@jimsnodgras and you seem to be implying to me Atheism is commonly known to be just someone with no beliefs of religion when the light is actually shone more on 'positive' atheists hence why some regard it as a religion and also why there are so many arguments against religion this null point is a non factor in an argument of religion :3
@jimsnodgras lol then why would this even come into your video and be a factor if its just the middle point with no beliefs and shockofgod is not actually challenging those people but positive atheists who actually dont believe God exists? it just confused me that you were talking about people and things which have no belief on either Atheism or Theism when his challenge was not intended for them he wants an answer that cant be answered and can be thrown back to theism with the same results
@jimsnodgras but thats a lack of belief in anything XD animals, babies they dont believe or accept anything whatsoever on theism so how can you stick them in a set position when they logically dont believe in Atheism either? because you can just switch that around and say that they dont believe in Atheism since it is a theistic claim
uhhhh really thats sort of incorrect your statement on Atheism such as babies, animals and what not because Atheism is more a belief that God doesnt exist therefore you need to know that others believe there is a God so then you can object because if someone asked a 4 year old if they believed God exists and they asked "who is God?" does that make them an Atheist? but you are right when you say ShockofGods question is flawed
Good video. I don't know when Christians became such pussies but back when I was Christian I didn't act like shock of god. I wouldn't put a video up like his asking a question and then cowardly disable comments or screen them to only allow posts that make me look good. Christians on here have no balls it seems and should be asking their god for the wisdom to answer fair and intelligent questions instead of shifting the burden of proof to weasel out of debates they know they can't handle.
I did a video on this too. SOG is a dishonest coward! He is trying to get me and, undoubtedly, other atheists to call his radio show by claiming that we (Atheists) are too chicken to go on it. I didn't even know he HAD a radio show and am not sure if I want to give him ratings or not.
@jimsnodgras You are welcome. I think you are onto something. I guess if shockofgod can't argue a hissy fit is all you have left. It's sad to see the christian side of the debate (long over but still amusing for us atheists) has degraded to absurb acts of childish displays like SOG posts.
I heard Shockofgod is a mass murdering, pschopathic baby killer and he can't prove or provide evidence he isn't. I hope law enforcement is tracking him. How many more babies must die? How many? How many?
You claim Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God based on this non-standard definition of Atheism. Yet, we all lack belief in many things. However we don't identitify ourselves by our 'non-claims'. Do you always invest yourself (by coming on these boards) in a position of making no claims?
BTW, If a timeless spaceless IMMATERIAL BEING existed, why would you expect someone to be able to 'show you this in a box' ?
That's like expecting to detect water with a metal detector.
I sure would like for you to justify why your marginal faith in No God is the 'default'. I understand the argument and I understand how the rules work in philosophy. There are many facts and truths that are inaccessible to the scientific method or direct empirical testing.
It's not that Atheist's 'wont respond' it's that they cannot provide any proof or evidence for Atheist beleif in No God. Theists provide all sorts of evidences. Atheists provide excuses to exempt themselves from the evidences they demand of Theists.
Excuses are not evidences. Please provide your evidences.
Trust me, I understand your silly talking points. I'll smoke you on the rational and philosophical merits if you wan't to man up and try.
Now, come share those um, 'true' electrochemical illusions created by your Atheist brain and let's have some fun exposing you to logic, reason and the irrational world of Atheist metaphysics.
@4TruthMatters From this response you obviously didn't understand any word of my response. You didn't even address anything I said. "Atheist metaphysics" right there, you DON'T have any idea of what you're talking about. No one here wants to hear you circular reasoning, watch you be ignorant to facts, and try to use words and phrases that you have no true understanding of.
It seems like most Christians have no idea why they believe what they believe. They offer up a lot of soft-soap and circular arguments from the Bible. They often seem totally unaware of the rational arguments and philosophical underpinnings they rest upon.
BTW Jim. In case you haven't figured, I feel a little bad about jumping all over you with guns blazing. I often debate several Atheists concurrently and most of them aren't as nice as you. Sometimes I kinda envisioning you guys as one big pack of rabid hyenas trying to take me down, so I come out swinging and firing at everything in sight...
Anyway, I owe you an apology for being excessively harsh with you. I'll be happy to discuss any hardball questions nicely.
Mild adaptive capacities within existing designs can be validated. Actual science confirms this. Speculations of original self-organization into integrated complex intelligent beings by gradualistic evolution and macroevolution between species is simply not supported by the evidences nor rationally explained by the Darwinian mechanism. I realize the Darwinists insist macro proceeds logically from micro, but when examined, the claims and evidences for each are very different.
Natural selection acting on random mutation is a reasonable explanation for why moths of a certain shade survive when a city becomes sooty, or how virus mutations survive, but it doesn't begin to explain how moths organized into existence in the first place.
With respect to evolution, I support the Darwinian model in the limited sense of what it actually explains and is supported by the evidences, not the broad sweeping claims often attributed to it without evidences.
Jim, Yes, I'm a Christian and definately subscribe to Intelligent Design. I see no Biblical or scientific basis for claiming things like a 6000 year old earth.
First, I am very much objective with respect to science. That is to say I will never force fit the evidences to meet my pre-conceived biases, but I will also never accept speculations by scientists as science. I will look at evidences and patterns of evidences with a rational mind.
@jimsnodgras In fact, only Agnosticism bears no burden of proof (makes no claims). However, even an Agnostic must evaluate the evidences for each respective truth claim in order to claim any 'persuasion' one way or the other.
If demonstrated ZERO evidence exists for God's existence, then perhaps an Agnostic could default that probably no God exists. But evidences for God DO EXIST, so each respective claim must be evaluated on relative merits.
2) Atheism makes an implicit positive claim (No God), that rationally distinguishes it from Agnosticism (no claim).
If you want to remain rationally coherent, you must accept that any position that makes no truth claim is essentially Agnostic, not Atheist. Attempting to conflate Atheism with Agnosticism doesn't work without misdefining Atheism or implicitly denying rational imperative.
There's no reason to give up on me. Give up on that bad argument your Atheist bretheren have constructed for you to peddle.
Believe it or not, I like you so far. You have done the best you can given the argument you defend. I've been tough and uncompromising on you, and you have not resorted to the usual tactics of endlessly shifting subjects, ad hom's, outright lies and crass dishonesty predictably displayed by Atheist opponents - particularly the younger ones.
Some evidences for the positive truth claim (No God) within Atheism would be legitimate. You are attempting to misdefining Atheism in terms of Agnosticism to exempt yourself from the positive truth claim (No God) that Atheism implicitly affirms. This is a false argument. This is exactly what you are attempting to construct.
You are not going to buffalo me with a false argument.
"Notice that it is possible to be an agnostic and a theist or atheist at the same time."
Yeah, all we have to do is throw rational law, logic and facts out the window. Hell, I might as well claim I'm Elvis Presley and a Tomato.
Anything that doesn't deny the existence of God is Agnosticism or Theism. Atheist Bullshit in Wikipedia doesn't change the authoritative definition of Atheism.
Jim, How bout you waste your time defining 'weak' Atheism for us. Then tell us how it is not agnosticism. If it is Agnosticism, then it's not Atheism.
I think it's time you engage the facts I've laid out, rather than deflecting.
Trust me, I'm not impressed with your pretenses. Facts matter
Jim, all Atheism is weak - there is no evidence for the claim "no God exists".
Seriously, don't bullshit me. Your redefinition of the plain meaning of Atheism in terms of Agnosticism is just dishonest and pathetic. Atheism makes the universal positive truth claim that 'God does not exist". Anything less is Agnosticism.
All your bullshitting and pretenses don't change facts Jim.
Facts matter Jim - not your BS excuses to get around the facts
No, without sufficient evidences, I would withold judgement as to whether you found a goldmine (agnosticism - not Atheism)
The fact that you have not yet supported your claim does not mean that you haven't found a goldmine. It only means that I don't know.
Theism provides evidences to meet its burden. Atheism simply ignores the evidences, dishonestly redefines Atheism (positive denial claim) in terms of Agnosticism (no claims), then exempts itself from evidences. Hogwash.
Jim, Atheism means exactly what it has always meant:
Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Definition of Atheism: A person who maintains that there is no God. A person who believes the sentence “God exists” is a false proposition.
Websters: Atheism: the doctrine that there is no deity
I suggest you knock off the lies and redefinitions - and stick to the facts. Of course you can't do that because the facts expose your lies.
@4TruthMatters If truth really matters to you, you will acknowledge the current-day definition of atheism, which has, as its only requirement, an absence of belief in God. That is very different than believing there is no god, although there are people who do believe there is no God. Atheism is not about belief and makes no claims. Atheism rejects unsupported claims about the existence of God - the burden of proof rests on who makes the claim. Get your fact straight, as they really do matter.
You Atheist idiots attempt to exempt yourself from the evidence requirements you demand of Theists by ignoring the implict claim of "No God" within Atheism, by dishonestly insisting Atheism is merely a 'belief' that makes no claims, so it doesn't require proof. Yet you demand evidence for the counter "belief" of Theism. If both are merely 'beliefs', and 'beliefs' require no proof, then why do you demand Theists evidence their 'beliefs', while exempting your 'beliefs'?
@4TruthMatters You completely missed the point. Atheism is not a "belief." It is the LACK of belief. Lets say you are a fairyist. You believe that there are invisible fairies under my bed. However, I am skeptical. I LACK the belief that there are fairies under my bed. But you demand that I PROVE there are no fairies under my bed. What, you say? That's unfair? It sure is. The proof of burden is upon YOU, to prove the existence of the fairies. Not ME to disprove the fairies.
Please Azninabox. Repeating the same Atheist talking point I've repeatedly refuted isn't making your assertion any more valid.
Atheism is a belief and makes positive truth claims (No God exists). Atheism is not Agnosticism. You Atheists try to monkey with the classic definition in order to exempt Atheism from the truth claims you demand of others.
Also, Theist's provide evidences, so they meet the burden. Atheism cannot provide evidence, so Atheists make excuses.
@4TruthMatters Ahh, your post in drowning in its own irony. Christians have been repeating the same tired arguments for almost 2000 years. A book written by Christians is not "evidence" of your God for obvious reasons. I don't understand why so many Christians dont understand that. Anybody can write a book about anything. If someone finds it later, is it proof that the writings are true? Hardly. In the end, if you're parents hadn't raised you to believe, you'd dismiss it just like you did Santa.
"Atheism is not a "belief." It is the LACK of belief."
Do you believe that God does not exist?
Is your belief in 'No God' a belief? Then what is it?
There is no evidences for fairies under your bed. There is plenty of evidences for the existence of God. Theists meet their burden. Atheists fail to provide evidence for their claim of No god - but instead redefine Atheism to exempt themselves from evidences they demand of others. BS
@4TruthMatters Again, you misunderstand. Raw atheism is not a belief that god does not exist. It is a lack of belief that a god exists.
If you still don't understand, atheism is when you say, I don't believe what you believe because you lack strong evidence, but I am not ruling out that a god exists. Its not that difficult of a concept.
@4TruthMatters So what? You're entire argument is based around the word atheist? So if atheists were agnostics, you'd have no problem with them? You should also try to make your comments a little bit more elaborate than saying 'no you're wrong' in more words.
The fact of the matter is, if your parents hadn't pounded this idea into your head from birth, you would not be a Christian right now. From an unemotional viewpoint, its just too full of holes and outdated assumptions. Its illogical.
1) ALL KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS are positive truth claims requiring a burden of evidences.
2) Atheists dishonestly hide under a non-standard definition of Atheism that in fact defines Agnosticism to avoid the implicit KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS of Atheism, while defining Atheism as a mere 'belief' - exempt from burden of evidences.
3) If Atheists define their belief claims about God as 'nuetral' on KNOWLEDGE, Theists BELIEF claims are also 'nuetral' on KNOWLEDGE, so must also be exempt.
Therefore, in logical fact, Atheists and Theists are either:
1) both making knowledge claims or
2) both are entiltled to exempt themselves under the same phony non-standard redefinition Atheists have attempted to claim for themselves - hoping no one would notice their manipulation.
@4TruthMatters It's a word game- from what I have gathered the problem is that theists believe that atheists are declaring, "there is no god," when, in fact, atheists are merely saying that there is no more evidence to believe in a god than not believe. Therefore, it makes most logical sense to believe there is no god. In other words, why would you assert something that doesn't appear to exist? From this perspective, the atheist assumes the null position- they are not inventing anything.
They cannot define Atheism in non-standard terms equivalent to Agnosticism (no knowledge claims, just beliefs) to exempt themselves from the burden of evidence, then insist Theists beliefs must be considered knowledge claims - subject to burden of proof.
Trust me, Patches knows he's in checkmate on the logic. Dont get suckered by their sleight-of hand. Reference: PhD philosopher William Lane Craig
@4TruthMatters (1/2) Thanks for your reply. I recognize what you are perceiving as the sleight of hand and I agree with you- if an atheist wants to claim there is definitely no god, they are subject to proof just as they demand from a theist asserting there is a god. I do not agree with these tactics and I'm sure that you would not agree with a theist arguing from an invalid premise.
@4TruthMatters (2/2) However, what I have seen and personally respect are those (theists and atheists) who do not make any impossible claims. Instead, they humbly (and wisely) concede that nobody can know what is going on. Atheists with who I can identify don't think that there is any compelling evidence for the existence of a god, but are open to the idea that there may be a god. I can identify with theists who believe strongly while recognizing the truth that they are lacking solid evidence.
"Atheists with who I can identify don't think that there is any compelling evidence for the existence of a god, but are open to the idea that there may be a god. I can identify with theists who believe strongly while recognizing the truth that they are lacking solid evidence."
These shockofgod rebuttals are based squarely on a false application of the burden of proof - constructed by misdefining Atheism as Agnosticism. This is not perception.
@4TruthMatters "These shockofgod rebuttals are based squarely on a false application of the burden of proof "
I will grant you this, but it absolutely misses the point- ShockOfGod is acting as if he DOES have proof of his own beliefs. Also, he is annoying as hell and is not actually interested in hearing what anyone has to say. He continually misunderstands things with no improvement on subsequent interactions. He is not out for truth- just to put people down and be obnoxious.
Fact is shock of God has nailed these people at their own game. They can be annoyed. They need tho have their noses shoved in their own crap. These New Atheists are aggressive, dishonest and uncompromising in thier attacks on Theists. They make movie mocking Christianity, write intellectually shabby hit-pieces bashing Christianity, spread lies and slander all over the Internet, sick their lawyers on our institutions...
@4TruthMatters I have not observed these negative behaviors that you are describing. I would surely not support any such slander or personal attacks. However, I don't understand why you would be cheering on an equally moronic representative of the other side. I am currently exploring my own worldview and I can assure you that ShockOfGod is making everything he stands for look really bad.
"I don't know anything about the guy except he asked a very good question that has the Atheists gnashing their teeth and spewing venom at him."
His question is not the problem. It's that he is not interested in hearing the response or redefining his understanding of atheism. He is trying to make these atheists into something they are not. If you would only listen... your definition of atheism is different from theirs
We are not free to define Atheism in terms of Agnosticism. There is a standard definition of Atheism. It is the denial of the existence of God. This implicit denial of God within Atheism IS THE ONLY THING THAT DISTINGUISHES ATHEISM FROM AGNOSTICISM. Atheists cannot simply borrow the definition of Agnosticism to absolve their truth claim from any burden of proof.
"Atheists cannot simply borrow the definition of Agnosticism to absolve their truth claim from any burden of proof."
"No, they are choosing Atheism, then misrepresenting their Atheism as Agnosticism when they got called out for the evidences they demand of Theists."
"These shockofgod rebuttals are based squarely on a false application of the burden of proof - constructed by misdefining Atheism as Agnosticism."
@4TruthMatters btw- here is a video that might clear up confusion about our understandings of some of these issues.... assuming you can sit through 15 mins of the atheist perspective.
I fully understand this argument. Trust me, it has nothing to do with my not understanding their perspective. I even agree that Theism has a burden of proof to the extent that it makes knowledge claims, but so does Atheism. Atheism is not properly defined as merely Agnosticism.
It's great to listen to both sides in any debate, but realize that many (if not most) true things in life cannot be proven absolutely. There is always an argument around the most plausible explanation - but at what cost.
Atheism is simply a reductionist philosophical Naturalism. It claims to be 'scientific', but in reality it merely imposes Naturalistic explanations on everything regardless of probability, plausibility or rational coherence.
@4TruthMatters No, atheism is not a denial of the existence of God. A denial presumes there is something present in order to be denied. What atheism is, is a rejection of the claim that God exists, based on the lack of evidence. Some atheists claim there is no God, most others simply cannot draw a conclusion either way due to a lack of empirical evidence either way. But there is no atheist who feels there is a God that s/he is ignoring. That's just not what atheism is.
Balogney James. Spare me the phony talking point. You Atheists are merely making excuses to exempt yourselves for the implicit claims within Atheism.
If Atheism is not assumed as knowledge claim for 'no God', then BELIEF in God is not assumed a CLAIM to KNOWLEDGE of God. Spare me your silly dishonest Atheist talking point.
Atheism is not Agnosticism. Stop hiding from evidence requirements Atheists demand of theists.
@4TruthMatters Your vocabulary is completely and conveniently devoid of definitions of words about the subject you hate most: atheism. Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, you have never heard of an agnostic atheist (nor an agnostic theist for that matter). You talk about dishonesty while judging others and painting them in a light that you like to see them in, rather that who they are. Stop being such an arrogant, ignorant hypocrite.
@4TruthMatters "If Atheism is not assumed as knowledge claim for 'no God', then BELIEF in God is not assumed a CLAIM to KNOWLEDGE of God."
Well, you're right - BELIEF in God is NOT a claim of KNOWLEDGE of God. It is just that: a BELIEF. The reality is, NOBODY KNOWS! Do you actually, truly equate BELIEF with KNOWLEDGE? Come on - who's being dishonest and silly now?
This is really shedding light on your vapid vocabulary on the topic. I'll help you out a little here. Belief and knowledge are two different things. Theism is about belief, and agnosticism is about knowledge. There are three states to both. You can believe there is, believe there isn't, or not believe at all. You can know there is, know there isn't, or be uncertain. The universe is not black and white. And the truth persists whether you see it or not.
"Well, you're right - BELIEF in God is NOT a claim of KNOWLEDGE of God. It is just that: a BELIEF. The reality is, NOBODY KNOWS! Do you actually, truly equate BELIEF with KNOWLEDGE? Come on - who's being dishonest and silly now?"
Whose being dishonest?
You're being silly, dishonest and Manipulative. My argument just defeated your dishonest Atheism is a belief / Theism is a knowledge claim (requiring evidences) charade. You attempt to distract from this conclusion.
@4TruthMatters "You attempt to distract from this conclusion." No, you just refuse to learn. You cannot grow beyond your delusions if you insist on retaining them. Do some reading. Get over yourself and find some humility. Otherwise, you're just going to continue to express yourself in a manner that looks very much like idiocy.
@4TruthMatters One thing I will say about you: You are a master at the art of deflection. However, your skill in twisting words and perspectives to fit in neatly with your agenda could use some honing - you don't quite have the hang of it, yet. You need a subtler approach to the way you dismiss other arguments, for simply blatantly dismissing them does not invalidate them. You have to establish authority, first, before you can exercise it. You failed to do that here so you should move on.
Only knowledge claims assume a burden of proof (evidences)
You Atheists demand evidences for Theistic BELIEFS (as knowledge claims), while demanding exemption for your Atheistic beliefs as merely a 'belief'. I don't fall for the sleight of hand tactic.
Further, Theism meets its burden. You just deny, deny , deny those evidences using the old 'burden shift' debate tactic, but offer no evidences.
Still further, the principle of 'controversial claim' generally assumes controversial claim to have a larger evidence burden. Claiming no God, no soul, no moral truth, no ultimate accountability, no purpose to Universe, a Universe that began without a cause, radically complex AND specifically INTEGRATED intelligent beings that self-ordered and self-assembled without purposeful agency...These are all controversial claims.
@4TruthMatters You are arguing with yourself and it is both amusing and irritating, and should be embarrassing. You continue to go on about how atheism or atheists claim there is no god. You refuse to listen. That is not the claim atheists are making. If someone shows me a box as says there is a tiny car in it, I cannot say there is no car in it until they open the box to show me. So far, nobody has opened any box to show me their god, so it's not up to me to disprove it. So, STFU.
@4TruthMatters The reason, if you were wondering, why many of these people choose atheism over agnosticism is not because they explicitly believe there is no god. Instead, it is because they recognize how many organized religions limit and poison society. They set themselves against what they see as ignorance, more like "a-organized religion". It is particularly arrogant to make political choices that affect everyone on the basis of a personal belief as opposed to a rational thought process.
" The reason, if you were wondering, why many of these people choose atheism over agnosticism is not because they explicitly believe there is no god"
No, they are choosing Atheism, then misrepresenting their Atheism as Agnosticism when they got called out for the evidences they demand of Theists.
My rational thoughts don't conflict with my religious beliefs and I would much rather be governed by godly people than Atheists Stalin, Mao, Castro, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Jung
@4TruthMatters "No, they are choosing Atheism, then misrepresenting their Atheism as Agnosticism when they got called out for the evidences they demand of Theists."
You are just saying that this is what they do. I already agreed that some do, but they can and should be compared to (thought of as the same level as) insane theists who have no evidence and cannot exercise logic. We were already over this.
Reasonable atheism is agnosticism with the acknowledgement of religion being harmful.
"Reasonable atheism is agnosticism with the acknowledgement of religion being harmful."
Religion is harmful? Christianity civilized and delivered a barbaric Europe from the Dark Ages to world preiminence. Atheism informed the conscience of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Marx, Castro, Pol pot, Kim Jung, Ceacescu, Milosevic, Chavez..... and killed over 100 million people in this past century alone - dwarfing everything done by the all religions in 5000 years.
@4TruthMatters The harm I am speaking of is not a numbers game. There are lunatics on either side of the fence, whether they believe or not. My statement is in relation to the many examples of limiting critical thinking or questioning. Harmful obedience to something without understanding why. Any theist or atheist should understand why they believe what they believe, not just because it's what they are told to do.
". There are lunatics on either side of the fence, whether they believe or not"
I couldn't agree more on this. I cringe when I see all the sloppy-thinking, circular arguments and disjointed soft-soap laypeople my own side offer up as argument.
There are a lot of stupid Christians who don't really understand what they believe
Tell us how those how those horrible Christian monks sacked Rome and made all those illiterate barbarians of Europe stop keeping records. Tell us all about those unarmed monks of Europe forced the illiterate Barbarians like Huns, Mongols, Vikings, Germanic hoards, Saxons, Goths, Vandals, Jutes, Francs to stop keeping those records they never kept?
The level of ignorance is stunning, Apparently you haven't a clue why we refer to this era as 'dark' Ages?
@4TruthMatters Tell us how Christianity (especially Catholicism) supported the advancement of science and knowledge of the universe and the world around us. Please tell us how religious teachings have revised and updated their texts to embrace that which we now know and have learned since the days when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Beyond keeping records, please enlighten us about Christianity's contributions to the advancement of science.
Lashing out in hysteria hasn't produced any facts or evidences to support your belief that No God exists. Theists have plenty of evidences for our beliefs. That's one reason why Theist beliefs are vast majority while Atheism is a marginal belief.
In reality, Atheists offer nothing but EXCUSES to exempt yourselves from the evidences you demand of Theists. If you want to play games with definitions, then Theism is also just a 'belief'. Only knowledge claims require evidence
@4TruthMatters "Lashing out in hysteria hasn't produced any facts or evidences to support your belief that No God exists."
Stop deflecting like a stubborn child. I have no believe that no god exists - that is your mantra. I do not believe a god exists and I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that a god does exist. Assertions made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence. I don't KNOW if a god exists, but there is no evidence. Get that and you'll stop whining.
"please enlighten us about Christianity's contributions to the advancement of science."
1) The modern scientific method was developed by Christians based on the assumption that the physical world was real, not illusory, that God had purposefully ordered the Universe with reliable Laws that governed everything - and we could discover this order by our rational mind.
2) Science was nowhere in Europe outside the church until the most recent centuries
Here is a very incomplete listing of some Christians in science:
Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, Johannes Keppler, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Jean Henri Fabre, Michael Faraday, John Ambrose Fleming, Francis Bacon (the scientific method)
@4TruthMatters Galileo was nearly put to death for his sacrilegious discoveries that challenged the teachings of the Bible and was put under house arrest for the rest of his life after being coerced to recant his findings. Copernicus' work created quite a stir, leading people to believe man could be a product of nature and not God. Pascal abandoned his scientific work to study philosophy and theology. Shall I continue?
The only reason we know anything of the Dark Ages is through those literate Christian monks who recorded events and preserved whatever learning they could from Rome and Greece - despite the barbarians who wiped out all culture and recorded nothing.
@4TruthMatters Therefore, your mission in this world is to make the religious appear as good and innocent and virtuous as possible, while blaming all the historical atrocities on godless people. Uh huh. I see...
"It is particularly arrogant to make political choices that affect everyone on the basis of a personal belief as opposed to a rational thought process."
There is no dichotomy between Christianity and rational thought. It's extraordinarily arrogant for Atheists to deny this country's moral foundations and force secularist Atheistic statism down our throats
The idea that this country is in danger of too much Christian morality being shoved down it's throat is laughable.
@4TruthMatters "The idea that this country is in danger of too much Christian morality being shoved down it's throat is laughable."
First of all, I agree with the ideals popularly taught by Christianity (in general).
Second, I don't trust the people in positions of power within the church- particularly in Catholicism.
It IS laughable that a bunch of Jesus-like morals would be a problem, but there is a more subtle trend of behavior in the larger religious bodies that scares me to no end.
BTW There are massive good arguments for God's existence, so Theism meets any burden.
Dr William Lane Craig and other PhD's win every debate on the rational merits.
There is no conflict between personal belief and rational thought.
Everyone derives beliefs from somewhere. You cannot derive morality from mere rational thought or science. I far more trust one who sees himself as accountable to God than someone who recognizes no morality ar accountability above himself.
@4TruthMatters "BTW There are massive good arguments for God's existence, so Theism meets any burden."
I hope I can discover and understand these arguments in the way you seem to. I am thoroughly unimpressed with all debates I have seen.
"There is no conflict between personal belief and rational thought."
I agree, except for when there IS a conflict- science and scripture are commonly butting heads. Not saying religion is wrong necessarily, but this is definitely a conflict.
"I hope I can discover and understand these arguments in the way you seem to"
There are many sources. I have been invetsigating this stuff for two decades.
If I had to pick a few standouts, research William Lane Craig and maybe Alvin Plantinga or other PhD philosophers who route Atheists in every debate many time per year. There are many others with very deep considered logical insights.
Thanks for the starting pointers. I appreciate you taking the time to debate with me. I am still very young and I have much to explore. It is an exaggeration (and opinion) to say that these philosophers defeat atheists in every debate. I have seen Dr. Craig debate before and he was not very impressive. Maybe the details that I took issue with are explored more thoroughly in his writings? I'll have to look into these things.
You may want to take another look at Dr Craig in a debate, not some narrated Atheist u-tube hit-piece mocking him. Atheists hate him because he consistently destroys their top debaters on the battlefield of reason, science and logic. He NEVER loses a debate and has shredded many, including Hitchens. Dawkins refuses to debate him - knowing the trail of Atheist contenders he has logically dismantled and exposed.
@4TruthMatters No, I watched the entire debate (over 1:30 with questions). It was posted on a Christian believer's channel. No biased annotations or anything. I don't "hate" him, but I don't particularly agree with him either. To say, "He NEVER loses a debate," is inaccurate and like I said before, a matter of opinion. Refusing to debate a person usually stems from disagreeing at a base level that results in an inability to have anything to debate- not because he is afraid of being "pwned"
I think you won't find any examples of William Lane Craig losing a debate.
I never said all Atheists hated him. Perhaps, in fairness, I didn't qualify it adequately.
Ghilliemaster, it's clear to me you are not among the rabid Atheists. Heck, I see no evidence you're an Atheist at all. You have some good questions and want honest reason.
Dawkins has seen Craig take apart Hitchens and many formidable opponents. He doesn't want to go to the woodshed with Craig.
I can't say that Craig is "losing" a particularly debate, but I can't say that he is "winning" it either. Mainly because, in terms of religious beliefs, it seems that people draw hard lines and have good discussion right up to the point where that line gets crossed. Who leaves the victor depends on who you agree with- when you sit in the middle, just trying to understand, neither seem to really "win" (in a worthwhile debate).
I agree, I'm not an atheist. I readily admit that I am currently agnostic. I do like debating, however, and I will naturally play devil's advocate (pardon the pun) in order to have a discussion. I'm currently collecting evidence and letting each group make their case. It is disappointing to someone like myself to see so much fruitless debate and poor collaborative effort to discover the truth.
@4TruthMatters "There is plenty of evidences for the existence of God." Publish it and submit it for peer review, then. If it meets the burden of proof, guess what - atheism disappears. That's because atheists are all about evidence. Most atheists left religious life after taking a long, hard look at the supposed "evidence" of which you speak, only to discover...there is absolutely nothing conclusive. Anywhere.
Spare us the silly pretensions. None of you can produce a shred of evidence to support your faith in the belief that No God exists. If you could, you would.
Instead you offer excuses and posturing. You have neither proof, evidences, science, reason, rationality, logic or even the common sense of majority opinion on your side. You have nothing but an irrational faith that nothing higher than yourself exists.
@4TruthMatters Spare us your phony authority and presumptuousness. You pay no attention to what is presented to you: atheism makes no claim. Atheism does not say there is no god. Brush up on your definitions and you will stop looking like an ignorant fool. Did your religion teach you to be so judgmental? Are you reflecting the attitude of your beloved Jesus? I have no knowledge of anything higher than me, but I do not discount the possibility. Stop being a jerk.
Phony Authority? Where exactly was that happening? (other than in your head)
Presumptousness? (I think you mean simply 'presumption' )
"Did your religion teach you to be so judgmental?"
No, why are you judging me as judgemental, stupid, jerk...?
I'm not doing anything wrong. I just don't take crap from a bunch of know-nothing pretensious Atheists who think they know something. I destroy your arguments and you get upset.
@4TruthMatters No, I mean presumptuousness. Look it up. While you're there, you should look up a few other words, too. Maybe get some therapy, too. There's no point in engaging with you any further - it's obvious you think your perspective is golden and pure and perfect. Good luck with your God beliefs. I hope they serve you well. Maybe you'll eventually learn something from what they supposedly teach.
Also, considering that Atheism must presume that your mind is nothing but an illusory byproduct of electrochemical processes and no way exists to know whose electrochemical byproducts are producing objectively true illusions, why do you argue? Why should anyone care what you say if their own electrochemical illusions tell them something different?
Do you make a tacit exception for the objective truth of your own electrochemical illusions?
So ShockofGod was riding on his motorcyle whenever the gas light came on. ShockofGod said, "What proof and evidence can you provide that proves that the gas tank is empty and depleted?" So ShockofGod kept on passing up gas stations until the gas light could provide proof and evidence...
@jimsnodgras and you seem to be implying to me Atheism is commonly known to be just someone with no beliefs of religion when the light is actually shone more on 'positive' atheists hence why some regard it as a religion and also why there are so many arguments against religion this null point is a non factor in an argument of religion :3
ZeWaffles 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras lol then why would this even come into your video and be a factor if its just the middle point with no beliefs and shockofgod is not actually challenging those people but positive atheists who actually dont believe God exists? it just confused me that you were talking about people and things which have no belief on either Atheism or Theism when his challenge was not intended for them he wants an answer that cant be answered and can be thrown back to theism with the same results
ZeWaffles 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras but thats a lack of belief in anything XD animals, babies they dont believe or accept anything whatsoever on theism so how can you stick them in a set position when they logically dont believe in Atheism either? because you can just switch that around and say that they dont believe in Atheism since it is a theistic claim
ZeWaffles 1 year ago
uhhhh really thats sort of incorrect your statement on Atheism such as babies, animals and what not because Atheism is more a belief that God doesnt exist therefore you need to know that others believe there is a God so then you can object because if someone asked a 4 year old if they believed God exists and they asked "who is God?" does that make them an Atheist? but you are right when you say ShockofGods question is flawed
ZeWaffles 1 year ago
Good video. I don't know when Christians became such pussies but back when I was Christian I didn't act like shock of god. I wouldn't put a video up like his asking a question and then cowardly disable comments or screen them to only allow posts that make me look good. Christians on here have no balls it seems and should be asking their god for the wisdom to answer fair and intelligent questions instead of shifting the burden of proof to weasel out of debates they know they can't handle.
Vegas01973 1 year ago
shockofgod is guilty of false testimony, he says things he knows to be false or misleading, in the name of his god
kshe95realrockradio 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras Thanx for the advice! ;)
julzabro 1 year ago
I did a video on this too. SOG is a dishonest coward! He is trying to get me and, undoubtedly, other atheists to call his radio show by claiming that we (Atheists) are too chicken to go on it. I didn't even know he HAD a radio show and am not sure if I want to give him ratings or not.
julzabro 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras You are welcome. I think you are onto something. I guess if shockofgod can't argue a hissy fit is all you have left. It's sad to see the christian side of the debate (long over but still amusing for us atheists) has degraded to absurb acts of childish displays like SOG posts.
nebogipfel11 1 year ago
I heard Shockofgod is a mass murdering, pschopathic baby killer and he can't prove or provide evidence he isn't. I hope law enforcement is tracking him. How many more babies must die? How many? How many?
nebogipfel11 1 year ago
You claim Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God based on this non-standard definition of Atheism. Yet, we all lack belief in many things. However we don't identitify ourselves by our 'non-claims'. Do you always invest yourself (by coming on these boards) in a position of making no claims?
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
BTW, If a timeless spaceless IMMATERIAL BEING existed, why would you expect someone to be able to 'show you this in a box' ?
That's like expecting to detect water with a metal detector.
I sure would like for you to justify why your marginal faith in No God is the 'default'. I understand the argument and I understand how the rules work in philosophy. There are many facts and truths that are inaccessible to the scientific method or direct empirical testing.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Comment removed
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Brilliant!
plazdiquehardt 1 year ago
"So what? You're entire argument is based around the word atheist? So if atheists were agnostics, you'd have no problem with them?"
No, please pay close attention: Atheists are playing a dishonest an manipulative sleight-of hand game to unfairly exempt themselves from evidences.
(cont)
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Its amazingly hilarious that shock still thinks hes pwning people because they won't respond to his stupid challenge.
lvl70shampally 1 year ago 2
@lvl70shampally
It's not that Atheist's 'wont respond' it's that they cannot provide any proof or evidence for Atheist beleif in No God. Theists provide all sorts of evidences. Atheists provide excuses to exempt themselves from the evidences they demand of Theists.
Excuses are not evidences. Please provide your evidences.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters Another retarded theist that doesnt understand the definition of atheist or what a null position is. Go be stupid elsewhere.
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally,
Trust me, I understand your silly talking points. I'll smoke you on the rational and philosophical merits if you wan't to man up and try.
Now, come share those um, 'true' electrochemical illusions created by your Atheist brain and let's have some fun exposing you to logic, reason and the irrational world of Atheist metaphysics.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters From this response you obviously didn't understand any word of my response. You didn't even address anything I said. "Atheist metaphysics" right there, you DON'T have any idea of what you're talking about. No one here wants to hear you circular reasoning, watch you be ignorant to facts, and try to use words and phrases that you have no true understanding of.
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
It seems like most Christians have no idea why they believe what they believe. They offer up a lot of soft-soap and circular arguments from the Bible. They often seem totally unaware of the rational arguments and philosophical underpinnings they rest upon.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
BTW Jim. In case you haven't figured, I feel a little bad about jumping all over you with guns blazing. I often debate several Atheists concurrently and most of them aren't as nice as you. Sometimes I kinda envisioning you guys as one big pack of rabid hyenas trying to take me down, so I come out swinging and firing at everything in sight...
Anyway, I owe you an apology for being excessively harsh with you. I'll be happy to discuss any hardball questions nicely.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
Mild adaptive capacities within existing designs can be validated. Actual science confirms this. Speculations of original self-organization into integrated complex intelligent beings by gradualistic evolution and macroevolution between species is simply not supported by the evidences nor rationally explained by the Darwinian mechanism. I realize the Darwinists insist macro proceeds logically from micro, but when examined, the claims and evidences for each are very different.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
Natural selection acting on random mutation is a reasonable explanation for why moths of a certain shade survive when a city becomes sooty, or how virus mutations survive, but it doesn't begin to explain how moths organized into existence in the first place.
(cont)
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
(cont)
With respect to evolution, I support the Darwinian model in the limited sense of what it actually explains and is supported by the evidences, not the broad sweeping claims often attributed to it without evidences.
(cont)
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
Jim, Yes, I'm a Christian and definately subscribe to Intelligent Design. I see no Biblical or scientific basis for claiming things like a 6000 year old earth.
First, I am very much objective with respect to science. That is to say I will never force fit the evidences to meet my pre-conceived biases, but I will also never accept speculations by scientists as science. I will look at evidences and patterns of evidences with a rational mind.
(cont)
I believe
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras In fact, only Agnosticism bears no burden of proof (makes no claims). However, even an Agnostic must evaluate the evidences for each respective truth claim in order to claim any 'persuasion' one way or the other.
If demonstrated ZERO evidence exists for God's existence, then perhaps an Agnostic could default that probably no God exists. But evidences for God DO EXIST, so each respective claim must be evaluated on relative merits.
The Atheist truth claim of No God is not exempt
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Comment removed
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
To review:
1) Positive claims bear burden of evidence.
2) Atheism makes an implicit positive claim (No God), that rationally distinguishes it from Agnosticism (no claim).
If you want to remain rationally coherent, you must accept that any position that makes no truth claim is essentially Agnostic, not Atheist. Attempting to conflate Atheism with Agnosticism doesn't work without misdefining Atheism or implicitly denying rational imperative.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
There's no reason to give up on me. Give up on that bad argument your Atheist bretheren have constructed for you to peddle.
Believe it or not, I like you so far. You have done the best you can given the argument you defend. I've been tough and uncompromising on you, and you have not resorted to the usual tactics of endlessly shifting subjects, ad hom's, outright lies and crass dishonesty predictably displayed by Atheist opponents - particularly the younger ones.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
Some evidences for the positive truth claim (No God) within Atheism would be legitimate. You are attempting to misdefining Atheism in terms of Agnosticism to exempt yourself from the positive truth claim (No God) that Atheism implicitly affirms. This is a false argument. This is exactly what you are attempting to construct.
You are not going to buffalo me with a false argument.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
"Notice that it is possible to be an agnostic and a theist or atheist at the same time."
Yeah, all we have to do is throw rational law, logic and facts out the window. Hell, I might as well claim I'm Elvis Presley and a Tomato.
Anything that doesn't deny the existence of God is Agnosticism or Theism. Atheist Bullshit in Wikipedia doesn't change the authoritative definition of Atheism.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
Wikipedia? What the Hell are you trying to sell?
Wikipedia: where you can make it up as you go along.
Nope, I'll stick with the Encylopedia of Philosophy, Websters and serious authorities - not Bullshit definitions invented by the New Atheists.
Gee, I'm an agnostic Atheist, like an NFL college football player.
Um, I dont deny the existence of God, I just don't believe God exists....and btw, my belief isn't a belief. BS
Words mean what they mean. Don't bullshit me
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
Jim, How bout you waste your time defining 'weak' Atheism for us. Then tell us how it is not agnosticism. If it is Agnosticism, then it's not Atheism.
I think it's time you engage the facts I've laid out, rather than deflecting.
Trust me, I'm not impressed with your pretenses. Facts matter
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
Jim, How bout you waste your time defining 'weak' Atheism for us. Then tell us how it is not agnosticism.
I think it's time you engage the facts I've laid out, rather than deflecting.
Trust me, I'm not impressed with your pretenses.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras,
Jim, all Atheism is weak - there is no evidence for the claim "no God exists".
Seriously, don't bullshit me. Your redefinition of the plain meaning of Atheism in terms of Agnosticism is just dishonest and pathetic. Atheism makes the universal positive truth claim that 'God does not exist". Anything less is Agnosticism.
All your bullshitting and pretenses don't change facts Jim.
Facts matter Jim - not your BS excuses to get around the facts
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Atheists are full of shit - but it is amusing to watch you Atheists brazenly lie and make excuses for the rational incoherence of their claims.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
No, without sufficient evidences, I would withold judgement as to whether you found a goldmine (agnosticism - not Atheism)
The fact that you have not yet supported your claim does not mean that you haven't found a goldmine. It only means that I don't know.
Theism provides evidences to meet its burden. Atheism simply ignores the evidences, dishonestly redefines Atheism (positive denial claim) in terms of Agnosticism (no claims), then exempts itself from evidences. Hogwash.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras
Jim, Atheism means exactly what it has always meant:
Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Definition of Atheism: A person who maintains that there is no God. A person who believes the sentence “God exists” is a false proposition.
Websters: Atheism: the doctrine that there is no deity
I suggest you knock off the lies and redefinitions - and stick to the facts. Of course you can't do that because the facts expose your lies.
Facts matter Jim.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters If truth really matters to you, you will acknowledge the current-day definition of atheism, which has, as its only requirement, an absence of belief in God. That is very different than believing there is no god, although there are people who do believe there is no God. Atheism is not about belief and makes no claims. Atheism rejects unsupported claims about the existence of God - the burden of proof rests on who makes the claim. Get your fact straight, as they really do matter.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
You Atheist idiots attempt to exempt yourself from the evidence requirements you demand of Theists by ignoring the implict claim of "No God" within Atheism, by dishonestly insisting Atheism is merely a 'belief' that makes no claims, so it doesn't require proof. Yet you demand evidence for the counter "belief" of Theism. If both are merely 'beliefs', and 'beliefs' require no proof, then why do you demand Theists evidence their 'beliefs', while exempting your 'beliefs'?
Rank dishonesty.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters You completely missed the point. Atheism is not a "belief." It is the LACK of belief. Lets say you are a fairyist. You believe that there are invisible fairies under my bed. However, I am skeptical. I LACK the belief that there are fairies under my bed. But you demand that I PROVE there are no fairies under my bed. What, you say? That's unfair? It sure is. The proof of burden is upon YOU, to prove the existence of the fairies. Not ME to disprove the fairies.
azninabox 1 year ago 3
@azninabox
Please Azninabox. Repeating the same Atheist talking point I've repeatedly refuted isn't making your assertion any more valid.
Atheism is a belief and makes positive truth claims (No God exists). Atheism is not Agnosticism. You Atheists try to monkey with the classic definition in order to exempt Atheism from the truth claims you demand of others.
Also, Theist's provide evidences, so they meet the burden. Atheism cannot provide evidence, so Atheists make excuses.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters Ahh, your post in drowning in its own irony. Christians have been repeating the same tired arguments for almost 2000 years. A book written by Christians is not "evidence" of your God for obvious reasons. I don't understand why so many Christians dont understand that. Anybody can write a book about anything. If someone finds it later, is it proof that the writings are true? Hardly. In the end, if you're parents hadn't raised you to believe, you'd dismiss it just like you did Santa.
azninabox 1 year ago
@azninabox
"Atheism is not a "belief." It is the LACK of belief."
Do you believe that God does not exist?
Is your belief in 'No God' a belief? Then what is it?
There is no evidences for fairies under your bed. There is plenty of evidences for the existence of God. Theists meet their burden. Atheists fail to provide evidence for their claim of No god - but instead redefine Atheism to exempt themselves from evidences they demand of others. BS
Where is your evidences that
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters Again, you misunderstand. Raw atheism is not a belief that god does not exist. It is a lack of belief that a god exists.
If you still don't understand, atheism is when you say, I don't believe what you believe because you lack strong evidence, but I am not ruling out that a god exists. Its not that difficult of a concept.
azninabox 1 year ago
@azninabox
Good arguments don't go bad with age.
I never argued from the Bible. If you paid attention, you would know that.
I fully understand your false argument. Don't pretend your argument's proven lack of logical coherence is my lack of understanding.
You have made no case whatsoever. Atheism is not Agnosticism.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters So what? You're entire argument is based around the word atheist? So if atheists were agnostics, you'd have no problem with them? You should also try to make your comments a little bit more elaborate than saying 'no you're wrong' in more words.
The fact of the matter is, if your parents hadn't pounded this idea into your head from birth, you would not be a Christian right now. From an unemotional viewpoint, its just too full of holes and outdated assumptions. Its illogical.
azninabox 1 year ago
@azninabox
1) ALL KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS are positive truth claims requiring a burden of evidences.
2) Atheists dishonestly hide under a non-standard definition of Atheism that in fact defines Agnosticism to avoid the implicit KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS of Atheism, while defining Atheism as a mere 'belief' - exempt from burden of evidences.
3) If Atheists define their belief claims about God as 'nuetral' on KNOWLEDGE, Theists BELIEF claims are also 'nuetral' on KNOWLEDGE, so must also be exempt.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@azninabox
Therefore, in logical fact, Atheists and Theists are either:
1) both making knowledge claims or
2) both are entiltled to exempt themselves under the same phony non-standard redefinition Atheists have attempted to claim for themselves - hoping no one would notice their manipulation.
Atheists are flatly dishonest about this
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters It's a word game- from what I have gathered the problem is that theists believe that atheists are declaring, "there is no god," when, in fact, atheists are merely saying that there is no more evidence to believe in a god than not believe. Therefore, it makes most logical sense to believe there is no god. In other words, why would you assert something that doesn't appear to exist? From this perspective, the atheist assumes the null position- they are not inventing anything.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
Nope, Ghilliemaster,
All knowledge claims assume a burden of proof
They cannot define Atheism in non-standard terms equivalent to Agnosticism (no knowledge claims, just beliefs) to exempt themselves from the burden of evidence, then insist Theists beliefs must be considered knowledge claims - subject to burden of proof.
Trust me, Patches knows he's in checkmate on the logic. Dont get suckered by their sleight-of hand. Reference: PhD philosopher William Lane Craig
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters (1/2) Thanks for your reply. I recognize what you are perceiving as the sleight of hand and I agree with you- if an atheist wants to claim there is definitely no god, they are subject to proof just as they demand from a theist asserting there is a god. I do not agree with these tactics and I'm sure that you would not agree with a theist arguing from an invalid premise.
continued
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters (2/2) However, what I have seen and personally respect are those (theists and atheists) who do not make any impossible claims. Instead, they humbly (and wisely) concede that nobody can know what is going on. Atheists with who I can identify don't think that there is any compelling evidence for the existence of a god, but are open to the idea that there may be a god. I can identify with theists who believe strongly while recognizing the truth that they are lacking solid evidence.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster.
Thanks for your response.
"Atheists with who I can identify don't think that there is any compelling evidence for the existence of a god, but are open to the idea that there may be a god. I can identify with theists who believe strongly while recognizing the truth that they are lacking solid evidence."
These shockofgod rebuttals are based squarely on a false application of the burden of proof - constructed by misdefining Atheism as Agnosticism. This is not perception.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters "These shockofgod rebuttals are based squarely on a false application of the burden of proof "
I will grant you this, but it absolutely misses the point- ShockOfGod is acting as if he DOES have proof of his own beliefs. Also, he is annoying as hell and is not actually interested in hearing what anyone has to say. He continually misunderstands things with no improvement on subsequent interactions. He is not out for truth- just to put people down and be obnoxious.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster ,
Fact is shock of God has nailed these people at their own game. They can be annoyed. They need tho have their noses shoved in their own crap. These New Atheists are aggressive, dishonest and uncompromising in thier attacks on Theists. They make movie mocking Christianity, write intellectually shabby hit-pieces bashing Christianity, spread lies and slander all over the Internet, sick their lawyers on our institutions...
They need to be defeated, not coddled.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters I have not observed these negative behaviors that you are describing. I would surely not support any such slander or personal attacks. However, I don't understand why you would be cheering on an equally moronic representative of the other side. I am currently exploring my own worldview and I can assure you that ShockOfGod is making everything he stands for look really bad.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
"However, I don't understand why you would be cheering on an equally moronic representative of the other side."
What morons have I cheered for? I'm guessing you mean Shock of God?
"I am currently exploring my own worldview and I can assure you that ShockOfGod is making everything he stands for look really bad."
I don't know anything about the guy except he asked a very good question that has the Atheists gnashing their teeth and spewing venom at him.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters
" I'm guessing you mean Shock of God?"
Yes, I mean him.
"I don't know anything about the guy except he asked a very good question that has the Atheists gnashing their teeth and spewing venom at him."
His question is not the problem. It's that he is not interested in hearing the response or redefining his understanding of atheism. He is trying to make these atheists into something they are not. If you would only listen... your definition of atheism is different from theirs
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
Well maybe he's a jerk. Maybe a publicity hound.
We are not free to define Atheism in terms of Agnosticism. There is a standard definition of Atheism. It is the denial of the existence of God. This implicit denial of God within Atheism IS THE ONLY THING THAT DISTINGUISHES ATHEISM FROM AGNOSTICISM. Atheists cannot simply borrow the definition of Agnosticism to absolve their truth claim from any burden of proof.
That's dishonest and manipulative.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters Ahhhh....we're in a circle-
"Atheists cannot simply borrow the definition of Agnosticism to absolve their truth claim from any burden of proof."
"No, they are choosing Atheism, then misrepresenting their Atheism as Agnosticism when they got called out for the evidences they demand of Theists."
"These shockofgod rebuttals are based squarely on a false application of the burden of proof - constructed by misdefining Atheism as Agnosticism."
I GET IT, but I have refuted it.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
"I GET IT, but I have refuted it."
No, you have denied it. A denial is not a refutation. Trust me, no one has refuted it.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters btw- here is a video that might clear up confusion about our understandings of some of these issues.... assuming you can sit through 15 mins of the atheist perspective.
watch?v=g1DWX3LUqBA
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
I fully understand this argument. Trust me, it has nothing to do with my not understanding their perspective. I even agree that Theism has a burden of proof to the extent that it makes knowledge claims, but so does Atheism. Atheism is not properly defined as merely Agnosticism.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
A couple of thoughts:
It's great to listen to both sides in any debate, but realize that many (if not most) true things in life cannot be proven absolutely. There is always an argument around the most plausible explanation - but at what cost.
Atheism is simply a reductionist philosophical Naturalism. It claims to be 'scientific', but in reality it merely imposes Naturalistic explanations on everything regardless of probability, plausibility or rational coherence.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters No, atheism is not a denial of the existence of God. A denial presumes there is something present in order to be denied. What atheism is, is a rejection of the claim that God exists, based on the lack of evidence. Some atheists claim there is no God, most others simply cannot draw a conclusion either way due to a lack of empirical evidence either way. But there is no atheist who feels there is a God that s/he is ignoring. That's just not what atheism is.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
Comment removed
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan
Balogney James. Spare me the phony talking point. You Atheists are merely making excuses to exempt yourselves for the implicit claims within Atheism.
If Atheism is not assumed as knowledge claim for 'no God', then BELIEF in God is not assumed a CLAIM to KNOWLEDGE of God. Spare me your silly dishonest Atheist talking point.
Atheism is not Agnosticism. Stop hiding from evidence requirements Atheists demand of theists.
Where are your evidences? Exactly Nowhere.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters Your vocabulary is completely and conveniently devoid of definitions of words about the subject you hate most: atheism. Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, you have never heard of an agnostic atheist (nor an agnostic theist for that matter). You talk about dishonesty while judging others and painting them in a light that you like to see them in, rather that who they are. Stop being such an arrogant, ignorant hypocrite.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters "If Atheism is not assumed as knowledge claim for 'no God', then BELIEF in God is not assumed a CLAIM to KNOWLEDGE of God."
Well, you're right - BELIEF in God is NOT a claim of KNOWLEDGE of God. It is just that: a BELIEF. The reality is, NOBODY KNOWS! Do you actually, truly equate BELIEF with KNOWLEDGE? Come on - who's being dishonest and silly now?
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
Comment removed
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
This is really shedding light on your vapid vocabulary on the topic. I'll help you out a little here. Belief and knowledge are two different things. Theism is about belief, and agnosticism is about knowledge. There are three states to both. You can believe there is, believe there isn't, or not believe at all. You can know there is, know there isn't, or be uncertain. The universe is not black and white. And the truth persists whether you see it or not.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan
"Well, you're right - BELIEF in God is NOT a claim of KNOWLEDGE of God. It is just that: a BELIEF. The reality is, NOBODY KNOWS! Do you actually, truly equate BELIEF with KNOWLEDGE? Come on - who's being dishonest and silly now?"
Whose being dishonest?
You're being silly, dishonest and Manipulative. My argument just defeated your dishonest Atheism is a belief / Theism is a knowledge claim (requiring evidences) charade. You attempt to distract from this conclusion.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters "You attempt to distract from this conclusion." No, you just refuse to learn. You cannot grow beyond your delusions if you insist on retaining them. Do some reading. Get over yourself and find some humility. Otherwise, you're just going to continue to express yourself in a manner that looks very much like idiocy.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters One thing I will say about you: You are a master at the art of deflection. However, your skill in twisting words and perspectives to fit in neatly with your agenda could use some honing - you don't quite have the hang of it, yet. You need a subtler approach to the way you dismiss other arguments, for simply blatantly dismissing them does not invalidate them. You have to establish authority, first, before you can exercise it. You failed to do that here so you should move on.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago 2
@JamesMorlan
Tell me what serious argument I have dismissed?
Only knowledge claims assume a burden of proof (evidences)
You Atheists demand evidences for Theistic BELIEFS (as knowledge claims), while demanding exemption for your Atheistic beliefs as merely a 'belief'. I don't fall for the sleight of hand tactic.
Further, Theism meets its burden. You just deny, deny , deny those evidences using the old 'burden shift' debate tactic, but offer no evidences.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters "Only knowledge claims assume a burden of proof (evidences)"
Theists claim there is a God.
Theists must provide proof.
"I don't fall for the sleight of hand tactic."
No, you just deflect with your own.
"You just deny, deny , deny..."
And you just deflect, deflect, deflect.
You've dismissed everything I have said to you with your childish "spare me the phony talking point" line.
Spare me your disingenuous, dishonest, pious self.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan
Still further, the principle of 'controversial claim' generally assumes controversial claim to have a larger evidence burden. Claiming no God, no soul, no moral truth, no ultimate accountability, no purpose to Universe, a Universe that began without a cause, radically complex AND specifically INTEGRATED intelligent beings that self-ordered and self-assembled without purposeful agency...These are all controversial claims.
Still, you have no evidences - only excuses.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters You are arguing with yourself and it is both amusing and irritating, and should be embarrassing. You continue to go on about how atheism or atheists claim there is no god. You refuse to listen. That is not the claim atheists are making. If someone shows me a box as says there is a tiny car in it, I cannot say there is no car in it until they open the box to show me. So far, nobody has opened any box to show me their god, so it's not up to me to disprove it. So, STFU.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters The reason, if you were wondering, why many of these people choose atheism over agnosticism is not because they explicitly believe there is no god. Instead, it is because they recognize how many organized religions limit and poison society. They set themselves against what they see as ignorance, more like "a-organized religion". It is particularly arrogant to make political choices that affect everyone on the basis of a personal belief as opposed to a rational thought process.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
" The reason, if you were wondering, why many of these people choose atheism over agnosticism is not because they explicitly believe there is no god"
No, they are choosing Atheism, then misrepresenting their Atheism as Agnosticism when they got called out for the evidences they demand of Theists.
My rational thoughts don't conflict with my religious beliefs and I would much rather be governed by godly people than Atheists Stalin, Mao, Castro, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Jung
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters "No, they are choosing Atheism, then misrepresenting their Atheism as Agnosticism when they got called out for the evidences they demand of Theists."
You are just saying that this is what they do. I already agreed that some do, but they can and should be compared to (thought of as the same level as) insane theists who have no evidence and cannot exercise logic. We were already over this.
Reasonable atheism is agnosticism with the acknowledgement of religion being harmful.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
"Reasonable atheism is agnosticism with the acknowledgement of religion being harmful."
Religion is harmful? Christianity civilized and delivered a barbaric Europe from the Dark Ages to world preiminence. Atheism informed the conscience of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Marx, Castro, Pol pot, Kim Jung, Ceacescu, Milosevic, Chavez..... and killed over 100 million people in this past century alone - dwarfing everything done by the all religions in 5000 years.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters The harm I am speaking of is not a numbers game. There are lunatics on either side of the fence, whether they believe or not. My statement is in relation to the many examples of limiting critical thinking or questioning. Harmful obedience to something without understanding why. Any theist or atheist should understand why they believe what they believe, not just because it's what they are told to do.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster,
". There are lunatics on either side of the fence, whether they believe or not"
I couldn't agree more on this. I cringe when I see all the sloppy-thinking, circular arguments and disjointed soft-soap laypeople my own side offer up as argument.
There are a lot of stupid Christians who don't really understand what they believe
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters Uh, no, Christianity was the REASON for the Dark Ages. And Hitler was Catholic.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan
(fact) Hitler despised Christianity as "weak and effiminate".
(fact) Hitler confiscated church property, killed, imprisoned and persecuted Christian clergy
(fact) Hitler's only religious practice was an occultic form of Tuetonic Pagan Aryanism.
(fact) Hitler surrounded himself with overt Atheists.
(fact) Hitler's conscience was formed by Atheist intellectuals Darwin, Nitzche.
Hitler was no Christian. Christianity is not a genetic inheritance.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters And you can't catch atheism by standing next to an atheist.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan
Tell us how those how those horrible Christian monks sacked Rome and made all those illiterate barbarians of Europe stop keeping records. Tell us all about those unarmed monks of Europe forced the illiterate Barbarians like Huns, Mongols, Vikings, Germanic hoards, Saxons, Goths, Vandals, Jutes, Francs to stop keeping those records they never kept?
The level of ignorance is stunning, Apparently you haven't a clue why we refer to this era as 'dark' Ages?
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters Tell us how Christianity (especially Catholicism) supported the advancement of science and knowledge of the universe and the world around us. Please tell us how religious teachings have revised and updated their texts to embrace that which we now know and have learned since the days when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Beyond keeping records, please enlighten us about Christianity's contributions to the advancement of science.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
Comment removed
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan
Lashing out in hysteria hasn't produced any facts or evidences to support your belief that No God exists. Theists have plenty of evidences for our beliefs. That's one reason why Theist beliefs are vast majority while Atheism is a marginal belief.
In reality, Atheists offer nothing but EXCUSES to exempt yourselves from the evidences you demand of Theists. If you want to play games with definitions, then Theism is also just a 'belief'. Only knowledge claims require evidence
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters "Lashing out in hysteria hasn't produced any facts or evidences to support your belief that No God exists."
Stop deflecting like a stubborn child. I have no believe that no god exists - that is your mantra. I do not believe a god exists and I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that a god does exist. Assertions made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence. I don't KNOW if a god exists, but there is no evidence. Get that and you'll stop whining.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
Comment removed
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan @JamesMorlan,
"please enlighten us about Christianity's contributions to the advancement of science."
1) The modern scientific method was developed by Christians based on the assumption that the physical world was real, not illusory, that God had purposefully ordered the Universe with reliable Laws that governed everything - and we could discover this order by our rational mind.
2) Science was nowhere in Europe outside the church until the most recent centuries
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesMorlan
Here is a very incomplete listing of some Christians in science:
Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, Johannes Keppler, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Jean Henri Fabre, Michael Faraday, John Ambrose Fleming, Francis Bacon (the scientific method)
There are hundreds more.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters Galileo was nearly put to death for his sacrilegious discoveries that challenged the teachings of the Bible and was put under house arrest for the rest of his life after being coerced to recant his findings. Copernicus' work created quite a stir, leading people to believe man could be a product of nature and not God. Pascal abandoned his scientific work to study philosophy and theology. Shall I continue?
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan
The only reason we know anything of the Dark Ages is through those literate Christian monks who recorded events and preserved whatever learning they could from Rome and Greece - despite the barbarians who wiped out all culture and recorded nothing.
You couldn't be more wrong.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters Therefore, your mission in this world is to make the religious appear as good and innocent and virtuous as possible, while blaming all the historical atrocities on godless people. Uh huh. I see...
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster,
"It is particularly arrogant to make political choices that affect everyone on the basis of a personal belief as opposed to a rational thought process."
There is no dichotomy between Christianity and rational thought. It's extraordinarily arrogant for Atheists to deny this country's moral foundations and force secularist Atheistic statism down our throats
The idea that this country is in danger of too much Christian morality being shoved down it's throat is laughable.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters "The idea that this country is in danger of too much Christian morality being shoved down it's throat is laughable."
First of all, I agree with the ideals popularly taught by Christianity (in general).
Second, I don't trust the people in positions of power within the church- particularly in Catholicism.
It IS laughable that a bunch of Jesus-like morals would be a problem, but there is a more subtle trend of behavior in the larger religious bodies that scares me to no end.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
BTW There are massive good arguments for God's existence, so Theism meets any burden.
Dr William Lane Craig and other PhD's win every debate on the rational merits.
There is no conflict between personal belief and rational thought.
Everyone derives beliefs from somewhere. You cannot derive morality from mere rational thought or science. I far more trust one who sees himself as accountable to God than someone who recognizes no morality ar accountability above himself.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters "BTW There are massive good arguments for God's existence, so Theism meets any burden."
I hope I can discover and understand these arguments in the way you seem to. I am thoroughly unimpressed with all debates I have seen.
"There is no conflict between personal belief and rational thought."
I agree, except for when there IS a conflict- science and scripture are commonly butting heads. Not saying religion is wrong necessarily, but this is definitely a conflict.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
"I hope I can discover and understand these arguments in the way you seem to"
There are many sources. I have been invetsigating this stuff for two decades.
If I had to pick a few standouts, research William Lane Craig and maybe Alvin Plantinga or other PhD philosophers who route Atheists in every debate many time per year. There are many others with very deep considered logical insights.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters
Thanks for the starting pointers. I appreciate you taking the time to debate with me. I am still very young and I have much to explore. It is an exaggeration (and opinion) to say that these philosophers defeat atheists in every debate. I have seen Dr. Craig debate before and he was not very impressive. Maybe the details that I took issue with are explored more thoroughly in his writings? I'll have to look into these things.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
You may want to take another look at Dr Craig in a debate, not some narrated Atheist u-tube hit-piece mocking him. Atheists hate him because he consistently destroys their top debaters on the battlefield of reason, science and logic. He NEVER loses a debate and has shredded many, including Hitchens. Dawkins refuses to debate him - knowing the trail of Atheist contenders he has logically dismantled and exposed.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters No, I watched the entire debate (over 1:30 with questions). It was posted on a Christian believer's channel. No biased annotations or anything. I don't "hate" him, but I don't particularly agree with him either. To say, "He NEVER loses a debate," is inaccurate and like I said before, a matter of opinion. Refusing to debate a person usually stems from disagreeing at a base level that results in an inability to have anything to debate- not because he is afraid of being "pwned"
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@ghilliemaster
I think you won't find any examples of William Lane Craig losing a debate.
I never said all Atheists hated him. Perhaps, in fairness, I didn't qualify it adequately.
Ghilliemaster, it's clear to me you are not among the rabid Atheists. Heck, I see no evidence you're an Atheist at all. You have some good questions and want honest reason.
Dawkins has seen Craig take apart Hitchens and many formidable opponents. He doesn't want to go to the woodshed with Craig.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters
I can't say that Craig is "losing" a particularly debate, but I can't say that he is "winning" it either. Mainly because, in terms of religious beliefs, it seems that people draw hard lines and have good discussion right up to the point where that line gets crossed. Who leaves the victor depends on who you agree with- when you sit in the middle, just trying to understand, neither seem to really "win" (in a worthwhile debate).
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters
I agree, I'm not an atheist. I readily admit that I am currently agnostic. I do like debating, however, and I will naturally play devil's advocate (pardon the pun) in order to have a discussion. I'm currently collecting evidence and letting each group make their case. It is disappointing to someone like myself to see so much fruitless debate and poor collaborative effort to discover the truth.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters
"I far more trust one who sees himself as accountable to God than someone who recognizes no morality ar accountability above himself."
I agree, but I don't see a need for that greater thing to be God.
ghilliemaster 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters "There is plenty of evidences for the existence of God." Publish it and submit it for peer review, then. If it meets the burden of proof, guess what - atheism disappears. That's because atheists are all about evidence. Most atheists left religious life after taking a long, hard look at the supposed "evidence" of which you speak, only to discover...there is absolutely nothing conclusive. Anywhere.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan
"That's because atheists are all about evidence."
Spare us the silly pretensions. None of you can produce a shred of evidence to support your faith in the belief that No God exists. If you could, you would.
Instead you offer excuses and posturing. You have neither proof, evidences, science, reason, rationality, logic or even the common sense of majority opinion on your side. You have nothing but an irrational faith that nothing higher than yourself exists.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters Spare us your phony authority and presumptuousness. You pay no attention to what is presented to you: atheism makes no claim. Atheism does not say there is no god. Brush up on your definitions and you will stop looking like an ignorant fool. Did your religion teach you to be so judgmental? Are you reflecting the attitude of your beloved Jesus? I have no knowledge of anything higher than me, but I do not discount the possibility. Stop being a jerk.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan,
Phony Authority? Where exactly was that happening? (other than in your head)
Presumptousness? (I think you mean simply 'presumption' )
"Did your religion teach you to be so judgmental?"
No, why are you judging me as judgemental, stupid, jerk...?
I'm not doing anything wrong. I just don't take crap from a bunch of know-nothing pretensious Atheists who think they know something. I destroy your arguments and you get upset.
Why are you judging me as judgemental
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@4TruthMatters No, I mean presumptuousness. Look it up. While you're there, you should look up a few other words, too. Maybe get some therapy, too. There's no point in engaging with you any further - it's obvious you think your perspective is golden and pure and perfect. Good luck with your God beliefs. I hope they serve you well. Maybe you'll eventually learn something from what they supposedly teach.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan
Also, considering that Atheism must presume that your mind is nothing but an illusory byproduct of electrochemical processes and no way exists to know whose electrochemical byproducts are producing objectively true illusions, why do you argue? Why should anyone care what you say if their own electrochemical illusions tell them something different?
Do you make a tacit exception for the objective truth of your own electrochemical illusions?
Atheism is ludicrous
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
Sorry pal, Atheism makes an implicit positive claim that NO GOD EXISTS!
Your silly semantical games to exempt yourself from the evidences you demand of others is dishonest.
Theism can and has produced many evidences. Atheism utterly fails to prove it's implicit claim that God does not exist.
Stop making excuses for your lack of evidences. Shock has nailed you guys and exposed your hypocricy - as well as total lack of evidences.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
@jimsnodgras we should make a parody vid lmao
NynInchNayls 1 year ago
So ShockofGod was riding on his motorcyle whenever the gas light came on. ShockofGod said, "What proof and evidence can you provide that proves that the gas tank is empty and depleted?" So ShockofGod kept on passing up gas stations until the gas light could provide proof and evidence...
NynInchNayls 1 year ago
excellent
lvl70shampally 1 year ago