How can thinking creatures seriously argue about such a silliy idea as a god? Can't stand it. For atheists such an idea is simply not existent. It's always the religious plankton who is starting the argument. Why don't you piss off with your gods and mental disorders and leave us atheists alone?
Why don't you watch the video again and this time READ the WHOLE thing then use your brain to see that this is a perfectly reasonable debunking of the "logical proofs of god" and that it demonstrates that god is illogical and therefore unbelievable.
I never understood what the heck Augustine was talking about. He defines god a certain way, which I would probably have some issues with, and then makes arbitrary rules about him, which he has no means of verifying, and then says definitively that his word play is proof? What the hell?
This made no sense at all, therefore it is simply religious propaganda, and if it does make sense at all, then you are a F N MORON. Religion--Another form of terrorism. Example: The invisable man in my closet, who loves me more than anything, created me in one week and told me that if I don't live by certain rules, he will send me to the most horrible place I could ever imagine as punishment...yeah, right.
HELLO!!!! You need to watch again idiot! This is a debunking of what is called "the logical proofs for god" which is religious nonesense, this is a valid explanation of why the proofs are illogical.
Opera makes you ill? Then you deserve to be brought back here to listen to it again. Your lack of culture and wonder at the amazing abilities of the human voice is deeply concerning.
Do you hold no value in the wonder of your naturally evolved species? Does it not astound you how far we can push our talents and abilities? It is a certain shame that anyone can fail to appreciate that.
Beauty is in the eye (ear) of the beholder. There is no question that this singer has amazing dynamic range but ultimately, being unable to understand what she is saying - it has all the appeal of a police siren. If heaven is full of music like this, I think I would prefer a 'warmer' environment.
Well, I am afraid that if I am doomed to that warmer environment I'll be doing my best to grab up a few opera singers to join me. But fear not, You will really just be worm food.
The problem with most atheists who make videos like this is that they think they are smarter than they actually are. I was expecting something worthwhile, especially when I saw the assertions being numbered, but the misspelling of the word 'arguments' should have prepared me for the worst. Truly intelligent people are few and far between indeed
Neither theist nor atheist denies gravity. It's a crucial aspect of any atheist's story of the universe. So why doesn't God turn it off just once? If you believe God's a more fundamental force and can turn it off, go to a cliff and take a real leap of faith. If all theists did this, the argument would be over once and for all.
Good music, but not particularly good arguments. Having a concept of a creator doesn't necessarily prove the existence of a god. We have thousands of different concepts of gods; Zeus, Thor, Odin, Bumba, etc., etc. The greeks managed to form a concept of Zeus - does that make Zeus possible?
if for example 200 years ago a man said outloud we can travel into the future one day its possible, they would have said this chap is a lunatic....80 years ago einstein developed the theory of relativity which proves that it is possible to travel into the future....if i say out loud that god exists today you may think that iam a lunatic but in the future you may realize it also
Actually it isnt possible to travel to the future since the future hasnt happened yet. Einstein proved that its possible to travel to the Past by bending spacetime and creating a wormhole. But to bend spacetime you'd need an infinite resevoir of energy and some way to use it and a human probably wouldnt survive in a wormhole, even if they could create one. You need to read up on your physics, ripster.
it is possible to travel into the future, just ask walt disney. when they unfreeze his head, and resucitate him, he'll be back to do it all over again. and einstein did not PROVE that it is possible, he made a conjecture, if he proved it was possible he would have had to have done it.
god could exist and religion got it right are 2 vastly different things. And "god" is a matter of definition as I said, since no "god" that fits currently existing definitions exists then therefore "whatever" could possibly exist is in fact not "god"
In other words, it is a great unknown for which we have no appropriate word in our language and should wake up and fess up. You can't name what you can't know.
actually sam harris never denied the existence of something, only of religious gods to my knowledge and may have quite simply lacked the language to express that possibility and therefore excepted it as the common term, but who am I to know, I don't live my life for Sam Harris, I live my life for me, if he converts to religion tomorrow it won't impact me and it won't be relevant to this video either.
because I didn't write the tags, this is a response video, the guy who made the original wrote them, unlike religious folks, i think for myself and don't assume one individuals opinion is all important to me, or even possesses any effect whatsoever. Its called freethought. It never hurts : ) well ok, in the odd moment it causes short term discomfort folloed by the long term satisfaction of knowing you made your own life choices. You and no one but you : )
well, I apologize but one too many people turn their own thoughts off to follow the decrees of preachers from whatever faith they choose, my point quite simply being, the maker of this vid assumes atheists "follow" Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, when in fact we may read their books or something, but we do not "follow" them.
You see, your problem, grazon, is that you are accustomed to the old ways, where freethinkers kept quiet. In fact, your religion, all religions, need to silence open, rational, critical free speech. Religions whither and die in bright enlightenment. Sadly for religion, and fortunately for humanity, a new and most powerful enlightenment is dawning! It is a change in the zeitgeist. Get used to it, grazon.
Frankly, I could care less the age of my friends and subscribers, and I don't see any need to bring it up. When you disagree with an individual, it is traditional to make a valid point to refute them with, as opposed to a random ad hominem remark. Please try to stay on topic when visiting my videos.
No. Again, you are being blinded by your theism. You feel "disequilibrium" (look it up for yourself, I don't have the energy or desire to try to teach you). Your mind incorrectly interprets this unsettling feeling as an attack. Try to remove your Christ-covered glasses, and re-read my original comment. I was not personally attacking you.
Now, I DID in fact post some VERY ad hominem comments on your channel (interestingly, many other had already done the same. ha!), but that is not here, on her video comment thread. There, on your channel, my comments were not off-topic.
good point. and although the grammar and spelling at the beginning of your video are atrocious, I think the idea of saying that "there may be a god, but he doesn't interact with us, or in any case ... matter" is as good as saying there is no god. my definition of "god" could be the nothingness that existed before the gnaB giBBig Bang split the nothingness into somethingness and anti-somethingness, both following opposite time curves, so therefore being the same thing, just observed differently
I think the biggest problem of all is applying Aristotelean logic to inspired literature. The influence of Aristotle upon Christianity and Islam is huge when we consider the systematic formalities of devotional behaviour imposed upon "believers".
LOL, thats an image, the mushroom cloud of ontological proof : ) of course only radioactive enough that the proof won't recover and/or ressurrect, but not powerful enough that a massive toxic moat can't be built around it too, that no mind may ever tread even upon its ashes.
La Wally ehh? I'll look it up. Do ya know the composer?
QED: It's just one of those pretentious Latin terms that are so dearly loved in fields like law, theology, and logic. QED is short for, "quod erat demonstrandum." The English translation is roughly something like, "And thus I've proven my point! IN YER FACE LAHOOOSER!"
QED also means quantum elctrodynamics in physics, but now I'm just trying to look smart. ;)
quantum electrdynamics sound quite sexy, if ever you care to elaborate. And I am always grateful to bring out the softer side of life, some days I feel like such a brute, and I'd much rather be sweet.
Basically, anyone who tries to prove there is a god, either doesn't know the bacis of, or the laws of logic. They MUST rely on unrealiable, unscientific arguments. They must rely on "FAITH" or the ability to accept a statement, cause or belief, without evidence.
His argument is all circular logic, begging the question. No not begging you question, THE QUESTION. LOL The alcoholic statement is a falty analogy. See my video called the christian fallacy: circular logic.
How can thinking creatures seriously argue about such a silliy idea as a god? Can't stand it. For atheists such an idea is simply not existent. It's always the religious plankton who is starting the argument. Why don't you piss off with your gods and mental disorders and leave us atheists alone?
WolYou 4 years ago
Why don't you watch the video again and this time READ the WHOLE thing then use your brain to see that this is a perfectly reasonable debunking of the "logical proofs of god" and that it demonstrates that god is illogical and therefore unbelievable.
then you can proceed with your apology.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
I never understood what the heck Augustine was talking about. He defines god a certain way, which I would probably have some issues with, and then makes arbitrary rules about him, which he has no means of verifying, and then says definitively that his word play is proof? What the hell?
paulbottomley42 4 years ago
Precisely!
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
This made no sense at all, therefore it is simply religious propaganda, and if it does make sense at all, then you are a F N MORON. Religion--Another form of terrorism. Example: The invisable man in my closet, who loves me more than anything, created me in one week and told me that if I don't live by certain rules, he will send me to the most horrible place I could ever imagine as punishment...yeah, right.
cbratch512 4 years ago
HELLO!!!! You need to watch again idiot! This is a debunking of what is called "the logical proofs for god" which is religious nonesense, this is a valid explanation of why the proofs are illogical.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
Pwnage, indeed.
deadpisser88 4 years ago
thankyou! One too many people seem to think it is an argument for as opposed to against and start blabbing at me that there is no god. Well Duh!
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
The music made me throw up...a little bit, and was the best part of this page.
tee1up 4 years ago
Opera makes you ill? Then you deserve to be brought back here to listen to it again. Your lack of culture and wonder at the amazing abilities of the human voice is deeply concerning.
Do you hold no value in the wonder of your naturally evolved species? Does it not astound you how far we can push our talents and abilities? It is a certain shame that anyone can fail to appreciate that.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
Beauty is in the eye (ear) of the beholder. There is no question that this singer has amazing dynamic range but ultimately, being unable to understand what she is saying - it has all the appeal of a police siren. If heaven is full of music like this, I think I would prefer a 'warmer' environment.
tee1up 4 years ago
Well, I am afraid that if I am doomed to that warmer environment I'll be doing my best to grab up a few opera singers to join me. But fear not, You will really just be worm food.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
can god microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot grab it lmfao
darris321 4 years ago
The problem with most atheists who make videos like this is that they think they are smarter than they actually are. I was expecting something worthwhile, especially when I saw the assertions being numbered, but the misspelling of the word 'arguments' should have prepared me for the worst. Truly intelligent people are few and far between indeed
bushfingers 4 years ago
So the misspelling of a word outweighs logic?
nnossov 4 years ago
you had me at 3 mins 53. It's called a leap of faith. No logic or parachute required.
intelectualdwarf 4 years ago
Neither theist nor atheist denies gravity. It's a crucial aspect of any atheist's story of the universe. So why doesn't God turn it off just once? If you believe God's a more fundamental force and can turn it off, go to a cliff and take a real leap of faith. If all theists did this, the argument would be over once and for all.
edgarhons 4 years ago
I once believed I could if need be, I am satisfied to know I had that faith even now that it is gone.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
Nice circular argument.
msdobson1 4 years ago
want another one ??
god is love
love is blind
then god is blind
(by the way... Syllogism is proved to be wrong just like in the video)
if u still think it is right... then god is blind xD
chapav9 4 years ago
I like that one : )
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
Who or what created your God again?
bribbleop 4 years ago
I don't have a god. the creator of the "logical proofs" does.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
Good music, but not particularly good arguments. Having a concept of a creator doesn't necessarily prove the existence of a god. We have thousands of different concepts of gods; Zeus, Thor, Odin, Bumba, etc., etc. The greeks managed to form a concept of Zeus - does that make Zeus possible?
aaoppe 4 years ago
that was the point! I guess you missed that.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
I just got done with a nice civilized dialog with thequestionmarkofGod so I'm going to leave you and your snark alone.
grazon 4 years ago
if for example 200 years ago a man said outloud we can travel into the future one day its possible, they would have said this chap is a lunatic....80 years ago einstein developed the theory of relativity which proves that it is possible to travel into the future....if i say out loud that god exists today you may think that iam a lunatic but in the future you may realize it also
ripster100 4 years ago
Actually it isnt possible to travel to the future since the future hasnt happened yet. Einstein proved that its possible to travel to the Past by bending spacetime and creating a wormhole. But to bend spacetime you'd need an infinite resevoir of energy and some way to use it and a human probably wouldnt survive in a wormhole, even if they could create one. You need to read up on your physics, ripster.
alayne14 4 years ago
it is possible to travel into the future, just ask walt disney. when they unfreeze his head, and resucitate him, he'll be back to do it all over again. and einstein did not PROVE that it is possible, he made a conjecture, if he proved it was possible he would have had to have done it.
aqwiz 4 years ago
On the Colbert report Harris admitted that God could exist.
grazon 4 years ago
god could exist and religion got it right are 2 vastly different things. And "god" is a matter of definition as I said, since no "god" that fits currently existing definitions exists then therefore "whatever" could possibly exist is in fact not "god"
In other words, it is a great unknown for which we have no appropriate word in our language and should wake up and fess up. You can't name what you can't know.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
For a person who has made a large amount of money off of books that are all about how God doesn't exist to concede that GOd could exist is of note.
grazon 4 years ago
actually sam harris never denied the existence of something, only of religious gods to my knowledge and may have quite simply lacked the language to express that possibility and therefore excepted it as the common term, but who am I to know, I don't live my life for Sam Harris, I live my life for me, if he converts to religion tomorrow it won't impact me and it won't be relevant to this video either.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
Not relevent?
"Atheism Atheist rational response blasphemy Richard Dawkins God Delusion Sam Harris Aristotle logic sound catholic"
If Sam Harris is not relevent to this video why is his name in the tags?
grazon 4 years ago
because I didn't write the tags, this is a response video, the guy who made the original wrote them, unlike religious folks, i think for myself and don't assume one individuals opinion is all important to me, or even possesses any effect whatsoever. Its called freethought. It never hurts : ) well ok, in the odd moment it causes short term discomfort folloed by the long term satisfaction of knowing you made your own life choices. You and no one but you : )
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
"unlike religious folks, i think for myself"
you're not helping your cause by saying things like this.
grazon 4 years ago
well, I apologize but one too many people turn their own thoughts off to follow the decrees of preachers from whatever faith they choose, my point quite simply being, the maker of this vid assumes atheists "follow" Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, when in fact we may read their books or something, but we do not "follow" them.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
Well it wouldn't make sense to assume that people follow them since they don't provide an ideology to follow.
grazon 4 years ago
I agree, but obviously it did to that guy.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
ok.
grazon 4 years ago
Speaking the truth will never hurt the "cause."
You see, your problem, grazon, is that you are accustomed to the old ways, where freethinkers kept quiet. In fact, your religion, all religions, need to silence open, rational, critical free speech. Religions whither and die in bright enlightenment. Sadly for religion, and fortunately for humanity, a new and most powerful enlightenment is dawning! It is a change in the zeitgeist. Get used to it, grazon.
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
You look old for someone who's 37.
grazon 4 years ago
Frankly, I could care less the age of my friends and subscribers, and I don't see any need to bring it up. When you disagree with an individual, it is traditional to make a valid point to refute them with, as opposed to a random ad hominem remark. Please try to stay on topic when visiting my videos.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
Frankly I don't care what you think of your friends and subscribers.
BTW his ad hominem remarks were intended to insult.
grazon 4 years ago
No. Again, you are being blinded by your theism. You feel "disequilibrium" (look it up for yourself, I don't have the energy or desire to try to teach you). Your mind incorrectly interprets this unsettling feeling as an attack. Try to remove your Christ-covered glasses, and re-read my original comment. I was not personally attacking you.
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
Thank you for even more hominem remarks.
so long jack.
grazon 4 years ago
Now, I DID in fact post some VERY ad hominem comments on your channel (interestingly, many other had already done the same. ha!), but that is not here, on her video comment thread. There, on your channel, my comments were not off-topic.
Now, I grow bored with you. so, ADIEU.
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
Ya, so there! Also, I'm not really that old.....errr am I?
I don't feel old!
BTW hello friend!
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
Are you sure you're not 57?
grazon 4 years ago
Typical inane theist style comment.
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
grazon 4 years ago
"off of books that are all about how God doesn't exist to concede that GOd could exist is of note."
Atheistic books generally discuss why belief in god is unjustifed, not how god definitely doesnt exist.
TawntheAtheist 4 years ago
nice bit of double talk.
grazon 4 years ago
you cannot distinguish between the two concepts?
TawntheAtheist 4 years ago
good point. and although the grammar and spelling at the beginning of your video are atrocious, I think the idea of saying that "there may be a god, but he doesn't interact with us, or in any case ... matter" is as good as saying there is no god. my definition of "god" could be the nothingness that existed before the gnaB giBBig Bang split the nothingness into somethingness and anti-somethingness, both following opposite time curves, so therefore being the same thing, just observed differently
aqwiz 4 years ago
I think the biggest problem of all is applying Aristotelean logic to inspired literature. The influence of Aristotle upon Christianity and Islam is huge when we consider the systematic formalities of devotional behaviour imposed upon "believers".
Barklord 4 years ago
I just watched a gigantic explosion. His ontological proof exploded, and this video was the bomb.
(of course snowfeet demolished the argument herself. I'll do it too, soon enough)
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago
LOL, thats an image, the mushroom cloud of ontological proof : ) of course only radioactive enough that the proof won't recover and/or ressurrect, but not powerful enough that a massive toxic moat can't be built around it too, that no mind may ever tread even upon its ashes.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
QED!!!!!!!!!!!
BRAVO!
You are so awesome ?ofgod. This was very nicely done.
What opera is that, BTW?
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
and you are always so sweet to me, its nice : )
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
La Wally, oh and what does QED mean?
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
La Wally ehh? I'll look it up. Do ya know the composer?
QED: It's just one of those pretentious Latin terms that are so dearly loved in fields like law, theology, and logic. QED is short for, "quod erat demonstrandum." The English translation is roughly something like, "And thus I've proven my point! IN YER FACE LAHOOOSER!"
QED also means quantum elctrodynamics in physics, but now I'm just trying to look smart. ;)
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
quantum electrdynamics sound quite sexy, if ever you care to elaborate. And I am always grateful to bring out the softer side of life, some days I feel like such a brute, and I'd much rather be sweet.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
LOL, I spelled that wrong: electrodynamics
WOW, such a nice word.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
You bring out my softer side. ;)
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
Basically, anyone who tries to prove there is a god, either doesn't know the bacis of, or the laws of logic. They MUST rely on unrealiable, unscientific arguments. They must rely on "FAITH" or the ability to accept a statement, cause or belief, without evidence.
ktorch 4 years ago
Hilarious! I am laughing so hard. You destroyed my invalidation of Malcolm's proof with the example of a paralyzed alcoholic.
I am humbled, and I tip my hat to you.
snowfeet 4 years ago
But my purpose for such a destruction was to ultimately defeat any theist destruction. So it was done with love my darling.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
I think alogical would probably be more apt than illogical, but that's just me splitting hairs (for which you can get special shampoo).
abbnormalfunctions 4 years ago
Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle) its not concrete it can flex !
42ADENT 4 years ago
Excellent.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
OK, OK I got it now! If you believe in god, then,
you
must
BE DRUNK!!!
Yes. That is it..
rnistuk 4 years ago
not just drunk, stupid drunk.
Ender1zero1 4 years ago
Veeeery nice! Logic: The downfall of theism.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
His argument is all circular logic, begging the question. No not begging you question, THE QUESTION. LOL The alcoholic statement is a falty analogy. See my video called the christian fallacy: circular logic.
youtube DOT com/watch?v=OthcAl-QfW4
magnime01 4 years ago
LOL I AM Thequestion and he begged to be defeated : )
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago