@XForceBowhunter I'm also an aunicornist, but I don't talk about it because there aren't many unicornists around trying to mis-educate our children, influence our laws and freedoms, undermine our science, discriminate against fellow human beings and generally pass nonsense off as fact. If there were, I would be more vocal in my opposition to unicornism too.
You mean like atheists, who rewrite the history of the Founding Fathers to try to hide as much of the Christian influence as possible? Pot. Kettle. Black.
@XForceBowhunter No, I mean like denying indisputable scientific facts and failing to encourage thought and scepticism rather than obedient acceptance of dogma. I'll leave the discussion about founding fathers to those countries which have founding fathers. My country doesn't, and so they have nothing to do with my pot or kettle!
Not all Christians are young earth creationists, despite your desire to imply this. I would tend to agree with you. The earth is 4.5 billion years old in a 13.5 billion year old universe (so far as we can tell) and science is wholly incapable of providing any evidence either for or against God's existence.
And in fact, I am a skeptic myself. I've read Hitchens and Dawkins and their abysmal use of logic leaves me quite skeptical.
@XForceBowhunter I did not imply that all Christians are young Earth creationists, I was not referring only to creationism, and nor was I referring specifically to Christians. You're making fallacious inferences.
It really doesn't matter whether science produces evidence for/against God's existence, because nobody else can produce evidence for it either! That's the problem - it is a fallacy to believe without evidence, because then you can believe anything at all, however silly it is.
Actually, there are logical arguments for God's existence, so no, I don't believe without evidence. I use the same evidence everyone else has, including the rules of logic. Materialists who expect empirical scientific evidence of God that is repeatable and testable in a laboratory are the ones operating under a delusion. Science itself has, as its foundation, basic assumptions which themselves cannot be tested scientifically.
@XForceBowhunter Logic and evidence are not the same thing. Both are necessary, but logic without evidence can be internally correct without relating to reality. However, I have yet to see an argument for God which survives logical scrutiny.
Materialists don't necessarily expect testable evidence of god - many concede that the concept is untestable. But that does not make it valid - it makes it vacuous. But ... if god acts in the material world, the effects should be evident, but they're not.
The moral argument is my favorite, and yes, it survives scrutiny, and has for the better part of 1900 years.
I didn't say that if something was untestable it was invalid. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.
And we believe God did act, and that His acts are recorded in the Bible. Of course, if one is sufficiently skeptical, they might not even be able to be convinced that Bush was president prior to Obama.
@XForceBowhunter The moral argument is a gaping big "God of the gaps" fallacy - "We don't understand how morals could exist on their own, therefore God did it". And in any case, we *have* now begun to understand how and why morals can have evolved without any design or divine intent, replacing 1900 years of ignorance on the subject.
"We believe ..." proves nothing, and it doesn't take much scepticism to recognize that the Bible is not a reliable record or explanation of events.
Actually, this merely demonstrates your misunderstanding of the nature of the argument.
And, if you believe that morality actually "evolves", then you'd have to also argue that mathematics also "evolved", lol, and that things like 2+2 didn't always equal 4.
@XForceBowhunter Well, if you want to point me to somewhere which explains the moral argument as you see it, feel free. I'm always ready to learn.
Of course I don't have to argue that mathematics evolves - what a weird idea! Evolution is the means by which self-replicating organisms change over time. Maths is not an organism.
However, beyond our universe where different laws of physics might apply, it's conceivable that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4 :-)
@XForceBowhunter Morality is the product of an organism - the is no evidence that it is anything but a mixture of evolved instinct and thought, all coming from organic brains. If all scientient life forms disappeared, morality would be non-existent and have no role.
Other universes are scientifically hypothetical (not that I claim to understand the science!).
I look forward to the paper, and apologize for the delay in replying.
@GalacticAtom - Humans actually have progressed morally in a similar manner to which we've progressed with respect to our knowledge of mathematics. This, in and of itself, does not make mathematics "subjective" nor does it mean that if humans disappear, any of the known mathematical relationships in our universe would disappear. Your assumption - if all sentient life forms cease to exist then... is a metaphysical one, as we believe morality continues in heaven.
@XForceBowhunter Humans have indeed progressed both morally and in our knowledge of mathematics, but that does not mean that the bases are the same : mathematics relates to the physical universe; morality concerns the relations of human beings with each other and their environments. Without humans, the physical universe still exists, but without humans, there are no human relations to be moral about.
"We believe ..." is an assertion which can be safely ignored until accompanied by evidence.
From a naturalistic standpoint, I'm a bit unsure how you can draw a distinction. Now, I do not know if you're a naturalist or positivist or what - we just met - but those that say that the physical universe is all there is, and everything is the result of physical processes - well, the idea that morality and moral relationships exist even in theory is quite an anomaly. What they would have to say is that the laws of physics alone can result in concepts like morality.
@XForceBowhunter There is nothing at all anomalous about the existence of morality among evolved organisms in a physical universe. Altruism, empathy and other behaviours on which our moral sense is based are traits which natural evolution would select in favour of in ways and for reasons which are well documented. Evolution also selects for less laudable traits, but among "higher" animals, pure selfishness would lead to rapid extinction. There's no need for an external agency to explain morals.
It is in fact anomalous, because what you're now saying is that evolution is acting globally upon thought and/or a concept, not the physical entities themselves. Because those who are altogether altruistic in giving their lives do not get to continue their genes at all.
However, if you're right, then it's fairly easy to see that widespread atheistic beliefs will in fact lead to extinction or a drastic reduction in population, for a number of reasons.
@XForceBowhunter Evolution acts upon physical brains. Thoughts, concepts, feelings and instincts are products and attributes of those brains.
Nobody is altogether altruistic - we all embody a mixture of evolved altruism and evolved selfishness. But pure altruism can preserve genes, e.g. where sacrifice is made to save relatives who carry the same genes.
Have you ever read any modern evolutionary works? You really should before commenting on it.
I'm not disputing the theory of evolution itself, just its ability to be the correct explanation for morality. It seems to be committing the genetic fallacy (or something very near it) to say that morality is a product of evolution. As proof of this, our knowledge of math has "evolved" as well, yet it is not subjective. If everything in nature is reducible to mathematics and physical laws, then we know far more about math than we do ethics.
it makes more sense to say that your actions flow from what you believe in, lack of belief does not motivate you, you have a belief system not a lack system, you have a worldview not a non worldview, btw alot of atheists cling to lack of belief because they are scared that they will carry a burden of proof, burden only falls upon the one making a claim not on the one whom believes, that applies to atheists and theists alike.
I take it you make videos on youtube because of what you believe not because you lack belief in what theists say, you do it for reasons not for non reasons, and if youy watch videos of atheists or subscribe to atheist channels I take it that it is because you believe what they are saying is true not because you lack belief in the things they lack belief in, or the fact they are lacking in promoting the things you lack belief in, that is absurd, cont:
Remember once exposed to an idea you cannot return to a state of lack or remain in a state of lack, that is logically impossible, a mental decision is involved whether to accept reject or withold judgement, but witholding judgement based on knowledge is more to the agnostic position than the atheist position.
Galatic I pointed out the correct etymology and as I said even if we were to accept your definition it is still inadequate because lack of belief is not a thing thus it is not anything at all, atheism exists a lack of belief has no existence, so if it is not a belief then what is it?
Sorry I did not mean that in an insulting way, I meant as far as the meaning of atheism goes, I mean it as you misunderstand it rather than as a general rule for all language, it is obvious you are intelligent and that is why I would not think it applies to you in a more general sense.
And even if you did try to argue a case for Atheism being a lack or even if you had not been incorrect in your understanding of Etymology that would still not mean that lack is a rational definition, the operator of lack is not, atheism- lack of belief, atheism- not a belief, Atheism exists, not a belief does not exist thus is not anything at all, if atheism is not a belief then what is it? do not tell me what it is not.
Atheism exists in the sense that non-violence exists. You don't have to do anything to be non-violent - you simply don't engage in a particular type of action. Similarly, atheism requires no positive thought or action : you simply don't engage in a particular type of belief.
You might say you are a non violent person but that is what you are not, not what you are just like you are a non satanic person or a non astronaut, but these are statements about what you are not. not what you are, it would make more sense to say you are a peaceful person, secondly we are dealing with beliefs not behaviour. if you say a person is non violent then we can say it is because they believe that violence is wrong, not because they lack belief that violence is right. cont:
.In ancient Rome we find the positive form of atheism exercised when Christians were being persecuted and martyred for being atheists. They did not simply lack belief in the Roman Gods, rather they consciously rejected all Gods but one.
So the belief is positive, the object of belief in negative. It is belief in no God or belief in Godless[ness]. For etymology to achieve the negative definition of atheism, a popular definition today, from the term would have to be something like, theos-a-ism or, No belief [in a] God. The etymology argument then is not a friend but a foe of the negative definition of atheism.
The etymology argument doesn't matter a hoot. Many word meanings have outgrown or corrupted their original etymology. Atheism today means "a-theism", not "atheo-ism", regardless of whether or not that is good ancient Greek!
Etymology (study of word origins, and composite meaning from word parts) is only one way that words take on meaning.When we apply etymology to the English word atheism, we have athe (from atheos no God/Godless) + -ism (belief). Belief then characterizes the no God hence we have, Belief in no God. And the alpha privative, as always, characterizes the word to which its affixed. cont:
Perhaps.. But surely "belief in no God" means that "no God is being believed in", not that there is something called "no God" which is being believed in! Just as, for example, "Voting for no party" does not mean that there is an entity called the "no party" which is being voted for!
Les simply things for you, atheism is a thing, a lack of something is not anything, atheism exists, a lack of something does not exist, atheism is belief in no god, the alpha privative as always emphasises the word it is attached to, so it is positive,a belief in no god, as well as etymology, historically and logically atheism is more than a lack of belief, even if you could define lack as something with language that is because language is more flexible than logic,you are not lacking belief.
Etymologically, "a-" means "not"; therefore "atheism" means "not theism". Historically, "atheism" means whatever meaning it is given to it at the time, and at present that includes absence of belief in God. Since many, probably most, modern atheists use the word in that sense, it is disingenuous arrogance to try and tell them that they are saying something which they clearly are not saying.
Atheism is not a thing, an object ... it is a state (of mind). Of course negative states can exist - emprically and logically. The universe is full of them, in every place where a particular something is absent. Our minds are full of them, in every single thought or idea which we don't possess.
"Assumptions about the probability of our universe being created by the Big Bang, in a situation where the laws of our universe don't apply, are invalid."
If you believe this then you either don't believe in popular big bang cosmology, which holds that the laws of physics break down within the singularity. How curious.
I might not have put that well, but it does not mean that I don't believe in Big Bang cosmology (it's pretty obvious from the whole video that I do). What I meant here was that assumptions of the probability of a Big Bang are invalid *because* the laws of physics have broken down in the environment where the assumption is being applied. I.e. You can't apply our laws of probability within the singularity. But there's little doubt that Big Bang happened, however probable or improbable it was.
All of this word play is intellectually dishonest. If "lacking a belief" is synonymous with having no position then why are you stating a position at all? If "lacking a belief" is a term that expresses a negative belief, that is not the same as not having a belief. Having a negative belief is to positively have a belief that is negative in nature; but it is to have a belief nonetheless.
I love it when theists say that The Big Bang Theory (or Evolution) is the foundation of atheism. If anything is the foundation of atheism, it's that theistic claims sound just like made up claims.
So glad to see you back!! I always enjoyed your videos. Hope you are finally settled and happy.
This person says we claim to believe in the absence of a god. He omits that atheism is just the absence of belief and not a claim at all. Love the A-apple example. Great vid!
THis made my day GalacticAtom, Thank you! xD
SpisadKoTunga 1 year ago
For people who "lack a belief" in God, you sure do spend a lot of time arguing about Him.
I am an Aunicornist. But I don't go to unicorn message boards and rant and rave.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter I'm also an aunicornist, but I don't talk about it because there aren't many unicornists around trying to mis-educate our children, influence our laws and freedoms, undermine our science, discriminate against fellow human beings and generally pass nonsense off as fact. If there were, I would be more vocal in my opposition to unicornism too.
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
@GalacticAtom
You mean like atheists, who rewrite the history of the Founding Fathers to try to hide as much of the Christian influence as possible? Pot. Kettle. Black.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter No, I mean like denying indisputable scientific facts and failing to encourage thought and scepticism rather than obedient acceptance of dogma. I'll leave the discussion about founding fathers to those countries which have founding fathers. My country doesn't, and so they have nothing to do with my pot or kettle!
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
@GalacticAtom
Not all Christians are young earth creationists, despite your desire to imply this. I would tend to agree with you. The earth is 4.5 billion years old in a 13.5 billion year old universe (so far as we can tell) and science is wholly incapable of providing any evidence either for or against God's existence.
And in fact, I am a skeptic myself. I've read Hitchens and Dawkins and their abysmal use of logic leaves me quite skeptical.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Skeptical of atheism, that is.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter I did not imply that all Christians are young Earth creationists, I was not referring only to creationism, and nor was I referring specifically to Christians. You're making fallacious inferences.
It really doesn't matter whether science produces evidence for/against God's existence, because nobody else can produce evidence for it either! That's the problem - it is a fallacy to believe without evidence, because then you can believe anything at all, however silly it is.
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
@GalacticAtom
Actually, there are logical arguments for God's existence, so no, I don't believe without evidence. I use the same evidence everyone else has, including the rules of logic. Materialists who expect empirical scientific evidence of God that is repeatable and testable in a laboratory are the ones operating under a delusion. Science itself has, as its foundation, basic assumptions which themselves cannot be tested scientifically.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter Logic and evidence are not the same thing. Both are necessary, but logic without evidence can be internally correct without relating to reality. However, I have yet to see an argument for God which survives logical scrutiny.
Materialists don't necessarily expect testable evidence of god - many concede that the concept is untestable. But that does not make it valid - it makes it vacuous. But ... if god acts in the material world, the effects should be evident, but they're not.
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
@GalacticAtom
The moral argument is my favorite, and yes, it survives scrutiny, and has for the better part of 1900 years.
I didn't say that if something was untestable it was invalid. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.
And we believe God did act, and that His acts are recorded in the Bible. Of course, if one is sufficiently skeptical, they might not even be able to be convinced that Bush was president prior to Obama.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter The moral argument is a gaping big "God of the gaps" fallacy - "We don't understand how morals could exist on their own, therefore God did it". And in any case, we *have* now begun to understand how and why morals can have evolved without any design or divine intent, replacing 1900 years of ignorance on the subject.
"We believe ..." proves nothing, and it doesn't take much scepticism to recognize that the Bible is not a reliable record or explanation of events.
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
@GalacticAtom
Actually, this merely demonstrates your misunderstanding of the nature of the argument.
And, if you believe that morality actually "evolves", then you'd have to also argue that mathematics also "evolved", lol, and that things like 2+2 didn't always equal 4.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter Well, if you want to point me to somewhere which explains the moral argument as you see it, feel free. I'm always ready to learn.
Of course I don't have to argue that mathematics evolves - what a weird idea! Evolution is the means by which self-replicating organisms change over time. Maths is not an organism.
However, beyond our universe where different laws of physics might apply, it's conceivable that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4 :-)
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
@GalacticAtom
Morality is not an "organism" either.
And your theory that other universes could have different mathematical truths is quite metaphysical.
I'll see if I can find a good paper on objective morality for you.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter Morality is the product of an organism - the is no evidence that it is anything but a mixture of evolved instinct and thought, all coming from organic brains. If all scientient life forms disappeared, morality would be non-existent and have no role.
Other universes are scientifically hypothetical (not that I claim to understand the science!).
I look forward to the paper, and apologize for the delay in replying.
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
@GalacticAtom - Humans actually have progressed morally in a similar manner to which we've progressed with respect to our knowledge of mathematics. This, in and of itself, does not make mathematics "subjective" nor does it mean that if humans disappear, any of the known mathematical relationships in our universe would disappear. Your assumption - if all sentient life forms cease to exist then... is a metaphysical one, as we believe morality continues in heaven.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter Humans have indeed progressed both morally and in our knowledge of mathematics, but that does not mean that the bases are the same : mathematics relates to the physical universe; morality concerns the relations of human beings with each other and their environments. Without humans, the physical universe still exists, but without humans, there are no human relations to be moral about.
"We believe ..." is an assertion which can be safely ignored until accompanied by evidence.
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
@GalacticAtom
From a naturalistic standpoint, I'm a bit unsure how you can draw a distinction. Now, I do not know if you're a naturalist or positivist or what - we just met - but those that say that the physical universe is all there is, and everything is the result of physical processes - well, the idea that morality and moral relationships exist even in theory is quite an anomaly. What they would have to say is that the laws of physics alone can result in concepts like morality.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter There is nothing at all anomalous about the existence of morality among evolved organisms in a physical universe. Altruism, empathy and other behaviours on which our moral sense is based are traits which natural evolution would select in favour of in ways and for reasons which are well documented. Evolution also selects for less laudable traits, but among "higher" animals, pure selfishness would lead to rapid extinction. There's no need for an external agency to explain morals.
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
@GalacticAtom
It is in fact anomalous, because what you're now saying is that evolution is acting globally upon thought and/or a concept, not the physical entities themselves. Because those who are altogether altruistic in giving their lives do not get to continue their genes at all.
However, if you're right, then it's fairly easy to see that widespread atheistic beliefs will in fact lead to extinction or a drastic reduction in population, for a number of reasons.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter Evolution acts upon physical brains. Thoughts, concepts, feelings and instincts are products and attributes of those brains.
Nobody is altogether altruistic - we all embody a mixture of evolved altruism and evolved selfishness. But pure altruism can preserve genes, e.g. where sacrifice is made to save relatives who carry the same genes.
Have you ever read any modern evolutionary works? You really should before commenting on it.
Why would atheism lead to extinction??
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
@GalacticAtom
I'm not disputing the theory of evolution itself, just its ability to be the correct explanation for morality. It seems to be committing the genetic fallacy (or something very near it) to say that morality is a product of evolution. As proof of this, our knowledge of math has "evolved" as well, yet it is not subjective. If everything in nature is reducible to mathematics and physical laws, then we know far more about math than we do ethics.
They should allow more room....
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter "I didn't say that if something was untestable it was invalid. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth."
I didn't say you did say that!
GalacticAtom 1 year ago
it makes more sense to say that your actions flow from what you believe in, lack of belief does not motivate you, you have a belief system not a lack system, you have a worldview not a non worldview, btw alot of atheists cling to lack of belief because they are scared that they will carry a burden of proof, burden only falls upon the one making a claim not on the one whom believes, that applies to atheists and theists alike.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
I take it you make videos on youtube because of what you believe not because you lack belief in what theists say, you do it for reasons not for non reasons, and if youy watch videos of atheists or subscribe to atheist channels I take it that it is because you believe what they are saying is true not because you lack belief in the things they lack belief in, or the fact they are lacking in promoting the things you lack belief in, that is absurd, cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Action flows from their beliefs.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Remember once exposed to an idea you cannot return to a state of lack or remain in a state of lack, that is logically impossible, a mental decision is involved whether to accept reject or withold judgement, but witholding judgement based on knowledge is more to the agnostic position than the atheist position.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
An intelligent atheist i think I can have a polite if disagreeable discussion with :>D
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Galatic I pointed out the correct etymology and as I said even if we were to accept your definition it is still inadequate because lack of belief is not a thing thus it is not anything at all, atheism exists a lack of belief has no existence, so if it is not a belief then what is it?
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Sorry I did not mean that in an insulting way, I meant as far as the meaning of atheism goes, I mean it as you misunderstand it rather than as a general rule for all language, it is obvious you are intelligent and that is why I would not think it applies to you in a more general sense.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
And even if you did try to argue a case for Atheism being a lack or even if you had not been incorrect in your understanding of Etymology that would still not mean that lack is a rational definition, the operator of lack is not, atheism- lack of belief, atheism- not a belief, Atheism exists, not a belief does not exist thus is not anything at all, if atheism is not a belief then what is it? do not tell me what it is not.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Atheism exists in the sense that non-violence exists. You don't have to do anything to be non-violent - you simply don't engage in a particular type of action. Similarly, atheism requires no positive thought or action : you simply don't engage in a particular type of belief.
GalacticAtom 2 years ago
You might say you are a non violent person but that is what you are not, not what you are just like you are a non satanic person or a non astronaut, but these are statements about what you are not. not what you are, it would make more sense to say you are a peaceful person, secondly we are dealing with beliefs not behaviour. if you say a person is non violent then we can say it is because they believe that violence is wrong, not because they lack belief that violence is right. cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
.In ancient Rome we find the positive form of atheism exercised when Christians were being persecuted and martyred for being atheists. They did not simply lack belief in the Roman Gods, rather they consciously rejected all Gods but one.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
So the belief is positive, the object of belief in negative. It is belief in no God or belief in Godless[ness]. For etymology to achieve the negative definition of atheism, a popular definition today, from the term would have to be something like, theos-a-ism or, No belief [in a] God. The etymology argument then is not a friend but a foe of the negative definition of atheism.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
The etymology argument doesn't matter a hoot. Many word meanings have outgrown or corrupted their original etymology. Atheism today means "a-theism", not "atheo-ism", regardless of whether or not that is good ancient Greek!
GalacticAtom 2 years ago
Etymology (study of word origins, and composite meaning from word parts) is only one way that words take on meaning.When we apply etymology to the English word atheism, we have athe (from atheos no God/Godless) + -ism (belief). Belief then characterizes the no God hence we have, Belief in no God. And the alpha privative, as always, characterizes the word to which its affixed. cont:
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Perhaps.. But surely "belief in no God" means that "no God is being believed in", not that there is something called "no God" which is being believed in! Just as, for example, "Voting for no party" does not mean that there is an entity called the "no party" which is being voted for!
GalacticAtom 2 years ago
Les simply things for you, atheism is a thing, a lack of something is not anything, atheism exists, a lack of something does not exist, atheism is belief in no god, the alpha privative as always emphasises the word it is attached to, so it is positive,a belief in no god, as well as etymology, historically and logically atheism is more than a lack of belief, even if you could define lack as something with language that is because language is more flexible than logic,you are not lacking belief.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Etymologically, "a-" means "not"; therefore "atheism" means "not theism". Historically, "atheism" means whatever meaning it is given to it at the time, and at present that includes absence of belief in God. Since many, probably most, modern atheists use the word in that sense, it is disingenuous arrogance to try and tell them that they are saying something which they clearly are not saying.
GalacticAtom 2 years ago
Atheism is not a thing, an object ... it is a state (of mind). Of course negative states can exist - emprically and logically. The universe is full of them, in every place where a particular something is absent. Our minds are full of them, in every single thought or idea which we don't possess.
GalacticAtom 2 years ago
This is interesting. This is your quote below:
"Assumptions about the probability of our universe being created by the Big Bang, in a situation where the laws of our universe don't apply, are invalid."
If you believe this then you either don't believe in popular big bang cosmology, which holds that the laws of physics break down within the singularity. How curious.
daviddub 2 years ago
I might not have put that well, but it does not mean that I don't believe in Big Bang cosmology (it's pretty obvious from the whole video that I do). What I meant here was that assumptions of the probability of a Big Bang are invalid *because* the laws of physics have broken down in the environment where the assumption is being applied. I.e. You can't apply our laws of probability within the singularity. But there's little doubt that Big Bang happened, however probable or improbable it was.
GalacticAtom 2 years ago
Does this prove the existence of God?
"God has not been been proven not to exist, therfore, he must exist." - Acedemician Prokor Zakarov, from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.
Philosophically, your deist positions hold no ground.
magus77578 2 years ago
All of this word play is intellectually dishonest. If "lacking a belief" is synonymous with having no position then why are you stating a position at all? If "lacking a belief" is a term that expresses a negative belief, that is not the same as not having a belief. Having a negative belief is to positively have a belief that is negative in nature; but it is to have a belief nonetheless.
daviddub 2 years ago
good video, you had wandering for the first minute or so where u were going with this, good job
xd1rtx 3 years ago
Just found your video. What a brilliant response, so intelligent and succinct. Hope to hear more from you Well done.
SayNo2ClosedMinds 3 years ago
I love it when theists say that The Big Bang Theory (or Evolution) is the foundation of atheism. If anything is the foundation of atheism, it's that theistic claims sound just like made up claims.
CousinoMacul 4 years ago
just to clarify this, but the theory of evolution is separate from the big bang theory
glubboy08 3 years ago 2
nvm I think I read it wrong
glubboy08 3 years ago
Next thing you know..
Not doing drugs.. is within itself.. is doing drugs..
thefakeyeti 4 years ago
LOL
Maxopo 3 years ago
glad your back!
everybodysfavourite 4 years ago
yes - you were missed! Intelligent video
thirashy 4 years ago
Welcome back!
Yes, I missed ya :D
xJediHowieX 4 years ago
Careful! That's an apoison you're holding in your hand! Ameal my arse!
rozeboosje 4 years ago
Of course you were missed! Nice to see you again. I always enjoy your videos--and this one was a very fine example of why.
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
I always miss intelligence. Glad you're back. One more voice of rationality has to help. :)
philhellenes 4 years ago
So glad to see you back!! I always enjoyed your videos. Hope you are finally settled and happy.
This person says we claim to believe in the absence of a god. He omits that atheism is just the absence of belief and not a claim at all. Love the A-apple example. Great vid!
Rhonda9 4 years ago