This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Babies are not born Atheist. Because babies are born not knowing JACK FUCKING SHIT. They DO NOT BELIEVE in anything. To be an atheist or at least a strong one. You have understand the fucking concept. If anything there born agnostic. Because unlike you i dont go around acting like know it all jack asses.
@Lone432345 Great post. So good I'll share it again for those babies who can't take it: Babies are not born Atheist. Because babies are born not knowing JACK FUCKING SHIT. They DO NOT BELIEVE in anything. To be an atheist or at least a strong one. You have understand the fucking concept. If anything there born agnostic. Because unlike you i dont go around acting like know it all jack asses.
The Dark Ages are dark for a reason. History other than the Roman Catholics new shiny religion called Christianity was eradicated, assimilated and rewritten to strengthen their enslavement of the masses. The English and Spanish Crusades (under the Catholic god) to find the Holy Grail were just excuses for the termination of upstart religions and Atheists. Same with the Spanish Inquisitions and even the Salem Witch Hunts. Before that even the Romans had multiple gods.
(cont) Rocks do not have penises in the year 6888. Neither women nor rocks ejaculate in the year 6888. If you say you have been decapitated, you are not saying anything about yourself. You did not have a head in the 6888. The year 6888 does not have a head. Has it been decapitated??? How many women can you find in the year 6888 who have heads? There is no set of decapitated heads. There is a set of nondecapitated things & a set of things outside of it.
If you say you have no penis, you are not saying anything about you. If you say I have no balls, you are not saying anything about me. If you say women do not have penises, you are not saying anything about them. If you say you did not ejaculate, you are not saying about you. If you say I did not get her pregnant or I did not have sex with that woman, you are not saying about you. You did not ejaculate in the year 6888. Women do not have penises in the year 6888.
"If you say you have no penis, you are not saying anything about you"
yes you are, you are saying you have an empty set of penises. This is like saying you have no money.... which is far different than saying you do not have any money, which says nothing about you at all.
"If you say women do not have penises, you are not saying anything about them."
Correct. You've said what is not the case for the women, not what is the case.
Really? Where is your proof of future events? Can you tell the future too?
Magic man?
All future tense statements are beliefs. That belief is not about women, it is what is a belief about what is not the case about women. What is not the case about women is not what is the case about women.
Truly, if this mangled bit of pap is all you have, then you have no argument at all.
Well see if you had an education, you wouldn't see it that way.
Bertrand Russell wrote in 1905, ya that is 106 years ago.... that the present King of France who does not exist, is not bald. Both of those statements are not about the Present King of France.... there is no such thing.
He outlined the difference between a primary and secondary predicate... but you wouldn't know of course, you spend too much time on youtube.
I didn't say it said anything about you. I was clear... you wouldn't see it that way... which says it is not the case that you would see it that way.
I didn't say what is the case about you, I said what is not the case about you... and in doing so I was not looking to describe you. I was describing what isn't the case about you.
You on the other hand want to say what is not the case about atheists, is what atheists are.
@gklr "You didn't believe in a god 2 million years ago when you didn't exist"
1 - That does not say a thing about me. Why do you constantly say things that do not say any thing??? 2 - You do not KNOW whether I believed in a god 2 million years ago. OOPS! That does not say a thing about you. It does not matter whose silly example you attempt to use. You obviously get off on the present King Of France. I must stop this for now until you have time to work out of your amorous state.
"1 - That does not say a thing about me. Why do you constantly say things that do not say any thing???"
Well it does say something, it says what is not the case... what is not real about you.
Good of you to notice! Now you may realize why "I don't believe in god" "I lack belief in god" "I am without belief in god" and "I am absent of belief in god" doesn't make you an atheist.
I use it because it is the way you attempt to describe atheists.
"You obviously get off on the present King Of France."
It's just an example of something that doesn't exist. Like using "you" for 2 million years ago. You didn't exist 2 million years ago and you didn't believe in a god and you were not an atheist.... none of which says a single thing about you... correct. Nor was it meant to. These are examples that show your grasp of what an atheist is to be wrong.
The present king of France has no memory. When you did not exist, you had no memory. Therefore the word amnesia has no meaning. We cannot forgive & forget a crime the present king of France has committed. We cannot forgive & forget a crime you committed when you did not exist. Therefore the word amnesty has no meaning.
Your faith is always tested, you lied on your testimony. God hateth liars, and you lied just as you 'converted' which is actually very shameful. Also, you seem to be biased with how religion works on people. I was an Atheist FIRST, now I'm a converted Christian that still looks up to Christ regardless of the challenges I face today. No rigid thinking involved, the church had no right to tell you not to have an education, that is total intellectual murder!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I see this video as arguing more against organized religion than theism per se. The video doesn't really match the title. The title isn't necessarily true either. I've believed in God from as far back as I can remember(earliest memories are age 3). It's true that I got the cognitive tools with which to hold a belief from parents, but that doesn't change anything. The belief made sense upon first encounter and continues to do so.
(Reposted due to its disappearance from my recent activity)
@truthtofind The belief made sense upon 1st encounter at age 3. At age 3 you were able to properly reason as to whether it made sense. That is extremely unreasonable. Did you write a physics encyclopedia at age 5? I was inclined to insist it is reasonable to assume you were born without belief in god(s) but maybe you studied religions before you were born.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Strangerinasland It's not unreasonable in the least. I think I also said "continues to do so." With my present reasoning abilities I find the God hypothesis as entirely reasonable. The abilities I had at 3 are thereby rendered irrelevant.
You was inclined or you presently are? And if it's unreasonable to assume you born without a belief in God then your words are in favor of what I said. You're not making sense man. Get yourself together and repost something coherent.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Strangerinasland Also, it's not necessary to have studied religions in order to hold a belief in God. I have noticed that overwhelmingly, when an atheist(I have nothing against atheists btw) argues strongly against theism, they are almost always arguing against the particulars of one or another rather specific description of God. It is usually against the God of their culture's predominant religion. And usually of the religion they were brought into in childhood.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Strangerinasland Finally, one thing I think is worth considering when contemplating the God question: I once had a philosophy professor ask a question as a preliminary to the question of whether or not God exists. I paraphrase: "Should we first know the qualities of something before we ask whether or not it exists, or is it OK to ask about its existence first?" I now realize that question is far more significant than I gave it credit for at the time.
Being a nontheist, or non-anything, tells us 2 things.
1. you exist
2. you are not something
2 doesn't say a thing about you. When you did not exist you don't believe in a god and are not an atheist.
The "problem" is that you are using secondary predication as if it was a primary predicate. A logical fail. You say nothing about you or about atheists by saying what they do not do. They did not do anything when they did not exist.
@gklr nice try old man, when you are born you dont belive, because you possibly could not belive, in god or anything like that, everyone is born an atheist.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@gklr Forget my last response, i was drunk and sleep deprived, anyways, what you are writing can be said in a short sentence, stretching it out dont make you look smart, it makes you look like a idiot, ANYWAYS, Can we agree on that a baby in the womb does not belive in god? keep it short please.
@MrArpas123 If God is real, I have nothing to be afraid of. I'm live my life the best way I can. I'm as good as possible. I follow the laws, I protect my friends from harm. Hell, I even protect my country. If that sends me to Hell, then I don't want to be in Heaven anyway. And if that's disobeying God, I'll take responsibility. As for no God, this actually makes me want to do more for the world and for my children. My hope is in the future that I create for the next generations.
@MrArpas123 You're right, nothing out of nothing is nothing. Evolution, the Big Bang, these started with something. Creationism started with words. Words have no mass. Words have no matter. In fact, words are nothing more than moans and groans that we have given definitions to. Laws are nothing more than rules humans have given to natural occurances and to control others. And evolution isn't random. There is a reason for every change. But once again, you avoid my questions. Answer my questions.
@MrArpas123 Why? Why should we obey someone who may or may not be real, and if he was real, has been dead for almost 2000 years. WHy should we believe in some sky/mountain/earth god when there is no evidence for it except a 2000 year old book? Why should we convert to your religion when all religions, when you dig down deep enough, are all the same?
Excuse me, how was I supposed to know? It talks about Christianity positively, and it doesn't say that he was an atheist. And why are you calling me a moron?
@Awesomeoneofawesome Did you not listen to the whole video? He had nothing good to say about being a christian. And I called you a moron for being too thick to realize it.
Now that I'm rewatching this, I'm coming across things I don't remember seeing. So what, just because of a minor mistake, that means I'm a moron? I question who really is the moron.
@Awesomeoneofawesome The fact that you had to watch the video twice to pick up on what was being said makes you a moron. You heard what you wanted instead of what was being said.
Everyone is born an atheist because babies run on instinct. Once you are smart enough to to realize you have instincts and you realize what those instincts are you're likely to be an atheist again.
So true, all are atheist before they start terrorizing us with stories of hell fire, sin, shame and fear and once they destroy your childhood and have you brain washed then the pedophile priest ass rapes you in the name of the father son and holy ghost and you go back to being atheist. It's a wild ride. Not that all Atheists have been ass raped like all republicans have.
@MrArpas123 Not believing that God exists is to BELIEVE He doesn't exist, in the same sense that my not believing pink bananas exist is to BELIEVE they don't exist.
If you do at one time or another you've likely dealt with the "monster" under the bed. Strictly speaking you can't prove there's no such thing as monsters, it's just so fantastically unlikely you tell your child "there's no such thing" and send them to bed.
Atheists feel the same way about gods. Yet if they ever say, "there's no such thing" they're quickly challenged to prove it, forcing them to define their beliefs the way they have.
Really? What does it say? Nothing. What does it refer to? Nothing.
All things are something, no thing is not something. We can use "not something" in a statement, but by itself it is not saying anything or referring to anything.
The title of your video is so incorrect. People aren't born atheist. To be an atheist requires active belief that no deity exists. Babies don't believe anything. The true default position at birth is neutrality towards God existence.
@BT3701 Atheism is a lack of belief. You misunderstand what it means, thinking that atheists believe god does not exist. Atheists don't claim a god don't exist, atheists have a lack of belief, and the reason is lack of evidence.
@KOSKentOlaf That is totally nuts. Atheism actively and positively BELIEVES no diety exists. Secondly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as Dr. Carl Sagan once said. Thirdly, polls indicate that atheists make up 2% of America's population and I seriously doubt you can trust the opinions of a mere 2% of the fringe population.
@BT3701 You need to look up what the word atheism means. Atheism means lack of belief in a deity. It does NOT mean an assertion that no deity exist. And you need to know that I live in Norway, and here 70% of the population are atheists. So I don't pay attention to opinions of anyone. I pay attention to facts and logic. And you can't say because I can't prove God does not exist, therefore it is likely to exist. I can use the same argument for santa clause. Proof doesn't work like that.
@KOSKentOlaf Sure I can say you can't prove God doesn't exist. You can only believe He doesn't exist. You're entitled to that opinion even though you can't absolutely prove it. Secondly you're incorrect when you say 70% of Norwegians are atheists, I checked it out on Wikipedia and it states that only 17% of the people of Norway don't believe any god exists. Big difference between 17% and 70%
@BT3701 I don't have to prove anything. You can't prove things don't exist, only things that do exist. There is no evidence that a god or gods exist, therefore I have no reason to believe it. That is what atheism is. And I think I know better then you and wikipedia how many norwegians believe in god. I've lived here my entire life for 31 years, so.... Norway, Sweden and Denmark are the most atheist societies you find in the world.
@KOSKentOlaf I agree that those countries are the most atheistic in the world, however as far as the percentage of atheists in Norway you would need to include the agnostics in your figure to arrive at the percentage you claim as atheist in Norway. The problem that results when you do that is that you show that you don't understand the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. An atheist states positively that there is no god, whereas an agnostic says he doesn't know if god exists.
@BT3701 Actually, most people just use the word "agnostic" incorrectly. Agnosticism is the position that it's impossible to know for certain whether a deity or deities exist ("without knowledge"), and is *not* a position on whether a deity or deities exist, only whether it can be proven. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, and a lot of people who call themselves "agnostics" are more precisely agnostic atheists.
@belladonna5012 Even so, the position of both the agnostic theist as well the agnostic atheist is that they can't know absolutely whether or not a deity exists which differs from the view of strong atheism which positively states that no diety exists. All of my replies before this one have been strictly dealing with strong atheism untainted by agnosticism.
@BT3701 Right, and then you just go right back to throwing the word "atheist" around like it "obviously" only applies to gnostic atheists, when most atheists are agnostic atheists rather than gnostic atheists. Sorry kid, point still stands: everyone's born an atheist (not a strong atheist, but an atheist nonetheless).
@belladonna5012 Obviously you refuse to acknowledge the fact that an atheist makes a conscience choice to believe no deity exists. A new born baby lacks that same conscience choice. The truth is, a new born infant is neutral, and neither believes or disbelieves in god's existence. To deny that is to ignore the facts.
@BT3701 You have no idea who you are dealing with when you argue against atheists. First you will need to accept the fact that atheism is madness, that way you can be more sympathetic to their logic and arguments.
Atheism means "There is no god" nothing more nothing less, however this is very unpalatable to atheist so they must change the meaning of the word to "lack of belief" or "one less god" etc etc continued
" You can't prove things don't exist, only things that do exist."
Nonsense. We prove things do not exist very easily. We show the object in question to be the subject of a logical contradiction and no subject of a logical contradiction can exist. A logical contradiction is expressed as P and not P at the same time, where P is a proposition.
eg: the ball that is on fire and is not on fire at the same time, cannot exist.
@007pished Most atheists I know act more friendly, thoughtfully, open and respectful; yeah - "Jesus-like", than the christians I encounter. They are more knowledgable and less discriminatory in their actions.
like many other things religion is a choice. Its a shame those choices are not given but forced on children, In my view of the world it is better to take a step back to see the full perspective of your surroundings so you can make the choice that you want to do with your life, as it is your own life and not some one else's.
"Even fake power is real in the eye of the beholder".
I'm really sorry, but since my first language isn't english and the english they teach in my flop country is only the basics, I can't understand your accent. :( But I do get some parts of the video :)
We are not born atheist, we are born ignorant; once we are given the choice of accepting divine claims, and if said person rejects said claims, THEN he can be labled an atheist.
@HouseHaunter992 Athiest is "one without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in, the existence of god or gods." the child is indeed born without belief
@HouseHaunter992 not true atheist is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Ideologies can greatly vary between atheists, for there are many ways to interpret the world without gods
@mrtadreamer What of the children born in tribes in the mountains? Far, far, away from the religion that is Christianity. Is ignorance a sin?
Define Innocence here. Children are born without the knowledge of gods. They are born believing in nothing. Isn't that Atheism? And how old is 'old enough', exactly?
@Solatee The difference between a new born child and an atheist is that an atheist actively claims there is no diety, whereas a child doesn't make any claims. A new born child is neutral in the matter of God's existence. The atheist is anything but neutral in the matter of God's existence, which proves babies aren't born atheist.
@StormAndy123 An atheist makes a conscience decision and claims no diety exists. A child makes no such conscience decision, but is neutral in the matter of god's existence. An atheist is anything but neutral.
@jeshopk Science has been since the beginning of time because science has always existed. We didn't start paying attention to science till after christ. I am not sure about the specifics but greeks were looking for ways that science can help. Religion is a concept of worship and belief and doesn't really pay a good contribution to the world. Religion has caused wars and violence. Science has solved some of the worlds worst problems.
The truth is that 2000 years ago, there was no such thing as technology or science, there were only Gods. So the people worshiped them even though they didn't exist. The people thought they were profits and did magic tricks to impress and people wrote about it. These stories are uterly fairy tales of the human mind that don't make any sense. Science is backed up by facts and religion is just an old belief. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
@yomamasapeach This is an outright lie.Look at the megalithic structures that we today can not reproduce.YOU need a history lesson on the technological advances ancient man did in fact know a lot of things that we are rediscovering today.Lets see modern man lift a 100thousand ton stone fifteen feet in the air and place it so tightly that you cant get a piece of paper between them. In short you are ignoring the facts as most atheist do.being atheist leads to being a liar in conclusion.
@clawedification Hmmm, lets see this. 2000 years ago, there were no space shuttles, there were no telescopes, there were no supercomputers, there were no tall skyscrapers, there were no laser guided missiles, there were no nukes. You are not only retarded sir, but are in need of help. BTW, I don't know what you are talking about with this 100thousand ton stone thing. You are completely irrogant like the rest of your religous friends.
@yomamasapeach I am talking about megalithic structures that are up to 6000 years old.We can not lift some of these stones today ,you are an idiot if you think these structures are not in deed not an indicate technologies unknown to us today.You are in fact ignorant and a liar.If you dont like being called a liar then dont lie,there i solved your little logic problem.I am not retarded you are not right and you are ignorant of facts.
@clawedification I don't mind being called a liar, what I do mind is people who treat me like I have no utter intelligence. If you think that technology from 6000 years ago was good, well then sadly dude, you are "retarded". The thing I was saying in my original comment is that there was no technology enough to see microbes, or see stars or make fission in reactors or fusion bombs. Sure they could lift very heavy objects but so can we today.
I have some relatives that attend huge evangelical churches. I dunno I participate in small community based churches. Basically doing tutoring programs in the area we are located because well its very impoverished and the education quality is quite low.. These evangelical churches haven't done shit for children in terms of bettering their lives and empowering them. They are getting more and more isolated from the rest of the world. I wish people could notice this.
I don't think it's actually true that everyone is born an atheist, or at least it's not true that religion is wholly instilled. Even among atheists, you can often see pseudo-religious magical thinking - Singularity and other cargo cults, misunderstandings of evolution, etc. Studies show that this kind of thinking is hardwired.
@BT3701 An atheist is often defined as someone who lacks a belief in a deity. I would say that at birth we are all atheists under that commonly used definition.
All words are defined except names and labels and they are described instead. Atheist is a label. It has no meaning at all. Atheism is a defined word with meaning. Names and labels never mean something, they refer instead.
Words mean only what they do mean... they mean nothing else. At least those with any meaning at all do. That is what they are, their definition and nothing more.... equal to their definition.
The word car is not a car. The word tree is not a tree.
Words that are not labels or names do not refer to anything at all. They are their defined meaning. They do not refer to their definition, they are the definition. Names and labels refer to things, and are not eqaul to them.
False. Names and labels are described and not defined. You cannot define "gklr" or "car". They are descibed and refer to something. Definitions refer to nothing. Defined words ARE their definition. Labels and names ARE NOT what they refer to. The word car is not car wheras defined words onlty can be what they are defined to be and are their defined meaning and nothing else.
You'd do yourself a favour by picking up Russells Theory of Descriptions, published in 1905.
I am well aware that 2 commonly used descripitions (not definitions) exist. That is the role of the dictionary, to list definitions and descriptions... indpendent of how ridiculous or illogical. I have no idea why you would consider I felt otherwise, and I think you have even less of an idea on that.
You would be better off realizing:
1. A lack of belief is not anything, so it is not atheism.
No label or name is or can be defined. Labels and names have no meaning, no definition. They are the only words that mean nothing. Things like your name, car, tree, "the president of the United States" do not mean anything at all.... they refer to an object only. They act as pointers to refer. Defined words do no such thing. A defined word means something, what it is defined to mean. Atheist means nothing, it refers. Atheism means something and doesn't refer to something else.
@gklr "BLAHBLAHBLAH BLAHBLAHBLAH No label or name is or can be defined. Labels and names have no meaning BLAHBLAHBLAH BLAHBLAHBLAH Atheist means nothing, it refers. Atheism means something"
You certainly talk a lot for not saying anything. Let us in on the joke.
@gklr You show an extreme lack of education & reasoning skills. Atheist certainly does mean something & nothing else you said made any damn sense. Your brain seems to be floating on the clouds. If what I've read on this page is a good example, you are a joke.
Why don't you educate me then and show how using secondary predication implies anything about the subject of the statement?
Every university on the planet needs your insights. Go ahead champ and you advise the world why we should ignore Bertrand Russells greatest work, his Theory of Descriptions.
Ignorance is not an argument. Neither are insults. You showed no problem in anything I said... and won't be soon.
@gklr No 1 can educate you until you change your frigging attitude. Some universities could use some insight from me. I have not checked on every 1 in the world. I am not the only well educated person, by far, who does not think much of Russell's Theory Of Description. It is not universally accepted as you imply. It is not his greatest work. YOUR ignorant ranting is not a good argument. I did show problems but it does no good with you. (cont)
"No 1 can educate you until you change your frigging attitude"
When I have to suspend the laws of logic to accomodate an agument, I render it silly. Why? Oh ya, I can prove why it is wrong. As per my attitude, I am showing why it is wrong to say atheism is a lack of belief... you should thank me... I already know why.
"I am not the only well educated person, by far, who does not think much of Russell's Theory Of Description."
The issue here is explicitly the distinction between primary and secondary predication, a small part of Russells Theory of Descriptions, which is his greatest work and I note you didn't offer something he did of more significance.
Good luck with that. Anyone arguing in opposition to the points on primary and secondary predicates is a logical buffoon. This whole matter resolves on that single issue. Nevermind the violations of set theory. You need to violate formal logic AND set theory to say a baby is an atheist.
@gklr (cont) Stating a negative does say something. Atheist means something very significant. Babies are atheist & continue to be until they decide to believe in gods, if they ever do. All the arrogant ignorant ranting you can do will not change that. You are not accomplishing anything constructive, champ.
I didn't say it "doesn't say anything".... you either completely missed the point of what I said or you have simply taken to lying about what I said. And you think you have an argument? lol.
@gklr Atheist means not having belief in god(s). No more, no less. You did say negatives do not say anything. What is your deal with all the short posts. I am not wading thru all that.
I didn't imply you did. Are you fucking 2 years old? Evidently (no comma) communication is not your forte. Grow up, no comma again, as I am not keen on taking advice from illiterate chumps like you.
You have no clue what an atheist is.... there is a better chance that a god exists than what you call atheism.
Says quite literally that atheism does not exist. "Not X" or "not having belief" is not something that exists. This is what I mean about poor logic. NOT can only be used with propositions or with a propositional function.. and "having belief in god" is neither.
You are happy with saying atheism is NOT X? Then you are saying atheism is not anything, is not something. You are saying atheism doesn't exist, since NOT X is not anything.
tl;dr
BoxxyFan 3 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Babies are not born Atheist. Because babies are born not knowing JACK FUCKING SHIT. They DO NOT BELIEVE in anything. To be an atheist or at least a strong one. You have understand the fucking concept. If anything there born agnostic. Because unlike you i dont go around acting like know it all jack asses.
Lone432345 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lone432345 Great post. So good I'll share it again for those babies who can't take it: Babies are not born Atheist. Because babies are born not knowing JACK FUCKING SHIT. They DO NOT BELIEVE in anything. To be an atheist or at least a strong one. You have understand the fucking concept. If anything there born agnostic. Because unlike you i dont go around acting like know it all jack asses.
ushoizstupid 4 weeks ago
@Lone432345 hahaha so they cannot be atheists, since they dont even know the concept of it, but can be agnostic? Talk about double-standards!
eleminatus 3 weeks ago 35
The Dark Ages are dark for a reason. History other than the Roman Catholics new shiny religion called Christianity was eradicated, assimilated and rewritten to strengthen their enslavement of the masses. The English and Spanish Crusades (under the Catholic god) to find the Holy Grail were just excuses for the termination of upstart religions and Atheists. Same with the Spanish Inquisitions and even the Salem Witch Hunts. Before that even the Romans had multiple gods.
TheCrimsonification 1 month ago 4
(cont) Rocks do not have penises in the year 6888. Neither women nor rocks ejaculate in the year 6888. If you say you have been decapitated, you are not saying anything about yourself. You did not have a head in the 6888. The year 6888 does not have a head. Has it been decapitated??? How many women can you find in the year 6888 who have heads? There is no set of decapitated heads. There is a set of nondecapitated things & a set of things outside of it.
Strangerinasland 1 month ago 32
If you say you have no penis, you are not saying anything about you. If you say I have no balls, you are not saying anything about me. If you say women do not have penises, you are not saying anything about them. If you say you did not ejaculate, you are not saying about you. If you say I did not get her pregnant or I did not have sex with that woman, you are not saying about you. You did not ejaculate in the year 6888. Women do not have penises in the year 6888.
Strangerinasland 1 month ago 40
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"If you say you have no penis, you are not saying anything about you"
yes you are, you are saying you have an empty set of penises. This is like saying you have no money.... which is far different than saying you do not have any money, which says nothing about you at all.
"If you say women do not have penises, you are not saying anything about them."
Correct. You've said what is not the case for the women, not what is the case.
gklr 1 month ago
@Strangerinasland,
"Women do not have penises in the year 6888."
Really? Where is your proof of future events? Can you tell the future too?
Magic man?
All future tense statements are beliefs. That belief is not about women, it is what is a belief about what is not the case about women. What is not the case about women is not what is the case about women.
Truly, if this mangled bit of pap is all you have, then you have no argument at all.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr You are truly hilarious. You should have a TV sitcom.
Strangerinasland 1 month ago 33
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
Well see if you had an education, you wouldn't see it that way.
Bertrand Russell wrote in 1905, ya that is 106 years ago.... that the present King of France who does not exist, is not bald. Both of those statements are not about the Present King of France.... there is no such thing.
He outlined the difference between a primary and secondary predicate... but you wouldn't know of course, you spend too much time on youtube.
Open a logic book one day.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr "you wouldn't see it that way"
That is not saying anything about me. The present King Of France exists in your ass. You must believe it exists, you are obviously devoted to it.
Strangerinasland 1 month ago 24
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
I didn't say it said anything about you. I was clear... you wouldn't see it that way... which says it is not the case that you would see it that way.
I didn't say what is the case about you, I said what is not the case about you... and in doing so I was not looking to describe you. I was describing what isn't the case about you.
You on the other hand want to say what is not the case about atheists, is what atheists are.
gklr 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"The present King Of France exists in your ass. You must believe it exists, you are obviously devoted to it."
lol.
No... actually I use the example Bertrand Russell used to show the point he made.... quite well aware there is no present King of France.
You didn't believe in a god 2 million years ago when you didn't exist.... were you an atheist then? Nope!
POOF goes your grasp of atheism then.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr "You didn't believe in a god 2 million years ago when you didn't exist"
1 - That does not say a thing about me. Why do you constantly say things that do not say any thing??? 2 - You do not KNOW whether I believed in a god 2 million years ago. OOPS! That does not say a thing about you. It does not matter whose silly example you attempt to use. You obviously get off on the present King Of France. I must stop this for now until you have time to work out of your amorous state.
Strangerinasland 1 month ago 27
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"1 - That does not say a thing about me. Why do you constantly say things that do not say any thing???"
Well it does say something, it says what is not the case... what is not real about you.
Good of you to notice! Now you may realize why "I don't believe in god" "I lack belief in god" "I am without belief in god" and "I am absent of belief in god" doesn't make you an atheist.
I use it because it is the way you attempt to describe atheists.
gklr 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"You obviously get off on the present King Of France."
It's just an example of something that doesn't exist. Like using "you" for 2 million years ago. You didn't exist 2 million years ago and you didn't believe in a god and you were not an atheist.... none of which says a single thing about you... correct. Nor was it meant to. These are examples that show your grasp of what an atheist is to be wrong.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr "BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH You didn't exist 2 million years ago"
YOU do not KNOW that, fool.
Strangerinasland 1 month ago 32
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
Were you an atheist when you did not exist?
When you did not exist you did not do anything, you did not believe in a god and you were not an atheist.
I am assuming you did not exist 2 million years ago.
Have you existed eternally?
BLAH BLAH indeed.
gklr 1 month ago
The present king of France has no memory. When you did not exist, you had no memory. Therefore the word amnesia has no meaning. We cannot forgive & forget a crime the present king of France has committed. We cannot forgive & forget a crime you committed when you did not exist. Therefore the word amnesty has no meaning.
Strangerinasland 1 month ago 47
This has been flagged as spam show
@Strangerinasland,
"The present king of France has no memory."
False. The present King of France doesn't have anything.
"When you did not exist, you had no memory"
False. When you did not exist, you did not have anything.
"Therefore the word amnesia has no meaning"
If you think that is even close to what is being argued, then you need to re-read the argument.
gklr 1 month ago
"Deists who believe god created everything and no longer exists, are atheists. Some creationists are atheists"
I do not know whether to laugh or puke.
Strangerinasland 1 month ago 46
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
Facts must be hard on you.
gklr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Strangerinasland,
"I do not know whether to laugh or puke."
It really doesn't matter either way. Puke or laugh, they are atheists.
gklr 1 month ago
Newborn babies do not collect stamps.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 21
This has been flagged as spam show
@Strangerinasland,
"Newborn babies do not collect stamps"
Nor did they 500 years before. Try to say something ABOUT the babies next time.
gklr 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It requires a logical buffoon to say babies are atheists. It is proof that whoever says so has no idea about atheism whatsoever.
gklr 2 months ago
Your faith is always tested, you lied on your testimony. God hateth liars, and you lied just as you 'converted' which is actually very shameful. Also, you seem to be biased with how religion works on people. I was an Atheist FIRST, now I'm a converted Christian that still looks up to Christ regardless of the challenges I face today. No rigid thinking involved, the church had no right to tell you not to have an education, that is total intellectual murder!
danielkirk1 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I see this video as arguing more against organized religion than theism per se. The video doesn't really match the title. The title isn't necessarily true either. I've believed in God from as far back as I can remember(earliest memories are age 3). It's true that I got the cognitive tools with which to hold a belief from parents, but that doesn't change anything. The belief made sense upon first encounter and continues to do so.
(Reposted due to its disappearance from my recent activity)
truthtofind 2 months ago
@truthtofind The belief made sense upon 1st encounter at age 3. At age 3 you were able to properly reason as to whether it made sense. That is extremely unreasonable. Did you write a physics encyclopedia at age 5? I was inclined to insist it is reasonable to assume you were born without belief in god(s) but maybe you studied religions before you were born.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland It's not unreasonable in the least. I think I also said "continues to do so." With my present reasoning abilities I find the God hypothesis as entirely reasonable. The abilities I had at 3 are thereby rendered irrelevant.
You was inclined or you presently are? And if it's unreasonable to assume you born without a belief in God then your words are in favor of what I said. You're not making sense man. Get yourself together and repost something coherent.
truthtofind 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland Also, it's not necessary to have studied religions in order to hold a belief in God. I have noticed that overwhelmingly, when an atheist(I have nothing against atheists btw) argues strongly against theism, they are almost always arguing against the particulars of one or another rather specific description of God. It is usually against the God of their culture's predominant religion. And usually of the religion they were brought into in childhood.
truthtofind 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland Finally, one thing I think is worth considering when contemplating the God question: I once had a philosophy professor ask a question as a preliminary to the question of whether or not God exists. I paraphrase: "Should we first know the qualities of something before we ask whether or not it exists, or is it OK to ask about its existence first?" I now realize that question is far more significant than I gave it credit for at the time.
truthtofind 2 months ago
Comment removed
truthtofind 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's fairly simple to see why no-one is born an atheist. Basic logic, nothing fancy.
People are born NONTHEISTS. Not atheists. If you can't tell the difference, you shouldn't be saying much on atheism.
This video misrepresents atheists and I find it to be ignorant, ill informed, illogical and simply retarded.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr being a nontheist means that you dont belive in god right? being an atheist means that you dont belive in god. what's the problem?
Svedn 2 months ago 27
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Svedn,
Being a nontheist, or non-anything, tells us 2 things.
1. you exist
2. you are not something
2 doesn't say a thing about you. When you did not exist you don't believe in a god and are not an atheist.
The "problem" is that you are using secondary predication as if it was a primary predicate. A logical fail. You say nothing about you or about atheists by saying what they do not do. They did not do anything when they did not exist.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr nice try old man, when you are born you dont belive, because you possibly could not belive, in god or anything like that, everyone is born an atheist.
Svedn 2 months ago 33
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Svedn,
Saying you don't believe tells me zero about you. That is secondary predication and is valid when you do not exist.
When you did not exist you did not believe in a god.
"Not believing in god" doesn't make anyone anything. It doesn't say a thing about anyone. You think it does and that is your error in logic.
Just repeating that error won't help.
gklr 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gklr Forget my last response, i was drunk and sleep deprived, anyways, what you are writing can be said in a short sentence, stretching it out dont make you look smart, it makes you look like a idiot, ANYWAYS, Can we agree on that a baby in the womb does not belive in god? keep it short please.
Svedn 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Svedn,
Yes the baby in the womb does not believe in a god, which says nothing about the baby in the womb.
gklr 2 months ago
@MrArpas123 If God is real, I have nothing to be afraid of. I'm live my life the best way I can. I'm as good as possible. I follow the laws, I protect my friends from harm. Hell, I even protect my country. If that sends me to Hell, then I don't want to be in Heaven anyway. And if that's disobeying God, I'll take responsibility. As for no God, this actually makes me want to do more for the world and for my children. My hope is in the future that I create for the next generations.
HimesInu 3 months ago
@MrArpas123 You're right, nothing out of nothing is nothing. Evolution, the Big Bang, these started with something. Creationism started with words. Words have no mass. Words have no matter. In fact, words are nothing more than moans and groans that we have given definitions to. Laws are nothing more than rules humans have given to natural occurances and to control others. And evolution isn't random. There is a reason for every change. But once again, you avoid my questions. Answer my questions.
HimesInu 3 months ago
@MrArpas123 Answer my questions and I'll answer yours.
HimesInu 3 months ago
@MrArpas123 Why? Why should we obey someone who may or may not be real, and if he was real, has been dead for almost 2000 years. WHy should we believe in some sky/mountain/earth god when there is no evidence for it except a 2000 year old book? Why should we convert to your religion when all religions, when you dig down deep enough, are all the same?
HimesInu 3 months ago
Wow, A Christian Video with more likes than dislikes! Keep up the good work!
Awesomeoneofawesome 3 months ago
@Awesomeoneofawesome Hey moron, this is an atheist video. He's talking about his deconversion from Christianity.
HimesInu 3 months ago
@HimesInu
Excuse me, how was I supposed to know? It talks about Christianity positively, and it doesn't say that he was an atheist. And why are you calling me a moron?
Awesomeoneofawesome 3 months ago
@Awesomeoneofawesome Did you not listen to the whole video? He had nothing good to say about being a christian. And I called you a moron for being too thick to realize it.
HimesInu 3 months ago
@HimesInu
Now that I'm rewatching this, I'm coming across things I don't remember seeing. So what, just because of a minor mistake, that means I'm a moron? I question who really is the moron.
Awesomeoneofawesome 3 months ago
@Awesomeoneofawesome The fact that you had to watch the video twice to pick up on what was being said makes you a moron. You heard what you wanted instead of what was being said.
HimesInu 3 months ago
@HimesInu
No, I was tired -- sleep deprived to be precise.
Awesomeoneofawesome 3 months ago
Name of the music please! I've heard this a few times already, but still don't know the name!
shiya3 3 months ago
Everybody is born ignorant.
pompousprick 4 months ago
Atheist are a buch of men whom love to be bossed around by the female type.
TOLTECAAZTECA 4 months ago
Comment removed
Strangerinasland 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TOLTECAAZTECA Atheist are a buch of men whom love to be bossed around by the female type."
Oh really? There are no women in that buch? Female type of WHAT???
Strangerinasland 2 weeks ago 9
Everyone is born an atheist because babies run on instinct. Once you are smart enough to to realize you have instincts and you realize what those instincts are you're likely to be an atheist again.
Al3xX420 4 months ago
@Al3xX420,
No baby is an atheist. Babies do not believe there is no god. Babies are nontheists, not atheists.
gklr 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr Babies don't believe there is no god because they don't know what god means. They don't have a religion. In other words they are atheists.
Al3xX420 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "Babies are nontheists, not atheists."
atheism=non theism
the "a" means negative. durrr?
OmfgItsHenu 4 months ago
you know that people will ask for the music in the back lol why not put the name in the description ? -.- can u kindly put it there plz?
WaytohellHR 4 months ago
So true, all are atheist before they start terrorizing us with stories of hell fire, sin, shame and fear and once they destroy your childhood and have you brain washed then the pedophile priest ass rapes you in the name of the father son and holy ghost and you go back to being atheist. It's a wild ride. Not that all Atheists have been ass raped like all republicans have.
baxtar1963 5 months ago
My story is theother way around.
13SuperKings 5 months ago
@MrArpas123 Not believing that God exists is to BELIEVE He doesn't exist, in the same sense that my not believing pink bananas exist is to BELIEVE they don't exist.
BT3701 5 months ago
So by changing the meanings of words it allows them to avoid all those ugly scientific necessities like proof and evidence.
From "Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
ozredneck22 5 months ago
@ozredneck22 Do you have children?
If you do at one time or another you've likely dealt with the "monster" under the bed. Strictly speaking you can't prove there's no such thing as monsters, it's just so fantastically unlikely you tell your child "there's no such thing" and send them to bed.
Atheists feel the same way about gods. Yet if they ever say, "there's no such thing" they're quickly challenged to prove it, forcing them to define their beliefs the way they have.
studentofsmith 5 months ago
Indoctrination of children to religion should be considered child abuse.
urbanagain 6 months ago
SONG TITLE??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??
CODEROE120 6 months ago
@MrArpas123 Not believing in something isn't a belief.
Kimosenth 6 months ago
@Kimosenth,
Not believing in something is not anything. There is no such thing as not something.
gklr 4 months ago
@gklr Logically, if A is not B, then not A is B. "Not something" is a perfectly valid statement.
Kimosenth 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kimosenth,
"Logically, if A is not B, then not A is B"
Really? By what logic? I am not you. Not you is not me. Not you is not anything.
Where X is anything, not X is not anything.
You violate propositional logic by using NOT with anything other than a proposition or a propositional function.... and "you" are neither.
There is no such thing as NOT X, no matter what X is.
gklr 4 months ago
@Kimosenth,
"Not something" is a perfectly valid statement."
Really? What does it say? Nothing. What does it refer to? Nothing.
All things are something, no thing is not something. We can use "not something" in a statement, but by itself it is not saying anything or referring to anything.
gklr 4 months ago
Seriously, what do you prove there exactly? Do you prove your nature to be different at birth than what people realise it to be later on in life?
Think about it. Religion is about believing in something, life is about being that thing.
MrSayanshaka 6 months ago
The title of your video is so incorrect. People aren't born atheist. To be an atheist requires active belief that no deity exists. Babies don't believe anything. The true default position at birth is neutrality towards God existence.
BT3701 6 months ago
@BT3701 Atheism is a lack of belief. You misunderstand what it means, thinking that atheists believe god does not exist. Atheists don't claim a god don't exist, atheists have a lack of belief, and the reason is lack of evidence.
KOSKentOlaf 6 months ago
@KOSKentOlaf That is totally nuts. Atheism actively and positively BELIEVES no diety exists. Secondly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as Dr. Carl Sagan once said. Thirdly, polls indicate that atheists make up 2% of America's population and I seriously doubt you can trust the opinions of a mere 2% of the fringe population.
BT3701 6 months ago
@BT3701 You need to look up what the word atheism means. Atheism means lack of belief in a deity. It does NOT mean an assertion that no deity exist. And you need to know that I live in Norway, and here 70% of the population are atheists. So I don't pay attention to opinions of anyone. I pay attention to facts and logic. And you can't say because I can't prove God does not exist, therefore it is likely to exist. I can use the same argument for santa clause. Proof doesn't work like that.
KOSKentOlaf 6 months ago
@KOSKentOlaf Sure I can say you can't prove God doesn't exist. You can only believe He doesn't exist. You're entitled to that opinion even though you can't absolutely prove it. Secondly you're incorrect when you say 70% of Norwegians are atheists, I checked it out on Wikipedia and it states that only 17% of the people of Norway don't believe any god exists. Big difference between 17% and 70%
BT3701 6 months ago
@BT3701 I don't have to prove anything. You can't prove things don't exist, only things that do exist. There is no evidence that a god or gods exist, therefore I have no reason to believe it. That is what atheism is. And I think I know better then you and wikipedia how many norwegians believe in god. I've lived here my entire life for 31 years, so.... Norway, Sweden and Denmark are the most atheist societies you find in the world.
KOSKentOlaf 6 months ago
@KOSKentOlaf I agree that those countries are the most atheistic in the world, however as far as the percentage of atheists in Norway you would need to include the agnostics in your figure to arrive at the percentage you claim as atheist in Norway. The problem that results when you do that is that you show that you don't understand the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. An atheist states positively that there is no god, whereas an agnostic says he doesn't know if god exists.
BT3701 6 months ago
@BT3701 Actually, most people just use the word "agnostic" incorrectly. Agnosticism is the position that it's impossible to know for certain whether a deity or deities exist ("without knowledge"), and is *not* a position on whether a deity or deities exist, only whether it can be proven. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, and a lot of people who call themselves "agnostics" are more precisely agnostic atheists.
belladonna5012 6 months ago
@belladonna5012 Even so, the position of both the agnostic theist as well the agnostic atheist is that they can't know absolutely whether or not a deity exists which differs from the view of strong atheism which positively states that no diety exists. All of my replies before this one have been strictly dealing with strong atheism untainted by agnosticism.
BT3701 6 months ago
@BT3701 Right, and then you just go right back to throwing the word "atheist" around like it "obviously" only applies to gnostic atheists, when most atheists are agnostic atheists rather than gnostic atheists. Sorry kid, point still stands: everyone's born an atheist (not a strong atheist, but an atheist nonetheless).
belladonna5012 6 months ago
@belladonna5012 Obviously you refuse to acknowledge the fact that an atheist makes a conscience choice to believe no deity exists. A new born baby lacks that same conscience choice. The truth is, a new born infant is neutral, and neither believes or disbelieves in god's existence. To deny that is to ignore the facts.
BT3701 6 months ago
@BT3701 You have no idea who you are dealing with when you argue against atheists. First you will need to accept the fact that atheism is madness, that way you can be more sympathetic to their logic and arguments.
Atheism means "There is no god" nothing more nothing less, however this is very unpalatable to atheist so they must change the meaning of the word to "lack of belief" or "one less god" etc etc continued
ozredneck22 5 months ago
@ozredneck22 Oh, I do have an idea who we are dealing with, and I absolutely agree with what you said.
BT3701 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KOSKentOlaf,
" You can't prove things don't exist, only things that do exist."
Nonsense. We prove things do not exist very easily. We show the object in question to be the subject of a logical contradiction and no subject of a logical contradiction can exist. A logical contradiction is expressed as P and not P at the same time, where P is a proposition.
eg: the ball that is on fire and is not on fire at the same time, cannot exist.
gklr 4 months ago
how can you be a truer christian if your testimony was a lie or sin if you like or bad foundation.
007pished 6 months ago
@007pished Most atheists I know act more friendly, thoughtfully, open and respectful; yeah - "Jesus-like", than the christians I encounter. They are more knowledgable and less discriminatory in their actions.
rhov233 6 months ago
Its a good title: everyone is born an Atheist.
like many other things religion is a choice. Its a shame those choices are not given but forced on children, In my view of the world it is better to take a step back to see the full perspective of your surroundings so you can make the choice that you want to do with your life, as it is your own life and not some one else's.
"Even fake power is real in the eye of the beholder".
rommelfcc 6 months ago
I'm really sorry, but since my first language isn't english and the english they teach in my flop country is only the basics, I can't understand your accent. :( But I do get some parts of the video :)
Solatee 7 months ago
Babies aren't aware of the concept of God so they can't not believe in something they aren't aware of. I am an atheist and acknowledge this fact.
idreamtofflight 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
chapter 112 Quran.com
112:1 Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
112:2 Allah , the Eternal Refuge.
112:3 He neither begets nor is born,
112:4 Nor is there to Him any equivalent."
Holy Quran the last revelation and the best description of our creator.
omerkha 7 months ago
We are not born atheist, we are born ignorant; once we are given the choice of accepting divine claims, and if said person rejects said claims, THEN he can be labled an atheist.
HouseHaunter992 7 months ago
@HouseHaunter992 Exactly. This video is silly.
CosmicGrounds 7 months ago
@HouseHaunter992 Athiest is "one without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in, the existence of god or gods." the child is indeed born without belief
StormAndy123 7 months ago
@StormAndy123 --Atheism is an opinion that has an impact on your worldview; its an ideology, not simple unbelief.
HouseHaunter992 7 months ago
I don't think Astronomical Physicists and Those who support previous theories know what their talking about. It's bias.
heartlessvietboy 7 months ago
@HouseHaunter992 not true atheist is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Ideologies can greatly vary between atheists, for there are many ways to interpret the world without gods
Dare2Blink 6 months ago
@jeshopk with no facts. They were as blind as bats. They did solve problems with health I guess but not very much as in 1000CEE
yomamasapeach 7 months ago
Children are not born atheists, they are born innocent. They can't choose to commit the sin of atheism until old enough to make that hideous choice.
mrtadreamer 7 months ago
@mrtadreamer oh n00o0o0o0o0o0o0o0ooooo0000ooooooo0o0o0 people not believing in god, what a sin.
idreamtofflight 7 months ago
@mrtadreamer What of the children born in tribes in the mountains? Far, far, away from the religion that is Christianity. Is ignorance a sin?
Define Innocence here. Children are born without the knowledge of gods. They are born believing in nothing. Isn't that Atheism? And how old is 'old enough', exactly?
Solatee 7 months ago
@Solatee The difference between a new born child and an atheist is that an atheist actively claims there is no diety, whereas a child doesn't make any claims. A new born child is neutral in the matter of God's existence. The atheist is anything but neutral in the matter of God's existence, which proves babies aren't born atheist.
BT3701 6 months ago
@mrtadreamer Athiest is "one without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in, the existence of god or gods." the child is indeed born without belief
StormAndy123 7 months ago
@StormAndy123 An atheist makes a conscience decision and claims no diety exists. A child makes no such conscience decision, but is neutral in the matter of god's existence. An atheist is anything but neutral.
BT3701 6 months ago
@jeshopk Science has been since the beginning of time because science has always existed. We didn't start paying attention to science till after christ. I am not sure about the specifics but greeks were looking for ways that science can help. Religion is a concept of worship and belief and doesn't really pay a good contribution to the world. Religion has caused wars and violence. Science has solved some of the worlds worst problems.
yomamasapeach 7 months ago
The truth is that 2000 years ago, there was no such thing as technology or science, there were only Gods. So the people worshiped them even though they didn't exist. The people thought they were profits and did magic tricks to impress and people wrote about it. These stories are uterly fairy tales of the human mind that don't make any sense. Science is backed up by facts and religion is just an old belief. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
yomamasapeach 8 months ago
@yomamasapeach This is an outright lie.Look at the megalithic structures that we today can not reproduce.YOU need a history lesson on the technological advances ancient man did in fact know a lot of things that we are rediscovering today.Lets see modern man lift a 100thousand ton stone fifteen feet in the air and place it so tightly that you cant get a piece of paper between them. In short you are ignoring the facts as most atheist do.being atheist leads to being a liar in conclusion.
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification Hmmm, lets see this. 2000 years ago, there were no space shuttles, there were no telescopes, there were no supercomputers, there were no tall skyscrapers, there were no laser guided missiles, there were no nukes. You are not only retarded sir, but are in need of help. BTW, I don't know what you are talking about with this 100thousand ton stone thing. You are completely irrogant like the rest of your religous friends.
yomamasapeach 7 months ago
@yomamasapeach I am talking about megalithic structures that are up to 6000 years old.We can not lift some of these stones today ,you are an idiot if you think these structures are not in deed not an indicate technologies unknown to us today.You are in fact ignorant and a liar.If you dont like being called a liar then dont lie,there i solved your little logic problem.I am not retarded you are not right and you are ignorant of facts.
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification I don't mind being called a liar, what I do mind is people who treat me like I have no utter intelligence. If you think that technology from 6000 years ago was good, well then sadly dude, you are "retarded". The thing I was saying in my original comment is that there was no technology enough to see microbes, or see stars or make fission in reactors or fusion bombs. Sure they could lift very heavy objects but so can we today.
yomamasapeach 7 months ago
How did Mr. Hawking fit two of every kind of animal into an infinitesimally small singularity?
JeffSMills 8 months ago
LOL, fail at the end... God never saved you :)
Stunnedshot 8 months ago
A truly inspiring video.
WaltonSauce 8 months ago
RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE ALL SICK!
ASFALT21 8 months ago
@ASFALT21 wtfff... with those assumptions i think your sick
DeaflyBlind 8 months ago
Thumbs up if your 'Happy Place' got a little wake up call at the naked Eve.
zentos20 9 months ago
I have some relatives that attend huge evangelical churches. I dunno I participate in small community based churches. Basically doing tutoring programs in the area we are located because well its very impoverished and the education quality is quite low.. These evangelical churches haven't done shit for children in terms of bettering their lives and empowering them. They are getting more and more isolated from the rest of the world. I wish people could notice this.
lordblazer 9 months ago
Thank you for bring up neurology, in my opinion it's the strongest case against religion.
ConservativeInfidel 9 months ago 20
I don't think it's actually true that everyone is born an atheist, or at least it's not true that religion is wholly instilled. Even among atheists, you can often see pseudo-religious magical thinking - Singularity and other cargo cults, misunderstandings of evolution, etc. Studies show that this kind of thinking is hardwired.
IoEstasCedonta 9 months ago
@IoEstasCedonta No one believes in a deity at birth.
AlextheTitan 9 months ago
@AlextheTitan Not a specific deity, any more than they know a specific language, but the groundwork is there.
IoEstasCedonta 9 months ago
@IoEstasCedonta I do not think that it is. Theism is brought up by fear and misunderstanding.
AlextheTitan 9 months ago
@AlextheTitan Likewise, unlike the atheist, no one disbelieves in a diety at birth.
BT3701 6 months ago
@BT3701 An atheist is often defined as someone who lacks a belief in a deity. I would say that at birth we are all atheists under that commonly used definition.
AlextheTitan 6 months ago
@AlextheTitan,
Atheist is not defined by anyone. Atheist is described. Atheism is defined.
Saying Jim lacks belief in a god is not talking about Jim (or any atheist).
A lack of something is not something.
gklr 4 months ago
@gklr Atheist is a word, and is therefore defined by many people.
AlextheTitan 4 months ago
@AlextheTitan,
All words are defined except names and labels and they are described instead. Atheist is a label. It has no meaning at all. Atheism is a defined word with meaning. Names and labels never mean something, they refer instead.
gklr 4 months ago
@gklr It is still a word and is therefore defined. I really do not see how you can continue to argue this issue.
AlextheTitan 4 months ago
@AlextheTitan,
All words are not defined. Names and labels are not defined, they are described.
Words that are defined refer to nothing, they are their definition... equal to it, nothing more than their definition. eg: atheism,
Words that refer (names and labels) have no defined meaning and mean nothing.... they describe something. They refer to a thing. eg: atheist
"Tree" doesn't mean anything, it refers to something. You cannot define a tree, you describe one.
gklr 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlextheTitan,
All words are not defined. Names and labels are not defined, they are described.
Words that are defined refer to nothing, they are their definition... equal to it, nothing more than their definition. eg: atheism,
Words that refer (names and labels) have no defined meaning and mean nothing.... they describe something. They refer to a thing. eg: atheist
"Tree" doesn't mean anything, it refers to something. You cannot define a tree, you describe one.
gklr 4 months ago
@AlextheTitan,
Words mean only what they do mean... they mean nothing else. At least those with any meaning at all do. That is what they are, their definition and nothing more.... equal to their definition.
The word car is not a car. The word tree is not a tree.
Words that are not labels or names do not refer to anything at all. They are their defined meaning. They do not refer to their definition, they are the definition. Names and labels refer to things, and are not eqaul to them.
gklr 4 months ago
@gklr You are becoming overly convoluted.It is a word and is therefore defined.
AlextheTitan 4 months ago
@AlextheTitan,
False. Names and labels are described and not defined. You cannot define "gklr" or "car". They are descibed and refer to something. Definitions refer to nothing. Defined words ARE their definition. Labels and names ARE NOT what they refer to. The word car is not car wheras defined words onlty can be what they are defined to be and are their defined meaning and nothing else.
You'd do yourself a favour by picking up Russells Theory of Descriptions, published in 1905.
gklr 4 months ago
@gklr You would do yourself a favor by accepting that you are wrong.
AlextheTitan 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AlextheTitan,
When I can prove I am right, I don't need to lie that I am wrong. I know too much to simply ignore the truth. Education saves me from ignorance.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr Please just accept that the word Atheist is defined in various dictionaries.
AlextheTitan 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AlextheTitan,
I am well aware that 2 commonly used descripitions (not definitions) exist. That is the role of the dictionary, to list definitions and descriptions... indpendent of how ridiculous or illogical. I have no idea why you would consider I felt otherwise, and I think you have even less of an idea on that.
You would be better off realizing:
1. A lack of belief is not anything, so it is not atheism.
2. Saying you lack belief says nothing about you.
gklr 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AlextheTitan,
No label or name is or can be defined. Labels and names have no meaning, no definition. They are the only words that mean nothing. Things like your name, car, tree, "the president of the United States" do not mean anything at all.... they refer to an object only. They act as pointers to refer. Defined words do no such thing. A defined word means something, what it is defined to mean. Atheist means nothing, it refers. Atheism means something and doesn't refer to something else.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr "BLAHBLAHBLAH BLAHBLAHBLAH No label or name is or can be defined. Labels and names have no meaning BLAHBLAHBLAH BLAHBLAHBLAH Atheist means nothing, it refers. Atheism means something"
You certainly talk a lot for not saying anything. Let us in on the joke.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 16
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
What you call a joke, educated people call knowledge.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr You show an extreme lack of education & reasoning skills. Atheist certainly does mean something & nothing else you said made any damn sense. Your brain seems to be floating on the clouds. If what I've read on this page is a good example, you are a joke.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 20
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
Why don't you educate me then and show how using secondary predication implies anything about the subject of the statement?
Every university on the planet needs your insights. Go ahead champ and you advise the world why we should ignore Bertrand Russells greatest work, his Theory of Descriptions.
Ignorance is not an argument. Neither are insults. You showed no problem in anything I said... and won't be soon.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr No 1 can educate you until you change your frigging attitude. Some universities could use some insight from me. I have not checked on every 1 in the world. I am not the only well educated person, by far, who does not think much of Russell's Theory Of Description. It is not universally accepted as you imply. It is not his greatest work. YOUR ignorant ranting is not a good argument. I did show problems but it does no good with you. (cont)
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 19
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"No 1 can educate you until you change your frigging attitude"
When I have to suspend the laws of logic to accomodate an agument, I render it silly. Why? Oh ya, I can prove why it is wrong. As per my attitude, I am showing why it is wrong to say atheism is a lack of belief... you should thank me... I already know why.
gklr 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"Some universities could use some insight from me"
Not on logic they don't. You'd be carried out in a straightjacket if you repeated the errors you make here,
gklr 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"I am not the only well educated person, by far, who does not think much of Russell's Theory Of Description."
The issue here is explicitly the distinction between primary and secondary predication, a small part of Russells Theory of Descriptions, which is his greatest work and I note you didn't offer something he did of more significance.
gklr 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"It is not universally accepted as you imply."
Good luck with that. Anyone arguing in opposition to the points on primary and secondary predicates is a logical buffoon. This whole matter resolves on that single issue. Nevermind the violations of set theory. You need to violate formal logic AND set theory to say a baby is an atheist.
gklr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Strangerinasland,
"YOUR ignorant ranting is not a good argument. I did show problems but it does no good with you"
The only problems you can show are loaded with poor logic. That is guaranteed.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr (cont) Stating a negative does say something. Atheist means something very significant. Babies are atheist & continue to be until they decide to believe in gods, if they ever do. All the arrogant ignorant ranting you can do will not change that. You are not accomplishing anything constructive, champ.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"Stating a negative does say something"
I didn't say it "doesn't say anything".... you either completely missed the point of what I said or you have simply taken to lying about what I said. And you think you have an argument? lol.
gklr 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"Atheist means something very significant. "
Yes, it means you have a position that there is no god. That is a belief.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr Atheist means not having belief in god(s). No more, no less. You did say negatives do not say anything. What is your deal with all the short posts. I am not wading thru all that.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"Atheist means not having belief in god(s)."
Nothing exists that is "not something". All things are things. No thing is not a thing.
I reply as I like. I didn't ask for permission.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr I did not imply you needed permission. Are 5 frigging years old or what? Evidently, communication is not your goal. Grow up, champ.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 28
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
I didn't imply you did. Are you fucking 2 years old? Evidently (no comma) communication is not your forte. Grow up, no comma again, as I am not keen on taking advice from illiterate chumps like you.
You have no clue what an atheist is.... there is a better chance that a god exists than what you call atheism.
gklr 2 months ago
Comment removed
Strangerinasland 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr You need to cut back on your meds.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 26
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
Not X, no matter what X is, is not anything.
"Atheist means not having belief in god(s). "
Says quite literally that atheism does not exist. "Not X" or "not having belief" is not something that exists. This is what I mean about poor logic. NOT can only be used with propositions or with a propositional function.. and "having belief in god" is neither.
gklr 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
Where X is anything, not X is not anything.
Where X is something, not X is not something.
You are happy with saying atheism is NOT X? Then you are saying atheism is not anything, is not something. You are saying atheism doesn't exist, since NOT X is not anything.
Thanks for "educating" me.
gklr 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland,
"Babies are atheist & continue to be until they decide to believe in gods,"
False. Babies are nontheists, not atheists. They are nontheists and nonatheists.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr Atheist & nontheist are the same frigging thing. Not a theist. Get over it, champ.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 22