I will now prove that theism doesn't exist. The statement "God exists" requires perfect knowledge of everything, which no one has, therefore christianity doesn't exist. Thank you.
"There is no god" is perfectly reasonable thing to say, considering that there was no evidence to indicate otherwise. Since there is no observable proof, that means his existence has no impact on our life, therefor - there is no god.
If you can't suggest evidence for something being true, then it is basically imaginary. If some1 proved ANY religion correct, I'd convert immediately... as it is, nobody has.
Atheism is not a faith or religion, it is a lack thereof (a = not; theist = beliver in a deity)
Sorry, but you didnt scientifically prove atheism is a religion... in fact, you failed to do it grammatically. Atheism is not a religion. To think it is requires a lack of understanding as to what a dictionary is.
@PalulukanMakto AND, even if atheism was a "leap of faith", it still wouldnt prove your god. By the arguement you posited, it would still make god less probable. Also, a dimension is not a direction... I apologise if this high-school level grammer and conceptualisation is too much for your mind to grasp.
The first thing you need to do is pick up a dictionary, and put down the inhalents.
It does NOT take faith to be an atheist because it does not take faith to not believe in Bigfoot, dragons, the Loch Ness monster, alien abductions, unicorns, leprechauns, and so on. Faith is for the believers, and it is faith because they do not provide evidence for anything.
If you do not believe something for which there is no evidence, you do not require faith to disbelieve.
Scientists have evidence for the big bang. Just like how Pluto orbits the Sun in 200 years, we know it's true by math.
Using logic to attack atheism is a losing battle. In the end, religious people believe what they believe, despite any logical conclusions. So you aren't really even debating, you are proselytizing. Because there is not, cannot be, and never will be any evidence for God, you re wasting your time. If there WERE a way to prove such things, what exactly is the value of Faith then?
OK, nevermind... the whole video is a logical fallacy. Look folks, Atheists don't BELIEVE anything, got it? That's the point. Belief is when you nothing anyone says, and no fact can change your mind. Like Christian's belief in the divinity of Christ. You can't write down some fact, and have a Christian go "OH,what do you know, there is no God." BELIEF and FAITH transcend reason. Atheists do NOT have belief or faith, got it?
First statement is a logical fallacy. Atheist don't 'believe' there is no God. We have no beliefs. We say there is NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD. Not what you are saying at all. Show us evidence, and we may reconsider.
Saying "There is no god" does not require omniscience. It's just like saying "There are no square circles". God is defined as the absolute creator. Can God create himself? If he can, he would be the creator of himself who's the creator of himself who's the creator of himself, ad infinitum. Thus God creating himself is a logical fallacy. So he can't. But God is the absolute creator. An absolute creator who can't create himself is self-contradictory. That which is self-contradictory doesn't exist.
I'm so sick of this pathetic belief based on wanting to say "See I told ya and now my god will reward me with eternal worship while he lets millions of children die.". Ok maybe the second half won't be said but the point still stands. Why would a moral god even want worship and rely on very slim odds that he even exists and is a HE, when coming down to earth to tell us this so we can avoid making choices we KNOW will grant us hell, would be more rational?
Most atheist that i have met, and including me, do not make a claim like that, all we say is that we dont believe in a God. Note this does not mean we activly believe that no god exists, we simply dont believe in one.
Atheism has nothing to do with the big bang theory.
Also you would not need to take it on faith that a God did not create the universe, you would simply not believe it.
Again many atheist are not ''certain that there is no God''
There is enough proof of the big bang for science to believe it. The same cannot be said of your god which there is no proof of outside of your holy book. Which itself cannot be proven to be true.
Atheism doesn't say that god doesn't exist. It says that there is no proof for the existance of god and willnot believe for that reason. Nice to know there are still uneducated people such as yourself for the church to fleece.
"There is no Santa Clause" is also an absolute statement. It's true that I don't have all the knowledge in the world, so technically I should be a Santa-agnostic, right? Or would it be more reasonable for me to assume Santa doesn't exist?
Atheist do not claim there is no god, they reject the claim that god exists. They do not no with certainty, but will not believe in god without evidence. Scientists can test any theory, science it testable. Look at the cosmic background radiation. Science does not know everything, but the search will not be halted in the favor of a magic man. The caterpillar is basing it's understanding on the observations available, this has no effect on reality.
By mentioning evidence for the big bang, by the way, I'm talking about the movement of the planets, their composition and the physics that had to be involved to make that happen. The LHC, if successful, will simply fill another few pieces of the puzzle.
Put down the bible and pick up a dictionary. Atheism means not being theist. Says nothing about there definately being no deities/ghosts/unicorns, just not believing them until presented with evidence.
Big bang theory is supported by evidence.
We only believe that which can be detected. Sight is only one sense. We sometimes use machinery to detect things outside our range.
Why do theists try to make atheism look like faith anyway? Would it be a bad thing if it were? Yep, we think it would :-)
Worst explanation ever. Faith means lack of evidence, science depends of it. You can't have 'faith' in something that is demostrable, you can trust on facts, despite they can be questioned with new evidence. There is no absolute truth but you can grasp what is real and how it works
First, few atheists actually state the absolute you posit. The lay-atheist merely posits "there is not sufficient evidence to believe there is a god". And even then that OVERSTATES their 'emphasis' on it.
Second, let's take your own claim of us having "1% of all knowledge". The same argument applies to Allah, Zeus, FSM, IPU, Odin, Marduk, and every other divine entity. As such, it's less "faith" to not believe in all than to hold one above the others.
Third, the scientific method posits natural processes as the default assumption; you don't assume that nymphs make snow until you acquire evidence otherwise. This follows the 'second' problem in a practical approach: Why is it "God" and not Allah or IPU?
Fourth, the "light" comment is a positive claim, hence requires evidence to prove it true (or the null as false). As such, it is up to YOU to present evidence for your claim.
As such, they observe something. Then they analyze it. And, especially if they are particular to the scientific mindest, they will attempt to explain in various ways and eliminate each one through experimentation and reasoning.
However for "lay-atheists", the focus tends to emphasize on the "observe" and "analyze" steps, instead of going out of their way to "test".
Sixth, even for those who swear by "seeing is believing", the "beauty", etc. of nature aren't evidence for ANY god.
Seventh, if the Bird doesn't reveal itself to the Caterpillar, then the Caterpillar has no worry. However when the Caterpillar sees the Bird, the Caterpillar can react to the Bird. In the same way, we shouldn't worry about God until he shows himself to us; yet hearsay then is invalid as it's not you "seeing" and hence should not influence your "believing".
Eight, the very idea of an "open heart" excludes an "open mind" and CREATES a faith where there may not have been one before.
I don't normally reply to many comments on this video but something you said caught my eye " if the Bird doesn't reveal itself to the Caterpillar, then the Caterpillar has no worry. However when the Caterpillar sees the Bird, the Caterpillar can react to the Bird. In the same way, we shouldn't worry about God until he shows himself to us"
You don't relize that is the story of Christianity, God revealed Himself to His creation by the man Christ. God came down and visited us.
@pur3o3end "You don't relize that is the story of Christianity, God revealed Himself to His creation by the man Christ. God came down and visited us."
You seem to ignore the component in my comment that to accept "seeing is believing" negates hearsay as it is not "seeing" and hence doesn't deserve "believing".
Hence Japan, China, and the Americas at the time didn't have any obligation to believe the tales of Jesus. Nor does ANYONE at this time.
Let's use the very example of Birds and Caterpillars.
A Caterpillar sees a Bird and flees. In ten years, another Caterpillar in that same spot does not see a Bird. Does that mean that the second Caterpillar needs to worry about a Bird? No, it doesn't.
Now, assuming that the second Caterpillar DOES see a Bird, is it the same Bird as the first one? Not necessarily.
The Caterpillar doesn't need to worry about the First Bird and Humans don't need to worry about the Christian God. :P
*Humans can look around easier than the Caterpillar. So that humans don't see God even after extensive earnest looking casts more doubt on God than the Bird in the Caterpillar's case.
*Belief just to avoid punishment would not be a valid establishment for morality. And God would know that. So to use the example of the Caterpillar removes any sense of morality in your consideration of God.
"You don't relize that is the story of Christianity, God revealed Himself to His creation by the man Christ. God came down and visited us"
So u contend, but your claim cannot be demonstrated. You want to believe so u have faith, which is believing without any reason or evidence, and even in spite of counter evidence.
What's the most important message in the gospel? Man's salvation, right? Yet, god has been suspiciously silent & absent for 2K yrs. I'd expect to see him very active.
To establish "atheism" as a "faith", you MUST define "atheism", accurately, in such a way that It must, in the definition, rely on one of the provided definitions of "faith".
The most accurate definition of "atheism" is 'a lack of belief'. This does not require "strong conviction" or "firm belief". This does not logically bear any more "burden of proof" or requirement for "evidence" than is required for, say, elves or pixies.
Of course that's before actually getting into the video.
Whenever I say "God doesn't exist" I mean "There is not enough evidence to confirm that god exists" and whenever I say "The big bang created the universe" I mean "The theory that all the matter in the universe comes from one point in the universe follows the known laws of physics, which none other hypothesis I have heard of does, which means that it is the most probable explanation". That shortens everything a bit, huh?
The default position is remaining skeptical about claims that don't have proof. Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. So it's just skepticism towards deities. Faith is bad, because its believing in something with no proof, yes, but what kind of proof? Empirical? Philosophical? Logical? Saying Atheists have faith, in any form is a false argument. Period.
There is no God in the respect of the God Christians claim to intervene in our daily lives. If you make a claim that interferes with what we DO understand, then that's when Atheists say there is no God. You are refering to Strong Atheists (those that say there is no God). You cannot prove a negative. By your logic, you have faith by not believing in big foot, the tooth fairy, unicorns, the greek Gods, the flying spaghetti monster, the giant pink human elephant etc.
Your basic understanding of Atheisim wrong, so your crits are irrelevant. Atheism isn't something you do, it's something you don't do. So then Atheists don't claim there isn't a god, Atheists simply react to the claim that there is a god. They don't have to do this, but they do because it's interesting. Atheists don't make an ABSOLUTE statement about anything, they simple reserve the right not to make a claim. So if you understand that, you might want to make a new video!
Maybe you should watch the video you are posting this as a response to. However, even if you were responding only to 'strong' atheism in this video, it fails to understand the substance of their arguments. Most of them will say that God is logically contradictory to reality. In this case, it would be like a married bachelor. How can you say for sure that a married bachelor does not exist?
Ok well first im going to correct your big error hear. Atheists for the most part don't tend to say with an absolute that there is no god we simply don't believe in one we are open to the possibility just don't think it is vary plausible. Now that we have cleared that up ill move to my next problem. The default position on not knowing something for sertian is I DO NOT KNOW it is not A MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY DID IT. Also accepting a solid theory based on evidence is not taking something on faith.
Continued- It is accepting the best possible answer based on evidence and reality at this time. Your caterpillar argument is kind of a off shoot of Solipsism witch by the way has nothing to do with Atheism. As for the end of your video you do realize that most Atheists where once Christians we seeked we did not find a dam thing we stopped believing.Now you can give the BS you did not do it right response that we have all heard so often but then who are you or any other believer to say that.
The maker of this video is just not very bright at all. First of all Atheists do NOT say "there is no god", They say something like "I do not have sufficient reason to believe that there is a god". That statement IS NOT an absolute! Atheist don't claim to know that there is no god, we just don't go out of our way to believe in something that probably doesn't exist.
Break down the word Atheism and you might get it.
"A"= without "theism"=belief in the existence of a god or gods.
LOL wow this video already totally FUCKS-UP at the very first sentence.
Atheism makes the claim "there is no god"? WRONG!
Rather, atheism makes the claim that there is no sufficient evidence to proof that your magical sky daddy god exists and therefor we don't believe in god. :-)
The burden of proof is on the theists. If you can proof your sky daddy exists then we'll stop being atheists and become theists.
But as long as you totally LACK any evidence that god exists we'll LACK a belief in god.
"1# I am not talking about the definition of atheism."
Why bother making this video if you openly admit you are making up your own definition of what it means to be an atheist? How dishonest are you to cherry pick the definition of faith? Your own link clearly defines it as belief and trust in and loyalty to god. Stop making up definitions.
Atheism is a lack of theism. If you claim it is anything else, you are arguing against an imaginary position existing only in your mind.
lol your a dipshit is not believeing in the boogey man faith also how about ufos? the lockness monster? bigfoot? wow i got me alot of faiths it just pisses u off that your so scared of burning in hell and atheist arent and that they are happier then u and can do what they want with out checking in with your sky fairy lol at the glassy eyed wanna preacher y dont u stand on a street corner with a sign that says " the end is near" where u belong
also, atheists are not 100% sure, they are 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure
@pur3o3end It's a dumb argument. It's not an absolute... It a norm in conversation. Someone asks me if my car is outside and I say "yes", it doesn't mean I'm 100% sure that my car is out there. It means most likely it is there. It could have been stolen, towed, etc.
While you can be 99.999etc % sure that there is no god. You can be 100% certain that the God of the Bible is false, because his own scripture contradicts his ability t exist repeatedly.
Have you even heard of the LHC (large hadron collider)? It is a machine that remakes the bing bang on a small scale. And that is how we know how the big bang happened.
@pur3o3end they wont recreate the big bang cos the big bang involved a super dense concentration of matter. so even if we recreate what happened at the big bang there wont be another big bang
@pur3o3end Your argument that "Atheist exclude God from the Big Bang" is also not convincing, no reasonable Atheist would say that it's impossible for the Big Bang to be created by a "creator". But where does that leave us? The same position, we do not know. Just because it could have been created, doesn't mean it was, and even if it was, that doesn't mean it's a personal God. It could be a more advanced species, a universe-creating machine, natural occurrence etc.
@DexxterMorgan The question remains, why do you want to believe there is a God? Why go to the lengths of these easily refutable claims, even by lay-persons. Even if It was proven that a intelligent entity created the Universe, why would that affect us? All that would say is what I just stated, it wouldn't mean he/she/it would care about us, it wouldn't confirm it had "us" in mind in creation, nor would it prove any particular religion since it already conflicts with creation all stories.
Also the caterpillar example you brought up. You are right, just because the caterpillar cant see the bird, does not mean that the bird is not there. However before the caterpillar has any reason / evidence to believe that the bird really is there, the caterpillar probably wont believe.
I can make the same example about me and God.
I do not believe in a God, that does not mean that there are no God(s).
However before there are evidence / reasons to believe, i wont believe.
@Pharaoh481 ~ they "claim" they are recreating something. So far when they get the thing to work they create something for a millisecond that they tell us. Were you there to witness it?
Not every atheist believe 100% absolutely that there is no God.
Richard Dawkins himself categorizes himself as a 5 out of 6 atheist. While he certainly cannot truly be certain (as indeed, no one can be), like most atheists he is certain beyond any reasonable doubt.
athiest dont say there is no god they reject the claim of deities b/c there is a lack of proof ne of them exist. its like saying rejecting the existince of odin is a faith.
All we need to do to prove there is no god is read the Bible and the other religious holly books. All the absurdities, contradictions and slaughtering in the name of morality prove that all the major Gods were made up by primitive men.
dude if your goign to try and prove god's exsitince do a good job your points are completly ridicilous espicaly the catipilar one secondly you dont have to prove thtat somthing ISN'T there if i say santa clause is real and until you prove me wrong im going to worship him and kill ppl who dont tnk the same way ppl would think your nuts
A lot of the "atheists" are responding saying that they are _not_ claiming there is no God, they are only saying they see no evidence and doubt any exists. This is actually the agnostic position. If you say you are an "atheist," by definition, you are claiming "there is not a god." This is the literal and traditional meaning of the word. If you're an agnostic, you merely say that you have no knowledge of God, (again, the literal meaning of the term).
Within the first 10 seconds of this video you are wrong, atheists do not say there is absolutely 100% no chance of god existing but that they are 99.99999999999999999% sure there isn't a god. Just as you can't say that there is absolutely, 100% no chance that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Sounds like you haven't read any book or heard any argument for atheism in your life.
Atheism is not the claim that there is no god. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god's existence. Someone who does not know if a god exists, or even believes that it is impossible to know if one exists, would still be atheist.
Atheists can reasonably upgrade their claim to conclude gods do not exist in a practical sense, in the same way they can trust the sun will rise the next morning. Knowing for sure would require knowledge of the future, but they can be fairly confident anyway.
What I think some people fail to realize is there are different tiers of religion. I feel as if Atheism debates the Corporate Religions of the World. Religion as a company, a corporation of blind faith = monetary donations.
Corporate Jesus: Lets make money from theses ignorant &*^%$, make them come to service all week long and donate; pay your ties - ticket to heaven.
Follower: Goes to church just for the superficial gains, You know we praise the Lord, I'll never miss a day of worship.
First of all you conveniently stereotype people of religion and atheists into two distinct and generic groups. Which is inaccurate.
Second, you point out humans understand very little, the difference is that agnostics and atheists leave the remainder as a problem to be solved.
Theists on the other hand automatically attribute the mystical to God. They assign the mysteries of the universe to God, they define something they don't understand in human-centric terms.
This is why I hate extremly religiouse people. Always jumping on others, yet ignoring your own flaws. For one, lots of Christians just say "There is a God." Some of them even claim to know it. Its just like with athiesm. Some think they know some dont, so Christians are no worse. 2: You havent scientifically proven anything. As you said in the video, science has steps. Only a few were taken. You used logic. And there are others, but damn the count...
My issue with this video is that we should assume in the other "99% of what we don't know" that there is a divine entity.
If this Universe was truly created for us to celebrate Him, and if He truly wanted us to know His existence, why would He go out of his way to make so many things that go against what is suggested? Why be deceptive when you can be forthright? Why "test" people when you "want" them to know?
This goes beyond faith and gets into the level of cruelty.
I would have debunked this video piece by piece, but I looked at some of the comments, and it's just not necessary. This video has already been annihilated.
That didn't take too long. First statement this video makes is inaccurate. Atheists do not claim that they're certain "no god can exist." Rather that "the claim that a god exists lacks enough evidence to be believed." And that applies to the idea of any god, any god you can believe in but you don't!
Most atheist do not "believe" in the big bang or evolution so much as accept it as the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on earth, no faith there.
And you are right I cannot prove the god of the bible does not exist however I can prove that your perception of that god is in your imagination and I intend to do that.
We also can't test, observe, or repeat what happens at the core of a star. yet we have solid theories about what happens star. You don't have to observe something directly to know it's there. eg. we can't directly see black holes but we can see the effects of them. accretion, gravitational lensing, etc.
This guy would be the first to say "there are no fairies". Of course he is not a god, so how would he know? Blasphemy !!!! Atheists don't say "there is no god", they say "i don't believe in any god because there is not proof" This guy holds an atheist view when it comes to the other gods of other religions...go figure....lol.
Atheism denounces all religious belief. You don't need "faith". When we say there is no god we mean that there is no reason for us to believe in your god.
By your logic not believing in unicorns and fairy's also requires faith. In fact, looking at any object, lets say a book, and thinking it really exists also requires "faith". Because the only thing we can be 100% sure is that we exist.
Denouncing god requires same amount of faith as denouncing the tooth fairy.
in the same way you don't have to stick your hand in a fire to know if it is hot and will hurt there is sufficient evedience in the world to make a conclusion there is no god.
Just my opinion I dont have any problem with people thinking there is as long as there dont harm others.
Also as you someone who is not an atheist, I dont think it is your place to tell us (meaning me and other atheist) what it is we think.
You're comment deserves a response. That isn't a good example because there is not that much evidence against the existence of God. There is also a lot of evidence for the existence of God, and keep in mind you can use the scientific method on fire to KNOW it's hot. In my opinion I have no problem with atheists being atheists I just have a problem with them constantly bashing beliefs and acting they're way is the smarter one, and they use no faith themselves. I'm not telling you what you think.
"There is also a lot of evidence for the existence of God"
What, the bible? a book written by men, decades after the events transpired at the earliest, long after the storyteller embellishments had become accepted dogma of the stories. Internally contradictory and a subject of constant debate over what was real and what was metaphorical. Funny how as time has gone on and we have learned more about the world, that metaphorical nature of the bible grows at an exponential rate.
"I'm not telling you what you think." no, but your one of many who spread half truths, misinformation and outright lies. This is what gets many an atheist offside and posting many such comments, which you complain about.
You will find that not just on youtube, if a christian says their a christian because thats what they want to believe, atheists wont have issue.
BUT, if they say they believe because of science/fact supporting god/creation THEN we have a problem.
To date - there is no accepted evidence for god or creation, there are no facts (other than a dubious account in the bible, for which there are many other even older books that have other stories) to support creation or god.
If there was, bring them out for review and change almost all atheist's minds. That is, if they can hold water. Many theists claim to have facts and evidence, when infact what they have is either fraud or misinterpretation. If you have something new, by all means, share it.
Con- I'd be happy to take this down if atheists stop coming to my channel trying to bash my beliefs, or at least respectfully disagree. Instead of disrespectfully bashing me.
Okay you didnt like that analogy, was only one analogy here another, I have a jig saw puzzle of a face. I only have to look at one bit of it to know it is a person face, before I put all the other pieces together even though is 500 pieces. There is lots of evidence and Im happy to make a very educated guess.
i think the main problem is a disagreement about the quality and amount of evidence there is. i think there is enough and you dont.
by this logic we can never say there is no such thing as santa claus, even though it is obvious that we created him in our fictional stories for or children. or any other fairy tale for that matter
i am not anti spirituality or deism but most of us athiests ARE anti religion. religion is not the same thing as theism or spirituality. Religion is an institution which exploits theism and spirituality to gain social control and wealth for a ruling elite.
Stevenskii: Personally, I don't care what people believe as long as they don't try enforce their beliefs on me. When I can't shop on sunday, have to fight to keep the creationists out of my kid's science class, and see people using faith to justify flying planes into buildings, then I care.
Everything that we can claim to know exists, except for the self-evident, is based on the reliability of our sensations and our memory. God does not appear in this category of knowing. Neither does any definition of any particular god that I have come across appear to be self-evident. I do not need to know everything to know that any god that you care to clearly define is either self-contradictory or does not have any evidence for exitence.
faithful atheism is an oxymoron/paradox. science does not claim to know everything, but the use of a god conveniently tries to fill the rest of the holes that we may not understand. Everything that atheists claim to know is supported by unbiased, objective evidence. I don't know what world you live in, but science is the closest to the truth that we have.
pur3o3end, don't waste your time with the negative energy of Atheists, their is a veil over their eyes. God only helps after one helps their self first. Instead of wasting time on the spiritually blind, spend time on strengthening those who are not blind, so that they don't waste their positive energies on the negative energies of Atheists. By the way in Deuteronomy it clearly states what happened when God came to Earth and why we can't see God. Atheists don't do research, they are close-minded.
Atheists don't do research, they are close-mined. They think that just because they don't believe in what can't be seen or proven makes them smarter and superior to those that follow God and are able to understand and appreciate the powers of God and spirits.They think it gives them the right to abuse those who do believe in the unseen and unprovable, they cite the actions of others to make us feel guilty, as if we are living like apes in groups rather than as individuals. Thus they are Apeists.
"...God and are able to understand and appreciate the powers of God and spirits." Which God(s) are you referring to? Humans have worshipped thousand of different Gods. Do you believe in all of them, or just you particular God(s)? If you don't believe in the Gods of Hinduism, or any other God(s), then you are an Atheist to those God(s), in the same way I'm an Atheist to yours. Also, we do act quite a lot like apes. Human and Chimp behaviour are very similar.
Dude you are generalizing and projecting. We are not close minded, we don't believe in something with no evidence, that is not close minded. The way you talk about atheists certainly justifies any "abuse" atheists give you. By the way having a different view than you is not abuse.
Most atheists know the bible better than the average Christian. Atheists are close minded to things that are not logical, observable, or testable. Deities are none of those things. The rest of what you stated was stereotypical backwash.
'Atheists don't do research, they are close-minded. '
You only believe in your particular god or gods, which makes you close minded to every other religion or ideology out there. Atheists and Christians are basically in the same position in this argument concerning 'being close minded'.
2. AHH the Dawkins example ive heard this example so many times now..first there is a problem with that Jesus was a real man, we have historical evidence of that. Jesus claimed to be God John 10:30 so if we believe Jesus is God we know he exists.
3. We have evidence a bang happened by the expanding universe that is it. WE do not KNOW that is simply untrue. and the space expanding gives evidence of the Bible since it says God stretches the heavens.
Point 2, wrong again- We have evidence of the Big Bang from not only the expanding universe but from may other things including cosmic background radiation, abundance of light elements etc.
You're cosmic background radiation has a bit of a time problem i'm sure you know? The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. It is called The horizon problem if you didn't know. if you really want to debate send me a message it's easier there.
You're going to have to change the "has" in your 1st sentence to a "had". This was a problem in the 1980's I think, but now has been explained by inflation theory. At 10^-35 seconds, the universe's began to expand exponentially, and therefore easily accounts for the homogeneity that we see now. This has been confirmed by some later observations too. And if you want to talk about it- no problem, the ball's in your court.
the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on which (if any) inflation model is correct. Some astronomers do not accept inflationary models and have proposed other possible solutions to the horizon problem.
In light of this disagreement, it is safe to say that the horizon problem has not been decisively solved. many aspects of inflation models are currently unable to be tested.
Well, the thing is, there are always going to be people who won't accept the currently most accepted method, but the fact of the matter is, the current inflation theory has made quite a few predictions and this has been confirmed by observation. There is always going to be an internal debate about it, but that's how science works, but until some new phenomena is observed which cannot be explained by the current model, it's safe to say that it's correct to the best of our knowledge.
There is more problems with inflation and also difficulties on how to turn off the inflation once it starts the graceful exit problem. Many inflation models are known to be wrong making predictions that are not consistent with observations, such as Guths original model. I wouldn't say that inflation can be a fair argument to push as a fact. I know there is some 'problem' that creationists have with light travel aswell, and if this was proven it would solve they're problem to.
Using your logic, I could state that there is an invisable Dragon living in my backyard. I could say that you couldn't 'measure' it in any meaningful way. If you didn't beleive me, and you said that you needed evidence of its existence, and I stated, "just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist", would you believe me? I hope I made my point.
I don't mind either way, but I just don't like comment wars because you're limited to 500 character's and it makes the video look bad because you can't see anyone else's comments. I
1. That makes absolutely no sense the deaf man at some point will have to put his trust in you by using "faith" to clearly demonstrate that he trusts you hear a sound.
same thing with an alien it would require faith, unless we used the scientific method on you to see if you were a human or not.
1. Lets say I tell a deaf man I hear a loud sound, and he gets out a measuring system of sound that results negative, and then i tell him this sound is above the laws of other sounds, the deaf man has every right to be suspicious and not believe you, even though the deaf man does not have absolute knowledge of sound, it is not faith
what if I told you that I was an alien, you have no proof that I am human. Does that require faith to believe I am human?
2. What if I told you that the world was created by a flying spaghetti monster. it does not need faith to say no it was not, even though that is an absolute.
3. We know that the universe was created by the big bang because of measurements and the research of supernova expansions. the understanding of anti matter also helps though it is true the big bang can not be tested, we understand the big bang by the curve factor, and radiation, and dark energy. I recomend reading up on this
4. I know god did not say let there be light, because light is an energy, and energy can not be created that is the first law of thermodynamics.
5. your bird example is flawed, there is proof the bird exists, there is proof gravity and sound exists, there is NO proof god exists.
there is evidence to say god does not exist, but you christians will most likley just say "But he is GOD he is above science, so I won't even bother posting the science to atheism.
Doesnt make sense to first say an atheist cant claim with absolute certainty there isnt a god and then encourage people to start believing in god without giving any proof for gods existance.
Yes, but if you look at it that way isn't everything a faith? I mean absolutely everything? It doesn't take faith to not believe in something, it takes faith TO believe in something. You don't believe in dragons, but that doesn't mean you have a faith of some sort? If you are referring to science (not atheism) you are talking about theories supported by fact, not blind faith for which no evidence is needed.
I agree with some of this video, but I fail to see the point.
Many atheists will not come to God because of their pride. However, some will eventually see the error of their ways and ask for Gods forgiveness. Remember that God draws people to Himself and that He wishes all to come to repentance.Good video, and keep doing God's work.
"Many atheists will not come to God because of their pride."
That would imply that the individual 'atheist' realizes that there is a god in which they refuse to come to. In that case, they aren't an atheist anymore.
As an atheist, I don't claim absolute knowledge that God or gods do not exist. I just don't believe there are any. What you have to bear in mind is that religions propose God. Atheists simply don't accept it. This is where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in. You see, you can't prove, absolutly 100% for sure, that there is no FSM. You also can't prove there's no Vishnu, Allah, Thor...and I'm betting that you are an atheist when it comes to them. So, you are an atheist too. See?
You misunderstand atheism. Atheists generally allow for the possibility of logically consistent notions of God.
An atheist will never say "there is no God". They will say that there is no reason to believe that there is a god - and that the non-belief in God (along with all ontological beliefs) remains a conditional assumption until evidence or reason demonstrates a necessity to believe otherwise. Such beliefs are not faith based because they don't make assertions beyond what is known.
I love Occams Razor! Its the one that says that say, you see a fish and say, "Oh, that seems like that developed from nonliving material that randomly formed a cell and developed for billions of years and now lives there in a balanced ecosystem." The simplest explanation, yes sir!
Occam's Razor has to do with going with the argument that has the least number of assumptions. Evolution does not have any assumptions- It has evidence to back it up. Saying "Godditit" has a huge number assumptions, including the assumption that God actually exists and the assumption that he is a personal God instead of some impersonal form of energy etc. THAT is where Occam's Razor is used.
imagen billions of DNA letters changing without one skip or flaw. This might have been a good argument when we thought cells were a blab of jelly, but we now know cells are as complex as a galaxy!
Amazing!
3) We do have evidence of the flood, coal is one(ill send you a vid) The grand canyon another, loads of fossils that show a "fast" event unlike the long period that it normally takes, many ancient nations talking of a great flood(in more then one place) and more. well I have to go for now
3) Please tell me how `highly unlike` it is that it happened? Evolutionary theory predicts it! Actually DNA produce lots of flaws all the time. It`s called a mutation. In fact a lot of the DNA in humans is junk DNA, which means, that it has no real purpose. Hmmm, your God seems pretty sloppy to me.....
4) I would love to see some evidence but there has been none. The grand canyon was NOT created by one big flood. Any geologist will tell you. All the others are pretty shaky evidence too.
Faith indeed, is the atheists logic. They don't even know it. But the Creator of all things will bring it to their knowledge. If they put aside their hatred and greed, like the rest of us must do in order to see God.
Why would they bother acknowledging this when they can just continue to call others hateful and greedy. Personally, I think their pride is a bit conspicuous.
Everything has been explained by science?! this is breaking news call CNN! magic who said magic anything about magic? let me fix that term a bit apparently physics proves God is limited? well you're not talking about my God because He is omnipotent. Hes above physics, Hes above everything space, matter, time, energy if He wasn't above it He wouldn't be omnipotent therefore He wouldn't be God!
ok, i'm not on expert on string theory, or the theory of everything, but the statement here is invaild in the times
of today. You said "if it is correct, it will be proven by testable means!" well then we still don't know if this theory
is correct do we? So until proven atheists can only know how the universe came to be by faith. "then we will know it is correct!" again we don't know yet do we?
No, until a theory about the origin of the universe is proven conclusively, atheists will say, "We don't know, BUT there are some valid hypotheses about it and we will continue to try and find out." I don't think any atheists will claim to "know" how the universe came to be, therefore we don't need faith.
I'm not saying "God didn't do it", I'm saying " I DON"T KNOW". If you can prove to me God did it, fine, I'll believe it. If you can prove to me that due to fluctuations in the space-time foam that it happened, fine, I'll believe it. If you can't prove it conclusively, but can give me evidence to show that any of those reasons is the cause, I'll be leaning more to that side because there is EVIDENCE. So far, there is no evidence for a god, but some evidence for other hypotheses.
Well then, id say you're more of an agnostic then an athiest, but lets get back to the point: in this video like I said above it wasn't about evidence of God vs evidence without Him. It was a video saying atheists do use faith by putting they're trust in unobserved theory's. there is no evidence for God? not true we have the golden ratio, desigh, noah's flood(evidence of that) history that validates the Bible, places talked about in the Bible found, the universe expanding, and so on. con-
OK, I'm not going to repeat what I just said earlier because I'm guessing you're not going to accept that atheists don't need faith, no matter what I say.
But to address your "evidence"-
1) The golden ratio is supposed to prove what? That some random number keeps on occurring in the ratios of animals, therefore God must exist?
2) Design? Yes, natural selection and mutations designed the animals to best suit their environment. Your point is?
3) There's is NO proof for Noah's flood whatsoever.
I'm trying to debunk the evidence you presented, not the possibility. Big difference.
1) No, I don't know, but there are some valid hypotheses and I'm open to ideas backed up with evidence.
2) Well if that's your evidence, your idea of evidence is very weak. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, is that your idea of evidence too? Evidence should point to some idea, yet your evidence is that due to the optimum value for the ratio in living things is a constant, that it proves God. Please...
Video main premise is incorrect.
Athests believe there is no God or Gods. They don't state it as a certainty. They states their belief on evidence (in this case, the lack-thereof).
Atheism is a faith? No.
Would you say that NOT stamp-collection is a hobby?
Uberlaser 4 months ago
@Uberlaser Exactly.
oakstave 1 month ago
I will now prove that theism doesn't exist. The statement "God exists" requires perfect knowledge of everything, which no one has, therefore christianity doesn't exist. Thank you.
KapStuf 4 months ago
wow this is a fail
Take some courses in science before you make a video and make assumptions
AluminumAngel17 5 months ago
as usual, theist disable rating
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
fail
hobaleo 7 months ago
"There is no god" is perfectly reasonable thing to say, considering that there was no evidence to indicate otherwise. Since there is no observable proof, that means his existence has no impact on our life, therefor - there is no god.
ouroboros2003 7 months ago
If you can't suggest evidence for something being true, then it is basically imaginary. If some1 proved ANY religion correct, I'd convert immediately... as it is, nobody has.
Atheism is not a faith or religion, it is a lack thereof (a = not; theist = beliver in a deity)
Sorry, but you didnt scientifically prove atheism is a religion... in fact, you failed to do it grammatically. Atheism is not a religion. To think it is requires a lack of understanding as to what a dictionary is.
PalulukanMakto 7 months ago
@PalulukanMakto AND, even if atheism was a "leap of faith", it still wouldnt prove your god. By the arguement you posited, it would still make god less probable. Also, a dimension is not a direction... I apologise if this high-school level grammer and conceptualisation is too much for your mind to grasp.
The first thing you need to do is pick up a dictionary, and put down the inhalents.
PalulukanMakto 7 months ago
Some retarded televangelist was preaching this EXACT same bullshit.
KnivesOfTheRound 7 months ago
It does NOT take faith to be an atheist because it does not take faith to not believe in Bigfoot, dragons, the Loch Ness monster, alien abductions, unicorns, leprechauns, and so on. Faith is for the believers, and it is faith because they do not provide evidence for anything.
If you do not believe something for which there is no evidence, you do not require faith to disbelieve.
Scientists have evidence for the big bang. Just like how Pluto orbits the Sun in 200 years, we know it's true by math.
steviej321 8 months ago
Using logic to attack atheism is a losing battle. In the end, religious people believe what they believe, despite any logical conclusions. So you aren't really even debating, you are proselytizing. Because there is not, cannot be, and never will be any evidence for God, you re wasting your time. If there WERE a way to prove such things, what exactly is the value of Faith then?
oakstave 8 months ago
OK, nevermind... the whole video is a logical fallacy. Look folks, Atheists don't BELIEVE anything, got it? That's the point. Belief is when you nothing anyone says, and no fact can change your mind. Like Christian's belief in the divinity of Christ. You can't write down some fact, and have a Christian go "OH,what do you know, there is no God." BELIEF and FAITH transcend reason. Atheists do NOT have belief or faith, got it?
oakstave 8 months ago
First statement is a logical fallacy. Atheist don't 'believe' there is no God. We have no beliefs. We say there is NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD. Not what you are saying at all. Show us evidence, and we may reconsider.
oakstave 8 months ago
Saying "There is no god" does not require omniscience. It's just like saying "There are no square circles". God is defined as the absolute creator. Can God create himself? If he can, he would be the creator of himself who's the creator of himself who's the creator of himself, ad infinitum. Thus God creating himself is a logical fallacy. So he can't. But God is the absolute creator. An absolute creator who can't create himself is self-contradictory. That which is self-contradictory doesn't exist.
drrobertoboogie97 8 months ago
I'm so sick of this pathetic belief based on wanting to say "See I told ya and now my god will reward me with eternal worship while he lets millions of children die.". Ok maybe the second half won't be said but the point still stands. Why would a moral god even want worship and rely on very slim odds that he even exists and is a HE, when coming down to earth to tell us this so we can avoid making choices we KNOW will grant us hell, would be more rational?
clipsryan 8 months ago
@Pharaoh481 1 / 2
0:07
Most atheist that i have met, and including me, do not make a claim like that, all we say is that we dont believe in a God. Note this does not mean we activly believe that no god exists, we simply dont believe in one.
Atheism has nothing to do with the big bang theory.
Also you would not need to take it on faith that a God did not create the universe, you would simply not believe it.
Again many atheist are not ''certain that there is no God''
Turha101 9 months ago
How do you know there's only ONE God? Cool Atheist-symbol BTW :)
TheConcolor 10 months ago
There is enough proof of the big bang for science to believe it. The same cannot be said of your god which there is no proof of outside of your holy book. Which itself cannot be proven to be true.
Atheism doesn't say that god doesn't exist. It says that there is no proof for the existance of god and willnot believe for that reason. Nice to know there are still uneducated people such as yourself for the church to fleece.
lautz73 10 months ago
@pur3o3end
0:09
"There is no Santa Clause" is also an absolute statement. It's true that I don't have all the knowledge in the world, so technically I should be a Santa-agnostic, right? Or would it be more reasonable for me to assume Santa doesn't exist?
0:38
According to your own argument, no theist should ever say, "I KNOW there is a God."
And according to your argument, NOTHING can be known.
RighteousRebel430 11 months ago
Atheist do not claim there is no god, they reject the claim that god exists. They do not no with certainty, but will not believe in god without evidence. Scientists can test any theory, science it testable. Look at the cosmic background radiation. Science does not know everything, but the search will not be halted in the favor of a magic man. The caterpillar is basing it's understanding on the observations available, this has no effect on reality.
Omircoid 11 months ago
By mentioning evidence for the big bang, by the way, I'm talking about the movement of the planets, their composition and the physics that had to be involved to make that happen. The LHC, if successful, will simply fill another few pieces of the puzzle.
AkrayBothorda 1 year ago
Put down the bible and pick up a dictionary. Atheism means not being theist. Says nothing about there definately being no deities/ghosts/unicorns, just not believing them until presented with evidence.
Big bang theory is supported by evidence.
We only believe that which can be detected. Sight is only one sense. We sometimes use machinery to detect things outside our range.
Why do theists try to make atheism look like faith anyway? Would it be a bad thing if it were? Yep, we think it would :-)
AkrayBothorda 1 year ago
Worst explanation ever. Faith means lack of evidence, science depends of it. You can't have 'faith' in something that is demostrable, you can trust on facts, despite they can be questioned with new evidence. There is no absolute truth but you can grasp what is real and how it works
titoyepezliut 1 year ago
To get into the video:
First, few atheists actually state the absolute you posit. The lay-atheist merely posits "there is not sufficient evidence to believe there is a god". And even then that OVERSTATES their 'emphasis' on it.
Second, let's take your own claim of us having "1% of all knowledge". The same argument applies to Allah, Zeus, FSM, IPU, Odin, Marduk, and every other divine entity. As such, it's less "faith" to not believe in all than to hold one above the others.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Third, the scientific method posits natural processes as the default assumption; you don't assume that nymphs make snow until you acquire evidence otherwise. This follows the 'second' problem in a practical approach: Why is it "God" and not Allah or IPU?
Fourth, the "light" comment is a positive claim, hence requires evidence to prove it true (or the null as false). As such, it is up to YOU to present evidence for your claim.
Fifth, most atheists are such as they use logic.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
As such, they observe something. Then they analyze it. And, especially if they are particular to the scientific mindest, they will attempt to explain in various ways and eliminate each one through experimentation and reasoning.
However for "lay-atheists", the focus tends to emphasize on the "observe" and "analyze" steps, instead of going out of their way to "test".
Sixth, even for those who swear by "seeing is believing", the "beauty", etc. of nature aren't evidence for ANY god.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Seventh, if the Bird doesn't reveal itself to the Caterpillar, then the Caterpillar has no worry. However when the Caterpillar sees the Bird, the Caterpillar can react to the Bird. In the same way, we shouldn't worry about God until he shows himself to us; yet hearsay then is invalid as it's not you "seeing" and hence should not influence your "believing".
Eight, the very idea of an "open heart" excludes an "open mind" and CREATES a faith where there may not have been one before.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
I don't normally reply to many comments on this video but something you said caught my eye " if the Bird doesn't reveal itself to the Caterpillar, then the Caterpillar has no worry. However when the Caterpillar sees the Bird, the Caterpillar can react to the Bird. In the same way, we shouldn't worry about God until he shows himself to us"
You don't relize that is the story of Christianity, God revealed Himself to His creation by the man Christ. God came down and visited us.
pur3o3end 1 year ago
@pur3o3end "You don't relize that is the story of Christianity, God revealed Himself to His creation by the man Christ. God came down and visited us."
You seem to ignore the component in my comment that to accept "seeing is believing" negates hearsay as it is not "seeing" and hence doesn't deserve "believing".
Hence Japan, China, and the Americas at the time didn't have any obligation to believe the tales of Jesus. Nor does ANYONE at this time.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Let's use the very example of Birds and Caterpillars.
A Caterpillar sees a Bird and flees. In ten years, another Caterpillar in that same spot does not see a Bird. Does that mean that the second Caterpillar needs to worry about a Bird? No, it doesn't.
Now, assuming that the second Caterpillar DOES see a Bird, is it the same Bird as the first one? Not necessarily.
The Caterpillar doesn't need to worry about the First Bird and Humans don't need to worry about the Christian God. :P
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Of course there are two very big differences.
*Humans can look around easier than the Caterpillar. So that humans don't see God even after extensive earnest looking casts more doubt on God than the Bird in the Caterpillar's case.
*Belief just to avoid punishment would not be a valid establishment for morality. And God would know that. So to use the example of the Caterpillar removes any sense of morality in your consideration of God.
Fyi, I've read the Bible. It's merely a book.
onijester56 1 year ago
pur3o3end
"You don't relize that is the story of Christianity, God revealed Himself to His creation by the man Christ. God came down and visited us"
So u contend, but your claim cannot be demonstrated. You want to believe so u have faith, which is believing without any reason or evidence, and even in spite of counter evidence.
What's the most important message in the gospel? Man's salvation, right? Yet, god has been suspiciously silent & absent for 2K yrs. I'd expect to see him very active.
Cootabux 9 months ago
To establish "atheism" as a "faith", you MUST define "atheism", accurately, in such a way that It must, in the definition, rely on one of the provided definitions of "faith".
The most accurate definition of "atheism" is 'a lack of belief'. This does not require "strong conviction" or "firm belief". This does not logically bear any more "burden of proof" or requirement for "evidence" than is required for, say, elves or pixies.
Of course that's before actually getting into the video.
onijester56 1 year ago
"How do we know God didn't say let there be light?"
---This is a logical fallacy of "proving a negative." The burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate that it *was* God that did this.
.
Your 99%/1% argument is also incorrect because it is an "argument of ignorance."..."We don't understand, therefore God must have done it."
.
And "seeing is believing" is more of a theistic argument (i.e., "did you *see* the Big Bang") than an atheistic one.
.
I think the caterpillar is cute.
hgh778 1 year ago
it's a matter of believing there is no god vs not believing there is a god
CallMeNiel 1 year ago
Whenever I say "God doesn't exist" I mean "There is not enough evidence to confirm that god exists" and whenever I say "The big bang created the universe" I mean "The theory that all the matter in the universe comes from one point in the universe follows the known laws of physics, which none other hypothesis I have heard of does, which means that it is the most probable explanation". That shortens everything a bit, huh?
321Carl2000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think more people need to look up the word "Equivocation".
fosnofx 1 year ago
The default position is remaining skeptical about claims that don't have proof. Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. So it's just skepticism towards deities. Faith is bad, because its believing in something with no proof, yes, but what kind of proof? Empirical? Philosophical? Logical? Saying Atheists have faith, in any form is a false argument. Period.
DanielxMorningstar 1 year ago
There is no God in the respect of the God Christians claim to intervene in our daily lives. If you make a claim that interferes with what we DO understand, then that's when Atheists say there is no God. You are refering to Strong Atheists (those that say there is no God). You cannot prove a negative. By your logic, you have faith by not believing in big foot, the tooth fairy, unicorns, the greek Gods, the flying spaghetti monster, the giant pink human elephant etc.
DanielxMorningstar 1 year ago
Your basic understanding of Atheisim wrong, so your crits are irrelevant. Atheism isn't something you do, it's something you don't do. So then Atheists don't claim there isn't a god, Atheists simply react to the claim that there is a god. They don't have to do this, but they do because it's interesting. Atheists don't make an ABSOLUTE statement about anything, they simple reserve the right not to make a claim. So if you understand that, you might want to make a new video!
fred10538 1 year ago
Maybe you should watch the video you are posting this as a response to. However, even if you were responding only to 'strong' atheism in this video, it fails to understand the substance of their arguments. Most of them will say that God is logically contradictory to reality. In this case, it would be like a married bachelor. How can you say for sure that a married bachelor does not exist?
hugesinker 1 year ago
How is such messy epistimology qualify as "scientific"?
seyormi 1 year ago
No, atheists is not a religion the only thing that is a religion is a religion that have a faith in christ or being a muslim is that right?
richardskeptics 1 year ago
Ok well first im going to correct your big error hear. Atheists for the most part don't tend to say with an absolute that there is no god we simply don't believe in one we are open to the possibility just don't think it is vary plausible. Now that we have cleared that up ill move to my next problem. The default position on not knowing something for sertian is I DO NOT KNOW it is not A MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY DID IT. Also accepting a solid theory based on evidence is not taking something on faith.
Timmurrayjr84 1 year ago
Continued- It is accepting the best possible answer based on evidence and reality at this time. Your caterpillar argument is kind of a off shoot of Solipsism witch by the way has nothing to do with Atheism. As for the end of your video you do realize that most Atheists where once Christians we seeked we did not find a dam thing we stopped believing.Now you can give the BS you did not do it right response that we have all heard so often but then who are you or any other believer to say that.
Timmurrayjr84 1 year ago
The maker of this video is just not very bright at all. First of all Atheists do NOT say "there is no god", They say something like "I do not have sufficient reason to believe that there is a god". That statement IS NOT an absolute! Atheist don't claim to know that there is no god, we just don't go out of our way to believe in something that probably doesn't exist.
Break down the word Atheism and you might get it.
"A"= without "theism"=belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Nice try!
okplayer420 1 year ago
...it's so clear now. O Mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster please forgive me, ramen.
jmerinen 1 year ago
LOL wow this video already totally FUCKS-UP at the very first sentence.
Atheism makes the claim "there is no god"? WRONG!
Rather, atheism makes the claim that there is no sufficient evidence to proof that your magical sky daddy god exists and therefor we don't believe in god. :-)
The burden of proof is on the theists. If you can proof your sky daddy exists then we'll stop being atheists and become theists.
But as long as you totally LACK any evidence that god exists we'll LACK a belief in god.
LucvdMortel 1 year ago
"1# I am not talking about the definition of atheism."
Why bother making this video if you openly admit you are making up your own definition of what it means to be an atheist? How dishonest are you to cherry pick the definition of faith? Your own link clearly defines it as belief and trust in and loyalty to god. Stop making up definitions.
Atheism is a lack of theism. If you claim it is anything else, you are arguing against an imaginary position existing only in your mind.
MrShane2369 1 year ago
lol your a dipshit is not believeing in the boogey man faith also how about ufos? the lockness monster? bigfoot? wow i got me alot of faiths it just pisses u off that your so scared of burning in hell and atheist arent and that they are happier then u and can do what they want with out checking in with your sky fairy lol at the glassy eyed wanna preacher y dont u stand on a street corner with a sign that says " the end is near" where u belong
zarassien 1 year ago
also, atheists are not 100% sure, they are 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure
Pharaoh481 1 year ago
@Pharaoh481
If those are negative marks id have to agree.
pur3o3end 1 year ago
@pur3o3end It's a dumb argument. It's not an absolute... It a norm in conversation. Someone asks me if my car is outside and I say "yes", it doesn't mean I'm 100% sure that my car is out there. It means most likely it is there. It could have been stolen, towed, etc.
DexxterMorgan 1 year ago
@Pharaoh481
While you can be 99.999etc % sure that there is no god. You can be 100% certain that the God of the Bible is false, because his own scripture contradicts his ability t exist repeatedly.
formless777 1 year ago
Have you even heard of the LHC (large hadron collider)? It is a machine that remakes the bing bang on a small scale. And that is how we know how the big bang happened.
Pharaoh481 1 year ago
@Pharaoh481
Yes, I have but they've yet to recreate the big bang.
pur3o3end 1 year ago
@pur3o3end they wont recreate the big bang cos the big bang involved a super dense concentration of matter. so even if we recreate what happened at the big bang there wont be another big bang
edard101 1 year ago
@pur3o3end ur an idiot lol OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS OH AND BTW DO U BELIEVE IN LEPRECHAUNS? KTHXBAi!
ipwnm00bs 1 year ago
@pur3o3end Your argument that "Atheist exclude God from the Big Bang" is also not convincing, no reasonable Atheist would say that it's impossible for the Big Bang to be created by a "creator". But where does that leave us? The same position, we do not know. Just because it could have been created, doesn't mean it was, and even if it was, that doesn't mean it's a personal God. It could be a more advanced species, a universe-creating machine, natural occurrence etc.
DexxterMorgan 1 year ago
@DexxterMorgan The question remains, why do you want to believe there is a God? Why go to the lengths of these easily refutable claims, even by lay-persons. Even if It was proven that a intelligent entity created the Universe, why would that affect us? All that would say is what I just stated, it wouldn't mean he/she/it would care about us, it wouldn't confirm it had "us" in mind in creation, nor would it prove any particular religion since it already conflicts with creation all stories.
DexxterMorgan 1 year ago
@pur3o3end 2/2
Also the caterpillar example you brought up. You are right, just because the caterpillar cant see the bird, does not mean that the bird is not there. However before the caterpillar has any reason / evidence to believe that the bird really is there, the caterpillar probably wont believe.
I can make the same example about me and God.
I do not believe in a God, that does not mean that there are no God(s).
However before there are evidence / reasons to believe, i wont believe.
Turha101 9 months ago
@Pharaoh481 ~ they "claim" they are recreating something. So far when they get the thing to work they create something for a millisecond that they tell us. Were you there to witness it?
SisterSunnshine 1 year ago
So believe in God supposes you know 100% of the universe?
Your argument fails hard.
orichalcum 1 year ago
If atheism is a religion then not playing football is a sport.
BigJonBone 1 year ago
Not every atheist believe 100% absolutely that there is no God.
Richard Dawkins himself categorizes himself as a 5 out of 6 atheist. While he certainly cannot truly be certain (as indeed, no one can be), like most atheists he is certain beyond any reasonable doubt.
supermark420 1 year ago
athiest dont say there is no god they reject the claim of deities b/c there is a lack of proof ne of them exist. its like saying rejecting the existince of odin is a faith.
ellimist6 1 year ago
Nope. They simply say that there is no evidence that a god exists, and that nothing should be believed without evidence.
freethinker923 1 year ago
All we need to do to prove there is no god is read the Bible and the other religious holly books. All the absurdities, contradictions and slaughtering in the name of morality prove that all the major Gods were made up by primitive men.
jimdotbeep 1 year ago
dude if your goign to try and prove god's exsitince do a good job your points are completly ridicilous espicaly the catipilar one secondly you dont have to prove thtat somthing ISN'T there if i say santa clause is real and until you prove me wrong im going to worship him and kill ppl who dont tnk the same way ppl would think your nuts
john65647 1 year ago
saying "atheism is a faith" is like saying "not smoking is a habit" or "not collecting bottlecaps is a hobby"
tweak4ever2 1 year ago
A lot of the "atheists" are responding saying that they are _not_ claiming there is no God, they are only saying they see no evidence and doubt any exists. This is actually the agnostic position. If you say you are an "atheist," by definition, you are claiming "there is not a god." This is the literal and traditional meaning of the word. If you're an agnostic, you merely say that you have no knowledge of God, (again, the literal meaning of the term).
finkga 1 year ago
Pick up any Richard Dawkins book and read it.
deathkiss27 1 year ago
Within the first 10 seconds of this video you are wrong, atheists do not say there is absolutely 100% no chance of god existing but that they are 99.99999999999999999% sure there isn't a god. Just as you can't say that there is absolutely, 100% no chance that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Sounds like you haven't read any book or heard any argument for atheism in your life.
savag333222111 1 year ago
...then not collecting stamps must be a hoby
Vielwein 1 year ago
Atheism is not the claim that there is no god. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god's existence. Someone who does not know if a god exists, or even believes that it is impossible to know if one exists, would still be atheist.
Atheists can reasonably upgrade their claim to conclude gods do not exist in a practical sense, in the same way they can trust the sun will rise the next morning. Knowing for sure would require knowledge of the future, but they can be fairly confident anyway.
Phage0070 1 year ago
What I think some people fail to realize is there are different tiers of religion. I feel as if Atheism debates the Corporate Religions of the World. Religion as a company, a corporation of blind faith = monetary donations.
Corporate Jesus: Lets make money from theses ignorant &*^%$, make them come to service all week long and donate; pay your ties - ticket to heaven.
Follower: Goes to church just for the superficial gains, You know we praise the Lord, I'll never miss a day of worship.
TheRealistComments 1 year ago
@TheRealistComments
Worshipper of the faith: Actually reads a bible and tries to understand for themselves. Doesn't blindly follow another persons religious dogma.
True Servant: Christian, these people are hard to find. They exist in very small numbers
If I had to guess I'd say there's around 145,000.
TheRealistComments 1 year ago
Great video. Athiests are people of blind faith, because one would have to accept their claims by blind faith, certainly not science.
pastortimlfc 1 year ago
First of all you conveniently stereotype people of religion and atheists into two distinct and generic groups. Which is inaccurate.
Second, you point out humans understand very little, the difference is that agnostics and atheists leave the remainder as a problem to be solved.
Theists on the other hand automatically attribute the mystical to God. They assign the mysteries of the universe to God, they define something they don't understand in human-centric terms.
Teslastyle 1 year ago
This is why I hate extremly religiouse people. Always jumping on others, yet ignoring your own flaws. For one, lots of Christians just say "There is a God." Some of them even claim to know it. Its just like with athiesm. Some think they know some dont, so Christians are no worse. 2: You havent scientifically proven anything. As you said in the video, science has steps. Only a few were taken. You used logic. And there are others, but damn the count...
BananaGeekLord 2 years ago
My issue with this video is that we should assume in the other "99% of what we don't know" that there is a divine entity.
If this Universe was truly created for us to celebrate Him, and if He truly wanted us to know His existence, why would He go out of his way to make so many things that go against what is suggested? Why be deceptive when you can be forthright? Why "test" people when you "want" them to know?
This goes beyond faith and gets into the level of cruelty.
rchodges 2 years ago
It is sooo funny when a theist claims they know what goes on someone else's head!
It is sooo funny when a theist starts going off into science.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
I would have debunked this video piece by piece, but I looked at some of the comments, and it's just not necessary. This video has already been annihilated.
Evanwebster 2 years ago
...And the Theist will remain confused....
Will you let Jesus into your heart?
Or will you let him into your brain?
Science has proven our brain does all the work...
And the brain is where you imagine that there's a God... imagine that
izovire 2 years ago
This is a typical illogical argument from a desperate theist.
drawstring2 2 years ago
That didn't take too long. First statement this video makes is inaccurate. Atheists do not claim that they're certain "no god can exist." Rather that "the claim that a god exists lacks enough evidence to be believed." And that applies to the idea of any god, any god you can believe in but you don't!
phz4307 2 years ago
That can also be used on evolution
xbrakx 2 years ago
Most atheist do not "believe" in the big bang or evolution so much as accept it as the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on earth, no faith there.
And you are right I cannot prove the god of the bible does not exist however I can prove that your perception of that god is in your imagination and I intend to do that.
flammamancer 2 years ago
We also can't test, observe, or repeat what happens at the core of a star. yet we have solid theories about what happens star. You don't have to observe something directly to know it's there. eg. we can't directly see black holes but we can see the effects of them. accretion, gravitational lensing, etc.
systematic101 2 years ago
This guy would be the first to say "there are no fairies". Of course he is not a god, so how would he know? Blasphemy !!!! Atheists don't say "there is no god", they say "i don't believe in any god because there is not proof" This guy holds an atheist view when it comes to the other gods of other religions...go figure....lol.
animation3dfx 2 years ago
Atheism denounces all religious belief. You don't need "faith". When we say there is no god we mean that there is no reason for us to believe in your god.
By your logic not believing in unicorns and fairy's also requires faith. In fact, looking at any object, lets say a book, and thinking it really exists also requires "faith". Because the only thing we can be 100% sure is that we exist.
Denouncing god requires same amount of faith as denouncing the tooth fairy.
PoopnSuch 2 years ago
It's not my "faith" that there's is no gods. I just haven't seen any kind of evidence of any kind of supernatural beings.
An when it comes to religions, they are all more or less absurd and based on old mythical stories.
As for the Big Bang; we don't know what "caused" it (at least not yet). But that is no excuse to say "hey, a supernatural being must have done it".
StandForScience 2 years ago
In science there's no such word as 'faith' It only concerns itself with things of which there is evidence for eg. evolution, the big bang etc.
playd76 2 years ago
in the same way you don't have to stick your hand in a fire to know if it is hot and will hurt there is sufficient evedience in the world to make a conclusion there is no god.
Just my opinion I dont have any problem with people thinking there is as long as there dont harm others.
Also as you someone who is not an atheist, I dont think it is your place to tell us (meaning me and other atheist) what it is we think.
allypally87 2 years ago
You're comment deserves a response. That isn't a good example because there is not that much evidence against the existence of God. There is also a lot of evidence for the existence of God, and keep in mind you can use the scientific method on fire to KNOW it's hot. In my opinion I have no problem with atheists being atheists I just have a problem with them constantly bashing beliefs and acting they're way is the smarter one, and they use no faith themselves. I'm not telling you what you think.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
"There is also a lot of evidence for the existence of God"
What, the bible? a book written by men, decades after the events transpired at the earliest, long after the storyteller embellishments had become accepted dogma of the stories. Internally contradictory and a subject of constant debate over what was real and what was metaphorical. Funny how as time has gone on and we have learned more about the world, that metaphorical nature of the bible grows at an exponential rate.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
"I'm not telling you what you think." no, but your one of many who spread half truths, misinformation and outright lies. This is what gets many an atheist offside and posting many such comments, which you complain about.
You will find that not just on youtube, if a christian says their a christian because thats what they want to believe, atheists wont have issue.
BUT, if they say they believe because of science/fact supporting god/creation THEN we have a problem.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
To date - there is no accepted evidence for god or creation, there are no facts (other than a dubious account in the bible, for which there are many other even older books that have other stories) to support creation or god.
If there was, bring them out for review and change almost all atheist's minds. That is, if they can hold water. Many theists claim to have facts and evidence, when infact what they have is either fraud or misinterpretation. If you have something new, by all means, share it.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
@pur3o3end "There is also a lot of evidence for the existence of God"
can u show my the evidence of god u speak of? i would like to see this evidence myself
ellimist6 1 year ago
Con- I'd be happy to take this down if atheists stop coming to my channel trying to bash my beliefs, or at least respectfully disagree. Instead of disrespectfully bashing me.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Okay you didnt like that analogy, was only one analogy here another, I have a jig saw puzzle of a face. I only have to look at one bit of it to know it is a person face, before I put all the other pieces together even though is 500 pieces. There is lots of evidence and Im happy to make a very educated guess.
i think the main problem is a disagreement about the quality and amount of evidence there is. i think there is enough and you dont.
Not trying to bash your beliefs about god.
allypally87 2 years ago
by this logic we can never say there is no such thing as santa claus, even though it is obvious that we created him in our fictional stories for or children. or any other fairy tale for that matter
robertwc82 2 years ago
Really...Why does it matter if somebody believes in a greater god or not?
all people have there own decisions...
there own voices...there own minds.
i fail to see why atheism is such a big deal and why people have to argue over if its right or not.
people believe what they wish to believe in.
and thats that.
Stevenskii 2 years ago
i am not anti spirituality or deism but most of us athiests ARE anti religion. religion is not the same thing as theism or spirituality. Religion is an institution which exploits theism and spirituality to gain social control and wealth for a ruling elite.
robertwc82 2 years ago
Stevenskii: Personally, I don't care what people believe as long as they don't try enforce their beliefs on me. When I can't shop on sunday, have to fight to keep the creationists out of my kid's science class, and see people using faith to justify flying planes into buildings, then I care.
HarshColby 2 years ago
Fail. Faith by definition is believing without evidence. Atheism by definition is having NO belief in God.
TheDarkKnight987 2 years ago
i'm guessing you didn't read the sidebar.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
The big bang has nothing to do with atheism.
I don't need to know where the universe came from to dismiss the possibility of a god.
herbiepop 2 years ago
Everything that we can claim to know exists, except for the self-evident, is based on the reliability of our sensations and our memory. God does not appear in this category of knowing. Neither does any definition of any particular god that I have come across appear to be self-evident. I do not need to know everything to know that any god that you care to clearly define is either self-contradictory or does not have any evidence for exitence.
herbiepop 2 years ago
faithful atheism is an oxymoron/paradox. science does not claim to know everything, but the use of a god conveniently tries to fill the rest of the holes that we may not understand. Everything that atheists claim to know is supported by unbiased, objective evidence. I don't know what world you live in, but science is the closest to the truth that we have.
waterstrike08 2 years ago
Fail from the the start.
Atheist doesn't claim "there is no god".
They just doesn't believe your claim "there is a god".
paranoidnpanicking 2 years ago
4. God can do whatever He wants He is omnipotent if we limit God to our physical laws He isn't God now is He?
5. I never said you can prove God I said just because you can't see the bird doesn't mean it's not there.
But thank you for you're insight and time I respect all personal opinions and accept that people can disagree
pur3o3end 2 years ago
pur3o3end, don't waste your time with the negative energy of Atheists, their is a veil over their eyes. God only helps after one helps their self first. Instead of wasting time on the spiritually blind, spend time on strengthening those who are not blind, so that they don't waste their positive energies on the negative energies of Atheists. By the way in Deuteronomy it clearly states what happened when God came to Earth and why we can't see God. Atheists don't do research, they are close-minded.
User100606 2 years ago
Atheists don't do research, they are close-mined. They think that just because they don't believe in what can't be seen or proven makes them smarter and superior to those that follow God and are able to understand and appreciate the powers of God and spirits.They think it gives them the right to abuse those who do believe in the unseen and unprovable, they cite the actions of others to make us feel guilty, as if we are living like apes in groups rather than as individuals. Thus they are Apeists.
User100606 2 years ago
"...God and are able to understand and appreciate the powers of God and spirits." Which God(s) are you referring to? Humans have worshipped thousand of different Gods. Do you believe in all of them, or just you particular God(s)? If you don't believe in the Gods of Hinduism, or any other God(s), then you are an Atheist to those God(s), in the same way I'm an Atheist to yours. Also, we do act quite a lot like apes. Human and Chimp behaviour are very similar.
crazykb 2 years ago
Dude you are generalizing and projecting. We are not close minded, we don't believe in something with no evidence, that is not close minded. The way you talk about atheists certainly justifies any "abuse" atheists give you. By the way having a different view than you is not abuse.
TheDarkKnight987 2 years ago
I never said any of that.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Yes you did IN THE TITLE.
TheDarkKnight987 2 years ago
Most atheists know the bible better than the average Christian. Atheists are close minded to things that are not logical, observable, or testable. Deities are none of those things. The rest of what you stated was stereotypical backwash.
Also, 'atheists' doesn't need to be capitalized.
lilbluependragon 2 years ago
'Atheists don't do research, they are close-minded. '
You only believe in your particular god or gods, which makes you close minded to every other religion or ideology out there. Atheists and Christians are basically in the same position in this argument concerning 'being close minded'.
lilbluependragon 2 years ago
Comment removed
crazykb 2 years ago
2. AHH the Dawkins example ive heard this example so many times now..first there is a problem with that Jesus was a real man, we have historical evidence of that. Jesus claimed to be God John 10:30 so if we believe Jesus is God we know he exists.
3. We have evidence a bang happened by the expanding universe that is it. WE do not KNOW that is simply untrue. and the space expanding gives evidence of the Bible since it says God stretches the heavens.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Point 2, wrong again- We have evidence of the Big Bang from not only the expanding universe but from may other things including cosmic background radiation, abundance of light elements etc.
Havokreator 2 years ago
You're cosmic background radiation has a bit of a time problem i'm sure you know? The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. It is called The horizon problem if you didn't know. if you really want to debate send me a message it's easier there.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
You're going to have to change the "has" in your 1st sentence to a "had". This was a problem in the 1980's I think, but now has been explained by inflation theory. At 10^-35 seconds, the universe's began to expand exponentially, and therefore easily accounts for the homogeneity that we see now. This has been confirmed by some later observations too. And if you want to talk about it- no problem, the ball's in your court.
Havokreator 2 years ago
the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on which (if any) inflation model is correct. Some astronomers do not accept inflationary models and have proposed other possible solutions to the horizon problem.
In light of this disagreement, it is safe to say that the horizon problem has not been decisively solved. many aspects of inflation models are currently unable to be tested.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Well, the thing is, there are always going to be people who won't accept the currently most accepted method, but the fact of the matter is, the current inflation theory has made quite a few predictions and this has been confirmed by observation. There is always going to be an internal debate about it, but that's how science works, but until some new phenomena is observed which cannot be explained by the current model, it's safe to say that it's correct to the best of our knowledge.
Havokreator 2 years ago
There is more problems with inflation and also difficulties on how to turn off the inflation once it starts the graceful exit problem. Many inflation models are known to be wrong making predictions that are not consistent with observations, such as Guths original model. I wouldn't say that inflation can be a fair argument to push as a fact. I know there is some 'problem' that creationists have with light travel aswell, and if this was proven it would solve they're problem to.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
One quick comment. The universe is expanding, and the expansion is 'speeding up'. I think that's was what you were talking about.
crazykb 2 years ago
Using your logic, I could state that there is an invisable Dragon living in my backyard. I could say that you couldn't 'measure' it in any meaningful way. If you didn't beleive me, and you said that you needed evidence of its existence, and I stated, "just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist", would you believe me? I hope I made my point.
crazykb 2 years ago
I don't mind either way, but I just don't like comment wars because you're limited to 500 character's and it makes the video look bad because you can't see anyone else's comments. I
pur3o3end 2 years ago
1. That makes absolutely no sense the deaf man at some point will have to put his trust in you by using "faith" to clearly demonstrate that he trusts you hear a sound.
same thing with an alien it would require faith, unless we used the scientific method on you to see if you were a human or not.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
disproving your video quickly
1. Lets say I tell a deaf man I hear a loud sound, and he gets out a measuring system of sound that results negative, and then i tell him this sound is above the laws of other sounds, the deaf man has every right to be suspicious and not believe you, even though the deaf man does not have absolute knowledge of sound, it is not faith
what if I told you that I was an alien, you have no proof that I am human. Does that require faith to believe I am human?
SamTheMexicanMan 2 years ago
2. What if I told you that the world was created by a flying spaghetti monster. it does not need faith to say no it was not, even though that is an absolute.
3. We know that the universe was created by the big bang because of measurements and the research of supernova expansions. the understanding of anti matter also helps though it is true the big bang can not be tested, we understand the big bang by the curve factor, and radiation, and dark energy. I recomend reading up on this
SamTheMexicanMan 2 years ago
4. I know god did not say let there be light, because light is an energy, and energy can not be created that is the first law of thermodynamics.
5. your bird example is flawed, there is proof the bird exists, there is proof gravity and sound exists, there is NO proof god exists.
there is evidence to say god does not exist, but you christians will most likley just say "But he is GOD he is above science, so I won't even bother posting the science to atheism.
SamTheMexicanMan 2 years ago
faith is the belief in things that are not proven.
God has not be disproven or proven
Therefore it takes faith to believe there is no God or there is one
pur3o3end 2 years ago
faith is the belief in things that have no fact. atheists use facts in our thinking
TheRussianAtheist 2 years ago
Please let me know where you got this very accurate figure of less than 1%?
How do you know this? are you 99% sure that we only know less than 1%.
Don't criticize science if you don't even grasp a simple understanding of statistics or mathematical analysis you numb nut.
cookeladoo 2 years ago
Doesnt make sense to first say an atheist cant claim with absolute certainty there isnt a god and then encourage people to start believing in god without giving any proof for gods existance.
jamyfromfin 2 years ago
You say not to talk about the definition of atheism, but how can you not when you are trying to say that a stance of non-belief is a faith?
lilbluependragon 2 years ago
Yes, but if you look at it that way isn't everything a faith? I mean absolutely everything? It doesn't take faith to not believe in something, it takes faith TO believe in something. You don't believe in dragons, but that doesn't mean you have a faith of some sort? If you are referring to science (not atheism) you are talking about theories supported by fact, not blind faith for which no evidence is needed.
I agree with some of this video, but I fail to see the point.
lilbluependragon 2 years ago
correction people: we can prove there is a Jesus Christ.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
okay, then. prove it
jrdogg420 2 years ago
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, due to the lack of evidence
Bozmatic 2 years ago
Many atheists will not come to God because of their pride. However, some will eventually see the error of their ways and ask for Gods forgiveness. Remember that God draws people to Himself and that He wishes all to come to repentance.Good video, and keep doing God's work.
ScrapGoldBass 2 years ago
"Many atheists will not come to God because of their pride."
That would imply that the individual 'atheist' realizes that there is a god in which they refuse to come to. In that case, they aren't an atheist anymore.
lilbluependragon 2 years ago
There's a difference between not believing in a god and believing that there is no god. Your premise is incorrect. Try again.
Un0riginalAlias 2 years ago
As an atheist, I don't claim absolute knowledge that God or gods do not exist. I just don't believe there are any. What you have to bear in mind is that religions propose God. Atheists simply don't accept it. This is where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in. You see, you can't prove, absolutly 100% for sure, that there is no FSM. You also can't prove there's no Vishnu, Allah, Thor...and I'm betting that you are an atheist when it comes to them. So, you are an atheist too. See?
pang00lin 2 years ago
Responded via private message.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
You misunderstand atheism. Atheists generally allow for the possibility of logically consistent notions of God.
An atheist will never say "there is no God". They will say that there is no reason to believe that there is a god - and that the non-belief in God (along with all ontological beliefs) remains a conditional assumption until evidence or reason demonstrates a necessity to believe otherwise. Such beliefs are not faith based because they don't make assertions beyond what is known.
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Everything is taken on faith. Even atheists know who Rene Decarte is.
The point is, which is MOST LIKELY, basically Occams Razor kicks in and creationism loses.
What is more likely, that something impossible exists or that something impossible doesn't exist. Well, the latter is more likely.
ATHEISM 1
RELIGION 0
RealityBend 2 years ago
I love Occams Razor! Its the one that says that say, you see a fish and say, "Oh, that seems like that developed from nonliving material that randomly formed a cell and developed for billions of years and now lives there in a balanced ecosystem." The simplest explanation, yes sir!
Or maybe I'm thinking of another Occams Razor?
randoman367 2 years ago
Occam's Razor has to do with going with the argument that has the least number of assumptions. Evolution does not have any assumptions- It has evidence to back it up. Saying "Godditit" has a huge number assumptions, including the assumption that God actually exists and the assumption that he is a personal God instead of some impersonal form of energy etc. THAT is where Occam's Razor is used.
Havokreator 2 years ago
"Its the one that says that say, you see a fish and say, "Oh, that seems like that developed from nonliving material..."
No, it's more like the one that when you see a fish makes you say, "Something impossible didn't make that"
Cheers!
RealityBend 2 years ago
feel free to message me if you want to talk more, cya God bless!
pur3o3end 2 years ago
imagen billions of DNA letters changing without one skip or flaw. This might have been a good argument when we thought cells were a blab of jelly, but we now know cells are as complex as a galaxy!
Amazing!
3) We do have evidence of the flood, coal is one(ill send you a vid) The grand canyon another, loads of fossils that show a "fast" event unlike the long period that it normally takes, many ancient nations talking of a great flood(in more then one place) and more. well I have to go for now
pur3o3end 2 years ago
3) Please tell me how `highly unlike` it is that it happened? Evolutionary theory predicts it! Actually DNA produce lots of flaws all the time. It`s called a mutation. In fact a lot of the DNA in humans is junk DNA, which means, that it has no real purpose. Hmmm, your God seems pretty sloppy to me.....
4) I would love to see some evidence but there has been none. The grand canyon was NOT created by one big flood. Any geologist will tell you. All the others are pretty shaky evidence too.
Havokreator 2 years ago
Faith indeed, is the atheists logic. They don't even know it. But the Creator of all things will bring it to their knowledge. If they put aside their hatred and greed, like the rest of us must do in order to see God.
The God of the Holy bible calls them fools.
I believe Him......
pbar1000 2 years ago
You don't need faith to not believe, and that's all we're saying- We don't believe in a God. Is that so hard to understand?
Havokreator 2 years ago
Why would they bother acknowledging this when they can just continue to call others hateful and greedy. Personally, I think their pride is a bit conspicuous.
crumbinator 2 years ago
Everything has been explained by science?! this is breaking news call CNN! magic who said magic anything about magic? let me fix that term a bit apparently physics proves God is limited? well you're not talking about my God because He is omnipotent. Hes above physics, Hes above everything space, matter, time, energy if He wasn't above it He wouldn't be omnipotent therefore He wouldn't be God!
pur3o3end 2 years ago
ok, i'm not on expert on string theory, or the theory of everything, but the statement here is invaild in the times
of today. You said "if it is correct, it will be proven by testable means!" well then we still don't know if this theory
is correct do we? So until proven atheists can only know how the universe came to be by faith. "then we will know it is correct!" again we don't know yet do we?
pur3o3end 2 years ago
No, until a theory about the origin of the universe is proven conclusively, atheists will say, "We don't know, BUT there are some valid hypotheses about it and we will continue to try and find out." I don't think any atheists will claim to "know" how the universe came to be, therefore we don't need faith.
Havokreator 2 years ago
if you don't "know" how the universe came to be, you'd have to put you're "faith" in saying "God didnt do it'
pur3o3end 2 years ago
I'm not saying "God didn't do it", I'm saying " I DON"T KNOW". If you can prove to me God did it, fine, I'll believe it. If you can prove to me that due to fluctuations in the space-time foam that it happened, fine, I'll believe it. If you can't prove it conclusively, but can give me evidence to show that any of those reasons is the cause, I'll be leaning more to that side because there is EVIDENCE. So far, there is no evidence for a god, but some evidence for other hypotheses.
Havokreator 2 years ago
Well then, id say you're more of an agnostic then an athiest, but lets get back to the point: in this video like I said above it wasn't about evidence of God vs evidence without Him. It was a video saying atheists do use faith by putting they're trust in unobserved theory's. there is no evidence for God? not true we have the golden ratio, desigh, noah's flood(evidence of that) history that validates the Bible, places talked about in the Bible found, the universe expanding, and so on. con-
pur3o3end 2 years ago
OK, I'm not going to repeat what I just said earlier because I'm guessing you're not going to accept that atheists don't need faith, no matter what I say.
But to address your "evidence"-
1) The golden ratio is supposed to prove what? That some random number keeps on occurring in the ratios of animals, therefore God must exist?
2) Design? Yes, natural selection and mutations designed the animals to best suit their environment. Your point is?
3) There's is NO proof for Noah's flood whatsoever.
Havokreator 2 years ago
-sigh-............You just said you'd consider all the possible answers yet now you're trying to debunk me.. ok then..listen
Do you know how the universe got here?
if yes then how do you think it got here?
1) That number is the number artists and builders use when building..it occurs not only in animals, but us to that is evidence for a "desighner"
2) all the features that help the animals and work for them, is highly unlike to come about by natural selection and mutations, con-
pur3o3end 2 years ago
I'm trying to debunk the evidence you presented, not the possibility. Big difference.
1) No, I don't know, but there are some valid hypotheses and I'm open to ideas backed up with evidence.
2) Well if that's your evidence, your idea of evidence is very weak. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, is that your idea of evidence too? Evidence should point to some idea, yet your evidence is that due to the optimum value for the ratio in living things is a constant, that it proves God. Please...
Havokreator 2 years ago