I would take your origins argument even further. Why not argue that Santa created the universe? Since there is no evidence that "God" (whatever that means) created the universe (and what reliable evidence could there be, except for personal testimony), you could equally argue that Santa created everything.
All this video does is prove that the qualities of God were mirrored and mocked into a fictionalized character. Lets look at your 1st point. 1) everything has a cause leading back to God. Your argument is "every present leads to Santa".. but does it? There are things science can't explain such as the CAUSE of the Big Bang. This is TRUE. Yet we can use logic to determine that our parents give us gifts. The evidence would be the recepts and lack of expensive items. All your points have BIG flaws.
I don't disagree with the message, but the condescending tone made me hate this video. At least religion understands it's not always about the claims you make, sometimes it's about how you present them.
@glavin69 The message of this video isn't as condescending as the message of religion: "do what we say or you will be punished for eternity." Religion makes factual claims that are false. That's the end of it.
@glavin69 its all about the truth. you would seriously rather have a candy coated bullshit message than a blunt message that is actually true? i cant imagine wanting that.
Watch case for the creator. You. Can't be an atheist after seeing that. I'm not talking to you anymore. And by the way, by giving me crappy evidence and your so called "facts" you've actually strengthened my relationship with God. Thank you. Now I know your going to respond by throwing a bunch of swears around and giving me "evidence" but just know I appreciate it. I care about you and want to see you in heaven. I'll be praying for you. Don't be so stubborn with atheism. It's not that hard to b
@Yummytacos17 Enjoy your friendship with your invisible best friend. I really don't care whether you believe in him or not; it is not the job of an atheist to proselytize. We simply present the case for atheism and explain why the evidence you bring for god's existence is not convincing. Case for the creator sucks, I have seen it. I'm still an atheist. Pray for me all you want, lol. You're talking to yourself.
Many people think that was an act of the disciples, but science also proves that they didn't have the time, resources, energy, or means. The tomb was guarded by many Roman soldiers, heavily armed and well trained. The people didn't have an army or militia. Scientific record proves this. After the news got out, coming from even skeptics and non believers, there was a huge outbreak in the church, and there was a giant expansion. Many non believers and skeptics saw, touched, heard, and felt and ta
@Yummytacos17 "Science proved the disciples didnt move the body" what a load of fucking garbage. Cite any evidence whatsoever on the scientific experiments conducted on any of these claims. You are just making a bunch of shit up. "Scientific record proves this" you're just throwing the word "science" around and failing miserably. You're like a fucking ten year old.
@Yummytacos17 "Science proved the disciples didnt move the body" what a load of fucking garbage. Cite any evidence whatsoever on the scientific experiments conducted on any of these claims. You are just making a bunch of shit up. "Scientific record proves this" you're just throwing the word "science" around and failing miserably. You're like a fucking ten year old.
There is irrefutable reliable sources, such as modern medical records that say Jesus died on the cross. He was clearly put into the tomb, says over 515 witnesses including skeptics. That's completely true. Science has proved that. And the body was gone and the tombstone rolled away. Many peo
@Yummytacos17 There isn't "proof" that he died on the cross, or that he even existed. There are few accounts of his life outside of the bible, if any. And over 10,000 people saw Muhammad fly to Heaven on a winged horse, so I guess that must be true too!
What do you get from being an atheist? I get hope, love, happiness, purpose. Whats your purpose? You dont have one without God.because you'll just live, then die. That's it. You'll go to hell. Even if you dedicate your life to helping starving children or something, they'll just die and go to he'll too without God. So what's your purpose in life?
Love, happiness and purpose are not things that only come from religion. From being an atheist I am free of the dogmatic ignorance, violence, and evil of religion and the mentally crippling belief in an anthropomorphic god. I am extremely happy, and most atheists are. Most atheists in fact were less happy when they were religious. Humans have no objective purpose; we create our own purpose. Mine is to do well in college and be a professor. To find true love, and to honor others. My purpose rocks
The speed of gravity is 32.2 feet per second. Where did the first energy come from? Couldn't have came from something other than God because there wasnt any universe or energy besides him to begin with.
@Yummytacos17 You're thinking of terminal velocity. The "speed of gravity" is a difference in wavelengths of certain energy waves when acted upon by gravity. There is no set speed because gravity is proportional to mass and all objects have different masses.
I have already dismissed your First Cause argument. You are making an argumentum ad ignorantium based on our lack of understanding of physics prior to the big bang. you are asserting your conclusion as part of your premise also. Lol.
@Yummytacos17 You're thinking of terminal velocity. The "speed of gravity" is a difference in wavelengths of certain energy waves when acted upon by gravity. There is no set speed because gravity is proportional to mass and all objects have different masses.
I have already dismissed your First Cause argument. You are making an argumentum ad ignorantium based on our lack of understanding of physics prior to the big bang. you are asserting your conclusion as part of your premise also. Lol.
There are over 200 factors that make life just sustainable on earth. Like the speed of gravity. And the distance from the sun. The chances of that are if you stretch a ruler out 1,000,000,000,000 miles, you hit the exact inch so that life is sustainable.
@Yummytacos17 You made an Infinite Regress argument and now you're making a HORRIBLE teleological argument. LOL at "the speed of gravity", there is no such thing, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Any planet within the Goldilocks Zone of the star it orbits can harbor life; we've found fossilized nanobacteria on Mars because of this rule. And your whole ruler claim is just a load of shit, cite your sources.
The rule of conservation of energy says that energy has to come from somewhere. Think about all the energy In the universe. In you, me, and the sun, and Earth. Where did that come from. If you like to use science and logic so much, why don't you answer? Your answer could be, it came from the big bang! Where did that spontaneous energy come from?
@Yummytacos17 If you actually knew anything about science, you'd know that the law of conservation of energy and all laws of physics apply to only our present universe. Einstein knew this, and invented Special Relativity to explain some of the behaviors of physics in the early universe. Dr. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have a lot to say about where energy comes from in the early universe, and they have demonstrated that god isn't necessary.
Guy, please tell me this is satirical. Please? Because I really don't want to use one simple question to effectively disprove your causality argument.
@atheistjacob Can you seriously not detect the sarcasm dripping from this video? do you actually think I mean to prove the existence of Santa? the point of this video is to illuminate the inanities of religious arguments by analogizing them with a widely-acknowledged fictional character.
@BlueSpirals The difficulty came because I know people who would try to use the same arguments. Also, I put the comment before I watched the entire video because I was in such a state of shock that causality was mentioned that I quite forgot that there was more video. I apologize for that. But otherwise, it was a great video.
"I caught a glimpse of God weeping. I asked Him why He was sad, He answered,
'Hell was created for satan alone, but one by one, others followed along. It is sad to see the place i build for you so empty, while hell is filled with so many people.' "
There was a Santa. He was a 4th century Bishop who often gave gifts anonymously. His relics still exist intact (unusual) & they exude oil that smells of rosewater which are said to have miraculous healing effects. The "modern" Santa still resembles something of the Original, St Nicholas;he wears a red suit like a Bishop, has a beard like St Nicholas did & candy canes represent the Bishop's crozier. So there's that. Just thought I'd put in my two pennies. Have a good one.
@sparkybigp Don't worry, I'll see you there. According to your own laws, if you judge others, you'll be judged just as harshly. It's okay, I'll share some of the weed and other goodies with you if you apologize when we're there...oh wait, hell isn't real, lol.
@sparkybigp Well, YOU SUCK. Santa is more awesome than god. Santa hasn't killed anyone, nor does he deliver a terrible horrible punishment for eternity for not believing in him. Santa gives you coal if you do bad, but god will make you suffer for eternity (A VERY LONG FUCKING TIME) if you say or think "nah, god isn't real". In one breath, you bible thumpers say god loves us. Then why not fucking PROVE HIMSELF when asked? I've asked, I've tested, I've waited and gotten NADA. That means nothing.
FUCK YEAH! I KNEW SANTA WAS REAL! I KNEW that Santa I saw at the San Jose Airport was the real deal! FUCK YEAH! no, but seriously, if Santa was real, I would have believed the guy I saw at SJC was the real deal. He was everything Santa should be! Awesome, tall, PERFECT looking, PERFECT sounding, and he even complimented me :D I love Santa. Now, if Buddy Jesus would have a lap and would do the "cowabunga" finger/hand thing with me during picture time, I'd be a little more believing. :P
the sarcasm is really bad! It just goes to show how badly brainwashed atheist have become! "anonymous gifts means it was santa?" JEJE.....Of course science would be able to find who the cause of the gift was simply by matching the finger prints, but if all evidence of tracibility was washed away and science could not find the exact cause we still know who the cause is!! a human being of course! regardless of physcial evidence, we can identify causes from other sources!
@vipsamsam Brainwashed by who? We don't have pastors and holy books. Sarcasm also is not any indicator of brainwashing. You are correct that even if we don't know who gave the gift, it probably wasnt santa. And you can extrapolate that analogy for yourself- Even if we dont know the source of the universe, it still probably wasnt a god.
"Even if we dont know the source of the universe, it still probably wasnt a god."
.
This goes back to your example of the anonymous gift.....science may never find out who the cause of the gift was, but would you deny the existance of the cause itself? of course not. Similarly its possible the indentification of who God is is wrong, but in no way does this imply the non existance of God.
@vipsamsam There is no reason to believe that any gods exist. We have zero evidence suggesting there may have been a creator. There is a cause for the universe's existence, it's called gravity, and Stephen Hawking explains it rather simply in his new book, The Grand Design. Stating that god must have created the universe if we can't explain it otherwise is an argument from ignorance.
continue..........and so just like we dont know exactly the indentity of the cause of the anonymous gift, we do know it was a person, but why or how do we know this? Because there is only one possible knowledge of a gift being given to another person is that would be other people. Similarly we know of only one possible cause that creates complex functional systems and that is personal minds....and so God would be a personal mind being able to create complex functional systems.
@vipsamsam There is no evidence to prove that god exists, or creates complex functional systems. Mammals give gifts to each other, but that does not mean they invent them. Your argument that 'complex things must be designed' is a teleological argument that has been refuted over and over. Wikipedia it. Looking at something, calling it complicated, and then saying "something must have created it" does not prove god exists.
Well I think you just completely ignore your own previous comment!!! We dont need scientific evidence(physical evidence) to Know something to be real or true....But now your write "There is no evidence to prove that god exists"......? Now I never said complex structures are not possible with random energy + time being in play.....What I said only personal minds are capable of designing "Complex Functional systems" and have no knowledge of any other source being capable of this!
@vipsamsam Your argument is no different from what you claim you "didnt" say. Complexity is not evidence of design. If you are talking about the cosmos, the 'complexity' of galaxies and stars is merely the result of gravity. If you're talking about biology, complexity is developed over time through evolution. We do need scientific evidence to know that something exists in a physical way. If god is nonphysical, then what makes him any different from a thought or a dream?
OK we are not going to get anywhere unless you study a bit more, if you dont understand the difference between complex structures and complex FUNCTIONAL systems, its like talking about the trigonometric function of a sine to someone who has no knowledge of what that means. You need gain a bit more knowledge. Well anyway take care.....
@vipsamsam I googled complex structures and complex functional systems and found no definition or differentiation. Why dont you go ahead and give me an example of a complex functional system (I assume you're talking strictly about biological life) and then tell me its specific function. I know trigonometry well, so we can discuss that too.
Lol, u r not an athiest. U have to really believe in somebody to hate them soooo much. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I also don't make a utube channel to cry about it. I think ur videos r funny, but i don't think athiests should watch them.
@qstroud I never said I hated god. I don't believe in him. Although it's probably safe to say that I hate some major parts of most major religions. Nobody kills people in the name of the tooth fairy. If they did, I'd spend all my time making videos about how she isnt real. People kill in the name of god. So i spend my time trying to convince people not to do that.
Christians push God all the time because they beleive that it will save people. Something that will help them get through life and the promise of heaven after death. They believe that you'll got to hell if you live a life of sin. Telling someone does not help anyone. If christians are wrong after death we will all exist in nothingness but if atheist are wrong ...........................................
@greenblue49 Cute, trying to use Pascal's Wager on an adult. Your gamble says a LOT about why you're religious- the fear of hell. If I can see through that bullshit, you better believe god can too if he exists.
"Cute, trying to use Pascal's Wager on an adult. Your gamble says a LOT about why you're religious- the fear of hell. If I can see through that bullshit, you better believe god can too if he exists"
The fear of hell is not why I'm religious. I would have to believe in God first before I would believe in the possibility of hell. Think about it! But all I'm saying is if you think about it purely from a Better safe than sorry view, wouldn't you be better off believing?
@greenblue49 You cannot choose to believe in something or stop believing in something else. I do not believe in hell and I cannot force myself to believe in it enough to start paying homage to some deity. You dont have to believe in god before hell, you can be convinced of them simultaneously, as the catholic missionaries did when they went on conversion rampages across the world.
One thing that I don't understand about atheist is their need to continually make videos, write article, or just talk about how God does not exist. I'm not talking about the jokes because some of them are funny. Nor am I talking about a coverstation with a person who may be curious or agree with their non-beliefs. I don't get why one would make video after video about something they don't believe in. You could point out the fact that 'christians' do the same thing. But essentially it's not....
@greenblue49 Because all belief systems and all claims should face scientific scrutiny at all times. I am here to do that. The topic of god is extremely relevant in all cultures; it's kind of sad that you have a hard time understanding why all sides share their opinions rather than just one.
@BlueSpirals I understand but it just seems like you hate for people to believe in God and I just don't get it. Because of your videos I understand why you don't but I'm wondering if you are trying to convince others and why.
@greenblue49 Nowhere in this video did I say I hate people for believing in god, so that's just a really poor inference you're making. I am trying to convince other people that religion is not the only source of principle, and if it were, it is still terrible.
@BlueSpirals That you are even trying to appeal to a moral argument is entirely fascinating because, by its very nature, the belief system you espouse derives no objective basis by which any objective moral judgement about the rightness or wrongness of believing x, or of doing y, can be made. In the Universe you believe in - one randomly thrown out into the fabric of time and space, going nowhere, meaning nothing - words like "principle" are entirely empty and relativistic.
@QuisSeperabit60 Obviously, morals do not need to be objective to exist, pity for you. What "moral argument" am I making, by the way? There are absolutely none in this video. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I do agree with you that morality is relativistic, however your claim that I believe in a "random, going nowhere" universe is a straw man fallacy, something you should be familiar with since you seem to have a rudimentary understanding of logic.
again with argument three, santa sits in the mall but we know he doesnt give us presnts at christmas because of proof, money, receipts etc. we don't have currency, or printed evidence to prove a personal experince with jesus. you have made comparisons to the smallest possible similarities. in atheist court is someone SAYING there was or was not a fire be compared to a burn or physical change shown by someone else. no it cant
@tdiquattro You keep pointing out the fact that the santa claus arguments are fallacious, and I'm telling you that this is exactly the point of the video. The arguments for god and santa are exactly analogous. Even if Santa did not physically give the gifts, he compelled the people to give them through magic and christmas cheer. What evidence do you have that he did not? zero.
I´m not assuming anything - how did you get the idea I was assuming that? Stop assuming. Im saying there is physical evidence that santa did not send the gift, there is no physical evidence that god did anything and therefore you can´t compare the two. I do not believe in god, but I find your arguments very simplistic.
The prancers wager argument is not valid either because again we have physical evidence that santa does not play a role in giving presents.
@tdiquattro I agree there is evidence that santa didnt send the gift, just like there is physical evidence that god did not create the universe- at least not by any account in any holy script. I also agree that there is zero evidence to support the existence or intervention of god.
this first cause argument can't be paralleled to something understandably false, because tracing things back, we have nothing understandably false as 'jimtheguitarfreak' has said
@tdiquattro Uh, you are assuming that an infinite regress leads to a creator, based on absolutely zero evidence. It's a non sequitor and requires the believer to make a leap of faith, stating, 'since we cannot explain X any further by extrapolation, we thus assume god did it.' this has been proven to be false in the genesis account, and is presumably false as science pushes our knowledge of the cosmos backward in time.
The source of all Christmas presents are evidently other people, 'givers' if you like. There is no evidence to suggest Santa exists.
The source of life/ existence has no evidence for or against God, we have only science or religion, science not disproving anything, religion that can't be disproved but has
@tdiquattro I'm headed to work, so I'll continue this after, but: your argument is a logical fallacy caled 'argument from ignorance', whereby you proclaim that your religion must be correct because it has not been disproved.
however, most of the garbage in the bible (especially genesis) has been disproved easily. by the way, science's job is to DISPROVE things, which it does extremely effectively.
@BlueSpirals Im having some trouble posting the message so sorry if it's made a mess of your wall with a few repeats.
anyway,
this is not my argument at all, I am not saying that my religion is correct as I do not believe indeed I'm not a Christian. I'm just not atheist either.
your Santa orientated argument of the first cause is the problem as I can't see the link between santa and religion as it is comparable with a lie and reality, indeed fiction and facts
@tdiquattro if it gets to a point where you cannot make legible posts just send me a PM and we can continue our discussion. The link between santa and god is exactly this: You are required to make a leap of faith without evidence to believe in both of them. Both arguments for santa and god are equally lacking in supporting evidence. You can sit there and call Santa fiction and God fact, but your burden is to actually prove what you are saying is true. I do not share your faith that god is real.
'tracing all things back to their original source'
all Christmas gifts are able to be traced back to every individual giver - not Santa Claus. I'd like you to explain your statement because I'd like to see how you link this simple idea of Santa Claus to the complexity of the bible and all things related.
@tdiquattro This argument demonstrates the falsehood of the first cause argument by making a parallel to something that is understandably false. We know the original gift giver was not santa, even if we don't have an exact explanation. Science learns a little more each decade about the origin of the universe. 2,000 years ago he "created the earth in seven days", and 2,000 years later, he 'initiated the singularity before the big bang'. It's a god of the gaps argument, and fails to prove him.
dude im on both levels. and if u dont understand that most of the new testament is factual-genisis is poetic, although every other gospel ESPECIALLY THE GOSPEL OF LUKE is historical writting that has been proved more reliable than any other written source by many athiest archeoligists such as Bill Craig). so yeh kinda factual.. what year do we live in..uh 2010..hmm whats that based of i wonder? but naa acouple of hundred people who wouldve been put to death for lying, obviously did.. wait no.
@jimtheguitarfreak Most scientists do not accept the bible as historical evidence for god because we find contradicting evidence elsewhere that is more convincing. Not to mention contradictions within the bible. Bill Craig is not an atheist OR an archeologist. Your comment is so poorly worded it's like speaking to a six year old. I dont even understand half of this shit. Lots of people died in the name of Islam too, so I guess Islam must be true!
For fucks sake how clear do i have to make my comments.WILLIAM LANE CRAIG.experience in archeology and now Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada,California. EX-ATHIEST.theres very little contradicting evidence in the bible. the main point is the family tree or "genetics" of jesus. i will answere as to why that is contradicting if you want. and then the resolution.ISLAMIC people havnt seen theyre worshipper. the gospels saw jesus. if in doubt, they wouldnt die
@jimtheguitarfreak Your comments are rarely clear because you have the writing skills of a third grader, which makes you look like a six year old. You clearly are not well educated. William Craig has a BA in communications (LOL) and a Ph.D. in 'theology'. He's not an archaeologist (which you cant even spell) at all. Uh, google 'contradictions in bible' and teach yourself some reality. People 'die for a lie' all the time in the name of their religion. Your argument is completely stupid lol.
these arguments are bullshit. again, i can use science to disprove itself. these arguments are theory not factual. and ofcourse incredibly stereotypical. invest in knowledge before you make your next video.
@jimtheguitarfreak You obviously havent seen my other videos, which are all based on knowledge. This movie is a satirical example of the inane reasoning Christians use to defend their beliefs in god (which I don't think you picked up). I invite you to use science to 'disprove' itself! Please do so! I'll make a video just for you.
@BlueSpirals the big bang theory. doesnt work does it. whered the two particles come from if nothing had existed before the big bang. science has proved the universe to be 'balloon like' and is alwas expanding, yet still say at one point creation has happend (which could direct in either way of religion or athiesm). the new testement is factual and written documents. there was a jesus. evolution dis credits itself as science proved how small ( i mean SMALL) the chances can be for that to happen.
@jimtheguitarfreak Uh, the Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted model of the universe. And all of the scientific evidence for it is in excellent accordance with the theory. The Singularity of matter existed prior to the Big Bang (you obviously know absolutely nothing about science). We don't know where the singularity came from, but 3,000 years ago we didn't know the earth was spherical. The Bible is not factual on almost any level, and evolution is a FACT. Sorry. Go to school.
@jimtheguitarfreak And you also obviously know absolutely nothing about any other religion besides christianity (actually you dont know shit about christianity either; I'VE read the bible more than you, obviously) because thousands of muslims saw their prophet ride to heaven on a winged pegasus and millions of them claim to have seen god, just like millions of christians do. You know NOTHING. And it's showing. lol
@BlueSpirals i write like a six grader but it shows how mature youre writing is when you say "lol" at the end of each sentence. google bible contradictions? i can google "1000 reasons for why your a dumb cunt" and get 100,000000 pages worth. doesnt mean its true does it. but hey i'l be stubbern, make a movie on how santa's a bumb cunt and is gonna die unhappy, then link that video to ur life. then get a few comments, refuse to take them in, google shit becuase i cant do proper research and so on
@jimtheguitarfreak You dont have any actual arguments do you. You're very busy committing logical fallacies, but you haven't actually demonstrated knowledge of your own religion or any understanding whatsoever of the parallels this video makes. If you actually want to pick a topic and debate it, send me a private message. but i will not allow you to sit on here and name call.
im not religious but - this video is sh**, some dic*splash has too much time on his hands. if one would like to present an argument, then do so with an argument - this nunce is just SIMPLE
@tdiquattro I am using simple analogous examples to demonstrate the similarities between two fictional beings. If you seem to think that these examples are inaccurate, I challenge you actually point them out in the form of an argument, rather than to log on here and start swearing at people. Retard.
This is classic, I've been wanted to do a vid like this and stumbled across this one. I now feel making my own vid would be rather redundant, yet I do have my own twist from my my Santa *experience*.
I also find it rather amusing that the person so opposed to this video, no doubt finds it hits a bit too close to home.
Saying it's useless, you shouldn't have posted it etc on your own channel.
People like that need censorship to thrive. Scary.
@OnTheFritz602 Every single christian on earth will say you cannot compare santa to jesus. And I so accurately did that they really get mad at me about it.
Hey Shock I was wondering if shockofgod777 is you because he is threatening DMCA against people who do videos against you. If not there is someone planning on filing illegal copyright claims in your name and I thought you might want to know.
@stayingalive777 lol no but I get a lot of people copying my channel like shockofshite and shockofgod777 they are imposters its not even my channel lol. But they have to do this as they can't compete with my humor and witty intelligence.
Being a theist, I found such fallacious arguments by analogy to be an extra addition to the humor that may not have been intended. However, I ultimately found the intended satire to be more amusing than the former, resulting in laughs both ways.
@PlatonicUniverse Funny, because if you read all the comments on this page, you'll notice that dozens of theists claim my analogies are fallacious, yet 0 of them provide support for their accusations. What an amazing coincidence!
@BlueSpirals I didn't provide support for my view because I wanted to focus on the humour part. Anyways, I can. For example, in the First Claus argument, all presents are not necessarily contingent on one thing (Santa). Santa himself is a being, and beings are contingent, whereas God is not a contingent being. For Pascal's Wager, I disagree with such an argument, but your treatment is still unconvincing b/c one does not merit salvation by belief, and by analogy one does not merit presents...
...by belief. For Personal Jesus, I would also use never such an argument. However, I still feel that your analogies failed: most people don't claim to have experienced Jesus physically (like Santa in a mall), but mentally. Sounds more likely to simply be a hallucination, but again, not applicable to your analogy. Your eggnog argument also failed-Christmas cheer could prove the existence of Christmas (not necessarily Santa), but anyways it's not a deductive argument like the moral argument...
...The retribution argument analogy was also poor. For example, one gets punished with coal (supposedly), if one is bad, but punishment is a basic occurence and not something unique that is being proved from an "argument" for God. So your last point was more useless than false. The argument from the gaps analogy was fine, of course I would never use this argument, but there's nothing unique about such a poor base for psychology by proving almost everything can exist (from gaps)...
...as for the argument from design at the end, the difference between the chance of the universe being the way it is is far different than a physical chance for all of the presents existing (which is 1, or certain). You assumed that such natural explanations would be equally likely in both cases, which is very dubious at least.
In summary, I found your video amusing in more way than one.
@PlatonicUniverse If you want to use the 'tornado in the junkyard' argument, which you essentially just did (stylistic variant, as I presumed earlier) you should probably note that the existence of liquid water on earth is contingent upon a sweeping distance of of 18.5% change (toward or away) from the sun. That's a pretty gargantuan margin. And obviously life is contingent upon water. The same life would not exist in a hypothetical situation like this, but different life would exist.
@BlueSpirals Again, begging the effectiveness of a theist argument. There's no point in doing so based off this video. If you wanted to object to such arguments another way, you should have made a different type of vid.
@PlatonicUniverse Furthermore, we arent dealing in 'chance' with the 'assortment' of the observable universe. We understand fully why the matter of the universe is distributed as such. Gravity (and the other 3 fundamental interactions of nature) are the only players in the physical arena. Your argument is weak because it supposes that our existence is contingent upon this alleged organization- however, as I have demonstrated, that is not the case.
@PlatonicUniverse And since our existence only pertains to our solar system, the rest of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with us, and would seem an ENORMOUS waste of energy, space and matter for a god as efficient as the one you suppose exists.
@BlueSpirals This is just begging the effectiveness of an argument. The purpose of your video was to show that such arguments were ineffective because of false implications that would supposedly result.
@PlatonicUniverse The purpose of this video is to demonstrate how, if the variables are replaced by something obviously fake (santa), the arguments are transparent and false.
@PlatonicUniverse I really dont see how you are failing to understand that the arguments are the exact same, with only variables interchanged. You dont believe in god, you get hell. You dont believe in Santa, you get coal. Irregardless of the alleged properties of hell (and coal), the system is identical. If you're saying that going to hell proves God exists, you better be able to prove that Hell exists. I don't have the same burden to prove coal exists.
@PlatonicUniverse BILLIONS of muslims and christians around the world would disagree with you, when you say 'you dont go to hell if you dont believe in god'.
@BlueSpirals Well if we do not know off the bat which one is true, then these are just what they believe, and just what I believe. By the way you are wrong when you say Christians. I think a significant number of Christians already agree with me.
@PlatonicUniverse I dont even understand how you could possibly argue against me there. It says, in the bible, John 14:6, if you don't believe in christ you go to hell. That's it. And john 3:16 says salvation only comes to those who accept christ.
Anyone who disagrees with that is outright disagreeing with the bible.
@PlatonicUniverse This video is not regarding the arguments you'd use- it regards the most commonly used theist arguments. I'm certain you are guilty of using stylistic variants of any of these arguments, because they are the top 10 most popular. Millions of people worldwide claim to have firsthand experienced a higher power. All of their experiences contradict the experience of others (my neighbor saw Allah, but you saw Jesus). And yes, you are all hallucinating. Or lying.
@BlueSpirals Well sure, a theist could also some lousy atheist rebuttals and show what such reasoning results in when applied to other things. Millions of atheists also use very weak arguments, and just as I object to the use of some arguments theists use, so do many atheists.
@PlatonicUniverse A lot of atheists use philosophy to debunk theistic arguments, which I cant stand. I really am principally concerned with science. But, I would like to know specifically, what atheist arguments you think are bad. And feel free to send me a message, because comment boxes suck for this kind of thing.
@PlatonicUniverse Your argument fails there- if Christmas cheer only proves the existence of christmas, then morality only proves the existence of human empathy. But, theists claim (without merit whatsoever) that subjective human morality (because there IS no objective morality) proves god. Therefore, the magical spirit of christmas proves Santa. By the way, we have proof that Christmas exists even without cheer. The same cannot be said about god. Ever.
@BlueSpirals "Christmas exists even without cheer"-Well this is just my point-that there is an alternate explanation besides Santa. However, if one is to not beg the effectiveness of a theist argument, one cannot immediately say that there argument does not fail in a similar way.
@PlatonicUniverse I feel like you are missing the point- I'm demonstrating that logically, christmas can exist without santa, just like the universe can exist without god. It is a sarcastically fallacious argument, and designed this way on purpose.
@BlueSpirals "I'm demonstrating that logically, christmas can exist without santa, just like the universe can exist without god."-But the theist would argue that your last statement is false. You could use traditional arguments (like you responded against the teleological argument), but there is no point to make this video then-the theist answers with traditional arguments that God created, at which point Santa rebuttals are innapropriate as you have demonstrated.
@PlatonicUniverse I understand that theists don't believe the universe could exist without god- that is where science comes in. We seem to have a scientific explanation for almost everything that has occured since the big bang. If humans are self-aware back to 13.5 billion years ago, that's a DAMN good start. I suspect we will discover whatever came 'before' the big bang, if anything, as well. The only thing theists can say in response is "look at the universe! it's so complex!'
@PlatonicUniverse In the First Claus argument, God's existence is contingent upon the evidence supporting him. The evidence for god (in that argument) is existence. The evidence for Santa in that argument are presents. You'll notice that all of these arguments are identical, with only variables X and Y replaced. Pascal's Wager is one of the worst theist arguments, but I merely inserted Santa and Presents. It is LITERALLY the same argument, whether or not you support the theistic version.
@BlueSpirals God's existence is contingent on the evidence supporting him? Well sure, but this does not mean he is a contingent being of course (which I understand you are not disagreeing with). But presents do not have to be effects of Santa (of course), whereas the theist tries to argue that a first cause must exist, and is the only option.
@PlatonicUniverse I do disagree that god is not a contingent being; i think that's a fundamental characteristic of being an atheist. I do NOT concede that god can exist without evidence, especially when one of the strongest arguments against god is that there is insufficient evidence supporting him. If a first cause must exist, by the way, what caused god?
@BlueSpirals You are using a traditional argument. Anyways, it's meaningless to ask what caused God because the definition of God is that He is the first uncaused cause. But my point here is not to argue such traditional arguments. My point is that at this point you are not using Santa objections anymore, you are using traditional objections, so your video is essentially useless once you need to defend.
@PlatonicUniverse Santa is the variable I replaced god with to demonstrate the fallacious nature of god-existence arguments. If I have to explain those analogies further, I sometimes feel it necessary to back them up with evidence. That hardly falsifies my argument at all- after all, I'm the one providing the science.
Actually you can. In Nazi europe, the germans did an experiment on some women. They would strap a woman to a machine that crudely mapped brain activity. Then, they would torture her children in front of her. Her brain responded differently when they tortured non-family members, suggesting that her love for her children quantitatively affected her reactions to changes in their well-being.
@BlueSpirals : not to mention that emotions actually fire on brain maps, and release chemicals. We are social animals, and thus on some level love (unless your psychopathic or sociopathic).
This video is SO awesome it's not even funny! (btw it's hilarious!!) Praise Santa!!
dkthg 1 month ago
I would take your origins argument even further. Why not argue that Santa created the universe? Since there is no evidence that "God" (whatever that means) created the universe (and what reliable evidence could there be, except for personal testimony), you could equally argue that Santa created everything.
frankgneiss 1 month ago
u had fun making this video didnt u..lol
greatkeyboardwarrior 2 months ago
All this video does is prove that the qualities of God were mirrored and mocked into a fictionalized character. Lets look at your 1st point. 1) everything has a cause leading back to God. Your argument is "every present leads to Santa".. but does it? There are things science can't explain such as the CAUSE of the Big Bang. This is TRUE. Yet we can use logic to determine that our parents give us gifts. The evidence would be the recepts and lack of expensive items. All your points have BIG flaws.
Inverita1 3 months ago
thank you for this video. I have been thinking about how similar the two ideas are. this pretty much sums it up
a10fjet 4 months ago
I don't disagree with the message, but the condescending tone made me hate this video. At least religion understands it's not always about the claims you make, sometimes it's about how you present them.
glavin69 4 months ago
@glavin69 The message of this video isn't as condescending as the message of religion: "do what we say or you will be punished for eternity." Religion makes factual claims that are false. That's the end of it.
BlueSpirals 4 months ago
@glavin69 its all about the truth. you would seriously rather have a candy coated bullshit message than a blunt message that is actually true? i cant imagine wanting that.
a10fjet 4 months ago
Watch case for the creator. You. Can't be an atheist after seeing that. I'm not talking to you anymore. And by the way, by giving me crappy evidence and your so called "facts" you've actually strengthened my relationship with God. Thank you. Now I know your going to respond by throwing a bunch of swears around and giving me "evidence" but just know I appreciate it. I care about you and want to see you in heaven. I'll be praying for you. Don't be so stubborn with atheism. It's not that hard to b
Yummytacos17 5 months ago
@Yummytacos17 Enjoy your friendship with your invisible best friend. I really don't care whether you believe in him or not; it is not the job of an atheist to proselytize. We simply present the case for atheism and explain why the evidence you bring for god's existence is not convincing. Case for the creator sucks, I have seen it. I'm still an atheist. Pray for me all you want, lol. You're talking to yourself.
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
This is all proven by named skeptics and non believers and extremely accurate historical data.
Yummytacos17 5 months ago
@Yummytacos17 Yeah and you still have not cited one single source, you're just making stuff up and asserting it.
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
Many people think that was an act of the disciples, but science also proves that they didn't have the time, resources, energy, or means. The tomb was guarded by many Roman soldiers, heavily armed and well trained. The people didn't have an army or militia. Scientific record proves this. After the news got out, coming from even skeptics and non believers, there was a huge outbreak in the church, and there was a giant expansion. Many non believers and skeptics saw, touched, heard, and felt and ta
Yummytacos17 5 months ago
@Yummytacos17 "Science proved the disciples didnt move the body" what a load of fucking garbage. Cite any evidence whatsoever on the scientific experiments conducted on any of these claims. You are just making a bunch of shit up. "Scientific record proves this" you're just throwing the word "science" around and failing miserably. You're like a fucking ten year old.
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
@Yummytacos17 "Science proved the disciples didnt move the body" what a load of fucking garbage. Cite any evidence whatsoever on the scientific experiments conducted on any of these claims. You are just making a bunch of shit up. "Scientific record proves this" you're just throwing the word "science" around and failing miserably. You're like a fucking ten year old.
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
There is irrefutable reliable sources, such as modern medical records that say Jesus died on the cross. He was clearly put into the tomb, says over 515 witnesses including skeptics. That's completely true. Science has proved that. And the body was gone and the tombstone rolled away. Many peo
Yummytacos17 5 months ago
@Yummytacos17 There isn't "proof" that he died on the cross, or that he even existed. There are few accounts of his life outside of the bible, if any. And over 10,000 people saw Muhammad fly to Heaven on a winged horse, so I guess that must be true too!
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
@BlueSpirals
Yummytacos17 5 months ago
What do you get from being an atheist? I get hope, love, happiness, purpose. Whats your purpose? You dont have one without God.because you'll just live, then die. That's it. You'll go to hell. Even if you dedicate your life to helping starving children or something, they'll just die and go to he'll too without God. So what's your purpose in life?
Yummytacos17 5 months ago
Love, happiness and purpose are not things that only come from religion. From being an atheist I am free of the dogmatic ignorance, violence, and evil of religion and the mentally crippling belief in an anthropomorphic god. I am extremely happy, and most atheists are. Most atheists in fact were less happy when they were religious. Humans have no objective purpose; we create our own purpose. Mine is to do well in college and be a professor. To find true love, and to honor others. My purpose rocks
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
The speed of gravity is 32.2 feet per second. Where did the first energy come from? Couldn't have came from something other than God because there wasnt any universe or energy besides him to begin with.
Yummytacos17 5 months ago
@Yummytacos17 You're thinking of terminal velocity. The "speed of gravity" is a difference in wavelengths of certain energy waves when acted upon by gravity. There is no set speed because gravity is proportional to mass and all objects have different masses.
I have already dismissed your First Cause argument. You are making an argumentum ad ignorantium based on our lack of understanding of physics prior to the big bang. you are asserting your conclusion as part of your premise also. Lol.
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
@Yummytacos17 You're thinking of terminal velocity. The "speed of gravity" is a difference in wavelengths of certain energy waves when acted upon by gravity. There is no set speed because gravity is proportional to mass and all objects have different masses.
I have already dismissed your First Cause argument. You are making an argumentum ad ignorantium based on our lack of understanding of physics prior to the big bang. you are asserting your conclusion as part of your premise also. Lol.
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
There are over 200 factors that make life just sustainable on earth. Like the speed of gravity. And the distance from the sun. The chances of that are if you stretch a ruler out 1,000,000,000,000 miles, you hit the exact inch so that life is sustainable.
Yummytacos17 5 months ago
@Yummytacos17 You made an Infinite Regress argument and now you're making a HORRIBLE teleological argument. LOL at "the speed of gravity", there is no such thing, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Any planet within the Goldilocks Zone of the star it orbits can harbor life; we've found fossilized nanobacteria on Mars because of this rule. And your whole ruler claim is just a load of shit, cite your sources.
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
The rule of conservation of energy says that energy has to come from somewhere. Think about all the energy In the universe. In you, me, and the sun, and Earth. Where did that come from. If you like to use science and logic so much, why don't you answer? Your answer could be, it came from the big bang! Where did that spontaneous energy come from?
Yummytacos17 5 months ago
@Yummytacos17 If you actually knew anything about science, you'd know that the law of conservation of energy and all laws of physics apply to only our present universe. Einstein knew this, and invented Special Relativity to explain some of the behaviors of physics in the early universe. Dr. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have a lot to say about where energy comes from in the early universe, and they have demonstrated that god isn't necessary.
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
Guy, please tell me this is satirical. Please? Because I really don't want to use one simple question to effectively disprove your causality argument.
atheistjacob 5 months ago
@atheistjacob Can you seriously not detect the sarcasm dripping from this video? do you actually think I mean to prove the existence of Santa? the point of this video is to illuminate the inanities of religious arguments by analogizing them with a widely-acknowledged fictional character.
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
@BlueSpirals The difficulty came because I know people who would try to use the same arguments. Also, I put the comment before I watched the entire video because I was in such a state of shock that causality was mentioned that I quite forgot that there was more video. I apologize for that. But otherwise, it was a great video.
atheistjacob 5 months ago
Santa clause syndrome...
EKmion 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I caught a glimpse of God weeping. I asked Him why He was sad, He answered,
'Hell was created for satan alone, but one by one, others followed along. It is sad to see the place i build for you so empty, while hell is filled with so many people.' "
395131 8 months ago
There was a Santa. He was a 4th century Bishop who often gave gifts anonymously. His relics still exist intact (unusual) & they exude oil that smells of rosewater which are said to have miraculous healing effects. The "modern" Santa still resembles something of the Original, St Nicholas;he wears a red suit like a Bishop, has a beard like St Nicholas did & candy canes represent the Bishop's crozier. So there's that. Just thought I'd put in my two pennies. Have a good one.
finishstrongdoc 9 months ago
@finishstrongdoc We are talking about a magical santa with all of the properties of the modern fairy tale. Who also obviously existed.
BlueSpirals 9 months ago
@BlueSpirals Ok....whatever. Bye.
finishstrongdoc 9 months ago
@finishstrongdoc There was a Jesus too however he was just a man
Xatasha6611 6 months ago
hilarious. you are a genius
hereforboyslove1 10 months ago
How dare U compare My Santa who is very Real - loves me & brings me presents.....to a man made mythology / fairy talle
Aleksamson 10 months ago
this is oozing sarcasm ahahah
iridescentxx 1 year ago
I love this shit!
Schmidts84 1 year ago
u love it
DrawpBombz 1 year ago
@sparkybigp Don't worry, I'll see you there. According to your own laws, if you judge others, you'll be judged just as harshly. It's okay, I'll share some of the weed and other goodies with you if you apologize when we're there...oh wait, hell isn't real, lol.
SkelanimalKitteh 1 year ago
@sparkybigp Well, YOU SUCK. Santa is more awesome than god. Santa hasn't killed anyone, nor does he deliver a terrible horrible punishment for eternity for not believing in him. Santa gives you coal if you do bad, but god will make you suffer for eternity (A VERY LONG FUCKING TIME) if you say or think "nah, god isn't real". In one breath, you bible thumpers say god loves us. Then why not fucking PROVE HIMSELF when asked? I've asked, I've tested, I've waited and gotten NADA. That means nothing.
SkelanimalKitteh 1 year ago
FUCK YEAH! I KNEW SANTA WAS REAL! I KNEW that Santa I saw at the San Jose Airport was the real deal! FUCK YEAH! no, but seriously, if Santa was real, I would have believed the guy I saw at SJC was the real deal. He was everything Santa should be! Awesome, tall, PERFECT looking, PERFECT sounding, and he even complimented me :D I love Santa. Now, if Buddy Jesus would have a lap and would do the "cowabunga" finger/hand thing with me during picture time, I'd be a little more believing. :P
SkelanimalKitteh 1 year ago
can i join ur blues band....or that porno ur making?
RzrsG41 1 year ago
@RzrsG41 we have auditions for both
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals oh well merry christmas to me!
RzrsG41 1 year ago
This video is terrible
1001Falcon 1 year ago
@1001Falcon So present some arguments and let's see what you actually have to complain about.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals The whole video you sound sarcastic and cheesy.
1001Falcon 1 year ago
@1001Falcon Uh, yeah, sarcasm is pretty much the point. It's satire. So you dont actually have any complaints about the analogous arguments.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago 2
@BlueSpirals
the sarcasm is really bad! It just goes to show how badly brainwashed atheist have become! "anonymous gifts means it was santa?" JEJE.....Of course science would be able to find who the cause of the gift was simply by matching the finger prints, but if all evidence of tracibility was washed away and science could not find the exact cause we still know who the cause is!! a human being of course! regardless of physcial evidence, we can identify causes from other sources!
vipsamsam 9 months ago
@vipsamsam Brainwashed by who? We don't have pastors and holy books. Sarcasm also is not any indicator of brainwashing. You are correct that even if we don't know who gave the gift, it probably wasnt santa. And you can extrapolate that analogy for yourself- Even if we dont know the source of the universe, it still probably wasnt a god.
BlueSpirals 9 months ago
@BlueSpirals
"Even if we dont know the source of the universe, it still probably wasnt a god."
.
This goes back to your example of the anonymous gift.....science may never find out who the cause of the gift was, but would you deny the existance of the cause itself? of course not. Similarly its possible the indentification of who God is is wrong, but in no way does this imply the non existance of God.
vipsamsam 9 months ago
@vipsamsam There is no reason to believe that any gods exist. We have zero evidence suggesting there may have been a creator. There is a cause for the universe's existence, it's called gravity, and Stephen Hawking explains it rather simply in his new book, The Grand Design. Stating that god must have created the universe if we can't explain it otherwise is an argument from ignorance.
BlueSpirals 9 months ago
@BlueSpirals
continue..........and so just like we dont know exactly the indentity of the cause of the anonymous gift, we do know it was a person, but why or how do we know this? Because there is only one possible knowledge of a gift being given to another person is that would be other people. Similarly we know of only one possible cause that creates complex functional systems and that is personal minds....and so God would be a personal mind being able to create complex functional systems.
vipsamsam 9 months ago
@vipsamsam There is no evidence to prove that god exists, or creates complex functional systems. Mammals give gifts to each other, but that does not mean they invent them. Your argument that 'complex things must be designed' is a teleological argument that has been refuted over and over. Wikipedia it. Looking at something, calling it complicated, and then saying "something must have created it" does not prove god exists.
BlueSpirals 9 months ago
@BlueSpirals
Well I think you just completely ignore your own previous comment!!! We dont need scientific evidence(physical evidence) to Know something to be real or true....But now your write "There is no evidence to prove that god exists"......? Now I never said complex structures are not possible with random energy + time being in play.....What I said only personal minds are capable of designing "Complex Functional systems" and have no knowledge of any other source being capable of this!
vipsamsam 9 months ago
@vipsamsam Your argument is no different from what you claim you "didnt" say. Complexity is not evidence of design. If you are talking about the cosmos, the 'complexity' of galaxies and stars is merely the result of gravity. If you're talking about biology, complexity is developed over time through evolution. We do need scientific evidence to know that something exists in a physical way. If god is nonphysical, then what makes him any different from a thought or a dream?
BlueSpirals 9 months ago
@BlueSpirals
OK we are not going to get anywhere unless you study a bit more, if you dont understand the difference between complex structures and complex FUNCTIONAL systems, its like talking about the trigonometric function of a sine to someone who has no knowledge of what that means. You need gain a bit more knowledge. Well anyway take care.....
vipsamsam 9 months ago
@vipsamsam I googled complex structures and complex functional systems and found no definition or differentiation. Why dont you go ahead and give me an example of a complex functional system (I assume you're talking strictly about biological life) and then tell me its specific function. I know trigonometry well, so we can discuss that too.
BlueSpirals 9 months ago
@sparkybigp Why?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
so you're saying Santa is a God?
socal786 1 year ago
@socal786 are you joking?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals no,you're basically saying that Santa is an immortal,in other words, a God!
socal786 1 year ago
@socal786 No, you're just basically an idiot
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals yeah,i know you are...
socal786 1 year ago
fuckin reindeer
Anuranpostage 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why do you hate Santa so much? You just say you don't believe in him because you want to be naughty.
prophetchannel 1 year ago
Lol, u r not an athiest. U have to really believe in somebody to hate them soooo much. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I also don't make a utube channel to cry about it. I think ur videos r funny, but i don't think athiests should watch them.
qstroud 1 year ago
@qstroud I never said I hated god. I don't believe in him. Although it's probably safe to say that I hate some major parts of most major religions. Nobody kills people in the name of the tooth fairy. If they did, I'd spend all my time making videos about how she isnt real. People kill in the name of god. So i spend my time trying to convince people not to do that.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Christians push God all the time because they beleive that it will save people. Something that will help them get through life and the promise of heaven after death. They believe that you'll got to hell if you live a life of sin. Telling someone does not help anyone. If christians are wrong after death we will all exist in nothingness but if atheist are wrong ...........................................
greenblue49 1 year ago
@greenblue49 Cute, trying to use Pascal's Wager on an adult. Your gamble says a LOT about why you're religious- the fear of hell. If I can see through that bullshit, you better believe god can too if he exists.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals
"Cute, trying to use Pascal's Wager on an adult. Your gamble says a LOT about why you're religious- the fear of hell. If I can see through that bullshit, you better believe god can too if he exists"
The fear of hell is not why I'm religious. I would have to believe in God first before I would believe in the possibility of hell. Think about it! But all I'm saying is if you think about it purely from a Better safe than sorry view, wouldn't you be better off believing?
greenblue49 1 year ago
@greenblue49 You cannot choose to believe in something or stop believing in something else. I do not believe in hell and I cannot force myself to believe in it enough to start paying homage to some deity. You dont have to believe in god before hell, you can be convinced of them simultaneously, as the catholic missionaries did when they went on conversion rampages across the world.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
One thing that I don't understand about atheist is their need to continually make videos, write article, or just talk about how God does not exist. I'm not talking about the jokes because some of them are funny. Nor am I talking about a coverstation with a person who may be curious or agree with their non-beliefs. I don't get why one would make video after video about something they don't believe in. You could point out the fact that 'christians' do the same thing. But essentially it's not....
greenblue49 1 year ago
@greenblue49 Because all belief systems and all claims should face scientific scrutiny at all times. I am here to do that. The topic of god is extremely relevant in all cultures; it's kind of sad that you have a hard time understanding why all sides share their opinions rather than just one.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals I understand but it just seems like you hate for people to believe in God and I just don't get it. Because of your videos I understand why you don't but I'm wondering if you are trying to convince others and why.
greenblue49 1 year ago
@greenblue49 Nowhere in this video did I say I hate people for believing in god, so that's just a really poor inference you're making. I am trying to convince other people that religion is not the only source of principle, and if it were, it is still terrible.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals That you are even trying to appeal to a moral argument is entirely fascinating because, by its very nature, the belief system you espouse derives no objective basis by which any objective moral judgement about the rightness or wrongness of believing x, or of doing y, can be made. In the Universe you believe in - one randomly thrown out into the fabric of time and space, going nowhere, meaning nothing - words like "principle" are entirely empty and relativistic.
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@QuisSeperabit60 Obviously, morals do not need to be objective to exist, pity for you. What "moral argument" am I making, by the way? There are absolutely none in this video. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I do agree with you that morality is relativistic, however your claim that I believe in a "random, going nowhere" universe is a straw man fallacy, something you should be familiar with since you seem to have a rudimentary understanding of logic.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
the last argument... the chance of all the presents being correctly distributed is one in ten bajilion... lol
ima use that
De4sher 1 year ago
I know I do not exist
psilocyberspaceman 1 year ago
i hope this video is a joke....
robytzu97 1 year ago
@robytzu97 Do you deny the existence of santa claus?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals THERE'S NO SANTA ???? :(((((
robytzu97 1 year ago
@robytzu97 noooooooooooo he is there you gotta feeeeel him with your heart!!
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Santa works in mysterious ways
Mr1B2D3F 1 year ago
again with argument three, santa sits in the mall but we know he doesnt give us presnts at christmas because of proof, money, receipts etc. we don't have currency, or printed evidence to prove a personal experince with jesus. you have made comparisons to the smallest possible similarities. in atheist court is someone SAYING there was or was not a fire be compared to a burn or physical change shown by someone else. no it cant
tdiquattro 1 year ago
@tdiquattro You keep pointing out the fact that the santa claus arguments are fallacious, and I'm telling you that this is exactly the point of the video. The arguments for god and santa are exactly analogous. Even if Santa did not physically give the gifts, he compelled the people to give them through magic and christmas cheer. What evidence do you have that he did not? zero.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
I´m not assuming anything - how did you get the idea I was assuming that? Stop assuming. Im saying there is physical evidence that santa did not send the gift, there is no physical evidence that god did anything and therefore you can´t compare the two. I do not believe in god, but I find your arguments very simplistic.
The prancers wager argument is not valid either because again we have physical evidence that santa does not play a role in giving presents.
tdiquattro 1 year ago
@tdiquattro I agree there is evidence that santa didnt send the gift, just like there is physical evidence that god did not create the universe- at least not by any account in any holy script. I also agree that there is zero evidence to support the existence or intervention of god.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
and checking it twice...bitch! lol XD im assumeing this is satire it was pretty good
TheAmazeingAnarchist 1 year ago
this first cause argument can't be paralleled to something understandably false, because tracing things back, we have nothing understandably false as 'jimtheguitarfreak' has said
tdiquattro 1 year ago
@tdiquattro Uh, you are assuming that an infinite regress leads to a creator, based on absolutely zero evidence. It's a non sequitor and requires the believer to make a leap of faith, stating, 'since we cannot explain X any further by extrapolation, we thus assume god did it.' this has been proven to be false in the genesis account, and is presumably false as science pushes our knowledge of the cosmos backward in time.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
argument 1
The source of all Christmas presents are evidently other people, 'givers' if you like. There is no evidence to suggest Santa exists.
The source of life/ existence has no evidence for or against God, we have only science or religion, science not disproving anything, religion that can't be disproved but has
argument 2
tdiquattro 1 year ago
@tdiquattro I'm headed to work, so I'll continue this after, but: your argument is a logical fallacy caled 'argument from ignorance', whereby you proclaim that your religion must be correct because it has not been disproved.
however, most of the garbage in the bible (especially genesis) has been disproved easily. by the way, science's job is to DISPROVE things, which it does extremely effectively.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals Im having some trouble posting the message so sorry if it's made a mess of your wall with a few repeats.
anyway,
this is not my argument at all, I am not saying that my religion is correct as I do not believe indeed I'm not a Christian. I'm just not atheist either.
your Santa orientated argument of the first cause is the problem as I can't see the link between santa and religion as it is comparable with a lie and reality, indeed fiction and facts
tdiquattro 1 year ago
@tdiquattro if it gets to a point where you cannot make legible posts just send me a PM and we can continue our discussion. The link between santa and god is exactly this: You are required to make a leap of faith without evidence to believe in both of them. Both arguments for santa and god are equally lacking in supporting evidence. You can sit there and call Santa fiction and God fact, but your burden is to actually prove what you are saying is true. I do not share your faith that god is real.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
argument 1
'tracing all things back to their original source'
all Christmas gifts are able to be traced back to every individual giver - not Santa Claus. I'd like you to explain your statement because I'd like to see how you link this simple idea of Santa Claus to the complexity of the bible and all things related.
tdiquattro 1 year ago
@tdiquattro This argument demonstrates the falsehood of the first cause argument by making a parallel to something that is understandably false. We know the original gift giver was not santa, even if we don't have an exact explanation. Science learns a little more each decade about the origin of the universe. 2,000 years ago he "created the earth in seven days", and 2,000 years later, he 'initiated the singularity before the big bang'. It's a god of the gaps argument, and fails to prove him.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
dude im on both levels. and if u dont understand that most of the new testament is factual-genisis is poetic, although every other gospel ESPECIALLY THE GOSPEL OF LUKE is historical writting that has been proved more reliable than any other written source by many athiest archeoligists such as Bill Craig). so yeh kinda factual.. what year do we live in..uh 2010..hmm whats that based of i wonder? but naa acouple of hundred people who wouldve been put to death for lying, obviously did.. wait no.
jimtheguitarfreak 1 year ago
@jimtheguitarfreak Most scientists do not accept the bible as historical evidence for god because we find contradicting evidence elsewhere that is more convincing. Not to mention contradictions within the bible. Bill Craig is not an atheist OR an archeologist. Your comment is so poorly worded it's like speaking to a six year old. I dont even understand half of this shit. Lots of people died in the name of Islam too, so I guess Islam must be true!
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
For fucks sake how clear do i have to make my comments.WILLIAM LANE CRAIG.experience in archeology and now Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada,California. EX-ATHIEST.theres very little contradicting evidence in the bible. the main point is the family tree or "genetics" of jesus. i will answere as to why that is contradicting if you want. and then the resolution.ISLAMIC people havnt seen theyre worshipper. the gospels saw jesus. if in doubt, they wouldnt die
jimtheguitarfreak 1 year ago
@jimtheguitarfreak Your comments are rarely clear because you have the writing skills of a third grader, which makes you look like a six year old. You clearly are not well educated. William Craig has a BA in communications (LOL) and a Ph.D. in 'theology'. He's not an archaeologist (which you cant even spell) at all. Uh, google 'contradictions in bible' and teach yourself some reality. People 'die for a lie' all the time in the name of their religion. Your argument is completely stupid lol.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
these arguments are bullshit. again, i can use science to disprove itself. these arguments are theory not factual. and ofcourse incredibly stereotypical. invest in knowledge before you make your next video.
jimtheguitarfreak 1 year ago
@jimtheguitarfreak You obviously havent seen my other videos, which are all based on knowledge. This movie is a satirical example of the inane reasoning Christians use to defend their beliefs in god (which I don't think you picked up). I invite you to use science to 'disprove' itself! Please do so! I'll make a video just for you.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals the big bang theory. doesnt work does it. whered the two particles come from if nothing had existed before the big bang. science has proved the universe to be 'balloon like' and is alwas expanding, yet still say at one point creation has happend (which could direct in either way of religion or athiesm). the new testement is factual and written documents. there was a jesus. evolution dis credits itself as science proved how small ( i mean SMALL) the chances can be for that to happen.
jimtheguitarfreak 1 year ago
@jimtheguitarfreak Uh, the Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted model of the universe. And all of the scientific evidence for it is in excellent accordance with the theory. The Singularity of matter existed prior to the Big Bang (you obviously know absolutely nothing about science). We don't know where the singularity came from, but 3,000 years ago we didn't know the earth was spherical. The Bible is not factual on almost any level, and evolution is a FACT. Sorry. Go to school.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@jimtheguitarfreak And you also obviously know absolutely nothing about any other religion besides christianity (actually you dont know shit about christianity either; I'VE read the bible more than you, obviously) because thousands of muslims saw their prophet ride to heaven on a winged pegasus and millions of them claim to have seen god, just like millions of christians do. You know NOTHING. And it's showing. lol
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals i write like a six grader but it shows how mature youre writing is when you say "lol" at the end of each sentence. google bible contradictions? i can google "1000 reasons for why your a dumb cunt" and get 100,000000 pages worth. doesnt mean its true does it. but hey i'l be stubbern, make a movie on how santa's a bumb cunt and is gonna die unhappy, then link that video to ur life. then get a few comments, refuse to take them in, google shit becuase i cant do proper research and so on
jimtheguitarfreak 1 year ago
@jimtheguitarfreak You dont have any actual arguments do you. You're very busy committing logical fallacies, but you haven't actually demonstrated knowledge of your own religion or any understanding whatsoever of the parallels this video makes. If you actually want to pick a topic and debate it, send me a private message. but i will not allow you to sit on here and name call.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
did some one take santa not being realy to hard
bowbow748 1 year ago
@bowbow748 I think you misunderstood this video
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
im not religious but - this video is sh**, some dic*splash has too much time on his hands. if one would like to present an argument, then do so with an argument - this nunce is just SIMPLE
tdiquattro 1 year ago
@tdiquattro I am using simple analogous examples to demonstrate the similarities between two fictional beings. If you seem to think that these examples are inaccurate, I challenge you actually point them out in the form of an argument, rather than to log on here and start swearing at people. Retard.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
lol priceless
swimminglikeaquaman 1 year ago
This is classic, I've been wanted to do a vid like this and stumbled across this one. I now feel making my own vid would be rather redundant, yet I do have my own twist from my my Santa *experience*.
I also find it rather amusing that the person so opposed to this video, no doubt finds it hits a bit too close to home.
Saying it's useless, you shouldn't have posted it etc on your own channel.
People like that need censorship to thrive. Scary.
OnTheFritz602 1 year ago
@OnTheFritz602 Every single christian on earth will say you cannot compare santa to jesus. And I so accurately did that they really get mad at me about it.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Wow this guy has the disease santa syndrome
shockofgod 1 year ago
@shockofgod what exactly does that mean? nothing?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@shockofgod
Hey Shock I was wondering if shockofgod777 is you because he is threatening DMCA against people who do videos against you. If not there is someone planning on filing illegal copyright claims in your name and I thought you might want to know.
stayingalive777 1 year ago
@stayingalive777 lol no but I get a lot of people copying my channel like shockofshite and shockofgod777 they are imposters its not even my channel lol. But they have to do this as they can't compete with my humor and witty intelligence.
shockofgod 1 year ago
Being a theist, I found such fallacious arguments by analogy to be an extra addition to the humor that may not have been intended. However, I ultimately found the intended satire to be more amusing than the former, resulting in laughs both ways.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse Funny, because if you read all the comments on this page, you'll notice that dozens of theists claim my analogies are fallacious, yet 0 of them provide support for their accusations. What an amazing coincidence!
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals I didn't provide support for my view because I wanted to focus on the humour part. Anyways, I can. For example, in the First Claus argument, all presents are not necessarily contingent on one thing (Santa). Santa himself is a being, and beings are contingent, whereas God is not a contingent being. For Pascal's Wager, I disagree with such an argument, but your treatment is still unconvincing b/c one does not merit salvation by belief, and by analogy one does not merit presents...
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
...by belief. For Personal Jesus, I would also use never such an argument. However, I still feel that your analogies failed: most people don't claim to have experienced Jesus physically (like Santa in a mall), but mentally. Sounds more likely to simply be a hallucination, but again, not applicable to your analogy. Your eggnog argument also failed-Christmas cheer could prove the existence of Christmas (not necessarily Santa), but anyways it's not a deductive argument like the moral argument...
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
...The retribution argument analogy was also poor. For example, one gets punished with coal (supposedly), if one is bad, but punishment is a basic occurence and not something unique that is being proved from an "argument" for God. So your last point was more useless than false. The argument from the gaps analogy was fine, of course I would never use this argument, but there's nothing unique about such a poor base for psychology by proving almost everything can exist (from gaps)...
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
...as for the argument from design at the end, the difference between the chance of the universe being the way it is is far different than a physical chance for all of the presents existing (which is 1, or certain). You assumed that such natural explanations would be equally likely in both cases, which is very dubious at least.
In summary, I found your video amusing in more way than one.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse If you want to use the 'tornado in the junkyard' argument, which you essentially just did (stylistic variant, as I presumed earlier) you should probably note that the existence of liquid water on earth is contingent upon a sweeping distance of of 18.5% change (toward or away) from the sun. That's a pretty gargantuan margin. And obviously life is contingent upon water. The same life would not exist in a hypothetical situation like this, but different life would exist.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals Again, begging the effectiveness of a theist argument. There's no point in doing so based off this video. If you wanted to object to such arguments another way, you should have made a different type of vid.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse Furthermore, we arent dealing in 'chance' with the 'assortment' of the observable universe. We understand fully why the matter of the universe is distributed as such. Gravity (and the other 3 fundamental interactions of nature) are the only players in the physical arena. Your argument is weak because it supposes that our existence is contingent upon this alleged organization- however, as I have demonstrated, that is not the case.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse And since our existence only pertains to our solar system, the rest of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with us, and would seem an ENORMOUS waste of energy, space and matter for a god as efficient as the one you suppose exists.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals This is just begging the effectiveness of an argument. The purpose of your video was to show that such arguments were ineffective because of false implications that would supposedly result.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse The purpose of this video is to demonstrate how, if the variables are replaced by something obviously fake (santa), the arguments are transparent and false.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse I really dont see how you are failing to understand that the arguments are the exact same, with only variables interchanged. You dont believe in god, you get hell. You dont believe in Santa, you get coal. Irregardless of the alleged properties of hell (and coal), the system is identical. If you're saying that going to hell proves God exists, you better be able to prove that Hell exists. I don't have the same burden to prove coal exists.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals That's just it, both of these statements "You dont believe in god, you get hell. You dont believe in Santa, you get coal." are false.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse BILLIONS of muslims and christians around the world would disagree with you, when you say 'you dont go to hell if you dont believe in god'.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals Well if we do not know off the bat which one is true, then these are just what they believe, and just what I believe. By the way you are wrong when you say Christians. I think a significant number of Christians already agree with me.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse I dont even understand how you could possibly argue against me there. It says, in the bible, John 14:6, if you don't believe in christ you go to hell. That's it. And john 3:16 says salvation only comes to those who accept christ.
Anyone who disagrees with that is outright disagreeing with the bible.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago 2
@PlatonicUniverse This video is not regarding the arguments you'd use- it regards the most commonly used theist arguments. I'm certain you are guilty of using stylistic variants of any of these arguments, because they are the top 10 most popular. Millions of people worldwide claim to have firsthand experienced a higher power. All of their experiences contradict the experience of others (my neighbor saw Allah, but you saw Jesus). And yes, you are all hallucinating. Or lying.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals Well sure, a theist could also some lousy atheist rebuttals and show what such reasoning results in when applied to other things. Millions of atheists also use very weak arguments, and just as I object to the use of some arguments theists use, so do many atheists.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse A lot of atheists use philosophy to debunk theistic arguments, which I cant stand. I really am principally concerned with science. But, I would like to know specifically, what atheist arguments you think are bad. And feel free to send me a message, because comment boxes suck for this kind of thing.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse Your argument fails there- if Christmas cheer only proves the existence of christmas, then morality only proves the existence of human empathy. But, theists claim (without merit whatsoever) that subjective human morality (because there IS no objective morality) proves god. Therefore, the magical spirit of christmas proves Santa. By the way, we have proof that Christmas exists even without cheer. The same cannot be said about god. Ever.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals "Christmas exists even without cheer"-Well this is just my point-that there is an alternate explanation besides Santa. However, if one is to not beg the effectiveness of a theist argument, one cannot immediately say that there argument does not fail in a similar way.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse I feel like you are missing the point- I'm demonstrating that logically, christmas can exist without santa, just like the universe can exist without god. It is a sarcastically fallacious argument, and designed this way on purpose.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals "I'm demonstrating that logically, christmas can exist without santa, just like the universe can exist without god."-But the theist would argue that your last statement is false. You could use traditional arguments (like you responded against the teleological argument), but there is no point to make this video then-the theist answers with traditional arguments that God created, at which point Santa rebuttals are innapropriate as you have demonstrated.
No point.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse I understand that theists don't believe the universe could exist without god- that is where science comes in. We seem to have a scientific explanation for almost everything that has occured since the big bang. If humans are self-aware back to 13.5 billion years ago, that's a DAMN good start. I suspect we will discover whatever came 'before' the big bang, if anything, as well. The only thing theists can say in response is "look at the universe! it's so complex!'
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse In the First Claus argument, God's existence is contingent upon the evidence supporting him. The evidence for god (in that argument) is existence. The evidence for Santa in that argument are presents. You'll notice that all of these arguments are identical, with only variables X and Y replaced. Pascal's Wager is one of the worst theist arguments, but I merely inserted Santa and Presents. It is LITERALLY the same argument, whether or not you support the theistic version.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals God's existence is contingent on the evidence supporting him? Well sure, but this does not mean he is a contingent being of course (which I understand you are not disagreeing with). But presents do not have to be effects of Santa (of course), whereas the theist tries to argue that a first cause must exist, and is the only option.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse I do disagree that god is not a contingent being; i think that's a fundamental characteristic of being an atheist. I do NOT concede that god can exist without evidence, especially when one of the strongest arguments against god is that there is insufficient evidence supporting him. If a first cause must exist, by the way, what caused god?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals You are using a traditional argument. Anyways, it's meaningless to ask what caused God because the definition of God is that He is the first uncaused cause. But my point here is not to argue such traditional arguments. My point is that at this point you are not using Santa objections anymore, you are using traditional objections, so your video is essentially useless once you need to defend.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse Santa is the variable I replaced god with to demonstrate the fallacious nature of god-existence arguments. If I have to explain those analogies further, I sometimes feel it necessary to back them up with evidence. That hardly falsifies my argument at all- after all, I'm the one providing the science.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
So Santa Claus isn't real?
happylauren15 1 year ago
Scientifically prove to me that you love your mother. You can't. There's a good enough reason.
JesseBochekTV 1 year ago
Actually you can. In Nazi europe, the germans did an experiment on some women. They would strap a woman to a machine that crudely mapped brain activity. Then, they would torture her children in front of her. Her brain responded differently when they tortured non-family members, suggesting that her love for her children quantitatively affected her reactions to changes in their well-being.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago 5
@BlueSpirals : not to mention that emotions actually fire on brain maps, and release chemicals. We are social animals, and thus on some level love (unless your psychopathic or sociopathic).
Lollitia 1 year ago
Comment removed
NotTooObvious 1 year ago
Oh man you got me so good. I was getting all pissed off reading this and then at the end I realized it was sarcastic. 5 stars!
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
I lol'd
MrMatchuw 1 year ago
try disproving santa claus xD
darkmoon123321 1 year ago
I'll hate to break it to you but
santa
satan
see ... : D
heyawhaw 1 year ago
Give a man a fish and you feed him for the day; Give him religion and he'll starve to death praying for a fish.
roguemale57 1 year ago 18