Proof, evidence, logic, rationality, truth, reason, and reality. Are all words that are used by Atheist. People who believe in talking snakes and supernatural beings in the sky are not rational or base anything in proof, evidence, logic, truth, reason, and reality. I like beginning of this video though.
My god man, a two part video with this one being almost 10 minutes long and there's no audio clip of the question being answered or even attempted? You're killing me.
In other words you have No proof or evidance lmao dude its simple question really....what's your proof and evidance? Wth is all this for? Your insane lmao just answer the question lol
Actually, atheism is the assertion that the statement "There is at least one god" is false. So the phrase "accurate and correct" is not redundant because the agent forwarding the assertion is philosophy obligated to defend that proposition. Example: 1) accurate but incorrect conclusion, "Only I have a mind because there is no empirical evidence that other humans have minds, too." 2) inaccurate but correct conclusion, "Other people have minds and there is empirical evidence for it."
I agree that Shock's question is redundant. You could probably take the word "proof" out as well. I agree that there should be a discussion about the issues of the criteria and standards of belief, and how we don't apply the same standards in all our judgements, but I think this is a separate issue from the mere existence of evidence. Once we have the evidence at hand, THEN we decide if it meets our criteria of belief.
I usually hate your videos, and althugh I personally disagree woth your beliefs I can at least know see you are honest about them, and unlike shockofgod you wiil not resurce to such childish behaviour as repeating a question over and over, I respect that.
@TogetherForPeace Good video yet I disagree in the part that you should remove the word "belive" because there is a diference betwen belive in something and knowing it.Both atheist and theist forget it
I do not send you a private mesagge because I do not have the means to get a conversation by web cam,block tV, skype etc.
I just thought the whole point that Shock of God is making is that atheists demand "proof" and/or "evidence" of God all the time. Since the atheists assert the positive position of no gods (unless they've individualized the term "atheist") it is a valid tactic to turn the question around. After all, many of them were indoctrinated into this POV and whatever makes them examine it is good. Also, it encourages weaker Christians discouraged by mockery.
@RighteousPaladin "atheists assert the positive position of no gods" How is that a positive position?? Is it a positive position to not accept that bigfoot, fairies or loch ness, zeus, vishnu or thor exist? Does everyone who doesn't believe in those beings have to provide evidence for rejecting the claim that they do exist? No! The person making the claim that something or someone exists needs to provide that evidence.
@83Hammerhead No, I don't need to prove that the "something" called tomorrow exists, although I do assert it. Nor do I have to provide evidence for the existence of other minds, even individual minds, since it is a basic belief. Atheists hold the position that there are no gods (unless the terms been redefined to some kind of agnosticism) so that position needs to be defended. Also, your beliefs have more in common with bigfoot, frog princes and chasing the gods of your lusts than mine.
@RighteousPaladin "Atheists hold the position that there are no gods" The majority of atheists wouldn't say they 'know' that no gods exist, they simply reject the claims by believers that any exist as unsupported by evidence. If one claims to know there are no gods, that would be a position you have to defend. It would be like me saying you hold the position that no greek gods exist or that no fairies exist, so your position needs to be defended. [cont]
@RighteousPaladin "your beliefs have more in common with bigfoot, frog princes and chasing the gods of your lusts than mine" 1. How do you know what my beliefs are? I haven't even told you whether I'm an atheist or not...2. Who are the gods of my lusts, and how do you know what my lusts are? 3. What the hell are you talking about?
By the way, think about the etymology of the word 'atheist', that might clear things up.
@83Hammerhead Atheists always say the same stupid things to me.
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god"
If the majority of the world claimed to have seen faeries and I claimed that you hadn't and that because you thought you did you were deluded, then my position would need proof: otherwise a blind fool could demand tactile evidence for light. God resists the proud.
@RighteousPaladin "from a- "without" + theos "a god"" Yes, without god, which doesn't mean that they claim to know there are no gods. There are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists, the majority of atheists are in the agnostic atheist category (they don't claim certainty that no gods exist). Atheism is simply the opposite of theism
"If the majority of the world claimed..." This isn't a popularity contest, the amount of people that believe something has no bearing on its truth.
@RighteousPaladin "Atheists always say the same stupid things to me" You see, this is the problem. You think atheists say stupid things because they don't agree with your definition of atheism. You basically want to tell them what they believe and then attack that position. I agreed with you, if an atheist is 100% certain there are no gods, that's a position that needs to be defended (and I'd say it's just as irrational as someone who claims certainty that there is a god or gods).
@83Hammerhead Just because you've redefined the term to mean something else doesn't mean that you're right. A person could call themselves a Nazi but love Jews. Or perhaps I'm the one redefining "Nazi?"
It isn't about "popularity" it's about perception. Most people perceive that there really is something supernatural, and worship a god or God.
If it's irrational to see that light exists, then call me irrational if it makes you feel better about your blindness.
@RighteousPaladin Ok let me try again. You're a non-believer concerning all but one god that has ever been proposed. I simply go one god further. Now think about whether it would be correct or 'fair' of me to demand proof from you that all the gods (or other supernatural things you don't believe in) do not exist? Also think about why you don't believe in any other gods besides the one you worship...and there you have it, that's why I don't believe in the god you believe in either and [cont]
@83Hammerhead Ugh. The "one god more" garbage. I just disbelieve in "one God less." How do you like that?
I've never stated a postition that those "gods" don't really exist. They don't have the attributes of the entity that Christians call God. If I was arguing with someone who believed in those gods, I would certainly present reasons for stating what I believed, but demanding from them naturalistic evidence for the supernatural is vanilla flavored stupid.
@RighteousPaladin "I've never stated a postition that those "gods" don't really exist" Are you saying that those gods may exist? If you're a christian, you believe in one god, that's it...am I wrong about that? Therefor you'd believe that no other gods exist, no?
"They don't have the attributes of the entity that Christians call God" Of course they don't, or it would be the christian god...besides, your definition of god differs from that of many other christians.
@RighteousPaladin "I would certainly present reasons for stating what I believed" No...provide 'proof' that Ptah, Ranginui or Atum (all different universe creating deities from different cultures) don't exist! That is what you ask of me concerning your god. I can give you reasons, sure, but not proof, and that's what you (and ShockofGod) demanded atheists do in the beginning of our conversation. Proof and evidence, not reasons.
@RighteousPaladin "demanding from them naturalistic evidence for the supernatural is vanilla flavored stupid" I never asked for naturalistic evidence, all I demand is verifiable, testable evidence...everything else is just you saying "I experienced it, therefor it's real".
@83Hammerhead You don't get to "demand" anything of me. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. If you don't want to believe that Jesus Christ is who He claims to be, then don't. I assume you already know the Gospel and rejected it; I owe you nothing.
If you say that he's not and change to subject to other "gods" etc. then I have to say provide for me "verifiable, testable evidence" that your position is true, otherwise, I'm not interested in your game. Open your eyes if you wish to see.
@RighteousPaladin "I'm not trying to prove anything to you" I can see that. Remember, this all started with you saying it's fair that atheists are asked to provide proof for something they don't believe in...all I was trying to get you to see is that there are things you don't believe in, yet it wouldn't be fair to ask you to provide proof for their non-existence.
"Open your eyes if you wish to see" Right back at you.
@RighteousPaladin [cont] that's why I don't have to provide proof of something not existing.
"Most people perceive that there really is something supernatural" As soon as evidence is provided I'll accept that. Or if I perceive it too, but minds are easily fooled (I've studied a bit of neurology, people can imagine some crazy stuff).
Call me blind if it makes you feel better about your imagination.
@RighteousPaladin "Just because you've redefined the term" How did I redefine the term? A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods...and atheist is someone who doesn't, that's all there is too it. You claimed that the term says something about the certainty with which one believes, whether one 'knows' that no gods exist. That is not true, that would be gnosticism or, in this case, a gnostic atheist.
@83Hammerhead "all I was trying to get you to see is that there are things you don't believe in, yet it wouldn't be fair to ask you to provide proof for their non-existence." I don't tell people what they've experienced is a result of delusion. Only a excruciatingly stupid person would do that.
SOG's schtick is pulling the same crap that atheists are. Are you too dull to see that?
Every speculating naturalist I've met claimed to have superior knowledge of biology and/or neurology.
@RighteousPaladin I don't tell people what they've experienced is a result of blindness. Only a excruciatingly stupid person would do that.
"SOG's schtick is pulling the same crap that atheists are" Nope it's not, and the fact that you still don't understand just makes you...too dull to see.
"Every speculating naturalist I've met claimed to have superior knowledge of biology and/or neurology" 1. I didn't claim superiority 2. It's probably true anyways.
@RighteousPaladin "all I was trying to get you to see is that there are things you don't believe in, yet it wouldn't be fair to ask you to provide proof for their non-existence." Now read this sentence again and respond to it instead of acting all insulted because I said your experiences might be the result of delusion...
@83Hammerhead I did respond. That's what atheists do all the time when I say that I don't believe what they believe. They say "provide proof and evidence." It's nonsense. Just because one position says "Yes," and the other "No," doesn't give you the right to a double standard.
SOG merely points this out.
Dragging everyone else's beliefs into this is just a red-herring. Claiming that it was too confusing to choose will not protect you from damnation. Verify Christ by obeying Him.
@RighteousPaladin So your position is that I have to provide proof and evidence for something I don't believe in (basically something I reject because I have not seen sufficient evidence for it)? Let me ask you this then (I'm sure you wont answer though): provide proof and evidence that your non-belief in fairies is accurate and correct! Prove that they dont exist.
"will not protect you from damnation" Ahh good old threats, why did I know that you'd go down to that level at some point? Pathetic.
@83Hammerhead What is your fascination with faeries? What if I said that black holes don't exist because I haven't seen one or been given sufficient proof of that and anyone who ever believed in a black hole had to provide evidence that I would accept? Pull a camel through a needle, I demand it! (Then I can raise the bar).
It's a warning, not a threat. Just as ignorance of physical laws will not protect you from their consequences, ignorance of moral laws will not protect you from Hell.
@RighteousPaladin "What is your fascination with faeries?" Just like I predicted, you didn't answer the question...well, substitute faeries with any deity you don't believe in: provide proof and evidence that your non-belief in Pangu or Vishnu is accurate and correct! Prove that they dont exist.
And YES! You're right about black holes, the people claiming that black holes exist need to provide the evidence, it's not you who needs to disprove what you dont believe in.
@RighteousPaladin [cont] or burn and suffer and be tortured in hell eternally...maybe you're not threatening me directly, but the message you're conveying is, in essence, a threat.
@83Hammerhead The evidence for black holes that you can provide is not the evidence that I'll accept (for the sake of argument) just as you won't verify the claims of Jesus by doing his will. Faeries is a red-herring, fool.
If I say don't run red lights or eventually you'll cause an accident, that's a threat too by your anti-reason. At any rate, like most naturalists, you've been predictably banal, saying nothing with many words.
@RighteousPaladin I see, still avoiding the question (even after I changed the faeries to something else to make your life a bit easier)...alright, looks like you won't answer, I guess because you know that whatever you answer the question with, your 'it's only fair to demand proof from atheists for something they don't believe in' would be exposed as the steaming pile of donkey poo it is...
"verify the claims of Jesus by doing his will" So if I do what jesus commanded I will know that [cont]
@RighteousPaladin [cont] jesus existed and was who he claimed he was? Then you better start doing the will of Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheshwara to verify their claims! You'll emerge from darkness blind fool!
So if the mafia boss told you to do whatever he says, without questioning, follow his rules, but if you don't he'll put you in a cellar and torture you forever, that's not a threat to you? Ok...
@83Hammerhead You still haven't pulled a camel through a needle to prove black holes to me, either. Tell you what, I'll make it easier for you; if you can suck a camel through a straw I'll consider what you say about black holes.
If you really can't see the difference between what Jesus says and your other "gods," then you're truly morally retarded.
If a storm comes and knocks down your house, do you blame the storm or the builder? God doesn't torture, your nature torments you in hell.
@RighteousPaladin "prove black holes to me" No, you see, in your analogy, you'd have to provide proof and evidence that black holes don't exist. If you simply say that not having been convinced by the evidence counts as proof then me saying I haven't been convinced by theists is just as much proof.
"If you really can't see the difference..." Of course there's a difference, but what does that have to do with my point? Moron.
"your nature torments you in hell" Talk about morally retarded...
@83Hammerhead *sigh* It's obviously an parody of atheist "prove it" arguments.
You follow Jesus because your conscience verifies what He says.
You do have the choice to gain a new nature. If you think you're better off with the unprofitable and transitory pleasures of this life instead, then do what you will, stranger.
It's seriously easy to get in touch with God. Humble yourself ask Jesus to forgive your sins and wait for an answer.
@RighteousPaladin Again, no answer to the question. Coward, why don't you stand by the standards that you set for others?
And of course, the next thing you do is start preaching because you've ran out of ammo on the topic this was actually about. Why do believers always do that? Does it make you feel better? What if you were discussing something with a Hindu and suddenly he'd start telling you your soul is lost, you're worshipping the wrong god, you're a sinner, etc. Well I guess you'd be [cont]
@RighteousPaladin [cont] fine with that since it's what you think to be a legitimate way of having a discussion...
"choice to gain a new nature" Oh you're so special! You gained a new nature, I'm really impressed!
"If you think you're better off with the unprofitable and transitory pleasures of this life" You have a sad view of life...but if you think you're better off living a delusion, then do what you will, stranger.
"Your soul is your own responsibility, not mine" Thanks.
@atheistram Sometimes I see a vehicle and comment on its color to my brother. He might niggle with me about the color, but knows full well which car we're both referring to. Spiritual experiences can be verified in the same way. On the other hand, if a stranger who hadn't been present when the vehicle passed by interjects and tells us that what we actually experienced was the wind, then we both know him for a liar and a fool.
If you want to KNOW Him too then ask Jesus for clarity and listen.
@RighteousPaladin Now just add into that analogy that the car is invisible and makes no wind or sound, except for you and your brother who claim to see, hear, and feel the wind off of it -- there are 20 other people standing around you guys when the car passes, and you begin to discuss the color of this car - this car didn't exist in the real world, but you both saw it - is your personal experience enough to convince others that the car is real? Is it not more reasonable to think it's not?
@TheRationalAmerican No, my analogy makes sense without adding to it, but thanks for the try. It's a real car, if there are twenty other people nearby, those people are witnesses too (unless they're somehow impaired or just not paying attention).
@RighteousPaladin Your car is supposed to represent a spiritual experience? it's a personal experience and you are justifying it by talking to your brother who has had a different (different color, same car) personal experience?
The question still remains - can they both be explained by real world explanations (delusion, wishful thinking, psychosis, etc)?
How can you be sure? Is it more reasonable to believe in super-natural explanations or ones that are anchored in the real (physical) world?
@RA Yes, you can put other terms such as "psychosis" etc. on it or say that the experience is delusional (like the blind saying "sight is subjective") and yes, any experience can be faked; it doesn't change what it is.
Listen, if you were open to persuasion we could talk, but I doubt you are. It's your own soul, find someone else who is willing to bicker with your caricatures of their analogies or like I told the other fellow, pray and figure it out yourself.
I read it "believe in me and you won't burn in Hell," though I wonder what authority or standard you're appealing to when you say that God isn't moral for giving an ultimatum. Do you have a social consensus or something?
You might as well ask me how telling a drunk to stop vomiting on the floor or get out of the house is moral. It's His universe, His rules.
Because you're titillating him with your "atheist logic" and causing him to stray from me, for which you deserve to be suffer tremendously. Care to share a drink so I could flog you afterward? ;D
@DiamondNotch Shall we gang-ra...debate him then? Or would you prefer having him for yourself? I'm more the sadist dominant type by the way, with a few animal sacrifices and beatings of homeless people sprinkled inbetween. Oh and I have an image of satan tatooed on my ass. FUCK OFF, TOO!
Good vid, I commend you on showing the religious YT community that SOG is full of shit. The criteria/standard that I & many non believers that I know on YT use is scientifically based, that is; it is based on the evidence/data that is produced through scientific methods. These methods confirm naturalistic models & have thus far contradicted religious scriptures. This doesnt disprove any God/s, but does show that an omnipotent omniscient being didnt write or inspire these religious scriptures.
This made a ton of sense to me, and actually made me respect the Atheist Experience even more, because they don't usually demand proof immediately, but only after they've asked, "Why do you believe in your faith?", and when people start making claims and stating their beliefs, they then ask what evidence made those people believe those things were true.
Most of the "The Atheist Experience" videos that I have seen have people who cannot put together a complete thought or defend their claims without getting all extravagant. You, on the other hand, seem to be unlike these people, so I think I would enjoy seeing a conversation between you and Matt in which you ask him your altered version of Shockofgod's question, assuming neither of you loses your cool. I would like to see the outcome, which is hopefully a good one. BTW I am agnostic not christian
this video fails at about the 1:20 mark. Shockofgod doesn't agree on shit! but i kept watching anyways, despite the fact that you don't have proof and evidence that shockofgod actually cares about your opinion.
Excellent analysis of the question. I am a little surprised you did not point out that your rewording of the question becomes an unanswerable question, since there is no such thing as evidence of non-existence. The closest one could get is to "does not exist as described." Well done over all :-D
it is amazing people even bother with shock of god..if you tell him the sky is blue he would say it is red show him a picture of a circle he would say it was a square
I was actually really angry/annoyed before watching this video. As many others have posted this is a great,refreshing video to see and a lot of people should learn from it. If they did honestly youtube would be a bit better place.
Copy and paste this title in youtube for the response from The Atheist Experience Proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct - The Atheist Experience #682
Well I can prove the Christian God isn't real. That's fairly easy, since the Bible, must be one of the easiest texts to disprove by simply pointing out that the Earth is much older than 6000 years, not the center of the Universe, plants weren't here before animals etc.
Most of the time when arguing with a theist "the god" is easy to disprove. A god is another issue, that's where logic and personal experience comes in.
This is proof since proof is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition. In scientific context, if one can find one case in which the theory is incorrect, the theory get's dismissed or altered. For example, so far I could say: only black, white and brown Swans exist. From the moment I find a green swan that theory is no longer correct. Since the Bible is your only account for your God, if one of the descriptive factors is incorrect, the whole description can't be correct.
As with many of your videos I disagree with much you have to say but I also agree with many points &, more importantly, with the way you present them. The main one being my continued frustration with atheist elevating the stupidest theist to YouTube mythical status. VFX was fine; we all need a laugh now & then but the non-stop parade of drooling moronic Christians (like SOG) degrades the atheist more then it embarrasses the Christians.
You're still wrong as ever TFP, but you get my respect
No matter what answer is given to sog he will claim victory. I really dislike his arrogance and general attitude. If anyone was to convince me that their god exists it wouldn't be that guy.
Thiughtful analysis. You still miss the mark, though. I do not believe in your "God" or any other man conceived deity or supernatural force. I have never witnessed anything supernatural, I can find no reason to imagine any such entities or forces exist. That, by the way, is called "evidence". I have, however, witnessed many con artists trying to use other beliefs in such supernatural forces or entities to con others. Overall, the supernatural just ends up looking rather silly.
bravo on calling for clarifications & definitions! an agreement on terminologies would be necessary prior to any intelligent discussion.granted, some words or terms may seem obvious, but these assumptions usually lead to misunderstandings.
Your rephrasing failed. Most atheists go no further than stating that they have seen no evidence that convinces them that there is a God (any God). Only a very tiny minority go so far as to say that they believe there is no God (that's logically indifensible).
The distinction is between "does not believe in God" and "believes there is no God." Both come under the umbrella term of atheism, but the latter is rare.
Atheist and theist mix faith, an emotion, and religion, a tangible act.
"God" was created by men, to explain the unknown.
The act of caring is part of our innate desire to procreate. This is indicative of any biological entity. What fears there are have been manipulated to further promote the group/ideology in charge.
If "faith"(an emotion) in "something" brings a person peace, comfort, and happiness there is no reason for deity.
Sir, it's nice to see a levelheaded christian for once. Although we'll (probably) never agree in our stances on faith, I like to hear what you have to say. Therefor I've subscribed. Refreshing to hear the opinion of a christian that is not using straw-man arguments and then calls it a debate.
I just worry that your assessment of SoG was a bit too generous. I don't think he's just unwilling to engage in real discourse; I think he's genuinely incapable of it. I strongly suspect that most of this video will go right over his head. If he had any grasp of the terms in which you speak here, his track record would be quite different.
JMO. If you feel otherwise, I am really interested to hear your opinion.
Jack, I have to say I enjoyed this vid greatly, you're very well spoken and although i may disagree with your theistic beliefs, I want to say that it is always good to see theists and atheists alike who are willing to have meaningful discourse about their beliefs rather than using lazy tactics (as Shockofgod does with this question). Great job dissecting this question!
...default position is the rejection of the truth of the positive claim, which is the belief in and/or assertion of God's existence. You could ask me: Why have you rejected all theistic and/or religious claims proposed to you thus far (Your question might only include Christianity, mine includes all "faiths")? My reason for that is: I am an empirical rationalist. I only accept that things are true based on empirical, scientific proof, and I have never felt the need to believe anything on faith.
Proof and evidence is a bit redundant. Proof is a sum of evidence that constitutes a truth. Depending on the thing needing proof as little as one piece of evidence could be proof. If my friend said: I have a shoe box that has a flying spider in it, and this spider can be detected by the five senses. Then the shoebox, open, and empty, would prove the spider's nonexistence. A better question would be: What evidence do you have that atheism is true. Of course this all still fails because the...
While I don't agree with you on the religious level, I must admit that you (and Jezuzfreek) are good, honest people and play fair. You have my admiration for not blindly clubbing together with ShockofGod simply because he claims to be a Christian. Well done.
For me it's simple. If you a Theist, you actively believe in a theistic god. period. If you don't you're an atheist. Some people claim to be agnostic, but honestly, I don't understand, even if you say you're agnostic, you don't actively believe in a theistic god. I think atheism is a bit more of an aggressive stance, in a sense saying I'm agnostic is saying "I don't know" saying I'm an Atheist is saying "I don't know, but more to the point - You don't know!"
The term agnostic doesn't tell me anything about someone's beliefs.
There are a lot of agnostic Christians.
Aggressiveness of atheists can vary depending on which god is being discussed. I am more agressive towards a Christian god than I am against a deistic god becasue I see too many contradictions in the Christian worldview.
Very well done, but I hope you don't expect Shockofgod to get the point. I believe he is just trying to get attention and he is using a question that makes no sense as a tool. I admit that I have no proof and evidence that my position is accurate and correct.
Narcolepsy, huh? Can't say I've ever known anyone with that before. Is this something new that has developed or have you had it for a while?
As per your video...great points, I'm so glad to see that someone from your side of the discussion gets it. I'm afraid it falls on deaf ears in the case of ShockofGod. He'll probably accuse you of having "Santa Syndrome" now.
Thank you so much for making this video; shockofgod seems to be under the impression that it is him vs all atheists. However, one doesn't have to be an atheist to see that his arguing is flawed. Keep up the good work!
Theism -> Belief in a god/s; Atheism -> Disbelief in gods. It's the nature of dis/belief to bypass evidence and proof. It's the other claims that are more like "God created everything in 5 days" or "Noah's ark and the flood did actually happen" that can be proven and disproved.
Shockofgod seems to want to attach his own personal ideals to particular labels and then demand that other people defend HIS ideas of what THEY believe. When anyone tries to correct him, he and his sycophantic followers just claim victory and ignore all response. It's immature and pathetic, and more than a little annoying to anyone who want an actual discussion.
@NotQuiteGobShite I'm glad to know and always happy to see theists who are aware that their belief is belief, which should be enough for oneself. But Shockofgod is of a different kind, he makes a crusade out of having something that proves him right, missing the point that proving others wrong doesn't make one's claims true. Be assured that most Atheist don't take folks like him as the majority of theists.
...and thank you for your vid, very appreciated :)
Actually your rewording of his question fails to address the point I find the most striking, which is asking for "proof AND evidence". My understanding of the word "proof" makes it redundant to ask for anything else, as proof > evidence. To me this makes it clear that i) he is just using powerwords. The question isn't supposed to make sense, just to look impressive ii) he doesn't know what the words mean.
I've actually tried to have a discussion on theism with shockofgod long before this silly question nonsense started, and i can say he has no interest in debate. No matter what i replied to him he just kept sending me a bunch of spam replies filled with random bible quotes and then told me i was an idiot, until i blocked him.
He's not evangelizing, he's trolling.... for Jesus.
For the record i like your version of the question better.
THANK YOU!!!!! I had a healthy discussion with a Christian on his thread he deleted it and made some outrageous claim that I was insulting and then in the same breath used name calling. Shock said the bible was written as Jesus was saying it. I said historically this couldn't happen. They had story tellers and then there were scribes. A scribe was a little more educated than others since the normal people could read and write.
@theatheistgal con't the story would be told over and over until someone thought it be important to write down as a record. I then stated that jesus accordingly hung out with people lower than a scribe. SOG interrupted the conversation and said they were believers and not low people. I said the people who he preached to had no idea who he was at first. So they could not believe until it was shown to them he was the son of god. His video stated no atheist has read the bible..forgot about me..lol
While I am late in seeing this video. I am truly glad that I came across it. Your level headed approach is a quality that I think should be exploited more often. This non-theist/atheist thanks you.
Oh, and I realize that I haven't subscribed to your channel. This is unacceptable.
I put up a video dealing with SoG's question. Even had my partner - who has a degree in word religion weigh in. Not only did he run into my channel to claim victory, but then refused to add me to his list of atheists - seeing as the video included a christian slapping him down.
Simply put, with the wording of his statement Atheist could be replaced with any belief system, and the very statement of belief would in itself be "proof and evidence".
Shock's tactic was simply to talk over his opponent, repeat himself and just showboat. I am happy to see even people who agree with him philosophically agree that his act isn't helping his cause. While I don't consider myself a theist, I still raise my glass to you for your maturity. Respect.
hopefully this realisation of the asininity of SOG's question by respectable christians like jack is going to filter through the interwebs and sink into a decent chunk of SOG's audience.
Great video, although what intrigued me most was how you took the theoretical "perspective" of an atheist. You even say "my atheism" and similar things...
@TogetherForPeace Personally i could never deal with living with facts based on faith. I can live with uncertainty just fine, but belief, not my cup of tea.
Another reason why i felt better was because i wanted to believe what the rest of my family did, so coming to the conclusion that there really was nothing other than hope and (mostly) good will behind the intentions of the christians around me, made me free. And freedom feels good.
@TogetherForPeace Examples: Accepting the miracles described in the bible, Accepting that Christianity was the only true religion, Interpreting things that happen to me as divine signs/interventions, ...
With faith these examples turn into facts, for me they never did.
@nuckable Im confused by your usage of "with faith these...turn into facts." I'll try to explain what I think you're saying, "since there is no evidence for miracles as described in the Bible people who believe in these miracles do so blindly without any good reason. Their blind belief in miracles then becomes what they call truth. For me that doesn't happen." Is that what you're saying?
@TogetherForPeace "thanks :)...I wouldn't understand how the belief the Christian God isn't real would make a person feel good? :) peace nuck"
Not believing in the Christian God, means I don't believe ANYBODY is going to hell. It means, I don't have to believe that my family, friends, and ancestors who are traditional chinese will go to hell.
Is heaven a place for family and friends? Does that include the nonbelievers? What kind of heaven will it be, if my family and friends aren't there?
Yes Jack I completely agree with everything here. We as christians are called to listen to everyone inclusind atheists are actually hear them out instead of constantly parading around declaring "we are right and you are wrong!!" which seems to be the approach shock takes. Also the christian gospel is something very serious. It's about saving souls! this should never be used as entertainment!!
I've mailed SOG before about the dishonesty of the question and he laughed it off.
It is nothing more than cheap point scoring. He knows that an atheist cannot directly answer the question because it makes no sense. As soon as they attempt to answer he makes out they are floundering and this is of course because they cannot back it up.
If he asked a more genuine question that means essentially the same, like your example, then he would get replies that he doesn't want.
I enjoyed this video. Too often religious discussions on youtube get bogged down with this ego-boosting false notion of winning an argument by being more loud and obnoxious.
The real "winner" in any discussion is the one who listens and walks away with a deeper understanding of his fellow man. That makes you the winner, Jack. I doubt you'll be successful in changing Shock's mind on, well, anything, but you've certainly got my attention. Subscribed!
What's interesting is that Shock has left the definitions of the words "proof" and "evidence" wide open for atheists to use as they wish and the atheists still have been unable to come even close to answering it.
@JMcH Not really. They may offer up different definitions, but Shock believes that athiesm is "madness" and "a humanistic religion". So it doesn't matter how the person being asked defines anything. ShockOfGod has his answer and what ever you tell him will be filtered through that idea that atheism is "a humanistic religion" and "madness"
I wonder if Jack posted this as a video response. If so, I wonder is SOG blocked him.
Zentz29 1 month ago
Proof, evidence, logic, rationality, truth, reason, and reality. Are all words that are used by Atheist. People who believe in talking snakes and supernatural beings in the sky are not rational or base anything in proof, evidence, logic, truth, reason, and reality. I like beginning of this video though.
dillinger9999 2 months ago
My god man, a two part video with this one being almost 10 minutes long and there's no audio clip of the question being answered or even attempted? You're killing me.
thybigballs 2 months ago
In other words you have No proof or evidance lmao dude its simple question really....what's your proof and evidance? Wth is all this for? Your insane lmao just answer the question lol
PureSwank 2 months ago
Actually, atheism is the assertion that the statement "There is at least one god" is false. So the phrase "accurate and correct" is not redundant because the agent forwarding the assertion is philosophy obligated to defend that proposition. Example: 1) accurate but incorrect conclusion, "Only I have a mind because there is no empirical evidence that other humans have minds, too." 2) inaccurate but correct conclusion, "Other people have minds and there is empirical evidence for it."
UtubeXucks 3 months ago
I agree that Shock's question is redundant. You could probably take the word "proof" out as well. I agree that there should be a discussion about the issues of the criteria and standards of belief, and how we don't apply the same standards in all our judgements, but I think this is a separate issue from the mere existence of evidence. Once we have the evidence at hand, THEN we decide if it meets our criteria of belief.
stallion4life 4 months ago
I usually hate your videos, and althugh I personally disagree woth your beliefs I can at least know see you are honest about them, and unlike shockofgod you wiil not resurce to such childish behaviour as repeating a question over and over, I respect that.
Cuythulu 5 months ago 4
ShockofClod is an idiot and a buffoon. Ignore him.
mikefromwa 5 months ago
Comment removed
godsownphilosopher 6 months ago
Comment removed
godsownphilosopher 6 months ago
@TogetherForPeace Good video yet I disagree in the part that you should remove the word "belive" because there is a diference betwen belive in something and knowing it.Both atheist and theist forget it
I do not send you a private mesagge because I do not have the means to get a conversation by web cam,block tV, skype etc.
SASSJMSCBC 7 months ago
Good video Jack, I don't agreed with your beliefs completely, but I appreciate your sincerity and clarity.
ultraviolence6655321 8 months ago
I just thought the whole point that Shock of God is making is that atheists demand "proof" and/or "evidence" of God all the time. Since the atheists assert the positive position of no gods (unless they've individualized the term "atheist") it is a valid tactic to turn the question around. After all, many of them were indoctrinated into this POV and whatever makes them examine it is good. Also, it encourages weaker Christians discouraged by mockery.
Sorry, "face to face" is not in the budget.
RighteousPaladin 9 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "atheists assert the positive position of no gods" How is that a positive position?? Is it a positive position to not accept that bigfoot, fairies or loch ness, zeus, vishnu or thor exist? Does everyone who doesn't believe in those beings have to provide evidence for rejecting the claim that they do exist? No! The person making the claim that something or someone exists needs to provide that evidence.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead No, I don't need to prove that the "something" called tomorrow exists, although I do assert it. Nor do I have to provide evidence for the existence of other minds, even individual minds, since it is a basic belief. Atheists hold the position that there are no gods (unless the terms been redefined to some kind of agnosticism) so that position needs to be defended. Also, your beliefs have more in common with bigfoot, frog princes and chasing the gods of your lusts than mine.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "Atheists hold the position that there are no gods" The majority of atheists wouldn't say they 'know' that no gods exist, they simply reject the claims by believers that any exist as unsupported by evidence. If one claims to know there are no gods, that would be a position you have to defend. It would be like me saying you hold the position that no greek gods exist or that no fairies exist, so your position needs to be defended. [cont]
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "your beliefs have more in common with bigfoot, frog princes and chasing the gods of your lusts than mine" 1. How do you know what my beliefs are? I haven't even told you whether I'm an atheist or not...2. Who are the gods of my lusts, and how do you know what my lusts are? 3. What the hell are you talking about?
By the way, think about the etymology of the word 'atheist', that might clear things up.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead Atheists always say the same stupid things to me.
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god"
If the majority of the world claimed to have seen faeries and I claimed that you hadn't and that because you thought you did you were deluded, then my position would need proof: otherwise a blind fool could demand tactile evidence for light. God resists the proud.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "from a- "without" + theos "a god"" Yes, without god, which doesn't mean that they claim to know there are no gods. There are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists, the majority of atheists are in the agnostic atheist category (they don't claim certainty that no gods exist). Atheism is simply the opposite of theism
"If the majority of the world claimed..." This isn't a popularity contest, the amount of people that believe something has no bearing on its truth.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "Atheists always say the same stupid things to me" You see, this is the problem. You think atheists say stupid things because they don't agree with your definition of atheism. You basically want to tell them what they believe and then attack that position. I agreed with you, if an atheist is 100% certain there are no gods, that's a position that needs to be defended (and I'd say it's just as irrational as someone who claims certainty that there is a god or gods).
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead Just because you've redefined the term to mean something else doesn't mean that you're right. A person could call themselves a Nazi but love Jews. Or perhaps I'm the one redefining "Nazi?"
It isn't about "popularity" it's about perception. Most people perceive that there really is something supernatural, and worship a god or God.
If it's irrational to see that light exists, then call me irrational if it makes you feel better about your blindness.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin Ok let me try again. You're a non-believer concerning all but one god that has ever been proposed. I simply go one god further. Now think about whether it would be correct or 'fair' of me to demand proof from you that all the gods (or other supernatural things you don't believe in) do not exist? Also think about why you don't believe in any other gods besides the one you worship...and there you have it, that's why I don't believe in the god you believe in either and [cont]
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead Ugh. The "one god more" garbage. I just disbelieve in "one God less." How do you like that?
I've never stated a postition that those "gods" don't really exist. They don't have the attributes of the entity that Christians call God. If I was arguing with someone who believed in those gods, I would certainly present reasons for stating what I believed, but demanding from them naturalistic evidence for the supernatural is vanilla flavored stupid.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "I've never stated a postition that those "gods" don't really exist" Are you saying that those gods may exist? If you're a christian, you believe in one god, that's it...am I wrong about that? Therefor you'd believe that no other gods exist, no?
"They don't have the attributes of the entity that Christians call God" Of course they don't, or it would be the christian god...besides, your definition of god differs from that of many other christians.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "I would certainly present reasons for stating what I believed" No...provide 'proof' that Ptah, Ranginui or Atum (all different universe creating deities from different cultures) don't exist! That is what you ask of me concerning your god. I can give you reasons, sure, but not proof, and that's what you (and ShockofGod) demanded atheists do in the beginning of our conversation. Proof and evidence, not reasons.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "demanding from them naturalistic evidence for the supernatural is vanilla flavored stupid" I never asked for naturalistic evidence, all I demand is verifiable, testable evidence...everything else is just you saying "I experienced it, therefor it's real".
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead You don't get to "demand" anything of me. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. If you don't want to believe that Jesus Christ is who He claims to be, then don't. I assume you already know the Gospel and rejected it; I owe you nothing.
If you say that he's not and change to subject to other "gods" etc. then I have to say provide for me "verifiable, testable evidence" that your position is true, otherwise, I'm not interested in your game. Open your eyes if you wish to see.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "I'm not trying to prove anything to you" I can see that. Remember, this all started with you saying it's fair that atheists are asked to provide proof for something they don't believe in...all I was trying to get you to see is that there are things you don't believe in, yet it wouldn't be fair to ask you to provide proof for their non-existence.
"Open your eyes if you wish to see" Right back at you.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin [cont] that's why I don't have to provide proof of something not existing.
"Most people perceive that there really is something supernatural" As soon as evidence is provided I'll accept that. Or if I perceive it too, but minds are easily fooled (I've studied a bit of neurology, people can imagine some crazy stuff).
Call me blind if it makes you feel better about your imagination.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "Just because you've redefined the term" How did I redefine the term? A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods...and atheist is someone who doesn't, that's all there is too it. You claimed that the term says something about the certainty with which one believes, whether one 'knows' that no gods exist. That is not true, that would be gnosticism or, in this case, a gnostic atheist.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead "all I was trying to get you to see is that there are things you don't believe in, yet it wouldn't be fair to ask you to provide proof for their non-existence." I don't tell people what they've experienced is a result of delusion. Only a excruciatingly stupid person would do that.
SOG's schtick is pulling the same crap that atheists are. Are you too dull to see that?
Every speculating naturalist I've met claimed to have superior knowledge of biology and/or neurology.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin I don't tell people what they've experienced is a result of blindness. Only a excruciatingly stupid person would do that.
"SOG's schtick is pulling the same crap that atheists are" Nope it's not, and the fact that you still don't understand just makes you...too dull to see.
"Every speculating naturalist I've met claimed to have superior knowledge of biology and/or neurology" 1. I didn't claim superiority 2. It's probably true anyways.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "all I was trying to get you to see is that there are things you don't believe in, yet it wouldn't be fair to ask you to provide proof for their non-existence." Now read this sentence again and respond to it instead of acting all insulted because I said your experiences might be the result of delusion...
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead I did respond. That's what atheists do all the time when I say that I don't believe what they believe. They say "provide proof and evidence." It's nonsense. Just because one position says "Yes," and the other "No," doesn't give you the right to a double standard.
SOG merely points this out.
Dragging everyone else's beliefs into this is just a red-herring. Claiming that it was too confusing to choose will not protect you from damnation. Verify Christ by obeying Him.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin So your position is that I have to provide proof and evidence for something I don't believe in (basically something I reject because I have not seen sufficient evidence for it)? Let me ask you this then (I'm sure you wont answer though): provide proof and evidence that your non-belief in fairies is accurate and correct! Prove that they dont exist.
"will not protect you from damnation" Ahh good old threats, why did I know that you'd go down to that level at some point? Pathetic.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead What is your fascination with faeries? What if I said that black holes don't exist because I haven't seen one or been given sufficient proof of that and anyone who ever believed in a black hole had to provide evidence that I would accept? Pull a camel through a needle, I demand it! (Then I can raise the bar).
It's a warning, not a threat. Just as ignorance of physical laws will not protect you from their consequences, ignorance of moral laws will not protect you from Hell.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "What is your fascination with faeries?" Just like I predicted, you didn't answer the question...well, substitute faeries with any deity you don't believe in: provide proof and evidence that your non-belief in Pangu or Vishnu is accurate and correct! Prove that they dont exist.
And YES! You're right about black holes, the people claiming that black holes exist need to provide the evidence, it's not you who needs to disprove what you dont believe in.
So, do as you're told [cont]
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin [cont] or burn and suffer and be tortured in hell eternally...maybe you're not threatening me directly, but the message you're conveying is, in essence, a threat.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead The evidence for black holes that you can provide is not the evidence that I'll accept (for the sake of argument) just as you won't verify the claims of Jesus by doing his will. Faeries is a red-herring, fool.
If I say don't run red lights or eventually you'll cause an accident, that's a threat too by your anti-reason. At any rate, like most naturalists, you've been predictably banal, saying nothing with many words.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin I see, still avoiding the question (even after I changed the faeries to something else to make your life a bit easier)...alright, looks like you won't answer, I guess because you know that whatever you answer the question with, your 'it's only fair to demand proof from atheists for something they don't believe in' would be exposed as the steaming pile of donkey poo it is...
"verify the claims of Jesus by doing his will" So if I do what jesus commanded I will know that [cont]
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin [cont] jesus existed and was who he claimed he was? Then you better start doing the will of Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheshwara to verify their claims! You'll emerge from darkness blind fool!
So if the mafia boss told you to do whatever he says, without questioning, follow his rules, but if you don't he'll put you in a cellar and torture you forever, that's not a threat to you? Ok...
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead You still haven't pulled a camel through a needle to prove black holes to me, either. Tell you what, I'll make it easier for you; if you can suck a camel through a straw I'll consider what you say about black holes.
If you really can't see the difference between what Jesus says and your other "gods," then you're truly morally retarded.
If a storm comes and knocks down your house, do you blame the storm or the builder? God doesn't torture, your nature torments you in hell.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin "prove black holes to me" No, you see, in your analogy, you'd have to provide proof and evidence that black holes don't exist. If you simply say that not having been convinced by the evidence counts as proof then me saying I haven't been convinced by theists is just as much proof.
"If you really can't see the difference..." Of course there's a difference, but what does that have to do with my point? Moron.
"your nature torments you in hell" Talk about morally retarded...
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead *sigh* It's obviously an parody of atheist "prove it" arguments.
You follow Jesus because your conscience verifies what He says.
You do have the choice to gain a new nature. If you think you're better off with the unprofitable and transitory pleasures of this life instead, then do what you will, stranger.
It's seriously easy to get in touch with God. Humble yourself ask Jesus to forgive your sins and wait for an answer.
Your soul is your own responsibility, not mine.
RighteousPaladin 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin Again, no answer to the question. Coward, why don't you stand by the standards that you set for others?
And of course, the next thing you do is start preaching because you've ran out of ammo on the topic this was actually about. Why do believers always do that? Does it make you feel better? What if you were discussing something with a Hindu and suddenly he'd start telling you your soul is lost, you're worshipping the wrong god, you're a sinner, etc. Well I guess you'd be [cont]
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin [cont] fine with that since it's what you think to be a legitimate way of having a discussion...
"choice to gain a new nature" Oh you're so special! You gained a new nature, I'm really impressed!
"If you think you're better off with the unprofitable and transitory pleasures of this life" You have a sad view of life...but if you think you're better off living a delusion, then do what you will, stranger.
"Your soul is your own responsibility, not mine" Thanks.
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@RighteousPaladin How do you KNOW that your experiences with Christ aren't delusions??
atheistram 6 months ago
@atheistram Sometimes I see a vehicle and comment on its color to my brother. He might niggle with me about the color, but knows full well which car we're both referring to. Spiritual experiences can be verified in the same way. On the other hand, if a stranger who hadn't been present when the vehicle passed by interjects and tells us that what we actually experienced was the wind, then we both know him for a liar and a fool.
If you want to KNOW Him too then ask Jesus for clarity and listen.
RighteousPaladin 6 months ago
@RighteousPaladin Now just add into that analogy that the car is invisible and makes no wind or sound, except for you and your brother who claim to see, hear, and feel the wind off of it -- there are 20 other people standing around you guys when the car passes, and you begin to discuss the color of this car - this car didn't exist in the real world, but you both saw it - is your personal experience enough to convince others that the car is real? Is it not more reasonable to think it's not?
TheRationalAmerican 5 months ago
@TheRationalAmerican No, my analogy makes sense without adding to it, but thanks for the try. It's a real car, if there are twenty other people nearby, those people are witnesses too (unless they're somehow impaired or just not paying attention).
RighteousPaladin 5 months ago
@RighteousPaladin Your car is supposed to represent a spiritual experience? it's a personal experience and you are justifying it by talking to your brother who has had a different (different color, same car) personal experience?
The question still remains - can they both be explained by real world explanations (delusion, wishful thinking, psychosis, etc)?
How can you be sure? Is it more reasonable to believe in super-natural explanations or ones that are anchored in the real (physical) world?
TheRationalAmerican 5 months ago
@RA Yes, you can put other terms such as "psychosis" etc. on it or say that the experience is delusional (like the blind saying "sight is subjective") and yes, any experience can be faked; it doesn't change what it is.
Listen, if you were open to persuasion we could talk, but I doubt you are. It's your own soul, find someone else who is willing to bicker with your caricatures of their analogies or like I told the other fellow, pray and figure it out yourself.
RighteousPaladin 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RighteousPaladin Jesus says believe in me or burn in hell. How is that moral??
atheistram 6 months ago
I read it "believe in me and you won't burn in Hell," though I wonder what authority or standard you're appealing to when you say that God isn't moral for giving an ultimatum. Do you have a social consensus or something?
You might as well ask me how telling a drunk to stop vomiting on the floor or get out of the house is moral. It's His universe, His rules.
RighteousPaladin 6 months ago
@RighteousPaladin So might makes right?
atheistram 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atheistram Is that what your conscience tells you? Or do you need to take a poll?
RighteousPaladin 6 months ago
@83Hammerhead
This is my Christian, get your own ass hole.
DiamondNotch 8 months ago
@DiamondNotch Who is your christian?
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
Righteous Paladin... who else?
DiamondNotch 8 months ago
@DiamondNotch So, why did you have to call me an asshole and why exactly is he 'your' christian?
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead
Because you're titillating him with your "atheist logic" and causing him to stray from me, for which you deserve to be suffer tremendously. Care to share a drink so I could flog you afterward? ;D
DiamondNotch 8 months ago
@DiamondNotch Sorry dude :D He's all yours, he seems to have stopped responding to me...
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
@83Hammerhead
Aww cmon, don't you know that all Atheist are either Sadists or Masochists? I thought we could have some real fun here : /
If he stops responding to me because of you I'm really going to let you have it. From one Atheist to another.. FUCK OFF
DiamondNotch 8 months ago
@DiamondNotch Shall we gang-ra...debate him then? Or would you prefer having him for yourself? I'm more the sadist dominant type by the way, with a few animal sacrifices and beatings of homeless people sprinkled inbetween. Oh and I have an image of satan tatooed on my ass. FUCK OFF, TOO!
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
*low growl*
... he's mine...
DiamondNotch 8 months ago
@DiamondNotch By the way, are you having a discussion with him on another video?
83Hammerhead 8 months ago
Put me in the (apparently) large catagory of atheists who very much appreciate your approach.
Kudos to you Christian friend.
DarkHorse0863 9 months ago
Excellent video, thank you!
BastEternal 9 months ago
Well said!!
ShockOfInsanity 9 months ago
Good vid, I commend you on showing the religious YT community that SOG is full of shit. The criteria/standard that I & many non believers that I know on YT use is scientifically based, that is; it is based on the evidence/data that is produced through scientific methods. These methods confirm naturalistic models & have thus far contradicted religious scriptures. This doesnt disprove any God/s, but does show that an omnipotent omniscient being didnt write or inspire these religious scriptures.
AussieNaturalist 10 months ago
Superb video!
MoonwalkerWorshiper 10 months ago
It's a very honest video, which is rare to see.
ArgueExplain 10 months ago
loved the video. Such a logical video.
HaDukEn 10 months ago
It's so refreshing to see someone from the other side who can see through shockofgod's BS.
templar19 10 months ago
So if I understand this video right, even Christians see shockofgod as crazy? Ironic.
dotmadhack 10 months ago
This made a ton of sense to me, and actually made me respect the Atheist Experience even more, because they don't usually demand proof immediately, but only after they've asked, "Why do you believe in your faith?", and when people start making claims and stating their beliefs, they then ask what evidence made those people believe those things were true.
Seraph821 11 months ago
Most of the "The Atheist Experience" videos that I have seen have people who cannot put together a complete thought or defend their claims without getting all extravagant. You, on the other hand, seem to be unlike these people, so I think I would enjoy seeing a conversation between you and Matt in which you ask him your altered version of Shockofgod's question, assuming neither of you loses your cool. I would like to see the outcome, which is hopefully a good one. BTW I am agnostic not christian
edwardburkard 11 months ago
Glad to see reason and logic coming from someone who seems honest, keep up the good work!
crazyinsane500 11 months ago
this video fails at about the 1:20 mark. Shockofgod doesn't agree on shit! but i kept watching anyways, despite the fact that you don't have proof and evidence that shockofgod actually cares about your opinion.
chadd990 1 year ago
Thanks dude, I appreciate you. Well done.
joestfrancois 1 year ago
Excellent analysis of the question. I am a little surprised you did not point out that your rewording of the question becomes an unanswerable question, since there is no such thing as evidence of non-existence. The closest one could get is to "does not exist as described." Well done over all :-D
lhvinny 1 year ago
Jack you are lukewarm, God would prefer it you be either hot or cold.
Not warm.
Dudex58 1 year ago
This is why I respect you TGFP
vfIskullangel 1 year ago
it is amazing people even bother with shock of god..if you tell him the sky is blue he would say it is red show him a picture of a circle he would say it was a square
johndebbra 1 year ago
Fantastic video. way to Pown those intellectually inferior entertainment seekers! wait did i miss something?
Brazillianviking 1 year ago
I was actually really angry/annoyed before watching this video. As many others have posted this is a great,refreshing video to see and a lot of people should learn from it. If they did honestly youtube would be a bit better place.
steadrick 1 year ago
Excellent.
johnnystratman1 1 year ago
you're the most awesome christian ever! you actually understands what atheism is :D
BecauseBabysAreTasty 1 year ago
Excellent video sir, one of the few responses to SOG's "question" that is very honest from the theist camp. I think i'm going to have to sub to you
TheWingnuterer 1 year ago
Copy and paste this title in youtube for the response from The Atheist Experience Proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct - The Atheist Experience #682
basilsullivan 1 year ago
Well I can prove the Christian God isn't real. That's fairly easy, since the Bible, must be one of the easiest texts to disprove by simply pointing out that the Earth is much older than 6000 years, not the center of the Universe, plants weren't here before animals etc.
Most of the time when arguing with a theist "the god" is easy to disprove. A god is another issue, that's where logic and personal experience comes in.
Nice listening to you, you have my thumbs up.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
This is proof since proof is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition. In scientific context, if one can find one case in which the theory is incorrect, the theory get's dismissed or altered. For example, so far I could say: only black, white and brown Swans exist. From the moment I find a green swan that theory is no longer correct. Since the Bible is your only account for your God, if one of the descriptive factors is incorrect, the whole description can't be correct.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
As with many of your videos I disagree with much you have to say but I also agree with many points &, more importantly, with the way you present them. The main one being my continued frustration with atheist elevating the stupidest theist to YouTube mythical status. VFX was fine; we all need a laugh now & then but the non-stop parade of drooling moronic Christians (like SOG) degrades the atheist more then it embarrasses the Christians.
You're still wrong as ever TFP, but you get my respect
Hopeful71 1 year ago
Genius
keith1y 1 year ago
Wonderful video! You are both logical and civil.
You have done an excellent job of dissecting the question and other underlying issues of the discussion.
Caniswalensis 1 year ago
It should be to have a reasonable discussion.
connerjd 1 year ago
You know your arrogant when your own religion calls you out on it.
AtheisticTeenager 1 year ago
No matter what answer is given to sog he will claim victory. I really dislike his arrogance and general attitude. If anyone was to convince me that their god exists it wouldn't be that guy.
amberview30 1 year ago
Thiughtful analysis. You still miss the mark, though. I do not believe in your "God" or any other man conceived deity or supernatural force. I have never witnessed anything supernatural, I can find no reason to imagine any such entities or forces exist. That, by the way, is called "evidence". I have, however, witnessed many con artists trying to use other beliefs in such supernatural forces or entities to con others. Overall, the supernatural just ends up looking rather silly.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
bravo on calling for clarifications & definitions! an agreement on terminologies would be necessary prior to any intelligent discussion.granted, some words or terms may seem obvious, but these assumptions usually lead to misunderstandings.
practicalmagic9 1 year ago
good vid man
your accent is very similar to shocks
swinewarrior 1 year ago
Your rephrasing failed. Most atheists go no further than stating that they have seen no evidence that convinces them that there is a God (any God). Only a very tiny minority go so far as to say that they believe there is no God (that's logically indifensible).
The distinction is between "does not believe in God" and "believes there is no God." Both come under the umbrella term of atheism, but the latter is rare.
bdf2718 1 year ago
why are there ten dislikes on this video? wat the hell?
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
llol the graduation picture
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
TogetherForPeace,
Atheist and theist mix faith, an emotion, and religion, a tangible act.
"God" was created by men, to explain the unknown.
The act of caring is part of our innate desire to procreate. This is indicative of any biological entity. What fears there are have been manipulated to further promote the group/ideology in charge.
If "faith"(an emotion) in "something" brings a person peace, comfort, and happiness there is no reason for deity.
It be it!
4u2b1ib12 1 year ago
sensibleness? honestly? it's sensibility.
WillGo7 1 year ago
Sir, it's nice to see a levelheaded christian for once. Although we'll (probably) never agree in our stances on faith, I like to hear what you have to say. Therefor I've subscribed. Refreshing to hear the opinion of a christian that is not using straw-man arguments and then calls it a debate.
Alphasys 1 year ago 18
You have my respect.
TadRaunch 1 year ago
Well said. Thumbs up for you, sir.
I just worry that your assessment of SoG was a bit too generous. I don't think he's just unwilling to engage in real discourse; I think he's genuinely incapable of it. I strongly suspect that most of this video will go right over his head. If he had any grasp of the terms in which you speak here, his track record would be quite different.
JMO. If you feel otherwise, I am really interested to hear your opinion.
d00df00d 1 year ago
Jack, I have to say I enjoyed this vid greatly, you're very well spoken and although i may disagree with your theistic beliefs, I want to say that it is always good to see theists and atheists alike who are willing to have meaningful discourse about their beliefs rather than using lazy tactics (as Shockofgod does with this question). Great job dissecting this question!
drkangl21 1 year ago
Good job Jack.... Nicely put together....
Boanerges7 1 year ago
...default position is the rejection of the truth of the positive claim, which is the belief in and/or assertion of God's existence. You could ask me: Why have you rejected all theistic and/or religious claims proposed to you thus far (Your question might only include Christianity, mine includes all "faiths")? My reason for that is: I am an empirical rationalist. I only accept that things are true based on empirical, scientific proof, and I have never felt the need to believe anything on faith.
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
Proof and evidence is a bit redundant. Proof is a sum of evidence that constitutes a truth. Depending on the thing needing proof as little as one piece of evidence could be proof. If my friend said: I have a shoe box that has a flying spider in it, and this spider can be detected by the five senses. Then the shoebox, open, and empty, would prove the spider's nonexistence. A better question would be: What evidence do you have that atheism is true. Of course this all still fails because the...
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
While I don't agree with you on the religious level, I must admit that you (and Jezuzfreek) are good, honest people and play fair. You have my admiration for not blindly clubbing together with ShockofGod simply because he claims to be a Christian. Well done.
JesusCockInAllahAss 1 year ago
SoG= EPIC FAIL...Togetherforpeace= WIN
supersmash43 1 year ago
Oh man, I subscribed!
RedKarp 1 year ago
For me it's simple. If you a Theist, you actively believe in a theistic god. period. If you don't you're an atheist. Some people claim to be agnostic, but honestly, I don't understand, even if you say you're agnostic, you don't actively believe in a theistic god. I think atheism is a bit more of an aggressive stance, in a sense saying I'm agnostic is saying "I don't know" saying I'm an Atheist is saying "I don't know, but more to the point - You don't know!"
troyboulay 1 year ago
@troyboulay
theist/atheist refer to belief
gnostic/agnostic refer to knowledge
The term agnostic doesn't tell me anything about someone's beliefs.
There are a lot of agnostic Christians.
Aggressiveness of atheists can vary depending on which god is being discussed. I am more agressive towards a Christian god than I am against a deistic god becasue I see too many contradictions in the Christian worldview.
justintempler 1 year ago
rly nice jack
Hakunushi 1 year ago
liked - youtube atheist here, thank you lol.
MoonKittenJD 1 year ago
This video contains higher thinking.
acdobens 1 year ago
I'm an atheist but the way you approach this ShockofGod issue is admirable. You're one humble guy.
HeartOfReason 1 year ago
Very well done, but I hope you don't expect Shockofgod to get the point. I believe he is just trying to get attention and he is using a question that makes no sense as a tool. I admit that I have no proof and evidence that my position is accurate and correct.
randyscorner 1 year ago
WOW! Teenage Jack...how cute!
Narcolepsy, huh? Can't say I've ever known anyone with that before. Is this something new that has developed or have you had it for a while?
As per your video...great points, I'm so glad to see that someone from your side of the discussion gets it. I'm afraid it falls on deaf ears in the case of ShockofGod. He'll probably accuse you of having "Santa Syndrome" now.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
Thank you so much for making this video; shockofgod seems to be under the impression that it is him vs all atheists. However, one doesn't have to be an atheist to see that his arguing is flawed. Keep up the good work!
ginnyisdacoolest 1 year ago
Theism -> Belief in a god/s; Atheism -> Disbelief in gods. It's the nature of dis/belief to bypass evidence and proof. It's the other claims that are more like "God created everything in 5 days" or "Noah's ark and the flood did actually happen" that can be proven and disproved.
MichaelLV99 1 year ago
@MichaelLV99
THANK YOU!
Shockofgod seems to want to attach his own personal ideals to particular labels and then demand that other people defend HIS ideas of what THEY believe. When anyone tries to correct him, he and his sycophantic followers just claim victory and ignore all response. It's immature and pathetic, and more than a little annoying to anyone who want an actual discussion.
NotQuiteGobShite 1 year ago
@NotQuiteGobShite I'm glad to know and always happy to see theists who are aware that their belief is belief, which should be enough for oneself. But Shockofgod is of a different kind, he makes a crusade out of having something that proves him right, missing the point that proving others wrong doesn't make one's claims true. Be assured that most Atheist don't take folks like him as the majority of theists.
...and thank you for your vid, very appreciated :)
MichaelLV99 1 year ago
Actually your rewording of his question fails to address the point I find the most striking, which is asking for "proof AND evidence". My understanding of the word "proof" makes it redundant to ask for anything else, as proof > evidence. To me this makes it clear that i) he is just using powerwords. The question isn't supposed to make sense, just to look impressive ii) he doesn't know what the words mean.
uvauva2 1 year ago
@uvauva2 Very true, I always flinched at the redundancy.
AmosTheTalented 5 months ago
This was a GREAT video. This is the proper way to engage in a conversation.
farhan00 1 year ago
I've actually tried to have a discussion on theism with shockofgod long before this silly question nonsense started, and i can say he has no interest in debate. No matter what i replied to him he just kept sending me a bunch of spam replies filled with random bible quotes and then told me i was an idiot, until i blocked him.
He's not evangelizing, he's trolling.... for Jesus.
For the record i like your version of the question better.
EricTheNihilist 1 year ago
THANK YOU!!!!! I had a healthy discussion with a Christian on his thread he deleted it and made some outrageous claim that I was insulting and then in the same breath used name calling. Shock said the bible was written as Jesus was saying it. I said historically this couldn't happen. They had story tellers and then there were scribes. A scribe was a little more educated than others since the normal people could read and write.
theatheistgal 1 year ago
@theatheistgal con't the story would be told over and over until someone thought it be important to write down as a record. I then stated that jesus accordingly hung out with people lower than a scribe. SOG interrupted the conversation and said they were believers and not low people. I said the people who he preached to had no idea who he was at first. So they could not believe until it was shown to them he was the son of god. His video stated no atheist has read the bible..forgot about me..lol
theatheistgal 1 year ago
@theatheistgal clarifying a type O "A scribe was a little more educated than others since the normal people could NOT read and write."
theatheistgal 1 year ago
@theatheistgal No atheist has read the Bible?
He forgot about *all* the ex-Christians.
MntlWard 1 year ago
Excellent presentation.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
Eight people dislike this video, but what proof and evidence do they have that their view is accurate and correct?
conradleviston 1 year ago 36
@conradleviston lol :)
TogetherForPeace 1 year ago 6
@TogetherForPeace
While I am late in seeing this video. I am truly glad that I came across it. Your level headed approach is a quality that I think should be exploited more often. This non-theist/atheist thanks you.
Oh, and I realize that I haven't subscribed to your channel. This is unacceptable.
Foxcanine1 1 year ago
@conradleviston hahahah
grubashu 1 year ago
@conradleviston LMAO!! Very good.
bigspliffs 1 year ago
Good video. Well done.
For me its very simple.
Q:What proof or evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct?
Def: Atheism. A lack of a beleif in god due to no testable evidence supporting the existance
Observation: No testable evidence can be observed for the proof of existance of god
Conclusion: Atheism is true and correct
podoau 1 year ago
I put up a video dealing with SoG's question. Even had my partner - who has a degree in word religion weigh in. Not only did he run into my channel to claim victory, but then refused to add me to his list of atheists - seeing as the video included a christian slapping him down.
Simply put, with the wording of his statement Atheist could be replaced with any belief system, and the very statement of belief would in itself be "proof and evidence".
The question isn't "can you disprove god?"
13Heathens 1 year ago
Well done!
twaallen32 1 year ago
Shock's tactic was simply to talk over his opponent, repeat himself and just showboat. I am happy to see even people who agree with him philosophically agree that his act isn't helping his cause. While I don't consider myself a theist, I still raise my glass to you for your maturity. Respect.
grungefreak10 1 year ago
You sound like a reasonable guy. Subscribed
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
hopefully this realisation of the asininity of SOG's question by respectable christians like jack is going to filter through the interwebs and sink into a decent chunk of SOG's audience.
great video jack, very well put together.
dreadpiratedan 1 year ago
Great video, although what intrigued me most was how you took the theoretical "perspective" of an atheist. You even say "my atheism" and similar things...
Felt good no? ;)
nuckable 1 year ago
@nuckable thanks :)...I wouldn't understand how the belief the Christian God isn't real would make a person feel good? :) peace nuck
TogetherForPeace 1 year ago
@TogetherForPeace Personally i could never deal with living with facts based on faith. I can live with uncertainty just fine, but belief, not my cup of tea.
Another reason why i felt better was because i wanted to believe what the rest of my family did, so coming to the conclusion that there really was nothing other than hope and (mostly) good will behind the intentions of the christians around me, made me free. And freedom feels good.
nuckable 1 year ago
@nuckable 'facts based on faith' ? Please explain what you mean.
TogetherForPeace 1 year ago
@TogetherForPeace Examples: Accepting the miracles described in the bible, Accepting that Christianity was the only true religion, Interpreting things that happen to me as divine signs/interventions, ...
With faith these examples turn into facts, for me they never did.
nuckable 1 year ago
@nuckable Im confused by your usage of "with faith these...turn into facts." I'll try to explain what I think you're saying, "since there is no evidence for miracles as described in the Bible people who believe in these miracles do so blindly without any good reason. Their blind belief in miracles then becomes what they call truth. For me that doesn't happen." Is that what you're saying?
TogetherForPeace 1 year ago
@TogetherForPeace Haha, yes. You could also interpret it like "if you're looking for (your) god, you see it everywhere".
nuckable 1 year ago
@TogetherForPeace "thanks :)...I wouldn't understand how the belief the Christian God isn't real would make a person feel good? :) peace nuck"
Not believing in the Christian God, means I don't believe ANYBODY is going to hell. It means, I don't have to believe that my family, friends, and ancestors who are traditional chinese will go to hell.
Is heaven a place for family and friends? Does that include the nonbelievers? What kind of heaven will it be, if my family and friends aren't there?
TianSan 1 year ago
Yes Jack I completely agree with everything here. We as christians are called to listen to everyone inclusind atheists are actually hear them out instead of constantly parading around declaring "we are right and you are wrong!!" which seems to be the approach shock takes. Also the christian gospel is something very serious. It's about saving souls! this should never be used as entertainment!!
Sophiethefembot 1 year ago
Very interesting video especially around 5:55 I made a vid touching on this same point, but from a different angle
tmesist 1 year ago
Excellent video.
I've mailed SOG before about the dishonesty of the question and he laughed it off.
It is nothing more than cheap point scoring. He knows that an atheist cannot directly answer the question because it makes no sense. As soon as they attempt to answer he makes out they are floundering and this is of course because they cannot back it up.
If he asked a more genuine question that means essentially the same, like your example, then he would get replies that he doesn't want.
justwhoarebongorock 1 year ago
lol, definitely had to chuckle at that photo of you man. Too funny :o)
Graffight 1 year ago
I enjoyed this video. Too often religious discussions on youtube get bogged down with this ego-boosting false notion of winning an argument by being more loud and obnoxious.
The real "winner" in any discussion is the one who listens and walks away with a deeper understanding of his fellow man. That makes you the winner, Jack. I doubt you'll be successful in changing Shock's mind on, well, anything, but you've certainly got my attention. Subscribed!
NotQuiteGobShite 1 year ago
What's interesting is that Shock has left the definitions of the words "proof" and "evidence" wide open for atheists to use as they wish and the atheists still have been unable to come even close to answering it.
JMcH 1 year ago
@JMcH Not really. They may offer up different definitions, but Shock believes that athiesm is "madness" and "a humanistic religion". So it doesn't matter how the person being asked defines anything. ShockOfGod has his answer and what ever you tell him will be filtered through that idea that atheism is "a humanistic religion" and "madness"
djenkinsii 1 year ago
@JMcH Well, that's just your opinion.
tarrin4ever 1 year ago