4 atheist fallacies?

[WhatSayestThou]

Athieism is a religion unto itself. And that's all I got to say about that.

[australianresistance]

The thing is Theologians don't use the Bible to prove the Bible. They find out why the Bible is reliable and then use it. nomsayin

[live4bass]

i use star wars to prove you have microbiological cells that can control objects and create lighting in you :P if that's not completely retarded to you might need to take a formal logic course... circular logic isn't logic that's why it's circular... it does not prove itself nor does it say anything about the real world using the bible to prove the bible is just such logic.

[blazearmoru]

MAKE MOREEE

[blazearmoru]

haha

[chrisinsocalif]

Another dumb act creationists make is saying "Disprove the existence of god!" IF you say that as a part of your argument, you are stupid. You cannot Disprove something that doesn't have proof to disprove, hence the term. Get it?

[skud9999]

The bible says God gave us free will. Either believe or not. There are cases for both sides. Both have highly intelligent people proclaiming theirs is the right view. You give credibility depending on your preferences. Atheism is an un observable by science, unless attain all knowledge of all things to know that there isnt a God somewhere out there. Christianity is primarily a personal revelation...also not observable by science.

"Proof" is up to you...just like the bible says.

[TheFounderUtopia]

@skud9999

Atheism is not the position that there is no god, but a lack of belief in a god. It requires no proof because there's no claim being made; god MAY be real, and you'd still be atheist until it gets proved.

Secondly, you say that christianity is a personal revelation, not observable by science, but can you tell me what science IS? In order to assert that science lacks the properties required to fulfill a certain criteria, you must first know what properties it DOES have.

So, can you?

[VenomOXP]

@skud9999 with all due respect, that is a big load of bullshit. "Proof" is not merely an interpretation. You fail to realize that the onus of proof... the BURDEN on proof, lies with the person who claims to know. In other words, atheists claim not to know. theists claim they do know. Therefore, the burden of proof defers to the religious. They have no proof, and thus by the rules of logic [and occam's razor] we do not make assumptions without sufficient evidence. Only MAGIC can do that ;)

[RetardRage99]

arguing about religion on the internet is funny as hell. sometimes i'll barge into a flamewar between atheist fags and jesus freaks and back one side for a while, then do a 180 and start backing the other and half the time neither side even notices lol

[RoyalBaller9]

This only appears to be a fallacy because of the way we organize the Bible in our current society. The Bible is made up of 66 DIFFERENT BOOKS. It has different books, different writers, written in different years, and was divinely inspired.

[JoshPowersProduction]

All I want... is what I have coming to me. All I want... is... my fair share.

[ammoMtaFoY]

The Christian side of the argument has been beaten to a pulp over and over again. Atheists have been winning the debate so consistently and for so long that we have earned the right to say "You're wrong, you stupid Christians." Until you guys can come up with a solid argument, you should expect us to say things like that.

[ammoMtaFoY]

Besides, if you were paying attention, you'd notice that this video actually did make an argument. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, because that's circular reasoning.

[ischulz]

To quote Stephen Colbert: "Every word of [the Bible] is true. And we know that every word of the Bible is true because the Bible SAYS that every word of the Bible is true, and if you remember from earlier in this sentence, every word of the Bible is true. Now, are you going to talk sensibly or are you just some kind of mindless zealot?"

[mjklable]

@ammoMtaFoY why is it not possible? Please explain because i`d like to understand that.

[ammoMtaFoY]

@mjklable Let's say that I wrote a book saying that leprechauns exist. Then, when you ask why I make those assertions, let's say I cite that book as evidence. That would be a logical fallacy on my part. The same applies for the Bible. Saying that "The Bible is right because the Bible says so" is an error in logic.

[RoyalBaller9]

This is a very ignorant video. Also, something that atheists do is the too use the Bible, which they're trying to disprove and don't believe, in order to show you that it is false. In other words, they hypothetically affirm different parts in the Bible in order to try and disprove other parts, its a very irrational way of arguing.

[RoyalBaller9]

It is not circular reasoning. The problem is that atheists tests for truth are irrational and don't ever end up asking the right questions. Atheists should ask is for proof of the divinity of the Bible not just tell people not to use it. If they think it is the word of God than the logical response wouldn't be "You can't use the Bible to prove this other thing in the Bible." Christians believe that the Bible was inspired by God so they obviously can use it in their arguments

[KosAAAGH]

Your committing a fallacy - attacking the person, not the argument. Try proving her wrong!

[Letsmakeasamich]

Holy shit that was like seven months ago! I'm an atheist now, decided fairy tales for adults just weren't for me.

[RealityBend]

using the bible to prove the bible is a base assertion fallacy,

[myintellectualjourny]

(3)

If he came today, he wouldn't do an ascension... "ah, you guys know it's just the moon and stars up there. What am I gonna do, make a pit stop and get a pic of me with the American flag up there? I'm just gonna do a nose wiggle and disappear." (I dream of genie style.)

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Ok and this proves what?

[mickblock]

You were making sense until the second part of your no.(2) post. Then something weird happened and you started talking funny.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Also, I am not saying the Big Bang theory is correct either, however the Bible does not say anywhere it did not happen, nor does it say that there is no God.

However, no one saw how humanity began, so if are 100% posotive the big bang occured, please be more open minded, don't fool yourself, again no human is all knowing. ;p, sometimes our egos get the best of us.

[ptica11]

my hypothesis about nature of energy contradicts your claim that bible is word of god. my idea is not affraid of scientific investigation and is subject to change. also my idea does not impose any standard of behavior and judgment. once you introduce god possessing specific qualities and intertwine him with history you have to justify your claim. xtian ideas of god who is his own father and son sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself are too fantastic to be taken seriously

[ptica11]

"Big Bang theory is correct either, however the Bible does not say anywhere it did not happen"

see my abreviation of creation story. where is there a hint of big bang? if you follow chronology of the bible this planet is no more that 10000 years old. we have planty of evidence that points to universe being bilions of years old. bible is not compatible with science

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

No its not too fantastic to you first comment, simply put a lot of things in life are extremely fantastic, and better than us.

When it comes to year again, this was a translation, year does not always mean the Gregorian year, there are several definitions of year, though most are something to do with 365 days, or 12 months, they were not always what todays world calls them.

[ptica11]

HIIMYOUTOOB,

are you proposing that we do not need god to explain what is?

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Well technically speaking yes, but no.

I am just stating that other languages have other means for words, and our own language has many meanings of single words, so who are we to say exactly what one word should or should not mean? None of us wrote the Bible.

[ptica11]

so basically there is no way we can use the bible as proof for anything.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Why is this? I never stated anything of that nature.

[ptica11]

i based my conclusion on following statement of yours:

"...so who are we to say exactly what one word should or should not mean? None of us wrote the Bible"

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Well one person can not just say that their interpretation of the Bible is absolutely the best and trumps everyone else's, however in terms of general things yes we can, but again you are not John, and I am not Luke. So neither of us know exactly what one was thinking, in terms of grey line ideas.

I am not some egotistical bastard who is gonna sit here and say everything I am saying is the only way, but neither should anyone else, that is what I was saying. That does not mean there is no proof.

[ptica11]

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness. Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans. Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land. Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars. Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds. Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves" (Living Bible). Day 7: God rested.

Of course this is what big bang theory is based on wow i am so impressed

[BlasphemyBaby]

Your channel comments indicate you're not a theist... and yet...?

Just in case you're not being sarcastic, Big Bang theory is based on microwave background radiation, redshifting stars, common elements, dating techniques... and more.

Channels like DonExodus (a Christian), ProfMTH, Extantdodo, Potholer54, and other educational channels are much better at describing it. Check them out if you get the chance.

[ptica11]

BlasphemyBaby,

i was just having fun HIIMYOUTOOB and his assertion that big bang theory is compatible with biblical creation story. I am not an atheist but also do not buy into any personal god mythology. all is but energy and what if that energy is inherently intelligent?

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

A smart man once told me, he thinks that God is energy, what else is everywhere at all time, All knowing, and Can not be created or destroyed. These are all the qualities of a God.

It seems plausible to me, however I am not going to defend it, but yet it does make a good deal of sense.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

I can keep going on, but you either gonna get it or not at about this point, so just tell me IF you do want me to go on, but I would suppose by now its either burnt out, or you get it.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Nope.

The problem with "science" in the Bible is that they never find the "science" stuff until after SCIENCE has discovered it... meanings it's all just interpretation.

And "then it would be too easy?" Are you kidding? "You don't pull random interpretations out of your butt, so you get to SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL." Uh-huh. Real loving deity you got there, bud.

Please, check out ProfMTH, DonExodus(a Christian), Potholer54, and ExtantDodo, and get educated. THEN, come comment here again.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

God does not hate, Hell is when someones soul is consumed by the devil(Satan, yeah I know hes fake too this is why the exorcist is based on a true story.) so much that any love God sends that persons way is too painful for them to feel.

And its about a test, we had a chance to live in a perfect world, that didn't work out, so now we have to prove our worth, and face the danger.

[ptica11]

it does not make it easy to come up with one as everything is up to individual interpretation

[myintellectualjourny]

(1)

Hell is an idea that evolved out of Judaism mixing with other cultures. You don't see an emphasis on the afterlife or the mention of the idea of something like Heaven or Hell until the latests books of the Old Testament.

[myintellectualjourny]

(2)

The idea of Hell being like a place where the fire never ceases comes from the place outside the Jewish city called Gehenna (a real place.) Heaven started about being up in the sky, aka where Jesus flew back to after rising from the grave (presumably making a quick stop by the moon before vanishing/teleporting back to the real heaven, apparently)

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Then God said, "let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Now I'm not gonna say King James translated things 100% correctly, so probably letting waters divide from waters should have been translated as molecules, liquids, not many molecules were known well back then. So let the molecules divide in the sky/expanse/firmament. Hmm, Big Bang theory suggests that molecules started out very basic, Hydrogen and Helium, then got more advanced.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

And when you say, well its not obvious enough, ya if it was then everyone would just be Christian, making it too easy, and anyone who was Christian not really know what it was or why, does it take a lot of brain power to understand things in the Bible? You bet it does.

It has to be hard to, or else no one would actually have to put any devotion into something other than themselves.

[hastati88]

i did not understand a word you said but it all made sense

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Saying stop using the Bible to prove the Bible is like saying stop using the Dictionary to prove words, its just a horrible argument.

[JonathanClement140]

FAIL.

[SilverKytsune]

You seem to misunderstand the use of a dictionary as a tool.

Language and word use exist independently of dictionaries, which exist as catalogues of current (and historical) word usage. They don't "prove" words, they simply act as records of how they're used to help standardize usage.

Also: "The Bible to prove the Bible" != "the dictionary to prove words." Notice an asymmetry here? Maybe you mean "the dictionary to prove the dictionary" since that would be actually equivocal.

[SilverKytsune]

That was, of course, to HIIMYOUTOOB (below). Wow, these comments are difficult to wrangle.

Furthermore: when has anyone ever used a dictionary to prove the dictionary's own validity? If a dictionary's catalogue of a word's usage is incorrect it gets updated in the next version. Or haven't you noticed this?

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

You seem to misunderstand me though, I'm not saying the Bible has to be used to prove the Bible, do I believe what it says, yeah its just a difference in connotation that allows one to understand it.

Me stating stop using the dictionary to prove words, is the same type of idea, its just not a usable argument.

Here I'll use a better example, if I were speeding and a cop told me to pull over I would say stop using the law, to enforce the law.

[supajasiu]

Missed... what she's trying to say is stop using the Bible for arguments " I know that the Bible is true!" " Yeah? Well how so?" " Because it says so in the Bible."

Which in fact is a logical way of thinking that hurts my brain.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

But that is bullshit, because then you can say stop using history books to prove history, it is the only thing we have, so it is all we can go with, so I guess that a lot of things can be thrown out.

Here I will re use your example. "I know the black Plague occurred.""Yeah? Well how so?""Because it says so in my history book."

This logic can be applied to anyth

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

thing.

[supajasiu]

Besides a History book states that Events ocured, not that History is true... 2:0 for Athiests so far

[BlasphemyBaby]

Yep, it can be applied to anything, and that's the problem.

For example, the Lord of the Rings series says it's a legitimate history of the world. How do we know it's legit? Well, because it says so!

The difference between the Bible/LotR and history books lies in the CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. The history books say that WWII happened, as do many letters, photographs, documents, etc OUTSIDE the history books.

[BlasphemyBaby]

With all this taken into account, it is reasonable to agree that WWII happened. Sure, there's the .0001% chance that it didn't, and everything was planted, or whatever. But it's a reasonable assumption.

LotR does not have as much evidence. There are some videos, some other histories (the simorilian, or however it's spelled). The Bible doesn't even have THAT. It has, what, Josephus? And that's it?

You need corroborating evidence; it's as simple as that.

[ptica11]

BlasphemyBaby, Josephus account of jc is a proven forgery.

no respectable scholar will consider it.

[supajasiu]

Missed - History books are supported by many researched that prove it - like we know the blacm plague existed becouse many things support it - the increased amount of deaths, family stories, Royal documents, and so on - true the writeing can be false, but why would people lie about it? No logicla reason to do so. The Bibla is supported only by itself, and blind faith, and it could be a lie becous of the purpose of people beliveing a new religion.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

There is some other evidence as well, like broken pieces of the cross and other stuff Jesus wore, sure that could be a lie too, but its just as likely as someones letter I dont believe that its a lie, however it proves the man Jesus Christ and that he was crucified.

The thing about the Bible is it matters about the connotation and denotations of words, most Christians don't even understand much of the Bible, but thats what you get when you have something from a totally different era of speech.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Then you translate it from other languages, into English, which itself is a mut.

But yeah I saw some poll on NBC and 60% percent of the people who answered it thought that the earth was made in six 24 hour days. The third meaning of day is a 24 hour period not the first or second. Plus the earth was created on the third "day" so what measured the first two, and this argument doesnt really matter to you, but still it makes me disgusted when some Christians believe this. Apparently most do.

[supajasiu]

Did I mention that it was nearly proves that if you took all the " splinters from Christ's Cross" and " peaces of Christe's robes" from when they wore mass sold in medevil times, you could knit a 500km peace of cloths, and build a huge forest? Again, just that someone finds a peace of wood in his backyard and then goes " hear ye hear ye, this is the splinter from christ's cross!" still doesn't make it legitimate fact, and at the same time, doesn't prove any other fact.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Yeah I knew a lot of fake ones were sold, but many real items from the time period of Christ still exist, I know a lot of scammers back then sold shit to make money, but it still does not mean that there were not real ones.

[supajasiu]

Yeah its not sure - its just probable in 99% :P

[ptica11]

HIIMYOUTOOB, cool so some parts of the bible are true some are false. but some are true but there is no way to tel which is which

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

No, I never said a single thing in the Bible was false, Im just saying a lot of people will lie, to make up miracles, and other crap in todays world, example, Benny Hinn, that guys an absolute fake, I'm not one of those people you see on TV worshiping Benny Hinn, I worship God, because unlike most people I see that there are things in this world better than me and I accept it, and I am not afraid that something out there is more significant than I can ever be, I wont deny it to gain signifigance

[ptica11]

so people lie now but they did not lie in biblical times. that does not make any sense

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

So maybe some lies got in it, big deal, still does'nt defeat the fact that most (Pretending not all is true) is truth. But you were not there, neither was I, all we have is accounts from those that were, and I believe that out of the houndreds and thousounds of accounts, some had to be real, if they werent they why did they Crucify Jesus? They were scared shitless of him, so if they were'nt then Jesus was an illusionist 10x better than Houdini. But its my belief that they were.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

There are some other things that make the Bible very evident, the fact that much of it falls in line with science, sure I know you don't think it does, but that is again because today not many people really get the connotations of words anymore, Like say day, period of darkness to light, not 24 hour period, I will say again, the earth created in 6 days means periods, and look each period follows scientific theory, so maybe the Bible kind of makes that theory just a little bit more viable

[ptica11]

HIIMYOUTOOB, "...the earth created in 6 days means periods, and look each period follows scientific theory,..." what scientific theory?

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Big Bang.

[ptica11]

"..Big Bang." would you mind explaining in deail as i do not see any relation what so ever.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Sure I can explain in detail, *Clears throat*, Then God said, "Let there be light", and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

So, this is the start, nothing but darkness, and bam, there is an immediate explosion, what do explosions cause? Light. Ok next day.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

Lets see also on the first page of the Bible going in order, God created sea creatues of and every living thing that moves with which the waters abounded, then birds and every winged bird according to its kind, then cattle and beasts according to their kind, and then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likenss..."

So is this us, and Our, just God talking with the previous animals he created? Does this mean man is like them?

We know they came b4 us, we know were like them.

[HIIMYOUTOOB]

So are we like them because of evolution? I dont know maybe, that could be it, we also know that every animal has very similar DNA make up to our own, so either way yes we are like the animals of the earth.

[ptica11]

HIIMYOUTOOB, what is your point here?

[DawrelFIN]

Nicely put.

[MrFlopz]

Atheist southpark girls FTW

[miianwilson]

Stop using the bible to prove the bible! haha so true.

[dcraigwise]

If the Bible had never been written there would still be God and 1000"s of ancient araticles to prove it. The Bible is just a very brief compilation of those wdritings. So, you don't need a Bible to prove God exists! Also in the beginning there was no evil that came about when the serpent decieved Eve into wanting Adam and herself to have all knowledge. Or you can arague the fallen angel brought evil into this world.

[shadyparadox]

Uh... what? This video is irrelevant to the one you responded to.

The point of his video was that the God issue should be approached differently than the Easter bunny issue.

The Easter bunny, if he exists, would only occupy one tiny fragment of reality.

God, if he exists, would be relevant to all reality. Everything you see would be a way to peek into the mind of the creator.

The two issues are NOT equivalent, even though many atheists try to spin it that way.

[drdirs]

No, it relates perfectly. Recap of the original video:

1) You can't compare Christianity to other religions because only Christianity is true.

2) Causality refutes God, but that's OK, cause according to dogma, he's beyond causality. And for "some reason" (see: Holy Bible) only God can be beyond causality.

3) The problem of a good god creating evil is solved by a strictly religious notion of free will.

4)

[drdirs]

... (4) God seems to be a psychotic demon who delights in the suffering of innocents, but even though that IS the case, God has every right to do all these insanely evil things, because his morals are perfect. The Bible says so, remember?

You can pretty much sum it all up as "the Bible is true because it says it's true".

[drdirs]

Also, while you can correctly point out that Christianity differs from Santa and the Easter bunny and even the FSM because we know these to be fictional characters, but how does it differ from actual religions that are or have been seriously practiced, such as Norse mythology?

He did mention Thor, after all, and although Thor isn't the creator god in his pantheon, Norse mythology is not lacking in that respect. In fact most established religions have creation stories.

[shadyparadox]

It appears that you, like most people, assumed beforehand that this guy was trying to convince us of the truth of his religion.

I don't see it. It looks to me more like he's merely attempting to answer philosophical questions about the framework of his religion, rather than actually trying to prove its validity.

For example, with 3) and 4), he's trying (poorly) to answer the question "How can a good God allow evil?" This has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Christianity.

[drdirs]

That's true, but he does fall back on his own religion, which means he completely fails to address the atheistic concern. It's illustrated most clearly in the first claim he tries to dispel as a logical fallacy. Essentially "whatever the possible necessity for a creator of the universe, how can you know YOUR faith is better than any other?" is supposedly a fallacy, because the Bible says his God is the creator.

[drdirs]

So yeah, he's not trying to prove the Bible, but in his efforts to disregard legitimate questions as "fallacies", that's all his video amounts to: saying the Bible is exempt from criticism because it's the inspired word of God.

At least that's what I got from his video. Was hoping for more, anyway. ;)

[dcraigwise]

Mythology is written after being handed down verbally generation after generation and then finally written. The Gospels were written (as more recent archeolgy finds prove) during the life time of the apostles - therefore NOT mythology.

[damaniseman]

Wrong, it is the belief in a myth. therefore mythology

[andytoz]

From what philos said he was only really making an attempt to prove that the concept of a creator cannot be compared to the likes of santa and the easter bunny. But to suggest that the creator is above this comparison, therefore so is Yahweh is the true fallacy here. If proof could ever be found that the universe was created, that wouldn't lend a shred of validity to any religion that claims to know who and/or what god is.

[shadyparadox]

Yeah, I understand that you can't make a valid argument that way.

But if all someone says is, "You don't have a proof for your beliefs either!", you can't tell yet whether they're running into the fallacy you are describing, or if they are merely pointing out that beliefs in general, including those of their opponents, don't require proofs.

[andytoz]

Point taken. Though I do feel uncomfortable lumping together beliefs based on faith and beliefs based on reasonable evidence.

[JimmyFaust]

Santa and the Easter Bunny ARE the creators. No one has ever proven this fact to be wrong.

[yodamaster914]

LMAO so true nd i love the charecter

[southparkfan12345678]

so true

[estefez]

The best evidence against the Judeo-Christian God is the source for that very belief: this "God" is one of thousands of "God's" from thousands of religions from thousands of cultures.

Humans have a biological tendency to create religions and deities based on their environment and history (why do you think snow is never mentioned by God?)

Humans also have a genetic predisposition to be subservient pack animals- that's how society evolved. Religion is the extreme effect of this.

[effyleven]

""(why do you think snow is never mentioned by God?)""

errr.... Because snow is the work of the DEVIL ???!!! ;-)

[thenollie3]

that makes Eskimos demons

[SparkyFore]

this vid is stupid because the only argument an athiest can have is one that disproves christianity (for example) because how can you prove the non-existance of somehting?

[sudburylawyer]

no the vid makes a good point. And for the record, the burden of proof is always on the person postulating the existence of something.

[shadyparadox]

There is no "burden of proof" on anybody.

This is a very subtle point. If you don't have proof of your own beliefs in the first place, then something as strong as a "proof" isn't required to convert (in fact, such a thing is vaguely defined anyway). All one would need to show is that the alternate belief system shows a better explanation of reality than the one you currently adopt.

[shadyparadox]

Asking for a "proof" of a belief system is like asking for a squared circle.

The lack of "proof" is inherent to all belief systems and has nothing specifically to do with "the existence of God".

[andytoz]

While I understand what you're saying, it doesn't invalidate the "burden of proof" argument, after all this argument only ever comes up when a believer challenges a non believer to prove them wrong. As you say, proof is not required to believe. But to believe without proof and then challenge someone to prove you wrong, knowing it can't be done, is so incredibly flawed. And then to take their inability to prove you wrong and use it to reinforce your own faith as being valid is even worse.

[TheThomaswastaken]

We don't have to disprove the non-existence of omniscient unicorns. Why would we have to disprove omniscient santa clause?

[scottyfett]

this isnt science... matter cannot be created or destroyed right? how can some stupid dot explode and create all this?

[BlasphemyBaby]

It wasn't an explosion; it was an expansion... and just because they don't know all the details (though they're working on it) doesn't mean they should throw out all their evidence.

Think about what YOU believe. Not only do you believe something came from nothing, you believe that something to be friggin' SENTIENT. A big hunk of matter spontaneously coming into existence is, though unlikely, still a heck of a lot more plausible than an omniscient entity coming into being like that.

[SparkyFore]

actually theres also a theory (im using the term loosly here) that the universe does this "big bang" every so often. First the universe expands then natrually gravity kicks in slowly but surly pulling everything together into a tiny "dot". then it explodes again forming a new universe and therefore repeating the process infinitly.

[Vile1126]

owned

[scottyfett]

Atheists are cowards...well at least this one is.

Maybe you should prove yourselves right before you go blaspheming against The Living God.

Instead of tricking little public school kids

try proving yourselves right!

[BlasphemyBaby]

Uh-huh.

You know, when I was your age, I believed in the Christian god too. You should try reading the Bible cover-to-cover, that'll cure that in a heart-beat. ;)

[scottyfett]

psshhh yeah right

[fatefinger]

Fucking do it! Scared the shit out of me, and I hope your insecure, egomaniacal, insane, megalomaniac sky daddy isn't up there. And if he is, I hope he stays away from me. And christians are lying, manipulative assholes. You can use any televangelist, or shit creationist here on youtube. Your the one who makes the claim of a nutcase diety that has not a shred of evidence of existing. Please tell us why we are cowards without going into some BS preacher bit. I'm tired of hearing the same crap.

[TheDrunkenAtheist]

You're just a kid. You have no idea what you are talking about. Please read the bible, shit... just read genesis, then tell me you still believe.

[gr0mithtimon]

yes lets try proving a universal negative

also prove please that i cant read your mind

[CASSMAN777]

We can prove the bible is true using the bible. The bible has hundreds of fullfilled prophecies w/ evidence to show the dates of when the prophecy was written and when it was fullfilled. Also the bible has scientific knowledge that wasn't known until centuries later.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Mm-hm. Bring forth your prophecies, with proof of said fulfillment OUTSIDE the Bible. The Bible asserts itself as true, so of course it fulfills its own prophecies. Who says the Jesus myth wasn't made TO FULFILL the prophecies? As to the scientific knowledge, there is plenty that is also wrong. Such as the earth being set on pillars, the sky being a dome, and pi being 3.

[CASSMAN777]

I'll give yopu the prophecies in email through youtube. We know the prophecies about Jesus are true because of Hebrew, Roman, Syrian historians and other recodrs oputside hte bible. The bible says the world is on nothing not on pillars.

[BlasphemyBaby]

I got the PM (woo, a Christian who attempts to back up their claims! XD ) Expect a video addressing this stuff at some point in the future.

[CASSMAN777]

ok cool. Do you have any questions or objections you would like to tell me before you make your video?

[balderdash707]

Credibility cannot be created by a few truths, but it can be destroyed by a single falsehood.

Even if a hundred of your prophesies turned out to be true, just one error blows it out of the water. If you say that the error came from man (translation, transcription, etc), then how do we know that nothing else was also in error?

[CASSMAN777]

I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about.

[balderdash707]

I'm saying that no matter how much of the bible turns out to be correct, if any part of it is wrong, it's hard to believe anything else it says, unless backed up by an independent source.

[CASSMAN777]

Well there's nothing incorrect about the bible so I guess its ok to trust.

[balderdash707]

The earth is flat and stationary? Bats are birds? Rain and snow come from huge warehouses in the sky?

[CASSMAN777]

If you read Isaiah 40:22 you would know the bible says the world is round.

Where in the bible doesn it say "The earth is flat and stationary? Bats are birds? Rain and snow come from huge warehouses in the sky?"

[DaRRazoRR]

Cassman777, check out theologikos, look up his channel. He adresses what balder is talking about. Oh, and it's satire.

[CASSMAN777]

ok I'll check it out.  Do you know what video it is?

[DaRRazoRR]

Cass,

watch?v=rJ2q09xrTXE

Title: Atheists are wrong - lets kill them!!!

[BlasphemyBaby]

Even if you don't check out theologikos' response, check out mine. I actually address the "earth is round" thing.

I suspect it isn't exactly the type of response you were hoping for. I guess it's hard to reconvert an atheist after they've already deconverted once. ^.^

[jesterspace]

And the global flood with ZERO hydrological or geological evidence?

[scarlets79]

if atheists can misuse the Bible as evidence then it's only right the Christians can use the Bible as it is meant to be used as evidence

[marrokiu]

a book written by countless authors and translated many times with many errors is not evidence. much of the old testament has no evidence to support it. jews being slaves in egypt, the flood, adam and eve...and so on.

[dechha1981]

thank you.

[TombyStone]

Very well said, you're quite the looker too.

[conkertheevilsquirre]

Yes i hate the circular logic of faith. If only they would follow this rule among others.

[Philos2006]

Simple, easily understandable. GREAT

[mjm06008]

Excuse me, but if you're one who says, "There is no God." You're making a statement presented as fact. The burden of Proof is on YOU!

[BlasphemyBaby]

No, actually. The burden of proof rests on the one making the unlikely claim. You are trying to tell me that a man walked on water and raised the dead, and I say "I will not believe that until I have proof," because believing an unlikely claim without evidence would make one more gullible than is safe for society.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Now, if I said "I believe that there is no god," yes, I might have to prove that... but I say "I don't believe there is a god." There is a difference: in the first, I am making a claim that is questionable, whereas in the second I am questioning a questionable claim.

[mjm06008]

*sign* If you say, "I believe there is no God", you dont have to prove anything. It's your own belief, I personally think its wrong, but as long as you aren't presenting it as fact, No proof is needed. Youtube sucks for debating...

[dechha1981]

The fact that it's even possible to play the "Burdon of Proof" game makes the existance of your god conspicuously suspect.

[Satantransvertdeath]

I am a Christian. I realize that just because the bible says something doesnt mean it has to be true.

[Philos2006]

Finally an intelligent ,open-minded Christian on You-tube. Thank you.

[Satantransvertdeath]

There's more of us than you'd think, but it's easy to have a misunderstanding on what we're actually trying to say just because of the topic.

[Katalyzt]

Heh! Nicely done...

Katalyzt

[philos71]

*sigh* yet another fallacious response. Did you even watch my video??? I believe that even if you did, you were so full of criticism that all you were thinking about was this "nothing to do with the topic" response. However your cartoon, even being full of anger, is kind of cute, I guess.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Well, everyone else pretty much addressed most of my complaints in their videos... I didn't want to waste the energy repeating them. But, you know... maybe there's a reason that everyone gives your video the same criticisms, eh?

[philos71]

Millions of Germans followed Hitler. Does that make Hitler right? I'm not saying atheists are nazis, that's not my point. Your non-sequitur reasoning doesn't prove much, I hope you see my what I'm saying.

[BlasphemyBaby]

I do see what you're saying. I, myself, hold strongly to the belief that majority rule doesn't always mean truth. In fact, I believe rather strongly that Christianity, despite being a majority in this country, is not truth. Hoorah for free thinking, right? Well, I admit that this video was more an act of frustration than a proper discussion. I'm just not smart enough to come up with something that hasn't been said in another video response.

[oimagnostic]

Don't be so hard on yourself This makes more sense than the stuff christians have on here as proof

They were taught that the bible was demonstrated fact before they could read one word in it

And once they learned to read they didn't have to because they already believed it as truth and they just continued to take their "leaders" word for it

That's a pity because most preachers around here are a step above illiterate anyway

[TrenchantAtheist]

WTF? How can you defend circular logic as an intellectually honest argument? Pointing this out is anything but a 'fallacious response'.

It's convenient that you assume to know she was 'so full of criticism' that she couldn't logically address anything you said (which she did). If anything, I think the 5 billion other people that OWNED your argument points out that the only one here whose brain functions should be doubted are yours.

[dechha1981]

I did. You didn't even adress even one difference between YOUR god and all the other gods. You were talking about a hypoothetical "creator" and then, almost sneakilly asocialte the "creator" with the God of the Bible. you did not point out even one real way your god is different from the rest.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Love the simplicity! Wish more people would listen to it. Instant favorite.

[BattleshipTx]

I haven't seen that, but I agree if it ever happens. However, atheists should at least learn the Bible before they try to use it to disprove God. Atheists generally quote some verse meant for Israel in the Old Testament and compare it to instructions for Christians in the New Testament and try to say it is contradictory. That's what I see on Youtube, at least.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Yes, atheists do quote biblical verses meant for Isreal, because they were also meant for those Jews who would later become Christians. Look up Matthew 5:17: Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prohpets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Jesus believed in the laws of the Old Testament.

[Matur1n]

I believe in the Old Testament too. That doesn't mean it is appliccable as law to Christian Gentiles. Read all of Matthew Five and that is clear. Matthew 5:17 alone makes that clear, the law has been fulfilled by Jesus. But whatever you or I think should happen, observing the Old Testament laws is clearly is not a part of protestant Christianity. But atheists on YouTube seem to ignore that.

[musicisthegateway]

"Old Testament laws is clearly is not a part of protestant Christianity"... so explain why the protestant Christians are so ain't homosexuality and anit-gay marriage if the old laws aren't part of christianity?

[BlasphemyBaby]

Matur1n: granted. I grew up protestant, so I know that the church teaches kindness according to the Gospels. However, what most atheists try to get at is that the God of the Old Testament is VASTLY different from the God of the New, even accounting for the pacifying effect of his son. Therein lies the contradiction.

[HopefullyUnexpected]

Nice.

[proudfootz]

Well done!