if thats your best reason for being a theist, then you wont to go heaven. you need to truely believe in jesus and how he sac'd him self for our sins. once you do that you can go and murder/ra*pe and pillage people here on earth and still get into heaven.
A dangerous assumption for a scientist to make, that the alternative is just 'shit made up'. Simply because something sounds impossible, it not necessarily /is/ impossible. Ah well, I was hoping to challenge you into actually doing some research, but it seems you're uninterested :) Never mind then.
@SnippyDoughnut They also had evidence that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat and looked how that turned out lol science isn't always right, and neither is religion lol
@KHfanz They never had evidence that the earth was flat... In fact, most maps of Earth at the time suggested that it was round... Plus, science wasn't even being done at that point in time.
Then why do atheists spend so much time denying GOD?
Man has an instilled need to worship GOD.
He is born with the knowledge that there is a higher being than himself.
Example=Any people anywhere even without any outside influence of biblical teachings ---worship ---something.Be it the sun, moon , animal spirits ,good medicene bad medicene idols , they have a built in trait to worship.
No animal has this trait.
ONLY MAN!
It's just some men are no smarter than the animals..
@ekajeht Why do atheists spend so much time arguing against god? SELF DEFENSE.
If theists could mind their own fucking business and quit making nuisances of themselves, do you know how much atheists would talk about god? Probably not at all. Think about it, kiddo.
And if you're obeying your "built in trait to worship", then YOU'RE no better than the animals because you're running on automatic instead of THINKING.
And how do you know animals don't worship? When I feed my kitten, she looks at me like a god. Prove animals don't worship.
And how is it that worship makes someone MORE advanced? Seems to me it's the WEAKLINGS who worship, instead of having self-confidence and a sense of self-worth.
@BionicDance If you haven't done your research, even in science one is expected to keep their mouths shut, yes? I thought the truth is what mattered in science. If you /really/ want to know, you'll research. If not, well that just makes you a bigot.
@BionicDance Well, it seems to me that both the christians you describe as a nuisance and you have the wrong idea about what faith should be; I'm christian, but I hate religion. How does that work, right? :) It does, but you have to believe God is both real and interested in personal relationship. What I meant with my previous comment is, do a bit more research. You'll find there's no scientific basis for the big bang either :) That makes it a faith.
@BionicDance Circumstantial, though. The origin is still unknown, by which I mean, the origin of the crap that actually were to have exploded. Where that came from, science has no answer for - so, persisting it's the only answer is a faith :) -- also, i don't mean to be a nuisance or anything, let's be very clear on that ^_^
@BaffleBento The Big Bang theory doesn't DISCUSS the origin, kiddo; it doesn't discuss BEFORE at all. You need to do more research.
Regardless, there is ZERO evidence for the existence of a god, unlike the Big Bang; what YOU'RE doing is engaging in make-believe and then acting like it's real. Science is actually trying to FIND the answers, not just make shit up.
@BionicDance Ah, now you're just trying to get me riled up :) But, hey, I'll suppose along with you. Suppose I am wrong, all I've lost is my being right about something. Suppose if you're wrong, though .. you've lost a lot more than just being right, then.
Great vid, I can't believe how many people I've butted heads with over this.
Typically the same people that don't accept T.J's own explanation as to what the "Establishment Clause" in the 1st Amendment means as far as Church-State separation.
@BionicDance "No, I did not make a mistake; you did. Your definitions are incorrect."
I didn't offer a definition; I offered an etymology, and I pointed out that 'etymology is not definition.' You can easily verify this etymology from any number of online dictionaries.
Of course, your definition of "atheism" is "correct" in that you *can* define atheism in a purely negative sense. At the same time, it's not the original meaning of the term.
Your argument is valid. This is very much the same as the "dragon in my garage" analogy put forward by Carl Sagan in his book "Demon-Haunted World" in 1995. Google it - a great read by a great mind.
@grahambkk Actually, I think I might own it; I picked up a bunch of Carl Sagan books at a library sale a while back...haven't gotten 'round to reading them all yet, but they're there for me when I want 'em. I'll have to check to see if that's one of 'em.
First you speak of the burden of proof which does in fact lie with the theists, then you attempt to use wordplay. The word itself is irrelevant to someones belief or lack-of. Furthermore you also speak of infants not knowing about religion, well, you have contradicted the bible itself, when John the Baptist was in the womb, he jumped with joy as Mary the mother of god entered. He recognized the son of god and therefore was aware of religion. Proven wrong by your own bible, lol.
@BionicDance lol, im an atheist, I misunderstood basically the whole video lmao, my bad, read what I wrote from an atheists pov, you'll understand, sorry =[.
@BionicDance " 'Atheos' IS 'a + theos', kiddo; look it up."
Exactly true. And it means "without gods."
The etymology your video proposes is a + [theos + ism] or "without belief in gods."
The correct historical etymology is [a + theos] + ism or "belief system without gods."
Etymology is not definition, but please don't use a false etymology to defend your preferred definition. You made an honest mistake. I recommmend that you admit it and move on.
@BionicDance "No, I did not make a mistake; you did. Your definitions are incorrect."
I'm not arguing about the *definition* of "atheism": that's another conversation. I'm making a point about the *etymology* of the word, and the etymology isn't really a matter of controversy.
@BionicDance "No, I did not make a mistake; you did. Your definitions are incorrect."
I didn't offer a definition; I offered an etymology, and I pointed out that 'etymology is not definition.' You can easily verify this etymology from any number of online dictionaries.
Of course, your definition of "atheism" is "correct" in that you *can* define atheism in a purely negative sense. At the same time, it's not the original meaning of the term.
@BionicDance No i believe you did make a mistake in your defintion. Aside form the fact your interpretation of Atheism conflicts with Greek meaning of the word, dictionary defintions etc., it also leads to invalid conclusions. That's to say Atheism is a category which Agnosticism and verificationism fall under. This is totally false.
My second objection is when you say claims need to be proven in a way which can be demonstrated to others objectively. This would mean anyone who believes...
@IfUrGivingIn Try to understand...I am NOT an (athe)ist, I am an a(theist); yes, the former is the Greek definition of the word, but to insist upon that definition is to commit both the Appeal to Tradition fallacy AND the Genetic Fallacy.
The fact is that when most self-described atheists say this is what they are, what they mean is that they're not theists, period, full-stop. And if you cannot accept THIS definition in this context, then we cannot have this discussion. It's that simple.
@BionicDance ... in emotions are holding false beliefs because emotions can't be demonstrated to others objectively. Sure you can demonstrate actions which are believed to represent emotions, yet emotions themselves cannot be demonstrated and thus would be irrational to believe.
@IfUrGivingIn Actually, emotions CAN be demonstrated objectively, empirically. Sure, we need things like pulse monitors and MRI scanners to do it, but we CAN do it.
@BionicDance To insist on the correct definition of a word does not commit any fallacy. If "self-defined atheists" decide to use the wrong terminology then no debate can follow.
Emotions can't be demonstrated LOL what does sadness look like? You can monitor the neurological activity believed to elicit this feeling but in fact you're only monitoring neuro-activity, not an abstract concept.
@IfUrGivingIn It's NOT "the correct definition", however. It's the original etymology, yes, but the problem is that to express that one is an a(theist) and not an (athe)ist, one has no choice but to use the same word; there is no OTHER word that expresses precisely this point. The truth is that the word YOU'RE using SHOULD be expressed as "atheosist", not "atheist".
Regardless, if you cannot accept this more modern, more common definition, then as I say, we cannot have this conversation.
@BionicDance Err i believe "non-theist" would be a better term than athiest. To say "there is no OTHER word that expresses precisely this point" is a blatant lie.
"more modern, more common definition, then as I say, we cannot have this conversation."
The only people who consider this to be true would be other "self-define atheists" making the same mistake as you. Linguists and philosophers don't share the same view.
If you wanna be part of this discussion, you're going to have to modify your expectations here, kiddo. So choose: do you wanna be pedantic or do you want to discuss the relevant issues?
@BionicDance Interesting post coming from someone who created a video addressing semantics yet is now telling me to "get over it."
Semantics are an essential part of a philosophical debate. You "self-proclaimed atheists" are hi-jacking words to avoid a meaningful philosophical debate...
@IfUrGivingIn No, we're NOT, you idiot. We're taking over a word IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT OUR POSITION. *rolls eyes*
Once again, either you can accept that most atheists use the term to indicate that they are not theists...or you can go away and be ignored. In fact, I'm making this your last chance. Either sigh and accept it so we can have a conversation without talking past each other, or I simply fail to acknowledge your existence from here on out. Choose.
@BionicDance "No, we're NOT, you idiot. We're taking over a word IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT OUR POSITION."
You're using a word with a pre-existing defintion to desribe your position (despite the exdistence of another word which can fit that position better; "non-theist").
Obviously you cannot accept you're wrong and are resulting to insults and providing me with an ultimatum. Typical from someone holding an incorrect defintion despite what linguists and philosophers say.
@BionicDance Oh and here's another example pointing out your contradiction that "claims need to be proven in a way which can be demonstrated to others objectively."
Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.
Yeah when I get into a argument with a theist over the existence of a god(s), deity, or spiritual entity. I always first disprove the existence, tear apart whatever religion they may be from, remind themselves that a 5 year old is more intelligent to not believe in fairy tales, then say "Oh by the way it is theists that hold the burden of bringing forth the evidence of a god(s), deity, spiritual entity".
funny... science says babies forget most their memories, once they reach a certain age. so how do you know people aren't "BORN BELIEVING"? and how do you know animals aren't born believing? are you psychic? i'm sorry, i didn't you could gaze into minds, and unlock their deepest, ealiest, and secretest memories. you must be able to, since there's no other way you could possibly know we aren't born believing. if you're not, then you're a lier, and are just voicing your own opinion. big surprise...
@iTrustMyInstincts - Your comment only seems to beg more questions. Why would God have people born with belief in him and then make them forget at a certain stage of development? Especially since the God or gods people believe in tend to be based on geographic location.
If Allah is true and your born in the United States your likely to be raised Christian and thus damned by the system your arguing.
And, if Christians are right then people born in the Arab world will be damned because of it.
very accurate. however there is one thing you were mistaken on. people can, in fact, believe in a higher power, without being told of such. that's how a religion is started. one person believes in something new, an unexplored possibility, and it eventually spreads to others. isn't that what theism and creationism are all about? but kudos for the rest. nice job. :)
@BionicDance born believers... well, i have heard of people believing in something they knew nothing about since their earliest memories. so i guess your statement can apply to most, but not all people. the overall truth in this life is people will believe what they want, despite what others say. so the best thing to do is let them be, if there's nothing you can do about it. (for christians and atheists debating beliefs, if you're reading this, this applies to you too!) amen.
Religion can't prove god; atheist can't prove god = there is no god. (at least not the ones in the books of religions) The sad truth is everyone is an atheist. We come into this reality as one, and even if your so-called religious your still an atheist to other gods. So therefore you leave this consciousness an atheist. Even god is an atheist. Gods can't believe in other gods.
Science is the process of proving through the process of disproving. If your going to use science as a theist then you automatically lose. There is science to to disprove that this earth has only existed for 6k years. There is no evidence to disprove evolution. If you do you use science as a theist to disprove, your forgetting a very important aspect of religion. FAITH! From my experiences there are usually more atheist who are more knowledgeable in the topic of theism than theist themselves.
@BionicDance very accurate. however there is one thing you were mistaken on. people can, in fact, believe in a higher power, without being told of such. that's how a religion is started. one person believes in something new, an unexplored possiblity, and it eventually spreads to others. isn't that what theism and creationism are all about? but kudos for the rest. nice job. :)
Something I've been wondering for a while (asking anyone) is whether there really is much of a difference between 'a lack of belief in god' (atheism) and 'belief that there is no god'. The latter believes explicitly that there is no god, while the former does not. But does the former (the atheist) still believe implicitly that there is no god? My mind is going to believe (behave as though) there either is a god or there isn't. So isn't a lack of belief just implicit disbelief?
Still, to answer your question, I think disbelief and non-belief ARE different, if only in that disbelief takes an act of will while non-belief could just be due to ignorance and requires no effort at all on the part of the thinking subject.
@BionicDance I love that comment. I asked a theist if there is a difference between these two comments. "I don't believe in the big bang theory" or "I believe the big bang theory didn't happen." They said "No either you think it happened or you don't." But as a person who invest into a belief system such as Christianity or what have you its hard to grasp that concept because they are told that if you don't you go to hell. So its black and white, they can't identify with it.
Have you guys ever heard of getting bugs bunnied? Send me a personal message and ill explain to you my little experiment when I was debating a large number theist. How It proves that they will say whatever to win the argument. A little taster 1. theist said yes everything in the bible actually happened in rebuttal. While another said. No the bible is not to be taken literally in a rebuttal to the adverse logic. not saying that i haven't met sound minded theist though.
I wouldn't say that atheism is the default position because atheism is non-belief in God. A baby doesn't think "I don't believe in God". A baby simply doesn't believe one way or the other. This is just an observation. Personally, I have reason to believe in God. So I do. That is all.
@KrfNYC2 You don't HAVE to DELIBERATELY think "I don't believe in a god" to NOT BELIEVE. All you have to do is NOT HAVE BELIEF. A baby is an atheist because a baby doesn't believe, and not believing IS non-belief.
@BionicDance I am going off of what I understand to be an atheist. I could be wrong. Anyway, my understanding is that an athesit is somebody who says "I believe that God does not exist". A baby does not say this becuase a baby has no opinion (belief) on the matter. But this is not important to me. I am more interested in why atheists hold this belief. I can understand why one might not believe in God, but personally I cannot ,for the life of me, bring myself to do so. How could I?
@KrfNYC2 You ARE wrong. An atheist is anybody who is NOT A THEIST.
It doesn't matter how or why you don't believe in a god, whether you've just never heard of one or whether you've explicitly said you don't believe; if you're not a believer, you're not a theist. And if you're not a theist, you're an atheist. Period.
@BionicDance You could very well be right. If "atheist" is synonomous with "non-thesit" than I suppose most babies would be atheist's. Either way, this does not concern me. By the way this video is very well constructed. I imagine that you are an atheist ,and as I'm sure you've gathered, I am not. That being said, peace and love to you, your friend and brother.
@RhetoricalBalderdash- Actually, deists are theists in that they believe there is a god but that god "fled the scene" or is not involved with human affairs. Agnostics are fence-sitters. Some say there is a god but aren't sure what it is and some say there probably is a god but I don't care.
Point is either you believe there is a god or you don't. If you don't you're an atheist. Everyone else is a theist.
Saying that you are either an atheist or a theist is simply false. You are either intentionally misrepresenting the worldview of deism, or do not know the definitions and are speaking as if you do. I'm guessing it's the first, since you alluded to deists believing in a non-interventionist creator, but either way it does not reflect well on you.
Deists are not theists. Theism refers to belief in at least one present, active deity, who relates on a personal level.
@BionicDance bionicdance is right, atheist from the greek atheos - without gods. those without a god.an atheist as the video states is somebody who has no belief in a god, normally due to lack of evidence to support the belief, known as agnostic atheists, there are also nostic atheists who see the unsupported belief are false beliefs however sincerely held.the lack of evidence to them is enough to render the belief void. one thing all atheists agree theists are yet to reach their burden of proof
@natdogrocker "I can prove the existence of a infinite entity that created the universe"
To define the existence of an infinite entity that created the universe would be to assert that the mechanisms of logic and reason can transcend and then project phenomena which we have not been exposed to. By transgressing the cognitive threshold (as perceived in strictly rationalistic terms) we cannot but be reduced to a mental state where our model of the universe can only be explained by..
* First law of thermodynamics: The internal energy of an isolated system is constant.
The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), BUT CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED (wikipedia)
Go ask a scientist. That's the purpose of science. In fact I don't think you know much about science. The purpose of science is to make observations about the natural, physical world and test hypothesis' using scientific method. Science doesn't dabble in metaphysics because metaphysical things can't be tested empirically. You're right, this is a pointless conversation. You're logic is stuck inside a box, and it's not even a well made box. It's a piece of shit cardboard box that I poke holes in.
@DaveLeech1989 Don't wrench your arm out of the socket patting yourself on the back, there, pal.
This is a pointless conversation because you CLEARLY have no idea what you're talking about, and no amount of persuasion or evidence is EVER going to sway you. THAT much is made clear by what you seem think are valid arguments, yet are nothing of the kind.
@BionicDance You haven't offered any evidence for your argument. All you have said is that my arguments aren't valid and that I'm not right. My argument is grounded in science and logic. You're a defender of science but you don't even know what it is or does. I won't say any more if you keep my comments on here for people to contemplate.
@DaveLeech1989 Your argument is NOT grounded in science OR logic.
It's grounded in MADE-UP science and logic.
You haven't the least clue in the world what you're talking about, you haven't a clue how skeptical inquiry or the scientific method work, and you spout bullshit as if it were worthy of consideration.
Again, you're just saying little quips and making jabs without really looking at the logic here. How would science ever explain why we are here? Science counts and measures things, and says that things come from other things, according to the laws of thermodynamics. So if the things that were there in the very BEGINNING, which implies they are FINITE, were in fact FINITE, then they manifested there somehow metaphysically. Science doesn't dabble in metaphysics. It can only measure physically.
@DaveLeech1989 You have no FUCKING CLUE what science does, if THAT'S all you think it's capable of, pal.
You have more to learn than I could EVER put into 500 characters or less; go open a fucking textbook and quit littering up my comments with your ignorant CRAP.
@DaveLeech1989 This whole paradigm points to the fact that science proves up to a certain point. After that, any and all claims are debatable because there is no proof either. Hence the term "BELIEF." You believe something doesn't make it true. It is evident that either the universe is infinite or something created it. If scenario 1, then there's the answer. If scenario 2, then the leap of faith is made after the big bang. After this point, no opinion has proof therefore all opinions are valid.
@natdogrocker " After this point, no opinion has proof therefore all opinions are valid"
Anyone would be a fool to try disprove the non-existence of anything in strict terms. But if one wishes to invoke a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe, they must support that claim evidence. 125,000+ years of human history has failed to do that.
@cueball0791 "You believe something doesn't make it true." I can prove the existence of a infinite entity that created the universe (not the practical idea of "god"). That much has logic and reasoning to back it up. As for the question "Why are we here?" this is the "no opinion has proof therefore all opinions are valid." No one can provide me with proof as to the purpose in life, so I, and anyone else, has every right to "BELIEVE" what they feel about "Why we're here."
And who are you to tell people what is justified to believe? If someone needs a reason beyond having sex and making babies to keep moving forward I would say that they are completely justified in believing.
Then why are you responding to my comments? No reason to get snappy. How we got here will always be up to science. But why we are here is more interesting and significant to many people. That is why people believe in god. Science will not and cannot explain why. And there is no intelligence in this world? That is quite a statement. If there is no intelligence then why don't we know everything already?
@DaveLeech1989 There may be events which led to our being here; that doesn't mean we're here for a reason or a purpose. To postulate one without evidence is to lie to oneself...and those who listen to you.
And to say that science will and can not explain it is BULLSHIT. Science is the ONLY thing that could POSSIBLY explain it.
It goes against the grain of science to say that energy can create itself. Science can contradict itself, too. Spontaneous generation was proven to be wrong and replaced with biogenisis after Pastuers experiments. But Biogenisis alongside the Theory of Evolution is a paradox. If life can only arise from other life, then were did our first ancestor arise from? I'm not trying to falsify Evolution, but my point is that science is far from completeness.
@BionicDance God to me doesn't just mean some guy watching over. If it is real it is much more than that. There is an intelligence in this universe that simply cannot be denied. Science will always explain the details. Sure, chemical reactions can do many things that most likely lead us here. But there's a question that many people have about why. That will never be answered by science. There may not be a reason. But don't you think saying there is no reason is as lazy as saying god dunnit?
@DaveLeech1989 No, there is NOT an intelligence that cannot be denied. It cannot even be PROVED.
You're full of shit, playing Pretend like a child and acting like it's real.
Until and unless you can prove even one OUNCE of this crap about there being an intelligence to the universe--prove it with empirical and objective FACTS--you're not saying ANYTHING worth hearing.
The question shouldn't be is there a god or isn't there. We should be asking whether or not there is such a thing as infinite. If so, we will never understand the nature of how things came to be because they were always there. If the compounds that lead to the big bang or whatever led us here were finite, then they must have been placed there or created somehow. If they were finite, then scientists will one day will be able to say that there are metaphysical properties that manifest physically
It should be blatantly obvious to any critical thinker that science does not and can not prove or disprove the existence of a god. Science can only explain things that are physical. Whether or not god exists is up to believers or non-believers, and has no relevance for argument when speaking scientifically. The question really boils down to how did any things come into existence at all. No one is capable of understanding infinite. Science is a dim glow of hope, but still remains chiefly physical
If a deity has EVER interacted with this universe AT ALL, it left empirical traces, and is thus a matter for science. And any deity which has NOT done so is irrelevant.
If you look into the nature of subatomic particles there is still room to believe that there is an underlying intelligence. They are completely random. I am not saying I believe in god but there still is room for that belief. There are so many things that still make no sense in this world. One day, if we revise the laws of thermodynamics, we may be able to empirically state there is no god but that day is not today.
@DaveLeech1989 Whilst science cannot prove or disprove categorically the existence of god it does have implications for belief in such a being, Traditional theistic arguments have focused on arguments like design implying a designer. If science can demonstrate the lack of need for such a designer then that argument is no longer useful. This of course does not mean there is no god but it takes away a common reason for believing.
@BionicDance you need a host to survive ex. against theism thats what atheism is.beside this astonishing discovery.no religion no atheism. imagine no religion and out of the blue,first person: there is no god!second person:what is a god?first person:i don't know, but i don't beleive in god!second person:what the fuck are you talking about? first person: i'll debate with you! second person:your annoying the shit out of me!go fuck yourself. the end! open your mind you make no sense.
God is real. Want proof? Go attend a mission trip with Real Christians. There are so many hypocritical Christians out there that just try to Teach but not practice. You curious? Msg me bro!
And if you want me to believe in god, you're going to have to produce some empirical, objective, physical evidence. Otherwise you're wasting both of our times.
@BionicDance i couldn't care less if you don't beleive in anything.but going public and making propaganda video.read my words clearly.there was a time of respecting others and our selves. i don't know your reasons for this.but you have been either hurt or judged by a person not god.
@BionicDance i'll tell you why,i beleive in god.i beleive in love for mankind.that a choice is given to you,and only you.and that your decision affects more than just you.
What sucks about watching these great videos and then watching theist's still post their contrary ideas despite the sound arguments, is that at some point, you almost have to resort to ad hominem attacks by saying that these people just do not understand how to use logic when it comes to this topic. Faith is plugging your ears with your fingers and repeating the same old defeated arguments.
What is amazing in watching these videos is that delussional individuals think that the analogy which tooltime, aka Peter gave of not being able to prove his name as being Peter, is a sound analogy pertinent.
It is not only unsound and illogical, but laughable.
His name can be conclusively proven to be Peter by school records, birth certificate and various other legal documentation.
Foolish faith is believing that the universe and life came about naturally, by self-perpetration.
You have no objective proof that humans believed in anything other than Supernatural causality/spiritualism, as is proved by earliest recorded history until the present.
This conjecture and word play of yours exposes your foolish faith and attempt to deflect the burden of proof to theist, who never lay claim to empirical knowledge, through implementation of scientific methodology.
The burden of proof lies solely on the anomalous few to demonstrate a natural mechanism to have been responsible.
@FossilEYES1 If that is your stance, then by your logic, you personally need to DISPROVE all the other gods that have ever been invented. You must have already done that to believe in only the one god that you do, correct? Argumentum ad populum, look it up. I've seen you post on other vids before, you do not know how to construct logical arguments. Everyone else, you can safely ignore this youtube user.
"If that is your stance, then by your logic, you personally need to DISPROVE all the other gods that have ever been invented"
Says who, you?
You need to PROVE by your subjective assessment of my "logic", that your "logic" in assertion proves that I need to "DISPROVE" all other gods that have ever been invented.
You need to learn what "ad populum" actually means.'Lol!
It is only a fallacy when it is used to appeal to the popularity of something as the SOLE premise of ones argument, as being necessarily true.
Since I NEVER claimed that the est 97.7% the world population are not atheists therefore God/s and spirituality are true, yours is a FALLACY of a logical FALLACY.
You need to look up what fallacious accusation means.
"Everyone else, you can safely ignore this youtube user"
If you had followed your own advice and ignored me, then you would have remained safe in your ignoramus mindset.
Since you didn't follow your own advice, you made yourself vulnerable and stand corrected, but will most probably advance to intentional ignoramus status and qualify for full certification, as buffoonish fool.
@iLuckyyy We created numbers, dumbass. 1+1=2, because those are the values that WE assign to them. Where in the bible does it say that god invented numerals and assigned their values?
@UnderlordZ Theism isn't about a holy book, it's about believing that there was a creator of the universe. You say science says it's the big bang, I say what came before the big bang then you can ask me what came before God and so forth..
Realising that there are absolute truths means there are rules to how the universe functions which implies a creator.
@iLuckyyy How do observed constants in any way imply any sort of creator? If you're going to say that these laws are how god manifests in the Universe, why is god necessary? Why not just take the laws as you see them?
@UnderlordZ Taking the laws as I see them would only answer how the universe works as though there is no purpose. Just as anything humans have ever created: it was for a purpose. Every living thing as so far come from another living thing.. all this implies there is a God. Many things imply there is a creator, what implies that there is none?
@iLuckyyy Humans only ever create anything for their own benefit, but according to every theistic religion, god is omnipotent; he can do anything, and so the question arises, why would he NEED to do anything? On top of that he's also supposedly omniscient, which means he knows everything, including everything that would or could ever happen; there would be no in MAKING a Universe when one would already know everything that would happen.
@UnderlordZ That's a very selfish view of humans. What about babies?
He might not need to do anything but want to, choose to or simply do. Just because we know what will happen when we do anything in life doesn't stop us from doing so. I know that when I eat an apple I will be left with the core then throw it away..
He could know everything that could happen but we still have free will and choose our actions so what actually does happen could differ.
@iLuckyyy If god created the universe knowing everything that could and would happen, then free will would. Not. MATTER! No matter what we do, god would already know that we were going to do it; that's not free will. On top of that, he punishes us for eternity, for actions taken during a finite period, that he KNEW we would take and could have stopped.
@UnderlordZ God knowing what we are going to do doesn't take away free will but guides it. I know that if I stab myself I will get hurt; that doesn't take away the option but guides me to follow a different path -> not stabbing myself.
Where did you get punishing us for eternity from? That's irrelevant to the existence of God. Omniscient seems like a paradox because we cannot comprehend it.
@iLuckyyy Omnipotence brings up the scenario of "Can god make a rock so heavy, he couldn't lift it?" If he can't make it, there's something he can't do; he's not omnipotent. Same goes if he could make it but not lift it.
Omniscience and free will are completely contradictory. If he knows everything everyone could possibly do, then there's no way we can do anything he didn't already know we would do; and that's not free will.
@UnderlordZ I give you a kid a choice between a chocolate and brussel sprouts; although I know he will choose the chocolate, it's still the kid's choice.
Someone knowing what you are going to do, doesn't have an affect on you.
If God is omnipotent, how can he not go beyond paradoxes. This could go on for ever >_>
@bafflebento
if thats your best reason for being a theist, then you wont to go heaven. you need to truely believe in jesus and how he sac'd him self for our sins. once you do that you can go and murder/ra*pe and pillage people here on earth and still get into heaven.
Steamsteam 1 month ago
A dangerous assumption for a scientist to make, that the alternative is just 'shit made up'. Simply because something sounds impossible, it not necessarily /is/ impossible. Ah well, I was hoping to challenge you into actually doing some research, but it seems you're uninterested :) Never mind then.
BaffleBento 2 months ago
Comment removed
flinagin 1 month ago
@BaffleBento If it has no evidence, we can conclude that it is in fact "shit made up"
SnippyDoughnut 1 month ago
@SnippyDoughnut They also had evidence that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat and looked how that turned out lol science isn't always right, and neither is religion lol
KHfanz 1 month ago
@KHfanz They never had evidence that the earth was flat... In fact, most maps of Earth at the time suggested that it was round... Plus, science wasn't even being done at that point in time.
SnippyDoughnut 1 month ago
@SnippyDoughnut Huh, thought science was being done by then, oh well i suppose i'm mistaken lol.
KHfanz 1 month ago
@KHfanz It's cool. :3
SnippyDoughnut 1 month ago
Then why do atheists spend so much time denying GOD?
Man has an instilled need to worship GOD.
He is born with the knowledge that there is a higher being than himself.
Example=Any people anywhere even without any outside influence of biblical teachings ---worship ---something.Be it the sun, moon , animal spirits ,good medicene bad medicene idols , they have a built in trait to worship.
No animal has this trait.
ONLY MAN!
It's just some men are no smarter than the animals..
ekajeht 3 months ago
@ekajeht Why do atheists spend so much time arguing against god? SELF DEFENSE.
If theists could mind their own fucking business and quit making nuisances of themselves, do you know how much atheists would talk about god? Probably not at all. Think about it, kiddo.
And if you're obeying your "built in trait to worship", then YOU'RE no better than the animals because you're running on automatic instead of THINKING.
BionicDance 3 months ago
@BionicDance Animals don't worship.
Why does man have the trait to worship?
Out of all life on earth ---only the most advanced =man ,worships.
Atheists lower themselves to the animal understanding of not being able to comprehend the truth.
ekajeht 3 months ago
@ekajeht "The truth"...? PROVE IT.
And how do you know animals don't worship? When I feed my kitten, she looks at me like a god. Prove animals don't worship.
And how is it that worship makes someone MORE advanced? Seems to me it's the WEAKLINGS who worship, instead of having self-confidence and a sense of self-worth.
BionicDance 3 months ago
@BionicDance says="how do you know animals don't worship?....self confidence and self worth...."
------------
Your think your cat thinks you are a god?
That explains your self confidence and self worth statement.
Because your self confidence amouts to your own foolishness.
And your self worth is your deep love for yourself above everything and everyone!
ekajeht 3 months ago
@BionicDance If you haven't done your research, even in science one is expected to keep their mouths shut, yes? I thought the truth is what mattered in science. If you /really/ want to know, you'll research. If not, well that just makes you a bigot.
BaffleBento 2 months ago
@BaffleBento What's your point?
I don't see how what you're saying relates to my comment.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Well, it seems to me that both the christians you describe as a nuisance and you have the wrong idea about what faith should be; I'm christian, but I hate religion. How does that work, right? :) It does, but you have to believe God is both real and interested in personal relationship. What I meant with my previous comment is, do a bit more research. You'll find there's no scientific basis for the big bang either :) That makes it a faith.
BaffleBento 2 months ago
@BaffleBento There is PLENTY of scientific basis for the Big Bang, kiddo.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Circumstantial, though. The origin is still unknown, by which I mean, the origin of the crap that actually were to have exploded. Where that came from, science has no answer for - so, persisting it's the only answer is a faith :) -- also, i don't mean to be a nuisance or anything, let's be very clear on that ^_^
BaffleBento 2 months ago
@BaffleBento The Big Bang theory doesn't DISCUSS the origin, kiddo; it doesn't discuss BEFORE at all. You need to do more research.
Regardless, there is ZERO evidence for the existence of a god, unlike the Big Bang; what YOU'RE doing is engaging in make-believe and then acting like it's real. Science is actually trying to FIND the answers, not just make shit up.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Ah, now you're just trying to get me riled up :) But, hey, I'll suppose along with you. Suppose I am wrong, all I've lost is my being right about something. Suppose if you're wrong, though .. you've lost a lot more than just being right, then.
BaffleBento 1 month ago
/watch?v=02ZD5XaHZWQ
:)
theUKatheist 4 months ago
Great vid, I can't believe how many people I've butted heads with over this.
Typically the same people that don't accept T.J's own explanation as to what the "Establishment Clause" in the 1st Amendment means as far as Church-State separation.
OnTheFritz602 7 months ago
Well spoken video! My atheist friends will have a good laught at "Religious fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel. (Brace yourself)
Sweence 8 months ago
@BionicDance "No, I did not make a mistake; you did. Your definitions are incorrect."
I didn't offer a definition; I offered an etymology, and I pointed out that 'etymology is not definition.' You can easily verify this etymology from any number of online dictionaries.
Of course, your definition of "atheism" is "correct" in that you *can* define atheism in a purely negative sense. At the same time, it's not the original meaning of the term.
ProtoSteward 8 months ago
Your argument is valid. This is very much the same as the "dragon in my garage" analogy put forward by Carl Sagan in his book "Demon-Haunted World" in 1995. Google it - a great read by a great mind.
grahambkk 8 months ago
@grahambkk Actually, I think I might own it; I picked up a bunch of Carl Sagan books at a library sale a while back...haven't gotten 'round to reading them all yet, but they're there for me when I want 'em. I'll have to check to see if that's one of 'em.
BionicDance 8 months ago
First you speak of the burden of proof which does in fact lie with the theists, then you attempt to use wordplay. The word itself is irrelevant to someones belief or lack-of. Furthermore you also speak of infants not knowing about religion, well, you have contradicted the bible itself, when John the Baptist was in the womb, he jumped with joy as Mary the mother of god entered. He recognized the son of god and therefore was aware of religion. Proven wrong by your own bible, lol.
BryanIVIcGrath 8 months ago
@BryanIVIcGrath Prove the bible is true. Otherwise your objections are bullshit.
BionicDance 8 months ago
@BionicDance lol, im an atheist, I misunderstood basically the whole video lmao, my bad, read what I wrote from an atheists pov, you'll understand, sorry =[.
BryanIVIcGrath 8 months ago
The actual etymology of "atheism" is NOT a + theism --> lack of belief in gods.
The correct etymology is atheos + -ism --> a world-view that is apart from God or the gods.
Look it up.
ProtoSteward 8 months ago
@ProtoSteward "Atheos" IS "a + theos", kiddo; look it up.
BionicDance 8 months ago
@BionicDance " 'Atheos' IS 'a + theos', kiddo; look it up."
Exactly true. And it means "without gods."
The etymology your video proposes is a + [theos + ism] or "without belief in gods."
The correct historical etymology is [a + theos] + ism or "belief system without gods."
Etymology is not definition, but please don't use a false etymology to defend your preferred definition. You made an honest mistake. I recommmend that you admit it and move on.
ProtoSteward 8 months ago
@ProtoSteward No, I did not make a mistake; you did. Your definitions are incorrect.
BionicDance 8 months ago
@BionicDance "No, I did not make a mistake; you did. Your definitions are incorrect."
I'm not arguing about the *definition* of "atheism": that's another conversation. I'm making a point about the *etymology* of the word, and the etymology isn't really a matter of controversy.
ProtoSteward 8 months ago
@BionicDance "No, I did not make a mistake; you did. Your definitions are incorrect."
I didn't offer a definition; I offered an etymology, and I pointed out that 'etymology is not definition.' You can easily verify this etymology from any number of online dictionaries.
Of course, your definition of "atheism" is "correct" in that you *can* define atheism in a purely negative sense. At the same time, it's not the original meaning of the term.
ProtoSteward 8 months ago
@BionicDance No i believe you did make a mistake in your defintion. Aside form the fact your interpretation of Atheism conflicts with Greek meaning of the word, dictionary defintions etc., it also leads to invalid conclusions. That's to say Atheism is a category which Agnosticism and verificationism fall under. This is totally false.
My second objection is when you say claims need to be proven in a way which can be demonstrated to others objectively. This would mean anyone who believes...
IfUrGivingIn 3 months ago
@IfUrGivingIn Try to understand...I am NOT an (athe)ist, I am an a(theist); yes, the former is the Greek definition of the word, but to insist upon that definition is to commit both the Appeal to Tradition fallacy AND the Genetic Fallacy.
The fact is that when most self-described atheists say this is what they are, what they mean is that they're not theists, period, full-stop. And if you cannot accept THIS definition in this context, then we cannot have this discussion. It's that simple.
BionicDance 3 months ago
@BionicDance ... in emotions are holding false beliefs because emotions can't be demonstrated to others objectively. Sure you can demonstrate actions which are believed to represent emotions, yet emotions themselves cannot be demonstrated and thus would be irrational to believe.
IfUrGivingIn 3 months ago
@IfUrGivingIn Actually, emotions CAN be demonstrated objectively, empirically. Sure, we need things like pulse monitors and MRI scanners to do it, but we CAN do it.
So your argument holds no water. Try again.
BionicDance 3 months ago
@BionicDance To insist on the correct definition of a word does not commit any fallacy. If "self-defined atheists" decide to use the wrong terminology then no debate can follow.
Emotions can't be demonstrated LOL what does sadness look like? You can monitor the neurological activity believed to elicit this feeling but in fact you're only monitoring neuro-activity, not an abstract concept.
IfUrGivingIn 3 months ago
@IfUrGivingIn It's NOT "the correct definition", however. It's the original etymology, yes, but the problem is that to express that one is an a(theist) and not an (athe)ist, one has no choice but to use the same word; there is no OTHER word that expresses precisely this point. The truth is that the word YOU'RE using SHOULD be expressed as "atheosist", not "atheist".
Regardless, if you cannot accept this more modern, more common definition, then as I say, we cannot have this conversation.
BionicDance 3 months ago
@BionicDance Err i believe "non-theist" would be a better term than athiest. To say "there is no OTHER word that expresses precisely this point" is a blatant lie.
"more modern, more common definition, then as I say, we cannot have this conversation."
The only people who consider this to be true would be other "self-define atheists" making the same mistake as you. Linguists and philosophers don't share the same view.
IfUrGivingIn 3 months ago
@IfUrGivingIn Get over it.
If you wanna be part of this discussion, you're going to have to modify your expectations here, kiddo. So choose: do you wanna be pedantic or do you want to discuss the relevant issues?
BionicDance 3 months ago
@BionicDance Interesting post coming from someone who created a video addressing semantics yet is now telling me to "get over it."
Semantics are an essential part of a philosophical debate. You "self-proclaimed atheists" are hi-jacking words to avoid a meaningful philosophical debate...
IfUrGivingIn 3 months ago
@IfUrGivingIn No, we're NOT, you idiot. We're taking over a word IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT OUR POSITION. *rolls eyes*
Once again, either you can accept that most atheists use the term to indicate that they are not theists...or you can go away and be ignored. In fact, I'm making this your last chance. Either sigh and accept it so we can have a conversation without talking past each other, or I simply fail to acknowledge your existence from here on out. Choose.
BionicDance 3 months ago
@BionicDance "No, we're NOT, you idiot. We're taking over a word IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT OUR POSITION."
You're using a word with a pre-existing defintion to desribe your position (despite the exdistence of another word which can fit that position better; "non-theist").
Obviously you cannot accept you're wrong and are resulting to insults and providing me with an ultimatum. Typical from someone holding an incorrect defintion despite what linguists and philosophers say.
IfUrGivingIn 3 months ago
@IfUrGivingIn Good-bye, then. *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 3 months ago
@BionicDance Oh and speaking of talking past each other, you still haven't addressed the contradiction I pointed out in your video.
IfUrGivingIn 3 months ago
@BionicDance Oh and here's another example pointing out your contradiction that "claims need to be proven in a way which can be demonstrated to others objectively."
Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.
IfUrGivingIn 3 months ago
i got a big dick watching this
DancingMedicineMan 9 months ago
Yeah when I get into a argument with a theist over the existence of a god(s), deity, or spiritual entity. I always first disprove the existence, tear apart whatever religion they may be from, remind themselves that a 5 year old is more intelligent to not believe in fairy tales, then say "Oh by the way it is theists that hold the burden of bringing forth the evidence of a god(s), deity, spiritual entity".
Euphoricvoid 11 months ago
Comment removed
Euphoricvoid 11 months ago
funny... science says babies forget most their memories, once they reach a certain age. so how do you know people aren't "BORN BELIEVING"? and how do you know animals aren't born believing? are you psychic? i'm sorry, i didn't you could gaze into minds, and unlock their deepest, ealiest, and secretest memories. you must be able to, since there's no other way you could possibly know we aren't born believing. if you're not, then you're a lier, and are just voicing your own opinion. big surprise...
iTrustMyInstincts 11 months ago
@iTrustMyInstincts - Your comment only seems to beg more questions. Why would God have people born with belief in him and then make them forget at a certain stage of development? Especially since the God or gods people believe in tend to be based on geographic location.
If Allah is true and your born in the United States your likely to be raised Christian and thus damned by the system your arguing.
And, if Christians are right then people born in the Arab world will be damned because of it.
lobothesacred3 10 months ago
very accurate. however there is one thing you were mistaken on. people can, in fact, believe in a higher power, without being told of such. that's how a religion is started. one person believes in something new, an unexplored possibility, and it eventually spreads to others. isn't that what theism and creationism are all about? but kudos for the rest. nice job. :)
JustCallMeSTU 11 months ago
@JustCallMeSTU But those thoughts don't come from a vacuum, they're not automatic, nor is belief.
First they have to come up with the concept, then they have to decide it's accurate. People are not BORN believers.
BionicDance 11 months ago
@BionicDance born believers... well, i have heard of people believing in something they knew nothing about since their earliest memories. so i guess your statement can apply to most, but not all people. the overall truth in this life is people will believe what they want, despite what others say. so the best thing to do is let them be, if there's nothing you can do about it. (for christians and atheists debating beliefs, if you're reading this, this applies to you too!) amen.
JustCallMeSTU 11 months ago
Religion can't prove god; atheist can't prove god = there is no god. (at least not the ones in the books of religions) The sad truth is everyone is an atheist. We come into this reality as one, and even if your so-called religious your still an atheist to other gods. So therefore you leave this consciousness an atheist. Even god is an atheist. Gods can't believe in other gods.
realigiousrayne 1 year ago
Science is the process of proving through the process of disproving. If your going to use science as a theist then you automatically lose. There is science to to disprove that this earth has only existed for 6k years. There is no evidence to disprove evolution. If you do you use science as a theist to disprove, your forgetting a very important aspect of religion. FAITH! From my experiences there are usually more atheist who are more knowledgeable in the topic of theism than theist themselves.
beatlesto21st 1 year ago
@beatlesto21st the only difference between having faith and playing Make-Believe is that when you make-believe you know you're doing it.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance Lol that's one way of look at it.
beatlesto21st 1 year ago
Comment removed
JustCallMeSTU 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BionicDance very accurate. however there is one thing you were mistaken on. people can, in fact, believe in a higher power, without being told of such. that's how a religion is started. one person believes in something new, an unexplored possiblity, and it eventually spreads to others. isn't that what theism and creationism are all about? but kudos for the rest. nice job. :)
JustCallMeSTU 11 months ago
Something I've been wondering for a while (asking anyone) is whether there really is much of a difference between 'a lack of belief in god' (atheism) and 'belief that there is no god'. The latter believes explicitly that there is no god, while the former does not. But does the former (the atheist) still believe implicitly that there is no god? My mind is going to believe (behave as though) there either is a god or there isn't. So isn't a lack of belief just implicit disbelief?
Dianeva89 1 year ago
@Dianeva89 They're all atheists. If you're a non-believer for ANY reason, you're not a theist and thus an atheist.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance I know, but that has nothing to do with what I asked.
Dianeva89 1 year ago
@Dianeva89 It's the part I care about, tho.
Still, to answer your question, I think disbelief and non-belief ARE different, if only in that disbelief takes an act of will while non-belief could just be due to ignorance and requires no effort at all on the part of the thinking subject.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance I love that comment. I asked a theist if there is a difference between these two comments. "I don't believe in the big bang theory" or "I believe the big bang theory didn't happen." They said "No either you think it happened or you don't." But as a person who invest into a belief system such as Christianity or what have you its hard to grasp that concept because they are told that if you don't you go to hell. So its black and white, they can't identify with it.
beatlesto21st 1 year ago
Have you guys ever heard of getting bugs bunnied? Send me a personal message and ill explain to you my little experiment when I was debating a large number theist. How It proves that they will say whatever to win the argument. A little taster 1. theist said yes everything in the bible actually happened in rebuttal. While another said. No the bible is not to be taken literally in a rebuttal to the adverse logic. not saying that i haven't met sound minded theist though.
beatlesto21st 1 year ago
@BionicDance its like how christains are atheists to other gods as in they dont follow that form of theism
johnathanyoung100 1 year ago
I'm confused about this video? What side were you trying to defend, if you were defending a side?
catluva36 1 year ago
@catluva36 Neither. I'm saying which side has the burden of proof.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance Allright, so which side was it? (I'm like, sleep deprived and I feel kinda stupid right now)
catluva36 1 year ago
@catluva36 Those who claim god exists must prove it.
BionicDance 1 year ago
I wouldn't say that atheism is the default position because atheism is non-belief in God. A baby doesn't think "I don't believe in God". A baby simply doesn't believe one way or the other. This is just an observation. Personally, I have reason to believe in God. So I do. That is all.
KrfNYC2 1 year ago
@KrfNYC2 You don't HAVE to DELIBERATELY think "I don't believe in a god" to NOT BELIEVE. All you have to do is NOT HAVE BELIEF. A baby is an atheist because a baby doesn't believe, and not believing IS non-belief.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance I am going off of what I understand to be an atheist. I could be wrong. Anyway, my understanding is that an athesit is somebody who says "I believe that God does not exist". A baby does not say this becuase a baby has no opinion (belief) on the matter. But this is not important to me. I am more interested in why atheists hold this belief. I can understand why one might not believe in God, but personally I cannot ,for the life of me, bring myself to do so. How could I?
KrfNYC2 1 year ago
@KrfNYC2 You ARE wrong. An atheist is anybody who is NOT A THEIST.
It doesn't matter how or why you don't believe in a god, whether you've just never heard of one or whether you've explicitly said you don't believe; if you're not a believer, you're not a theist. And if you're not a theist, you're an atheist. Period.
"Atheist" means "not a theist".
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance You could very well be right. If "atheist" is synonomous with "non-thesit" than I suppose most babies would be atheist's. Either way, this does not concern me. By the way this video is very well constructed. I imagine that you are an atheist ,and as I'm sure you've gathered, I am not. That being said, peace and love to you, your friend and brother.
KrfNYC2 1 year ago
@BionicDance
Your definition is a bit off sir. Deists are not theists and they are not atheists. The same can be said for agnostics.
Atheists lack belief in any and all gods.
It's pretty simple.
RhetoricalBalderdash 1 year ago
@RhetoricalBalderdash First of all, it's "ma'am", not "sir".
And that IS my definition of atheists: those who lack belief in god or gods.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance
Okay, ma'am. You said "And if you're not a theist, you're an atheist. Period."
This statement is false. Deists and agnostics are not theists. And they are not atheists.
RhetoricalBalderdash 1 year ago
@RhetoricalBalderdash- Actually, deists are theists in that they believe there is a god but that god "fled the scene" or is not involved with human affairs. Agnostics are fence-sitters. Some say there is a god but aren't sure what it is and some say there probably is a god but I don't care.
Point is either you believe there is a god or you don't. If you don't you're an atheist. Everyone else is a theist.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind
Saying that you are either an atheist or a theist is simply false. You are either intentionally misrepresenting the worldview of deism, or do not know the definitions and are speaking as if you do. I'm guessing it's the first, since you alluded to deists believing in a non-interventionist creator, but either way it does not reflect well on you.
Deists are not theists. Theism refers to belief in at least one present, active deity, who relates on a personal level.
RhetoricalBalderdash 1 year ago
@BionicDance bionicdance is right, atheist from the greek atheos - without gods. those without a god.an atheist as the video states is somebody who has no belief in a god, normally due to lack of evidence to support the belief, known as agnostic atheists, there are also nostic atheists who see the unsupported belief are false beliefs however sincerely held.the lack of evidence to them is enough to render the belief void. one thing all atheists agree theists are yet to reach their burden of proof
abrf1983 1 year ago
This is so awesome! I'm going to watch it again!
TheIrieviolet 1 year ago
Excellent video and great points!
Vegas01973 1 year ago
@natdogrocker ..scientific investigation.
"I, and anyone else, has every right to "BELIEVE" what they feel about "Why we're here."
I am not saying nobody should NOT have the right to believe what they want, but I would challenge the validity of that/those beliefs.
cueball0791 1 year ago
@natdogrocker "I can prove the existence of a infinite entity that created the universe"
To define the existence of an infinite entity that created the universe would be to assert that the mechanisms of logic and reason can transcend and then project phenomena which we have not been exposed to. By transgressing the cognitive threshold (as perceived in strictly rationalistic terms) we cannot but be reduced to a mental state where our model of the universe can only be explained by..
cueball0791 1 year ago
* First law of thermodynamics: The internal energy of an isolated system is constant.
The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), BUT CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED (wikipedia)
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
Go ask a scientist. That's the purpose of science. In fact I don't think you know much about science. The purpose of science is to make observations about the natural, physical world and test hypothesis' using scientific method. Science doesn't dabble in metaphysics because metaphysical things can't be tested empirically. You're right, this is a pointless conversation. You're logic is stuck inside a box, and it's not even a well made box. It's a piece of shit cardboard box that I poke holes in.
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 Don't wrench your arm out of the socket patting yourself on the back, there, pal.
This is a pointless conversation because you CLEARLY have no idea what you're talking about, and no amount of persuasion or evidence is EVER going to sway you. THAT much is made clear by what you seem think are valid arguments, yet are nothing of the kind.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance You haven't offered any evidence for your argument. All you have said is that my arguments aren't valid and that I'm not right. My argument is grounded in science and logic. You're a defender of science but you don't even know what it is or does. I won't say any more if you keep my comments on here for people to contemplate.
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 Your argument is NOT grounded in science OR logic.
It's grounded in MADE-UP science and logic.
You haven't the least clue in the world what you're talking about, you haven't a clue how skeptical inquiry or the scientific method work, and you spout bullshit as if it were worthy of consideration.
Go away until you've learned how to think.
BionicDance 1 year ago
Again, you're just saying little quips and making jabs without really looking at the logic here. How would science ever explain why we are here? Science counts and measures things, and says that things come from other things, according to the laws of thermodynamics. So if the things that were there in the very BEGINNING, which implies they are FINITE, were in fact FINITE, then they manifested there somehow metaphysically. Science doesn't dabble in metaphysics. It can only measure physically.
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 You have no FUCKING CLUE what science does, if THAT'S all you think it's capable of, pal.
You have more to learn than I could EVER put into 500 characters or less; go open a fucking textbook and quit littering up my comments with your ignorant CRAP.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 This whole paradigm points to the fact that science proves up to a certain point. After that, any and all claims are debatable because there is no proof either. Hence the term "BELIEF." You believe something doesn't make it true. It is evident that either the universe is infinite or something created it. If scenario 1, then there's the answer. If scenario 2, then the leap of faith is made after the big bang. After this point, no opinion has proof therefore all opinions are valid.
natdogrocker 1 year ago
@natdogrocker " After this point, no opinion has proof therefore all opinions are valid"
Anyone would be a fool to try disprove the non-existence of anything in strict terms. But if one wishes to invoke a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe, they must support that claim evidence. 125,000+ years of human history has failed to do that.
cueball0791 1 year ago
@cueball0791 "You believe something doesn't make it true." I can prove the existence of a infinite entity that created the universe (not the practical idea of "god"). That much has logic and reasoning to back it up. As for the question "Why are we here?" this is the "no opinion has proof therefore all opinions are valid." No one can provide me with proof as to the purpose in life, so I, and anyone else, has every right to "BELIEVE" what they feel about "Why we're here."
natdogrocker 1 year ago
And who are you to tell people what is justified to believe? If someone needs a reason beyond having sex and making babies to keep moving forward I would say that they are completely justified in believing.
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 I'm not what makes something justifiable to believe. HAVING FACTS is what makes it justifiable to believe in something.
If you believe without facts--or worse, in the face of contradictory facts--you're Doing It Wrong™.
You seem to be in some fluffy-bunny world that bears no resemblance to reality, pal.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance "Doing It Wrong™" ROFL i love it. From RWJ right?
natdogrocker 1 year ago
@natdogrocker I...don't know what RWJ is. As far as I know, I made that up, the Doing It Wrong™ thing.
BionicDance 1 year ago
Then why are you responding to my comments? No reason to get snappy. How we got here will always be up to science. But why we are here is more interesting and significant to many people. That is why people believe in god. Science will not and cannot explain why. And there is no intelligence in this world? That is quite a statement. If there is no intelligence then why don't we know everything already?
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 There may be events which led to our being here; that doesn't mean we're here for a reason or a purpose. To postulate one without evidence is to lie to oneself...and those who listen to you.
And to say that science will and can not explain it is BULLSHIT. Science is the ONLY thing that could POSSIBLY explain it.
BionicDance 1 year ago
It goes against the grain of science to say that energy can create itself. Science can contradict itself, too. Spontaneous generation was proven to be wrong and replaced with biogenisis after Pastuers experiments. But Biogenisis alongside the Theory of Evolution is a paradox. If life can only arise from other life, then were did our first ancestor arise from? I'm not trying to falsify Evolution, but my point is that science is far from completeness.
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 That doesn't mean that claiming "god dunnit!" is valid. Not without a SHIT-TON of evidence to prove it.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance God to me doesn't just mean some guy watching over. If it is real it is much more than that. There is an intelligence in this universe that simply cannot be denied. Science will always explain the details. Sure, chemical reactions can do many things that most likely lead us here. But there's a question that many people have about why. That will never be answered by science. There may not be a reason. But don't you think saying there is no reason is as lazy as saying god dunnit?
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 No, there is NOT an intelligence that cannot be denied. It cannot even be PROVED.
You're full of shit, playing Pretend like a child and acting like it's real.
Until and unless you can prove even one OUNCE of this crap about there being an intelligence to the universe--prove it with empirical and objective FACTS--you're not saying ANYTHING worth hearing.
BionicDance 1 year ago
The question shouldn't be is there a god or isn't there. We should be asking whether or not there is such a thing as infinite. If so, we will never understand the nature of how things came to be because they were always there. If the compounds that lead to the big bang or whatever led us here were finite, then they must have been placed there or created somehow. If they were finite, then scientists will one day will be able to say that there are metaphysical properties that manifest physically
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 Except that people don't use "the infinite" to be really CRAPPY to each other.
They use "god".
BionicDance 1 year ago
It should be blatantly obvious to any critical thinker that science does not and can not prove or disprove the existence of a god. Science can only explain things that are physical. Whether or not god exists is up to believers or non-believers, and has no relevance for argument when speaking scientifically. The question really boils down to how did any things come into existence at all. No one is capable of understanding infinite. Science is a dim glow of hope, but still remains chiefly physical
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 No, I completely disagree.
If a deity has EVER interacted with this universe AT ALL, it left empirical traces, and is thus a matter for science. And any deity which has NOT done so is irrelevant.
BionicDance 1 year ago
If you look into the nature of subatomic particles there is still room to believe that there is an underlying intelligence. They are completely random. I am not saying I believe in god but there still is room for that belief. There are so many things that still make no sense in this world. One day, if we revise the laws of thermodynamics, we may be able to empirically state there is no god but that day is not today.
DaveLeech1989 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 I don't care if there'z room for it.
Until and unless you can SHOW that this is the case, believing in it is NOT JUSTIFIED.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@DaveLeech1989 Whilst science cannot prove or disprove categorically the existence of god it does have implications for belief in such a being, Traditional theistic arguments have focused on arguments like design implying a designer. If science can demonstrate the lack of need for such a designer then that argument is no longer useful. This of course does not mean there is no god but it takes away a common reason for believing.
gextvedde 1 year ago
Respond to this video... Atheism is, "like it or not" a negative parrasite.
MrPATSPAWN 1 year ago
@MrPATSPAWN That makes no sense at all. Explain?
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance you need a host to survive ex. against theism thats what atheism is.beside this astonishing discovery.no religion no atheism. imagine no religion and out of the blue,first person: there is no god!second person:what is a god?first person:i don't know, but i don't beleive in god!second person:what the fuck are you talking about? first person: i'll debate with you! second person:your annoying the shit out of me!go fuck yourself. the end! open your mind you make no sense.
MrPATSPAWN 1 year ago
@MrPATSPAWN What the FUCK are you talking about? *raised eyebrow*
This message makes exactly ZERO sense.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance what are you a robot who got switch on yesterday
MrPATSPAWN 1 year ago
@MrPATSPAWN Have you ever considered capitalizing and punctuating your replies PROPERLY so that people can actually understand them?
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance why care about my ponctuation!
MrPATSPAWN 1 year ago
@MrPATSPAWN Because I can't read what you write; it's a confused jumble that makes no sense at all.
BionicDance 1 year ago
God is real. Want proof? Go attend a mission trip with Real Christians. There are so many hypocritical Christians out there that just try to Teach but not practice. You curious? Msg me bro!
nigsplzz 1 year ago
@nigsplzz "Sis".
And if you want me to believe in god, you're going to have to produce some empirical, objective, physical evidence. Otherwise you're wasting both of our times.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance i couldn't care less if you don't beleive in anything.but going public and making propaganda video.read my words clearly.there was a time of respecting others and our selves. i don't know your reasons for this.but you have been either hurt or judged by a person not god.
MrPATSPAWN 1 year ago
@MrPATSPAWN Prove that god is real or you're just talking out of your ass.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance the only way to prove god's existence.the final judgement.
MrPATSPAWN 1 year ago
@MrPATSPAWN Well, either that, or god could actually SHOW HIMSELF. That might help.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance i'll tell you why,i beleive in god.i beleive in love for mankind.that a choice is given to you,and only you.and that your decision affects more than just you.
MrPATSPAWN 1 year ago
@BionicDance first of all, god is not a him, human or anything remotly understandable.
MrPATSPAWN 1 year ago
@BionicDance and it's not when arguing a theist.it's when harrasing a theist.god, theists are supposed to be smart.
MrPATSPAWN 1 year ago
@MrPATSPAWN Everywhere you look we are bombarded by religious propaganda.
It is time for atheists to defend themselves against constant attacks by religion.
Oddly god is never involved as people do all of god's bidding. Why does an all
powerful god need humans to do all of god's work? It seems that god is simply a
belief as god never does anything. If religion wants respect from nonbelievers, they
should give a little repect instead of constant denigration.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
What sucks about watching these great videos and then watching theist's still post their contrary ideas despite the sound arguments, is that at some point, you almost have to resort to ad hominem attacks by saying that these people just do not understand how to use logic when it comes to this topic. Faith is plugging your ears with your fingers and repeating the same old defeated arguments.
bombersimon 1 year ago
@bombersimon
What is amazing in watching these videos is that delussional individuals think that the analogy which tooltime, aka Peter gave of not being able to prove his name as being Peter, is a sound analogy pertinent.
It is not only unsound and illogical, but laughable.
His name can be conclusively proven to be Peter by school records, birth certificate and various other legal documentation.
Foolish faith is believing that the universe and life came about naturally, by self-perpetration.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
You have no objective proof that humans believed in anything other than Supernatural causality/spiritualism, as is proved by earliest recorded history until the present.
This conjecture and word play of yours exposes your foolish faith and attempt to deflect the burden of proof to theist, who never lay claim to empirical knowledge, through implementation of scientific methodology.
The burden of proof lies solely on the anomalous few to demonstrate a natural mechanism to have been responsible.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1 If that is your stance, then by your logic, you personally need to DISPROVE all the other gods that have ever been invented. You must have already done that to believe in only the one god that you do, correct? Argumentum ad populum, look it up. I've seen you post on other vids before, you do not know how to construct logical arguments. Everyone else, you can safely ignore this youtube user.
bombersimon 1 year ago
@bombersimon
"If that is your stance, then by your logic, you personally need to DISPROVE all the other gods that have ever been invented"
Says who, you?
You need to PROVE by your subjective assessment of my "logic", that your "logic" in assertion proves that I need to "DISPROVE" all other gods that have ever been invented.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@bombersimon
"Argumentum ad populum, look it up"
You need to learn what "ad populum" actually means.'Lol!
It is only a fallacy when it is used to appeal to the popularity of something as the SOLE premise of ones argument, as being necessarily true.
Since I NEVER claimed that the est 97.7% the world population are not atheists therefore God/s and spirituality are true, yours is a FALLACY of a logical FALLACY.
You need to look up what fallacious accusation means.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@bombersimon
"I've seen you post on other vids before, you do not know how to construct logical arguments"
I have seen you post to THIS vid and you have demonstrated your ignorance, erroneous assertions, fallacious accusation, and flawed logic. NEXT!
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@bombersimon
"Everyone else, you can safely ignore this youtube user"
If you had followed your own advice and ignored me, then you would have remained safe in your ignoramus mindset.
Since you didn't follow your own advice, you made yourself vulnerable and stand corrected, but will most probably advance to intentional ignoramus status and qualify for full certification, as buffoonish fool.
Only time will tell.
Hope this helps!
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
Your voice is fucking annoying. That being said, good video!
VitalSigns1 1 year ago
@VitalSigns1 Most people LIKE my voice. *pshrug*
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance I can't tell listening to your voice whether you're a guy or a girl or how old you are. You sound like some freaky cartoon character.
VitalSigns1 1 year ago
@VitalSigns1 Oh, I am DEFINITELY a guy or a girl; I'm sure of it! And why would you need to know how old I am?
Besides, I AM a freaky cartoon character! :D
BionicDance 1 year ago
YA'LL NEED SOME CHURCHIN' UP.
mkifyousayso 1 year ago
@mkifyousayso Ppbpbbhtbtpthpbpthbth! :P
BionicDance 1 year ago
If only theists would actually follow the rules of logic and reason...
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ ...there'd be none of 'em left! :)
BionicDance 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ How can the rules of logic and reason be universal if not for a creator?
1+1 will always be two.
iLuckyyy 1 year ago
@iLuckyyy We created numbers, dumbass. 1+1=2, because those are the values that WE assign to them. Where in the bible does it say that god invented numerals and assigned their values?
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ Don't confuse theism with the bible plz.
1+1 is mathematical logic which is universally true. It doesn't matter if we assigned different symbols; the concept is true nonetheless.
Why do we have absolute truths?
iLuckyyy 1 year ago
@iLuckyyy Whatever holy book you use, then.
We have absolute truths not because we DECIDED what they were, but because we REALIZED what they were, and there are really only three.
1. That which is, is.
2. That which is not, is not.
3. That which is cannot be that which is not, and vice versa.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ Theism isn't about a holy book, it's about believing that there was a creator of the universe. You say science says it's the big bang, I say what came before the big bang then you can ask me what came before God and so forth..
Realising that there are absolute truths means there are rules to how the universe functions which implies a creator.
iLuckyyy 1 year ago
@iLuckyyy How do observed constants in any way imply any sort of creator? If you're going to say that these laws are how god manifests in the Universe, why is god necessary? Why not just take the laws as you see them?
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ Taking the laws as I see them would only answer how the universe works as though there is no purpose. Just as anything humans have ever created: it was for a purpose. Every living thing as so far come from another living thing.. all this implies there is a God. Many things imply there is a creator, what implies that there is none?
iLuckyyy 1 year ago
@iLuckyyy Humans only ever create anything for their own benefit, but according to every theistic religion, god is omnipotent; he can do anything, and so the question arises, why would he NEED to do anything? On top of that he's also supposedly omniscient, which means he knows everything, including everything that would or could ever happen; there would be no in MAKING a Universe when one would already know everything that would happen.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ That's a very selfish view of humans. What about babies?
He might not need to do anything but want to, choose to or simply do. Just because we know what will happen when we do anything in life doesn't stop us from doing so. I know that when I eat an apple I will be left with the core then throw it away..
He could know everything that could happen but we still have free will and choose our actions so what actually does happen could differ.
iLuckyyy 1 year ago
@iLuckyyy If god created the universe knowing everything that could and would happen, then free will would. Not. MATTER! No matter what we do, god would already know that we were going to do it; that's not free will. On top of that, he punishes us for eternity, for actions taken during a finite period, that he KNEW we would take and could have stopped.
That is NOT free will!
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ God knowing what we are going to do doesn't take away free will but guides it. I know that if I stab myself I will get hurt; that doesn't take away the option but guides me to follow a different path -> not stabbing myself.
Where did you get punishing us for eternity from? That's irrelevant to the existence of God. Omniscient seems like a paradox because we cannot comprehend it.
iLuckyyy 1 year ago
@iLuckyyy Omnipotence brings up the scenario of "Can god make a rock so heavy, he couldn't lift it?" If he can't make it, there's something he can't do; he's not omnipotent. Same goes if he could make it but not lift it.
Omniscience and free will are completely contradictory. If he knows everything everyone could possibly do, then there's no way we can do anything he didn't already know we would do; and that's not free will.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ I give you a kid a choice between a chocolate and brussel sprouts; although I know he will choose the chocolate, it's still the kid's choice.
Someone knowing what you are going to do, doesn't have an affect on you.
If God is omnipotent, how can he not go beyond paradoxes. This could go on for ever >_>
iLuckyyy 1 year ago