How did you prove a negative hypothesis? To do that you would need to have knowledge of everything that ever existed, exists now, or will ever exist. In order to do that you would have to be Immortal, Omniscient and Omnipresent. How could you do that in a physical body on one small planet in a backwater corner of the multiverse? You would have to be an eternal disembodied entity and as such you would immediately disprove you own theory.
- The society for the investigation of the normal. +IMVHO
The one REALLY sharp point on this is that "Where there is no evidence *WHERE THERE SHOULD* be evidence is evidence of absence."
Which is a pretty strong case. When we can define god in such a way where think there should be some evidence, and cannot find it...that would definitely provide strong evidence against the existence of god.
Spot on. Everything fits into the definition of God, just because the theists want it that way. They are not really interested in the nature of God.. They just want God to be like they expect it to be.After all, God is just a justification. What that God really is, or even it agrees with them, is not relevant.
@TheBarkingAtheist Of course! God made it so!!! On a more serious note, if they ever had kids together the whole music industry would be in ruins! Please refer to the awesome Queen musical We Will Rock You for what our world would be like if they decided to spawn with each other
You know, when I said you and bionicdance were alot alike, I think this video proved that...why did you ever have a probelm with her again?
So can you please tell me what is your problem with someone saying "I don't know"? Judging from the two videos on this subject, you clearly have a problem with someone saying that...
Also, when you talk about atheists bringing people into there fold, aren't you trying to do the same thing?
@Krensharpaw I'm not making the world black and white, I'm not personally attacking people for disagreeing with me, and I'm not trying to "bring people into my fold," all of which is/was Keight's thing. If you watched my video, you should have seen the part where I say that I'm not trying to force my beliefs (and lack thereof) onto other people, I even made a joke about it. If anything, people are trying to force their (non)beliefs onto me by saying that I don't know something.
@TheBarkingAtheist well that's what I was getting from the two videos and was a bit confused and pissed off, cause that's the tone I got, if by chance I was mistaken, then I will say sorry about that. It just seemed like you were insulting people who didn't want to make the leap into saying for certion on a claim.
In all honestey, I really don't care if you want to be a "hard" atheist really...though I remeber a time back you didn't want to call yourself a atheist.
@Krensharpaw During the "drama" with Keight, I found a term that was more descriptive of my views. I call myself an atheist to theists, and I call myself an ignostic to atheists. I'm ignostic about a deistic god and an atheist about the theistic gods.
I was insulting people who didn't make that "leap," just as much as I insult people who are theists. Not a big deal, I call people stupid all the time; it's kind of my thing. I'm not like Keight where I personally attack them though.
@TheBarkingAtheist ok, was goin to say that it was a bit weird how you were one thing not long ago and then became a hard atheist out of the blue.
While that may be the case, it still is a bit much seeing as I heared that everyone is agnostic about everything and that's a good thing. So to hear that in the case of god, faries, etc. is a bit strange.
@Krensharpaw I'm not a "hard" atheist, simply because that just sounds weird to me. I'd call myself a gnostic atheist, in place of ignostic, if I had to.
"I heared that everyone is agnostic about everything and that's a good thing." I'm not agnostic about everything. I'm just as agnostic about god as I am agnostic about fairies or the Zsadlfkjasdiagrb. I know they don't exist. Being open-minded or agnostic about everything, as I've said in my video, is unnecessary at best.
I'm sorr yto say this, but the number of times you kind of own yourself in this video is kind of high. I don't think liam was saying he was "more rational" or whatever, I think he was just pointing out something that many atheists point out to theists.
When you qoute the Christofer Hitchens qoute, you kind of facepalnted there, cause that could be used against you.
@Krensharpaw "...the Christofer Hitchens qoute...could be used against you." I fail to see how. I'm not stating a positive. I'm stating certainty in a negative. I'm dismissing a claim, just like "weak" atheists. The only difference is that they hold to the possibility that the claim that has no evidence could be right, when I know it's bullshit, because it's made up. People just don't like to hear certainty for some reason, because that somehow makes you irrational.
@TheBarkingAtheist well to be honest, even you say that you don't have any evidence to prove there is no god (whatever evidence that would/could be is any). I just find it odd how you had such a problem with this. Now grant it, I don't know the disscussion you've been in with other atheists, but you did seem to have a big problem with atheists who are "weak" atheists and I found it odd that I was having to use a argument used by theists.
@Krensharpaw "...you say that you don't have any evidence to prove there is no god." When did I say there was no evidence? I'm not saying there is, but when did I say that? But do I need evidence to know that the Celestial Teapot doesn't exist?
"I found it odd that I was having to use a argument used by theists." Maybe you should question that then. This is the funny, and probably best, part of these kinds of discussions though, is that atheists have to resort to theistic arguments.
@TheBarkingAtheist sometimes a argument put forth by a theist isn't a bad argument, there just using it wrong. In this case, this argument isn't that bad since it points out that we don't know for 100% if there is no god, however, there's no reason to live your life as if there's one, since no real evidence has been brought forward. That's mainly why I brought it up.
Just found/find it weird when I have to bring it up to an atheist to try and point out something.
@Krensharpaw "...this argument isn't that bad since it points out that we don't know for 100% if there is no god..." So because an atheist uses it against another atheist, it's not a bullshit argument all of a sudden?
There's also no reason to live your life as if there MIGHT be a "god," whatever that is. There also might be a giant, fire-breathing Ms. Pac Man, but there's no reason to live your life as if there MIGHT be one.
Unfalsifiability doesn't disprove anything. For all you know, you could be plugged into the Matrix and experiencing a virtual reality. Can you disprove the Matrix?
@StygianDysnomia If you want to believe that we are in a Matrix, then you can. Just don't expect to be taken seriously, especially when you call me the irrational one for saying that it's not real.
If you want to provide some evidence that we are in a dream world, then I would be more than happy to see it, and I would be more than happy to change my mind if there is proof of it. Until then, shut your fucking mouth.
@TheBarkingAtheist You're attacking a strawman here. Notice I never said that I believe the Matrix exists. I only said it was possible that it exists. Don't put words in my mouth.
My point is that you can't know if the Matrix or God don't exist unless you can prove it. Until then, all you have is simply a strong belief.
@StygianDysnomia Let me put it this way. Sufi masters are telepathic (according to their faith). The only reason we outside of the Sufi faith do not think telepathy is real, is because, as Sufi masters, they are able to send powerful telepathic signals to everyone on Earth to think that telepathy isn't real. Do I need proof to know that it isn't real? Do I really? Stop being so open-minded that your brain has fallen out and actually think.
@TheBarkingAtheist No, you don't need to disprove them unless you claim to know they aren't real. For if it's possible that you're wrong, then it follows that you can't know for certain.
Certainty about the validity of a claim entails that the negation of that claim is necessarily false. So, if I say I know the claim "God doesn't exist" is true, I am thereby stating that I know the claim "God does exist" is false.
@StygianDysnomia Yes, the claim "god exists" is false, for a few reasons. One, there exists no evidence for a "god." Two, no proper definition has been given, and no, Craig's definition is not a viable one, for what a "god" actually is.
Now, it's POSSIBLE that a god exists, but all evidence, and lack thereof, says that there isn't a god, whatever a "god" is. It's also POSSIBLE that I could jump to Alaska from Texas, but all evidence, and lack thereof, says I can't.
@TheBarkingAtheist you know, you're making two different claims here. You first say "there is no god" but then say "it's possible for there to be a god". I think this is the reason why so many atheists, freethinkers, whoever you talk to, might claim you're being irrantional and all.
It's possible to be openminded without your brain falling out. You seem to have a problem with that, or from what I have seen. If I am wrong, please correct me.
@HomoCyborgZombie You are right, science is not 100% certain, the more we gain in knowledge the better we understand certain things. The point is until you have evidence for a claim you don't begin to assert it's existance, you don't entertain the idea of something possibly being true until some evidence is forthcoming and so far there is none. What i'm saying is that being an Atheist, for example, isn't a dig personally, it's simply a default position. I will gladly believe in god when there...
@HomoCyborgZombie Until then, I assert that it is entirely up to someone who claims something exists to provide evidence that it is. Doesn't seem like too difficult a task if so many people claim it to be fact. There's something to consider when it comes to science, it is the only system we have that can show anything close to being fact as we know it by definition. What other alternative system is there?
@HomoCyborgZombie i'm saying there is so little doubt in my mind that it almost is true. thinik of it this way, if the odds of something happening are 99% then most(if not everyone) would assume that it will happen
@1C9J9S5 Sorry cupcake, but when it's not 100%, you're not certain.
You're ignorant and childish when it comes to admitting to the possibility of being wrong, and on the subject of probability.
Guess what, people win million dollar lotteries and get struck by lightening. The probability is low, but that still not only has the possibility of happening, but it does. And for you to just throw them away under "99.99999 = 100" is, as I've said, ignorant and childish.
How is admitting you could be wrong childish? Scientists know evolution is real, but they admit they could be wrong. I know a god, whatever that is, doesn't exist. I know that a giant, fire-breathing Ms. Pac Man isn't real, but I could be wrong. The probability of me being wrong in those instances is so low that there's no point in bringing it up except when people make that retarded argument of, "You're not certain if you admit you can be wrong!"
@TheBarkingAtheist On the subject of god, you don't admit you could be wrong, and as such, TheBarkingAtheist, you are a childish fundamentalist. Is that clear?
@HomoCyborgZombie I know that the Celestial Teapot doesn't exist. I admit I could be wrong about that. Stop saying that I don't admit that, because I have admitted that I could be wrong multiple times.
So no, it's not clear, only because you keep putting words in my mouth and making shit up about what I'm saying.
@HomoCyborgZombie I KNOW that fairies don't exist. I KNOW that Harry Potter is fiction. I KNOW that the Celestial Teapot was made up by Bertrand Russel. I KNOW Narnia is fake. I KNOW these things, because of the lack of evidence in favour of them. I could be wrong. I could utterly wrong. What are the chances of me being wrong? Negligible, at best.
So because I don't give much, if any, credence to the smallest POSSIBILITY in something means that I'm saying 99=100? No. You are misrepresenting my argument and missing the point.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that at 99.99999999999...999999%, you might as well say 100% for a semantic reason, or as they would say in mathematical terms, rounding!
You can't be 100% about ANYTHING with your logic, so I might as well not say I know evolution is real.
I know that fairies don't exist, because there exists no evidence for their existence, and because the concept is made up, but I could be proven wrong tomorrow. Highly unlikely, but I could be.
I'm not going to sit there and say like you, "I don't believe, but I don't know, even if I think it's unlikely to the point you don't have to consider at all, because it's irrational to say otherwise," just because there's a POSSIBILITY.
@HomoCyborgZombie You fail to see the analogy. Saying, "We don't know for sure that a god doesn't exist, therefore it's still POSSIBLE that one exists," I see as similar to god of the gaps reasoning.
@TheBarkingAtheist Well then guess what numb nuts, don't put words in our mouth.
We don't hold to a god.
Just because we're honest, doesn't mean we hold onto any deity, especially if somebody never had one in the first place from their non-religious homes.
@HomoCyborgZombie I wasn't putting words in your mouth, but speaking of nuts...
I have heard atheists argue that they're going to hold onto the possibility that a god could seriously exist, because we can't definitively disprove one. That to me sounds like god of the gaps reasoning.
@TheBarkingAtheist No. It sounds like allowing probability to take its place.
Before the black swan was discovered in Austrailia, it was purely myth and an expression.
But with all birds, you know that swans are birds, and crows are birds. So would it not be logical for there to be a probability of a black swan?
Although the logic behind a god is flimsy, you can not say "it does not exist" because it is too end all. It is not leaving a gap for god, it is leaving a loose end for probibility.
@TheBarkingAtheist If you're too much of a fundamentalist to allow yourself the possibility that a god could exist, while still saying "No I don't believe in one"
like saying "horned animals are in existance, we see single horned narwhals, and the equin relatives have horns, it's not improbable that a unicorn could exist (magical properties aside), in the same as a large ape could be living in the pacific northwest.
But we say, in the practical sense, at the moment, no unicorns, no bigfoot.
@TheBarkingAtheist What you're trying to do is turn the deffinitive, colloquial terms in the authoritive and bring them up, and bakcwards rationalize.
I will tell you right now, that although no, I do not believe in unicorns, bigfoot, or gods, and I say "no I don't believe" I will not tell you that I know these for fact. It's not double speak, it's not letting them have a gap, it's letting the probabilities take place.
I will not say "that because of this low proberbility, I can justify the "I don't believe" by rounding." Because 99.999% is not 100% like I keep telling you. And adding "I could be wrong" when you just "99.999%? durp rounding! 100% now!" is dishonest.
Be fucking honest, TBA. That's my whole point. Don't like it? Whine to William Lane Craig and become a lawyer then.
I'm so glad we're friends, otherwise I don't think I'd know how to react to the start of this =P also....did you edit out everytime I said "um"? The "ums" add gravitas DAMN IT!!!!!!!
hey, with the "poof things out of thin air" means you're a god, then if the Star Trek crew came back in time (like they do in the shows/movies), then when they use the replicator, holodeck, or the transporter, then by that, they're ALL gods!
All Hail Captain James T Kirk of the Starship Enterprise as our new god!!!!
Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
This is why I totally disagree with most atheists when they say they can be convinced of the existence of a god. I wouldn't be, I'd think it was an alien, like you said, or perhaps a time traveler, or someone from an alternate universe. A natural explanation will always be more likely than any kind of supernatural (whatever that even means) explanation.
Technically the only thing the only thing I can know is that I exist, and that hypotheses that break the laws of logic don't exist (so I actually know that God exists when someone uses the bible and says this God exists. No, he doesn't exist because he is self contradictory.) Then we basically establish things for granted in our day to day life because the world that we live in is stable (gravity won't reverse, negatives won't suddenly stop repelling negatives, causing the unvrs to cave in etc.)
@TheRepublicOfUngeria ...and within that context the rational thing to do is to basically reject things that have no evidence that would have ramifications if true (I'm going to have my skeptical shields up about everything, there's way too much shit to take in every day). Theism has major ramifications even at a minimum of non-interventionist deism and so I need evidence for that, and I will not only reject it but give it the proper "new atheist" attitude of being a retarded ass belief to...
And even a deist god can be dismissed on being fairly illogical...it would make no sense to create a universe, then not interact in any discernible way with it.
@TheInsidiousParadigm That's paramount to gullibility. If you have no standards about what you believe and what you don't, you can be taken in by anything.
@BlackMoonLilith Not at all... I hated Jazz, until I opened my mind to it, and now I like it. I opened my mind to Sushi, now... I hate it. You're point? my point is, everyone is different [of course] you know that right? Good, now let's move forward, since everyone is different, who are you to tell someone that they are "gullible" just 'cause they open their minds to things that exist in this world and want to explore. Unless, you have a different definition of being "open minded"
@TheInsidiousParadigm Both of the things you mentioned are subjective opinions about liking/disliking something. There's nothing wrong with being open minded to music, food, etc. There IS something wrong with being 100% open minded to *everything,* including the things evidence has proved against. I'm sure you're not open minded to the possibility that jumping off a building will make you fly. You know that's dangerous and wrong, and you're not closed minded for thinking so
@BlackMoonLilith oh of course lol, I thought you were talking about the the dislike/like analogy, my bad. I guess you're right, but I still am open minded to things that have been proven wrong but people still wanna believe in them, [just] to examine and see how interesting that even when something is wrong, Humans will still find a way to stick w/it. Kinda like religion. any who, my bad sir, I misinterpreted your comment.
@TheInsidiousParadigm Or rather, you *are* closed minded for not thinking you can fly when you jump off a building, but it's a perfectly reasonable kind of closed minded. The whole point of evidence is to narrow possibilities and get rid of inaccurate and false information. Being open minded to new evidence is fine, but in the real world, you have to consider what has evidence and what does not. Courts could not function without taking in information and making judgments.
@NeCacaluXuxultic well technically he is wrong, but the mayans and the incas met pretty disasterous ends because they thought a Conquistadore (de gama? not sure) was the god Quetzacoatl
@gr8z0mbiejesus, the Incas did not believe the whites were gods at all. They looked at them as if they were crazy and eventually SOME of them were convinced that they were. As for the MAYANS.. you have MANY GROUPS! I only know of the Guatemalan tribes and MOST OF THEM did not trust the Spanish. MY PEOPLE were already prepared to fight the much larger Spanish army and we FUCKED THEM UP! TWICE! All this "white worship" is bullshit.
correct me if im wrong but your oppinion of the 'open minded' people is that they are too open minded in the sense that they could believe something as foolish as the (however the fuck you spell that thing i cant pronounce). what about people like me that specifically dont believe in the christian god but are skeptical to all others mainly because i either dont know anything about their god or that they have a 0.0000000000000000000001% chance of
@1C9J9S5 You've got Internet access, do some research. There's never been a shred of evidence for any god who's ever been believed in or for the concept of any definition of a god. If we could try to give it one unified definition, it'd just be some sentient organism (an alien, basically) that is used to explain what we don't know by prescribing humanesque consciousness to the world around us. And not a single thing has ever supported the concept. It's wishful and limited thinking.
@1C9J9S5 Just because something is POSSIBLE does not make it PROBABLE. It's possible that the Zsadlfkjasdiagrb could exist, whatever that may be as we don't know its characteristics, but the probability is so low, mainly due to the fact that there is no evidence for whatever it may be, it might as well be considered impossible.
@NeCacaluXuxultic Yes, make a video about ONE thing I said in a twenty-two minute long video. Totally worth the time and effort to try to prove me wrong on something that doesn't even fucking pertain to the subject at hand.
@TheBarkingAtheist, Well he whole "Native believed whites were gods" is utter bullshit. It kinda irritates me that people still believes in this BS. I'm assuming you were talking about the Aztec since the Spanish claim that they viewed them as gods but the reality is that it was just MOTECUZOMA II believed that Cortez was a divine being. On top of that the word "GOD" doesn't really exist in Nahuatl since Cortes thought that TEOTL was the same as THEOS which is Latin for god.
You may look like 16 years old but you RULE mate :) Good I didnt get on the first impression. Great videos - racional and fun - thank you for them! BTW what is the music at the end of this video those strings - kind familiar: Keep it up!
Thor was an ancient Norse tale so he most defiantly doesn't exist, maybe there was an ancient worrier called Thor who was an exceptional warrior but the fact that the Norse claimed he was the god of thunder is just so far fetched and unbelievable that it has to be not real.
@Seymour13 "There is no wall" is a negative, yes, but by saying that my wall is red, I'm also inferring a negative, that it's not blue or any other colour. I see what you are saying, but they are negatives, albeit in a somewhat indirect fashion.
My point for saying that however was that the sense in which the word 'negative' is used (in the 'god debate') is to refer to something's non-existence, not what properties the existing thing has or lacks (like what color your wall is, or isn't) as that is just defining the properties of the proven positive (i.e. the wall).
So the color analogy didn't really apply, but that's just my take on it though.
Ah right. This video really clarifies what you were saying. and seeing as liam responded with what I was gonna say I don't have to make three videos today. Yay =)
Probably your best video. The only reason these ideas get far too much respect seems to be that majority of people believe in them. Whatever they are. And even if (and when) everyone of them believe in a different god, they act like it's the same one.
also i thought this was going to be like a gay porno or something , so be glad i watched it also you are going to give us a warning before you post something like that right ?
the zsad.... ok never mind if i cant say it i wont belief in it that is my new rule but i did fuck paris hilton because i said i did and have fun asking paris if this happened
you know. you kind of got a point. i would and have said the whole "i dont know god exists, but i dont believe in one" i would shy away from saying there is no god. yet i would have no problem saying, there is no santa. there's no such thing as the force. harry potter isnt real....ect. you do make a good point. cuz all of us would say "theres no santa, but we shy away from saying there is no god.
@oliethefolie The point of the former video was a way to provoke discussion. It was meant to be incomplete, for lack of a better word, so that I could better explain my points and the idea of igtheism/ignosticism later on.
@TheBarkingAtheist I think my only (semi) criticism is that it appears that you are labelling any deity of any kind impossible, whereas I would rather label it a futile speculation with no basis in reality. Because, as Liam said, there could some day be evidence for "god". If it were it wouldn't be any sort of god described today though as they are, as I said, futile speculations, so your point about it being something other than what we perceive to be a deist god still stands.
@oliethefolie If it comes off that I'm saying that it's impossible, that's not my intention, although I do view the concept of a "god" as highly improbable, near to the point of impossibility. A "god" is possible, but then again, so is the Zsadlfkjasdiagrb, whatever both of those things may be.
@CJCA915 Neither am I, hence why I'm making jokes about Nazis and about people who think I'm a Nazi, because I have a copy of Mein Kampf and a German flag. Which again, was a way for Germany to shed its Nazi history. I also have an Irish flag, doesn't mean I support the IRA, and I have a copy of Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life, but that doesn't mean I like Rick Warren.
@TheBarkingAtheist Nazis were actually inhumane, racist, homophobic, and for the most part had the support from the Roman Catholic church: you do know that, right?
Gods = Ancient Aliens
proof has been put forward in the media for over 60 years
Wendy: But, there's no such thing as f-
[Peter flies up and closes her mouth]
Peter: [firmly] Don't say that. Every time someone says that, a fairy somewhere falls down dead.
[he goes to look for Tinkerbell]
you just committed mass fairycide happy?
moldrad 1 week ago
How did you prove a negative hypothesis? To do that you would need to have knowledge of everything that ever existed, exists now, or will ever exist. In order to do that you would have to be Immortal, Omniscient and Omnipresent. How could you do that in a physical body on one small planet in a backwater corner of the multiverse? You would have to be an eternal disembodied entity and as such you would immediately disprove you own theory.
- The society for the investigation of the normal. +IMVHO
moldrad 1 week ago
Even the term of the bibical god is vague, because some people will not cling to a litteral 6 days, while others will not.
CapQuacer 1 week ago
Free Hamza Kashgari!
deah99 2 weeks ago
Dude, you're awesome, however in 20 years time a wormhole will carry you back to the late 1980's and you will become Max Headroom.
Keep Up the great work.
DDogsK 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TheBarkingAtheist
The one REALLY sharp point on this is that "Where there is no evidence *WHERE THERE SHOULD* be evidence is evidence of absence."
Which is a pretty strong case. When we can define god in such a way where think there should be some evidence, and cannot find it...that would definitely provide strong evidence against the existence of god.
SecularMentat 4 weeks ago
Spot on. Everything fits into the definition of God, just because the theists want it that way. They are not really interested in the nature of God.. They just want God to be like they expect it to be.After all, God is just a justification. What that God really is, or even it agrees with them, is not relevant.
Ranokian 4 weeks ago
you will love this song Frank Turner - Glory Hallelujah
megajoeshow1 1 month ago
I love your song! please make it a full length wonder!
amylouie1 1 month ago
@amylouie1 I'm the next Justin Bieber. Or Rebecca Black. Actually, I'm the bastard son of Bieber and Black, even though I'm older than both of them.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago 3
@TheBarkingAtheist Of course! God made it so!!! On a more serious note, if they ever had kids together the whole music industry would be in ruins! Please refer to the awesome Queen musical We Will Rock You for what our world would be like if they decided to spawn with each other
amylouie1 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist Still a more believable hypothesis than God.
SecularMentat 4 weeks ago
You know, when I said you and bionicdance were alot alike, I think this video proved that...why did you ever have a probelm with her again?
So can you please tell me what is your problem with someone saying "I don't know"? Judging from the two videos on this subject, you clearly have a problem with someone saying that...
Also, when you talk about atheists bringing people into there fold, aren't you trying to do the same thing?
Krensharpaw 1 month ago
@Krensharpaw I'm not making the world black and white, I'm not personally attacking people for disagreeing with me, and I'm not trying to "bring people into my fold," all of which is/was Keight's thing. If you watched my video, you should have seen the part where I say that I'm not trying to force my beliefs (and lack thereof) onto other people, I even made a joke about it. If anything, people are trying to force their (non)beliefs onto me by saying that I don't know something.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
Comment removed
Krensharpaw 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist well that's what I was getting from the two videos and was a bit confused and pissed off, cause that's the tone I got, if by chance I was mistaken, then I will say sorry about that. It just seemed like you were insulting people who didn't want to make the leap into saying for certion on a claim.
In all honestey, I really don't care if you want to be a "hard" atheist really...though I remeber a time back you didn't want to call yourself a atheist.
Krensharpaw 1 month ago
@Krensharpaw During the "drama" with Keight, I found a term that was more descriptive of my views. I call myself an atheist to theists, and I call myself an ignostic to atheists. I'm ignostic about a deistic god and an atheist about the theistic gods.
I was insulting people who didn't make that "leap," just as much as I insult people who are theists. Not a big deal, I call people stupid all the time; it's kind of my thing. I'm not like Keight where I personally attack them though.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist ok, was goin to say that it was a bit weird how you were one thing not long ago and then became a hard atheist out of the blue.
While that may be the case, it still is a bit much seeing as I heared that everyone is agnostic about everything and that's a good thing. So to hear that in the case of god, faries, etc. is a bit strange.
Krensharpaw 1 month ago
@Krensharpaw I'm not a "hard" atheist, simply because that just sounds weird to me. I'd call myself a gnostic atheist, in place of ignostic, if I had to.
"I heared that everyone is agnostic about everything and that's a good thing." I'm not agnostic about everything. I'm just as agnostic about god as I am agnostic about fairies or the Zsadlfkjasdiagrb. I know they don't exist. Being open-minded or agnostic about everything, as I've said in my video, is unnecessary at best.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
Comment removed
Krensharpaw 1 month ago
I'm sorr yto say this, but the number of times you kind of own yourself in this video is kind of high. I don't think liam was saying he was "more rational" or whatever, I think he was just pointing out something that many atheists point out to theists.
When you qoute the Christofer Hitchens qoute, you kind of facepalnted there, cause that could be used against you.
Krensharpaw 1 month ago
@Krensharpaw "...the Christofer Hitchens qoute...could be used against you." I fail to see how. I'm not stating a positive. I'm stating certainty in a negative. I'm dismissing a claim, just like "weak" atheists. The only difference is that they hold to the possibility that the claim that has no evidence could be right, when I know it's bullshit, because it's made up. People just don't like to hear certainty for some reason, because that somehow makes you irrational.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
Comment removed
Krensharpaw 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist well to be honest, even you say that you don't have any evidence to prove there is no god (whatever evidence that would/could be is any). I just find it odd how you had such a problem with this. Now grant it, I don't know the disscussion you've been in with other atheists, but you did seem to have a big problem with atheists who are "weak" atheists and I found it odd that I was having to use a argument used by theists.
Krensharpaw 1 month ago
@Krensharpaw "...you say that you don't have any evidence to prove there is no god." When did I say there was no evidence? I'm not saying there is, but when did I say that? But do I need evidence to know that the Celestial Teapot doesn't exist?
"I found it odd that I was having to use a argument used by theists." Maybe you should question that then. This is the funny, and probably best, part of these kinds of discussions though, is that atheists have to resort to theistic arguments.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist sometimes a argument put forth by a theist isn't a bad argument, there just using it wrong. In this case, this argument isn't that bad since it points out that we don't know for 100% if there is no god, however, there's no reason to live your life as if there's one, since no real evidence has been brought forward. That's mainly why I brought it up.
Just found/find it weird when I have to bring it up to an atheist to try and point out something.
Krensharpaw 1 month ago
@Krensharpaw "...this argument isn't that bad since it points out that we don't know for 100% if there is no god..." So because an atheist uses it against another atheist, it's not a bullshit argument all of a sudden?
There's also no reason to live your life as if there MIGHT be a "god," whatever that is. There also might be a giant, fire-breathing Ms. Pac Man, but there's no reason to live your life as if there MIGHT be one.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
Unfalsifiability doesn't disprove anything. For all you know, you could be plugged into the Matrix and experiencing a virtual reality. Can you disprove the Matrix?
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
@StygianDysnomia If you want to believe that we are in a Matrix, then you can. Just don't expect to be taken seriously, especially when you call me the irrational one for saying that it's not real.
If you want to provide some evidence that we are in a dream world, then I would be more than happy to see it, and I would be more than happy to change my mind if there is proof of it. Until then, shut your fucking mouth.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist You're attacking a strawman here. Notice I never said that I believe the Matrix exists. I only said it was possible that it exists. Don't put words in my mouth.
My point is that you can't know if the Matrix or God don't exist unless you can prove it. Until then, all you have is simply a strong belief.
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
@StygianDysnomia Let me put it this way. Sufi masters are telepathic (according to their faith). The only reason we outside of the Sufi faith do not think telepathy is real, is because, as Sufi masters, they are able to send powerful telepathic signals to everyone on Earth to think that telepathy isn't real. Do I need proof to know that it isn't real? Do I really? Stop being so open-minded that your brain has fallen out and actually think.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist No, you don't need to disprove them unless you claim to know they aren't real. For if it's possible that you're wrong, then it follows that you can't know for certain.
Certainty about the validity of a claim entails that the negation of that claim is necessarily false. So, if I say I know the claim "God doesn't exist" is true, I am thereby stating that I know the claim "God does exist" is false.
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
@StygianDysnomia Yes, the claim "god exists" is false, for a few reasons. One, there exists no evidence for a "god." Two, no proper definition has been given, and no, Craig's definition is not a viable one, for what a "god" actually is.
Now, it's POSSIBLE that a god exists, but all evidence, and lack thereof, says that there isn't a god, whatever a "god" is. It's also POSSIBLE that I could jump to Alaska from Texas, but all evidence, and lack thereof, says I can't.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist you know, you're making two different claims here. You first say "there is no god" but then say "it's possible for there to be a god". I think this is the reason why so many atheists, freethinkers, whoever you talk to, might claim you're being irrantional and all.
It's possible to be openminded without your brain falling out. You seem to have a problem with that, or from what I have seen. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Krensharpaw 1 month ago
clicked on the vid b/c I thought I saw Spike from Buffy do a video in front of a che guevara poster. That would confuse anyone...
Swamoez0rs 1 month ago
Christian: You know god exists
You: You know god doesn't exist
You can never hold 100% certainty. Just because the idea of god is refuted, does not rule it out. Evidence can always be potentially found.
Even fucking fairies and santa. So far, evidence only suggests.
It's not fear, it's science. Science is never 100% certain (accept in mathimatics, to my knowledge). Quit pretending you know anything.
But at least you hold true to your ignorance, ignostic.
HomoCyborgZombie 1 month ago
@HomoCyborgZombie You are right, science is not 100% certain, the more we gain in knowledge the better we understand certain things. The point is until you have evidence for a claim you don't begin to assert it's existance, you don't entertain the idea of something possibly being true until some evidence is forthcoming and so far there is none. What i'm saying is that being an Atheist, for example, isn't a dig personally, it's simply a default position. I will gladly believe in god when there...
Antimidation 1 month ago
@HomoCyborgZombie is sufficient evidence to do so.
Antimidation 1 month ago
@HomoCyborgZombie Until then, I assert that it is entirely up to someone who claims something exists to provide evidence that it is. Doesn't seem like too difficult a task if so many people claim it to be fact. There's something to consider when it comes to science, it is the only system we have that can show anything close to being fact as we know it by definition. What other alternative system is there?
Antimidation 1 month ago
@Antimidation The point is you are not capable of being certain, and as such, you're no different than a fundamentalist in saying "there is no god".
It's not a bad thing to acknowledge you could be wrong.
HomoCyborgZombie 1 month ago
@HomoCyborgZombie no, were not 100% sure, were 99.999999999999999999999% sure
1C9J9S5 1 month ago
@1C9J9S5 It's not a bad thing to acknowledge you could be wrong. Just don't pretend and say "I know" like you're a fundamental theist.
HomoCyborgZombie 1 month ago
@HomoCyborgZombie i'm saying there is so little doubt in my mind that it almost is true. thinik of it this way, if the odds of something happening are 99% then most(if not everyone) would assume that it will happen
1C9J9S5 1 month ago
@1C9J9S5 Sorry cupcake, but when it's not 100%, you're not certain.
You're ignorant and childish when it comes to admitting to the possibility of being wrong, and on the subject of probability.
Guess what, people win million dollar lotteries and get struck by lightening. The probability is low, but that still not only has the possibility of happening, but it does. And for you to just throw them away under "99.99999 = 100" is, as I've said, ignorant and childish.
HomoCyborgZombie 1 month ago
@HomoCyborgZombie
How is admitting you could be wrong childish? Scientists know evolution is real, but they admit they could be wrong. I know a god, whatever that is, doesn't exist. I know that a giant, fire-breathing Ms. Pac Man isn't real, but I could be wrong. The probability of me being wrong in those instances is so low that there's no point in bringing it up except when people make that retarded argument of, "You're not certain if you admit you can be wrong!"
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist How about you read what I wrote.
I said you're a childish fundamentalist if you think you have 100% certainty of "I know".
I said you're a childish fundamentalist if you can't admit you have a possibility of being wrong.
You, TheBarkingAtheist, say "I know". You, TheBarkingatheist, will not go to the intellectual level of owning up to the possibility of being wrong.
Also, 99.9% is not 100%. You might want to go back to grade 1 math.
HomoCyborgZombie 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist On the subject of god, you don't admit you could be wrong, and as such, TheBarkingAtheist, you are a childish fundamentalist. Is that clear?
HomoCyborgZombie 1 month ago
@HomoCyborgZombie I know that the Celestial Teapot doesn't exist. I admit I could be wrong about that. Stop saying that I don't admit that, because I have admitted that I could be wrong multiple times.
So no, it's not clear, only because you keep putting words in my mouth and making shit up about what I'm saying.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist You do understand by saying "I know" at any time, just with a clarification of "I could be wrong", is just lawyer talk, right?
You will win the lottery!*
*or not
You'd rather say you're certain with an asterisk, than actually say "No I don't know".
You're only convincing yourself.
HomoCyborgZombie 1 week ago
@HomoCyborgZombie I KNOW that fairies don't exist. I KNOW that Harry Potter is fiction. I KNOW that the Celestial Teapot was made up by Bertrand Russel. I KNOW Narnia is fake. I KNOW these things, because of the lack of evidence in favour of them. I could be wrong. I could utterly wrong. What are the chances of me being wrong? Negligible, at best.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 week ago
@TheBarkingAtheist And again, you failed math class.
Just because the chances are small, does not mean you can ignore them. In a practical life, nobody cares and can throw these out without a care.
But don't pretend you're smarter when you say 99%=100%.
Because you've shown how wrong you are when you mistake certainty for most likely.
HomoCyborgZombie 1 week ago
@HomoCyborgZombie
So because I don't give much, if any, credence to the smallest POSSIBILITY in something means that I'm saying 99=100? No. You are misrepresenting my argument and missing the point.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that at 99.99999999999...999999%, you might as well say 100% for a semantic reason, or as they would say in mathematical terms, rounding!
You can't be 100% about ANYTHING with your logic, so I might as well not say I know evolution is real.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 week ago
@TheBarkingAtheist Evolution could be disproven tomorrow.
You want to know how things are worded?
"The evidence suggests that evolution is happening".
Not "It IS 100% certain evolution is happening!" as you would think.
What's your point? To prove mine that things are never absolute?
Other wise, there you go again, failing.
Because when you have the possibility, even with all the odds against the idea of a god existing, you can not kill an idea with 100% certainty.
HomoCyborgZombie 1 week ago
@HomoCyborgZombie
Evolution may be a bad example.
I know that fairies don't exist, because there exists no evidence for their existence, and because the concept is made up, but I could be proven wrong tomorrow. Highly unlikely, but I could be.
I'm not going to sit there and say like you, "I don't believe, but I don't know, even if I think it's unlikely to the point you don't have to consider at all, because it's irrational to say otherwise," just because there's a POSSIBILITY.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 week ago
@TheBarkingAtheist Actually, you don't think that I say "I don't know".
You think I have some god of the gaps, as you said in "Atheist god of the gaps".
Keep proving me right.
HomoCyborgZombie 1 week ago
@HomoCyborgZombie You fail to see the analogy. Saying, "We don't know for sure that a god doesn't exist, therefore it's still POSSIBLE that one exists," I see as similar to god of the gaps reasoning.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 week ago
@TheBarkingAtheist Well then guess what numb nuts, don't put words in our mouth.
We don't hold to a god.
Just because we're honest, doesn't mean we hold onto any deity, especially if somebody never had one in the first place from their non-religious homes.
HomoCyborgZombie 1 week ago
@HomoCyborgZombie I wasn't putting words in your mouth, but speaking of nuts...
I have heard atheists argue that they're going to hold onto the possibility that a god could seriously exist, because we can't definitively disprove one. That to me sounds like god of the gaps reasoning.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 week ago
@TheBarkingAtheist No. It sounds like allowing probability to take its place.
Before the black swan was discovered in Austrailia, it was purely myth and an expression.
But with all birds, you know that swans are birds, and crows are birds. So would it not be logical for there to be a probability of a black swan?
Although the logic behind a god is flimsy, you can not say "it does not exist" because it is too end all. It is not leaving a gap for god, it is leaving a loose end for probibility.
HomoCyborgZombie 6 days ago
@TheBarkingAtheist If you're too much of a fundamentalist to allow yourself the possibility that a god could exist, while still saying "No I don't believe in one"
like saying "horned animals are in existance, we see single horned narwhals, and the equin relatives have horns, it's not improbable that a unicorn could exist (magical properties aside), in the same as a large ape could be living in the pacific northwest.
But we say, in the practical sense, at the moment, no unicorns, no bigfoot.
HomoCyborgZombie 6 days ago
@TheBarkingAtheist What you're trying to do is turn the deffinitive, colloquial terms in the authoritive and bring them up, and bakcwards rationalize.
I will tell you right now, that although no, I do not believe in unicorns, bigfoot, or gods, and I say "no I don't believe" I will not tell you that I know these for fact. It's not double speak, it's not letting them have a gap, it's letting the probabilities take place.
HomoCyborgZombie 6 days ago
@TheBarkingAtheist Bigfoot the next black swan? 99.999% it wont.
I will not say "that because of this low proberbility, I can justify the "I don't believe" by rounding." Because 99.999% is not 100% like I keep telling you. And adding "I could be wrong" when you just "99.999%? durp rounding! 100% now!" is dishonest.
Be fucking honest, TBA. That's my whole point. Don't like it? Whine to William Lane Craig and become a lawyer then.
HomoCyborgZombie 6 days ago
My name is Liam. I feel like you just yelled at me for something I didn't do! Please, leave me alone! Though I am god...
GriffinPilgrim 1 month ago
I'm so glad we're friends, otherwise I don't think I'd know how to react to the start of this =P also....did you edit out everytime I said "um"? The "ums" add gravitas DAMN IT!!!!!!!
LiamJR24 1 month ago
@LiamJR24 They also add five unnecessary minutes.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
Comment removed
LiamJR24 1 month ago
hey, with the "poof things out of thin air" means you're a god, then if the Star Trek crew came back in time (like they do in the shows/movies), then when they use the replicator, holodeck, or the transporter, then by that, they're ALL gods!
All Hail Captain James T Kirk of the Starship Enterprise as our new god!!!!
THEMrFill 1 month ago
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT NOISE?
TheMassaCreature 1 month ago
Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
This is why I totally disagree with most atheists when they say they can be convinced of the existence of a god. I wouldn't be, I'd think it was an alien, like you said, or perhaps a time traveler, or someone from an alternate universe. A natural explanation will always be more likely than any kind of supernatural (whatever that even means) explanation.
ChuckMeIntoHell 1 month ago
Hm...I'm still thinking about this...looking at both sides...my mind is changing about it gradually the more I think about these different points.
fruitikay 1 month ago
Hahah! I liked the humour at the start that was hilarious
leeetworld 1 month ago
People know James Bond doesn't exist.
People know Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist.
So why does the equally fictional historic character of "God" not get equal treatment?
At least the others are slightly plausible.
NekuraCa 1 month ago
Technically the only thing the only thing I can know is that I exist, and that hypotheses that break the laws of logic don't exist (so I actually know that God exists when someone uses the bible and says this God exists. No, he doesn't exist because he is self contradictory.) Then we basically establish things for granted in our day to day life because the world that we live in is stable (gravity won't reverse, negatives won't suddenly stop repelling negatives, causing the unvrs to cave in etc.)
TheRepublicOfUngeria 1 month ago
@TheRepublicOfUngeria ...and within that context the rational thing to do is to basically reject things that have no evidence that would have ramifications if true (I'm going to have my skeptical shields up about everything, there's way too much shit to take in every day). Theism has major ramifications even at a minimum of non-interventionist deism and so I need evidence for that, and I will not only reject it but give it the proper "new atheist" attitude of being a retarded ass belief to...
TheRepublicOfUngeria 1 month ago
@TheRepublicOfUngeria ...hold just as much as bigfoot or faries (but if you dare reject the holy noodle I say blas-parm-ey!!!
)
TheRepublicOfUngeria 1 month ago
how do you manage to say that word over and over and over without fail?
adirm18 1 month ago
again attacking the Zsadlfkjasdiagrb... why do you hate him so much?
Reason4234 1 month ago
I started chanting "ONE OF US ONE OF US" right about the same time!
vaasnaad 1 month ago
And even a deist god can be dismissed on being fairly illogical...it would make no sense to create a universe, then not interact in any discernible way with it.
SiriusMined 1 month ago
Dude...I can't fucking wait to have a chance to hang out with you guys!!! [/almost all capped that from excitement]
VarmitCoyote 1 month ago
Dude...I can't fucking wait to have a chance to hang out with you guys!!![/almost all capped that from excitement]
VarmitCoyote 1 month ago
I can't believe anyone in their right mind could unlike this video. Oh right! Not everyone is in their right mind!
Buddhuzlefthandman 1 month ago
Mmmmmm... I'm pretty open minded to everything :)
TheInsidiousParadigm 1 month ago
@TheInsidiousParadigm That's paramount to gullibility. If you have no standards about what you believe and what you don't, you can be taken in by anything.
BlackMoonLilith 1 month ago
@BlackMoonLilith Not at all... I hated Jazz, until I opened my mind to it, and now I like it. I opened my mind to Sushi, now... I hate it. You're point? my point is, everyone is different [of course] you know that right? Good, now let's move forward, since everyone is different, who are you to tell someone that they are "gullible" just 'cause they open their minds to things that exist in this world and want to explore. Unless, you have a different definition of being "open minded"
TheInsidiousParadigm 1 month ago
@TheInsidiousParadigm Both of the things you mentioned are subjective opinions about liking/disliking something. There's nothing wrong with being open minded to music, food, etc. There IS something wrong with being 100% open minded to *everything,* including the things evidence has proved against. I'm sure you're not open minded to the possibility that jumping off a building will make you fly. You know that's dangerous and wrong, and you're not closed minded for thinking so
BlackMoonLilith 1 month ago
@BlackMoonLilith oh of course lol, I thought you were talking about the the dislike/like analogy, my bad. I guess you're right, but I still am open minded to things that have been proven wrong but people still wanna believe in them, [just] to examine and see how interesting that even when something is wrong, Humans will still find a way to stick w/it. Kinda like religion. any who, my bad sir, I misinterpreted your comment.
TheInsidiousParadigm 1 month ago
@TheInsidiousParadigm Or rather, you *are* closed minded for not thinking you can fly when you jump off a building, but it's a perfectly reasonable kind of closed minded. The whole point of evidence is to narrow possibilities and get rid of inaccurate and false information. Being open minded to new evidence is fine, but in the real world, you have to consider what has evidence and what does not. Courts could not function without taking in information and making judgments.
BlackMoonLilith 1 month ago
WTF!?!? we did NOT think Europeans were GODS!!! I need to make a video about this *facepalms*
NeCacaluXuxultic 1 month ago
@NeCacaluXuxultic well technically he is wrong, but the mayans and the incas met pretty disasterous ends because they thought a Conquistadore (de gama? not sure) was the god Quetzacoatl
gr8z0mbiejesus 1 month ago
@gr8z0mbiejesus, the Incas did not believe the whites were gods at all. They looked at them as if they were crazy and eventually SOME of them were convinced that they were. As for the MAYANS.. you have MANY GROUPS! I only know of the Guatemalan tribes and MOST OF THEM did not trust the Spanish. MY PEOPLE were already prepared to fight the much larger Spanish army and we FUCKED THEM UP! TWICE! All this "white worship" is bullshit.
NeCacaluXuxultic 1 month ago
@NeCacaluXuxultic
White worship?
Shayrah 1 month ago
The Zsadlfkjasdiagrb is my pencil.
I am holding my pencil.
The Zsadlfkjasdiagrb exists!
Zsadlfkjasdiagrb - 1, God - 0
BlackMoonLilith 1 month ago
*facepalm* at first i thought you mean liam neeson
1C9J9S5 1 month ago 2
@1C9J9S5 What makes you think I didn't mean that?
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist true, lian neeson IS god, or at least the closest thing to one that exists :)
1C9J9S5 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist let me ask you this though:
correct me if im wrong but your oppinion of the 'open minded' people is that they are too open minded in the sense that they could believe something as foolish as the (however the fuck you spell that thing i cant pronounce). what about people like me that specifically dont believe in the christian god but are skeptical to all others mainly because i either dont know anything about their god or that they have a 0.0000000000000000000001% chance of
1C9J9S5 1 month ago
@1C9J9S5 making slightly more sense?
btw, by dont know anything about their god i mean that i know too little to even know what im disprooving
1C9J9S5 1 month ago
@1C9J9S5 You've got Internet access, do some research. There's never been a shred of evidence for any god who's ever been believed in or for the concept of any definition of a god. If we could try to give it one unified definition, it'd just be some sentient organism (an alien, basically) that is used to explain what we don't know by prescribing humanesque consciousness to the world around us. And not a single thing has ever supported the concept. It's wishful and limited thinking.
BlackMoonLilith 1 month ago
@1C9J9S5 Just because something is POSSIBLE does not make it PROBABLE. It's possible that the Zsadlfkjasdiagrb could exist, whatever that may be as we don't know its characteristics, but the probability is so low, mainly due to the fact that there is no evidence for whatever it may be, it might as well be considered impossible.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist It's a pencil.
BlackMoonLilith 1 month ago
@NeCacaluXuxultic Yes, make a video about ONE thing I said in a twenty-two minute long video. Totally worth the time and effort to try to prove me wrong on something that doesn't even fucking pertain to the subject at hand.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist, Well he whole "Native believed whites were gods" is utter bullshit. It kinda irritates me that people still believes in this BS. I'm assuming you were talking about the Aztec since the Spanish claim that they viewed them as gods but the reality is that it was just MOTECUZOMA II believed that Cortez was a divine being. On top of that the word "GOD" doesn't really exist in Nahuatl since Cortes thought that TEOTL was the same as THEOS which is Latin for god.
NeCacaluXuxultic 1 month ago
You look like Draco Malfoy with your new hair color.
rg055 1 month ago
I will find the long lost Zesalafajazzniars Group once and for all!!!
richd506 1 month ago
You need a fat joint
NeroBaelside13 1 month ago
@NeroBaelside13 The world needs a fat joint.
And Liam, Daniel, and Shayrah is too much hotness for one video.
BlackMoonLilith 1 month ago
You may look like 16 years old but you RULE mate :) Good I didnt get on the first impression. Great videos - racional and fun - thank you for them! BTW what is the music at the end of this video those strings - kind familiar: Keep it up!
SamuelRust 1 month ago
Iv'e never seen your videos before. I was linked by a friend because we both watch the amazing atheist. But I have to say....
Damn your hair is....bright.
kingbooforums 1 month ago
wait... so there is no celestial teapot? Fuck, gotta call off the search.
CraniumOnEmpty 1 month ago
Only size 12 soles? Fuck, I am 13.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
It still wouldn't be a Union Jack unless your bedroom is aboard a ship or other sea vessel. You mean Union Flag :p
Al1981X 1 month ago
DUDE, your mad scientist is on point!
skinsfanstull 1 month ago
This video was very amazing. Very TJ. Make more. Please.
OwnedIRLK 1 month ago
Thor was an ancient Norse tale so he most defiantly doesn't exist, maybe there was an ancient worrier called Thor who was an exceptional warrior but the fact that the Norse claimed he was the god of thunder is just so far fetched and unbelievable that it has to be not real.
jgamefreak20 1 month ago
With the blond hair and the "Come with us Liam" you reminded me of Children of the Damned.
NicotineAndSilence 1 month ago
Lol @ 10:12~10:20 btw (seriously, I think I just woke up my roomm8 xD).
You sir, are a walking bundle of epic win, with some 'awesome sauce' on the side.
Randomness FTW!
Seymour13 1 month ago
This is one of your best videos yet. Nice job.
c300v 1 month ago
Why are you always with shayrah?
MasterTheMike 1 month ago
@MasterTheMike Because vagina is awesome. You should try it sometime.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago 10
@TheBarkingAtheist How old are you and how old is she If you dont mind me asking.
MasterTheMike 1 month ago
@MasterTheMike She's 29. I'm 19 (according to my YouTube profile *shifty eyes*).
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist I fucken love Vagina!
TheInsidiousParadigm 1 month ago
Vid is not about me but still I feel dirty!
DutchLiam84 1 month ago
What you posit as negatives around 6:46 are just other positives (different colors).
"there is no wall" would be a negative.
Just putting that out there ;).
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 "There is no wall" is a negative, yes, but by saying that my wall is red, I'm also inferring a negative, that it's not blue or any other colour. I see what you are saying, but they are negatives, albeit in a somewhat indirect fashion.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist
"but they are negatives"
Personally I'd disagree, but I'll grant you that.
My point for saying that however was that the sense in which the word 'negative' is used (in the 'god debate') is to refer to something's non-existence, not what properties the existing thing has or lacks (like what color your wall is, or isn't) as that is just defining the properties of the proven positive (i.e. the wall).
So the color analogy didn't really apply, but that's just my take on it though.
Seymour13 1 month ago
"Fuck you none believer"
"Yes please"
fatalerror404TV 1 month ago
Lol, love the dramatic close-up at 1:00~1:05.
Seymour13 1 month ago
Ah right. This video really clarifies what you were saying. and seeing as liam responded with what I was gonna say I don't have to make three videos today. Yay =)
Zippomatt4 1 month ago
Probably your best video. The only reason these ideas get far too much respect seems to be that majority of people believe in them. Whatever they are. And even if (and when) everyone of them believe in a different god, they act like it's the same one.
laalki80 1 month ago
A blonde, Texan Sleestak proving that he's an Altrusian. Good job.
SROnivera1 1 month ago
also i thought this was going to be like a gay porno or something , so be glad i watched it also you are going to give us a warning before you post something like that right ?
SuperMuddiger 1 month ago
the zsad.... ok never mind if i cant say it i wont belief in it that is my new rule but i did fuck paris hilton because i said i did and have fun asking paris if this happened
SuperMuddiger 1 month ago
Where's the link to Qualia Soup's video?
VarmitCoyote 1 month ago
Liam is the classic example of someone deprived of facts attempting logic and reason. It's just a big fail.
TheBigEyebrows 1 month ago
you know. you kind of got a point. i would and have said the whole "i dont know god exists, but i dont believe in one" i would shy away from saying there is no god. yet i would have no problem saying, there is no santa. there's no such thing as the force. harry potter isnt real....ect. you do make a good point. cuz all of us would say "theres no santa, but we shy away from saying there is no god.
420simpson 1 month ago
I love you BA... =3
TigerghostPictures 1 month ago
"Fuck you non-believer!" I love it! XD
VarmitCoyote 1 month ago 11
I think you explained yourself much better in this video than the last one and I understand your point much better and now pretty much agree with it.
oliethefolie 1 month ago
@oliethefolie The point of the former video was a way to provoke discussion. It was meant to be incomplete, for lack of a better word, so that I could better explain my points and the idea of igtheism/ignosticism later on.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist I think my only (semi) criticism is that it appears that you are labelling any deity of any kind impossible, whereas I would rather label it a futile speculation with no basis in reality. Because, as Liam said, there could some day be evidence for "god". If it were it wouldn't be any sort of god described today though as they are, as I said, futile speculations, so your point about it being something other than what we perceive to be a deist god still stands.
oliethefolie 1 month ago
@oliethefolie If it comes off that I'm saying that it's impossible, that's not my intention, although I do view the concept of a "god" as highly improbable, near to the point of impossibility. A "god" is possible, but then again, so is the Zsadlfkjasdiagrb, whatever both of those things may be.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist Well then, I wholeheartedly agree then.
oliethefolie 1 month ago
HEY WAIT A MINUTE. Science does not know everything. That is fact.
But religion knows absolutely nothing. That is also facts:-)
Keep up the good work.
MrMaika77 1 month ago 2
"I'm arrogant as fuck in a lot of ways."
Me, all over, I kinda love you yaknow Daniel?
drewsta199 1 month ago
whats with the German flag on the wall
jordanCOD16 1 month ago 4
@jordanCOD16 Tink he likes his flags.
drewsta199 1 month ago
@jordanCOD16 I'm a Neo-Nazi. Even though the German flag was a way for Germany to shy away from it's Nazi history.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist I hope you're kidding with that first sentence...
CJCA915 1 month ago
@CJCA915 No. There was no sarcasm meant at all. Not any whatsoever.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
Comment removed
CJCA915 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist Uh huh... chances are you are being sarcastic, but in any case I'm not fond of Nazism... at all.
CJCA915 1 month ago
@CJCA915 Neither am I, hence why I'm making jokes about Nazis and about people who think I'm a Nazi, because I have a copy of Mein Kampf and a German flag. Which again, was a way for Germany to shed its Nazi history. I also have an Irish flag, doesn't mean I support the IRA, and I have a copy of Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life, but that doesn't mean I like Rick Warren.
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist risky jokes, little brother, risky jokes.
USERNAMEfieldempty 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist You troll XD
VarmitCoyote 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist Nazis were actually inhumane, racist, homophobic, and for the most part had the support from the Roman Catholic church: you do know that, right?
SROnivera1 1 month ago
@SROnivera1 Sarcasm is saying something, usually outrageous and out of character, for the sake of humour. You do know that, right?
TheBarkingAtheist 1 month ago
@TheBarkingAtheist Well shit, I didn't catch that. Lulz! Well played there sir. I say!
SROnivera1 1 month ago
Yeah, what's about the german flag? WAS SOLL DAS?
Raidoton 1 month ago
@jordanCOD16 Like all atheists, Daniel is a closet Nazi.
AntiHateAllianceAHA 1 month ago