Now, if we could view the pie chart of our findings we would see that we do not have the much universal gnosis at all. So, based upon what you don't know, how can you claim to know that any God does not exist? Is it possible that God could exist outside the limits of your knowledge? - If you answered yes ..... welcome to agnosticism.
@thecosmichippo The possibility always exists, but without any kind of evidence, you have to come to an eventual conclusion. In my personal opinion, there is a possibility that god exists, but until I see any kind of evidence, I'm going with not believing. The same holds true for fairies, the Loch Ness Monster, the teapot orbiting Earth, and the monster that stares at you as you sleep.
Question for you: is there any evidence that will convince you that god doesn't exist?
@sleazybtd What sort of proof are you looking for? Something you can see or touch? Something tangeable? By the sounds of things you are an agnostic; that, or you don't articulate well.
There is currently no scientific evidence that God does not exist .. As humans, we have had had many centuries to disprove God ~ but we haven't
@thecosmichippo Feel free to label me whatever you want. It's just a label. I still live my life as if there was no god.
As an open-minded person, I always leave open the possibility of unlikely things, including god. I can be convinced by evidence, and yes, something I can see or touch would work for me. How about you? You didn't answer my question about what evidence would convince you that god didn't exist.
@sleazybtd The label was only used to establish your actual position, you believe, don't believe, or believe in a possibility. There is nothing more to imply. There is no evidence that could convince me; there is enough evidence of an intelligent designer in our universe and biology, that even known atheists such as Antony Flew and Frank Tipler not only finally recognized the evidence but became proponents of theism soon after.
@sleazybtd You can label me whatever you like ~ it makes no difference to the discussion.
-If I'm going to argue semantics? You just took are of that for us ..
-Compelling evidence that you can see or touch .. let's be clear here.
Because the evidence within your own species isn't enough compelling evidence right? We are the only species of mammal that exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments.
@thecosmichippo Okay, see, touch, taste may be too limiting. I'll take something that is compelling evidence of god which can't be explained by natural reasons.
How does having consciousness, ability to appreciate art, and making moral judgments prove the existence of god? How do you know those things weren't given to us by the underwear gnomes?
@thecosmichippo Were you presenting "exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments" as evidence of the existence of god? If you were, I don't follow you. You made a leap of faith that those things come from god without eliminating other possibilities:
1). Those attributes could have evolved
2) All animals may have those attributes, but exhibit them in ways different from humans
lol .. Atheism is so funny. Lets explore something for a moment; Is atheism based solely on logic and knowledge? Yes? Oh really, let's find out. Are you an honest atheist? (for the sake of argument we will assume you said yes) Do you believe that God does not exist? (Yes, this is what you believe) What % of all information in the universe do you think mankind possesses? (Let's go with 0.0000001% fair?) Human knowledge that you personally possess? (0.00001% fair?) cont...
It's clear that Christians miss understand you. & it's clear you miss understand Christians.
It's also pretty foolish to judge Christians based on your experiences with some retarded Jesusfreak just as it's unwise to judge atheists based on some dimwitted atheist's rantings.
Why can't we all just get along?
If someone shows ignorance, don't respond with frustration, that keeps the argument & tension alive (and you're clearly tense).
I doubt jezuzfreek would have the balls to debate anything face to face with this guy. New York/East-Coast accent alone would scare that little hick away.
@2:30 - I do disagree with the point that if the Bible went away, Christians would go on a killing spree. To be honest, I do think that's a little radical. I do agree that it is more meaningful that we athiests do not rely on a book written by people thousands of years ago to tell us how to act, but to say that Christians would automatically go around killing people is quite a big leap. The overall quality of life may be much poorer, but I doubt mass murders would suddenly occur.
@tinyartist18 To my understanding the bible teaches that humans are given a morale compass which is reasonable thinking.
I think it's just bat-shit crazy Christians that can't think for themselves and don't have a solid enough foundation to stand on their own two god given feet and use their own god given intelligence instead of being a dumb sheep.
That would explain why murder and stealing feels wrong to believers and non believers.
Personally, I am an athiest, and I think it means so much more than being religious. First, I do the right thing solely because I think it is right, rather than being frightened into it by a being who exists only because people needed an explanation for what they do not know. Also, I do much more community service than my Christian friends, and I'm sure that my morals are greater. Also, I do not hate people because "God says so."
I believe that Morality is a natural thing for one reason, other animals do not kill other organism s of their own species, really I mean humanity kill organisms of their own species.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How can you say that because someone is Christian they can not know how an atheist thinks? Most Christians who are born again Christians were atheist prior to coming to Christ. I'm a prime example of this. So when I say I know how atheists think it is becasue I used to be one and surrounded myself with others of like mind.
Atheists tend to live much less medicore lives than do theists IMO.
Think about it. An atheist believes he/she has ONE life to live. They try to make the best of it.
Theists believe there is an after life for them. They can't wait to die.
If I was religious I'd be counting down the days and trying to waste this life as fast as possible. But since I'm not it is the opposite, with every passing day I feel like I have less precious time to enjoy new things max life out.
Atheists get their right and wrong from within? Well, no. Society is a great influence on individuals, how your parents raised you, personal experiences, ect. Morals are developed from outside influences. You don't just develop morals from nothing.
Just because it's nice to know we're not being judged doesn't mean that it's the primary reason we don't believe. Jezuzfreek777 doesn't understand. Some things just sound whimsical and impossible, because that most likely are. It's funny how Atheists have to even bring up the 'lack of evidence' card. Of course there's no evidence, it's all fairy tale faggot shit made by ignorant men.
Those who claim to be members of organized religions are the LEAST moral or ethical people I know. They are the most hateful and egotistical as well as the most bigoted.
On the other hand, many of the kindess, generous, understanding and benevolent people I know are....atheists!
that's the default position. the burden of proof (ergo, proving that the bible is true and accurate an unaltered) lies with people who defend it. it's veracity hasn't been proven, so there's currently nothing to disprove.
for example, i propose that there is a dragon next to me. you would argue that there is in fact, not. you don't have to prove that there is no dragon, because my claim has no evidence backing it up.
provide evidence that your claims are correct, so i can refute them.
historical evidence, which there is very little of. and besides, the canon isn't set up historically, it is essentially what became most popular before Constantine brought together the swarm of disagreeing bishops and asked them to just set something up (regardless of whether or not it was historical) to end the fighting and so-called heresy. i point this out just to make relevant the historical origin of the canon and there are gospels that were expelled too, like those of judas and thomas.
it's just important to know that it wasn't compiled historically, but by popularity. but if you have evidence that it's accurate in any sense, i'd love to see it.
and yet, if all the events in the bible are accurate, does it prove that christ is god? does it prove that god exists? of course not, but realistically, how many books that old are actually accurate history? even history books from that period are essentially biographies, fueled by politics, and hardly accurate in any objective sense
Considering if all the events in the bible are accurate, including Christ's resurrection, it sure would suggest he isn't a normal human being. But i suppose it can never be proven. So you only have to either choose to believe it or not. Same with most recorded historical events of that time. Just be sure not to insult the intelligence of those that choose to believe it because there is no reason not to believe it.
you're correct that it would suggest he isn't normal, but it wouldn't be proof that he's the son of a divine being, let alone that that divine being created the universe and did other things attributed to it.
ah, there is no reason not to believe it, so you say. there's no reason not to believe that there's an invisible incorporeal super-intelligent unicorn in your bed either, right? what about the magic fish in your pants, or the talking gnome outside? no reason not to believe in them right?
I suppose I should have restated that to "there is reason to believe it." The unicorn, magic fish, and the talking gnome are all obviously things you picked out of nothing to compare to the beliefs of Christianity. However, the reasons for believing these things are virtually non-existent compared to the reasons for believing Christianity.
and yet you still have not provided any actual evidence, let alone reason for believing as christians do. do you have nay idea how many sailors have reported seeing sea monsters nd mermaids? or how many people report being abducted by UFOs? give me evidence, not anecdote.
that's the problem, theism has defined god into a supernatural corner. and that's why there's no reason to believe in it. just like there's no reason to believe in unicorns and fairies and demons and other things for which there is no evidence.
that;s the power of cumulative science, i may not be able to provide these things off the top of my head, but you can look them up. look them up from objective sources, especially atheists, we seem to be really good at finding these things.
if you go to the right sources, yes. antitheists may not be as gentle but we use the same methodology. the tv show "atheist experience" deals with your arguments very well, because we're not even so much as denying god as waiting for a point to be made for his existence.
what the hell? that's a complete non sequitur, what evidence or reason do you have to assume that the existence of the universe suggests that there is something that exists outside it? there's no logic in that statement...
i haven't said what the big bang happened due to, but it's neither logical nor purposeful to fill that gap with something magical. if you're filling the unknown with something else unknown, what have you really accomplished? you've simply pushed the gap back one degree.
i leave it up to people who actually study this sort of thing to make informed discoveries and form educated opinions on them.
What I was trying to get at is this: The universe could not have popped out of nothing. That's illogical. The only logical explanation is that something outside the universe was the cause. Since natural events only happen WITHIN our universe, then whatever happens outside our universe CAN be supernatural. Scientist say that the singularity of our universe was infinitely hot. Heat is a form of energy. So this singularity had infinite energy. Now what's the 1st Law of Themodynamics?
have you ever heard of string theory? supersymmetry? M theory? these are studies of the origins of the structure of the universe. none of these says the universe popped out of nothing, but then again, the rule of what the universe could and could not have done is irrelevant since we've only ever encountered a reality unique to this universe. perhaps outside or before, the same rules do not apply?
it is still pointless to use the word "supernatural" simply because the answer hasn't been found
you're correct in that they have not been proven. but there is evidence for them, and that is certainly better than alternative. they may not have known the age of the earth 100 years ago, but working towards it and accumulating evidence are always the solutions with far more merit than hindering our study to say "it was magical."
now i'm not sure what you mean by infinitely hot, but it would depend on whether or not the universe is a closed system or not. if not, then yes, it can hold it.
i'm really in no position to argue this but i'll try and think about this.
the big bang is a rapid expansion of space time which brought about the structure of the universe as we see it today. prevailing theory tells us that the expansion of this singularity could include the settling of the cosmic constants, which would lead me to think that before these constants became fixed, things like high and low temperatures were irrelevant. it could as easily have been infinitely small.
not necessarily, for a singularity? you'd have to ask somebody who actually knows a bit more about them. all i know is that before the cosmic constants became set, things like heat and size were irrelevant and arbitrary since they are relative to nothing, ie there is nothing bigger than the universe because size is a property of only the universe, so whatever preceded it wouldn't be required to follow the same "laws" as they didn't exist yet.
which is exactly what i mean. whatever was before the universe was supernatural since it wasn't required to follow the natural laws established in our universe. do u understand what im getting at?
i understand what you think you're saying but you're comparing nature and non-nature in a time before time and nature even existed, it wasn't supernatural because there was nothing to compare it to, it wasn't above nature because there was nothing to be above, anything before this was far beyond the mundanely supernatural, it was prenatural, and that's not even a word
im comparing the "prenatural" with the natural. the time in between is irrelevant. the point is that the existence of the prenatural, supernatural, unnatural, or "magic" is completely plausible beyond our natural universe. we humans r very ignorant beyond our universe. instead of speculating about the impossible we should speculate about the possible.
alright, so i'll agree that it's possible there is more. and yet, where does that take us? of all the possible things real or otherwise, only a select few possibilities have come to fruition, so what do we really gain by speculating on the possible? shouldn't we focus more on the plausible? the predictable? things that are not so questionable in their reality?
reality in our physical world is nothing but electrical signals interpreted by our brain. i speculate there are other realms of reality. but my main question to all this is if you can agree with me that these ideas are indeed possible and maybe plausible, then shouldnt god be a very good possibility as well?
of course it's possible, i'll never say it's not possible nor should anyone, but by the same leaf, anything is possible, including infinite fish of many colors singing merry had a little lamb. but we're contained here, in this reality, and there does not seem to be any way out, so what's the point on speculating on the color of something that doesn't exist, let alone the will and desires of something that is possible, but not part of this reality?
the difference between god and the fish is this: god is the creator of our reality and he has made contact with our reality and promised to save us from perishment and into a different better reality. the fish on the other hand are just fish.
right, except you simply believe that about the supernatural, ergo unknowable, without any reason to,or even justification for why that particular insight into the supernatural is any more valid than all the other supposed insights or revelations.
What other supposed insights or revelations are you referring to and why should they matter in my speculations? There simply is no way to prove to you that my speculations and beliefs are correct. These are mere speculations and just things to think about. It is up to you to decide if these ideas are truthful. Truth, after all, is a matter of opinion and relevance. ; )
I was merely quoting a statement made by the person I'm having this discussion with which is posted on his channel. But since were on this topic, do you think something that exists but is unknown to be a fact still can be a truth? If not, why?
No. Truth is a set of facts. If it is unknown to be a fact then it can not be truth. It has the potential to be truth but can not be truth until proven to be fact.
@Crosisborg You need to come back to earth man .. there is (currently) no scientifically verifiable evidence to support either side of the God question, both theism and atheism have to be called beliefs. Just as theism is a belief that there is a God, atheism is the belief that there isn't. Atheism, therefore, is not immune to the criticisms that other belief systems might draw. Your arrogance is disgusting ..
I believe the creator of a the universe is a God that cares. The story of Christ is a good example of a caring God. But of course, I'm not sure how this story can be proven as a truth to you, if indeed you would required proof to believe it, in which case I ask you, what kind of proof would you take? I believe it to be true from personal experiences, revelations, and convictions. So I ask you, is it bad to have a little bit of faith and step into the unknown to find out for yourself?
but what you believe and what you can demonstrate are two very different things. if everybody in the world died tomorrow, your beliefs would be gone, but the facts would still remain, and to an outside observer, your beliefs would be no more valid than any of the other stories that fill our fiction sections.
be wary of arguments from personal experience, we know how easily our senses are fooled and how unreliable they are for discerning truth.
even if i experienced something, my logical mind would not immediately decide that i had witnessed something magical, but I would have to consider whether or not i could be mistaken. the mind sees what it wants to see, which is why i bring up again reports of mermaids and sea monsters. it is not right to argue that a mermaid probably exists because i think i saw one, i must justify the belief with actual evidence.
you dont need evidence to justify your experience. you alone should be able to determine the truthfulness of your experience. do u need evidence to believe that you are even having this conversation with me?
i could be imagining it. the evidence is that regardless of what i think, the experiment (ergo testing the hypothesis that we're having this conversation) can be done: anyone can look on this video and see it, i can check back and see if it happened (repeatable experiment) and i can check with other people to see if they confirm my hypothesis.
agreed. im not saying u shouldnt be skeptical of certain kinds of experiences. i being a christian am against rituals such as "slain in the spirit". actually, the reason why im against it is a rather "god experience" in itself. i cant really explain to u about a true christian experience. C S Lewis described it as not an emotional one, "it was more like when a man, after long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake." and i couldn't agree more.
all experiences must be held against the fire of skepticism. we can trust little daily things because of how often we experience them, they have stood the test of evidence. miraculous things, things that are not common should be tested however, and especially when it is something appealing to you. the chances of being under a misapprehension, are always greater when it's something you would want to happen. the mind sees what it wants to see.
i wouldn't call anything a christian experience, because typical religious experiences are amorphous and can apply to whatever religion is particularly dominant in that region, ie a 'christian' experience is a 'muslim' experience in Saudi Arabia or a buddhist enlightening on predominantly buddhist regions. i think the misapprehensions we often experience but cannot be identified are easy to slap a label on, because we're pattern-seeking animals, like a paranormal expert always 'senses ghosts'
according to muslims and budhists they can't have experiences like the christians. muslims do not believe in an actual relationship with god and budhists are atheists. so neither of these can have the type of experience im referring to.
well you actually just answered your question, if that's what you would call a christian experience, I don't think there's grounds for such things. I don't think there's grounds for a personal god in any sense for that matter, it's just supremely arrogant. I don't like the idea of a being that seems to require and feed off of human thoughts for it's pleasure. it just seems a little ridiculous. honestly, if you had never encountered the idea before, wouldn't it seem strange on first hearing?
i don't understand how a personal god is an arrogant thought. i see it as a humbling one. the creator of the universe loves us enough to die for us so that we may be with him for eternity even though we dont deserve it. i admit this may be taken as arrogance in the wrong state of mind but to me it a sense of extreme gratitude. but the sense of this is not the experience im referring to. its experiences of revealations but im not sure if u can understand what i mean.
Its arrogant to think that you are somehow important enough for anyone to even know you exist outside your own circle much less some supernatural being. Your delusions about god are laughable at best, pathetic at least. I genuinely feel sorry for people like you who go through thier lives having faith on the nonexistent.
crosis what is with u? you seem to be just randomly jumping into our conversation with some kind of pathetic attempt to demoralize me. arrogance is an overbearence of pride. i take no pride in a relationship with god. do u think its arrogant of ur daughter to have a relationship with u?
right. the thing that can do all this loves you, personally. I understand the issue though, you've had the concept of love disseminated, because love is not universal, love is not to be given to everybody. if it does, it has no value. if we're all special, nobody is special, to say it a little bluntly.
no i understand what you mean by revelations, but you must understand, the arrogance is inherent there as well, to think that you have received special knowledge, denied to everybody else?
what better way to show love than to die for someone? why cant u show love to everyone? whats wrong with unconditional love? there are different kinds of it.
denied not to everyone else but to some for reasons not related to arrogance. i take no pride in these things. therefore its not arrogance. i believe this claim of arrogance that many use is just another reason to label us as wrong or evil. what makes arrogance bad anyway? i thought self-importance and pride was good in the secular world.
because love is not universal, by definition, it cannot be given to everybody, nor does everybody deserve love. unconditional love does not leave room for unnecessary cruelty either. a father who abuses his child endlessly is without love, period.
you do not have to recognise arrogance to possess it, and it's not a detriment to your character beyond believing that you have a privileged place/purpose in the universe, when your presence, and passing from it affects next to nothing.
unconditional love is not given to the deserved. for instance say your neighbor is a complete prick to u but one day u see him struggling to carry in groceries and u decide to help him. now wats wrong with what u did?
consider i didnt exist. how many things do u think would change around the people around me? my daughter would not have been born. my sister might have choked to death. and so on. i still dont understand how believing these things is arrogant.
it's just the assumption that your life has purpose or value, greater than the crude matter you are composed of. you exist as nothing but a brief spark of intellect that burns out within a century.
and with the neighbour analogy, who is god? the prick, or you? because if my neighbour caused all the suffering in the world and created me for the purpose of testing my willingness to have blind faith in his omnipotence, and then threatened everyone in the world for all eternity... fuck him.
so are you saying that our lifes are worthless? just a biological accident? im sorry but i think believing in a purpose and value in life is much better than believing life holds no value.
and i think u read into my neighbor analogy too much. i wasnt trying to compare god in it. just showing how unconditional love is a good thing.
it should be a humbling realisation, that the matter you are composed of is mostly water, some potassium, carbon, a lot of sugar, and hardly anything else. this does not mean we are worthless, but it has the effect of grounding us in reality. nobody should need to think they are special or important to be happy, nobody should need to think they have a preordained purpose to value their own life.
yes our bodies are made up of basic elements. but i dont think what my body is made up of when i think of myself. a computer is made up of metal glass and silicone. but is that wat u think of wen you put a price tag on it?
happiness is gained by different methods but its not all happy fun and games being a christian. my faith gets "tested" every now and then. why do u bring up happiness?
happiness is in many people's opinion's directly proportional to their self-worth. it's an argument from theists that needs to be discarded along with the other refuse, as no atheist is depressed or unhappy that they don't feel their life has an intrinsic supernatural value.
well of course no atheist is unhappy for being an atheist. otherwise they wouldnt be an atheist. i never really made the argument that happiness is only gained in theism.
there has been several occurences that made me question my faith. but every time i sought after an answer i got one.
no i know you didn't and it's refreshing to not hear it. but a faith or the lack thereof should not be based on how it makes you feel. objective truth should always be the goal, not happiness. the greatest happiness, in my opinion, comes from being the most aware, and the most in touch with reality that one can be.
But in this topic how do we define the objective truth? How do we really know if there is a God or not? We make a decision based on what we FEEL is correct using reason and understanding. I believe in God because I feel I have a limited but well developed understanding of y and how there is a God. And this belief is supported by other variables of my personal understanding and experiences. Currently the topic of God doesn't have an objective truth. So the only thing we can do is decide ourselves
yes but objective truth always trumps subjective truth, and the objective often times runs counter to what makes us feel better. this is why it is so important to be objective, because starting with a bias when asking a question about the nature of the universe, it is almost certain that your answer will be biased.
and still, how do you know which god? there are over 30000 known dead gods and a few thousand living.
i don't know. but that's what we're studying, and ignoring the work and filling that gap with "magic" or "god did it" does not solve anything. answering a question with an unfounded and baseless 'answer' is as good as never trying to actually find an answer.
Some scientist will say we will never be able to find out and prove what caused the universe. It's beyond our understanding. Speculation is as far as anyone can get right now. And my speculation is a limitless being. I suggest reading the book titled "Show Me God" by Fred Heeren. It includes interviews with Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, John Mather and others. Not a YEC book either. I encourage you to look it up.
I would agree with everything except for the claim that we answer to ourselves. I would say that we answer to EACH OTHER. My moral arbiter is my neighbor and peer. And that's all I or anyone need to appeal to.
That said, you can't really expect JF777 to do anything other than fail and project his moral anxieties onto nonbelievers. He cannot declare any reason to follow Magic Sky King's magic laws without appealing to his own self-preservation. In other words, total hypocrisy.
Christians always make me laugh with their morality argument. What they reveal is that THEY are only moral because they are either afraid of punishment or expecting reward. That isn't morality, its being a whore. The crime statistics show that christians commit felonies at a higher rate than atheists as well, so apparently the sky judge isn't working.
the bible tells its followers to have the mind of a child (i can't recall the exact book/chapter/verse though). i could argue that the bible wants its followers NOT to develop their adult mental capacities through educational excellence. this is how i would conclude that christian dogma encourages intellectual laziness and therefore mediocrity. christians already have their answers, they only have to read one book!
I just winced a bit when you said that morals come from within. Maybe it just silly of me to pick on it, since we both know that morals originates mostly from cultural conditioning.
A well... the moral descision is done inside based on said conditioning + persons individual mental state.
Yeah, I met people like that. They just want to be rebellious I guess. Might as well be a Satanist if that's your only reason. Most of the important rules are laws anyway, so they're going to obey them one way or the other. Or reap the consequences.
mediocrity has nothing in common with atheism. mediocrity has everything to do with ones competitive nature or talent. just because some1 believes in a god, that doesnt make them a nobel prize winner or a champion boxer. besides, if every1 was as ignorant as jezuzfreek, then he would just be mediocre instead of fucking retarded.
Hey can u check out my videos and leave comments on them to let me know what u think. Thanx so much for the support. If u like them go ahead and subscribe and add me as a friend ok... Preciate it!
Atheists not only have ourselves to answer to, we have other people. We answer to people stronger and more powerful - as well as collectives that exert power and strength in numbers. We may not answer to a god, but we sure as hell answer to that person in a black robe sitting on a bench. I guess christians need a god to tell them what to do, otherwise they would go out and rob police stations and rape bikers' wives.
Hell, I met some people that claimed they don't believe in god, and they were anti gay rights. Proclaiming they wanted to go to a gay rights parade with a machine gun..
But, dig deeper, he believes in REINCARNATION..
So, put simply, most homophobes I meet also have some other irrational belief about the universe. And most atheists I meet, don cre wat consenting adults do in their bedrom!
Why do i belive this is so? Theists use FEELINGS to dictate opinions, atheists are more logic based
Bro, your sick... people like you go on a killing spree... I think youre gay and hate blacks
Godlovesblacksonly 5 months ago
@Godlovesblacksonly Tha shows how unevolved you are.
Crosisborg 5 months ago
lol @ underwear gnomes
endthedisease 8 months ago
It's weird how Xtains think you can choose what to believe based on what you find most palatable, it really reveals a lot about how their minds work.
If you threatened a religious person with enough fire and brimstone, you could make them believe that the sky is green or that 1+1 = 3.
theperrenialsmartass 9 months ago
Now, if we could view the pie chart of our findings we would see that we do not have the much universal gnosis at all. So, based upon what you don't know, how can you claim to know that any God does not exist? Is it possible that God could exist outside the limits of your knowledge? - If you answered yes ..... welcome to agnosticism.
thecosmichippo 1 year ago
@thecosmichippo The possibility always exists, but without any kind of evidence, you have to come to an eventual conclusion. In my personal opinion, there is a possibility that god exists, but until I see any kind of evidence, I'm going with not believing. The same holds true for fairies, the Loch Ness Monster, the teapot orbiting Earth, and the monster that stares at you as you sleep.
Question for you: is there any evidence that will convince you that god doesn't exist?
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd What sort of proof are you looking for? Something you can see or touch? Something tangeable? By the sounds of things you are an agnostic; that, or you don't articulate well.
There is currently no scientific evidence that God does not exist .. As humans, we have had had many centuries to disprove God ~ but we haven't
thecosmichippo 1 year ago
@thecosmichippo Feel free to label me whatever you want. It's just a label. I still live my life as if there was no god.
As an open-minded person, I always leave open the possibility of unlikely things, including god. I can be convinced by evidence, and yes, something I can see or touch would work for me. How about you? You didn't answer my question about what evidence would convince you that god didn't exist.
Logic dictates that you CANNOT prove something doesn't exist (like fairies).
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd The label was only used to establish your actual position, you believe, don't believe, or believe in a possibility. There is nothing more to imply. There is no evidence that could convince me; there is enough evidence of an intelligent designer in our universe and biology, that even known atheists such as Antony Flew and Frank Tipler not only finally recognized the evidence but became proponents of theism soon after.
thecosmichippo 1 year ago
@thecosmichippo Well, then if there is no evidence that can convince you of the non-existence of god, then I'll just label you "closed-minded".
If you're going to argue semantics, my definition of "agnostic" is someone who doesn't have the balls to come to a conclusion either way.
I've come to the conclusion that there is no god. But if compelling evidence does show up, I'll be happy to change my position.
Famous atheists changing their minds does nothing to change my mind.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd You can label me whatever you like ~ it makes no difference to the discussion.
-If I'm going to argue semantics? You just took are of that for us ..
-Compelling evidence that you can see or touch .. let's be clear here.
Because the evidence within your own species isn't enough compelling evidence right? We are the only species of mammal that exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments.
- It was not intended to change your mind
thecosmichippo 1 year ago
@thecosmichippo Okay, see, touch, taste may be too limiting. I'll take something that is compelling evidence of god which can't be explained by natural reasons.
How does having consciousness, ability to appreciate art, and making moral judgments prove the existence of god? How do you know those things weren't given to us by the underwear gnomes?
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd ha .. maybe I was a little too deep for ya. Nevermind ..
Philosophical arguments like underwater gnomes are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.
thecosmichippo 1 year ago
@thecosmichippo Were you presenting "exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments" as evidence of the existence of god? If you were, I don't follow you. You made a leap of faith that those things come from god without eliminating other possibilities:
1). Those attributes could have evolved
2) All animals may have those attributes, but exhibit them in ways different from humans
3) God gave them to us
4) The underwear gnomes gave them to us
sleazybtd 1 year ago
lol .. Atheism is so funny. Lets explore something for a moment; Is atheism based solely on logic and knowledge? Yes? Oh really, let's find out. Are you an honest atheist? (for the sake of argument we will assume you said yes) Do you believe that God does not exist? (Yes, this is what you believe) What % of all information in the universe do you think mankind possesses? (Let's go with 0.0000001% fair?) Human knowledge that you personally possess? (0.00001% fair?) cont...
thecosmichippo 1 year ago
It's clear that Christians miss understand you. & it's clear you miss understand Christians.
It's also pretty foolish to judge Christians based on your experiences with some retarded Jesusfreak just as it's unwise to judge atheists based on some dimwitted atheist's rantings.
Why can't we all just get along?
If someone shows ignorance, don't respond with frustration, that keeps the argument & tension alive (and you're clearly tense).
Just ignore idiots and they go away.
You don't have to win
milkenobi 1 year ago
I doubt jezuzfreek would have the balls to debate anything face to face with this guy. New York/East-Coast accent alone would scare that little hick away.
lickthoseboobs 2 years ago
@2:30 - I do disagree with the point that if the Bible went away, Christians would go on a killing spree. To be honest, I do think that's a little radical. I do agree that it is more meaningful that we athiests do not rely on a book written by people thousands of years ago to tell us how to act, but to say that Christians would automatically go around killing people is quite a big leap. The overall quality of life may be much poorer, but I doubt mass murders would suddenly occur.
tinyartist18 2 years ago
@tinyartist18 To my understanding the bible teaches that humans are given a morale compass which is reasonable thinking.
I think it's just bat-shit crazy Christians that can't think for themselves and don't have a solid enough foundation to stand on their own two god given feet and use their own god given intelligence instead of being a dumb sheep.
That would explain why murder and stealing feels wrong to believers and non believers.
milkenobi 1 year ago
Personally, I am an athiest, and I think it means so much more than being religious. First, I do the right thing solely because I think it is right, rather than being frightened into it by a being who exists only because people needed an explanation for what they do not know. Also, I do much more community service than my Christian friends, and I'm sure that my morals are greater. Also, I do not hate people because "God says so."
tinyartist18 2 years ago
I believe that Morality is a natural thing for one reason, other animals do not kill other organism s of their own species, really I mean humanity kill organisms of their own species.
MrPuffyable 2 years ago
Crosisborg, AmazingAtheist and Thunderf00t for the win. :)
MrPuffyable 2 years ago
We "just know" what´s right and wrong from "within ourselves"? That´s a weak argument, for an atheist.
With all due respect, you should do a course of antropologhy, Crosisborg.
Or maybe just study plain history.
fedea82 2 years ago
You should know from right and wrong, by now. If you need a book to tell you, then you're a idiot.
MrPuffyable 2 years ago
Love your videos, love your arguments and love your voice. :-)
fimale2fimale 2 years ago 3
who the hell are you?????????????
jbooks888 2 years ago
A man with an opinion! Who the hell are you?????
snowmaiden8fldpth 2 years ago
LOL - i'm nobody, but i was talkin to the creator of the vid...
jbooks888 2 years ago
I know who you were talking to ... like i said hes a man with an opinion! And if your nobody then why bother????
snowmaiden8fldpth 2 years ago
Shit!!I like this guy...I'm subscribing.
grungefuck 2 years ago 4
MiiVersusReeseman888, that is a stupid comment. Athiests don't run you-tube, if they did why would they vote bot themselves and the like?
Also, censorship of anyone is wrong, that is why we get pissed off, as you should to. You spread yor own version of hate for attention, so plz stfu.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
fuck god
trainolove88 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I know you know there is a God. You wanna know how I know you know? It's because I know.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
that was the stupidest shit i've ever read.
elfmotat 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How can you say that because someone is Christian they can not know how an atheist thinks? Most Christians who are born again Christians were atheist prior to coming to Christ. I'm a prime example of this. So when I say I know how atheists think it is becasue I used to be one and surrounded myself with others of like mind.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
so because u were an atheist u know how every single other atheist in the world thinks? yeah, thats not egotistical...
dragonicmonkey7 2 years ago 2
no he is just trying to explain it. you dont have to be so sensetive.....
snowmaiden8fldpth 2 years ago
and you dont have to respond to some who isnt making a point to you.
dragonicmonkey7 2 years ago 2
Because they don't. That's like saying that a man can relate to the pains of child birth because they've seen someone go through it. It's bullshit.
Krauserowns 2 years ago
Atheists tend to live much less medicore lives than do theists IMO.
Think about it. An atheist believes he/she has ONE life to live. They try to make the best of it.
Theists believe there is an after life for them. They can't wait to die.
If I was religious I'd be counting down the days and trying to waste this life as fast as possible. But since I'm not it is the opposite, with every passing day I feel like I have less precious time to enjoy new things max life out.
Jabo007Celt 2 years ago 4
your understanding of theists is misguided
MylerM182 2 years ago
haha 5/5 dude!
LazyLonestar 2 years ago
I will Go Back to Inmendham you double Chinned lisp talkin douche bag Bitch!
inmendhamOwnsU 2 years ago
Funny how people without dried smegma in their ears do not hear any lisp on me.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
you can't even win a debate with yokeup ya loser!
inmendhamOwnsU 2 years ago
I have never debated yokeup so please go back and suck garys dick some more.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
I think JezuzFreak777's strawman caught fire.
mistahtom 2 years ago
Atheists get their right and wrong from within? Well, no. Society is a great influence on individuals, how your parents raised you, personal experiences, ect. Morals are developed from outside influences. You don't just develop morals from nothing.
MylerM182 2 years ago
These videos are fucking stupid.
Deedeeedeee I feel fuckin stupid for watchin this shit.
Goodsux 2 years ago
Just because it's nice to know we're not being judged doesn't mean that it's the primary reason we don't believe. Jezuzfreek777 doesn't understand. Some things just sound whimsical and impossible, because that most likely are. It's funny how Atheists have to even bring up the 'lack of evidence' card. Of course there's no evidence, it's all fairy tale faggot shit made by ignorant men.
joeltcola 2 years ago
The invisible and the non-existant look very much alike.
Maatt28 2 years ago
Those who claim to be members of organized religions are the LEAST moral or ethical people I know. They are the most hateful and egotistical as well as the most bigoted.
On the other hand, many of the kindess, generous, understanding and benevolent people I know are....atheists!
Go figure.
t4705mb6 2 years ago
t4705. and crosisborg here is definitely one those kind, generous, understanding people.
MylerM182 2 years ago
Fucken right!! :)
Anubis665 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
very good points, i love it when people who know nothing about us tell us what we think and know.
and on the other hand, i love that we're better at quoting the holy books than they are. :P
325982668 2 years ago
"i love that we're better at quoting the holy books than they are."
But what of your understanding of the books?
MylerM182 2 years ago
we're not biased is all. we're not starting our arguments from the standpoint of "assume X is true"
325982668 2 years ago
But you are biased. You assume the Bible is false and wrong. Give me an example of a supposed contradiction or "bad" bible verse and I can show you.
MylerM182 2 years ago
that's the default position. the burden of proof (ergo, proving that the bible is true and accurate an unaltered) lies with people who defend it. it's veracity hasn't been proven, so there's currently nothing to disprove.
for example, i propose that there is a dragon next to me. you would argue that there is in fact, not. you don't have to prove that there is no dragon, because my claim has no evidence backing it up.
provide evidence that your claims are correct, so i can refute them.
325982668 2 years ago
What kind of evidence would you expect to prove the bible?
MylerM182 2 years ago
historical evidence, which there is very little of. and besides, the canon isn't set up historically, it is essentially what became most popular before Constantine brought together the swarm of disagreeing bishops and asked them to just set something up (regardless of whether or not it was historical) to end the fighting and so-called heresy. i point this out just to make relevant the historical origin of the canon and there are gospels that were expelled too, like those of judas and thomas.
325982668 2 years ago
Historical evidence: geocities com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two html
What you said about the Canon doesn't disprove anything. It's rather irrelevant to the authenticity of the Bible itself.
MylerM182 2 years ago
it's just important to know that it wasn't compiled historically, but by popularity. but if you have evidence that it's accurate in any sense, i'd love to see it.
and yet, if all the events in the bible are accurate, does it prove that christ is god? does it prove that god exists? of course not, but realistically, how many books that old are actually accurate history? even history books from that period are essentially biographies, fueled by politics, and hardly accurate in any objective sense
325982668 2 years ago
Considering if all the events in the bible are accurate, including Christ's resurrection, it sure would suggest he isn't a normal human being. But i suppose it can never be proven. So you only have to either choose to believe it or not. Same with most recorded historical events of that time. Just be sure not to insult the intelligence of those that choose to believe it because there is no reason not to believe it.
MylerM182 2 years ago
you're correct that it would suggest he isn't normal, but it wouldn't be proof that he's the son of a divine being, let alone that that divine being created the universe and did other things attributed to it.
ah, there is no reason not to believe it, so you say. there's no reason not to believe that there's an invisible incorporeal super-intelligent unicorn in your bed either, right? what about the magic fish in your pants, or the talking gnome outside? no reason not to believe in them right?
325982668 2 years ago
I suppose I should have restated that to "there is reason to believe it." The unicorn, magic fish, and the talking gnome are all obviously things you picked out of nothing to compare to the beliefs of Christianity. However, the reasons for believing these things are virtually non-existent compared to the reasons for believing Christianity.
MylerM182 2 years ago
insane bullshit again. There is just as much evidence for unicorns and faeiries as there is any god.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
i didnt say evidence did i? i said REASON?
MylerM182 2 years ago
and yet you still have not provided any actual evidence, let alone reason for believing as christians do. do you have nay idea how many sailors have reported seeing sea monsters nd mermaids? or how many people report being abducted by UFOs? give me evidence, not anecdote.
325982668 2 years ago
wat would u take as evidence besides seeing god? and wat do mermaids and ufos have to do with gods existence?
MylerM182 2 years ago
that's the problem, theism has defined god into a supernatural corner. and that's why there's no reason to believe in it. just like there's no reason to believe in unicorns and fairies and demons and other things for which there is no evidence.
325982668 2 years ago
u do realize that whatever event that caused the big bang was a "supernatural" one.
MylerM182 2 years ago
bullshit, there is no accuracy in the bible
Crosisborg 2 years ago
care to give some examples of the supposed numerous inaccuracies?
MylerM182 2 years ago
I dont need to because you have already been shown them. They are all over YT and the internet. You make yourself look not only stupid but dishonest.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
i guess ill have to make a vid about the popular claimed inaccuracies. feel free to send me as many as u like to include in the vid.
MylerM182 2 years ago
that;s the power of cumulative science, i may not be able to provide these things off the top of my head, but you can look them up. look them up from objective sources, especially atheists, we seem to be really good at finding these things.
325982668 2 years ago
atheist sources are especially subjective wen on the subject of god.
MylerM182 2 years ago
if you go to the right sources, yes. antitheists may not be as gentle but we use the same methodology. the tv show "atheist experience" deals with your arguments very well, because we're not even so much as denying god as waiting for a point to be made for his existence.
325982668 2 years ago
the point that the universe and everything in it exists should be a decent suggestion that something supernatural exists
MylerM182 2 years ago
Thats the dumbest fucking shit anyone can say.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
Crosis can you explain to me how the singularity of the universe could have been infinitely hot?
MylerM182 2 years ago
what the hell? that's a complete non sequitur, what evidence or reason do you have to assume that the existence of the universe suggests that there is something that exists outside it? there's no logic in that statement...
325982668 2 years ago
so you think the big bang happened all out of nothing? is that logical?
MylerM182 2 years ago
i haven't said what the big bang happened due to, but it's neither logical nor purposeful to fill that gap with something magical. if you're filling the unknown with something else unknown, what have you really accomplished? you've simply pushed the gap back one degree.
i leave it up to people who actually study this sort of thing to make informed discoveries and form educated opinions on them.
325982668 2 years ago
What I was trying to get at is this: The universe could not have popped out of nothing. That's illogical. The only logical explanation is that something outside the universe was the cause. Since natural events only happen WITHIN our universe, then whatever happens outside our universe CAN be supernatural. Scientist say that the singularity of our universe was infinitely hot. Heat is a form of energy. So this singularity had infinite energy. Now what's the 1st Law of Themodynamics?
MylerM182 2 years ago
have you ever heard of string theory? supersymmetry? M theory? these are studies of the origins of the structure of the universe. none of these says the universe popped out of nothing, but then again, the rule of what the universe could and could not have done is irrelevant since we've only ever encountered a reality unique to this universe. perhaps outside or before, the same rules do not apply?
it is still pointless to use the word "supernatural" simply because the answer hasn't been found
325982668 2 years ago
These are all just theories. None of which have been proven to be the cause of the universe.
Why is using the word "supernatural" pointless? Is it nature for something to be able to hold infinite heat/energy?
MylerM182 2 years ago
you're correct in that they have not been proven. but there is evidence for them, and that is certainly better than alternative. they may not have known the age of the earth 100 years ago, but working towards it and accumulating evidence are always the solutions with far more merit than hindering our study to say "it was magical."
now i'm not sure what you mean by infinitely hot, but it would depend on whether or not the universe is a closed system or not. if not, then yes, it can hold it.
325982668 2 years ago
I'm not saying it's "magical", only supernatural. Meaning it does not follow the rules of our natural universe.
What I meant is how can an infinite heat/energy source be natural? Does that not go against the 1st law of thermodynamics? gtg for now. Peace.
MylerM182 2 years ago
i'm really in no position to argue this but i'll try and think about this.
the big bang is a rapid expansion of space time which brought about the structure of the universe as we see it today. prevailing theory tells us that the expansion of this singularity could include the settling of the cosmic constants, which would lead me to think that before these constants became fixed, things like high and low temperatures were irrelevant. it could as easily have been infinitely small.
325982668 2 years ago
and things like infinitely high temperatures or size are supernatural aspects, are they not?
MylerM182 2 years ago
not necessarily, for a singularity? you'd have to ask somebody who actually knows a bit more about them. all i know is that before the cosmic constants became set, things like heat and size were irrelevant and arbitrary since they are relative to nothing, ie there is nothing bigger than the universe because size is a property of only the universe, so whatever preceded it wouldn't be required to follow the same "laws" as they didn't exist yet.
325982668 2 years ago
which is exactly what i mean. whatever was before the universe was supernatural since it wasn't required to follow the natural laws established in our universe. do u understand what im getting at?
MylerM182 2 years ago
i understand what you think you're saying but you're comparing nature and non-nature in a time before time and nature even existed, it wasn't supernatural because there was nothing to compare it to, it wasn't above nature because there was nothing to be above, anything before this was far beyond the mundanely supernatural, it was prenatural, and that's not even a word
325982668 2 years ago
im comparing the "prenatural" with the natural. the time in between is irrelevant. the point is that the existence of the prenatural, supernatural, unnatural, or "magic" is completely plausible beyond our natural universe. we humans r very ignorant beyond our universe. instead of speculating about the impossible we should speculate about the possible.
MylerM182 2 years ago
alright, so i'll agree that it's possible there is more. and yet, where does that take us? of all the possible things real or otherwise, only a select few possibilities have come to fruition, so what do we really gain by speculating on the possible? shouldn't we focus more on the plausible? the predictable? things that are not so questionable in their reality?
325982668 2 years ago
reality in our physical world is nothing but electrical signals interpreted by our brain. i speculate there are other realms of reality. but my main question to all this is if you can agree with me that these ideas are indeed possible and maybe plausible, then shouldnt god be a very good possibility as well?
MylerM182 2 years ago
of course it's possible, i'll never say it's not possible nor should anyone, but by the same leaf, anything is possible, including infinite fish of many colors singing merry had a little lamb. but we're contained here, in this reality, and there does not seem to be any way out, so what's the point on speculating on the color of something that doesn't exist, let alone the will and desires of something that is possible, but not part of this reality?
325982668 2 years ago
the difference between god and the fish is this: god is the creator of our reality and he has made contact with our reality and promised to save us from perishment and into a different better reality. the fish on the other hand are just fish.
MylerM182 2 years ago
right, except you simply believe that about the supernatural, ergo unknowable, without any reason to,or even justification for why that particular insight into the supernatural is any more valid than all the other supposed insights or revelations.
325982668 2 years ago
What other supposed insights or revelations are you referring to and why should they matter in my speculations? There simply is no way to prove to you that my speculations and beliefs are correct. These are mere speculations and just things to think about. It is up to you to decide if these ideas are truthful. Truth, after all, is a matter of opinion and relevance. ; )
MylerM182 2 years ago
No, truth is NOT a matter of opinion. Truth is a set of facts which have been proven and verified. God is not a truth, god is merely an opinion.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
I was merely quoting a statement made by the person I'm having this discussion with which is posted on his channel. But since were on this topic, do you think something that exists but is unknown to be a fact still can be a truth? If not, why?
MylerM182 2 years ago
No. Truth is a set of facts. If it is unknown to be a fact then it can not be truth. It has the potential to be truth but can not be truth until proven to be fact.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
I guess it's one of those "a tree falls but no one's around to hear it" type of subject.
MylerM182 2 years ago
@Crosisborg You need to come back to earth man .. there is (currently) no scientifically verifiable evidence to support either side of the God question, both theism and atheism have to be called beliefs. Just as theism is a belief that there is a God, atheism is the belief that there isn't. Atheism, therefore, is not immune to the criticisms that other belief systems might draw. Your arrogance is disgusting ..
thecosmichippo 1 year ago
i'll give you that god is possible, but now you have to show me how you get from the possible to a god that cares and does things and intervenes.
325982668 2 years ago
I believe the creator of a the universe is a God that cares. The story of Christ is a good example of a caring God. But of course, I'm not sure how this story can be proven as a truth to you, if indeed you would required proof to believe it, in which case I ask you, what kind of proof would you take? I believe it to be true from personal experiences, revelations, and convictions. So I ask you, is it bad to have a little bit of faith and step into the unknown to find out for yourself?
MylerM182 2 years ago
but what you believe and what you can demonstrate are two very different things. if everybody in the world died tomorrow, your beliefs would be gone, but the facts would still remain, and to an outside observer, your beliefs would be no more valid than any of the other stories that fill our fiction sections.
be wary of arguments from personal experience, we know how easily our senses are fooled and how unreliable they are for discerning truth.
325982668 2 years ago
I'm not trying to argue from my personal experiences. That's why I asked about finding out for yourself and let you decide what is truthful.
MylerM182 2 years ago
even if i experienced something, my logical mind would not immediately decide that i had witnessed something magical, but I would have to consider whether or not i could be mistaken. the mind sees what it wants to see, which is why i bring up again reports of mermaids and sea monsters. it is not right to argue that a mermaid probably exists because i think i saw one, i must justify the belief with actual evidence.
325982668 2 years ago
you dont need evidence to justify your experience. you alone should be able to determine the truthfulness of your experience. do u need evidence to believe that you are even having this conversation with me?
MylerM182 2 years ago
i could be imagining it. the evidence is that regardless of what i think, the experiment (ergo testing the hypothesis that we're having this conversation) can be done: anyone can look on this video and see it, i can check back and see if it happened (repeatable experiment) and i can check with other people to see if they confirm my hypothesis.
325982668 2 years ago
agreed. im not saying u shouldnt be skeptical of certain kinds of experiences. i being a christian am against rituals such as "slain in the spirit". actually, the reason why im against it is a rather "god experience" in itself. i cant really explain to u about a true christian experience. C S Lewis described it as not an emotional one, "it was more like when a man, after long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake." and i couldn't agree more.
MylerM182 2 years ago
all experiences must be held against the fire of skepticism. we can trust little daily things because of how often we experience them, they have stood the test of evidence. miraculous things, things that are not common should be tested however, and especially when it is something appealing to you. the chances of being under a misapprehension, are always greater when it's something you would want to happen. the mind sees what it wants to see.
325982668 2 years ago
just a question. what do u think a "christian experience" is?
MylerM182 2 years ago
i wouldn't call anything a christian experience, because typical religious experiences are amorphous and can apply to whatever religion is particularly dominant in that region, ie a 'christian' experience is a 'muslim' experience in Saudi Arabia or a buddhist enlightening on predominantly buddhist regions. i think the misapprehensions we often experience but cannot be identified are easy to slap a label on, because we're pattern-seeking animals, like a paranormal expert always 'senses ghosts'
325982668 2 years ago
according to muslims and budhists they can't have experiences like the christians. muslims do not believe in an actual relationship with god and budhists are atheists. so neither of these can have the type of experience im referring to.
MylerM182 2 years ago
well you actually just answered your question, if that's what you would call a christian experience, I don't think there's grounds for such things. I don't think there's grounds for a personal god in any sense for that matter, it's just supremely arrogant. I don't like the idea of a being that seems to require and feed off of human thoughts for it's pleasure. it just seems a little ridiculous. honestly, if you had never encountered the idea before, wouldn't it seem strange on first hearing?
325982668 2 years ago
i don't understand how a personal god is an arrogant thought. i see it as a humbling one. the creator of the universe loves us enough to die for us so that we may be with him for eternity even though we dont deserve it. i admit this may be taken as arrogance in the wrong state of mind but to me it a sense of extreme gratitude. but the sense of this is not the experience im referring to. its experiences of revealations but im not sure if u can understand what i mean.
MylerM182 2 years ago
Its arrogant to think that you are somehow important enough for anyone to even know you exist outside your own circle much less some supernatural being. Your delusions about god are laughable at best, pathetic at least. I genuinely feel sorry for people like you who go through thier lives having faith on the nonexistent.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
crosis what is with u? you seem to be just randomly jumping into our conversation with some kind of pathetic attempt to demoralize me. arrogance is an overbearence of pride. i take no pride in a relationship with god. do u think its arrogant of ur daughter to have a relationship with u?
MylerM182 2 years ago
right. the thing that can do all this loves you, personally. I understand the issue though, you've had the concept of love disseminated, because love is not universal, love is not to be given to everybody. if it does, it has no value. if we're all special, nobody is special, to say it a little bluntly.
no i understand what you mean by revelations, but you must understand, the arrogance is inherent there as well, to think that you have received special knowledge, denied to everybody else?
325982668 2 years ago
what better way to show love than to die for someone? why cant u show love to everyone? whats wrong with unconditional love? there are different kinds of it.
denied not to everyone else but to some for reasons not related to arrogance. i take no pride in these things. therefore its not arrogance. i believe this claim of arrogance that many use is just another reason to label us as wrong or evil. what makes arrogance bad anyway? i thought self-importance and pride was good in the secular world.
MylerM182 2 years ago
because love is not universal, by definition, it cannot be given to everybody, nor does everybody deserve love. unconditional love does not leave room for unnecessary cruelty either. a father who abuses his child endlessly is without love, period.
you do not have to recognise arrogance to possess it, and it's not a detriment to your character beyond believing that you have a privileged place/purpose in the universe, when your presence, and passing from it affects next to nothing.
325982668 2 years ago
unconditional love is not given to the deserved. for instance say your neighbor is a complete prick to u but one day u see him struggling to carry in groceries and u decide to help him. now wats wrong with what u did?
consider i didnt exist. how many things do u think would change around the people around me? my daughter would not have been born. my sister might have choked to death. and so on. i still dont understand how believing these things is arrogant.
MylerM182 2 years ago
it's just the assumption that your life has purpose or value, greater than the crude matter you are composed of. you exist as nothing but a brief spark of intellect that burns out within a century.
and with the neighbour analogy, who is god? the prick, or you? because if my neighbour caused all the suffering in the world and created me for the purpose of testing my willingness to have blind faith in his omnipotence, and then threatened everyone in the world for all eternity... fuck him.
325982668 2 years ago
so are you saying that our lifes are worthless? just a biological accident? im sorry but i think believing in a purpose and value in life is much better than believing life holds no value.
and i think u read into my neighbor analogy too much. i wasnt trying to compare god in it. just showing how unconditional love is a good thing.
MylerM182 2 years ago
it should be a humbling realisation, that the matter you are composed of is mostly water, some potassium, carbon, a lot of sugar, and hardly anything else. this does not mean we are worthless, but it has the effect of grounding us in reality. nobody should need to think they are special or important to be happy, nobody should need to think they have a preordained purpose to value their own life.
325982668 2 years ago
yes our bodies are made up of basic elements. but i dont think what my body is made up of when i think of myself. a computer is made up of metal glass and silicone. but is that wat u think of wen you put a price tag on it?
happiness is gained by different methods but its not all happy fun and games being a christian. my faith gets "tested" every now and then. why do u bring up happiness?
MylerM182 2 years ago
happiness is in many people's opinion's directly proportional to their self-worth. it's an argument from theists that needs to be discarded along with the other refuse, as no atheist is depressed or unhappy that they don't feel their life has an intrinsic supernatural value.
what are some ways that your faith gets tested?
325982668 2 years ago
well of course no atheist is unhappy for being an atheist. otherwise they wouldnt be an atheist. i never really made the argument that happiness is only gained in theism.
there has been several occurences that made me question my faith. but every time i sought after an answer i got one.
MylerM182 2 years ago
no i know you didn't and it's refreshing to not hear it. but a faith or the lack thereof should not be based on how it makes you feel. objective truth should always be the goal, not happiness. the greatest happiness, in my opinion, comes from being the most aware, and the most in touch with reality that one can be.
325982668 2 years ago
But in this topic how do we define the objective truth? How do we really know if there is a God or not? We make a decision based on what we FEEL is correct using reason and understanding. I believe in God because I feel I have a limited but well developed understanding of y and how there is a God. And this belief is supported by other variables of my personal understanding and experiences. Currently the topic of God doesn't have an objective truth. So the only thing we can do is decide ourselves
MylerM182 2 years ago
yes but objective truth always trumps subjective truth, and the objective often times runs counter to what makes us feel better. this is why it is so important to be objective, because starting with a bias when asking a question about the nature of the universe, it is almost certain that your answer will be biased.
and still, how do you know which god? there are over 30000 known dead gods and a few thousand living.
325982668 2 years ago
doesnt it make u feel better believing there is no god and doing whatever u want as long as it doesnt "hurt others"?
its a personal conviction that is impossible to explain to u.
MylerM182 2 years ago
(cont) wat created the singularity?
MylerM182 2 years ago
i don't know. but that's what we're studying, and ignoring the work and filling that gap with "magic" or "god did it" does not solve anything. answering a question with an unfounded and baseless 'answer' is as good as never trying to actually find an answer.
325982668 2 years ago
Some scientist will say we will never be able to find out and prove what caused the universe. It's beyond our understanding. Speculation is as far as anyone can get right now. And my speculation is a limitless being. I suggest reading the book titled "Show Me God" by Fred Heeren. It includes interviews with Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, John Mather and others. Not a YEC book either. I encourage you to look it up.
MylerM182 2 years ago
very good points, i love it when people who know nothing about us tell us what we think and know.
and on the other hand, i love that we're better at quoting the holy books than they are. :P
325982668 2 years ago
LMAo at 2:41
2012Ascenscion 2 years ago
this is no time for class envy, George. You keep working hard at that G.E.D. and you could make the big bucks too!
Sarahon06 2 years ago
What an argument you've just put forth, GBS7.
patrickallain 2 years ago
I would agree with everything except for the claim that we answer to ourselves. I would say that we answer to EACH OTHER. My moral arbiter is my neighbor and peer. And that's all I or anyone need to appeal to.
That said, you can't really expect JF777 to do anything other than fail and project his moral anxieties onto nonbelievers. He cannot declare any reason to follow Magic Sky King's magic laws without appealing to his own self-preservation. In other words, total hypocrisy.
Neilsama 2 years ago
Good video!
AnarchyTelevision198 2 years ago
You believe in yourself. You will die.
Tiredofcrap 2 years ago
Sky Pixie! Funny.
jimandrocky 2 years ago
yup atheist dont try hard enough stupid bill gates if he were a christian he would try harder to make windows better
laxguy22655 2 years ago
Good video. His position is untenable.
God exists...he exists in the minds of those who believe in him.
JoesRambles 2 years ago
Christians always make me laugh with their morality argument. What they reveal is that THEY are only moral because they are either afraid of punishment or expecting reward. That isn't morality, its being a whore. The crime statistics show that christians commit felonies at a higher rate than atheists as well, so apparently the sky judge isn't working.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 2 years ago
the bible tells its followers to have the mind of a child (i can't recall the exact book/chapter/verse though). i could argue that the bible wants its followers NOT to develop their adult mental capacities through educational excellence. this is how i would conclude that christian dogma encourages intellectual laziness and therefore mediocrity. christians already have their answers, they only have to read one book!
osiris2669 2 years ago
Yes yes and hell yes! agree 99% with you crosis!
I just winced a bit when you said that morals come from within. Maybe it just silly of me to pick on it, since we both know that morals originates mostly from cultural conditioning.
A well... the moral descision is done inside based on said conditioning + persons individual mental state.
(just my simplified view)
Paxmax 2 years ago
damn right....
JF has just taken the lead for this month's Dodo award!
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Valid points. 5 Stars!
lindsaylou04 2 years ago
That's an ad progenym. shame on you.
hyoidbone54 2 years ago
And the irony is his daughter got mostly M's (Meeting the grade standard) and only one E - Exceeding grade standard) - talk about mediocre.
midas41 2 years ago
The PWNAGE OLYMPICS come to mind at the very end :p
geragna 2 years ago
We have told JF777 why we are atheists for over 2 years, and the idiot still can't figure it out.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
i guess when christians act like they know what we (atheist) are thinking..
I assume they don't mean ALL of us.. just *some* that fit that criteria..
I have met some people who claim to not believe in god because they don't want to obey by it's rules..
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
Yeah, I met people like that. They just want to be rebellious I guess. Might as well be a Satanist if that's your only reason. Most of the important rules are laws anyway, so they're going to obey them one way or the other. Or reap the consequences.
FullOfFail 2 years ago
mediocrity has nothing in common with atheism. mediocrity has everything to do with ones competitive nature or talent. just because some1 believes in a god, that doesnt make them a nobel prize winner or a champion boxer. besides, if every1 was as ignorant as jezuzfreek, then he would just be mediocre instead of fucking retarded.
shehenazi 2 years ago
Well said, sir. Well said.
juliamour 2 years ago
Excellent response to an incredibly stupid video.
DrOman5596 2 years ago
Hey can u check out my videos and leave comments on them to let me know what u think. Thanx so much for the support. If u like them go ahead and subscribe and add me as a friend ok... Preciate it!
JovonJenks 2 years ago
<333333333
SadieXKei 2 years ago
Atheists not only have ourselves to answer to, we have other people. We answer to people stronger and more powerful - as well as collectives that exert power and strength in numbers. We may not answer to a god, but we sure as hell answer to that person in a black robe sitting on a bench. I guess christians need a god to tell them what to do, otherwise they would go out and rob police stations and rape bikers' wives.
Afod3 2 years ago
JF is a dumbass and I was tempted on having an article written about him on our website.
Nice vid.
SomethingAwfulYT 2 years ago
I haven't visited your site in a while!
My bro use to frequent your site a lot..
HIs name on there is mynameisdoug..
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
One thing is for certain in my mind:
Atheists aren't better than theists.
Barklord 2 years ago
and theists aren't better than atheists.
SomethingAwfulYT 2 years ago
yeeehaw!
Barklord 2 years ago
Hmm.. I guess some atheists are better then some theists, and some theists are better then some atheists..
HOWEVER, Find someone picketing against gay marriage that is an atheist.Find an atheist that doesn't want wiccan knecklaces in schools..
It usually takes a THEIST to deny the rights of their fellow human beings..
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
Hell, I met some people that claimed they don't believe in god, and they were anti gay rights. Proclaiming they wanted to go to a gay rights parade with a machine gun..
But, dig deeper, he believes in REINCARNATION..
So, put simply, most homophobes I meet also have some other irrational belief about the universe. And most atheists I meet, don cre wat consenting adults do in their bedrom!
Why do i belive this is so? Theists use FEELINGS to dictate opinions, atheists are more logic based
thefakeyeti 2 years ago