Your problem isn't with God, is with man made dogmas created in our quest to understand God. You're confused because you try to get all the answers at the same time. You need to solve one problem at a time. Solve the first one and then we can move to the others. Could an immaterial conscious being, or a form of conscious energy, create the universe? Is there any possibility for that? yes/no? If not, why not.
Is there any possibility of God existing in any possible world?
@dejesusluisx "Your problem isn't with God, is with man made dogmas created in our quest to understand God."
But if you can admit that those dogmas were man-made, what's stopping you from admitting that the concept of god was man-made? And why "god"? Why monotheism and not polytheism?
@TADahar God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible that God exists.
@TADahar Matter is composed of discrete units, energy is a continuum, there are no boundaries that can separate one form of energy from another, so there must be one all powerful source.
There's only one God, one divine consciousness with many names and dogmas created by men over many centuries in our desire to understand his essence. Dogmas might be real or not, but God is real, and to understand that reality you need to be in his wavelength.
@pedarikarhu The force or energy that created the universe is either conscious or unconscious. An unconscious force will produce a random outcome without any order or pattern. Is the universe random? or we see an order? If the universe isn't random, then the force had to be conscious. The odds of an ordered life permitting universe are 10^1230 as calculated by atheist R. Penrose. A conscious force capable of creating the whole universe can only be called divine. We call this divine energy God.
@dejesusluisx You say that an atheist guy calculated those odds. I'm an atheist guy, and I calculate it at 50/50.
Both figures are equally meaningless. Physical properties of matter and energy create patterns with no consciousness, like crystal formation, weather patterns, ripples in beach sand, etc. No consciousness necessary.
@ndrthrdr1 "you say that an atheist guy calculated those odds. I'm an atheist guy, and I calculate it at 50/50" OK, the problem is you're no Oxford mathematician collaborator of Stephen Hawkins, so I'll stick by his numbers.
"Physical properties of matter and energy create patterns with no consciousness, like crystal formation, weather patterns, ripples in beach sand, etc" They all behave randomly within the external forces that shape them. The universe isn't like that at all.
@dejesusluisx Actually, they are parts of the universe, and they do act like that. Crystals of salt form in a particular shape, for example, not in random shapes, as do crystals of other chemicals. Same with star and planet formation, the cause of rotation of planets, etc. Natural forces of physics, chemistry, geology, etc.
Do you think that a god gathers up sand grains and keeps arranging them on coastlines to give us nice beaches, or do you think that they gather their naturally?
@ndrthrdr1 "Do you think that a god gathers up sand grains and keeps arranging them on coastlines to give us nice beaches, or do you think that they gather their naturally?"No, God created the laws to allow that to happen.
@ndrthrdr1 Try to answer the following facts: 1. The fine tuning of the universe discards the possibility of chance origins 2. String theory multiple universes calculation discards randomness as an origin 3. The probability required to assembly the living cell discards the possibility of self-assembly. 4. Our self programming brain is trait nowhere found in nature. 5. Evolution shows directionality by producing ever more complex species throughout time instead of randomness.
@dejesusluisx Fine-tuned for life? Two miles up, you freeze to death. Same at the poles. You'd die in the desert, drown in the sea..
Virtually all of the Universe is uninhabitable.
String theory has been discarded as nonsense.
Saying you don't know how the first replicating molecules happened doesn't prove a magical sky wizard. There's no proof that dolphins are any less intelligent than humans.
@ndrthrdr1 The odds the same person wins every lottery, every week, on every state for all his life are about 10^14, and no one in his right mind would say is perfectly acceptable to believe there was no intervention at all to alter the results. The odds the universe is suitable for life are 10^1230, and you say is OK to believe it ? That there was no intervention? Physicists accept those odds??? Either they are brainwashed by an evil power or just are willfully lying and deceiving themselves.
@ndrthrdr1 Fred Hoyle calculated probability living cell arranging out of random molecules to be 10^40,000. If you put in a test tube a soup of all the components needed to form a living cell, taken from thousands of actual cells, you can't form even one cell out of random rearrangements. Scientists have been trying for decades, with the latest knowledge, resources and instruments available at their disposal, to create life in the lab. When they succeed, they'll prove life is designed
@dejesusluisx Fred Hoyle was the same guy who coined the term "Big Bang", claiming that no such rapid expansion ever happened. He was a science fiction writer, just like the founder of the Scientology cult, and was known as a wingnut.
Your comment "When they succeed, they'll prove life is designed" shows that your mind is made up before any future discoveries are made. That says it all.
@ndrthrdr1 "shows that your mind is made up before any future discoveries are made. That says it all." If you spend 50 yrs, millions of dollars, thousands of man hours, and the latest technology to come up with something, is obvious that anything you produced couldn't have been produced spontaneously by nature. You just need to combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water but if you mix all the components of a cell in a test tube, you don't produce a cell. why?
@ndrthrdr1 The human brain is not just a trait, is the top of evolution. No other species have a brain that can program itself. If you follow computer programs progress, the ultimate program would a program that can program itself. Natural selection would have selected many species with this advantageous trait in billions of yrs of evolution, yet there are no species like us. This indicates directionality, not randomness in the evolution process, hence a creator.
@ndrthrdr1 5. Natural Selection doesn't think. Is a random natural process that selects the individuals that produce more offspring. How can Natural Selection explain the fact that simple organisms produce the most offspring and yet evolution continued beyond them. Evolution has shown that more complex individuals are more recent than less complex. A random process should not have directionality. Directionality suggest intelligence behind the process, hence God
@dejesusluisx "Matter is composed of discrete units, energy is a continuum, there are no boundaries that can separate one form of energy from another, so there must be one all powerful source."
But if everything in the universe is a part of god, and god is energy, would it not mean that you and I are individuation of this total energy? Why could it not be then that this divine energy you assert exists also individuates itself into multiple gods?
"Theism" -belief in the existence of a god or gods - merriam-webster
The word "atheism" is simply the addition of the prefix "-a" to "theism," that is its source. The prefix "-a" means not, or without. So, fundamentally "atheism" says nothing about how you reached such a belief, only your state of being without.
Please point out what requires a rejection, and if so, what would we call someone who had never considered religion?
@TADahar Well, I have yet to find a system of belief convincing aside from one based on natural laws (on account of a complete lack of evidence). So, I guess? haha.
I don't doubt that these people used to be non-believers... but they seem to think that their "I just never thought about religion much" atheism is the same thing as "I have thought about, and rejected, religious claims" atheism.
Anyone who belongs to an atheist group are pretty much guaranteed to not fit into the implicit atheist category of most ex-atheist theists.
@Alexthegreat8907 repent you heathen before the wrath of the lord your god, the flying spaghetti monster, rains down his noodley wrath upon you. It's not to late to be saved from an eternal hell of stale beer and stripers with VD!
@mellowmark1 "Agnostic Theist = Believes, but does not know there is a god" is a contradiction. How can you believe in a God and not know if there is a God.
You can be unsure if there is a God (Agnostic Atheist) but you cannot be sure (believe) of a God and not sure of a God at the same time.
A moderate theist might consider the holy texts in terms of metaphor for instance, rather than literal facts.
How can you believe in a God and not know if there is a God."
There are many religious people who wouldn't claim to know there is a god yet still believe in god. Contradiction or not, these people do exist. Everyone in the world fits into one of these categories.
@mellowmark1 that's being gnostic or agnostic, you can be a agnostic theist, that means you believe in god but aren't certain he does exist.
I presume you take the scientific explanation as the right one but, its not an absolute, its just the best explanation we have.
If you take it as an absolute truth, you are only giving reason to theists that claim you have a faith in science, and the last thing scientific development need is faith.
You're arguing that atheists are refusing to believe in something, when it is faith and consequently belief in something that has been asserted but never justified that is the core issue.
In discussion of specifically defined supernatural beings, there is only faith (theism) and lack of faith (atheism), no other standpoint is possible or even worth mentioning. Anything else is semantics or a straw man.
The statement "I used to be an Atheist and now I'm a Christian" would only be plausible if the person has suffered serious brain damage or is being tortured/threatened into saying it. If not, then the only conclusion is that the statement is a lie.
Why do I keep hearing this? Atheism is not "lack of belief", it is disbelief or rejection. No distinguished dictionary defines atheism as "lack of belief".
@inswoon Well said. Another thing I keep hearing, is that if you call yourself an "agnostic", that necessarily means you're really an atheist. Absolute BS!!! To avoid confusion, I will call myself an agnostic theist. Only around atheists though, because most other people will simply take me at my word.
@inswoon I could, but secular humanist doesn't really describe me. Why does agnostic theist sound hostile??? I've heard many atheists say; "agnostic means you don't know. It says nothing about what you believe. You're either an agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist or gnostic theist." So I roll with it and use the more descriptive term. It doesn't matter though.
@GalapagosPete Disbelief is refusal to believe in something, so you are literally refusing to believe in the existence of a god or gods. That's atheism, not what you've seemed to assumed.
That's true but only if YOU accept that your faith is based on nothing, and you have no rational argument for why someone else should believe. I refuse to believe anything with absolute certainty when it's already been shown conclusively to be imaginary, yes, I refuse to accept fantasy as reality. That's exactly what he's describing as atheism, and is correct.
The way you say it, however, suggests that a particular god exists and someone irrationally ignoring him, which is a lie.
@TheTexanCanadian Faith is irrelevant to our discussion. Do not use typical informal, logical fallacies. I didn't denote that I had any argument at all, you are, again, showing signs of informal fallacies. I am uninterested in your ability to comprehend things, it is, again, irrelevant to our discussion. You've fabricated the end with--wait for it--another logical fallacy! Boy are you good.
The definition I am using does not insinuate anything remotely similar to your assumption.
@TheTexanCanadian Again, faith is irrelevant as the discussion is not based on the actuality of god. It is based on the definition of a word. Faith is irrelevant as I am not opposing or proposing it - it is totally unneeded.
"Your god"
I do not belong to a god or gods. I am also not associated with a god or gods. Faith is a logical fallacy as it is based on authority -- this cannot be used as an argument and may only be asserted.
Before you accuse me of some made-up and irrelevant logical fallacy...
theism is faith in the absolute truth of a supernatural higher power and assertion that the faith is justified without providing evidence. This is not in question. Atheism is nothing more than refusal to accept that stance with regard to that higher power.
I do apologize for assuming you are a Christian if you are not. As I see it, there are theists and atheists and if someone describes themselves as an agnostic it is only because they misunderstand the term atheist.
@GalapagosPete Then why are you commenting if you have no actual opinion of semantics? I am uninterested in you being an atheist or why you're are one.
@GalapagosPete I forgot to mention your conflicting statements.
You first say "I do not say they do not exist" and then you agree with my statement "disbelief is refusal" by asserting "I refuse to believe in things for which there is no evidence".
@inswoon I believe the statement about atheism is this.
"I refuse to believe in any God that cannot be proven to exist, BUT I do not state that 'Gods' COULD not exist. If you have enough scientific evidence of a particular entity that can be classed as our creator, I would believe it.
If for instance we found a way to 'see' an invisible unicorn then I would believe it exists (proof = scientific method that can be repeated successfully via independant parties.)
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Regardless of your subjective preference of the definition – the validated, solemn, and true definition is still current. Atheism means disbelief or rejection of. I apologise, but, what you believe is irrelevant to the definition.
@inswoon Yes you are right. I should have said that was my extended view and I think the view of some of the presenters (from their own statements over videos on Atheist Experience) would include a bit more than just that concise statement. Thanks for being polite about your reply too. Of course many atheists have their own variation on Atheism in terms of why they disbelieve and what it would take to change their minds.
@inswoon You keep hearing this because it's an attempt to clarify that atheists aren't making claims of absolute knowledge. It might seem unnecessary, but theists often want to claim that atheists believe no god could possibly exist. This is a straw man and would indeed be a silly position to hold. Atheists simply reject the claims made by theists.
The "lack of belief" definition is also closer to the meanings of the root words involved. A=without. Theism=a belief in a god or gods.
@BrooklynRagtag I completely agree, except the prefix 'a', isn't explicit in the word 'atheistic', as it should be. Atheistic means the disbelief, not lack of belief. The original Latin term 'atheos', as you evidently know, means without gods: godless. But this definition is not the same in our current language. Atheistic, today, means disbelief of the existence of god or gods - or of course, the belief that they do not exist. As you can see, the prefix 'a' isn't required in consistency [cont.]
@inswoon What would you call a person who lacks a belief in any gods? Is their no word to describe such a person?
If you can appeal to modern usage to explain why the "a" in "atheist" doesn't have the traditional meaning, can you then criticize a trend in modern usage that deviates slightly from the older definition many dictionaries offer? The "lack of belief" definition has been used by philosophers since the 1700s and it seems to be a common definition among self-described atheists today.
@inswoon I haven't missed your point. I know what most dictionaries say. I acknowledge that the lack-of-belief definition is a slight deviation from the normal dictionary definition.
What would you call a person who lacks a belief in god? I would call that person an atheist or maybe a weak atheist or an agnostic atheist. What term would you use?
@BrooklynRagtag Someone who lacks belief is not an atheist. They are agnostic as they have yet to receive the opportunity to believe in god(s); babies and primitive humans were agnostics, not atheists.
@inswoon "They are agnostic as they have yet to receive the opportunity to believe in god(s); "
what? since when did agnostic mean "no knowledge of god"? an agnostic is someone who doesn't claim to know. when talking about god, it's someone who does not know if god's real and doesn't matter when talking about belief.
an atheist is an a- theist. someone that isn't a theist. someone that isn't a theist is an atheist. you need belief to be a theist. atheism is at least a lack of belief. simple.
@atheistnarutofan I didn't claim that that is true, but if you want me to prove that it does - then sure: "...but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable." Right there. Unknown; no knowledge. I have already gone over your last claim, but you evidently have not listened to my comments. Regardless of 'a' being a prefix; atheism is not the lack or absence of belief in a god. It is down right denial; disbelief. Any dictionary stating otherwise has ill-information.
@inswoon. From Wiktionary, on Usage notes: The term atheism may refer either to an explicit belief that God or gods do not exist (explicit strong atheism), the mere absence of any explicit belief about God or gods (implicit weak atheism), or the explicit rejection of belief in the existence of any deities (explicit weak atheism) without necessarily taking the position that it is false that deities exist.
@TheGeneralCritic Maybe you don't understand what I'm explicityly stating. I am not arguing that multiple definition do not exist, but that the true definition of pure atheism is disbelief or rejection. You've missed my point, I suggest you stop doing that.
@inswoon You are not an authority on what is or is not the 'true definition' of 'pure' atheism. Unless you can present some kind of credentials that establish you as some kind of authority.
If a person ascribes to any one of the definitions I listed, they are an atheist. Period. End of sentence.
@TheGeneralCritic I did not claim that I had any authority. I am basing my assertion on a range of dictionaries. I have no intention of giving you credentials as that would be absurd, I did not construct the English language, silly person. You axiomatically lack the capacity to fathom the simple concept of a definition.
@inswoon You are wrong. Atheism is not anti-theism. Agnostics are atheist. Those who have never been introduced to any gods are atheist. Every human was born atheist. But, since you've been PWNED so many times and you keep doubling down, I'll attempt to make it very clear. The actual definition of atheism is without theism. You'll see in dictionaries and articles the definition of anti-theism applied to atheism, but this is not correct. The way you can tell is that they say that atheism in its
@xJoeEDangerouslyx I didn't claim that atheists were anti-theists. What I said was this: atheists have disbelief or rejection of belief in god or gods, not against the notion. Atheist have to literally say 'I do not believe in god', and agnostics aren't atheists, that's absolutely absurd. Agnostics label the idea of a god or gods as unknowable, meaning their opinion regarding god's (or gods') existence is uncertain to them. They are indifferent. Every human cannot be born an atheists as [cont.]
@xJoeEDangerouslyx [cont.] atheism is rejection. Babies don't reject the notion of a god or gods, that's also absurd. "But, since you've been PWNED so many times and you keep doubling down, I'll attempt to make it very clear." Another absurdity with no premise to back it up. "The actual definition of atheism is without theism." I've proved otherwise and you still attempt to assert this already-negated, feeble, puerile claim. It's pathetic.
The answer there is in the roots of the word disbelief. "Dis" means without and well you know what belief means. So "lack of belief" and "without belief" are really the same thing. Rejection of something just reflects your having considered it and are unconvinced.
@DueCarnage I wasn't aware I was arguing using prefixes. Disbelief is refusal to believe a notion, it is not lack of belief like I have previously mentioned. Please link me to a dictionary that denotes otherwise and you got yourself an argument.
@inswoon The prefix "a-" as in the word atheism means not or without. Theism being a "belief in the existence of a god or gods" (merriam-webster), atheism is not having, or without such a belief. The distinction you are making, if right, would only serve to point out different ways to reach a lack of belief. If I were ignorant of a belief in god I would lack belief in a god just as much as if I were to affirmatively deny such existence. If you disbelieve or reject, you lack, so?
@DueCarnage I am aware of the prefix and of what it denotes, but that is not the definition. I implore you to read my previous comments regarding this. I am basing my view on the _actual_ definition of atheism. I also implore you to suggest any respectable dictionary with the definition: 'lack of' or 'absence of', as opposed to 'disbelief' and 'rejection'. If you are ignorant of God, i.e. you are a baby or a primitive human, you are a agnostic. I have asserted this argument in previous.. [cont.]
@DueCarnage [cont.] comments on this video. I suggest you read them before I have to re-write my previous assertions and rebuttals. Lacking is not rejection, if you lack a belief, it is simply not there; rejection means you have to literally sustain the belief that there is no god or gods, you have to say you don't believe.
@inswoon To be quite honest, responding to your past comments isn't really worth my time. Of course lacking is not a rejection, a rejection is a means where as lacking is a state. When one honestly rejects a belief you necessarily lack it, however, lacking a belief does not necessitate rejection of it.
@DueCarnage If my comments aren't worth your precious time, you wouldn't currently be responding to me; and being rude is really quite immature. You're just repeating my argument. You have noticed that, right?
@inswoon broadest form is lack of belief. The next one is colloquial. It is not correct and the ignorance is simply staggering. You seem to be asserting that "atheists really believe..." No. This is ignorant and wrong. I don't know how many more times you have to hear it. You're behaving like an evolution-denying theist. You're behaving like an ignorant fool. You're being very childish and if you're not interested in listening, why do you keep posting? You're wrong and that's all there is to it.
@xJoeEDangerouslyx "atheists really believe..." No. This is ignorant and wrong. I don't know how many more times you have to hear it." Another baseless claim. Where's your argument? "You're behaving like an evolution-denying theist." How can you make such a distant claim? You have no information regarding my belief or lack of. Especially regarding evolution, but I guess infants cannot help themselves, and must encompass an unrelated topic.
@xJoeEDangerouslyx How can you say I'm childish? Prove that I have been childish before we had this puerile conversation. How am I not interested? I've negated every single claim made and you're crying about it. Plain and simple. You've simply insulted me and ignored the context of my rebuttals, merely because you don't want me to be correct. You also haven't negated anything I have said. I'll wait to see if you do.
@inswoon Nah, our conversation is worth my time, searching out your other comments isn't worth my time. Being snide is also immature, so apparently I'm in good company. There is actually a distinction between your argument and what I'm repeating. That difference is found in the fact that "Atheism" describes both, and either, a "lack of belief" and a "rejection of belief."
@seeqer66 in that case we beg to differ. believing in undetectable sky dads that can make your wishes come true (how convenient) is rather wishful and illogical according to me. i guess it's just a difference in definition, is it not :<
@sinprelic I've met plenty of irrational atheists. I've met plenty of rational theists. Bear in mind that not every theist thinks of their "God" the same way either. Read Spinoza.
@seeqer66 yeah spinoza was not really a theist, he was one of the gnostic variants of atheists. theism necessitates that you believe in a god that intervenes and that is interested in what you do. a theist god must be for all means and purposes be considered as someone who is lets say the judge of whether you go to heaven or hell. i am aware not all theisms have heaven and hell, but they all share the feature of comforting everyone with afterlives. not all religions, but all theisms do.
@sinprelic Depends on your definition. In the general sense, theism means the belief in at least one "deity". In the more specific sense, it refers to a doctrine of "God's" activity and nature in relation to the universe. That could mean anything really. I believe in a plan of sorts. I don't believe prayer means squat, nor do I believe worship does. Spinoza and I don't agree on everything though. He was just an example.
@seeqer66 you believe in a plan.. as in a DEVISED plan by somebody? who is that somebody :| and follow-up question, how can you claim to you know what the plan is or that there is a plan in the first place? what is your evidence for that? i'm genuinely curious :>
@sinprelic Plan is the best word I could come up with. The somebody would be the "spiritual" nature of the universe, which I see as a universal field (think Higgs field, but different function). I've never claimed to "know" anything. This is what I believe due to my own meditation and thoughts on the subject. I also feel that modern atheism fits into that "plan". I feel that atheism will become the vast majority opinion within a generation or two. No point in fighting it, it's what's intended.
@seeqer66 yeah, but just because it's part of the plan, doesn't mean you should be indifferent to it. hey, hitler is coming to power in a decade, should we stop him? na! it's part of the plan.
that is a sickly passive approach to reality. you abolish morality.. hell, if others dont find cures and scientific breakthroughs for you, if others dont educate you, then you even wont help yourself... that is sickly. i'm gonna help propel civilization no matter how much i know it will fail in the end.
@sinprelic My belief is that the universe itself is the one with the "plan". I am part of the universe. I help make the decisions. As do you. It's not about indifference. Either way. I don't see this as a bad thing. I see it as an opportunity for the human race to learn something. It feels right.
@sinprelic In addition, an atheist is much more likely to think about a situation before they decide the morality of it, than is a Christian or Muslim. That's a very good thing. Real morality requires thought.
@seeqer66 i don't see which part of your conclusions led you to be a 'spiritualist' and not an atheist. you don't believe in gods, the usefulness of religion, or in destiny or a prime mover. why then not accept being called atheist? you can be a spiritual atheist too. you can be an atheist full of wonders and appreciation for the natural world! i hardly see your non-commitment to atheism really. atheism just means a-theism, or without belief. you are without belief, so are you not atheist? :)
@sinprelic You're right that "theist" doesn't really describe me. I am not without belief though. In fact, the more accurate definition for me is magician. However, most people misunderstand that term due to con-artists and fantasy stories. I do have beliefs. I do not have proofs for those beliefs that stand up to material scrutiny though. Plus, it doesn't really matter if others share those beliefs. So those remain deeply held, and private. My YT "mission" is to help keep the transition civil.
Well, perhaps that "god of personal experience" isn't cruel if, unlike biblical one, it just have no conciousness and it's not a person, but a natural phenomena that people at some point decided to call a "God", you know, like the Force from Star Wars. And it can be used if you know how, this makes prayer that was fulfilled noting else than sucsessful attempt to hack into the system. 8D
When it comes to commenting on YouTube you actually DO need to state your lack of belief especially when disagreeing with fellow athiest on something because people are so quick to attack you and religion because they assume that if you disagree with them on something, your must be a religious nut. So yes, you DO need a disclaimer so fellow athiest THINK FIRST because like it or not, many just HATE religion so much they are quick to attack without fully reading or understanding your comment.
@davidls11 They are certainly irrational in believing in some sort of deity in the absence of evidence supporting that belief; doesn't mean they can't be rational in other areas of their lives, however.
@davidls11 thats a bit harsh and broad. We may belief that theists beliefs are irrational but the person may have plenty of rational thoughts about other areas of his life. Also to his mindset he is 'rational' in terms of his belief. So calling him or her irrational as a personal attack does not help much. The belief is irrational. The person simply thinks its rational as they never thought about it any other way. Many simply assume religion makes sense.
@88res He didn't, he just made us without knowledge of good and evil or death and put a tree in the garden which we were not alowed to eat of because we would die on the day they ate of it (although they didn't know what that meant). Then when Eve gets near the tree, this smart snake (created by god) tells eve she won't actually die, but god does not want them to become gods. She doesn't know what evil is, and so she doesn't know what deceit is.
Kirk Cameron & ShockOfGod might have called themselves atheists all they wanted but taking into account their abilities to construct logical and coherent arguments they were probably atheists for all the wrong reasons.
I think all people who say they "were atheists but now believe X" are maybe etiher honest and not very bright OR a bunch of fucking liars and still not very bright.
There is no word as "disunderstanding"! You can't stop using a logical conclusion once you've understood it?
We're all born Atheist anyway. It's just people that changes that position with comforting, false delusions. Then again, religion isn't comforting at all.
@DarkBunnyLord no atheist just simply say there isn't evidence for the existance of a god. Atheist don't say there's no god,..but say they don't believe in one.
I quote "refute the BELIEF of God", I never claimed we had absolute knowledge of the lack of existence, but rather that we refuted the belief because there was no logical reason to believe yet since no evidence has been presented.
@DarkBunnyLord How can we be born not knowing whether or not God exist? I say we're born Atheist because we simply are born not believing. I'm not saying we came out the womb saying "I don't believe in God". I'm saying it wasn't in our knowledge to believe in the first place, therefore we were born Atheist/ non-believers.
even personal experiense can be deseving. if there no evidense to suport your calim you shuld not belive it. you mind can lie to you. your eyes can lie. you might whish that it is real so bad that you acsyaly start to think that its real. seing is beliving, but seing is not knowing, beliving is not knowing. it migth have happend but most likley it migth not have happend and you shuld exept that, and stop beliving without good evidense.
Time dilation works the other way around, if it was 18 hours for her it would've been months or years for everyone else depending on her speed. Though I don't think speed had anything to do with it, it appeared to be some sort of artificial wormhole, sort of like an exact transmission.
Your problem isn't with God, is with man made dogmas created in our quest to understand God. You're confused because you try to get all the answers at the same time. You need to solve one problem at a time. Solve the first one and then we can move to the others. Could an immaterial conscious being, or a form of conscious energy, create the universe? Is there any possibility for that? yes/no? If not, why not.
Is there any possibility of God existing in any possible world?
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
@dejesusluisx "Your problem isn't with God, is with man made dogmas created in our quest to understand God."
But if you can admit that those dogmas were man-made, what's stopping you from admitting that the concept of god was man-made? And why "god"? Why monotheism and not polytheism?
TADahar 5 months ago
@TADahar God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible that God exists.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
@dejesusluisx I see. Next question: Why monotheism and not polytheism?
TADahar 5 months ago
@TADahar Matter is composed of discrete units, energy is a continuum, there are no boundaries that can separate one form of energy from another, so there must be one all powerful source.
There's only one God, one divine consciousness with many names and dogmas created by men over many centuries in our desire to understand his essence. Dogmas might be real or not, but God is real, and to understand that reality you need to be in his wavelength.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Still don't see a reason why it has to be a "divine consciousness".
Pray moar.
pedarikarhu 4 months ago
Comment removed
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@pedarikarhu The force or energy that created the universe is either conscious or unconscious. An unconscious force will produce a random outcome without any order or pattern. Is the universe random? or we see an order? If the universe isn't random, then the force had to be conscious. The odds of an ordered life permitting universe are 10^1230 as calculated by atheist R. Penrose. A conscious force capable of creating the whole universe can only be called divine. We call this divine energy God.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx You say that an atheist guy calculated those odds. I'm an atheist guy, and I calculate it at 50/50.
Both figures are equally meaningless. Physical properties of matter and energy create patterns with no consciousness, like crystal formation, weather patterns, ripples in beach sand, etc. No consciousness necessary.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 "you say that an atheist guy calculated those odds. I'm an atheist guy, and I calculate it at 50/50" OK, the problem is you're no Oxford mathematician collaborator of Stephen Hawkins, so I'll stick by his numbers.
"Physical properties of matter and energy create patterns with no consciousness, like crystal formation, weather patterns, ripples in beach sand, etc" They all behave randomly within the external forces that shape them. The universe isn't like that at all.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Actually, they are parts of the universe, and they do act like that. Crystals of salt form in a particular shape, for example, not in random shapes, as do crystals of other chemicals. Same with star and planet formation, the cause of rotation of planets, etc. Natural forces of physics, chemistry, geology, etc.
Do you think that a god gathers up sand grains and keeps arranging them on coastlines to give us nice beaches, or do you think that they gather their naturally?
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 "Do you think that a god gathers up sand grains and keeps arranging them on coastlines to give us nice beaches, or do you think that they gather their naturally?"No, God created the laws to allow that to happen.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Based on what evidence?
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Try to answer the following facts: 1. The fine tuning of the universe discards the possibility of chance origins 2. String theory multiple universes calculation discards randomness as an origin 3. The probability required to assembly the living cell discards the possibility of self-assembly. 4. Our self programming brain is trait nowhere found in nature. 5. Evolution shows directionality by producing ever more complex species throughout time instead of randomness.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Fine-tuned for life? Two miles up, you freeze to death. Same at the poles. You'd die in the desert, drown in the sea..
Virtually all of the Universe is uninhabitable.
String theory has been discarded as nonsense.
Saying you don't know how the first replicating molecules happened doesn't prove a magical sky wizard. There's no proof that dolphins are any less intelligent than humans.
Number 5 is not an argument in your favor.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndrthrdr1 The odds the same person wins every lottery, every week, on every state for all his life are about 10^14, and no one in his right mind would say is perfectly acceptable to believe there was no intervention at all to alter the results. The odds the universe is suitable for life are 10^1230, and you say is OK to believe it ? That there was no intervention? Physicists accept those odds??? Either they are brainwashed by an evil power or just are willfully lying and deceiving themselves.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Fred Hoyle calculated probability living cell arranging out of random molecules to be 10^40,000. If you put in a test tube a soup of all the components needed to form a living cell, taken from thousands of actual cells, you can't form even one cell out of random rearrangements. Scientists have been trying for decades, with the latest knowledge, resources and instruments available at their disposal, to create life in the lab. When they succeed, they'll prove life is designed
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Fred Hoyle was the same guy who coined the term "Big Bang", claiming that no such rapid expansion ever happened. He was a science fiction writer, just like the founder of the Scientology cult, and was known as a wingnut.
Your comment "When they succeed, they'll prove life is designed" shows that your mind is made up before any future discoveries are made. That says it all.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndrthrdr1 "shows that your mind is made up before any future discoveries are made. That says it all." If you spend 50 yrs, millions of dollars, thousands of man hours, and the latest technology to come up with something, is obvious that anything you produced couldn't have been produced spontaneously by nature. You just need to combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water but if you mix all the components of a cell in a test tube, you don't produce a cell. why?
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Nothing happens by chance. It happens because of natural processes; because the laws of reality lead to the outcome.
TuahShinguru 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndrthrdr1 The human brain is not just a trait, is the top of evolution. No other species have a brain that can program itself. If you follow computer programs progress, the ultimate program would a program that can program itself. Natural selection would have selected many species with this advantageous trait in billions of yrs of evolution, yet there are no species like us. This indicates directionality, not randomness in the evolution process, hence a creator.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndrthrdr1 5. Natural Selection doesn't think. Is a random natural process that selects the individuals that produce more offspring. How can Natural Selection explain the fact that simple organisms produce the most offspring and yet evolution continued beyond them. Evolution has shown that more complex individuals are more recent than less complex. A random process should not have directionality. Directionality suggest intelligence behind the process, hence God
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx "Matter is composed of discrete units, energy is a continuum, there are no boundaries that can separate one form of energy from another, so there must be one all powerful source."
But if everything in the universe is a part of god, and god is energy, would it not mean that you and I are individuation of this total energy? Why could it not be then that this divine energy you assert exists also individuates itself into multiple gods?
TADahar 4 months ago
He is absolutely right; I am NOT rational and you can't make me! :P
Donatellangelo 5 months ago
"Theism" -belief in the existence of a god or gods - merriam-webster
The word "atheism" is simply the addition of the prefix "-a" to "theism," that is its source. The prefix "-a" means not, or without. So, fundamentally "atheism" says nothing about how you reached such a belief, only your state of being without.
Please point out what requires a rejection, and if so, what would we call someone who had never considered religion?
DueCarnage 5 months ago
@DueCarnage A naturalist?
TADahar 5 months ago
@TADahar Well, I have yet to find a system of belief convincing aside from one based on natural laws (on account of a complete lack of evidence). So, I guess? haha.
DueCarnage 5 months ago
What they say around 5:20 is pretty stupit...
Even in a rational discusion, there can be different oppinions...
TheTruggsess 6 months ago
I worship gods...the METAL GODS!!! \m/
TheOnlyAttrition 6 months ago
I don't doubt that these people used to be non-believers... but they seem to think that their "I just never thought about religion much" atheism is the same thing as "I have thought about, and rejected, religious claims" atheism.
Anyone who belongs to an atheist group are pretty much guaranteed to not fit into the implicit atheist category of most ex-atheist theists.
Sines314 7 months ago
paranoid \m/
TheIkaraCult 7 months ago
REPENT YOU HEATHENS ATHEISTS AND PIG WORSHIPPERS BEFORE THE WRATH OF THE LORD YOUR GOD POURS DOWN UPON EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU!!!
Alexthegreat8907 8 months ago
@Alexthegreat8907 What problems have you been having with pig worshipers?
bicokun 8 months ago
@Alexthegreat8907 repent you heathen before the wrath of the lord your god, the flying spaghetti monster, rains down his noodley wrath upon you. It's not to late to be saved from an eternal hell of stale beer and stripers with VD!
See, I can make valid threats of hell fire too.
TheHomelessCripple 8 months ago 2
@TheHomelessCripple lol nice
Alexthegreat8907 8 months ago
@mellowmark1 Same here, its the most honest answer I can give.
shandcunt 8 months ago
holy shit votebots ahoy!
ShroomFuu86 8 months ago
@inswoon Well oyu can't reject Theism until Theism exists however it depends how you define atheism.
If its someone who doesn't believe in a personal deity then every baby born fits that category.
gnosticism = Knowledge of god
Agnosticism = No Knowledge of god
theist = belief in personal god
atheist = no belief in personal god.
you can define things yourself to fit whatever categories but it does really matter anyhow. Have fun with it.
shandcunt 9 months ago
@shandcunt
Gnostic Atheist = Knows there is no god
Agnostic Atheist = Lacks belief, but does not know there is no god
Gnostic Theist = Knows there is a god
Agnostic Theist = Believes, but does not know there is a god
Fit me in the Agnostic Atheist category.
mellowmark1 8 months ago
@mellowmark1 "Agnostic Theist = Believes, but does not know there is a god" is a contradiction. How can you believe in a God and not know if there is a God.
You can be unsure if there is a God (Agnostic Atheist) but you cannot be sure (believe) of a God and not sure of a God at the same time.
A moderate theist might consider the holy texts in terms of metaphor for instance, rather than literal facts.
AMomentOfClarity2011 8 months ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011
How can you believe in a God and not know if there is a God."
There are many religious people who wouldn't claim to know there is a god yet still believe in god. Contradiction or not, these people do exist. Everyone in the world fits into one of these categories.
mellowmark1 8 months ago
@mellowmark1 that's being gnostic or agnostic, you can be a agnostic theist, that means you believe in god but aren't certain he does exist.
I presume you take the scientific explanation as the right one but, its not an absolute, its just the best explanation we have.
If you take it as an absolute truth, you are only giving reason to theists that claim you have a faith in science, and the last thing scientific development need is faith.
kamijisaca 8 months ago
I think people who "used to be atheist", were just not religious and never really thought about it.
SmokingNtheGraveyard 10 months ago
@SmokingNtheGraveyard or are atheist because its the default position. Athiests who were once religious had to really think about it.
SmokingNtheGraveyard 10 months ago
"It is based on the definition of a word."
You're arguing that atheists are refusing to believe in something, when it is faith and consequently belief in something that has been asserted but never justified that is the core issue.
In discussion of specifically defined supernatural beings, there is only faith (theism) and lack of faith (atheism), no other standpoint is possible or even worth mentioning. Anything else is semantics or a straw man.
TheTexanCanadian 10 months ago
The statement "I used to be an Atheist and now I'm a Christian" would only be plausible if the person has suffered serious brain damage or is being tortured/threatened into saying it. If not, then the only conclusion is that the statement is a lie.
LeviathanZr6 10 months ago
@LeviathanZr6 Or maybe that person is just a complete dumbass
nmryda 10 months ago
Why do I keep hearing this? Atheism is not "lack of belief", it is disbelief or rejection. No distinguished dictionary defines atheism as "lack of belief".
inswoon 11 months ago 2
@inswoon Well said. Another thing I keep hearing, is that if you call yourself an "agnostic", that necessarily means you're really an atheist. Absolute BS!!! To avoid confusion, I will call myself an agnostic theist. Only around atheists though, because most other people will simply take me at my word.
seeqer66 10 months ago
@seeqer66 I might just call myself a secular humanist, instead of this title that seems to display loathsomeness and hostility. It's silly, though.
inswoon 10 months ago
@inswoon I could, but secular humanist doesn't really describe me. Why does agnostic theist sound hostile??? I've heard many atheists say; "agnostic means you don't know. It says nothing about what you believe. You're either an agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist or gnostic theist." So I roll with it and use the more descriptive term. It doesn't matter though.
seeqer66 10 months ago
@seeqer66 I meant atheist, not agnostic theist.
inswoon 10 months ago
@inswoon I am an atheist; I disbelieve in gods. I do not say that they do not exist, but I require evidence before I will accept their existence.
Until I get good evidence, I will maintain my disbelief.
GalapagosPete 10 months ago
@GalapagosPete Disbelief is refusal to believe in something, so you are literally refusing to believe in the existence of a god or gods. That's atheism, not what you've seemed to assumed.
inswoon 10 months ago
@inswoon
That's true but only if YOU accept that your faith is based on nothing, and you have no rational argument for why someone else should believe. I refuse to believe anything with absolute certainty when it's already been shown conclusively to be imaginary, yes, I refuse to accept fantasy as reality. That's exactly what he's describing as atheism, and is correct.
The way you say it, however, suggests that a particular god exists and someone irrationally ignoring him, which is a lie.
TheTexanCanadian 10 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian Faith is irrelevant to our discussion. Do not use typical informal, logical fallacies. I didn't denote that I had any argument at all, you are, again, showing signs of informal fallacies. I am uninterested in your ability to comprehend things, it is, again, irrelevant to our discussion. You've fabricated the end with--wait for it--another logical fallacy! Boy are you good.
The definition I am using does not insinuate anything remotely similar to your assumption.
inswoon 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@inswoon
Faith is hardly irrelevant, it is the only way your god can be shown to exist.
TheTexanCanadian 10 months ago
@inswoon
Faith is extremely relevant to any discussion about your god, as without that faith he is imaginary.
TheTexanCanadian 10 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian Again, faith is irrelevant as the discussion is not based on the actuality of god. It is based on the definition of a word. Faith is irrelevant as I am not opposing or proposing it - it is totally unneeded.
"Your god"
I do not belong to a god or gods. I am also not associated with a god or gods. Faith is a logical fallacy as it is based on authority -- this cannot be used as an argument and may only be asserted.
inswoon 10 months ago
@inswoon cont'd
Before you accuse me of some made-up and irrelevant logical fallacy...
theism is faith in the absolute truth of a supernatural higher power and assertion that the faith is justified without providing evidence. This is not in question. Atheism is nothing more than refusal to accept that stance with regard to that higher power.
TheTexanCanadian 10 months ago
@inswoon
I do apologize for assuming you are a Christian if you are not. As I see it, there are theists and atheists and if someone describes themselves as an agnostic it is only because they misunderstand the term atheist.
TheTexanCanadian 10 months ago
@inswoon "Disbelief is refusal to believe in something.."
Exactly, I refuse to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
"...so you are literally refusing to believe in the existence of a god or gods."
Yes, unless and until I am presented with compelling evidence, I will continue to refuse to accept the existence of such beings.
"That's atheism..."
And I am an atheist. We are in agreement.
GalapagosPete 10 months ago
@GalapagosPete Then why are you commenting if you have no actual opinion of semantics? I am uninterested in you being an atheist or why you're are one.
inswoon 10 months ago
@GalapagosPete I forgot to mention your conflicting statements.
You first say "I do not say they do not exist" and then you agree with my statement "disbelief is refusal" by asserting "I refuse to believe in things for which there is no evidence".
inswoon 10 months ago
@inswoon I lack the belief, I refuse to believe, I disbelieve: these are all the same thing, your semantic hair-splitting to the contrary.
GalapagosPete 9 months ago
@inswoon They all three describe atheism.
GalapagosPete 9 months ago
@inswoon I believe the statement about atheism is this.
"I refuse to believe in any God that cannot be proven to exist, BUT I do not state that 'Gods' COULD not exist. If you have enough scientific evidence of a particular entity that can be classed as our creator, I would believe it.
If for instance we found a way to 'see' an invisible unicorn then I would believe it exists (proof = scientific method that can be repeated successfully via independant parties.)
AMomentOfClarity2011 8 months ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Regardless of your subjective preference of the definition – the validated, solemn, and true definition is still current. Atheism means disbelief or rejection of. I apologise, but, what you believe is irrelevant to the definition.
inswoon 8 months ago
@inswoon Yes you are right. I should have said that was my extended view and I think the view of some of the presenters (from their own statements over videos on Atheist Experience) would include a bit more than just that concise statement. Thanks for being polite about your reply too. Of course many atheists have their own variation on Atheism in terms of why they disbelieve and what it would take to change their minds.
AMomentOfClarity2011 8 months ago
@inswoon You keep hearing this because it's an attempt to clarify that atheists aren't making claims of absolute knowledge. It might seem unnecessary, but theists often want to claim that atheists believe no god could possibly exist. This is a straw man and would indeed be a silly position to hold. Atheists simply reject the claims made by theists.
The "lack of belief" definition is also closer to the meanings of the root words involved. A=without. Theism=a belief in a god or gods.
BrooklynRagtag 9 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag I completely agree, except the prefix 'a', isn't explicit in the word 'atheistic', as it should be. Atheistic means the disbelief, not lack of belief. The original Latin term 'atheos', as you evidently know, means without gods: godless. But this definition is not the same in our current language. Atheistic, today, means disbelief of the existence of god or gods - or of course, the belief that they do not exist. As you can see, the prefix 'a' isn't required in consistency [cont.]
inswoon 9 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag [cont.] ...with all or other words.
inswoon 9 months ago
@inswoon What would you call a person who lacks a belief in any gods? Is their no word to describe such a person?
If you can appeal to modern usage to explain why the "a" in "atheist" doesn't have the traditional meaning, can you then criticize a trend in modern usage that deviates slightly from the older definition many dictionaries offer? The "lack of belief" definition has been used by philosophers since the 1700s and it seems to be a common definition among self-described atheists today.
BrooklynRagtag 9 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag You have missed my point. I'm basing this on a dictionary definition; not what some atheists may define themselves as.
inswoon 9 months ago
@inswoon I haven't missed your point. I know what most dictionaries say. I acknowledge that the lack-of-belief definition is a slight deviation from the normal dictionary definition.
What would you call a person who lacks a belief in god? I would call that person an atheist or maybe a weak atheist or an agnostic atheist. What term would you use?
BrooklynRagtag 9 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag Someone who lacks belief is not an atheist. They are agnostic as they have yet to receive the opportunity to believe in god(s); babies and primitive humans were agnostics, not atheists.
inswoon 9 months ago
@inswoon "They are agnostic as they have yet to receive the opportunity to believe in god(s); "
what? since when did agnostic mean "no knowledge of god"? an agnostic is someone who doesn't claim to know. when talking about god, it's someone who does not know if god's real and doesn't matter when talking about belief.
an atheist is an a- theist. someone that isn't a theist. someone that isn't a theist is an atheist. you need belief to be a theist. atheism is at least a lack of belief. simple.
atheistnarutofan 8 months ago
@atheistnarutofan I didn't claim that that is true, but if you want me to prove that it does - then sure: "...but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable." Right there. Unknown; no knowledge. I have already gone over your last claim, but you evidently have not listened to my comments. Regardless of 'a' being a prefix; atheism is not the lack or absence of belief in a god. It is down right denial; disbelief. Any dictionary stating otherwise has ill-information.
inswoon 8 months ago
@inswoon "Strong" Atheism is the positive assertion that there is no god. "Weak" atheism is the lack of belief in god.
TheGeneralCritic 6 months ago
@TheGeneralCritic I'm referring to wholly atheism, not it's semi-definitions.
inswoon 6 months ago
@inswoon. From Wiktionary, on Usage notes: The term atheism may refer either to an explicit belief that God or gods do not exist (explicit strong atheism), the mere absence of any explicit belief about God or gods (implicit weak atheism), or the explicit rejection of belief in the existence of any deities (explicit weak atheism) without necessarily taking the position that it is false that deities exist.
TheGeneralCritic 6 months ago
@TheGeneralCritic Maybe you don't understand what I'm explicityly stating. I am not arguing that multiple definition do not exist, but that the true definition of pure atheism is disbelief or rejection. You've missed my point, I suggest you stop doing that.
inswoon 6 months ago
@inswoon You are not an authority on what is or is not the 'true definition' of 'pure' atheism. Unless you can present some kind of credentials that establish you as some kind of authority.
If a person ascribes to any one of the definitions I listed, they are an atheist. Period. End of sentence.
TheGeneralCritic 6 months ago
@TheGeneralCritic I did not claim that I had any authority. I am basing my assertion on a range of dictionaries. I have no intention of giving you credentials as that would be absurd, I did not construct the English language, silly person. You axiomatically lack the capacity to fathom the simple concept of a definition.
inswoon 6 months ago
@inswoon You are wrong. Atheism is not anti-theism. Agnostics are atheist. Those who have never been introduced to any gods are atheist. Every human was born atheist. But, since you've been PWNED so many times and you keep doubling down, I'll attempt to make it very clear. The actual definition of atheism is without theism. You'll see in dictionaries and articles the definition of anti-theism applied to atheism, but this is not correct. The way you can tell is that they say that atheism in its
xJoeEDangerouslyx 6 months ago
@xJoeEDangerouslyx I didn't claim that atheists were anti-theists. What I said was this: atheists have disbelief or rejection of belief in god or gods, not against the notion. Atheist have to literally say 'I do not believe in god', and agnostics aren't atheists, that's absolutely absurd. Agnostics label the idea of a god or gods as unknowable, meaning their opinion regarding god's (or gods') existence is uncertain to them. They are indifferent. Every human cannot be born an atheists as [cont.]
inswoon 6 months ago
@xJoeEDangerouslyx [cont.] atheism is rejection. Babies don't reject the notion of a god or gods, that's also absurd. "But, since you've been PWNED so many times and you keep doubling down, I'll attempt to make it very clear." Another absurdity with no premise to back it up. "The actual definition of atheism is without theism." I've proved otherwise and you still attempt to assert this already-negated, feeble, puerile claim. It's pathetic.
inswoon 6 months ago
@inswoon
The answer there is in the roots of the word disbelief. "Dis" means without and well you know what belief means. So "lack of belief" and "without belief" are really the same thing. Rejection of something just reflects your having considered it and are unconvinced.
DueCarnage 6 months ago
@DueCarnage I wasn't aware I was arguing using prefixes. Disbelief is refusal to believe a notion, it is not lack of belief like I have previously mentioned. Please link me to a dictionary that denotes otherwise and you got yourself an argument.
inswoon 6 months ago
@inswoon The prefix "a-" as in the word atheism means not or without. Theism being a "belief in the existence of a god or gods" (merriam-webster), atheism is not having, or without such a belief. The distinction you are making, if right, would only serve to point out different ways to reach a lack of belief. If I were ignorant of a belief in god I would lack belief in a god just as much as if I were to affirmatively deny such existence. If you disbelieve or reject, you lack, so?
DueCarnage 6 months ago
@DueCarnage I am aware of the prefix and of what it denotes, but that is not the definition. I implore you to read my previous comments regarding this. I am basing my view on the _actual_ definition of atheism. I also implore you to suggest any respectable dictionary with the definition: 'lack of' or 'absence of', as opposed to 'disbelief' and 'rejection'. If you are ignorant of God, i.e. you are a baby or a primitive human, you are a agnostic. I have asserted this argument in previous.. [cont.]
inswoon 6 months ago
@DueCarnage [cont.] comments on this video. I suggest you read them before I have to re-write my previous assertions and rebuttals. Lacking is not rejection, if you lack a belief, it is simply not there; rejection means you have to literally sustain the belief that there is no god or gods, you have to say you don't believe.
inswoon 6 months ago
@inswoon To be quite honest, responding to your past comments isn't really worth my time. Of course lacking is not a rejection, a rejection is a means where as lacking is a state. When one honestly rejects a belief you necessarily lack it, however, lacking a belief does not necessitate rejection of it.
DueCarnage 6 months ago
@DueCarnage If my comments aren't worth your precious time, you wouldn't currently be responding to me; and being rude is really quite immature. You're just repeating my argument. You have noticed that, right?
inswoon 6 months ago
@inswoon broadest form is lack of belief. The next one is colloquial. It is not correct and the ignorance is simply staggering. You seem to be asserting that "atheists really believe..." No. This is ignorant and wrong. I don't know how many more times you have to hear it. You're behaving like an evolution-denying theist. You're behaving like an ignorant fool. You're being very childish and if you're not interested in listening, why do you keep posting? You're wrong and that's all there is to it.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xJoeEDangerouslyx "atheists really believe..." No. This is ignorant and wrong. I don't know how many more times you have to hear it." Another baseless claim. Where's your argument? "You're behaving like an evolution-denying theist." How can you make such a distant claim? You have no information regarding my belief or lack of. Especially regarding evolution, but I guess infants cannot help themselves, and must encompass an unrelated topic.
inswoon 6 months ago
@xJoeEDangerouslyx How can you say I'm childish? Prove that I have been childish before we had this puerile conversation. How am I not interested? I've negated every single claim made and you're crying about it. Plain and simple. You've simply insulted me and ignored the context of my rebuttals, merely because you don't want me to be correct. You also haven't negated anything I have said. I'll wait to see if you do.
inswoon 6 months ago
@inswoon Nah, our conversation is worth my time, searching out your other comments isn't worth my time. Being snide is also immature, so apparently I'm in good company. There is actually a distinction between your argument and what I'm repeating. That difference is found in the fact that "Atheism" describes both, and either, a "lack of belief" and a "rejection of belief."
DueCarnage 5 months ago
@DueCarnage Claim all you want, you're not proving anything; I'm still waiting.
inswoon 5 months ago
did you know if you spell God backward it spells Dog.
evilcupcake813 11 months ago
being an atheist doesnt make you rational, but being IRRATIONAL necessitates one being religious. how true!
sinprelic 11 months ago
@sinprelic CLOSER, but not true either.
seeqer66 10 months ago
@seeqer66 in that case we beg to differ. believing in undetectable sky dads that can make your wishes come true (how convenient) is rather wishful and illogical according to me. i guess it's just a difference in definition, is it not :<
sinprelic 10 months ago
@sinprelic I've met plenty of irrational atheists. I've met plenty of rational theists. Bear in mind that not every theist thinks of their "God" the same way either. Read Spinoza.
seeqer66 10 months ago
@seeqer66 yeah spinoza was not really a theist, he was one of the gnostic variants of atheists. theism necessitates that you believe in a god that intervenes and that is interested in what you do. a theist god must be for all means and purposes be considered as someone who is lets say the judge of whether you go to heaven or hell. i am aware not all theisms have heaven and hell, but they all share the feature of comforting everyone with afterlives. not all religions, but all theisms do.
sinprelic 10 months ago
@sinprelic Depends on your definition. In the general sense, theism means the belief in at least one "deity". In the more specific sense, it refers to a doctrine of "God's" activity and nature in relation to the universe. That could mean anything really. I believe in a plan of sorts. I don't believe prayer means squat, nor do I believe worship does. Spinoza and I don't agree on everything though. He was just an example.
seeqer66 10 months ago
@seeqer66 you believe in a plan.. as in a DEVISED plan by somebody? who is that somebody :| and follow-up question, how can you claim to you know what the plan is or that there is a plan in the first place? what is your evidence for that? i'm genuinely curious :>
sinprelic 10 months ago 2
@sinprelic Plan is the best word I could come up with. The somebody would be the "spiritual" nature of the universe, which I see as a universal field (think Higgs field, but different function). I've never claimed to "know" anything. This is what I believe due to my own meditation and thoughts on the subject. I also feel that modern atheism fits into that "plan". I feel that atheism will become the vast majority opinion within a generation or two. No point in fighting it, it's what's intended.
seeqer66 10 months ago
@seeqer66 yeah, but just because it's part of the plan, doesn't mean you should be indifferent to it. hey, hitler is coming to power in a decade, should we stop him? na! it's part of the plan.
that is a sickly passive approach to reality. you abolish morality.. hell, if others dont find cures and scientific breakthroughs for you, if others dont educate you, then you even wont help yourself... that is sickly. i'm gonna help propel civilization no matter how much i know it will fail in the end.
sinprelic 10 months ago
@sinprelic My belief is that the universe itself is the one with the "plan". I am part of the universe. I help make the decisions. As do you. It's not about indifference. Either way. I don't see this as a bad thing. I see it as an opportunity for the human race to learn something. It feels right.
seeqer66 10 months ago
@sinprelic In addition, an atheist is much more likely to think about a situation before they decide the morality of it, than is a Christian or Muslim. That's a very good thing. Real morality requires thought.
seeqer66 10 months ago
@seeqer66 i don't see which part of your conclusions led you to be a 'spiritualist' and not an atheist. you don't believe in gods, the usefulness of religion, or in destiny or a prime mover. why then not accept being called atheist? you can be a spiritual atheist too. you can be an atheist full of wonders and appreciation for the natural world! i hardly see your non-commitment to atheism really. atheism just means a-theism, or without belief. you are without belief, so are you not atheist? :)
sinprelic 10 months ago
@sinprelic You're right that "theist" doesn't really describe me. I am not without belief though. In fact, the more accurate definition for me is magician. However, most people misunderstand that term due to con-artists and fantasy stories. I do have beliefs. I do not have proofs for those beliefs that stand up to material scrutiny though. Plus, it doesn't really matter if others share those beliefs. So those remain deeply held, and private. My YT "mission" is to help keep the transition civil.
seeqer66 10 months ago
Well, perhaps that "god of personal experience" isn't cruel if, unlike biblical one, it just have no conciousness and it's not a person, but a natural phenomena that people at some point decided to call a "God", you know, like the Force from Star Wars. And it can be used if you know how, this makes prayer that was fulfilled noting else than sucsessful attempt to hack into the system. 8D
SwineNahNah 11 months ago
When it comes to commenting on YouTube you actually DO need to state your lack of belief especially when disagreeing with fellow athiest on something because people are so quick to attack you and religion because they assume that if you disagree with them on something, your must be a religious nut. So yes, you DO need a disclaimer so fellow athiest THINK FIRST because like it or not, many just HATE religion so much they are quick to attack without fully reading or understanding your comment.
SkinnyWmn69 1 year ago
All atheists may not be rational but all "believers" are irrational.
davidls11 1 year ago
@davidls11 They are certainly irrational in believing in some sort of deity in the absence of evidence supporting that belief; doesn't mean they can't be rational in other areas of their lives, however.
GalapagosPete 9 months ago
@davidls11 thats a bit harsh and broad. We may belief that theists beliefs are irrational but the person may have plenty of rational thoughts about other areas of his life. Also to his mindset he is 'rational' in terms of his belief. So calling him or her irrational as a personal attack does not help much. The belief is irrational. The person simply thinks its rational as they never thought about it any other way. Many simply assume religion makes sense.
AMomentOfClarity2011 8 months ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 Perhaps I should have said they were delusional.
davidls11 8 months ago
yea god asks too much. Why'd he make us to be sinners if he doesn't like sinners. God sounds retarded honestly
88res 1 year ago 2
@88res He didn't, he just made us without knowledge of good and evil or death and put a tree in the garden which we were not alowed to eat of because we would die on the day they ate of it (although they didn't know what that meant). Then when Eve gets near the tree, this smart snake (created by god) tells eve she won't actually die, but god does not want them to become gods. She doesn't know what evil is, and so she doesn't know what deceit is.
god really did set people up for the fall
sharkjack 1 year ago
@88res HAHAHA The only retarded thing is your juvenile conception of God. Try reading some Spinoza, junior.
Kostly 1 year ago
Whooooo, Sabbath!
TalonWolf 1 year ago
Kirk Cameron & ShockOfGod might have called themselves atheists all they wanted but taking into account their abilities to construct logical and coherent arguments they were probably atheists for all the wrong reasons.
I think all people who say they "were atheists but now believe X" are maybe etiher honest and not very bright OR a bunch of fucking liars and still not very bright.
There is no word as "disunderstanding"! You can't stop using a logical conclusion once you've understood it?
aNdYmAtTeR 1 year ago
It makes you a violent anarchist protester?
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey guys, I'm an Atheist just like you ^.-
Take me to your leader.
YetAnthony 1 year ago
I'm a Christian for no sound logical reasons and i love your show :-D
dogma is the evil in any form :-)
loqkLoqkson 1 year ago
I used to be an atheist...and I still am!
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
0:20
...That's it :D
gunblade64 1 year ago
Ozzy \m/
mavs2147 1 year ago
its not that osama was set up its just that he was on cia pay roll and still is
drinkmoresoda 1 year ago
Now that would be awesome. Aphrodite appearing before me in my bedroom! =P
But doesn't she take men as slaves? Oh well, it would be worth it to nail the goddess of love.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago 2
Matty D needs a hat with a feather...
Hehe, I love Matty D but he DOES look like a German schuplattler!!!
freakystyley4000 1 year ago
luv you guys...keep up the good work :) regards from australia
lukepappe 1 year ago
luv u guys,,,from australia...keep up the good work :)
lukepappe 1 year ago
DOUBLE RAINBOW
johnmartins 1 year ago 2
"i used to be an atheist"
That's when my bullshit alarms start tilting obnoxiously
hellhammerz666 1 year ago 13
@hellhammerz666
Indeed.
"I used to be an atheist but I'll still use the same tired old cliche arguments as a lifelong theist."
I have a really hard time believing people like that are being honest.
Some stunning examples would be:
Kirk Cameron & ShockOfGod
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W and Kirk Cameron was a DEVOUT atheist apparently :S
BeforeTheNoose 1 year ago
@BeforeTheNoose Little confused... was he also a devout a-Santaist? A devout a-Easter Bunnyist? Way of the Master, my ass.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@jymbo1969 Who knows dude. Lets be honest, he was probably never and atheist. And i'd love for him to explain what a devout atheist is.
BeforeTheNoose 1 year ago
Finally, some good intro music
jek21 1 year ago 5
To say you are an ex-atheist is like saying you belive in Santa Clause again
etazra78 1 year ago 35
@etazra78 That's awesome.
morrowrail 10 months ago
We know that being atheist does not make you skinny.
Downfurlife 1 year ago
We're all born Atheist anyway. It's just people that changes that position with comforting, false delusions. Then again, religion isn't comforting at all.
TheAndyLoraProgram 1 year ago 3
@TheAndyLoraProgram Actually we're born agnostic =p
Atheists refute the belief of God, something that didn't know of God could not refute it nor support it thus = agnostic.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord no atheist just simply say there isn't evidence for the existance of a god. Atheist don't say there's no god,..but say they don't believe in one.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 Might want to re-read my comment.
I quote "refute the BELIEF of God", I never claimed we had absolute knowledge of the lack of existence, but rather that we refuted the belief because there was no logical reason to believe yet since no evidence has been presented.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord that's what meant to say too
Atheist603 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord How can we be born not knowing whether or not God exist? I say we're born Atheist because we simply are born not believing. I'm not saying we came out the womb saying "I don't believe in God". I'm saying it wasn't in our knowledge to believe in the first place, therefore we were born Atheist/ non-believers.
TheAndyLoraProgram 1 year ago
I could not agree with the title more. Look at all the conspiracy theorists.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
Intellectual Atheism! Perfect description
amoto333 1 year ago
i dont care about your stupid book!
tjcombo84 1 year ago
even personal experiense can be deseving. if there no evidense to suport your calim you shuld not belive it. you mind can lie to you. your eyes can lie. you might whish that it is real so bad that you acsyaly start to think that its real. seing is beliving, but seing is not knowing, beliving is not knowing. it migth have happend but most likley it migth not have happend and you shuld exept that, and stop beliving without good evidense.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
I'm an atheist however I must admit I'm very gullible
game1208 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i think we should get rid of niggers. why do you think that they are so little nigger atheists? Lack of rationality!
fyahponabattyboy 2 years ago
she had the 18 hours of static as proof.
TheRealEricLester 2 years ago 3
TheRealEricLester: The static evidence she experienced a time dialation, not evidence she talked to aliens.
The vid: Excellent title. And yes, being rational leads to Atheisim, it doesn't work so well the other way around.
Tapecutter59 2 years ago
Time dilation works the other way around, if it was 18 hours for her it would've been months or years for everyone else depending on her speed. Though I don't think speed had anything to do with it, it appeared to be some sort of artificial wormhole, sort of like an exact transmission.
scientific 2 years ago
Comment removed
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
Comment removed
1RadicalOne 1 year ago