there is no point in asking for anyone to prove god because there is the natural world and the super natural, super natural its kinda like fantasy. Robert E Howard was a human being born into the natural world, CONAN RED SONJA and KULL were all born from Robert E Howards FANTASY WORLD
so you are using the tenancy that children will believe whatever they are told as proof of God? so because kids believe in Santa he must exist? Your logic is a bit faulty
The claim at 2:10 applies specifically as a counter to the Christian belief that god answers all prayers. This point is essentially moot in an argument for or against the existence of god, since it is too specific to discredit any other god. I would like to see a physical explanation for the regrowth of a human limb, but if none can be found, it can't be assumed that the explanation is supernatural. It may be, but there could be a physical explanation that has not been found.
Yes. Yes it is necessary. Why would I believe in something that doesn't show any evidence of existing? It gives the person the argument that "there is no evidence that god DOESN'T exist", which is incredibly stupid.
There are SO many reasons why religion in general is wrong and it would take too long to list them all.
What you said about being able to be seen with the five senses is not true. We can not sense magnetic fields, but we have instruments to detect them. If you ever grow the balls to debate your horribly flawed argument in a public forum with any serious opponent, you will be intellectually destroyed.
Oh nice ending - "I'm too sceptical to accept your claims", looks to camera, winks knowingly, checkmate, end game, killer blow. You haven't even begun thinking about this topic.
He is right there is no need for evidence of the great Creator FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! ALL HAIL FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER OR BURN ETERNALLY! ! BUHAHAHA! !
The most rational to be, also what you call default position, is to be skeptic and say "we do not know". By he argument you then made I do not see how this then must leads to theism (base on what I wrote before on mind vs body). For me neither atheism or theism is irrational.
BN: one can prove that god exists - but only for yourself - that means the prove always will be subjective and one can never validate this proof objectively. In other words, from an outside view, it is "only" a belief.
Second remark about separating body and mind in the brain.
As we are hardwired for this, then it should not come as a surprise we know about this. After all that's why we got the hard waring in the first place to be aware of it. If we did not had it we would not be aware of it. How it then work is another question discovered by science. Therefore it's not a discover in the sense you try to make it. You can as well say god reveled facts in scripture such as we can see, breath and think. So what?
The default position is skeptic, so when you claim we science shown we are hardware to believe in the supernatural I disagree. Research has show that we have separate centers in the brain for thinking about the body v.s thinking about the mind of someone. This mean we can conceptualize a body without a mind, i.e, a dead person, but also a mind with no body, i.e. we can think about someone with out them being present. These are needed social skills, not explicitly intended for the supernatural.
Second remark about positive evidence for the existence of god.
Sure thing, if things magically popped into existence that might be evidence for the existence of god, but even so a skeptic will fall back on the excluded-third: all naturalistic explanation must first be rolled out before it can be accepted as positive evidence, and so far all this has never been done. All that said: quantum mechanics might be your friend here as stuff actually do pop into existence out of nothing at the level.
Any skeptic that knows what they talks about does not ask for positive evidence (as defined in naturalistic methods) for the existence of god, because the skeptic knows no such thing can exists per definition. The evidence a skeptic demand is based on the excluded-third. A skeptic demands that all, and any, naturalistic explanation is to be show to be false or impossible. If one can show this then one have proven that good exists.
Do you think this is unreasonable to demand by a rationalist?
it seems that he has convinced himself that evidence should only be considered if it confirms that his particular god exists. if you ask him for evidence that god is preoccupied with our diet, and he doesn't have any, he'll say "what's your evidence that I need evidence?". whereas if he did have evidence, he'd say "see! look at that evidence! the evidence is right there!" xD it's a win win for him.
it seems that he has convinced himself that evidence should only be considered if it confirms that his particular god exists. if you ask him for evidence that god is preoccupied with our diet and sex lives, and he doesn't have any, he'll say "what's your evidence that I need evidence?". whereas if he did have evidence, he'd say "see! look at that evidence! the evidence is right there!" xD it's a win win for him.
Nothing happens in the universe that is not natural.
Maybe science has not managed to explain everything and there are outlying pieces of material out there that has not been discovered/described/explained yet.
The fact that we have not managed these outlyers does not mean an evidence-based science is false, its just merely incomplete.
Supernaturalism by definition talks of non-material things and therefore things that have no consequence on our existence. Supernaturalism is pointless.
@DawahFilms The Quaran, something that is quite physical, cannot be proven.
Your entire argument is that you believe in the Quaran because human beings are flawed and forced to be illogical? Just because you believe something doesn't make it the natural conclusion of all of mankind.
Questioning perception is exactly what you are doing by believing in the supernatural... Saying that Allah is something you can understand as a human being then saying you cannot perceive him is illogical.
You say we are naturally inclined to believe in god? What about gays? Infidelity? We are "naturally" hard-wired to protect those that look like us, and condemn those who don't...These are all facts, with as much evidence as what you have cited. We don't fill in the gaps with naturalism.. we say "we don't know." We know the gaps will be filled *naturally* because we are a part of nature. If there's a god, he's a part of nature, and we are not denying he exists on faith, but that on lack of proof.
Something that seems even just slightly beyond a natural, material explanation might be compelling. But if you pull a coin out of my ear, I might doubt that anything supernatural happened, and then you'll get angry.
What's the Arabic equivalent of "The Superstitious Pigeon"?
You keep using the phrase 'hard wired', which rather tramples on the concept of free will, and your ability to recognise truth and divinity. I guess you are simply admitting to being human, and prone to human fallibility. You can learn to rise above this. By understanding yourself, you will then understand your place in the Universe. You may come to the understanding you are a product of the Universe, and that no supernatural realm is required. If you are brave enough to entertain such, that is.
@DawahFilms You seem to misunderstand. We can demonstrate that reaching conclusions based on evidence is a far better determiner of what is true than gut feelings. Ask someone to use their gut feeling, prayer or anything else that's not evidence to determine what the orbital period of pluto is. Then contrast that to someone using evidence to reach the answer. I think you'll be interested in which is more accurate.
Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of this method.
Response to "Major reason": I suppose by "supernatural thinking" you meant looking for "purpose, agency, design". The argument I would make is that even if this thinking comes naturally, nothing follows from it. It simply states that some think in those ways, i.e., looking for "purpose, agency, design". Just as some are naturally predisposed to be delusional. So yes, I suppose you are right then. The delusional do not require evidence for the claims they make because they naturally believe them
Response to "Minor reason": Look up a video between Russell and Wittgenstein about a rhinoceros. Wittgenstein says that the claim is metaphysical and not empirical; that the world is made up of facts and not things. So when one asks for evidence of God, it means they are not convinced that the existence of God is a fact; just as one might not be convinced the defendant is guilty.
Well, some animals do grow they amputated legs back. Do you think god like those animal more than he likes humans? Why does the owl have better vision than we do? why does the cheetah run faster than we do? Why does the dolphin swim faster? Why is the Bear stronger? Why is the the turtle harder? Shouldn't we be his favorite creation?
@babkrani Well, in this video i found: Non-Sequitor + Argument from ignorance + Violation of the philosophy of science + Equivocation + Straw man + False Dichotomy + Begging the Question + Tautology + False Premise
@babkrani I don't know how you claimed i used Straw man, I was addressing his statement about amputees and nothing else... And the argument from ignorance I don't know where you got it from...
@FluffyAthiest Your rhetorical questions are an argument from ignorance and a strawman since you want God to fit the idea that you have about him, which is not honest.
@babkrani How is it dishonest if nothing I said was false? And I don't have an idea about god, i don't believe in one, I'm just giving an example of how false your belief is.
@FluffyAthiest It is false to say, that humans should have 3 legs or 1000 eyes :) which means that everything you said is false. And please being honest isn't claiming that you "know it all"
FYI, just because you use big words it doesn't make you look smarter, it actually makes you look more arrogant... "Normative" LOL ever heard of normal?
Sooooo, when we try to explain evolution and a religious person says it's wrong because it's not in their religious text, and we then ask "well what evidence do you have your religious text is accurate?" and we get a "I have evidence but I'm not going to give it because you are closed minded", are we still REALLY the closed minded ones?
Some people NEED evidence, if there was a god and he cared, he would give it.
You claim we just can't see it, but if he knew what it took, he would do it.
In other words the existence of God is evident to us thru the creation. But there is further revelation of God thru his Spirit. God gives a divine and supernatural light to men of his choosing by a supernatual means. Jesus taught of the ''new birth'' ''born from above''''born of the Spirit'', ''the gift of the Spirit'' and there are a hundred other expressions for it in the Bible.
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Okay, your position here is (of course) "anti-atheist" but even though I am Atheist myself I think I'll agree on what I think are your points:
It simply IS nonsensical to demand scientific proof for the existence of something that exists (assuming it does) outside of the realm of things that can be grasped by scientific methods.
*If* there is an all mighty entity out there that is able to create a universe as grand and marvellous as the one we're in, then ->
If your idea of a god tells you to hurt yourself or others, evidence is bloody well necessary! If people were content to believe what they wished and didn't endeavor to impose their ideology on others, then you'd be right. But it does matter.
so you dont need evidence for god? does that work for anything?
there is a flying icecream cone named tim floating out in space. tim is a miracle worker of sorts, traveling from place to place puting things right where they once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap would be the leap home.
When you sit in the corner at night and cry, because you get owned like a child molester in the wrong cell block. Does it sound like Dawah Wah Wah Wah? I know, that was a retarded joke. But I bet that all you SOB's laughed.
Philosophy is extremely important in understanding the "human experience"... its the science of humanity, not the science of reality. I , an atheist, love philosophy.
why would an atheist use drugs to imbue our unbelief? Forcing a fictional reality on ourselves (for anything other than amusement) seems like the COMPLETE opposite of an "atheist way of thinking"
I don't make a habit of denying wiring to believe in supernatural. I think we may likely be wired like that, and this is why its hard to shake religion off in addition to fear of ending. Our inclination to believe in God is likely an old device to draw people into collectives that, in this very populated time, is no longer needed... like the appendix.
@chasingimagination1 The thing is, right when they give up and admit that they base their religion on faith they'll claim that faith is something to be proud of.
This is already widespread really. It's quite sad.
I was going to put my two cents into this but it seems like the atheists in the comments section took care of it. Not a very hard video to respond to.
@DawahFilms Actually you're being a tad arrogant. Screw that very arrogant. Just because you state they're straw men doesn't automatically mean they are. You don't have supreme authority here. And don't answer to ME on this. Go and prove they're straw men to the ones making the arguments instead. Because I'm just too used to the likes of you to try and debate you. "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." Ayn Rand
Citing Ayn Rand already makes you discredited in this conversation.
It is easy to prove these are strawmen because I actually know what my argument is as opposed to those who think they know what my argument is about. If you want to see the full refutation of these responses wait a bit for my reply and see how ludicrous some of these individuals will be shown for.
@DawahFilms I'll just answer the first part as I already said I wouldn't answer any of the rest : What exactly have you been drinking ? Oh, I'm sorry, maybe that's forbidden for you ? Well then what have you been smoking ?
Really, my apologies for the sarcasm, but saying just because I quote this or that person I'm discredited is beyond stupid. What does it matter who the quote's from ? It's the quote itself that matters. You really believe what you said ? I hope for you you don't.
@DawahFilms "Citing Ayn Rand already makes you discredited in this conversation" non sequitors and ad hominems eh Dawah? But good job showing how insufficient your ability to argue is.
I haven't seen many responses to your video, but I took a look at wisdominnature7, who didn't strawman you at all, and indeed showed you making the arguments he completely responded to.
Evidence for God might not be necessary BUT a very BIG BUTT:
1. EVIDENCE for the God "TO TALK" to select FEW DESERT WANDERING NOMADS ONLY FROM THE MIDDLE-EAST is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!!!!
2. EVIDENCE even for the "MODE of COMMUNICATION" of God with his SELECT few MEN (yes, "No Women No Cry" and "No She-men No Cry" for HIM (and NOT HER or IT or THEM)!!!) is also VERY MUCH NEEDED!!!
3. LAST but NOT the LEAST: EVIDENCE for the COUNT of GOD is MANDATORY!!
"How can you prove something not physical with physical evidence?"
Demonstrate the effects it has on reality.
"If atheists witnessed a miracle, they'd look for a natural explanation first."
Exactly. The same way we don't assume magic exists when we see a magic-trick. We'd need very good evidence. If there was no natural explanation, we'd eventually go to magic.
"Naturalism of the gaps."
No, just jumping to 'god did it' without a good reason is an argument for ignorance.
1) Have you ever seen Allah with your eyes? or any kind of angel (or a demon?) And don't give me that crap that Allah/God is everywhere (in other words, you're only *supposing* his existence)
2) Have you ever talked to Allah, knowing 100% that it's him. And don't tell me Allah doesn't talk but his messenger angels.
3) What is your answered/unanswered/total score of your prayers? Statistics?
What you should know is that yes, we are programmed to believe in the supernatural. Because of what is called a God Module, deep inside your brain. The evolutionary reasons for it's existence is that it brings excitement, group cohesion and primitive curiosity catalyst. So... that was answered years ago...
Yes... Anything can happen within certain probability range. How much would you bet on your probability of Allah being more real than The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Open-minded means accepting that there might be a God, and there might NOT be a God. The burden is on the Theists to provide the weight of evidence or, at least, a compelling logical argument.
So we are not unreasonable. Since science can to some extent prove thing outside our senses, it is so weird to ask for evidence? It's is not wordplay. So despite your claims, I still want proof.After all, a being that create a material world at will, despite being not material itself, should be able to prove itself.
It is completely rational to ask for evidence of God, although that God is not in our reality. If that God created our reality, our world, it is able to access it. A entity who cant access our reality is by definition not God. The Bible and I assume the Koran to, speaks on more the one occasion about God intervening and showing his influence in our reality. So you are contradicting holy books here. And science goes further then the 5 senses, indeed, it proves things outsides our senses.
When it starts to affect me and people around those who believe in a god and then say and do stuff in that god names that is just... that require to question and criticize, then yes, then it's very necessary for proof and evidence.
Now that said, given the fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, I wouldn't say that atheism is inherently irrational. It is not. I know a lot of people on youtube who are atheist and are very rational. They just don't think they have a good reason to believe there is a god. Some don't even bother talking about their reasons for not believing one exists very often, because to some, its not that big of a deal if other people do believe, or not.
@GargamelGold Right. The default position of any claim is disbelief until evidence has en provided for it. It is rational to not believe in Santa Claus, the Toothfairy, Zeus or anything until evidence has been provided for it.
It baffles me that people claim that atheists wouldn't believe if evidence was actually demonstrated. Prove to me that this is real and that the claims I'll be tortured forever if I don't believe are VALID and I'll switch in a heartbeat.
Well, I agree with you in one area. The idea that evolution and the existence of God are incompatible is nonsense. If it were God or evolution, given all the overwhelming evidence for evolution, I'd be an atheist. However, evolution is only ever incompatible with theistic belief when that belief is based on a literal readying of some holy book.
This very fact you cite is proven from a naturalistic worldview. From a worldview that puts these faculties first, the kind of tests done to prove the "major reason" cannot be accepted, since they test the mechanical processes that appear to drive what we call consciousness.
A personal 'god' that can change the physical universe, sometimes in response to prayer, is a 'god' whose actions fall squarely within the purview of the physical sciences. These changes should be detectable either directly or statistically. If "your" 'god' does not make said physical changes, then the one claiming a 'god' is indistinguishable from someone who is having delusions. Therefore I would have no basis to treat him as someone other than a delusional man.
I never argued any such thing. The fact that you say this and that its thumbed up despite me saying to the contrary in this very video shows how stupid you and others really are.
@DawahFilms So the title of the video is a lie and the content doesn't reflect it at all? You never said you needed no evidence for a God? Gee we must be watching a different video.
It's good that you acknowledge god cannot be proven.
If an amputee instantly regrew his leg and it violated every physical law we found and we could not reconcile it with other observations I would acknowledge a divine intervention. Until that happens you are in the wrong.
@DawahFilms Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If that extraordinary evidence were to show itself I would believe, however no such evidence has arisen.
@DawahFilms and I highly doubt you would stop believing in god if space aliens came down and showed you the time lapse video they made of the earth forming and evolving life...
I called his main argument within the first minute of the video: an argument from the popularity of belief in nebulous agencies acting in the universe that no evidence is required to justify that such agencies actually exist. Normative dispositions do not automatically translate into true or useful ideas: for example, human beings have a disposition toward eating foods high in fat and sugar, but this does not make it healthy for people with an abundance of food to do so.
A sad, desperate rationalization. He's obviously just angry that his beliefs don't hold up under any scrutiny. He's not concise at all either, keeps rambling on about drunk bums "or something like that, you know?" What I think he is talking about is epistemology, so why doesn't he go read about it? Far more intelligent people than anyone reading this have written great books on the subject.
@DawahFilms lol how does that work? You think something is concise so you're the smart one? You yawn at my suggestion to read but you want to play intellectual? You can rationalize anything, can't you?
Atheists who "believe" in logic unbound are generally unable to accept something unprovable, until proven. Like the speed of light as the fastest. Is god supernatural by belief? by definition? or by "logical" construction? I think you've shown that Agnostic is true basis of humans. Belief & personal rational thought through experience leans us to atheism or theism. Force each to define "god", first for themself, then for the opposer. That's the rub.
You're absolutely ridiculous. It's a shame that no amount of words would allow you to understand this. If this is the best argument you can come up with, then just give up.
Just because something is a natural proclivity and is believed by the majority doesn't mean it's rational. Rational is based on logic and empirical evidence. You're right; the evidence needs to be questioned. It's how science works as nothing in science is ever 100% true. However, it still serves as a basis of proof. 6:26 "Alternate reality outside of what we can perceived... is rather ludicrous." Destroy your own argument as it's normal to believe in the supernatural.
Dude, if 10 amputees got on their knees (because they no longer have legs) theennn, began to pray and regenerated their limbs...that would be hard to argue against. Now, if ONE amputee, randomly and without reason grew back a limb SLOWLY over time, there's probably a physical reason for that. It would be impossible to argue against the spontaneous renewal of the limbs of 10 Muslims right before my eyes. Period but that will NEVER happen, and we all know it.
@DawahFilms The key here is utility. I don't claim to know that my perception of reality is correct, but I can see the utility of my most basic axioms such as "universe exists", "my 5 senses are correct", "happiness matters".
The notion of "God", a generic creator we know nothing about and most likely does not interact with the Universe in any tangible way, is utterly useless. It does not even matter if you're atheist, agnostic or deist, from a practical point of view, it's all the same to me.
@DawahFilms Oh and before you say "you'll just dismiss this as alien technology" - well maybe I will - but I'd certainly fear a being with that level of technology enough to not try to oppose it. So I don't believe that "minor reason" has any merit.
They say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Supernatural events are extraordinary by definition, none have ever been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt and most are PROVEN hoaxes. So you need stronger evidence.
@DawahFilms Here's physical proof I'd accept: Do a magic trick, you know something big like making an entire adult tree grow out of nothing in 10 seconds or shooting ice from your hands on demand or making a precise prediction of a complex one-time event. (date, location, numbers)
And then do it again in front of a large crowd so it can be more objectively verified. And again. And again.
What God merely needs to do is start interacting often with his creation. That's it.
(Cont) Now then your God can not be non material. I know you like to claim him to be because heaven forbid you admit he's made up and you don't have evidence for him, but here's a simple law of reality. If something has an effect on reality it must exist within reality. Everything in reality is made up of matter or energy.
God(s) is said to have done many things that directly interacted with reality in some way in EVERY religion. Therefor there should be some sort of confirm-able measurement.
Look if you feel it's a sufficient argument to claim your God exists without providing any evidence then it is just as sufficient for us to claim that the flying spaghetti monster exists without any evidence or "insert any other God or mythical thing here" and since many Gods claim to be the only God and, using YOUR logic we've already "sufficiently" justified their existence then they now all contradict each other and therefor none of them exist. Great job =D
Ohh, you so silly. So everything we are naturally programmed to do is right and correct? I guess xenophobia is pretty cool then? Rape, assault and tribal behaviour? These are all perfectly correct behaviours? Because we sure as hell are programmed to think such acts are ok. The only thing that stops us is society and it's morals.
Also, your argument essentially hinges on the same old Theistic idea. I feel this, therefor it is so. When we talk about evidence, we talk of emperical evidence.
You do see what i am getting at with my " is believing in vampires natural" question and i feel you side stepped it with your answer. on what physical grounds do you believe that vampires were constructed? and how could we dismantle the vampire on physical grounds Ali? thank you, sorry reposted this question, because you didnt answer it before and i am interested in what your reply will be.
so even if I grant you that yes indeed a "god" exists and has created the universe, how do we choose which beliefe is correct? How do we do this without evidence? This is the main problem I see with this line of thinking, religions have been clashing for thousands of years yet they all believe in a god yet each claims the other is wrong. If I'm a Hindu, wound't I need some sort of evidence that there is only one god?? or do I just believe the last person to push their religion??
@DawahFilms (cont) ran into things it could not explain it made up answers because mankind in general is not comfortable "not knowing" or at least not having "some" explanation. Thus the supernatural was created, we saw these great and powerful forces and could not fathom how they functioned UNTIL we gained more knowledge. Thus early learning dispositions combined with a incomplete knowledge of how things function brought about religion and is why it still exists today.
The way I look at it, is that if you personally want to believe in a being without physical evidence thats just fine, but as soon as you try to claim to the rest of the world and human race that this being is real and that we need to live our lives based on it then you bet your ass you need evidence. Without evidence, what stops anyone making up any sort of being and implying laws based on their made up being??
Plenty of videos have showed the errors of your chain of reasoning yet you still smugly and rudely reply to all these comments. I am surprised your lecturers don't slap you down for spouting such nonsense. let me guess it's a philosophy of theology degree?
This argument is easily debunked by replacing "God" with cosmic teapot, invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, etc. You can't see the invisible pink unicorn, because it's non-physical, therefore I need provide no physical evidence for it, therefore it exists? No.
@DawahFilms So is God. He's the composite of a man, a creator, with the ideas of omnipotence, goodness etc. Just like a unicorn with the idea of invisibility. There's no category mistake, these things are in the same category.
@DawahFilms Yeah, I can make a mental image of what God is: a man. Yeah, unicorns don't exist, invisibility doesn't exist. Deities don't exist, eternal attributes don't exist. No category mistake there.
there is no point in asking for anyone to prove god because there is the natural world and the super natural, super natural its kinda like fantasy. Robert E Howard was a human being born into the natural world, CONAN RED SONJA and KULL were all born from Robert E Howards FANTASY WORLD
dusty8512 2 days ago
so you are using the tenancy that children will believe whatever they are told as proof of God? so because kids believe in Santa he must exist? Your logic is a bit faulty
levin86osu 5 days ago
BULLSHIT!!! OH YEAH!!! FUCK ALLAH!!! ASALLAHMA FUCK YOU!!!
daneyeffinboi 6 days ago
The claim at 2:10 applies specifically as a counter to the Christian belief that god answers all prayers. This point is essentially moot in an argument for or against the existence of god, since it is too specific to discredit any other god. I would like to see a physical explanation for the regrowth of a human limb, but if none can be found, it can't be assumed that the explanation is supernatural. It may be, but there could be a physical explanation that has not been found.
AKAMrWobbels 1 week ago
Yes. Yes it is necessary. Why would I believe in something that doesn't show any evidence of existing? It gives the person the argument that "there is no evidence that god DOESN'T exist", which is incredibly stupid.
There are SO many reasons why religion in general is wrong and it would take too long to list them all.
DurasDrum 1 week ago
What you said about being able to be seen with the five senses is not true. We can not sense magnetic fields, but we have instruments to detect them. If you ever grow the balls to debate your horribly flawed argument in a public forum with any serious opponent, you will be intellectually destroyed.
RJPBurtonBoards 1 week ago
Then why argue that it's some huge thing that no one can disprove a god?
It's impossible to disprove something when you give it unprovable assets.
Invisible, intangible ect.
It's open minded to consider the idea of such a being, which most people can do, at least.
But it's not being open minded to claim that something unprovable should dictate how we live our lives.
Your holy book though, that is 100% possible to be refuted.
Why not respond to some of those arguments instead of this?
Shonem 1 week ago
Oh nice ending - "I'm too sceptical to accept your claims", looks to camera, winks knowingly, checkmate, end game, killer blow. You haven't even begun thinking about this topic.
Benjuthula 1 week ago
I wouldn't attempt too much more thinking in future if I were you. You're not very good at it.
Benjuthula 1 week ago 3
"Even the belief that everything requires evidence...cannot be backed by evidence."
She's hilarious!
OneParticleCharged 1 week ago
He is right there is no need for evidence of the great Creator FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! ALL HAIL FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER OR BURN ETERNALLY! ! BUHAHAHA! !
INMATE2468 1 week ago
Theist are brainwashed, pussy, scared of no after life, gullable twats
guicho0o 1 week ago
If someone regrew an arm "miraculously" we wouldn't think it were supernatural, of course not.
At least not without actually looking into what might of caused it.
See, that's where the difference is.
Simple minded people are so quick to say something is a miracle, and look for no further proof beyond that thought.
Filling gaps with god or something else without proof and looking for evidence before making claims are in no way comparable.
You know, I know it, but you wont admit it.
Shonem 1 week ago
watch?v=yiL3bSOqxA8
DrEelectricbio 1 week ago
well done video.
zeusvalentine 2 weeks ago
Masha'Allah
cody2hamza 3 weeks ago
The most rational to be, also what you call default position, is to be skeptic and say "we do not know". By he argument you then made I do not see how this then must leads to theism (base on what I wrote before on mind vs body). For me neither atheism or theism is irrational.
BN: one can prove that god exists - but only for yourself - that means the prove always will be subjective and one can never validate this proof objectively. In other words, from an outside view, it is "only" a belief.
jomen112 3 weeks ago
Second remark about separating body and mind in the brain.
As we are hardwired for this, then it should not come as a surprise we know about this. After all that's why we got the hard waring in the first place to be aware of it. If we did not had it we would not be aware of it. How it then work is another question discovered by science. Therefore it's not a discover in the sense you try to make it. You can as well say god reveled facts in scripture such as we can see, breath and think. So what?
jomen112 3 weeks ago
The default position is skeptic, so when you claim we science shown we are hardware to believe in the supernatural I disagree. Research has show that we have separate centers in the brain for thinking about the body v.s thinking about the mind of someone. This mean we can conceptualize a body without a mind, i.e, a dead person, but also a mind with no body, i.e. we can think about someone with out them being present. These are needed social skills, not explicitly intended for the supernatural.
jomen112 3 weeks ago
Second remark about positive evidence for the existence of god.
Sure thing, if things magically popped into existence that might be evidence for the existence of god, but even so a skeptic will fall back on the excluded-third: all naturalistic explanation must first be rolled out before it can be accepted as positive evidence, and so far all this has never been done. All that said: quantum mechanics might be your friend here as stuff actually do pop into existence out of nothing at the level.
jomen112 3 weeks ago
Any skeptic that knows what they talks about does not ask for positive evidence (as defined in naturalistic methods) for the existence of god, because the skeptic knows no such thing can exists per definition. The evidence a skeptic demand is based on the excluded-third. A skeptic demands that all, and any, naturalistic explanation is to be show to be false or impossible. If one can show this then one have proven that good exists.
Do you think this is unreasonable to demand by a rationalist?
jomen112 3 weeks ago
COEXISTential video response.
And you just got owned by an Atheist.
parsn1ps 3 weeks ago
Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's based in anything verifiable or true.
If we adopted your way of thinking, we would simply throw our hands up in the air and not bother doing any research.
RaynorGo 1 month ago
yes, people are naturally prone to believing in the supernatural. we are also prone to believing that the sun revolves around the earth.
trollslikeagirl 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it seems that he has convinced himself that evidence should only be considered if it confirms that his particular god exists. if you ask him for evidence that god is preoccupied with our diet, and he doesn't have any, he'll say "what's your evidence that I need evidence?". whereas if he did have evidence, he'd say "see! look at that evidence! the evidence is right there!" xD it's a win win for him.
trollslikeagirl 1 month ago
Comment removed
trollslikeagirl 1 month ago
Comment removed
trollslikeagirl 1 month ago
it seems that he has convinced himself that evidence should only be considered if it confirms that his particular god exists. if you ask him for evidence that god is preoccupied with our diet and sex lives, and he doesn't have any, he'll say "what's your evidence that I need evidence?". whereas if he did have evidence, he'd say "see! look at that evidence! the evidence is right there!" xD it's a win win for him.
trollslikeagirl 1 month ago
Nothing happens in the universe that is not natural.
Maybe science has not managed to explain everything and there are outlying pieces of material out there that has not been discovered/described/explained yet.
The fact that we have not managed these outlyers does not mean an evidence-based science is false, its just merely incomplete.
Supernaturalism by definition talks of non-material things and therefore things that have no consequence on our existence. Supernaturalism is pointless.
TheChamseyCampaign 1 month ago
Comment removed
trollslikeagirl 1 month ago
Evidence for FSM: Not Necessary.
uriituw 1 month ago 11
@DawahFilms The Quaran, something that is quite physical, cannot be proven.
Your entire argument is that you believe in the Quaran because human beings are flawed and forced to be illogical? Just because you believe something doesn't make it the natural conclusion of all of mankind.
Questioning perception is exactly what you are doing by believing in the supernatural... Saying that Allah is something you can understand as a human being then saying you cannot perceive him is illogical.
nanaforiod 1 month ago in playlist More videos from DawahFilms
You say we are naturally inclined to believe in god? What about gays? Infidelity? We are "naturally" hard-wired to protect those that look like us, and condemn those who don't...These are all facts, with as much evidence as what you have cited. We don't fill in the gaps with naturalism.. we say "we don't know." We know the gaps will be filled *naturally* because we are a part of nature. If there's a god, he's a part of nature, and we are not denying he exists on faith, but that on lack of proof.
hollumber 1 month ago
Something that seems even just slightly beyond a natural, material explanation might be compelling. But if you pull a coin out of my ear, I might doubt that anything supernatural happened, and then you'll get angry.
What's the Arabic equivalent of "The Superstitious Pigeon"?
OptimisticCynic715 1 month ago
You keep using the phrase 'hard wired', which rather tramples on the concept of free will, and your ability to recognise truth and divinity. I guess you are simply admitting to being human, and prone to human fallibility. You can learn to rise above this. By understanding yourself, you will then understand your place in the Universe. You may come to the understanding you are a product of the Universe, and that no supernatural realm is required. If you are brave enough to entertain such, that is.
engineeredlifeform 1 month ago
@DawahFilms You seem to misunderstand. We can demonstrate that reaching conclusions based on evidence is a far better determiner of what is true than gut feelings. Ask someone to use their gut feeling, prayer or anything else that's not evidence to determine what the orbital period of pluto is. Then contrast that to someone using evidence to reach the answer. I think you'll be interested in which is more accurate.
Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of this method.
Stairc 1 month ago
I don't agree with the vid, but it's still a sincere, generally good video.
6u6u7o 2 months ago
Response to "Major reason": I suppose by "supernatural thinking" you meant looking for "purpose, agency, design". The argument I would make is that even if this thinking comes naturally, nothing follows from it. It simply states that some think in those ways, i.e., looking for "purpose, agency, design". Just as some are naturally predisposed to be delusional. So yes, I suppose you are right then. The delusional do not require evidence for the claims they make because they naturally believe them
stealspell 2 months ago
Response to "Minor reason": Look up a video between Russell and Wittgenstein about a rhinoceros. Wittgenstein says that the claim is metaphysical and not empirical; that the world is made up of facts and not things. So when one asks for evidence of God, it means they are not convinced that the existence of God is a fact; just as one might not be convinced the defendant is guilty.
stealspell 2 months ago
what a dumb video.
Aanthanur 2 months ago
Well, some animals do grow they amputated legs back. Do you think god like those animal more than he likes humans? Why does the owl have better vision than we do? why does the cheetah run faster than we do? Why does the dolphin swim faster? Why is the Bear stronger? Why is the the turtle harder? Shouldn't we be his favorite creation?
FluffyAthiest 2 months ago
@FluffyAthiest well, he did give some of us a very , very VERY thick skull....
Epostaxis 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FluffyAthiest well, he did give some of us a very , very VERY thick skull....
Epostaxis 2 months ago
@FluffyAthiest Arguments from ignorance + strawman
babkrani 1 month ago
@babkrani Well, in this video i found: Non-Sequitor + Argument from ignorance + Violation of the philosophy of science + Equivocation + Straw man + False Dichotomy + Begging the Question + Tautology + False Premise
FluffyAthiest 1 month ago
Comment removed
babkrani 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FluffyAthiest But in my argument you found : Truth :)
babkrani 1 month ago
@babkrani I don't know how you claimed i used Straw man, I was addressing his statement about amputees and nothing else... And the argument from ignorance I don't know where you got it from...
FluffyAthiest 1 month ago
@FluffyAthiest Your rhetorical questions are an argument from ignorance and a strawman since you want God to fit the idea that you have about him, which is not honest.
babkrani 1 month ago
@babkrani How is it dishonest if nothing I said was false? And I don't have an idea about god, i don't believe in one, I'm just giving an example of how false your belief is.
FluffyAthiest 1 month ago
@FluffyAthiest It is false to say, that humans should have 3 legs or 1000 eyes :) which means that everything you said is false. And please being honest isn't claiming that you "know it all"
babkrani 1 month ago
@babkrani Never claimed to "know it all". Being honest is to admit you don't know and don't say god did it...
FluffyAthiest 1 month ago
@FluffyAthiest See ? Here you go, you already admit that God isn't a possibility;) anyways have a good life.
babkrani 1 month ago
FYI, just because you use big words it doesn't make you look smarter, it actually makes you look more arrogant... "Normative" LOL ever heard of normal?
from212 2 months ago
You sexy beast.
TadRaunch 2 months ago
Sooooo, when we try to explain evolution and a religious person says it's wrong because it's not in their religious text, and we then ask "well what evidence do you have your religious text is accurate?" and we get a "I have evidence but I'm not going to give it because you are closed minded", are we still REALLY the closed minded ones?
Some people NEED evidence, if there was a god and he cared, he would give it.
You claim we just can't see it, but if he knew what it took, he would do it.
Shonem 2 months ago
Wow! Sure glad I don't live in his head.
teaohar2 2 months ago
In other words the existence of God is evident to us thru the creation. But there is further revelation of God thru his Spirit. God gives a divine and supernatural light to men of his choosing by a supernatual means. Jesus taught of the ''new birth'' ''born from above''''born of the Spirit'', ''the gift of the Spirit'' and there are a hundred other expressions for it in the Bible.
GODH8ZZ 2 months ago
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
GODH8ZZ 2 months ago
Okay, your position here is (of course) "anti-atheist" but even though I am Atheist myself I think I'll agree on what I think are your points:
It simply IS nonsensical to demand scientific proof for the existence of something that exists (assuming it does) outside of the realm of things that can be grasped by scientific methods.
*If* there is an all mighty entity out there that is able to create a universe as grand and marvellous as the one we're in, then ->
commanderkruge 2 months ago
@commanderkruge -> there's no way for us INSIDE this creation to be able to grasp this being.
Actually that's one of the reasons why I stopped caring too much about these discussions here on youtube - once the novelty wore off, that is. ;)
It's basically both sides repeating their arguments over and over and won't lead to much.
Me, I'm more interested today in perhaps finding ways that allow believers in different religions as well as "unbelievers" like myself ->
commanderkruge 2 months ago
@commanderkruge -> to live alongside each other in a better and more peaceful manner.
Because right here and right now *we* (believers and unbelievers) *surely* do exist - and that's what matters to me. :)
commanderkruge 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
- Philip K. Dick
Wallyrus 2 months ago
If your idea of a god tells you to hurt yourself or others, evidence is bloody well necessary! If people were content to believe what they wished and didn't endeavor to impose their ideology on others, then you'd be right. But it does matter.
RadarKat73080 2 months ago
so you dont need evidence for god? does that work for anything?
there is a flying icecream cone named tim floating out in space. tim is a miracle worker of sorts, traveling from place to place puting things right where they once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap would be the leap home.
AceofDiamonds0 2 months ago
When you sit in the corner at night and cry, because you get owned like a child molester in the wrong cell block. Does it sound like Dawah Wah Wah Wah? I know, that was a retarded joke. But I bet that all you SOB's laughed.
BandOfAtheist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Philosophy is extremely important in understanding the "human experience"... its the science of humanity, not the science of reality. I , an atheist, love philosophy.
forceofhatred 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why would an atheist use drugs to imbue our unbelief? Forcing a fictional reality on ourselves (for anything other than amusement) seems like the COMPLETE opposite of an "atheist way of thinking"
forceofhatred 2 months ago
I don't make a habit of denying wiring to believe in supernatural. I think we may likely be wired like that, and this is why its hard to shake religion off in addition to fear of ending. Our inclination to believe in God is likely an old device to draw people into collectives that, in this very populated time, is no longer needed... like the appendix.
forceofhatred 2 months ago
Blasohemy?! No God well ever accepted this folly.
Later on he took an arrow in the knee. TEE HEE.
Gemeni3insane 2 months ago
why can't theist just admit they base their religion on faith and not rationality? saves the whole trouble of going about this pointless argument.
chasingimagination1 2 months ago 17
@chasingimagination1 The thing is, right when they give up and admit that they base their religion on faith they'll claim that faith is something to be proud of.
This is already widespread really. It's quite sad.
SteezySkater72 2 months ago
I was going to put my two cents into this but it seems like the atheists in the comments section took care of it. Not a very hard video to respond to.
necronomicon009 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@necronomicon009
"Not a very hard video to respond to"
Actually, its extremely difficult. All of the responses have thus far been strawmen.
DawahFilms 2 months ago
@DawahFilms Actually you're being a tad arrogant. Screw that very arrogant. Just because you state they're straw men doesn't automatically mean they are. You don't have supreme authority here. And don't answer to ME on this. Go and prove they're straw men to the ones making the arguments instead. Because I'm just too used to the likes of you to try and debate you. "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." Ayn Rand
gilless429 2 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gilless429
Citing Ayn Rand already makes you discredited in this conversation.
It is easy to prove these are strawmen because I actually know what my argument is as opposed to those who think they know what my argument is about. If you want to see the full refutation of these responses wait a bit for my reply and see how ludicrous some of these individuals will be shown for.
DawahFilms 2 months ago
@DawahFilms I'll just answer the first part as I already said I wouldn't answer any of the rest : What exactly have you been drinking ? Oh, I'm sorry, maybe that's forbidden for you ? Well then what have you been smoking ?
Really, my apologies for the sarcasm, but saying just because I quote this or that person I'm discredited is beyond stupid. What does it matter who the quote's from ? It's the quote itself that matters. You really believe what you said ? I hope for you you don't.
gilless429 2 months ago
@DawahFilms "Citing Ayn Rand already makes you discredited in this conversation" non sequitors and ad hominems eh Dawah? But good job showing how insufficient your ability to argue is.
I haven't seen many responses to your video, but I took a look at wisdominnature7, who didn't strawman you at all, and indeed showed you making the arguments he completely responded to.
BigLundi 2 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@BigLundi
Wait for my response.
DawahFilms 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence for God might not be necessary BUT a very BIG BUTT:
1. EVIDENCE for the God "TO TALK" to select FEW DESERT WANDERING NOMADS ONLY FROM THE MIDDLE-EAST is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!!!!
2. EVIDENCE even for the "MODE of COMMUNICATION" of God with his SELECT few MEN (yes, "No Women No Cry" and "No She-men No Cry" for HIM (and NOT HER or IT or THEM)!!!) is also VERY MUCH NEEDED!!!
3. LAST but NOT the LEAST: EVIDENCE for the COUNT of GOD is MANDATORY!!
Does anyone have this basic EVIDENCE?!!
rationalindian10 2 months ago
Comment removed
rationalindian10 2 months ago
The Big Bang is enough reason to believe in some sort of God. There's no need for regrowing of amputated limbs..
Ylltimate 2 months ago
mathematical evidence isn't physical. Also, all women are confused lesbians. I don't need proof.
jungleman68 2 months ago
I am God. But I don't need any evidence. Worship me.
Ghirahim1213 2 months ago
"Why do I need to provide evidence for things I'm predisposed to believe?"
Because your predisposition has no bearing on the actual truth.
"Alternate realities are silly, unless I have some sort of data that tells me otherwise"
Exactly. As is supposing a god's existence... Unless you have some sort of data that tells us otherwise. We call it evidence.
"I have no reason to question something unless I have a reason to question it."
Lol.
Stairc 2 months ago
"How can you prove something not physical with physical evidence?"
Demonstrate the effects it has on reality.
"If atheists witnessed a miracle, they'd look for a natural explanation first."
Exactly. The same way we don't assume magic exists when we see a magic-trick. We'd need very good evidence. If there was no natural explanation, we'd eventually go to magic.
"Naturalism of the gaps."
No, just jumping to 'god did it' without a good reason is an argument for ignorance.
Stairc 2 months ago
You're talking about your senses.
1) Have you ever seen Allah with your eyes? or any kind of angel (or a demon?) And don't give me that crap that Allah/God is everywhere (in other words, you're only *supposing* his existence)
2) Have you ever talked to Allah, knowing 100% that it's him. And don't tell me Allah doesn't talk but his messenger angels.
3) What is your answered/unanswered/total score of your prayers? Statistics?
borkoboyanov 2 months ago
What you should know is that yes, we are programmed to believe in the supernatural. Because of what is called a God Module, deep inside your brain. The evolutionary reasons for it's existence is that it brings excitement, group cohesion and primitive curiosity catalyst. So... that was answered years ago...
borkoboyanov 2 months ago
Yes... Anything can happen within certain probability range. How much would you bet on your probability of Allah being more real than The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
borkoboyanov 2 months ago
You get the amputee healed first, then we talk.
swisscheesepotatochi 2 months ago
I can fly. Evidence not necessary.
Gonaho 2 months ago
@Gonaho
So can I. But I need what is called an aeroplane ticket ;)
borkoboyanov 2 months ago
Evidence for the Magical Teapot: Not Necessary.
csmcmillion 2 months ago
Open-minded means accepting that there might be a God, and there might NOT be a God. The burden is on the Theists to provide the weight of evidence or, at least, a compelling logical argument.
csmcmillion 2 months ago
Wow not only do you allow ratings but you also allow commenting? This is a Muslim first! I raise my alcoholic beverage to you.
Nothernwolfboarder 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So we are not unreasonable. Since science can to some extent prove thing outside our senses, it is so weird to ask for evidence? It's is not wordplay. So despite your claims, I still want proof.After all, a being that create a material world at will, despite being not material itself, should be able to prove itself.
Ranokian 3 months ago
Comment removed
Ranokian 3 months ago
It is completely rational to ask for evidence of God, although that God is not in our reality. If that God created our reality, our world, it is able to access it. A entity who cant access our reality is by definition not God. The Bible and I assume the Koran to, speaks on more the one occasion about God intervening and showing his influence in our reality. So you are contradicting holy books here. And science goes further then the 5 senses, indeed, it proves things outsides our senses.
Ranokian 3 months ago
2 seconds in the video already earned my dislike.
mimikawaii7386 3 months ago 2
So if I'm predisposed to believe in god, which one am I supposed to believe in again?
PlutoPowered 3 months ago 2
Paraphrasing here:-
Asking for evidence for something that Im already predisposed to believing is ludacris...
WTF!?! The most foolish thing I've ever heard this guy say.
Do you find utility in every human disposition?
And just about every religion asks humans to ignore/actively oppose predispositions.
Jaymaul009 3 months ago
When it starts to affect me and people around those who believe in a god and then say and do stuff in that god names that is just... that require to question and criticize, then yes, then it's very necessary for proof and evidence.
Bewizeorwize 3 months ago
He's so pretty. Pity he's so faithful.
KempsGrl 3 months ago
@DawahFilms,
Now that said, given the fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, I wouldn't say that atheism is inherently irrational. It is not. I know a lot of people on youtube who are atheist and are very rational. They just don't think they have a good reason to believe there is a god. Some don't even bother talking about their reasons for not believing one exists very often, because to some, its not that big of a deal if other people do believe, or not.
GargamelGold 3 months ago
@GargamelGold Right. The default position of any claim is disbelief until evidence has en provided for it. It is rational to not believe in Santa Claus, the Toothfairy, Zeus or anything until evidence has been provided for it.
It baffles me that people claim that atheists wouldn't believe if evidence was actually demonstrated. Prove to me that this is real and that the claims I'll be tortured forever if I don't believe are VALID and I'll switch in a heartbeat.
Stairc 3 months ago
DawahFilms,
Well, I agree with you in one area. The idea that evolution and the existence of God are incompatible is nonsense. If it were God or evolution, given all the overwhelming evidence for evolution, I'd be an atheist. However, evolution is only ever incompatible with theistic belief when that belief is based on a literal readying of some holy book.
GargamelGold 3 months ago
This very fact you cite is proven from a naturalistic worldview. From a worldview that puts these faculties first, the kind of tests done to prove the "major reason" cannot be accepted, since they test the mechanical processes that appear to drive what we call consciousness.
IoEstasCedonta 3 months ago
One whole video dedicated to one thing... AVOID PRIVINDING EVIDENCE.
jrev37 3 months ago
You're equating 'god' with the unexplained?
Oh, that's right, I almost forgot. You worship your own ignorance.
LucisFerre1 3 months ago 2
A personal 'god' that can change the physical universe, sometimes in response to prayer, is a 'god' whose actions fall squarely within the purview of the physical sciences. These changes should be detectable either directly or statistically. If "your" 'god' does not make said physical changes, then the one claiming a 'god' is indistinguishable from someone who is having delusions. Therefore I would have no basis to treat him as someone other than a delusional man.
LucisFerre1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your video starts 'In the name of Allah. Most gracious, most merciful'. Unless you're a woman, gay or apostate.
rossow88 3 months ago
"No justification for rationality..."
You don't need justification to use your brain and rationalize. One must always scrutinize and think logically.
golddustrapedmydad 3 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord
I never argued any such thing. The fact that you say this and that its thumbed up despite me saying to the contrary in this very video shows how stupid you and others really are.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
@DawahFilms So the title of the video is a lie and the content doesn't reflect it at all? You never said you needed no evidence for a God? Gee we must be watching a different video.
DarkBunnyLord 3 months ago
He is trolling... No-one is that stupid.
lunesoft 3 months ago
Comment removed
lunesoft 3 months ago
I have no evidence that dawahfilms is a bunch of pedophiles and murderers.
I don't need evidence to show this is one hundred percent factual.
Therefore we should subject dawahfilms to an appropriate punishment.
I cannot think of any judicial system that would convict dawahfilms for this crime when there is utterly no evidence that they did this.
You don't believe in evidence? Then prevent stop every person in the world from receiving evidence of your god. Then we shall see how self evident
JackofAllTrades799 3 months ago
It's good that you acknowledge god cannot be proven.
If an amputee instantly regrew his leg and it violated every physical law we found and we could not reconcile it with other observations I would acknowledge a divine intervention. Until that happens you are in the wrong.
thor123422 3 months ago 11
@thor123422
Really? I highly doubt you would. Im pretty sure you'd continue rationalizing things away.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
@DawahFilms Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If that extraordinary evidence were to show itself I would believe, however no such evidence has arisen.
thor123422 3 months ago 2
@DawahFilms and I highly doubt you would stop believing in god if space aliens came down and showed you the time lapse video they made of the earth forming and evolving life...
shhewitt 3 months ago
@DawahFilms Well that's a preconception that you have, and you really should ask yourself what basis you have for believing that.
morningstomper123 3 months ago
I called his main argument within the first minute of the video: an argument from the popularity of belief in nebulous agencies acting in the universe that no evidence is required to justify that such agencies actually exist. Normative dispositions do not automatically translate into true or useful ideas: for example, human beings have a disposition toward eating foods high in fat and sugar, but this does not make it healthy for people with an abundance of food to do so.
rpitenor 3 months ago 9
@rpitenor
"Normative dispositions do not translate into true or useful ideas"
Derpa derp. That's what I said at the 9 min mark.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
A sad, desperate rationalization. He's obviously just angry that his beliefs don't hold up under any scrutiny. He's not concise at all either, keeps rambling on about drunk bums "or something like that, you know?" What I think he is talking about is epistemology, so why doesn't he go read about it? Far more intelligent people than anyone reading this have written great books on the subject.
johnrcoben 3 months ago
@johnrcoben
*yawn*
I said all this in 11 min. Id say that's pretty concise, unless you're not used to thinking.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
@DawahFilms lol how does that work? You think something is concise so you're the smart one? You yawn at my suggestion to read but you want to play intellectual? You can rationalize anything, can't you?
johnrcoben 3 months ago
Atheists who "believe" in logic unbound are generally unable to accept something unprovable, until proven. Like the speed of light as the fastest. Is god supernatural by belief? by definition? or by "logical" construction? I think you've shown that Agnostic is true basis of humans. Belief & personal rational thought through experience leans us to atheism or theism. Force each to define "god", first for themself, then for the opposer. That's the rub.
wanderingminstrel43 3 months ago
You're absolutely ridiculous. It's a shame that no amount of words would allow you to understand this. If this is the best argument you can come up with, then just give up.
th3d3wd3r 3 months ago 2
@th3d3wd3r
I find it difficult to believe you actually understand what I said.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
@DawahFilms I did I'm afraid. I think it would be intellectually dishonest if you were to ask me to prove it. It's cognitive not physical ;)
th3d3wd3r 3 months ago
Just because something is a natural proclivity and is believed by the majority doesn't mean it's rational. Rational is based on logic and empirical evidence. You're right; the evidence needs to be questioned. It's how science works as nothing in science is ever 100% true. However, it still serves as a basis of proof. 6:26 "Alternate reality outside of what we can perceived... is rather ludicrous." Destroy your own argument as it's normal to believe in the supernatural.
Polterguist 3 months ago
acording to you god is non physical.
non physical = non existant.
MrFoxbat25 3 months ago
Dude, if 10 amputees got on their knees (because they no longer have legs) theennn, began to pray and regenerated their limbs...that would be hard to argue against. Now, if ONE amputee, randomly and without reason grew back a limb SLOWLY over time, there's probably a physical reason for that. It would be impossible to argue against the spontaneous renewal of the limbs of 10 Muslims right before my eyes. Period but that will NEVER happen, and we all know it.
MrOmniblast 3 months ago
@DawahFilms The key here is utility. I don't claim to know that my perception of reality is correct, but I can see the utility of my most basic axioms such as "universe exists", "my 5 senses are correct", "happiness matters".
The notion of "God", a generic creator we know nothing about and most likely does not interact with the Universe in any tangible way, is utterly useless. It does not even matter if you're atheist, agnostic or deist, from a practical point of view, it's all the same to me.
DogmasDemise 3 months ago 2
@DawahFilms Oh and before you say "you'll just dismiss this as alien technology" - well maybe I will - but I'd certainly fear a being with that level of technology enough to not try to oppose it. So I don't believe that "minor reason" has any merit.
They say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Supernatural events are extraordinary by definition, none have ever been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt and most are PROVEN hoaxes. So you need stronger evidence.
DogmasDemise 3 months ago
@DawahFilms Here's physical proof I'd accept: Do a magic trick, you know something big like making an entire adult tree grow out of nothing in 10 seconds or shooting ice from your hands on demand or making a precise prediction of a complex one-time event. (date, location, numbers)
And then do it again in front of a large crowd so it can be more objectively verified. And again. And again.
What God merely needs to do is start interacting often with his creation. That's it.
DogmasDemise 3 months ago 20
(Cont) Now then your God can not be non material. I know you like to claim him to be because heaven forbid you admit he's made up and you don't have evidence for him, but here's a simple law of reality. If something has an effect on reality it must exist within reality. Everything in reality is made up of matter or energy.
God(s) is said to have done many things that directly interacted with reality in some way in EVERY religion. Therefor there should be some sort of confirm-able measurement.
DarkBunnyLord 3 months ago 4
Look if you feel it's a sufficient argument to claim your God exists without providing any evidence then it is just as sufficient for us to claim that the flying spaghetti monster exists without any evidence or "insert any other God or mythical thing here" and since many Gods claim to be the only God and, using YOUR logic we've already "sufficiently" justified their existence then they now all contradict each other and therefor none of them exist. Great job =D
DarkBunnyLord 3 months ago 5
We didn't get anywhere using common 'default' sense. And we never will.
RelientKftw 3 months ago
I liked your video even though i'm an atheist, I watched it twice to understand your points which i'm happy to say i have never heard before.
do I correctly understand?
minor point:
no physical evidence is possible for a non-physical god.
major point
your perception of the world leads you to believe in a god and we all by default trust out own perception.
if i am correct, (and you interested), i have a follow up question for a serious discussion. if not, i'll watch again more carefully.
peace
castelgandalf 3 months ago
lol
timtomm1 3 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Ohh, you so silly. So everything we are naturally programmed to do is right and correct? I guess xenophobia is pretty cool then? Rape, assault and tribal behaviour? These are all perfectly correct behaviours? Because we sure as hell are programmed to think such acts are ok. The only thing that stops us is society and it's morals.
Also, your argument essentially hinges on the same old Theistic idea. I feel this, therefor it is so. When we talk about evidence, we talk of emperical evidence.
steevee4610 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You do see what i am getting at with my " is believing in vampires natural" question and i feel you side stepped it with your answer. on what physical grounds do you believe that vampires were constructed? and how could we dismantle the vampire on physical grounds Ali? thank you, sorry reposted this question, because you didnt answer it before and i am interested in what your reply will be.
thekwizatshaderach 3 months ago
boooooom, ratings headshot!
doro69 3 months ago
@doro69
I remember awhile ago when this website was primarily overrun with theists and all the atheists vids had horrible ratings.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
so even if I grant you that yes indeed a "god" exists and has created the universe, how do we choose which beliefe is correct? How do we do this without evidence? This is the main problem I see with this line of thinking, religions have been clashing for thousands of years yet they all believe in a god yet each claims the other is wrong. If I'm a Hindu, wound't I need some sort of evidence that there is only one god?? or do I just believe the last person to push their religion??
Jason442200 3 months ago 2
@Jason442200
Well I never claimed that evidence is not required at all.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
@DawahFilms (cont) ran into things it could not explain it made up answers because mankind in general is not comfortable "not knowing" or at least not having "some" explanation. Thus the supernatural was created, we saw these great and powerful forces and could not fathom how they functioned UNTIL we gained more knowledge. Thus early learning dispositions combined with a incomplete knowledge of how things function brought about religion and is why it still exists today.
DarkBunnyLord 3 months ago 3
The way I look at it, is that if you personally want to believe in a being without physical evidence thats just fine, but as soon as you try to claim to the rest of the world and human race that this being is real and that we need to live our lives based on it then you bet your ass you need evidence. Without evidence, what stops anyone making up any sort of being and implying laws based on their made up being??
Jason442200 3 months ago
Plenty of videos have showed the errors of your chain of reasoning yet you still smugly and rudely reply to all these comments. I am surprised your lecturers don't slap you down for spouting such nonsense. let me guess it's a philosophy of theology degree?
HeadofRadio 3 months ago
@HeadofRadio
Just because people respond doesn't mean they're correct.
You seem to believe that these individuals are right by virtue of claiming Im wrong. Let me guess...not much thinking?
DawahFilms 3 months ago
I wish I had time to join the discussion :(
TheOtherBillyWoo 3 months ago
@rufusangus3
"Fuck you"
That's the height of your intellectual ability. Thanks for entertaining me.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
You are so handsome....its too bad you are too closed minded and scared to admit the truth
lucyboat55 3 months ago
@lucyboat55
Speaking of a closeminded comment...
DawahFilms 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DawahFilms What? Do you even know what you're saying?
TheJonnyEnglish 3 months ago
This argument is easily debunked by replacing "God" with cosmic teapot, invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, etc. You can't see the invisible pink unicorn, because it's non-physical, therefore I need provide no physical evidence for it, therefore it exists? No.
blackmichael75 3 months ago
@blackmichael75
Actually that's a pretty assinine objecting given that you are making a category error.
But whatever floats your boat. I don't expect much from many atheists these days in regards to actual argumentation.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
@DawahFilms How is it a category error? They're all things that are claimed to exist, for which there is no evidence. Not a category mistake at all.
blackmichael75 3 months ago
@blackmichael75
On the contrary the things you listed are composites of other things existing in the natural world, hence the category error.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
@DawahFilms So is God. He's the composite of a man, a creator, with the ideas of omnipotence, goodness etc. Just like a unicorn with the idea of invisibility. There's no category mistake, these things are in the same category.
blackmichael75 3 months ago
@blackmichael75
Hardly. God is no composite. Can you make a mental image of what God is?
Are you saying the combination between a horn and a horse to make a unicorn = a God with eternal attributes outside the scope of the natural world?
Sorry, doesn't make any sense.
DawahFilms 3 months ago
@DawahFilms Yeah, I can make a mental image of what God is: a man. Yeah, unicorns don't exist, invisibility doesn't exist. Deities don't exist, eternal attributes don't exist. No category mistake there.
blackmichael75 3 months ago