I make this critique because I seek to make atheists on youtube a bit more...amicable to open, cogent debate, rather than simply prattling off about how...oh I dunno...questions christians pose are "So stupid!" or something as asinine as that. I've been spoiled by intelligent, philosophically educated atheists that have inspired me to study the subject in depth and seek to become a professor, to be satisfied with the inane nonsense of blanket statements I usually see like "Allchristiansrdumlol"
6. I think by 'impact on your atheism' they were meaning it in the sense that Veritas48 used to; in that your atheism isn't just whether or not there's a god, but the entirety of your worldview and the sum of its parts. That is, whether or not the presence of this person made you consider the principals of Christianity as being adoptable TO your 'atheistic worldview' and whatnot, without necessarily(though optionally) accepting the god claim.
5. Defensive are we? They weren't insinuating this was evidence, and to make a pre emptive strike as if it's trying to lure you into a trap only seems a tad childish.
I'm of the position that...no. I've never met a christian whose morally good actions would indicate that they believe in an all loving god. To me, the two are completely separate issues. Believing in an all good god isn't what made that christian do good things...they did good things, AS a christian.
4.(I suppose 2 should have been cut into 2a and b, since you responded to two seperate parts of a question, but whatev's, this is in reference to your answer to Epydemic's third question)
So you don't like speculation? Great. Throw out all science then.
Oh what's that? Doesn't seem to logically follow? Well...what's a hypothesis? It's a speculation.
Seriously, instead of being on your high horse the whole time saying, "Your questions are dumb!" join the rest of us as we engage in cogent debat
3. They're not asking you if there's a currently existing argument you would need to hear coming from their mouths to be convinced. They're asking, COULD you be convinced, via rational argument?
Personally I'm of the opinion that...yes. I could be. Provided the axioms predicated on the argument follow from a naturalist worldview, with reverence to empirical knowledge, and sensory observation being necessary to obtain knowledge, and the argument's structurally valid and the premises sound.
2. I don't think there's hubris in it. I mean if anything's going to convince you, are you saying anything short of God coming to you HIMSELF and saying, "I'm right here" would never convince you? That no human discovery, or observation, or cogent, rational argument made by a human would ever convince you? I give you better credit than that. Also, to the absurd notion that if something is to be proven it'd be done already...that's...that's absolute nonsense. You might wanna...take that out.
1. Not really a laughable definition of god. It's fairly common among scholars to define god this way. They're not asking FOR the evidence that they can then GIVE you. They're asking you to speculate as to what could possibly change your mind. But clearly you're against speculation, as we see later. I personally am in the camp that says, "I don't know what evidence might convince me, but if a god like that existed, he/she would."
Thank you for demonstrating that you are extremely closed-minded. If no evidence would convince you, then you have disqualified yourself from engaging in rational discourse about theism and atheism. Why even bother to make videos about it?
I'm not an Atheist, however, it doesn't mean I don't condone it, you see I have no belief, no religion, well nothing that can be considered religious. You can think of me as a free thought, but I don't like the views of logistics they stand on. More importantly I don't believe in "science", because science is the observation to calculate correct "predictions" and or reliable "outcomes" . Being a scientist it's kind of ironic. However, I see everything as something meant and never meant to be.
@RPFS2008 ? I was merely stating that I know the subjectiveness of religion and atheism. You don't understand my context at all. I have "beliefs" as a religious person would call them, but it doesn't mean that I am entitled to be part of that religion. Neither does my "disbelieving" ways of religion entitle me to be an Atheist. Simplified restatement of said quote: I'm not religious, but that doesn't mean I can't be; I was also showing science isn't a religion, something I hate hearing.
@lorthin123 Well...you do have beliefs, you just evidently don't like to use the term belief as a descriptive term for them. Belief, put simply, is simply being convinced that something is either true, or more than likely to be true.
...So when you say you don't have 'beliefs' you sort of...don't accept anything to be true, or likely to be true? Wouldn't that make you...a postmodernist? Who would logically believe science to be...akin to religion?
@BigLundi This was a year ago, the great thing about atheism (I just want to point this out), is the evolution of it. It doesn't restrict your thinking with dogmas or a particular doctrine so you get to advance your understanding of atheism and/or religion.
To refute your reply: I'm human, there are things about me that can manipulate the truth as it is, that doesn't mean you can manipulate truth yourself. My beliefs are juxtaposed to the human nature and natural laws not religious understanding
I can understand that, in less than a year I've gone from what I used to call a weak atheist to an explicit atheist, don't have a schism about the words 'faith' or 'belief' because...well they're just words, and I would say my beliefs are pretty much reflected by yours.
@BigLundi Exactly right, I agree with them just being words. However, you should know in my 60 years as an atheist I've come to realize that you'll find reflections or at least common grounds with anyone in the world even with the religious.
Thumbs up in the first 20 seconds... Thank you for making this video, seriously... I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought they were smug as hell. Bionic dance's reply was good, but she went way too easy on them.
I always find it fascinating that these people are always trying to convince non-belivers that there is a god & that we should worship their god. Why exactly do they care what I belive or don't belive? How does it affect their life? It kinda seems to me that their faith may not be as solid as they would have us think. Who are they really trying to convince? Us or themselves?
Hey man, I made a video response to Epydemic on this video, and although I saw lame the questions were and how hypothetical they were, I still chose to take the moral high ground to show that there are good human beings.
sure is funny how they can not research the reason why atheists are what they are when they could of easily looked that up by looking up pros and cons and weeded out the bullshit themselves, they must not be very intelligent. i mean what kind of hot piece of ass would go out with some jew that looks like he hasnt eaten since before the holocaust? gimme a break, im not sensitive to them, i dont care about what they think if they think like that end of story:D
Dude, you can have my vote any time buddy. I think you nailed it with your response to the second question. It aint anyone's job to prove this supposed deity exists...except of course the deity itself. Still waiting for that tbh : }
Those two Christians are frighteningly calm and mad. I love the way you answered them, like an angry headmaster. Also the title amuses me. You're titles are always stimulating.
What would convince me of their god? Well that's pretty simple. Do any of the miracles that he had no problem doing in the past. I want to see the sea part. I want to see dead people rise from the grave and walk around for the living to see. I want to see a talking donkey. The list goes on. Since he had no problem in doing these miracles before, I see no reason not to have a repeat performance. I mean seriously, just about everyone in the world would believe in god if he did that.
Sorry but I don't see that big a difference between them and you here PA. You may not ask poorly formed questions but you're definitely smug and your attempt to engage with christians here is rather half assed and vain. Some of that could be excused on their side with naivety and inexperience. What about you?
Totally not a love and light kind of woman, but watching this would be like watching a 300 lb man curb stomp a puppy. Just because ya can, doesn't mean its necessary. Save the bitch kickers for the big dogs that bite and growl. These kids are just trying to debate and I think kids like them deserve more respect debate wise than most christian adults.
I know. It's an irony of our time that someone can both refer to themselves as a "Christian", yet believe in an "All-loving God" in direct opposition to biblical teaching.
Regarding the 3rd question or so, doesn't Romans 1:21-23 sort of say that atheists know god exists, but they actively deny it? If so, gosh darnit, we're lucky, we KNOW god exists, but those poor christians have to struggle to find him! :p
Their questions reveal a lack of understanding of why we are Atheists. Some Christians think we really believe in God but say we don't because we want to rape, pillage, steal, get drunk, and have lots of sex with men and women and children without any restraints from religion. The truth is most Atheists have higher moral standards than theists. We don't believe in any God because there is no evidence that a God exists.
You can post this as a response if you like. It is set to auto-allow.
To answer your first question, yes. To convince me you would need to present a sound deductive argument and show why the arguments I believe to be sound are in fact not sound.
To answer your second question, I would not believe in God if I came to the conclusion He did not exist.
You seemed to have missed the point of my questions. I am not seeking to argue in this video, just to understand your point of view.
An atheist simply doesn't hold the belief that a God exists.
So, a project.
Without assuming the existence of a God or the validity of scripture, pick a basic sociological question, and answer it. Try to do this non-cynically (i.e., place yourself in the position of someone trying to practically answer the question, simply without the above-named assumptions).
I hate having to state this, but I've seen the exercise tried cynically by too many theists.
I think the purpose of the first question was to see if atheists are as intellectually open as they claim to be. I mean what if a theist does have the inductive evidence in favor of god's existence, but atheists refuse this evidence because they haven't set a goalpost. Then atheists would be equally as hard to pin as theists with vague definitions of god. I don't really see any problem with setting a goalpost, considering how the debate boils down to induction IMO.
An argument in favor of god's existence is essentially irrelevant. We are talking about whether or not this entity actually exists and not about some abstract concept.
And this is one thing that Ontology is about, determining whether something actually exists or not. Also if the theism/atheism discussion breaks down to inductive arguments (which I think it does), then it would boil down to what is more likely the case. The reason why I am an atheist is simply because I think the evidence much better favors no gods existing.
You're correct, most deductive arguments for god's existence can merely demonstrate a deistic entity, but I am merely saying that if such a deductive argument was sound and indisputable, would it convince you of that given god?
I heavily doubt there will ever be a deductive argument like that, considering how all the deductive arguments for theism and atheism seem to have been demonstrated to be unsound.
I clarified that with "indisputable sound deductive argument." Its understandable when you read the ontological argument that something seems terribly flawed, and that we could easily plug in something else besides god and get a similar result. It's easily disputed, and I don't believe it was ever even unanimously accepted even among theologians.
Also what makes you think you would readily believe inductive evidence? I mean, if I had a personal experience with god I may well doubt my sanity, or perhaps blame it on a reaction to some drug. Even imagine if some entity came down from the sky claiming to be god, with seemingly magical powers. Couldn't this being be some advanced alien instead? At least the deductive argument can be analyzed and logically tested.
Thered also need to be a proper definition of god as i find it very spurious to try to prove something actively instead of coming to the conclusion after looking at the evidence.
Logical exclusion and deduction is a form of evidence. The problem of evil, for example. Logically excludes a God carrying the attributes "pantemporally* omniscient", "eternally omnipotent", and "eternally omnibenevolent" simultaneously.
* eternally is not appropriate here; "always knowing everything" can still mean "always knowing everything it is possible to know in linear temporality, or, 'up till now' ." "pantemporally omniscient" explicitly states that his knowledge spans eternity.
I might grant you that basically all the teleological arguments in favor of god's existence I have heard, seem to be arguments from ignorance, but if there was scientific backing for cosmological arguments in favor of god's existence, they maybe good evidence in favor of a first cause or deistic entity. Also there are other subjects that atheism and theism can discuss like: ethics, suffering and evil, free-will and determinism, consciousness etc. that may break down to the best explanation.
So basically they want atheists to give them the answers that they can use to prove, or at least have a convincing argument for the existence of god to atheists?
I love how they always ask questions, but NEVER take the time to listen to the answers. If they did, then they would not bring the same questions to the table over and over and over again.
I make this critique because I seek to make atheists on youtube a bit more...amicable to open, cogent debate, rather than simply prattling off about how...oh I dunno...questions christians pose are "So stupid!" or something as asinine as that. I've been spoiled by intelligent, philosophically educated atheists that have inspired me to study the subject in depth and seek to become a professor, to be satisfied with the inane nonsense of blanket statements I usually see like "Allchristiansrdumlol"
BigLundi 3 days ago
6. I think by 'impact on your atheism' they were meaning it in the sense that Veritas48 used to; in that your atheism isn't just whether or not there's a god, but the entirety of your worldview and the sum of its parts. That is, whether or not the presence of this person made you consider the principals of Christianity as being adoptable TO your 'atheistic worldview' and whatnot, without necessarily(though optionally) accepting the god claim.
BigLundi 3 days ago
5. Defensive are we? They weren't insinuating this was evidence, and to make a pre emptive strike as if it's trying to lure you into a trap only seems a tad childish.
I'm of the position that...no. I've never met a christian whose morally good actions would indicate that they believe in an all loving god. To me, the two are completely separate issues. Believing in an all good god isn't what made that christian do good things...they did good things, AS a christian.
BigLundi 3 days ago
4.(I suppose 2 should have been cut into 2a and b, since you responded to two seperate parts of a question, but whatev's, this is in reference to your answer to Epydemic's third question)
So you don't like speculation? Great. Throw out all science then.
Oh what's that? Doesn't seem to logically follow? Well...what's a hypothesis? It's a speculation.
Seriously, instead of being on your high horse the whole time saying, "Your questions are dumb!" join the rest of us as we engage in cogent debat
BigLundi 3 days ago
3. They're not asking you if there's a currently existing argument you would need to hear coming from their mouths to be convinced. They're asking, COULD you be convinced, via rational argument?
Personally I'm of the opinion that...yes. I could be. Provided the axioms predicated on the argument follow from a naturalist worldview, with reverence to empirical knowledge, and sensory observation being necessary to obtain knowledge, and the argument's structurally valid and the premises sound.
BigLundi 3 days ago
2. I don't think there's hubris in it. I mean if anything's going to convince you, are you saying anything short of God coming to you HIMSELF and saying, "I'm right here" would never convince you? That no human discovery, or observation, or cogent, rational argument made by a human would ever convince you? I give you better credit than that. Also, to the absurd notion that if something is to be proven it'd be done already...that's...that's absolute nonsense. You might wanna...take that out.
BigLundi 3 days ago
Concerning your answers:
1. Not really a laughable definition of god. It's fairly common among scholars to define god this way. They're not asking FOR the evidence that they can then GIVE you. They're asking you to speculate as to what could possibly change your mind. But clearly you're against speculation, as we see later. I personally am in the camp that says, "I don't know what evidence might convince me, but if a god like that existed, he/she would."
BigLundi 3 days ago
Thank you for demonstrating that you are extremely closed-minded. If no evidence would convince you, then you have disqualified yourself from engaging in rational discourse about theism and atheism. Why even bother to make videos about it?
bestvalue 3 weeks ago
I admire your steadfast faith. ;-) No evidence or argument could persuade you from what you believe to be true.
StupidTheist 1 month ago
first 3 questions were fucking stupid. All pointing to the same shit!
halflifeproductionz 1 year ago
I'm not an Atheist, however, it doesn't mean I don't condone it, you see I have no belief, no religion, well nothing that can be considered religious. You can think of me as a free thought, but I don't like the views of logistics they stand on. More importantly I don't believe in "science", because science is the observation to calculate correct "predictions" and or reliable "outcomes" . Being a scientist it's kind of ironic. However, I see everything as something meant and never meant to be.
lorthin123 1 year ago
@lorthin123
"I'm not an Atheist, however, it doesn't mean I don't condone it,"
Oh well THANK YOU!! Non believers around the world can now rejoice safe in the knowledge that lorthin123 condones atheism.
Halle-fucking-lujah
RPFS2008 1 year ago
@RPFS2008 ? I was merely stating that I know the subjectiveness of religion and atheism. You don't understand my context at all. I have "beliefs" as a religious person would call them, but it doesn't mean that I am entitled to be part of that religion. Neither does my "disbelieving" ways of religion entitle me to be an Atheist. Simplified restatement of said quote: I'm not religious, but that doesn't mean I can't be; I was also showing science isn't a religion, something I hate hearing.
lorthin123 1 year ago
@RPFS2008 ...of them.
lorthin123 3 days ago
@lorthin123
That's one hell of a late addition :)
RPFS2008 2 days ago
@RPFS2008 Lol, I posted a reply to someone a year ago but I didn't get one myself until a couple days ago.
lorthin123 2 days ago
@lorthin123 Well...you do have beliefs, you just evidently don't like to use the term belief as a descriptive term for them. Belief, put simply, is simply being convinced that something is either true, or more than likely to be true.
...So when you say you don't have 'beliefs' you sort of...don't accept anything to be true, or likely to be true? Wouldn't that make you...a postmodernist? Who would logically believe science to be...akin to religion?
BigLundi 3 days ago
@BigLundi This was a year ago, the great thing about atheism (I just want to point this out), is the evolution of it. It doesn't restrict your thinking with dogmas or a particular doctrine so you get to advance your understanding of atheism and/or religion.
To refute your reply: I'm human, there are things about me that can manipulate the truth as it is, that doesn't mean you can manipulate truth yourself. My beliefs are juxtaposed to the human nature and natural laws not religious understanding
lorthin123 3 days ago
@lorthin123 Alrighty then.
I can understand that, in less than a year I've gone from what I used to call a weak atheist to an explicit atheist, don't have a schism about the words 'faith' or 'belief' because...well they're just words, and I would say my beliefs are pretty much reflected by yours.
BigLundi 2 days ago
@BigLundi Exactly right, I agree with them just being words. However, you should know in my 60 years as an atheist I've come to realize that you'll find reflections or at least common grounds with anyone in the world even with the religious.
lorthin123 2 days ago
Come on, Patricianatheist! Why can't we be civil?
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
More like an epic-demic of bad questions!
haha I laugh at my own joke! haha haha
Eron2828 1 year ago
BAHAHAHHAHAHA YOU. ARE. AMAZING.
adri411 1 year ago
Thumbs up in the first 20 seconds... Thank you for making this video, seriously... I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought they were smug as hell. Bionic dance's reply was good, but she went way too easy on them.
jonatcer 1 year ago
I always find it fascinating that these people are always trying to convince non-belivers that there is a god & that we should worship their god. Why exactly do they care what I belive or don't belive? How does it affect their life? It kinda seems to me that their faith may not be as solid as they would have us think. Who are they really trying to convince? Us or themselves?
hottmess33 1 year ago
Thats not cool to call me a prick. I respect your video's and appreciate much of what you do. But please respect me as I respect you.
Imgoing2LoveYou 1 year ago
Hey man, I made a video response to Epydemic on this video, and although I saw lame the questions were and how hypothetical they were, I still chose to take the moral high ground to show that there are good human beings.
Imgoing2LoveYou 1 year ago
lol, funny stuff man
h0tsex0r 1 year ago
sure is funny how they can not research the reason why atheists are what they are when they could of easily looked that up by looking up pros and cons and weeded out the bullshit themselves, they must not be very intelligent. i mean what kind of hot piece of ass would go out with some jew that looks like he hasnt eaten since before the holocaust? gimme a break, im not sensitive to them, i dont care about what they think if they think like that end of story:D
ryanireland187 1 year ago
patricianatheist, while watching the video I couldn't get rid of the feeling, that you've been trolled.
mrh3h 1 year ago
Yo P.A.
Dude, you can have my vote any time buddy. I think you nailed it with your response to the second question. It aint anyone's job to prove this supposed deity exists...except of course the deity itself. Still waiting for that tbh : }
Game, set and match to you sir. ^ ^
bad4ever2001 1 year ago
I am on the verge of pissing my pants!
This video is sooooo hilarious!
Great upload. PatricianAtheist, you rule big time!!!
Geinponempie 1 year ago
Those two Christians are frighteningly calm and mad. I love the way you answered them, like an angry headmaster. Also the title amuses me. You're titles are always stimulating.
Palmergedd0n 1 year ago
There is something scary about those 2, i cant put my finger on it though.
jarjarbinks77 1 year ago
...its not your job...
Yes! Why would god need an agent, a spokesman or even two soooo smart people to prove his existence?
*facepalm*
...and 5 stars for the smile on my face!
UlyssesHawke 1 year ago
@UlyssesHawke
I wish people could say that to islamists...infact; thats going to be my counter proposals to their submit or die nonsense. ^^
bad4ever2001 1 year ago
When I heard their questions, epic face palms just literally destroyed my face. Now Im in great pain. Thanks christians >:[
Kretek 1 year ago
Another excellent upload!
Very well done!
IllPropaganda 1 year ago
What would convince me of their god? Well that's pretty simple. Do any of the miracles that he had no problem doing in the past. I want to see the sea part. I want to see dead people rise from the grave and walk around for the living to see. I want to see a talking donkey. The list goes on. Since he had no problem in doing these miracles before, I see no reason not to have a repeat performance. I mean seriously, just about everyone in the world would believe in god if he did that.
moety2 1 year ago
Sorry but I don't see that big a difference between them and you here PA. You may not ask poorly formed questions but you're definitely smug and your attempt to engage with christians here is rather half assed and vain. Some of that could be excused on their side with naivety and inexperience. What about you?
miraenna 1 year ago
Totally not a love and light kind of woman, but watching this would be like watching a 300 lb man curb stomp a puppy. Just because ya can, doesn't mean its necessary. Save the bitch kickers for the big dogs that bite and growl. These kids are just trying to debate and I think kids like them deserve more respect debate wise than most christian adults.
AmberEmancipated 1 year ago
Wow, those Christians are hella nerdy!
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
What are you supposed to say to those lame questions?
'Why yes, you could give me the arguments that -Why
do I think the sky is blue and the trees are green?
Who could have thought up such perfect color schemes
for our world other then god anyway, huh?
Then, maybe, just maybe, that shit right there,
might convince me.
Too much! lol
paulusmagirl 1 year ago
I told them to show me a square circle and I'll believe, they didn't find that funny. :)
FlyingFree333 1 year ago
4:12 how are these to lines even related??? lmfao!
anthonzi 1 year ago
I know. It's an irony of our time that someone can both refer to themselves as a "Christian", yet believe in an "All-loving God" in direct opposition to biblical teaching.
Fordi 1 year ago 3
Are you certain this isn't related to Poe's law? I can't tell with just a brief look at their channel.
anthonzi 1 year ago
Regarding the 3rd question or so, doesn't Romans 1:21-23 sort of say that atheists know god exists, but they actively deny it? If so, gosh darnit, we're lucky, we KNOW god exists, but those poor christians have to struggle to find him! :p
sp00x 1 year ago
They stole the Veritas48 idea. At least they accepted your response. Veritas rejected a bunch.
They used bad words.
insightnew 1 year ago
lol look at that homosexual on the right
WhiskeyLovinAtheist 1 year ago
I can't speak for every atheist but I thought that chick was cute! I'd hit it.
melowar78 1 year ago 20
@melowar78 it's sad she's retarded.
styrofoamheart 1 year ago
Yes, I would too.
Bet he isn't though, that would be a sin.
lol
Khayd4126 1 year ago
Under what circumstances would you "hit that" - or would you "tap that sweet, sweet ass" with no preconditions?
Fordi 1 year ago
Do you really want to try to either fight for custody or undo 18 years of indoctrination?
SabreKitteh 1 year ago
@melowar78 I concur
MykRefer 1 year ago
Some chicks are cute till they start talking. Then hit takes on a different meaning of what you might want to do.
longslidenyc 1 year ago 2
Agreed.
Idoloish 1 year ago
True enough. She's just another soulless Jesus dick sucking rag doll though sadly. There's so gray matter in that hollow skull.
rakunishu 1 year ago
Two smug pat ourselves on the back it's christmass time again know nothing douchebags.
longslidenyc 1 year ago
Aw, c'mon. They're cute, the way they have no idea what it's like to think without the God blanket stuffed into their tiny, tiny skulls.
Fordi 1 year ago
If there was an argument that could persuade PatricianAtheist and he already knew of it he would therefore be persuaded and not be an atheist.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago 15
Their questions reveal a lack of understanding of why we are Atheists. Some Christians think we really believe in God but say we don't because we want to rape, pillage, steal, get drunk, and have lots of sex with men and women and children without any restraints from religion. The truth is most Atheists have higher moral standards than theists. We don't believe in any God because there is no evidence that a God exists.
ebaltrace 1 year ago
wow...someone needs to pull the jesus buttplugs out of those two asses
Good answers PA but you probably made them cry....
AbdultheImpailler 1 year ago 3
I will answer as I go, before I hear PA's opinion.
1) Noah already did it!
2) Bang that girl in the pooper and upload it.
3) You can hack your way into heaven?
4) Yes, but that don't mean shit!!
5) NO!!!!! But it's a good indicator of which girls not to waste time on trying to bang. TYVMNGTFO!!!
Keippernicus 1 year ago 2
"Bang that girl in the pooper and upload it."
snrk*
* I'm torn between being shocked at the plain lack of respect for others and rolling on the floor.
Let's compromise.
Fordi 1 year ago
I love you Kei =)
Shigren 1 year ago
Oh those questions are fucking stupid.
Two of them are the same thing just worded differently!
QuarkyGideon 1 year ago
Is there anything I can do, personally, to change your mind?
Fordi 1 year ago
Threat of death?
QuarkyGideon 1 year ago
@QuarkyGideon
Done! Glad I could help. Now, remember to be convinced differently, else I'll gut you like a trout!
Fordi 1 year ago
Patrician those were some good answers lol
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
Very stupid questions, brutally honest answeres. I agree that they probably still won't get it.
genobahamut1337 1 year ago
He looks like Zach Braff's little brother
Skoenner 1 year ago 3
Kinda harsh, imo, PA. They were smug, sure, but seemingly well-intentioned and naive.
nemo3590 1 year ago 5
That was my impression as well.
miraenna 1 year ago
Wow.. the delusion is strong on those two.
Vogter2100 1 year ago
You can post this as a response if you like. It is set to auto-allow.
To answer your first question, yes. To convince me you would need to present a sound deductive argument and show why the arguments I believe to be sound are in fact not sound.
To answer your second question, I would not believe in God if I came to the conclusion He did not exist.
You seemed to have missed the point of my questions. I am not seeking to argue in this video, just to understand your point of view.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
Ooh, I can help with that.
An atheist simply doesn't hold the belief that a God exists.
So, a project.
Without assuming the existence of a God or the validity of scripture, pick a basic sociological question, and answer it. Try to do this non-cynically (i.e., place yourself in the position of someone trying to practically answer the question, simply without the above-named assumptions).
I hate having to state this, but I've seen the exercise tried cynically by too many theists.
Fordi 1 year ago
My head hurts!!
tricklessmagic 2 years ago
OMG My head hurts already with these religious folks!
tricklessmagic 2 years ago
I can see the brainwashing on their faces.
TheOtherSide100 2 years ago
Well, I'll say I am sick of the question videos hehe. These questions were not very well thought out.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
Thanks for pointing out the outrageous flaws in the theist dumb (and actually insulting) questions! Always enjoy you stoic and direct answers!
alpeaston 2 years ago
I hate that guy! =P
bananabread119 2 years ago
Nobody can be this fucking retarded, they must be trolling.
Gerafix 2 years ago 5
I think the purpose of the first question was to see if atheists are as intellectually open as they claim to be. I mean what if a theist does have the inductive evidence in favor of god's existence, but atheists refuse this evidence because they haven't set a goalpost. Then atheists would be equally as hard to pin as theists with vague definitions of god. I don't really see any problem with setting a goalpost, considering how the debate boils down to induction IMO.
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago 2
Also, what if a theist has an indisputable deductive argument in favor of god's existence?
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
An argument in favor of god's existence is essentially irrelevant. We are talking about whether or not this entity actually exists and not about some abstract concept.
Esrhan 2 years ago 3
And this is one thing that Ontology is about, determining whether something actually exists or not. Also if the theism/atheism discussion breaks down to inductive arguments (which I think it does), then it would boil down to what is more likely the case. The reason why I am an atheist is simply because I think the evidence much better favors no gods existing.
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
@SuperAtheistBrothers
He would be the first in history
creamsykle 2 years ago
And the deducative arguments ive seen of gods existence only prove A God
Not a specific god which is what most try to prove
excandersham 2 years ago
You're correct, most deductive arguments for god's existence can merely demonstrate a deistic entity, but I am merely saying that if such a deductive argument was sound and indisputable, would it convince you of that given god?
I heavily doubt there will ever be a deductive argument like that, considering how all the deductive arguments for theism and atheism seem to have been demonstrated to be unsound.
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
I would not as i would need some tangible evidence of its existence besides logical reasoning which may be flawed.
The ontological argument was accepted and perpertrated by descartes for a long time before other philosophers noticed its flawsof misdefining terms
excandersham 2 years ago
I clarified that with "indisputable sound deductive argument." Its understandable when you read the ontological argument that something seems terribly flawed, and that we could easily plug in something else besides god and get a similar result. It's easily disputed, and I don't believe it was ever even unanimously accepted even among theologians.
SuperAtheistBrothers 1 year ago
(continued)
Also what makes you think you would readily believe inductive evidence? I mean, if I had a personal experience with god I may well doubt my sanity, or perhaps blame it on a reaction to some drug. Even imagine if some entity came down from the sky claiming to be god, with seemingly magical powers. Couldn't this being be some advanced alien instead? At least the deductive argument can be analyzed and logically tested.
SuperAtheistBrothers 1 year ago
This is theorising however about the possibility of one but if it can be created it hasn't yet.
excandersham 1 year ago
Thered also need to be a proper definition of god as i find it very spurious to try to prove something actively instead of coming to the conclusion after looking at the evidence.
excandersham 1 year ago
Still no sorry as reason is not a substitute for evidence.
Id need both the argument and the proof to go with it as the best explanation for a phenomenon
excandersham 1 year ago
Logical exclusion and deduction is a form of evidence. The problem of evil, for example. Logically excludes a God carrying the attributes "pantemporally* omniscient", "eternally omnipotent", and "eternally omnibenevolent" simultaneously.
* eternally is not appropriate here; "always knowing everything" can still mean "always knowing everything it is possible to know in linear temporality, or, 'up till now' ." "pantemporally omniscient" explicitly states that his knowledge spans eternity.
Fordi 1 year ago
Did you not notice all the undefined statements in your comment
evil etc
also they can only be used as evidence of logical concepts
excandersham 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Also, what if a theist has an indisputable deductive argument in favor of god's existence?'
They should get around to sharing it already.
pakratmak 1 year ago
Ahh, what if.
I suppose if someone had a convincing argument for God's existence, I'd be convinced of God's existence, wouldn't I?
Still a long road to hoe, though, before I'd be a Christian again.
Fordi 1 year ago
what inductive evidence?
You mean the ontological/teleological argument created by improper use of language?
excandersham 2 years ago
I might grant you that basically all the teleological arguments in favor of god's existence I have heard, seem to be arguments from ignorance, but if there was scientific backing for cosmological arguments in favor of god's existence, they maybe good evidence in favor of a first cause or deistic entity. Also there are other subjects that atheism and theism can discuss like: ethics, suffering and evil, free-will and determinism, consciousness etc. that may break down to the best explanation.
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
These arguments however use a different definition of god than what most theists belief.
Cosmological arguments aim to prove deductively an intelligent first cause or just a first cause.
But this does not equate to a god such as what the christians believe in
excandersham 2 years ago
i.e an all loving all merciful all powerful god that intervenes in nature and cares deeply what you do in your own bedroom
excandersham 2 years ago
Excellent Video , P. A. !! Wow the blatant ignorance showed by the questions from these 2 dupes blows my mind.
Jezmundfb 2 years ago 4
So basically they want atheists to give them the answers that they can use to prove, or at least have a convincing argument for the existence of god to atheists?
DeeDemonwitch 2 years ago 5
I love how they always ask questions, but NEVER take the time to listen to the answers. If they did, then they would not bring the same questions to the table over and over and over again.
bleunt 2 years ago 7
Question videos are getting rather old.
MrKrov 2 years ago
Great answers to stupid assed questions!
bobster451 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
first hell yea suck it!
Because I can.
eoyn 2 years ago
the fuck?
SCRulerShinoda 2 years ago