Atheists don't say there is no fruit, they merely don't claim that there is any fruit. We don't rule out the possibility that there is a fruit, we merely don't believe that there is one, due to lack of evidence.
Also, the point of the argument that you straw-manned at the beginning, was that most people don't have a justification for their beliefs. The "evidence" you have for Christianity was born of a bias, and without such a bias, you would reject the "evidence" that you claim to have.
Yup, non sequitur. Also a straw-man as far as most non-believer are concerned.
Should one believe that there IS an apple in the basket? Even if there is no evidence supporting the idea?
I hope you meant "Christianity is not therefore false" as in "Therefore we can't dismiss Christianity based just on that".
Accuracy of gospels? Why only select ones and not all of it? Why not the gospels that didn't make it into The Bible? Why not the part that describes what birds we mustn't eat?
This is definitely a fallacious argument in itself because you are twisting the atheist belief so much that it is easily debunked (which is known as a straw man argument), so this video in itself is horrible. Not to mention you are also guilty of a hasty generalization fallacy, irrelevant conclusion fallacy, affirming the consequent fallacy, non sequitur fallacy, begging the question fallacy, and many questions fallacy. You should probably do more research before attacking logical fallacies.
@mrJoshy666 Great rebuttal. He wont reply though. He seems to only reply to comments that agree with him. Hey, at least he doesn't censor comments like most Christian channels.
This is kind of a straw man argument. the argument isnt that a lot of faith exist and therefore god doesn't exist. lets say for the sake of argument Islam is right. why wouldn't Islam be geographically spread evenly? shouldnt God have revealed itself to people of all nations? and shouldn't god inspire us to believe in the correct god?
@eire138 in other words you believe the claims on the gospels are hollow and false. but can't actually prove they are hollow and false. if anything,,, I would like to know how you base the statement of them being unsupportable claims. thanks
@gerinja I can't prove they are false any more than you can prove they are true, that's absolutely right....
As to them being unsupportable, I mean just that....there is no extra-biblical evidence that any of the miracles the bible attributes to jesus actually occurred. There is no way to verify that an actual "soul" exists. There is no way to verify that this "god" spoken of in the bible exists. There is no way to verify that this "heaven" place actually exists. So I see no reason to believe.
@eire138 ok then you might as well say "I don't know" instead of saying the gospels are hollow and false.
ask yourself why so many people believe there is God and affirm it with certainty. do you dare say they are deluded? or is there more to the existence of God than you think. Do Personal experience count even as testimony? i mean if you were in a court of law, the verdict is well determined by the testimony of witnesses.
@gerinja I said I find them to be hollow and false. And that's true, I do. Like I said, I can't disprove any of it any more than you can prove it. For someone who points out logical fallacies in this video though, you sure employ a lot in the comments. Perhaps you could ask yourself why the majority of people in this world DON'T believe in your god? As for personal experience as testimony, how do you handle the testimony of a hindu, or buddhist? They contradict yours but are still valid right?
@eire138 it is really a good tactic not to answer straight forward questions when asked, and then make your own set of questions as counter attacks. its a way to go back and forward endlessly with nothing real of value for us and people who might be reading!
@gerinja I'm sorry if I offended you by pointing out your fallacious arguments and did not respond to them as "straight forward" questions. My intent wasn't to "attack" you, but rather to demonstrate how little of a point your questions served. I also ended my post with an ACTUAL straightforward question that could have expanded the conversation, it's your prerogative to walk away from that though, take it easy.
Interesting. The question the first man asks seems to be extremely relevant yet abe ignored it. Children are being indoctrinated into different faiths every day only to burn in hell for believing what they are tought to be true, do I have that right? And go ask a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim why theirs is the correct religion and they will reply as you- read my holy book and you will see. I can not disprove god but I see how ancient men in different regions created gods to suit their surrondings
@TheAtheistJones there was no way to explain tons of evidence in such a short video. that is why the second man gave short answer. what you are arguing is that there is no way to know which religion is to be the true religion. my short answer is to go and find out for yourself and don't take the lazy position saying "every single religion is wrong (with no back up claims), so I won't bother searching."
@gerinja(1) Actually I am saying there is no true religion. I have done much in the way studied various religions, in class and out. What I have found is a complete lack of any substantial evidence for supernatural creators. Have you ever seen the jungles on SE Asia with life teeming in every nook? With all taht life it is no wonder the religion in that culture should believe in multiple dieties. In the Middle East, where it can be stark and the shepheds existence rather lonely at times,....
@gerinja If god was true I think he would have used science in the OT that we could verify by todays science, for example if god stated that he created in us an almost invisible double helix strand of material to control the growth of our bodies or the moon was created out of a collison between the earth and an asteroid, this would be information only a god would know. It would silence alot of doubts. As it stands the bible contains only psuedoscience and superstions.
@TheAtheistJones that is the problem atheists face. "God has to be proven scientifically or else doesn't exits" right? --- i say that is completely wrong. there are many things that we hold true that are NOT scientifically proven. denying this fact is what is really superstition and delusion.
Love - It's a human emotion characterized by increased levels of dopamine, serotonin, pheromones and norepinephrine. Since we can observe it's effects and since it's perfectly logical from an evolutionary point of view I'd say science can with a good certainty assume that love exists in one form or the other.
Metaphysics - The fact that there are other minds than my own is something that is hard to prove scientifically. However since we can observe many things, such as the fact that you for instance know things which I do not, I can make the assumption that you are a seperate entity. Also, since I can scientifically measure my brains activity and then see yours is like mine, it would be foolish to think that my mind is the only mind.
Science - Science is not something, it is a concept. The word science comes from the latin word for knowledge. This accurately describes what it is. Also, the scientific method isn't designed to prove concepts, it's designed to explain natural things. Nothing else. So, your argument holds no basis whatsoever.
@gerinja All of the things you listed are completely irrelevant to your original argument. God is not an emotion, nor is he/she/it a concept. God is of course a being, by the claims of religious people. A sentient omnipotent and omnipresent being. This means that he is within the realm of natural science. This is also where everyone fails to prove its existance.
@gerinja "science itself can not be justified by the scientific method"
Sure it can. Science only claims to be the best known method for evaluating claims about experienced reality. The fact that this is the case can be determined strictly from observing the results of applying the scientific method, vs other ways of testing claims - one of them will likely be demonstrably better than the other. That process is applying the scientific method on science.
@gerinja Love reduces to electrochemical reactions in human brains. It certainly can be, and has been, studied scientifically. Mathematical truths are axiomatic. They do not say anything about the real world. As for Metaphysics, it's largely nonsense beyond as a mechanism to fill in the blanks between observation. Your belief that there are other minds than your own is mostly a pragmatic view, because you can't control other agents or know what they think.
@gerinja You could even say that the definition of "other minds" is exactly that. That is, it's based on the observation that other agents can act without you being consciously aware of willing them to. Personally, I don't see any need to make "metaphysical"(nonsensical) claims about the truth of the statement "There are other minds" beyond those observations. If you define it to be true from observation - fine. Otherwise you're just breaking wind and making empty claims.
@gerinja "that is the problem atheists face. "God has to be proven scientifically or else doesn't exits" right?"
The proper claim would be "'God' has to be demonstrated, for us to be able to tell 'God' apart from that which doesn't exist". That is, it's manifestation that we use as the deciding criterion between the existent and non-existent. Things that we don't see manifest, like fairies and gods, are tentatively assumed to be in the non-existent category to avoid contradicting beliefs.
@gerinja It's the part of avoiding contradicting beliefs that's important to scientifically minded people. We know that false assumptions can and will lead to new false beliefs through deductive arguments. Because of this we insist on a conservative approach to knowledge about external reality - rooted in demonstration of manifestation. People who do not adopt such a starting point have committed epistemic suicide and can't coherently justify their nonbelief in anything at all.
@gerinja (2) at times, one can understand why a single god made his presence. I have read the different books and see not divinity but superstious neolithic men making astonishing claims to explain what today we can see as natural phenomenon. They are filled with inconsistencies and tall tales.
Atheists don't say there is no fruit, they merely don't claim that there is any fruit. We don't rule out the possibility that there is a fruit, we merely don't believe that there is one, due to lack of evidence.
Also, the point of the argument that you straw-manned at the beginning, was that most people don't have a justification for their beliefs. The "evidence" you have for Christianity was born of a bias, and without such a bias, you would reject the "evidence" that you claim to have.
Oicurmtoyoy 2 months ago
Yup, non sequitur. Also a straw-man as far as most non-believer are concerned.
Should one believe that there IS an apple in the basket? Even if there is no evidence supporting the idea?
I hope you meant "Christianity is not therefore false" as in "Therefore we can't dismiss Christianity based just on that".
Accuracy of gospels? Why only select ones and not all of it? Why not the gospels that didn't make it into The Bible? Why not the part that describes what birds we mustn't eat?
jesokingcryst 2 months ago
This is definitely a fallacious argument in itself because you are twisting the atheist belief so much that it is easily debunked (which is known as a straw man argument), so this video in itself is horrible. Not to mention you are also guilty of a hasty generalization fallacy, irrelevant conclusion fallacy, affirming the consequent fallacy, non sequitur fallacy, begging the question fallacy, and many questions fallacy. You should probably do more research before attacking logical fallacies.
mrJoshy666 2 months ago
@mrJoshy666 Great rebuttal. He wont reply though. He seems to only reply to comments that agree with him. Hey, at least he doesn't censor comments like most Christian channels.
kubush 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALLAH asking the atheist these questions in the QURAN in chapter 52 verse 35:
"Were they created of nothing,
or were they the creators [of themselves]? 35 "
=> for more type in google "TheDeenShow"
akeello 3 months ago
This is kind of a straw man argument. the argument isnt that a lot of faith exist and therefore god doesn't exist. lets say for the sake of argument Islam is right. why wouldn't Islam be geographically spread evenly? shouldnt God have revealed itself to people of all nations? and shouldn't god inspire us to believe in the correct god?
twizelby 3 months ago
And when one HAS studied the gospels and still finds them hollow and false?
What then?
eire138 3 months ago
@eire138 hollow and false? how do you determine that?
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja that is my opinion of them. I formed it based on the wholly unsupportable claims made in the gospels.
eire138 3 months ago
@eire138 in other words you believe the claims on the gospels are hollow and false. but can't actually prove they are hollow and false. if anything,,, I would like to know how you base the statement of them being unsupportable claims. thanks
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja I can't prove they are false any more than you can prove they are true, that's absolutely right....
As to them being unsupportable, I mean just that....there is no extra-biblical evidence that any of the miracles the bible attributes to jesus actually occurred. There is no way to verify that an actual "soul" exists. There is no way to verify that this "god" spoken of in the bible exists. There is no way to verify that this "heaven" place actually exists. So I see no reason to believe.
eire138 3 months ago
@eire138 ok then you might as well say "I don't know" instead of saying the gospels are hollow and false.
ask yourself why so many people believe there is God and affirm it with certainty. do you dare say they are deluded? or is there more to the existence of God than you think. Do Personal experience count even as testimony? i mean if you were in a court of law, the verdict is well determined by the testimony of witnesses.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja I said I find them to be hollow and false. And that's true, I do. Like I said, I can't disprove any of it any more than you can prove it. For someone who points out logical fallacies in this video though, you sure employ a lot in the comments. Perhaps you could ask yourself why the majority of people in this world DON'T believe in your god? As for personal experience as testimony, how do you handle the testimony of a hindu, or buddhist? They contradict yours but are still valid right?
eire138 3 months ago
@eire138 it is really a good tactic not to answer straight forward questions when asked, and then make your own set of questions as counter attacks. its a way to go back and forward endlessly with nothing real of value for us and people who might be reading!
great going! i won't reply back, friend.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja I'm sorry if I offended you by pointing out your fallacious arguments and did not respond to them as "straight forward" questions. My intent wasn't to "attack" you, but rather to demonstrate how little of a point your questions served. I also ended my post with an ACTUAL straightforward question that could have expanded the conversation, it's your prerogative to walk away from that though, take it easy.
eire138 3 months ago
Interesting. The question the first man asks seems to be extremely relevant yet abe ignored it. Children are being indoctrinated into different faiths every day only to burn in hell for believing what they are tought to be true, do I have that right? And go ask a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim why theirs is the correct religion and they will reply as you- read my holy book and you will see. I can not disprove god but I see how ancient men in different regions created gods to suit their surrondings
TheAtheistJones 3 months ago
@TheAtheistJones there was no way to explain tons of evidence in such a short video. that is why the second man gave short answer. what you are arguing is that there is no way to know which religion is to be the true religion. my short answer is to go and find out for yourself and don't take the lazy position saying "every single religion is wrong (with no back up claims), so I won't bother searching."
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja(1) Actually I am saying there is no true religion. I have done much in the way studied various religions, in class and out. What I have found is a complete lack of any substantial evidence for supernatural creators. Have you ever seen the jungles on SE Asia with life teeming in every nook? With all taht life it is no wonder the religion in that culture should believe in multiple dieties. In the Middle East, where it can be stark and the shepheds existence rather lonely at times,....
TheAtheistJones 3 months ago
@TheAtheistJones if you have studied religions and still not found one that could convince you, then you truly stand out than most atheists.
having said that. Keep in mind that you may not rely on science to know God is real or not, because science is not the only way we know truth.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja If god was true I think he would have used science in the OT that we could verify by todays science, for example if god stated that he created in us an almost invisible double helix strand of material to control the growth of our bodies or the moon was created out of a collison between the earth and an asteroid, this would be information only a god would know. It would silence alot of doubts. As it stands the bible contains only psuedoscience and superstions.
TheAtheistJones 3 months ago
@TheAtheistJones that is the problem atheists face. "God has to be proven scientifically or else doesn't exits" right? --- i say that is completely wrong. there are many things that we hold true that are NOT scientifically proven. denying this fact is what is really superstition and delusion.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja What things do we hold true that aren't scientifically proven?
TroloIol 3 months ago
@TroloIol a bunch of things; for example:
mathematical truths
love
metaphysical truths; for example there are other minds other than my own
science itself can not be justified by the scientific method
and the list goes on and on.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja
Love - It's a human emotion characterized by increased levels of dopamine, serotonin, pheromones and norepinephrine. Since we can observe it's effects and since it's perfectly logical from an evolutionary point of view I'd say science can with a good certainty assume that love exists in one form or the other.
TroloIol 3 months ago
@gerinja
Metaphysics - The fact that there are other minds than my own is something that is hard to prove scientifically. However since we can observe many things, such as the fact that you for instance know things which I do not, I can make the assumption that you are a seperate entity. Also, since I can scientifically measure my brains activity and then see yours is like mine, it would be foolish to think that my mind is the only mind.
TroloIol 3 months ago
@gerinja
Science - Science is not something, it is a concept. The word science comes from the latin word for knowledge. This accurately describes what it is. Also, the scientific method isn't designed to prove concepts, it's designed to explain natural things. Nothing else. So, your argument holds no basis whatsoever.
TroloIol 3 months ago
@gerinja All of the things you listed are completely irrelevant to your original argument. God is not an emotion, nor is he/she/it a concept. God is of course a being, by the claims of religious people. A sentient omnipotent and omnipresent being. This means that he is within the realm of natural science. This is also where everyone fails to prove its existance.
TroloIol 3 months ago
@gerinja "science itself can not be justified by the scientific method"
Sure it can. Science only claims to be the best known method for evaluating claims about experienced reality. The fact that this is the case can be determined strictly from observing the results of applying the scientific method, vs other ways of testing claims - one of them will likely be demonstrably better than the other. That process is applying the scientific method on science.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@gerinja Love reduces to electrochemical reactions in human brains. It certainly can be, and has been, studied scientifically. Mathematical truths are axiomatic. They do not say anything about the real world. As for Metaphysics, it's largely nonsense beyond as a mechanism to fill in the blanks between observation. Your belief that there are other minds than your own is mostly a pragmatic view, because you can't control other agents or know what they think.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@gerinja You could even say that the definition of "other minds" is exactly that. That is, it's based on the observation that other agents can act without you being consciously aware of willing them to. Personally, I don't see any need to make "metaphysical"(nonsensical) claims about the truth of the statement "There are other minds" beyond those observations. If you define it to be true from observation - fine. Otherwise you're just breaking wind and making empty claims.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@gerinja "that is the problem atheists face. "God has to be proven scientifically or else doesn't exits" right?"
The proper claim would be "'God' has to be demonstrated, for us to be able to tell 'God' apart from that which doesn't exist". That is, it's manifestation that we use as the deciding criterion between the existent and non-existent. Things that we don't see manifest, like fairies and gods, are tentatively assumed to be in the non-existent category to avoid contradicting beliefs.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@gerinja It's the part of avoiding contradicting beliefs that's important to scientifically minded people. We know that false assumptions can and will lead to new false beliefs through deductive arguments. Because of this we insist on a conservative approach to knowledge about external reality - rooted in demonstration of manifestation. People who do not adopt such a starting point have committed epistemic suicide and can't coherently justify their nonbelief in anything at all.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@gerinja (2) at times, one can understand why a single god made his presence. I have read the different books and see not divinity but superstious neolithic men making astonishing claims to explain what today we can see as natural phenomenon. They are filled with inconsistencies and tall tales.
TheAtheistJones 3 months ago