Re: Why I am tired of the atheist vs theist debate

[KiDD791]

men came from semen and leave as a dust, yet they think they know everything.

[KiDD791]

Abu Hanifa debated atheists in the mosques 1300 years ago.so your wrong

[falloutmanist]

I meant to say right not weight sorry

[falloutmanist]

Look atheism is weight and theism is not don't make it more complicated

[noblepuker]

Both atheist and theist positions share a belief,and are therefore flawed.Choosing a side is fine,but arguing is pointless.A truly wise person would admit they could be wrong.....sadly,most of us 'know' we're right.

[ConnorXV]

@noblepuker atheists dont necessarily claim to know there is no god, they may accept that nothing, when using logic and reason, points towards the existance of a creator.

[jack91x]

Oh, and if you think science means that either one or the other is true, you haven't ever heard of quantum physics.

[Cootabux]

callingheyzeus

But how do u determine a miracle was true? And your premise about atheists have to be right all the time & you have to be right only once, would have merit, "if" you can demonstrate a miracle has happened. I say you cannot. Or at least, no one has done so yet. How would u know a miracle is from a god? Why not a product of technology? Can u prove it either way? No!

I'm convinced prayer doesn't work. I have seen and participated in it many, many times, yet never have seen it work.

[Cootabux]

Hold on! The atheist's position is not that god "does not" exist!! Atheist simply say I don't believe in the existence of your god, based on your inability to provide evidence for your claims that it exists.

Personally, I take the position that the "Xian" god isn't & wasn't real, based on scripture, related historical texts, and the Xians inability to demonstrate their god was/is real.

I see nothing irrational or illogical about the Atheist approach....that's why I take that position!!!

[raef235ahjx]

what about the idea that god IS the Universe? God = Universe with all content and eventually more than that ... is that something? Would explain, why i feel as god myself ...

[wathtehill]

im tired too. im not athiest nor theist

[tsferg]

@wathtehill You are either one or the other.

[wathtehill]

hihihi japp. it doesnt feel good lol :/

[tsferg]

@wathtehill ?

[DocStrange0123]

@wathtehill then just quit and let people who are not tired to continue, you just have to not watch vids you know or you think probably talk about the issue... aint that easy? ^^

[wathtehill]

@DocStrange0123 yapp

[wathtehill]

@DocStrange0123 i stoppped watch. this was the last video i watched ^^ 2 month ago

[DocStrange0123]

@wathtehill good ^^

[jjKickerK]

"For thousands of years people didn't even talk about this stuff at all."

I have to say, that is one strikingly idiotic remark. You only need a cursory knowledge of history to know that this argument dates back to antiquity. Not that I'm surprised, though. Undergraduate atheists with webcams who drastically overestimate their own knowledge seem to be a dime a dozen these days.

[CodeMercenary]

I was referring to the layperson, not the philosopher.

[jack91x]

@CodeMercenary People havbe been killing each other over these arguments for the last 10000 years. That would be lay people, not philosophers (philosophers make shitty soldiers). Your argument is invalid.

[EldonGuyre]

While exaggerated a little bit, it was a crime punishable by death in many parts of the western world for even questioning the existance of God. Yes people still discussed it knowing they would be murdered for doing so, but most did not.

[metalsaw666]

@jjKickerK I think he meant publicly, not socially. Atheists were murdered for their beliefs at one time.. Also, if you're a christian which i assume you are, You have no right to say any arguement is idiotic lol

[backgammonnn123]

actually god can be measured with science and theoretical physicists have been doing it for the last 50 years. What they foound out is that the big bang explosion had to have been an explosion of an exact fine tuning in which if any of the natural elements are off by even the most minute amount, the universe would collapse on itself. Some intelligent force had to fine tune it to perfect to create this ordered universe. This guy is obviously a biased atheists trying to mask it. not fooling me

[LETZZERO]

Your information is true right up until you propose the necessity of a fine tuner. What you said about any of the natural elements being off by a minute amount is true. But nowhere does science say that you need a supernatural dictator/creator to fine tune it. That statement is born of your bias and opinionated ideology and interjected where science no longer has the answers (god of the gaps?)

I have grown into a free thinker through rational discussion and critical thinking I hope you can too!

[backgammonnn123]

LETZZERO, sorry man this fine tuning needed to have come from a force with purpose and purpose SMACKS of intelligence. You think of him as a dictator, but the best way to look at him is someone who knows how to guide us as a loving parent would with a child. Are parents also dictators? I guess im a dictator to my dog because I keep him on a leash outside so he doesnt get hit by a car. Again this is how a child would perceive god. Not how mature people would look at it.

[HeadhunterOO7]

My name is banana!

[mtensign]

You have a powerful grasp of the logic presented in this video. I contend only that the realms of the "proven" and "measurable" are only carefully extended towards the facts. There are facts with undetailed causes where proof and measure can "flesh" these out. However, a fact is rarely completely sussed out and this finite (pauli exclusion type) behaviour in the scientific realm persists even now.

So if that were wandering, I'm getting at the very different FACTS of the theist and atheist.

[chert95]

God = supernatural. Science = natural. Test God with science = fail. Confliction of definitions.

[ViciousRanger]

God = Imaginary. Science = Natural. Test God with science = fail. Conflict of definitions.

[blue4meridian]

Both are irrational anything absolute is unprovable.

[CodeMercenary]

A statement which is itself an absolute and therefore unprovable.

[blue4meridian]

Likely, denotively unlikely connotatively. Connotation can imply 2 wrongs can make a right or 2 rights can make a wrong or any infinite combination. My position is typically connotative and metaphorical.

[joshdavidian]

I think this debate is about how much evidence, and what kind of evidence is enough to rationally believe or not believe in God. Romans 1:19,20 shows us that God believes His creation is enough evidence that He exists, and that people are without excuse. The Atheist wants enough evidence to "Prove" (perhaps scientifically) that God exicts. Therefore the ammount of evidence needed in oreder to believe is not the same for a theist and an atheist.

[redmark2007]

When we look for the truth...are we searching with open minds and hearts; or are we simply looking to juxtapose our own biases and beliefs to rationalize and justify our actions/inactions? Perhaps similiar to staring at a mirage long enough ...it becomes the truth you so desperately seek. Like Bernal's jack-ass, we stand between two bales of hay, incapable(or unwilling) to make the effort to find Truth...and consequentially...starve to death. I see the Theist vs. Atheist debate

[redmark2007]

I see the Theist vs. Atheist debate, and some of those involved in it, as willing paticipants in a "good guy vs. bad guy" circus act. Neither side willing to stop, look and listen...

[redmark2007]

....and thereby rendering their respective minds (and positions) incapable of declaring truth and/or participating in effective debate on the issue(s).

[rutschmadebugglrunna]

A clear train of thought, except for one thing: Atheism does not claim that god doesn't exist. It only rejects the idea of believing something for which no proof can be delivered - just the same way as people do not believe in a big turtle with a dragon head living up in the sky controlling the earth. Atheism is NOT a positive statement. It is a NON-statement.

[Blackfish100]

That makes no sense at all. There is no such thing as a non-statement. Logically there can be negative statements and positive statements. Atheism rejects the concept of God, which would be classed as a logically negative statement, but a statement nonetheless.

[LETZZERO]

This is a reply to your comment that atheism does not claim that God doesn't exist.

Atheism is exactly that which you say it is not. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. The definition is common knowledge, therefore if it is the belief that there is no God one who is atheist purely by being atheist is claiming the non existence of God. You say and i quote "Atheism....rejects the idea of believing something for which no proof can be delivered" where is the proof that there is no God?

[backgammonnn123]

Very well said letzzero and this definition can be found in any dictionary. Atheists dont even understand what atheism means lol

[LETZZERO]

That comment was 10 months ago, after a lot of debating I have come to my senses about a lot of things. For one, theism is defined as the belief in god, atheism therefore is, not-theism therefore disbelief in god.

That is not the same as the belief or doctrine that there is no god as that is an absolute term.

Also In my previous comment I proposed that atheists have to disprove god, which is humorous, really someone has to prove the claim before it can be disproved.

I am a free thinker now.

[backgammonnn123]

the author has decided to remove my posts because in atheism, its a dictatorship because if you dont believe what an atheist believes in he will throw a temper tantrum. Seems like the author of teh video isnt interested in a debate, just interested in keeping the biased views of his fellow atheists on here.

I have showed what atheists are about, so I have done my job

God bless lol

[LETZZERO]

In reply to your comment to me before ((not this one)) You are making the assumption that the force behind the universes beginning is a being, you are also assuming that it cares about us... In actuality most of what your saying is assumption. A dictatorship is a singular ruler or leader who is not constrained by laws rules or opposition. A parent is someone who gives birth to a child and usually cares for it, god is indifferent because apparently he gave us free will.

[backgammonnn123]

Sorry Lettzero, i was enjoying our debate as you seemed a bit reasonable compared to most atheists but since the author of thsi videokeep erasing my posts I think i will leave this video board to the atheists, as the author will only let posts from atheists that agree with him stay on.

[LETZZERO]

Sure thing, It's a shame when someone only wants to hear a one sided argument but oh well. Have a nice day.

[HoanVu]

I'm glad I'm a Deist...

[Spalg]

few atheists really say "god doesn't it absolutely" They say "There is no evidence supporting it and any evidence we do have seems to go against any theist god, so we lack a belief in god.

[iamimiPod]

When you said god can't both exist and not exist, for some reason I thought of Schrodinger's cat, both dead and alive in that little box...

[giant2rabbit3]

Ive studied philosophy and arguments that god cannot be at two places at the same time seems logical enough. However after reading about quantum physics and electrons being in many places at the same time i must confess im confused about my logic :P However as far as the cat problem and electrons are concerned its not a logical problem purse cos our answers are given through either experimenting by looking in the box or using a measurement to pinpoint an electron at time T1. Need a physicist :P

[paddyodoyle]

I dont usually post responses since all internet users are essentially strangers to one another, thus taking away some of the weight in my words, i still gotta say, keep posting videos man.

This is one of the few honestly rational, articulate and balanced videos on the debate ive yet seen, and the points you make are solid.

Unfortunately, there's still haters around like Maddog050 who make unfounded and unexpected comments based on their own personal preconceptions.

Ignore them.

[CodeMercenary]

Yep. I'm a veteren of the internet, and I'm quite aware of the existence of all of the flamers out there. I don't typically respond to points that are contrary to mine unless they are posted respectfully.

[maddog050]

Nobody wants to hear you elevate yourself above the debate while simultaneously talking in a monotone voice for what seems like too long. Your video and all videos that try to bring peace between sides or calm the debate fail and will always fail because nobody cares about your stupid self-aggrandized need to assume you are more intelligent and/or more moral than others so you feel you have the right to teach them a lesson

[CodeMercenary]

Ooo, you're an angry dog, aren't you?

[arknihil]

lol. i'd think that from your standpoint, you have a lot of videos to go post something to the effect of this comment on. which was about as arbitrary as can be...

[Blackfish100]

In your little bag of goodies I find baseless assertions, generalization, ad-hominum, argument from popularity (I don't think you have a clue what other people think however) and logical bankruptcy. Got anything else you'd like to share with us?

[prefan21]

Fantastic video. You're succinct in your arguments.

[CodeMercenary]

Thanks for the complement. Hard to get any appreciation around here.

[fuzzybyte]

great video

[fuzzybyte]

great video

[opinionhead444]

Duh, choice!

Can't we leave it at that?

[CodeMercenary]

If we don't ever talk about this stuff, then mutual hatred ends up being the result. If we "leave it at that," as you recommend, then no misunderstandings are ever resolved.

[opinionhead444]

I despise the debate because it prolongs the war and the evangelists seem to thrive on it. Since the incompatibility seems mutual, don't they have the critical thinking skills necessary to cease and desist? I am a skeptic as well but I don't feel like my rights have been violated. Religious topics are not discussed in polite company and I have no problem with it. To me, the conflict is an illusion and it occurs to gain more views for all the players involved.

[CodeMercenary]

I post my videos because it's a topic that I find interesting, not for views (you can see I don't have many). The problem isn't with the religion itself, but the fact that religion is often used as a carrier for hatred, intolerance, and ignorance of all varieties. This is why discussions about these topics is important.

[opinionhead444]

You make good points. I am in agreement. Religion has been both a stunting influence on mankind and yet it has brought us many things of note. Maybe the dialogue should continue but it seems really difficult for most participants to stay on topic. I guess it shows how little regard they actually have for the rules of debates itself.

[CodeMercenary]

They don't know how to debate, most of the time, but they will never learn to discuss things rationally if they never talk about it.

[alddaedroth]

Do you not think that there is problem with religion in and of it self? There is. Religion is an idea. Humans use this idea in order to comfort themselves. Guess what? A shot of heroin in the arm doesn't fix a collapsed lung. Similarly, religion will not heal a dead spirit. So, wanna talk philosophy? (BTW, I noticed a couple of flaws in your "correction" of foos, but no biggie.)

[alddaedroth]

Sorry, once again. I know I'm probably getting annoying by now, but if I may: I second that.

[kanifox]

Khayav wasn't saying as much that it is futile (though he speculated that it is), as much as he was saying that the way most everybody goes about it is futile. I think he was saying that two people with different views tend, for whatever reason, to focus more on why THEY're right than on finding out WHAT is right. I don't think anybody could be so convinced of their viewpoint that it justifies the usual animosity in debate, I think there is something more at work. My guess: Pride

[CodeMercenary]

But as I said before, even if people aren't convinced of one another--and even if debate is ineffective at finding "the truth," at the very least, you'll come away with a better understanding of what the other person thinks. That alone is enough to justify a debate.

[kenyanthinker]

Jesus is the only way to the knowledge atheists seek. Dont look so far away. He alone is the way to truth. Science is a crapload .

[CodeMercenary]

Funny that you use a tool of science to argue against science.

[alddaedroth]

Oh, and sorry for interrupting, but what the heck is a "tool of science"? Science is a method of gaining information. Unless some foo came up with a new definition...

[hatedebate]

Nothing you are tlaking about have anything to do with what the other guy Khayav was talking about. And you obvious were not listening to what he said, insteed you roved his point.. your a dumbass. I win the debate.. See what I did there?

[CodeMercenary]

I just blocked you from commenting on my videos again. See what I did there?

[laura835]

I think that Khayav is only expressing his frustration with the debaters.

[n0vaca1n3]

[continued] Incase I wasn't clear with my response, what I meant was the universe hasn't always existed.

[n0vaca1n3]

Science can't measure what you can't sense, which automatically makes it an inaccurate tool of decision, because there's always the unknown. From a Logical point, if the universe had a beginning, it mustv'e had a primary cause, if it had no primary cause then it would have no primary time of existence and thus exist for eternity. Fact: It doesn't.

[CodeMercenary]

Your causal reasoning requires that causuality be universally valid. If it isn't, then your reasoning fails. Fact: Quantum physics does not obey classical causuality.  Therefore, an uncaused event can exist. Finally, the universe's age is finite, but it has always existed because there is no point in time at which it did not exist.

[n0vaca1n3]

Clearly you've never heard of superstring theory. The properties of any quantum particle are determined by the various ways that a string can vibrate- which perfectly obeys causality. Quarks and electrons, and all other particles, have specific vibratory patterns that establish their uniqueness.

[n0vaca1n3]

You also made the presupposition that it's impossible to exist without time. Time is simply what allows change to occur. The universe could've existed as an infinitely small, dense point until something caused it to explode. It all boils down to the most simplistic logic: something can't come from nothing.

[petrsakharov]

Read Feynman's "Six Not-So-Easy Pieces". You're full of sound and fury, kid, and that's about it.

[petrsakharov]

You mean to say that you understand string theory? Please.

[darktango78]

Great video. One thing though, an atheist doesn't necessarily believe there is no god. One can simply not believe in any of the deities (Zeus, Thor, Jebus, etc.) thus proposed are unlikely to exist.

Given a proposition you are not obliged to choose between belief in it or its negation. Say I show you my closed hand. Do you believe I'm holding a pebble? Do you believe I'm not holding a pebble? The rational position is to have no prior belief.

[CodeMercenary]

Typically, atheism is regarded as an active choice. Given the proposition, you actively choose not to accept the proposition. As far as the pebble is concerned, I'd never considered that you might be holding one or even that it was relevant until you mentioned it. If I actively decided to deny that you had a pebble, then I might be called a pebble-atheist; however, failing to accept that you had one amounts to the same thing.

[darktango78]

The point is you are not obliged to have a positive belief on the truth value of every proposition.

Do you belief that the tree in your backyard has exactly 10,154 leaves?

The common atheist position is that the deities proposed thus far are unlikely.

Sure you can't prove there is *isn't* a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars. So do you believe it's there?

[CodeMercenary]

Your argument is only valid if the proposition that god exists is an uncommon one. I don't have any opinion regarding the proposition "There are 10,154 leaves on the tree outside"; however, my exposure to the God hypothesis has been so extensive that to say I don't have an opinion on it would be, for me, to be personally dishonest--and yet, in spite of my opinion that there is not a God, I can still call myself an atheist.

[darktango78]

We basically agree.

In my case, I'm fairly certain the Christian God does not exist.

As for any and all gods, good, evil or neutral, well, I have to say, I don't know. But given that I don't actively believe in any given deity whose will we know and follow, that makes me an atheist.

My point is, you don't *have* to be absolutely convinced there is no god what-so-ever to be an atheist. Not believing in any given deity is enough.

Anyways, this is just semantics :)

[CodeMercenary]

I think you're right--we do basically agree. It may be tempting to dismiss the apparent disconnect as simple semantics...but there are connotations attached to the word "atheist" as there are connotations attached to the words "sinner" and "True Christian" and so forth. Unless we have a precise definition on which we agree (and I think we have), meaningful discussion is impossible.

[BruceGiron]

there's nothing rational or logical when it gets to the question what made it that made it, unlike if one asks if I throw the ball up will it land back down, no matter how much logic you try to push it can never be asnwered and is beyond our comprehension and ends up in belief, not to mention it's not crazy to believe there is a devine creator for this creation which is our universe

[CodeMercenary]

I didn't really understand what you are trying to say. And who is "that black guy who made that video"?

[BruceGiron]

that black guy who made that video is missing the point of the debate it was about all exchanges opinions for reasons why they choose to believe what they believe on both parts, of course they can or can prove anything

[darthprio]

"Little bit of tension"? 

lol.

[sidelingscroll]

Scientific method=western philosophy and logic, whereas the Bible is an Eastern book. If you say no to this statement then you haven't taken an Eastern Philosophy course or read a book.

And as for the first part, you're wrong about the debate. Because like he said, people aren't looking for the truth, their looking to prove themselves right. Science is falsifiability, people are 'provability', called confirmation bias. Therefore the scientific method hardly applies.

[CodeMercenary]

Your point was kind of hard to understand. Science is based on the idea that people each try to prove themselves right, but also that they are willing to admit defeat--and sometimes, scientists are willing to do just that. Science is constructed precisely to eliminate confirmation bias. If the scientific method doesn't apply, then whatever it is you're discussing cannot be real.

[nightshade44637]

Thank you. A well made point.