The christian bible has like 700 rules. If you dont follow them, then you go to hell. So pascals wager doesn't apply to christianity too well. Also, seeing how god (according to the bible) has poor morals- so how can you trust the bible? Maybe he is trying to weed out those who don't use the brain he gave them and only atheists are allowed to heaven. Maybe it works better with Islam, since all you need to do is die in jihad? :\
I think it is great that atheists are making stands against Religion since Religion has been in power for several millenia and maybe one day the overall population would be rational thinkers instead of deluded followers.
CALEL7000 makes sense, but just because something is creepy, or if an idea is disturbing, doesn't make that idea wrong
He is looking for purpose in his life, which is good. But his is hung up on the idea that "If Life has no purpose, then MY life has no purpose" this isn't the case
Just because Biological Life has no meaning or reason behind it, doesn't mean its worthless. Life is awesome because its LIFE, not because "god" made it
A person can find purpose in Their life, like helping people
Like, XBOX is freakin' cool...so we play it, but not without initial cause...afterall Microsoft didn't just GIVE them away...they did it for a purpose...
Human life is way cooler that XBOX w/it's gay red ring of death and all....fundamentally unique bcuz you never had a choice of whether you would play this GAME or not....you were just thrust into this program...no receipts....no plugs...no "thank you, come again".....just you....
don't you think that it's kind of creepy, if it's random?
Like we spend our lives building up huge mental databases of sweet or bitter memories (if your regular)....but for what????
Who will remember our memories when we ourselves become mere memories???? Afterimages of importance now obsolete.
That's like going to the movies and sittling through PERFECT STORM w/Clooney and friends....THAT MOVIES SUCKED, they just died at the end....it was nothing more than masturbation, at literal waste of TIME....
Sad but true, So make the most out of your life, and the lives of others before you get killed in scene 496
Improving the lives of others is very important, so its more like funfunfreaky sex then Masturbation, because your sharing you life with other people in a positive way
So have fun with your Sex while it lasts... I mean... Life! Have fun with your LIFE while it lasts!
I dearly held the cherished BELIEF that one day I too would find out first hand where babies came from....but just because I believed that I was finally gonna get some didn't make it necessarily CERTAIN
Somehow I just can't shake this feeling that we are MORE...that we have some PURPOSE for being here.
Otherwise it really is just a big waste of time isn't it?
Answers that, in hind sight, were ridiculous because now I know and no longer have to guess...
The day of enlightenment approaches the atheist and the christian no matter what either of them believe...and this is my position based on the fact that I used to wonder about some things, but now I know and no longer have to guess!!!!! YAY!!!!
Looking at the lengths and heights to which human inquisitiveness has gone and returned, I don't think that my position is unreasonable
Where'd all this stuff come from? What really is a tree? We call it wood...but that's just our word for the hard brown stuff that grows out of the ground that has green dangly things that blow in the wind (wind? mabye not???) and sometimes fruit (!) too...
Back when I was a child...kids were more innocent so we didn't have 100,000,000,000 sources we could go to in order to find out about sex or what a tampon was for and stuff like that so we guys just MADE UP OUR OWN most acceptable answer
BTW -- don't confuse religion (an organized cultural approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices) with theism (the belief in at least one deity).
You talk a lot about differences between religions, but may also want to research pluralism and comparative religion.
Arthur, posting mocking ridicule of theism/deism really doesn't make an argument for atheism.
You have a philosophical position based at least in part on philosophical naturalism.
It silly for you to insist the concept of a "God" or "deity" transcending space-time must be empirically testable under scientific method, simply "because" you insist it must.
Nor is there a "dichotomy" between science and theism/deism, only demarcation. Science excludes them as an a priori.
It isn't silly to say that if something does not have proof and does have evidence and logic against it, that it probably isn't real.
This is how we separate reality and illusion in every other subject. But then we start talking about religion and for some reason it gets a complete pass.
blb2121, how can we separate religious truths from religious falsehoods in a meaningful, objective way?
Except you're refusing to admit that much of science is based on ontological proofs, similar concepts of transcendence (the concepts of infinity and hyper-reals for example), and we're constantly redefining what "reality" and "existence" are.
You also seem to think "Truth" is purely binary. But ignore we have paradoxes and dialatheisms in reality also.
Who defines meaningful? You? For everyone? I don't think so. That's why we have metaphysics, and science is apart of it with demarcation.
because we are his creation. GOD gave us free will. The ability for us to make our own choices of what is good & what is right. But look how Satan tempted eve of adam & eve. By eating from the tree of knowledge of good & bad is why we have all the EVIL SINS commited under the sun today. If they hadn't We would live longer, healthier lives, we would be perfect human beings, no illness no pain no suffering, no disease, jelousey, hatred, violence. Because adam & eve disobeyed GOD commands.
GOD also tells human beings that Satan & his demons can not harm us as long as we call out Jehovah GOD's name. GOD is teh creator of the heavens & of the earth & of the great lumanaries that serve as lights in day & night. The very reason we have a EVIL world, where rage, violence, murdering, the most vile acts commited, are SINS all because Satan the Devil is stirring humans & controlling them, influencing them. GOD did not want this for us. But GOD let him out the abyss after 1000 years.
Scientis & atheists will never claim that it is anything other than a super being that has no physical form. Where do you think darren brown & people guessed the correct lottery nos. Only the power of beings like that can make that happen. We are nothing compared to them. The knowledge they posess is outstanding. We are like insects in comparison. You toher scientists & atheist don't want to believe that there is anything smarter than us. That we weren't created. Well we were
There is even evidence of DEMONS possesing humans like the enfield incident. Where on camera the girl is possesed, The demon uses her windpipe to talk through her body. The DEMONS are EVIL. They can command a human to do something. They have killed humans because of this possessing the body & spirit. hanuted houses, places. Some are good, some are very bad. Believe me when I say they were cast out of heaven as GODs servants because they didn't obey a higher devine being. Theres your proof.
That is easy to find solid proof. Do you sometimes wonder what GHOSTS are. They are not people who have died. They are SPITIRS, DEMONS, POLTERGEISTS, super beings that are trapped on this earth for 1000 years reign to test us. Or Satan the Devil. These are being that are invisible, yet can touch solid objects, they have more strength than any strongest man. They aren't human, but they take on the form of human beings for a brief period of time. They possess humans, give them ideas.
I'm afraid you are in for a BIG surprise Atheist. Why don't you go & read the most ancient texts "The dead Sea scrolls" written by Nostic scholars of ancient Hebrew & aramaaic culture. There you will find the the truths once you read the BIBLE, your only history book for humans. The "ONLy" survival guide. And more fool the people who don't believe the most ancient truths ever written. More fool you again. "Are you a sheep or are you the goat".
There are multiple processes into determining what is true or not. In the argument of atheism, it's either between existence of a super-being, or not. So if you can prove that there is no super-being, the other statement becomes true through process of elimination. From the establishment of that of coarse, there is no hurt in finding out how things were actually created.
This is normally how things work. Someone makes a claim and provides their proof for why they think their claim is valid. If another party believes that the proof does not match the claim they present the flaws or an alternative idea.
christians have not to my satisfaction proved that god exists.
Dude you rock my socks. You hit the nail square on the head every single time. You got the message across without trying to offend others beliefs, because that causes their minds to close automatically. Very well done *applauds*
No they can't be compatible, simply being because Evolution doesn't claim to know where the total existence of life claim to be; whereas ID says there was a creator that made the first forms of life. That is sheer ignorance on the side of ID, and thus ignorance is not a form of education.
and yes i ve heard of some other darwinian arguements, the thermonuclear thing, and geno types and bacteria mutations, and so on...all good evidence...but does that prove god doesn t exist? maybe survival of the fittest is what is.but i still don t have ample proof that a creator doesn t exist. in terms of adam and eve, possably they were refering to a couple after a certain amount of evolution had occured and gods hand was behind the whole thing.
there are references to the saviour in the old testament /prophecies of the messiah, that match jesus life. jesus his own references to the old testament were accurate.there are other writers which wrote of jesus, briefly, in his time.
i ve read some ideas on darwanism, but how does the simple go to the comples? i ve never going to see a frog turn into a monkee, why would i believe it?
cntd...but/and/...god may not be perfect from out standards[ie noahs ark days],is destroying humanity except for noah etc...perfect? but he is all powerful, and a divine nature. jesus was perfect, and showed gods love, as oppossed to gods anger. and that is a big part of the jesus reovolution. o course how could i prove that in a scientific fashion? there are historical references in the bible which correspond to correct history.
How could Jesus be perfect? The scriptures were written up to 90 years after the fact by men who never knew him.
Then factor in that the bible has been re written thousands of times. For over thousand years the bible was hand written and every mistake was copied by the next scribe. literally thousands of these mistakes were made by illiterate scribes and dishonest ones who had their own agenda , and through poor interpretations into other languages [continued]
......... [continued] Also stories were added and taken away hundreds of years after the original bibles , the story of those who are with out sin , should cast the first stone wasn't in any of the oldest complete bibles that are known. Some scribe made it up and put it in. Many times the translations were made by poor translators , that either turned around phrases or made whole new meanings. Theologians have said there are as many mistakes in the bible as words in the new testiment.
[ct dblw...]...if i did do that you d probaly say something scientific about it and not believe it was from god. why would you believe god did it? god wasn t there.but the miracle was...as for illogical parts of the bible,i would say that,the bible also uses poetic device,embellished stories,metaphors...nowhere in the bible have i read it talk of science. yet science talks of it.
i also think there is overlap with science and religion, and science and philosophy.[cntd,up]
The early church leaders, and particularly those who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection simply had no motivation for lying. It's not like they were getting rich, or gaining power or political influence. They were being executed, ridiculed, pursued from one area to another, run out of town, and the like.
Who would choose to endure all of this knowing the entire time that what they were spreading was a complete and utter falsehood.
Please check out the list below. I have copied a website address where I found a summary of these writers. As with anything else, these are open for debate in one way or the other. But in my opinion, taken collectively, these writings make a very strong case for the existence of a "Jesus" who by even these accounts was not an ordinary person.
Very entertaining video... thanks for making me laugh.
You mentioned that there are many possible sources for morals. I would agree with that completely.
However, each one of these sources, must also have a source, and that source must also have a source and so on. There must be a standard for any morals, or they are simply arbitrary rules.
Morals of the bible "outdated". Ok, but maybe 2,000 years from now, someone watching this video might consider your morals outdated.
Agreed that both sides have caused their share of blood shed, and for the most part I believe this is a dead end argument.
Burden of proof: evidence is what is needed, and in a court of law it usually comes down to all of the various pieces of evidence, along with motive to prove guilt or innocence. You don't necessarily have to have indisputable evidence, but just a collection of information that makes possible the event.
"You don't necessarily have to have indisputable evidence, but just a collection of information that makes possible the event."
That is not at all what courts demand. I would not want a system where "well, he COULD have done it" is good enough to convict. You necessarily have to prove guilt beyond *reasonable* doubt. Just proving that it is possible is an extremely low standard to believe anything, inside or outside of a court room.
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system and is the highest level of burden of persuasion. This means that the proposition presented by the government must be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief that the defendant is guilty.
There really is no reasonable way to suggest that the original writings of the old and new testament have been altered to fit the facts. There are simply too many copies floating around and in comparison between the very oldest copies and the newest, they are identical in meaning. The 5% error is related to spelling or other typographical errors that do not change the fundamental meaning of the writings.
There is also much evidence of the existence and crucifixion of a man named Jesus that can be found outside of the bible. To deny his very existence would be to dismiss as false, the writings of a good number of ancient historians and authors.
Actually there seem to be a noticeable lack of writers who wrote about Jesus at the time he was alive (or shortly after). Could you mention some of these historians and authors (specifics are always better than generalities).
One of the most telling questions is this: Why would the early Christians persist in the spread of the gospels, even when it would cost them their lives? If they knew them to be a lie, why wouldn't they just abandon the whole thing once they knew their lives depended on it?
This is easily explained: consider soldiers in the German army during WW2. They believed they were on the side of good and just, to the point of sacrificing their lives, even though the reality was not so. A closer analogy, what about the Mormons, who devoted their lives to an obvious fraud? Patriotism, religion, thinking you are in a causes that transcend yourself, these are powerful emotions and create meaning for people's lives. Few will critically examine themselves and risk losing it.
There are countless examples of people dying for something they believed in, but that's not what were doing. They either DID or DID NOT witness the resurrection of Jesus.
It didn't require them to die for belief, they died for something that they knew to be true or false.
and the prophets that lead to john the baptist to jesus, and jesus shows love and compasion...love for the weak, for the vulnerable, for the unloved, and His sacrifice is to imply the full love, ie i m suffering for you,to draw you to me.
this is not science, and i don t see how you can prove it by science. so in this regard, if you are looking for a scientific proof you will not find it.
[cont d from below] the bible is more logical in the sense of the notion of the stories and the development of stories.[not refering to science].meaning; God may be mean in the old testament, yet, he is eternal. and is the life giver, yet "gets angry", the story from abram to noah, then prophets trying to explain that God is real.
the notion that God is a father figure, stern, yet loving in other ways.[and to be feared because of his power]
the bible has some inconsistencies, yet also have, to my knowledge truths,[refering to historical proofs], and ties with verses, inluding old testament references to jesus. some of the "strange things" refered to in the bible, i think are exaggerations,or metaphors,yet once studied i feel the bible is a lot more logical then people think.
[cont d from below]science is imperfect. yet theories may seem valid, until sometimes a new theory has stronger evidence and the previous theory may be disproven.
religion is to me, more an inner experience, which is justified not only by concsience, but intuition.
which also may align and put beauty and meaning in a life, which to me, does not make it invalid or not even untrue.
religion isn t science. science is a study of the physical world using induction and deduction.religion is accepted of faith,and in part:metaphysical,philosophical, mystical,moral,mythical,poetic etc...history should not be used to disprove the bible since it is a religious work. this does not make religion invalid, but to me, using another side of the brain.
s.this does not make religion untrue.
science has many theories that have been disproven and refuted.[contd]
Brilliant, Al... So concise, eloquent and convincing, it's breathtaking! Your wit and sense of humour makes what you say a pleasure to listen to. Well done, man!
Awesome rant, little brother. That was like a triple shot espresso for the reasonable mind. For those who can't think for themselves, I recommend, Lao Tzu. ...or cyanide.
See, this makes you look like an idiot. He covered Pascal's Wager in the video. It's obvious that you didn't watch the whole video, and your arguments are weak and ignorant. This is precisely why atheist dislike many Christians.
GaryNull - I don't think that's a reason why religion is BS, much less the only reason. Most religions don't claim that their followers are inerrantly moral people. They fully admit that they are "sinners", but it's okay because their religion provides the sole means of obtaining grace or atonement.
This also allows religious people to claim that others are not superior to them because everyone is a sinner, Meanwhile, at least they are on the "true path" to salvation or what not.
Why can't we just get along, and believe what we want that makes us good people? If I'm right, cool. If your right, cool. It doesn't matter untill the end anyways! We should do better to be kinder to others rather than make everyone else think our way.
Anyways, Kudo's to you, this was well put together, but, if your goal was to change my mind, it didn't work :)
God's whole plan is choice. Either you choose him or you don't. He himself wouldn't shove his religion down your throat.....so why should I? If you want to believe in atheism, that is your choice, I applaud you for knowing what you believe. Just don't try to change my mind about God, because not only can you not change it, I would never try to change your mind. If you ever have questions or thoughts, I'd love to share and answer, but I would never shove it down your throat.
Sethyness02 - Am I shoving my beliefs down your throat? I created a YouTube video in response to someone else's video. Were you forced to watch it? Did I interrupt dinner with my video?
I wish I could treat religion as merely eccentric, but it is a direct force between many public policy decisions about stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, school prayer, and the separation between church and state. Why's it okay to argue about politics, art or anything, but religion is taboo?
Wow I think I've punched myself in the face 28 times. Do guys like this just film themselves all around the room to make people try to stay focused on all the "wha wha wha wha" they say?
you touched on a subject i was pondering last night in this video....what do you consider to be the purpose of human life? do you believe there is no purpose?
This guy has a suprising amount of scriptural knowledge for an athiest. But proving negatives is pointless, disproving existence is beyond understanding, while at the same time proving existence shows a lack of faith, rather than taking into account what the other person thinks.
Pascals wager is what the way he should look at atheism.
OPascal's wager only works if there is a dichonomy. If there is more than two choices, that exclude eachother, then you cannot apply Pascal's wager.
Example. You have Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, ect. Believing in one to hedge your bets, so to speak, isn't allowed in other religions. You can't be a Christian and a Buddhist, technically. But if you became a Christian, and turns out that Islam was the true religion, well, you burn anyway.
In his context there were only two options, dickhead. he was arguing with French aristocrats who were increasingly prone to considering themselves 'too rational' to be christians. their alternative was a sort of luke warm traditionalism, but no real Christian belief.
just like the host of spoiled middle class kids who think that prosperity and happiness and social order just dropped out of the sky, so they think they don't need Christianity (which brought us all those things in the first place)
nateshannon: If that's true, doesn't Pascal's Wager reduce to a necessary lie to promote social order? And using his context may explain why he argued that, but it doesn't get rid of the problem that Pascal's Wager only makes sense if there were only two choices: the Christian God or no gods at all.
There were several non-Christian societies that had social order. Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on law and order.
In order to use Pascal's wager, you have to apply it to every single religion, doomday-sayers rant, and essentially every single imaginary scenario that cannot be disproven (pink unicorns that will spear you for all eternity if you don't worship them).
Pascal's wager works for things with an unknown dichonomy, like global warming, where the possible consequences in taking action is preferable to the possible consequences of not taking action.
there's no equation for the existence itself so does that mean you dont exist- its highly irrational to rely on math for your answers unless you can show me an equation for everything i see- in fact you can not show me an equation for most of what i see and especially feel- in fact there is no equations that show anything we feel- so would you not need proof that you exist- if not you minus well say that you have no proof of yourself-this whole proof thing sounds like something a robot would say
lol what you atheists dont get is that the proof is in you on you and all around you- this world is proof of a superman at least!!! that is undeniable and science and math are not as great as the mind- therefore the mind's greatest thoughts cannot currently be explained by math- i mean you atheist look to math and science as your saviour when there is not even math for the simplest of human experience such as experience itself-
Could you be more specific about this "proof". Saying it "all on you and around you" is extremely vague and thus no one can really respond. Also, if you could explain how this proof also proves your specific God, not just God in general.
So he said.. if its just a matter of choice for you, the truly rational thing would be just to go ahead and believe. that's the 'safe bet', that's the cool, rational choice.
Pascal's pensee are very beautiful theological/religious meditations. He was a "rational man" - a brilliant mathematician, but a God fearing man as well.
your second sentence here simply repeats your definitions of "rational" and "evidence". I am trying to get you to rethink those definitions, to 'have the courage to question,' as they say.
you can't just define terms, or you're only talking to yourself.
I have a busy few days but I'm happy to continue our dialogue. I will get back to you.
regarding the back and forth about 'burden of proof', when you say "atheism simply rejects that claim," and you imply that atheism is a non-claim, or a simple and innocent default position, you have to realize that this can only be the case if God does not exist. If you presuppose that God does not exist, than the claim that he does exist 'bears the burden of proof." but the reverse is true too-
the burden of proof is RELATIVE. If I land on a distant planet and aliens want to know where I am from, the b of p is mine to prove that earth exists etc
depends on the beliefs which you already hold as established. So for the atheist, theism will always bear the burden of proof. For the theist of course, the reverse is true.
both bear this burden: how to make sense of the universe given what they believe. atheists have to presuppose an ordered, authored universe even to deny God.
Wrong. Your own existence proves the existence of your planet. Your spaceship would have metals unique to your planet and people. In any case, you would have tangible evidence to prove your position. It isn't relative at all.
Theism presupposes the existence of a supernatural deity, so it is on them to prove its existence. This requires observable facts and being able to make predictions based on the nature of this deity. It is like asking someone to prove that griffons dont exist.
the reverse is true too: If I suppose that God exists, then "atheism" (the claim that he does not) bears the burden of proof.
Since we both agree that proving the existence or non-existence of God, this line of argument - the burden of proof - is unproductive.
One more comment: I have no interest in arguing for any God except the triune personal God of the Bible. My claim: He is the one true God and there is no other.
Yeah I'm no historian, but Pascal was writing in France to the aristocrats who had come to mock the Christian faith because they felt they were too 'rational' for it. (this is ... the spirit of intellectualism since Kant at least, even Descartes.) So he wasn't dealing with the pluralistic, world religions kind of context we have today. And the very specific argument he was trying to turn on its head was: its irrational to be a Christian; we're rational people, so we aren't Christians.
whether you take the Bible to be the divinely inspired W of G or not.
I think to begin, it must be clear what the Bible says about itself: the divinely inspired word of God, written by men, about J.C. from page 1 to the end. So what you call "error" will presuppose already that you don't accept the Bible's claims about itself, like any other book.
By presupposing error, I mean presupposing what an "error" is or can be. You do presuppose a concept of "error" or you wouldn't use the word. That concept depends on your PRIOR view of divine revelation. nevermind that for now..
No geologic evidence does not mean no flood. Anyway, that is not the central point here.
I do enjoy our back and forth. Though it might take me some time reply - again I am super busy these days - please bear with me. I'd be happy to keep this going.
I saw your website - tremendous photos of the mountains.
2.Metaphysical Reality: you asked me to prove it exists. YOu made a great comment: you can't prove or disprove the existence of anything. right! So I say... how about this: you can't even prove or disprove the existence of yourself or the world, your mind or other minds. The only thing you know for sure is.. that you are doubting whether anything can be known..
heard of this before? Descartes of course.
Long story short: western philosophy STILL does not know how we know.
Right - that's what I'm saying too. You have to ASSUME "reality exists, and through investigation it can be known." Sure it can be "useful" but you can't explain or justify that assumption. That's what an assumption is. You are also "assuming" a world of meaning hidden in the word "reality" which you do not explain, and are probably not aware of.
Metaphysics are not nonsense just because you say so. do you really think that you only believe in things which are empirically verifiable?
Aside from the assumption that objective reality exists, and that I exist too....I attempt to ensure that the strength of my convictions are contingent on the empirical evidence in support of those convictions.
Dude, all of the history of western philosophy has tried to prove the viability of empirical knowledge and has not succeeded. Please don't think you can sail over the efforts of humanities greatest minds just because you keep repeating yourself.
You can't JUSTIFY the belief that you exist just by saying that its a useful assumption, or that you can touch yourself, or something.
If you really think your own existence is indubitable, prove it, according to your own standards of indubitability: empirically PROVE that you exist, please, if that is the system you choose to rely on.
I repeat: you cannot prove your own claims (that you exist and that the world exists) by remaining consistent to your own system of knowledge (pure empiricism).
If you are attempting to defeat scientific inquiry by taking the position that we cannot know anything. Then you are arguing against your own position on God at least as strongly for the same reasons.
You claim that you will only believe things which can be supported by evidence, right? Okay - you said it, not me.
Then I say, "what is evidence?"
You seem to think of evidence as empirical evidence.
So I say, "what empirical evidence to you have that you exist? or that your mother loves you? or that the sun will come up tomorrow? or that there is a sun at all?"
In other words what is empirical evidence and what does it really prove? (continued above)
I suspect that we both believe that objective reality exists.
You also seem to be arguing that since we cannot know anything absolutely [a true statement], that we cannot really know anything at all [a false conclusion].
Everything we know is on the basis of probabilities. Do I exist? Highly probable.
Does my mother love me, again, highly probable. Will the sun come up tomorrow? Again, perhaps not....but far more likely that it will.
In each case you say that you cannot prove nor disprove each situation mentioned, yet you give your hypothesis on each one based on your observations alone. In the first 2 cases you have had direct proof of your arguement through experience. Well in that case, if you have indirect evidence of the existance of something would that not prove it to exist? (Example, electrons and protons were initially discovered indirectly through experiments that implied their existance.)
The word "prove" is a tricky one. It implies [and is often interpreted as] an absolute proof. The reality is that we can never be sure of anything in an absolute sense, we can only know things to varying degrees of confidence...often the level of confidence [based on evidence] is so high that considering other options is ridiculous.
It might be possible that I do not actually exist, but my confidence level is so high that I need not consider the alternative.
So according to your arguement, I cannot be absolutely sure that I am typing this reply using my computer, but I can be highly confident that I am. Shall I ask "What is the Matrix"? LOL! (Sorry, but I could not resist saying that. Heh, heh!)
Okay, so if I use your arguement, & if I find a situation (either reported or through my own observation) that would increase confidence in God's existance to a high degree, I need not consider the alternative?
That's essentially correct. The level of confidence might be 99.9999999% or higher....but nothing in science is 100%. All our knowledge is only an approximation of the objective reality.
As far as God goes....the empirical evidence is zero, and personal revelation is highly tainted by the context of one's culture. The revelation of others is even farther removed.
Well what would you consider as empirical evidence (typcially used to measure the natural) of a being that surpasses the supernatural?
[I beg to differ on evidence of God being "zero". The same way of thinking that implies the existance of protons and electrons can also be used to prove the existance of God. But before I get into that, I'd like an answer to my first question.]
The existence of protons and electrons has been demonstarted through experiment. I am not sure what empirical evidence might point toward a supernatural being. Obviously, to be of any use, there would have to be an experiment devised that has the possibility of falsifying the hypothesis.
Yes, subatomic particles were found through experiment, but what I am talking about is the nature of the experiment; it was indirect. I.E., their existence was implied by the events that occurred during the experiment. Well the assumption can be made outside of an experiment as well. Just look at Newton when he discovered gravity; that was something quite unexpected for him. You know the whole apple story anyway.
He did not use any measurable evidence, but rather reasoned based on his experience. The same went for his predecessors. Of course, since then there have been experiments done, but it started with an experience at one point or another. Do you agree to this much?
The experiments were verifiable, and also falsifiable.
Newton verified his intuitions through experiment. He developed mathematical models that allowed him to make predictions about the nature of motion which could be verified [or falsified] experimentally.
He did not simply reason it all out and leave it at that.
Your God Hypothesis needs to have experimental support, it has none. I have never seen any argument for god being anything more than wishful thinking.
I am not arguing for the existence of God - yet. my argument so far is only that you have no argument and that you don't even know HOW to explain the fact that you know anything at all, and I also argue that every little tiny piece of knowledge involves what you would call "faith" because "evidence" is way over-rated.
I am not arguing for God yet - just asking you to explain your own system.
I said that the strength of my convictions is contingent on the evidence in support of those convictions.
I have also stated that I believe that objective reality exists and that we are capable of figuring out what it is, even if it's only to an approximation.
The only tools available to us to accomplish that are:
1.HE did not imply that the burden of proof lies with the minority; you did when you said something like theistic claims - because not obvious - bear the burden. can't remember the exact words. Point is, what is "obvious" or not is a matter of consensus. Atheism is a VAST minority even today, and historically speaking, atheism is a knife and fork in China.
this is a little silly. That's simply a matter of opinion, as I said before. Why do you call "atheism" a "non-claim" and "theism" a "claim"? Secondly, how can you say that a "non-claim" is not a "claim" if you keep insisting on your "non-claim" and arguing for it?
It's like this; it's the theist who is making the claim about the existence and specific nature of god[s]. These are positive claims which are rather specific.
These claims are not just academic, people believe them, and use them to shape public policy.
The atheist recognizes that these claims are no different [as far as evidenciary support goes] than the claims made by every religious person in every age.
right, I hear you. But please understand that atheism is not a NON-claim. it entails a HOST of things. It is not just a BLANK. Even agnosticism is not a blank.
Let's try this: let's define atheism. what is atheism?
Dude look, to show you how impotent your point is I could say the same thing:
an atheist claims that there is no God. The theist rejects that claim. logically speaking, your point is mute.
but I think you still need to see that just because 'atheism" begins with a negater doesn't mean its not a claim, an argument, a proposition with positive content. It just doesn't look like one, but it is.
If I say that i reject the claim that you exist, a host of things come crashing in with that claim.
An atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. I am also not an astrologer...do we need a label for that too? Do I made a claim which needs support when I reject the claims made by astrologers?
Do I need to provide support for rejecting the unsupported claims made Islam, Judaism, Wicca?
I do not need to provide any support for simply rejecting the unsupported claims made by any person, on any subject....that includes the claims made by The Bible.
its a cute try, but you don't really the bottom. Burden of proof does not lie with the minority view - which is what you imply. Anyway, if thats true, scientific naturalists easily bear the burden to explain why they choose to excuse their agnosticism about the real existence of the material world, but not about metaphysical reality.
You also misunderstand what is understood as the inerrancy of the bible.
He did not imply at all that the burden of proof lies with the minority view; he stated quite clearly that the burden of proof lies with those who are proposing that something is true.
Metaphysical reality? Oxymoron if there ever was one. Please demonstrate that the metaphysical actually exists.
I have had religious fundies tell me that inerrancy means that the bible is literally true in all of its passages. That's pretty clear, and easily refuted.
The christian bible has like 700 rules. If you dont follow them, then you go to hell. So pascals wager doesn't apply to christianity too well. Also, seeing how god (according to the bible) has poor morals- so how can you trust the bible? Maybe he is trying to weed out those who don't use the brain he gave them and only atheists are allowed to heaven. Maybe it works better with Islam, since all you need to do is die in jihad? :\
Codylupardus 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just check this video: watch?v=lZQM0S5ajos
MrS0o0N 3 months ago
It's sort of sad how this video doesn't have as many views as it could
GIGANTOR89 9 months ago
great video but terrible sound
fegu 1 year ago
thank you for not wasting my time man
adultgames1 1 year ago
i love you for making this video
MrHermitMyers 1 year ago
I think it is great that atheists are making stands against Religion since Religion has been in power for several millenia and maybe one day the overall population would be rational thinkers instead of deluded followers.
DeathsWill228 1 year ago
Where is that cool music from?
SonicRainbowStar 1 year ago
Good content, but your camera sucks man.
josephrl82 1 year ago
Great video :D Only criticism is quality of audio / video, but otherwise fantastic!
202robo 1 year ago
good work man!
robertklein2000 1 year ago
CALEL7000 makes sense, but just because something is creepy, or if an idea is disturbing, doesn't make that idea wrong
He is looking for purpose in his life, which is good. But his is hung up on the idea that "If Life has no purpose, then MY life has no purpose" this isn't the case
Just because Biological Life has no meaning or reason behind it, doesn't mean its worthless. Life is awesome because its LIFE, not because "god" made it
A person can find purpose in Their life, like helping people
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
Like, XBOX is freakin' cool...so we play it, but not without initial cause...afterall Microsoft didn't just GIVE them away...they did it for a purpose...
Human life is way cooler that XBOX w/it's gay red ring of death and all....fundamentally unique bcuz you never had a choice of whether you would play this GAME or not....you were just thrust into this program...no receipts....no plugs...no "thank you, come again".....just you....
don't you think that it's kind of creepy, if it's random?
CALEL7000 2 years ago
Like we spend our lives building up huge mental databases of sweet or bitter memories (if your regular)....but for what????
Who will remember our memories when we ourselves become mere memories???? Afterimages of importance now obsolete.
That's like going to the movies and sittling through PERFECT STORM w/Clooney and friends....THAT MOVIES SUCKED, they just died at the end....it was nothing more than masturbation, at literal waste of TIME....
Is human life....Masturbation?
CALEL7000 2 years ago
Sad but true, So make the most out of your life, and the lives of others before you get killed in scene 496
Improving the lives of others is very important, so its more like funfunfreaky sex then Masturbation, because your sharing you life with other people in a positive way
So have fun with your Sex while it lasts... I mean... Life! Have fun with your LIFE while it lasts!
BlankPicketSign 2 years ago
As a pitiful virgin.....
I dearly held the cherished BELIEF that one day I too would find out first hand where babies came from....but just because I believed that I was finally gonna get some didn't make it necessarily CERTAIN
Somehow I just can't shake this feeling that we are MORE...that we have some PURPOSE for being here.
Otherwise it really is just a big waste of time isn't it?
CALEL7000 2 years ago
I am rather satisfied with my postion, and feel almost smug about myself...how wonderful it is that I KNOW something...
I have even delighted over the EXPECTATION of knowing something for sure....the thrill!!! The suspense!!!!!
Like when I lost my virginity....
So we are intellectual virgins, waiting to get our cerebral cherries popped!!!! LOL!!!!
But I only believe that this will happen, I do not KNOW it...but still....
CALEL7000 2 years ago
Answers that, in hind sight, were ridiculous because now I know and no longer have to guess...
The day of enlightenment approaches the atheist and the christian no matter what either of them believe...and this is my position based on the fact that I used to wonder about some things, but now I know and no longer have to guess!!!!! YAY!!!!
Looking at the lengths and heights to which human inquisitiveness has gone and returned, I don't think that my position is unreasonable
CALEL7000 2 years ago
Where'd all this stuff come from? What really is a tree? We call it wood...but that's just our word for the hard brown stuff that grows out of the ground that has green dangly things that blow in the wind (wind? mabye not???) and sometimes fruit (!) too...
Back when I was a child...kids were more innocent so we didn't have 100,000,000,000 sources we could go to in order to find out about sex or what a tampon was for and stuff like that so we guys just MADE UP OUR OWN most acceptable answer
CALEL7000 2 years ago
Knowledge is where faith ends...
The Lie is where reality ends....
Evidence in essence is true because if it was not true then it would not exist...the lie is unreality....
So...at the end of the day, the only thing that we humans can present is our individual interpretations of reality's evidence...
Such as
Humans...animals....the earth....the sky....taste buds....mustaches.....eyebrows....koolaid...the physical world....consciousness...dreams....laughter....
CALEL7000 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
BTW -- don't confuse religion (an organized cultural approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices) with theism (the belief in at least one deity).
You talk a lot about differences between religions, but may also want to research pluralism and comparative religion.
blb2121 2 years ago
Arthur, posting mocking ridicule of theism/deism really doesn't make an argument for atheism.
You have a philosophical position based at least in part on philosophical naturalism.
It silly for you to insist the concept of a "God" or "deity" transcending space-time must be empirically testable under scientific method, simply "because" you insist it must.
Nor is there a "dichotomy" between science and theism/deism, only demarcation. Science excludes them as an a priori.
Learn some tolerance.
blb2121 2 years ago
Sorry, I meant to say "Albert".
blb2121 2 years ago
It isn't silly to say that if something does not have proof and does have evidence and logic against it, that it probably isn't real.
This is how we separate reality and illusion in every other subject. But then we start talking about religion and for some reason it gets a complete pass.
blb2121, how can we separate religious truths from religious falsehoods in a meaningful, objective way?
Albert10110 2 years ago 5
Except you're refusing to admit that much of science is based on ontological proofs, similar concepts of transcendence (the concepts of infinity and hyper-reals for example), and we're constantly redefining what "reality" and "existence" are.
You also seem to think "Truth" is purely binary. But ignore we have paradoxes and dialatheisms in reality also.
Who defines meaningful? You? For everyone? I don't think so. That's why we have metaphysics, and science is apart of it with demarcation.
blb2121 2 years ago
because we are his creation. GOD gave us free will. The ability for us to make our own choices of what is good & what is right. But look how Satan tempted eve of adam & eve. By eating from the tree of knowledge of good & bad is why we have all the EVIL SINS commited under the sun today. If they hadn't We would live longer, healthier lives, we would be perfect human beings, no illness no pain no suffering, no disease, jelousey, hatred, violence. Because adam & eve disobeyed GOD commands.
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
GOD also tells human beings that Satan & his demons can not harm us as long as we call out Jehovah GOD's name. GOD is teh creator of the heavens & of the earth & of the great lumanaries that serve as lights in day & night. The very reason we have a EVIL world, where rage, violence, murdering, the most vile acts commited, are SINS all because Satan the Devil is stirring humans & controlling them, influencing them. GOD did not want this for us. But GOD let him out the abyss after 1000 years.
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Scientis & atheists will never claim that it is anything other than a super being that has no physical form. Where do you think darren brown & people guessed the correct lottery nos. Only the power of beings like that can make that happen. We are nothing compared to them. The knowledge they posess is outstanding. We are like insects in comparison. You toher scientists & atheist don't want to believe that there is anything smarter than us. That we weren't created. Well we were
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
There is even evidence of DEMONS possesing humans like the enfield incident. Where on camera the girl is possesed, The demon uses her windpipe to talk through her body. The DEMONS are EVIL. They can command a human to do something. They have killed humans because of this possessing the body & spirit. hanuted houses, places. Some are good, some are very bad. Believe me when I say they were cast out of heaven as GODs servants because they didn't obey a higher devine being. Theres your proof.
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
That is easy to find solid proof. Do you sometimes wonder what GHOSTS are. They are not people who have died. They are SPITIRS, DEMONS, POLTERGEISTS, super beings that are trapped on this earth for 1000 years reign to test us. Or Satan the Devil. These are being that are invisible, yet can touch solid objects, they have more strength than any strongest man. They aren't human, but they take on the form of human beings for a brief period of time. They possess humans, give them ideas.
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
I'm afraid you are in for a BIG surprise Atheist. Why don't you go & read the most ancient texts "The dead Sea scrolls" written by Nostic scholars of ancient Hebrew & aramaaic culture. There you will find the the truths once you read the BIBLE, your only history book for humans. The "ONLy" survival guide. And more fool the people who don't believe the most ancient truths ever written. More fool you again. "Are you a sheep or are you the goat".
JamsterGoliath 2 years ago
Who cares what you believe.Worship what you want.You can't force your practices on religious people eithere.Also, it goes the same for us.
reececup33 2 years ago
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago
I love the music you listen to. Polyphonic spree kicks ass and so does modest mouse!
WigglesThePirate 2 years ago
AWESOME! preaching to the choir... well you know what i mean.
ianj1828 2 years ago
fantastic video
asseeninYOURDREAMS 2 years ago
don"t you have to prove something BEFORE disproving it?
asseeninYOURDREAMS 2 years ago
There are multiple processes into determining what is true or not. In the argument of atheism, it's either between existence of a super-being, or not. So if you can prove that there is no super-being, the other statement becomes true through process of elimination. From the establishment of that of coarse, there is no hurt in finding out how things were actually created.
HostelEffect 2 years ago
.... grrr
asseeninYOURDREAMS 2 years ago
This is normally how things work. Someone makes a claim and provides their proof for why they think their claim is valid. If another party believes that the proof does not match the claim they present the flaws or an alternative idea.
christians have not to my satisfaction proved that god exists.
tapiwakay 2 years ago
Dude you rock my socks. You hit the nail square on the head every single time. You got the message across without trying to offend others beliefs, because that causes their minds to close automatically. Very well done *applauds*
Xeletoph 2 years ago
oh yeah,
jc rocks!
kidjade7 2 years ago
and does the ID arguement and the theory of evolution have to be completely seperate? can they be compatable?
kidjade7 2 years ago
No they can't be compatible, simply being because Evolution doesn't claim to know where the total existence of life claim to be; whereas ID says there was a creator that made the first forms of life. That is sheer ignorance on the side of ID, and thus ignorance is not a form of education.
yamilink03 2 years ago
and yes i ve heard of some other darwinian arguements, the thermonuclear thing, and geno types and bacteria mutations, and so on...all good evidence...but does that prove god doesn t exist? maybe survival of the fittest is what is.but i still don t have ample proof that a creator doesn t exist. in terms of adam and eve, possably they were refering to a couple after a certain amount of evolution had occured and gods hand was behind the whole thing.
kidjade7 2 years ago
there are references to the saviour in the old testament /prophecies of the messiah, that match jesus life. jesus his own references to the old testament were accurate.there are other writers which wrote of jesus, briefly, in his time.
i ve read some ideas on darwanism, but how does the simple go to the comples? i ve never going to see a frog turn into a monkee, why would i believe it?
it seems illogical.
thegoodman765 2 years ago
cntd...but/and/...god may not be perfect from out standards[ie noahs ark days],is destroying humanity except for noah etc...perfect? but he is all powerful, and a divine nature. jesus was perfect, and showed gods love, as oppossed to gods anger. and that is a big part of the jesus reovolution. o course how could i prove that in a scientific fashion? there are historical references in the bible which correspond to correct history.
thegoodman765 2 years ago
How could Jesus be perfect? The scriptures were written up to 90 years after the fact by men who never knew him.
Then factor in that the bible has been re written thousands of times. For over thousand years the bible was hand written and every mistake was copied by the next scribe. literally thousands of these mistakes were made by illiterate scribes and dishonest ones who had their own agenda , and through poor interpretations into other languages [continued]
googoobh 2 years ago
......... [continued] Also stories were added and taken away hundreds of years after the original bibles , the story of those who are with out sin , should cast the first stone wasn't in any of the oldest complete bibles that are known. Some scribe made it up and put it in. Many times the translations were made by poor translators , that either turned around phrases or made whole new meanings. Theologians have said there are as many mistakes in the bible as words in the new testiment.
googoobh 2 years ago
[ct dblw...]...if i did do that you d probaly say something scientific about it and not believe it was from god. why would you believe god did it? god wasn t there.but the miracle was...as for illogical parts of the bible,i would say that,the bible also uses poetic device,embellished stories,metaphors...nowhere in the bible have i read it talk of science. yet science talks of it.
i also think there is overlap with science and religion, and science and philosophy.[cntd,up]
kidjade7 2 years ago
i have an arguement here and i feel it is valid, although i m not sure how scientific it is or not.
i feel and think that since the age of enlightenment,science has been a huge influence in our thinking.
i have a theory of mine called "the pizza theory"/ life is like a pizza,science is one piece,philosohpy is one piece,psychology one piece, etc...
i can t prove god or jesus, if i could, how would i do it? show you, me praying and have a blind man see?[c/over]
kidjade7 2 years ago
The early church leaders, and particularly those who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection simply had no motivation for lying. It's not like they were getting rich, or gaining power or political influence. They were being executed, ridiculed, pursued from one area to another, run out of town, and the like.
Who would choose to endure all of this knowing the entire time that what they were spreading was a complete and utter falsehood.
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
Please check out the list below. I have copied a website address where I found a summary of these writers. As with anything else, these are open for debate in one way or the other. But in my opinion, taken collectively, these writings make a very strong case for the existence of a "Jesus" who by even these accounts was not an ordinary person.
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Witnesses
Thallus (52AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Phlegon (80-140AD)
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Celsus (175AD)
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
Hostile Non-Biblical Jewish Witnesses
Josephus (37-101AD)
Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
guess how many text comments there was before mine/
kidjade7 2 years ago
Guess how many comments were before this one?
(Turns out, it's not of any significance whatsoever. :) )
Albert10110 2 years ago
Very entertaining video... thanks for making me laugh.
You mentioned that there are many possible sources for morals. I would agree with that completely.
However, each one of these sources, must also have a source, and that source must also have a source and so on. There must be a standard for any morals, or they are simply arbitrary rules.
Morals of the bible "outdated". Ok, but maybe 2,000 years from now, someone watching this video might consider your morals outdated.
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
Agreed that both sides have caused their share of blood shed, and for the most part I believe this is a dead end argument.
Burden of proof: evidence is what is needed, and in a court of law it usually comes down to all of the various pieces of evidence, along with motive to prove guilt or innocence. You don't necessarily have to have indisputable evidence, but just a collection of information that makes possible the event.
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
"You don't necessarily have to have indisputable evidence, but just a collection of information that makes possible the event."
That is not at all what courts demand. I would not want a system where "well, he COULD have done it" is good enough to convict. You necessarily have to prove guilt beyond *reasonable* doubt. Just proving that it is possible is an extremely low standard to believe anything, inside or outside of a court room.
Albert10110 2 years ago 4
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system and is the highest level of burden of persuasion. This means that the proposition presented by the government must be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief that the defendant is guilty.
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
If the court was actually the way you described it, there wouldn't ever be an overturned conviction.
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
There really is no reasonable way to suggest that the original writings of the old and new testament have been altered to fit the facts. There are simply too many copies floating around and in comparison between the very oldest copies and the newest, they are identical in meaning. The 5% error is related to spelling or other typographical errors that do not change the fundamental meaning of the writings.
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
There is also much evidence of the existence and crucifixion of a man named Jesus that can be found outside of the bible. To deny his very existence would be to dismiss as false, the writings of a good number of ancient historians and authors.
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
Actually there seem to be a noticeable lack of writers who wrote about Jesus at the time he was alive (or shortly after). Could you mention some of these historians and authors (specifics are always better than generalities).
Albert10110 2 years ago
One of the most telling questions is this: Why would the early Christians persist in the spread of the gospels, even when it would cost them their lives? If they knew them to be a lie, why wouldn't they just abandon the whole thing once they knew their lives depended on it?
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
This is easily explained: consider soldiers in the German army during WW2. They believed they were on the side of good and just, to the point of sacrificing their lives, even though the reality was not so. A closer analogy, what about the Mormons, who devoted their lives to an obvious fraud? Patriotism, religion, thinking you are in a causes that transcend yourself, these are powerful emotions and create meaning for people's lives. Few will critically examine themselves and risk losing it.
Albert10110 2 years ago
There are countless examples of people dying for something they believed in, but that's not what were doing. They either DID or DID NOT witness the resurrection of Jesus.
It didn't require them to die for belief, they died for something that they knew to be true or false.
TheTruthMatters1971 2 years ago
does this mean a subjective religious,or empircal philosophical epiphany completely invalid?
kidjade7 2 years ago
...what i m trying to stay as a succession of stories in the bible there is a logic to it,
and a logic to jesus love.
it is more a transcendent reality.
again, more about other things, inlcuding feelings and imagery.
stevesoundlove 2 years ago
does this means a subjective or empirical experience is completely invalid?
kidjade7 2 years ago
[cont d from below]
and the prophets that lead to john the baptist to jesus, and jesus shows love and compasion...love for the weak, for the vulnerable, for the unloved, and His sacrifice is to imply the full love, ie i m suffering for you,to draw you to me.
this is not science, and i don t see how you can prove it by science. so in this regard, if you are looking for a scientific proof you will not find it.
stevesoundlove 2 years ago
[cont d from below] the bible is more logical in the sense of the notion of the stories and the development of stories.[not refering to science].meaning; God may be mean in the old testament, yet, he is eternal. and is the life giver, yet "gets angry", the story from abram to noah, then prophets trying to explain that God is real.
the notion that God is a father figure, stern, yet loving in other ways.[and to be feared because of his power]
thegoodman765 2 years ago
the bible has some inconsistencies, yet also have, to my knowledge truths,[refering to historical proofs], and ties with verses, inluding old testament references to jesus. some of the "strange things" refered to in the bible, i think are exaggerations,or metaphors,yet once studied i feel the bible is a lot more logical then people think.
thegoodman765 2 years ago
[cont d from below]science is imperfect. yet theories may seem valid, until sometimes a new theory has stronger evidence and the previous theory may be disproven.
religion is to me, more an inner experience, which is justified not only by concsience, but intuition.
which also may align and put beauty and meaning in a life, which to me, does not make it invalid or not even untrue.
kidjade7 2 years ago
religion isn t science. science is a study of the physical world using induction and deduction.religion is accepted of faith,and in part:metaphysical,philosophical, mystical,moral,mythical,poetic etc...history should not be used to disprove the bible since it is a religious work. this does not make religion invalid, but to me, using another side of the brain.
s.this does not make religion untrue.
science has many theories that have been disproven and refuted.[contd]
kidjade7 2 years ago
Brilliant, Al... So concise, eloquent and convincing, it's breathtaking! Your wit and sense of humour makes what you say a pleasure to listen to. Well done, man!
tarikmkinsi66 2 years ago
Awesome rant, little brother. That was like a triple shot espresso for the reasonable mind. For those who can't think for themselves, I recommend, Lao Tzu. ...or cyanide.
bqreus 2 years ago
Epic
BakuhatsuShojo 2 years ago
There's a river that runs through hell...please don't end up in it.
Repent and be saved...don't give up.
Eternity is a long stretch. What if you're
wrong and hell is real? Would it be logical
to throw your life to chance? How long can you hold a red-hot coal in the palm of your hand? Why take a chance on your life?
Jesus Christ loves you. Not the sin. He loves you. Don't give up. All the bad stuff
that happened to you..will be forgotten in the end...why hold to it. Forgive.
2br2br2 2 years ago
Comment removed
zombiejournals 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See, this makes you look like an idiot. He covered Pascal's Wager in the video. It's obvious that you didn't watch the whole video, and your arguments are weak and ignorant. This is precisely why atheist dislike many Christians.
zombiejournals 2 years ago
There is only one reason why relgion is bullshit:
JUST LOOK AT ALL "RELIOUS" PEOPLE
ROFL
They lie, cheat, are selfish, and they are usually less forgiving than non-religious people I know.
IT'S SUCH BULLSHIT
You don't need religion to be a good person.
And most religious people are not "good".
GaryNull 2 years ago
GaryNull - I don't think that's a reason why religion is BS, much less the only reason. Most religions don't claim that their followers are inerrantly moral people. They fully admit that they are "sinners", but it's okay because their religion provides the sole means of obtaining grace or atonement.
This also allows religious people to claim that others are not superior to them because everyone is a sinner, Meanwhile, at least they are on the "true path" to salvation or what not.
Albert10110 2 years ago
Wow, great vid. 5 stars.
EdricODoom 2 years ago
Wow i screwed that up. Read backwards from my 1st comment until this one xD
Sethyness02 2 years ago
Why can't we just get along, and believe what we want that makes us good people? If I'm right, cool. If your right, cool. It doesn't matter untill the end anyways! We should do better to be kinder to others rather than make everyone else think our way.
Anyways, Kudo's to you, this was well put together, but, if your goal was to change my mind, it didn't work :)
Sethyness02 2 years ago
God's whole plan is choice. Either you choose him or you don't. He himself wouldn't shove his religion down your throat.....so why should I? If you want to believe in atheism, that is your choice, I applaud you for knowing what you believe. Just don't try to change my mind about God, because not only can you not change it, I would never try to change your mind. If you ever have questions or thoughts, I'd love to share and answer, but I would never shove it down your throat.
Sethyness02 2 years ago
Sethyness02 - Am I shoving my beliefs down your throat? I created a YouTube video in response to someone else's video. Were you forced to watch it? Did I interrupt dinner with my video?
I wish I could treat religion as merely eccentric, but it is a direct force between many public policy decisions about stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, school prayer, and the separation between church and state. Why's it okay to argue about politics, art or anything, but religion is taboo?
Albert10110 2 years ago
Mokay. I sat down for eight and a half minutes, watched your very well put together, somewhat humorous, and very informative video.
But it didn't change my mind.
I am a Christian, flawed yes, but trying.
I have been rejected and ridiculed for my specific thoughts on the chritianism/atheism arguement by my OWN CHRISTIAN PEERS.
Basically, this sums up what I think:
Sethyness02 2 years ago
Wow I think I've punched myself in the face 28 times. Do guys like this just film themselves all around the room to make people try to stay focused on all the "wha wha wha wha" they say?
Backmanmatt 2 years ago
you touched on a subject i was pondering last night in this video....what do you consider to be the purpose of human life? do you believe there is no purpose?
thebestwillow 2 years ago
This guy has a suprising amount of scriptural knowledge for an athiest. But proving negatives is pointless, disproving existence is beyond understanding, while at the same time proving existence shows a lack of faith, rather than taking into account what the other person thinks.
Pascals wager is what the way he should look at atheism.
boss1dave 2 years ago
OPascal's wager only works if there is a dichonomy. If there is more than two choices, that exclude eachother, then you cannot apply Pascal's wager.
Example. You have Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, ect. Believing in one to hedge your bets, so to speak, isn't allowed in other religions. You can't be a Christian and a Buddhist, technically. But if you became a Christian, and turns out that Islam was the true religion, well, you burn anyway.
melancholyid 2 years ago
In his context there were only two options, dickhead. he was arguing with French aristocrats who were increasingly prone to considering themselves 'too rational' to be christians. their alternative was a sort of luke warm traditionalism, but no real Christian belief.
just like the host of spoiled middle class kids who think that prosperity and happiness and social order just dropped out of the sky, so they think they don't need Christianity (which brought us all those things in the first place)
nateshannon 2 years ago
nateshannon: If that's true, doesn't Pascal's Wager reduce to a necessary lie to promote social order? And using his context may explain why he argued that, but it doesn't get rid of the problem that Pascal's Wager only makes sense if there were only two choices: the Christian God or no gods at all.
There were several non-Christian societies that had social order. Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on law and order.
Albert10110 2 years ago
Dickhead? This is off to a mature start.
In order to use Pascal's wager, you have to apply it to every single religion, doomday-sayers rant, and essentially every single imaginary scenario that cannot be disproven (pink unicorns that will spear you for all eternity if you don't worship them).
Pascal's wager works for things with an unknown dichonomy, like global warming, where the possible consequences in taking action is preferable to the possible consequences of not taking action.
melancholyid 2 years ago
Great vid. I don't understand some of the commenters, every word of what you said was perfectly understandable.
ClearThumbtack 2 years ago
there's no equation for the existence itself so does that mean you dont exist- its highly irrational to rely on math for your answers unless you can show me an equation for everything i see- in fact you can not show me an equation for most of what i see and especially feel- in fact there is no equations that show anything we feel- so would you not need proof that you exist- if not you minus well say that you have no proof of yourself-this whole proof thing sounds like something a robot would say
inteligencequalslove 2 years ago
lol what you atheists dont get is that the proof is in you on you and all around you- this world is proof of a superman at least!!! that is undeniable and science and math are not as great as the mind- therefore the mind's greatest thoughts cannot currently be explained by math- i mean you atheist look to math and science as your saviour when there is not even math for the simplest of human experience such as experience itself-
Helptheherd 2 years ago
athiests actually use maths and science as tools. no 'saviours' needed for those born without 'original sin'
blackrabbitwhite 2 years ago
Could you be more specific about this "proof". Saying it "all on you and around you" is extremely vague and thus no one can really respond. Also, if you could explain how this proof also proves your specific God, not just God in general.
Faustuss1 2 years ago
Well, the last athiest's opinion I saw (Calpurnpiso) was just plain offensive. That guy is officially off his rocker.
I will admit though, Albert seems to be quite more objective in his arguements. Plus the guy is pretty funny. Heh, heh!
:-D
CheckDFX 2 years ago
Kshackleton,
Sorry I thought you were the guy in the video. So when I say "you said" I was referring to the video itself. Sorry for the confusion.
nateshannon 2 years ago
So he said.. if its just a matter of choice for you, the truly rational thing would be just to go ahead and believe. that's the 'safe bet', that's the cool, rational choice.
Pascal's pensee are very beautiful theological/religious meditations. He was a "rational man" - a brilliant mathematician, but a God fearing man as well.
nateshannon 2 years ago
Pascal's wager is only "the safe bet" if you assume that the Christian God is the only one possible.
The only rational choice is to not believe unless evidence is forthcoming.
kshackleton 2 years ago
your second sentence here simply repeats your definitions of "rational" and "evidence". I am trying to get you to rethink those definitions, to 'have the courage to question,' as they say.
you can't just define terms, or you're only talking to yourself.
nateshannon 2 years ago
If you expect me to accept exceptional claims on faith....good luck.
If you have evidence which supports those claims, then I will examine that evidence. That's the rational position to take.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Kshackleton,
I have a busy few days but I'm happy to continue our dialogue. I will get back to you.
regarding the back and forth about 'burden of proof', when you say "atheism simply rejects that claim," and you imply that atheism is a non-claim, or a simple and innocent default position, you have to realize that this can only be the case if God does not exist. If you presuppose that God does not exist, than the claim that he does exist 'bears the burden of proof." but the reverse is true too-
nateshannon 2 years ago
"If you presuppose that God does not exist, than the claim that he does exist 'bears the burden of proof."
You can't prove a negative (other than specific cases), so no, the burden of proof still is on the person who believes in God.
Faustuss1 2 years ago
Hey stupid,
the burden of proof is RELATIVE. If I land on a distant planet and aliens want to know where I am from, the b of p is mine to prove that earth exists etc
depends on the beliefs which you already hold as established. So for the atheist, theism will always bear the burden of proof. For the theist of course, the reverse is true.
both bear this burden: how to make sense of the universe given what they believe. atheists have to presuppose an ordered, authored universe even to deny God.
nateshannon 2 years ago
Wrong. Your own existence proves the existence of your planet. Your spaceship would have metals unique to your planet and people. In any case, you would have tangible evidence to prove your position. It isn't relative at all.
Theism presupposes the existence of a supernatural deity, so it is on them to prove its existence. This requires observable facts and being able to make predictions based on the nature of this deity. It is like asking someone to prove that griffons dont exist.
melancholyid 2 years ago
anyway, you don't make an ounce of sense here. I don't even know what the hell you mean.
nateshannon 2 years ago
second part, begins below.
the reverse is true too: If I suppose that God exists, then "atheism" (the claim that he does not) bears the burden of proof.
Since we both agree that proving the existence or non-existence of God, this line of argument - the burden of proof - is unproductive.
One more comment: I have no interest in arguing for any God except the triune personal God of the Bible. My claim: He is the one true God and there is no other.
nateshannon 2 years ago
Yeah I'm no historian, but Pascal was writing in France to the aristocrats who had come to mock the Christian faith because they felt they were too 'rational' for it. (this is ... the spirit of intellectualism since Kant at least, even Descartes.) So he wasn't dealing with the pluralistic, world religions kind of context we have today. And the very specific argument he was trying to turn on its head was: its irrational to be a Christian; we're rational people, so we aren't Christians.
nateshannon 2 years ago
whether you take the Bible to be the divinely inspired W of G or not.
I think to begin, it must be clear what the Bible says about itself: the divinely inspired word of God, written by men, about J.C. from page 1 to the end. So what you call "error" will presuppose already that you don't accept the Bible's claims about itself, like any other book.
nateshannon 2 years ago
The bible describes things, such as a global flood, that we know did not happen. It [bible] is also inconsistent with itself.
These are errors, no presuppostion required.
kshackleton 2 years ago
1. "we know" - do you? on what basis?
2. the idea of "error" is a presupposition, because behind the idea of "error" is the idea of "non-error" which is truth. Do you know what truth is?
nateshannon 2 years ago
1. There is no geologic evidence at all which supports a global flood. It did not happen.
2. I presuppose no error. The bible makes claims which can be investigated.
The claims which have been subject to investigation, like a global flood, have been falsified.
kshackleton 2 years ago
By presupposing error, I mean presupposing what an "error" is or can be. You do presuppose a concept of "error" or you wouldn't use the word. That concept depends on your PRIOR view of divine revelation. nevermind that for now..
No geologic evidence does not mean no flood. Anyway, that is not the central point here.
nateshannon 2 years ago
An error would be a statement that is wrong. We all know what errors are, don't we? They are statements that turn out to be false.
A global flood would leave clues, clues which do not exist. It didn't happen.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Ken (if I may),
I do enjoy our back and forth. Though it might take me some time reply - again I am super busy these days - please bear with me. I'd be happy to keep this going.
I saw your website - tremendous photos of the mountains.
best
nateshannon 2 years ago
No problem....take your time.
Glad you liked the website.
kshackleton 2 years ago
2.Metaphysical Reality: you asked me to prove it exists. YOu made a great comment: you can't prove or disprove the existence of anything. right! So I say... how about this: you can't even prove or disprove the existence of yourself or the world, your mind or other minds. The only thing you know for sure is.. that you are doubting whether anything can be known..
heard of this before? Descartes of course.
Long story short: western philosophy STILL does not know how we know.
nateshannon 2 years ago
Here are the only assumptions that I make. Reality exists, and through investigation it can be known. These assumptions are useful.
Metaphysical nonsense is just that, nonsense. It can't be demonstrated, so it's not worth bothering with.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Right - that's what I'm saying too. You have to ASSUME "reality exists, and through investigation it can be known." Sure it can be "useful" but you can't explain or justify that assumption. That's what an assumption is. You are also "assuming" a world of meaning hidden in the word "reality" which you do not explain, and are probably not aware of.
Metaphysics are not nonsense just because you say so. do you really think that you only believe in things which are empirically verifiable?
nateshannon 2 years ago
Aside from the assumption that objective reality exists, and that I exist too....I attempt to ensure that the strength of my convictions are contingent on the empirical evidence in support of those convictions.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Dude, all of the history of western philosophy has tried to prove the viability of empirical knowledge and has not succeeded. Please don't think you can sail over the efforts of humanities greatest minds just because you keep repeating yourself.
You can't JUSTIFY the belief that you exist just by saying that its a useful assumption, or that you can touch yourself, or something.
nateshannon 2 years ago
If you really think your own existence is indubitable, prove it, according to your own standards of indubitability: empirically PROVE that you exist, please, if that is the system you choose to rely on.
I repeat: you cannot prove your own claims (that you exist and that the world exists) by remaining consistent to your own system of knowledge (pure empiricism).
nateshannon 2 years ago
If you are attempting to defeat scientific inquiry by taking the position that we cannot know anything. Then you are arguing against your own position on God at least as strongly for the same reasons.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Slow down buddy, you're confusing yourself.
You claim that you will only believe things which can be supported by evidence, right? Okay - you said it, not me.
Then I say, "what is evidence?"
You seem to think of evidence as empirical evidence.
So I say, "what empirical evidence to you have that you exist? or that your mother loves you? or that the sun will come up tomorrow? or that there is a sun at all?"
In other words what is empirical evidence and what does it really prove? (continued above)
nateshannon 2 years ago
I suspect that we both believe that objective reality exists.
You also seem to be arguing that since we cannot know anything absolutely [a true statement], that we cannot really know anything at all [a false conclusion].
Everything we know is on the basis of probabilities. Do I exist? Highly probable.
Does my mother love me, again, highly probable. Will the sun come up tomorrow? Again, perhaps not....but far more likely that it will.
Is there a god? Not very likely at all.
kshackleton 2 years ago
kshakleton,
In each case you say that you cannot prove nor disprove each situation mentioned, yet you give your hypothesis on each one based on your observations alone. In the first 2 cases you have had direct proof of your arguement through experience. Well in that case, if you have indirect evidence of the existance of something would that not prove it to exist? (Example, electrons and protons were initially discovered indirectly through experiments that implied their existance.)
CheckDFX 2 years ago
The word "prove" is a tricky one. It implies [and is often interpreted as] an absolute proof. The reality is that we can never be sure of anything in an absolute sense, we can only know things to varying degrees of confidence...often the level of confidence [based on evidence] is so high that considering other options is ridiculous.
It might be possible that I do not actually exist, but my confidence level is so high that I need not consider the alternative.
kshackleton 2 years ago
kshakleton,
Just amuse me for a moment.
So according to your arguement, I cannot be absolutely sure that I am typing this reply using my computer, but I can be highly confident that I am. Shall I ask "What is the Matrix"? LOL! (Sorry, but I could not resist saying that. Heh, heh!)
Okay, so if I use your arguement, & if I find a situation (either reported or through my own observation) that would increase confidence in God's existance to a high degree, I need not consider the alternative?
CheckDFX 2 years ago
That's essentially correct. The level of confidence might be 99.9999999% or higher....but nothing in science is 100%. All our knowledge is only an approximation of the objective reality.
As far as God goes....the empirical evidence is zero, and personal revelation is highly tainted by the context of one's culture. The revelation of others is even farther removed.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Well what would you consider as empirical evidence (typcially used to measure the natural) of a being that surpasses the supernatural?
[I beg to differ on evidence of God being "zero". The same way of thinking that implies the existance of protons and electrons can also be used to prove the existance of God. But before I get into that, I'd like an answer to my first question.]
CheckDFX 2 years ago
The existence of protons and electrons has been demonstarted through experiment. I am not sure what empirical evidence might point toward a supernatural being. Obviously, to be of any use, there would have to be an experiment devised that has the possibility of falsifying the hypothesis.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Yes, subatomic particles were found through experiment, but what I am talking about is the nature of the experiment; it was indirect. I.E., their existence was implied by the events that occurred during the experiment. Well the assumption can be made outside of an experiment as well. Just look at Newton when he discovered gravity; that was something quite unexpected for him. You know the whole apple story anyway.
(Continued on next post...)
CheckDFX 2 years ago
He did not use any measurable evidence, but rather reasoned based on his experience. The same went for his predecessors. Of course, since then there have been experiments done, but it started with an experience at one point or another. Do you agree to this much?
CheckDFX 2 years ago
The experiments were verifiable, and also falsifiable.
Newton verified his intuitions through experiment. He developed mathematical models that allowed him to make predictions about the nature of motion which could be verified [or falsified] experimentally.
He did not simply reason it all out and leave it at that.
Your God Hypothesis needs to have experimental support, it has none. I have never seen any argument for god being anything more than wishful thinking.
kshackleton 2 years ago
I am not arguing for the existence of God - yet. my argument so far is only that you have no argument and that you don't even know HOW to explain the fact that you know anything at all, and I also argue that every little tiny piece of knowledge involves what you would call "faith" because "evidence" is way over-rated.
I am not arguing for God yet - just asking you to explain your own system.
nateshannon 2 years ago
I said that the strength of my convictions is contingent on the evidence in support of those convictions.
I have also stated that I believe that objective reality exists and that we are capable of figuring out what it is, even if it's only to an approximation.
The only tools available to us to accomplish that are:
1. Physical Evidence
2. Reasoned Logic
The rest is bullshit.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Thanks for your message.
1.HE did not imply that the burden of proof lies with the minority; you did when you said something like theistic claims - because not obvious - bear the burden. can't remember the exact words. Point is, what is "obvious" or not is a matter of consensus. Atheism is a VAST minority even today, and historically speaking, atheism is a knife and fork in China.
nateshannon 2 years ago
Here's the point, the atheist makes no claims....they reject another's claim that god[s] exist.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Thanks for your response.
this is a little silly. That's simply a matter of opinion, as I said before. Why do you call "atheism" a "non-claim" and "theism" a "claim"? Secondly, how can you say that a "non-claim" is not a "claim" if you keep insisting on your "non-claim" and arguing for it?
nateshannon 2 years ago
It's like this; it's the theist who is making the claim about the existence and specific nature of god[s]. These are positive claims which are rather specific.
These claims are not just academic, people believe them, and use them to shape public policy.
The atheist recognizes that these claims are no different [as far as evidenciary support goes] than the claims made by every religious person in every age.
The atheist simply rejects the claim.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Hi,
right, I hear you. But please understand that atheism is not a NON-claim. it entails a HOST of things. It is not just a BLANK. Even agnosticism is not a blank.
Let's try this: let's define atheism. what is atheism?
nateshannon 2 years ago
Dude look, to show you how impotent your point is I could say the same thing:
an atheist claims that there is no God. The theist rejects that claim. logically speaking, your point is mute.
but I think you still need to see that just because 'atheism" begins with a negater doesn't mean its not a claim, an argument, a proposition with positive content. It just doesn't look like one, but it is.
If I say that i reject the claim that you exist, a host of things come crashing in with that claim.
nateshannon 2 years ago
An atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. I am also not an astrologer...do we need a label for that too? Do I made a claim which needs support when I reject the claims made by astrologers?
Do I need to provide support for rejecting the unsupported claims made Islam, Judaism, Wicca?
I do not need to provide any support for simply rejecting the unsupported claims made by any person, on any subject....that includes the claims made by The Bible.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Dude,
its a cute try, but you don't really the bottom. Burden of proof does not lie with the minority view - which is what you imply. Anyway, if thats true, scientific naturalists easily bear the burden to explain why they choose to excuse their agnosticism about the real existence of the material world, but not about metaphysical reality.
You also misunderstand what is understood as the inerrancy of the bible.
You also take Pascal out of context.
clever and funny, just not deep enough.
nateshannon 2 years ago
He did not imply at all that the burden of proof lies with the minority view; he stated quite clearly that the burden of proof lies with those who are proposing that something is true.
Metaphysical reality? Oxymoron if there ever was one. Please demonstrate that the metaphysical actually exists.
I have had religious fundies tell me that inerrancy means that the bible is literally true in all of its passages. That's pretty clear, and easily refuted.
How was Pascal taken out of context?
kshackleton 2 years ago