lose?
jimster46 1 week ago
@jimster46 When you accept faith, you reject logic, so what have you got to lose? YOUR REASONING!! Change the word god in your statement to flying spaghetti monster and you will suddenly have reason. Your view is commonly called the pascals wager.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@jimster46 - what have you got to lose?
Lots of your time spent uselessly in church?
shumble32 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186
Claiming Christianity is supported by history is not evidence to support it, btw Christianity is one of the most recently invented religions perhaps only 2000 old years at most!
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186
When you can acknowledge the facts and points that people have presented to you only then will I happily engage your questions. Your bigotry shields you from truth.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
I did not state "you're" definition was correct, I stated that the definition you provided was correct and added your interpretation is incorrect which is the point your ignoring.
Zerosupernatural 1 week ago
@Zerosupernatural how would my interpretation be incorrect if my definition of the word is correct. I'm using the word exactly how its describe you're not making any sense and what truth have you argued? You've given me no reason, logi,c and truth as to why atheism is the more plausable explaintion. All you've done is claim its a default position which would then fall under the fallacy argument from ignorance look it up its real, and then shift the burden of proof and claim you don't need proof.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
@FamousDave2186 The only proof and evidence for not believing in your god would be drawn from the poor evidence