I'm sick of ignorant fucks. YOU ARE WRONG. Positive claims can be both of existence AND of nonexistence. Logical difference in saying "I do not believe in God" and "I believe that God doesn't exist". Former is a lack of claim later is positive claim requiring a burden of proof.
Might as well ask someone to prove that unicorns don't exist, or vampires, or fairies. It's rediculous. I could name hundreds of things that don't exist that I can't prove don't exist. It's just that there's no real evidence that they DO exist.
not a single piece of scientific data shows the existence of a being that created the universe and, in fact, all of the science that "proves" anything shows that the various things Christians ascribe to god, as having had natural causes. You put all of that together and it's a single, powerful piece of evidence against believing in a god, let alone a specific god.
It's the old "Catch-22" argument. To prove something doesn't exist, proves that it indeed existed at some point in time. (I hope I said that right.)
In basic critical thought and science, if something is asserted to exist, there must be evidence to back up the assertion. Otherwise, it is just faith. (Take into account that some assertions are made with clear notations that there is no CURRENT evidence to support it at this time)
Good points. I think there is an interesting consequence when you point out that people of one religion reject other's gods (generally) - that being that it is, in fact, a minority opinion. Often, when you're arguing w/ a theist, they'll say, "Well, you know a lot more people believe than don't." The perfect counter to that is, "Yes, many groups all believe in a god or gods, and one of you may even be right. Statistically, though, it's not looking good for you."
he would be correct if you were to state and or believe 'there is NO god' it is likely a common misunderstanding due to the pedestrian interpritation of the word ATHEIST.
Eg.
me: i have a car.
you: prove it.
me: prove that i don't
(this would be shifting)
me: i have a car.
you: you don't have a car.
me: prove it.
(this wouldn't as the second statement makes the first irrelivent to the premise)
I get your point. What I personally say is that I don't see any reason to believe it.
I wouldn't say that there definitely is no God because that is a claim that would require its own standard of evidence and it is a standard that I cannot meet.
i'm an agnostic atheist so i hold the same stance as you.
i would also never say no god but... he is currently scientifically impossible (due to 1st law of thermodynamics) and philosophically illogical (as it relies on existance outside of existance).
if you do believe that the world is naturalistic then that is evidence enough to say NO god but the opposition may not share your view.
I'm sick of ignorant fucks. YOU ARE WRONG. Positive claims can be both of existence AND of nonexistence. Logical difference in saying "I do not believe in God" and "I believe that God doesn't exist". Former is a lack of claim later is positive claim requiring a burden of proof.
freakOFtheNature 1 year ago
Nice to see you. :-)
debbieomi 2 years ago
Might as well ask someone to prove that unicorns don't exist, or vampires, or fairies. It's rediculous. I could name hundreds of things that don't exist that I can't prove don't exist. It's just that there's no real evidence that they DO exist.
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
Here's my proof -
not a single piece of scientific data shows the existence of a being that created the universe and, in fact, all of the science that "proves" anything shows that the various things Christians ascribe to god, as having had natural causes. You put all of that together and it's a single, powerful piece of evidence against believing in a god, let alone a specific god.
Good to see you! Happy Holidays.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
Smart Man!
CrosshairJack 2 years ago
I built the sun out of legos
prove me wrong!!!
superextremelaser 2 years ago
Well, we have overwhelming evidence that the sun is a giant ball of flaming hydrogen and no evidence to prove that it is made from lego.
Hopefully this helps.
CrosshairJack 2 years ago
It's the old "Catch-22" argument. To prove something doesn't exist, proves that it indeed existed at some point in time. (I hope I said that right.)
In basic critical thought and science, if something is asserted to exist, there must be evidence to back up the assertion. Otherwise, it is just faith. (Take into account that some assertions are made with clear notations that there is no CURRENT evidence to support it at this time)
FraggedMind 2 years ago
I like this video. One of your best IMO. Faved, and 5 stars.
LatumWay 2 years ago
Cheers buddy!
CrosshairJack 2 years ago
ramble away, I've been missing your videos :) great points all around!
tattooskin72 2 years ago
JELLO PUDDINGAAHHHHH
All hail the great Cosby!
ShwaNerd 2 years ago
People who say "There is a god." Are making a positive assertion about god so they have burden of proof.
Equally if you say "There is no god." You have made a positive assertion about god. This is subject to conditions, e.g. you have burden of proof.
If you choose not to accept that there is a god, then as long as you don't make the positive assertion there is no god you have nothing to proof.
This is the difference between Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism.
Zekian 2 years ago
Good points. I think there is an interesting consequence when you point out that people of one religion reject other's gods (generally) - that being that it is, in fact, a minority opinion. Often, when you're arguing w/ a theist, they'll say, "Well, you know a lot more people believe than don't." The perfect counter to that is, "Yes, many groups all believe in a god or gods, and one of you may even be right. Statistically, though, it's not looking good for you."
FeelFreeToArgue 2 years ago
bill cosby? HAHAHHAH LOVED IT
davisfontanes 2 years ago
only if it was the law of margins,Then he would be right.
ArchangelNetwork1 2 years ago
he would be correct if you were to state and or believe 'there is NO god' it is likely a common misunderstanding due to the pedestrian interpritation of the word ATHEIST.
Eg.
me: i have a car.
you: prove it.
me: prove that i don't
(this would be shifting)
me: i have a car.
you: you don't have a car.
me: prove it.
(this wouldn't as the second statement makes the first irrelivent to the premise)
superchang847 2 years ago
I get your point. What I personally say is that I don't see any reason to believe it.
I wouldn't say that there definitely is no God because that is a claim that would require its own standard of evidence and it is a standard that I cannot meet.
CrosshairJack 2 years ago
that is why people turn to nihlism and pantheism.
i'm an agnostic atheist so i hold the same stance as you.
i would also never say no god but... he is currently scientifically impossible (due to 1st law of thermodynamics) and philosophically illogical (as it relies on existance outside of existance).
if you do believe that the world is naturalistic then that is evidence enough to say NO god but the opposition may not share your view.
superchang847 2 years ago
Ha I comment and the video is not processed yet! =P
rockerwere 2 years ago