New internet law: The side of the debate that resorts to epistemological bullshitting is the side with the obviously weaker position. I see it all the time, especially from theists.
Theres a fundamental logical problem with trying to GET evidence for the "supernatural". Because of the causal nature of reality, any evidential manifestation of "supernatural" activity would be seen as a "real" physical phenomena, and in no way shape or form could possibly be justified as "supernatural".
For instance, every once in a while it will rain frogs or fish somewhere in the world - It's only a matter of time before something is explained as "natural".
There is another issue for many of us who are believers: the imperial notion that Fundamentalists Christianity has the right to tell governments how to govern and society how to think. That is a genuine danger in ALL religion, and I do criticise it publicly.
ok then with Jack fight fire with fire until the human thought process switches on in his head and his brain will be forced to step back and look at the situation as a whole.
Funny enough... deep down... they know better. But they are drowning in dogma.... daily... so much so that rationalizing with them IS impossible. It's not damn near or close to... it IS impossible.
My point is... and the bottom line should be... we (Atheists)... are not materializing any object or being... into this world. It is 100% up to the "believers" to provide sufficient evidence to support these outrageous claims.
its really not up to believers to prove God exists either, "dont put God to the test", in Romans i believe it says the ways of God will seem foolish to the wisdom of man. This explains the majority of atheists and science. The "Christians" u c on utube r dogmatic, n the realworld most dont really care and only believe as a culture, but a few truly follow God because they actually want to, not as a means of conformity or the afterlife, and in so have found inner peace
Well,first of all, a personal belief or opinion does not have to be proofed. If I say I believe in god and you ask me why,and I say why and you retort with I don agree and here is why, unless I assert with certainty against your argument,that I am correct, then no "logical proof" needs to be rendered. It is as it is said, Live and let live.
That's fine... as long as you don't care if anyone else believes what you do. It's when the person believes something and insists that everyone else should believe what they believe that proof has to be given.
Personally, I think that anyone who publicly states their opinion is automatically asking for useful criticism of their viewpoint by others. If you don't want to have to prove your opinions, don't state them in public. Stating an opinion and refusing to back it up is a cop out, imho.
All world views set up your circular logic circles. Christianity, Islam, Atheism. They're all the same in the end. "I'm right, you're wrong, go eat dirt." Once someone adopts a world view, they won't change it unless that world view stops adhering to what they believe to be true.
As a former Christian, I know what it's like to see past the bologna and see it for what it is, a book written by biggoted, racist, sexist slave owners that basically set the world up as a Patriarchal paradise. Bull.
I suggest you just call Jack deluded, and when he gets offended just claim that your 'framework' states 'Jack is deluded' and therefore is perfectly self-consistent.
Great video. Love the joke also. I must polish it up and use it on my friends to appear clever, than say I came up with it.
I don't even pay attention to Jack anymore. He is to big of a pussy for me to stomach. I would rather debate a hardcore unapologetic conservative Christian. At least than we can have a lively debate not some neutered postmodern game of running in circles and playing grab ass.
Jack is different than most Chistians...even though he does hold his beliefs no matter what anyone says....I can tell that he has listened to our side and has a basic understanding of our arguments where as most christians just out right plug their ears and yell la la la i can't hear you.
I don't know if people are aware that Jack has a mental disorder. No, he's not insane. He just cannot focus. In his first videos he talked about how he wasn't even able to stay up at work, how he blacks out, how he cannot follow long discussions etc.
I like your videos Peter, but I can seldom give you better than 4 stars. You tend to get into rant mode and lose the thread of your argument. On the other hand, I don't know if scripting & rehearsal would help.
It's unfortunate, but I automaticaly give channels like this 5 stars (unless I realy hate a particular video), I cant use the vote system normaly because I know vote bots attack atheists like this so I have to dilute it by giving 5 stars.
yep. the default of reality, which is the basis for the Null Hypothesis, is that nothing we think of is true until it can be validated with evidence.
you state something, assume it's wrong, and then try to see that it's wrong. if you don't see something consistent with your statement being wrong, then it must be at least in the direction of correctness.
actually... i should reword that a bit to avoid confusion...
if you "don't see something consistent with your statement being wrong" then you're seeing something.
if you're right in your assumption of being wrong then you see nothing. if your wrong in your assumption of being wrong then you see something and are closer to truth.
Ugh. Jack - another guy that believes that other people have to justify their unbelief in HIS positive assertion, when the ball's firmly in his court. -_-'
... and then, after demanding this, he begs the question by assuming that Christianity is the accurate, true answer without supporting that proposition either.
Seriously... I swear that most people have no clue about what is logical or not before spouting out about their beliefs being logical knowledge...
Furthermore, I love that people like Jack always appeal to the alleged internal consistency of Christianity. It's not that I don't agree with him that internal consistency is a value, but if Jack is going to play philosopher, I think he ought to justify that value, anyway. Why SHOULD a philosophy be internally consistent, Jack?
Additionally, I find it amusing that the apologists who speak most adamantly about internal consistency are incapable of being internally consistent within their own worldview. For example, most people in Jack's position deny the molecular evidence of evolution. But then if it was DNA evidence in a criminal case or a vaccine to fight the seasonal flu, they accept these things unconditionally.
Christians like Jack can't even do science consistently within their worldview.
The problem with people like Jack is not that he insists that people lay out an epistemic model. It's that he wants us to do it to refute his asinine belief system, and if we don't, he just assumes that he wins ahead of the actual game. And he does this fully assuming that atheism is itself a philosophy. Totally annoying.
People like this are not worth arguing with, and it's one of the reasons that I don't subscribe to Jack or Veritas or any of the other Christian armchair philosophers.
I have also gotten Jack's patterns down to. He will always go on the attack on atheism whenever his "christian framework" is threatened or challenged. As a result, Jack will never present this "christian framework" that he keeps on claiming is consistent. Most likely from the fear that atheists will successfully pick it apart.
Interesting. No matter how well you prove religious fundamentalists to be incorrect, they just refuse to acknowledge their own errors because they have fully convinced themselves that they are fully 100% right. Just can't get them to think and look outside their own world view. I guest that's what means to be a fanatic. More of an addict.
It sounds like you're describing is a defense mechanism.Perhaps after being driven from intellectual positions time after time he's come to a place where he thinks retreat is no longer possible.He may be in a position where he has to choose to either dig in like a tick and be paved over by progress or accept a view of reality( I know alternate definitions of the word are what's currently causing all this grief) that contradicts or is neutral to his current epistemological framework...plausible?
One can hold no beliefs in gods by evaluating god claims and finding them flawed. This does not require a detailed philosophical treatise on what they mean by the word reality. It only requires logical/scientific examination of the claims.
Tool, really? I love your vids but these relnut dolts do not hear a word. At least any rational words of reason. We cannot convince the brainwashed but, hey espouse the truth bro! Keep it flowing and you will help the smart doubters and show many the true light of science and free thought.
You gotta expect this crap from all christians whether they are that elegant or not. That's what it usually comes down to, arguments about epistemology. If atheists forget that then christians can get away with pulling these tricks.
Your right Peter, we claim what can be tested and proven well dogma claims grandiose and simplicity, kind of an oxymoron.
Most of the hard line religious people are almost always in defense well they attempt to swing the feeble sword, two hands grip the shield well the idea of third never crosses ones mind, how does one attack when his hands are full?
It's a hopeless idea, in a world of natural study proven facts and trends show more then any bible verse, why is it so hard to see? honestly??
I dont' comment often, but this video really hits an argument I've ran through my head more times than I care to count (although far better spelled out)
I hate it when some religious chowdermonkey tries to tell me that the burden of proof--or rather, the burden of disproof--is on the atheist, to show that god doesn't exist.
The problem is they're wrong; we don't have to show that god doesn't exist, we only have to show that their claims of god are unsupported; god's existence doesn't need to be precluded for him to not exist. Nothing says a purple Lamborghini named "Fester" doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it can't....it just doesn't!
@BionicDance -Hey buddy, I own a purple Lamborghini named Lester! Dang that was close! Shit, you alomost proved there are/is a god/s. Whew, that was close!
Typically I am annoyed by athiests who like to push their own beliefs onto religious people, ironically because they like to generalize religious people as pushing their beliefs on others. Often its just a whiney kid who watched some sorry argument and rather than coming to his own conclusion through an internal search, has made assumptions because in the material he watched someone spoke well. Suffice to say they are mirroring another's beliefs (as is often the case with theologists)...
and like to attack others "on the behalf" of that belief. Its a stinking, dirty mess and it annoys the hell out of me. However when I watch your videos I don't see that. While I clearly disagree with the underlying concept of atheism, I respect the way you go about communicating your ideas.
You don't attack so much as try to inform. Rather than going from a "I hate people stupid enough to believe in a higher power without proof", you encourage people to think about reality within themselves
I think what I am trying to say here is that I appreciate that there are actually people out there that understand what atheism is and I enjoy your videos because they challenge me to my own faith.
If its in question, I am a Christian - and yes I went through a period in my life of true atheism. However unlike yourself I saw the evidence all around me of God being supported by science. Needless to say my Christian views are far from those of who you would likely see in a church.
The pope means nothing to me in context of religion. Nor does the propaganda that the church spews in terms of official positions on moral agenda. I see the church being a necessary input to have around but most certainly not representative of true faith. God did not give us free will so that we are to follow a corporate entity that ignores the human condition. Religion isn't supposed to be a scoresheet, however intelligence on both sides, encourages true exploration in one's soul and mind.
True atheism and True faith, that sounds a little bit too much like the no Scotsman fallacy.
Also it seems that you do not understand atheist is. Yes, atheist has many belief, but them being an atheist is not one of them.
Atheist (n): one without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in, the existence of god or gods.
Also if you say god is shown in science, I would gladly love to hear it. As that would probably make me a deist or theist. So please show me this is your chance.
I did not post in this section because I was looking for a mock debate. Whether or not you have a belief in any particular religion or a belief that all religions are fairy tales is not of any concern to me. If you came to your conclusions internally then I commend you on caring enough about your own place in the universe to go through that search.
No, indeed you just posted in this section to rant. Well let me tell you something about youtube. It is an open forum any statement that you make can be subject to criticism or questioning.
If you say that you are not willing to answer that criticism, then I can assume that you are not looking for the truth, but just to spout your Frederick without giving arguments for it.
"I did not post in this section because I was looking for a mock debate"
this was the only reply to my post, there rest was complete bullshit.
Also one more thing that you should think about. If you cannot defend your believes by arguments even the weak arguments that TFP uses. Then I find you faith and believes rather weak. I thought you internalized them, which would make me think that you can at least show your believes when asked for.
Out of respect for this being tooltime's page I don't think that would be an appropriate thing to do. Honestly if you are unable to recognize the clear evidence of divine intervention all around you in the world, then a simple side commentary here won't change that for you.
Drop me a private message I would enjoy going into detail with you as to what my thoughts on the subject are. In terms of religion (or atheism for that matter), interpretation is really the only action we can take. No amount of real evidence will ever be beyond interpretation, it would be arrogant of us to assume that we could declare an actual truth to our existence and purpose as a species given our incapability to truly comprehend something so complex..
What is my difference between simple atheism and true atheism? Well in the simple use of the term I would regard a person who believes there is no higher power because others they respect think that is the case. A true atheist to me is a person who has actually gone through the complex internal debate needed to state with all certainty that there could not possibly be a higher power because they are unable to recognize any evidence of it or find the concept ludicrous.
What is wrong getting believes from others, when their arguments are sound and reasonable?
Which when looking at your definition of true atheist and atheist is the better atheist? The one that just looks at his own information or the one that tries to look at all the information?
In my experience this type of direct confrontation is the clear attempt of a troll. If that is not the case then I would be happy to discuss with you in a private message my own beliefs on how science proves a higher power has intervened greatly. At the end of the day most people are already set in their beliefs. If that is the case then please don't waste my time.
Relax. Overdrive obviously doesn't have any actual evidence. Just some conclusions he came to by himself. I've seen alot of people dismiss everyone who demands evidence as a troll; because they have none.
That might be true josh. But confronting these people even how little the chance is might make them think about what they are stating, without backing any shred of it up.
That is indeed very true, that is my experience too. But I made some people think, mostly it is people that are younger then me. But sometimes it makes them think. That is more worth it to me. Also as added bonus mostly I am strengthened in the reason why I reject religion and deities.
Most atheist are not set in their believes, they are willing to listen to others. As long as they come with a convincing argument.
Yes, pm me with that message, I would like to hear this scientific evidence. If there is any real scientific evidence, then you can convince all the atheist except those that are just as bad as religious people with dogmas and set believes, which are few
a private message is private, and really I have sent it to him aside from all of you because I think he genuinely cares about the concept rather then simply proving that nothing can be proven.
Tooltime has never claimed to prove anything, he simply states that if there is no evidence for something then there is not reason to believe it. Please tell me what is bullshit about that premise?
God dam it... this happens too much. Read the comment in context. I was talking to Overdrive who said
"a private message is private, and really I have sent it to him aside from all of you because I think he genuinely cares about the concept rather then simply proving that nothing can be proven."
ThO, I know you are an impressive mind reader, and I don't mean to knock your skills at reading my mind. But I asked you a direct simple question and you called me a troll.
So if one of is showing lack of integrity, it is you.
And if this evidence is so top secret that it requires a promise of secrecy, then maybe you shouldn't claim it so proudly in an open channel.
The only time I know of Atheists pushing their "beliefs" on people is when they are defending from the religious. There is really no "underlying concept " of atheism. Stop making it sound complicated =/ Also there's no reason for an atheist to bring up any points about atheism in the first place because we have no agenda. We don't feel the need to "convert" people. Only when religious beliefs get in the way of rationality do I ever see anyone putting them down.
I'm sort of in the same boat as thOverdrive. The evidence I believe he speaks of has to do with the nature of this universe and of mankind. The vastness of space and the immense detail of small particles. These things convinced me that there is a God.
That is what is called god of the gaps and argument from complexity, just because you cannot understand it, or only part of it does not mean automatically that god did it. That is a huge leap of faith to make. I rather make small leaps where I can see where I land thank you very much.
"I'm saying that it appears to me to have been created with incredible precision and intricacy."
That is saying, because you do not understand it you say god did it. If you look closer then you will see that that incredible precision is non-exsitence and that everything is flawed to high hell. Once again you are using the arguments of complexity which says that something is complex so god did it.
When I look at my hand and think to myself that it is simply trillions upon trillions of incredibly tiny particles coming together to be a hand, I'm impressed.
Like I said before, simply because someone can understand it, doesnt mean it wasnt created.
"When I look at my hand and think to myself that it is simply trillions upon trillions of incredibly tiny particles coming together to be a hand, I'm impressed."
does that mean you should think god did it. No! When I think about the trillion of particles of my hand, then I want to know and understandit. Instead of just putting god there.
God of the gaps does not help our understanding of reality. It does nothing but hinder the knowledge of human kind! As it kills the need to understand.
Try to imagine, that you project your way of understanding the world onto reality, in order to make it seem more comprehensible. Try to imagine, that this is how God was born. You see something complex, and, being a highly intelligent primate who's brain operates via concepts of design and purpose, you project those concepts onto the world around you in order to try and make sense of it. Think of God as being a human face that you try to put onto the universe to make it less scary.
If you add two substances together to create something(A+B=C) then isn't it common sense to beleive and understand that, that is how it WAS created. Fact.
By saying just because we understand something doesn't mean it isn't created by GOD is so hypocritical. For something to be made fact, it has to be proven. The way I stated before (A+B=C) IS proven. You agree, then may aswell say, "well a higher being can create water before my eyes, PROVE ME WRONG". Where is the evidence? Just absurd...
There's no way to know if something has been created by a "God", what's here on earth is here. Things are created from particles of different substances. You could say particles must have been created then? Imagine calling the big-bang, God. For everything we didn't understand we said God created. "God" was a name used for things we didn't understand. Until now.
Instead of showing your evidence that a God created something, you say PROVE ME WRONG that it wasn't? It's flawed in soso many ways.
Then, to answer your question about creation by a 'perfect' god.
Were that to be the case, I would expect to see all and every created item as being perfect in every way and, clearly, nothing in this world meets that standard ... unless you can come up with something that is and further improve my education.
Of course, it could be that your god is imperfect, as indicated in the bible, and created items are as flawed as the creator.
"Just because someone can understand it, doesn't mean it wasn't created."
If someone understand something fully, then someone can say it was created or not.
If someone completely understand how the wind works and then say god has created it, that is just stupid. That means you did not care for understanding it as you already had your conclusion.
The vastness of space is evidence of gods existence?!
So are you telling me that 13,7 ± 0,2 billion years ago we'd be justified to believe there is no god and that in the future the 'evidence' will only get greater? Never mind that all the scientific evidence suggests an ever expanding universe that will be dark, cold, lonely and eventually dead. To you that would just be more 'evidence' of gods existence? Right...
You have not defended the 'evidence' you put forth. I suppose you know you don't have any.
What makes you think that people won't ask for evidence when you state your opinion a second time. What evidence do you have to 'think' the universe is designed?
But by what basis do think that a universe, without a god, wouldnt simply be that way, it just seems like you're jumping from A, B, to G. I mean why is it that I can look at those same things, and simply come to the conclusion that I am just looking at what is a vast and complex universe?
Thank you for showing that you have no real argument. That you show that you where defeated by my arguments in relative easy. Of course you then have to say that my logic is crap instead of responding to any of my arguments against yours at all. I can do the same as you let me show you.
*sticks fingers in my ears and closes my eyes singing * LALALALA cannot hear you, cannot see you. LALALALALA cannot hear you, cannot see you. You are not there!
Wrong, you cannot be looking at the same evidence as me. AS you would never assert that we look designed. Nothing in this world looks designed at all, when looked at something with a closer eye. But you do not want to udnerstand something. You already made up your conclusion, that is why your argument is not valid. You do not want to understand the evidence fully so you say.
I think we are designed.
I say if you look at the evidence I know we are not designed.
Sure we are looking at the same thing but you are the one going that extra step and until you have valid justification for doing so I'm gonna call you out on it.
Ever heard of your book is no evidence for your god as it does not show any evidence.
Even if we are designed and everything else is designed, it does not compute with the Abrahamic God. As evidence speaks against it. The Hindu gods have more evidence then yours.
So I am sorry to say, even if your argument from design would be true, which it is not as you clearly have not looked at the evidence.
Then you still have to proof that your god is real.
K you said, "if we are designed then the design is flawed". You just admitted that if it were possible it would HAVE TO BE so and so. Meaning so and so is in fact true. So therefore us being flawed is FACT.
I attributed us being flawed to the Bibles description of a fallen creation. How is that not evidence?
That is not evidence as it is a other leap of logic.
Just are your leap of logic is leaping to the conclusion that we are designed.
It is even a greater leap of logic that it came from the fall. about I think roughly 40 other creation stories I read do not speak of a flaw. Other creation stories speak of a flawed creator so in turn creating flawed beings. So your creator is one of several 1000. Your creation story is also one of several 1000.
@siekertr21 That is subjective. He says our design is flawed. That is just his opinion, it can't be proof for God. If I said jews were inferior would that be proof for Nazism?
As I understand the christian (and other) claims, mankind is still essentially as he was created. Biologically, there's no important difference between you & me and Adam & Eve.
Consider the vagus nerve. Part of it comes out of spine in the neck, goes all the way down and hooks under the aortic arch, then goes back *up* to the larynx. This is true of humans, and also of giraffes. Why would a "designer" add 10-15 feet of extra nerve, when a direct route across the neck would suffice.
There are many more examples of really *bad* "design" in nature.
Flightless bird wings. Muscles attached to human ears that can't make any useful adjustment (whereas most mammals ears *do). Snake & whale pelvises. Male mammal nipples. Toenails on manatee flippers. Fetal teeth for toothless creatures. Non-functioning genes for things in animals that don't have (and according to design, never had) those things.
You haven't provided evidence. You've provided an observation. You observed that the world is complex, and drawn your own conclusion that is not backed up by any evidence at all.
In his latest video, Jack says that he is upset about athiests being intellectually dishonest. He doesn't see the irony in that statement.
jimmyjazz240 5 months ago
kkkkkk kombobreaker!
gravekeepersven 5 months ago
"YouTube career"
Sorry, I agree with you most always, I just thought that was a funny comment.
rrpostalagain 1 year ago
New internet law: The side of the debate that resorts to epistemological bullshitting is the side with the obviously weaker position. I see it all the time, especially from theists.
sam51092 1 year ago
"because there's no evidence"
Theres a fundamental logical problem with trying to GET evidence for the "supernatural". Because of the causal nature of reality, any evidential manifestation of "supernatural" activity would be seen as a "real" physical phenomena, and in no way shape or form could possibly be justified as "supernatural".
For instance, every once in a while it will rain frogs or fish somewhere in the world - It's only a matter of time before something is explained as "natural".
krishields 2 years ago
@krishields La lluvia de peces. Once each spring in Honduras it rains sardines. It's fascinating and not in the least supernatural.
jancar2012 1 year ago
Awesome Video Tooltime, really enjoyed this one.
Juggernaut891 2 years ago
There is another issue for many of us who are believers: the imperial notion that Fundamentalists Christianity has the right to tell governments how to govern and society how to think. That is a genuine danger in ALL religion, and I do criticise it publicly.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
5 stars
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
"[The superior man] acts before he speaks, and afterwards speaks according to his actions."
Confucius
stargateproductions 2 years ago
Dude I know how you feel, had a comment debate with a christian whos only point was "thats your opinion" and "your just stuck to your world view"
amarthishness 2 years ago
Epistemic = Of/Or relating to knowledge or knowing, cognitive.
So... a system of knowledge eh?
Well religion doesn't have knowledge, it has mythology. Knowledge is at it's root based on hard evidence. Religion does not have that.
So religion is ANTI-epistemic.
Religion is ASSUMPTIONS, not knowledge.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
Not to be pro religious but I would say that all "knowledge" is based on assumptions ;)
amarthishness 2 years ago
You could have been in the Twilight movie. :)
(I hope it doesn't get me banned from your channel. ;P )
DblOSmith 2 years ago
wow! this together for peace guy. he is amazing!
i think i will subscribe to him.
gerinja 2 years ago
thats guys a hypocrite he always acts a christian questions, he always stuff is useless,
Dudex58 2 years ago
ok then with Jack fight fire with fire until the human thought process switches on in his head and his brain will be forced to step back and look at the situation as a whole.
unknown1129 2 years ago
You are METAL.
CosmicSeaman 2 years ago 4
Gotta agree with Agman...
Stop feeding the religious trolls.
Funny enough... deep down... they know better. But they are drowning in dogma.... daily... so much so that rationalizing with them IS impossible. It's not damn near or close to... it IS impossible.
My point is... and the bottom line should be... we (Atheists)... are not materializing any object or being... into this world. It is 100% up to the "believers" to provide sufficient evidence to support these outrageous claims.
Not us.
Krumbz2003 2 years ago 12
@Krumbz2003 your first paragraph is funny the same could be said to you if you would open your eye
so what is your claim for reality?
DeJay14 2 years ago
its really not up to believers to prove God exists either, "dont put God to the test", in Romans i believe it says the ways of God will seem foolish to the wisdom of man. This explains the majority of atheists and science. The "Christians" u c on utube r dogmatic, n the realworld most dont really care and only believe as a culture, but a few truly follow God because they actually want to, not as a means of conformity or the afterlife, and in so have found inner peace
MrKylehass 2 years ago
Well,first of all, a personal belief or opinion does not have to be proofed. If I say I believe in god and you ask me why,and I say why and you retort with I don agree and here is why, unless I assert with certainty against your argument,that I am correct, then no "logical proof" needs to be rendered. It is as it is said, Live and let live.
YogiToad 2 years ago
That's fine... as long as you don't care if anyone else believes what you do. It's when the person believes something and insists that everyone else should believe what they believe that proof has to be given.
Personally, I think that anyone who publicly states their opinion is automatically asking for useful criticism of their viewpoint by others. If you don't want to have to prove your opinions, don't state them in public. Stating an opinion and refusing to back it up is a cop out, imho.
Tigranis 2 years ago
All world views set up your circular logic circles. Christianity, Islam, Atheism. They're all the same in the end. "I'm right, you're wrong, go eat dirt." Once someone adopts a world view, they won't change it unless that world view stops adhering to what they believe to be true.
As a former Christian, I know what it's like to see past the bologna and see it for what it is, a book written by biggoted, racist, sexist slave owners that basically set the world up as a Patriarchal paradise. Bull.
Tyamna 2 years ago
Only when referring to atheism, does a 'definite and strong opinion' make one militant
embracedestruction 2 years ago
That's why I take the physical world view: if it can be seen, smelled,tasted, felt, heard, or observed in any other way, then it is real.
If not, then it may be real in another reality (but not in this one).
onijester56 2 years ago
woah!! that was a good metal voice!! haha
AmericanWerewolfDH 2 years ago 2
I have a feeling this guy listens to metal
odenskrigare 2 years ago
Why not? Metal is awesome!
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
Agreed
Though, these days, I usually listen to industrial and electronic music
odenskrigare 2 years ago
At least science acknowledges the fact that there is a question, it doesn't throw a half-baked conclusion on it like religion does.
opethfan92 2 years ago
Which Christian worldview?
zarkoff45 2 years ago
by far one of your best videos !
trav77 2 years ago
Nice brutal metal voice ;)
OppressorsBeware 2 years ago 4
I'd buy his cd
snailswigbee 2 years ago
Brilliant video! Really interesting and well presented arguments :)
TemperaMagenta 2 years ago
Best part about Jack's videos is he always has this look like he is about to cry or has just had a good cry.
Atheistprimate 2 years ago
I suggest you just call Jack deluded, and when he gets offended just claim that your 'framework' states 'Jack is deluded' and therefore is perfectly self-consistent.
SkepticsClaw 2 years ago
if jack was on a horse and couldn't get off would u help " jack off"
1deanwdaniel 2 years ago
Great video. Love the joke also. I must polish it up and use it on my friends to appear clever, than say I came up with it.
I don't even pay attention to Jack anymore. He is to big of a pussy for me to stomach. I would rather debate a hardcore unapologetic conservative Christian. At least than we can have a lively debate not some neutered postmodern game of running in circles and playing grab ass.
fathead8489 2 years ago
I live with 2.9 million Jacks
BenadrylAnnug 2 years ago
Jack is different than most Chistians...even though he does hold his beliefs no matter what anyone says....I can tell that he has listened to our side and has a basic understanding of our arguments where as most christians just out right plug their ears and yell la la la i can't hear you.
CelticAlphabet 2 years ago
I <3 the joke
Spalg 2 years ago
Joke would have worked better if the punchline was "That's what she said"
snownet 2 years ago 3
I don't know if people are aware that Jack has a mental disorder. No, he's not insane. He just cannot focus. In his first videos he talked about how he wasn't even able to stay up at work, how he blacks out, how he cannot follow long discussions etc.
Maybe this fact explains his behaviour.
logossfera 2 years ago 2
He doesn't even get past 2nd year philosophy where I've already learned all the problems that come with conceptual schemes or worldviews.
ThaGMan51 2 years ago
I like your videos Peter, but I can seldom give you better than 4 stars. You tend to get into rant mode and lose the thread of your argument. On the other hand, I don't know if scripting & rehearsal would help.
jursamaj 2 years ago
It's unfortunate, but I automaticaly give channels like this 5 stars (unless I realy hate a particular video), I cant use the vote system normaly because I know vote bots attack atheists like this so I have to dilute it by giving 5 stars.
DragonRomer 2 years ago
you dont have to defend your claim that theres no evidence for god until the believers give any semblence of evidence for.
bobbyhill3323 2 years ago
yep. the default of reality, which is the basis for the Null Hypothesis, is that nothing we think of is true until it can be validated with evidence.
you state something, assume it's wrong, and then try to see that it's wrong. if you don't see something consistent with your statement being wrong, then it must be at least in the direction of correctness.
kukulza 2 years ago
actually... i should reword that a bit to avoid confusion...
if you "don't see something consistent with your statement being wrong" then you're seeing something.
if you're right in your assumption of being wrong then you see nothing. if your wrong in your assumption of being wrong then you see something and are closer to truth.
kukulza 2 years ago
Ugh. Jack - another guy that believes that other people have to justify their unbelief in HIS positive assertion, when the ball's firmly in his court. -_-'
... and then, after demanding this, he begs the question by assuming that Christianity is the accurate, true answer without supporting that proposition either.
Seriously... I swear that most people have no clue about what is logical or not before spouting out about their beliefs being logical knowledge...
Tigranis 2 years ago 9
Furthermore, I love that people like Jack always appeal to the alleged internal consistency of Christianity. It's not that I don't agree with him that internal consistency is a value, but if Jack is going to play philosopher, I think he ought to justify that value, anyway. Why SHOULD a philosophy be internally consistent, Jack?
Neilsama 2 years ago
Additionally, I find it amusing that the apologists who speak most adamantly about internal consistency are incapable of being internally consistent within their own worldview. For example, most people in Jack's position deny the molecular evidence of evolution. But then if it was DNA evidence in a criminal case or a vaccine to fight the seasonal flu, they accept these things unconditionally.
Christians like Jack can't even do science consistently within their worldview.
Neilsama 2 years ago 2
exactly! you win the internetz. Jack doesn't seem to think there is any such thing as a framework independent value and yet he talks as if their is.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
The problem with people like Jack is not that he insists that people lay out an epistemic model. It's that he wants us to do it to refute his asinine belief system, and if we don't, he just assumes that he wins ahead of the actual game. And he does this fully assuming that atheism is itself a philosophy. Totally annoying.
People like this are not worth arguing with, and it's one of the reasons that I don't subscribe to Jack or Veritas or any of the other Christian armchair philosophers.
Neilsama 2 years ago 3
I have also gotten Jack's patterns down to. He will always go on the attack on atheism whenever his "christian framework" is threatened or challenged. As a result, Jack will never present this "christian framework" that he keeps on claiming is consistent. Most likely from the fear that atheists will successfully pick it apart.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago 3
so its not just me who noticed that togetherforpeace is blithering the same nonsense over and over, quite consistently? you FAIL, togetherforpeace.
rileed 2 years ago
Very good stuff. Any recommendations for books to read? I'm most of the way through Dawkins catalog and thirst for knowledge.
SgtClueLs 2 years ago
Sam Harris' End of Faith is great. Other than that, read the Hitchhiker's Guide! Adams will be a treat if you haven't already read his work.
Nix ~
nixonfanatic 2 years ago
Holy shit, it's Nathan Explosion!
*Riff*
B1ackHayabusa 2 years ago
This was a good video. I'd really like to hear Jack answer your questions directly here. From what you're saying that sounds unlikely though.
spinkwotzer 2 years ago 2
I think you know my opinion. :)
philhellenes 2 years ago
Jack just NEEDS to believe. Its not that he's not intelligent enough not to see his self-defeating idealology.
melowar78 2 years ago
You absolutely slay in this vid. I enjoyed this.
ReverendAtomSmasher 2 years ago
Have you read the works of Arthur Schopenhauer? Quite the pessimist, and a German Idealist. Nonetheless I find his work to be thoroughly enjoyable.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Yeah, I am sick of jack but I had to make a few videos just pointing out how obviously wrong he is.
Keippernicus 2 years ago
Reductio ad absurdum is arbitrary huh? It must be nice to be able to brush off any attack on your arguments as invalid from the get go.
Prometheus46715 2 years ago
Interesting. No matter how well you prove religious fundamentalists to be incorrect, they just refuse to acknowledge their own errors because they have fully convinced themselves that they are fully 100% right. Just can't get them to think and look outside their own world view. I guest that's what means to be a fanatic. More of an addict.
Chuloloc 2 years ago
It sounds like you're describing is a defense mechanism.Perhaps after being driven from intellectual positions time after time he's come to a place where he thinks retreat is no longer possible.He may be in a position where he has to choose to either dig in like a tick and be paved over by progress or accept a view of reality( I know alternate definitions of the word are what's currently causing all this grief) that contradicts or is neutral to his current epistemological framework...plausible?
Scheckig 2 years ago
One can hold no beliefs in gods by evaluating god claims and finding them flawed. This does not require a detailed philosophical treatise on what they mean by the word reality. It only requires logical/scientific examination of the claims.
bizzee1 2 years ago
lol @ militant atheist
1GOD1JESUS 2 years ago
haha i am a fan of your videos
XavierDrake 2 years ago
lol @ 1CAPSLOCK1JEBUS
hal970fx 2 years ago
Tool, really? I love your vids but these relnut dolts do not hear a word. At least any rational words of reason. We cannot convince the brainwashed but, hey espouse the truth bro! Keep it flowing and you will help the smart doubters and show many the true light of science and free thought.
Einsteinian99 2 years ago
Great video. You're onto him.
You gotta expect this crap from all christians whether they are that elegant or not. That's what it usually comes down to, arguments about epistemology. If atheists forget that then christians can get away with pulling these tricks.
bjarczyk 2 years ago
Your right Peter, we claim what can be tested and proven well dogma claims grandiose and simplicity, kind of an oxymoron.
Most of the hard line religious people are almost always in defense well they attempt to swing the feeble sword, two hands grip the shield well the idea of third never crosses ones mind, how does one attack when his hands are full?
It's a hopeless idea, in a world of natural study proven facts and trends show more then any bible verse, why is it so hard to see? honestly??
Thetruthinall 2 years ago
I prefer: well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
The Dude Abides.
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
ThO, that's a total copout and you know it.
rhettboy 2 years ago
I think this vlogger has taken some classes.
badmonkey91 2 years ago
The punch line for the opening joke, when asked how he refuted all the philosophers, could have been, "i merely woke up".
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
I dont' comment often, but this video really hits an argument I've ran through my head more times than I care to count (although far better spelled out)
Excellent job, tool. Really appreciate it
unclexbob 2 years ago
That's what YOU say.
(and then I went and looked and it was actually true, Jack is hilarious)
WiseWeeabo 2 years ago
I hate it when some religious chowdermonkey tries to tell me that the burden of proof--or rather, the burden of disproof--is on the atheist, to show that god doesn't exist.
The problem is they're wrong; we don't have to show that god doesn't exist, we only have to show that their claims of god are unsupported; god's existence doesn't need to be precluded for him to not exist. Nothing says a purple Lamborghini named "Fester" doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it can't....it just doesn't!
BionicDance 2 years ago 4
@BionicDance -Hey buddy, I own a purple Lamborghini named Lester! Dang that was close! Shit, you alomost proved there are/is a god/s. Whew, that was close!
Einsteinian99 2 years ago
Jack offers only deafening silence when his statements are challenged. You nailed it XD
rozeboosje 2 years ago 3
hey,wanna do a tryout for vocals for my death metal band TT,that was impressive,haha
TLSlayer 2 years ago
Typically I am annoyed by athiests who like to push their own beliefs onto religious people, ironically because they like to generalize religious people as pushing their beliefs on others. Often its just a whiney kid who watched some sorry argument and rather than coming to his own conclusion through an internal search, has made assumptions because in the material he watched someone spoke well. Suffice to say they are mirroring another's beliefs (as is often the case with theologists)...
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
and like to attack others "on the behalf" of that belief. Its a stinking, dirty mess and it annoys the hell out of me. However when I watch your videos I don't see that. While I clearly disagree with the underlying concept of atheism, I respect the way you go about communicating your ideas.
You don't attack so much as try to inform. Rather than going from a "I hate people stupid enough to believe in a higher power without proof", you encourage people to think about reality within themselves
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
I think what I am trying to say here is that I appreciate that there are actually people out there that understand what atheism is and I enjoy your videos because they challenge me to my own faith.
If its in question, I am a Christian - and yes I went through a period in my life of true atheism. However unlike yourself I saw the evidence all around me of God being supported by science. Needless to say my Christian views are far from those of who you would likely see in a church.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
The pope means nothing to me in context of religion. Nor does the propaganda that the church spews in terms of official positions on moral agenda. I see the church being a necessary input to have around but most certainly not representative of true faith. God did not give us free will so that we are to follow a corporate entity that ignores the human condition. Religion isn't supposed to be a scoresheet, however intelligence on both sides, encourages true exploration in one's soul and mind.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
True atheism and True faith, that sounds a little bit too much like the no Scotsman fallacy.
Also it seems that you do not understand atheist is. Yes, atheist has many belief, but them being an atheist is not one of them.
Atheist (n): one without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in, the existence of god or gods.
Also if you say god is shown in science, I would gladly love to hear it. As that would probably make me a deist or theist. So please show me this is your chance.
NathanWubs 2 years ago 3
I did not post in this section because I was looking for a mock debate. Whether or not you have a belief in any particular religion or a belief that all religions are fairy tales is not of any concern to me. If you came to your conclusions internally then I commend you on caring enough about your own place in the universe to go through that search.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
No, indeed you just posted in this section to rant. Well let me tell you something about youtube. It is an open forum any statement that you make can be subject to criticism or questioning.
If you say that you are not willing to answer that criticism, then I can assume that you are not looking for the truth, but just to spout your Frederick without giving arguments for it.
NathanWubs 2 years ago 3
It seems that you enjoy assuming things
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
It seems, that you have no reply at all.
NathanWubs 2 years ago 4
"I did not post in this section because I was looking for a mock debate"
this was the only reply to my post, there rest was complete bullshit.
Also one more thing that you should think about. If you cannot defend your believes by arguments even the weak arguments that TFP uses. Then I find you faith and believes rather weak. I thought you internalized them, which would make me think that you can at least show your believes when asked for.
I am interested in seeing that science.
NathanWubs 2 years ago 4
Out of respect for this being tooltime's page I don't think that would be an appropriate thing to do. Honestly if you are unable to recognize the clear evidence of divine intervention all around you in the world, then a simple side commentary here won't change that for you.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
"divine intervention" was the scientific evidence you were referring to?
Well, I'm still curious what exactly you're referring to, although the label sounds rather....interpretative at best.
I don't think tool is going to get upset if you spill the beans.
unclexbob 2 years ago 2
Drop me a private message I would enjoy going into detail with you as to what my thoughts on the subject are. In terms of religion (or atheism for that matter), interpretation is really the only action we can take. No amount of real evidence will ever be beyond interpretation, it would be arrogant of us to assume that we could declare an actual truth to our existence and purpose as a species given our incapability to truly comprehend something so complex..
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
What is my difference between simple atheism and true atheism? Well in the simple use of the term I would regard a person who believes there is no higher power because others they respect think that is the case. A true atheist to me is a person who has actually gone through the complex internal debate needed to state with all certainty that there could not possibly be a higher power because they are unable to recognize any evidence of it or find the concept ludicrous.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
I see, I can understand what you mean by that.
But then I have a few more questions.
What is wrong getting believes from others, when their arguments are sound and reasonable?
Which when looking at your definition of true atheist and atheist is the better atheist? The one that just looks at his own information or the one that tries to look at all the information?
if you cannot reply her, I would love to get a pm
NathanWubs 2 years ago 2
I would be happy to send you a private message, consider one on its way.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
Waits for the message
NathanWubs 2 years ago
"I went through a period in my life of true atheism. However unlike yourself I saw the evidence all around me of God being supported by science."
by all means ThO, every atheist here would love to hear the scientific evidence that convinced you.
If it isnt clear, I'm not sarcastic at all. I would really really like to hear what you are referring to
unclexbob 2 years ago 2
In my experience this type of direct confrontation is the clear attempt of a troll. If that is not the case then I would be happy to discuss with you in a private message my own beliefs on how science proves a higher power has intervened greatly. At the end of the day most people are already set in their beliefs. If that is the case then please don't waste my time.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
Huh? You state you have scientific evidence, and I simply ask "what is it?"
That is a troll? That can't be answered easily?
It can be claimed easily.....
unclexbob 2 years ago 4
Relax. Overdrive obviously doesn't have any actual evidence. Just some conclusions he came to by himself. I've seen alot of people dismiss everyone who demands evidence as a troll; because they have none.
joshcena33 2 years ago
That might be true josh. But confronting these people even how little the chance is might make them think about what they are stating, without backing any shred of it up.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
Not in my experience x.x It's always "I'll pray for you, your blocked" with these people when I get into personal messages....
joshcena33 2 years ago
That is indeed very true, that is my experience too. But I made some people think, mostly it is people that are younger then me. But sometimes it makes them think. That is more worth it to me. Also as added bonus mostly I am strengthened in the reason why I reject religion and deities.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
joshcena33 said: "I'll pray for you, your blocked"
That is exactly my experience too.
Paxmax 2 years ago
seems....well....trollish. Don't it?
unclexbob 2 years ago
Most atheist are not set in their believes, they are willing to listen to others. As long as they come with a convincing argument.
Yes, pm me with that message, I would like to hear this scientific evidence. If there is any real scientific evidence, then you can convince all the atheist except those that are just as bad as religious people with dogmas and set believes, which are few
NathanWubs 2 years ago 2
well, if you could sum up the scientific evidence for us after you get that PM nathan, we'd appreciate it.
unclexbob 2 years ago
a private message is private, and really I have sent it to him aside from all of you because I think he genuinely cares about the concept rather then simply proving that nothing can be proven.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
Proving that nothing can be proven? Don't you mean calling you out on your bullshit?
joshcena33 2 years ago
@joshcena33
Tooltime has never claimed to prove anything, he simply states that if there is no evidence for something then there is not reason to believe it. Please tell me what is bullshit about that premise?
ransomdave 2 years ago 2
God dam it... this happens too much. Read the comment in context. I was talking to Overdrive who said
"a private message is private, and really I have sent it to him aside from all of you because I think he genuinely cares about the concept rather then simply proving that nothing can be proven."
joshcena33 2 years ago
ThO, I know you are an impressive mind reader, and I don't mean to knock your skills at reading my mind. But I asked you a direct simple question and you called me a troll.
So if one of is showing lack of integrity, it is you.
And if this evidence is so top secret that it requires a promise of secrecy, then maybe you shouldn't claim it so proudly in an open channel.
Just a few suggestions.
unclexbob 2 years ago
The only time I know of Atheists pushing their "beliefs" on people is when they are defending from the religious. There is really no "underlying concept " of atheism. Stop making it sound complicated =/ Also there's no reason for an atheist to bring up any points about atheism in the first place because we have no agenda. We don't feel the need to "convert" people. Only when religious beliefs get in the way of rationality do I ever see anyone putting them down.
joshcena33 2 years ago
"I am annoyed by athiests who like to push their own beliefs onto religious people"
Who does that? I don't know any who tries to do that. How exactly are they pushing their NON-beliefs on others?
"they like to generalize religious people as pushing their beliefs on others"
Again, who does that?
BamBasse 2 years ago 3
Assuming that is sarcasm I'll let a simple
ha
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
I'm sort of in the same boat as thOverdrive. The evidence I believe he speaks of has to do with the nature of this universe and of mankind. The vastness of space and the immense detail of small particles. These things convinced me that there is a God.
siekertr21 2 years ago
That is what is called god of the gaps and argument from complexity, just because you cannot understand it, or only part of it does not mean automatically that god did it. That is a huge leap of faith to make. I rather make small leaps where I can see where I land thank you very much.
NathanWubs 2 years ago 2
I didn't say "because I dont understand it, God must have done it."
I'm saying that it appears to me to have been created with incredible precision and intricacy.
Just because someone can understand it, doesn't mean it wasn't created.
siekertr21 2 years ago
"I'm saying that it appears to me to have been created with incredible precision and intricacy."
That is saying, because you do not understand it you say god did it. If you look closer then you will see that that incredible precision is non-exsitence and that everything is flawed to high hell. Once again you are using the arguments of complexity which says that something is complex so god did it.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
When I look at my hand and think to myself that it is simply trillions upon trillions of incredibly tiny particles coming together to be a hand, I'm impressed.
Like I said before, simply because someone can understand it, doesnt mean it wasnt created.
siekertr21 2 years ago
"When I look at my hand and think to myself that it is simply trillions upon trillions of incredibly tiny particles coming together to be a hand, I'm impressed."
does that mean you should think god did it. No! When I think about the trillion of particles of my hand, then I want to know and understandit. Instead of just putting god there.
God of the gaps does not help our understanding of reality. It does nothing but hinder the knowledge of human kind! As it kills the need to understand.
NathanWubs 2 years ago 2
Try to imagine, that you project your way of understanding the world onto reality, in order to make it seem more comprehensible. Try to imagine, that this is how God was born. You see something complex, and, being a highly intelligent primate who's brain operates via concepts of design and purpose, you project those concepts onto the world around you in order to try and make sense of it. Think of God as being a human face that you try to put onto the universe to make it less scary.
Staunts 2 years ago
Omfg.... that's BRILLIANT!!!!!
4 internets for you my friend.
joshcena33 2 years ago
If you add two substances together to create something(A+B=C) then isn't it common sense to beleive and understand that, that is how it WAS created. Fact.
By saying just because we understand something doesn't mean it isn't created by GOD is so hypocritical. For something to be made fact, it has to be proven. The way I stated before (A+B=C) IS proven. You agree, then may aswell say, "well a higher being can create water before my eyes, PROVE ME WRONG". Where is the evidence? Just absurd...
ChefGrogs 2 years ago
I have a lot of trouble explaining this to people who don't agree. I'll restate a few things and then ask a question about it.
I BELIEVE everything is created. To me it seems logical.
Question: If there were IN FACT a God and he created something, would it appear to have been created? If so, how?
siekertr21 2 years ago
There's no way to know if something has been created by a "God", what's here on earth is here. Things are created from particles of different substances. You could say particles must have been created then? Imagine calling the big-bang, God. For everything we didn't understand we said God created. "God" was a name used for things we didn't understand. Until now.
Instead of showing your evidence that a God created something, you say PROVE ME WRONG that it wasn't? It's flawed in soso many ways.
ChefGrogs 2 years ago
siekertr21
"I BELIEVE everything is created. To me it seems logical."
To YOU. To you and your like. NOT to the educated.
A classic example of 'Argument from Incredulity' (ignorance). The age old 'God of the Gaps' crap resurfaces with very annoying regularity.
draagon66 2 years ago
siekertr21
Then, to answer your question about creation by a 'perfect' god.
Were that to be the case, I would expect to see all and every created item as being perfect in every way and, clearly, nothing in this world meets that standard ... unless you can come up with something that is and further improve my education.
Of course, it could be that your god is imperfect, as indicated in the bible, and created items are as flawed as the creator.
Choose but do not neglect the option of no god.
draagon66 2 years ago
"Just because someone can understand it, doesn't mean it wasn't created."
If someone understand something fully, then someone can say it was created or not.
If someone completely understand how the wind works and then say god has created it, that is just stupid. That means you did not care for understanding it as you already had your conclusion.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
The vastness of space is evidence of gods existence?!
So are you telling me that 13,7 ± 0,2 billion years ago we'd be justified to believe there is no god and that in the future the 'evidence' will only get greater? Never mind that all the scientific evidence suggests an ever expanding universe that will be dark, cold, lonely and eventually dead. To you that would just be more 'evidence' of gods existence? Right...
infinit888 2 years ago 2
Ill put this very plainly. I think it was designed.
siekertr21 2 years ago
I put it very plainly to you too. Just because you think it was designed does not make it true. Even if it looked designed it does not make it true.
The understanding of our universe and the process in that universe say otherwise.
So just your believes without and arguments that are valid hold no merit.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
Important implied admissions upon your part.
You have not defended the 'evidence' you put forth. I suppose you know you don't have any.
What makes you think that people won't ask for evidence when you state your opinion a second time. What evidence do you have to 'think' the universe is designed?
infinit888 2 years ago
But by what basis do think that a universe, without a god, wouldnt simply be that way, it just seems like you're jumping from A, B, to G. I mean why is it that I can look at those same things, and simply come to the conclusion that I am just looking at what is a vast and complex universe?
Staunts 2 years ago
I believe thats why its so hard to change your mind about things, differing points of view are often hard to grasp.
siekertr21 2 years ago
No your logic is just crap thats all.
joshcena33 2 years ago
Thank you for showing that you have no real argument. That you show that you where defeated by my arguments in relative easy. Of course you then have to say that my logic is crap instead of responding to any of my arguments against yours at all. I can do the same as you let me show you.
*sticks fingers in my ears and closes my eyes singing * LALALALA cannot hear you, cannot see you. LALALALALA cannot hear you, cannot see you. You are not there!
NathanWubs 2 years ago
Lol okay. So in order for my argument to be legit, I have to provide NEW evidence. Meaning I have to describe something to you no one has ever seen.
I'm looking at the same evidence as you brother, I'm simply saying I think it was designed to be this way.
siekertr21 2 years ago
Wrong, you cannot be looking at the same evidence as me. AS you would never assert that we look designed. Nothing in this world looks designed at all, when looked at something with a closer eye. But you do not want to udnerstand something. You already made up your conclusion, that is why your argument is not valid. You do not want to understand the evidence fully so you say.
I think we are designed.
I say if you look at the evidence I know we are not designed.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
No no not NEW evidence - evidence period!
Sure we are looking at the same thing but you are the one going that extra step and until you have valid justification for doing so I'm gonna call you out on it.
Btw 'faith' isn't gonna cut it.
infinit888 2 years ago
Why is it so hard to understand that something can appear designed.
If it doesn't appear designed, what does it appear to be?
siekertr21 2 years ago
If we are designed then the designed is flawed.
monkey knees, back and pelvis, is all that I can say about it.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
Ever heard the term 'fallen creation'?
siekertr21 2 years ago
Ever heard of your book is no evidence for your god as it does not show any evidence.
Even if we are designed and everything else is designed, it does not compute with the Abrahamic God. As evidence speaks against it. The Hindu gods have more evidence then yours.
So I am sorry to say, even if your argument from design would be true, which it is not as you clearly have not looked at the evidence.
Then you still have to proof that your god is real.
NathanWubs 2 years ago 2
K you said, "if we are designed then the design is flawed". You just admitted that if it were possible it would HAVE TO BE so and so. Meaning so and so is in fact true. So therefore us being flawed is FACT.
I attributed us being flawed to the Bibles description of a fallen creation. How is that not evidence?
siekertr21 2 years ago
That is not evidence as it is a other leap of logic.
Just are your leap of logic is leaping to the conclusion that we are designed.
It is even a greater leap of logic that it came from the fall. about I think roughly 40 other creation stories I read do not speak of a flaw. Other creation stories speak of a flawed creator so in turn creating flawed beings. So your creator is one of several 1000. Your creation story is also one of several 1000.
NathanWubs 2 years ago 2
@siekertr21 That is subjective. He says our design is flawed. That is just his opinion, it can't be proof for God. If I said jews were inferior would that be proof for Nazism?
philateliceun 2 years ago
It wouldn't be proof of nazism because
1. you would have to define nazism
2. you would have to prove the jews were inferior
3. you would have to prove that nazism was the right way to deal with the inferiority (if that's a word) of the jews
(I am not arguing or agreeing, i just wanted to answer the question)
kingbravewisdom 2 years ago
yes and the same goes for God, and it hasn't been done properly.
philateliceun 2 years ago
As I understand the christian (and other) claims, mankind is still essentially as he was created. Biologically, there's no important difference between you & me and Adam & Eve.
Consider the vagus nerve. Part of it comes out of spine in the neck, goes all the way down and hooks under the aortic arch, then goes back *up* to the larynx. This is true of humans, and also of giraffes. Why would a "designer" add 10-15 feet of extra nerve, when a direct route across the neck would suffice.
jursamaj 2 years ago
To say we're exactly the same as adam and eve is dumb
siekertr21 2 years ago
I didn't same "exactly the same", I said "no important difference".
The "design" of the vagus nerve shows the result of evolution, not of an intelligent designer.
jursamaj 2 years ago
There are many more examples of really *bad* "design" in nature.
Flightless bird wings. Muscles attached to human ears that can't make any useful adjustment (whereas most mammals ears *do). Snake & whale pelvises. Male mammal nipples. Toenails on manatee flippers. Fetal teeth for toothless creatures. Non-functioning genes for things in animals that don't have (and according to design, never had) those things.
The list goes on and on...
jursamaj 2 years ago
What is behind that tarp!!?!!!?!
Paulwhoisvegan 2 years ago
Satan, obviouusly.
Fjarhultian 2 years ago
What tarp?
jursamaj 2 years ago
You haven't provided evidence. You've provided an observation. You observed that the world is complex, and drawn your own conclusion that is not backed up by any evidence at all.
joshcena33 2 years ago
Lol this is hopeless. I give. You win. Were not created. We're spontaneous soup.
siekertr21 2 years ago 2
well, thats what you say.
jesus christ, it works
anom4lie 2 years ago