RE:ToolTime9901--Dichotomy, Evidence, and Absurdity?

[todocambiara2]

and who says philosophy needs a frame with which to work?

[todocambiara2]

How sad for you to be so defined.

[ourben]

You make me want to commit suicide.

[kyebean]

That's exactly how I feel. OMFG

[Atrocitas6]

Reckless self-endangerment. Technically it's not suicide, therefore, not a sin. Try it out! Get to heaven quicker!

[Homer177]

Reality can be whatever humans want it to be. Everything you see and hear has been carefully constructed by the so-called elite, Especially where Christianity is concerned. I find it funny how Christians feel that life without God or Jesus is a punishment, but I don't see how.

They are both entirely human constructs, after all. The proof is in how God conveys emotions, destroys various civilizations in favor of the 'chosen' and classifies all others as simply property to be owned.

[dariopimenteI]

he kinda looks like abraham lincoln

[scootermo]

TFP, If I were you, I would leave the personal, personal...and only post vids that other Christians can use as springboards. That is, something to stir the unthinking minds out there. I dont think non-believers care very much about personal conflicts. Just my 2 cents.

[RayBobb]

I think that the most important point that ToolTime made, though, was that in making an argument in favor of God's existence to an non-believer, you are presupposing that there must be some kind of a consensus-based notion of "truth" or "reality" that exists independently of one's belief in a deity. Therefore, when you say that God exists in reality, you are no more or less obligated to define what you mean by "reality" than atheists are.

[corbono35]

Jack your right that atheism does not provide any particular framework, but it posits that any framework provided by a theist is wrong. Atheism provides a complementary frameworks, but excludes any theist framework. Atheism doesn't have a say on any other framework besides yours.

I don't understand whats so hard about that. Its been said multiple different ways. Atheism is the inverse (for the most part) of a theist's framework, nothing more nothing less.

[diuryl]

after all this time of talking to atheists i've realised that most find it very difficult to stay on topic. they always tend to go off track, assume what you're about to say, or think.

[corbono35]

How so?

Atheism pertains to the lack of belief in a god. It suggest nothing more about a person's traits. So for you to go off and do a sweeping over generalization, is in of its self off topic.

It's the people that you are arguing with, not the group entirely.

[Sav3TheWorld]

yep, thats theists all right. Always changing the subject when proven wrong, moving the goal post, making baseless threats of hell rather than reason, and saying what they believe.

[diuryl]

i personally couldn't care what you think about hell, or where you think you're going. if you feel scared or threatened then maybe you should really think about it. the truth tends to have such effects on people.

just remember, it's atheists who say everything came from nothing, or always is, and dishonestly claim to be ignorant in the face of the evidence because they don't like the final outcome or answer and the consequences it brings.

[MrKylehass]

i'm not an atheist but i dont think thats correct, they arent dishonest, they believe what they say. we believe God came from nothing or always is and we believe He created everything, so inderectly we come to the same coclusion. if u truly want to be a minister or even someone who debates against other beliefs and worldviews u must understand them, otherwise u might as well be talking to the wind, becuase u'll sound like some ignorant radical crackpot

[diuryl]

it's evident to every intelligent being that the universe is complex. it's evident that the universe had a beginning. we say it was an intelligence because of the evident complexity. we say it was an eternal, immaterial, unnatural being, because before nature there was no nature. so only something unnatural caused it.

the atheist comes and says, there was no intelligence, despite the evidence we see every single day. some even say the universe is eternal, despite what science has proven.

[diuryl]

to deny such things would be to lock yourself in a little box of denial. and unfortunately for them, that's what most people are NOT willing to do.

we don't believe GOD came from nothing, GOD was always there. how do we come to the same conclusion, if one group denies that the cause was intelligent and powerful, and one group accepts it?

i've been talking to atheists for quite a long time, and i've met many different kinds of them. i've seen their vids, i've seen them....>

[diuryl]

<......in debates. atheism is flawed on all levels. i simply don't understand how someone can hold such a position.

i neverclaimed atheism was a religion, i know very well that it's just a world, view. a flawed one might i add. but the way these new atheists go about, one would think it's a religion.

[MrKylehass]

well u see from ur perspective, i agree with some of what u say, but at the same time they make some of the exact same arguements we do. the gospel is relevant to all ppl, u just have to find a way to present it, but in order to do so u must understand where they come from. u have tyhe understanding that u do because of what God has revealed, an atheist will not believe the same for the reason they dont believe in or follow God and "the ways of God, WILL seem foolish to the wisdom of man"

[diuryl]

i agree 100% about the gospel or religion/faith in general. different people had different experiences in life with religion. some will be very open to it, others won't be too sure, other's will reject it right from the start.

however i've spoken to many atheists, who reject religon based on multiple misunderstandings and misconceptions, especially against christianity. no matter what type of evidence, or how good one's logic is. in their hearts and minds they've already made up their.....>

[diuryl]

<.....minds that religion is foolish and people of faith are fools aswell. sadly a large number of atheists are like this, it's evident here on YT, with all the mockery and childish behaviour. with this mindset it's hard reason with them, to make it worse they usually argue out of anger, and you cannot reason with an angry or even hate filled person, it doesn't work very well.

[MrKylehass]

thats why u give them love and humility, sure it wont always make a difference but if they see a difference n u, they may hold a greater respect for true Christians, i have been told by an angry atheist the world would be a better place if more ppl wer like me(not building myself up)

[diuryl]

love and humility is good. but the sad reality is that they tend to judge our faith based on the bad things that fellow christians do, not on what the faith teaches, what the faith has done, and what GOOD things people of our faith have done.

i've been told that by an atheist or two myself. but actually the world would be much better if we were more open and more understanding to one another.

there are too many lies flying around causing confusion and misunderstanding, hence the conflict.

[MrKylehass]

thats what got this conversation started, i was pointing out the different views that we have and the same arguements we use to one another, to bring understanding. do not worry about there judgement, u dont answer to them anyway, show them the true Christianity, show them the good that we do

[diuryl]

true! GOD bless!

[MrKylehass]

the worldview arguement wasnt directed towards u... i dont think lol, i think it was with cstrand31

[jrev37]

wow,bro. This is more like it. good refutation.

Youre weird dude, sometimes youre cool and sane and sometimes you act like a total religious numb. I guess even deluted people have their sane moments, lol. just kidding. It is very clear that T.T. did'nt watch the previous video.

[216trixie]

"Truth is a pathless land." ..Yes, you are "wandering" down an absurd path. All "paths" are absurd, in regard to truth.

[216trixie]

Atheism does not "offer" anything. We agree.

[216trixie]

You'll make a good atheist. When you get rid or your Rape/Murder/Slaveryiso.k-god-t­hingy burp, in your brain.....I did.

[WolfSyndrome]

Yeah, these pseudo-intellectuals (like tooltime) really need to stop crying "logical fallacy!" just because they can't get over the fact that there's life outside of school debate class. I watched your initial video and it was obvious you were speaking what I call the "conversation" language as opposed to being scientific. Now watch the little douchebags call me religious and say I'm not really atheist just because I happen to agree with the theist's argument this time around.

[mikech78]

Of course atheism is not a philosophical framework. Atheism is but a stance on a single idea. To those who don't believe in God, and recognize it as the truth, that's exactly what it is, which is exactly what can be said for any other opinion that's held as truth. It's entirely subjective. However, though atheism is not built on a philosophical framework itself, this one opinion can lead people to their own philosophical frame works, which may or may not coincide with each other.

[sfb008008]

I'd say atheism is the more sensible starting place for determining truth, meaning, purpose etc...

[cstrand31]

Athiesm is not a worldview. Athiesm is NOT an arrogant religion offering the "truth". Things like "truth" and "knowledge" are demonstrable. If you say you're offering the "truth", you better be able to back it up. So please, Jack, if you're offering "truth", please show your work, because words matter, but when speaking of "truth", evidence is where it's at.

[MrKylehass]

atheism isnt a religion but it is a worldview, u have beliefs on how the world functions, but u derive them from physical evidence and not faith

[cstrand31]

That's patently false. Your logic does not follow. Deriving my beliefs on how the world functions from physical evidence is not a defining characteristic, unless you are asserting that creationists and really all religious people of every stripe reject physical evidence despite the validity of said evidence. If it's not in your bible then you must reject it?

[MrKylehass]

no some religions use physical evidence or accept it, like most ahteists, but the physical evidence shapes ur view on the world and how it functions, a worldview doesnt always call for a spiritual essence, to say atheism doesnt have a worldview is inappropriate to the term, because u have views on life and the world itself, u probably just derive them from science. all ppl of every nation, every ppl group, and every individual, have a worldview. sry if my previous statement was unclear

[Signofthedollar]

If you want peace then you must prepare for war.

[PerfectionZinc]

haha you have no clue what you are talking about...so contradictory ...im sorry...but seriously....listen to yourself dude :/

[bombsadam13]

ur so rightt bro love ur vids

[RebelKain]

What does atheism have to offer? An Extra day to get shit done or sleep in! Whichever you need/want! The point I'm making is that the only things atheism can offer are those things religion forces people to deny themselves...

[FadeLLW]

And if you guys want an example of this problem, just take a look at the most recent atheist bus campaign. In Australia, we are unfairly refused service of advertising atheist messages to reach out for other atheists that they are not alone.

[FadeLLW]

Maybe I should have said "I" do have a big problem with etc etc as I said I can't speak for everyone, but, I can imagine there are quite a lot of us with that view.

[FadeLLW]

I agree that atheism doesn't offer the truth. We're just rejecting your view of the truth. Religion offers certainty without proof, which they misrepresent as truth. The real truth is that, we don't know what happened during the first few seconds of the big bang and that is fine imo. What is not fine is to say that you do know something while forcing everyone to live their life under your fabrication of the truth regardless of its validity. THAT IS NOT FINE!

[MFGoon]

Agnostic people BELIEVE IN GOD. Any atheist can believe in the POSSIBILITY that a god exists but to them, it's unlikely and they will continue to be "non believers" until someone provides evidence. Like many, people don't really understand what atheism is. Most people miss that very subtle, but important part of atheism.

[MFGoon]

The term ATHEIST is an OBJECTIVE term.The strict definition of atheism is the rejection of theism or lack of belief in gods because of the lack of verifiable evidence.

[MFGoon]

However, if proof was offered, it would be accepted as such. Many atheists say that it is not outside of the realm of possibility of a supreme being existed. They just point out that no human has offered any substantial proof of this existence. Thus, they don't take it on "faith". To them, people are just worshiping fairy tales.

[MFGoon]

They don't believe in anything that can't be proven. Atheist won't believe in a God because they believe there is no proof of the existence of God.There AREN'T some atheist that believe in God and others that don't. Believing in God disqualifies you from being an atheist.

[MFGoon]

First of all Atheism isn't subjective. Atheism doesn't deal with absolute certainty. Of course it is a possibility that some god is out there. Most Atheists are pretty pragmatic. They just don't take anything on "faith". They are rooted in "objective" reality.

[YogiToad]

Atheism is a philosophical framework,at least atheism in it's true light,not how it is watered down and used by people who espouse to hold the belief that their are no deities. Atheism at it's roots is a philosophy and and a belief system based off Vedic thought.

[cjunk351]

If we are Militant atheist then you Jack are a Militant christian

[vmanvand]

question: will arguing bring anyone to Christ?

[siekertr21]

"debating" makes people think. I'm sure plenty of times atheists who visit these channels contemplate the possibility they're wrong just as Christians do.

[tooltime9901]

as for my comments about absurdity, I did not imply that your view was absurd. I stated that in the context of you having the burden of showing that your beliefs are justified by evidence and I said IF you don't have any evidence, then you don't have reason to believe, because if one view can be justified without evidence that any view and, which would be absurd.

[tooltime9901]

the first misunderstanding is that i was not being literal in saying that you were giving a false dichotomy. i brought that up to point out the alternative view points you don't address, and not to dismiss your argument as fallacious.

second, I titled the video "Jack is up to his USUAL tricks" because I was not limiting my statements to a single video. but you seem to take me as doing that.

third, atheism does offer A truth. if there is no god, then atheism offers the truth that there is no god

[legodesi]

"if there is no god, then atheism offers the truth that there is no god"

I don't get this. Doesn't atheism mean a "lack of belief in God"? So if it does, it doesn't offer anything, by virtue of, not its content but, by the nature of the sort of thing atheism is.

[tooltime9901]

this is absurd. what the hell do you mean when you say "offer anything" exactly, because it seem that the affirmation or denial of ANY proposition "offers" something in that it offers either the acceptance of a position and its consequences or the denial of that position and the consequences that come from that. if you don't believe in Santa, then non-Santa-ism "offers" you the ability to eat the cookies and drink the milk yourself.

[legodesi]

"the affirmation or denial of ANY proposition "offers""

But the proposition that atheism expresses is, for some given person, that he "lacks a belief in God." Isn't that what atheism is? If we define atheism as a lack of belief in God, the proposition that it denies is that, for some given person P, that he believes in God. It doesn't deny the proposition that God exists.

[tooltime9901]

let me put it this way. if theism offers A, then atheism offers -A. do you think nothing turns on the question of where or not god exist. believing god exists has one set of consequences while not believing has another.

[legodesi]

If A represents the proposition "God exists", then -A represents the negation of the proposition "God exists". This means that atheism represents the proposition "God doesn't exist." (just as -(1) equals (-1)). Do you agree?

[tooltime9901]

no, because this misses the very important element of belief. regardless, ask your self 3 questions. 1) does theism offer anything? 2) is atheism the denial of theism? and 3) does the denial of a claim equate to the affirmation of its opposite?

ex: if you say theism offers the fear of god's judgment, then does not atheism involve a denial of that fear by denying its foundation and thereby offering freedom from the fear of god's judgment?

[legodesi]

Alright, I reject the whole idea of offering things. It's very vague and I don't really know what it means for a belief to offer something, and I don't even know why it should, so I'm not attempting to support Jack's position here.

1) I don't know what it means for it to offer something. But it's the idea that God exists.

2) No, it's not the denial of theism. It's that a person lacks a belief that God exists.

3) Yes, it does.

[tooltime9901]

theism is the belief that god exists. atheism, in lacking god believe constitutes a rejection of that.

[legodesi]

atheism constitutes a rejection of the belief that God exists. Does it constitute a rejection that God exists? And if it does, doesn't it affirm the non-existence of God? In which case, wouldn't atheism be the belief that God does not exist? If not, then it doesn't constitute the rejection of the existence of God, and only constitutes the rejection of a positive belief in him, and remains only an absence of belief.

[tooltime9901]

"wouldn't atheism be the belief that God does not exist?" so long as you do not make the mistake that some any others do of confusing a statement of belief for a claim to knowledge, then i am actually fine with that definition.

[legodesi]

So you think that atheism isn't a lack of belief? Are you saying that atheism is an actual, positive belief that there is no creator of this universe?

[dungamong]

Lack of belief is not Atheist (A - Theist). Lack of belief is Agnosticism....right?

[legodesi]

Lack of belief is consistent with agnosticism. If atheism is "lack of belief" then agnosticism is a type of atheism, but I don't even know anymore myself.

[Gnomefro]

It is very simple:

Imagine the set of "humanity". Inside that set, you have a group of people who can say "I believe in God" without lying. Those are the set of theists. The rest are the set of non-theists, the a-theists. These people are identified by their lack of belief in "God". They don't even have to have reasons, they might never have heard of "God".

Agnostics are people who deny that *knowledge*(as opposed to belief) of gods can be had. Agnostics are found in both camps.

[dungamong]

Okay I understand that. I don't understand why everyone thinks their way of thinking is ideal. There is no evidence of that. If the whole world was (A)Theist, where is the solid evidence that it would be better for it? So this lack of evidence says to me that there is no justification in attempting to convert others.

[FadeLLW]

I cannot speak for all atheist but I've never tried to convert anyone into atheists. I certainly like to talk and be friends with atheists because it is great to be friends with someone who has similar views as yours. However, we do have a big problems with other people enforcing their views and their judgement onto us. This includes laws regarding morality - drugs/sex/marriage, prohibition of certain researches, rights of certain individuals and indoctrination of our children into falsehoods.

[FadeLLW]

Oh and another thing, in regards to these aforementioned issues, the biggest problem I have with those issues are religious people who feel that they need to impose their views upon us by voting for laws against those issues on the grounds of morality. The problem here is that by speaking out and saying, no, we won't stand for that, you are restricting our freedom, the religious people take it as an assault on their religion and branding us as militants.

[dungamong]

Nature is unfair this way. How is the fact that religious people happen to outnumber us in the voting booth imposing views on us? Perhaps they often do impose, but democracy keeps it "fair". Freedom must be limited. We need to compensate for natures unfairness.

[FadeLLW]

No, democracy does not equal fairness, it just means that the majority win. For example, hypothetically, if we have a community that still practices slavery but is democratic, and 10% of the population are slaves while 90% are slave owners, would 90% of the people voting against slavery being outlawed make it fair to have slaves?

[JeffSims009]

Yes, it would. That's the closest you can get to fair in this world. deal with it.

We will never live in some fairy tale world where things are infinitely fair for everyone

[FadeLLW]

No, we are having our rights trampled. You are as much of a bigot as one who tells black people, gay people and women to "deal with it" when they weren't given the same rights. Go away.

[JeffSims009]

Idiot.

[FadeLLW]

bigot

[JeffSims009]

People like you make that word meaningless.

[JeffSims009]

good idea, block anyone who argues with you, arrogant prick.

[FadeLLW]

Nope, I changed my mind. I will not block you JeffSims, for the purpose that you need a lesson in humility. You are the sort of people that is exactly what is wrong with the world today. You thrive on taking advantage over other people and telling them to deal with it. You think that your way is the only way and others are inferior for differing in their approach.

[FadeLLW]

Now I was taught to not start fights, especially against a giant dousche of a troll like yourself but I have decided that I would be doing the world a disservice for allowing such second rate behaviour to continue from you or people like you. Democracy, although a good system, arguably the best system that we have so far does not make it a perfect system.

[FadeLLW]

Theres always area with which you can improve upon and one if those is the fact that religion have such a big part on the policy making process of politics. Religion is a problem not because it offers different world views whether or not it is right or not, but it seeks to enforce that view upon others. I am not arguing about the surface level of if you dont believe in Christ or Alah or whatever, then youre an infidel and should go to hell.

[FadeLLW]

Although I find that offensive as hell, what is more disturbing is that we allow religion to influence politics and decision making. It allows for morally bankrupt ideas to persist uninhibited with society such as going against gay marriage, going against abortion and teaching abstinence only contraception.

[FadeLLW]

It does not apologize on behalf of the evils of the clergy such as child molestation charges, but rather, cover it up. It uses its large voting base to push these ideas, as well as other similar idiotic nonsense such as abolishing stem cell research through to parliament. Their reasons for doing so is not based on sound, scientific reasoning but based on the morals of ignorance.

[FadeLLW]

When someone says, no enough is enough, how long must we stand for our rights to be trampled! (not by religious fanatics, mind you, but by religious moderates as well who buys into this whole bullshit), we get airheads such as yourself, regardless of your beliefs, having the nerve to tell us that we should just deal with it.

[FadeLLW]

How about instead of doing that, which hinders societal progression, you instead have a long and deep think about how your beliefs impact upon the world and how YOU can grow from this experience of your views being challenged?

[FadeLLW]

But no, you choose to downvote my posts and resort to childish name calling that is consistent with the stunted individual with the intellectual capacity of an insect such as yourself. Well done, you have successfully trolled me enough for me to unload. I hope you are happy. BIGOT!

[JeffSims009]

Uhh I think you might be confusing me with someone else you got in an argument with, but whatever. You probably get in quite a few.

[FadeLLW]

@ JeffSims009 Whatever dude.

[JeffSims009]

Alright, Dude.

[symelian]

that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to make them as closest to it as we can ....

[dungamong]

Right and wrong is debatable. In a "state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges"... would people choose to be slaves? If so, it is their choice if the 10% were to have a legal obligation.

[FadeLLW]

@ dungamong

that made no sense whatsoever.

[tooltime9901]

"positive belief that there is no creator of this universe"

theism is not, necessarily the claim of a creator, but of the existence of a persona god who may or may not be the creator.

semantics aside, I really cont think it matters, given what it means to believe something. again, atheism is not any sort of claim to knowledge. do you "lack belief" in Santa? is that significantly different then believing Santa doesn't exist?

[legodesi]

Huh? Theism necessarily involves the claim of a creator (at the very least, Western theism does). God carries within itself the meaning of an uncreated creator, so the personal God is a being that created everything else and is personal toward us. I don't know why you're bringing up claims of knowledge, that's not what's at dispute. its whether atheism is a positive thing or not. nearly every other atheist I've met has said atheism is merely the absence of a belief. You seem to say otherwise..?

[tooltime9901]

that is simply a certain brand of theism.

I bring up knowledge claims because whether atheism is a "positive believe" or a lack or belief is simply irrelevant, because all it means to believe something is that you hold it to be true, explicitly or tacitly. most other atheists think that by saying they don't believe in god will shift the burden of proof on to them, but that's only the case for making a knowledge claim.

[legodesi]

"most other atheists think that by saying they don't believe in god will shift the burden of proof on to them, but that's only the case for making a knowledge claim."

So if a person had a belief, as long as he didn't claim to know what he believes, he is free of burden of proof?

My whole ambition here is to get you to take a solid stance on what atheism means. You seemed to have said before that it's a negation of the existence of God. So is atheism a lack of belief, or isn't it?

[tooltime9901]

i am saying there is no meaningful difference. lack means to be without, to not have. so you could say "I don't have a belief in god" but that is essentially equivalent to "I believe there is no god". it is not some middle ground between belief and non-belief, in fact I would argue that belief is either/or. as for burden of proof, I think both sides have the responsibility to show that theism is either justified with evidence or not. proving got is something different altogether.

[atheismisreligion]

Belief is "either/or"?? Oh crap, an absolutist.

Was the emperor of Japan defined inside of Japan as a "deity" or not prior to Feb. 1946?

[MrVisions]

The error in your reasoning is, you are approaching it, the C/A argument from the point of view, that, (eg) My foot is caught in a bear trap, now my foot is not caught in a bear trap, therefore not being caught in a bear trap is useful. Now from an atheist point of view this may seem logical, because you see 'C' as being an oppression, but from 'C's perspective there is no trap, equally therefore no usefulness to the exercise, therefore useless.

[tooltime9901]

so you admit that it is "from 'C's perspective". in other words, atheism offers you a different perspective at a minimum.

[MrVisions]

I must not have been clear on the point I was trying to make. Atheism can't offer anything without having a prerequisite variable or argument to counter itself with, so on its own has nothing, it has something to you because you are defending its identity, Now if you would wish to assign a dogma, structure or platform of atheistic ideology to it, then you can claim it has something to offer, but then would it indeed be 'atheism'?

[tooltime9901]

no one would bother to say they were an atheism is there was no concept of god. there is simply so such thing as "atheism on its own". theism "offers" something and atheism "offers" the rejection of those offers. simple

[MrVisions]

So the act of rejection, constitutes the offer of something? ( "Hi my name is Bob, I think your hot, will you have dinner with me" --- "buzz off loser" ... fine.) So Bob did she go out with you last night? .... No --- So you had dinner alone? ... No I had dinner with me myself and I ... er you mean alone? No she rejected me so I had dinner with myself? Ok I think I get it.

[tooltime9901]

let me put it this way. if you are an atheist, then you don't believe in a god and everything (if anything) which follows from that. atheism offers the alternative world view of reality minus god. where as theism offers the world view of reality plus god.

[MrVisions]

Extending you the semantic latitude one would need to justify this argument, I will accept this.

But as a caveat, I would like to leave you this:

As a Christian, I lived a chaste life, but now I am an atheist I have copious amounts of sex, Atheism offers abundant sex? I never drank, but now get drunk every weekend, atheism causes alcoholism? had strong morals, but now will step on people to get my own way, atheism teaches you to be ruthless. How many of the above are accurate statements.

[tooltime9901]

try flipping that around. Christianity tells me to do/not do X, but without Christianity, I am free from any such obligations.

[MrVisions]

Just answer the question, that's all

[FadeLLW]

none.

[MrVisions]

Exactly

[tooltime9901]

what was the question again? this comment section is all messed up.

[MrVisions]

As a Christian, I lived a chaste life, but now I am an atheist I have copious amounts of sex, Atheism offers abundant sex? I never drank, but now get drunk every weekend, atheism causes alcoholism? had strong morals, but now will step on people to get my own way, atheism teaches you to be ruthless. How many of the above are accurate statements.

[tooltime9901]

I DID answer that question. atheism does not "offer" any of those things. that it does offer is the lack of the demand from a god that you behave a certain way (because you wouldn't believe in such a god). that is not to say atheism would tell you to do what you want, you would be free to decide your ethics for yourself.

[FadeLLW]

@MrVisions

I am not sure which side you are arguing. However, I would argue that religion offers no morals at all, but rather just obedience to authority. Sex and alcohol isn't even a problem unless you can't control yourself from being excessive. Above all, none of those things that you mentioned is attributed to a non belief but rather a deficiency in human character.

[MrVisions]

Right once again

[legodesi]

"if there is no god, then atheism offers the truth that there is no god"

This is only true if atheism really meant "there is no god". Yet, is that how you define it?

[siekertr21]

I like what you said legodesi, it really brings up a good point on whether or not atheism is making an assertion or is simply a state of unbelief.

[tooltime9901]

no, but i was talking in terms of one example of how it could offer truth. we could also say "if there is no reason to believe in god, then atheism is offers the truth that one should not believe in god"

[TogetherForPeace]

tooltime-Given the context and your repeated use of the phrase false dichotomy in the video I'm not sure how I was to understand it in the way you say you meant...but whatever.

Second-Your statements may not have been limited but the majority of the context was one in which it was referring back to my recent video.

[tooltime9901]

basically Jack, you kept harping back in the fact that what i was saying was not addressing the main point of your video. what you failed to realize is that the point I was making was one step back from your point about how you got to that your point, which was to talk about atheism not having a framework.

[TogetherForPeace]

tool- did my vid show up as a posted response? I know YouTube glitches.

[tooltime9901]

yes, i just forgot to accept it. i did not realize it was not on auto accept

[TogetherForPeace]

tool- I can only work with what's in the video. If I didn't realize that you were one step back from whatever but your video focuses on my recent video and conversations regarding it then I'm not sure how you would intend for me to understand you being one step back.

[tooltime9901]

I don't see how you could not unless you don't understand the structure of your own argument.

you say

1) atheists claim atheism offers something

2) atheism needs a structure to offer something

3) atheism has no structure

C) therefore atheism cannot offer anything.

I am talking about your premises and you are complaining I am not addressing your conclusion.

[TogetherForPeace]

"If there is no Bigfoot then not believing in Bigfoot offers the truth that there is no Bigfoot."

You don't have any problem with that Peter???

[tooltime9901]

upon reflection Jack i have come to realize that the problem with your hold argument is that YOU insist on shoe horning the atheist into your language game. to hell with this "offers" non-sense. you have selected that word to suit your point and you fail to grasp what the hard atheist is trying to tell you. if there is no god and/or no evidence for a god, then there is no reason to believe in one and therefore atheism is the correct position to hold. (cont)

[TogetherForPeace]

tooltime-- Good post. I don't insist upon playing the 'offer' game it's an opportunity for me to understand where someone is coming from as my video points. Come on now...I'm sure you're aware that I understand fully what the 'hard' atheist is trying to say.

[tooltime9901]

sometimes I doubt it Jack, because you argument often comes off as trying to say "atheism has no inherent framework, therefor it's claims to offer (black) are invalid, which simply doesn't follow.

[TogetherForPeace]

tool- well to clarify it's not that I understand fully everything they say as many times when they use certain words they've provided no basis for those words to make sense to myself. I could lay out the arguments for some of them, as I'm sure you understand, that in many instances it seems we've placed more thought into the oppositions perspective than they have themselves.

[tooltime9901]

again Jack, as i said in my video, i am with you on the point that the person claiming reality is way X has the responsibility to justify that position, but my point is that you do as well, seeing as how you are also making claims to truth, reality, etc.

[tooltime9901]

(Cont) the point for the atheist is that they are claiming atheism is the correct position to hold. you insist on changing that into them saying this is what atheism "offers" from which your whole tangent about structures and truth makes sense, but it bastardizes what the atheist was getting at in favor of the point you want to make.

[premed2]

Jack's "WDA offer?" ploy, avoiding the harder questions, & exploring the numerous variegations of reality & truth are brilliant tactics. The "offer" ploy immediately puts the atheist on the defensive if he consents to play along. Shifting away from the "hard" questions for a theist, such as what evidence is there for the existence of god, provides cover from a clear weakness, and Jack's myriad of truths & realities muddies the waters & furnishes a hiding place for god.

Well played by Jack!

[TogetherForPeace]

premed-- my response to das wasn't a ploy or avoiding harder questions. I was merely sharing in which instances asking the question was helpful in understanding where someone was coming from. I don't consider thinking about concepts of reality and truth as tactics. Shifting, tactics, ploy...view it however you will. I find your comment unusually aggressive and out of character but so be it there's no reason to limit anyone to one way of expressing themselves.

[TogetherForPeace]

Hiding place for God? What a ridiculous comment that betrays motivations not rooted in understanding but mockery.

[symelian]

isn't it also a mockery of the question when u sidestep it and answer something completely irrelevant to it?

[premed2]

Actually I don't think understanding has much to do with it, on your part or tool's. This is in essence a chess match. I believe your motives may be pure, you believe what you believe and this "series of moves" makes sense from your perspective, even if you do not cognitively view them as tactics. Tool's perceptions are necessarily different. My comment to him was couched in terms that he might relate to since he clearly acts as if this is a debate.

I'm very much enjoying the "match". :)

[smpunditz]

What I find interesting is that in your first video you suggested that truth is utterly meaningless if God does not exist.

Now 10 days and 4 videos later you have clarified that your point was actually more specific to the atheist claim.

Why didn't you make this clarification sooner if that's what you meant? Das, tooltime and I among others clearing indicated to you that that is how we interpreted it yet you let the miscommunication continue for this long

[TogetherForPeace]

smpunditz-- My video vlogs did provide further clarification. Not everyone misunderstood. A number of people had no problem and agreed in general.

[smpunditz]

Enough people misunderstood to obviously show that your statement was vague and general.

[npeffer]

I don't see why anyone would ever ask what atheism has to offer. I just can't think of an example where it would be relevant to a discussion. If we all agree that we only care about what is true, what does it matter what any religious conviction "has to offer?"

[smpunditz]

Wow you actually addressed tooltime's points directly. WOW like fucking WOW.

[redFISTofEUROPE]

good response actually

[HeroesofApostasy]

Atheism is declared as a truth only so far as a god or gods has not been sufficiently proven, so there is no reason to believe in them. That's all Atheism is ever going to address and it doesn't address what an Atheist does believe in.

There are religious Atheists for example Buddhist Atheists and Universalist Unitarian Atheists.

[themanofearth]

Good video.

[themanofearth]

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

Atheism provides no philosophical frame work because Atheism is the result of many philosophical frameworks and/or a lack of evidence converging to eliminate a religious framework and it's the LACK of a specific framework.

[mistaspot1]

Atheism offers a philosophical framework relative to the philosophical framework of theism, sure. Ideas have implications, and one can reasonably work them out in regards to atheism. In the absence of the sacred masculine, there is a different conception of masculinity, for example.

[MajeauX]

Quick question, Jack. You said "atheism does not offer a philosophical framework." I think I understand your point, but just to get crystal clear on your meaning, could you give me an example of philosophical framework from a religion?

[theowarner]

Jack, I can honestly say: I don't think you could have made a better video.

[hellavadeal]

Stubstantive foundationalism is good for ansomnia.LOL

[xdairybastardx]

Insomnia*

[hellavadeal]

Yeah I saw that after I posted . Thanks.

I kant spell nuttin write.LOL

[mobby32]

i like your presentation t4p