How can you deny something that you already recognise might possibly exist? Who would expend so much energy on trying to demolish the concept of something which they can never conclusively disprove? Your videos show that you operate on the basis of logic and reason, but those are faculties given to you by God, so that you have the choice of whether to accept or reject Him. Ironically, were you to not have that choice, then you would not need to spend so much time denying Him!
I have had the same thought about judgment day. What if I'm wrong and I find myself standing in front of the Christian God, ready to be judged? Good discussion.
I would say "I'll pray for you" if praying had any different result than simply sitting on your hands and doing Jack Squat. So, given that fact, I'll just say this... You frickin' rock!!! You said, in that video, the exact words that have been bouncing around in my head for years. Exactly! Great video!
I love how you all hold your opinions so high. You really don't have a clue and yet you think you figured it out so intelligently. Lol what you are tripping up on is so simple, the fact that you over see it in your delusions if grandeur is comical. Lol
I love watching your videos. They are always thought provoking. You make many very good points and I agree that if God is as kind and caring as so many say He is then He doesn't care how you lived your life as long as you were a good person.
A table is simply a quiet place to sit to be all alone with the Creator (away from your enemies). David is telling you something very special that happens to you when you seek to be alone to KNOW THE FATHER (Mat. 6:6). Numbers 6:21-27 is describing the SAME THING.
This is the "KEY" of David. It is discussed again in Rev 3.
"You cup runneth over" is the restoring of your soul. The moment you are born again.
Psalm 46:10 - Be still and know that I am God... Silence. Be silent before Him. Seek to know and then do His Will in all things. He is there. Realize His Presence. His love surrounds you; be filled with His Joy. You will be guided though not until you are content to be led as a little child do you really live fully in the Kingdom of Heaven. The easiest way to do this is to "remove" the world. Then it is just you, the universe, and the Creator. Care not about food, or raiment... See it?
Are you not even curious why the very first thing Christ did when He publicly presented Himself to John the Baptist and was baptized with The Holy Spirit, was to go to be all alone in the wilderness and fast for 40 days and 40 nights??
What is this telling you? Note: It is not the tempting by Satan part. Satan chose that time because Christ was at His very weakest, physically. What is it that ever person that has ever had an NDE seems to say happens to them? Do they discover something?
Why speculate? Discover Him now. You do not have to die to know the Creator.
If have ever read the Gospels you will notice no one seemed to know the Creator directly as Chrst did. The Sadducess and The Pharisees where just "rule" quoters, like parrots. But when Christ spoke, people felt His power, His Spirit. John 7 clearly says in verse 17 if you seek to do the Creator's will, you will know if Christ was telling the truth. John 14-26 tells you if you do this, something happens. So try it.
If God does exist and hell is a reality for the unrepentant, and unbelieving, do you think God who created you is worthy of your love,respect and fear? Especially considering that the "Christian God" as you call Him actually set a patern for redemption, overshadowed by the sacrifial offerings of lambs and calfs...and fulfilled in the man Yahshua the Messiah...I conclude He IS TOTALLY WORHY of our love, fear, obedience, reverence...and it would be foolish/evil to think differently.
@seaneire Sorry I refuse to worship a fictional, genocidal, hypocritical, immoral, blood-thirsty lying psychopath of a diety. You can take comfort in worshiping such a being, but I won't. The very bible you love to condemn others with tells me enough to avoid your religion & its followers.
You are closer to the truth than you realize, for you are seeing through religion. But you are allowing Christians to blind your eyesight. Don't let the blind guide you on this path.
"Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? And yet not one of them is forgotten before God. "Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows. (NAS, Luke 12:6-7)
It occurred to me while watching this video (a more patient and definitive stating of a point I've also made), that one of the reasons behind my ire towards some, or most, apologists is this; While I've spent considerable time considering the implications of the various claims religions make, they haven't really given it a moments thought at all.
When I talk about dogmas, they stem from the extreme conservatism that people like the Taliban and Al Qaeda follow. I maintain my religious beliefs because at the fundamental level, Islam (and frankly any lifestyle that encourages equality and happiness) is an ideal belief system to follow.
Also want to thank you for not going ape on my comment. It's nice having a civilized convo on here
maybe the hole is faith? i even ask myself sometimes "what more truth do i want, that i can't find in this book?" obviously if we had the whole truth, then the word faith or trust wouldn't even exists in this book now would it? i wouldn't worry at all or have faith if it was the whole truth, because why should i? it's all there right? but in reality the answer is nope, that's why i see that sometimes i feel like God pulls me to the side and just arms on my shoulder and says. "just, trust me".
@truckcompany well it doesn't sound right for me using the word "justifying" for my beliefs, but if i am right in how i think the man is thinking though, i see that he still finds it hard to believe in god, possibly because he hasn't found sufficient information. i highly support him to keep researching and learning, i might even think i'm in the same path like him, but i try to be careful in keeping my patience and humbleness while i learn, it never hurts to play safe does it?
How long should we be patience for God to give sufficient information. Why is God withholding that information? After all, we are talking about eternal punishment.
Just imagine if it was a doctor that was withholding information what would prevent the eternal punishment of people.
I think it's even more humble to just believe on what information there is. Which for me, not enough evidence to believe.
@truckcompany let me put this analogy when it comes to extremely delicate and dangerous information: adults can only carry a gun (the adult is god) (the gun is mysterious or missing information) obviously if us that are the babies were carrying the gun, that might not be such a good idea.
it could be that certain information we cannot know until further growth in our knowledge.
also "eternal punishment." or hell, is one of the most mislead studies.. its not eternal..
I was told that 1/3 of all the angels rejected God, we could totally build up from that. Just reason with Satan to get rid of all the lakes of fire, then set up some boot camps and train soldiers. While Christians are doing nothing apart from worshiping God, we could catch them off guard and nail them.
What's funny is that Christians would say my comment is ridiculous, except, it makes just as much sense as the spew that comes out of their mouth.
I feel your comment is ridiculous, religion isn't about violence, and it's not suppose to be there to suggest, or make people fight one another. You're what the world knows as a satanist. Have fun there, they're usually very violent people, especially to Christians. That's a big fanbase you're fucking with. ^_^
@Blivia - You say its not about violence, yet you willingly condemn people to what you believe to be the most violent place imaginable. You call him a satanist, which only proves your own ignorance about satanism. You condescendingly tell them to have fun there, not realizing your sarcasm condemns you to hell by the same virtues. Lastly you appeal to the number of Christians as if that gives it unquestionable authority. The irony, ignorance and hypocrisy in your post is staggering...
I am a Neo-Pagan now and have been since I was 13 and I am 41 now. I could be wrong. If the Christian god does exist, I have my own question I want to ask him and that is "What the fuck were you thinking?" Great video!
Tried to subscribe and surprised to discover I already was.. With this video that's been up for a couple yrs and of which I was unaware, you just became my favorite subscription.
TB, this video is absolutely amazing. I haven't found an article or video that compares to any other (even from Dawkins and Harris) on this subject. Great job, and I showed this to all my pals on facebook. ;)
My friend even watched it and has for the first time been thinking on his own terms instead of repeating his preacher. Like I said, great job -you're a terrific person. Keep up the good work.
Just wanted to say, that I'm a born-Muslim, and still follow Islam, but I love listening to TB. In fact, TB has helped me renounce the belittling dogmas of my religion that have poisoned the minds of so many of brothers and sisters. And in doing so, this fundamental outlook on my religion has made me a better person.
Scott, please don't let the haters stop you from doing what you do.
As always, your thoughts are illuminating. Long after watching any of your vids, your words stay with me. In fact, while watching your work on B&B, I sometimes find myself distracted by recollections of things you've said in these vids. The recent holiday eps included prayer & singing religious-themed songs. When in character, do you find it difficult to "pray" or sing of God? I realize it's your career & "Liam" is not Scott. These days, Liam must be an exhausting & annoying twirp to play. ;-)
You're not wrong. An omniscient god already knows who and why you are. You are right. There will be know need for pleading your case. God knows everything you did and everything you do, and, how it all ends for you. Your only job is to be a good person and try to make life better for those around you. I other words...love is all you need. At the risk of sounding religious: bless you Scott for your reasoning. It makes sense and I love you for it.
@TheoreticalBullshit I cannot say this is a universal opinion on the catholic tradition, but it is surely the view of very, very important figures. Thomas Aquinas, for example, taught that a person who is excommunicated should first remain in that condition than submitting himself to a superior order, for that would be "against the personal veracity" ("contra veritatem vitac), which cannot be abandoned, even to avoid a possible scandal.
@TheoreticalBullshit Also, just to cite another example, pope Innocent III said, in these exact words: "All that is done against personal consciousness is the edification of hell." He was a medieval pope. I'm not even going to begin citing the various writings about this after Vatican II, which happened in the 60's, in order not to be called a "modernist". Most of the church respects people like you.
@TheoreticalBullshit No, not according to the doctrine. According to logic, you're saved. God doesn't believe anything created him, therefore he is an atheist. This means that he will prefer atheists like you and I in heaven with him. I'm glad I found the original uploader BTW.
@TheoreticalBullshit as far as I was taught in my 12 years of Catholic school, "gentiles" who live moral lives w.r.t. their own system of beliefs are just as likely to enter heaven as believers. Catholics tend to put a lot less emphasis on being "saved," though gaining entrance to heaven is usually the underlying purpose behind committing good acts. Can't do links in a comment so I guess I will send you a message w. a website as a reference.
@TheoreticalBullshit - I imagine he is referring to Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian", which is a rather inclusive interpretation of the concept known as 'baptism by desire' where a person can reject the Christian Gospel, but still attain salvation so long as they are committed to the same values which Christianity asserts to hold exclusivity on, i.e. the fruits of the spirit.
@TheoreticalBullshit When you study and use reason you won't be wrong , if you are lazy to study and lazy to think deep than you can be very wrong !
What if i am wrong in my exams , well first: I didn't pay attention to study and use my time properly !
Second : when it was time for studying I was in the beach with my buddies having a good time , while the one who passed the exam was inside his home reading !
It seems to me that you have failed one of those two points
@MrCobra811 - Neither of your "points" are applicable. Exams have specific known answers that can be verified independently. If you want to use an exam as an example, it needs to be an exam in which you were never given questions, simply handed a scantron sheet and told to fill it out correctly. With over 32,000 known denominations of Christianity, you can't credibly assert that there are specific known answers about Christianity/God that can be verified independently, its just not true.
@ixamraxi Yes they are applicable! The exams of the religion example needs little bit more study and sincerity , its a little hard study but it pays off at the end ! I have gonne through that study thats why I am telling you this!
You have the Abrahamic faiths and you can easily find out which one is the true one if you study them deeply!
You don't need to go into any denomination , just solve the main picture first! Solve which religion is true, Christianity or Islam, then move on
@MrCobra811 - The problem isnt sincerity or study, I don't doubt a Christians sincerity and rarely doubt their study. The problem is that neither study nor sincerity prove the existence of God. The best study could ever do is narrow the [Biblical] authors intentions. That does not prove that what-they-said is true. Proving certain claims were made is not the same as proving those claims are true, thus it's irrelevant.
As to your no-true-scotsman fallacy, I think that one speaks for itself.
If there is a God, like a real, living Christian God, I won't be a coward and pander to him after death unless he gives a damn good explanation about why he's so incompetent.
Seems to me that your a very intelligent and well spoken individual. I think you have the integrity and character of God a little misunderstood. I give you a lot of credit for atleast reading the bible, however understanding everything in it comes win time. So long as you know that GOD loves you, you'll come to understand him.
There's many Buddhist country out there so I expect there would be some variation... and what i'm talking about is my country's belief, Thailand, a Buddhist country.
I'm done with this site, as it's come to my attention that a good number of my comments and others have been flagged for spam, hidden, thus effectively censored.
The owner of this video has it within his ability of unflagging these comments which are obviously not spam.
If this mechanism isn't an automatic facet of the YouTube program, then whoever is manually flagging these comments is a deviant coward, threatened by discourse in free thought and a disgraceful hypocrite to their own ideology.
@LizardLeaps Effectively sensored? If anyone wants to read your hidden/spam comments, they can simply click the "show" button, conveniently located next to each "hidden" comment. To be honest, several of your "flagged" comments were heavily laden with insults and a common derogatory theme. Even a majority of your un-flagged comments exhibit a similar condescending tone....just some observations that I think are related to the flagging of some of your comments.
@LizardLeaps Who or what is "Wrongio Butinski"? I clicked your flagged comments because I was interested in what you said, but it doesn't matter. I guarantee that your flagged comments will get read just as much as they would if they weren't flagged. If people want to read them, they will, if they don't want to read them, then it doesn't matter if it's flagged or not. And what "biased opinion/double standard" are you talking about? I just pointed out a potential reason people flag your vids.
"I clicked your flagged comments because I was interested in what you said, but it doesn't matter"
So you say, but quite frankly, I don't believe that you clicked my "flagged for spam comments" because "you were interested" until you read my comment at the top of the vid site, complaining for having been flagged for spamming unfairly/unjustly.
If this is not the actual case, and you were just...
...simply", "conveniently", "clicking" open my "flagged for spam comments", prior to your deciding to respond to my complaint then forgive me, as my "critical thinking, "skeptical" nature leads me to believe otherwise.
...vitriolic, vile, slanderous, hateful, arrogant, scornful, sardonic, Christian/bible bashing and pure ad hominem comments that don't get "flagged" found throughout these atheistic vid sites by atheists, it is much more reasonable to suspect that my having exposed and refuted my opponents for their logical contradictions as being the real reason for having been unfairly/unjustly flagged.
Some people just have a hard time dealing with being proven wrong.
Having said that, I really do want to vacate theses premises as I had originally said I was going to, but I thought it appropriate to reply to your comment publicly, as was your comment made publicly.
I have a lot on my plate with a new premise/ proposition that I posted about, and don't wan't to feel that my effeorts are being hampered as I do on this site.
Btw, I watched one of your flicks and found it rather clever/funny :)
"This is just a refusal to acknowledge my position out of sheer close-mindedness"
Sure it is Jolly Jumper, so just keep telling yourself this.
And If by chance your alleged *premise of "skepticism* as *the only one which is true until proven false* miraculously transforms into logically sound reasoning, as opposed to a blatant argument from ignorance, then do let me know.
I would love to use this to claim that everything I doubt to be true is false also. 'Lol!
"And If by chance your alleged *premise of "skepticism* as *the only one which is true until proven false* miraculously transforms into logically sound reasoning, as opposed to a blatant argument from ignorance, then do let me know."
It's not an argument from ignorance because I'm not arguing anything from my lack of knowledge, merely acknowledging my lack of knowledge.
By suggesting that my position isn't by default true, you are suggesting that I know everything, "thus, FAIL".
The only thing that can top even the most eloquent of arguments, even the most fail-proof solid statements on reality is humility. Atheist, believer and anything in between. As one of my favourite authors wrote:
''wouldn't the world be a better place if we all started with the notion that we just don't know? There. One less barrier to our common humanity''
As a person of faith I have great respect for atheists. I saw an interview with Sir David Attenborough a few months ago and was gobsmacked with the man's intelligence, his demeanour, but above all his humility He is an atheist. He arrives at his atheism through the same logic with which he has enriched science.It was his humility though, the way he made his point across that really stood out for me. I had that same feeling while watching the argument on this video up until the last few seconds
@LizardLeaps when did i say i absolutely know there is no god please distinguish between reaonable certainty and that silly concept absolute certainty.
@LizardLeaps A lion does not need to be justified in being carnivorous because that is its natural state of being. The default position for theology (from birth) is in fact agnosticism, because people are not born with knowledge/beliefs for or against God. People then go through a complicated process later in life, and come to some kind of conclusion about religion.
"A lion does not need to be justified in being carnivorous because that is its natural state of being"
You argument is self-refuting and point moot.
Observe: If atheism were true and God/s doesn't exist, everything would be a *natural state of being*, including the intrinsic human natural proclivity of religiosity, theism, etc.,... if everything were the result of purely self-propagated, non-transcendent purposed happenstance, by naturalistic process.
"The default position for theology (from birth) is in fact agnosticism, because people are not born with knowledge/beliefs for or against God"
Your point is further moot, because *people (from birth)* are not born with knowledge/beliefs of anything.
Therefore, even the learning/teaching process of religiosity, theism, etc. would still *in fact* be an intrinsic proclivity to human nature and regardless of a God's actual existence or not, thus Fail!
This single video has me subscribed. That was incredibly well-put and I feel that it touched on a key issue, the omniscience and omnibenevolence. Thank you for posting this.
Conclusion: You’ve placed you FAITH in wishful alleged *natural cumulative processes* without evidence or proof of their existence, and you’ve convinced yourself that said alleged *natural cumulative processes* are responsible for the reality of existence, as a VOLUNTARY REACTION in false premises, to the wishful preclusion of the existence of God.
@LizardLeaps No evidence of natural cumulative processes seriously? I hope you realize that by this he refers to various interactions that occur in nature i.e. plate tectonic shifts that give rise to the mountain chains or rivers that flow for millions of years-carving vast canyons. None of these hint at the presence of a god more than they do a result of a combination of various natural factors that interact in and of themselves without any outside influence.
"No evidence of natural cumulative processes seriously?"
He, as you have no rational nor factual justification to refer to these as *natural cumulative processes* in pertinence to the existence of God or not, or you are invalidating your entire argument for affirming the consequent in logically fallacious argumentation.
There is no known or knowable alleged naturalistic processes, because one cannot...
...physically regress in space time to implement the scientific method to acquire empirical knowledge in definitive explanation for the actual process/es responsible for the origination of the cosmos and life having arisen on the pre-biotic earth.
@LizardLeaps Cont. Please, explain to me how there isn't such a thing as a natural cumulative process i.e. explain how the volcano formation process is simply alleged and not verified; explain how the science behind thunderstorm development doesn't exist. Moreover, explain how there is no evidence of natural interactions. Until you do this, you can't posit that agreeing with what is observed in nature requires an act of faith. Your argument is falsified.
...of irrelevant diversion blather is invalid/disqualified for being constructed on logically fallacious reasoning in argumentation and compounded logically fallacious in a Straw Man.
I am not contesting the fact of empirical scientific methodological procedures to test and definitively explain phenomena, as this is not even in issue.
Consequently, yours is a compounded logically fallacious, irrelevancy diversion Fail!
Now that you have taking it upon yourself, in the stead of Scott aka. Mr. Natural, put forth your objective/empirical evidence of naturalistic mechanistic processes (*cumulative* or other) to have been responsible for the origination of all phenomena in the reality of existence, which would preclude God and render yours as anything more that wishful FAITH. Go! Faithful Crickets........................................
@LizardLeaps If you wish to debate Mr. Clifton yourself by all means feel free. Don't use me as a substitute as I feel he can do a much better job of addressing your concerns than I. If it is your intention to confuse our discourse with lines of disconcerting rhetoric, then you will have to do better my friend, I'm sorry. Having said that, apologies for my “alleged” straw man, it simply arose from your failure to specify what you meant by an unverifiable natural cumulative process.
"Don't use me as a substitute as I feel he can do a much better job of addressing your concerns than I"
Then don't "substitute" yourself to address these so called "concerns" of mine, as it's you who has far more than insufficiently responded to my initial comments. 'Lol!
"If it is your intention to confuse our discourse with lines of disconcerting rhetoric, then you will have to do better my friend, I'm sorry"
Your sarcastic apology would be appropriate if it were sincere, and only for this begging proposition of yours, being a fallacious and hypocritical inference, for which you are actually guilty of committing yourself, thus logically fallacious invalid/disqualified hypocritical "disconcerting rhetoric, I'm sorry"Fail!
Having said that, apologies for my “alleged” straw man, it simply arose from your failure to specify what you meant by an unverifiable natural cumulative process"
It is not my failure, but yours for not recognizing that the statement which you attempted to defend being; "simply didn't observe anything about reality that couldn't have been the result of natural cumulative processes" is all inclusive.
...but further logically fallacious...for affirming the consequent, whilst putting the cart before the horse, in blatant failure to consider the unobservable, untestable, "reality" of the actual process/es to have been responsible for origination of the cosmos and life.
@LizardLeaps Cont. Now you seem well versed in the principles of argument so it is hard for me to believe that you didn't notice the Straw Man in your own criticism of the nature many positions of science hold. Allow me to point it out for you: From your words, it is clear that you argue that any proposition about the workings of the universe that has not been explicitly tested and verified empirically cannot be posited with infallible certainty, therefore necessitating
"Now you seem well versed in the principles of argument so it is hard for me to believe that you didn't notice the Straw Man in your own criticism of the nature many positions of science hold"
Oops, you upped and did it again, not only in another Straw Man of my position, but your fallacy of my allegedly having committed a logical fallacy... but it gets way worse.
"You would have saved a considerable amount of time, (both mine and yours) cyber ink and paper if you knew not only what it is that I am talking about, but what you're talking about.
Now read my fingertips... implementation of various scientific methodological procedures towards acquisition of empirical knowledge in definitive explanation of phenomena is based on testable, falsifiable hypothesis,...
...built on models which elevate into scientific theories once confirmed/verified by quantitative analytical data, then assimilated and interpreted from positive findings.
One cannot physically regress in space-time to implement the scientific method towards acquisition of empirical knowledge in definitive explanation for that which was actually responsible for the origination of the cosmos and life.
@LizardLeaps Cont. an act of faith to hold on to the concept. Your basis for this is that it is impossible to predate the beginning of our ability to observe, making it impossible for for us to witness and document these claims directly. From this we can deduce you assumptions of the nature of these scientific-worldly propositions and how they lead to your fallacy; that all of these claims are posited with absolute certainty- that they ARE the case.
@LizardLeaps Cont. To address this I can tell you that any scientist worth his salt that holds on to these “impossible” positions would agree that any claim/explanation of the universe that predated our ability to observe it is merely an explanation of what COULD have been the case, not what IS/WAS the case and this is all based on the way current phenomena behave and the calculations associated with them. For example, the Big Bang: current observation of universal expansion
@LizardLeaps Cont. followed by simple logic leads to the proposition that states that there COULD have a point in time from which expansion began. As I said previously, merely an agreement with what is derived- analysis first, proposition second (a notion you seem to have backwards). Therefore, in terms of phenomena that predated our observation, they are not positing ANYTHING with infallible certainty. No cosmologist in his/her right mind will tell you that the Big Bang
...or even in issue of there having been a finite origination of the cosmos and of life appearing on the pre-biotic earth.
The actual question/conundrum is the how in issue of untestable, non-falsifiability, thus perpetually empirically unknowable by scientific methodological implementation and in accordance with the philosophy thereof.
Moreover, your latest installment of a Straw Man...
"As I said previously, merely an agreement with what is derived- analysis first, proposition second (a notion you seem to have backwards)"
As I say now; "you most certainly have it your sit down apparatus completely backwards (your "notion" is proof of your scientifically challenged status), as a scientific hypothesis (guess) is first proposed, and if predictions are verified through testable empirical experimentation in findings,...
...derived from quantifiable analytical data, then it is one step closer to a viable scientific theory.
So sorry to burst your babble Bill Deny pseudo-scientific guy, but how do suppose that one could first have analytical data before a proposition in working hypothesis and predictions are confirmed by experimentation with quantified data yielded, assimilated, and interpreted?... by some reverse process of osmosis? 'Lol!
@LizardLeaps Cont. most certainly happened. Because of this inherent yet slight shadow of ambiguity and acknowledgment thereof, an act of faith is not necessary. An act of faith is not required to hold onto a math/calculation based possibility. As for the origination of the Big Bang and phenomena of equal mystery, we are the first to tell you that we don't know the definite answer, but have inferences as to what the answer could be. Theists are the only ones that posit
...of my position is proven in your blathering falsity that "I posit "infallible ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY"
Somehow in your ignorance, you wish to believe that I am ignorant of the prerequisite of the necessity of possibility to falsifiability of scientific hypotheses/theories, which is a momentously arrogant, decietful and pretentious falsity in self-decieved fantasy on your part.
...of irrelevant and logically falacius blather is proven in the fact that the how of the workings of the physical laws of the world and universe and phenomena pertinent is not even the question/problem.
It's the how of the origination, in relation to all phenomena in the reality of existence which is scientifically unknowable, and perpetually defies/confounds limited fallible logic to ever understand or explain.
"Theists are the only ones that posit WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that elements of their worldview "are" the case"
So you blather in factual "ABSOLUTE CERTAIN" terms", but since I am a theist, and have nowhere stated your fallacious allegation of "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY pertinent" and there are "CERTAINLY" reckless bleating atheist who do "posit with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" that God does not exist, yours is proven with "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" of being doubly false/wrong.
@LizardLeaps Cont. WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that elements of their worldview “are” the case. Until you can provide more sound reasoning to go along with the notion God, the burden of proof still falls on you. Where is it? …............I'm sure you're all to familiar with the sound of crickets. Until you do, there's no reason for me to think that anything is the result of God.
...latest assertion as being a non-sequitur and compounded fallacious in a decietful attempt to shift the burden of proof, thus yours is invalid/disqualified on it's compounded logically fallacious face.
...of the belief in the existence of God/s and your disposition in blind FAITH, then put forth your objective/empirical evidence or proof that the origination of the cosmos and life can be credit to wishful naturalistic mechanistic processes.Go! Old Faithful Crickets.......................
The most logical and default position, if one doesn't know, is skepticism towards both sides. Admittedly, I adopt this position from ignorance, but theism is NOT the default position. Theism must be justified like all other positions.
You have no "logical" justification to demand that "Theism must be justified" if God/s doesn't exist, thus atheism true.
Why should that which would necessarily be self-propagated naturalistic processes and phenomena in effective manifestation of the proclivity of religiosity, theism, etc. intrinsic to human nature, as evidenced from earliest recorded history and overwhelmingly until this day need to be justified?
Atheism is the disbelief in deities. If deities have no evidence, then that in itself is justification to disbelieve in them.
Your analogy about the lion is flawed. Until lions are shown to regularly eat meat, then there is no reason to believe that they ARE carnivorous. In this particular case, they HAVE been shown to regularly eat meat.
The existence of deities has not seen similar evidence, and thus there is no reason to believe that there is one.
"Atheism is the disbelief in deities. If deities have no evidence, then that in itself is justification to disbelieve in them"
Wrongio Diversio. Your premise is false, as is the basis and lack of justification for your atheism itself.
You couldn't possibly know if everything in existence isn't the overwhelming objective "evidence" of a God authored, meaningfully interacted with, and most premier ongoing miraculous occurrence in and of itself, thus Fail!
Au contraire as the 'twitness' is all about you, and I'll prove it, Strawmaniac.
Please avoid displaying any further logical bankruptcy, sub-standard cognitive abilities, ignoramus disposition, frustration for stymied befuddlement and answer the multiple choice question.
What were the process/es responsible for the origination of the cosmos and life having appeared on the pre-biotic earth, which is the actual premise and issue, Strawmaniac?
@LizardLeaps "You couldn't possibly know if everything in existence isn't the overwhelming objective "evidence" of a God authored, meaningfully interacted with, and most premier ongoing miraculous occurrence in and of itself, thus Fail!"
Thus, "no evidence". If we don't know whether or not something acts as evidence, then it shouldn't yet be considered as such.
"Thus,"no evidence"If we don't know whether or not something acts as evidence, then it shouldn't yet be considered as such"
False, as it should not "yet be" dismissed, as does your false premise in specious claim of there being "no evidence" which could actually be everything in existence.
Furthermore, the reality of ALL existence is objective "evidence" in itself which perpetually defies/confounds fallible, limited logic or science to ever understand or explain.
WHAT A GREAT VIDEO-T.B,YOU REALLY HAVE A BROAD MIND,AND I COMMEND YOU FOR THAT. KEEP POSTING.
jadm7777777 2 days ago
what a fucking hottie -yum!
LAchickee 3 days ago
How can you deny something that you already recognise might possibly exist? Who would expend so much energy on trying to demolish the concept of something which they can never conclusively disprove? Your videos show that you operate on the basis of logic and reason, but those are faculties given to you by God, so that you have the choice of whether to accept or reject Him. Ironically, were you to not have that choice, then you would not need to spend so much time denying Him!
brevicaudate 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow couldn't have said this better myself. Also you have an extremely soothing voice to listen to :)
hannahxlovinda 6 days ago
I have had the same thought about judgment day. What if I'm wrong and I find myself standing in front of the Christian God, ready to be judged? Good discussion.
rondonaghe 6 days ago
Love, love, love the entire video but the last part is my favorite. "Good thing I'm not wrong."
EricJSanchez 1 week ago
I would say "I'll pray for you" if praying had any different result than simply sitting on your hands and doing Jack Squat. So, given that fact, I'll just say this... You frickin' rock!!! You said, in that video, the exact words that have been bouncing around in my head for years. Exactly! Great video!
LorenScott69 1 week ago
I love how you all hold your opinions so high. You really don't have a clue and yet you think you figured it out so intelligently. Lol what you are tripping up on is so simple, the fact that you over see it in your delusions if grandeur is comical. Lol
nomoremustache82 1 week ago
if im wrong then i will be going to the underworld to be a slave for hades
skeldro11 1 week ago
You sir, are a boss.
matthew646 1 week ago 7
I could have sworn I just saw you on Bold and the Beautiful sir ? ROFL. I won't hold it against you, well done.
Abu7929 1 week ago
Fantastic, as are all your videos. Well said sir, well said.
BazDap 1 week ago
I love watching your videos. They are always thought provoking. You make many very good points and I agree that if God is as kind and caring as so many say He is then He doesn't care how you lived your life as long as you were a good person.
Justice4ev 1 week ago
When are you going to make more youtube videos?
CaesarsDecree 1 week ago
Your "punishment" will simply be the awareness that you were wrong.
Talkingskins21 1 week ago
Now read Psalm 23 very slowly.
You will find it says EXACTLY the same thing.
A table is simply a quiet place to sit to be all alone with the Creator (away from your enemies). David is telling you something very special that happens to you when you seek to be alone to KNOW THE FATHER (Mat. 6:6). Numbers 6:21-27 is describing the SAME THING.
This is the "KEY" of David. It is discussed again in Rev 3.
"You cup runneth over" is the restoring of your soul. The moment you are born again.
John 3.
themanningsjdsjjj 1 week ago
themanningsjdsjjj 1 week ago
Are you not even curious why the very first thing Christ did when He publicly presented Himself to John the Baptist and was baptized with The Holy Spirit, was to go to be all alone in the wilderness and fast for 40 days and 40 nights??
What is this telling you? Note: It is not the tempting by Satan part. Satan chose that time because Christ was at His very weakest, physically. What is it that ever person that has ever had an NDE seems to say happens to them? Do they discover something?
themanningsjdsjjj 1 week ago
Why speculate? Discover Him now. You do not have to die to know the Creator.
If have ever read the Gospels you will notice no one seemed to know the Creator directly as Chrst did. The Sadducess and The Pharisees where just "rule" quoters, like parrots. But when Christ spoke, people felt His power, His Spirit. John 7 clearly says in verse 17 if you seek to do the Creator's will, you will know if Christ was telling the truth. John 14-26 tells you if you do this, something happens. So try it.
themanningsjdsjjj 1 week ago
If God does exist and hell is a reality for the unrepentant, and unbelieving, do you think God who created you is worthy of your love,respect and fear? Especially considering that the "Christian God" as you call Him actually set a patern for redemption, overshadowed by the sacrifial offerings of lambs and calfs...and fulfilled in the man Yahshua the Messiah...I conclude He IS TOTALLY WORHY of our love, fear, obedience, reverence...and it would be foolish/evil to think differently.
seaneire 1 week ago
@seaneire Sorry I refuse to worship a fictional, genocidal, hypocritical, immoral, blood-thirsty lying psychopath of a diety. You can take comfort in worshiping such a being, but I won't. The very bible you love to condemn others with tells me enough to avoid your religion & its followers.
utubepunk 1 week ago
@utubepunk well you got your name right!
seaneire 1 week ago
@seaneire how much of the bible have you read? and when did I condemn anyone?
seaneire 1 week ago
@seaneire Dodge & avoid. Now care to take issue with my actual comments or will you have another go at my screen name? :/
utubepunk 1 week ago
listen to MinisterQuietBuck he is a wise man.. better yet listen to your heart ..
Renagadepatriot 1 week ago
You are closer to the truth than you realize, for you are seeing through religion. But you are allowing Christians to blind your eyesight. Don't let the blind guide you on this path.
MinisterQuietBuck 1 week ago
"Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? And yet not one of them is forgotten before God. "Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows. (NAS, Luke 12:6-7)
rblwoaclu2 1 week ago
It occurred to me while watching this video (a more patient and definitive stating of a point I've also made), that one of the reasons behind my ire towards some, or most, apologists is this; While I've spent considerable time considering the implications of the various claims religions make, they haven't really given it a moments thought at all.
Enjoyed the video, thanks.
uberd00b 1 week ago
Whatever if you're right or wrong, you're the cutest thing on Earth!
juniorcasemiro 1 week ago
@TheoreticalBullshit ur boyfriends name is?
dakshajackson 1 week ago
@TheHadeed1
When I talk about dogmas, they stem from the extreme conservatism that people like the Taliban and Al Qaeda follow. I maintain my religious beliefs because at the fundamental level, Islam (and frankly any lifestyle that encourages equality and happiness) is an ideal belief system to follow.
Also want to thank you for not going ape on my comment. It's nice having a civilized convo on here
Mclovin4001 1 week ago
maybe the hole is faith? i even ask myself sometimes "what more truth do i want, that i can't find in this book?" obviously if we had the whole truth, then the word faith or trust wouldn't even exists in this book now would it? i wouldn't worry at all or have faith if it was the whole truth, because why should i? it's all there right? but in reality the answer is nope, that's why i see that sometimes i feel like God pulls me to the side and just arms on my shoulder and says. "just, trust me".
gattler 1 week ago
@gattler
Sounds like you are justifying your belief in God with trust and then justifying your trust in God with faith.
truckcompany 1 week ago
@truckcompany well it doesn't sound right for me using the word "justifying" for my beliefs, but if i am right in how i think the man is thinking though, i see that he still finds it hard to believe in god, possibly because he hasn't found sufficient information. i highly support him to keep researching and learning, i might even think i'm in the same path like him, but i try to be careful in keeping my patience and humbleness while i learn, it never hurts to play safe does it?
gattler 1 week ago
@gattler
How long should we be patience for God to give sufficient information. Why is God withholding that information? After all, we are talking about eternal punishment.
Just imagine if it was a doctor that was withholding information what would prevent the eternal punishment of people.
I think it's even more humble to just believe on what information there is. Which for me, not enough evidence to believe.
truckcompany 1 week ago
@truckcompany let me put this analogy when it comes to extremely delicate and dangerous information: adults can only carry a gun (the adult is god) (the gun is mysterious or missing information) obviously if us that are the babies were carrying the gun, that might not be such a good idea.
it could be that certain information we cannot know until further growth in our knowledge.
also "eternal punishment." or hell, is one of the most mislead studies.. its not eternal..
gattler 1 week ago
@gattler
If you find that explanation satisfies you then good luck.
truckcompany 1 week ago
do you research the doctrine just to prove it wrong? or to learn it?
there are 2 different views depending why you are reading scripture, and i hope your adventures were mostly humble, other than prideful.
gattler 1 week ago
Thats very good video.
I gave it 666 out of 666 points.
Haplo09 1 week ago
I used to be a theist, then I took a barrel to the spleen.
Voidsworn 1 week ago
Yep, sorry TB...hell for you, heaven for Jefferey Dahmer.
Kinda makes you want to go ahead and pick up that demonic sword and join Satan's Army, huh?
MrWonkoSane 1 week ago
@MrWonkoSane
Is there a Satan's army, I would totally join his side.
truckcompany 1 week ago
@truckcompany "...and Satan stood and beheld how awful goodness...how righteous in her glory..."
Right there with you bro...still, it's all bs, eh?
MrWonkoSane 1 week ago
@MrWonkoSane
I was told that 1/3 of all the angels rejected God, we could totally build up from that. Just reason with Satan to get rid of all the lakes of fire, then set up some boot camps and train soldiers. While Christians are doing nothing apart from worshiping God, we could catch them off guard and nail them.
What's funny is that Christians would say my comment is ridiculous, except, it makes just as much sense as the spew that comes out of their mouth.
truckcompany 1 week ago
@truckcompany
I feel your comment is ridiculous, religion isn't about violence, and it's not suppose to be there to suggest, or make people fight one another. You're what the world knows as a satanist. Have fun there, they're usually very violent people, especially to Christians. That's a big fanbase you're fucking with. ^_^
Blivia 1 week ago
@Blivia
"suppose to be there to suggest"
Yea, Christians keep saying this. But supposing something doesn't make it true.
"Have fun there"
If Christians aren't about violence then why do you threaten me with hell? It's just so fucking hypocritical of you really.
No, I'm not a Satanist, because I don't believe Satan exists.
truckcompany 1 week ago
@Blivia - You say its not about violence, yet you willingly condemn people to what you believe to be the most violent place imaginable. You call him a satanist, which only proves your own ignorance about satanism. You condescendingly tell them to have fun there, not realizing your sarcasm condemns you to hell by the same virtues. Lastly you appeal to the number of Christians as if that gives it unquestionable authority. The irony, ignorance and hypocrisy in your post is staggering...
ixamraxi 1 week ago
@ixamraxi
msbrogna 1 week ago
Harry Potter > Bible
cydzview 1 week ago
Brilliantly concise video.
MrNellie2200 1 week ago
I am a Neo-Pagan now and have been since I was 13 and I am 41 now. I could be wrong. If the Christian god does exist, I have my own question I want to ask him and that is "What the fuck were you thinking?" Great video!
kelliko70 1 week ago
God damn! Good fucking points, homie.
TheDrunkenAtheist 1 week ago
In Zoroastrianism everyone gets out of hell , purified.
HIM0G 1 week ago
Tried to subscribe and surprised to discover I already was.. With this video that's been up for a couple yrs and of which I was unaware, you just became my favorite subscription.
xESOTERlC 1 week ago
TB, this video is absolutely amazing. I haven't found an article or video that compares to any other (even from Dawkins and Harris) on this subject. Great job, and I showed this to all my pals on facebook. ;)
My friend even watched it and has for the first time been thinking on his own terms instead of repeating his preacher. Like I said, great job -you're a terrific person. Keep up the good work.
nopulpapple 1 week ago 3
Incredible video. Thank you for putting to words that which has traipsed along the periphery of my mind.
xESOTERlC 1 week ago
Just wanted to say, that I'm a born-Muslim, and still follow Islam, but I love listening to TB. In fact, TB has helped me renounce the belittling dogmas of my religion that have poisoned the minds of so many of brothers and sisters. And in doing so, this fundamental outlook on my religion has made me a better person.
Scott, please don't let the haters stop you from doing what you do.
Spread Knowledge.
Mclovin4001 1 week ago 10
@Mclovin4001 "In fact, TB has helped me renounce the belittling dogmas of my religion that have poisoned the minds ..."
Like what?
TheHadeed1 1 week ago
As always, your thoughts are illuminating. Long after watching any of your vids, your words stay with me. In fact, while watching your work on B&B, I sometimes find myself distracted by recollections of things you've said in these vids. The recent holiday eps included prayer & singing religious-themed songs. When in character, do you find it difficult to "pray" or sing of God? I realize it's your career & "Liam" is not Scott. These days, Liam must be an exhausting & annoying twirp to play. ;-)
iamcasihart 1 week ago
6:03 he's sending women out there a subliminal message to do with endowment ;)
jogz699 1 week ago
This is so good.. so good this is! really. Guy is talented. And godd thing he is right too :)
SamuelRust 1 week ago
if you're wrong?? well... too late.
gattler 1 week ago
You're not wrong. An omniscient god already knows who and why you are. You are right. There will be know need for pleading your case. God knows everything you did and everything you do, and, how it all ends for you. Your only job is to be a good person and try to make life better for those around you. I other words...love is all you need. At the risk of sounding religious: bless you Scott for your reasoning. It makes sense and I love you for it.
cstevenson 2 weeks ago
According to traditional catholic doctrine, you're saved.
GiuseppeCunha 2 weeks ago
@GiuseppeCunha How's that?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 week ago 15
@TheoreticalBullshit I cannot say this is a universal opinion on the catholic tradition, but it is surely the view of very, very important figures. Thomas Aquinas, for example, taught that a person who is excommunicated should first remain in that condition than submitting himself to a superior order, for that would be "against the personal veracity" ("contra veritatem vitac), which cannot be abandoned, even to avoid a possible scandal.
GiuseppeCunha 1 week ago
@TheoreticalBullshit Also, just to cite another example, pope Innocent III said, in these exact words: "All that is done against personal consciousness is the edification of hell." He was a medieval pope. I'm not even going to begin citing the various writings about this after Vatican II, which happened in the 60's, in order not to be called a "modernist". Most of the church respects people like you.
GiuseppeCunha 1 week ago
@TheoreticalBullshit Congratulations, by the way, for your videos. You're the most intelligent youtube atheist I know. Keep up the good work!
GiuseppeCunha 1 week ago
@TheoreticalBullshit your alive?
Josh04731 1 week ago
@TheoreticalBullshit u going to make a new vid anytime soon? it dosnt even have to be logical. i just want to see if ur alive lol
pickle738 1 week ago
@TheoreticalBullshit No, not according to the doctrine. According to logic, you're saved. God doesn't believe anything created him, therefore he is an atheist. This means that he will prefer atheists like you and I in heaven with him. I'm glad I found the original uploader BTW.
LOLWORKED 1 week ago
@TheoreticalBullshit as far as I was taught in my 12 years of Catholic school, "gentiles" who live moral lives w.r.t. their own system of beliefs are just as likely to enter heaven as believers. Catholics tend to put a lot less emphasis on being "saved," though gaining entrance to heaven is usually the underlying purpose behind committing good acts. Can't do links in a comment so I guess I will send you a message w. a website as a reference.
torpidCerulean 1 week ago
@TheoreticalBullshit - I imagine he is referring to Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian", which is a rather inclusive interpretation of the concept known as 'baptism by desire' where a person can reject the Christian Gospel, but still attain salvation so long as they are committed to the same values which Christianity asserts to hold exclusivity on, i.e. the fruits of the spirit.
ixamraxi 1 week ago
@TheoreticalBullshit When you study and use reason you won't be wrong , if you are lazy to study and lazy to think deep than you can be very wrong !
What if i am wrong in my exams , well first: I didn't pay attention to study and use my time properly !
Second : when it was time for studying I was in the beach with my buddies having a good time , while the one who passed the exam was inside his home reading !
It seems to me that you have failed one of those two points
MrCobra811 1 week ago
@MrCobra811 On the contrary, he's actually working, maybe harder than the believers ;)
omarsabih 1 week ago
@MrCobra811 - Neither of your "points" are applicable. Exams have specific known answers that can be verified independently. If you want to use an exam as an example, it needs to be an exam in which you were never given questions, simply handed a scantron sheet and told to fill it out correctly. With over 32,000 known denominations of Christianity, you can't credibly assert that there are specific known answers about Christianity/God that can be verified independently, its just not true.
ixamraxi 1 week ago
@ixamraxi Yes they are applicable! The exams of the religion example needs little bit more study and sincerity , its a little hard study but it pays off at the end ! I have gonne through that study thats why I am telling you this!
You have the Abrahamic faiths and you can easily find out which one is the true one if you study them deeply!
You don't need to go into any denomination , just solve the main picture first! Solve which religion is true, Christianity or Islam, then move on
MrCobra811 1 week ago
@MrCobra811 - The problem isnt sincerity or study, I don't doubt a Christians sincerity and rarely doubt their study. The problem is that neither study nor sincerity prove the existence of God. The best study could ever do is narrow the [Biblical] authors intentions. That does not prove that what-they-said is true. Proving certain claims were made is not the same as proving those claims are true, thus it's irrelevant.
As to your no-true-scotsman fallacy, I think that one speaks for itself.
ixamraxi 1 week ago
Simply a superb, eloquent argument. Thank you.
ThePezter 2 weeks ago 21
If I find myself before the gates of heaven I will think I'm hallucinating (witch is the only logic explanation to EVERY connection to any deity)
JakobiaP 2 weeks ago
If there is a God, like a real, living Christian God, I won't be a coward and pander to him after death unless he gives a damn good explanation about why he's so incompetent.
TheEternalCrusader 2 weeks ago 3
Seems to me that your a very intelligent and well spoken individual. I think you have the integrity and character of God a little misunderstood. I give you a lot of credit for atleast reading the bible, however understanding everything in it comes win time. So long as you know that GOD loves you, you'll come to understand him.
TreyTrey1313 2 weeks ago
You are fucking sexy as shit!!!
grod4L8 2 weeks ago 27
@grod4L8 Shit isn't that sexy, and normally quite smelly...
ChadMaestrodotcom 1 week ago
actually you do come out of hell and born again as some random animal... in Buddhism
lol
Th0usandMaster 2 weeks ago
@Th0usandMaster I've never heard that before. Zen Buddhism does not mention anything supernatural.
someone2sayit1 2 weeks ago
@someone2sayit1 Well, there you heard it.
There's many Buddhist country out there so I expect there would be some variation... and what i'm talking about is my country's belief, Thailand, a Buddhist country.
Th0usandMaster 2 weeks ago
@Th0usandMaster your from Thailand? cool! Is Buddhism the most popular religion there?
someone2sayit1 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Th0usandMaster 2 weeks ago
@Th0usandMaster well wiki says 95% but from my experience i'd say 99%
Th0usandMaster 2 weeks ago
Damn it TBS!!! 3 words.
Like a Boss. =]
MustacheBandits 3 weeks ago
What are your thoughts on determinism as of now?
rsgirl10 3 weeks ago
Lol, it's so weird to catch a glimpse of him on bold and the beautiful after things like this ^.^
rsgirl10 3 weeks ago
I am in love with you, Scott.
LindzE27 3 weeks ago
I'm done with this site, as it's come to my attention that a good number of my comments and others have been flagged for spam, hidden, thus effectively censored.
The owner of this video has it within his ability of unflagging these comments which are obviously not spam.
If this mechanism isn't an automatic facet of the YouTube program, then whoever is manually flagging these comments is a deviant coward, threatened by discourse in free thought and a disgraceful hypocrite to their own ideology.
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
@LizardLeaps Effectively sensored? If anyone wants to read your hidden/spam comments, they can simply click the "show" button, conveniently located next to each "hidden" comment. To be honest, several of your "flagged" comments were heavily laden with insults and a common derogatory theme. Even a majority of your un-flagged comments exhibit a similar condescending tone....just some observations that I think are related to the flagging of some of your comments.
sickJLSrecords 3 weeks ago
@sickJLSrecords
Wrongio Butinski, there's nothing in my post that qualifies as spam.
People don't generally "simply" "conveniently" "click on the show" button"
Your biased opinionated "honest" is your double standard.
You have no problem tolerating vile, slanderous, hateful, arrogant, scornful, sardonic, vitriol directed at theist.
When theists expose your logically fallacious atheistic blather and deceitful ploys you cry like the hypocritical cowards that you are.
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
@LizardLeaps Who or what is "Wrongio Butinski"? I clicked your flagged comments because I was interested in what you said, but it doesn't matter. I guarantee that your flagged comments will get read just as much as they would if they weren't flagged. If people want to read them, they will, if they don't want to read them, then it doesn't matter if it's flagged or not. And what "biased opinion/double standard" are you talking about? I just pointed out a potential reason people flag your vids.
sickJLSrecords 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sickJLSrecords
"I clicked your flagged comments because I was interested in what you said, but it doesn't matter"
So you say, but quite frankly, I don't believe that you clicked my "flagged for spam comments" because "you were interested" until you read my comment at the top of the vid site, complaining for having been flagged for spamming unfairly/unjustly.
If this is not the actual case, and you were just...
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
@sickJLSrecords
(Cont'd...
...simply", "conveniently", "clicking" open my "flagged for spam comments", prior to your deciding to respond to my complaint then forgive me, as my "critical thinking, "skeptical" nature leads me to believe otherwise.
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
@sickJLSrecords
"And what "biased opinion/double standard" are you talking about? I just pointed out a potential reason people flag your vids"
Thanks away, but I have my own reasonable suspicion to believe possible "potential reasons" as to why my comments were unfairly flagged for spam.
With all the "condescending", "heavily laden with insult",...
Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
@sickJLSrecords
Cont'd
...vitriolic, vile, slanderous, hateful, arrogant, scornful, sardonic, Christian/bible bashing and pure ad hominem comments that don't get "flagged" found throughout these atheistic vid sites by atheists, it is much more reasonable to suspect that my having exposed and refuted my opponents for their logical contradictions as being the real reason for having been unfairly/unjustly flagged.
Some people just have a hard time dealing with being proven wrong.
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
@LizardLeaps Cont'd: Woops, meant "flag your comments", not vids. Although you might have vids that have been flagged for a similar reason.
sickJLSrecords 3 weeks ago
@sickJLSrecords
Having said that, I really do want to vacate theses premises as I had originally said I was going to, but I thought it appropriate to reply to your comment publicly, as was your comment made publicly.
I have a lot on my plate with a new premise/ proposition that I posted about, and don't wan't to feel that my effeorts are being hampered as I do on this site.
Btw, I watched one of your flicks and found it rather clever/funny :)
Thanks again and take good care!
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
@LizardLeaps I understand! Thanks for checking out one of my vids! Good luck with the new premise/proposition stuff and take care!
sickJLSrecords 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adspadoublea
"This is just a refusal to acknowledge my position out of sheer close-mindedness"
Sure it is Jolly Jumper, so just keep telling yourself this.
And If by chance your alleged *premise of "skepticism* as *the only one which is true until proven false* miraculously transforms into logically sound reasoning, as opposed to a blatant argument from ignorance, then do let me know.
I would love to use this to claim that everything I doubt to be true is false also. 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps
"And If by chance your alleged *premise of "skepticism* as *the only one which is true until proven false* miraculously transforms into logically sound reasoning, as opposed to a blatant argument from ignorance, then do let me know."
It's not an argument from ignorance because I'm not arguing anything from my lack of knowledge, merely acknowledging my lack of knowledge.
By suggesting that my position isn't by default true, you are suggesting that I know everything, "thus, FAIL".
adspadoublea 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
The only thing that can top even the most eloquent of arguments, even the most fail-proof solid statements on reality is humility. Atheist, believer and anything in between. As one of my favourite authors wrote:
''wouldn't the world be a better place if we all started with the notion that we just don't know? There. One less barrier to our common humanity''
cez82 3 weeks ago
As a person of faith I have great respect for atheists. I saw an interview with Sir David Attenborough a few months ago and was gobsmacked with the man's intelligence, his demeanour, but above all his humility He is an atheist. He arrives at his atheism through the same logic with which he has enriched science.It was his humility though, the way he made his point across that really stood out for me. I had that same feeling while watching the argument on this video up until the last few seconds
cez82 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@312haku
"Why is it so hard for you to accept that life's origins are not from gods"
This loaded question of yours is invalid/disqualified on it's logically fallacious face, thus another momentous Fail!
P.S. Are you still beating your mother? 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
@LizardLeaps when did i say i absolutely know there is no god please distinguish between reaonable certainty and that silly concept absolute certainty.
312haku 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@312haku
"when did i say i absolutely know there is no god"
Well just looky here, reckless blathering one of many...
"...because they dont involve deities which dont exist mind you"-- 312aku
"Mind you", is this blithering reckless assertion, in absolute factual positive terms of no God/s existing of yours proof enough?
No need to answer this Delusio, as those who are in delusional denial do not realize that they are in delusional denial.
LizardLeaps 3 weeks ago
Amazing video and a brilliant answer to that particular question.
Bear5177 4 weeks ago
This is quite possibly the best video on YouTube! TheoreticalBullshit has pretty much channeled my exact thoughts on this topic.
NeroJoe83 4 weeks ago
@LizardLeaps A lion does not need to be justified in being carnivorous because that is its natural state of being. The default position for theology (from birth) is in fact agnosticism, because people are not born with knowledge/beliefs for or against God. People then go through a complicated process later in life, and come to some kind of conclusion about religion.
Master0fPuppets231 4 weeks ago
@Master0fPuppets231
"A lion does not need to be justified in being carnivorous because that is its natural state of being"
You argument is self-refuting and point moot.
Observe: If atheism were true and God/s doesn't exist, everything would be a *natural state of being*, including the intrinsic human natural proclivity of religiosity, theism, etc.,... if everything were the result of purely self-propagated, non-transcendent purposed happenstance, by naturalistic process.
LizardLeaps 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Master0fPuppets231
"The default position for theology (from birth) is in fact agnosticism, because people are not born with knowledge/beliefs for or against God"
Your point is further moot, because *people (from birth)* are not born with knowledge/beliefs of anything.
Therefore, even the learning/teaching process of religiosity, theism, etc. would still *in fact* be an intrinsic proclivity to human nature and regardless of a God's actual existence or not, thus Fail!
LizardLeaps 4 weeks ago
56 people dont want to ask themselves the what if im wrong question
micke1216 1 month ago
really, really well spoken. fluid speech and good logics. really like it :)
dieghettozz 1 month ago
I'm speechless at how awesome and true this is!
Megadave020 1 month ago 3
Someone on Facebook has plagiarized this brilliant work.
facebook (dot) com/notes/shane-jones/what-if-i-am-wrong-from-one-atheists-perspective/10150564496509966
TheSocialGadfly 1 month ago
This single video has me subscribed. That was incredibly well-put and I feel that it touched on a key issue, the omniscience and omnibenevolence. Thank you for posting this.
wolverineminer 1 month ago
Bravo dear sir, I thoroughly enjoyed and agreed with everything you said.
smokingcaramels 1 month ago
seriously, might be the best video I've watched on youtube. a logical home run
3377ftw 1 month ago
lol fucking loved this.
CONKER17 1 month ago
Religion needs an arrow to the knee...
MrAJMR08 1 month ago
(Cont'd
Conclusion: You’ve placed you FAITH in wishful alleged *natural cumulative processes* without evidence or proof of their existence, and you’ve convinced yourself that said alleged *natural cumulative processes* are responsible for the reality of existence, as a VOLUNTARY REACTION in false premises, to the wishful preclusion of the existence of God.
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps No evidence of natural cumulative processes seriously? I hope you realize that by this he refers to various interactions that occur in nature i.e. plate tectonic shifts that give rise to the mountain chains or rivers that flow for millions of years-carving vast canyons. None of these hint at the presence of a god more than they do a result of a combination of various natural factors that interact in and of themselves without any outside influence.
TheCosmokramer1 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
"No evidence of natural cumulative processes seriously?"
He, as you have no rational nor factual justification to refer to these as *natural cumulative processes* in pertinence to the existence of God or not, or you are invalidating your entire argument for affirming the consequent in logically fallacious argumentation.
There is no known or knowable alleged naturalistic processes, because one cannot...
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
(Cont'd...
...physically regress in space time to implement the scientific method to acquire empirical knowledge in definitive explanation for the actual process/es responsible for the origination of the cosmos and life having arisen on the pre-biotic earth.
Moreover, your subsequent continuation...
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps Cont. Please, explain to me how there isn't such a thing as a natural cumulative process i.e. explain how the volcano formation process is simply alleged and not verified; explain how the science behind thunderstorm development doesn't exist. Moreover, explain how there is no evidence of natural interactions. Until you do this, you can't posit that agreeing with what is observed in nature requires an act of faith. Your argument is falsified.
TheCosmokramer1 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
(Cont'd...
...of irrelevant diversion blather is invalid/disqualified for being constructed on logically fallacious reasoning in argumentation and compounded logically fallacious in a Straw Man.
I am not contesting the fact of empirical scientific methodological procedures to test and definitively explain phenomena, as this is not even in issue.
Consequently, yours is a compounded logically fallacious, irrelevancy diversion Fail!
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
Now that you have taking it upon yourself, in the stead of Scott aka. Mr. Natural, put forth your objective/empirical evidence of naturalistic mechanistic processes (*cumulative* or other) to have been responsible for the origination of all phenomena in the reality of existence, which would preclude God and render yours as anything more that wishful FAITH. Go! Faithful Crickets........................................
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps If you wish to debate Mr. Clifton yourself by all means feel free. Don't use me as a substitute as I feel he can do a much better job of addressing your concerns than I. If it is your intention to confuse our discourse with lines of disconcerting rhetoric, then you will have to do better my friend, I'm sorry. Having said that, apologies for my “alleged” straw man, it simply arose from your failure to specify what you meant by an unverifiable natural cumulative process.
TheCosmokramer1 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
"If you wish to debate Mr. Clifton yourself by all means feel free"
Gee thanks for the permission and encouragement, but if you had noticed I am submitting my rebuttals, so your point is moot.
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
"Don't use me as a substitute as I feel he can do a much better job of addressing your concerns than I"
Then don't "substitute" yourself to address these so called "concerns" of mine, as it's you who has far more than insufficiently responded to my initial comments. 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
"If it is your intention to confuse our discourse with lines of disconcerting rhetoric, then you will have to do better my friend, I'm sorry"
Your sarcastic apology would be appropriate if it were sincere, and only for this begging proposition of yours, being a fallacious and hypocritical inference, for which you are actually guilty of committing yourself, thus logically fallacious invalid/disqualified hypocritical "disconcerting rhetoric, I'm sorry"Fail!
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCosmokramer1
Having said that, apologies for my “alleged” straw man, it simply arose from your failure to specify what you meant by an unverifiable natural cumulative process"
It is not my failure, but yours for not recognizing that the statement which you attempted to defend being; "simply didn't observe anything about reality that couldn't have been the result of natural cumulative processes" is all inclusive.
It is not only factually fallacious,...
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
(Cont'd...
...but further logically fallacious...for affirming the consequent, whilst putting the cart before the horse, in blatant failure to consider the unobservable, untestable, "reality" of the actual process/es to have been responsible for origination of the cosmos and life.
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps Cont. Now you seem well versed in the principles of argument so it is hard for me to believe that you didn't notice the Straw Man in your own criticism of the nature many positions of science hold. Allow me to point it out for you: From your words, it is clear that you argue that any proposition about the workings of the universe that has not been explicitly tested and verified empirically cannot be posited with infallible certainty, therefore necessitating
TheCosmokramer1 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
"Now you seem well versed in the principles of argument so it is hard for me to believe that you didn't notice the Straw Man in your own criticism of the nature many positions of science hold"
Oops, you upped and did it again, not only in another Straw Man of my position, but your fallacy of my allegedly having committed a logical fallacy... but it gets way worse.
(Cont'd
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
(Cont'd
"You would have saved a considerable amount of time, (both mine and yours) cyber ink and paper if you knew not only what it is that I am talking about, but what you're talking about.
Now read my fingertips... implementation of various scientific methodological procedures towards acquisition of empirical knowledge in definitive explanation of phenomena is based on testable, falsifiable hypothesis,...
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
(Cont'd...
...built on models which elevate into scientific theories once confirmed/verified by quantitative analytical data, then assimilated and interpreted from positive findings.
One cannot physically regress in space-time to implement the scientific method towards acquisition of empirical knowledge in definitive explanation for that which was actually responsible for the origination of the cosmos and life.
It is not in contention...
Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps Cont. an act of faith to hold on to the concept. Your basis for this is that it is impossible to predate the beginning of our ability to observe, making it impossible for for us to witness and document these claims directly. From this we can deduce you assumptions of the nature of these scientific-worldly propositions and how they lead to your fallacy; that all of these claims are posited with absolute certainty- that they ARE the case.
TheCosmokramer1 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps Cont. To address this I can tell you that any scientist worth his salt that holds on to these “impossible” positions would agree that any claim/explanation of the universe that predated our ability to observe it is merely an explanation of what COULD have been the case, not what IS/WAS the case and this is all based on the way current phenomena behave and the calculations associated with them. For example, the Big Bang: current observation of universal expansion
TheCosmokramer1 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps Cont. followed by simple logic leads to the proposition that states that there COULD have a point in time from which expansion began. As I said previously, merely an agreement with what is derived- analysis first, proposition second (a notion you seem to have backwards). Therefore, in terms of phenomena that predated our observation, they are not positing ANYTHING with infallible certainty. No cosmologist in his/her right mind will tell you that the Big Bang
TheCosmokramer1 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
(Cont'd...
...or even in issue of there having been a finite origination of the cosmos and of life appearing on the pre-biotic earth.
The actual question/conundrum is the how in issue of untestable, non-falsifiability, thus perpetually empirically unknowable by scientific methodological implementation and in accordance with the philosophy thereof.
Moreover, your latest installment of a Straw Man...
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCosmokramer1
"As I said previously, merely an agreement with what is derived- analysis first, proposition second (a notion you seem to have backwards)"
As I say now; "you most certainly have it your sit down apparatus completely backwards (your "notion" is proof of your scientifically challenged status), as a scientific hypothesis (guess) is first proposed, and if predictions are verified through testable empirical experimentation in findings,...
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps
(Cont'd...
...derived from quantifiable analytical data, then it is one step closer to a viable scientific theory.
So sorry to burst your babble Bill Deny pseudo-scientific guy, but how do suppose that one could first have analytical data before a proposition in working hypothesis and predictions are confirmed by experimentation with quantified data yielded, assimilated, and interpreted?... by some reverse process of osmosis? 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps Cont. most certainly happened. Because of this inherent yet slight shadow of ambiguity and acknowledgment thereof, an act of faith is not necessary. An act of faith is not required to hold onto a math/calculation based possibility. As for the origination of the Big Bang and phenomena of equal mystery, we are the first to tell you that we don't know the definite answer, but have inferences as to what the answer could be. Theists are the only ones that posit
TheCosmokramer1 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
(Cont'd...
...of my position is proven in your blathering falsity that "I posit "infallible ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY"
Somehow in your ignorance, you wish to believe that I am ignorant of the prerequisite of the necessity of possibility to falsifiability of scientific hypotheses/theories, which is a momentously arrogant, decietful and pretentious falsity in self-decieved fantasy on your part.
Furthermore, all of your further continuation...
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps
(Cont'd...
...of irrelevant and logically falacius blather is proven in the fact that the how of the workings of the physical laws of the world and universe and phenomena pertinent is not even the question/problem.
It's the how of the origination, in relation to all phenomena in the reality of existence which is scientifically unknowable, and perpetually defies/confounds limited fallible logic to ever understand or explain.
Get used to and over it.
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
"Theists are the only ones that posit WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that elements of their worldview "are" the case"
So you blather in factual "ABSOLUTE CERTAIN" terms", but since I am a theist, and have nowhere stated your fallacious allegation of "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY pertinent" and there are "CERTAINLY" reckless bleating atheist who do "posit with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" that God does not exist, yours is proven with "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" of being doubly false/wrong.
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps Cont. WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that elements of their worldview “are” the case. Until you can provide more sound reasoning to go along with the notion God, the burden of proof still falls on you. Where is it? …............I'm sure you're all to familiar with the sound of crickets. Until you do, there's no reason for me to think that anything is the result of God.
TheCosmokramer1 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheCosmokramer1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCosmokramer1
"Until you can provide more sound reasoning to go along with the notion God, the burden of proof still falls on you"
Wrongio again and as usual.
Theism is not a positive claim in itself of the existence of God, but rather the belief by faith in the exsistence of God.
Moreover, religious faith by very definition does nor rely on proof or objective evidence and is therefore except from any burden of "proof"
Furthermore, this exposes your...
Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
(Cont'd...
...latest assertion as being a non-sequitur and compounded fallacious in a decietful attempt to shift the burden of proof, thus yours is invalid/disqualified on it's compounded logically fallacious face.
If you wish to preclude any and all "notions"...
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@TheCosmokramer1
(Cont'd...
...of the belief in the existence of God/s and your disposition in blind FAITH, then put forth your objective/empirical evidence or proof that the origination of the cosmos and life can be credit to wishful naturalistic mechanistic processes.Go! Old Faithful Crickets.......................
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps
The most logical and default position, if one doesn't know, is skepticism towards both sides. Admittedly, I adopt this position from ignorance, but theism is NOT the default position. Theism must be justified like all other positions.
adspadoublea 1 month ago
@adspadoublea
You have no "logical" justification to demand that "Theism must be justified" if God/s doesn't exist, thus atheism true.
Why should that which would necessarily be self-propagated naturalistic processes and phenomena in effective manifestation of the proclivity of religiosity, theism, etc. intrinsic to human nature, as evidenced from earliest recorded history and overwhelmingly until this day need to be justified?
Would a lion need to justify being carnivorous?
LizardLeaps 1 month ago
@LizardLeaps
Atheism is the disbelief in deities. If deities have no evidence, then that in itself is justification to disbelieve in them.
Your analogy about the lion is flawed. Until lions are shown to regularly eat meat, then there is no reason to believe that they ARE carnivorous. In this particular case, they HAVE been shown to regularly eat meat.
The existence of deities has not seen similar evidence, and thus there is no reason to believe that there is one.
adspadoublea 4 weeks ago
@adspadoublea
"Atheism is the disbelief in deities. If deities have no evidence, then that in itself is justification to disbelieve in them"
Wrongio Diversio. Your premise is false, as is the basis and lack of justification for your atheism itself.
You couldn't possibly know if everything in existence isn't the overwhelming objective "evidence" of a God authored, meaningfully interacted with, and most premier ongoing miraculous occurrence in and of itself, thus Fail!
LizardLeaps 4 weeks ago
@LizardLeaps you sir are a fucking twit.
312haku 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@312haku
"you sir are a fucking twit"
Au contraire as the 'twitness' is all about you, and I'll prove it, Strawmaniac.
Please avoid displaying any further logical bankruptcy, sub-standard cognitive abilities, ignoramus disposition, frustration for stymied befuddlement and answer the multiple choice question.
What were the process/es responsible for the origination of the cosmos and life having appeared on the pre-biotic earth, which is the actual premise and issue, Strawmaniac?
LizardLeaps 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps "You couldn't possibly know if everything in existence isn't the overwhelming objective "evidence" of a God authored, meaningfully interacted with, and most premier ongoing miraculous occurrence in and of itself, thus Fail!"
Thus, "no evidence". If we don't know whether or not something acts as evidence, then it shouldn't yet be considered as such.
u fail breh
adspadoublea 4 weeks ago
@adspadoublea
"Thus,"no evidence"If we don't know whether or not something acts as evidence, then it shouldn't yet be considered as such"
False, as it should not "yet be" dismissed, as does your false premise in specious claim of there being "no evidence" which could actually be everything in existence.
Furthermore, the reality of ALL existence is objective "evidence" in itself which perpetually defies/confounds fallible, limited logic or science to ever understand or explain.
LizardLeaps 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps
"Furthe