Other people, however, find personal experience and history to be convincing. Why would a little sect of Judaism, considered to be heresy, become the dominant religion of the world and inspire so many people (especially the people who would have had absolute proof that the religion was bunk) to stand firm in the face of tyranny, martyrdom, etc.? Of course this is a moot point if you completely dismiss the Bible has historical.
I think the argument boils down to what you find most convincing. Some people find the current scientific theories to be the most convincing, though that doesn't automatically negate any religion, it does tend to fairly well explain the phenomena of nature sans god(s), except for a few evolutionary problems, where matter came from, and how life began--those questions still need to be ironed out.
I am a devout atheist, and I believe the argument you are talking about is Pascal's Wager. It's false. Stating that there may be a God and that itself is ground to believe in it presupposes that one believes in the "correct" God, persay. There are thousands of religions all with different views about "God". The probability of believing in the "correct" God under these circumstances is so infinitesimal that it is negligible. Thus the only rational default left is atheism.
I don't disagree with the points you are making in your videos, but I feel that you aren't respecting people as you claim to be. Sure, there are logical flaws in all religions that you in your infinite superiority can poke holes in, but calling all religious peoples' way of life flawed is short sighted. Religion has always been an important part of culture and society. Although it is not for you, and I respect that, your logic can't replace the role of religion in peoples' lives.
@FlorenceRobotIsa this video is a bit different than my others in that I'm definitely NOT respectful of the topic. It's not religion I'm attacking but the moronic arguments of Christian presuppositionalists--a particular type of argument I find particularly obnoxious.
@FlorenceRobotIsa Our world will always be better without religion and it deserves to be insulted in everyday possible because it offers and deserves no mercy. There are so many reasons why religion is flawed and does not deserve respect
@FlorenceRobotIsa in defense of mysterybox(although i HIGHLY doubt that someone of his intelligence would NEED to be defended) religion has been for 99% of the time, has always existed on its false ideas. more people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. in the christian bible itself over 2 million people have been slain in the name of the almighty creator. while the very devil has only slain 10 people. that is a VERY flawed system for society
Religion's effects on the world haven't been entirely positive. Religion prolonged slavery, opression of women and minorities, the repression of scientific inquiry, etc.
(2) But first, they have to construct a new secular order. Look at the back of a 1-dollar bill. They hide their symbolism in plain view. You see the Illuminati pyramid with the Freemasonic all-seeing eye (aka the "eye of Lucifer") at the top. Underneath, it reads: "novus ordo seclorum," which is latin for a "new secular order." Above the eye, it reads: "annuit coeptis" which means "he favors our undertaking." ... "He" being Lucifer.
(1) You couldn't be more wrong. Look into the secret societies that these same politicians calling for a New World Order are apart of. They are Luciferian occultists whose agenda is to abolish all spiritual and religious aspects of society to then usher in the anti-Christ who will rule over all of mankind through a tyrannical one-world government. (This is their demonic religious belief and agenda.)
However visual they get reality still stands; Many differential behaviors are allowed when things do not seem to have a mutual awareness! Is what is becoming a vital responce to reality? Even their vision is disallowed; self-supposition can only appertain reasoning, their adjunct is false . . . your terms are aware . . . misunderstanding is what you split apart! Your reasoning is the only thing that counts to you or anybody else! History is your friend . . . stand on it!
@Mike82ARP I the video I'm responding to how the argument was presented to me. Since I made the video others have presented it differently, however it's still a ridiculously absurd argument that's only about providing a pseudo-rational sounding basis for arbitrary beliefs in highly unlikely things.
@semajgnik tell it to the supposed followers of the notion as it's them I've been responding to. And perhaps they wouldn't be so confused if it wasn't such a silly idea in the first place.
@MystryBox if you think that presuppositionalism is "we can't prove anything, so we should believe in religion" then you have no clue what you're talking about, and that goes for anyone else who thinks thats how presuppositionalism apologetics work.
go watch bahnsen vs stein on youtube. prime example of presuppositionalism used in debate.
Many theists seem to have taken the position that there are only 2 possibilities: (1) My faith as I believe it is true or (2) Everything in my faith is wrong. They fail to consider the possibility that some of their faith is true (perhaps that lying is wrong) and that some is wrong (we should stone people for working on Sunday). Critical thinkers are able to consider pieces of ideology one a time, while the faithful see any critique of their belief as a critique of their belief in its entirty.
You either misunderstood presuppositional arguments, or the person who presented them did it wrong. It goes like this; 1)Logic is meaningful. 2) Atheism has no basis for logic 3) The Bible does 4) Therefore God must be real. I've also seen it done with the laws of nature, uniformity in nature, and absolute truth. It's very convincing when done right. Your only chance relies in providing a origin for logic, laws in nature, etc. I've never seen the argument above fail. You can try to be the first.
@jsalverdachss yes, others have made similar points before. Unfortunately for you people that aren't theists often do have a basis for logic, and even if they didn't it wouldn't make your supposed basis for logic correct. if you want to prove your god exists you actually have to prove your god exists. Just because your mythology has an explanation for logic (or whatever) doesn't mean that explanation is true nor that your mythology is true. That I actually have to explain that to you is sad.
@jsalverdachss Go research logic. No religion provides a basis for logic. Logic is the study of correct inference and reasoning. The simple (non-religious) way to discern whether or not something is logical is simply that if it is logical it doesn't create a paradox... if it is illogical it would create a paradox.
@iMagUdspEllr You have no reason to believe logic. If there really was no god, show me that A cannot be equal to not A. I can say that because God is the truth, and God cannot deny himself, the truth cannot contradict the truth. Therefore A cannot equal not A. What's your reason to believe that?
@jsalverdachss Why do I have to prove that A =/= A? That is a paradox (a liar statement to be exact). That is the same as saying, "This statement is false." If A=/=A then "A1" =/= "A2" and therefore one of them must be B or something else. First, who is "God"? How do you know He is the "truth"? And, why can't "God" lie to your face that He doesn't exist? If God can't lie then He isn't omnipotent and He isn't so "God-like" after all. I do not understand how that proves A=/=A either?
@iMagUdspEllr You can't use logic against a Christian unless you prove that it is sound, and that if atheism were true, I could trust your logic. And the statement was A cannot be equal to NOT A. Why should I believe you if you use logic in an argument? If there is no God, why can I trust logic?
@jsalverdachss You can trust logic because if you say something illogical then it creates a paradox or a contradiction. If you say something logical it doesn't create a paradox/contradiction. That is a broad simplification but I don't have a whole lot of room in these boxes. A can't be equal to Not A because... if Not A was equal to A then Not A would be A and NOT "Not A" which would be a contradiction because you said it was "Not A". That is a liars statement where saying it is "ungrounded"
@jsalverdachss What do you mean "atheism has no basis for logic"? the sentence is not even syntactically correct. Atheism is based purely on logic whereas to be a Christian you must ignore logic. Or how about this: Premise 1)Believing something because you read it in a book is irrational. Premise 2)There is no evidence for God other than the stories in the book called the Bible. (conclusion) Therefore, believing in God is irrational.
what is logic based on? it has to have a basis or else it is arbitrary.
ie. what is the basis for A = A? or is it just agreed upon?
we base all of our knowledge on logic, but how did we arrive at absolute logic without using logic in the first place? and without having universal experience?
only the Christian worldview, can make sense of this.
an absolute being, God, both is the basis for logic and is the one who revealed it to us.
@semajgnik Are you kidding? Logic is based on the truth. I can logically claim that the brain is the locus of control for the human body (for example) because science has confirmed the truth of such a claim. Logic is far from arbitrary. I would say religious morals are arbitrary. Like the claim of Christians that killing is wrong - yet God Killed throughout the Bible stories. Surely an absolute moral truth would always condemn something and not be able to change the moral status of an act?
Do you know see how circular that whole reasoning was? You need logic to properly observe truth/reality, and you're saying that logic is BASED on truth?
Your epistemology is a vicious circle. Seriously dude, think about it first before you start commenting.
Christianity teaches that murder is wrong. Murder is man, killing another man for morally unjustified reasons. God creates and ends ALL and I mean ALL of life. No contradiction there.
@semajgnik A Christian says "I believe in God because the Bible said he is true" Questioner says "But how do you know the Bible is true?" Christian answers "Because the Bible said it was true". And you accuse me of circular reasoning. Good luck to you.
@shoutatthesky Did you see me say that??? I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me. Whether you believe God or not, this is the ONLY logical way that man can know about God. This is not circular, it's linear. It starts with God creating and revealing to his creation who He is.
Your epistemology on the other hand is either a vicious circle, and/or it is based on an arbitrary BELIEF (that A is A), since you do not have a basis for it.
@shoutatthesky don't get me wrong though, along with general revelation, the Bible is how I know about God. He didn't reveal Himself to me in some dream or whatever. But just because it was physically written by man, it does not mean that it is not God's word. God is still the one who is ACTIVELY revealing but he chose to use messengers and human language to do so.
@semajgnik just because he wears the color red (he is god, not man) he is exempt.
but the guy wearing green (he is a man, not god) it is suddenly ok.
No matter how you want to decorate this, it doesn't make god anymore respectful.
You lead by example, being narcissistic and thinking you are better than everything else, because you want to be, (and made it so.) will never have any respect by me and similar minded people.
@eivarden huh? God is not exempt because he's different. I never said God can get away with murder because he's God. The point was that God, NEVER murdered. Murder is unjustified killing of a human being. EVERYTHING God does, whether he CREATES or ENDS life is JUSTIFIED, this means God has a good and moral reason for everything He does, whether you know what they are or not.
That statement is flat out wrong. Logic (the laws of logic) is what the scientific method, and all of our empirical epistemology is grounded on. Presuppositional apologetics tries to point out to the atheist that an atheistic worldview can not account for what the laws of logic is grounded on and how we came to know of these absolute laws.
@jsalverdachss 1)Logic isn't meaningful, you are deluded if you think that. 2)No basis, on what grounds? 3)So does the spaghetti Monster, we ran into a problem here... 4)You didn't even complete the circle... Let me make a similar circle. 1) Red is a color, therefor it doesn't need to eat. 2) And if it doesn't need to eat, it's not alive. 3) Red is the color of our blood, and we need blood. 4) Therefor we are not alive, because we have red blood. See how this doesn't make sense?
Believing in something is more logical than believing in nothing. Being an Atheist is basically saying life is pointless. If life is pointless then why do you still go to work everyday and try to live? Why are humans trying to live if there is nothing to live for? Whats your reasoning for the beginning of the universe? Oh yeah i forgot atheists dont have a reason. Who is more logical?
@KnightMike2015 So, let me get this straight. It's more logical to believe in something, anything, than nothing at all? Is it more logical, the more things you believe in? Like if you're already a Christian, does adding Santa, Yetis and the Tooth Fairy to your list of beliefs make you a more logical person?
And the only reason to live is because a deity got bored and decided to poof us into existence? That's quite pitiful really.
@KnightMike2015 So, let me get this straight. It's more logical to believe in something, anything, than nothing at all? Is it more logical, the more things you believe in? Like if you're already a Christian, does adding Santa, Yetis and the Tooth Fairy to your list of beliefs make you a more logical person?
And the only reason to live is because a deity got bored and decided to poof us into existence? That's quite pitiful really.
@KnightMike2015 So, let me get this straight. It's more logical to believe in something, anything, than nothing at all. Is it more logical, the more things you believe in? Like if you're already a Christian, does adding Santa, Yetis and the Tooth Fairy to your list of beliefs make you a more logical person?
And the only reason to live is because a deity got bored and decided to poof us into existence? That's quite pitiful really.
@KnightMike2015 considering you think atheists believe in nothing, and atheists think life is pointless, etc. I'm not surprised you hold the positions you do. However if you ever want to find out that your'e completely wrong about what you think about atheists, you might listen to us instead of telling us incorrect things about ourselves.
@KnightMike2015 Believing in something without proof is illogical a.k.a. gullible. Basis for logic stems from if something is true and it creates a paradox it is illogical... if it is true and it doesn't create a paradox it is logical. That is a broad stroke but that is all I can give you in a short amount of time. No, the purpose of life is to make the world a better place for the people who will be here when we die (our children). And, to see man grow in every way.
@KnightMike2015 The origin of the universe is difficult to explain we are exploring the idea of string theory to try to answer that question but some things are harder to answer than others because as of right now we are incapable of exploring the universe as freely as we would like. Just because it can't be answered by me, right now, today, without thought, study, experimentation, and logic DOES NOT mean, "Goddoneit." That is merely the easy way out for the ignorant.
The most laughable and lamentable thing about theists is their assertion that everything in life is an "either, or" decision, there are no shades of grey and no nuances. even if observation and logic are not the answer that still does not mean that the supernatural is the default position and no proof that it is the only answer.
I think I'll be sticking to reason and logic thank you : )
Observation and reason not only gives tangible products, but gives prediction. For example, evolution is a theory that allows prediction. Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship...etc.
I don't see how to a Christian this argument would hold any weight. If you're going to say that logic and observation is useless, than that would mean that God gave us a useless brain. There is no reason for God to give us the ability to logic and reason if we were not meant to do that exact thing. I just don't see a Christian using this argument, or why they would other than just trying to win an argument against an atheist, which this argument concludes is useless.
@Thromnabular they don't think it's useless, they think it depends on the Christian god... and the bible is the ultimate source for the description of that god, even over observed reality. So you've got someone who has convinced themselves a book made by men is somehow greater than the reality staring them in the face. yes it's insane, and it's exactly what some Christians have to convince themselves of in order to believe a book of obvious myths.
@TheFridgechucker the point is I can point at a video I've made when someone makes this argument to me and that happens more than you'd think. I much prefer to point to a video than have to explain myself over and over to various people.
@jiberias How can you be turned away from atheism? Its not a religion or a group or anything its just what you think. I hate people who try and convert everybody to there way of thinking if thats what you mean.
The only thing that I want to ask is why do both atheists and theists want you to choose sides? You may think this is stupid or try to belittle me for saying that but I just don't understand the human need to try to get some one to believe in what you believe in or in your case not to believe in anything. I understand your points and arguments but what does it do for you in the end? Do you feel accomplished? Or proud or what? No I am not religious if you were wondering, I'm just logical.
@BeatsPerMinuteMusic atheism isn't a "side". It's the recognition that the theist has not supported their many unlikely claims. As to why that's important, it's important because the theist is constantly inflicting his view on everyone... from wars and terrorism around the globe, to laws being passed that inflict their view of reality on everyone else. And all that from a group of people that believe something they can't actually show is true.
I understand that, the only issue is that people do view it as two sides. Maybe some don't and I get why but at the core people can only distinguish that atheists and theists are two opposing sides that will never see eye to eye. I just don't understand why people can't let other people choose what they believe in. I mean when it comes down to it each person is so unique that if you were to ask a christian to draw god they would draw it completely different from any other christian.
@MystryBox Um, okay. What I find really annoying about atheists is that they think about what are largely Evangelical Christian behaviors, and label that behavior "theist". I am a theist, and I don't go around trying to convince atheists. Nor do my Jew friends. Nor do American Muslims. That type of Christian is the same problem for me as it is for you, but you just had to go and become the exact same problem, didn't you? By the way, if there is a debate, there are at least two sides. Thanks.
@bmharter sorry if you think my expressing my opinions in a video that you chose to watch is somehow pushing my views on you. If you don't like my videos, here's a thought: don't watch them. You won't find me knocking on your door to hand you a bible.
@MystryBox The debate pushes itself on anyone who walks through the religion section in a book store. And don't sidestep the fact that you stereotype Christians in your setup, or unfairly overgeneralize theists in your comments. You post an opinion, and you want to criticize me for giving one back? That's a little silly.
@bmharter you didn't give an opinion on the video, you attacked atheists for giving their opinion. I lightly tell you that if you don't like my videos don't watch them and you have the gall to then suggest I'm criticizing you for giving your opinion? What the fuck is wrong with you that you can be so obviously hypocritical and show not the slightest bit of shame for it?
Even if we were brains in a jar or constructs of the matrix that wouldn't advance theism one inch because in the BIJ scenario there would still be no evidence of "god" or in the matrix scenario "god" would be an idea planted in our brains by the matrix.
@lewisner people making the brain-in-a-jar argument don't actually think we are brains in a jar. They're just basically saying "since anything is possible it's possible even my silly beliefs are true." Or at least that's what they tell themselves.
@MystryBox I know but rather than just telling them to STFU I think it would be better to debunk their argument with logic. As Tracie Harris said on TAE "If they argue that "god" is immaterial simply point out that things which are NOT material don't exist - by definition!".
@MystryBox They cannot argue that since material things are composed of matter. Also if they argue god is "outside timeand space" then she cannot cause temporal or spatial events.
@lewisner I wouldn't need a response because I wouldn't take the discussion to the material/immaterial conflict. I'm not a materialist, I'm a naturalist. If the issues comes up I don't debate the subject and agree immaterial things (like ideas for instance) exist. I don't find the debate to be productive at all.
That is a very true statement. A person cant truly believe in anything whether it be cherry pie or a god without knowing. The word believe is often confused with the word faith. To believe something means you have taken the time to answer a question that you felt strongly enough about to seek out the answer. To have faith is either hoping for something you cant know the answer to or a way to stop seeking an answer. Watching your other vids I discovered your position was "i dont know". Good vids
I agree that faith is ridiculous. However, saying something is stupid simply because an uniformed person says its true without knowing is equally ridiculous. Because they don't know doesnt mean you know the opposite is true. It seems both sides refuse to question and in doing so cannot find an answer. Neither should assume the answer is not knowable. And until then the only honest answer is "I dont know". The statement I've made has nothing to do with religion. Simply being honest with ones self
They use this argument a lot when talking aobut the nature of God. They claim god to be unknowable or outside the universe or some bs and therefore cannot be shown flase with evidence. Or they disregard evidence science provides claiming God could have put it there to test faith. Notice how both arguments cannot co exist, but theists tend to forget about that.
I totally agree this argument is stupid, mainly because when you say we could all be merely brains in jars in some matrix like simulation, and that therefore logic is illusory, you are using logic! The argument therefore is self-refuting, whether used by atheists Daniel Dennett cough cough or theists.
I have been blocked off more religious sites for using my own observation. If there had've been a catastrophe in the "Holy Land" around 1900 years ago, and the gospels and people related to such were wiped out, how would they stand today. Because, since that day, there hasn't been a single second or grams worth of proof or visual evidence, enough to support a "lucky charm" let alone a bronze age fairy story belief system. I do like the talking donkey in "numbers" 22 though, he was in shrek.
Good points. I've run into roughly the same argument from a person who claims not to "believe in a man in the sky" but does believe all sorts of unsupported ideas and who uses the same sort of argument given here to claim that we cannot claim these ideas are unlikely or unsupported. We need to broaden our scope to all sorts of other claims beyond the god question. It's amazing how many other preposterous ideas are out there.
@drstrangelove09 the flaw to point out to that guy is the false equivalence he's making. Just because anything could be true doesn't mean anything is likely to be true. To rationally discover reality you carefully examine what is likely to be true vs what isn't likely to be true.
I used to be Christian, then Atheist due to all the errors in the Bible, Islam is the true way, everyone should look into it. In Islam, we do not have conflicts with science or anything like such, Jesus was not God, if he was a human, to be human was to have restrictions. Observe that.
@IslamIstheWayforMe When science finds the winged horse Mohammed supposedly flew on then you can talk about how there's no conflict between Islam and science. Until then I'm not convinced.
I am a DR most of you idiots do not know science and certaintly not history. If you knew science, knew history and knew the Qur'an you would know Islam has no problem with science, no problem with evolution (although most don't even understand darwin or evolution correctly)
@IslamIstheWayforMe there's no "conflict" beyond science not supporting any of the supernatural claims of books like the Qur'an. If you accept a scientific view then you accept observation as the best way to determine what is likely true and what is not likely true. The supernatural claims of religious books have never been observed in a scientific way and in the rare case when they can be tested, they fail (e.g. like looking for actual results from prayer).
No, this is what I really can not stand. Christianity = blind faith. In Islam we have the faith because #1 no one in history did what Muhammad(saw) did or even came close. #2 the Qur'an contains proofs in it and tells you to find one contradiction and you do not have to follow it. Stop confusing us with other faiths. There is no way what is in the Qur'an Muhammad(saw) could have known at the time it is impossible. I was an atheist and I have a science background. This is Islam.
@IslamIstheWayforMe I've read the Koran and to think it came from a god is laughable. Seriously read it sometime and when you finish a page ask yourself if the god of the universe would've written that. For example am I supposed to believe god cares about all those water rules? No, it's men, and very specific men--men who live in the desert that care about water like that. It couldn't be any more clear to me that book was written by men.
Right I asked for a response on the water "rule" as you claim and you have no responded. You want to speak about critical analysis of a book you obviously don't understand with that weak statement. Water rules? What are you talking about? You are a joke man, really are.
The only reason you fight his argument this way is because you feel threatened by him challenging your beliefs. Whether you consciously feel threatened or not, you're putting up your defenses. He's is simply looking at your holy book strictly through reasoning and critical logic. No religion is flawless in its books, ideas or teachings. They all have loopholes. Guaranteed. Human being are not all knowing and I highly doubt that a higher being would give us that kind of power.
@IslamIstheWayforMe Yes but the moral basis for Islam is actually quite murky. Religion itself is rather silly to me, personally. But I'm glad you found your own personal religious path.
the stupid argument of "the big bang must've been created by something it cant just come out of nowhere so it must be created by god" if everything has to have a creator who the fuck created god then?
@phatman811 I love to get them with that then they turn and say well romans says he's the alpha and the omega....So he's the beginning and end lol like Roman's makes a fucking difference
hey there guy, forgot about you, but i had you saved in my favs from talking to you. read some resent posts. i would just like to say if you really want to try to refute this u need to understand what the arguement is, like with the hand in front of the face thing.. it seems you r a bit confused..also in r comments bak and forth you contradicted urself a few times about laws of logic and observation and such. i asked a few times what ur view is but i guess you have none or wont tell.
@plato7770 I'm here every day reading comments and responding. I've said my view already, if you have something specific to say then say it. Otherwise thanks for the comments and have a nice life.
So if you disprove a Moral Law giver, there is no moral law standard. When there is no moral law standard, there is no good, when there is no good, there is no evil. If one denies in a Moral Law standard and claims that he/she differentiate good and evil by feeling, he loses all basis to condemn someone. On what basis do you condemn someone who is wrong ? based on feelings ? so who made your feelings worth more than his ?
When you see a amazing house, you immediately think of a talented designer behind it. But as we look at the Complexity of our human body, designed to the perfect tunning, our DNA is 300 billion page of intelligently designed instructions to our body, of which Bill Gates quotes that the complexity of the human DNA, compared to the most advanced computer chip, is like comparing an apple to the size of the Earth. But yet, you contradict yourself by saying there is no intelligent designer.
1. Where did the Earth come from, from the big bang ? so where did that small atom come from ? Apply all logical thinking, even the smartest of people, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, all point towards a Creator God.
2. So do you mean this Earth is just the result of a random explosion which do not have any purpose ? So what does morality, purpose, meaning mean ? If we are just the cause of Chance, we have no purpose, no value, no basis of morality in life.
That's funny because scientists and philosophers used to claim the earth was flat. Scientists according to what they called SCIENCE, used to say the universe was forever expanding.
@IslamIstheWayforMe science is just observation formalized. It has the limits of human observation. There was a time observation suggested the world was flat. We know better now because we have better ways to observe. The alternative to observation is to simply believe something for no reason at all (i.e. faith) but simply because someone says you should. Do you really think that's a good idea? I don't.
You have NOT read the Qur'an nice try . Men who care about water rules? What are you talking about? Please go on about this I have an idea what you are trying to say but I'd rather let you speak on it then reveal what you're missing. I study Islam roughly at least 2 hours a day, you have not read the Qur'an buddy. It's funny because I could ask you such simple questions in person and you would fail miserably but with this you'll just google away. By the way, I don't hate you.
@IslamIstheWayforMe again, in your 2 hours a day take some time and read that book critically like you'd read any other book. And instead of assuming a god wrote it, ask yourself if a god wrote it and evaluate for yourself. You're probably beyond being able to do that, but from an outsider reading it, it's simply not impressive in the least.
@65816709 Pick up a book...the earth was formed out of a accretion disc from when the sun was formed, big bang is our best explanation and we dont yet know if before that is a conceivable concept because time as we understand it started after the big bang. Even if an atheist couldn't answer any of these questions, that doesnt make the claim, "God did it" anymore plausible because theres no evidence to support the claim.
@65816709 it doesnt matter how many people believe it or how smart they are....if it's not demonstrated it's not justifiable to just believe it is so. Appeals to authority won't get you anywhere if the authority hasnt demonstrated, their personal beliefs in no way had a bearing on their work..all your points represent fallacies, a argument from ignorance, appeals to authority, false dilemma etc. Because you don't accept a reality without god doesnt make him real or prove anything
@65816709 I also wanna state that it's not a matter of a single theory vs god. So even if big bang is completely false it says nothing to support that god did it, theres still other theories and claims and conclusions to be drawn so the idea that science not explaining something makes God the winner by default is fallacious, When science cant explain something and theres no evidence or anything else the honest answer is IDK not AH HA so then God did it!
@65816709 1. The Earth was created by the acreation disk when the sun was formed. No one currently knows for sure where that "first atom" ( as you incorrectly call it) came from, but that does NOT logically suggest "god did it" That is simply the god of gaps argument and its baseless..
Yes, the earth is the result of a random explosion. Live with it. Morality, purpose and value are manmade concepts. Good ones, but certainly not proof of anything else
2. Isnt it a wonderful notion to make your own place in a bizarre unexplained world, where you can make a name for yourself simply because you want to?
thanks for the video, I appreciate you level-'headedness' in delivering your points. Unfortunately, you don't understand 'presuppositionalism' at all. I don't know if it is because the Christians that debated you presented it poorly or whatever the reason is. One basic point that you confused was that Christians don't think reason is meaningless. They believe it is very useful. However, with an athiest world view you cannot account for reason, only the Christian world view can. Read Greg Bahnsen
@irishwolfhound003 I appreciate your view as it's been brought up multiple times on this video by other posters. The confusion is my conflation of observation and reason in the video. Presuppers reject observation as a way to know what is most likely true. Put your hand in front of your face and if the bible says it's not there you would reject it as being there. To me this is irrational and illogical, but as your basis is a book written by ancient fishermen you come to different conclusions
@MystryBox sorry brother, but that isn't what the view holds to either. Of course I use observation as a way to gain knowledge, and of course you do. It is just that I have a world view that accounts for it, and you don't. Doesen't mean that you can't observe and learn things, it is just you borrow the Christian world-view to do it (i.e, constancy, trust in reason and senses, that there is objective truth in the world). Don't you think it is a bit weird to encourage atheists to just ignore this?
@irishwolfhound003 I don't need to borrow a nonsensical world view to justify my hand in front of my face. I can observe it myself. I don't need to consult ancient goat herders to tell me to accept my hand in front of my face as valid.
@irishwolfhound003 and sorry but if the ancient goat herders you use to tell you of your reality tell you that the sun can (and did stop in the sky), any modern observations that such a thing is impossible is not credible. Your worldview is about as arbitrary as it gets on multiple levels... both because you can't know what is true and not true until consulting ancient men, and because you've arbitrarily decided to let a book be your standard of truth. Why not choose mother goose?
@MystryBox I don't know, I don't think we get anywhere if you just tell people to ignore Christians and say you are not interested. Either the Christian has something valid to say or he doesn't. You raised the question of why Christians only use this sort of debate style on the internet, and I think it is because it is a cold - philosophical debate style and you don't have to relate to someone to debate them. I am sorry if any Christians have not had Christ-like humility in talking with you
@irishwolfhound003 presuppers are not ordinary Christians. They are people who recognize they have no rational basis for their beliefs and so attack reason/observation itself. As the video points out, how can you converse with someone who doesn't have the same standards for viewing reality as you do? What is the point of rational discussion based on observation/logic when their standard is absurdity and magic? As the video says you might as well bark at each other like dogs.
incorrect. Someone has to be right. In reality atheists are right of course, and theists are wrong, because in reality a god or gods does/do not exist. No one wins. The end.
I think you nailed it at 5:09 when you said "We might as well bark at each other like dogs." That's exactly what it's all about: who barks the loudest. You were once Christian, so I'm sure you remember how we always felt the "good" sermons were the "loudest" ones. And Christians seem to want to bring that same mentality to these debates. He who talks the loudest wins.
It's all about beliefs to them, and in their world logic and reason are nothing more than competing beliefs.
@onecrzyrdr because as I already said, they don't deserve respect. Should I respect silly stories about talking snakes and donkey, people turning into pillars of salt, the sun stopping in the sky? Just because some credulous people accept such stories as history rather than mythology doesn't mean I should. Beliefs have to earn respect, and sorry but religious beliefs usually don't.
@MystryBox Respect people, not what they think. It's the same as the difference between tolerance and acceptance. You can respect the person for having their beliefs without respecting what they believe.
@TheTomledo I agree and I've said it before in the past: people deserve respect by default, beliefs have to earn it. The problem comes about by people who can't separate themselves from their beliefs. If you criticize their beliefs they feel personally attacked. I can't do anything about that except point out they are being unreasonable.
@onecrzyrdr Because your right and all knowing, right?How do you know that their beliefs are false? Why can't you just accept that people think differently and that you aren't 100% right. All you did in this video is disprove a theory with another theory.
helo sir. Sport it took me a whole to get back to you... I have read the book. The hole book. I've even went as far as going through the whole book worth a fine tooth comb. Now with that said I know that satan is after souls! But I also know that we have free will... To me it doesn't seem as if satan is trying to win your soul as much as your brain is! And also sir I find it pretty insulting that a person of no faith is going to tell me anything about my religion!
@nickfrostdude123 would it make you feel better if I told you I was Christian for decades and was even ordained at one time? And as a bonus a can spell "whole" correctly, heh.
The laws of logic r not conventions but universal, NOT MATERIALISTIC. If all we have is a materialist universe, than all we have is matter, laws, concepts, ARE NOT MATTER
Ur contradicting urself, We created logic but we observed logic?? If we observed it, it was around b4 we created it. & u can't observe all the instances where the laws of
Logic r applied, so why should we assume that the laws of logic will work in unobserved future situations? Especially if we can change them or in an evolving reality as u like to say we r in?
@plato7770 no, we observe REALITY and create logic. Do you understand that logic is a set of formal rules humans invented? As for assuming reality is consistent we observe that it seems to be, but yes it's an assumption. Tomorrow reality could be different for all we know. It probably won't be but it csn't be ruled out. This is not difficult....but perhaps you have a learning disability or something?
& I think u just need to go read a bit more if u thnk logic can b changed, by whom & how does it get changed, by consensus, do logicians get to change it, Ur view doesn't make ne sense. Like the argument says. & u still haven't given a positive philosophical worldview in it's place where logic is meaningful. Wh
@plato7770 is this one of those discussions where I answer your question and then you ask more questions seemingly without any point? Sorry but I'm not interested.
The observation & formality of something doesn't make it true, it was already true & it was observed. Also I'm playing with ur words, Can u show me how logic can b observed?? So again, the laws of logic r conventional???
@plato7770 you are confused. Probably comes from watching the nonsense of Christian apologetics. Logic are rules we have created. You don't observe them, they are conceptual. Perhaps if you actually had a POINT or a coherent question? You asked how I account for logic and I accounted for it. Are we done?
Other people, however, find personal experience and history to be convincing. Why would a little sect of Judaism, considered to be heresy, become the dominant religion of the world and inspire so many people (especially the people who would have had absolute proof that the religion was bunk) to stand firm in the face of tyranny, martyrdom, etc.? Of course this is a moot point if you completely dismiss the Bible has historical.
Kangaruhs 1 day ago
Comment removed
Kangaruhs 1 day ago
I think the argument boils down to what you find most convincing. Some people find the current scientific theories to be the most convincing, though that doesn't automatically negate any religion, it does tend to fairly well explain the phenomena of nature sans god(s), except for a few evolutionary problems, where matter came from, and how life began--those questions still need to be ironed out.
Kangaruhs 1 day ago
@MystryBox
I am a devout atheist, and I believe the argument you are talking about is Pascal's Wager. It's false. Stating that there may be a God and that itself is ground to believe in it presupposes that one believes in the "correct" God, persay. There are thousands of religions all with different views about "God". The probability of believing in the "correct" God under these circumstances is so infinitesimal that it is negligible. Thus the only rational default left is atheism.
brodadcash 1 week ago
"the teapot around the sun can't be proven or disproven but so what?"
It's more than that. The burden of proof lies only with the claimant. You wanna say there's a teapot? You show it, or cram it.
philippides 2 weeks ago
THE MATRIX HAS YOU
MisterTutor2010 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if a believer starts doing that kind of shit, I just start trolling them untill they burst
it's not a waste of time, see it more as entertainment
if they can think they can outsmart me, I will play there stupid game and make them look like even bigger fools
atm I'm especially fond of the Harry Potter and the Chuck Norris arguments
MasSaCreS9 3 weeks ago
@MystryBox
I don't disagree with the points you are making in your videos, but I feel that you aren't respecting people as you claim to be. Sure, there are logical flaws in all religions that you in your infinite superiority can poke holes in, but calling all religious peoples' way of life flawed is short sighted. Religion has always been an important part of culture and society. Although it is not for you, and I respect that, your logic can't replace the role of religion in peoples' lives.
FlorenceRobotIsa 1 month ago
@FlorenceRobotIsa this video is a bit different than my others in that I'm definitely NOT respectful of the topic. It's not religion I'm attacking but the moronic arguments of Christian presuppositionalists--a particular type of argument I find particularly obnoxious.
MystryBox 1 month ago
@FlorenceRobotIsa Our world will always be better without religion and it deserves to be insulted in everyday possible because it offers and deserves no mercy. There are so many reasons why religion is flawed and does not deserve respect
MrSoliPat 1 month ago
@FlorenceRobotIsa in defense of mysterybox(although i HIGHLY doubt that someone of his intelligence would NEED to be defended) religion has been for 99% of the time, has always existed on its false ideas. more people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. in the christian bible itself over 2 million people have been slain in the name of the almighty creator. while the very devil has only slain 10 people. that is a VERY flawed system for society
legomastr1 2 weeks ago
@FlorenceRobotIsa
Religion's effects on the world haven't been entirely positive. Religion prolonged slavery, opression of women and minorities, the repression of scientific inquiry, etc.
philippides 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anyway, it's sad to see so many of you falling for their scam, in denial of God.
Yrhp8268 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(3) Please, I urge you to look into the nefarious Luciferian religious beliefs of the politicians and elites currently running our world.
Watch two online documentaries called "The Arrivals" and "The Arrivals Reloaded." They will explain it to you much better than I can.
Do a YouTube and Google search of the New World Order and One-World Government
Yrhp8268 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(2) But first, they have to construct a new secular order. Look at the back of a 1-dollar bill. They hide their symbolism in plain view. You see the Illuminati pyramid with the Freemasonic all-seeing eye (aka the "eye of Lucifer") at the top. Underneath, it reads: "novus ordo seclorum," which is latin for a "new secular order." Above the eye, it reads: "annuit coeptis" which means "he favors our undertaking." ... "He" being Lucifer.
Yrhp8268 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(1) You couldn't be more wrong. Look into the secret societies that these same politicians calling for a New World Order are apart of. They are Luciferian occultists whose agenda is to abolish all spiritual and religious aspects of society to then usher in the anti-Christ who will rule over all of mankind through a tyrannical one-world government. (This is their demonic religious belief and agenda.)
Yrhp8268 2 months ago
in 01:30 that sounds like existentialism with two extra tea spoons of stupid... damn i hate existentialism...
EveryBodySucks100 2 months ago
However visual they get reality still stands; Many differential behaviors are allowed when things do not seem to have a mutual awareness! Is what is becoming a vital responce to reality? Even their vision is disallowed; self-supposition can only appertain reasoning, their adjunct is false . . . your terms are aware . . . misunderstanding is what you split apart! Your reasoning is the only thing that counts to you or anybody else! History is your friend . . . stand on it!
in2dionysus 2 months ago
@in2dionysus Coherence. Look into it.
MystryBox 2 months ago 4
I’ll echo semajgnik. You build a straw man argument against presuppositionalism.
Mike82ARP 2 months ago
@Mike82ARP I the video I'm responding to how the argument was presented to me. Since I made the video others have presented it differently, however it's still a ridiculously absurd argument that's only about providing a pseudo-rational sounding basis for arbitrary beliefs in highly unlikely things.
MystryBox 2 months ago
Understand what presuppositionalism is first before u critique it.
semajgnik 3 months ago
@semajgnik tell it to the supposed followers of the notion as it's them I've been responding to. And perhaps they wouldn't be so confused if it wasn't such a silly idea in the first place.
MystryBox 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MystryBox if you think that presuppositionalism is "we can't prove anything, so we should believe in religion" then you have no clue what you're talking about, and that goes for anyone else who thinks thats how presuppositionalism apologetics work.
go watch bahnsen vs stein on youtube. prime example of presuppositionalism used in debate.
semajgnik 3 months ago
Everybody think about this simple question``how can you believe when you know!
idontgiveafuck48 3 months ago
Many theists seem to have taken the position that there are only 2 possibilities: (1) My faith as I believe it is true or (2) Everything in my faith is wrong. They fail to consider the possibility that some of their faith is true (perhaps that lying is wrong) and that some is wrong (we should stone people for working on Sunday). Critical thinkers are able to consider pieces of ideology one a time, while the faithful see any critique of their belief as a critique of their belief in its entirty.
junkmailjoebrown 5 months ago
this is a major strawman
MrApologician 5 months ago
You either misunderstood presuppositional arguments, or the person who presented them did it wrong. It goes like this; 1)Logic is meaningful. 2) Atheism has no basis for logic 3) The Bible does 4) Therefore God must be real. I've also seen it done with the laws of nature, uniformity in nature, and absolute truth. It's very convincing when done right. Your only chance relies in providing a origin for logic, laws in nature, etc. I've never seen the argument above fail. You can try to be the first.
jsalverdachss 5 months ago
@jsalverdachss yes, others have made similar points before. Unfortunately for you people that aren't theists often do have a basis for logic, and even if they didn't it wouldn't make your supposed basis for logic correct. if you want to prove your god exists you actually have to prove your god exists. Just because your mythology has an explanation for logic (or whatever) doesn't mean that explanation is true nor that your mythology is true. That I actually have to explain that to you is sad.
MystryBox 5 months ago 11
@jsalverdachss Go research logic. No religion provides a basis for logic. Logic is the study of correct inference and reasoning. The simple (non-religious) way to discern whether or not something is logical is simply that if it is logical it doesn't create a paradox... if it is illogical it would create a paradox.
iMagUdspEllr 5 months ago
@iMagUdspEllr You have no reason to believe logic. If there really was no god, show me that A cannot be equal to not A. I can say that because God is the truth, and God cannot deny himself, the truth cannot contradict the truth. Therefore A cannot equal not A. What's your reason to believe that?
jsalverdachss 5 months ago
@jsalverdachss Why do I have to prove that A =/= A? That is a paradox (a liar statement to be exact). That is the same as saying, "This statement is false." If A=/=A then "A1" =/= "A2" and therefore one of them must be B or something else. First, who is "God"? How do you know He is the "truth"? And, why can't "God" lie to your face that He doesn't exist? If God can't lie then He isn't omnipotent and He isn't so "God-like" after all. I do not understand how that proves A=/=A either?
iMagUdspEllr 5 months ago
@iMagUdspEllr You can't use logic against a Christian unless you prove that it is sound, and that if atheism were true, I could trust your logic. And the statement was A cannot be equal to NOT A. Why should I believe you if you use logic in an argument? If there is no God, why can I trust logic?
jsalverdachss 5 months ago
@jsalverdachss You can trust logic because if you say something illogical then it creates a paradox or a contradiction. If you say something logical it doesn't create a paradox/contradiction. That is a broad simplification but I don't have a whole lot of room in these boxes. A can't be equal to Not A because... if Not A was equal to A then Not A would be A and NOT "Not A" which would be a contradiction because you said it was "Not A". That is a liars statement where saying it is "ungrounded"
iMagUdspEllr 5 months ago
@jsalverdachss What do you mean "atheism has no basis for logic"? the sentence is not even syntactically correct. Atheism is based purely on logic whereas to be a Christian you must ignore logic. Or how about this: Premise 1)Believing something because you read it in a book is irrational. Premise 2)There is no evidence for God other than the stories in the book called the Bible. (conclusion) Therefore, believing in God is irrational.
shoutatthesky 3 months ago
@shoutatthesky
what is logic based on? it has to have a basis or else it is arbitrary.
ie. what is the basis for A = A? or is it just agreed upon?
we base all of our knowledge on logic, but how did we arrive at absolute logic without using logic in the first place? and without having universal experience?
only the Christian worldview, can make sense of this.
an absolute being, God, both is the basis for logic and is the one who revealed it to us.
semajgnik 3 months ago
@semajgnik Are you kidding? Logic is based on the truth. I can logically claim that the brain is the locus of control for the human body (for example) because science has confirmed the truth of such a claim. Logic is far from arbitrary. I would say religious morals are arbitrary. Like the claim of Christians that killing is wrong - yet God Killed throughout the Bible stories. Surely an absolute moral truth would always condemn something and not be able to change the moral status of an act?
shoutatthesky 3 months ago
@shoutatthesky are YOU kidding?!
Do you know see how circular that whole reasoning was? You need logic to properly observe truth/reality, and you're saying that logic is BASED on truth?
Your epistemology is a vicious circle. Seriously dude, think about it first before you start commenting.
Christianity teaches that murder is wrong. Murder is man, killing another man for morally unjustified reasons. God creates and ends ALL and I mean ALL of life. No contradiction there.
semajgnik 3 months ago
@semajgnik A Christian says "I believe in God because the Bible said he is true" Questioner says "But how do you know the Bible is true?" Christian answers "Because the Bible said it was true". And you accuse me of circular reasoning. Good luck to you.
shoutatthesky 3 months ago
@shoutatthesky Did you see me say that??? I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me. Whether you believe God or not, this is the ONLY logical way that man can know about God. This is not circular, it's linear. It starts with God creating and revealing to his creation who He is.
Your epistemology on the other hand is either a vicious circle, and/or it is based on an arbitrary BELIEF (that A is A), since you do not have a basis for it.
semajgnik 3 months ago
@shoutatthesky don't get me wrong though, along with general revelation, the Bible is how I know about God. He didn't reveal Himself to me in some dream or whatever. But just because it was physically written by man, it does not mean that it is not God's word. God is still the one who is ACTIVELY revealing but he chose to use messengers and human language to do so.
semajgnik 3 months ago
@semajgnik just because he wears the color red (he is god, not man) he is exempt.
but the guy wearing green (he is a man, not god) it is suddenly ok.
No matter how you want to decorate this, it doesn't make god anymore respectful.
You lead by example, being narcissistic and thinking you are better than everything else, because you want to be, (and made it so.) will never have any respect by me and similar minded people.
eivarden 2 months ago
@eivarden huh? God is not exempt because he's different. I never said God can get away with murder because he's God. The point was that God, NEVER murdered. Murder is unjustified killing of a human being. EVERYTHING God does, whether he CREATES or ENDS life is JUSTIFIED, this means God has a good and moral reason for everything He does, whether you know what they are or not.
semajgnik 2 months ago
@semajgnik What logic is, is the "scientific method".
If you say your god is the only real god, and i say the spaghetti monster is the only real god, we are at a cross road.
Con artists will try to deceive you and we need to find ways to prevent this. (religion not a factor yet.)
As the example above, we need a method that helps prevent us from being conned.
Our "words" alone are conflicting.
I can further explain, but replies are too limited.
In the end, what gets the job done? S.M.
eivarden 2 months ago
@eivarden
"What logic is, is the "scientific method"."
That statement is flat out wrong. Logic (the laws of logic) is what the scientific method, and all of our empirical epistemology is grounded on. Presuppositional apologetics tries to point out to the atheist that an atheistic worldview can not account for what the laws of logic is grounded on and how we came to know of these absolute laws.
semajgnik 2 months ago
@jsalverdachss and your only chance relies in providing an origin for grammar, English, etc.
sender90s 3 months ago
eivarden 2 months ago
Believing in something is more logical than believing in nothing. Being an Atheist is basically saying life is pointless. If life is pointless then why do you still go to work everyday and try to live? Why are humans trying to live if there is nothing to live for? Whats your reasoning for the beginning of the universe? Oh yeah i forgot atheists dont have a reason. Who is more logical?
KnightMike2015 5 months ago
@KnightMike2015 So, let me get this straight. It's more logical to believe in something, anything, than nothing at all? Is it more logical, the more things you believe in? Like if you're already a Christian, does adding Santa, Yetis and the Tooth Fairy to your list of beliefs make you a more logical person?
And the only reason to live is because a deity got bored and decided to poof us into existence? That's quite pitiful really.
ralph17p 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnightMike2015 So, let me get this straight. It's more logical to believe in something, anything, than nothing at all? Is it more logical, the more things you believe in? Like if you're already a Christian, does adding Santa, Yetis and the Tooth Fairy to your list of beliefs make you a more logical person?
And the only reason to live is because a deity got bored and decided to poof us into existence? That's quite pitiful really.
ralph17p 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnightMike2015 So, let me get this straight. It's more logical to believe in something, anything, than nothing at all. Is it more logical, the more things you believe in? Like if you're already a Christian, does adding Santa, Yetis and the Tooth Fairy to your list of beliefs make you a more logical person?
And the only reason to live is because a deity got bored and decided to poof us into existence? That's quite pitiful really.
ralph17p 5 months ago
@KnightMike2015 considering you think atheists believe in nothing, and atheists think life is pointless, etc. I'm not surprised you hold the positions you do. However if you ever want to find out that your'e completely wrong about what you think about atheists, you might listen to us instead of telling us incorrect things about ourselves.
MystryBox 5 months ago 15
@KnightMike2015 What's the point of Christmas if Santa isn't real?
Answer that, and then you understand the answer to your own question.
anticorncob6 5 months ago
@KnightMike2015 Believing in something without proof is illogical a.k.a. gullible. Basis for logic stems from if something is true and it creates a paradox it is illogical... if it is true and it doesn't create a paradox it is logical. That is a broad stroke but that is all I can give you in a short amount of time. No, the purpose of life is to make the world a better place for the people who will be here when we die (our children). And, to see man grow in every way.
iMagUdspEllr 5 months ago
@KnightMike2015 The origin of the universe is difficult to explain we are exploring the idea of string theory to try to answer that question but some things are harder to answer than others because as of right now we are incapable of exploring the universe as freely as we would like. Just because it can't be answered by me, right now, today, without thought, study, experimentation, and logic DOES NOT mean, "Goddoneit." That is merely the easy way out for the ignorant.
iMagUdspEllr 5 months ago
@KnightMike2015 having a religion isn't any more "meaningful" than not having one.
Do you know what the word "NEED" means?
The things we claim we NEED, are things that if we dont do them, we will die.
God didn't NEED to make us.
W/O a NEED to make us, it was pointless to make us.
WITH god, I just shown you how life can be "meaningless" even if you are religious.
eivarden 2 months ago
The most laughable and lamentable thing about theists is their assertion that everything in life is an "either, or" decision, there are no shades of grey and no nuances. even if observation and logic are not the answer that still does not mean that the supernatural is the default position and no proof that it is the only answer.
I think I'll be sticking to reason and logic thank you : )
Redshift21 5 months ago
Observation and reason not only gives tangible products, but gives prediction. For example, evolution is a theory that allows prediction. Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship...etc.
pcpchic 5 months ago
Oh The irony. Right next to the video player is an add for christian dating.
FroHawkNinja 6 months ago
I don't see how to a Christian this argument would hold any weight. If you're going to say that logic and observation is useless, than that would mean that God gave us a useless brain. There is no reason for God to give us the ability to logic and reason if we were not meant to do that exact thing. I just don't see a Christian using this argument, or why they would other than just trying to win an argument against an atheist, which this argument concludes is useless.
Thromnabular 6 months ago
@Thromnabular they don't think it's useless, they think it depends on the Christian god... and the bible is the ultimate source for the description of that god, even over observed reality. So you've got someone who has convinced themselves a book made by men is somehow greater than the reality staring them in the face. yes it's insane, and it's exactly what some Christians have to convince themselves of in order to believe a book of obvious myths.
MystryBox 6 months ago 3
so why put so much effort in all this?...whats the point?
TheFridgechucker 6 months ago
@TheFridgechucker the point is I can point at a video I've made when someone makes this argument to me and that happens more than you'd think. I much prefer to point to a video than have to explain myself over and over to various people.
MystryBox 6 months ago
You turn me away from atheism. You talk like a $50.00 high school lecturer who doesn't sound interested in what he's saying.
jiberias 6 months ago
@jiberias I wish I could get paid $50 for lecturing at a high school. That's above my pay grade.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@jiberias How can you be turned away from atheism? Its not a religion or a group or anything its just what you think. I hate people who try and convert everybody to there way of thinking if thats what you mean.
killaguy555 6 months ago
Comment removed
mrKkarrma 6 months ago
@mrKkarrma and now you fuck little boys.........how sad
TheFridgechucker 6 months ago
The word is "presumptuous".
SteamyThePunk 6 months ago
@SteamyThePunk thanks English cop! You're like a superhero with a really lame power :-)
MystryBox 6 months ago 5
@MystryBox I concede to that.
SteamyThePunk 6 months ago
@SteamyThePunk lmao nah more like Priesthumptuous hahahaha :-P Catholics are weird... the original church of sin
iamalexl3031 6 months ago
The only thing that I want to ask is why do both atheists and theists want you to choose sides? You may think this is stupid or try to belittle me for saying that but I just don't understand the human need to try to get some one to believe in what you believe in or in your case not to believe in anything. I understand your points and arguments but what does it do for you in the end? Do you feel accomplished? Or proud or what? No I am not religious if you were wondering, I'm just logical.
BeatsPerMinuteMusic 6 months ago
@BeatsPerMinuteMusic atheism isn't a "side". It's the recognition that the theist has not supported their many unlikely claims. As to why that's important, it's important because the theist is constantly inflicting his view on everyone... from wars and terrorism around the globe, to laws being passed that inflict their view of reality on everyone else. And all that from a group of people that believe something they can't actually show is true.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox
I understand that, the only issue is that people do view it as two sides. Maybe some don't and I get why but at the core people can only distinguish that atheists and theists are two opposing sides that will never see eye to eye. I just don't understand why people can't let other people choose what they believe in. I mean when it comes down to it each person is so unique that if you were to ask a christian to draw god they would draw it completely different from any other christian.
BeatsPerMinuteMusic 6 months ago
@BeatsPerMinuteMusic if most theists had a view of religion like you there would be few problems. The trouble is most theists don't.
MystryBox 6 months ago
Comment removed
bmharter 6 months ago
@MystryBox Um, okay. What I find really annoying about atheists is that they think about what are largely Evangelical Christian behaviors, and label that behavior "theist". I am a theist, and I don't go around trying to convince atheists. Nor do my Jew friends. Nor do American Muslims. That type of Christian is the same problem for me as it is for you, but you just had to go and become the exact same problem, didn't you? By the way, if there is a debate, there are at least two sides. Thanks.
bmharter 6 months ago
@bmharter sorry if you think my expressing my opinions in a video that you chose to watch is somehow pushing my views on you. If you don't like my videos, here's a thought: don't watch them. You won't find me knocking on your door to hand you a bible.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox The debate pushes itself on anyone who walks through the religion section in a book store. And don't sidestep the fact that you stereotype Christians in your setup, or unfairly overgeneralize theists in your comments. You post an opinion, and you want to criticize me for giving one back? That's a little silly.
bmharter 6 months ago
@bmharter you didn't give an opinion on the video, you attacked atheists for giving their opinion. I lightly tell you that if you don't like my videos don't watch them and you have the gall to then suggest I'm criticizing you for giving your opinion? What the fuck is wrong with you that you can be so obviously hypocritical and show not the slightest bit of shame for it?
MystryBox 6 months ago
Even if we were brains in a jar or constructs of the matrix that wouldn't advance theism one inch because in the BIJ scenario there would still be no evidence of "god" or in the matrix scenario "god" would be an idea planted in our brains by the matrix.
lewisner 6 months ago
@lewisner people making the brain-in-a-jar argument don't actually think we are brains in a jar. They're just basically saying "since anything is possible it's possible even my silly beliefs are true." Or at least that's what they tell themselves.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox I know but rather than just telling them to STFU I think it would be better to debunk their argument with logic. As Tracie Harris said on TAE "If they argue that "god" is immaterial simply point out that things which are NOT material don't exist - by definition!".
lewisner 6 months ago
@lewisner then you just get in an argument about immaterial things existing.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox They cannot argue that since material things are composed of matter. Also if they argue god is "outside timeand space" then she cannot cause temporal or spatial events.
lewisner 6 months ago
@lewisner they don't argue it, they simply assert it as a point of faith. Your argument has no weight to them, they simply don't believe it.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox So what would your response be?
lewisner 6 months ago
@lewisner I wouldn't need a response because I wouldn't take the discussion to the material/immaterial conflict. I'm not a materialist, I'm a naturalist. If the issues comes up I don't debate the subject and agree immaterial things (like ideas for instance) exist. I don't find the debate to be productive at all.
MystryBox 6 months ago
I want a woman who can quote scripture and milk a goat sir!
somethingdiffereable 6 months ago
@somethingdiffereable you know sexy!
MystryBox 6 months ago
It only exists on discussion boards because trolls don't exist in real life
ShinhoDynasty7 6 months ago
Interesting. I also believe that christianity is a trick of satan. lol
p.s i respect your non-belief, and dont want to argue with you about it, but im a Muslim.
TheAmericanMuslim100 7 months ago
That is a very true statement. A person cant truly believe in anything whether it be cherry pie or a god without knowing. The word believe is often confused with the word faith. To believe something means you have taken the time to answer a question that you felt strongly enough about to seek out the answer. To have faith is either hoping for something you cant know the answer to or a way to stop seeking an answer. Watching your other vids I discovered your position was "i dont know". Good vids
mrmikesims 7 months ago
I agree that faith is ridiculous. However, saying something is stupid simply because an uniformed person says its true without knowing is equally ridiculous. Because they don't know doesnt mean you know the opposite is true. It seems both sides refuse to question and in doing so cannot find an answer. Neither should assume the answer is not knowable. And until then the only honest answer is "I dont know". The statement I've made has nothing to do with religion. Simply being honest with ones self
mrmikesims 7 months ago
@mrmikesims perhaps you're unaware that my position IS "I don't know". However my position is also "I don't believe in any gods."
MystryBox 7 months ago
They use this argument a lot when talking aobut the nature of God. They claim god to be unknowable or outside the universe or some bs and therefore cannot be shown flase with evidence. Or they disregard evidence science provides claiming God could have put it there to test faith. Notice how both arguments cannot co exist, but theists tend to forget about that.
mosquitoe4 7 months ago
I totally agree this argument is stupid, mainly because when you say we could all be merely brains in jars in some matrix like simulation, and that therefore logic is illusory, you are using logic! The argument therefore is self-refuting, whether used by atheists Daniel Dennett cough cough or theists.
philosophizer149 8 months ago
I have been blocked off more religious sites for using my own observation. If there had've been a catastrophe in the "Holy Land" around 1900 years ago, and the gospels and people related to such were wiped out, how would they stand today. Because, since that day, there hasn't been a single second or grams worth of proof or visual evidence, enough to support a "lucky charm" let alone a bronze age fairy story belief system. I do like the talking donkey in "numbers" 22 though, he was in shrek.
excavtrooper 8 months ago
Good points. I've run into roughly the same argument from a person who claims not to "believe in a man in the sky" but does believe all sorts of unsupported ideas and who uses the same sort of argument given here to claim that we cannot claim these ideas are unlikely or unsupported. We need to broaden our scope to all sorts of other claims beyond the god question. It's amazing how many other preposterous ideas are out there.
drstrangelove09 9 months ago
@drstrangelove09 the flaw to point out to that guy is the false equivalence he's making. Just because anything could be true doesn't mean anything is likely to be true. To rationally discover reality you carefully examine what is likely to be true vs what isn't likely to be true.
MystryBox 9 months ago
@drstrangelove09
I used to be Christian, then Atheist due to all the errors in the Bible, Islam is the true way, everyone should look into it. In Islam, we do not have conflicts with science or anything like such, Jesus was not God, if he was a human, to be human was to have restrictions. Observe that.
IslamIstheWayforMe 9 months ago
@IslamIstheWayforMe When science finds the winged horse Mohammed supposedly flew on then you can talk about how there's no conflict between Islam and science. Until then I'm not convinced.
MystryBox 8 months ago
@MystryBox
I am a DR most of you idiots do not know science and certaintly not history. If you knew science, knew history and knew the Qur'an you would know Islam has no problem with science, no problem with evolution (although most don't even understand darwin or evolution correctly)
IslamIstheWayforMe 8 months ago
@IslamIstheWayforMe there's no "conflict" beyond science not supporting any of the supernatural claims of books like the Qur'an. If you accept a scientific view then you accept observation as the best way to determine what is likely true and what is not likely true. The supernatural claims of religious books have never been observed in a scientific way and in the rare case when they can be tested, they fail (e.g. like looking for actual results from prayer).
MystryBox 8 months ago
@MystryBox
No, this is what I really can not stand. Christianity = blind faith. In Islam we have the faith because #1 no one in history did what Muhammad(saw) did or even came close. #2 the Qur'an contains proofs in it and tells you to find one contradiction and you do not have to follow it. Stop confusing us with other faiths. There is no way what is in the Qur'an Muhammad(saw) could have known at the time it is impossible. I was an atheist and I have a science background. This is Islam.
IslamIstheWayforMe 8 months ago
@IslamIstheWayforMe I've read the Koran and to think it came from a god is laughable. Seriously read it sometime and when you finish a page ask yourself if the god of the universe would've written that. For example am I supposed to believe god cares about all those water rules? No, it's men, and very specific men--men who live in the desert that care about water like that. It couldn't be any more clear to me that book was written by men.
MystryBox 8 months ago
@MystryBox
Right I asked for a response on the water "rule" as you claim and you have no responded. You want to speak about critical analysis of a book you obviously don't understand with that weak statement. Water rules? What are you talking about? You are a joke man, really are.
IslamIstheWayforMe 8 months ago
@IslamIstheWayforMe is english your 2nd language or something because I'm not really sure what you're saying.
MystryBox 8 months ago
@IslamIstheWayforMe
The only reason you fight his argument this way is because you feel threatened by him challenging your beliefs. Whether you consciously feel threatened or not, you're putting up your defenses. He's is simply looking at your holy book strictly through reasoning and critical logic. No religion is flawless in its books, ideas or teachings. They all have loopholes. Guaranteed. Human being are not all knowing and I highly doubt that a higher being would give us that kind of power.
sinshyft117 8 months ago
@IslamIstheWayforMe Yes but the moral basis for Islam is actually quite murky. Religion itself is rather silly to me, personally. But I'm glad you found your own personal religious path.
sickness324 8 months ago
Arf!
drumrnva 9 months ago
"Since we don't know anything for sure, we should all believe something stupid."
Hahahahahaha. I love this guy. Keep it up.
FindingEudaimonia 9 months ago
the stupid argument of "the big bang must've been created by something it cant just come out of nowhere so it must be created by god" if everything has to have a creator who the fuck created god then?
phatman811 10 months ago
@phatman811 I love to get them with that then they turn and say well romans says he's the alpha and the omega....So he's the beginning and end lol like Roman's makes a fucking difference
Sleek310 10 months ago
hey there guy, forgot about you, but i had you saved in my favs from talking to you. read some resent posts. i would just like to say if you really want to try to refute this u need to understand what the arguement is, like with the hand in front of the face thing.. it seems you r a bit confused..also in r comments bak and forth you contradicted urself a few times about laws of logic and observation and such. i asked a few times what ur view is but i guess you have none or wont tell.
plato7770 10 months ago
@plato7770 I'm here every day reading comments and responding. I've said my view already, if you have something specific to say then say it. Otherwise thanks for the comments and have a nice life.
MystryBox 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So if you disprove a Moral Law giver, there is no moral law standard. When there is no moral law standard, there is no good, when there is no good, there is no evil. If one denies in a Moral Law standard and claims that he/she differentiate good and evil by feeling, he loses all basis to condemn someone. On what basis do you condemn someone who is wrong ? based on feelings ? so who made your feelings worth more than his ?
65816709 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When you see a amazing house, you immediately think of a talented designer behind it. But as we look at the Complexity of our human body, designed to the perfect tunning, our DNA is 300 billion page of intelligently designed instructions to our body, of which Bill Gates quotes that the complexity of the human DNA, compared to the most advanced computer chip, is like comparing an apple to the size of the Earth. But yet, you contradict yourself by saying there is no intelligent designer.
65816709 10 months ago
1. Where did the Earth come from, from the big bang ? so where did that small atom come from ? Apply all logical thinking, even the smartest of people, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, all point towards a Creator God.
2. So do you mean this Earth is just the result of a random explosion which do not have any purpose ? So what does morality, purpose, meaning mean ? If we are just the cause of Chance, we have no purpose, no value, no basis of morality in life.
65816709 10 months ago
@65816709 don't post the same questions on multiple videos. I already answered these questions on another video.
MystryBox 10 months ago 14
@MystryBox
That's funny because scientists and philosophers used to claim the earth was flat. Scientists according to what they called SCIENCE, used to say the universe was forever expanding.
IslamIstheWayforMe 8 months ago
@IslamIstheWayforMe science is just observation formalized. It has the limits of human observation. There was a time observation suggested the world was flat. We know better now because we have better ways to observe. The alternative to observation is to simply believe something for no reason at all (i.e. faith) but simply because someone says you should. Do you really think that's a good idea? I don't.
MystryBox 8 months ago
@MystryBox
You have NOT read the Qur'an nice try . Men who care about water rules? What are you talking about? Please go on about this I have an idea what you are trying to say but I'd rather let you speak on it then reveal what you're missing. I study Islam roughly at least 2 hours a day, you have not read the Qur'an buddy. It's funny because I could ask you such simple questions in person and you would fail miserably but with this you'll just google away. By the way, I don't hate you.
IslamIstheWayforMe 8 months ago
@IslamIstheWayforMe again, in your 2 hours a day take some time and read that book critically like you'd read any other book. And instead of assuming a god wrote it, ask yourself if a god wrote it and evaluate for yourself. You're probably beyond being able to do that, but from an outsider reading it, it's simply not impressive in the least.
MystryBox 8 months ago
@65816709 The beauty of sapience is that we are an outcome of chance and we deepen the meaning of life expanding our understanding.
GaryShider 10 months ago
@65816709 Pick up a book...the earth was formed out of a accretion disc from when the sun was formed, big bang is our best explanation and we dont yet know if before that is a conceivable concept because time as we understand it started after the big bang. Even if an atheist couldn't answer any of these questions, that doesnt make the claim, "God did it" anymore plausible because theres no evidence to support the claim.
Sleek310 10 months ago 2
@65816709 it doesnt matter how many people believe it or how smart they are....if it's not demonstrated it's not justifiable to just believe it is so. Appeals to authority won't get you anywhere if the authority hasnt demonstrated, their personal beliefs in no way had a bearing on their work..all your points represent fallacies, a argument from ignorance, appeals to authority, false dilemma etc. Because you don't accept a reality without god doesnt make him real or prove anything
Sleek310 10 months ago
@65816709 I also wanna state that it's not a matter of a single theory vs god. So even if big bang is completely false it says nothing to support that god did it, theres still other theories and claims and conclusions to be drawn so the idea that science not explaining something makes God the winner by default is fallacious, When science cant explain something and theres no evidence or anything else the honest answer is IDK not AH HA so then God did it!
Sleek310 10 months ago
@65816709 1. The Earth was created by the acreation disk when the sun was formed. No one currently knows for sure where that "first atom" ( as you incorrectly call it) came from, but that does NOT logically suggest "god did it" That is simply the god of gaps argument and its baseless..
Yes, the earth is the result of a random explosion. Live with it. Morality, purpose and value are manmade concepts. Good ones, but certainly not proof of anything else
podoau 10 months ago
@65816709 1. Read Steven Hawking
2. Isnt it a wonderful notion to make your own place in a bizarre unexplained world, where you can make a name for yourself simply because you want to?
d007ization 9 months ago
thanks for the video, I appreciate you level-'headedness' in delivering your points. Unfortunately, you don't understand 'presuppositionalism' at all. I don't know if it is because the Christians that debated you presented it poorly or whatever the reason is. One basic point that you confused was that Christians don't think reason is meaningless. They believe it is very useful. However, with an athiest world view you cannot account for reason, only the Christian world view can. Read Greg Bahnsen
irishwolfhound003 10 months ago
@irishwolfhound003 I appreciate your view as it's been brought up multiple times on this video by other posters. The confusion is my conflation of observation and reason in the video. Presuppers reject observation as a way to know what is most likely true. Put your hand in front of your face and if the bible says it's not there you would reject it as being there. To me this is irrational and illogical, but as your basis is a book written by ancient fishermen you come to different conclusions
MystryBox 10 months ago
@MystryBox sorry brother, but that isn't what the view holds to either. Of course I use observation as a way to gain knowledge, and of course you do. It is just that I have a world view that accounts for it, and you don't. Doesen't mean that you can't observe and learn things, it is just you borrow the Christian world-view to do it (i.e, constancy, trust in reason and senses, that there is objective truth in the world). Don't you think it is a bit weird to encourage atheists to just ignore this?
irishwolfhound003 10 months ago
@irishwolfhound003 I don't need to borrow a nonsensical world view to justify my hand in front of my face. I can observe it myself. I don't need to consult ancient goat herders to tell me to accept my hand in front of my face as valid.
MystryBox 10 months ago
@irishwolfhound003 and sorry but if the ancient goat herders you use to tell you of your reality tell you that the sun can (and did stop in the sky), any modern observations that such a thing is impossible is not credible. Your worldview is about as arbitrary as it gets on multiple levels... both because you can't know what is true and not true until consulting ancient men, and because you've arbitrarily decided to let a book be your standard of truth. Why not choose mother goose?
MystryBox 10 months ago
@MystryBox I don't know, I don't think we get anywhere if you just tell people to ignore Christians and say you are not interested. Either the Christian has something valid to say or he doesn't. You raised the question of why Christians only use this sort of debate style on the internet, and I think it is because it is a cold - philosophical debate style and you don't have to relate to someone to debate them. I am sorry if any Christians have not had Christ-like humility in talking with you
irishwolfhound003 10 months ago
@irishwolfhound003 presuppers are not ordinary Christians. They are people who recognize they have no rational basis for their beliefs and so attack reason/observation itself. As the video points out, how can you converse with someone who doesn't have the same standards for viewing reality as you do? What is the point of rational discussion based on observation/logic when their standard is absurdity and magic? As the video says you might as well bark at each other like dogs.
MystryBox 10 months ago
They can hold the "proof" in their hands. Consumate proof necessary for satisfaction of the ego.
TheJm8284 11 months ago
No ones right no ones wrong everyone wins . The end
KidInThePark 11 months ago
@KidInThePark
incorrect. Someone has to be right. In reality atheists are right of course, and theists are wrong, because in reality a god or gods does/do not exist. No one wins. The end.
smithistheownage 10 months ago
@smithistheownage I gess i win , I AM PIMP!!! :)
KidInThePark 10 months ago
I think you nailed it at 5:09 when you said "We might as well bark at each other like dogs." That's exactly what it's all about: who barks the loudest. You were once Christian, so I'm sure you remember how we always felt the "good" sermons were the "loudest" ones. And Christians seem to want to bring that same mentality to these debates. He who talks the loudest wins.
It's all about beliefs to them, and in their world logic and reason are nothing more than competing beliefs.
Haywerth 11 months ago
How About you respect our beliefs and we respect yours. Everybody wins.
onecrzyrdr 11 months ago
@onecrzyrdr your beliefs (assuming for a moment that you're Christian), don't deserve any respect.
MystryBox 11 months ago
@MystryBox but yours do? Because you say they do?
onecrzyrdr 11 months ago
@onecrzyrdr I don't have any religious beliefs.
MystryBox 11 months ago
@MystryBox I never said I did either. But why do you have to disrespect another's beliefs?
onecrzyrdr 11 months ago
@onecrzyrdr because as I already said, they don't deserve respect. Should I respect silly stories about talking snakes and donkey, people turning into pillars of salt, the sun stopping in the sky? Just because some credulous people accept such stories as history rather than mythology doesn't mean I should. Beliefs have to earn respect, and sorry but religious beliefs usually don't.
MystryBox 11 months ago
@MystryBox Respect people, not what they think. It's the same as the difference between tolerance and acceptance. You can respect the person for having their beliefs without respecting what they believe.
TheTomledo 11 months ago
@TheTomledo I agree and I've said it before in the past: people deserve respect by default, beliefs have to earn it. The problem comes about by people who can't separate themselves from their beliefs. If you criticize their beliefs they feel personally attacked. I can't do anything about that except point out they are being unreasonable.
MystryBox 11 months ago
@onecrzyrdr Because your right and all knowing, right?How do you know that their beliefs are false? Why can't you just accept that people think differently and that you aren't 100% right. All you did in this video is disprove a theory with another theory.
onecrzyrdr 11 months ago
helo sir. Sport it took me a whole to get back to you... I have read the book. The hole book. I've even went as far as going through the whole book worth a fine tooth comb. Now with that said I know that satan is after souls! But I also know that we have free will... To me it doesn't seem as if satan is trying to win your soul as much as your brain is! And also sir I find it pretty insulting that a person of no faith is going to tell me anything about my religion!
nickfrostdude123 11 months ago
@nickfrostdude123 would it make you feel better if I told you I was Christian for decades and was even ordained at one time? And as a bonus a can spell "whole" correctly, heh.
MystryBox 11 months ago
The laws of logic r not conventions but universal, NOT MATERIALISTIC. If all we have is a materialist universe, than all we have is matter, laws, concepts, ARE NOT MATTER
plato7770 11 months ago
Ur contradicting urself, We created logic but we observed logic?? If we observed it, it was around b4 we created it. & u can't observe all the instances where the laws of
Logic r applied, so why should we assume that the laws of logic will work in unobserved future situations? Especially if we can change them or in an evolving reality as u like to say we r in?
plato7770 11 months ago
@plato7770 no, we observe REALITY and create logic. Do you understand that logic is a set of formal rules humans invented? As for assuming reality is consistent we observe that it seems to be, but yes it's an assumption. Tomorrow reality could be different for all we know. It probably won't be but it csn't be ruled out. This is not difficult....but perhaps you have a learning disability or something?
MystryBox 11 months ago
& I think u just need to go read a bit more if u thnk logic can b changed, by whom & how does it get changed, by consensus, do logicians get to change it, Ur view doesn't make ne sense. Like the argument says. & u still haven't given a positive philosophical worldview in it's place where logic is meaningful. Wh
plato7770 11 months ago
@plato7770 is this one of those discussions where I answer your question and then you ask more questions seemingly without any point? Sorry but I'm not interested.
MystryBox 11 months ago
The observation & formality of something doesn't make it true, it was already true & it was observed. Also I'm playing with ur words, Can u show me how logic can b observed?? So again, the laws of logic r conventional???
plato7770 11 months ago
@plato7770 you are confused. Probably comes from watching the nonsense of Christian apologetics. Logic are rules we have created. You don't observe them, they are conceptual. Perhaps if you actually had a POINT or a coherent question? You asked how I account for logic and I accounted for it. Are we done?
MystryBox 11 months ago