If a woman says she has been raped by a man, and that man says he didn't rape that woman, she is making an affermative claim, he is denying it, so he is making a negative claim. The judge in USA will ask that man to prove he didn't do it, which is like asking atheists to prove that God does not exist. If that man won't be able to prove that he didn't rape her, he is going to prison (even if he didn't do it, since not being able to prove the inexistence of...
...of something does not mean that that thing actually exists. I can't prove that there isn't a banana on planet Pluto, I can only say that it is very improbable, however that is no scientific proof. The fact that I can't scientificly prove the existence of a banana on Pluto (human beings have never landed on pluto, so no real evidence about that) doesn't mean that there actually IS a banana on Pluto. So how can atheist feminist apply double standards? I am an atheist btw, but I was just thinkn
@PerfectWoman2 It's the other way around, dim bulb. The state(ie the prosecutors) are the ones making the affirmative claim that the man is guilty of the charges and THEY are the ones that have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was responsible for the crime to convict him. Works that way this question too. The existent of God is the claim and the 'defense' would be the assertion that there is not, hence the burden of proof of 'guilt' (that there is a God) rest on those claimants.
Are you sure dim bulb X100? because I know that it is in Usa up to the man accused to prove his innocence, and if he cannot prove he didn't do that (which is the point I was trying to make here, good for you you didn't notice that) then he goes to prison. How do you explain Biurny Gonzalez?
@PerfectWoman2 YES I am 100% sure. When you are charged with a crime you are presumed innocent and the state must reach a threshold of the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt before a jury can even decide the matter of cuilt or innocence. Geez, haven't you ever watched Law And Order? Never mind 'dim bulb' that sucker is burned out and dark.
So how do you explain the false rape society? And you base your judgement on... Law and order???
Omg that's unbelievable. Don't tell me you also take seriously CSI or Mr Bean... lol
cose the real world has nothing to do with some ridiculous tv program. In the real world more than 1000 innocent men go to prison in the usa every year. Go watch false rape society. or youtube /user/FalseAccusers have fun
"All negatives, i.e. compliments of a positive claim are true until proven false." This is my answer to shockofgod's dumb question or any other theist asking for proof. Its an easy answer. A positive claim is false until proven true. Atheism is the negative claim of theism, it is all that theism isn't, and only by proving theism true does Atheism become false. Until then, the negative or compliment claim of Atheism remain true. Atheism is true.
god is an invention made by man the creator of god, man made god as a way to control people like poor people need to believe in something good, a fairy tale.
& the overacting, god what n the hell; so fucking grating. such factitious, stilted wooden bullshit. the 1 thing u might be good at: being angry, something that could come off naturally w/ some, sort of, artless, glabrous polish & u manage 2 fuck that up. smart decision 2 script ur anger & disgust, DUMMY.
wow so ugly. u look like a witch or one of those delusional, arrogant, socially inept american idol reject nerds. god what an ugly, thersitical, scurrilous lil cunt. lighten up; stuff ur box once in awhile. aren't u tired of ur pussy smelling like dog saliva u ugly, lonely, angry bitch.
Woah woah wait a minute now... I get that God, jesus, fairies, the lock ness monster, and the holy Ghost arent real ok but did you just say there is no SANTA CLAUSE!?!?! BULLSHIT! IF SANTA ISNT REAL THEN HOW THE FUCK DO THE PRESENTS GET UNDER THE TREE? science and logic cant explain that can they?
@undergroundjackal "Strong" and "Weak" Atheism are Creationist terms. Atheism has no "strong' or "weak", it is simply a negative claim, a TRUE until proven FALSE.
@CenaxKikia is that an opinion or fact? strong or weak/ negative or positive is a lot different when you look at it the way i do.. an energy of beliefs, energies of thought that alters ones perception without clouding judgement...positive or negative it belongs neither. the title of the video "burden of proof". now what the fuck you think
@undergroundjackal When you ask someone to take on a burden of proof, Atheism, a negative claim, takes on a burden of proof to prove it false. Because negative claims start true and must be proven false, the burden of proof isn't to prove Atheism true, it is to prove it false. Unfortunetly, I can't prove it false, because there isn't enough evidence for Atheism to be false. Negative belief's usually start with "A", it refers to the opposite. It means Non or Not Theism
@undergroundjackal Theism, on the other hand, is a positive claim. It starts as false, and must be proven true. The burden of proof for a theistic claim is asking for it to be proven true.. So far, that has never happened before either. These aren't opinions, they are the definitions of TRUE and FALSE in English. Positive and Negative are reference points of a claim. The biggest error of a creationist asking for Truth in Atheism is considering Atheism a positive polarity.
@CenaxKikia well in the quantum realm it breaks the pattern of facts and decides things at its own pace..left or right, one has to be in the middle to weed out what is what otherwise you will be either spinning to the left(counter clockwise) or right(clockwise) either way you will be spinning in circles and will be learning the same shit from a different pile or the opposite.
@CenaxKikia its like looking inside a hall of mirrors. place 2 mirrors in front of each other it creates a "wormhole" of infinity(of course bound by the laws of classical physics this appears as reflections but the world of quantum ph is much more bizzare) tilt it on whatever side it then creates a circular pattern depending of the angle that goes back to you. i have discovered this and it is cutting edge wisdom in the 4th dimension!! not yet a fact but its existence is!i will make a vid abt it
@undergroundjackal I know you want to relish the awesomeness of mirrors and your thoughts on why they work the way they do, but it's a bit unrelated. Feynman can give you a good layman's explanation of mirrors if they bother you so much. Youtube it.
@CenaxKikia LOL you failed to read between the lines..its "figuratively" to express the left and right energies. i already know what is clouding your judgement..i break it down to particles..and what did you do? you categorized what is already done!
@undergroundjackal that is such poppycock.....how can you be a 'strong' atheist for a start???you either believe in something or you dont. also, atheists can be described as people who need evidence to believe in something,which makes them logical and intelligent if you think about it, whereas christians believe in a god whose existence is verified only by the words of other humans,which makes them gullible and weakminded if you think about it.
@ezmereldagreen poppycock? LOL!! to you simply because you do not understand. try studying a lil bit of quantum physics and tell me that. you either believe in something or you dont is ignoramus "when you think about it" strong atheism is about as narrow minded as a "strong" christian but dumber when you think about. so come up with a better argument.
@EmbraceDorkhood Oh boy and now insults. Funny a "open a logic book" coming from someone that didn't understand when they made a sweeping claim about a wide group that it didn't include any sub group aaaaaaannnnnd blocked for the insult.
@EmbraceDorkhood Again only if evidence of a claim to oppose is ever presented otherwise it's made up. No one comes into a scientific meeting and says "I think the universe is made of gas x, why? Because I do. I have done no research and collected no data" this means the person made their position up and thus without data it is inherently false.
This is getting tiring however I think I'll just stop here as we're just arguing in circles.
@EmbraceDorkhood Yes it is. But when there is no positive evidence for the first claim then the claim can be defined as false as it could have never been made in the first place without being completely made up.
The only evidence I have is that the original claimer has no evidence and thus could not have the knowledge of what they speak (as they normally say "I have faith, I can't prove it"). Now if they provide evidence, which is rare, then yes counter evidence is required.
Look, you made a WIDE sweeping statement that included any type of God. I picked one instead of defining to some invisible limitations you never set to show that your statement did not apply to all situations as you claimed it.
Is this to difficult to grasp? You're backtracking to eliminate options. You never commented on God F, you commented on Gods A-Z.
"It's absolutely hypocritical of you to say I insulted you, when I really wasn't trying to insult you...when you said.."Wow you are something else."
Sorry, but that does have a negative connotation to it, and we both know it. I was trying to help you with your logic, because I had the same problems myself until I started studying logic more in depth. The only person insulting here, was you. hypocrite."
@EmbraceDorkhood You made a broad sweeping statement about the burden of proof. I selected one circumstance out of that broad sweep to show that it wasn't always true. Now you ignore it because you weren't specific, because you made a broad sweep you applied it to ALL situations including a "perfect" God.
Again I NEVER specified all Gods, I specified "A" God that fell under your sweep.
@EmbraceDorkhood So you ignored the several times when I specified which God I was speaking of? Lovely. I think we're quite done here if you wish to continue ignoring this despite it being repeated multiple times.
If God A says he's perfect and never lies and says he will not talk to anyone.
Then person X says God A spoke to them you run into a contradiction where you CAN NOT have a perfect God that never lies yet said this and then spoke to person X as either that God isn't perfect and does lie, or person X lied and thus the God they claim to spoke to was not God A.
@EmbraceDorkhood Pardon but have you completely ignored my comments? When did I ever state there was no God rather than there simply was not the Christian God. I never denied the possibility of creation (even if I don't think it was the case), I simply stated the lack of existence of the Christian God. THAT'S IT.
No, it's not a logical fallacy unless you don't want to read the actual bible.
The bible itself claimed God would not reveal himself to a person after a certain time. So again, the claim that they're being spoken to by God after this God (whose supposed to be perfect and thus couldn't lie about his former claim) is a complete contradiction making it a different God if anything.
Because you seem stuck on the fact that it's one specific God, I never said that.
@EmbraceDorkhood I'm not, I'm claiming that the claim that it exists is made up and therefor false. The being a person claims to KNOW with no evidence can't be true because you can't know something without evidence therefor it's simple to conclude that because they have no evidence that they're making up the claim.
Again I never said there wasn't "A" god, I said the there wasn't the God that was claimed as they had to have made it up without having evidence to make the claim in the first place.
@EmbraceDorkhood Now all this aside there is plenty of evidence that the Christian God is false. The fact that the earth isn't as old as it's claimed to be, or the fact that the flood never happened, etc. These outright lies about what we do know prove that the "him" described in the bible is non existent.
It'd be kind of like saying that I have a friend that invented Jello, while you may not know this friend nor what he did you do know the man that did actually invent Jello and it wasn't him.
@EmbraceDorkhood No I haven't. If I claim that an invisible dragon exists in my garage and I make enough excuses that evidence for it is impossible then you can conclude that because evidence for it is impossible that there can be no way I could be making my claim without making it up. Thus God is made up. It's not difficult to understand at all.
Sure, there might be "a" God, but the God the claimer is speaking of is made up do to it's lack of evidence.
@DataJackOne If one is gonna convince me of anything, the burden of proof is on them... If I don't care if one agrees with me, why would I bother to support my claim?
In a debate setting, onus of proof belongs to the positive claim. In most other situations, the onus of proof belongs to the one looking to convince others of his/her claim or viewpoint.
@DataJackOne my statement is just fine,your statement is you trying to come off like some genius, the fact is every goddamn video you go to on youtube about religion, all it is ,is a bunch of athiest and christians arguing about god, burden of proof or not, you say it exsist ,then fucking show me, i dont need to prove god doesnt exsist because iv'e never seen or heard from god, so that is as close to evidence for me, its easier to prove somthing is real by means that it exsists!
Honestly, I'm not like alot of religious people, particularly christians. I don't proselytize, I'm looking to learn above all things, and I can admit when I am wrong. But anyway, I must say looking forward to more videos.
I have to say, this was the first video I have seen by you (I saw the video was liked by one of my subscriptions) and I have to say I enjoyed it alot. But let me ask you, when someone says something against your religion (Like makes a video supposedly responding to another of your religion for proselytizing), you go to their video, and ask for their proof that your religion is wrong (when you have never once commented or even seen their vids), who has the burden? Btw, I'm Pagan, not Christian.
Cute cartoon! It reminds me of the times my friends and I stood at the bus stop talking about the nonexistence of things! "Unicorns?" "Nope!" "Britney Sears's virginity?" "No chance!"
@EmbraceDorkhood Wrong. You can't disprove something that doesn't exist because it doesn't exist. If someone claims something exists and provides no evidence it's fairly safe if not utterly accurate to call them a liar. Especially when the thing they claims to exist flies in the face of everything we do know about how the world works, not things that only the highly intellectual know, I'm talking about fourth grade at latest science.
When was the last time you found an adult of any theological persuasion care if Santa or the Easter bunny existed? How often do you find Theists writing books called “Santa is not great”, “The end of fairies” and “The bunny delusion”? I hardly ever come into contact with someone ever arguing over the existence of those things because we simple do not care about them, there is your key difference.
@SPR4GOD You think people argue about them because they exist? Haha, oh how delusional.
I suggest you check out Non stamp collectors "voltron" video.
To put it simply if your fairy tale is going to restrict the rights of others, impede scientific advancement, insult people, push itself into law, etc, then people are going to argue over it, write books about it, etc.
In the end God is just as ridiculous as Santa, the easter bunny, etc. The difference? Some of us have grown up.
@DarkBunnyLord So, you back to calling people delusional. Way to go, maybe soon you will start calling us vermin.
You keep on saying that god is a "fairy tale", do you have any proof to support that claim?
You keep on saying that we impede things, did you watch Ujames' video "religion is an excuse", remove god and you have atheists doing the exact same things in the name of reason or the workers utopia.
@SPR4GOD Yes, how about the simple fact that the earth isn't 6,000 years old, fact. The bible claims God made it 6,000 years ago.
Here's the facts. God is claimed to be true, no evidence is presented for him to be true, therfore this is proof that he was made up lest evidence would be supported.
Could there be "a" God, sure, could there be the Christian God of the bible? Nope.
You think Atheists would hold back knowledge of planet rotation? No, that was only because it contradicted the bible.
@DarkBunnyLord "The bible claims god made it 6,000 years ago". Please find Chapter and verse.
"No evidence is presented for him to be true". Can you please read 2000+ years of Christian theology before saying something like that? That’s not even including the other religious doctrines and their studies.
"Christian God of the bible? Nope." Do you have evidence to support a claim like that?
@SPR4GOD Not a single chapter and verse, it's a genealogy stretching from Adam to Jesus then added to AD which gives us a timeline of 6,000 years IF it was accurate, which according to every scientific study ever done about the age of the earth, it's not.
I don't have to when the bible contradicts itself time and time again. Even the "eye witness" accounts disagree. Prove otherwise, present some.
It claims the earth is the center of the universe. The Catholics threatened to string Galileo up.
@DarkBunnyLord So when Jews write about their mythology it is considered wrong? That would be like claiming Rome doesn't exist because Romulus and Remus are considered mythological characters.
I am not the one making these statements, how God is disproved because some of the early followers disagree about things like a guard at the tomb or how many women.
That was Copernicus heliocentricism to Aristotelian geocentricism; maybe study that a bit more, will you?
@SPR4GOD Yes. If the Greeks right that Zeus lead a war it is false even if the war did occur because Zeus did not lead it. Also no, it would not be like claiming Rome didn't exist it would be like claiming Romulus and Remus didn't exist if no evidence was provided for them, we have plenty of evidence for Rome.
God is disproved because of far more than that. It's because he claims to be perfect and that his book is perfect and yet has a different book. Could he exist in some other form? (cont)
@DarkBunnyLord Well you would first have to show that Zeus did not lead that war. If you could do that, then because Zeus didn't lead a war doesn't mean that Zeus doesn't exist, the only thing you can get from that is that Zeus didn't lead a war.
Who is arguing that God wrote a book? I think the Bible is a book about God, not a book by God. I know there are errors in the Bible, but that doesn't stop me being a Christian.
@SPR4GOD You're not seeming to get what I'm saying. I mean in that while "a" version of Zues might exist the one described by the book saying he lead the war would not.
Ie while George Washington existed the George Washington that "never told a lie" did not. In the end if you're getting your information from a flawed source (the bible) how do you know anything in it is accurate?
God especially has some issues here as he left one book, a book with many flaws, to attest to his existence. (cont)
(cont) something one would think would be somewhat important to a being that sends people to hell for not believing and yet the only proof of his existence is in a book that if one looks at reality, doesn't match up. I would think a perfect being threatening such a horrid fate that "wanted" people to believe in it would have some other form of proof it left behind especially for beings that he supposedly created and thus gave the capability to question and be rational.
@DarkBunnyLord "Many flaws", Hardly. Have you ever thought that the Bible has a small amount of discrepancies because it is not a cleverly put together hoax, and the individual teachings are the teaching found in certain areas in the Roman Empire. “Other form of proof”, why don’t you become a Christian for a while and find out? “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” C.S. Lewis
"Hardly" Haha, oh you must be joking. As for "being a Christian", no thanks, been there, it didn't deliver. Like most people that grew up in America I was forced into Christian teachings from an early age until I bothered to actually question my beliefs and read the entire bible rather than being told what to read.
Again you're claiming you've seen evidence of God yet you have yet to produce it. Do so or you're, frankly, just blowing hot air.
@DarkBunnyLord Awesome, I was also raised into Christianity as a child; I then became an atheist but reconverted a year and a half later. Telling your life story about your religious affiliations doesn't gain any brownie point.
Actually, I said, "why don't you become a Christian" and experience God. That is the best kind of proof, but it looks like you are unwilling to do so. I can't help that.
@SPR4GOD I never said it did (and pardon but you actually started that so waving this off as some attempt is silly), I was just trying to inform you that I wasn't completely unfamiliar with Christianity as you assumed =/
Why don't you become a Leperchaunist and experience leprechaun's (or insert random religion here)? Same reason I can't experience God, because I don't believe one exists. Again, produce it or where you lying?
@DarkBunnyLord This is the thing, I am an agnostic to Leprechauns, I have not received any evidence that they do or no not exist. The key difference is, I do not say "Leprechauns do not exist" or refer to them in a non-existent manner, say fairy tale. I leave them be.
The belief and the actuality of existence are two different things. Why do I have to produce it? I never said god exists only that I believe in one. You on the other hand called God a fairy tale.
@SPR4GOD So then you lied when you said "That same God in which you speak of also created me; I used my rationalizing skills to move from atheism to Christianity."
Because believing in something without evidence is not using your rationalizing skills. In fact, you stated the first part of that comment as a fact rather than a belief, so... another lie?
@SPR4GOD Why didn't it move you to Hinduism or some other religion? They have just as much of a chance of being correct as any other religion. How do you know Christianity is the TRUE religion?
@SPR4GOD Then you have poor rationalizing skills. If you have such evidence to justify belief then again, by all means, please provide it. Until then pardon if I don't believe you.
@DarkBunnyLord So you have gone and said that something doesn't exist, but your justification for that position is, that no one has shown you evidence. Shouldn't you be an agnostic not an atheist, and shouldn't you be saying "I don't know" instead of "It is a fairy tale".
@SPR4GOD No, my justification are the many contradictions that fly in the face of everything we do know about how the world works (the earth being round, the rotation of the planets, the age of the earth).
Lets just go with that last one, the God of the earth was supposed to have created it 6,000 years ago. We know that's a lie, thus that God does not exist.
You say I'm wrong, but you STILL will not produce any evidence to prove so, why? I'm guessing you don't have it.
@DarkBunnyLord That God? the whole Judaic - Islamic and Christian God doesn't exist because you take the OT as literal?
No, the Bible never said that the Earth is 6000 years old, there was never a date placed in the Bible saying the earth is 6000 years old. I must say you have more in common with Nephlimfree than I do. You are overlooking Christian liberalism in its entirety.
@SPR4GOD No, I don't take the OT as literal because I don't believe it. Come now if you can't even keep up with that much we're not going to get anywhere.
That said the NT says the OT is literal, it makes many references to it. If one isn't neither is the other.
Now that aside again you ignored my earlier answer to the 6,000 years claim of the bible. Trace the lineage from Adam to Jesus which IS listed. The fact you choose to ignore it to support your fantasy world is irrelevant but it's there.
@DarkBunnyLord Wow, I never said that you believed in it. Have you ever heard of "document theory" for the explanation of the first 5 books of the OT? What you are ignoring is that I consider the creation account as Jewish Mythology with a 100% truth value in the sense that books like 1984 has a truth value.
Just because I do not consider it literal doesn't mean that the society that developed the Bible didn't, however, just because they do doesn't mean they are wrong about other things.
@SPR4GOD You don't have much of a memory span do you, first the answer to the 6,000 years question, then the fact that you did your "I used to be an atheist claim" and criticizing me when I said "I used to be a Christian" after, and now denying the sentence in your last post saying "so you take the OT literal?"
No I haven't. However I don't like Cherry picking about what "is" and "isn't" literal in a book that makes no distinction between the two, only the believers do. Convenient =/
@DarkBunnyLord You are quote mining, I asked, "...Doesn't exist because YOU take the OT as literal?" It is a question, I was asking if you think the OT in its entirety was to be taken as literal.
So just because you don't like doing it, it means that it must be not allowed full stop, way to go at stipulating ideological parameters on your opponent. Just because I do not take it literal doesn't mean, I consider it not true, I also consider 1984 to have truth values.
@SPR4GOD Oh my mistake, so it's true but not true. Awesome.
There is no in between with truth, something either is or isn't true. It may have "parts" that are true and others that are not, but you can not say a story about a unicorn being ridden into Gettysburg is true but not literal because Gettysburg was a real battle, you would say it was false because no Unicorn was present in Gettysburg.
@DarkBunnyLord Perhaps the intent of the book is to have some passages taken real and others as not? Whether you like the intent or not, is another question. Convenient? You are right here. It is convenient. The OT was assembled from oral traditions. ...
@truevoiceofsanity Or perhaps you're just saying that to justify belief despite the inconsistencies, instead of admitting "oh yeah that's wrong, and that is" you go with the "well that's just not a literal part."
I'm sorry but please point out a foot note in the bible where it states which parts are and are not literal? If you want to go ahead and cherry pick what is and isn't so ignoring the outright wrong parts thats great, but if that's the case then why not say the whole thing isn't literal.
(cont) it's like writing a book about how something works and then when people find flaws going "oh well that's not supposed to be literal", it's a defensive mechanism to prevent oneself from admitting errors or falsehoods and I am not impressed. In fact do to the lack of ANY distinction between the two this is even more of a reason for me to believe they never where written to be taken as anything but literal and further attest to the whole thing being made up.
@DarkBunnyLord Who said the Bible is a book about how the universe works, I would suggest that the Bible is a book about God. It covers that quite well. The only person who is having difficulties with biblical literature seems to be you. You are thrashing about trying to stipulate your narrow minded view of the Bible onto me, it is not working.
@SPR4GOD Oh I don't know, how about durrrr the bible. It makes claims about how the universe functions many times, most of them are false. It's irrelevant if that's it's main point.
You're really just... to stupid for words so congrats, you've wasted enough of my time and proven yourself enough of a dolt to make it to my block list. Enjoy your accomplishment, I know I will not having to listen to any more of your dribble and refusal to actually acknowledge the counter points to your argument.
@DarkBunnyLord "It makes claims about how the universe functions many times". Does it? Said claims are subject to interpretation. For example, are the two contradictory creation stories meant to be taken literally? What does a "day mean" is a common approach people take to the first one. " proven yourself enough of a dolt to make it to my block list" As Christians go, he's mentioned u are misrepresenting his position. the dolt may well be u, even if god is imaginary.
@truevoiceofsanity No they're not. When it says the earth is a circle that's a lie, when it lays out a timeline from creation until Jesuses death at about 4,000 years that is also a lie because that would make the earth 6,000 years old, also a lie, when it says the world was in a great flood that killed off all but a few people and covered even the highest mountains... oh look another lie.
Ignore them if you like, most Christians tend to to justify belief.
@DarkBunnyLord It never says the "earth is a circle". I believe it referred to the four corners of the earth and gave the dimensions of a round sphere from which we can derive PI as being 4 but what was the purposes of those verses. The bible doesn't say what was literal and what wasn't. It was afterall, the oral literature of a people.
@SPR4GOD (cont) As for Nephlim free you're sadly mistaken. I have nothing in common with that fool, you however are very like him. You completely ignore evidence and responses to your earlier criticisms in hopes it will somehow support your failing argument.
You ignore proofs against your belief and instead seem to pretend they where never brought up. Lastly you make claims about rational thought and then when confronted with the fact of faith without evidence being irrational you ignore it.
@DarkBunnyLord No, you are offering proofs against a belief I do not hold. I would classify myself as a "liberal Christian" not a Fundamental one. These arguments might work against Nephlimfree (don't get your hopes up), but not me, I am more inclined to agree that the earth isn't 6000 years old.
You keep on railing against this Caricature of Christianity without any consideration for the Christians that support many different theologies.
@SPR4GOD Good so you admit you're cherry picking your beliefs from the bible to make your belief infallible as you can always take a step backwards.
If that's the case there's no point continuing this discussion as every proof against Christianity someone finds you'll just step back and go "nope, that part wasn't literal, but the rest is".
I submit that because of this type of rational that you DID NOT use your rational capabilities to become a Christian. Which is fine, but don't lie about it.
@SPR4GOD (cont) certainly, but this wouldn't be the same God. It would be like if I wrote a book about Oboma where he could fly and fought crime. While the Obama of reality might be real the one in the book would not be real.
No, Galileo brought up the idea that the sun rotated around the earth, the bible disagreed, and the Catholic church threatened to kill him if he didn't deny it based simply off the fear of people questioning the bible. There was no other motivation for the threat.
@DarkBunnyLord Actually Copernicus brought up the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, Galileo was another advocate for heliocentric solar system. It wasn't the bible that disagreed but some members of the Catholic Church who supported Aristotelian geocentricism. Galileo did not have his life threatened, but a formal threat of torture was advanced. You can find this information on the "The Galileo project" website supported by Rice University.
@SPR4GOD They did threaten his life, not by directly stating so but by saying he would be accused of heresy. I don't think even you would disagree that those found guilty of heresy where in turn charged with death. While not a direct death threat itself the heresy claim led always to death and thus was no different than a death threat unless the heretical act was denied.
The point in the end, however, was that they where trying to hold back a true scientific model. This is just one of many.
@SPR4GOD Yes but WHY where they supporting this scientific model over the other? It wasn't because of the evidence (else wise such an extreme threat would not have been made), it was because it conveniently synced up with their holy book.
Hell you see the same behavior again and again and again throughout history (and to be fair not just with Christianity, they just happened to have the most noticeable instances do to controlling most of the world for some time).
The burden of proof lies not on one side of an issue or another, it belongs to the person who wants someone else to believe them... which rules me out.. I have no burden of proof about religion. :)
so, what ~ you're saying that because there's no evidence for God, that you want to get into my pants? or am i reading between the lines too much again?
I demand proof that Santa doesn't exist. I've seen Santa with my own eyes, he seems to visit my local shopping mall every December. Even got to sit on his lap when I was young.
This has to do with different perceptions on where an agnostic should stand on an issue.
First, to make a truly positive claim, one must be able to prove the opposition wrong, and themselves correct. Applied to the atheism belief, neither of these is possible.
As such, one is left in a position of agnosticism. I've always placed the presumption on nonexistence..done through an analysis of Russell's Teapot I won't go into.
@TaurV Furthermore I have to agree with the author's point and earlier comments that have been made, it is interesting to see where the burden shifts. I generally hold that for any position to be asserted, it must overcome a burden of agnosticism which would necessarily place the burden on both a theist and an atheist.
Actually, there is a God, just his name is Zeus so I guess all that praying you've been doing went the wrong way. Oh, how do I know there's Zeus? I've been to the top of Mount Olympus and saw him! Have *you* been to the top of Mount Olympus? I didn't think so...
Those who demand this proof need to be schooled regarding scientific method. Since they assert the existance of deity, the burden of proof is upon them. For we who are inclined to doubt existance of same, doubt is all that's technically required as you cannot "prove" a negative.
Whats wrong with them asking? Its a belief held by most of the world. Makes sense to question your questioning over a belief that in their mind most everyone else follows to a large degree in one way or another in the form of a religion. Questioning them questioning you is pointless and isn't going to do anything. Just say "I don't know how" and move on from there into realms of logic and reason. Getting mad at them because you don't have an answer only fuels their belief.
@truevoiceofsanity maybe, maybe not. why would it take you off the list if it's plant smoking? i can understand being off the list if you smoke the tar stuff though.
@ZuKahta Santa apparently got involved in the war on drugs in the 1980s. I don't know why he was convinced but he joined the initiative. I think perhaps Reagan convinced him. Hard to say.
Well, I believe, about 2000 years ago, there was this Comic Book, written, and they named it the bible. Now, almost everyone on Earth, thinks it's the greatest thing, since Cheese Cake. And they all want a slice of Cake.
@Sarahon06 I have to disagree with this. It's your burden and weighs the same regardless of whether or not you have proof. It's just if you have enough, then you're able to carry it :)
@seonidhThe belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
dear stef, the holy ghost appeared to me last night. he spoke in a deep and echoing voice and said, "lardo, i want you to go spread the word of Bob" "Bob?" i said, he said, "yes, Bob" so i said, "i'm ready, i'm ready" he said "perfect, now go." i still don't know what he meant by all of that. oh man, that's one goofy ghost. it was awfully dark, it might have been the tooth fairy. i still don't know.
Not sure the tooth fairy and a ceator are exactly the same. To argue against a specific religion is easy enough, but the existence of a creator is a bit harder... Oh, and Santa actually did exist, he was a 4th Centuary saint.
@SiriusMined Or, they'll take the dumb route and say "well, Islam and Hinduism don't offer salvation from your sins by faith alone through grace". I've heard that pseudo-argument a few times.
You're right about the consistency issue, but they actually do have a point that if you make the positive assertion that there is no God, then you have taken on the burden of proof to some degree. Actually, even when you assert there is no Easter Bunny, you may have taken on the burden of proof if your audience consists of five year-olds.
I agree with you that these people should be consistent, but at the same time, I think both sides would have the burden of proof in this instance. In other words, yeah, if you're going to say the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, you should do so for some sort of reason.
@AncientAtheist Aaaah I see. It's ok though if you use masonic symbolism to reveal it. That way they'll believe I'm one of them. Nudge nudge wink wink funny handshake.
I demand that you prove there are no chemtrails, 9-11 wasn't an inside job, space aliens aren't kidnapping parrots to learn Earth's languages, and haarp isn't causing earthquakes, you closed-minded cynic!
Amen! LOL
dacrocker 8 months ago
How does that apply to rape?
If a woman says she has been raped by a man, and that man says he didn't rape that woman, she is making an affermative claim, he is denying it, so he is making a negative claim. The judge in USA will ask that man to prove he didn't do it, which is like asking atheists to prove that God does not exist. If that man won't be able to prove that he didn't rape her, he is going to prison (even if he didn't do it, since not being able to prove the inexistence of...
PerfectWoman2 8 months ago
...of something does not mean that that thing actually exists. I can't prove that there isn't a banana on planet Pluto, I can only say that it is very improbable, however that is no scientific proof. The fact that I can't scientificly prove the existence of a banana on Pluto (human beings have never landed on pluto, so no real evidence about that) doesn't mean that there actually IS a banana on Pluto. So how can atheist feminist apply double standards? I am an atheist btw, but I was just thinkn
PerfectWoman2 8 months ago
@PerfectWoman2 It's the other way around, dim bulb. The state(ie the prosecutors) are the ones making the affirmative claim that the man is guilty of the charges and THEY are the ones that have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was responsible for the crime to convict him. Works that way this question too. The existent of God is the claim and the 'defense' would be the assertion that there is not, hence the burden of proof of 'guilt' (that there is a God) rest on those claimants.
HeavyTrafficAhead 8 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead
Are you sure dim bulb X100? because I know that it is in Usa up to the man accused to prove his innocence, and if he cannot prove he didn't do that (which is the point I was trying to make here, good for you you didn't notice that) then he goes to prison. How do you explain Biurny Gonzalez?
Watch /watch?v=8eEWrGjOTaQ dim bulb X10,000
PerfectWoman2 8 months ago
@PerfectWoman2 YES I am 100% sure. When you are charged with a crime you are presumed innocent and the state must reach a threshold of the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt before a jury can even decide the matter of cuilt or innocence. Geez, haven't you ever watched Law And Order? Never mind 'dim bulb' that sucker is burned out and dark.
HeavyTrafficAhead 8 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead
So how do you explain the false rape society? And you base your judgement on... Law and order???
Omg that's unbelievable. Don't tell me you also take seriously CSI or Mr Bean... lol
cose the real world has nothing to do with some ridiculous tv program. In the real world more than 1000 innocent men go to prison in the usa every year. Go watch false rape society. or youtube /user/FalseAccusers have fun
PerfectWoman2 8 months ago
"All negatives, i.e. compliments of a positive claim are true until proven false." This is my answer to shockofgod's dumb question or any other theist asking for proof. Its an easy answer. A positive claim is false until proven true. Atheism is the negative claim of theism, it is all that theism isn't, and only by proving theism true does Atheism become false. Until then, the negative or compliment claim of Atheism remain true. Atheism is true.
CenaxKikia 8 months ago
I'm not sure if your accent is supposed to be southern or ghetto.
JRChadwick 9 months ago
god is an invention made by man the creator of god, man made god as a way to control people like poor people need to believe in something good, a fairy tale.
blackbenjamin20000 9 months ago
& the overacting, god what n the hell; so fucking grating. such factitious, stilted wooden bullshit. the 1 thing u might be good at: being angry, something that could come off naturally w/ some, sort of, artless, glabrous polish & u manage 2 fuck that up. smart decision 2 script ur anger & disgust, DUMMY.
GhostAccount56 9 months ago
wow so ugly. u look like a witch or one of those delusional, arrogant, socially inept american idol reject nerds. god what an ugly, thersitical, scurrilous lil cunt. lighten up; stuff ur box once in awhile. aren't u tired of ur pussy smelling like dog saliva u ugly, lonely, angry bitch.
GhostAccount56 9 months ago
Woah woah wait a minute now... I get that God, jesus, fairies, the lock ness monster, and the holy Ghost arent real ok but did you just say there is no SANTA CLAUSE!?!?! BULLSHIT! IF SANTA ISNT REAL THEN HOW THE FUCK DO THE PRESENTS GET UNDER THE TREE? science and logic cant explain that can they?
TheMagicSandwichist 9 months ago
a strong atheist is as no good as a christian that is why you look like a retard.
undergroundjackal 9 months ago
@undergroundjackal Your assumption that I'm a "strong atheist" makes you look far worse than any Christian OR retard.
stefzula 9 months ago 4
@stefzula I've been told that push ups will make you stronger. I mean, if you are weak, you can build muscle tone.
truevoiceofsanity 9 months ago
@stefzula i can see right through you..so youre not a strong atheist but lemme tell you. the series of events will make YOU one.
undergroundjackal 8 months ago
@undergroundjackal "Strong" and "Weak" Atheism are Creationist terms. Atheism has no "strong' or "weak", it is simply a negative claim, a TRUE until proven FALSE.
CenaxKikia 8 months ago 2
@CenaxKikia is that an opinion or fact? strong or weak/ negative or positive is a lot different when you look at it the way i do.. an energy of beliefs, energies of thought that alters ones perception without clouding judgement...positive or negative it belongs neither. the title of the video "burden of proof". now what the fuck you think
undergroundjackal 8 months ago
@undergroundjackal When you ask someone to take on a burden of proof, Atheism, a negative claim, takes on a burden of proof to prove it false. Because negative claims start true and must be proven false, the burden of proof isn't to prove Atheism true, it is to prove it false. Unfortunetly, I can't prove it false, because there isn't enough evidence for Atheism to be false. Negative belief's usually start with "A", it refers to the opposite. It means Non or Not Theism
CenaxKikia 8 months ago 2
@undergroundjackal Theism, on the other hand, is a positive claim. It starts as false, and must be proven true. The burden of proof for a theistic claim is asking for it to be proven true.. So far, that has never happened before either. These aren't opinions, they are the definitions of TRUE and FALSE in English. Positive and Negative are reference points of a claim. The biggest error of a creationist asking for Truth in Atheism is considering Atheism a positive polarity.
CenaxKikia 8 months ago 2
@CenaxKikia well in the quantum realm it breaks the pattern of facts and decides things at its own pace..left or right, one has to be in the middle to weed out what is what otherwise you will be either spinning to the left(counter clockwise) or right(clockwise) either way you will be spinning in circles and will be learning the same shit from a different pile or the opposite.
undergroundjackal 8 months ago
@CenaxKikia its like looking inside a hall of mirrors. place 2 mirrors in front of each other it creates a "wormhole" of infinity(of course bound by the laws of classical physics this appears as reflections but the world of quantum ph is much more bizzare) tilt it on whatever side it then creates a circular pattern depending of the angle that goes back to you. i have discovered this and it is cutting edge wisdom in the 4th dimension!! not yet a fact but its existence is!i will make a vid abt it
undergroundjackal 8 months ago
@undergroundjackal I know you want to relish the awesomeness of mirrors and your thoughts on why they work the way they do, but it's a bit unrelated. Feynman can give you a good layman's explanation of mirrors if they bother you so much. Youtube it.
CenaxKikia 8 months ago
@CenaxKikia LOL you failed to read between the lines..its "figuratively" to express the left and right energies. i already know what is clouding your judgement..i break it down to particles..and what did you do? you categorized what is already done!
undergroundjackal 8 months ago
@undergroundjackal that is such poppycock.....how can you be a 'strong' atheist for a start???you either believe in something or you dont. also, atheists can be described as people who need evidence to believe in something,which makes them logical and intelligent if you think about it, whereas christians believe in a god whose existence is verified only by the words of other humans,which makes them gullible and weakminded if you think about it.
ezmereldagreen 8 months ago
@ezmereldagreen poppycock? LOL!! to you simply because you do not understand. try studying a lil bit of quantum physics and tell me that. you either believe in something or you dont is ignoramus "when you think about it" strong atheism is about as narrow minded as a "strong" christian but dumber when you think about. so come up with a better argument.
undergroundjackal 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@undergroundjackal i dont think you even read my message....
ezmereldagreen 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ezmereldagreen and your comment marked as spam.
undergroundjackal 8 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood Oh boy and now insults. Funny a "open a logic book" coming from someone that didn't understand when they made a sweeping claim about a wide group that it didn't include any sub group aaaaaaannnnnd blocked for the insult.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood Again only if evidence of a claim to oppose is ever presented otherwise it's made up. No one comes into a scientific meeting and says "I think the universe is made of gas x, why? Because I do. I have done no research and collected no data" this means the person made their position up and thus without data it is inherently false.
This is getting tiring however I think I'll just stop here as we're just arguing in circles.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood Yes it is. But when there is no positive evidence for the first claim then the claim can be defined as false as it could have never been made in the first place without being completely made up.
The only evidence I have is that the original claimer has no evidence and thus could not have the knowledge of what they speak (as they normally say "I have faith, I can't prove it"). Now if they provide evidence, which is rare, then yes counter evidence is required.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood Wow you are something else.
Look, you made a WIDE sweeping statement that included any type of God. I picked one instead of defining to some invisible limitations you never set to show that your statement did not apply to all situations as you claimed it.
Is this to difficult to grasp? You're backtracking to eliminate options. You never commented on God F, you commented on Gods A-Z.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord
I am doing this as a favor for EmbraceDorkhood.
"It's absolutely hypocritical of you to say I insulted you, when I really wasn't trying to insult you...when you said.."Wow you are something else."
Sorry, but that does have a negative connotation to it, and we both know it. I was trying to help you with your logic, because I had the same problems myself until I started studying logic more in depth. The only person insulting here, was you. hypocrite."
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood You made a broad sweeping statement about the burden of proof. I selected one circumstance out of that broad sweep to show that it wasn't always true. Now you ignore it because you weren't specific, because you made a broad sweep you applied it to ALL situations including a "perfect" God.
Again I NEVER specified all Gods, I specified "A" God that fell under your sweep.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood There are many others who do not thing that the earth is 6000 years old.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood So you ignored the several times when I specified which God I was speaking of? Lovely. I think we're quite done here if you wish to continue ignoring this despite it being repeated multiple times.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood You're misunderstanding this.
If God A says he's perfect and never lies and says he will not talk to anyone.
Then person X says God A spoke to them you run into a contradiction where you CAN NOT have a perfect God that never lies yet said this and then spoke to person X as either that God isn't perfect and does lie, or person X lied and thus the God they claim to spoke to was not God A.
Is that easier to understand?
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood Pardon but have you completely ignored my comments? When did I ever state there was no God rather than there simply was not the Christian God. I never denied the possibility of creation (even if I don't think it was the case), I simply stated the lack of existence of the Christian God. THAT'S IT.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood
No, it's not a logical fallacy unless you don't want to read the actual bible.
The bible itself claimed God would not reveal himself to a person after a certain time. So again, the claim that they're being spoken to by God after this God (whose supposed to be perfect and thus couldn't lie about his former claim) is a complete contradiction making it a different God if anything.
Because you seem stuck on the fact that it's one specific God, I never said that.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood I'm not, I'm claiming that the claim that it exists is made up and therefor false. The being a person claims to KNOW with no evidence can't be true because you can't know something without evidence therefor it's simple to conclude that because they have no evidence that they're making up the claim.
Again I never said there wasn't "A" god, I said the there wasn't the God that was claimed as they had to have made it up without having evidence to make the claim in the first place.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood Now all this aside there is plenty of evidence that the Christian God is false. The fact that the earth isn't as old as it's claimed to be, or the fact that the flood never happened, etc. These outright lies about what we do know prove that the "him" described in the bible is non existent.
It'd be kind of like saying that I have a friend that invented Jello, while you may not know this friend nor what he did you do know the man that did actually invent Jello and it wasn't him.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood No I haven't. If I claim that an invisible dragon exists in my garage and I make enough excuses that evidence for it is impossible then you can conclude that because evidence for it is impossible that there can be no way I could be making my claim without making it up. Thus God is made up. It's not difficult to understand at all.
Sure, there might be "a" God, but the God the claimer is speaking of is made up do to it's lack of evidence.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DataJackOne If one is gonna convince me of anything, the burden of proof is on them... If I don't care if one agrees with me, why would I bother to support my claim?
In a debate setting, onus of proof belongs to the positive claim. In most other situations, the onus of proof belongs to the one looking to convince others of his/her claim or viewpoint.
kirke420 9 months ago
That's okay, I've already proved it doesn't exist, just watch my 40 minute video, simple as shit
sonicsoul0 9 months ago
you're attractive but then you aren't. I'm confused
Brust90 9 months ago
@DataJackOne my statement is just fine,your statement is you trying to come off like some genius, the fact is every goddamn video you go to on youtube about religion, all it is ,is a bunch of athiest and christians arguing about god, burden of proof or not, you say it exsist ,then fucking show me, i dont need to prove god doesnt exsist because iv'e never seen or heard from god, so that is as close to evidence for me, its easier to prove somthing is real by means that it exsists!
METALLICA6547 9 months ago
Honestly, I'm not like alot of religious people, particularly christians. I don't proselytize, I'm looking to learn above all things, and I can admit when I am wrong. But anyway, I must say looking forward to more videos.
ericdravenashecorven 9 months ago
I have to say, this was the first video I have seen by you (I saw the video was liked by one of my subscriptions) and I have to say I enjoyed it alot. But let me ask you, when someone says something against your religion (Like makes a video supposedly responding to another of your religion for proselytizing), you go to their video, and ask for their proof that your religion is wrong (when you have never once commented or even seen their vids), who has the burden? Btw, I'm Pagan, not Christian.
ericdravenashecorven 9 months ago
Carl Sagan covered this very well. See youTube
"The Dragon in My Garage" by Carl Sagan
pchtermino1 9 months ago
Nice one stef!
AuntieDiluvian 9 months ago
Cute cartoon! It reminds me of the times my friends and I stood at the bus stop talking about the nonexistence of things! "Unicorns?" "Nope!" "Britney Sears's virginity?" "No chance!"
We were lonely children.
bencamp18 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood Wrong. You can't disprove something that doesn't exist because it doesn't exist. If someone claims something exists and provides no evidence it's fairly safe if not utterly accurate to call them a liar. Especially when the thing they claims to exist flies in the face of everything we do know about how the world works, not things that only the highly intellectual know, I'm talking about fourth grade at latest science.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago 2
Spot on!
03DJB 9 months ago
yeap!
Cheers Christine
christinepeace 9 months ago
When was the last time you found an adult of any theological persuasion care if Santa or the Easter bunny existed? How often do you find Theists writing books called “Santa is not great”, “The end of fairies” and “The bunny delusion”? I hardly ever come into contact with someone ever arguing over the existence of those things because we simple do not care about them, there is your key difference.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD You think people argue about them because they exist? Haha, oh how delusional.
I suggest you check out Non stamp collectors "voltron" video.
To put it simply if your fairy tale is going to restrict the rights of others, impede scientific advancement, insult people, push itself into law, etc, then people are going to argue over it, write books about it, etc.
In the end God is just as ridiculous as Santa, the easter bunny, etc. The difference? Some of us have grown up.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord So, you back to calling people delusional. Way to go, maybe soon you will start calling us vermin.
You keep on saying that god is a "fairy tale", do you have any proof to support that claim?
You keep on saying that we impede things, did you watch Ujames' video "religion is an excuse", remove god and you have atheists doing the exact same things in the name of reason or the workers utopia.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD Yes, how about the simple fact that the earth isn't 6,000 years old, fact. The bible claims God made it 6,000 years ago.
Here's the facts. God is claimed to be true, no evidence is presented for him to be true, therfore this is proof that he was made up lest evidence would be supported.
Could there be "a" God, sure, could there be the Christian God of the bible? Nope.
You think Atheists would hold back knowledge of planet rotation? No, that was only because it contradicted the bible.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord "The bible claims god made it 6,000 years ago". Please find Chapter and verse.
"No evidence is presented for him to be true". Can you please read 2000+ years of Christian theology before saying something like that? That’s not even including the other religious doctrines and their studies.
"Christian God of the bible? Nope." Do you have evidence to support a claim like that?
How do planet rotations contradict the bible?
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD Not a single chapter and verse, it's a genealogy stretching from Adam to Jesus then added to AD which gives us a timeline of 6,000 years IF it was accurate, which according to every scientific study ever done about the age of the earth, it's not.
I don't have to when the bible contradicts itself time and time again. Even the "eye witness" accounts disagree. Prove otherwise, present some.
It claims the earth is the center of the universe. The Catholics threatened to string Galileo up.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord So when Jews write about their mythology it is considered wrong? That would be like claiming Rome doesn't exist because Romulus and Remus are considered mythological characters.
I am not the one making these statements, how God is disproved because some of the early followers disagree about things like a guard at the tomb or how many women.
That was Copernicus heliocentricism to Aristotelian geocentricism; maybe study that a bit more, will you?
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD Yes. If the Greeks right that Zeus lead a war it is false even if the war did occur because Zeus did not lead it. Also no, it would not be like claiming Rome didn't exist it would be like claiming Romulus and Remus didn't exist if no evidence was provided for them, we have plenty of evidence for Rome.
God is disproved because of far more than that. It's because he claims to be perfect and that his book is perfect and yet has a different book. Could he exist in some other form? (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Well you would first have to show that Zeus did not lead that war. If you could do that, then because Zeus didn't lead a war doesn't mean that Zeus doesn't exist, the only thing you can get from that is that Zeus didn't lead a war.
Who is arguing that God wrote a book? I think the Bible is a book about God, not a book by God. I know there are errors in the Bible, but that doesn't stop me being a Christian.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD You're not seeming to get what I'm saying. I mean in that while "a" version of Zues might exist the one described by the book saying he lead the war would not.
Ie while George Washington existed the George Washington that "never told a lie" did not. In the end if you're getting your information from a flawed source (the bible) how do you know anything in it is accurate?
God especially has some issues here as he left one book, a book with many flaws, to attest to his existence. (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
(cont) something one would think would be somewhat important to a being that sends people to hell for not believing and yet the only proof of his existence is in a book that if one looks at reality, doesn't match up. I would think a perfect being threatening such a horrid fate that "wanted" people to believe in it would have some other form of proof it left behind especially for beings that he supposedly created and thus gave the capability to question and be rational.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord "Many flaws", Hardly. Have you ever thought that the Bible has a small amount of discrepancies because it is not a cleverly put together hoax, and the individual teachings are the teaching found in certain areas in the Roman Empire. “Other form of proof”, why don’t you become a Christian for a while and find out? “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” C.S. Lewis
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD
"Hardly" Haha, oh you must be joking. As for "being a Christian", no thanks, been there, it didn't deliver. Like most people that grew up in America I was forced into Christian teachings from an early age until I bothered to actually question my beliefs and read the entire bible rather than being told what to read.
Again you're claiming you've seen evidence of God yet you have yet to produce it. Do so or you're, frankly, just blowing hot air.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Awesome, I was also raised into Christianity as a child; I then became an atheist but reconverted a year and a half later. Telling your life story about your religious affiliations doesn't gain any brownie point.
Actually, I said, "why don't you become a Christian" and experience God. That is the best kind of proof, but it looks like you are unwilling to do so. I can't help that.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD I never said it did (and pardon but you actually started that so waving this off as some attempt is silly), I was just trying to inform you that I wasn't completely unfamiliar with Christianity as you assumed =/
Why don't you become a Leperchaunist and experience leprechaun's (or insert random religion here)? Same reason I can't experience God, because I don't believe one exists. Again, produce it or where you lying?
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord This is the thing, I am an agnostic to Leprechauns, I have not received any evidence that they do or no not exist. The key difference is, I do not say "Leprechauns do not exist" or refer to them in a non-existent manner, say fairy tale. I leave them be.
The belief and the actuality of existence are two different things. Why do I have to produce it? I never said god exists only that I believe in one. You on the other hand called God a fairy tale.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SPR4GOD So then you lied when you said "That same God in which you speak of also created me; I used my rationalizing skills to move from atheism to Christianity."
Because believing in something without evidence is not using your rationalizing skills. In fact, you stated the first part of that comment as a fact rather than a belief, so... another lie?
Which is it?
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord That same God in which you speak of also created me; I used my rationalizing skills to move from atheism to Christianity.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD Why didn't it move you to Hinduism or some other religion? They have just as much of a chance of being correct as any other religion. How do you know Christianity is the TRUE religion?
LucasI3434 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD Then you have poor rationalizing skills. If you have such evidence to justify belief then again, by all means, please provide it. Until then pardon if I don't believe you.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord So you have gone and said that something doesn't exist, but your justification for that position is, that no one has shown you evidence. Shouldn't you be an agnostic not an atheist, and shouldn't you be saying "I don't know" instead of "It is a fairy tale".
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD No, my justification are the many contradictions that fly in the face of everything we do know about how the world works (the earth being round, the rotation of the planets, the age of the earth).
Lets just go with that last one, the God of the earth was supposed to have created it 6,000 years ago. We know that's a lie, thus that God does not exist.
You say I'm wrong, but you STILL will not produce any evidence to prove so, why? I'm guessing you don't have it.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord That God? the whole Judaic - Islamic and Christian God doesn't exist because you take the OT as literal?
No, the Bible never said that the Earth is 6000 years old, there was never a date placed in the Bible saying the earth is 6000 years old. I must say you have more in common with Nephlimfree than I do. You are overlooking Christian liberalism in its entirety.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD No, I don't take the OT as literal because I don't believe it. Come now if you can't even keep up with that much we're not going to get anywhere.
That said the NT says the OT is literal, it makes many references to it. If one isn't neither is the other.
Now that aside again you ignored my earlier answer to the 6,000 years claim of the bible. Trace the lineage from Adam to Jesus which IS listed. The fact you choose to ignore it to support your fantasy world is irrelevant but it's there.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Wow, I never said that you believed in it. Have you ever heard of "document theory" for the explanation of the first 5 books of the OT? What you are ignoring is that I consider the creation account as Jewish Mythology with a 100% truth value in the sense that books like 1984 has a truth value.
Just because I do not consider it literal doesn't mean that the society that developed the Bible didn't, however, just because they do doesn't mean they are wrong about other things.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD You don't have much of a memory span do you, first the answer to the 6,000 years question, then the fact that you did your "I used to be an atheist claim" and criticizing me when I said "I used to be a Christian" after, and now denying the sentence in your last post saying "so you take the OT literal?"
No I haven't. However I don't like Cherry picking about what "is" and "isn't" literal in a book that makes no distinction between the two, only the believers do. Convenient =/
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord You are quote mining, I asked, "...Doesn't exist because YOU take the OT as literal?" It is a question, I was asking if you think the OT in its entirety was to be taken as literal.
So just because you don't like doing it, it means that it must be not allowed full stop, way to go at stipulating ideological parameters on your opponent. Just because I do not take it literal doesn't mean, I consider it not true, I also consider 1984 to have truth values.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD Oh my mistake, so it's true but not true. Awesome.
There is no in between with truth, something either is or isn't true. It may have "parts" that are true and others that are not, but you can not say a story about a unicorn being ridden into Gettysburg is true but not literal because Gettysburg was a real battle, you would say it was false because no Unicorn was present in Gettysburg.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Perhaps the intent of the book is to have some passages taken real and others as not? Whether you like the intent or not, is another question. Convenient? You are right here. It is convenient. The OT was assembled from oral traditions. ...
truevoiceofsanity 9 months ago
@truevoiceofsanity Or perhaps you're just saying that to justify belief despite the inconsistencies, instead of admitting "oh yeah that's wrong, and that is" you go with the "well that's just not a literal part."
I'm sorry but please point out a foot note in the bible where it states which parts are and are not literal? If you want to go ahead and cherry pick what is and isn't so ignoring the outright wrong parts thats great, but if that's the case then why not say the whole thing isn't literal.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
(cont) it's like writing a book about how something works and then when people find flaws going "oh well that's not supposed to be literal", it's a defensive mechanism to prevent oneself from admitting errors or falsehoods and I am not impressed. In fact do to the lack of ANY distinction between the two this is even more of a reason for me to believe they never where written to be taken as anything but literal and further attest to the whole thing being made up.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Who said the Bible is a book about how the universe works, I would suggest that the Bible is a book about God. It covers that quite well. The only person who is having difficulties with biblical literature seems to be you. You are thrashing about trying to stipulate your narrow minded view of the Bible onto me, it is not working.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD Oh I don't know, how about durrrr the bible. It makes claims about how the universe functions many times, most of them are false. It's irrelevant if that's it's main point.
You're really just... to stupid for words so congrats, you've wasted enough of my time and proven yourself enough of a dolt to make it to my block list. Enjoy your accomplishment, I know I will not having to listen to any more of your dribble and refusal to actually acknowledge the counter points to your argument.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord I guess I win then, now where to claim my cookie? I didn't even have to defend my position, because sadly, we weren’t arguing it.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord "It makes claims about how the universe functions many times". Does it? Said claims are subject to interpretation. For example, are the two contradictory creation stories meant to be taken literally? What does a "day mean" is a common approach people take to the first one. " proven yourself enough of a dolt to make it to my block list" As Christians go, he's mentioned u are misrepresenting his position. the dolt may well be u, even if god is imaginary.
truevoiceofsanity 9 months ago
@truevoiceofsanity No they're not. When it says the earth is a circle that's a lie, when it lays out a timeline from creation until Jesuses death at about 4,000 years that is also a lie because that would make the earth 6,000 years old, also a lie, when it says the world was in a great flood that killed off all but a few people and covered even the highest mountains... oh look another lie.
Ignore them if you like, most Christians tend to to justify belief.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord It never says the "earth is a circle". I believe it referred to the four corners of the earth and gave the dimensions of a round sphere from which we can derive PI as being 4 but what was the purposes of those verses. The bible doesn't say what was literal and what wasn't. It was afterall, the oral literature of a people.
truevoiceofsanity 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD (cont) As for Nephlim free you're sadly mistaken. I have nothing in common with that fool, you however are very like him. You completely ignore evidence and responses to your earlier criticisms in hopes it will somehow support your failing argument.
You ignore proofs against your belief and instead seem to pretend they where never brought up. Lastly you make claims about rational thought and then when confronted with the fact of faith without evidence being irrational you ignore it.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord No, you are offering proofs against a belief I do not hold. I would classify myself as a "liberal Christian" not a Fundamental one. These arguments might work against Nephlimfree (don't get your hopes up), but not me, I am more inclined to agree that the earth isn't 6000 years old.
You keep on railing against this Caricature of Christianity without any consideration for the Christians that support many different theologies.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD Good so you admit you're cherry picking your beliefs from the bible to make your belief infallible as you can always take a step backwards.
If that's the case there's no point continuing this discussion as every proof against Christianity someone finds you'll just step back and go "nope, that part wasn't literal, but the rest is".
I submit that because of this type of rational that you DID NOT use your rational capabilities to become a Christian. Which is fine, but don't lie about it.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD (cont) certainly, but this wouldn't be the same God. It would be like if I wrote a book about Oboma where he could fly and fought crime. While the Obama of reality might be real the one in the book would not be real.
No, Galileo brought up the idea that the sun rotated around the earth, the bible disagreed, and the Catholic church threatened to kill him if he didn't deny it based simply off the fear of people questioning the bible. There was no other motivation for the threat.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Actually Copernicus brought up the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, Galileo was another advocate for heliocentric solar system. It wasn't the bible that disagreed but some members of the Catholic Church who supported Aristotelian geocentricism. Galileo did not have his life threatened, but a formal threat of torture was advanced. You can find this information on the "The Galileo project" website supported by Rice University.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD They did threaten his life, not by directly stating so but by saying he would be accused of heresy. I don't think even you would disagree that those found guilty of heresy where in turn charged with death. While not a direct death threat itself the heresy claim led always to death and thus was no different than a death threat unless the heretical act was denied.
The point in the end, however, was that they where trying to hold back a true scientific model. This is just one of many.
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord The Catholic Church was supporting a true scientific model as well; geocentricism is a scientific model, a wrong one however.
SPR4GOD 9 months ago
@SPR4GOD Yes but WHY where they supporting this scientific model over the other? It wasn't because of the evidence (else wise such an extreme threat would not have been made), it was because it conveniently synced up with their holy book.
Hell you see the same behavior again and again and again throughout history (and to be fair not just with Christianity, they just happened to have the most noticeable instances do to controlling most of the world for some time).
DarkBunnyLord 9 months ago
Exactly ★★★★★
Katalyzt 9 months ago
i'm an atheist, but these videos start to hurt after some time. esp with such an annoying voice.
bocckoka 9 months ago
Oh so true ;)
spaceman300 9 months ago
People still talk about religion? Drama must be low this week.
';,,;' <- it's a face lol
mikefoz 9 months ago
The burden of proof lies not on one side of an issue or another, it belongs to the person who wants someone else to believe them... which rules me out.. I have no burden of proof about religion. :)
kirke420 9 months ago
I have proof and evidence that the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim. :>
CreationDebunked 9 months ago
If I were nonstamp, I'd be flattered as hell right now.
dannypantsgm 9 months ago
I was waiting for a flash to come out from those clouds. Zapping one of those girls. And.. Nothing!
SmartK8 9 months ago
HOW DARE YOU SAY THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS!
13baldjj 9 months ago
so, what ~ you're saying that because there's no evidence for God, that you want to get into my pants? or am i reading between the lines too much again?
gothatfunk 9 months ago
What!! Santa isn't real!! I'm not hearing this! I'm not even listening! *plugs ears* La la la la la, La la la la!
Prove to me you don't collect stamps!
Swidhelm 9 months ago
I put this at my site, Thanks Stef ;o)
dalejr88 9 months ago
I demand proof that Santa doesn't exist. I've seen Santa with my own eyes, he seems to visit my local shopping mall every December. Even got to sit on his lap when I was young.
I've never seen God or sat on his lap
operationmiller 9 months ago
This has to do with different perceptions on where an agnostic should stand on an issue.
First, to make a truly positive claim, one must be able to prove the opposition wrong, and themselves correct. Applied to the atheism belief, neither of these is possible.
As such, one is left in a position of agnosticism. I've always placed the presumption on nonexistence..done through an analysis of Russell's Teapot I won't go into.
TaurV 9 months ago
@TaurV Furthermore I have to agree with the author's point and earlier comments that have been made, it is interesting to see where the burden shifts. I generally hold that for any position to be asserted, it must overcome a burden of agnosticism which would necessarily place the burden on both a theist and an atheist.
TaurV 9 months ago
... there are no republicans. :P
morthim 9 months ago
My response to a generic theist:
Actually, there is a God, just his name is Zeus so I guess all that praying you've been doing went the wrong way. Oh, how do I know there's Zeus? I've been to the top of Mount Olympus and saw him! Have *you* been to the top of Mount Olympus? I didn't think so...
swordmaster2k1 9 months ago
Well, since you ask, and I'm in a charitable mood, I'll answer: yes, it is clearly too much to ask. Therefore, je$u$. QED.
integralmath 9 months ago
i just say that there is not any evidence to support the claim that there is a god so i do not believe it.
and it they push me even further then i ask them to disprove the flying spaghetti monster.
AnUglyAmerican 9 months ago
Those who demand this proof need to be schooled regarding scientific method. Since they assert the existance of deity, the burden of proof is upon them. For we who are inclined to doubt existance of same, doubt is all that's technically required as you cannot "prove" a negative.
KCKatheist 9 months ago
That's funny... burden of proof meets non-exhaustible circumstances.....
Elenkhos 9 months ago
Whats wrong with them asking? Its a belief held by most of the world. Makes sense to question your questioning over a belief that in their mind most everyone else follows to a large degree in one way or another in the form of a religion. Questioning them questioning you is pointless and isn't going to do anything. Just say "I don't know how" and move on from there into realms of logic and reason. Getting mad at them because you don't have an answer only fuels their belief.
Unworshipediety 9 months ago
Nice camera. Which one is it?
Afriboy10 9 months ago
the sad part is ,either party cant physically prove gods exsistence or non exsistence!it's a circular argument!
METALLICA6547 9 months ago
the easter bunny, santa and tooth fairy all exist. The problem is, only children can see them.
truevoiceofsanity 9 months ago 12
@truevoiceofsanity now i don't know for sure but i'm sure weed can change that.
ZuKahta 9 months ago
@ZuKahta smoking up causes santa to take you off the nice list.
truevoiceofsanity 9 months ago
@truevoiceofsanity maybe, maybe not. why would it take you off the list if it's plant smoking? i can understand being off the list if you smoke the tar stuff though.
ZuKahta 9 months ago
@ZuKahta Santa apparently got involved in the war on drugs in the 1980s. I don't know why he was convinced but he joined the initiative. I think perhaps Reagan convinced him. Hard to say.
truevoiceofsanity 9 months ago
Is consistency too much to ask? Apparently yes. Yes it is.
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
I'm wondering what part of "no" makes "there is no god" a positive claim.
theinnerbadger 9 months ago
Well, I believe, about 2000 years ago, there was this Comic Book, written, and they named it the bible. Now, almost everyone on Earth, thinks it's the greatest thing, since Cheese Cake. And they all want a slice of Cake.
gettingolder2 9 months ago
Proof is only a burden if you don't have any. ;)
Sarahon06 9 months ago 25
@Sarahon06 I have to disagree with this. It's your burden and weighs the same regardless of whether or not you have proof. It's just if you have enough, then you're able to carry it :)
TaurV 9 months ago
@TaurV
Yeah...
It was meant to be funny. :P
Sarahon06 9 months ago
High Def? Oh look at you gettin' all fancy.
PJsCreed 9 months ago
In the beginning Man created god in his own imagination.
octoron85 9 months ago
@octoron85 . . . with a penis and hair and an apendix and feet, why whould a god need any of those?
seonidh 9 months ago
@seonidhThe belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
octoron85 9 months ago
dear stef, the holy ghost appeared to me last night. he spoke in a deep and echoing voice and said, "lardo, i want you to go spread the word of Bob" "Bob?" i said, he said, "yes, Bob" so i said, "i'm ready, i'm ready" he said "perfect, now go." i still don't know what he meant by all of that. oh man, that's one goofy ghost. it was awfully dark, it might have been the tooth fairy. i still don't know.
peace, lardo444.
lardo444 9 months ago
no god
paulahare2 9 months ago
hahahaha, well I will pray for you; I sure do hope Joe Pesci answers my prayers!
Rudawg350 9 months ago
What proof and evidence can you provide that a stefzula does not exist? You can't. Proving that stefzula exists.
TruthVsLiars 9 months ago
Awesome vid stef!
verodefacto 9 months ago
Not sure the tooth fairy and a ceator are exactly the same. To argue against a specific religion is easy enough, but the existence of a creator is a bit harder... Oh, and Santa actually did exist, he was a 4th Centuary saint.
sugelanren 9 months ago
nice animation
jmm1233 9 months ago
Hell, ask a Christian to prove that the Muslim or Hindu beliefs aren't true, and they'll make excuses why they don't have to.
Good vid, Stef
SiriusMined 9 months ago
@SiriusMined Or, they'll take the dumb route and say "well, Islam and Hinduism don't offer salvation from your sins by faith alone through grace". I've heard that pseudo-argument a few times.
blackwolf1200 9 months ago
You're right about the consistency issue, but they actually do have a point that if you make the positive assertion that there is no God, then you have taken on the burden of proof to some degree. Actually, even when you assert there is no Easter Bunny, you may have taken on the burden of proof if your audience consists of five year-olds.
gamutman 9 months ago
I agree with you that these people should be consistent, but at the same time, I think both sides would have the burden of proof in this instance. In other words, yeah, if you're going to say the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, you should do so for some sort of reason.
owchywawa 9 months ago
I like the part where they stop arguing and start kissing. You cut it off too early.
TIPinkUnicorn 9 months ago
I have proof positive that god doesn't exist, but I'm under a court gag order not to reveal it prior to the trial.
AncientAtheist 9 months ago
@AncientAtheist
hahah :-)
SiriusMined 9 months ago
@AncientAtheist My country does not recognise your courts system. Reveal it to me and I will tell all for you ;)
monkeytail2002 9 months ago
@monkeytail2002 Hell, I don't recognize my own country's court system! The problem is, if I tell you, they'll kill us.
AncientAtheist 9 months ago
@AncientAtheist Aaaah I see. It's ok though if you use masonic symbolism to reveal it. That way they'll believe I'm one of them. Nudge nudge wink wink funny handshake.
monkeytail2002 9 months ago
I demand that you prove there are no chemtrails, 9-11 wasn't an inside job, space aliens aren't kidnapping parrots to learn Earth's languages, and haarp isn't causing earthquakes, you closed-minded cynic!
WildwoodClaire1 9 months ago
"Gawd is unknowable by science" is the reply I hear often.
RustyCyler 9 months ago
@RustyCyler Neither is the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
WildwoodClaire1 9 months ago
Some theists just can't be rationalized with.
TheCurmudgen 9 months ago
I find this so easy to masterbate to
HappyCabbie 9 months ago
@HappyCabbie Is there anything you don't masturbate too?????
sting41b 9 months ago
@HappyCabbie and with comments like this you lose people on your channel.....
Drusilla76 9 months ago