Hey guys look at me!! I am a botanist!! Never mind the extremely well trained philosopher over there. Listen to me!! god doesn't extist!! AAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!! I just cant get enough of the youtube atheists lololol
umm....Dawkins is is a ethologist LOL No credentials that would qualify him as a philosopher or a good reasoner. Doesn't even come close to Mr. Craigs academic life. Dawkins needs to worry about the animals and leave the thinking to Bill. It's less probably that Dawkins is a better thinker based on the fact of his academic background. Yet you atheist always side with this guy. Surely no reflection of your own reasoning. Perhaps you're more wishful than the theist ahahahahaha!!
@restate123 No I side with Dawkins because he bases his arguments on things we can observe and test. Or maybe its the fact that William Craig says retarded things like "No Amount of Evidence or Reasoning Could Convince Me I'm Wrong" or the fact that he uses circular reasoning. He is delusional and the fact that he has even said that a subjective experience overrides object evidence to the contrary. How can Craig prove that it was god he experienced when it could have just as easily been the FSM.
@ComputerGamerify Oh come on now, Brother. Put that front aside and LISTEN. It IS POSSIBLE that an eternal life depends on it. Take it a little more serious and stop listening to these extremely unsophisticated thinkers. I mean, come on!! the guys an Ethologist AHAHAHAHAHA!! Oh and Have you guys ever noticed that none of these atheist ever look genuinely happy?? LOL!! oooh boy...poor guys lolol
@AlexWerkmeister712 U understand it to be "ridiculous" so of course u would believe that to be perfect:) when a man with dementia says his name is bob, when its really john. He believes with all his heart that his name is bob at that time, and any other notion would be "ridiculous" to him, until proven his condition, that which of course he would forget the next time. Sorry little jimmy, u lose again to the will of god. =)
Oh wait I got another one: Chocolate and orange is tasty; and chocolate and milk is tasty; therefore, milk and orange together are tasty. Trust me I've tried, real orange mixed with real milk = one heck of a kick to the tasty-buds in your mouth.
Can't believe that such a reasonable video has so many thumbs down. You atheist really need to stop being such sore losers LOL your atheist heroes aren't sounding too bright lolololol ahhahahahahaha!!!
@restate123 Maybe there are so many thumbs down because Craig Lanes argument is moot, the ontological argument is moot and most of his other arguments are moot.
@funlover1977 INDEED. These religious CON artists are of the most selfish kind... These people are worse than defense lawyers... at least a lawyer is defending someone real, these people are protecting what is clearly NOT REAL and outside of REALITY and only dwelling in their minds, and that all if, they are not LYING THROUGH their own teeth to actually get paid to make these silly arguments thus taking advantage of these POOR IGNORANT PEOPLE THEY PREACH THIS GARBAGE TO.
The only thing that gives me hope in the future is that in practically every one of these videos of belief vs. non-belief, the pro-belief ones have way more dislikes than likes, and the pro-non-belief ones have way more likes than dislikes...
Easy way to destroy ontological arguement: Perfection doesn't entail existence. You're just creating another concept, not actually proving anything. Believing in something doesn't make it real. Begs the question/Circular logic if you use a religious creationist view with this one. Define "God.", it's an abstract concept, and thus how is it true by definition?
@Kai84719 this comment makes no sense... this is not a game nor are there any "teams" to give points to.. atheism IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION, it is a LACK of belief in GOD.. no points needed.
If God is omnipotent, could he create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?
Guy at the end is playing semantics. When you talk about having "faith" in someone like your wife, the word has a different meaning in that context. He doesn't need to have faith that his wife exists. By having in faith in her it means he trusts her. This is a different meaning of the word faith.
@tanner1300 Your logic sucks. Your book says that murder is ok. Why dont you read some of it yourself and dont cherry pick. Read the whole thing and pay extra careful attention to exodus deuteronomy and leviticus. Oh and your whole argument about survival of the fittest shows your ignorance about evolution and ethics.
I love all the youtube Atheists trolls that come on every Dr Craig video. Its funny how a lot of Atheists can diss Dr Craig on Youtube, but when confronted with him an an actual discussion or debate, they just fall flat in their arguments
@1878EFC2008 Really. Thats why in everyone of his debates, especially his debate with hichens, most who review come to the conclusion that he pretty much schools his opponents hugh. The fact of the matter is that Youtube Atheists will act like little cheer leaders for guys like Dawkins and Sam Harris, even if their arguments are terrible
Nobody other than the credulous masses who see no problem with talking snakes and massive ships that contain two of each animal think he schools anyone.
He ignores points raised by his opponents, no matter how salient. He just dismisses them as irrelevant, asks for more proof or 'refutes' it with flawed logic.
I know right!. Atheists think they are being logical by not believing in God but when you actually look at it all their explanations and arguments completely fall short of not making any real sense, which is why when Dawkins was confronted with explaining something that he couldn't understand instead of admiting it was God he says it was Aliens...LMAO!...ALIENS!
Regardless of whether you think he is right about God or not it's pretty much a fact that Dawkins is an incredibly smart man. Credibility fail. Good day sir.
Basic agruement from an intelligent christian. (logic)(logic)(logic)(logic)(random assertion about god based on faith not evidence)(logic)(logic)(logic). You can dress it up the arguement anyway you want to but at some point you to base it on something you really really believe but cant prove. This is fine, but not a good way to reach facts or truths.
Is this person really giving a lecture saying "you can't explain it, therefore God did it". That is one of the most naive and lazy arguments that i have heard religious people say but i never thought lectures could be based on it. I respect religions but when they try to argue logically and scientifically, its just embarrassing
@ranmore30 people should EARN respect, especially when it comes to unfounded embarrassing claims about their preference of non existent beings who somehow control everything in their lives... these people and their SILLY ideas DESERVE NO RESPECT.
Do you respect people who believe killing is a birthright, if that is their stance, you must respect it, right, because they are people, and you automatically respect "people" for simple being born?? your stance is unfounded also :)
@SuperDelusionist you have to be careful about generalisations. I know a few religious people that are perfectly nice and tolerant, i just don't agree with their mythology that lacks any shred of evidence. Not all religious people "believe killing is a birthright"
@ranmore30 while your statement is correct, this shows the ignorance of the people who actually follow certain religions, where they simply pick what is good in their beliefs and omit the bad.. this should show people that with our "better judgement" we can actually decide for ourselves what is GOOD and BAD for ourselves and others around us, there is really no need for ANY GOD to guide us. If we would take scripture to the letter, no matter WHICH scripture, we would be KILLING people
@ranmore30 once again... no need for "guidance" by SUPERBEINGS who are invisible and immaterial. "there will always be good people and bad people, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion" - [i dont remember who wrote this]
you must admit, MOST people who are GOOD and RELIGIOUS, once you bring an opposing idea to the table of argument, they do get agressive and most of the time, will reference how NON believers will eventually be punished in HELL. these peopleRgood?
@ranmore30 "the christian resolution to find all the bad and ugly in the world, has made the world bad and ugly" - F.N.
if people are GOOD and they claim to be religiously inspired, they are wrong, as they may be inspired by their religious views, it is most definatly NOT god who inspires them to be good, as god himself, is, or would be if he actually WERE REAL, the ultimate creator responsible for all the evil in the world, there is no backing out of this FACT! he CREATED EVIL!
@SuperDelusionist No. He created free will. God is all good. So does that mean that when you see something that is black, that black is a color? Crazy cuz Black is the lack of light. So if the Lack of Light is perceived as a color, then the lack of could could falsely be perceived as created by God. Don't blame God for your inability to be good.
@tanner1300 WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT......"PROVE" he/GOD/ OR whatever you call your god is actually "real" and valid, then we can talk about who created what... i doubt "a" creator will actually seem plausible after analysis, as is the result of the facts after this analysis. Do you understand this, this means, YOUR GOD IS NOT REAL UNTIL YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE HE IS REAL IN REALITY.
@SuperDelusionist "YOUR GOD IS NOT REAL UNTIL YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE HE IS REAL IN REALITY" wow very emotional. Okay you tell us all what you would require for proof. I hear atheists cry this all the time, it is a smoke screen. But I will wait
@tanner1300 so turn off your computer and go pray for me to die in hell... lol People like you are why the basic IQ level of the planet is so low... it is sad, but you should haul garbage for a living, because garbage is what you believe. You would feel right at home.
@SuperDelusionist LoL. Just want you to know I had a 4.0 pre-med, and geology GPA while I was majoring in those subjects (2 years). I also have an IQ of 141. So calling me ignorant is kinda awkward... My family are all either College professors, Deans, Veterinarians, or in the medical field. So your 5 comment rant about how ignorant I am was awesome. Also its impossible to test Macro-evolution. (Micro and Macro are theorized different). I don't want you to go to hell at all, I wish it on no one
@tanner1300 Though the success of your relatives has no bearing on how well you'll do, and that IQ is a poor rating of intellect (says I'm 150ish depending on test. I'm not that smart.) I applaud your last statement. Wishing someone to spend not only a moment in hell but an eternity is the sickest most appalling disregard for morality I have ever born witness. Good on you.
@Fictitious72 Hope you realize that almost anything above a 140 is considered near genius or almost genius, less than .25% (no not twenty five percent, point 25 %) fall in the above 140 category. Maybe you shoulda googled IQ scores before you ranted. Also I wish that not one person EVER spend eternity in hell. Not even a second. I don't wish any evil upon you. I really hope that you do have an absolutely AMAZING life.
@tanner1300 Being ignorant has nothing to with intelligence. Being smart doesn't make you anymore right. "We aren't there yet" is irrelevant and an opinion. Go read some books on Quantum Physics because you don't understand the concept of something from nothing and you are arguing from ignorance. Go check out T A L K O R I G I N S. O R G because contrary too your statement, their IS evidence for Macro-Evolution. Using argumentum ad authority fallacy shows your ignorance on this subject.
@ComputerGamerify The propositions made by evolutionary theory make sense ONLY if successful evolution traveled through just one thread of genetic development for each evolved form. If all Chimps and all Humans share the same genetic anomalies, then at some point in the past there was only one survivor
@tanner1300 The fact that you continue to use Your IQ score as a reason why should be right is laughable. There is a great deal of evidence showing that novel genes with novel functions can and do evolve. Even an arbitrary genetic sequence can evolve to acquire functionality Evolution can work even starting from random sequences. Evolution of novel sequences cannot be very improbable if it happens so easily and so often. There are also no theories that even come close to challenging evolution.
@ComputerGamerify Also the fact I just looked at your profile and you straight out said in a comment that you were a young earth creationist contradicts and invalidates much of what you say. You are hypocrite, that only looks at the evidence that supports your worldview, I have looked at creationist evidence and it fails under scientific pressure and contradicts much of what we know about the world. Even if evolution were false, that still wouldn't automatically make creationism right.
@ComputerGamerify Maybe you should read back before dissing me. Someone said "people like you are the reason America has a low IQ", I was merely telling him that he was wrong. And you are right about theories that challenge evolution, because creationism is and will never be provable. There are some decent (decent not amazing) theories that challenge how old the earth is. I'm no Einstein, but i'm not stupid. I know when people assume stuff. I try not to do that, and to give benefit of the doubt
@SuperDelusionist I take it from this rant that you don't believe in god. Neither do I. By no means does that make CAPITALIZING random WORDS validate your argument. Nor does calling someone garbage. Also, science doesn't appose a being creating the universe. It's just that science believes it to be very unlikely.
@Fictitious72 Thank you fictitious. I appreciate that you do not believe in God. That's your own personal business. I also appreciate your kindness and sophisticated behavior. I do believe in God, I don't believe in evolution, which I assume you do not believe in. That too is your own personal business. I wanted to stress that I understand you don't see eye to eye with me, and that you are very mature in your comments. I for one, appreciate it very much. :-) Have a good day man. (or woman)
@Fictitious72 Science does OPPOSE a GOD creating the universe, it is SO VERY UNSCIENTIFIC to think this, does it also mean that since science cannot prove that invisible people that science takes the "it is a possibility" stance? lol you are a compelte IDIOT, wether you believe in god or not. I like you COMMENT about my caps, you fish always hook onto THAT aspect of my comments as you have NOTHING VALID TO COMMENT!!
do you believe spider man is real?? or maybe a possibility?? IDIOT
@MoonwalkerWorshiper@MoonwalkerWorshiper Mackie would characterize it as an inconsistent triad (Omnipotence implies omniscience) I prefer this one (Where G stands for God exists, p stands for omnipotent, s for omniscient, b for omnibenevolent, e for evil): 1. G > [(p & s) & b] 2. [(p & s) & b] > ~e 3. e / ~G 4. G Conditional Proof Assumption) 5. (p & s) & b Modus Ponens 1, 4 6. ~e Modus Ponens 2, 5 7. e & ~e Conjunction 3, 6 8. ~G Conditional Proof 4-7
It's true the christian YT channels often do not allow comments at all. Which I would have to say is more than symbolic. They do not encourage disagreement.
A being that creates everything yet does not exist is logically incoherent. No shit, if you have to explain that to your crowd then having an argument about logic is an oxymoron for you. Then he goes on to twist words and uses the opposite of logic to "prove" god. Then he throws a definition out to refute Dawkin's claim. He then finds it necessary to insult him based on him not using the same principle of the word as he. "Dr." Craig, fuck you.
Just moronically stupid argument..! You theists do not understand the basic meaning of two words....logic, and proof..! Simple as that, no point arguing with you, you're all delusional sheep. There is no god......end of story! You have no PROOF otherwise, and although as you might rightly say.... neither do I...I don't try and convince you that my lack of proof is evidence of an invisible friend in the sky!
If you think Dawkins' book is a proper rebuttal of the possibility of god, you never heard of metaphysics and don't know squat about philosophy. "He does a disservice to non-believers" - Michael Ruse
To conclude, if atheism IS a belief or a religion, I'd like to please register the Church of Atheism for US tax-exempt status. I would also like to start a video ministry ordering gullible people to send me money, because Darwin spoke to me last night and gave me a vision of building a hospital with their money. I'd like to spend this stolen money on diamond mines in Africa and build palaces in the US for me and my family. Finally, I want to pass laws that you can only have sex the way I say. :3
Atheism is a religion that tries like many others to convert people. The main difference is they get have the assistance of governments through the education systems. Nobody has ever came up with evidence of life coming from non life, nobody has ever explained how something as complicated as the eye came into being while another one exactly the same formed at exactly the same time and worked along with it and nobody has ever explained why only humans have morals and no animal does.
My dog for one. She might still do it but she knows when to hide. Piranha eat almost anything but will starve to death before turning on each other. Im not saying they sit and discuss morals as we do or even understand them but a few hours watching the tight groups and bonds primates make show we are not so very different from our animal relations.
atheism is an absence of belief? But then how can you believe in any of the 'assumptions' which are the building blocks on which science is built on? It makes no sense...atheism is simply not believing in God, which is just the opposite of believing in Him, so yes its a religion. If you truly had no belief, then you wouldn't be an atheist either
@SageAndOnions Disbelief in something is not belief in something. I can disbelieve in God while also disbelieving that alien pigs abduct people, water contains impossible-to-see angels and tigers turn invisible when nobody is watching.
There is the same evidence for all four of those things, and it is impossible to disprove any of them. But you would only care about one of those non-beliefs. By not believing in religion, it is easier to accept proven facts which go against it.
@TheSamuraiGoomba yes but atheism isn't the lack of belief in general, which I think is a good view to have actualy...atheism is just the lack of belief in God, so if you've worked out that lack of belief is good, then why do you believe in other things such as the news on TV, for example? You have only chosen to not-believe in God as you don't like the idea of God, nothing more. Why you don't like the idea of it is a different story. You are only scratching the surface with your comment
@SageAndOnions I can go and investigate anything I see on TV. Example: The TV lady tells me that a bank was robbed. I can go to the bank and ask the employees. I can read the police reports. I can go to the trial is someone is apprehended. Yet god remains hidden. He does nothing for the starving child that will take his last breath tonight. I don't believe in a god because there has never, ever, in the entirety of human history been a bit of credible evidence that one exists.
@SageAndOnions So I don't believe in God... Because I don't like God? Well, the idea of God seems practically designed to be unlikeable. I could tell you "you just don't like the idea of slavery" and you'd have to concede the point.
I didn't "choose not to believe," I was confronted with so much direct, verifiable evidence of both the truth of secularist claims of evolution and of religion's inhumanity to people, that the only honest choice left to me was to leave religion.
@SageAndOnions I actually *don't* believe the news I hear on TV, because most of it is local news from biased sources. I do tend to accept the more unbiased sources, and if a piece is interesting to me, I'll do a little research on the claims.
A faith-based view says it believes what it believes because it must do so, and will never change regardless of what the evidence says. It claims it is always right and will never be wrong because it cannot be wrong. That is not atheism.
@1Munro3000 thats a pretty shallow statement because it doesn't apply to atheism...if you looked at atheism more for yourself, instead of repeating what your atheist 'priests' say, then you would realise that non-belief is not a feature of atheism. Do you believe that your points are valid? Because if you're an atheist and believe that life has no purpose then you're points are not even valid, so as you argue against me you argue against yourself as you imply you have meaning and purpose
@SageAndOnions Not the ridiculous "Atheists have no meaning in their lives" argument. I have plenty of meaning and purpose. To be kind to all I know, to love my wife and children, provide for and protect them. To pursue truth, no matter what that truth is. I don't need the supernatural to give my life meaning and I feel truly sorry for someone that does.
@BiffWhitebread13 The argument is not at all that atheists have no meaning to their lives- the argument is that atheist thinking or theory does not provide a basis at all for meaning and purpose. IF atheism was true, how could a person even know what objective truth is?
Consider this: blind, unguided, undirected forces are at the basis of everything that you are. There is only matter, shaped by natural selection, which in itself is only concerned about the survival value of physical traits- ...
@BiffWhitebread13 it is not concerned about anything else. This is pure Darwinism. Some matter developed into the leg of a cockroach, some matter developed into you. But essentially, they are both the same- varying only in degree, but not in kind. Your brain is just matter, and thoughts and feelings the product of electrons bouncing around. Any concept you have of self worth, of feeling that your life has 'meaning' or that there is 'a point' to life, is just the result of blind, undirected
@brightsfighter Sorry, but we can still have a completely naturalistic world and have purpose, meaning and truth (odd you would pick truth). The purpose and meaning that life has is entirely what we, the ones living it, give to it. Your life can have no purpose or a lofty one--it's up to you. My life does have more purpose (to me) than the leg of an ant (the ant however, would disagree). But only because I give it purpose. Feeling special is not the same as being special.
@BiffWhitebread13 Feeling special is indeed not the same as being special. That is what I am saying: if naturalistic evolution is true, we feel special but are in fact not special. We are deluding ourselves.
The reason I picked 'truth' is simple: evolutionary processes are not concerned about concepts of 'truth'. So why on earth should we suppose that our brains, which are the product of those processes, are in any way capable of knowing objective truth? Everything becomes subjective.
@BiffWhitebread13 forces. In this story of abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection, there is simply no room for purpose, worth, truth etc. Yet somehow the atheist supernaturally injects this into the story, because of course the fact is that we humans DO feel special, DO think our thoughts are capable of knowing truth, and we DO think our lives have purpose- more purpose than the leg of an ant.
How do you inject meaning into your life, based on the theory of atheism?
I'll return the question : How do you inject meaning into your (mortal) life?
Surely you're going to say "the Bible is my motivator for everything'. But can you be more specific? Apart from going to Church (do you go? every sunday?) and the prayers (how often do you pray/day?). What do you do that you wouldn't have done if you didn't read the Bible? And, what would be the things you would do if you didn't read the Bible? e.g. you could take the children to the park on sunday mornings ...
@kleykenb I am not talking about how you and I fill our days. I am curious to know how the atheist explains the fact that we live our lives as if they are meaningful. I am not asking if we should or should not go to church, or play football, or read to our kids etc. I am asking about the fundamentals: what is the basis for us to think that we matter, based on naturalistic evolution...
An Atheist doesn't have an afterlife to look forward to.
He/she therefor is all the more motivated to make his/her life meaningful. It is very important to an Atheist to have mattered. "This is it", after all.
In my case it means that I lead my life trying to be a positive influence on those around me and actively engage in setting an example for all those that seem to have given up on this seemingly morally decaying society. Fight negativism with positivism. Tackle deceit where I find it. You?
@kleykenb Very commendable, on the surface we might look very much the same to the average observer. However, I am still curious to get an answer on the questions I posted.
How do you explain the fact that you feel like your life has to have meaning? What Darwinian explanation could possibly give you the idea that 'meaning' is real, and not just a by-product of natural causes like electrons colliding in your brain?
EXACTLY the same mindless, un-guided processes which have conspired to...
Meaning ? Clearly I'm part of a community and a family so makeing sure tthey have a good life obviously gives a lot of meaning to my life.
But does life itself have meaning? When you look at the bigger picture the answer would have to be 'No'. Life was almost whiped out several times in the past. And it will happen again. We will be able to protect us better against certain disasters but as the Universe expands it seems inevitable that Humanity is going to be whiped out too.
@kleykenb ... give a cockroach legs, are the forces which gave you a brain. Your brain, and the thoughts it produces, is fundamentally nothing different from the leg of a cockroach. It looks different, it functions different, but in the end the result of the same mindless, un-guided forces and essentially it is the same thing. I don't doubt that you are a good, moral person, but, I ask again, how has atheistic evolution explained this?
You don't understand how Evolution works. And it is far to complex to explain it here.
The idea alone that you assume that a cockroach is a lesser creature than a human is completely wrong from evolutionary but also a moral point of view. Cockroaches are thriving, just like humans. Both species are doing very well albeit for different reasons.
I happen to be a human but I in no way think I'm part of a superior species.
@kleykenb When is the last time you hauled the local pest controller in front of a judge and jury to stand trial for the mass murder of cockroaches? Where are all the petitions you filed to have all butchers locked up, as well as all people who eat meat (or vegetables, why make the distinction?). Will you hold a shark liable for biting a human and put it on trial on moral grounds?
If you don't do these things because they seem odd, you have a lot of explaining to do.
@kleykenb Why can't you just answer a question? You simply cannot even explain why you are a moral person who feels slightly more special than a cockroach, even if you don't admit it. How on earth do you even presume you can judge anybody by their actions, being nothing more than an animal with a big imagination? Why can't a soldier piss on dead bodies? Dogs do it, so it's perfectly normal behaviour isn't it?
We are not born with Moral. Acquiring it is a long process, akin to learning to walk and talk. We don't talk of animals as having Moral but they certainly have "Social rules" which is a rudimentary form of Moral. Many species even know the concept of 'Hierarchy'.
Dogs do not piss on bodies in order to humiliate that dead body. There is a very clear distinction there. Clearly I find that immoral but I'm starting to wonder if you do.
@kleykenb ps. and pls don't patronize. I know and comprehend evolutionary theory. That is why I pointed out something you agree with: that from an evolutionary point of view, a cockroach is not a lesser creature, nor are we, humans, likely to comprehend our world any better than they do. Yet, and this is the point, you don't live in accordance with that principle. You do assume you are able to accurately interpret concepts like morality, meaning and truth. You assume, but don't explain.
Look who is talking ? Who is 'Matronizing here' . You're the one thinking you know what I think. And you're talking about interpretations of morality, meaning and truth when all YOU'VE got is a errant, mistranslated book to tell you about those.
I've already told you that there is no meaning. Morality is only something Humans bother with (and btw. don't you find this vid and the title of it are immoral?)
@kleykenb I am human too remember- so I know a bit about what makes our species tick. And I know morality is only something humans bother with- but you don't seem to be willing or able to tell me why only humans bother with it.
And if the universe is without meaning, if there is actually and factually no meaning to be found anywhere, why do you delude yourself by 'giving your own life meaning'. There IS no meaning in your universe, so you can't just make it up yourself and pretend it's real.
@kleykenb we're not "giving our life meaning" that is inherent. that is not the purpose. just a side effect of living by reason. also, what is this inevitability that you mentioned?
@kleykenb I am not the one who's philosophy on life is based on a deterministic concept in which there is no room for meaning- so I am not deluding myself.
I don't dread death- but do weep when someone close to me dies. Why?
My life is based on what science can show me to be true. I love science, it's a passion and a driving force for me. Understanding everything also gives me Meaning. I find it can explain the Universe in a very satisfactory way.
Yours is based on faith alone. I find that insufficient and there is of course the danger that you've chosen the wrong religion in which case you'd be double wrong.
We dont matter. This planet could explode tommorow and but for a slight jiggle in a few orbits the universe wouldnt even notice. Billions of people gone and no one would care. We give ourselves meaning through love, laughter and various other emotions which have evolved to make us better at what we are really here for, to find food and produce imperfect copies of ourselves.
@brightsfighter Moreover, not all humans think they are special--a child will die of starvation somewhere in the world tonight that never felt special in the entirety of their short, wretched life. Atheism isn't a theory. It is one answer to one question only. It is the rejection of the claim that gods exist. Nothing more. Since this is the only life I get, it is up to me to ensure that I give it the meaning and purpose it warrants.
@brightsfighter Are you saying that if there are no gods, truth is unknowable? Truth is why many are atheists. We think it is important to hold as many true beliefs as possible, to reject as many false beliefs as possible. Thus far, the most reliable way to separate fact from fantasy is the scientific method. Until there is good evidence to think something true (or believe something to exist) it should not be considered true, else we would have to believe in everything, no matter how silly.
@BiffWhitebread13 I am saying that Darwinian evolution is a very poor theory which doesn't explain why you can even trust your brain to know truth from falsehood. I have been looking and asking for an answer, but no one is willing or able to have a go. When you say you hold as many true beliefs as possible, can you tell me how, evolutionary speaking, you ended up with the capacity to know what 'truth' is, or why you should even trust any of your thoughts to reflect objective reality.
@brightsfighter You can't trust your brain to know truth from falsehood. That's why we do science - to *work out* what is true. The scientific method strives to remove what we presuppose is true, and only reveal what actually is true - through repeatable experiments, peer review, and through evidence and reason.
You might then ask: how do we trust our senses (by which we obtain evidence) and our reason (by which we interpret results). Well, what else do we have?
@HunchbackJack I see your point, but I do have a problem with it...Do you suppose that only what can be verified using the scientific method can be judged 'true'? This would exclude quite a lot of bits and pieces which make us human- any thought, belief (not just religious), sense or feeling, as well as intend and purpose. And indeed the question remains: how can we trust our senses? Indeed they are all we have, but they are limited.
@brightsfighter I think science is the best way to test what's *objectively* true. Thoughts, feelings, intent and purpose are all part of our individual experience, but they are all subjective. While they are true to us, they are only true to us, and don't extend beyond ourselves except through our own actions.
I'm not denying that subjective truths exist, but we can't use subjective metrics to determine objective truth. What I "feel" is true about objective reality is moot.
@HunchbackJack Would you classify morality as falling under the domain of objective truth or subjective truth? For example: Thoughts and feelings about a person are obviously subjective, but you might say to your wife when she wrongfully accuses you of something: 'You shouldn't think that about me!!' - in which case you make an appeal to an objective standard, which she should share with you, but, in your eyes, has violated.
@brightsfighter Well, I think you answered your own question. The standard is objective because it's something I and my wife agreed on. Her thoughts are subjective - the only way I can discern what they is through her actions, and even then, I might be wrong. If she accuses me, it's the accusation that violates the agreement.
Ultimately, the discussion and the resolution is based on evidence and reason, about whether her actions violated the agreement.
@brightsfighter Obviously, morality is subjective. Slavery was not a problem in the old testament--it describes in detail how slaves were to be treated. Morality has evolved so that most now agree that slavery is immoral. So, was slavery immoral then, or is it moral now, in your view? If you don't agree with either of those positions, then are you saying the OT contains immoral teachings?
@brightsfighter (cont.) That's why science is collaborative. An individual can be delusional, crazy, or just wrong. But a group of people working independently in the same field, intent on verifying or falsifying each others findings, are unlikely to all be delusional, crazy or wrong in the same way. Sometimes even scientific consensus is wrong, but we discover that error through better science, not by abandoning science.
@brightsfighter "A scientist may be able to explain things far better than I can, but fundamentally, his experience is no different from yours or mine..."
I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with this statement. A scientist may not be able to tell you anything about how you should live your life, but the idea that what your (or my) subjective experience tells us about objective reality is just as valid as what can be verified using scientific rigor is simply untrue.
@HunchbackJack But how is the scientists experience of the world fundamentally different from mine? I have 5 senses...do they have 6 or 7? I agree that I would not have come up with photosynthesis, a cure for the plague or Pi, whereas some very clever scientists have done that, and I believe that science is a wonderful thing. But that is not what I meant...
@brightsfighter I'm not comparing your experience with a scientist's, I'm comparing subjective experience with the findings of a process that goes out of its way to exclude subjectivity.
Senses can be fooled. Logic can be faulty. But they are all we have to determine what's true. So how do we deal with that? Collaborate. Challenge. Discuss. Experiment. Verify. Do everything we can to exclude subjective experience in order to determine what is actually true.
@HunchbackJack Example: suppose a group of scientists on a small island conduct an experiment whose results rely on discerning a number of different colours of light. They publish results based on their seeing two different colors.
Another group of scientists repeat the experiment and find three colours; it turns out the scientists of the first study were all red-green colourblind. A third study claim to see a fourth color very like one of the previous three. (cont.)
@HunchbackJack Eventually, scientists agree to measure the frequency of light emitted from the experiment, rather than relying on being able to discern colours. It turns out that they discover 7 different individual frequencies are being emitted.
If one of the original scientists claimed that his experience of only seeing three colours was still valid, he would be *wrong*.
@HunchbackJack And we cannot use our reason to establish what is reasonable, if the grounds to trust our reason have not been firmly established. A scientist may be able to explain things far better than I can, but fundamentally, his experience is no different from yours or mine...
@brightsfighter (cont.) How can we trust that science is an effective way of perceiving and understanding objective reality? Because when we reapply its findings back to that same reality, we get consistent and useful results, and other scientists get the same results. That's a good indication that we're discovering truths that are independent of one person's subjective experience.
@brightsfighter What else could possibly be used to separate truth from falsehood other than our brains? Do you have another method? What does that have to do with evolution? Is this the sad "We don't know everything so we can't know anything" argument? I have no choice but to trust my thoughts--as you do. Sometimes they are wrong--we learn. Some things are outside of our experience, so we go to experts like surgeons, to help us.
Its funny to see how it seems to be a put down on Atheism to make it sound like a religion haha Non belief IS the feature of Atheism, that is what it means. You make claims based on bronze age idiots from years ago and I refuse to believe them. Im also an Atrollist and an Agoblinist if you want to attach some more labels to me. Life has the purpose of making more life, thats it and everything else is add ons. Science finding truth, religion hiding from it.
@1Munro3000 it is selective non-belief usualy though, why not go the full stretch and not believe anything if you've figured out it's a good thing in terms of religion and science...I don't know what you're like obviously, you already might be like that, but a lot of atheists aern't. And, claims from these bronze agers still stand today unfortunatly for you. Where did life come from though? How did this process start? How does a bunch of cells become concsious?
What a silly man.
simpsonmark 1 hour ago
"His parody is based upon a logical incoherence" - well, that's the funny part about it: So is religion.
TwoGish 5 hours ago
it is logically possible that William Lane Craig can speak, as he does then it follows that he can speak nonsense, as he does.
estuchedepeluche 10 hours ago
Hey guys look at me!! I am a botanist!! Never mind the extremely well trained philosopher over there. Listen to me!! god doesn't extist!! AAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!! I just cant get enough of the youtube atheists lololol
restate123 20 hours ago
umm....Dawkins is is a ethologist LOL No credentials that would qualify him as a philosopher or a good reasoner. Doesn't even come close to Mr. Craigs academic life. Dawkins needs to worry about the animals and leave the thinking to Bill. It's less probably that Dawkins is a better thinker based on the fact of his academic background. Yet you atheist always side with this guy. Surely no reflection of your own reasoning. Perhaps you're more wishful than the theist ahahahahaha!!
restate123 20 hours ago
@restate123 No I side with Dawkins because he bases his arguments on things we can observe and test. Or maybe its the fact that William Craig says retarded things like "No Amount of Evidence or Reasoning Could Convince Me I'm Wrong" or the fact that he uses circular reasoning. He is delusional and the fact that he has even said that a subjective experience overrides object evidence to the contrary. How can Craig prove that it was god he experienced when it could have just as easily been the FSM.
ComputerGamerify 15 hours ago
@ComputerGamerify Oh come on now, Brother. Put that front aside and LISTEN. It IS POSSIBLE that an eternal life depends on it. Take it a little more serious and stop listening to these extremely unsophisticated thinkers. I mean, come on!! the guys an Ethologist AHAHAHAHAHA!! Oh and Have you guys ever noticed that none of these atheist ever look genuinely happy?? LOL!! oooh boy...poor guys lolol
restate123 10 hours ago
@restate123 Craig...is not a philosopher or a good reasoner, he just isn't
NickPaulOates 15 hours ago
@NickPaulOates Why? cause he's not an atheist? ahahahaha too funny I tell ya! lolol
restate123 10 hours ago
Wow, there are some major misspellings in the title... should be:
"William Lane Craig: Embarrassingly Bad Thinker, Incredibly Ignorant".
GetEasyMoneyCash 1 day ago 6
@GetEasyMoneyCash If only grammar could prove things, or save life's...sadly it's only a way of expressing ones self :( (u lose) =)
Vordakis 3 hours ago
My head hurts.
His logic is so circular my laptop rolled away.
AlexWerkmeister712 1 day ago 11
@AlexWerkmeister712 Thats simply cause u do not understand it young jimmy =) so of course it seems wrong.
Vordakis 3 hours ago
@Vordakis
I understand it perfectly.
I understand how it's absolutely ridiculous, especially.
And my name's not Jimmy.
AlexWerkmeister712 3 hours ago
@AlexWerkmeister712 U understand it to be "ridiculous" so of course u would believe that to be perfect:) when a man with dementia says his name is bob, when its really john. He believes with all his heart that his name is bob at that time, and any other notion would be "ridiculous" to him, until proven his condition, that which of course he would forget the next time. Sorry little jimmy, u lose again to the will of god. =)
Vordakis 3 hours ago
Oh wait I got another one: Chocolate and orange is tasty; and chocolate and milk is tasty; therefore, milk and orange together are tasty. Trust me I've tried, real orange mixed with real milk = one heck of a kick to the tasty-buds in your mouth.
Fictitious72 1 day ago
My only comment to this video has to be: Circular logic is fun because circular logic is fun.
Fictitious72 1 day ago
Can't believe that such a reasonable video has so many thumbs down. You atheist really need to stop being such sore losers LOL your atheist heroes aren't sounding too bright lolololol ahhahahahahaha!!!
restate123 1 day ago
@restate123 Maybe there are so many thumbs down because Craig Lanes argument is moot, the ontological argument is moot and most of his other arguments are moot.
MrMojoRisin02 1 day ago
ROFL. How can you even dispute an obvious joke of Dawkins while calling HIM a fool. Clearly mr. Craig is the one incedibly ignorant here.
funlover1977 1 day ago
Comment removed
SuperDelusionist 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funlover1977 INDEED. These religious CON artists are of the most selfish kind... These people are worse than defense lawyers... at least a lawyer is defending someone real, these people are protecting what is clearly NOT REAL and outside of REALITY and only dwelling in their minds, and that all if, they are not LYING THROUGH their own teeth to actually get paid to make these silly arguments thus taking advantage of these POOR IGNORANT PEOPLE THEY PREACH THIS GARBAGE TO.
SuperDelusionist 1 day ago
The only thing that gives me hope in the future is that in practically every one of these videos of belief vs. non-belief, the pro-belief ones have way more dislikes than likes, and the pro-non-belief ones have way more likes than dislikes...
toAdmiller 2 days ago
Some times I think that I might have less contempt towards Craig if he did not constantly talk with a massive arrogant under-tone.
jiberish001 2 days ago
Easy way to destroy ontological arguement: Perfection doesn't entail existence. You're just creating another concept, not actually proving anything. Believing in something doesn't make it real. Begs the question/Circular logic if you use a religious creationist view with this one. Define "God.", it's an abstract concept, and thus how is it true by definition?
wizzrobe301 2 days ago
The ontological arguement is a terrible arguement. I ripped it apart in my philosophy class. Are people so stupid as to believe in this?
wizzrobe301 2 days ago
"1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists."
Define maximally great. Define being. PROVE IT!!!
LoverofLiszt 2 days ago
Christianity = 1, Atheism = 0
Kai84719 2 days ago
@Kai84719 this comment makes no sense... this is not a game nor are there any "teams" to give points to.. atheism IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION, it is a LACK of belief in GOD.. no points needed.
SuperDelusionist 2 days ago
If God is omnipotent, could he create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?
Guy at the end is playing semantics. When you talk about having "faith" in someone like your wife, the word has a different meaning in that context. He doesn't need to have faith that his wife exists. By having in faith in her it means he trusts her. This is a different meaning of the word faith.
Pirate44444 3 days ago
@tanner1300 Your logic sucks. Your book says that murder is ok. Why dont you read some of it yourself and dont cherry pick. Read the whole thing and pay extra careful attention to exodus deuteronomy and leviticus. Oh and your whole argument about survival of the fittest shows your ignorance about evolution and ethics.
xbatcountryx1 3 days ago
what an asshat
rothpwns 3 days ago
LMAO...So many Dawkins fanboys disliking any video that completely refutes their beloved.
mo389 3 days ago
I love all the youtube Atheists trolls that come on every Dr Craig video. Its funny how a lot of Atheists can diss Dr Craig on Youtube, but when confronted with him an an actual discussion or debate, they just fall flat in their arguments
jamaicanification 3 days ago
@jamaicanification
Nobody falls flat. Craig just continues with his fallacious rhetoric which fools only thee terminally credulous.
1878EFC2008 3 days ago
@1878EFC2008 Really. Thats why in everyone of his debates, especially his debate with hichens, most who review come to the conclusion that he pretty much schools his opponents hugh. The fact of the matter is that Youtube Atheists will act like little cheer leaders for guys like Dawkins and Sam Harris, even if their arguments are terrible
jamaicanification 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jamaicanification
Watch Kagan vs Craig, it was almost like Craigwasnt there.
kleykenb 3 days ago
@jamaicanification
Nobody other than the credulous masses who see no problem with talking snakes and massive ships that contain two of each animal think he schools anyone.
He ignores points raised by his opponents, no matter how salient. He just dismisses them as irrelevant, asks for more proof or 'refutes' it with flawed logic.
1878EFC2008 3 days ago
@jamaicanification
I know right!. Atheists think they are being logical by not believing in God but when you actually look at it all their explanations and arguments completely fall short of not making any real sense, which is why when Dawkins was confronted with explaining something that he couldn't understand instead of admiting it was God he says it was Aliens...LMAO!...ALIENS!
mo389 3 days ago
@mo389 So if I don't understand something it must be god, right?
BiffWhitebread13 3 days ago
lol talking about had hominem atacks and strawmen arguments. Lame Craig represents very well the theist apologetic.
ZZzzzzzWhat 4 days ago
Regardless of whether you think he is right about God or not it's pretty much a fact that Dawkins is an incredibly smart man. Credibility fail. Good day sir.
RichT519 4 days ago
@RichT519
he may be smart as a scientist ,but in philosophy he sucks epicly
skuterixas91 4 days ago
craig isnt a very good philosopher
2010paultron 5 days ago
lol the clip at the end. oppositional defiant disorder
KONGtuffSu 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Saying a non-existing X exist is the same as saying
(X = 0) = X not existing, therefore X not existing is true. Just bad grammar.
Khyrid 5 days ago
The guy making a mirror of this doesn't deserve thumbs down, but we can consider these thumbs down to apply to the original poster.
Khyrid 5 days ago
the uploader is ignorant and dumb
9II2001 5 days ago
im so embarrassed to be a human being sometimes......
ChuckManDude 5 days ago
someone holding a conference, complete with prepared speech and projection screen just to prove someone else is stupid...
BurnElectric 5 days ago
Basic agruement from an intelligent christian. (logic)(logic)(logic)(logic)(random assertion about god based on faith not evidence)(logic)(logic)(logic). You can dress it up the arguement anyway you want to but at some point you to base it on something you really really believe but cant prove. This is fine, but not a good way to reach facts or truths.
ilrichard 5 days ago
"....for think about it..." This guy is INSANE!
SuperDelusionist 6 days ago
when will this man learn to STOP making a fool of himself.
SuperDelusionist 6 days ago
Is this person really giving a lecture saying "you can't explain it, therefore God did it". That is one of the most naive and lazy arguments that i have heard religious people say but i never thought lectures could be based on it. I respect religions but when they try to argue logically and scientifically, its just embarrassing
ranmore30 6 days ago
@ranmore30 why should you "respect" religions??
SuperDelusionist 6 days ago
@SuperDelusionist i have to respect religions because many people are religious and i respect people
ranmore30 5 days ago
@ranmore30 people should EARN respect, especially when it comes to unfounded embarrassing claims about their preference of non existent beings who somehow control everything in their lives... these people and their SILLY ideas DESERVE NO RESPECT.
Do you respect people who believe killing is a birthright, if that is their stance, you must respect it, right, because they are people, and you automatically respect "people" for simple being born?? your stance is unfounded also :)
SuperDelusionist 5 days ago
@SuperDelusionist you have to be careful about generalisations. I know a few religious people that are perfectly nice and tolerant, i just don't agree with their mythology that lacks any shred of evidence. Not all religious people "believe killing is a birthright"
ranmore30 4 days ago
@ranmore30 while your statement is correct, this shows the ignorance of the people who actually follow certain religions, where they simply pick what is good in their beliefs and omit the bad.. this should show people that with our "better judgement" we can actually decide for ourselves what is GOOD and BAD for ourselves and others around us, there is really no need for ANY GOD to guide us. If we would take scripture to the letter, no matter WHICH scripture, we would be KILLING people
SuperDelusionist 4 days ago
@ranmore30 once again... no need for "guidance" by SUPERBEINGS who are invisible and immaterial. "there will always be good people and bad people, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion" - [i dont remember who wrote this]
you must admit, MOST people who are GOOD and RELIGIOUS, once you bring an opposing idea to the table of argument, they do get agressive and most of the time, will reference how NON believers will eventually be punished in HELL. these peopleRgood?
SuperDelusionist 4 days ago
@ranmore30 "the christian resolution to find all the bad and ugly in the world, has made the world bad and ugly" - F.N.
if people are GOOD and they claim to be religiously inspired, they are wrong, as they may be inspired by their religious views, it is most definatly NOT god who inspires them to be good, as god himself, is, or would be if he actually WERE REAL, the ultimate creator responsible for all the evil in the world, there is no backing out of this FACT! he CREATED EVIL!
SuperDelusionist 4 days ago
@SuperDelusionist No. He created free will. God is all good. So does that mean that when you see something that is black, that black is a color? Crazy cuz Black is the lack of light. So if the Lack of Light is perceived as a color, then the lack of could could falsely be perceived as created by God. Don't blame God for your inability to be good.
tanner1300 2 days ago
@tanner1300 WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT......"PROVE" he/GOD/ OR whatever you call your god is actually "real" and valid, then we can talk about who created what... i doubt "a" creator will actually seem plausible after analysis, as is the result of the facts after this analysis. Do you understand this, this means, YOUR GOD IS NOT REAL UNTIL YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE HE IS REAL IN REALITY.
All other arguments should fall on DEAF EARS.
You have NO ARGUMENT, and this makes you sad.
SuperDelusionist 2 days ago
@SuperDelusionist "YOUR GOD IS NOT REAL UNTIL YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE HE IS REAL IN REALITY" wow very emotional. Okay you tell us all what you would require for proof. I hear atheists cry this all the time, it is a smoke screen. But I will wait
Kai84719 2 days ago
@Kai84719 To begin with; define god.
LoverofLiszt 2 days ago
@SuperDelusionist Holy Caps. Settle down young padiwan
tanner1300 2 days ago
@tanner1300 holy caps... whats with you people and CAPS... is it too loud for you.?.?.? lol
SuperDelusionist 2 days ago
@SuperDelusionist Its way too loud for me! It feels like my eyes are going to bleed!
tanner1300 1 day ago
@tanner1300 so turn off your computer and go pray for me to die in hell... lol People like you are why the basic IQ level of the planet is so low... it is sad, but you should haul garbage for a living, because garbage is what you believe. You would feel right at home.
SuperDelusionist 1 day ago
@SuperDelusionist LoL. Just want you to know I had a 4.0 pre-med, and geology GPA while I was majoring in those subjects (2 years). I also have an IQ of 141. So calling me ignorant is kinda awkward... My family are all either College professors, Deans, Veterinarians, or in the medical field. So your 5 comment rant about how ignorant I am was awesome. Also its impossible to test Macro-evolution. (Micro and Macro are theorized different). I don't want you to go to hell at all, I wish it on no one
tanner1300 1 day ago
@tanner1300 Though the success of your relatives has no bearing on how well you'll do, and that IQ is a poor rating of intellect (says I'm 150ish depending on test. I'm not that smart.) I applaud your last statement. Wishing someone to spend not only a moment in hell but an eternity is the sickest most appalling disregard for morality I have ever born witness. Good on you.
Fictitious72 1 day ago
@Fictitious72 Hope you realize that almost anything above a 140 is considered near genius or almost genius, less than .25% (no not twenty five percent, point 25 %) fall in the above 140 category. Maybe you shoulda googled IQ scores before you ranted. Also I wish that not one person EVER spend eternity in hell. Not even a second. I don't wish any evil upon you. I really hope that you do have an absolutely AMAZING life.
tanner1300 17 hours ago
@tanner1300 Being ignorant has nothing to with intelligence. Being smart doesn't make you anymore right. "We aren't there yet" is irrelevant and an opinion. Go read some books on Quantum Physics because you don't understand the concept of something from nothing and you are arguing from ignorance. Go check out T A L K O R I G I N S. O R G because contrary too your statement, their IS evidence for Macro-Evolution. Using argumentum ad authority fallacy shows your ignorance on this subject.
ComputerGamerify 1 day ago
@ComputerGamerify The propositions made by evolutionary theory make sense ONLY if successful evolution traveled through just one thread of genetic development for each evolved form. If all Chimps and all Humans share the same genetic anomalies, then at some point in the past there was only one survivor
tanner1300 17 hours ago
@tanner1300 The fact that you continue to use Your IQ score as a reason why should be right is laughable. There is a great deal of evidence showing that novel genes with novel functions can and do evolve. Even an arbitrary genetic sequence can evolve to acquire functionality Evolution can work even starting from random sequences. Evolution of novel sequences cannot be very improbable if it happens so easily and so often. There are also no theories that even come close to challenging evolution.
ComputerGamerify 16 hours ago
@ComputerGamerify Also the fact I just looked at your profile and you straight out said in a comment that you were a young earth creationist contradicts and invalidates much of what you say. You are hypocrite, that only looks at the evidence that supports your worldview, I have looked at creationist evidence and it fails under scientific pressure and contradicts much of what we know about the world. Even if evolution were false, that still wouldn't automatically make creationism right.
ComputerGamerify 15 hours ago
@ComputerGamerify Maybe you should read back before dissing me. Someone said "people like you are the reason America has a low IQ", I was merely telling him that he was wrong. And you are right about theories that challenge evolution, because creationism is and will never be provable. There are some decent (decent not amazing) theories that challenge how old the earth is. I'm no Einstein, but i'm not stupid. I know when people assume stuff. I try not to do that, and to give benefit of the doubt
tanner1300 6 hours ago
@tanner1300 you are a moron :) you are in DENIAL :) EVOLUTION that you DENTY to be REAL IS VERY REAL.. try reading about it you RETARD :)
SuperDelusionist 2 hours ago
@SuperDelusionist I take it from this rant that you don't believe in god. Neither do I. By no means does that make CAPITALIZING random WORDS validate your argument. Nor does calling someone garbage. Also, science doesn't appose a being creating the universe. It's just that science believes it to be very unlikely.
Fictitious72 1 day ago
@Fictitious72 Thank you fictitious. I appreciate that you do not believe in God. That's your own personal business. I also appreciate your kindness and sophisticated behavior. I do believe in God, I don't believe in evolution, which I assume you do not believe in. That too is your own personal business. I wanted to stress that I understand you don't see eye to eye with me, and that you are very mature in your comments. I for one, appreciate it very much. :-) Have a good day man. (or woman)
tanner1300 16 hours ago
@Fictitious72 Science does OPPOSE a GOD creating the universe, it is SO VERY UNSCIENTIFIC to think this, does it also mean that since science cannot prove that invisible people that science takes the "it is a possibility" stance? lol you are a compelte IDIOT, wether you believe in god or not. I like you COMMENT about my caps, you fish always hook onto THAT aspect of my comments as you have NOTHING VALID TO COMMENT!!
do you believe spider man is real?? or maybe a possibility?? IDIOT
SuperDelusionist 2 hours ago
@SuperDelusionist How will they be able to prove that god exists when they can´t even agree what god is? ;)
LoverofLiszt 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PsychopathicShyster 6 days ago
Comment removed
PsychopathicShyster 6 days ago
Comment removed
PsychopathicShyster 6 days ago
is it moral to punish my grandchild because my son drank a beer at age 14 when I told him not to?
pana376 6 days ago
wtf?
marvin140100 1 week ago
It's true the christian YT channels often do not allow comments at all. Which I would have to say is more than symbolic. They do not encourage disagreement.
herringla 1 week ago
A being that creates everything yet does not exist is logically incoherent. No shit, if you have to explain that to your crowd then having an argument about logic is an oxymoron for you. Then he goes on to twist words and uses the opposite of logic to "prove" god. Then he throws a definition out to refute Dawkin's claim. He then finds it necessary to insult him based on him not using the same principle of the word as he. "Dr." Craig, fuck you.
jimmyphonghater 1 week ago
This guy simply loves to twist words around and makes absolutley so sense.
b24harman 1 week ago
JESUS
onehndrdprcntcreep 1 week ago
Just moronically stupid argument..! You theists do not understand the basic meaning of two words....logic, and proof..! Simple as that, no point arguing with you, you're all delusional sheep. There is no god......end of story! You have no PROOF otherwise, and although as you might rightly say.... neither do I...I don't try and convince you that my lack of proof is evidence of an invisible friend in the sky!
pcferret 1 week ago
Richard Dawkins' argument is based on 'logical incoherence'?? If you want logical incoherence then you should read the Bible.
frico2727 1 week ago
If you think Dawkins' book is a proper rebuttal of the possibility of god, you never heard of metaphysics and don't know squat about philosophy. "He does a disservice to non-believers" - Michael Ruse
MarlosZappa 1 week ago
Idk that God would approve of slander
dickkeefer 1 week ago
the ontological argument is the stupidest argument that i have every heard of, and the teleological argument is also pretty absurd.
scando1444 1 week ago
To conclude, if atheism IS a belief or a religion, I'd like to please register the Church of Atheism for US tax-exempt status. I would also like to start a video ministry ordering gullible people to send me money, because Darwin spoke to me last night and gave me a vision of building a hospital with their money. I'd like to spend this stolen money on diamond mines in Africa and build palaces in the US for me and my family. Finally, I want to pass laws that you can only have sex the way I say. :3
TheSamuraiGoomba 1 week ago
@TheSamuraiGoomba Now now, the last thing we need is an atheist Pat Robertson.
Darkstar1484 1 week ago
dummmmmb dumb dumb DUMB!!!!!!
JackRivall 1 week ago
order in the universe comes from an order,disorder is chaos.............................therefore there is a creator
issamzac 1 week ago
Atheism is a religion that tries like many others to convert people. The main difference is they get have the assistance of governments through the education systems. Nobody has ever came up with evidence of life coming from non life, nobody has ever explained how something as complicated as the eye came into being while another one exactly the same formed at exactly the same time and worked along with it and nobody has ever explained why only humans have morals and no animal does.
Thegreenandwhitearmy 1 week ago
@Thegreenandwhitearmy
Animals do have morals. You need to watch more animals. You also need to study evolution if you think our eyes formed one at a time, by chance. LOL
1Munro3000 1 week ago
@1Munro3000 What animals are able to tell right from wrong? Give me a couple of examples.
Thegreenandwhitearmy 1 week ago
@Thegreenandwhitearmy
My dog for one. She might still do it but she knows when to hide. Piranha eat almost anything but will starve to death before turning on each other. Im not saying they sit and discuss morals as we do or even understand them but a few hours watching the tight groups and bonds primates make show we are not so very different from our animal relations.
1Munro3000 1 week ago
atheism is an absence of belief? But then how can you believe in any of the 'assumptions' which are the building blocks on which science is built on? It makes no sense...atheism is simply not believing in God, which is just the opposite of believing in Him, so yes its a religion. If you truly had no belief, then you wouldn't be an atheist either
SageAndOnions 1 week ago
@SageAndOnions Disbelief in something is not belief in something. I can disbelieve in God while also disbelieving that alien pigs abduct people, water contains impossible-to-see angels and tigers turn invisible when nobody is watching.
There is the same evidence for all four of those things, and it is impossible to disprove any of them. But you would only care about one of those non-beliefs. By not believing in religion, it is easier to accept proven facts which go against it.
TheSamuraiGoomba 1 week ago
@TheSamuraiGoomba yes but atheism isn't the lack of belief in general, which I think is a good view to have actualy...atheism is just the lack of belief in God, so if you've worked out that lack of belief is good, then why do you believe in other things such as the news on TV, for example? You have only chosen to not-believe in God as you don't like the idea of God, nothing more. Why you don't like the idea of it is a different story. You are only scratching the surface with your comment
SageAndOnions 1 week ago
@SageAndOnions I can go and investigate anything I see on TV. Example: The TV lady tells me that a bank was robbed. I can go to the bank and ask the employees. I can read the police reports. I can go to the trial is someone is apprehended. Yet god remains hidden. He does nothing for the starving child that will take his last breath tonight. I don't believe in a god because there has never, ever, in the entirety of human history been a bit of credible evidence that one exists.
BiffWhitebread13 1 week ago
@SageAndOnions So I don't believe in God... Because I don't like God? Well, the idea of God seems practically designed to be unlikeable. I could tell you "you just don't like the idea of slavery" and you'd have to concede the point.
I didn't "choose not to believe," I was confronted with so much direct, verifiable evidence of both the truth of secularist claims of evolution and of religion's inhumanity to people, that the only honest choice left to me was to leave religion.
TheSamuraiGoomba 1 week ago
@SageAndOnions I actually *don't* believe the news I hear on TV, because most of it is local news from biased sources. I do tend to accept the more unbiased sources, and if a piece is interesting to me, I'll do a little research on the claims.
A faith-based view says it believes what it believes because it must do so, and will never change regardless of what the evidence says. It claims it is always right and will never be wrong because it cannot be wrong. That is not atheism.
TheSamuraiGoomba 1 week ago
@SageAndOnions
Your right. My hobby is now to be listed as NOT collecting stamps. LOL Fool.
1Munro3000 1 week ago
@1Munro3000 thats a pretty shallow statement because it doesn't apply to atheism...if you looked at atheism more for yourself, instead of repeating what your atheist 'priests' say, then you would realise that non-belief is not a feature of atheism. Do you believe that your points are valid? Because if you're an atheist and believe that life has no purpose then you're points are not even valid, so as you argue against me you argue against yourself as you imply you have meaning and purpose
SageAndOnions 1 week ago
@SageAndOnions Not the ridiculous "Atheists have no meaning in their lives" argument. I have plenty of meaning and purpose. To be kind to all I know, to love my wife and children, provide for and protect them. To pursue truth, no matter what that truth is. I don't need the supernatural to give my life meaning and I feel truly sorry for someone that does.
BiffWhitebread13 1 week ago
@BiffWhitebread13 The argument is not at all that atheists have no meaning to their lives- the argument is that atheist thinking or theory does not provide a basis at all for meaning and purpose. IF atheism was true, how could a person even know what objective truth is?
Consider this: blind, unguided, undirected forces are at the basis of everything that you are. There is only matter, shaped by natural selection, which in itself is only concerned about the survival value of physical traits- ...
brightsfighter 1 week ago
@BiffWhitebread13 it is not concerned about anything else. This is pure Darwinism. Some matter developed into the leg of a cockroach, some matter developed into you. But essentially, they are both the same- varying only in degree, but not in kind. Your brain is just matter, and thoughts and feelings the product of electrons bouncing around. Any concept you have of self worth, of feeling that your life has 'meaning' or that there is 'a point' to life, is just the result of blind, undirected
brightsfighter 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brightsfighter Sorry, but we can still have a completely naturalistic world and have purpose, meaning and truth (odd you would pick truth). The purpose and meaning that life has is entirely what we, the ones living it, give to it. Your life can have no purpose or a lofty one--it's up to you. My life does have more purpose (to me) than the leg of an ant (the ant however, would disagree). But only because I give it purpose. Feeling special is not the same as being special.
BiffWhitebread13 1 week ago
@BiffWhitebread13 Feeling special is indeed not the same as being special. That is what I am saying: if naturalistic evolution is true, we feel special but are in fact not special. We are deluding ourselves.
The reason I picked 'truth' is simple: evolutionary processes are not concerned about concepts of 'truth'. So why on earth should we suppose that our brains, which are the product of those processes, are in any way capable of knowing objective truth? Everything becomes subjective.
brightsfighter 1 week ago
@BiffWhitebread13 forces. In this story of abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection, there is simply no room for purpose, worth, truth etc. Yet somehow the atheist supernaturally injects this into the story, because of course the fact is that we humans DO feel special, DO think our thoughts are capable of knowing truth, and we DO think our lives have purpose- more purpose than the leg of an ant.
How do you inject meaning into your life, based on the theory of atheism?
brightsfighter 1 week ago
I'll return the question : How do you inject meaning into your (mortal) life?
Surely you're going to say "the Bible is my motivator for everything'. But can you be more specific? Apart from going to Church (do you go? every sunday?) and the prayers (how often do you pray/day?). What do you do that you wouldn't have done if you didn't read the Bible? And, what would be the things you would do if you didn't read the Bible? e.g. you could take the children to the park on sunday mornings ...
kleykenb 1 week ago
@kleykenb I am not talking about how you and I fill our days. I am curious to know how the atheist explains the fact that we live our lives as if they are meaningful. I am not asking if we should or should not go to church, or play football, or read to our kids etc. I am asking about the fundamentals: what is the basis for us to think that we matter, based on naturalistic evolution...
brightsfighter 1 week ago
An Atheist doesn't have an afterlife to look forward to.
He/she therefor is all the more motivated to make his/her life meaningful. It is very important to an Atheist to have mattered. "This is it", after all.
In my case it means that I lead my life trying to be a positive influence on those around me and actively engage in setting an example for all those that seem to have given up on this seemingly morally decaying society. Fight negativism with positivism. Tackle deceit where I find it. You?
kleykenb 1 week ago
@kleykenb Very commendable, on the surface we might look very much the same to the average observer. However, I am still curious to get an answer on the questions I posted.
How do you explain the fact that you feel like your life has to have meaning? What Darwinian explanation could possibly give you the idea that 'meaning' is real, and not just a by-product of natural causes like electrons colliding in your brain?
EXACTLY the same mindless, un-guided processes which have conspired to...
brightsfighter 1 week ago
Comment removed
kleykenb 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meaning ? Clearly I'm part of a community and a family so makeing sure tthey have a good life obviously gives a lot of meaning to my life.
But does life itself have meaning? When you look at the bigger picture the answer would have to be 'No'. Life was almost whiped out several times in the past. And it will happen again. We will be able to protect us better against certain disasters but as the Universe expands it seems inevitable that Humanity is going to be whiped out too.
kleykenb 1 week ago
@kleykenb ... give a cockroach legs, are the forces which gave you a brain. Your brain, and the thoughts it produces, is fundamentally nothing different from the leg of a cockroach. It looks different, it functions different, but in the end the result of the same mindless, un-guided forces and essentially it is the same thing. I don't doubt that you are a good, moral person, but, I ask again, how has atheistic evolution explained this?
brightsfighter 1 week ago
@brightsfighter
You don't understand how Evolution works. And it is far to complex to explain it here.
The idea alone that you assume that a cockroach is a lesser creature than a human is completely wrong from evolutionary but also a moral point of view. Cockroaches are thriving, just like humans. Both species are doing very well albeit for different reasons.
I happen to be a human but I in no way think I'm part of a superior species.
kleykenb 1 week ago
@kleykenb When is the last time you hauled the local pest controller in front of a judge and jury to stand trial for the mass murder of cockroaches? Where are all the petitions you filed to have all butchers locked up, as well as all people who eat meat (or vegetables, why make the distinction?). Will you hold a shark liable for biting a human and put it on trial on moral grounds?
If you don't do these things because they seem odd, you have a lot of explaining to do.
brightsfighter 1 week ago
No, I knew you were gonna jump on that statement but thankfully they don't seem odd. I do eat meat, lots of it, just like other animals.
So, why do animals not go to heaven, BrightsFighter?
And why did Jesus not tell us how to cure cancer when he had the chance?
And why do Christian soldiers piss on dead bodies and burn Qurans?
Are those Christian soldiers going to Hell later on ?
If you don't think so then you've got a lot of explaining to do!
kleykenb 1 week ago
@kleykenb Why can't you just answer a question? You simply cannot even explain why you are a moral person who feels slightly more special than a cockroach, even if you don't admit it. How on earth do you even presume you can judge anybody by their actions, being nothing more than an animal with a big imagination? Why can't a soldier piss on dead bodies? Dogs do it, so it's perfectly normal behaviour isn't it?
brightsfighter 6 days ago
@brightsfighter "..explain why you are a moral person..."
We are not born with Moral. Acquiring it is a long process, akin to learning to walk and talk. We don't talk of animals as having Moral but they certainly have "Social rules" which is a rudimentary form of Moral. Many species even know the concept of 'Hierarchy'.
Dogs do not piss on bodies in order to humiliate that dead body. There is a very clear distinction there. Clearly I find that immoral but I'm starting to wonder if you do.
kleykenb 5 days ago
@kleykenb ps. and pls don't patronize. I know and comprehend evolutionary theory. That is why I pointed out something you agree with: that from an evolutionary point of view, a cockroach is not a lesser creature, nor are we, humans, likely to comprehend our world any better than they do. Yet, and this is the point, you don't live in accordance with that principle. You do assume you are able to accurately interpret concepts like morality, meaning and truth. You assume, but don't explain.
brightsfighter 1 week ago
@brightsfighter
Look who is talking ? Who is 'Matronizing here' . You're the one thinking you know what I think. And you're talking about interpretations of morality, meaning and truth when all YOU'VE got is a errant, mistranslated book to tell you about those.
I've already told you that there is no meaning. Morality is only something Humans bother with (and btw. don't you find this vid and the title of it are immoral?)
kleykenb 1 week ago
@kleykenb I am human too remember- so I know a bit about what makes our species tick. And I know morality is only something humans bother with- but you don't seem to be willing or able to tell me why only humans bother with it.
And if the universe is without meaning, if there is actually and factually no meaning to be found anywhere, why do you delude yourself by 'giving your own life meaning'. There IS no meaning in your universe, so you can't just make it up yourself and pretend it's real.
brightsfighter 6 days ago
@brightsfighter " why do you delude yourself by 'giving your own life meaning'. "
Who says you're not the one deluding yourself by giving your own life meaning ?!
I just accept reality (and, who knows, maybe science will find a way to avert the
seemingly inevitable).
Do you dread death? Wheep when somebody dies?
kleykenb 5 days ago
@kleykenb we're not "giving our life meaning" that is inherent. that is not the purpose. just a side effect of living by reason. also, what is this inevitability that you mentioned?
Cartr1dgeBased 4 days ago
@Cartr1dgeBased
If you don't know what I'm talking about then you haven't scrolled down far enough (or you may try looking at these comments in Thread mode)
kleykenb 4 days ago
@kleykenb I am not the one who's philosophy on life is based on a deterministic concept in which there is no room for meaning- so I am not deluding myself.
I don't dread death- but do weep when someone close to me dies. Why?
brightsfighter 3 days ago
@brightsfighter
My life is based on what science can show me to be true. I love science, it's a passion and a driving force for me. Understanding everything also gives me Meaning. I find it can explain the Universe in a very satisfactory way.
Yours is based on faith alone. I find that insufficient and there is of course the danger that you've chosen the wrong religion in which case you'd be double wrong.
kleykenb 3 days ago
@brightsfighter
We dont matter. This planet could explode tommorow and but for a slight jiggle in a few orbits the universe wouldnt even notice. Billions of people gone and no one would care. We give ourselves meaning through love, laughter and various other emotions which have evolved to make us better at what we are really here for, to find food and produce imperfect copies of ourselves.
1Munro3000 1 week ago
Comment removed
BiffWhitebread13 1 week ago
Comment removed
BiffWhitebread13 1 week ago
@brightsfighter Moreover, not all humans think they are special--a child will die of starvation somewhere in the world tonight that never felt special in the entirety of their short, wretched life. Atheism isn't a theory. It is one answer to one question only. It is the rejection of the claim that gods exist. Nothing more. Since this is the only life I get, it is up to me to ensure that I give it the meaning and purpose it warrants.
BiffWhitebread13 1 week ago
@brightsfighter Are you saying that if there are no gods, truth is unknowable? Truth is why many are atheists. We think it is important to hold as many true beliefs as possible, to reject as many false beliefs as possible. Thus far, the most reliable way to separate fact from fantasy is the scientific method. Until there is good evidence to think something true (or believe something to exist) it should not be considered true, else we would have to believe in everything, no matter how silly.
BiffWhitebread13 1 week ago
@BiffWhitebread13 I am saying that Darwinian evolution is a very poor theory which doesn't explain why you can even trust your brain to know truth from falsehood. I have been looking and asking for an answer, but no one is willing or able to have a go. When you say you hold as many true beliefs as possible, can you tell me how, evolutionary speaking, you ended up with the capacity to know what 'truth' is, or why you should even trust any of your thoughts to reflect objective reality.
brightsfighter 6 days ago
@brightsfighter You can't trust your brain to know truth from falsehood. That's why we do science - to *work out* what is true. The scientific method strives to remove what we presuppose is true, and only reveal what actually is true - through repeatable experiments, peer review, and through evidence and reason.
You might then ask: how do we trust our senses (by which we obtain evidence) and our reason (by which we interpret results). Well, what else do we have?
HBJ
HunchbackJack 6 days ago
@HunchbackJack I see your point, but I do have a problem with it...Do you suppose that only what can be verified using the scientific method can be judged 'true'? This would exclude quite a lot of bits and pieces which make us human- any thought, belief (not just religious), sense or feeling, as well as intend and purpose. And indeed the question remains: how can we trust our senses? Indeed they are all we have, but they are limited.
brightsfighter 5 days ago
@brightsfighter I think science is the best way to test what's *objectively* true. Thoughts, feelings, intent and purpose are all part of our individual experience, but they are all subjective. While they are true to us, they are only true to us, and don't extend beyond ourselves except through our own actions.
I'm not denying that subjective truths exist, but we can't use subjective metrics to determine objective truth. What I "feel" is true about objective reality is moot.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 5 days ago
@HunchbackJack Would you classify morality as falling under the domain of objective truth or subjective truth? For example: Thoughts and feelings about a person are obviously subjective, but you might say to your wife when she wrongfully accuses you of something: 'You shouldn't think that about me!!' - in which case you make an appeal to an objective standard, which she should share with you, but, in your eyes, has violated.
brightsfighter 5 days ago
@brightsfighter Well, I think you answered your own question. The standard is objective because it's something I and my wife agreed on. Her thoughts are subjective - the only way I can discern what they is through her actions, and even then, I might be wrong. If she accuses me, it's the accusation that violates the agreement.
Ultimately, the discussion and the resolution is based on evidence and reason, about whether her actions violated the agreement.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 5 days ago
@brightsfighter Obviously, morality is subjective. Slavery was not a problem in the old testament--it describes in detail how slaves were to be treated. Morality has evolved so that most now agree that slavery is immoral. So, was slavery immoral then, or is it moral now, in your view? If you don't agree with either of those positions, then are you saying the OT contains immoral teachings?
BiffWhitebread13 3 days ago 5
Comment removed
BiffWhitebread13 2 days ago
@brightsfighter (cont.) That's why science is collaborative. An individual can be delusional, crazy, or just wrong. But a group of people working independently in the same field, intent on verifying or falsifying each others findings, are unlikely to all be delusional, crazy or wrong in the same way. Sometimes even scientific consensus is wrong, but we discover that error through better science, not by abandoning science.
(cont.)
HBJ
HunchbackJack 5 days ago
@brightsfighter "A scientist may be able to explain things far better than I can, but fundamentally, his experience is no different from yours or mine..."
I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with this statement. A scientist may not be able to tell you anything about how you should live your life, but the idea that what your (or my) subjective experience tells us about objective reality is just as valid as what can be verified using scientific rigor is simply untrue.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 5 days ago
@HunchbackJack But how is the scientists experience of the world fundamentally different from mine? I have 5 senses...do they have 6 or 7? I agree that I would not have come up with photosynthesis, a cure for the plague or Pi, whereas some very clever scientists have done that, and I believe that science is a wonderful thing. But that is not what I meant...
brightsfighter 5 days ago
@brightsfighter I'm not comparing your experience with a scientist's, I'm comparing subjective experience with the findings of a process that goes out of its way to exclude subjectivity.
Senses can be fooled. Logic can be faulty. But they are all we have to determine what's true. So how do we deal with that? Collaborate. Challenge. Discuss. Experiment. Verify. Do everything we can to exclude subjective experience in order to determine what is actually true.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 5 days ago
@HunchbackJack Example: suppose a group of scientists on a small island conduct an experiment whose results rely on discerning a number of different colours of light. They publish results based on their seeing two different colors.
Another group of scientists repeat the experiment and find three colours; it turns out the scientists of the first study were all red-green colourblind. A third study claim to see a fourth color very like one of the previous three. (cont.)
HBJ
HunchbackJack 5 days ago
@HunchbackJack Eventually, scientists agree to measure the frequency of light emitted from the experiment, rather than relying on being able to discern colours. It turns out that they discover 7 different individual frequencies are being emitted.
If one of the original scientists claimed that his experience of only seeing three colours was still valid, he would be *wrong*.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 5 days ago
@HunchbackJack And we cannot use our reason to establish what is reasonable, if the grounds to trust our reason have not been firmly established. A scientist may be able to explain things far better than I can, but fundamentally, his experience is no different from yours or mine...
brightsfighter 5 days ago
@brightsfighter (cont.) How can we trust that science is an effective way of perceiving and understanding objective reality? Because when we reapply its findings back to that same reality, we get consistent and useful results, and other scientists get the same results. That's a good indication that we're discovering truths that are independent of one person's subjective experience.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 6 days ago
@brightsfighter What else could possibly be used to separate truth from falsehood other than our brains? Do you have another method? What does that have to do with evolution? Is this the sad "We don't know everything so we can't know anything" argument? I have no choice but to trust my thoughts--as you do. Sometimes they are wrong--we learn. Some things are outside of our experience, so we go to experts like surgeons, to help us.
BiffWhitebread13 1 day ago
@SageAndOnions
Its funny to see how it seems to be a put down on Atheism to make it sound like a religion haha Non belief IS the feature of Atheism, that is what it means. You make claims based on bronze age idiots from years ago and I refuse to believe them. Im also an Atrollist and an Agoblinist if you want to attach some more labels to me. Life has the purpose of making more life, thats it and everything else is add ons. Science finding truth, religion hiding from it.
1Munro3000 1 week ago
@1Munro3000 it is selective non-belief usualy though, why not go the full stretch and not believe anything if you've figured out it's a good thing in terms of religion and science...I don't know what you're like obviously, you already might be like that, but a lot of atheists aern't. And, claims from these bronze agers still stand today unfortunatly for you. Where did life come from though? How did this process start? How does a bunch of cells become concsious?
SageAndOnions 1 week ago