Why are you trying to prove something that cannot be scientifically justified? There is a reason faith is called faith. If it could be proven, it would be called fact. Everybody would just have to chose sides: with God or not. I dare you: try not to label yourself as atheist and try to have doubts for a while about your not proven thesis that God does not exist, just like we who believe have periods when we doubt and question our faith. Orthodox one
dude dont you see that you are telling him he is right? faith means its something that has newer been and can newer be proven. and that means what can be proven is right.
dont you see that prove can newer be outranked by faith?
atheist sticks to what is real and what has been proven what you do is trying to convince us that your unproven Magical being is true?
would you believe me if i told you i had a dragon in my garrage?
exactly if we had newer heard of the christianity or god we would newer know about him? if we grew up without knowing what cloths where we still would find out how to use and aquire them, evolution has tought us that. because cloths are something you can touch, its real, it can be proven, god cannot and thats why its something made up.
do you believe that when a child makes an imaginary friend, theres actually an invisible person next to your daughter? no because there isnt.
forget about wether a 'creator' exists.BookofTao,Confucious,Hinduism,Buddhism,Judaism,Christianity ALL teach ETHICS=HEAVENorNirvana,Paradise,Afterlifeor HeavenonEarth.The reason for the commandment 'worship only thy creator' is Ethical.More murders were over diff. gods than anything.Dont be confused,the war is old.Its Ethics vs Edicts,Virtue vs Vice and Morality vs Instinct.TheGreatBooks are about Morals not proving a creator.Ethics=Heaven, you get it??now you dont have to read em all.
Atheism is just a big plot to discredit and bring down religion. That is really the only plausible motivation for Atheism. Almost every argument for Atheism is just a criticism based on denial. For people who don't give a *$@*( about God, why do they try so hard to deny His existence? You can't prove scientifically that the world would be a better place without religion by declaring it false. Ironically, Atheists put blind faith in this belief and offer no evidence just viewpoints.
Agnosticism is for those who have not put God to the test. When a toddler is learning to walk, it develops trust in the parents to catch it if it falls. That is what biblical faith is: trust that has been built upon proving God's reliability by putting Him to the test according to His Word.
A person who has truly done this is not agnostic. He or she knows they can trust God, having real faith with substance, not blind faith which is based upon nothing.
@35TCK Nopereno.... you're delusional my friend... people think God wants "blind faith". He doesn't - it's meaningless. He wants you to prove He is real by putting Him to the test. You know a light switch works, because you've put it to the test by using it, or one like it, in the past. Same with road maps, and credit cards...
God can be put to the test, and He is bound by His Word to keep it.
So, you see, you've only proved that you do not know what either of us are talking about.
@xxneondinosaur God never fails. If you take Him up on the challenge, according to His rules, He is bound by His Word to respond in the Way He says He will.
@Thistlesifter220 You're illogical. I know you know everything and are defensive just for asking a legitimate question! So, because I was not shown god, that is MY fault because I failed to test right? Why don't you put your beliefs to the test instead of just saying bullshit and no facts? I can say god failed right now by letting you even use such stupid ideas, but that's not a fact, is it? Nope.
@xxneondinosaur You're confused. You asked a question, I answered it, and then you came back a smart aleck answer, not a legitimate question. You were fishing for a confrontation, so get off the fluttering eye lash innocent band wagon.
If you're truly interested in "testing right", then do it, don't whine about the results you got by not doing it. And how could I say what I said without having truly put them to the test? ThiMk!!! Testing proves things - and they are fact, Dolly.
@Thistlesifter220 It's cool how you must KNOW my intentions, even though I just asked a question that didn't imply I was fishing for anything. To imply that I just did not test god right is hilarious. It always HAS to be the other person, right? Because testing YOUR ideas is TOTALLY ridiculous. And you didn't give me an answer to the question. According to you, there is no room for god to fail. That was not answering what if he does, because, he does fail people's tests.
@Thistlesifter220 Even more so, you're just completely defensive. It's hilarious. And obviously, saying something is a fact makes it a fact according to you. Why don't you get your head out of your fantasy land.
Atheism is interesting I do believe it is an easy way out for many, now I can't say this for certain of course, just my understanding after speaking with many atheists. I understand that the mind need to rest at some axioms and "no god" is one as any other axiom. The default position would be agnostic as no child is born with any knowledge of what's going on. Nor can they view evidence presented before them until they learn the more basic skills of living.
furthermore i don't have a problem with atheists labelling themselves a non believer of any god. As for your point about Christians and Allah i would say that from a christian point of view we are told the devil is the one manipulating things in the bible to provide a way of pulling christians and non christians away from seeing god. Did he ever go for an open debate? Maybe a youtube debate?
I like ur video, you bring up some sensible points and put them across well and don't get angry and emotional. I'm a Christian myself and i actually agree with some of what ur saying here. In my experience agnosticism would be the default i think, most people don't think about it and just live their lives according to themselves, atheism and athiests in my experience are going out of their way to make a stand and say i don't believe in any god.
Even if theism was "the default" it is clearly a default that was based on ignorance by the simple reason that the earliest human civilizations had no idea how things worked. For instance, we no longer believe in Thor or Zeus or any other supernatural omnipotent gods from the past. Believing in a god requires no deeper reasoning, that's why the default to the unknown has always been something unrealistic that eventually becomes proven wrong.
I'll debate your MOM for the right price. Then i'll plagiarize whatever she says during the debate and make a video of it. Then I'm gonna roll up some hydro in bible paper and spark dat shit.
I peed a little when you said "RIDICULOUS" at 01:40. Holy fuck, that was a hilarious delivery.
Atheism is in itself though a belief. Atheism wouldn't exist if theism didn't. Someone makes a positive claim about what they believe, someone else couldn't rationalize it and believes the claim is false. The difference is the type of belief. Theism is subjective, Atheism is objective, non-theism/non-atheism is nothing.
incorrect. Atheism pre-dated theism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Thus before there was belief in god(s), there was a lack of it, essentially everyone would have been an atheist. Atheism is not also a belief, it is a lack of belief. Atheists dont find the claims to be false, rather they find the claims not proven to be true. A true atheist says "I don't believe in god(s)", rather than "I believe there are no gods".
A true atheist uses formal logic to understand that for you to be something, that something must be. The lack of something is not a positive definition of anything, so you cannot be it.
...true atheist. Pfft. A belief is not certainty anyways, and actually theists wouldn't have a burden of proof if they didn't so often claim absolute truth and instead believed a claim.
Bottom line, if you believe the universe lacks creation, you believe in no creator.
I think you're just spinning in the same way with your "bottom line." It's not that atheists believe the universe lacks creation, it's that we haven't been convinced that it was necessarily created.
I know, which is why it is believed to have always been, in whatever state. This could never be proven, but it's not a claim of truth.
Theists wouldn't so often bear the burden of proof if they didn't claim their beliefs to be the truth. In saying, "I believe in no God," I'm not claiming "no God" is the truth, but I believe it based on no evidence (or convincing evidence) to the contrary. I'm still open to thinking that knowledge of God's existence is possibly knowable.
just like a person is believed innocent until proven guilty.
The default position in the case of God is not knowing about the idea of God. In our society, that's not really possible, except among babies and remote tribes. That's why they are non-theists when it comes to the idea of God, and I'm an atheist. Because they are lucky enough to not have heard of the idea of God, and I am not, haha.
I don't want this to come off the wrong way to have you thinking that I'm saying what Brock is saying. It's ridiculous to think that everyone knows God exists and atheists just deny his existence. That's the dumbest thing I could think a theist would say.
But, at the same time, people don't know about the idea of God without first being coherent and familiar with language. Then some jackass can tell them about "God's truth".
Well, a reasonable reaction to this claim of truth is to ask, "Why is it true?" The person says things like, "The bible blah blah," or "The Qur'an blah blah," or maybe they'll go with personal experience or the good ole "Something couldn't have come from nothing" bit that has me gripping my sides.
A person is just required to show why these "reasons" are not reasons, which is reason to believe the negative is true. This is the same with any claim, like unicorns or elves.
Is it also the lack of a belief in no God? I mean if you lack a belief the universe lacks creation, you've just made a double negative, which mean you believe it was created. Just like if you lack a belief that the universe lacks a god, you're saying you believe in God.
That's why nothing is the lack of something. Theists can and have used this irrational against atheists. I'm an atheist myself, and I'm not certain there is no God, but because I've seen no reason to believe, I believe in none.
Lets create a new word, YYZ to describe the lack of some item, maybe a commodity. And you don't have this item. Does it matter if you have heard of this item? You still dont have it, so by definition, you are YYZ. You surely will not proclaim you are YYZ because that requires you to know that YYZ existed. But you still inherently YYZ.
Because atheism is defined as a lack of belief of X, you are inherently atheistic when you have no idea what god is, because you lack the belief.
You could also be ignorant, but that does not say you are not an atheist. You also wouldnt call yourself an atheist. But at that point you met the criteria to being defined an atheist. by other people. Whether or not it is useful information does not disqualify it as information regardless.
And. Atheism describes people fyi; your argument about atheistic/god-fearing chairs or chocolates or bacteria is moot.
Agreed, no one can say a thing about X without being aware of it. Yes, all those people are self-defined atheists.
But you do not have to describe yourself (willingly or unwillingly) to lack something.
Because atheism is supposedly defined as the lack of a belief, moments before you get a belief you -lack- the belief, yes? the lack of belief is what some call atheism.
I just looked it up tho and some say atheism is also the conscious rejection of a belief. In that case you are right.
Atheism is the assertion there is not god. Not "lack of belief". Dont broaden the term. theres automatically a lack of belief, true, but only because the actual definition is what you 2) says so it naturally tags along. Babies, with that said, are agnostics like literally pure ones too. Cant believe or dibelieve something your not even aware of.
To paraphrase George Carlin, the first definition is the more proper one to use, which is why it's listed first. If we don't agree on which definitions to use, it's difficult to agree on anything else, as we'll constantly be talking at cross purposes.
I have resisted attempts to broaden the definition to include people who say they believe in a theistic god but appear to act as if they don't (i.e., they live as if there were not such a being). This isn't such a broadening attempt.
Most instinctive atheists reject the god concept because whatever they have heard about it simply doesn't make sense. They instinctively throw off the emotional and psychological manipulation that is the heart of religion, and from this new perspective are able to realize that the god concept is absurd. Then they go about living their lives without giving the god concept any more thought.
Theists are able to stump these people by saying "you don't know for a certainty there is no god".
From these cheap victories, theists conclude that there really is no battle. Untill they run into the philosophical atheists of the type that typically post to Youtube.
Then they discover that sophistry, word games, and empty aphorisms just don't work.
They don't understand that their actual task is to supply the word "god" with actual meaning - by giving a logical definition back up by evidence.
They don't have the right to force us to turn our consideration to a null concept.
We need to take the weapons of mass religion away from them. Established religion came up with the term atheism from the Greek (atheos), which was derogatively applied to anyone thought to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. It sould be a word that no one should say like the N word. I know there are poeple that want to turn it in to a good thing but, it gives religion power of us who don't believe what they do.
But before you have heard about the concept of God, you wouldn't believe it so that would still technically make you an Atheist.... an atheist who's ignorant of the concept but an Atheist nontheless
If someone has never heard (or thought) about any deity before, does he believe in a deity? I would doubt that, so he, as you put it yourself " Lacks a Belief in deities or deity" and that would make you an Atheist.
Saying that that would make all Trees and Cars Atheists is a bit childisch and not well thought-trough
Well, theres me and every other Atheist, Do you know every "God" ever concived ? i doubt it, yet you are Atheistic towards them (Lack the believe in them) you are either a believer or not wether your ignorant about it or not
Ill say it agian (for the last time becuase it's getting old) If you don't believe in God(s) your an Atheist, if you don't know what God is you don't believe it, therefor Atheist (it's pretty black and white)
and agian with the weird analogies... liking something doesn't have a damn thing to do with it
once agian, this will be my last comment on the subject cause i get the feeling it wil never end
Well you may use that Example to show my logic but i just said its a bad example because your own logic doesn't fly with it. my answer to "are trees Atheist" would pretty much be the same.
(a tree cannot know or believe)
And ill do the same with your latest point; Can someone KNOW of a (concept of) God if he never heard of it ?
No my logic is completely different than yours is. You claim that atheism is a lack of belief. Well, there are MANY things that lack belief, and lack belief period.
Babies have a lack of belief. Are they atheists as well?
See, for your logic to work youd have to apply the SAME standards in regards to being a THEIST.
How can a person BELIEVE in something they've never heard of? How can you be a THEIST when you've never heard of God?
So how can you be an ATHEIST if you've never heard of God?
Well isn't ignorance a lack of Knowledge ? so how excatly is that different ? and ones more it doesn't aply on things that cannot believe, something that cannot believe cannot lack it, just like with knowledge
many Atheist including myself say that;"I simply cannot believe becuase of the lack of evidence" many Christians have been brought up to "Believe" so please tell me how this is a CONSCIOUS choice !?
To me it seems like a ridiciluos statement to make but than agian it was to be expected,
Beliefing and Knowing are in this regard the same, the only diffrence is the 'context'
It is the accepted definition of the term. A baby lacks a belief in a god. Thus, it is an atheist. Whether it knows this or not is irrelevant.
Choosing to define words in your own terms is intellectual masturbation, since only you can understand what you're talking about.
I don't know why you ask for something impossible and then, when no one shows you this impossible thing, you claim victory. We all know no one can define herself with a certain term without knowing what it means.
The HUGE difference with YOUR unpractical definition is that you cant hold a conversation about God with such a person.
Because that is not a position, it is a description. Thats why if you use atheism as a description, you can call a tree, a baby, or a chair an atheist.
But you cant hold conversations about God with such things.
What's 'unpractical [sic]' about the definition? It's the one everyone else uses.
What has having a conversation about God got to do with it?
I would agree that atheism is a description. It becomes a position when, having been presented with another position, one remains an atheist. One cannot really hold atheism as a position without knowing any other position.
None of this, however, changes the accuracy of the description. Such a person would still be an atheist.
I don't see what your disagreement is. The default is atheism. You've conceded this more than once now. Everyone was an atheist until she discovered, usually through being told by an adult, that there was such a thing as the concept 'god'. At that point, she either continues in atheism or adopts some form of theist position.
What's with the red herring of inanimate objects being atheists? This sort of obfuscation is making it very difficult to see what you're trying to say.
Let me see if I've got what you're trying to say: An atheist is someone who has carefully considered the possibility of a god's existence and finds that that possibility has not met its burden of proof.
This is needlessly restrictive and doesn't reflect the way the word is commonly used. I doubt you would apply such restriction to belief in anything else. As you noted, there's really no need for a special word for disbelief in gods, but there is one primarily because theists demand one.
Atheism does not have an 'opposite'. One can be a deist or a pantheist. Neither of these is atheism, nor are they theism. There are more positions than the two 'opposites' you posit.
'When I was a child , I was NOT an atheist.'
When you were too young to know there was such a concept as 'god', you did not believe in the concept 'god'. Therefore, you were an atheist.
Well, it's relevant to the video and to your earlier comments. Since you continue to move the goalposts, now it may no longer be relevant. But the comments stand. Atheism IS the default, as the video states, and nothing you have said here challenges that point.
Yes, virtually every atheist relevant to the discussion holds the position of atheism as you mean it, unless you regularly discuss the finer points of a god belief with children or people who have never been exposed to Western society.
Let's try something besides theism. Pretend I have never heard of communism and I practice nothing similar to it. Would it be absurd to say I am a noncommunist? Of course it wouldn't. If I don't know what communism is and I don't practice anything like it, I can hardly be called a communist. I may not KNOW I'm noncommunist, since I've never heard of it, but aren't I still noncommunist?
Am I ANTI-communist? No. Am I noncommunist? How can the answer not be yes? I have to be either 'A' or 'not A'
the two main misconceptions and bad raps atheists get are the moral argument, that atheism is some morally faulty position/lifestyle or whatever they think we are and what is stated in this MORE INFO section:
atheism is not necessarily the FIRM STATEMENT that god does not exist
agnostic and atheist can be the same thing, an agnostic is very often an atheist without guts or doesn't understand that atheism is not so FIRM A STATEMENT...
Excatly. Christianity (and other religions too) thrive on the exploitation of people's insecurity, despair, ignorance and lack of consideration. How else could anyone buy into such absurdity.
Indoctrination is one of religions' most powerful tools. Small children, who are still incapable of critical thinking, are threatened with hell and given (false) promises of Heaven throughout their childhood. This is how religious parents deprive their children of freedom of choice. It is sick and wrong.
forewarning you, words like evil and wrong are incoherent when said by atheists/agnostics in my view, i dont think u can give me a good reason why such a thing is any thing more than something you dont like. Raising your children in what you think is so is not depriving them of choice, it's rearing your children in the way you think is best, and its a parents right to do so. i dont know of any parents that "threaten" their kids with hell, and i think this is rhetoric more than anything else.
if atheism is the default, then the first people were atheist.
if the first people were atheist, then religion was created by atheists.
therefore atheists are responsible for religion.
if religion is responsible for great evil in the world
then atheists are responsible for bringing about great evil in the world because they are responsible for this religion idea. if teaching kids religion is wrong, then atheists are responsible. congrats
im not sure you can prove that, but even if its true, then that just means there were some ignorant atheists who mistakenly thought up this whole God and religion thing which eventually led to all kinds of crimes against humanity (supposedly). so..hats off to you atheist for ur craaaazy ideas
Well the proof is in the definition... If Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in god, then atheism would be the default as the concept of god/gods took a while to develop. If you define it as actively not believing in a god, then atheism is only as recent as god/gods.
Your argument is also called an effectual argument and would be shot down in any formal debate as such. Fx T in the face :) . Even so, by your argument, only a small group of atheists would be responsible. The desert ones.
Right. And if what we hear does not make sense, we have a right to reject the theist's demand to accept their beleif that the word "God" has any meaning.
There are only two possibilities here: either you believe, or you don't. If we haven't heard the word, we can't believe. If we have heard the word but it makes no sense, we still can't believe. The default position is still a(without) theos(god).
agnosticism speaks only to the support that you may have for your belief or lack of it, but is not a belief. Someone either believes the positive claim of Theism, or not, no matter the reasons. 'I don't know' or 'I cannot know' does not mean you cannot be a Theist. Theists are right when they say there are only 2 sides of the coin, unfortunately some atheists also go beyond and state positively 'there is no god', and many Christians are all to eager to include this as a definition of atheism.
I'm a relatively calm person, however I would love nothing less to punch TheAtheistAntidote right in his smug pretentious fat head.
He just always has this look about him as if to say "ive figured it all out" when in reality, its not physically possible to be any more wrong and incoherent than he is.
is it just me or is it that the majority of christians on youtube are completely bat shit crazy and the atheists on youtube are the only ones using their heads?
It's not just you...unfortunately they take youtube to mean, "I can go completely insane, because I can't in the real world...where normal people live."
It's hard for me to watch that atheist antidote guy...Every time I do, I almost start crying because he just makes one idiotic/ignorant statement after another and I feel completely overwhelmed..I keep hoping he's just doing satire but I think he's really serious, and it's disturbing.
I have already challenged that idiot to a debate, but you likely know that as I did so in video form. Oh, wait... You don't subscribe to my channel! (hint, hint!!) Anyway, if he has a freedom fearing fundie fucktard friend and wants to do the debate group or tagteam style, I would love to be your backup. I would love the opportunity to prove beyond any doubt how wrong and stupid TheAtheistAntidote is. Let me know, and SUBSCRIBE TTime!!
The problem for me psychologically...I was always distracted in church services, both traditionally Catholic and boisterously born-again. Throw in some serious emotional pain, and faith is easily lost.
Theists know how often and how epically their tired, redundant, flawed arguments get torn asunder by any Athiest worth his or her salt. Their new strategy seems to be to attempt to make the Athiest arguments and ideaology look just as bad as the Theist side. That's the best they can do.
What is so hard? Well, I'd guess they mostly have a false assumption of comparative function. Forget religion... think of religions as ideologies or subcultures; they assume that any competing ideology must fulfill the same role in our lives as theirs does. (is that grammatically correct?)
It would explain the constant morality questions, the purpose questions... or the creation nonsense..
As an atheist, if someone posed reasonable evidence for the existence of god, being a believer in fact rather than theology, I would examine that evidence and likely accept god as a part of the world.
The reason I am still an atheist is because despite my years of searching, looking up the strongest arguments on both sides of the debate and myself researching the case for god, I see no such evidence. Rather, I see an entire movement grounded on Theists defaming science and injecting god in.
Though disbelief is the default position, we as atheists are not consumed by it. We dont spend every moment of every day dwelling on the fact that we dont believe one particular thing or another. We dont DENY god, we dont Willfully Ignore god, god simply does not enter our minds, unless it is brought up by some brainless heathen in yet another half-baked appeal to ignorance.
As an atheist, I dwell on god's non-existance as much as on the non-existence of superman.
His arguments have not been blown out of the water is that slackard atheists and evo's refuse to hear the truth and stick their heads deep in the toilet. You are very brave and I commend you really but your worldview allows your utter ignorance of the truth and won't let you think rationally and logically, I do hope to see the debate. You see why we can't take u seriously when u bring unicorns, and sphagetti monsters into the mix u don't know man but keep it up eventually u'll catch up good luck
But you're wrong. First off, how do you prove that something does NOT exist? If I claim that I saw Big Foot, people would want me to prove it. I wouldn't tell people that they have to prove that I didn't see Big Foot. Do you understand? Also, everyone is born an atheist. You have to be taught religion, and of course you are taught this at a very young and impressionable age. I shouldn't say taught, it's more like drilled into our brains.
gnosticism is a different topic than theism (and a-gnosticism and a-theism). gnostic addresses what you "know", and the question of theism is "do you believe". some claim to be gnostic theists, but i think they know they are bullshitting. agnostic seems to be prevalent on both sides of the theist questions. not too many atheists are gnostic ones, and not too many theists are gnostic either. the default position is agnostic atheism because you are born as such :P
Why are you trying to prove something that cannot be scientifically justified? There is a reason faith is called faith. If it could be proven, it would be called fact. Everybody would just have to chose sides: with God or not. I dare you: try not to label yourself as atheist and try to have doubts for a while about your not proven thesis that God does not exist, just like we who believe have periods when we doubt and question our faith. Orthodox one
jeelenar 1 year ago
@jeelenar
dude dont you see that you are telling him he is right? faith means its something that has newer been and can newer be proven. and that means what can be proven is right.
dont you see that prove can newer be outranked by faith?
atheist sticks to what is real and what has been proven what you do is trying to convince us that your unproven Magical being is true?
would you believe me if i told you i had a dragon in my garrage?
or would you say the facts proves its a car?
JohnnieKirkegaard94 11 months ago
Tabula rasa every child is born a blank slate. if nobody told me about the concept of god i would have grown up indifferent.
videogamegod88 1 year ago
@videogamegod88
exactly if we had newer heard of the christianity or god we would newer know about him? if we grew up without knowing what cloths where we still would find out how to use and aquire them, evolution has tought us that. because cloths are something you can touch, its real, it can be proven, god cannot and thats why its something made up.
do you believe that when a child makes an imaginary friend, theres actually an invisible person next to your daughter? no because there isnt.
JohnnieKirkegaard94 11 months ago
haha, you said sagetti!
De4sher 1 year ago
forget about wether a 'creator' exists.BookofTao,Confucious,Hinduism,Buddhism,Judaism,Christianity ALL teach ETHICS=HEAVENorNirvana,Paradise,Afterlifeor HeavenonEarth.The reason for the commandment 'worship only thy creator' is Ethical.More murders were over diff. gods than anything.Dont be confused,the war is old.Its Ethics vs Edicts,Virtue vs Vice and Morality vs Instinct.TheGreatBooks are about Morals not proving a creator.Ethics=Heaven, you get it??now you dont have to read em all.
PAULOcbi 1 year ago
Atheism is just a big plot to discredit and bring down religion. That is really the only plausible motivation for Atheism. Almost every argument for Atheism is just a criticism based on denial. For people who don't give a *$@*( about God, why do they try so hard to deny His existence? You can't prove scientifically that the world would be a better place without religion by declaring it false. Ironically, Atheists put blind faith in this belief and offer no evidence just viewpoints.
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 You are an idiot.
TekLok 1 year ago
Comment removed
zen699 1 year ago
Agnosticism is for those who have not put God to the test. When a toddler is learning to walk, it develops trust in the parents to catch it if it falls. That is what biblical faith is: trust that has been built upon proving God's reliability by putting Him to the test according to His Word.
A person who has truly done this is not agnostic. He or she knows they can trust God, having real faith with substance, not blind faith which is based upon nothing.
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220
no
35TCK 1 year ago
@35TCK Yupper. I done proved it, I tell ya, I done proved it...
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220
No. See, I just proved that you're wrong. . . rightquick
35TCK 1 year ago
@35TCK Nopereno.... you're delusional my friend... people think God wants "blind faith". He doesn't - it's meaningless. He wants you to prove He is real by putting Him to the test. You know a light switch works, because you've put it to the test by using it, or one like it, in the past. Same with road maps, and credit cards...
God can be put to the test, and He is bound by His Word to keep it.
So, you see, you've only proved that you do not know what either of us are talking about.
:-)
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220 What if you put god to the test and he fails?
xxneondinosaur 1 year ago
@xxneondinosaur God never fails. If you take Him up on the challenge, according to His rules, He is bound by His Word to respond in the Way He says He will.
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220 o.O Right....
xxneondinosaur 1 year ago
@xxneondinosaur Yupper - it is a fact. I know you know everything without ever really putting it to the test, so I can understand your skepticism....
NEXT...
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220 You're illogical. I know you know everything and are defensive just for asking a legitimate question! So, because I was not shown god, that is MY fault because I failed to test right? Why don't you put your beliefs to the test instead of just saying bullshit and no facts? I can say god failed right now by letting you even use such stupid ideas, but that's not a fact, is it? Nope.
xxneondinosaur 1 year ago
@xxneondinosaur You're confused. You asked a question, I answered it, and then you came back a smart aleck answer, not a legitimate question. You were fishing for a confrontation, so get off the fluttering eye lash innocent band wagon.
If you're truly interested in "testing right", then do it, don't whine about the results you got by not doing it. And how could I say what I said without having truly put them to the test? ThiMk!!! Testing proves things - and they are fact, Dolly.
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220 It's cool how you must KNOW my intentions, even though I just asked a question that didn't imply I was fishing for anything. To imply that I just did not test god right is hilarious. It always HAS to be the other person, right? Because testing YOUR ideas is TOTALLY ridiculous. And you didn't give me an answer to the question. According to you, there is no room for god to fail. That was not answering what if he does, because, he does fail people's tests.
xxneondinosaur 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220 Even more so, you're just completely defensive. It's hilarious. And obviously, saying something is a fact makes it a fact according to you. Why don't you get your head out of your fantasy land.
xxneondinosaur 1 year ago
@xxneondinosaur Whatever you say sweetheart...
NEXT...
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
the default grooming standard is getting a proper haircut.
dont be womanly
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
I'm sure you're aware of this by now, but at 1:56, you say Atheist Anecdote.
smashballbrawler 1 year ago
Clap your hands if you believe in drier goblins who live off missing left socks.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
Awesome awesome..I feel it..yeah.
mytv80 1 year ago
Atheism is interesting I do believe it is an easy way out for many, now I can't say this for certain of course, just my understanding after speaking with many atheists. I understand that the mind need to rest at some axioms and "no god" is one as any other axiom. The default position would be agnostic as no child is born with any knowledge of what's going on. Nor can they view evidence presented before them until they learn the more basic skills of living.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
furthermore i don't have a problem with atheists labelling themselves a non believer of any god. As for your point about Christians and Allah i would say that from a christian point of view we are told the devil is the one manipulating things in the bible to provide a way of pulling christians and non christians away from seeing god. Did he ever go for an open debate? Maybe a youtube debate?
dave
dave6779 2 years ago
I like ur video, you bring up some sensible points and put them across well and don't get angry and emotional. I'm a Christian myself and i actually agree with some of what ur saying here. In my experience agnosticism would be the default i think, most people don't think about it and just live their lives according to themselves, atheism and athiests in my experience are going out of their way to make a stand and say i don't believe in any god.
dave6779 2 years ago
Atheism is the default. See:
watch?v=uJ4p8tJrSVk
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
The default is the setting that is usually set already. bye thanks,
Andrew
andyandyband 2 years ago
Even if theism was "the default" it is clearly a default that was based on ignorance by the simple reason that the earliest human civilizations had no idea how things worked. For instance, we no longer believe in Thor or Zeus or any other supernatural omnipotent gods from the past. Believing in a god requires no deeper reasoning, that's why the default to the unknown has always been something unrealistic that eventually becomes proven wrong.
harima1 2 years ago
I'll debate your MOM for the right price. Then i'll plagiarize whatever she says during the debate and make a video of it. Then I'm gonna roll up some hydro in bible paper and spark dat shit.
TheAthiestAntidote 2 years ago
I peed a little when you said "RIDICULOUS" at 01:40. Holy fuck, that was a hilarious delivery.
Atheism is in itself though a belief. Atheism wouldn't exist if theism didn't. Someone makes a positive claim about what they believe, someone else couldn't rationalize it and believes the claim is false. The difference is the type of belief. Theism is subjective, Atheism is objective, non-theism/non-atheism is nothing.
notbill9465 2 years ago
incorrect. Atheism pre-dated theism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Thus before there was belief in god(s), there was a lack of it, essentially everyone would have been an atheist. Atheism is not also a belief, it is a lack of belief. Atheists dont find the claims to be false, rather they find the claims not proven to be true. A true atheist says "I don't believe in god(s)", rather than "I believe there are no gods".
cubumber 2 years ago
A true atheist uses formal logic to understand that for you to be something, that something must be. The lack of something is not a positive definition of anything, so you cannot be it.
...true atheist. Pfft. A belief is not certainty anyways, and actually theists wouldn't have a burden of proof if they didn't so often claim absolute truth and instead believed a claim.
Bottom line, if you believe the universe lacks creation, you believe in no creator.
notbill9465 2 years ago
I think you're just spinning in the same way with your "bottom line." It's not that atheists believe the universe lacks creation, it's that we haven't been convinced that it was necessarily created.
npeffer 2 years ago
I know, which is why it is believed to have always been, in whatever state. This could never be proven, but it's not a claim of truth.
Theists wouldn't so often bear the burden of proof if they didn't claim their beliefs to be the truth. In saying, "I believe in no God," I'm not claiming "no God" is the truth, but I believe it based on no evidence (or convincing evidence) to the contrary. I'm still open to thinking that knowledge of God's existence is possibly knowable.
cont.
notbill9465 2 years ago
...from before
just like a person is believed innocent until proven guilty.
The default position in the case of God is not knowing about the idea of God. In our society, that's not really possible, except among babies and remote tribes. That's why they are non-theists when it comes to the idea of God, and I'm an atheist. Because they are lucky enough to not have heard of the idea of God, and I am not, haha.
notbill9465 2 years ago
I don't want this to come off the wrong way to have you thinking that I'm saying what Brock is saying. It's ridiculous to think that everyone knows God exists and atheists just deny his existence. That's the dumbest thing I could think a theist would say.
But, at the same time, people don't know about the idea of God without first being coherent and familiar with language. Then some jackass can tell them about "God's truth".
cont.
notbill9465 2 years ago
...from before
Well, a reasonable reaction to this claim of truth is to ask, "Why is it true?" The person says things like, "The bible blah blah," or "The Qur'an blah blah," or maybe they'll go with personal experience or the good ole "Something couldn't have come from nothing" bit that has me gripping my sides.
A person is just required to show why these "reasons" are not reasons, which is reason to believe the negative is true. This is the same with any claim, like unicorns or elves.
notbill9465 2 years ago
Is it also the lack of a belief in no God? I mean if you lack a belief the universe lacks creation, you've just made a double negative, which mean you believe it was created. Just like if you lack a belief that the universe lacks a god, you're saying you believe in God.
That's why nothing is the lack of something. Theists can and have used this irrational against atheists. I'm an atheist myself, and I'm not certain there is no God, but because I've seen no reason to believe, I believe in none.
notbill9465 2 years ago
Alrighty then ! All this for a subject name ?
slinkydinky999 2 years ago
Good video. Goodluck with your debate.
vaiylesondue 2 years ago
what is the definition of atheism:
1) the absence of believe in one or more gods.
2) the assumption that god(s) do not or can't exist.
so if you don't know what a deity is, or never heard of religion there is a ABSENCE of believe, thus you are automaticly a Athiest
kaaskop86 2 years ago
Oh BS.
Show me ONE atheist, WHO CALLS THEMSELF AN ATHEIST, who has never heard of God.
Pretty please do this.
I have not met one atheist on Youtube, or anywhere else, that holds the position of atheism but has never heard of God.
We are talking about the default POSITION.
A POSITION is a conscious view that a person holds. You cannot hold a position on something youve never heard of.
Dont be thick.
vbfl920 2 years ago
@vbfl920:
Lets create a new word, YYZ to describe the lack of some item, maybe a commodity. And you don't have this item. Does it matter if you have heard of this item? You still dont have it, so by definition, you are YYZ. You surely will not proclaim you are YYZ because that requires you to know that YYZ existed. But you still inherently YYZ.
Because atheism is defined as a lack of belief of X, you are inherently atheistic when you have no idea what god is, because you lack the belief.
kaelvin 2 years ago
You could also be ignorant, but that does not say you are not an atheist. You also wouldnt call yourself an atheist. But at that point you met the criteria to being defined an atheist. by other people. Whether or not it is useful information does not disqualify it as information regardless.
And. Atheism describes people fyi; your argument about atheistic/god-fearing chairs or chocolates or bacteria is moot.
kaelvin 2 years ago
It describes people WHO HOLD A ****POSITION****.
We are NOT describing people who are unaware of the concept of God.
EVERY atheist I've talked to, holds atheism as a POSITION.
You cannot hold a position on God when you've never even heard of God.
You CANNOT talk to an atheist about God, when they are unaware of God.
vbfl920 2 years ago
But NO ONE who holds the *POSITION* of YYZ is unaware that they lack this item.
Atheism, the kind that is relevant, the kind that writes books, debates, and makes videos on Youtube, IS a POSITION.
You cannot hold a POSITION about something you are unaware of.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Agreed, no one can say a thing about X without being aware of it. Yes, all those people are self-defined atheists.
But you do not have to describe yourself (willingly or unwillingly) to lack something.
Because atheism is supposedly defined as the lack of a belief, moments before you get a belief you -lack- the belief, yes? the lack of belief is what some call atheism.
I just looked it up tho and some say atheism is also the conscious rejection of a belief. In that case you are right.
Cheers
kaelvin 2 years ago
THANK you for your honesty!
The use of the word atheism as a description is bogus.
The ONLY type of atheism that matters, is atheism as a POSITION, not a DESCRIPTION.
A tree has a lack of belief as well, but NO ONE ENGAGES WITH TREES FOR DISCUSSIONS.
Thanks man!
vbfl920 2 years ago
Atheism is the assertion there is not god. Not "lack of belief". Dont broaden the term. theres automatically a lack of belief, true, but only because the actual definition is what you 2) says so it naturally tags along. Babies, with that said, are agnostics like literally pure ones too. Cant believe or dibelieve something your not even aware of.
Kayxzero 2 years ago
To paraphrase George Carlin, the first definition is the more proper one to use, which is why it's listed first. If we don't agree on which definitions to use, it's difficult to agree on anything else, as we'll constantly be talking at cross purposes.
I have resisted attempts to broaden the definition to include people who say they believe in a theistic god but appear to act as if they don't (i.e., they live as if there were not such a being). This isn't such a broadening attempt.
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
Most instinctive atheists reject the god concept because whatever they have heard about it simply doesn't make sense. They instinctively throw off the emotional and psychological manipulation that is the heart of religion, and from this new perspective are able to realize that the god concept is absurd. Then they go about living their lives without giving the god concept any more thought.
Theists are able to stump these people by saying "you don't know for a certainty there is no god".
pirbird14 2 years ago
From these cheap victories, theists conclude that there really is no battle. Untill they run into the philosophical atheists of the type that typically post to Youtube.
Then they discover that sophistry, word games, and empty aphorisms just don't work.
They don't understand that their actual task is to supply the word "god" with actual meaning - by giving a logical definition back up by evidence.
They don't have the right to force us to turn our consideration to a null concept.
pirbird14 2 years ago
We need to take the weapons of mass religion away from them. Established religion came up with the term atheism from the Greek (atheos), which was derogatively applied to anyone thought to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. It sould be a word that no one should say like the N word. I know there are poeple that want to turn it in to a good thing but, it gives religion power of us who don't believe what they do.
peter4redstar 2 years ago
Im sorry but ignorance is the default position, not atheism.
You must FIRST hear about the concept of God BEFORE you can decide whether or not you believe it.
vbfl920 2 years ago
But before you have heard about the concept of God, you wouldn't believe it so that would still technically make you an Atheist.... an atheist who's ignorant of the concept but an Atheist nontheless
MrDuDeTheFirst 2 years ago
That does not make you an atheist. If that were true than a tree or a car would be atheists as well.
See, atheism means the lack of belief in deities or deity.
If you never knew what a deity was, then how could you have a specific lack of belief in one?
vbfl920 2 years ago
If someone has never heard (or thought) about any deity before, does he believe in a deity? I would doubt that, so he, as you put it yourself " Lacks a Belief in deities or deity" and that would make you an Atheist.
Saying that that would make all Trees and Cars Atheists is a bit childisch and not well thought-trough
MrDuDeTheFirst 2 years ago
No, you got this twisted.
"If someone has never heard (or thought) about any deity before, does he believe in a deity?"
HOW could he believe in something he hasn't heard of yet?
And, HOW could he disbelieve something that he hasn't heard of yet?
Name me one atheist who's does NOT know what they are dis-believing.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Well, theres me and every other Atheist, Do you know every "God" ever concived ? i doubt it, yet you are Atheistic towards them (Lack the believe in them) you are either a believer or not wether your ignorant about it or not
MrDuDeTheFirst 2 years ago
Name me one atheist who has never heard, or understood, what god/gods meant, and STILL calls themself an atheist.
It doesn't matter if you know WHO that god is.
What matters is if you know WHAT a god is.
If you dont know WHAT a god is, then HOW can you NOT BELIEVE IT??
Very simple. This is all I have to say about this.
vbfl920 2 years ago
If I did not know what the color RED is, then HOW can I say that I don't like it?????
vbfl920 2 years ago
Ill say it agian (for the last time becuase it's getting old) If you don't believe in God(s) your an Atheist, if you don't know what God is you don't believe it, therefor Atheist (it's pretty black and white)
and agian with the weird analogies... liking something doesn't have a damn thing to do with it
once agian, this will be my last comment on the subject cause i get the feeling it wil never end
MrDuDeTheFirst 2 years ago
NO again you are dead wrong.
It is the lack of belief in DEITIES.
It is not just that lack of belief.
A tree has a LACK OF BELIEF IN DEITIES AS WELL.
Does that make the tree an atheist????
vbfl920 2 years ago
Why, how Christian of you... i realy don't think neither of us is either Wrong or Right that is why this discusion isn't going anywhere.
As for yor " Atheist Tree" would you say that (by that same logic) a tree is ignorant ?
MrDuDeTheFirst 2 years ago
Nope, because TREES have no mind in which they could be ignorant of particular ideas.
Remember, I used that example to show YOUR logic, not mine.
One last point. If you can be an atheist without EVER hearing about a God, then HOW could a person be a THEIST without ever hearing about God?
How could you positively BELIEVE in something that you have never even heard of?
Your logic would render this the case. But this is absurd.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Well you may use that Example to show my logic but i just said its a bad example because your own logic doesn't fly with it. my answer to "are trees Atheist" would pretty much be the same.
(a tree cannot know or believe)
And ill do the same with your latest point; Can someone KNOW of a (concept of) God if he never heard of it ?
ill say it agian, this isn't going anywhere...
MrDuDeTheFirst 2 years ago
No my logic is completely different than yours is. You claim that atheism is a lack of belief. Well, there are MANY things that lack belief, and lack belief period.
Babies have a lack of belief. Are they atheists as well?
See, for your logic to work youd have to apply the SAME standards in regards to being a THEIST.
How can a person BELIEVE in something they've never heard of? How can you be a THEIST when you've never heard of God?
So how can you be an ATHEIST if you've never heard of God?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Well isn't ignorance a lack of Knowledge ? so how excatly is that different ? and ones more it doesn't aply on things that cannot believe, something that cannot believe cannot lack it, just like with knowledge
MrDuDeTheFirst 2 years ago
Yes it is a lack of knowledge.
Atheism is a CONSCIOUS choice to not believe something. It is ONLY made after a proposition is presented (God's existence).
You cannot be an atheist if you don't even know what a deity is.
Just as you cannot be a THEIST without knowing what a deity is.
Therefore you are IGNORANT until you are presented with the concept of God.
I can't believe you still don't get this.
vbfl920 2 years ago
well, iam sorry if iam not getting this but,
many Atheist including myself say that;"I simply cannot believe becuase of the lack of evidence" many Christians have been brought up to "Believe" so please tell me how this is a CONSCIOUS choice !?
To me it seems like a ridiciluos statement to make but than agian it was to be expected,
Beliefing and Knowing are in this regard the same, the only diffrence is the 'context'
you either don't or you do
MrDuDeTheFirst 2 years ago
Very simple.
CONSCIOUS meaning that it was brought to your attention. You were aware of it and THOUGHT about it.
You cannot be an atheist or a theist, if you've never thought, or heard about God.
vbfl920 2 years ago
not what i meant, as far as iam awere of nobody ever Chooses huis believes either Consiuos or not.
even so that still doesnt help your cliam
MrDuDeTheFirst 2 years ago
'Babies have a lack of belief. Are they atheists as well?'
Yes.
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
This is completely ridiculous. This is NOT a practical use of the term.
SHOW me one atheist who has NEVER heard of God and still calls themself an atheist.
Please just show me one!
lol
vbfl920 2 years ago
It is the accepted definition of the term. A baby lacks a belief in a god. Thus, it is an atheist. Whether it knows this or not is irrelevant.
Choosing to define words in your own terms is intellectual masturbation, since only you can understand what you're talking about.
I don't know why you ask for something impossible and then, when no one shows you this impossible thing, you claim victory. We all know no one can define herself with a certain term without knowing what it means.
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
Please don't be an idiot.
The HUGE difference with YOUR unpractical definition is that you cant hold a conversation about God with such a person.
Because that is not a position, it is a description. Thats why if you use atheism as a description, you can call a tree, a baby, or a chair an atheist.
But you cant hold conversations about God with such things.
vbfl920 2 years ago
What's 'unpractical [sic]' about the definition? It's the one everyone else uses.
What has having a conversation about God got to do with it?
I would agree that atheism is a description. It becomes a position when, having been presented with another position, one remains an atheist. One cannot really hold atheism as a position without knowing any other position.
None of this, however, changes the accuracy of the description. Such a person would still be an atheist.
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
But it's NOT a position.
EVERY atheist that is pertinent to this discussion holds the POSITION of atheism.
Every book written by atheists, are written by those who hold the POSITION of atheism.
You yourself hold the POSITION of atheism.
Every atheist I TALK with, holds the POSITION of atheism.
A descriptive definition is like the rubber NOT hitting the road.
Its completely irrelevant. Thats NOT the kind of atheist YOU are, is it?
vbfl920 2 years ago
What is the opposite of atheism?
Theism?
Well, you cannot be a THEIST if you have never heard of God.
Nor can you hold the POSITION of atheism, if you've never heard of God.
And that's what matters here. Not this silly description.
When I was a child , I was NOT an atheist.
I was IGNORANT.
vbfl920 2 years ago
An atheist who's never heard of God cannot even TELL you about this.
The reason being is because they are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of it.
vbfl920 2 years ago
So you concede that this person would be an atheist.
Very good. I'm glad we've come to an agreement.
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
No, I just think you are smuggling in the description of the word for the POSITION of the word.
IF we are all atheists by definition, it is NOT in the same way that YOU, or Tooltime, are atheists.
And by your very own definition, inanimate objects are atheists as well.
Its pointless to even state this. But you insist on stating it.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Many things, people, and places LACK belief in God.
In fact, they lack belief period.
But you would never in a million years refer to that chair or that telephone pole as "atheistic", merely because they both lack belief.
Why wouldn't you do this?
It FITS the description right?
So WHY wouldn't you do this?
Perhaps because it's moronic?
vbfl920 2 years ago
I am not moving the goal posts at all. I don't have to.
Its just that IGNORANCE is a BETTER description than atheism. We LACK alot of things, so why be specific about it?
I can't believe you don't get this.
vbfl920 2 years ago
I don't see what your disagreement is. The default is atheism. You've conceded this more than once now. Everyone was an atheist until she discovered, usually through being told by an adult, that there was such a thing as the concept 'god'. At that point, she either continues in atheism or adopts some form of theist position.
What's with the red herring of inanimate objects being atheists? This sort of obfuscation is making it very difficult to see what you're trying to say.
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
AGAIN, your smuggling in 2 definitions here.
No, you dont continue in atheism as a DESCRIPTION.
You BEGIN being an atheist as a POSITION.
There is no continuation when you adhere to a CONSCIOUS POSITION.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Let me see if I've got what you're trying to say: An atheist is someone who has carefully considered the possibility of a god's existence and finds that that possibility has not met its burden of proof.
This is needlessly restrictive and doesn't reflect the way the word is commonly used. I doubt you would apply such restriction to belief in anything else. As you noted, there's really no need for a special word for disbelief in gods, but there is one primarily because theists demand one.
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
YES, you've got it!
"This is needlessly restrictive and doesn't reflect the way the word is commonly used."
Dude, you clearly do not know what you are saying anymore.
THIS *IS* the common usage of atheism.
It's a position.
vbfl920 2 years ago
*NOBODY* uses it as a DESCRIPTION.
EVERY atheist on Youtube holds the POSITION of atheism.
EVERY atheist who writes books on atheism, holds the POSITION.
EVERY atheist who debates holds the POSITION of atheism.
THIS is what people mean by atheism, and atheist.
vbfl920 2 years ago
'What is the opposite of atheism? Theism?'
Atheism does not have an 'opposite'. One can be a deist or a pantheist. Neither of these is atheism, nor are they theism. There are more positions than the two 'opposites' you posit.
'When I was a child , I was NOT an atheist.'
When you were too young to know there was such a concept as 'god', you did not believe in the concept 'god'. Therefore, you were an atheist.
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
Well, it's relevant to the video and to your earlier comments. Since you continue to move the goalposts, now it may no longer be relevant. But the comments stand. Atheism IS the default, as the video states, and nothing you have said here challenges that point.
Yes, virtually every atheist relevant to the discussion holds the position of atheism as you mean it, unless you regularly discuss the finer points of a god belief with children or people who have never been exposed to Western society.
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
Let's try something besides theism. Pretend I have never heard of communism and I practice nothing similar to it. Would it be absurd to say I am a noncommunist? Of course it wouldn't. If I don't know what communism is and I don't practice anything like it, I can hardly be called a communist. I may not KNOW I'm noncommunist, since I've never heard of it, but aren't I still noncommunist?
Am I ANTI-communist? No. Am I noncommunist? How can the answer not be yes? I have to be either 'A' or 'not A'
HasimirFenring1106 2 years ago
the two main misconceptions and bad raps atheists get are the moral argument, that atheism is some morally faulty position/lifestyle or whatever they think we are and what is stated in this MORE INFO section:
atheism is not necessarily the FIRM STATEMENT that god does not exist
agnostic and atheist can be the same thing, an agnostic is very often an atheist without guts or doesn't understand that atheism is not so FIRM A STATEMENT...
glorp896 2 years ago
Woah woah woah there pal theatheistantidote is not somewhat of a joke... he is a complete joke.
I mean just look at the little chode! He looks like he would beg for sex after paying.
TheOriginalHamster 2 years ago
The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that I know not what I know, only what I *think* I know.
krishields 2 years ago
Theatheistantidote is either satire or a moron...
dummbatz48 2 years ago
I'm an Agnostic aka Atheist without balls : )
sexyfunklova 2 years ago 2
The atheistantidote is just a closet queer trying to come out of the closet. Have faith. he will come out eventually.
mattyabsley 2 years ago 2
we are born atheist, we have to be persuaded into accepting christianity. Which is generally done as a child which I consider wrong.
Satanicallyfree 2 years ago 6
Excatly. Christianity (and other religions too) thrive on the exploitation of people's insecurity, despair, ignorance and lack of consideration. How else could anyone buy into such absurdity.
maisteri 2 years ago
you better repent you godamn atheist muslim mormon prick dick sucking flaming faggot go to HELL YOU SON OF A BITCH MOTHER FUCKER
Greywyn7 2 years ago
The truth hurts when you see it, now doesn't it?
maisteri 2 years ago
I can't believe people couldn't tell that was sarcasm.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
tell me, how are u aware of the mental state of every person who comes to believe in God?
veritaslogos 2 years ago
I'm not, but that's how it usually works.
Indoctrination is one of religions' most powerful tools. Small children, who are still incapable of critical thinking, are threatened with hell and given (false) promises of Heaven throughout their childhood. This is how religious parents deprive their children of freedom of choice. It is sick and wrong.
maisteri 2 years ago
forewarning you, words like evil and wrong are incoherent when said by atheists/agnostics in my view, i dont think u can give me a good reason why such a thing is any thing more than something you dont like. Raising your children in what you think is so is not depriving them of choice, it's rearing your children in the way you think is best, and its a parents right to do so. i dont know of any parents that "threaten" their kids with hell, and i think this is rhetoric more than anything else.
veritaslogos 2 years ago
if atheism is the default, then the first people were atheist.
if the first people were atheist, then religion was created by atheists.
therefore atheists are responsible for religion.
if religion is responsible for great evil in the world
then atheists are responsible for bringing about great evil in the world because they are responsible for this religion idea. if teaching kids religion is wrong, then atheists are responsible. congrats
veritaslogos 2 years ago
Well atheism in essence is the default I suppose, but ignorance was the foundation for religion (with its beginnings in spirits, paganism, etc.).
tjbrownj 2 years ago
im not sure you can prove that, but even if its true, then that just means there were some ignorant atheists who mistakenly thought up this whole God and religion thing which eventually led to all kinds of crimes against humanity (supposedly). so..hats off to you atheist for ur craaaazy ideas
veritaslogos 2 years ago
Well the proof is in the definition... If Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in god, then atheism would be the default as the concept of god/gods took a while to develop. If you define it as actively not believing in a god, then atheism is only as recent as god/gods.
Your argument is also called an effectual argument and would be shot down in any formal debate as such. Fx T in the face :) . Even so, by your argument, only a small group of atheists would be responsible. The desert ones.
tjbrownj 2 years ago
Ignorance is the default position.
You have to FIRST hear of the concept of God before you can make a decision on it.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Right. And if what we hear does not make sense, we have a right to reject the theist's demand to accept their beleif that the word "God" has any meaning.
pirbird14 2 years ago
Isn't that what you do already?
My entire point was to do away with this notion of atheism being the default position.
Ignorance is, until you hear about God.
Now the threshold for evidence is a completely subjective matter.
What may reasonably convince someone else may not be enough to convince you.
vbfl920 2 years ago
There are only two possibilities here: either you believe, or you don't. If we haven't heard the word, we can't believe. If we have heard the word but it makes no sense, we still can't believe. The default position is still a(without) theos(god).
pirbird14 2 years ago
LOL so true!
vbfl920 2 years ago
great vid!!
TheUnmaskedMagician 2 years ago
agnosticism speaks only to the support that you may have for your belief or lack of it, but is not a belief. Someone either believes the positive claim of Theism, or not, no matter the reasons. 'I don't know' or 'I cannot know' does not mean you cannot be a Theist. Theists are right when they say there are only 2 sides of the coin, unfortunately some atheists also go beyond and state positively 'there is no god', and many Christians are all to eager to include this as a definition of atheism.
Antichryst666 2 years ago
I'm a relatively calm person, however I would love nothing less to punch TheAtheistAntidote right in his smug pretentious fat head.
He just always has this look about him as if to say "ive figured it all out" when in reality, its not physically possible to be any more wrong and incoherent than he is.
godlessmessiah 2 years ago
gotta love them christian morals
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Still, he's really not worth your time...
johnnyphoenix74 2 years ago
Get 'em Tool!
johnnyphoenix74 2 years ago
is it just me or is it that the majority of christians on youtube are completely bat shit crazy and the atheists on youtube are the only ones using their heads?
psychodeathmonkey 2 years ago
It's not just you...unfortunately they take youtube to mean, "I can go completely insane, because I can't in the real world...where normal people live."
Hatesfury08 2 years ago
It's hard for me to watch that atheist antidote guy...Every time I do, I almost start crying because he just makes one idiotic/ignorant statement after another and I feel completely overwhelmed..I keep hoping he's just doing satire but I think he's really serious, and it's disturbing.
MeaganHen 2 years ago 3
If I wasn't a tough and manly atheist, I'd say I know exactly how you feel.
TETSUno1 2 years ago
I have already challenged that idiot to a debate, but you likely know that as I did so in video form. Oh, wait... You don't subscribe to my channel! (hint, hint!!) Anyway, if he has a freedom fearing fundie fucktard friend and wants to do the debate group or tagteam style, I would love to be your backup. I would love the opportunity to prove beyond any doubt how wrong and stupid TheAtheistAntidote is. Let me know, and SUBSCRIBE TTime!!
-Modias
InModiasWeTrust 2 years ago
The problem for me psychologically...I was always distracted in church services, both traditionally Catholic and boisterously born-again. Throw in some serious emotional pain, and faith is easily lost.
mathgeek37 2 years ago
By the way, take that liar out.
mathgeek37 2 years ago
Being completely oblivious is the default to all things. A child raised by wolves would act like a wolf for example.
joeltcola 2 years ago
You DON'T end your videos abrubtly. You tie them up with a nice summary.
OpenMindsGainWisdom 2 years ago
i highly doubt he will hear what you have to say...
he seems as flamboyantly pro-censorship as they come
TrexXanChen 2 years ago
Tooltime! I heard you on the Atheist Experience!
PeripheralSenses 2 years ago
do you have a link to that episode anywhere?
fauyd 2 years ago
Agnostism is the default; What we're all born- ignorant.
Dall5000 2 years ago
Theists know how often and how epically their tired, redundant, flawed arguments get torn asunder by any Athiest worth his or her salt. Their new strategy seems to be to attempt to make the Athiest arguments and ideaology look just as bad as the Theist side. That's the best they can do.
Foxhound3857 2 years ago
What is so hard? Well, I'd guess they mostly have a false assumption of comparative function. Forget religion... think of religions as ideologies or subcultures; they assume that any competing ideology must fulfill the same role in our lives as theirs does. (is that grammatically correct?)
It would explain the constant morality questions, the purpose questions... or the creation nonsense..
Just my 2.8 cents.
TETSUno1 2 years ago
As an atheist, if someone posed reasonable evidence for the existence of god, being a believer in fact rather than theology, I would examine that evidence and likely accept god as a part of the world.
The reason I am still an atheist is because despite my years of searching, looking up the strongest arguments on both sides of the debate and myself researching the case for god, I see no such evidence. Rather, I see an entire movement grounded on Theists defaming science and injecting god in.
OctavioRedding 2 years ago
I think you meant agnostic when you said theist toward the end a few times
unassumption 2 years ago
Need to make a note, there are two types of Theists.
Nightw0lf414 2 years ago
i can say for a certainty that sqrt2 is an irrational number
blasphemite 2 years ago
Very well put, Tooltime.
Though disbelief is the default position, we as atheists are not consumed by it. We dont spend every moment of every day dwelling on the fact that we dont believe one particular thing or another. We dont DENY god, we dont Willfully Ignore god, god simply does not enter our minds, unless it is brought up by some brainless heathen in yet another half-baked appeal to ignorance.
As an atheist, I dwell on god's non-existance as much as on the non-existence of superman.
Etimos 2 years ago
If only more atheists applied their unbelief in such a way.
SongOfThunder 2 years ago
Unbelief is an incorrect way to describe an atheist an atheist is someone who BELIEVES there is no god, it's that simple.
cogar48 2 years ago
be thankfull, cause u have to be
dEmUeTiGeRsUeNdEr 2 years ago
His arguments have not been blown out of the water is that slackard atheists and evo's refuse to hear the truth and stick their heads deep in the toilet. You are very brave and I commend you really but your worldview allows your utter ignorance of the truth and won't let you think rationally and logically, I do hope to see the debate. You see why we can't take u seriously when u bring unicorns, and sphagetti monsters into the mix u don't know man but keep it up eventually u'll catch up good luck
younhol00 2 years ago
hahahahaha!
AshesWasHerName 2 years ago
indeed, 100% certainty is a physical impossibility
arknihil 2 years ago
True. For all we know we could be in the matrix, or be just a self-aware video game simulation for Aliens.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Ablosute certainty. I am 100% sure, i cant be 100% sure
OTknights666 2 years ago
hmmm, im skeptical of this lol jk
mathmexican4234 2 years ago
I think people label themselves as "agnostic" because the word "atheism" carries such a stigma.
DarwinTomorrow 2 years ago
that is very true
AbsoluteLibertine 2 years ago
Shirtless debate and you win by default.
True story
ZOMGitsCriss 2 years ago 2
Shifting the burden of proof, very fallacious.
Theism is a positive claim, therefore the proponents of it are the ones who have to carry workload of proving it.
qanazir 2 years ago
What??? That is SO wrong.
The fact that something is positive makes it no more true or factual. C'mon, you had to be joking.
bennycredenza 2 years ago
I mean positive in the sense, that it asserts something to be in a particular way.
That's why theism has the burden of proof.
qanazir 2 years ago
But you're wrong. First off, how do you prove that something does NOT exist? If I claim that I saw Big Foot, people would want me to prove it. I wouldn't tell people that they have to prove that I didn't see Big Foot. Do you understand? Also, everyone is born an atheist. You have to be taught religion, and of course you are taught this at a very young and impressionable age. I shouldn't say taught, it's more like drilled into our brains.
bennycredenza 2 years ago
Wait, I just re-read your comment. I agree with you. I thought you said Atheism has the burden of proof. Oops, sorry dude.
bennycredenza 2 years ago
same old tired arguements? Isn't that what ALL religious ppls do?
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago
gnosticism is a different topic than theism (and a-gnosticism and a-theism). gnostic addresses what you "know", and the question of theism is "do you believe". some claim to be gnostic theists, but i think they know they are bullshitting. agnostic seems to be prevalent on both sides of the theist questions. not too many atheists are gnostic ones, and not too many theists are gnostic either. the default position is agnostic atheism because you are born as such :P
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
i cant believe this ass is telling people not to goto college because all professors are egotistical and against god.
I wonder what community college professor failed him.
WorldOfHumanWreckage 2 years ago
I think you gave them too much credit, just ask them this