@funkishness it doesn't end up "owning myself" because atheism isn't a religion. It's the lack of a religion. The "argument" of the video discovers no religion has any good reason to be believed, and that leaves you with no religion (atheism).
I like the way you think. I too am an atheist and I understand and respect where you're trying to come from. The problem I foresee in this hypothetical situation is that the "theist" whom you're presenting the cards to, their "rationalizations" against other religions would likely fall into the realm of "because the religion I believe/know to be true doesn't say that". It would become another futile endeavor, drowned in compartmentalized, circular reasoning and would never reach conclusion.
@fatrob1711, what we have here is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Prior to your initial assertion you must define what a god is, what maximally powerful is, and support your assertion that a god is possible. You're making a claim, so the burden is yours to prove it.
@AtheistJohn Yes, God is the maximum conceivable being, with great making properties... he is the greatest possible being. These great making properties would include omnipotence, omniscience, necessity, benovlence, omnipresence, that makes something infintely great.. There's my claim, the logical proof was underneath, and that, by the way, is not the only argument, but it's enough to get us started
Ha, I stopped at 0:15. I'm not looking for the best argument for "lacking belief in God" as agnostics also "lack belief in God". It seems to me that to go by this definition you have to maintain that agnosticism does not exist and instead comes under the definition of atheism. I'd also like to point out that simply "lacking belief" is NOT a position on the subject. It instead describes a psychological state and does nothing to describe your views on whether God exists or not.
@tomdenman lol, you're determined to define atheism in a completely wrong way. An atheist is simply not a theist. That's what the word-atheist means. Define theist and an atheist is NOT that. So if an theist is someone that has a positive belief in god, an atheist lacks that postive belief in gods. Period. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's what an atheist actually is.
Beliefs and ideas are harmless. The only thing we have to worry about is actions. I'm totally fine with the idea of religion, I just have a problem with people doing irrational things in the name of it.
atheism is one of the weakest beliefs in existence, any rational person could refute it in their sleep. Your argument, in fairness doesn't stand up. I respect that, unlike many internet atheists, you have an argument, but this argument is fairly easily refutable as I'm sure you know
@BillysCrystals Sure, although I hope that you can see it already. There is good evidence for the existence of a Christian God, as opposed to an elephant god who drinks milk, and i find the evidence For a trinitarian, omnipotent, Omniscient God compelling, and sufficient, and I find the arguments against it insufficient
@BillysCrystals what i mean by that is that is that the GOd I believe in is not the same as the other ones, they're different, and this is why I think Christianity is the most plausible worldview, it's not just picking from a deck of cards
@fatrob1711 Okay, I think I see what you're saying. So suppose that, as a young child, you were indoctrinated into Islam rather than Christianity, do you think that you might then find Islam more compelling than Christianity? Another question, if you don't mind me picking your brain: When you said "There is good evidence for the existence of a Christian God," were you referring more to extant historical accounts or to something else?
@BillysCrystals Fair enough.I think that, if you apply modal logic (I'm stealing plantinga's form of the ontological argument here) If God is possible, then God exists... (I can discuss this in greater detail if you'd like)and I believe God is possible. If God exists then as the greatest conceivable being, then he must have great making qualities, including being all loving. But to be all loving, and to have existed forever... he must have more than one part... this leads me to a trinitarian God
@fatrob1711 "If God is possible, then God exists..." How is this if-then statement different than "If Unicorns are possible, then Unicorns exist..."? Secondly, why would God have to tell us the truth, or be loving?
@fatrob1711 That doesn't make since.Just cause something is possible does not mean it exists.Is it possible that ill be the guy that will save someone from a burning building.Yeah but it hasent happend and im 36 so i dont think that ill be that guy.just because you say its possible dont make it exist.
@lelyngaunt ok, I'm gonna try and explain it as best as I can, this may take a few threads.
When philosophers talk about possible worlds, they don't mean other planets, they mean alternate realities, where something could exist. These things could either be necessary (like the number 3, which exists in all possible worlds), Contingent (exist in one or more, but not all worlds like unicorns, which are possible, and humans too) or impossible,(they exist in no possible world... like a round square)
@lelyngaunt So when we talk about God, we're talking about the greatest conceivable being, he would have great making qualities, that'd make him great... he would be all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, and he would as the GREATEST conceivable being, be necessary... if there was a greater conceivable being, that'd be God. SO the argument goes something like this: (I'll put it in my third comment)
@fatrob1711 I'm probably walking into a troll here, but.
1 - True, 2 - If there are multiple worlds, it is possible that he exists in one. You cannot argue for it being probable as you know nothing about these worlds. 3 - By being necessary? Define this please. Can you prove that he exists in one of these possible worlds - can you prove that the possible worlds exist?
You argument never actually connects to reality, and you cannot prove that this maximal entity is God.
@PUBalanceTeam It could be a mystical space hippo that lives in a clam shell - and you could never say otherwise.
Let's use the topic of the video - if I were to posit Thor, or Space Hippos, or High-Tech Light Speed Rhinos as this 'maximally great being' - how would you go about disproving them?
@PUBalanceTeam if something is possible...then they exist in a different possible world. That is, by definition, what it means. If something is necessary, then they live in ALL possible worlds, like the number 7 for example. If something is impossible, like a 4 sided sqquare, then it exists in no possible world. By a maximally great being..e.g God, this being has all great making qualities..including being necessary. Does this help? :)
1. You're making a huge leap from "Something's possible, therefore it exists in a different world". The 2nd half of that has to be *proven*, not asserted. You need to prove the possible world (and entity) exist.
2. You must prove that the entity has this characteristic of being "necessary". Can you prove that a God in a different world MUST exist in this one?
3. The third leap as I said is the leap between "Maximal being -> God". It could be Allah or Thor, etc..
1) I didn't say different world, they're called possible worlds... they're completely different things.
2) necessity is a great making quality. If something has all the great making qualities, that makes it maximally great, it'd be necessity, rather than contingency...in the same way that it'd be all-powerful instead of partially powerful
3) God, is, by definition, the maximally great being..if anything were greater, that'd be God. This isn't a case for the Christian God. Just God
@fatrob1711 On 2 and 3, I do not agree with either definition. Though this is easily remedied by replacing God with "A form X, with the trait of being completely omni-present across all Universes" I think we can both agree on that, since that is the core what your argument can prove.
Your justification for point 1 is not nearly enough to redeem the argument. For your logic to be valid, you need to prove the existence of this possible world. The existence of "X" is completely dependent on this.
1 is just philosophy... by saying something exists in a possible world... it's just saying it's possible. I don't see why I have to argue for this... no one disagrees with that...it's philosophy(?)
ANd well yes, when I talk about God, I am talking about the greatest conceivable being.. and this is the case I'm arguing for...
@fatrob1711 No, you're conflating possibility with reality. Is it impossible for there to be a "crazy, meatball shitting, laser-gun wielding breed of lizard dogs"? Of course, it's not impossible. Does that mean you should profess your agnosticism for said lizard dogs?
Possibility is, by definition, a lack of impossibility. However, that does not make it reality. If you want to play philosopher with this kind of logic, go do it on a Harry Potter fan-fic site.
@lelyngaunt It may surprise you, but points 2-6 go fairly unrefuted. Skeptics and theists alike agree that, if God is possible then God exists. The only point that has any problem is point one, and therefore it is up to you to decide, is God possible? It's your choice, but if you assert that God is impossible, then it's up to you to make a case for it. I hope this helps
@fatrob1711 now your talking about faith and thats not a debate i can when.if you feel something inside so strongly then i will never change your mind.just like i have an logical mind and you will never change mine for you will never have real proof just blind faith
@lelyngaunt that's simply not true... I've given you a logical case for God's existence. There is only one assumption (step one) but you need to give an argument as to why I'm wrong, as possibility is a default position to take, God existing just follows on from the premises. If you have a logical mind...show where my argument is wrong, please :)
@fatrob1711 no you have not you gave me your faith that there is a god.like i said i cant use logic agiant faith.Just cause you say theres a god is not proof because we dont have answers the ones you make up doesnt mean its true.As long an your not opened minded about a debt faith takes over and then nothing can be disscussed
@lelyngaunt what??? I gave you a claim with 6 steps, using modal logic, so unless you haven't seen it (if not, it's another page in) I'm just going to assume that you're sticking your fingers in your ears, ignoring logic and reason.. and just believing what you want to believe.... Man... I thought Christians were accused of being irrational. When you want to have a reasoned discussion about this.. let me know
@BillysCrystals so that.... and of course, I find the historical evidence compelling too, including the evidence for Jesus. As for you question 1... maybe. But this is just the genetic fallacy, and doesn't show Christianity to be false. Had i been brought up in ancient greece, I may be brought up to have think that the earth was flat, but does that mean that my current belief that the earth is spherical is unjustified?But thanks for the questions, that was nice, and feel free to 'pick' away :)
@fatrob1711 atheism isn't a a "weak belief." It's not a belief at all, it's the lack of belief (theistic belief specifically). It's difficult to take someone seriously who doesn't seem to understand the basics of the subject he's talking about.
@MystryBox you're wrong, the standard belief of atheism is the belief that God does not exist, the REVISED definition of atheism, used by many modern atheists (who realise that they can't get a foothold in, let alone win the argument with this) say that it is just a lack of belief, which puts them in the same position as all babies, dogs, and teaspoons, none of which have given any thought to the matter. But whether it's atheism or 'atheism', you need arguments, and this one isn't convincing.
@fatrob1711 I disagree. You're free to go find someone else to argue with, but if you're going to discuss with me you'll have to understand and accept how I define atheist. I'm not going to let you define my position. And I'll return the favor and not define theists as being turnips or something else wrong.
@MystryBox you're welcome to believe what you believe, I'm not stopping you. But when you say to me that I dont' understand the basics of the subject, then I'm perfectly entitled to rebut.. I apologise if I have seemed rude at all, I genuinely don't mean it, but, like I said, the standard definition still stands, and if you wish to believe differently, then that's cool...but either way, you have to understand that people believe what they believe not just by randomly picking, but by evidence.
@fatrob1711 you DON'T understand the basics of atheism. You define atheism in a way you can attack it as a straw man like some sort of useless internet troll rather than how people that are actually atheist define it. I'm sure you'd rather atheism was defined as a positive belief as it makes it a faith-based thing like theism (and thus irrational and easy to attack), however that's not how most atheists actually think about atheism. Atheism is non-theism, period.
@fatrob1711 if you want to discuss with atheists try actually listening to them rather than trying to tell them INCORRECTLY what their position is. I mean how rude (and ignorant!) can you get?!?
@fatrob1711 Every now and again someone like you pops up.... someone who got their definition of atheist from church along with some prefab arguments against that incorrect definition. Then you go find real atheists to "debate" and discover your "arguments" don't work because they don't define atheism in the narrow and incorrect way your church does. So then you're forced into trying to tell them their own position isn't what they say it is! What a pointless waste of everyone's time
@MystryBox Dude, I just told you, I'm not arguing about what you believe, you're entitled to believe what you want, and it's not my place to judge, I'm just saying what the encyclopaedia of philosophy says it is, and what the revised version is... but let me reiterate, I'm happy to discuss either way, the arguments for God are more compelling whether you don't believe in God, or whether you believe God doesn't exist, it's cool either way...
@fatrob1711 excuse me, you most certainly were attempting to redefine my position on this subject for me. It's good that you're now apparently backing off that rather obnoxious way to "discuss." I have no idea how some particular encyclopedia or dictionary or whatever defines something. I've examined many definitions in having this discussion over the years and some have it correct and some have it wrong. I go by my definition which after a lot of examination I feel is correct.
@MystryBox You're absolutely right, sadly, many definitions are subjective, and we may disagree on that... personally, it doesn't matter to me either way... but, in that circumstance, for you to tell me that I "don't know what I'm talking about" because we read from different definitions is very unfair. When you say that you're an atheist, I believe you. When you say that you lack belief in God, I believe you too... does that help?
@fatrob1711 I appreciate the change in tone. However I still say you're using an outdated, theist-created definition for atheist that is not useful in actual discussion with an atheist. It fails to properly classify most atheists, doesn't actually let you communicate with atheists in a meaningful way, and is just simply wrong. Of course if all you're looking for is a way to trivially dismiss a strawman of "atheism" then it might work for that, but not on my videos.
@pointzeroblack The video argues against religion, not god. You can't really disprove god anyway... not that that means much as you can't disprove unicorns or elves either.
@MystryBox Thats what i always say to my theist friends when they ask me why i dont believe in god. i say "if you can give me a convincing argument as to why god is more believable than fairies or unicorns or leprechauns or any other fairy tale creature, then ill listen to you." and they never can give me an answer to that. They just stare at me blankly for a couple seconds, trying to find a flaw in my argument, and when they realize they cant, they just drop it.
This only works if they do actually use logic to rationally dismiss the other religions and if they don't say what most christians I know say, "That religion is of a false God."
I like to stick to the question of, why does god deserves my worship? When you get down to it, punishment for who you are, bribery, intimidation, racism, sexism, ect. isn't out weighed by the fact it "loves" me. God is more like a pimp or the mafia, and is not worthy of my worship. So even if it's real, religion is shit.
MystryBox, you underestimate the shallow thinking of the religious. For example, a Christian will simply write: "This is god is false because he isn't Jesus." on the back of every index card until he reaches his own. The best argument against intelligent design is still its circular reasoning, in my opinion. If everything has to have a creator, who created "god", and who created the "god" who created "god", etc., etc.?
I posit that the multiverse is eternal and our universe is simply one of many that spontaneously got birthed along with an infinite others only to be killed off along with infinite more. At any instance in time, an infinite Big Bangs are occuring along with an infinite "heat deaths". For every Earth that has life, 10^40 Earths do not (an infinitesimally small number next to infinity).
Why do we all still care who believes in what? Athiest, thiest, pastafarian. Seriously guys. Let's just believe to ourselves? Maybe not try to convert people?
@i1love1cats I wouldn't care except many people (most?) use their religious beliefs as an excuse to demonize, suppress, murder, or otherwise negatively effect the lives of others in minor to major ways. So given how much effect religion has in our world and how little evidence those religions have, my question is how can anyone NOT care who believes what?
@MystryBox That, I can agree with. Unfortunately though, atheism is often used in a similarly damaging fashion, which leads me to believe we must focus on the damage done, and not the specific religion(s), or lack there of.
@i1love1cats atheism isn't a religion. It's not something, it's the lack of something (specifically theism). It has no beliefs nor creeds. As such it's difficult to use as you say. It's why there are no atheist churches nor really any significant atheist groups.
@i1love1cats "Let's just believe to ourselves? Maybe not try to convert people?"
The problem is that it's a scriptural mandate that Christians must try to convert others. That's the built-in virus that ensures a "successful" religion will be propagated. Religions lacking this built-in mechanism die within a few generations.
@i1love1cats well if guy comes up to you and says he's had a vision in which god told him to go blow up a hospital or something... would you try to talk him out of it or let him believe it and possibly kill a lot of people?
@RenzoGames That's fair. My point is that if a person's belief is harmless (Which I suppose is a definition that would change from person to person) it should be left alone.
I have heard your argument many times before. I am a Christian, and I have discussed (and continue to discuss) the miracles that God has done in my life. I can HONESTLY answer that there is no other God but Jehovah, and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. How do I know? Not just by the fact that I have felt His presence - I have witnessed prayers answered in a marvelous fashion. I have heard His voice. I have seen Him in action - I am 100% convinced of Him.
@DougPinson But how do you respond to someone of another religion when they describe to you prayers to their gods that have been answered in a marvelous fashion? What about the recent hindu milk miracle? Are you suggesting that, while the miracles of others may have simple explanations, your miracles could have no possible explanation but divine intervention?
But I do get the message of the video ... objective analysis of one's own beliefs is of critical importance ... I just don't think describing this exercise is the "best argument for atheism" because it's too easy for theists to dismiss, since it's only an academic exercise.
Imagining this test taking place is an interesting intellectual exercise, but I don't see how it can be called "The Best Argument for Atheism." It's too easy for theists to punch holes in ... they'll say "well, if I went through that stack of index cards, all the arguments I'd use to debunk the other religions would not be usable to debunk my own." They'd most likely be wrong, but since nobody is actually going to go through the actual exercise, they can get away with saying it.
@MystryBox I certainly don't mean to suggest your video has no point. I just don't see it as a tool for arguing for atheism as the title suggests. It's too abstract and easy for religious folk to dismiss.
It is an interesting point you made... but you made a BIG assumption and an error from that assumption. Religion and faith are not equivilent. In fact, you compared religions via faith, but there was no comparisons of faiths.
Now, if "atheism" is not believing in religions, that's one thing. But as I hear it from others, "atheism' is not believing in a god. Your example doesn't describe the gods but the religions, making it a "stacked deck" and not a true test.
@bsabruzzo a lot of people, like you, seem to have problems with the title of the video or my approach... they never seem to address what the video is actually saying. I think that's because the video, for all it's flaws, is more or less correct.
@MystryBox If you were to do the same experiment using a definition of god, not the religious cannon, you'd get cards that are nearly identical except for a handful of variants.
Your video ends up being a good argument of skeptism of various religions, maybe even agnostisism.
Say I write down the definitions of each of the thousands of gods: more powerful than humans, live for hyper-extended times beyond conceivable by humans, etc.
@bsabruzzo most people would also agree on the existence of ghosts and/or various supernatural beings that are unlikely to exist. It doesn't make them exist, it's just a common aspect of the human condition. The inescapable reality is despite what people might want to believe, nobody can actually show such beings exist.
@MystryBox "The inescapable reality is despite what people might want to believe, nobody can actually show such beings exist."
You really should use the word "yet", if you are to be believes to be at all having an open and scientific mind.
After all, extra terrestrials and dark matter and quantum strings all have the same amount of evidence as ghosts and gods. The amount of serious research in the latter two is small compared to the former, however, because of dogmatic belief.
@bsabruzzo a lot of people, like you, seem to have problems with the title of the video or my approach... they never seem to address what the video is actually saying. I think that's because the video, for all it's flaws, is more or less correct.
If there is no god and no satan...than shut the f*ck up
what are you going on about? If there is nothing than let it be nothing...
Atheism, isnt about no god its about arguing how there is no god...well if there is no god to you than shut the f*ck up...your arguments are pointless and neither you or god loving people prove anything
@rjones2000r I can't tell you why you doubt other religions and how that doubt can apply to your own faith. That's something everyone has to do for themselves, and as the video points out, most aren't honest enough about the issue to do that.
One thing I don't think is being considered here--different religions contain falsifiable historical and scientific information. They make specific claims, that, if proven incorrect--reduce the reasonableness of said religion. IE: If the Bible claims X, and X is proven to not match up with historical/scientific data, it can be proven false. If it does line up with X, then the credibility is further established.
@NessFK sure, and try to nail down those supposedly falsifiable bits of religion with any believer and you'll quickly find out they have well worn dodges. That's why a direct attack of religion doesn't work well... the believer themselves have to decide to be honestly skeptical of their own views, and you can't force anyone to do that.
Only a few religions have survived from antiquity. The others have lost the favor of mankind. Much like scientific theories. Many theories have fallen into irrelevance and some have survived. Would you say, therefore, that ALL scientific theories are irrelevant?
@lourak scientific theories are replaced with better ones and/or disproven. This is not the case with religion. Your analogy doesn't make sense, or am I misunderstanding?
@Floortjahh Well - Your statement, for the most part seems reasonable. You are however, missing the point, I think. My claim is quite limited, actually. Just as many religions of the past are no longer practiced, for whatever reason, so too, have many scientific theories been abandoned or superseded. You would not say that the surviving theories, like the abandoned ones, are irrelevant or not true. The religions that survive, quite simply, have been "selected for" if you will.
@lourak your question is completely flawed. The truth of a religion or scientific theory is not based on how popular it is. Nor does my video make any appeals to argument from popularity.
@MystryBox I don't disagree with the tenor of your comment. And while it may be true, in many cases, that truth is not won in a popularity contest - it is also true, in most cases, that popularity does not disprove the validity or utility of an idea, practice or tradition. I don't think this is a controversial point. Going further, now - of course, we would need to look at the supports, philosophically, that religion enjoys, in order to asses its epistemic status.
@lourak You examine the "epistemic status" of religion if you want (or any of the laundry list of nonsense that theists use as obfuscation). I'm content to simply note that no revealed religion can provide decent support for the highly unlikely claims they make.
@MystryBox Here, again, your claims our overly broad and presumptuous. Religion, may or may not be true - but I think those that present their answer with the kind of bravado that I see in your presentation, are not in a position to tutor the masses on this most serious and consequential subject - especially with the kind of philosophical sophomorism that is common in Youtube clips such as your own. You can have the last word...
@lourak So now you're attacking my presentation style? Again you offer no content to actually respond to. What do you want me to say? I'm impressed by your multisyllabic words even if they aren't actually saying much relevant?
thought you would actually have something interesting to say but you just come up with some stupid thing that has no relevance to a certain religion. I believe in the Bible because of it details and prophecies and wisdom. Thanks for making athiests look even more stupid
@flaaressence see my video "Does Prophecy Prove Christianity?" for my view of the supposed "prophecies" in the bible. That book is not worthy of your time.
@flaaressence lol, read on wikipedia or watch on youtube all the great prophecies that the quaran has to offer :) oh wait...you're able to rationally dismiss those ones...
I believe the evidence that atheists believe proves god doesn't exist...is the fact that those who believe in him cannot rationally prove he does exist. The evidence is that they have no evidence themselves.
A nice argument but in my opinion atheism isnt that you dont belive in God its just that enough evidence hasnt been produced(forget the "fact" that it never will)to prove the existence of God. This seems to be to be absolute logic and i cant see how anyone can have a problem with this. . . .
A good idea in theory, but it relies on all theists being dismissive of other belief systems, which just is not the case.
Part of having your own set of beliefs surely involves being open to the ideas involving respecting the beliefs of others. Granted, for a lot of people out there, this is not the case and they do blindly dismiss the beliefs of others. However that is not a key trait of all theists, and as such, I do feel there is a slight flaw in what is otherwise an interesting argument.
@TheApple176 it's irrelevant if you "respect" other beliefs. The fact is you don't believe them. You can't because they logically conflict with your own. You make a choice what to believe and why. All I'm doing is trying to force you to examine that choice you make and to apply the same critical eye to your own beliefs. Instead you try to dodge and avoid such thinking. The reason why is because the video is right.
@MystryBox I never said I was a theist. I just pointed out where I felt there was a problem with this argument.
However, let's look at this idea of other beliefs logically conflicting with your own. That means that the reasons that kept appearing on the back of all the cards would all come down to "I do not believe this as this contradicts what I believe" (after all, when dealing with faith, it's hard to rigorously disprove anything). Then finally that then cannot be applied to your own belief.
@TheApple176 in my reply videos I respond to that point. In short it's simply not a valid argument to say you don't believe something because it's not what you believe. Of course that is all that theists do, but it's not a valid reason. It's just a statement of what you believe. If you don't examine the WHY you're not doing what the video asks of you. You're not honest.
@MystryBox 'you don't believe something because it's not what you believe'- Actually this is close to my first point, though I could have been clearer. And there lies the problem; many theists are aware of how open their own beliefs require them to be, and so understand how open others have to be about their own beliefs.
Basically, I suppose that while this can be applied to many theists, I don't feel ALL theists would carry out the first steps of this argument, and so it won't always work.
@TheApple176 I agree with you most theists won't do this. But that's not a flaw of the argument, it's a flaw with the theist. Their religion trains them well to NOT think critically about their beliefs. That's why this video is presented as a trick--to trick the theist into thinking how they are trained not to think.
@MystryBox I suppose put that way I do actually quite like the trick. If not as an argument for atheism, but instead as a way to get people to think more openly about why they hold their beliefs, rather than just going along with it. After all, what you've call a flaw with the theist, is something I personally would like to see more often. And in that case, I suppose this is actually a rather clever way of challenging something that I see as one of the worst flaws in many theists.
how can one that says " I'm more concerned with believing what is actually true, not what I want. " look up into the sky and say that all that came from a big explosion, how could all the dna that sequenced for life be in such an order that life comes about from jst an explosion. if a printing presses has an explosion a dictionary doesnt turn up..wen an explosion occurs things go frm good to bad. isnt there a law in science stating that things go from order to disorder? wat bout the big bang?
@AkshayDavid1 so if you don't think things like dna came into being by natural processes but were intelligently designed. What is the cause of the intelligent designer? You think you're explaining something by appealing to an explanation that suffers from the same problem you're trying to explain? Sorry, fail.
haha you fool, "what is the cause of the intelligent designer?" He is jst no intelligent designer, He is God, doesnt need a cause, God is there weather you like it or not. And He has given sinful creatures like me and you the opportunity to know Him..God, all powerful being who created all things. Your just missing out on the opportunity by being such a fool in trying to disprove God, "the fool has said in his here there is no God" Psalms 14:1
@AkshayDavid1 I see so the universe and us need a designer as an explanation. But your designer doesn't. So you just stop applying your own reasoning when it suits you, lol.
I see your point mate but you gota understand that God does not need a cause, He was always there never absent, ever present...its hard for a physical mind to comprehended this, this is where the spiritual realm come in and when this realm is opened by God it all makes sense,,,the things i speak of sounds like foolishness to you i know, only the Holy Spirit can change that and i pray that He will
@AkshayDavid1 I see your point mate but you gota understand that nature does not need a cause. It's always there never absent, ever present. See I can make blind assertions too. So if you're going to stick by the claim that some things can just exist without needing an explanation then you have no logical basis to say the nature we observe needs a creator. See how that works? Consistency--look into it.
@AkshayDavid1 Alright, so out of all the theories of how the universe came to be none of them can possibly be true, because something cannot come from nothing, but when it comes to god, he is there just because he is and defies the rule you are trying to use against us? You are pathetic and unintelligent to say the very least.
God did not come frm nothing, He was always there, it isnt compensable to a mind that is spiritually dead...so no matter what I say it just sound like foolishness to you cos u wont be able to understand till you spiritual eyes are opened and you can see what has always been there
@AkshayDavid1 So whats the difference between you and me that means that your "spiritual eyes" have been opened? I imagine it is years of your parents forcing it into your head.
haha not so my parents never forced me into thiss, they did encourage me tho because they have found the Truth and their greatest joy is to guide their children in finding the Truth also
Now that I know the Truth I will stand up for it and will try in my best efforts to help all the people around me that i know and also those random people like you that iv never met...hope you also enter a relationship with your Maker
@aDislikeBot Who's to say the universe is the begging of time, space and matter? The universe isn't the answer to this argument. God live outside of time, matter and space If there is such a thing. If he does exist exist outside of these factors, who cares if there is a God or not? Most people can accept the fact that he doesn't interfer with the world anyways xD I personally believe the factors alwars have existed. -shrug- No Point in agruing with theists. They think God can do anything.
Which is something that you really can't disprove since you aren't me and don't have any idea what I have experienced. So, the agnostic is in a much better position than you are with your stack of index cards that (we are suppose to take on faith that you have covered all bases). At least the agnostic can say that he or she cannot really know what I have experienced while you claim with your mythical deck of cards you can.
Fourth, you seem to think that because I have dismissed a lot of the previous cards that I am an atheist like you. Wrong. You gloat that when I encounter the cards about my beliefs that you previously lied about not being there (= you are a liar) I become a hypocrite for not continuing with my "atheism" you are forgetting about my existential experience with the God that I believe in. Continued...
This is not the best argument. Nor it is it the best ever. First, you preface it with theists already knowing your argument which we dismiss. I have never heard of your argument before so, your argument loses there. Second, you seem to demand a lot of things up front, for example that you have this stack of cards that you claim you have. Third, just because I dismiss the previous cards doesn't make me an atheist like you. Continued....
@clayk3nt the video says IN MY OPINION. I'm entitled to my opinion. If you want to have a different opinion (and in this case and incorrect one, lol), go ahead.
this argument assumes i dismiss all beliefs except my own, hence the lack of acceptance, which i do not lack, but i need more than this, argument, this argument is well to those who are blind, to realize that all religions are true, which most ppl today accept, just like me, i see it as an entity which will morph to what i see it as, hence why some believed in gods, and theirs in god, plus why would ppl from their creation, believe in divinity if it did not exist or does not exist?
Hey MystryBox, just wanted to say, good video. I like the way you used Stephen Roberts quote to articulate your point. I'm not an atheist, closer to an agnostic, but I've used the same argument with people I know.
This video is completely retarded....Everything you just said, the very point of your argument or "trick" can apply to both you and the other person. An atheist does not turn a blind eye to anything they believe, they use facts and logic to support what can be proven, or what cannot. You have proven nothing except for how easily most religions contradict themselves.
@infinite2679 Atheism isn't a religious belief or faith, it's the absence of religious belief or faith. If you think the technique in the video can argue against belief via faith and against lack of faith, you'll have to explain how because I don't see it.
@MystryBox i honestly do not want to take the time to type it out...i care for my own beliefs, not that of others. But i appreciate your interest in my comment, if you watch this video again you will see that my comment does contain some truth in it that i believe we can all agree on.
@infinite2679 if you bothered to take the time to type it out you'd discover you're wrong. An argument against faith isn't likely to apply to the absence of faith. They are very different things. Atheism is not a religion, it is the lack of religion.
@MystryBox Alright look, he is assuming the other person has beliefs and god and that through the stack of cards he has been tricked by his own cards being the similar to all the others in the way they cannot be proven. You could say literally the exact same thing to him, for he believes in his own cards and rationally dismisses all these others, when they all cannot be proven.
And when it comes to Atheists it is an idea in which all other current beliefs are wrong and pointless
@infinite2679 I'm lost. Exactly what is an item of "faith" that would exist on an index card representing an "atheist belief" that the atheist would have argued against in dismissing other religions? It seems to me that all the arguments an atheist has against other faiths is WHY they are an atheist in the first place. They don't argue against atheism by examining the problems of other faiths, they argue FOR atheism by doing that.
@MystryBox an atheist usually believes in what can only be proven logically...and you can put that on a t-shirt and sell it. Thank you for your intense curiosity, next time look into for yourself.
So r u atheist or what n if u don't believe in Christianity then u should know that it is the only religion that historical documents and geographical evidence has supported
Want answers proving CHRISTIANITY IS A HOAX? go here exposingchristianity dotcom this is from satanic points of views. Try to understand every road possible before chosing one of the biggest part of your life.
I think this would be a fascinating exercise to actually do. YES, it'd take forever to complete, but at the end of it, it'd be very hard to continue the white knuckle grip on xtianity or ANY religion for that matter. Thanks for posting.
well I almost made it through the first 30 seconds, but his guy is so freekin boring, so I was not able to ascertain, if he is a Theist, Athiest, or Muslim,
The mistake Athiests make is Thinking that Different religions believe in different Gods. There is one. Religions are stories to get to the same conclusion.
@tatanosmusic1125 Erm .. I don't know how to put it, but I think Hinduism has a wide variety of Gods, and I think you'd offend muslims and christians equally by saying their Gods are One.
@majinbuu1307 I’ve recently met a very nice Atheist that happens to know a great deal about the bible. For that I give him credit. At least he’s bothered to read and learn what it is he is rejecting. It’s an important subject the existence of God. I hope everyone of you takes the matter seriously, and researches the arguments for and against. Take care
The problem with that reasoning, is your assuming the Christian God can be proven wrong. I’ve never encountered it. Most Atheists self-indoctrinate. Meaning they only read Atheist material. They never study the counter arguments for God. Most Atheists have made up minds, and never bother with all the evidence for the Bible and creation. Now you can all call me stupid and say other nasty things. Which is a typical response. By the way Atheism is a religion unto itself.
There is no proof in science that supports evolution. It's all based on theory. Give me some solid proof please. If you believe a theory it's religion. Atheism is a religion. Have you ever taken the time to watch a creationist refute of evolution? You guys have no proof man, your so called science proving things is riddled with fakes, fraud, and theory
@TheChurchmouse15 Whatever sinks your boat. Evidence of evolution is overwhelming. Try reading something other than the bible and get educated. I realise arguing with you is completely pointless, so enjoy your life in ignorance, just stay out of politics and i don't care.
@TheChurchmouse15 It's all based on theory? Lol. oh man, you sir win the internet. Darwin is facepalming himself in his grave. And read up on galapagos islands where evolution is taking place RIGHT NOW and has been documented since darwin. Same species put on two seperate islands started evolving in different ways to adapt to the new surroundings. Do some research. You scare me bro, you scare me. Oh and when 2012 comes have fun blabbering in tongues expecting to die while I go sledding
@majinbuu1307 What you mention above is called micro evolution, and the bible supports that. Did you know that? Kinds make kinds read Genesis. I’m not a dude, and I don’t think the world is ending in 2012. As far as Atheism being a religion. You have leaders, books, a symbol, evangelize, and accept donations. How are you different than a religion?
It'll never happen. So it's your own fantasy win.
For this game to work you have to end up owning yourself.
That's part of your honesty rule.
If not then your game's logic is flawed.
Can you do it with a few cards and someone, because if it works for all it should work for the sample set?
funkishness 2 days ago
@funkishness it doesn't end up "owning myself" because atheism isn't a religion. It's the lack of a religion. The "argument" of the video discovers no religion has any good reason to be believed, and that leaves you with no religion (atheism).
MystryBox 1 day ago
Indeed, I think that IS the best argument. Although theamazingatheist's lunos rant is funnier.
medexamtoolsdotcom 4 days ago
Well sorry, it doesn't work for me.
nilhav 5 days ago
I like the way you think. I too am an atheist and I understand and respect where you're trying to come from. The problem I foresee in this hypothetical situation is that the "theist" whom you're presenting the cards to, their "rationalizations" against other religions would likely fall into the realm of "because the religion I believe/know to be true doesn't say that". It would become another futile endeavor, drowned in compartmentalized, circular reasoning and would never reach conclusion.
BiggestOfDaddies 6 days ago
Comment removed
FXNorm 6 days ago
@fatrob1711, what we have here is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Prior to your initial assertion you must define what a god is, what maximally powerful is, and support your assertion that a god is possible. You're making a claim, so the burden is yours to prove it.
AtheistJohn 6 days ago
@AtheistJohn Yes, God is the maximum conceivable being, with great making properties... he is the greatest possible being. These great making properties would include omnipotence, omniscience, necessity, benovlence, omnipresence, that makes something infintely great.. There's my claim, the logical proof was underneath, and that, by the way, is not the only argument, but it's enough to get us started
fatrob1711 6 days ago
Have you ever tried praying?
pointzeroblack 1 week ago
@pointzeroblack yeah, I prayed every day for the 1st half of my life or so. It didn't make god exist.
MystryBox 6 days ago
I don't think you're likely to get a Theist to play this game because:
A. They know they're on thin ice when it comes to forming a reasonable case and
B. They don't CARE about evidence, they're happy living in lala land.
warren52nz 1 week ago
Ha, I stopped at 0:15. I'm not looking for the best argument for "lacking belief in God" as agnostics also "lack belief in God". It seems to me that to go by this definition you have to maintain that agnosticism does not exist and instead comes under the definition of atheism. I'd also like to point out that simply "lacking belief" is NOT a position on the subject. It instead describes a psychological state and does nothing to describe your views on whether God exists or not.
False definition.
tomdenman 1 week ago
@tomdenman lol, you're determined to define atheism in a completely wrong way. An atheist is simply not a theist. That's what the word-atheist means. Define theist and an atheist is NOT that. So if an theist is someone that has a positive belief in god, an atheist lacks that postive belief in gods. Period. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's what an atheist actually is.
MystryBox 1 week ago
Beliefs and ideas are harmless. The only thing we have to worry about is actions. I'm totally fine with the idea of religion, I just have a problem with people doing irrational things in the name of it.
VDeath10 1 week ago
atheism is one of the weakest beliefs in existence, any rational person could refute it in their sleep. Your argument, in fairness doesn't stand up. I respect that, unlike many internet atheists, you have an argument, but this argument is fairly easily refutable as I'm sure you know
fatrob1711 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 alright, then refute it, please.
BillysCrystals 1 week ago
@BillysCrystals Sure, although I hope that you can see it already. There is good evidence for the existence of a Christian God, as opposed to an elephant god who drinks milk, and i find the evidence For a trinitarian, omnipotent, Omniscient God compelling, and sufficient, and I find the arguments against it insufficient
fatrob1711 1 week ago
@BillysCrystals what i mean by that is that is that the GOd I believe in is not the same as the other ones, they're different, and this is why I think Christianity is the most plausible worldview, it's not just picking from a deck of cards
fatrob1711 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 Okay, I think I see what you're saying. So suppose that, as a young child, you were indoctrinated into Islam rather than Christianity, do you think that you might then find Islam more compelling than Christianity? Another question, if you don't mind me picking your brain: When you said "There is good evidence for the existence of a Christian God," were you referring more to extant historical accounts or to something else?
BillysCrystals 1 week ago
@BillysCrystals Fair enough.I think that, if you apply modal logic (I'm stealing plantinga's form of the ontological argument here) If God is possible, then God exists... (I can discuss this in greater detail if you'd like)and I believe God is possible. If God exists then as the greatest conceivable being, then he must have great making qualities, including being all loving. But to be all loving, and to have existed forever... he must have more than one part... this leads me to a trinitarian God
fatrob1711 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 "If God is possible, then God exists..." How is this if-then statement different than "If Unicorns are possible, then Unicorns exist..."? Secondly, why would God have to tell us the truth, or be loving?
BillysCrystals 1 week ago
@BillysCrystals i'll message you...i wouldn't be able to discuss it in 500 words
fatrob1711 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 Okay thanks. I may not be able to reply until much later; I'm headed to the library to study now. Talk to you soon.
BillysCrystals 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 That doesn't make since.Just cause something is possible does not mean it exists.Is it possible that ill be the guy that will save someone from a burning building.Yeah but it hasent happend and im 36 so i dont think that ill be that guy.just because you say its possible dont make it exist.
lelyngaunt 6 days ago
@lelyngaunt ok, I'm gonna try and explain it as best as I can, this may take a few threads.
When philosophers talk about possible worlds, they don't mean other planets, they mean alternate realities, where something could exist. These things could either be necessary (like the number 3, which exists in all possible worlds), Contingent (exist in one or more, but not all worlds like unicorns, which are possible, and humans too) or impossible,(they exist in no possible world... like a round square)
fatrob1711 6 days ago
@lelyngaunt So when we talk about God, we're talking about the greatest conceivable being, he would have great making qualities, that'd make him great... he would be all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, and he would as the GREATEST conceivable being, be necessary... if there was a greater conceivable being, that'd be God. SO the argument goes something like this: (I'll put it in my third comment)
fatrob1711 6 days ago
@lelyngaunt
1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists
2) therefore, if it is possible that a maximally great being exist, he exists in at least one possible world
3)If a maximally great being exists in the one possible world, then by being necessary, he exists in ALL possible worlds,
4)therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world
5) therefore a maximally great being exists
6)therefore God exists
fatrob1711 6 days ago
@fatrob1711 I'm probably walking into a troll here, but.
1 - True, 2 - If there are multiple worlds, it is possible that he exists in one. You cannot argue for it being probable as you know nothing about these worlds. 3 - By being necessary? Define this please. Can you prove that he exists in one of these possible worlds - can you prove that the possible worlds exist?
You argument never actually connects to reality, and you cannot prove that this maximal entity is God.
PUBalanceTeam 2 days ago
@PUBalanceTeam It could be a mystical space hippo that lives in a clam shell - and you could never say otherwise.
Let's use the topic of the video - if I were to posit Thor, or Space Hippos, or High-Tech Light Speed Rhinos as this 'maximally great being' - how would you go about disproving them?
PUBalanceTeam 2 days ago
@PUBalanceTeam if something is possible...then they exist in a different possible world. That is, by definition, what it means. If something is necessary, then they live in ALL possible worlds, like the number 7 for example. If something is impossible, like a 4 sided sqquare, then it exists in no possible world. By a maximally great being..e.g God, this being has all great making qualities..including being necessary. Does this help? :)
fatrob1711 2 days ago
@fatrob1711 I still see 3 gaps
1. You're making a huge leap from "Something's possible, therefore it exists in a different world". The 2nd half of that has to be *proven*, not asserted. You need to prove the possible world (and entity) exist.
2. You must prove that the entity has this characteristic of being "necessary". Can you prove that a God in a different world MUST exist in this one?
3. The third leap as I said is the leap between "Maximal being -> God". It could be Allah or Thor, etc..
PUBalanceTeam 2 days ago
@PUBalanceTeam
1) I didn't say different world, they're called possible worlds... they're completely different things.
2) necessity is a great making quality. If something has all the great making qualities, that makes it maximally great, it'd be necessity, rather than contingency...in the same way that it'd be all-powerful instead of partially powerful
3) God, is, by definition, the maximally great being..if anything were greater, that'd be God. This isn't a case for the Christian God. Just God
fatrob1711 1 day ago
@fatrob1711 On 2 and 3, I do not agree with either definition. Though this is easily remedied by replacing God with "A form X, with the trait of being completely omni-present across all Universes" I think we can both agree on that, since that is the core what your argument can prove.
Your justification for point 1 is not nearly enough to redeem the argument. For your logic to be valid, you need to prove the existence of this possible world. The existence of "X" is completely dependent on this.
PUBalanceTeam 1 day ago
@PUBalanceTeam
1 is just philosophy... by saying something exists in a possible world... it's just saying it's possible. I don't see why I have to argue for this... no one disagrees with that...it's philosophy(?)
ANd well yes, when I talk about God, I am talking about the greatest conceivable being.. and this is the case I'm arguing for...
fatrob1711 1 day ago
@fatrob1711 My problem is that you're trying to use something that may or may not exist - to prove that something else exists.
Obviously this is flawed unless you can prove that the possible world in question exists.
PUBalanceTeam 1 day ago
@fatrob1711 No, you're conflating possibility with reality. Is it impossible for there to be a "crazy, meatball shitting, laser-gun wielding breed of lizard dogs"? Of course, it's not impossible. Does that mean you should profess your agnosticism for said lizard dogs?
Possibility is, by definition, a lack of impossibility. However, that does not make it reality. If you want to play philosopher with this kind of logic, go do it on a Harry Potter fan-fic site.
paradigmentropy 7 hours ago
@lelyngaunt It may surprise you, but points 2-6 go fairly unrefuted. Skeptics and theists alike agree that, if God is possible then God exists. The only point that has any problem is point one, and therefore it is up to you to decide, is God possible? It's your choice, but if you assert that God is impossible, then it's up to you to make a case for it. I hope this helps
fatrob1711 6 days ago
@fatrob1711 now your talking about faith and thats not a debate i can when.if you feel something inside so strongly then i will never change your mind.just like i have an logical mind and you will never change mine for you will never have real proof just blind faith
lelyngaunt 6 days ago
@lelyngaunt that's simply not true... I've given you a logical case for God's existence. There is only one assumption (step one) but you need to give an argument as to why I'm wrong, as possibility is a default position to take, God existing just follows on from the premises. If you have a logical mind...show where my argument is wrong, please :)
fatrob1711 6 days ago
@fatrob1711 no you have not you gave me your faith that there is a god.like i said i cant use logic agiant faith.Just cause you say theres a god is not proof because we dont have answers the ones you make up doesnt mean its true.As long an your not opened minded about a debt faith takes over and then nothing can be disscussed
lelyngaunt 5 days ago
@lelyngaunt what??? I gave you a claim with 6 steps, using modal logic, so unless you haven't seen it (if not, it's another page in) I'm just going to assume that you're sticking your fingers in your ears, ignoring logic and reason.. and just believing what you want to believe.... Man... I thought Christians were accused of being irrational. When you want to have a reasoned discussion about this.. let me know
fatrob1711 5 days ago
@BillysCrystals so that.... and of course, I find the historical evidence compelling too, including the evidence for Jesus. As for you question 1... maybe. But this is just the genetic fallacy, and doesn't show Christianity to be false. Had i been brought up in ancient greece, I may be brought up to have think that the earth was flat, but does that mean that my current belief that the earth is spherical is unjustified?But thanks for the questions, that was nice, and feel free to 'pick' away :)
fatrob1711 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 atheism isn't a a "weak belief." It's not a belief at all, it's the lack of belief (theistic belief specifically). It's difficult to take someone seriously who doesn't seem to understand the basics of the subject he's talking about.
MystryBox 1 week ago
@MystryBox you're wrong, the standard belief of atheism is the belief that God does not exist, the REVISED definition of atheism, used by many modern atheists (who realise that they can't get a foothold in, let alone win the argument with this) say that it is just a lack of belief, which puts them in the same position as all babies, dogs, and teaspoons, none of which have given any thought to the matter. But whether it's atheism or 'atheism', you need arguments, and this one isn't convincing.
fatrob1711 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 I disagree. You're free to go find someone else to argue with, but if you're going to discuss with me you'll have to understand and accept how I define atheist. I'm not going to let you define my position. And I'll return the favor and not define theists as being turnips or something else wrong.
MystryBox 1 week ago
@MystryBox you're welcome to believe what you believe, I'm not stopping you. But when you say to me that I dont' understand the basics of the subject, then I'm perfectly entitled to rebut.. I apologise if I have seemed rude at all, I genuinely don't mean it, but, like I said, the standard definition still stands, and if you wish to believe differently, then that's cool...but either way, you have to understand that people believe what they believe not just by randomly picking, but by evidence.
fatrob1711 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 you DON'T understand the basics of atheism. You define atheism in a way you can attack it as a straw man like some sort of useless internet troll rather than how people that are actually atheist define it. I'm sure you'd rather atheism was defined as a positive belief as it makes it a faith-based thing like theism (and thus irrational and easy to attack), however that's not how most atheists actually think about atheism. Atheism is non-theism, period.
MystryBox 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 if you want to discuss with atheists try actually listening to them rather than trying to tell them INCORRECTLY what their position is. I mean how rude (and ignorant!) can you get?!?
MystryBox 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 Every now and again someone like you pops up.... someone who got their definition of atheist from church along with some prefab arguments against that incorrect definition. Then you go find real atheists to "debate" and discover your "arguments" don't work because they don't define atheism in the narrow and incorrect way your church does. So then you're forced into trying to tell them their own position isn't what they say it is! What a pointless waste of everyone's time
MystryBox 1 week ago
@MystryBox Dude, I just told you, I'm not arguing about what you believe, you're entitled to believe what you want, and it's not my place to judge, I'm just saying what the encyclopaedia of philosophy says it is, and what the revised version is... but let me reiterate, I'm happy to discuss either way, the arguments for God are more compelling whether you don't believe in God, or whether you believe God doesn't exist, it's cool either way...
fatrob1711 1 week ago
@fatrob1711 excuse me, you most certainly were attempting to redefine my position on this subject for me. It's good that you're now apparently backing off that rather obnoxious way to "discuss." I have no idea how some particular encyclopedia or dictionary or whatever defines something. I've examined many definitions in having this discussion over the years and some have it correct and some have it wrong. I go by my definition which after a lot of examination I feel is correct.
MystryBox 6 days ago
@MystryBox You're absolutely right, sadly, many definitions are subjective, and we may disagree on that... personally, it doesn't matter to me either way... but, in that circumstance, for you to tell me that I "don't know what I'm talking about" because we read from different definitions is very unfair. When you say that you're an atheist, I believe you. When you say that you lack belief in God, I believe you too... does that help?
fatrob1711 6 days ago
@fatrob1711 I appreciate the change in tone. However I still say you're using an outdated, theist-created definition for atheist that is not useful in actual discussion with an atheist. It fails to properly classify most atheists, doesn't actually let you communicate with atheists in a meaningful way, and is just simply wrong. Of course if all you're looking for is a way to trivially dismiss a strawman of "atheism" then it might work for that, but not on my videos.
MystryBox 6 days ago
@MystryBox not at all, I can happily discuss either viewpoint, no strawmen at all
fatrob1711 6 days ago
@fatrob1711 I don't make the claim no gods exist and it's not a viewpoint I defend.
MystryBox 6 days ago
@fatrob1711 Refute away fatso
Talendiem 1 week ago
This still doesnt disprove God in any way
pointzeroblack 1 week ago
@pointzeroblack The video argues against religion, not god. You can't really disprove god anyway... not that that means much as you can't disprove unicorns or elves either.
MystryBox 1 week ago
@MystryBox Thats what i always say to my theist friends when they ask me why i dont believe in god. i say "if you can give me a convincing argument as to why god is more believable than fairies or unicorns or leprechauns or any other fairy tale creature, then ill listen to you." and they never can give me an answer to that. They just stare at me blankly for a couple seconds, trying to find a flaw in my argument, and when they realize they cant, they just drop it.
HaloFreak2323 1 week ago
This only works if they do actually use logic to rationally dismiss the other religions and if they don't say what most christians I know say, "That religion is of a false God."
I like to stick to the question of, why does god deserves my worship? When you get down to it, punishment for who you are, bribery, intimidation, racism, sexism, ect. isn't out weighed by the fact it "loves" me. God is more like a pimp or the mafia, and is not worthy of my worship. So even if it's real, religion is shit.
SatanistSin 1 week ago
MystryBox, you underestimate the shallow thinking of the religious. For example, a Christian will simply write: "This is god is false because he isn't Jesus." on the back of every index card until he reaches his own. The best argument against intelligent design is still its circular reasoning, in my opinion. If everything has to have a creator, who created "god", and who created the "god" who created "god", etc., etc.?
zegakai 1 week ago
I posit that the multiverse is eternal and our universe is simply one of many that spontaneously got birthed along with an infinite others only to be killed off along with infinite more. At any instance in time, an infinite Big Bangs are occuring along with an infinite "heat deaths". For every Earth that has life, 10^40 Earths do not (an infinitesimally small number next to infinity).
zegakai 1 week ago
Why do we all still care who believes in what? Athiest, thiest, pastafarian. Seriously guys. Let's just believe to ourselves? Maybe not try to convert people?
i1love1cats 1 week ago
@i1love1cats I wouldn't care except many people (most?) use their religious beliefs as an excuse to demonize, suppress, murder, or otherwise negatively effect the lives of others in minor to major ways. So given how much effect religion has in our world and how little evidence those religions have, my question is how can anyone NOT care who believes what?
MystryBox 1 week ago 2
@MystryBox That, I can agree with. Unfortunately though, atheism is often used in a similarly damaging fashion, which leads me to believe we must focus on the damage done, and not the specific religion(s), or lack there of.
i1love1cats 1 week ago
@i1love1cats atheism isn't a religion. It's not something, it's the lack of something (specifically theism). It has no beliefs nor creeds. As such it's difficult to use as you say. It's why there are no atheist churches nor really any significant atheist groups.
MystryBox 1 week ago 2
@i1love1cats "Let's just believe to ourselves? Maybe not try to convert people?"
The problem is that it's a scriptural mandate that Christians must try to convert others. That's the built-in virus that ensures a "successful" religion will be propagated. Religions lacking this built-in mechanism die within a few generations.
WithoutGods 1 week ago
Comment removed
RenzoGames 1 week ago
@i1love1cats well if guy comes up to you and says he's had a vision in which god told him to go blow up a hospital or something... would you try to talk him out of it or let him believe it and possibly kill a lot of people?
RenzoGames 1 week ago
@RenzoGames That's fair. My point is that if a person's belief is harmless (Which I suppose is a definition that would change from person to person) it should be left alone.
i1love1cats 1 week ago
So bad it doesn't deserve even this many words.
Redo12able 1 week ago
Hey friend,
I have heard your argument many times before. I am a Christian, and I have discussed (and continue to discuss) the miracles that God has done in my life. I can HONESTLY answer that there is no other God but Jehovah, and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. How do I know? Not just by the fact that I have felt His presence - I have witnessed prayers answered in a marvelous fashion. I have heard His voice. I have seen Him in action - I am 100% convinced of Him.
DougPinson 1 week ago
@DougPinson But how do you respond to someone of another religion when they describe to you prayers to their gods that have been answered in a marvelous fashion? What about the recent hindu milk miracle? Are you suggesting that, while the miracles of others may have simple explanations, your miracles could have no possible explanation but divine intervention?
fergochan 1 week ago
But I do get the message of the video ... objective analysis of one's own beliefs is of critical importance ... I just don't think describing this exercise is the "best argument for atheism" because it's too easy for theists to dismiss, since it's only an academic exercise.
rossmetacraft 1 week ago
Imagining this test taking place is an interesting intellectual exercise, but I don't see how it can be called "The Best Argument for Atheism." It's too easy for theists to punch holes in ... they'll say "well, if I went through that stack of index cards, all the arguments I'd use to debunk the other religions would not be usable to debunk my own." They'd most likely be wrong, but since nobody is actually going to go through the actual exercise, they can get away with saying it.
rossmetacraft 1 week ago
@rossmetacraft that's why the video makes a point it's for people that are honest with themselves.
MystryBox 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MystryBox I certainly don't mean to suggest your video has no point. I just don't see it as a tool for arguing for atheism as the title suggests. It's too abstract and easy for religious folk to dismiss.
rossmetacraft 1 week ago
your own arugment can be used against yourself!
amazingathesist99 2 weeks ago
It is an interesting point you made... but you made a BIG assumption and an error from that assumption. Religion and faith are not equivilent. In fact, you compared religions via faith, but there was no comparisons of faiths.
Now, if "atheism" is not believing in religions, that's one thing. But as I hear it from others, "atheism' is not believing in a god. Your example doesn't describe the gods but the religions, making it a "stacked deck" and not a true test.
bsabruzzo 2 weeks ago
@bsabruzzo a lot of people, like you, seem to have problems with the title of the video or my approach... they never seem to address what the video is actually saying. I think that's because the video, for all it's flaws, is more or less correct.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MystryBox "they never seem to address what the video is actually saying"
What it is saying is that dogmatic idealogs all have something in common, a closed mind that betrays them when confronted.
If not exact, I'm close, I think.
But a flawed experiment can prove to be correct. If the definition of "atheism" is that there is no god, then the video is a failed proof.
bsabruzzo 2 weeks ago
@MystryBox If you were to do the same experiment using a definition of god, not the religious cannon, you'd get cards that are nearly identical except for a handful of variants.
Your video ends up being a good argument of skeptism of various religions, maybe even agnostisism.
Say I write down the definitions of each of the thousands of gods: more powerful than humans, live for hyper-extended times beyond conceivable by humans, etc.
Most people would agree on the existence of gods.
bsabruzzo 2 weeks ago
@bsabruzzo most people would also agree on the existence of ghosts and/or various supernatural beings that are unlikely to exist. It doesn't make them exist, it's just a common aspect of the human condition. The inescapable reality is despite what people might want to believe, nobody can actually show such beings exist.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
@MystryBox "The inescapable reality is despite what people might want to believe, nobody can actually show such beings exist."
You really should use the word "yet", if you are to be believes to be at all having an open and scientific mind.
After all, extra terrestrials and dark matter and quantum strings all have the same amount of evidence as ghosts and gods. The amount of serious research in the latter two is small compared to the former, however, because of dogmatic belief.
bsabruzzo 2 weeks ago
@bsabruzzo well, get to proving your theory. Wake me up if you succeed.
MystryBox 1 week ago
@MystryBox Sorry but an argument against faith/religion doesn't work against atheism as atheism isn't faith based nor a religion.
MystryBox 1 week ago
@bsabruzzo a lot of people, like you, seem to have problems with the title of the video or my approach... they never seem to address what the video is actually saying. I think that's because the video, for all it's flaws, is more or less correct.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
lol how about this.......how did mother mary get pregnant? Satan cause he is the O G of sleep creep. Think about it...
No1soriginal 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If there is no god and no satan...than shut the f*ck up
what are you going on about? If there is nothing than let it be nothing...
Atheism, isnt about no god its about arguing how there is no god...well if there is no god to you than shut the f*ck up...your arguments are pointless and neither you or god loving people prove anything
No1soriginal 2 weeks ago
All you did was make assertions without any defensible arguments for them. Try to defend your assertions friend............
rjones2000r 2 weeks ago
@rjones2000r I can't tell you why you doubt other religions and how that doubt can apply to your own faith. That's something everyone has to do for themselves, and as the video points out, most aren't honest enough about the issue to do that.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago 6
One thing I don't think is being considered here--different religions contain falsifiable historical and scientific information. They make specific claims, that, if proven incorrect--reduce the reasonableness of said religion. IE: If the Bible claims X, and X is proven to not match up with historical/scientific data, it can be proven false. If it does line up with X, then the credibility is further established.
NessFK 2 weeks ago
@NessFK sure, and try to nail down those supposedly falsifiable bits of religion with any believer and you'll quickly find out they have well worn dodges. That's why a direct attack of religion doesn't work well... the believer themselves have to decide to be honestly skeptical of their own views, and you can't force anyone to do that.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago 8
Only a few religions have survived from antiquity. The others have lost the favor of mankind. Much like scientific theories. Many theories have fallen into irrelevance and some have survived. Would you say, therefore, that ALL scientific theories are irrelevant?
lourak 2 weeks ago
@lourak scientific theories are replaced with better ones and/or disproven. This is not the case with religion. Your analogy doesn't make sense, or am I misunderstanding?
Floortjahh 2 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Well - Your statement, for the most part seems reasonable. You are however, missing the point, I think. My claim is quite limited, actually. Just as many religions of the past are no longer practiced, for whatever reason, so too, have many scientific theories been abandoned or superseded. You would not say that the surviving theories, like the abandoned ones, are irrelevant or not true. The religions that survive, quite simply, have been "selected for" if you will.
lourak 2 weeks ago
@lourak your question is completely flawed. The truth of a religion or scientific theory is not based on how popular it is. Nor does my video make any appeals to argument from popularity.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
@MystryBox I don't disagree with the tenor of your comment. And while it may be true, in many cases, that truth is not won in a popularity contest - it is also true, in most cases, that popularity does not disprove the validity or utility of an idea, practice or tradition. I don't think this is a controversial point. Going further, now - of course, we would need to look at the supports, philosophically, that religion enjoys, in order to asses its epistemic status.
lourak 2 weeks ago
@lourak You examine the "epistemic status" of religion if you want (or any of the laundry list of nonsense that theists use as obfuscation). I'm content to simply note that no revealed religion can provide decent support for the highly unlikely claims they make.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
@MystryBox Here, again, your claims our overly broad and presumptuous. Religion, may or may not be true - but I think those that present their answer with the kind of bravado that I see in your presentation, are not in a position to tutor the masses on this most serious and consequential subject - especially with the kind of philosophical sophomorism that is common in Youtube clips such as your own. You can have the last word...
lourak 2 weeks ago
@lourak So now you're attacking my presentation style? Again you offer no content to actually respond to. What do you want me to say? I'm impressed by your multisyllabic words even if they aren't actually saying much relevant?
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
thought you would actually have something interesting to say but you just come up with some stupid thing that has no relevance to a certain religion. I believe in the Bible because of it details and prophecies and wisdom. Thanks for making athiests look even more stupid
flaaressence 2 weeks ago
@flaaressence see my video "Does Prophecy Prove Christianity?" for my view of the supposed "prophecies" in the bible. That book is not worthy of your time.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
@flaaressence
haha Amen to that my brother
may all glory be to Jesus Christ
AkshayDavid1 2 weeks ago
@flaaressence lol, read on wikipedia or watch on youtube all the great prophecies that the quaran has to offer :) oh wait...you're able to rationally dismiss those ones...
raramstad 2 weeks ago
Whenever Christians/Catholics say something about god or anything related to the religion, put what book in the Bible you found it please.
MegaWarsaw 2 weeks ago
I believe the evidence that atheists believe proves god doesn't exist...is the fact that those who believe in him cannot rationally prove he does exist. The evidence is that they have no evidence themselves.
infinite2679 2 weeks ago
Christians are so gay!!!
AustriaRollerblading 2 weeks ago 2
Very true.
atheismrocks71 2 weeks ago
Problem...?
internetwarrior666 3 weeks ago
A nice argument but in my opinion atheism isnt that you dont belive in God its just that enough evidence hasnt been produced(forget the "fact" that it never will)to prove the existence of God. This seems to be to be absolute logic and i cant see how anyone can have a problem with this. . . .
dixon97a 3 weeks ago
A good idea in theory, but it relies on all theists being dismissive of other belief systems, which just is not the case.
Part of having your own set of beliefs surely involves being open to the ideas involving respecting the beliefs of others. Granted, for a lot of people out there, this is not the case and they do blindly dismiss the beliefs of others. However that is not a key trait of all theists, and as such, I do feel there is a slight flaw in what is otherwise an interesting argument.
TheApple176 3 weeks ago
@TheApple176 it's irrelevant if you "respect" other beliefs. The fact is you don't believe them. You can't because they logically conflict with your own. You make a choice what to believe and why. All I'm doing is trying to force you to examine that choice you make and to apply the same critical eye to your own beliefs. Instead you try to dodge and avoid such thinking. The reason why is because the video is right.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
@MystryBox I never said I was a theist. I just pointed out where I felt there was a problem with this argument.
However, let's look at this idea of other beliefs logically conflicting with your own. That means that the reasons that kept appearing on the back of all the cards would all come down to "I do not believe this as this contradicts what I believe" (after all, when dealing with faith, it's hard to rigorously disprove anything). Then finally that then cannot be applied to your own belief.
TheApple176 3 weeks ago
@TheApple176 in my reply videos I respond to that point. In short it's simply not a valid argument to say you don't believe something because it's not what you believe. Of course that is all that theists do, but it's not a valid reason. It's just a statement of what you believe. If you don't examine the WHY you're not doing what the video asks of you. You're not honest.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
@MystryBox 'you don't believe something because it's not what you believe'- Actually this is close to my first point, though I could have been clearer. And there lies the problem; many theists are aware of how open their own beliefs require them to be, and so understand how open others have to be about their own beliefs.
Basically, I suppose that while this can be applied to many theists, I don't feel ALL theists would carry out the first steps of this argument, and so it won't always work.
TheApple176 3 weeks ago
@TheApple176 I agree with you most theists won't do this. But that's not a flaw of the argument, it's a flaw with the theist. Their religion trains them well to NOT think critically about their beliefs. That's why this video is presented as a trick--to trick the theist into thinking how they are trained not to think.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
@MystryBox I suppose put that way I do actually quite like the trick. If not as an argument for atheism, but instead as a way to get people to think more openly about why they hold their beliefs, rather than just going along with it. After all, what you've call a flaw with the theist, is something I personally would like to see more often. And in that case, I suppose this is actually a rather clever way of challenging something that I see as one of the worst flaws in many theists.
TheApple176 3 weeks ago
@TheApple176 right, it's not actually an argument for atheism at all. The title is more to draw the theist than to be accurate.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
shit explanation of his own argument
freakydonkey12 3 weeks ago
how can one that says " I'm more concerned with believing what is actually true, not what I want. " look up into the sky and say that all that came from a big explosion, how could all the dna that sequenced for life be in such an order that life comes about from jst an explosion. if a printing presses has an explosion a dictionary doesnt turn up..wen an explosion occurs things go frm good to bad. isnt there a law in science stating that things go from order to disorder? wat bout the big bang?
AkshayDavid1 3 weeks ago
@AkshayDavid1 so if you don't think things like dna came into being by natural processes but were intelligently designed. What is the cause of the intelligent designer? You think you're explaining something by appealing to an explanation that suffers from the same problem you're trying to explain? Sorry, fail.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
@MystryBox
haha you fool, "what is the cause of the intelligent designer?" He is jst no intelligent designer, He is God, doesnt need a cause, God is there weather you like it or not. And He has given sinful creatures like me and you the opportunity to know Him..God, all powerful being who created all things. Your just missing out on the opportunity by being such a fool in trying to disprove God, "the fool has said in his here there is no God" Psalms 14:1
how foolish can people get man seriously
AkshayDavid1 3 weeks ago
@AkshayDavid1 I see so the universe and us need a designer as an explanation. But your designer doesn't. So you just stop applying your own reasoning when it suits you, lol.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
@MystryBox
I see your point mate but you gota understand that God does not need a cause, He was always there never absent, ever present...its hard for a physical mind to comprehended this, this is where the spiritual realm come in and when this realm is opened by God it all makes sense,,,the things i speak of sounds like foolishness to you i know, only the Holy Spirit can change that and i pray that He will
God bless brother
AkshayDavid1 2 weeks ago
@AkshayDavid1 I see your point mate but you gota understand that nature does not need a cause. It's always there never absent, ever present. See I can make blind assertions too. So if you're going to stick by the claim that some things can just exist without needing an explanation then you have no logical basis to say the nature we observe needs a creator. See how that works? Consistency--look into it.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
@AkshayDavid1 Alright, so out of all the theories of how the universe came to be none of them can possibly be true, because something cannot come from nothing, but when it comes to god, he is there just because he is and defies the rule you are trying to use against us? You are pathetic and unintelligent to say the very least.
aDislikeBot 2 weeks ago
@aDislikeBot
God did not come frm nothing, He was always there, it isnt compensable to a mind that is spiritually dead...so no matter what I say it just sound like foolishness to you cos u wont be able to understand till you spiritual eyes are opened and you can see what has always been there
AkshayDavid1 2 weeks ago
@AkshayDavid1 So whats the difference between you and me that means that your "spiritual eyes" have been opened? I imagine it is years of your parents forcing it into your head.
aDislikeBot 2 weeks ago
@aDislikeBot
haha not so my parents never forced me into thiss, they did encourage me tho because they have found the Truth and their greatest joy is to guide their children in finding the Truth also
Now that I know the Truth I will stand up for it and will try in my best efforts to help all the people around me that i know and also those random people like you that iv never met...hope you also enter a relationship with your Maker
God bless brother
AkshayDavid1 2 weeks ago
@AkshayDavid1 When you grow up you will realise your errors don't worry.
aDislikeBot 2 weeks ago
@aDislikeBot
hehe na mate iv found the Truth and i know beyond a shadow of doubt that it is certainly the Truth
AkshayDavid1 2 weeks ago
@aDislikeBot Who's to say the universe is the begging of time, space and matter? The universe isn't the answer to this argument. God live outside of time, matter and space If there is such a thing. If he does exist exist outside of these factors, who cares if there is a God or not? Most people can accept the fact that he doesn't interfer with the world anyways xD I personally believe the factors alwars have existed. -shrug- No Point in agruing with theists. They think God can do anything.
supermanthattay 2 weeks ago
Which is something that you really can't disprove since you aren't me and don't have any idea what I have experienced. So, the agnostic is in a much better position than you are with your stack of index cards that (we are suppose to take on faith that you have covered all bases). At least the agnostic can say that he or she cannot really know what I have experienced while you claim with your mythical deck of cards you can.
clayk3nt 3 weeks ago
@clayk3nt yes, I can't disprove the voices in your head. lol.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
Fourth, you seem to think that because I have dismissed a lot of the previous cards that I am an atheist like you. Wrong. You gloat that when I encounter the cards about my beliefs that you previously lied about not being there (= you are a liar) I become a hypocrite for not continuing with my "atheism" you are forgetting about my existential experience with the God that I believe in. Continued...
clayk3nt 3 weeks ago
@clayk3nt you mean the experience with the voices in your head? lol.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
This is not the best argument. Nor it is it the best ever. First, you preface it with theists already knowing your argument which we dismiss. I have never heard of your argument before so, your argument loses there. Second, you seem to demand a lot of things up front, for example that you have this stack of cards that you claim you have. Third, just because I dismiss the previous cards doesn't make me an atheist like you. Continued....
clayk3nt 3 weeks ago
@clayk3nt the video says IN MY OPINION. I'm entitled to my opinion. If you want to have a different opinion (and in this case and incorrect one, lol), go ahead.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
this argument assumes i dismiss all beliefs except my own, hence the lack of acceptance, which i do not lack, but i need more than this, argument, this argument is well to those who are blind, to realize that all religions are true, which most ppl today accept, just like me, i see it as an entity which will morph to what i see it as, hence why some believed in gods, and theirs in god, plus why would ppl from their creation, believe in divinity if it did not exist or does not exist?
MsMi321 3 weeks ago
Hey MystryBox, just wanted to say, good video. I like the way you used Stephen Roberts quote to articulate your point. I'm not an atheist, closer to an agnostic, but I've used the same argument with people I know.
mbluemyst 3 weeks ago
@mbluemyst thanks for the kind words. And I'm an agnostic too as well as an atheist.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
This video is completely retarded....Everything you just said, the very point of your argument or "trick" can apply to both you and the other person. An atheist does not turn a blind eye to anything they believe, they use facts and logic to support what can be proven, or what cannot. You have proven nothing except for how easily most religions contradict themselves.
infinite2679 3 weeks ago
@infinite2679 Atheism isn't a religious belief or faith, it's the absence of religious belief or faith. If you think the technique in the video can argue against belief via faith and against lack of faith, you'll have to explain how because I don't see it.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
@MystryBox i meant argumentatively, what he was saying in the video can easily be used against him.
infinite2679 3 weeks ago
@infinite2679 I claim it cannot be used against me. If you disagaree, try and use it against me.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
@MystryBox i honestly do not want to take the time to type it out...i care for my own beliefs, not that of others. But i appreciate your interest in my comment, if you watch this video again you will see that my comment does contain some truth in it that i believe we can all agree on.
infinite2679 3 weeks ago
@infinite2679 if you bothered to take the time to type it out you'd discover you're wrong. An argument against faith isn't likely to apply to the absence of faith. They are very different things. Atheism is not a religion, it is the lack of religion.
MystryBox 3 weeks ago
@MystryBox Alright look, he is assuming the other person has beliefs and god and that through the stack of cards he has been tricked by his own cards being the similar to all the others in the way they cannot be proven. You could say literally the exact same thing to him, for he believes in his own cards and rationally dismisses all these others, when they all cannot be proven.
And when it comes to Atheists it is an idea in which all other current beliefs are wrong and pointless
infinite2679 2 weeks ago
@infinite2679 I'm lost. Exactly what is an item of "faith" that would exist on an index card representing an "atheist belief" that the atheist would have argued against in dismissing other religions? It seems to me that all the arguments an atheist has against other faiths is WHY they are an atheist in the first place. They don't argue against atheism by examining the problems of other faiths, they argue FOR atheism by doing that.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
@MystryBox i think you just lost me as well....
infinite2679 2 weeks ago
@MystryBox an atheist usually believes in what can only be proven logically...and you can put that on a t-shirt and sell it. Thank you for your intense curiosity, next time look into for yourself.
infinite2679 2 weeks ago
@infinite2679 I agree with mysterybox you need to explain yourself.
Lacoux 3 weeks ago
@ steriomind
So r u atheist or what n if u don't believe in Christianity then u should know that it is the only religion that historical documents and geographical evidence has supported
jdsenisse 4 weeks ago
Want answers proving CHRISTIANITY IS A HOAX? go here exposingchristianity dotcom this is from satanic points of views. Try to understand every road possible before chosing one of the biggest part of your life.
Steriomind 4 weeks ago
I think this would be a fascinating exercise to actually do. YES, it'd take forever to complete, but at the end of it, it'd be very hard to continue the white knuckle grip on xtianity or ANY religion for that matter. Thanks for posting.
PoeticLisence62 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well I almost made it through the first 30 seconds, but his guy is so freekin boring, so I was not able to ascertain, if he is a Theist, Athiest, or Muslim,
604maximus12 1 month ago
The mistake Athiests make is Thinking that Different religions believe in different Gods. There is one. Religions are stories to get to the same conclusion.
tatanosmusic1125 1 month ago
@tatanosmusic1125 Erm .. I don't know how to put it, but I think Hinduism has a wide variety of Gods, and I think you'd offend muslims and christians equally by saying their Gods are One.
KonsaiAsTai 4 weeks ago
If evidence for evolution is overwhelming why didn’t you provide any? It’s because there isn’t any.
TheChurchmouse15 1 month ago
@TheChurchmouse15 That was painful. On behalf of people who think. Facepalm. Go read a book, and no, not that one..
majinbuu1307 4 weeks ago
@majinbuu1307 I’ve recently met a very nice Atheist that happens to know a great deal about the bible. For that I give him credit. At least he’s bothered to read and learn what it is he is rejecting. It’s an important subject the existence of God. I hope everyone of you takes the matter seriously, and researches the arguments for and against. Take care
TheChurchmouse15 4 weeks ago
The problem with that reasoning, is your assuming the Christian God can be proven wrong. I’ve never encountered it. Most Atheists self-indoctrinate. Meaning they only read Atheist material. They never study the counter arguments for God. Most Atheists have made up minds, and never bother with all the evidence for the Bible and creation. Now you can all call me stupid and say other nasty things. Which is a typical response. By the way Atheism is a religion unto itself.
TheChurchmouse15 1 month ago
@TheChurchmouse15 Fact, logic, observation, measurement, science is not religion buddy. Sorry.
damnedcarrot 1 month ago
There is no proof in science that supports evolution. It's all based on theory. Give me some solid proof please. If you believe a theory it's religion. Atheism is a religion. Have you ever taken the time to watch a creationist refute of evolution? You guys have no proof man, your so called science proving things is riddled with fakes, fraud, and theory
TheChurchmouse15 1 month ago
@TheChurchmouse15 Whatever sinks your boat. Evidence of evolution is overwhelming. Try reading something other than the bible and get educated. I realise arguing with you is completely pointless, so enjoy your life in ignorance, just stay out of politics and i don't care.
damnedcarrot 1 month ago
@TheChurchmouse15 It's all based on theory? Lol. oh man, you sir win the internet. Darwin is facepalming himself in his grave. And read up on galapagos islands where evolution is taking place RIGHT NOW and has been documented since darwin. Same species put on two seperate islands started evolving in different ways to adapt to the new surroundings. Do some research. You scare me bro, you scare me. Oh and when 2012 comes have fun blabbering in tongues expecting to die while I go sledding
majinbuu1307 4 weeks ago
@majinbuu1307 What you mention above is called micro evolution, and the bible supports that. Did you know that? Kinds make kinds read Genesis. I’m not a dude, and I don’t think the world is ending in 2012. As far as Atheism being a religion. You have leaders, books, a symbol, evangelize, and accept donations. How are you different than a religion?
TheChurchmouse15 4 weeks ago