They lack a believe in God, simply, because there is no evidence, of any kind, that would fit into any standard of logic. The fact that much in the bible has been obliterated by scientific evidence, well........ suppose thats lost on you.
As of 2011 there is absolutely utterly zero peer reviewed, demonstrable, evidence of gods. To think otherwise is to become an enemy of Humanity, a group to which neither of you belong. Its time to instigate operation religicide where the Humans gas, shoot, chop or otherwise euthanize these failed fallen degenerates who think gods exist. How silly. The brights are tired of you faithful using up resources and killing Humans.
The thing I object most to in this video is that you make it sound like you have some kind of evidence on which you base your faith. Your God-Hypothesis simply has no evidence of any kind that will hold up to scrutiny.
Please realize that to many atheists it is not even a matter of belief. It's not as if we believe God does not exist - to us the question is outside the realm of belief altogether by the very way we view the problem - hence we lack a belief in it.
I believe that life in some form does exist somewhere else in the universe besides Earth. I don't 'know' there is life elsewhere, but I believe there is. I have this belief because it seems reasonable to me, and the opposite (only life here) seems absurd. My belief is based purely on reason, not evidence. If and when there is evidence found for life elsewhere in the universe I shall no longer believe there is life elsewhere, i will know that life exists elsewhere.
Whoa whoa whoa... You went from "they have a belief about their standards of evidence" straight to "they have a belief about God." I think you must have skipped something there, unless this is just equivocation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The standard for evidence is what's demonstrable, and that is Science, the Scientific Method is the most reliable way we have right now to distinguish fact from fantasy, an Atheist (or at least me) doesn't have a personal standard for what counts as evidence... your alegory is flawd.
How do you know that the evidence of the Bible is superior to the evidence presented in the Quran or the Book of Mormon? When atheists say they lack a belief it means they're not selecting a specific holy book to believe in. If you do that all you're left with is what you understand about the universe through science.
I will instantaneously convert if you can give me one piece of evidence from any of these schools: mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and/or all of the other sub levels of physics.
Lack of belief and no belief are the same thing. When somebody says they lack a belief in God, they are not dodging the question. Having a lack of belief is another way of saying having no belief. You have no belief in Islam, because their evidence didn't meet your standards for believing in their faith. You don't worship Hercules, because the evidence for his divinity doesn't meet your standards for belief. Are you not just as guilty of this as an atheist is for not accepting your evidence?
The should not produce baldness upon their head, and the extremity of their beard the should not shave, and no their flesh they should not make an incision.
Clearly whatever is going on is physical and that we can control our muscles and nerves via thought is not a surprise. How that all works exactly is far from understood yes. Will that work ultimately lead to a mind reading machine? I guess it's possible. When it is, then we can prove who is a theist, nontheist, atheist or nonatheist. Until then we need to simply trust each other. ie: we put faith into the words of theists just to agree that they are theists.
I think there are studies along those lines, perhaps not that exact thing but what they (materialists who want to show thoughts are material) do try and show is how we can affect our physical body via thoughts. Controlling a prosthetic arm or leg via thought alone is an example of what I mean.
I consider their successes great, but their grasp of what is happening... not so much. (cont....)
""Usually an atheist's standard for evidence is called the scientific method."
That is actually he worldwide standard for anything... except.. wait for it...
faith based beliefs. duh. "
Science covers empirical truths, facts, material objects. Logic covers abstract concepts. Tautologous truths are how we explain the existence of things like logic, language, thought, ideas, mathematics, logic itself etc.... Atheism can't be detected or resolved via science, only via logic.
-Exactly my point. You are in the position to asses the evidence... Therefore you are not making the claim.. You lack the belief until someone has sufficient evidence to convince you.
Lack of belief, does not equal anything. There is no such thing. It is not a stance, not a position, not anything. Certainly it is not atheism. Atheism exists, a lack of belief doesn't.
No. Babies do not believe there is a god (nontheist) and do not believe there is no god (nonatheist).
Atheists are not the complement set to theists (nontheists), they are their own set with their own complement. All atheists are nontheists, not all nontheists are atheists. eg: babies
No. Babies are not theists and are not atheists. Babies are nontheists (do not believe there is a god) and nonatheists (do not believe there is no god).
Atheism is not the complement set to theists (nontheists). All atheists are nontheists, not all nontheists are atheists. eg: babies
Atheism is the label is what is placed on those who has rejected the belief, therefor they do not HAVE the belief, or LACK the belief proposed. SO, yes, those who are atheist LACK the proposed belief. They do not necessarily belief the opposite.
"Atheism is the label is what is placed on those who has rejected the belief, therefor they do not HAVE the belief, or LACK the belief proposed"
Saying they reject the belief talks about atheists. Saying they do not have the belief does not talk about atheists. It says what is not the case about atheists, not what is the case. Lack uses not, a logical operator and says what you do not have which again does not talk about you.
What most people mean when they say that is that not only do they not believe there is enough evidence for a god to justify believing in one, but also they do not believe there is enough evidence to say "I'm sure there is no god." Most people are just talking about a specific god, because specific gods have specific claims and documents about them. Typically they also mean that while they don't think it's reasonable to say "there is no god", they do find it unlikely there is a god.
The reason I say "I lack a belief" is because this leaves room for me TO believe. When the evidence is sufficient to convince me, i will believe. But, to state "I do not believe" has put me on the grounds of a positive claim about the non-existence of your claim... I do not assert such claims. Therefore, I lack a belief.... not simply disbelieve you.
"I say I lack a belief is because this leaves room for me TO believe"
If you lack belief is true, and you can't prove it is true anyway so saying so is a belief itself, but if it is true it certainly is not true about you. It is true about what is not the case about you. We cannot assume that you exist by knowing that you lack belief in a god because when you did not exist you did not believe in a god then too. You lacked belief in anything actually and weren't an atheist.
I disbelieve. That is all. You can propose to me that there are unicorns; though I can not say for sure with absolute certainty there ISN'T unicorns, I can safely say I do not believe your claim.
The same can be said about god. I simply reject your claims, I make no assertion that there is NO god.
I can say I exist, but that does not lead that to a divine creator without evidence and the connection between the two.
So do I. Disbelieve refers to believing something is false. That is what atheism is. Rather like how when you did not exist you did not disagree with anyone, but you did not agree either. Saying you do not agree, do not believe, does not talk about you since they are true when you did not exist. Saying you disagree or disbelieve does talk about you. Atheism is belief that no god exists, disbelief that a god exists, which are the same.
Here is one funny observation: You and your little brother could have had the exact same talk, except with the term "god" substituted with "unicorns". Or UFOs, or leprechauns, or fairies, psychic wonder healers that can heal cancer, the idea of vaccination causing autism, voodoo, the greek pantheon and so on.
According to your video, all possible beliefs, no matter how absurd or non-provable, are equally plausible. And that's simply not true.
"I don't belive in God = I lack a belief in God"
One says "I do not believe in god" and the other says "I do not have a belief in god". The first uses secondary predication to say what you do not do, the latter uses secondary predication to say what you do not have.
Neither talks about "I" or what "I" is (read: atheists). Each says what "I" (atheists) is not. What is not the case about atheists is not what is the case about atheists. Describe atheists.
The standard of evidence is science. There is not enough evidence to test, and the evidence that has been provided has been proved to be unscientific or fails the test.
I think that when atheists emphasize a lack of belief in deities they are equating your hypothesis with all other religious and/or theistic hypothesis. I lack a belief in God's: Yahweh (a.k.a. Allah, Jehovah, Abba, etc.), Hindu God's, Greek Gods, etc. By the was, a Greek person could have asked: Do you believe in God's? Because that question is based on the plurality of the God's posed by the POPULAR religion. But the question basically asks: Do you adhere to a religious and/or theistic claim?
@MacabreManifesto I am not sure of this but I think that if you asked any non infidel (not all atheists, lack faith, just a god, infidels, are atheists due to lack of faith, not because their faith demands no deities) non-monotheist, they'd not just say no, but say, I'm a Buddhist, in a way I think we are all God, or a Scientologist might say, certainly there are no god's but there are definitely thetans.
You, Sir, are thicker than pigshit. Lacking a belief and not having a belief are the SAME FUCKING THING. Believing that a god does not exist, is different.
lack of a belief in god vs i do not belief in god .... who gives a shit enough to make a distinction they are pretty much the same thing. Why do you care? Instead make videos on why you believe in your bronze age myth
The bible is evidence for god. God itself is not evidence. Now as too this whole "standards" thing. I don't have a set standard for what is believable evidence. I can check to see what works however, with a variable standard. If I believe what the bible says, by the same method, I must believe in the roman gods because they are referenced in texts similar to the bible in time, place and content. However these contradict. That is how I know the evidence is unreliable.
I lack a belief in god(s) BECAUSE I have no GOOD reason(s) to do so. There are a myriad of reasons to believe in god(s) but I find every single one of them lacking and none of them constitute a good reason to do so.. However, if such evidence existed that did not first require a degree of credulity on my part then I would, with an open mind, explore the possibility that god(s) do indeed exist. I stand ready.
1) I have a standard of evidence, yeah: That there actually IS some.
2) That I believe in a standard, does not equate not believing in God to believing in no God. The same standard goes for all other supernatural claims.
3) Sorry, trying to play word games does not make your belief in God anymore justified than belief in unicorns, and it doesn't make a "lack of belief in unicorns" logically inconsistent.
You should check out QualiaSoups most recent video for a more thorough response.
You seem to be missing the point behind why so many atheists (myself included) prefer the "lack of belief" phrasing. The problem is that the phrase "I don't believe in God" is often erroneously conflated with "I believe there is no God", which isn't the same. There may indeed be invisible unicorns. I don't claim they don't exist. I just have had zero evidence supporting them, so I lack belief in them. Of course, for all intents and purposes, it's as if they don't exist.
I got your point but most wont. Take the kid out of the picture. He is too young to know whats really going on here. Just tell folks that science trumps fairy tales every time. Its a shame that religious people feel like they need an external force for life to be worth living. If you cant tell the difference between fact and fiction, then you need higher education.
Atheists who say there is NO evidence is just idiotic. We all have evidence. In a court case one can be completely innocent and yet the prosecution can have a ton of evidence. The question is where it points as they, the jury, should weigh out. The bible itself is a piece of evidence. However they dismiss it. The creation is evidence, life is evidence. Each piece they dismiss but it isn't as though there is no evidence. We ALL have evidence, in fact, we all have the SAME evidence to weigh.
Theists can't even offer a coherent definition of God. It's not that I have a belief in a standard, It's that Theists refuse to offer a coherent definition of their God thingy. Do you believe in the Magic sandwich? Yet another fail vanity video by a theist who doesn't have his shit straight. The entire video is nothing more then a big "F you Atheists!" This guy can't offer a coherent definition for his God so his claims fail.
It is lacking a belief, good vid but you're mixing two things. Example. I'm an atheist because I see no evidence for an existence in a god. As for evidence, I have a set of criteria for determining wether something is true or not, and not just to me. The criteria I use is the scientific method. So far many of the evidence I have recieved in favor a god's existence, is subjective evidence, meaning hearsay, testamonials, circular reasoning, and a long list or fallacies. Hope I cleared that up.
@caligulaincarnate I think the only one buying his "You have a standard for something you don't want to know" argument, is the kid standing next to him.
Well Jesus had to sustain his perfection for him to be a good sacrifice to cleanse us of our sins, that is why he was infused. And Jesus knew what he had come for, and new he couldn't give in, but he still went through the same temptations as we do. And people who give their own will over to God, a new and better will, will come out, and that also helps with refusing to give into sin. So it still happens to this day. And Adam and Eve knew, God told them not to eat of the fruit but they still did
a self affirming holy book, anecdotes, and "things are complicated, so something had to make it all, and the judeo christian god is my favorite god so it's him" is "evidence" of a sort...i guess. but it's a very very low bar for "evidence."
yes...that's the point....lack of belief means not believing. there's no difference. the term "lack of belief" is often used when a theist claims that atheism is a BELIEF system in and of itself. in which case, atheists state "no, it is a lack of belief, not a belief." now, if a "strong" atheist makes the claim "there is no god, and i know it!" now the tables are turned and the burden of proof is on him/her, or equally on the theist and atheist, but not for your average atheist.
The standard of evidence for proving something is actually contained in the word "evidence" itself. The root of the word is "videre", meaning "to see". So, what can I see that is obvious proof of god(s). Show it to me and I will not just believe, I will know.
I like how Jack says that if someone is intelligent they'll acknowledge that what he has is evidence. Laughable.
Evidence is always observations and/or measurements, or some physical artifact. A fingerprint, a photograph, dna, tiretracks, chemical traces, etc. You then gather up all the evidence and interpret it, based upon what's likely. Then you test that, by looking for more evidence, and seeing if it supports or refutes your idea.
Your argument would be sound if people who had a belief in god actually based that belief on evidence of their own. Seeing as they don't, then any evidence that an atheist would ask for the believer wouldn't be able to give... because a personal opinion, or choice, to believe in a god is not evidence and has no relevence to anyone else.
You dont have any tangible "evidence" of the proof of a supernatural super-being that knows all. Period. Your video is foolish; his sounds like weed-addled thinking but you dont look like the type.
If people are going to think like you "Jack" then people might aswell believe in the Hulk, Batman, Santa Clause, Superman and all other crazy cartoon characters and shit. Because, YOU ODNT NEED ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO YOU.
@mupp33n Because of course, scientifically, if Santa does not exist then God doesn't either.
Let me try this another way. If Santa does not exist, neither do black holes, Dark Matter, or whatever else science pursued based on an initial hypothesis. Thankfully no one used your logic or we would still be in the dark ages.
Oh and how about telling your precious god to help the planet instead of helping us ruin it. :) Oh wait, you are just sitting on your lazy ass waiting for some random dead guy to appear to purge the planet from evil in the very last minute, not gonna happen though, cause, you know, there is no god. Oh and religious people do not believe in there being other planets other than earth with population (billions of stars n planets you know)
@GodUsesAMinistry So, what did you accomplish that help the population or simply the planet? You beg to your nonexistant god that you dont even know how he/she looks like and neither knows if its a he or she neither what shape or form it has neither spoken to or heard. Lets all praise winnie the pooh.
@mupp33n The question is, what have YOU accomplished? You called me a lazy ass. Let's hear what you have accomplished in your life? What is you annual income, assets, any family etc? Because vie worked pretty hard and am a success.
My businesses have helped mankind in a huge way, something you don't even know what you are talking about. So before you go around name calling and trying to throw out insults, take a look in the mirror.
@GodUsesAMinistry How can income help someone else other than your greedy needs? What did your family accomplish, what did your family do to "help" the world, other than helping to overpopulate the already overpopulated planet? You have no idea about what I even meant. Now go back to school. Your business have helped mankind? Doing what? making cars?
Dude, slight dig: Why do christians utilize these painfully awkward skits as part of their discourse? You seem above their use.
Now regarding your point, unlike many atheists, I have no problems with what you said. My atheism is founded upon a belief that theistic claims are not accurate.
The belief vs. lack of belief debate is sophistry.
Now what I strongly reject is the inevitable theistic follow-up attempt to equivocate all beliefs as the same. Simply put, NOT
You make it seem like having a standard for evidence is a bad thing. If I come to you and say, I'm the prime minister of Ireland and with a witness to back me up, it would be gullible and ignorant to believe that. Have you never heard of a burden of evidence in the court system?
That was terribly confusing and came off more like a rant than an explanation. Please, tell us what standards of evidence YOU have that would need to be satisfied in order for you to believe in Allah, Vishnu, Ganesh, Thor, Apollo, Venus...? According to your video, it's not that you lack a belief in Allah, Vishnu, Ganesh, Thor, Apollo and Venus, it's just that your standard of evidence hasn't been met yet. What proof do you need?
a 2000 year old book that contradicts its self on multiple occasions and is not able to be scientifically tested in any way shape or form does not meet my standard of truthfull evidence.
@zerakren In Gen 17:12 God told Abraham to circumcise new borns on the 8th day after they were born. Why? because it was scientifically proven that the 8th day of a new born is when it has the highest vitamin K in its life. Which it helps stop bleeding. Now in present day, the do it on the 8th day, or they give them a shot. And another thing, civilizations started up around 6000 yrs ago around the Mesopotamian region. Crazy that the Bible says (not directly) its around 6000 yrs old.
@AALASKO54 Jesus, the flood, jews in the desert for 40 years. the earth was flat. the sun revolved around the earth. there are sooooooooooooo many things that just dont add up.
@zerakren on the surface they don't....you have to go deep...I would recommend that you start with social conditioning...there's a company called RSD, that teaches you how to pick up chicks, and it's great....great results so far...and one of the main teachings and the first ones is that we are SOCIALLY CONDITIONED....IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT!! just look for yourself
@AALASKO54 "God told Abraham to circumcise new borns on the 8th day after they were born. "
And why did God tell them to use circumcision at all? We were made faulty, and so we need a last minute fix? Like some kind of defective product recall? If God didn't want us to have foreskins, why did he make them?
@OccamKant We were made perfect, and Adam and Eve tempted, fell into sin and then we became faulty. Because we are all sinners. Even we were little kids, we lie. Teenagers and adults lust over one another. We have a sinful nature. God commanded the circumcision for the sign of the new covenant between him and Abraham, and his generations to come. It was used a reminder to follow God's law.
@AALASKO54 How could adam and eve have been tempted into sin if they were perfect?
I'm presuming you're going to say that Jesus & God couldn't possibly sin - and they're perfect. Are you going to say that they're perfect-er than Adam and Eve were?
@OccamKant Perfection is proved through temptation. They were made to be perfect but given free will because God wanted a true relationship with his creation. Christ was perfect because he was tempted by Satan during his 40 day fast, but yet he did not give in to sin.
@AALASKO54 So the fact that Adam and Eve "gave in to temptation" means they weren't perfect, right?
Because if they were perfect, they wouldn't give in to sin?
Also - Christ's "temptations" were a joke. Of the 3, only 1 could possibly be considered a temptation. One was a dare ("Jump from this high place!"), one was a question ("Why don't you eat some bread?") and one was a promise of power - but if JC really was basically God, what could Satan tempt him with?
@OccamKant They were made to be perfect as I said. But God gave them, just as us free will. Because He wants a true loving relationship with us. He could've made us like robots and have us saying, "i love you, I love you, I love you" over and over again, but that would just be taken as words, do you agree? Okay, so if you haven't eaten in nearly 40 days, bread wouldn't sound great? lol .
@AALASKO54 "Okay, so if you haven't eaten in nearly 40 days, bread wouldn't sound great? lol ."
If I was fasting, and had magical powers to make bread out of stone, and all this was my own choice, how could Satan's question be considered a temptation? He was just asking JC why he didn't make some bread. So what? I know people who fast all the time. What's the big deal?
As "i love you" over and over - read the description of God's throne in revelations, and the angels yelling "HOLY HOLY HOLY"
@OccamKant Giving into temptation doesn't mean they were imperfect but it does mean they aren't God. Follow me on this one. There is one God and can only be one.
Therefore, the only way mankind could not only be created was in the LIKENESS of god and fall short. But the plan was for man to have a final relationship with god by being a vessel his spirit could dwell within. So in that sense, even through what you call imperfection, was still perfection.
@OccamKant following up on the last question: The temptation was not to jump, one of God's laws were to not tempt the Lord thy God. Satan said jump and God will send down angels to protect you. And the third one was to bow to Satan which was pretty big since it was going to give up absolutely everything over to Satan. Jesus was filled with the spirit of God, but was in the flesh. So Jesus felt those temptations that we go through, but could override it with the spirit. So he stayed perfect.
@AALASKO54 Jumping temptation: It's a dare, not a temptation. The dare was: "I dare you to jump and show that the angels will save you". A temptation is for something you WANT, like chocolate cake, or sex. Not "Risk your life!" That's just a stupid dare.
As for the third - if Jesus is supposed to be both the son of God and God himself, then how could Satan offer him more than he ALREADY HAS? I don't understand why you people think that that makes any sense.
@OccamKant Wow, you just stated something truly poignant there. As GOD he already HAD everything he could possibly have so by offering him that Jesus saw it as truly ridiculous! JUST LIKE ADAM had all he could ever need and yet Satan threw the trick in there that Adam and Eve could have the one thing they could not and that was to actually BE God but they didn't need it because they already HAD everything they needed. Wow, thank you for that Occam. I hadn't seen it that way before.
@OccamKant sorry, this is the last question by you lol. Yes, God can do whatever he pleases to do, but its not sin, its only sin because it breaks his law. But he promised, they fore he will most likely not, but its God. And yes, Jesus had free will. Kinda explained it one the last one.
@AALASKO54 "And yes, Jesus had free will. Kinda explained it one the last one."
So can Jesus sin then?
And you're saying that since the definition of "sin" is "go against God's will" (which I agree, that seems to be the definition of sin), then if God decides to kill everyone and start again, or start raping babies, or eating people or any reprehensible thing, you will stand by and say "Bravo God! Let thy will be done!"
@OccamKant Yes, Jesus could have sinned, but he was so filled with the spirit of God, he was God and that kept him from giving in to temptation. And yeah, but God made a covenant to never kill off his creation again.
@AALASKO54 "he was God and that kept him from giving in to temptation..."
Interesting - so Jesus had an unfair advantage? For some reason he was filled with the spirit of God which kept him from giving in to temptation, but Adam and Eve were not?
"God made a covenant to never kill off his creation again."
Yeah - except for the part around Judgement Day where he cleanses the earth with fire - and kills everyone who doesn't kiss his ass. Yeah, except for that.
@OccamKant Jesus still felt the same struggles and temptations as every other human being has. He was stronger though, he knew if he had sinned, his sacrifice would have been meaningless. On the other hand, Adam and Eve did not know any better, they could not predict the future. Yeah, because God can not be in the midst of sin, and that is why everyone who does not accept Jesus as their savior to be cleanse has to be gone with for God to place Heaven on earth. And whats kissing but about it?
@AALASKO54 You said that JC was infused with the holy spirit that prevented him from sinning. That's like having a magic sin-shield. Sounds like God should have provided one for Adam and Eve.
And of course - if you actually ACKNOWLEDGE that A&E couldn't have known better (thanks for that - most christians gloss over that part), you also should recognize that they shouldn't be punished. How can you be punished for something you don't understand?
@OccamKant "You said that JC was infused with the holy spirit that prevented him from sinning."
This is a topic up for debate. Most Christians believe JC was perfectly capable of sinning. Just as Adam, had not sinned, as was capable of sinning too.
@GodUsesAMinistry He could sin if he wanted too. But he knew why he was on this earth. For him to be a perfect sacrifice, he knew he could not. Plus, he had so much of the holy spirit that it helped with temptation for him to not give in.
Your argument that evidence is subjective is so incredibly weak and unscientific that it would render proof of anything anywhere ever absolutely impossible. Or do we just bend the rules for God? Is he special? Nobody answer that. I'm being fucking rhethorical.
Yeah we have a standard, THE DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE. And yes we still lack a belief in your God. Nice strawman skit. Enjoy burning him at the stake.
"Scientific evidence is evidence where the DEPENDANCE OF THE OF THE EVIDENCE ON PRINCIPLES OF INFERENCE IS NOT CONCEDED enabling others to examine the background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are relevant to the support of or falsification of a hypothesis"
Ok, the ilustration is good. What I don't get is the big deal about beliefs. Everyone has them. I believe the sun is going to raise tomorrow, I know is going to raise tomorrow?, well technically no one knows the future, who knows if a galactic catastrophe happens? ... technically everything we know by experience and we expect to be repeated may count as belief. Yes, I am an atheist and I do hold an insane amount of beliefs...
What you don't seem to realize is that your standards are a two way street. Both theist and atheist have evaluated the question "IF" and come up with their own conclusions. People are diverse.
You may as well ask, why do you like chocolate while I prefer vanilla? I have seen xtian proofs and although I was once a believer, I saw those proofs crumble one after another until all that was left were men's words. Meaningless, as yours are.
Yup. Evidence of god is people talking or people writing about god. That really truly is no evidence, its just words. Nobody has standards low enough to accept anything just because somebody can discribe it in spoken language. So youre saying that your evidence dont meet peoples standards. As if that would mean that youre evidence is still somehow usefull and valid. What you should realize is that youre so called evidence is so miserably weak that its actually useless nonsense.
I feel like I should have given this a thumbs up, because it only made me feel more confident in my decision in rejecting the idea of a judeo-christian god.
Euhm, atheist's standard of evidence... wait... whut? Is there even a "standard of evidence"? Maybe you Christians don't seem to understand that evidence is not something you can argue about. Evidence are hard, cold, (scientific) facts that we all HAVE to agree on because it simply is true and it has been observed as truth through different rational and irrefutable methods.
THAT is evidence and every smart person (atheist or theist) knows that.
i'm just not that simple minded to take the words of a unknown guy´s word for it... am i wrong ? god is a simple anserw for some difficult questions, wish simple people with simple minds. which they cannot explain any other way... at least i'm honest einoth to say "I don't know"
all "hardcore" christian FELT this MIGHTY god, i didnt feel him, i was never "lost" i never needed salvation. and i still dont need any of that complete unproofed nonsens. god is in ur head, "god" reprisentes every thing a human wants to believe, and its so easy, and ones you realy start believing this supernatural bullcrap, ya you stop asking the "difficult" questions about life. i'd feel reliefd 2.
There's more evidence for a large number of imaginary creatures (that you probably don't believe in either) than there is for the Judeo-Christian god, or any other god for that matter. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is more likely than your god, its holy book doesn't contradict the known facts of science.
It's hard for one WITH a belief to imagine someone who is fully functional without a belief, but we do exist! And what do you have to say to the Muslims? They outnumber Christians and and are also 100% sure that you who do not believe in their god is going to hell. Enjoy your life and the freedoms we have here in America that allow you to hold on to your archaic beliefs. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that you just cannot produce
actually, i don't really have any objections to this video :D
except for the fact that he seems to think saying "i lack a belief in god" is different than saying "i don't believe in god."
i lack a belief in god = i don't believe god exists.
"i don't believe god exists" does NOT necessarily mean "i believe god does NOT exist."
yes, even a simple lack of belief is, by necessity, a rejection of the claims of those who do believe(if the non-believer has been exposed to those claims).
If religious people would accept the same level of evidence for anything as the do for their god then it is amazing how they can reject so many scientific things (evolution, heliocentricity, a 13.x billion year old universe, the big bang theory, paleotology, acheology, geology etc)
TogetherForPeace: The reason most evidence for god doesn't meet atheist standards is because it is not actual evidence, the evidence that gets presented to me usually makes no sense and is easly disputed. what evidence for God are you talking about exactly? Please, tell me what evidence you have for God and ill tell you why I do or don't see it as reliable evidence.
You are SO right. The evidence you present to me for proof of god is not sufficient, and can't even be considered as evidence in the first place.
You're spot on. I don't not believe in god, I just haven't been shown evidence for it and if you can show me ANY solid evidence for the existance of god that cannot be contradicted by facts logic, and or common sense then I will humbly bow my head and cunseed (I can't figure out how to spell it so I wrote it as it sounds) there is a god.
Well, the atheist is right. There is no sufficient reason to believe in a god. There is more evidence for Santa Clause, and I don't believe in him either. Why do you act like that's an unreasonable standard - more evidence than Santa?
Atheism is NOT about "lacking a belief: it is simply about not believing in gods, the same way most people don't believe in unicorns or santa. The only reason atheism has the term "atheism" is because the term of simply not believing apparently isn't sufficent.
I also lack a belief in santa, but i'm not an a-santa-ist.
...
Regardless, also we simply don't take the evidence as valid, we don't just say its bad or something.
I dont have a lack of beleif in god, I have a lack of beleif in a celestial dictatorship.... not to mention atheism is not a lack of, its not a deffect rather the opposit... the standard for evidence is set by science... religion has never brought foward evidence, thus no reason to even consider the existence of anything humans invent...
HOW CAN U DENY THE SIGNS ALL ROUND U, IF A CAMEL HAD LAID HIS WASTE U IN THE DESERT AND WALKED OFF, IF MAN GOES PAST HE KNOWS THERE WAS A CAMEL HERE, THE SAME IS HERE WHERE GOD HAD SENT DOWN HIS SIGNS FOR HUMAN MANKIND. bro if u cant see them then ask for help where are they and how is it a sign
Wow. Rephrasing existing creationist arguments does not make them any more valid. 'Way of the Master' uses flawed logic, and so do you. The idea of a god and a camel are non-compatible.
Btw... are the earth and the signs thereon just your god's 'waste'?
It was an example and no its not gods waste. I am trying to say that everything that is created has an inventor, a creator . There are many things around u that are signs of god, but if u dont still believe then u need to search for the truth urself
Everything 'created' does not necessarily have a 'creator': I have a zit on my chin. Does this mean that the zit has a 'creator' or perhaps that it simply has a 'cause'? (And yes, I am comparing god to acne.) This is not an argument with which you can convince an intellectual. The door is locked, btw. Someone must provide the key.
You must see the difference between god and a camel: One is empirical, one is not.
Is that the best you can offer? A book with vague references interpreted as science is not proof at all. It is similar, if not equivalent, to astrology.
Example: the moon and its 'borrowed light' being euphemized to accommodate what we understand to be 'reflected light'. Just maybe that verse (as well as the others) has been adapted to the times rather than being true because of its vagueness.
Vague thats what u call that vague. U see ur mentality of looking at things is very weak. How in the hell did the founder of islam know all this at that time. There was no technology. Ok once u mite get something rite, but lightning striking in the same place again shows there is something going on
Ok zit boy ,if u dont clean ur face or remain dirty, or if u are under stress sometimes zits are created. So whos fault is it, obviously the person, for gods sake why do docters always say keep ur face clean from not getting zits or infections, keep ur cool. Sometimes things happen which u cant control but that does not mean they do not have a creator. The exampl i gave about the camel, that just basically explains that things are not always what they seem, some are signs but u dont realize it !
Yes, 'borrowed light' is vague. This could have been the thought that god will reclaim his creation of light (the moon) some day; it doesn't mean that the writer truly knew that the moon does not create its own light.
Empirical evidence is what we need. You don't provide any, nor can you. This is why we don't believe.
That's why I responded to your comment. Only if someone can show me empirical proof will we believe. Until then I think people should stop trying to convince with fallacies.
I beleev in purpel moon men that have sykic powers, my evidents is dat I rilly, rilly, rily, rilly, rill, beleeve in tehm I do, I do, Ido! I now, Ize saw them wid mys very ownz eyes! Does that meet your standard for evidence?
They lack a believe in God, simply, because there is no evidence, of any kind, that would fit into any standard of logic. The fact that much in the bible has been obliterated by scientific evidence, well........ suppose thats lost on you.
lebeaubastion 3 months ago
As of 2011 there is absolutely utterly zero peer reviewed, demonstrable, evidence of gods. To think otherwise is to become an enemy of Humanity, a group to which neither of you belong. Its time to instigate operation religicide where the Humans gas, shoot, chop or otherwise euthanize these failed fallen degenerates who think gods exist. How silly. The brights are tired of you faithful using up resources and killing Humans.
699backstab 4 months ago
The thing I object most to in this video is that you make it sound like you have some kind of evidence on which you base your faith. Your God-Hypothesis simply has no evidence of any kind that will hold up to scrutiny.
Please realize that to many atheists it is not even a matter of belief. It's not as if we believe God does not exist - to us the question is outside the realm of belief altogether by the very way we view the problem - hence we lack a belief in it.
(cont)
itsjustameme 4 months ago
@itsjustameme
(cont)
In the same standard. If evidence was presented we wouldn't as we believed in God. We would say that we knew he existed.
itsjustameme 4 months ago
I believe that life in some form does exist somewhere else in the universe besides Earth. I don't 'know' there is life elsewhere, but I believe there is. I have this belief because it seems reasonable to me, and the opposite (only life here) seems absurd. My belief is based purely on reason, not evidence. If and when there is evidence found for life elsewhere in the universe I shall no longer believe there is life elsewhere, i will know that life exists elsewhere.
pompousprick 4 months ago
Lack definition 1. Deficiency or absence=No belief=Don't believe.
I'm fine with that.
If i tell you i was abducted by aliens and that i have evidence, would you believe me?
baldurus1 4 months ago
Whoa whoa whoa... You went from "they have a belief about their standards of evidence" straight to "they have a belief about God." I think you must have skipped something there, unless this is just equivocation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
cyxgun 4 months ago
*analogy
DocStrange0123 5 months ago
The standard for evidence is what's demonstrable, and that is Science, the Scientific Method is the most reliable way we have right now to distinguish fact from fantasy, an Atheist (or at least me) doesn't have a personal standard for what counts as evidence... your alegory is flawd.
DocStrange0123 5 months ago
How do you know that the evidence of the Bible is superior to the evidence presented in the Quran or the Book of Mormon? When atheists say they lack a belief it means they're not selecting a specific holy book to believe in. If you do that all you're left with is what you understand about the universe through science.
Enzo012 6 months ago
Perhaps you should have practiced the skit prior to filming. It would have been more believable.
deth2seesuns 7 months ago
I will instantaneously convert if you can give me one piece of evidence from any of these schools: mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and/or all of the other sub levels of physics.
BER2ERKER 8 months ago
Not any and every crazy thing counts as good evidence. "Strong feelings" and the beliefs of one's parents don't count as evidence.
The only evidence accepted by science is repeatably testable, falsifiable evidence.
ShallowThoughts 10 months ago
Lack of belief and no belief are the same thing. When somebody says they lack a belief in God, they are not dodging the question. Having a lack of belief is another way of saying having no belief. You have no belief in Islam, because their evidence didn't meet your standards for believing in their faith. You don't worship Hercules, because the evidence for his divinity doesn't meet your standards for belief. Are you not just as guilty of this as an atheist is for not accepting your evidence?
geeboteeps 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whets bible and the quran say about beard?
Leviticus-ch-21-vs-5
The should not produce baldness upon their head, and the extremity of their beard the should not shave, and no their flesh they should not make an incision.
quranresponse 11 months ago
@Lordes,
Clearly whatever is going on is physical and that we can control our muscles and nerves via thought is not a surprise. How that all works exactly is far from understood yes. Will that work ultimately lead to a mind reading machine? I guess it's possible. When it is, then we can prove who is a theist, nontheist, atheist or nonatheist. Until then we need to simply trust each other. ie: we put faith into the words of theists just to agree that they are theists.
gklr 11 months ago
@Lordes,
I think there are studies along those lines, perhaps not that exact thing but what they (materialists who want to show thoughts are material) do try and show is how we can affect our physical body via thoughts. Controlling a prosthetic arm or leg via thought alone is an example of what I mean.
I consider their successes great, but their grasp of what is happening... not so much. (cont....)
gklr 11 months ago
@Lordes,
""Usually an atheist's standard for evidence is called the scientific method."
That is actually he worldwide standard for anything... except.. wait for it...
faith based beliefs. duh. "
Science covers empirical truths, facts, material objects. Logic covers abstract concepts. Tautologous truths are how we explain the existence of things like logic, language, thought, ideas, mathematics, logic itself etc.... Atheism can't be detected or resolved via science, only via logic.
gklr 11 months ago
That did not maker any sense to me.
Evidence????
How about healing an amputee..
That would make me believe.
darkestglobe 1 year ago
@Lordes
"Show me evidence and my mind will adjust"
-Exactly my point. You are in the position to asses the evidence... Therefore you are not making the claim.. You lack the belief until someone has sufficient evidence to convince you.
Lack of belief = Null stance.
darketernal3 1 year ago
@darketernal3,
"Lack of belief = Null stance"
Lack of belief, does not equal anything. There is no such thing. It is not a stance, not a position, not anything. Certainly it is not atheism. Atheism exists, a lack of belief doesn't.
gklr 11 months ago
@gklr
Are you saying you HAVE to believe?
darketernal3 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darketernal3,
"Are you saying you HAVE to believe?"
No. Babies do not believe there is a god (nontheist) and do not believe there is no god (nonatheist).
Atheists are not the complement set to theists (nontheists), they are their own set with their own complement. All atheists are nontheists, not all nontheists are atheists. eg: babies
gklr 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darketernal3,
"Are you saying you HAVE to believe?"
2nd try to reply. :)
No. Babies are not theists and are not atheists. Babies are nontheists (do not believe there is a god) and nonatheists (do not believe there is no god).
Atheism is not the complement set to theists (nontheists). All atheists are nontheists, not all nontheists are atheists. eg: babies
gklr 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darketernal3,
trying again to reply, youtube stopped accepting replies for some reason last night.
"Are you saying you HAVE to believe?"
No. I am saying if you do not believe you have said zero about you. "Not believing" is not anything.
gklr 11 months ago
@gklr
Atheism is the label is what is placed on those who has rejected the belief, therefor they do not HAVE the belief, or LACK the belief proposed. SO, yes, those who are atheist LACK the proposed belief. They do not necessarily belief the opposite.
darketernal3 11 months ago
@darketernal3,
"Atheism is the label is what is placed on those who has rejected the belief, therefor they do not HAVE the belief, or LACK the belief proposed"
Saying they reject the belief talks about atheists. Saying they do not have the belief does not talk about atheists. It says what is not the case about atheists, not what is the case. Lack uses not, a logical operator and says what you do not have which again does not talk about you.
gklr 11 months ago
What most people mean when they say that is that not only do they not believe there is enough evidence for a god to justify believing in one, but also they do not believe there is enough evidence to say "I'm sure there is no god." Most people are just talking about a specific god, because specific gods have specific claims and documents about them. Typically they also mean that while they don't think it's reasonable to say "there is no god", they do find it unlikely there is a god.
KevinLounsberry 1 year ago
The reason I say "I lack a belief" is because this leaves room for me TO believe. When the evidence is sufficient to convince me, i will believe. But, to state "I do not believe" has put me on the grounds of a positive claim about the non-existence of your claim... I do not assert such claims. Therefore, I lack a belief.... not simply disbelieve you.
darketernal3 1 year ago
@darketernal3,
"I say I lack a belief is because this leaves room for me TO believe"
If you lack belief is true, and you can't prove it is true anyway so saying so is a belief itself, but if it is true it certainly is not true about you. It is true about what is not the case about you. We cannot assume that you exist by knowing that you lack belief in a god because when you did not exist you did not believe in a god then too. You lacked belief in anything actually and weren't an atheist.
gklr 11 months ago
@gklr
I disbelieve. That is all. You can propose to me that there are unicorns; though I can not say for sure with absolute certainty there ISN'T unicorns, I can safely say I do not believe your claim.
The same can be said about god. I simply reject your claims, I make no assertion that there is NO god.
I can say I exist, but that does not lead that to a divine creator without evidence and the connection between the two.
darketernal3 11 months ago
@darketernal3,
"I disbelieve"
So do I. Disbelieve refers to believing something is false. That is what atheism is. Rather like how when you did not exist you did not disagree with anyone, but you did not agree either. Saying you do not agree, do not believe, does not talk about you since they are true when you did not exist. Saying you disagree or disbelieve does talk about you. Atheism is belief that no god exists, disbelief that a god exists, which are the same.
gklr 11 months ago
@darketernal3,
"The same can be said about god. I simply reject your claims, I make no assertion that there is NO god."
I have no god. I am an atheist. If you do not assert there is no god you are nonatheist.
gklr 11 months ago
My standard is logic
Logic can be tested
Logic can be evidence
My standard is also, the being must be non paradoxical.
Paradoxes can be tested
Paradoxes can falsify illogical standards
cplusplusish 1 year ago
Usually an atheist's standard for evidence is called the scientific method. If the evidence presented doesn't go through it, it isn't evidence.
Ye4hBuddy 1 year ago
Here is one funny observation: You and your little brother could have had the exact same talk, except with the term "god" substituted with "unicorns". Or UFOs, or leprechauns, or fairies, psychic wonder healers that can heal cancer, the idea of vaccination causing autism, voodoo, the greek pantheon and so on.
According to your video, all possible beliefs, no matter how absurd or non-provable, are equally plausible. And that's simply not true.
MadocDoyu 1 year ago
I don't belive in God = I lack a belief in God
elbowrinkles 1 year ago
@elbowrinkles,
"I don't belive in God = I lack a belief in God"
One says "I do not believe in god" and the other says "I do not have a belief in god". The first uses secondary predication to say what you do not do, the latter uses secondary predication to say what you do not have.
Neither talks about "I" or what "I" is (read: atheists). Each says what "I" (atheists) is not. What is not the case about atheists is not what is the case about atheists. Describe atheists.
gklr 11 months ago
The standard of evidence is science. There is not enough evidence to test, and the evidence that has been provided has been proved to be unscientific or fails the test.
Read about what science actually is.
SpaceSnatch 1 year ago
I think that when atheists emphasize a lack of belief in deities they are equating your hypothesis with all other religious and/or theistic hypothesis. I lack a belief in God's: Yahweh (a.k.a. Allah, Jehovah, Abba, etc.), Hindu God's, Greek Gods, etc. By the was, a Greek person could have asked: Do you believe in God's? Because that question is based on the plurality of the God's posed by the POPULAR religion. But the question basically asks: Do you adhere to a religious and/or theistic claim?
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
@MacabreManifesto I am not sure of this but I think that if you asked any non infidel (not all atheists, lack faith, just a god, infidels, are atheists due to lack of faith, not because their faith demands no deities) non-monotheist, they'd not just say no, but say, I'm a Buddhist, in a way I think we are all God, or a Scientologist might say, certainly there are no god's but there are definitely thetans.
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
eeh i have seen sooooo many videos today with stupit people that i have just aboud had it good day.
TheIcelandicPatriot 1 year ago
You, Sir, are thicker than pigshit. Lacking a belief and not having a belief are the SAME FUCKING THING. Believing that a god does not exist, is different.
FFS, how stupid can you theists get?
rohanwotan2 1 year ago
lack of a belief in god vs i do not belief in god .... who gives a shit enough to make a distinction they are pretty much the same thing. Why do you care? Instead make videos on why you believe in your bronze age myth
Pavelserboris 1 year ago
The bible is evidence for god. God itself is not evidence. Now as too this whole "standards" thing. I don't have a set standard for what is believable evidence. I can check to see what works however, with a variable standard. If I believe what the bible says, by the same method, I must believe in the roman gods because they are referenced in texts similar to the bible in time, place and content. However these contradict. That is how I know the evidence is unreliable.
Ricki145 1 year ago
I lack a belief in god(s) BECAUSE I have no GOOD reason(s) to do so. There are a myriad of reasons to believe in god(s) but I find every single one of them lacking and none of them constitute a good reason to do so.. However, if such evidence existed that did not first require a degree of credulity on my part then I would, with an open mind, explore the possibility that god(s) do indeed exist. I stand ready.
vryc 1 year ago
1) I have a standard of evidence, yeah: That there actually IS some.
2) That I believe in a standard, does not equate not believing in God to believing in no God. The same standard goes for all other supernatural claims.
3) Sorry, trying to play word games does not make your belief in God anymore justified than belief in unicorns, and it doesn't make a "lack of belief in unicorns" logically inconsistent.
You should check out QualiaSoups most recent video for a more thorough response.
balkan2k 1 year ago
You seem to be missing the point behind why so many atheists (myself included) prefer the "lack of belief" phrasing. The problem is that the phrase "I don't believe in God" is often erroneously conflated with "I believe there is no God", which isn't the same. There may indeed be invisible unicorns. I don't claim they don't exist. I just have had zero evidence supporting them, so I lack belief in them. Of course, for all intents and purposes, it's as if they don't exist.
vargonian 1 year ago
love the coat
PatrickTheScienceGuy 1 year ago
I got your point but most wont. Take the kid out of the picture. He is too young to know whats really going on here. Just tell folks that science trumps fairy tales every time. Its a shame that religious people feel like they need an external force for life to be worth living. If you cant tell the difference between fact and fiction, then you need higher education.
Kennykg38 1 year ago
Comment removed
trinsicmage 1 year ago
Comment removed
trinsicmage 1 year ago
Atheists who say there is NO evidence is just idiotic. We all have evidence. In a court case one can be completely innocent and yet the prosecution can have a ton of evidence. The question is where it points as they, the jury, should weigh out. The bible itself is a piece of evidence. However they dismiss it. The creation is evidence, life is evidence. Each piece they dismiss but it isn't as though there is no evidence. We ALL have evidence, in fact, we all have the SAME evidence to weigh.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
Theists can't even offer a coherent definition of God. It's not that I have a belief in a standard, It's that Theists refuse to offer a coherent definition of their God thingy. Do you believe in the Magic sandwich? Yet another fail vanity video by a theist who doesn't have his shit straight. The entire video is nothing more then a big "F you Atheists!" This guy can't offer a coherent definition for his God so his claims fail.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
It is lacking a belief, good vid but you're mixing two things. Example. I'm an atheist because I see no evidence for an existence in a god. As for evidence, I have a set of criteria for determining wether something is true or not, and not just to me. The criteria I use is the scientific method. So far many of the evidence I have recieved in favor a god's existence, is subjective evidence, meaning hearsay, testamonials, circular reasoning, and a long list or fallacies. Hope I cleared that up.
caligulaincarnate 1 year ago
@caligulaincarnate I think the only one buying his "You have a standard for something you don't want to know" argument, is the kid standing next to him.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
Well Jesus had to sustain his perfection for him to be a good sacrifice to cleanse us of our sins, that is why he was infused. And Jesus knew what he had come for, and new he couldn't give in, but he still went through the same temptations as we do. And people who give their own will over to God, a new and better will, will come out, and that also helps with refusing to give into sin. So it still happens to this day. And Adam and Eve knew, God told them not to eat of the fruit but they still did
AALASKO54 1 year ago
"Atheists who lack a belief" is like saying "Amputees who lack limbs"
DirectInjected 1 year ago
a self affirming holy book, anecdotes, and "things are complicated, so something had to make it all, and the judeo christian god is my favorite god so it's him" is "evidence" of a sort...i guess. but it's a very very low bar for "evidence."
BillKiernan 1 year ago
yes...that's the point....lack of belief means not believing. there's no difference. the term "lack of belief" is often used when a theist claims that atheism is a BELIEF system in and of itself. in which case, atheists state "no, it is a lack of belief, not a belief." now, if a "strong" atheist makes the claim "there is no god, and i know it!" now the tables are turned and the burden of proof is on him/her, or equally on the theist and atheist, but not for your average atheist.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
The standard of evidence for proving something is actually contained in the word "evidence" itself. The root of the word is "videre", meaning "to see". So, what can I see that is obvious proof of god(s). Show it to me and I will not just believe, I will know.
OnlyHereNow 1 year ago
I like how Jack says that if someone is intelligent they'll acknowledge that what he has is evidence. Laughable.
Evidence is always observations and/or measurements, or some physical artifact. A fingerprint, a photograph, dna, tiretracks, chemical traces, etc. You then gather up all the evidence and interpret it, based upon what's likely. Then you test that, by looking for more evidence, and seeing if it supports or refutes your idea.
You have none of that, Jack.
A "feeling" isn't evidence.
OccamKant 1 year ago
epic painful
keggerous 1 year ago
"criterion" not "criteria," the latter is the plural of the former
Jakomancer 1 year ago
Your argument would be sound if people who had a belief in god actually based that belief on evidence of their own. Seeing as they don't, then any evidence that an atheist would ask for the believer wouldn't be able to give... because a personal opinion, or choice, to believe in a god is not evidence and has no relevence to anyone else.
msteele79 1 year ago
You dont have any tangible "evidence" of the proof of a supernatural super-being that knows all. Period. Your video is foolish; his sounds like weed-addled thinking but you dont look like the type.
AmsterdamHeavy 1 year ago
If people are going to think like you "Jack" then people might aswell believe in the Hulk, Batman, Santa Clause, Superman and all other crazy cartoon characters and shit. Because, YOU ODNT NEED ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO YOU.
mupp33n 1 year ago
@mupp33n Because of course, scientifically, if Santa does not exist then God doesn't either.
Let me try this another way. If Santa does not exist, neither do black holes, Dark Matter, or whatever else science pursued based on an initial hypothesis. Thankfully no one used your logic or we would still be in the dark ages.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@GodUsesAMinistry So youre saying Santa Clause does exist?
Oh and how about telling your precious god to help the planet instead of helping us ruin it. :) Oh wait, you are just sitting on your lazy ass waiting for some random dead guy to appear to purge the planet from evil in the very last minute, not gonna happen though, cause, you know, there is no god. Oh and religious people do not believe in there being other planets other than earth with population (billions of stars n planets you know)
mupp33n 1 year ago
@mupp33n strawman. Look it up. As for lazy ass, I'll peg my accomplishments against yours any day if the week.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@GodUsesAMinistry So, what did you accomplish that help the population or simply the planet? You beg to your nonexistant god that you dont even know how he/she looks like and neither knows if its a he or she neither what shape or form it has neither spoken to or heard. Lets all praise winnie the pooh.
mupp33n 1 year ago
@mupp33n The question is, what have YOU accomplished? You called me a lazy ass. Let's hear what you have accomplished in your life? What is you annual income, assets, any family etc? Because vie worked pretty hard and am a success.
My businesses have helped mankind in a huge way, something you don't even know what you are talking about. So before you go around name calling and trying to throw out insults, take a look in the mirror.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@GodUsesAMinistry How can income help someone else other than your greedy needs? What did your family accomplish, what did your family do to "help" the world, other than helping to overpopulate the already overpopulated planet? You have no idea about what I even meant. Now go back to school. Your business have helped mankind? Doing what? making cars?
mupp33n 1 year ago
@mupp33n You still aren't addressing the comment regarding laziness.
And I have patents on things in the medical field which have even helped you and your family.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@GodUsesAMinistry ACtually, you havent helped anyone in sweden.
mupp33n 1 year ago
@mupp33n my products are worldwide.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@GodUsesAMinistry "Your" products.
mupp33n 1 year ago
Dude, slight dig: Why do christians utilize these painfully awkward skits as part of their discourse? You seem above their use.
Now regarding your point, unlike many atheists, I have no problems with what you said. My atheism is founded upon a belief that theistic claims are not accurate.
The belief vs. lack of belief debate is sophistry.
Now what I strongly reject is the inevitable theistic follow-up attempt to equivocate all beliefs as the same. Simply put, NOT
Your thoughts?
LetReasonPrevail1 1 year ago
You don't need evidence when you have faith. (:
lexichard 1 year ago
we dont have standards, you have no evidence!
lee0slayer 1 year ago
Could you give an example of this evidence?
0XxCarolinexX0 1 year ago
You make it seem like having a standard for evidence is a bad thing. If I come to you and say, I'm the prime minister of Ireland and with a witness to back me up, it would be gullible and ignorant to believe that. Have you never heard of a burden of evidence in the court system?
0XxCarolinexX0 1 year ago
That was terribly confusing and came off more like a rant than an explanation. Please, tell us what standards of evidence YOU have that would need to be satisfied in order for you to believe in Allah, Vishnu, Ganesh, Thor, Apollo, Venus...? According to your video, it's not that you lack a belief in Allah, Vishnu, Ganesh, Thor, Apollo and Venus, it's just that your standard of evidence hasn't been met yet. What proof do you need?
SubconsciousGatherer 1 year ago
a 2000 year old book that contradicts its self on multiple occasions and is not able to be scientifically tested in any way shape or form does not meet my standard of truthfull evidence.
zerakren 1 year ago
@zerakren
Amen to that xD
Bible sucks. Peace.
RiderPerry 1 year ago
@zerakren what do you mean by it can not be scientifically tested?
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54
sorry i spoke before i really thought out my comment. it CAN be tested but everything that IS tested comes up false or inconclusive.
zerakren 1 year ago
@zerakren In Gen 17:12 God told Abraham to circumcise new borns on the 8th day after they were born. Why? because it was scientifically proven that the 8th day of a new born is when it has the highest vitamin K in its life. Which it helps stop bleeding. Now in present day, the do it on the 8th day, or they give them a shot. And another thing, civilizations started up around 6000 yrs ago around the Mesopotamian region. Crazy that the Bible says (not directly) its around 6000 yrs old.
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 Jesus, the flood, jews in the desert for 40 years. the earth was flat. the sun revolved around the earth. there are sooooooooooooo many things that just dont add up.
zerakren 1 year ago
@zerakren on the surface they don't....you have to go deep...I would recommend that you start with social conditioning...there's a company called RSD, that teaches you how to pick up chicks, and it's great....great results so far...and one of the main teachings and the first ones is that we are SOCIALLY CONDITIONED....IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT!! just look for yourself
danielrrjd 1 year ago
@zerakren "the earth was flat. the sun revolved around the earth." You are right. That doesn't add up. Because it isn't even in the bible.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 "God told Abraham to circumcise new borns on the 8th day after they were born. "
And why did God tell them to use circumcision at all? We were made faulty, and so we need a last minute fix? Like some kind of defective product recall? If God didn't want us to have foreskins, why did he make them?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant We were made perfect, and Adam and Eve tempted, fell into sin and then we became faulty. Because we are all sinners. Even we were little kids, we lie. Teenagers and adults lust over one another. We have a sinful nature. God commanded the circumcision for the sign of the new covenant between him and Abraham, and his generations to come. It was used a reminder to follow God's law.
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 How could adam and eve have been tempted into sin if they were perfect?
I'm presuming you're going to say that Jesus & God couldn't possibly sin - and they're perfect. Are you going to say that they're perfect-er than Adam and Eve were?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant Perfection is proved through temptation. They were made to be perfect but given free will because God wanted a true relationship with his creation. Christ was perfect because he was tempted by Satan during his 40 day fast, but yet he did not give in to sin.
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 So the fact that Adam and Eve "gave in to temptation" means they weren't perfect, right?
Because if they were perfect, they wouldn't give in to sin?
Also - Christ's "temptations" were a joke. Of the 3, only 1 could possibly be considered a temptation. One was a dare ("Jump from this high place!"), one was a question ("Why don't you eat some bread?") and one was a promise of power - but if JC really was basically God, what could Satan tempt him with?
Ergo - there WAS no "temptation"
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant They were made to be perfect as I said. But God gave them, just as us free will. Because He wants a true loving relationship with us. He could've made us like robots and have us saying, "i love you, I love you, I love you" over and over again, but that would just be taken as words, do you agree? Okay, so if you haven't eaten in nearly 40 days, bread wouldn't sound great? lol .
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 "Okay, so if you haven't eaten in nearly 40 days, bread wouldn't sound great? lol ."
If I was fasting, and had magical powers to make bread out of stone, and all this was my own choice, how could Satan's question be considered a temptation? He was just asking JC why he didn't make some bread. So what? I know people who fast all the time. What's the big deal?
As "i love you" over and over - read the description of God's throne in revelations, and the angels yelling "HOLY HOLY HOLY"
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant Giving into temptation doesn't mean they were imperfect but it does mean they aren't God. Follow me on this one. There is one God and can only be one.
Therefore, the only way mankind could not only be created was in the LIKENESS of god and fall short. But the plan was for man to have a final relationship with god by being a vessel his spirit could dwell within. So in that sense, even through what you call imperfection, was still perfection.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 Also - in your view, do God and Jesus have free will? Could they possibly sin? If they couldn't sin, how could you say they had free will?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant following up on the last question: The temptation was not to jump, one of God's laws were to not tempt the Lord thy God. Satan said jump and God will send down angels to protect you. And the third one was to bow to Satan which was pretty big since it was going to give up absolutely everything over to Satan. Jesus was filled with the spirit of God, but was in the flesh. So Jesus felt those temptations that we go through, but could override it with the spirit. So he stayed perfect.
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 Jumping temptation: It's a dare, not a temptation. The dare was: "I dare you to jump and show that the angels will save you". A temptation is for something you WANT, like chocolate cake, or sex. Not "Risk your life!" That's just a stupid dare.
As for the third - if Jesus is supposed to be both the son of God and God himself, then how could Satan offer him more than he ALREADY HAS? I don't understand why you people think that that makes any sense.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant Wow, you just stated something truly poignant there. As GOD he already HAD everything he could possibly have so by offering him that Jesus saw it as truly ridiculous! JUST LIKE ADAM had all he could ever need and yet Satan threw the trick in there that Adam and Eve could have the one thing they could not and that was to actually BE God but they didn't need it because they already HAD everything they needed. Wow, thank you for that Occam. I hadn't seen it that way before.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@OccamKant sorry, this is the last question by you lol. Yes, God can do whatever he pleases to do, but its not sin, its only sin because it breaks his law. But he promised, they fore he will most likely not, but its God. And yes, Jesus had free will. Kinda explained it one the last one.
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 "And yes, Jesus had free will. Kinda explained it one the last one."
So can Jesus sin then?
And you're saying that since the definition of "sin" is "go against God's will" (which I agree, that seems to be the definition of sin), then if God decides to kill everyone and start again, or start raping babies, or eating people or any reprehensible thing, you will stand by and say "Bravo God! Let thy will be done!"
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant Yes, Jesus could have sinned, but he was so filled with the spirit of God, he was God and that kept him from giving in to temptation. And yeah, but God made a covenant to never kill off his creation again.
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 "he was God and that kept him from giving in to temptation..."
Interesting - so Jesus had an unfair advantage? For some reason he was filled with the spirit of God which kept him from giving in to temptation, but Adam and Eve were not?
"God made a covenant to never kill off his creation again."
Yeah - except for the part around Judgement Day where he cleanses the earth with fire - and kills everyone who doesn't kiss his ass. Yeah, except for that.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant Jesus still felt the same struggles and temptations as every other human being has. He was stronger though, he knew if he had sinned, his sacrifice would have been meaningless. On the other hand, Adam and Eve did not know any better, they could not predict the future. Yeah, because God can not be in the midst of sin, and that is why everyone who does not accept Jesus as their savior to be cleanse has to be gone with for God to place Heaven on earth. And whats kissing but about it?
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 You said that JC was infused with the holy spirit that prevented him from sinning. That's like having a magic sin-shield. Sounds like God should have provided one for Adam and Eve.
And of course - if you actually ACKNOWLEDGE that A&E couldn't have known better (thanks for that - most christians gloss over that part), you also should recognize that they shouldn't be punished. How can you be punished for something you don't understand?
And ass kissing? What is your job as a Christian?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant "You said that JC was infused with the holy spirit that prevented him from sinning."
This is a topic up for debate. Most Christians believe JC was perfectly capable of sinning. Just as Adam, had not sinned, as was capable of sinning too.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 If Jesus could not sin, then it wouldn't be true to say that He was tempted just like us.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@GodUsesAMinistry He could sin if he wanted too. But he knew why he was on this earth. For him to be a perfect sacrifice, he knew he could not. Plus, he had so much of the holy spirit that it helped with temptation for him to not give in.
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@OccamKant Never wipe out mankind again with "water".
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
@OccamKant People were circumcised to differentiate them from other tribes.
GodUsesAMinistry 1 year ago
Your argument that evidence is subjective is so incredibly weak and unscientific that it would render proof of anything anywhere ever absolutely impossible. Or do we just bend the rules for God? Is he special? Nobody answer that. I'm being fucking rhethorical.
perchedeagle2 1 year ago
Yeah we have a standard, THE DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE. And yes we still lack a belief in your God. Nice strawman skit. Enjoy burning him at the stake.
"Scientific evidence is evidence where the DEPENDANCE OF THE OF THE EVIDENCE ON PRINCIPLES OF INFERENCE IS NOT CONCEDED enabling others to examine the background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are relevant to the support of or falsification of a hypothesis"
perchedeagle2 1 year ago
Just because atheists dont believe in YOUR God doesnt mean we dont believe in anything.
P.S I think one of you may be adopted....
danthedream01 1 year ago
Ok, the ilustration is good. What I don't get is the big deal about beliefs. Everyone has them. I believe the sun is going to raise tomorrow, I know is going to raise tomorrow?, well technically no one knows the future, who knows if a galactic catastrophe happens? ... technically everything we know by experience and we expect to be repeated may count as belief. Yes, I am an atheist and I do hold an insane amount of beliefs...
orcodrilo 1 year ago
I have evidence that, one day, two peanuts were walking down the street.
I feel that my evidence standards confirm this moment.
The fact that one was assaulted makes me giggle.
I hope you find it in your heart to forgive me for doing so.
naganokumas 1 year ago
What you don't seem to realize is that your standards are a two way street. Both theist and atheist have evaluated the question "IF" and come up with their own conclusions. People are diverse.
You may as well ask, why do you like chocolate while I prefer vanilla? I have seen xtian proofs and although I was once a believer, I saw those proofs crumble one after another until all that was left were men's words. Meaningless, as yours are.
Albtraumen 1 year ago
Yup. Evidence of god is people talking or people writing about god. That really truly is no evidence, its just words. Nobody has standards low enough to accept anything just because somebody can discribe it in spoken language. So youre saying that your evidence dont meet peoples standards. As if that would mean that youre evidence is still somehow usefull and valid. What you should realize is that youre so called evidence is so miserably weak that its actually useless nonsense.
bary1234 1 year ago
me farting is evidence that god does not exist if you disagrees then u just have standards of evidence which i don't meet
adirm18 1 year ago
I feel like I should have given this a thumbs up, because it only made me feel more confident in my decision in rejecting the idea of a judeo-christian god.
IterProLibertas 1 year ago
im really sick of these videos of Christians trying to understand Atheists
just leave your religions out of our lives
and well leave you alone
Xloi63 1 year ago
god is not real
its all made up
FutureScience2012 2 years ago
Euhm, atheist's standard of evidence... wait... whut? Is there even a "standard of evidence"? Maybe you Christians don't seem to understand that evidence is not something you can argue about. Evidence are hard, cold, (scientific) facts that we all HAVE to agree on because it simply is true and it has been observed as truth through different rational and irrefutable methods.
THAT is evidence and every smart person (atheist or theist) knows that.
And indeed, there is NO evidence for god.
MortalLuc 2 years ago
There area* standards of evidence,
this guy's error is in the word "belief"
He is forgetting that non-atheists also have a standard which they apply to evidence as well, and that is not comparable to a belief in god.
Harizl 2 years ago
i'm just not that simple minded to take the words of a unknown guy´s word for it... am i wrong ? god is a simple anserw for some difficult questions, wish simple people with simple minds. which they cannot explain any other way... at least i'm honest einoth to say "I don't know"
goofygooferspore 2 years ago
all "hardcore" christian FELT this MIGHTY god, i didnt feel him, i was never "lost" i never needed salvation. and i still dont need any of that complete unproofed nonsens. god is in ur head, "god" reprisentes every thing a human wants to believe, and its so easy, and ones you realy start believing this supernatural bullcrap, ya you stop asking the "difficult" questions about life. i'd feel reliefd 2.
goofygooferspore 2 years ago
There's more evidence for a large number of imaginary creatures (that you probably don't believe in either) than there is for the Judeo-Christian god, or any other god for that matter. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is more likely than your god, its holy book doesn't contradict the known facts of science.
pyVlad 2 years ago
Hey whoa hold your horses.
lack a belief = i don't believe = correct (duh)
Yes I believe in certain standards of evidence. Who said we don't? Who doesn't?
I don't think my standards are too high, i think your evidence is too low - therefore I don't believe in god.
Well done, maybe now you understand atheists better?
kevinscales 2 years ago
It's hard for one WITH a belief to imagine someone who is fully functional without a belief, but we do exist! And what do you have to say to the Muslims? They outnumber Christians and and are also 100% sure that you who do not believe in their god is going to hell. Enjoy your life and the freedoms we have here in America that allow you to hold on to your archaic beliefs. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that you just cannot produce
rawrdarkstar 2 years ago
actually, i don't really have any objections to this video :D
except for the fact that he seems to think saying "i lack a belief in god" is different than saying "i don't believe in god."
i lack a belief in god = i don't believe god exists.
"i don't believe god exists" does NOT necessarily mean "i believe god does NOT exist."
yes, even a simple lack of belief is, by necessity, a rejection of the claims of those who do believe(if the non-believer has been exposed to those claims).
rtarbinar 2 years ago
All theists, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., LACK a belief in God. They claim they KNOW God!
fatfist 2 years ago
Evidence: Facts gathered, directly or indirectly, from your senses, in order to support a non-obvious idea.
AbsalomPitchingfork 2 years ago
wow....smart Christians....
wishshewoulddome 2 years ago
child abuse.
ndyt 2 years ago
If religious people would accept the same level of evidence for anything as the do for their god then it is amazing how they can reject so many scientific things (evolution, heliocentricity, a 13.x billion year old universe, the big bang theory, paleotology, acheology, geology etc)
Toudiyama 2 years ago
TogetherForPeace: The reason most evidence for god doesn't meet atheist standards is because it is not actual evidence, the evidence that gets presented to me usually makes no sense and is easly disputed. what evidence for God are you talking about exactly? Please, tell me what evidence you have for God and ill tell you why I do or don't see it as reliable evidence.
rgtjyj 2 years ago
Good video to prove the point of the atheist!
autarchicflux 2 years ago
You are SO right. The evidence you present to me for proof of god is not sufficient, and can't even be considered as evidence in the first place.
You're spot on. I don't not believe in god, I just haven't been shown evidence for it and if you can show me ANY solid evidence for the existance of god that cannot be contradicted by facts logic, and or common sense then I will humbly bow my head and cunseed (I can't figure out how to spell it so I wrote it as it sounds) there is a god.
upplsuckimcool16 2 years ago
Well, the atheist is right. There is no sufficient reason to believe in a god. There is more evidence for Santa Clause, and I don't believe in him either. Why do you act like that's an unreasonable standard - more evidence than Santa?
tinkabella83 2 years ago
very true video you cant reason with stubborn athiests
Jairson777 2 years ago
And you can't argue with a stubborn ANYONE.
Aarixan 2 years ago
HIs son is black?
Paulwhoisvegan 2 years ago
Brother..........
BASSCHAMP101 2 years ago
To be simple again, we use the same standard of evidence that scientists use.
A bible falls into the category of heresay and anecdotal evidence, not hard provable evidence.
Also, their "evidence" isn't evidence, it is false information, at least in the atheist mindset, or it is bad information, and fails as evidence.
We also wouldn't categorize a standard of evidence as a "belief in it".
And besides, I rarely hear "I lack a belief in god"
galactiaman 2 years ago
Um...fail.
Atheism is NOT about "lacking a belief: it is simply about not believing in gods, the same way most people don't believe in unicorns or santa. The only reason atheism has the term "atheism" is because the term of simply not believing apparently isn't sufficent.
I also lack a belief in santa, but i'm not an a-santa-ist.
...
Regardless, also we simply don't take the evidence as valid, we don't just say its bad or something.
galactiaman 2 years ago
nice, I was always annoyed by that "lack of belief" montra, think its condescending and an improper description of atheists.
EthanSurbaugh 2 years ago
I dont have a lack of beleif in god, I have a lack of beleif in a celestial dictatorship.... not to mention atheism is not a lack of, its not a deffect rather the opposit... the standard for evidence is set by science... religion has never brought foward evidence, thus no reason to even consider the existence of anything humans invent...
TheISLAMisFAKE 2 years ago
im actually very confuzaled r these ppl christians or atheists? lol
cheeze94 2 years ago
WHAT THE FUCK?
afken12 2 years ago
HOW CAN U DENY THE SIGNS ALL ROUND U, IF A CAMEL HAD LAID HIS WASTE U IN THE DESERT AND WALKED OFF, IF MAN GOES PAST HE KNOWS THERE WAS A CAMEL HERE, THE SAME IS HERE WHERE GOD HAD SENT DOWN HIS SIGNS FOR HUMAN MANKIND. bro if u cant see them then ask for help where are they and how is it a sign
Spiderjam2008 2 years ago
Wow. Rephrasing existing creationist arguments does not make them any more valid. 'Way of the Master' uses flawed logic, and so do you. The idea of a god and a camel are non-compatible.
Btw... are the earth and the signs thereon just your god's 'waste'?
BigTopBrain 2 years ago
It was an example and no its not gods waste. I am trying to say that everything that is created has an inventor, a creator . There are many things around u that are signs of god, but if u dont still believe then u need to search for the truth urself
Spiderjam2008 2 years ago
I can only show u the door, ur the one who has to open it !
Spiderjam2008 2 years ago
Yet again, a rephrasing of fallible logic.
Everything 'created' does not necessarily have a 'creator': I have a zit on my chin. Does this mean that the zit has a 'creator' or perhaps that it simply has a 'cause'? (And yes, I am comparing god to acne.) This is not an argument with which you can convince an intellectual. The door is locked, btw. Someone must provide the key.
You must see the difference between god and a camel: One is empirical, one is not.
BigTopBrain 2 years ago
Dr. Zakir Naik - Does God exist?
Type this into the youtube browser and watch this video
Spiderjam2008 2 years ago
Yours was not a response, but a redirection.
Is that the best you can offer? A book with vague references interpreted as science is not proof at all. It is similar, if not equivalent, to astrology.
Example: the moon and its 'borrowed light' being euphemized to accommodate what we understand to be 'reflected light'. Just maybe that verse (as well as the others) has been adapted to the times rather than being true because of its vagueness.
You have not answered my question about my zit.
BigTopBrain 2 years ago
Vague thats what u call that vague. U see ur mentality of looking at things is very weak. How in the hell did the founder of islam know all this at that time. There was no technology. Ok once u mite get something rite, but lightning striking in the same place again shows there is something going on
Spiderjam2008 2 years ago
Ok zit boy ,if u dont clean ur face or remain dirty, or if u are under stress sometimes zits are created. So whos fault is it, obviously the person, for gods sake why do docters always say keep ur face clean from not getting zits or infections, keep ur cool. Sometimes things happen which u cant control but that does not mean they do not have a creator. The exampl i gave about the camel, that just basically explains that things are not always what they seem, some are signs but u dont realize it !
Spiderjam2008 2 years ago
Yes, 'borrowed light' is vague. This could have been the thought that god will reclaim his creation of light (the moon) some day; it doesn't mean that the writer truly knew that the moon does not create its own light.
Empirical evidence is what we need. You don't provide any, nor can you. This is why we don't believe.
That's why I responded to your comment. Only if someone can show me empirical proof will we believe. Until then I think people should stop trying to convince with fallacies.
BigTopBrain 2 years ago
could u direct as to what exactly u are refering? I cannot recall a religious person ever demonstrating evidence of what u are asserting!
TheISLAMisFAKE 2 years ago
I beleev in purpel moon men that have sykic powers, my evidents is dat I rilly, rilly, rily, rilly, rill, beleeve in tehm I do, I do, Ido! I now, Ize saw them wid mys very ownz eyes! Does that meet your standard for evidence?
SimKoning 2 years ago