Great argument! I see no one was actually able to debate you on it except to basically say you are wrong. Calling you a pantheist (which clearly you are not) and saying you are uninformed isn't much of a rebuttal.
Just a point of interest.....maybe, If you're in a plane that about to crash.. from 30,000ft and you pray to 'GOD' to save you...... either (1) 'GOD' doesnt' listen and you die, OR (2) 'GOD' hears you and ignores you....... the end result is ......... you die ..........GOD still exists....... bullshit
Yes. he will ignore you because you have ignored him all your life. Even religious people ignore God. Only way to know God is to come to realize you are not under law,sin and death because of the sacrifice of the Son of God. If you cannot acknowledge this in faith you cannot know God or hear his voice. "Many will tell him Lord Lord.. I will tell them to get away 'I never KNEW you'!".
I was travelling in Egypt, and got quite tired of all this religion you see and hear in the streets. So when some muslims asked how I can live without believing in anything, I told them that I believe in Santa Claus, and that he actually works the same way as any God: When you behave well you get rewarded...and he keeps his promises...
Aagh! Please stop getting sucked into the "negative proof" game with these theists.
"Your mother slept with goats because you can't prove she didn't" has a major logical flaw - the initial presumption. It's a rigged statement with a false basis.
We Atheists have to stop wrestling with theists in the verbal mud of mis-defining such words as "proof", "faith", and "theory".
If we refuse to play in a rigged game, if we demand that words be used correctly, we win the debate - every time.
Kyberspawn, I'm already well aware that there are a handful of people who believe those things, but it's pretty easy to prove that bodies can't be resurrected, esp. not after decomposition!
1st error. You do seem to be a theist, a pantheist to be precise, and not an atheist.
2nd error. You simply cannot disprove the existence of a transcendent god, unless you actually could find proof of god's existence and therefore disprove god's existence :P
3rd error. Many mainstream religions, some that use the bible, do not believe in "souls". They believe it is the bodies of the believes will be resurrected during the end of days while the those who fail to see truth remain in a state of illusionary death.
Tip: try to do some actual research next time please ;)
I don't see how. A pantheist sees the universe as god, but I just see the universe as the universe, nothing more or less. And the other thing you said makes no sense. I don't have to find proof of fairies to disprove fairies.
Oh and that thing made perfect sense, if god is transcendent (outside our universe) then of corse there would be no proof of him. So if you did find proof of god, you'd prove he didn't exist (Or at least is not transcendent)
Well by that logic, I can say that fairies are at least as likely to exist as God. So if you believe in God, you must believe in fairies too to be logically consistent. But I don't see how my vids hint at god being defined as love, the universe or natural laws. If I saw those things as god, I wouldn't call myself an atheist because obviously those things exist.
That first one made no sense. Without empirical evidence it is even more likely there will be differentiation in belief due to different perspectives. If there was anything concrete, there wouldn't as much variation on opinion.
So, you choose to define the word "god" as something that doesn't exist. So it can't be anything that does exist. And this is because you define yourself as an atheist, which you define as someone who doesn't believe god exists.
Wow, are you part of some new age sect that bases their beliefs on sketchy semantics :P
No, I choose to define it the way religious scholars do and the way the vast majority of people on earth do - as a transcendent, personal, supernatural, creator of the universe. Any other sort of "god" is irrelevant because that's not what most people mean when they use the word. If you define it too broadly you are merely defining it into existence. THAT is new age semantics, not what I'm doing.
"Proof god doesn't exist, well doesn't it depend on what we mean by god?" FaU
You're the one who questioned the definition to begin with, not me. And there is pretty much no universal definition of god, otherwise there wouldn't be religious scholars, though he/it usually has some, if not all of the qualities you mentioned. And I'd say the Vast majority of people couldn't say what god's qualities are cuz they haven't really ever thought about it.
Tell that to my deist friends who neither worship god, or believe in anything supernatural. Though they do believe in god, and think he possesses most of the other usual qualities.
If you come from a more fatalistic prospective you may see things in a different light. I think its also tied up in interpreting sick people as sinners. I think some christians and muslims believe that the course of our lives has been decided by our souls even before we are born. On the issue of christ, it may be interpreted as his death allowed sinners access to salvation if they repented but it hurts my brain trying to fit christ into a fatalistic reality but it can from some prospective.
By the way, you're really cute - love you hair!
(Good worldview too!)
LAnonHubbard 1 year ago
Great argument! I see no one was actually able to debate you on it except to basically say you are wrong. Calling you a pantheist (which clearly you are not) and saying you are uninformed isn't much of a rebuttal.
HomoDefiantz 2 years ago
Just a point of interest.....maybe, If you're in a plane that about to crash.. from 30,000ft and you pray to 'GOD' to save you...... either (1) 'GOD' doesnt' listen and you die, OR (2) 'GOD' hears you and ignores you....... the end result is ......... you die ..........GOD still exists....... bullshit
jimcro291252 4 years ago
Yes. he will ignore you because you have ignored him all your life. Even religious people ignore God. Only way to know God is to come to realize you are not under law,sin and death because of the sacrifice of the Son of God. If you cannot acknowledge this in faith you cannot know God or hear his voice. "Many will tell him Lord Lord.. I will tell them to get away 'I never KNEW you'!".
karrawa 3 years ago
I was travelling in Egypt, and got quite tired of all this religion you see and hear in the streets. So when some muslims asked how I can live without believing in anything, I told them that I believe in Santa Claus, and that he actually works the same way as any God: When you behave well you get rewarded...and he keeps his promises...
hrd007 4 years ago
Aagh! Please stop getting sucked into the "negative proof" game with these theists.
"Your mother slept with goats because you can't prove she didn't" has a major logical flaw - the initial presumption. It's a rigged statement with a false basis.
We Atheists have to stop wrestling with theists in the verbal mud of mis-defining such words as "proof", "faith", and "theory".
If we refuse to play in a rigged game, if we demand that words be used correctly, we win the debate - every time.
47f0 4 years ago
Kyberspawn, I'm already well aware that there are a handful of people who believe those things, but it's pretty easy to prove that bodies can't be resurrected, esp. not after decomposition!
FairandUnbalanced 4 years ago
Just because bodies do decompose is not proof that they won't resurrect. proof and likely hood are two completely unrelated issues :P
Kyberspawn 4 years ago
Your errors, just off the top of my head
1st error. You do seem to be a theist, a pantheist to be precise, and not an atheist.
2nd error. You simply cannot disprove the existence of a transcendent god, unless you actually could find proof of god's existence and therefore disprove god's existence :P
Kyberspawn 4 years ago
3rd error. Many mainstream religions, some that use the bible, do not believe in "souls". They believe it is the bodies of the believes will be resurrected during the end of days while the those who fail to see truth remain in a state of illusionary death.
Tip: try to do some actual research next time please ;)
Kyberspawn 4 years ago
I don't see how. A pantheist sees the universe as god, but I just see the universe as the universe, nothing more or less. And the other thing you said makes no sense. I don't have to find proof of fairies to disprove fairies.
FairandUnbalanced 4 years ago
Your vid hints to the contrary
Love=god
Universe=god
Natural laws=god
That's pretty much pantheism
And you would need proof to disprove fairies don't exist!
No one can disprove a negative.
Kyberspawn 4 years ago
Oh and that thing made perfect sense, if god is transcendent (outside our universe) then of corse there would be no proof of him. So if you did find proof of god, you'd prove he didn't exist (Or at least is not transcendent)
Kyberspawn 4 years ago
Well by that logic, I can say that fairies are at least as likely to exist as God. So if you believe in God, you must believe in fairies too to be logically consistent. But I don't see how my vids hint at god being defined as love, the universe or natural laws. If I saw those things as god, I wouldn't call myself an atheist because obviously those things exist.
FairandUnbalanced 4 years ago
That first one made no sense. Without empirical evidence it is even more likely there will be differentiation in belief due to different perspectives. If there was anything concrete, there wouldn't as much variation on opinion.
Kyberspawn 4 years ago
So, you choose to define the word "god" as something that doesn't exist. So it can't be anything that does exist. And this is because you define yourself as an atheist, which you define as someone who doesn't believe god exists.
Wow, are you part of some new age sect that bases their beliefs on sketchy semantics :P
Kyberspawn 4 years ago
No, I choose to define it the way religious scholars do and the way the vast majority of people on earth do - as a transcendent, personal, supernatural, creator of the universe. Any other sort of "god" is irrelevant because that's not what most people mean when they use the word. If you define it too broadly you are merely defining it into existence. THAT is new age semantics, not what I'm doing.
FairandUnbalanced 4 years ago
"Proof god doesn't exist, well doesn't it depend on what we mean by god?" FaU
You're the one who questioned the definition to begin with, not me. And there is pretty much no universal definition of god, otherwise there wouldn't be religious scholars, though he/it usually has some, if not all of the qualities you mentioned. And I'd say the Vast majority of people couldn't say what god's qualities are cuz they haven't really ever thought about it.
Kyberspawn 4 years ago
True. I just think it's pointless to call something god if it's not at least supernatural because gods are generally regarded as objects of worship.
FairandUnbalanced 4 years ago
Tell that to my deist friends who neither worship god, or believe in anything supernatural. Though they do believe in god, and think he possesses most of the other usual qualities.
Kyberspawn 4 years ago
how piggish!! u and husband!!
RoelGeurtsen 4 years ago
If you come from a more fatalistic prospective you may see things in a different light. I think its also tied up in interpreting sick people as sinners. I think some christians and muslims believe that the course of our lives has been decided by our souls even before we are born. On the issue of christ, it may be interpreted as his death allowed sinners access to salvation if they repented but it hurts my brain trying to fit christ into a fatalistic reality but it can from some prospective.
nG370 4 years ago
As gar as I know, there are no hinderances to posting a video reply to my vids. Maybe YT has changed, and you must subscribe to a person first?
:/
VonHelton 4 years ago
I don't know. I kept getting error message 500, if that helps.
FairandUnbalanced 4 years ago
Oh, that's maintinence. Just try again later.
:)
VonHelton 4 years ago