lol that guy is totally idiot, atheism do not require the 'fath that there's no god'. That's just ridiculous.
Atheism is not a decision but it's a CONSEGUENCE. A conseguence of being skeptical.
People that are skeptical do not think that there's a god cause there's no proof.
if god one day will ring at my door and say "hi i'm god! look at this!" and spawn 6 moons i'll say "ok, there's a huge chance you are a god". Being certain of everything is for idiots, sages are always full of doubts.
If atheists believe things on faith and believing things on faith is a bad thing, then it must also be a bad thing to have faith in the christian god, right? Don't you just love arguments which contains their own refutation!
My uncle is an atheist and has so much faith in it. Atheist have more faith than Christians. Christians just believe that there's a God and Jesus is the Savior. Atheists stop being machines to the system.
@robvlob His religion is where he blesses the marriage by taking the man's wife to bed on the 1st night of her union. After that he tells the man if she's clean or not. Do you want to make an appointment with him?
It doesn't take any faith to be an atheist, but there can be religions where one doesn't have to believe in an invisible friend like Buddhism, in which there can be faith in other supernatural stuff IE reincarnation, but disbelieving a claim of a super natural invisible friend with no evidence takes no faith at all. Its an oxymoron to say so. If you think this way, how much faith does it take to not believe in Odin, Zeus, Shiva ETC.?
@robvlob faith has nothing do with supernatural, but because you put so much effort into not believing in God claims you have alot of faith. I on the other hand have small faith because I Iknow that there's a God. By believing what Jesus has to say makes me immune unlike those who will wait until it's too late. We are spirits living in a shell like body. You know it's true...stop using Atheism a shield for fear.
@UrielEternal You have absolutely no idea of the meanings of the words atheism or faith. Explain how not believing in any unsubstantiated claim takes faith, start with your God or better yet just so you understand the total absurdity of your argument please explain how not believing in lets say bigfoot(or any other myth besides the one you believe in) takes faith. Lmao fear of what? I don't subscribe to a fear mongering dogma of eternal punishment for petty reasons(Christianity)
@robvlob All of you atheists have become too smart for your own good that you ignore the very principles faith represent. Everybody has a certain kind of faith you doochbag. When you don't believe in sumthin'...you have to commit lawlessness. You don't break God's law, it breaks you. You will be so shy when you have to stand before the Lord.
@UrielEternal Faith as in confidence in someone or something, but its more of a reasoned trust generally based on experience. IE. I have faith in friends when they say they will do something, based on previous experiences. Not the definition of faith that describes the supernatural claims of religions where its belief without evidence.
Holding out for evidence to believe doesn't require faith.
Eternal torture is unjust punishment for being rational, wake up your gods a prick.
@UrielEternal What does "You ever heard of Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato...well they are all morons!!!" have to do with our discussion. Also it would be "they were" not "they are"
Some assumptions there though atheism to me is just a belief. The difference is a belief which cannot be proven and will never be. Faith is not necessarily a a blind belief. True that many may have started with believing. But faith will bring unto itself proofs. Why? since God is alive and real. God and his truth are something that need to be experienced on the personal level. Faith in God is not in vain. I know I have seen Christ as a 7th grader. His face shone the brightest light. Cheers.
@MichaelWithstand Proof is having enough evidence(facts) to establish a truth. Faith is belief without evidence. Faith & evidence/proof are not synonyms if anything they are antonyms.
The bible requires one to have faith not evidence/proof to believe
@robvlob Actually much of the bible contains proofs. Those proofs are called testimonies. Faith in God should be validated by proof albeit when it comes to God the proof will be personal or at most extended to people immediate to one's surrounding.
To be a believer is to have faith then see that faith gets validated and the [some] of the scriptures [at least] gets proven [personally]. God's people have the knowledge of God no matter how little but always remarkable. Anyway just be happy
@robvlob I don't mean that I mean you read people's personal proofs then you will experience them and prove them true yourself in your own life. Of course in one's lifetime one cannot prove everything but enough to have a sound foundation to his faith in God. It's not imaginary and not made up or a result of psychology. Sometimes people experience and know the truth before they find the reference to the bible.
@robvlob Not actually. Faith has its foundation in proofs. The essence of the bible is proofs albeit personal proofs of people who had had experience of the living God. The thing is that knowledge is always partial or incomplete that day to day even people with knowledge of God still require faith. Not faith as in to believe in God but faith to believe that all is for the better in whatever circumstances. So even I who had seen the Lord and witnessed a miracle still need faith.
@robvlob that is your opinion, but when people believe something usually they have reason for them. Faith in God is not a blind faith, why do you think there are still people believing in God? Perhaps it is true that the majority just want to believe but a lot of them have bear witness to the truth as what is written in the scriptures. They KNOW what they believe in.
@MichaelWithstand No that's fact the definition of religious faith is belief without proof or evidence. Beside the bible says 'searching for proof is akin to a sin'
@robvlob That's the definition that you use. Bible never says that searching for proof is akin to a sin. In fact the bible teaches seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened. On the contrary asking for a sign to test God is a sin. No one can test God. You see the whole thing about a believer is his relationship with God and God sees the heart of each and every man. It's all about the motive and intention as much or even sometimes more than the action.
@MichaelWithstand Please for once, if you guys could stop speaking in riddles and speak with reason and logic. Please. Bear witness to what? Truth? What? Convince us, please.
@AtticRecordsOfficial At least you know what i write sounds like a riddle. It must be bewildering to uninitiate if you try to talk about God. Usually the mind is not big enough to take it or even to consider it that they lay the blame on the person giving/sharing the testimonies. It is always easier to hate and to shut one's mind rather than risk being told and realizing they are wrong. If you want to be convinced go to a magician show.
I'm not interested in convincing anyone...why should I?
@AtticRecordsOfficial How do you describe colors to a man born blind? One can certainly try though it wouldn't make sense to him. And if the blind lived among the blinds such attempt to describe colors would be ridiculed and shunned. How do you know that there are sights to be seen in this life? Because you can see everything around you. How do you convince yourself that they are true? because you can touch, smell and feel those that you see. It is better for the blind man to see himself. Seek.
@AtticRecordsOfficial If you want to know whether God exists you must seek and find it out yourself. But those people who seek to just fool themselves will never find God and end up fooling themselves to whatever their beliefs. Keep an open mind, if you want to seek seek with a sincere heart. In any way live happy. Life is not worth living unless we can be grateful of it despite the circusmtances.
So if you see all the evidence for evolution and you remain an "a-evolutionist", is that simply irrationality or is that also faith? Let's make it more clear cut and say if theory A is true than B is false and if B is true A is false. Those are the only logically possible answers. Now if you rejected theory B even though it has tons of evidence and A has none, you'd by default accept A. So would you merely have faith in A or faith that B is wrong? What if you only accept A by default?
@RuinSonic. "if you see the evidence for evolution and you remain an "a-evolutionist", is that irrationality or is that also faith?"
- that's denial, irrational disbelief
" Let's say if theory A is true than B is false and if B is true A is false."
- that is almost never the case. People who pretend that's the case are usually arguing from a false dichotomy (e.g., it's either evolution (A) or my god (B), while ignoring Aliens (C) Future Computers (D) Other gods (E) ect )
But that is irrelevant. The question is a hypothetical and has no attachment to the evolution vs. creationism debate. Basically what I'm doing is asking you for a hypothetical situation that challenges your definition of faith towards a disbelief.
Technically if you claim A is not true you are also saying non-A is true. So by denying something you are always affirming at least some part of the the non-A subset of possible answers.
Got a question What about dark matter? its makes up most of the mass of the universe right but there no evidence in the practice,Only the thoery what i Mean is there no evidence to say it real,Becoz it cant be touch,felt taste and what not just like 'God' is Dark matter itself faith??
@Not1delusion Gravity is only a theory, mind jumping and telling me exactly how much faith you need to plummet back down to the Earth? Atheism isn't a belief for many reasons. Nor is it a religion. Atheism requires no faith, because faith by definition, is belief in that which is not apparent, or evident. Evolution is both, and so understanding and acceptance of such, requires no faith, by definition. Christianity however. . .
@Not1delusion Really, these videos do nothing for your religion. They make those who believe in it, seem slow and dimwitted, making wild irrational claims out of the blue, thinking it benefits their argument. You and I both know, if you give it another 40 years, Christianity will be a dying flame, because people need others to believe, to stoke the fires of their insanity addled faith. When many abandon a sinking ship, others eventually take their queue, and leave as wel.
@Not1delusion You're right, Not1. We infer the existence of dark matter and dark energy by their respective influence on gravity and the structure and behavior of galaxies. While we have not observed them directly, we know they are present. We just don't know exactly what they are.
@Budgiein87 Dark matter requires no faith. What it requires is better math, more observation by better instruments, careful analysis of data, and less jumping to conclusions.
Dark matter isn't anything amazing or exotic. Not all particles of matter are hot enough to yield detectable black body radiation, not are the electrically charged enough to interact with light. Neutrinos are particularly difficult to detect. Dark matter is just matter that doesn't care about light. We detect it by its gravitational influence.
I believe that if you're going to say "Thing A exists", you better show me a picture or something, especially when Thing A is a magical sky daddy who hands out favors to people who believe in him really hard, and tortures people for all eternity because they like anal sex a bit too much, and who apparently also loves everyone unconditionally which somehow doesn't contradict the torture business, and who is perfect yet also jealous, which is a vice...
@xiah436 Atheism is not based on a principle, but the rather the rejection of an extraordinary claim, because it does not offer extraordinary evidence, which is required for such a claim.
In this video, Cameron regurgitates the same, tired, infinitely refuted argument that every self-proclaimed theologian does, and it's no more valid or convincing coming from him than from anyone else.
Incidentally, read Mark 12: 31-32 to find out why there are no ex-atheists.
We have have fairly good evidence for the big bang theory. I'd like to bring it to your attention that the big bang theory does not, at any moment, state that the universe came from "nothing". Whether there was "nothing", "another universe", "god", "Cthulu" or "Spongebob" *before* the big bang is completely unsubstantial to the theory. What the theory describes is what happened *afterwards*.
This has to be the most annoying lie in my experience in regards to being an atheist. I am an Australian high school student from Sydney. The other week in my English class my well respected highly knowledgeable teacher made the mistake of saying that Atheists believe there is evidence that no god exists and that that's impossible to prove. Impossible yes, a belief of atheists: clearly not. It's sad to see even intellectuals are misguided by the lies of religious people.
@xiah436 Yes and there is no logical or realistic evidence for a God. If there was a God that created everything then you would be able to detect it with science as to effect reality it would make some sort of measurable impact. You can't have a God that is not measurable unless it hasn't effected reality in any way in which case why call it God?
Also there need be no argument against him if there is no argument for him. You can't disprove something that doesn't exist.
(cont) on reason one I provided. It also considers that you don't actually believe but are just trying to convince yourself to fool said God just so it won't punish you which if said being was really all knowing and powerful that such an effort would be folly.
@xiah436 (cont) 2. Pascals wager is horribly flawed.
For one it suggests you have only two options, believe in the Christian God or don't believe in any God. When in reality you could pick either and still wind up in a hell of sorts do to the many sects of christianity preaching different requirements or one of the thousands of other religions that also have a similar punishment after death for non believers.
Second it's not a rational reason to believe. It's a "just in case" that fails (cont)
1. Morality is easily applicable to social evolution. People survive easier and better with a form of "morality". Every aspect of morality can be explained through this matter, again no God required. This is the same reason you see ants, wolves, and other pack or colony mentality creatures doing nigh the same thing we do in terms for morality.
@xiah436 Yes it does. Philosophical evidence was also used to prove the existence of other Gods yet you don't use it to believe in them do you? On top of this nigh all of it can just as easily be replaced by a non-god to explain the same thing giving such "evidence" no validity.
@xiah436 Not at all. Agnosticism makes no belief either. It doesn't reject nor accept the claim of a God, it simply entertains that such is possible but may or may not be true. This is why you can have (most of us are) gnostic Atheists.
A gnostic Atheist is someone that says I don't think there is a God (because no evidence has been presented so I have no reason to) but I don't deny the possibility. Similarly a giant invisible intangible hippo could cause people to have hiccups.
@xiah436 No it's not. If there is no evidence for something then disbelief is the default. It makes no claim it just chooses not to accept said claim.
It takes no faith not to believe in Santa, similarly any other bold statement that flies in the face of everything we do know about how the universe functions takes no faith to deny if it provides no evidence to support said claim.
@xiah436 You have a piss poor understanding of faith.
It doesn't require faith to reject an idea, it requires faith only to believe in an idea that you don't know to be true. Thus denying an idea is not something that needs faith, substitution another answer that is unproven does.
Atheism only requires that one not believe in a God, period. That's not faith.
@atheistrocker100 That's not a fact. How does it require faith? Faith is believing in something you don't know to be true. That is the exact definition, being an Atheist requires no positive belief just the rejection of a belief that hasn't proven itself which is the logical default for any claim made without evidence.
@DarkBunnyLord No agnostic is the default. A common misconception is that Atheists only deny religion. Atheists don't just deny religion they hold the *belief* that the universe was a result of physics and chemistry and nothing more. But there is no evidence a universe can be created from just mindless processes, i.e there is no evidence irrationality can create rationality. So until scientists find evidence for this, atheism requires faith. Faith is a belief without concrete evidence.
@atheistrocker100 I disagree, agnostic is not the default. If someone tells you unicorns exist do you submit that it's rational to entertain the idea? No. Until they provide some evidence their word is not enough.
Also you have a piss poor understanding of the word Atheism it would seem. They hold no such "belief" they ONLY deny the existence of Gods or Gods, any other thoughts on the universe and where life came from is irrelevant to their Atheism. (cont)
@DarkBunnyLord Agnostic is the default. A common misconception atheists often fall for is to compare god to unicorns, santa etc. The point Dawkins tries to make with this analogy is that there is as much *scientific* evidence to for unicorns as there is for religious perceptions of god. This is a valid statement. However atheists don't just reject religion, they also believe there is no god full stop. There are only 2 ways in which the universe came about:
@atheistrocker100 I completely disagree once again, humans are naturally skeptical and when someone tells you there's a little green man on the moon and refuses to provide evidence the natural inclination is disbelief. How is it a misconception to compare God to unicorns? The point is both are fantastic claims and both supply no evidence to support them. Instead they find a form of ignorance, ie us not knowing how (let alone if) things began and thus making up an answer.
@DarkBunnyLord "How is it a misconception to compare God to unicorns" Well im as sure that the universe cannot be created without an intelligent prime cause, as im sure unicorns don't exist. Unless of course you can give me evidence the universe can come from just physics and chemistry?
"that it simply has always been" Thats not an option, if the big bang is correct (much evidence it is) then time and space had a beginning. I.e our universe was not always there.
@atheistrocker100 Yes but your certainty is based off nothing. You've used no evidence other than an argument from ignorance this is not an offense I mean that what you're saying is "I can't explain it therefor God" and you'll have to forgive me and others if we find this argument.... well... less than worth taking seriously.
Not having an answer is not justification to make up an answer. We admit we don't know where it came from, you make something up. (cont)
(cont) Again you show how little you know about the big bang. Our universe was not there IN it's current form, yes, but the matter and energy for it was. Again no where does anyone EVER claim the Big bang was the start of matter, energy, time, etc.
@DarkBunnyLord We know the chances of a universe such as ours being created by chance is VERY slim; hence why such hypothesis as the "multiverse" are being proposed. The fine tuning needs an explanation, the multiverse could be true, but there is no evidence for it. And if its true, of course the big bang was the start of time. Your just stupid, end of conversation.
@atheistrocker100 So what? There is no fine tuning. Fine tuning suggests the universe was tuned for us when instead evolution suggests only those apt to survive in what was there did and continued to grow. There was no goal of evolution for the current models for life where it was that or nothing, instead life randomly changed through mutations and those mutations that allowed life to flourish do to the environment did. On top of this you continue to show your ignorance by asserting that (cont)
(cont) because you can't think of how it happened and that life in it's current form was thin that you're going to go with an answer that doesn't even have a slim chance of being possible because we've NEVER seen matter created from nothing. I'm sorry but "poof magic" is not acceptable until you can prove it possible (which you haven't even begun to).
No it wasn't. Read about what you're speaking on lest you make yourself even more foolish.
Fine tuning is an argument that claims that for this universe to exist, every single of the numerous constants in our world needed to be exactly as they are for *this* universe to exist. Major flaw 1: It assumes that the physical constants could have been different. Of course that's already been hypothesized, but it's not something we know for sure. 2.) It assumes our universe as a goal. If gravity was a little weaker, our universe couldn't exist but SOME universe could exist
1.The universe was created by a higher form of intelligence (god)
2. it was created by coincidence, without an intelligence, and is purely down to physics and chemistry
There are many good reasons to believe there is an intelligence, Einstein didn't just believe the universe was created by some form of intelligence for no reason. The god hypothesis is a plausible one, religious perceptions of god are a different matter. Would you say a deist requires faith?
@atheistrocker100 No, you can't limit it to just these two options when you haven't witnessed the beginning of any form of matter what so ever. There's also the option that it simply has always been.
It's not plausible what so ever because you're claiming that either things are to complex to have not been created or things couldn't have always been. In either situation your God defies this own requirement and that's where your argument falls apart, special pleading.
@DarkBunnyLord No i don't "claim" there is a god. Im saying there are many good reasons to believe there is a god. One thing we know, is our physical constants (proton mass, gravity etc) are just perfect to harbour life and matter. Had just one of the physical constants been altered by the slightest fraction, we would not be here, gravity would collapse on itself etc. So one plausible way of explaining the "fine tuning" of our universe would be if an intelligence was the thing that tuned it.
@atheistrocker100 You haven't provided one even remotely convincing reason. The fine tuning argument has been debunked again and again do to being fundamentally flawed, you've argued the big bang with seemingly no understanding of what the theory even is, etc.
So what? Again you'd be making this same argument if ANY other form of life had been the one that flourished so how is it relevant? Something on billions upon billions of planets hit that jackpot, how is that surprising?
@atheistrocker100 (cont) Claiming "what are the chances" is like saying if a million people go up to a slot machine and play it and one person wins the jackpot and screaming "what are the chances" eventually 100%.
@DarkBunnyLord "there is no claim in any natural creation theories that the universe was ever created from mindless processes" Of course there is. Nearly every hypothesis including stephen Hawkins M theory, multiverse etc. are all hypothesis that describe mindless processes. All this means is that there is no conscious mind directing them, they are attempts at explaining how a universe come arise without a god I.e without a mind (mindless)
@atheistrocker100 Have you ever read about the big bang? It only claims to be the start of THE UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT. Not matter, time, and everything else.
Similarly your house is made of materials that existed before it was a house. Educate yourself before making such foolish claims.
(cont) On top of this there is no claim in any natural creation theories that the universe was ever created from mindless processes. Most scientists think it had no beginning as we've never seen ANY matter pop into existence and thus entertaining the idea that such is possible is absurd.
@ESPxTele The main problem with this is that you're saying "the vast majority of Atheists." It's not about what most believe, it's about definitions. These are from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Disbelief: mental rejection of something as untrue
Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity
I'm not saying it's up to the atheist to disprove a deity, just saying they can't and therefore can't say one does not exist. Because of this, it requires faith to be an atheist but not an agnostic.
While I like the charts, I have to disagree with the conclusion. It comes down to this: ask an atheist to disprove the existence of a deity. One can't prove/disprove a negative, as we didn't have evidence for many lifeforms on Earth before we found them. Lack of evidence is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. I'm agnostic for this reason. Atheism and theism are both belief structures saying it's one way and not the other as opposed to just saying, "I don't know" like Socrates.
@franzsmr Theism is having a belief that a god or gods exist. Atheism is not having a belif that god or gods exist.
If you don't know, you don't have a belief that god or gods exist. That makes you agnostic atheist - you don't have a belief that there is a god, but you don't claim there isn't a god either. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. The only difference is that people who accept the label atheist realize that we're also agnostic towards unicorns, flying spaghetti monster and the like.
@boenrobot disbelief: mental rejection of something as untrue
Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity
These are from Merriam-Webster's dictionary. With this definition, atheism a rejection of the idea that a deity exists. Agnosticism is not knowing one way or another. Therefore, it still seems to me that atheism requires faith in no god, theism requires faith in god(s), and agnosticism has no faith either way because it makes no assertions.
@franzsmr ... further, as you can see in W.E.D. def.2, "the rejection of the truth of a proposition"
i.e. an atheist denies the truth of the proposition... the proposition that supreme being or beings DO exist. It doesn't tell you whether they deny the truth of the proposition that supreme being(s) DO NOT exist. If one claims to know (and inherently, believe) that there is no supreme being(s), they're a "gnostic athest", and if they don't, they're "agnostic atheist".
@xiah436 There is one hypothesis, which I think is named "The pulsing universes hypothesis" or something to that effect, which basically states that it is possible that this universe is merely a pulse of energy and matter expanding and then contracting until it then collapses into a singularity and will expand into another universe.
Nobody knows what happened before the big bang; a "before" the Big Bang might not even make sense, as time itself was also contained in the singularity
@xiah436 Dont worry, I dont think you are subborn nor dumb, you seem like you are genuinely seeking to learn, and being on the path of learning does not make you dumb, it makes you smart.
You cannot compare neither babies, people, stars, or even galaxies to energy (matter being another state of energy)
Those things are all made out of energy, it is the building blocks of which the others are formed and the others are "merely" temporary states that energy and matter takes
@xiah436 Please derive and share how you KNOW that everything that exist must have a beginning; And let me also inform you that beliving something or feeling convinced that something is true, and knowing something, are very diffeent sizes, if you cannot provide evidence that supports your claim, then you do not know it
@xiah436 But for more information on this I am telling you about, you need to check "The Law of Conservation of Energy", which is a law in physics, as it is a repeatedable observation and not neither a hypothesis, theory nor a "thesis" as you put it, but a set of observations all following the same law and as no observations has been done that contradicts it, it remains a law of physics.
And we do not know that everything that exists must have a beginning, that is an assertion you are making
@xiah436 Would you give some references to the claim that energy and matter might be decreasing in our universe?
The destruction of Energy has NEVER been observed, you can transform one type of energy into another or transform energy into matter or matter into energy, but never has a decrease in the total of energy and matter been observed, which I am counting for at my source that they might be eternal (but absolute certainty of this would be a bold unsubstancial claim)
At 2.50, doesn't that chart sort of contradict what you said in earlier versions of this series?
in "knowledge is a matter of certainty" you said something to the effect that Belief and evidence are exclusive, as once you got evidence, it becomes knowledge, and knowledge and beliefs are mutually exclusive?
@xiah436 Also, Big Bang theory does not include something coming out of nothing. Please read an actual science book instead of the false representation that is often presented by the propaganda made by Christian organisations.
Big Bang Theory includes everything in the universe once having been compressed into a singularity, not that everything came out of nothing, as matter and energy are eternal
@xiah436. Thanks for asking politely. To be honest, I'm not even sure *if* the universe came from anywhere (why would anybody think that?!?) and I don't pretend to know "where" if care from if it did. I'm also not sure if it "began" in the sense that you're using (again, why would you think that?!?) and don't pretend to know how it began if it did.
When I see evidence of if and how the universe began, I'll believe it. Till then, I'll keep my mind open and honestly admit that I don't know.
"Atheist believe, they believe in the Matter of seeming fact that "Out of nothing something came to existence!"
- Thats funny. I don't believe that at all.
"If God does not exist, there has to be a reality/past/beginning that we can reconstruct." - Nope. I can simply acknowledge when I don't know something, rather than making up an explanation and believing it without evidence.
@EdwardVonFishington Reminds ya of the old movies where they claim that kissing gets you pregnant huh? Trust me kids, I once saw a guy take a hit of marijuana and drop dead right there, honest I did!
This was the idea that deconverted me. I used read the bible every day in high school, but then I realised that there was no way around the fact that there is the exact same amount of evidence for god as there is for unicorns: none. I actually couldn't cope at first and actually decided I would believe in unicorns too. Then it dawned on me how idiotic that was and I finally realised how ridiculous the idea of god is too. Simple as that, same with Santa Claus.
@FallofDarkness55 look at the ones being persecuted,and you will see humans who have the God of life they say they do not believe in having him in them. You will see atheists who have faith patently enduring suffering that is given by others. God is in the atheist even though they say they deny God altogether. I know this sounds contradictory, but it is true non the less.
The way he is trying to explain the differences between believers and non-believers, if you have evidence and still don't believe it's an irrational belief??? WTF???
@xxGizmo05xx: Not believing in something when their is significant amounts of evidence for it is an irrational DIS-belief. Irrational, by definition, is something that is "without the faculty of reason" or "illogical". And refusing to believe something in the fact of evidence is indeed irrational. You're certainly welcome to believe what you like, but it doesn't make that belief any more rational.
I think you're the one who's confused here... sorry.
According to this, darwins theory is also irrational/ illogical, since there is evidence on the subject but many people don't believe in evolution.. That was the point I was trying to make, so yeah i'm not the confused one here buddy but you might want to watch the video a couple more times so that you can get a clear understanding on how this guys information is incorrect...
@xxGizmo05xx: ... are you honestly that daft? No. By the logic presented, Darwin's theory is not irrational, the disbelief of it (because to disbelieve it is to ignore the evidence we have) is irrational.
I'd recommend taking your own advice, but given the complete lack of basic comprehension you've shown thus far, I can't imagine it'll do you much good.
HAHAHA wow really??? I know that darwins theory of evolution is correct.. So what I understand is if a theist tries to comprehend his own evidence against an atheist then it would do no justice since the atheist has the exact same characteristics as a blunt object, correct.. I really don't believe you have even the slightest clue as to what I was trying to point out, yup you guys sure do know your logic.. you win..
@xxGizmo05xx: You see, THAT'S why you're so confused here. WHAT evidence do theists have to back ANY of their claims? News flash: they don't have any! And that's why their beliefs are considered irrational. They have no evidence to back them up. Seriously. It really shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. Belief without evidence = irrational belief. Disbelief in the face of evidence = irrational disbelief. That's it.
We are all human neither you or I have the knowledge to answer all of life's mysteries.. Who knows if there is a heaven or hell.. If you look at god as a human like being who resembles a wizard then of course your going to be wrong because that is just plain silly.. But one question anyone has a hard time answering is after we die what happens?? I mean we are made up of energy and matter which cannot be destroyed that is a scientific fact so where does it transfer???
@xxGizmo05xx: What are you even trying to get at now? That because we don't know anything 100%, we should just give every stray claim the same amount of credibility as the claims we have piles and piles of evidence that we can and have observed? First of all: that's absolutely ridiculous. And second: that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we were discussing. This is about the correlation between evidence and the rationality of any given claim.
Wow you have to be the most obtuse person on youtube... Energy and matter is your evidence.. Neither can be destroyed but only transfered from one place to the other.. Some tend to call this energy a soul... the irrationality of people like you is what creates hypocrisy towards the logic of atheists.. wow your dense..
@xxGizmo05xx: Energy and matter are evidence for god? Are you kidding me? The existence of matter and energy are proof of nothing beyond the fact that they exist. But as that's not even relevant to what was originally being discussed, I'd prefer that you just stick to the conversation. You had a problem with the poster's definition of irrational beliefs and I corrected you. And then you just started jumping to other random arguments. Stick to the discussion or shut up. Seriously.
Screw you, Energy/life is god... Energy is the creator which makes it god the almighty and powerful... You have not corrected a thing, all you have proven is that you are an anti-theist any theist can tell you anything and a blunt person such as yourself would not even try to understand the explanation.. so why try next time keep your mouth shut and your trolling comments to yourself..
@xxGizmo05xx: When you give me an explanation beyond "energy and matter is evidence" (and apparently it's god himself as well...), I'll be glad to take you seriously. Until then, learn how to stick to a single topic when you try to argue. Otherwise your thoughts just come out as unclear and muddled beyond recognition, and no one's going to be able to understand your "explanations".
But whatever, I'm done trying to reason with you. Clearly, it can't be done.
a belief and faith are 2 differing things to not believe in something that has no evidence such as a god is not faith. And we all don't believe in things that have no evidence such as yeti's UFOs spaghetti sea monster etc. Just some choose differently when it comes to magic sky daddies
Atheists have faith just like you have faith that the light comes on when you flick the switch. Not faith as in the religious suspension of logic. I am a atheist because delusion and lack of logic offends me
Atheism is technically a belief, as an atheist believes there are no gods. This is believing that things that have no evidence to exist do not exist. But because there is no evidence that they might not exist (aka in a form we are not aware of), you are believing something. Agnostics on the other hand believe in the possibility of something, as it is an unknown and as so far cannot be proven. If something is completely unknown (a deity), then one must believe in an opinion about it.
@gregrutz But Atheism is not a physical thing. It is not lack of belief, it is belief that there are no gods. That, in itself, is a belief. Not a religious one, but a belief. You're mixing apples and oranges. Atheism is also a philosophy; so would you say you believe in it now? Philosophies are beliefs as well. Doesn't have to be religious. Like saying "I believe in fasting for protest" or "I believe in Democracy".
@Hissanrach I don't think atheism is a belief. Not in the religious sense of the word. Do you have a belief that Santa isn't real? Not really, just don't believe it. You don't have a *belief* he doesn't exist.
@CK3890 : You're done. I WILL NOT have someone ignore my statements and regurgitate theistic propaganda that a lack of a belief in existence is an assertion of nonexistence and that to have a lack of belief is to lack a concept of what a god is. Your statements are idiotic, moronic, and outright lies! If you do not want to know the truth then you should not have asked for it! Good bye.
Yes because quoting you is equivalent to ignoring you. Way to have a mature conversation.
I'm tired of asking you to explain. I'll spell it out for you. There is no difference. There's only two options. You either believe (probably believing is still believing, BTW) God's existence is true or you believe it's false. If you lacked belief that would mean you've never heard of the concept of God.
@CK3890 "If you lacked belief that would mean you've never heard of the concept of God. " OR, you're just not buying whatever is being told about said god.
Why do you believe in your god but not in Anubis for example?
@ScientificBob I hate that. Why does every atheist on youtube think I'm a theist because I argue that atheism is a belief. I am an atheist as well. I believe Gods don't exist. You do too. I lack the belief in the Christian God just as much as Anubis.
"OR, you're just not buying whatever is being told about said God" This is irrelevant. Humans are fallible. One religion could be wrong and another right. They could all be wrong and God could still exist. This is common knowledge.
@CK3890 "Why does every atheist on youtube think I'm a theist because I argue that atheism is a belief" Because generally only theists are dumb/ignorant/dishonest enough to say such ridiculous things.
"I lack the belief "
There you go. How can you "have" a belief if you "lack" belief?
@CK3890 "Why does every atheist on youtube think I'm a theist because I argue that atheism is a belief" Because generally only theists are dumb/ignorant/dishonest enough to say such ridiculous things.
"I lack the belief "
"They could all be wrong and God could still exist" Theism is a specific kind of god. It's the personal, intervening one. The one who listens to prayers and can break natural law. Theism =/= deism.
There you go. How can you "have" a belief if you "lack" belief?
"There simply is no evidence to support the claim that a god exists." And there's no evidence to support the claim that a God doesn't exist. We're beating a dead horse. "There is your third answer. No belief at all. No positive assertions. No faith. Simply a rejection of a claim unless evidence in support is provided." And again, when you reject the claim of something's existence, you are accepting the claim of something's non-existence.
@CK3890 "And there's no evidence to support the claim that a God doesn't exist." That's not a claim that needs supporting. The burden of proof is on the side of the proposer, which is you.
The default response to an unsubstantiated claim is NOT "we'll accept it until proven false". It's rather "your claim is irrelavent until you substantiate it".
Existance needs to be proven. non-existance CAN'T be prove.
@ScientificBob I am not proposing anything. And the claim that Gods do not exist requires just as much proof as the claim they do. You just don't think that not believing in Gods is the same as believing Gods do not exist. They are equivalent. Tell me how they are not.
EXACTLY. You cannot even PROVE the non-existence of anything! This is why atheism is a bigger leap of faith than theism.
@CK3890 "And the claim that Gods do not exist " Here's where you're confusing yourself. Nobody is actually claiming that no gods exist. Someone needs to claim existance of gods first, before you can reject the claim.
And yes, ultimately, rejecting this claim will result in you going on with your life with indifference towards that claim. Just like you're indifferent to santa claus or thor.
@CK3890 You're basicly saying that if I come up saying there's invisible birds on my shoulder, without any relevant evidence and thus completely unsubstantiated, you would NOT be justified in rejecting that claim because you don't have evidence? That's insane.
The proposer has the burden of proof. You say you're an atheist... well, the theist has the burden of proof. They come up to us with the god claim. You're "beliefs" are not the same kind as their "beliefs"
@CK3890 "You cannot even PROVE the non-existence of anything! This is why atheism is a bigger leap of faith than theism. "
You cannot prove a negative because it is a logical fallacy. Non-existance doesn't require evidence. Existance does. Non-existance can't have evidence, because there is nothing to study. What you are suggesting is just dumb.
"hifmdjqfmidjfmknjei" is a real son of god and lives under my house. Now you need "faith" to reject that? Come on...
@CK3890 "when you reject the claim of something's existence, you are accepting the claim of something's non-existence. " Wrong.
When you reject a claim saying "x exists", then that just means that insufficient evidence was provided to justify accepting said claim. It's NOT the same as saying that the opposite is true. it's just saying that believing said claim is not justified because of lack of evidence.
@ScientificBob But again, it's not just x. It's every God. Atheists don't just reject ONE God, they reject all Gods. Just because you leave the possibility of a God existing in your head (agnosticism) doesn't mean you don't reject all Gods, you do. And since you do in fact reject all Gods, you are rejecting all variables existing.
@CK3890 "they reject all Gods" They reject all god CLAIMS.
"agnosticism" Agnosticism tells you about how you stand towards your beliefs. An agnost can have faith, but doesn't "know". As an agnost, you can still be a theist or an atheist. Gnostic theist: "there is a god". Agnostic theist "I believe there is one, but don't know", gnostic atheist "there are no gods", agnostic atheist "i don't believe in any gods". You'll find that most atheists are actually agnostic.
@ScientificBob You are wrong. The term Agnostic is defined as someone who can not accept the claim God exists or does not because the information is unavailable He simply states the Question is mute.
@flight1100 No. The term agnostic is meaningless unless you also mention a subject. (A)theism is the subject. So you are agnostic about atheism or agnostic about theism.
This misunderstanding comes from america, where people look at you like you are some sort of demon when you say you are an "atheist" - so you say you're "agnostic" instead. For some reason the word "atheist" carries a lot of negative baggage in the US, probably because of the cold war and "atheist commies".
@flight1100 "Agnostic is defined as someone who can not accept the claim God exists" You see... what you define is simply atheism. You need to believe something to a theist. The moment you do NOT believe the claims - no matter how you formulate it - you are an atheist.
It doens't matter how you qualify your disbelief (gnostic/agnostic), you ARE an atheist if you do not accept the theist claims.
@ScientificBob The terms theist / atheist is concerned with belief (in one or more particular deity). The term Gnostic refers to knowledge. A Gnostic priest is one who claims absolute Knowledge. Agnostic is to claim absolute knowledge impossible.
lol that guy is totally idiot, atheism do not require the 'fath that there's no god'. That's just ridiculous.
Atheism is not a decision but it's a CONSEGUENCE. A conseguence of being skeptical.
People that are skeptical do not think that there's a god cause there's no proof.
if god one day will ring at my door and say "hi i'm god! look at this!" and spawn 6 moons i'll say "ok, there's a huge chance you are a god". Being certain of everything is for idiots, sages are always full of doubts.
TheIceThorn 2 weeks ago
Sure atheism is a religion. And not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not playing baseball is a sport.
NevilleRhysBarnes 3 weeks ago
Kirk probibly needed faith to be an Atheist !
gregrutz 1 month ago
If atheists believe things on faith and believing things on faith is a bad thing, then it must also be a bad thing to have faith in the christian god, right? Don't you just love arguments which contains their own refutation!
KamasutraButterfly 1 month ago
LOL i bet this guy wasn't even an athiest he is just tryin to premote his religion.
PUREtrollin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thomas Aquinas: This is the proof.
The First Way: Argument from Motion
The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reduction argument)
The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
Search it on google if you wanna read the whole argument it's short though. :D
theusednetwork 1 month ago
Nice try.
BroskieJeanCo 1 month ago
My uncle is an atheist and has so much faith in it. Atheist have more faith than Christians. Christians just believe that there's a God and Jesus is the Savior. Atheists stop being machines to the system.
UrielEternal 2 months ago
@UrielEternal Explain your uncles faith
robvlob 1 month ago
@robvlob His religion is where he blesses the marriage by taking the man's wife to bed on the 1st night of her union. After that he tells the man if she's clean or not. Do you want to make an appointment with him?
UrielEternal 1 month ago
@UrielEternal what religion does he practice?
It doesn't take any faith to be an atheist, but there can be religions where one doesn't have to believe in an invisible friend like Buddhism, in which there can be faith in other supernatural stuff IE reincarnation, but disbelieving a claim of a super natural invisible friend with no evidence takes no faith at all. Its an oxymoron to say so. If you think this way, how much faith does it take to not believe in Odin, Zeus, Shiva ETC.?
robvlob 1 month ago
@robvlob faith has nothing do with supernatural, but because you put so much effort into not believing in God claims you have alot of faith. I on the other hand have small faith because I Iknow that there's a God. By believing what Jesus has to say makes me immune unlike those who will wait until it's too late. We are spirits living in a shell like body. You know it's true...stop using Atheism a shield for fear.
UrielEternal 1 month ago
@UrielEternal You have absolutely no idea of the meanings of the words atheism or faith. Explain how not believing in any unsubstantiated claim takes faith, start with your God or better yet just so you understand the total absurdity of your argument please explain how not believing in lets say bigfoot(or any other myth besides the one you believe in) takes faith. Lmao fear of what? I don't subscribe to a fear mongering dogma of eternal punishment for petty reasons(Christianity)
robvlob 1 month ago
@robvlob All of you atheists have become too smart for your own good that you ignore the very principles faith represent. Everybody has a certain kind of faith you doochbag. When you don't believe in sumthin'...you have to commit lawlessness. You don't break God's law, it breaks you. You will be so shy when you have to stand before the Lord.
UrielEternal 1 month ago
@UrielEternal Faith as in confidence in someone or something, but its more of a reasoned trust generally based on experience. IE. I have faith in friends when they say they will do something, based on previous experiences. Not the definition of faith that describes the supernatural claims of religions where its belief without evidence.
Holding out for evidence to believe doesn't require faith.
Eternal torture is unjust punishment for being rational, wake up your gods a prick.
robvlob 1 month ago
@robvlob You ever heard of Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato...well they are all morons!!!
UrielEternal 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UrielEternal What does "You ever heard of Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato...well they are all morons!!!" have to do with our discussion. Also it would be "they were" not "they are"
robvlob 1 month ago
Imagine Kirk Cameron wanting to be an intellectual! What an absurd nothin.
TheDano1947 2 months ago
Lack of faith requires faith! Oh Really? And no Kirk, you're not and X Atheist, that would require a lack of faith
TheDano1947 2 months ago
Some assumptions there though atheism to me is just a belief. The difference is a belief which cannot be proven and will never be. Faith is not necessarily a a blind belief. True that many may have started with believing. But faith will bring unto itself proofs. Why? since God is alive and real. God and his truth are something that need to be experienced on the personal level. Faith in God is not in vain. I know I have seen Christ as a 7th grader. His face shone the brightest light. Cheers.
MichaelWithstand 3 months ago
@MichaelWithstand Proof is having enough evidence(facts) to establish a truth. Faith is belief without evidence. Faith & evidence/proof are not synonyms if anything they are antonyms.
The bible requires one to have faith not evidence/proof to believe
robvlob 1 month ago
@robvlob Actually much of the bible contains proofs. Those proofs are called testimonies. Faith in God should be validated by proof albeit when it comes to God the proof will be personal or at most extended to people immediate to one's surrounding.
To be a believer is to have faith then see that faith gets validated and the [some] of the scriptures [at least] gets proven [personally]. God's people have the knowledge of God no matter how little but always remarkable. Anyway just be happy
MichaelWithstand 1 month ago
@MichaelWithstand Can you not see how using the scripture from a religious book to prove the religion is circular?
robvlob 1 month ago
@robvlob I don't mean that I mean you read people's personal proofs then you will experience them and prove them true yourself in your own life. Of course in one's lifetime one cannot prove everything but enough to have a sound foundation to his faith in God. It's not imaginary and not made up or a result of psychology. Sometimes people experience and know the truth before they find the reference to the bible.
MichaelWithstand 1 month ago
@MichaelWithstand Religious faith & proof are mutually exclusive. If you have proof you don't need faith. If you have faith you don't have proof.
robvlob 1 month ago
@robvlob Not actually. Faith has its foundation in proofs. The essence of the bible is proofs albeit personal proofs of people who had had experience of the living God. The thing is that knowledge is always partial or incomplete that day to day even people with knowledge of God still require faith. Not faith as in to believe in God but faith to believe that all is for the better in whatever circumstances. So even I who had seen the Lord and witnessed a miracle still need faith.
MichaelWithstand 1 month ago
@MichaelWithstand Belief without evidence or proof isn't compatible with belief with proof
robvlob 1 month ago
@robvlob that is your opinion, but when people believe something usually they have reason for them. Faith in God is not a blind faith, why do you think there are still people believing in God? Perhaps it is true that the majority just want to believe but a lot of them have bear witness to the truth as what is written in the scriptures. They KNOW what they believe in.
MichaelWithstand 1 month ago
@MichaelWithstand No that's fact the definition of religious faith is belief without proof or evidence. Beside the bible says 'searching for proof is akin to a sin'
robvlob 1 month ago
@robvlob That's the definition that you use. Bible never says that searching for proof is akin to a sin. In fact the bible teaches seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened. On the contrary asking for a sign to test God is a sin. No one can test God. You see the whole thing about a believer is his relationship with God and God sees the heart of each and every man. It's all about the motive and intention as much or even sometimes more than the action.
MichaelWithstand 1 month ago
@MichaelWithstand Please for once, if you guys could stop speaking in riddles and speak with reason and logic. Please. Bear witness to what? Truth? What? Convince us, please.
AtticRecordsOfficial 1 month ago
@AtticRecordsOfficial At least you know what i write sounds like a riddle. It must be bewildering to uninitiate if you try to talk about God. Usually the mind is not big enough to take it or even to consider it that they lay the blame on the person giving/sharing the testimonies. It is always easier to hate and to shut one's mind rather than risk being told and realizing they are wrong. If you want to be convinced go to a magician show.
I'm not interested in convincing anyone...why should I?
MichaelWithstand 1 month ago
@AtticRecordsOfficial How do you describe colors to a man born blind? One can certainly try though it wouldn't make sense to him. And if the blind lived among the blinds such attempt to describe colors would be ridiculed and shunned. How do you know that there are sights to be seen in this life? Because you can see everything around you. How do you convince yourself that they are true? because you can touch, smell and feel those that you see. It is better for the blind man to see himself. Seek.
MichaelWithstand 1 month ago
@AtticRecordsOfficial If you want to know whether God exists you must seek and find it out yourself. But those people who seek to just fool themselves will never find God and end up fooling themselves to whatever their beliefs. Keep an open mind, if you want to seek seek with a sincere heart. In any way live happy. Life is not worth living unless we can be grateful of it despite the circusmtances.
MichaelWithstand 1 month ago
If you deny evolution you deny gravity..another theory. You need to be put to death. You are of no use to Humanity. Just a coattail drifter.
699backstab 3 months ago
awesome
psycho3968 4 months ago
So if you see all the evidence for evolution and you remain an "a-evolutionist", is that simply irrationality or is that also faith? Let's make it more clear cut and say if theory A is true than B is false and if B is true A is false. Those are the only logically possible answers. Now if you rejected theory B even though it has tons of evidence and A has none, you'd by default accept A. So would you merely have faith in A or faith that B is wrong? What if you only accept A by default?
RuinSonic 4 months ago
@RuinSonic. "if you see the evidence for evolution and you remain an "a-evolutionist", is that irrationality or is that also faith?"
- that's denial, irrational disbelief
" Let's say if theory A is true than B is false and if B is true A is false."
- that is almost never the case. People who pretend that's the case are usually arguing from a false dichotomy (e.g., it's either evolution (A) or my god (B), while ignoring Aliens (C) Future Computers (D) Other gods (E) ect )
thanks for asking
Not1delusion 4 months ago 4
@Not1delusion "that is almost never the case."
But that is irrelevant. The question is a hypothetical and has no attachment to the evolution vs. creationism debate. Basically what I'm doing is asking you for a hypothetical situation that challenges your definition of faith towards a disbelief.
Technically if you claim A is not true you are also saying non-A is true. So by denying something you are always affirming at least some part of the the non-A subset of possible answers.
RuinSonic 4 months ago
Got a question What about dark matter? its makes up most of the mass of the universe right but there no evidence in the practice,Only the thoery what i Mean is there no evidence to say it real,Becoz it cant be touch,felt taste and what not just like 'God' is Dark matter itself faith??
Budgiein87 4 months ago
@Budgiein87 . I'm no physicist, but I think there is evidence for dark matter. It's worth looking up.
Not1delusion 4 months ago
@Not1delusion Gravity is only a theory, mind jumping and telling me exactly how much faith you need to plummet back down to the Earth? Atheism isn't a belief for many reasons. Nor is it a religion. Atheism requires no faith, because faith by definition, is belief in that which is not apparent, or evident. Evolution is both, and so understanding and acceptance of such, requires no faith, by definition. Christianity however. . .
JustAddLogic 2 months ago
@Not1delusion Really, these videos do nothing for your religion. They make those who believe in it, seem slow and dimwitted, making wild irrational claims out of the blue, thinking it benefits their argument. You and I both know, if you give it another 40 years, Christianity will be a dying flame, because people need others to believe, to stoke the fires of their insanity addled faith. When many abandon a sinking ship, others eventually take their queue, and leave as wel.
JustAddLogic 2 months ago
@JustAddLogic Unfortunately religion is slavery and will never completely die.
TheDano1947 2 months ago
@Not1delusion well* I personally, can only wait for that day.
JustAddLogic 2 months ago
@JustAddLogic not1delusion is an atheist.
DaTruthsHere 2 months ago
@Not1delusion You're right, Not1. We infer the existence of dark matter and dark energy by their respective influence on gravity and the structure and behavior of galaxies. While we have not observed them directly, we know they are present. We just don't know exactly what they are.
@Budgiein87 Dark matter requires no faith. What it requires is better math, more observation by better instruments, careful analysis of data, and less jumping to conclusions.
KidMeatball 1 month ago
@Budgiein87 Cameron is an idiot!!!
TheDano1947 2 months ago
@Budgiein87
Dark matter isn't anything amazing or exotic. Not all particles of matter are hot enough to yield detectable black body radiation, not are the electrically charged enough to interact with light. Neutrinos are particularly difficult to detect. Dark matter is just matter that doesn't care about light. We detect it by its gravitational influence.
rkyeun 1 month ago
As an atheist, I do believe in something.
I believe that if you're going to say "Thing A exists", you better show me a picture or something, especially when Thing A is a magical sky daddy who hands out favors to people who believe in him really hard, and tortures people for all eternity because they like anal sex a bit too much, and who apparently also loves everyone unconditionally which somehow doesn't contradict the torture business, and who is perfect yet also jealous, which is a vice...
TheSmackerlacker 4 months ago
@xiah436 Atheism is not based on a principle, but the rather the rejection of an extraordinary claim, because it does not offer extraordinary evidence, which is required for such a claim.
In this video, Cameron regurgitates the same, tired, infinitely refuted argument that every self-proclaimed theologian does, and it's no more valid or convincing coming from him than from anyone else.
Incidentally, read Mark 12: 31-32 to find out why there are no ex-atheists.
TheSmackerlacker 4 months ago
Kirk Cameron fails!
retrogamerist 4 months ago
@xiah436
We have have fairly good evidence for the big bang theory. I'd like to bring it to your attention that the big bang theory does not, at any moment, state that the universe came from "nothing". Whether there was "nothing", "another universe", "god", "Cthulu" or "Spongebob" *before* the big bang is completely unsubstantial to the theory. What the theory describes is what happened *afterwards*.
narutofan9999 5 months ago
Actually you need atheism to have faith
deathcoresucks1 6 months ago
atheists thinking there is no god isn't faith. its logic
DrSkittle4891 6 months ago
This has to be the most annoying lie in my experience in regards to being an atheist. I am an Australian high school student from Sydney. The other week in my English class my well respected highly knowledgeable teacher made the mistake of saying that Atheists believe there is evidence that no god exists and that that's impossible to prove. Impossible yes, a belief of atheists: clearly not. It's sad to see even intellectuals are misguided by the lies of religious people.
aaronfawcett9911 6 months ago
@xiah436 Yes and there is no logical or realistic evidence for a God. If there was a God that created everything then you would be able to detect it with science as to effect reality it would make some sort of measurable impact. You can't have a God that is not measurable unless it hasn't effected reality in any way in which case why call it God?
Also there need be no argument against him if there is no argument for him. You can't disprove something that doesn't exist.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
(cont) on reason one I provided. It also considers that you don't actually believe but are just trying to convince yourself to fool said God just so it won't punish you which if said being was really all knowing and powerful that such an effort would be folly.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@xiah436 (cont) 2. Pascals wager is horribly flawed.
For one it suggests you have only two options, believe in the Christian God or don't believe in any God. When in reality you could pick either and still wind up in a hell of sorts do to the many sects of christianity preaching different requirements or one of the thousands of other religions that also have a similar punishment after death for non believers.
Second it's not a rational reason to believe. It's a "just in case" that fails (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@xiah436
1. Morality is easily applicable to social evolution. People survive easier and better with a form of "morality". Every aspect of morality can be explained through this matter, again no God required. This is the same reason you see ants, wolves, and other pack or colony mentality creatures doing nigh the same thing we do in terms for morality.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@xiah436 Yes it does. Philosophical evidence was also used to prove the existence of other Gods yet you don't use it to believe in them do you? On top of this nigh all of it can just as easily be replaced by a non-god to explain the same thing giving such "evidence" no validity.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@xiah436 Not at all. Agnosticism makes no belief either. It doesn't reject nor accept the claim of a God, it simply entertains that such is possible but may or may not be true. This is why you can have (most of us are) gnostic Atheists.
A gnostic Atheist is someone that says I don't think there is a God (because no evidence has been presented so I have no reason to) but I don't deny the possibility. Similarly a giant invisible intangible hippo could cause people to have hiccups.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@xiah436 No it's not. If there is no evidence for something then disbelief is the default. It makes no claim it just chooses not to accept said claim.
It takes no faith not to believe in Santa, similarly any other bold statement that flies in the face of everything we do know about how the universe functions takes no faith to deny if it provides no evidence to support said claim.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@xiah436 You have a piss poor understanding of faith.
It doesn't require faith to reject an idea, it requires faith only to believe in an idea that you don't know to be true. Thus denying an idea is not something that needs faith, substitution another answer that is unproven does.
Atheism only requires that one not believe in a God, period. That's not faith.
A dictionary, crack one open some time.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
Atheism is not a religion, though it does require a certain amount of faith to be an Atheist . Thats a fact.
atheistrocker100 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atheistrocker100 yes but you believe that there are no gods, and there is no proof that god doesn't exist, so therefore faith
cherrypoppinpoptart 7 months ago
@atheistrocker100 That's not a fact. How does it require faith? Faith is believing in something you don't know to be true. That is the exact definition, being an Atheist requires no positive belief just the rejection of a belief that hasn't proven itself which is the logical default for any claim made without evidence.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord No agnostic is the default. A common misconception is that Atheists only deny religion. Atheists don't just deny religion they hold the *belief* that the universe was a result of physics and chemistry and nothing more. But there is no evidence a universe can be created from just mindless processes, i.e there is no evidence irrationality can create rationality. So until scientists find evidence for this, atheism requires faith. Faith is a belief without concrete evidence.
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100 I disagree, agnostic is not the default. If someone tells you unicorns exist do you submit that it's rational to entertain the idea? No. Until they provide some evidence their word is not enough.
Also you have a piss poor understanding of the word Atheism it would seem. They hold no such "belief" they ONLY deny the existence of Gods or Gods, any other thoughts on the universe and where life came from is irrelevant to their Atheism. (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Agnostic is the default. A common misconception atheists often fall for is to compare god to unicorns, santa etc. The point Dawkins tries to make with this analogy is that there is as much *scientific* evidence to for unicorns as there is for religious perceptions of god. This is a valid statement. However atheists don't just reject religion, they also believe there is no god full stop. There are only 2 ways in which the universe came about:
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100 I completely disagree once again, humans are naturally skeptical and when someone tells you there's a little green man on the moon and refuses to provide evidence the natural inclination is disbelief. How is it a misconception to compare God to unicorns? The point is both are fantastic claims and both supply no evidence to support them. Instead they find a form of ignorance, ie us not knowing how (let alone if) things began and thus making up an answer.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord "How is it a misconception to compare God to unicorns" Well im as sure that the universe cannot be created without an intelligent prime cause, as im sure unicorns don't exist. Unless of course you can give me evidence the universe can come from just physics and chemistry?
"that it simply has always been" Thats not an option, if the big bang is correct (much evidence it is) then time and space had a beginning. I.e our universe was not always there.
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100 Yes but your certainty is based off nothing. You've used no evidence other than an argument from ignorance this is not an offense I mean that what you're saying is "I can't explain it therefor God" and you'll have to forgive me and others if we find this argument.... well... less than worth taking seriously.
Not having an answer is not justification to make up an answer. We admit we don't know where it came from, you make something up. (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
(cont) Again you show how little you know about the big bang. Our universe was not there IN it's current form, yes, but the matter and energy for it was. Again no where does anyone EVER claim the Big bang was the start of matter, energy, time, etc.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord We know the chances of a universe such as ours being created by chance is VERY slim; hence why such hypothesis as the "multiverse" are being proposed. The fine tuning needs an explanation, the multiverse could be true, but there is no evidence for it. And if its true, of course the big bang was the start of time. Your just stupid, end of conversation.
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100 So what? There is no fine tuning. Fine tuning suggests the universe was tuned for us when instead evolution suggests only those apt to survive in what was there did and continued to grow. There was no goal of evolution for the current models for life where it was that or nothing, instead life randomly changed through mutations and those mutations that allowed life to flourish do to the environment did. On top of this you continue to show your ignorance by asserting that (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
(cont) because you can't think of how it happened and that life in it's current form was thin that you're going to go with an answer that doesn't even have a slim chance of being possible because we've NEVER seen matter created from nothing. I'm sorry but "poof magic" is not acceptable until you can prove it possible (which you haven't even begun to).
No it wasn't. Read about what you're speaking on lest you make yourself even more foolish.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100
Fine tuning is an argument that claims that for this universe to exist, every single of the numerous constants in our world needed to be exactly as they are for *this* universe to exist. Major flaw 1: It assumes that the physical constants could have been different. Of course that's already been hypothesized, but it's not something we know for sure. 2.) It assumes our universe as a goal. If gravity was a little weaker, our universe couldn't exist but SOME universe could exist
narutofan9999 5 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord
1.The universe was created by a higher form of intelligence (god)
2. it was created by coincidence, without an intelligence, and is purely down to physics and chemistry
There are many good reasons to believe there is an intelligence, Einstein didn't just believe the universe was created by some form of intelligence for no reason. The god hypothesis is a plausible one, religious perceptions of god are a different matter. Would you say a deist requires faith?
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100 No, you can't limit it to just these two options when you haven't witnessed the beginning of any form of matter what so ever. There's also the option that it simply has always been.
It's not plausible what so ever because you're claiming that either things are to complex to have not been created or things couldn't have always been. In either situation your God defies this own requirement and that's where your argument falls apart, special pleading.
Yes a diest requires faith.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord No i don't "claim" there is a god. Im saying there are many good reasons to believe there is a god. One thing we know, is our physical constants (proton mass, gravity etc) are just perfect to harbour life and matter. Had just one of the physical constants been altered by the slightest fraction, we would not be here, gravity would collapse on itself etc. So one plausible way of explaining the "fine tuning" of our universe would be if an intelligence was the thing that tuned it.
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100 You haven't provided one even remotely convincing reason. The fine tuning argument has been debunked again and again do to being fundamentally flawed, you've argued the big bang with seemingly no understanding of what the theory even is, etc.
So what? Again you'd be making this same argument if ANY other form of life had been the one that flourished so how is it relevant? Something on billions upon billions of planets hit that jackpot, how is that surprising?
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100 (cont) Claiming "what are the chances" is like saying if a million people go up to a slot machine and play it and one person wins the jackpot and screaming "what are the chances" eventually 100%.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord "there is no claim in any natural creation theories that the universe was ever created from mindless processes" Of course there is. Nearly every hypothesis including stephen Hawkins M theory, multiverse etc. are all hypothesis that describe mindless processes. All this means is that there is no conscious mind directing them, they are attempts at explaining how a universe come arise without a god I.e without a mind (mindless)
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord
"Most scientists think it had no beginning" LOL you never heard of the Big Bang?? seriously, get a grip.
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100 Have you ever read about the big bang? It only claims to be the start of THE UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT. Not matter, time, and everything else.
Similarly your house is made of materials that existed before it was a house. Educate yourself before making such foolish claims.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
(cont) On top of this there is no claim in any natural creation theories that the universe was ever created from mindless processes. Most scientists think it had no beginning as we've never seen ANY matter pop into existence and thus entertaining the idea that such is possible is absurd.
DarkBunnyLord 6 months ago
It makes me laugh when religious people say that atheism is a religion.
LegionIscariot 7 months ago
@ESPxTele The main problem with this is that you're saying "the vast majority of Atheists." It's not about what most believe, it's about definitions. These are from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Disbelief: mental rejection of something as untrue
Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity
I'm not saying it's up to the atheist to disprove a deity, just saying they can't and therefore can't say one does not exist. Because of this, it requires faith to be an atheist but not an agnostic.
franzsmr 7 months ago
No, Kirk. You're not an ex-atheist. You're confusing atheism with general ignorance. You've gone from one form of ignorance to another, you idiot.
HeyRuka 7 months ago
bg music is just bad!
iamfrancisittv 7 months ago
While I like the charts, I have to disagree with the conclusion. It comes down to this: ask an atheist to disprove the existence of a deity. One can't prove/disprove a negative, as we didn't have evidence for many lifeforms on Earth before we found them. Lack of evidence is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. I'm agnostic for this reason. Atheism and theism are both belief structures saying it's one way and not the other as opposed to just saying, "I don't know" like Socrates.
franzsmr 7 months ago
@franzsmr Theism is having a belief that a god or gods exist. Atheism is not having a belif that god or gods exist.
If you don't know, you don't have a belief that god or gods exist. That makes you agnostic atheist - you don't have a belief that there is a god, but you don't claim there isn't a god either. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. The only difference is that people who accept the label atheist realize that we're also agnostic towards unicorns, flying spaghetti monster and the like.
boenrobot 7 months ago
@boenrobot disbelief: mental rejection of something as untrue
Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity
These are from Merriam-Webster's dictionary. With this definition, atheism a rejection of the idea that a deity exists. Agnosticism is not knowing one way or another. Therefore, it still seems to me that atheism requires faith in no god, theism requires faith in god(s), and agnosticism has no faith either way because it makes no assertions.
franzsmr 7 months ago
@franzsmr From dictionary.reference(dot)com.
Denial:
2. refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like.
World English Dictionary, def. 2. the rejection of the truth of a proposition, doctrine, etc: a denial of God's existence.
Atheist:
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
W.E.D., def. 1. a person who does not believe in God or gods.
There's a difference between knowing and believing, and agnosticism deals with knowing, not believing.
boenrobot 7 months ago
@franzsmr ... further, as you can see in W.E.D. def.2, "the rejection of the truth of a proposition"
i.e. an atheist denies the truth of the proposition... the proposition that supreme being or beings DO exist. It doesn't tell you whether they deny the truth of the proposition that supreme being(s) DO NOT exist. If one claims to know (and inherently, believe) that there is no supreme being(s), they're a "gnostic athest", and if they don't, they're "agnostic atheist".
boenrobot 7 months ago
atheism requires logic and the ability to think for ones self and the impericle evidence that can be tested and retested in a controlled environment.
ranchai100 7 months ago
You should not start a video with such a retard. Introduce your self first. I nearly disliked because of this : )
Rhoky 7 months ago
only idiots think atheism is a religion and requires faith.
Omegawerewolfx 7 months ago
@Omegawerewolfx Omegawerewolfx that makes me an idiot according to your dictionary!
LifeLibertyLove 7 months ago
@xiah436 There is one hypothesis, which I think is named "The pulsing universes hypothesis" or something to that effect, which basically states that it is possible that this universe is merely a pulse of energy and matter expanding and then contracting until it then collapses into a singularity and will expand into another universe.
Nobody knows what happened before the big bang; a "before" the Big Bang might not even make sense, as time itself was also contained in the singularity
mhrby1985 8 months ago
@xiah436 Dont worry, I dont think you are subborn nor dumb, you seem like you are genuinely seeking to learn, and being on the path of learning does not make you dumb, it makes you smart.
You cannot compare neither babies, people, stars, or even galaxies to energy (matter being another state of energy)
Those things are all made out of energy, it is the building blocks of which the others are formed and the others are "merely" temporary states that energy and matter takes
mhrby1985 8 months ago
@xiah436 Please derive and share how you KNOW that everything that exist must have a beginning; And let me also inform you that beliving something or feeling convinced that something is true, and knowing something, are very diffeent sizes, if you cannot provide evidence that supports your claim, then you do not know it
mhrby1985 8 months ago
@xiah436 But for more information on this I am telling you about, you need to check "The Law of Conservation of Energy", which is a law in physics, as it is a repeatedable observation and not neither a hypothesis, theory nor a "thesis" as you put it, but a set of observations all following the same law and as no observations has been done that contradicts it, it remains a law of physics.
And we do not know that everything that exists must have a beginning, that is an assertion you are making
mhrby1985 8 months ago
@xiah436 Would you give some references to the claim that energy and matter might be decreasing in our universe?
The destruction of Energy has NEVER been observed, you can transform one type of energy into another or transform energy into matter or matter into energy, but never has a decrease in the total of energy and matter been observed, which I am counting for at my source that they might be eternal (but absolute certainty of this would be a bold unsubstancial claim)
mhrby1985 8 months ago
At 2.50, doesn't that chart sort of contradict what you said in earlier versions of this series?
in "knowledge is a matter of certainty" you said something to the effect that Belief and evidence are exclusive, as once you got evidence, it becomes knowledge, and knowledge and beliefs are mutually exclusive?
besides that, amazing series
mhrby1985 8 months ago
@mhrby1985 .
Nah. Belief and knowledge aren't mutually exclusive.
Belief with evidence is knowledge. Belief without evidence is faith.
So faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive.
Not1delusion 8 months ago
@xiah436 Also, Big Bang theory does not include something coming out of nothing. Please read an actual science book instead of the false representation that is often presented by the propaganda made by Christian organisations.
Big Bang Theory includes everything in the universe once having been compressed into a singularity, not that everything came out of nothing, as matter and energy are eternal
mhrby1985 8 months ago
I have faith that my girlfriend will give me a blowjob in the next hour. therefore it is a relgion. sounds like as much BS as religion itself...
palauskas 8 months ago
@palauskas
Unlike a religion, your claim makes a testable hypothesis. This means it might be true, and could be science.
...so tell us, did she give you a blowjob?
rkyeun 8 months ago
@xiah436. Thanks for asking politely. To be honest, I'm not even sure *if* the universe came from anywhere (why would anybody think that?!?) and I don't pretend to know "where" if care from if it did. I'm also not sure if it "began" in the sense that you're using (again, why would you think that?!?) and don't pretend to know how it began if it did.
When I see evidence of if and how the universe began, I'll believe it. Till then, I'll keep my mind open and honestly admit that I don't know.
Not1delusion 8 months ago 5
@xiah436.
"Atheist believe, they believe in the Matter of seeming fact that "Out of nothing something came to existence!"
- Thats funny. I don't believe that at all.
"If God does not exist, there has to be a reality/past/beginning that we can reconstruct." - Nope. I can simply acknowledge when I don't know something, rather than making up an explanation and believing it without evidence.
Not1delusion 8 months ago 17
kirk cameron is embarrasing
6hundred3score6 8 months ago 10
@EdwardVonFishington Reminds ya of the old movies where they claim that kissing gets you pregnant huh? Trust me kids, I once saw a guy take a hit of marijuana and drop dead right there, honest I did!
Deanbass77 8 months ago
This was the idea that deconverted me. I used read the bible every day in high school, but then I realised that there was no way around the fact that there is the exact same amount of evidence for god as there is for unicorns: none. I actually couldn't cope at first and actually decided I would believe in unicorns too. Then it dawned on me how idiotic that was and I finally realised how ridiculous the idea of god is too. Simple as that, same with Santa Claus.
Deanbass77 8 months ago
Actually no atheism is the lack of faith or belief.
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
Comment removed
kobidobidog 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FallofDarkness55 look at the ones being persecuted,and you will see humans who have the God of life they say they do not believe in having him in them. You will see atheists who have faith patently enduring suffering that is given by others. God is in the atheist even though they say they deny God altogether. I know this sounds contradictory, but it is true non the less.
kobidobidog 8 months ago
This video made me subscribe.
FraggedMind 9 months ago
LMFAO wow the guy who made this video is extremely confused...
xxGizmo05xx 9 months ago
@xxGizmo05xx: How so?
Monjaru 9 months ago
@Monjaru
The way he is trying to explain the differences between believers and non-believers, if you have evidence and still don't believe it's an irrational belief??? WTF???
xxGizmo05xx 9 months ago
@xxGizmo05xx: Not believing in something when their is significant amounts of evidence for it is an irrational DIS-belief. Irrational, by definition, is something that is "without the faculty of reason" or "illogical". And refusing to believe something in the fact of evidence is indeed irrational. You're certainly welcome to believe what you like, but it doesn't make that belief any more rational.
I think you're the one who's confused here... sorry.
Monjaru 9 months ago
@Monjaru: face* of evidence
Gahhhhh. Hate blatant mistypes.
Monjaru 9 months ago
@Monjaru
According to this, darwins theory is also irrational/ illogical, since there is evidence on the subject but many people don't believe in evolution.. That was the point I was trying to make, so yeah i'm not the confused one here buddy but you might want to watch the video a couple more times so that you can get a clear understanding on how this guys information is incorrect...
xxGizmo05xx 9 months ago
@xxGizmo05xx: ... are you honestly that daft? No. By the logic presented, Darwin's theory is not irrational, the disbelief of it (because to disbelieve it is to ignore the evidence we have) is irrational.
I'd recommend taking your own advice, but given the complete lack of basic comprehension you've shown thus far, I can't imagine it'll do you much good.
Monjaru 9 months ago
@Monjaru
HAHAHA wow really??? I know that darwins theory of evolution is correct.. So what I understand is if a theist tries to comprehend his own evidence against an atheist then it would do no justice since the atheist has the exact same characteristics as a blunt object, correct.. I really don't believe you have even the slightest clue as to what I was trying to point out, yup you guys sure do know your logic.. you win..
xxGizmo05xx 9 months ago
@xxGizmo05xx: You see, THAT'S why you're so confused here. WHAT evidence do theists have to back ANY of their claims? News flash: they don't have any! And that's why their beliefs are considered irrational. They have no evidence to back them up. Seriously. It really shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. Belief without evidence = irrational belief. Disbelief in the face of evidence = irrational disbelief. That's it.
Monjaru 9 months ago
@Monjaru
We are all human neither you or I have the knowledge to answer all of life's mysteries.. Who knows if there is a heaven or hell.. If you look at god as a human like being who resembles a wizard then of course your going to be wrong because that is just plain silly.. But one question anyone has a hard time answering is after we die what happens?? I mean we are made up of energy and matter which cannot be destroyed that is a scientific fact so where does it transfer???
xxGizmo05xx 9 months ago
@xxGizmo05xx: What are you even trying to get at now? That because we don't know anything 100%, we should just give every stray claim the same amount of credibility as the claims we have piles and piles of evidence that we can and have observed? First of all: that's absolutely ridiculous. And second: that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we were discussing. This is about the correlation between evidence and the rationality of any given claim.
Monjaru 9 months ago
@Monjaru
Wow you have to be the most obtuse person on youtube... Energy and matter is your evidence.. Neither can be destroyed but only transfered from one place to the other.. Some tend to call this energy a soul... the irrationality of people like you is what creates hypocrisy towards the logic of atheists.. wow your dense..
xxGizmo05xx 9 months ago
@xxGizmo05xx: Energy and matter are evidence for god? Are you kidding me? The existence of matter and energy are proof of nothing beyond the fact that they exist. But as that's not even relevant to what was originally being discussed, I'd prefer that you just stick to the conversation. You had a problem with the poster's definition of irrational beliefs and I corrected you. And then you just started jumping to other random arguments. Stick to the discussion or shut up. Seriously.
Monjaru 9 months ago
@Monjaru
Screw you, Energy/life is god... Energy is the creator which makes it god the almighty and powerful... You have not corrected a thing, all you have proven is that you are an anti-theist any theist can tell you anything and a blunt person such as yourself would not even try to understand the explanation.. so why try next time keep your mouth shut and your trolling comments to yourself..
xxGizmo05xx 9 months ago
@xxGizmo05xx: When you give me an explanation beyond "energy and matter is evidence" (and apparently it's god himself as well...), I'll be glad to take you seriously. Until then, learn how to stick to a single topic when you try to argue. Otherwise your thoughts just come out as unclear and muddled beyond recognition, and no one's going to be able to understand your "explanations".
But whatever, I'm done trying to reason with you. Clearly, it can't be done.
Monjaru 9 months ago
@xxGizmo05xx
First of all we were discussing the in-corrections on this persons observations, secondly you were the one changing the conversation..
xxGizmo05xx 9 months ago
Cameron:
"All I had had was blind faith in atheism..."
You were never an atheist in the first place, liar.
Read your ten commandments once again.
YAMAHADIVERSION33 9 months ago
a belief and faith are 2 differing things to not believe in something that has no evidence such as a god is not faith. And we all don't believe in things that have no evidence such as yeti's UFOs spaghetti sea monster etc. Just some choose differently when it comes to magic sky daddies
hakaboy6924 10 months ago
Atheists have faith just like you have faith that the light comes on when you flick the switch. Not faith as in the religious suspension of logic. I am a atheist because delusion and lack of logic offends me
hakaboy6924 10 months ago
Atheism is technically a belief, as an atheist believes there are no gods. This is believing that things that have no evidence to exist do not exist. But because there is no evidence that they might not exist (aka in a form we are not aware of), you are believing something. Agnostics on the other hand believe in the possibility of something, as it is an unknown and as so far cannot be proven. If something is completely unknown (a deity), then one must believe in an opinion about it.
Hissanrach 10 months ago
@Hissanrach Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby. IDiots.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz But Atheism is not a physical thing. It is not lack of belief, it is belief that there are no gods. That, in itself, is a belief. Not a religious one, but a belief. You're mixing apples and oranges. Atheism is also a philosophy; so would you say you believe in it now? Philosophies are beliefs as well. Doesn't have to be religious. Like saying "I believe in fasting for protest" or "I believe in Democracy".
Hissanrach 10 months ago
@Hissanrach'' It is not lack of belief'' Yes, it is a lack of belief in a god.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz Right. Lack of belief in a God. But not lack of belief in a philosophy or ideology in general regarding god or religion.
Hissanrach 10 months ago
@Hissanrach God you people are stupid !
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz Well I guess that makes both of us ;)
Hissanrach 10 months ago
@Hissanrach I don't think atheism is a belief. Not in the religious sense of the word. Do you have a belief that Santa isn't real? Not really, just don't believe it. You don't have a *belief* he doesn't exist.
BlckSbthMan 10 months ago
@BlckSbthMan Yes, it is not a belief in a religious sense. That's what I tried to explain to that other fellow.
Hissanrach 10 months ago
If i compare him to the 20 atheists i know i doupt he was ever an atheist. he is half as smart as the most stupid atheist i know.
Atheism requires reading and a rational mind.
If your lazy and brainwashed by your parents into a religion your 99% a theist.
tilemacro 10 months ago
Angelalynx:
@CK3890 : You're done. I WILL NOT have someone ignore my statements and regurgitate theistic propaganda that a lack of a belief in existence is an assertion of nonexistence and that to have a lack of belief is to lack a concept of what a god is. Your statements are idiotic, moronic, and outright lies! If you do not want to know the truth then you should not have asked for it! Good bye.
Yes because quoting you is equivalent to ignoring you. Way to have a mature conversation.
CK3890 10 months ago
@Angelalynx
I'm tired of asking you to explain. I'll spell it out for you. There is no difference. There's only two options. You either believe (probably believing is still believing, BTW) God's existence is true or you believe it's false. If you lacked belief that would mean you've never heard of the concept of God.
CK3890 10 months ago
@CK3890 "If you lacked belief that would mean you've never heard of the concept of God. " OR, you're just not buying whatever is being told about said god.
Why do you believe in your god but not in Anubis for example?
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob I hate that. Why does every atheist on youtube think I'm a theist because I argue that atheism is a belief. I am an atheist as well. I believe Gods don't exist. You do too. I lack the belief in the Christian God just as much as Anubis.
"OR, you're just not buying whatever is being told about said God" This is irrelevant. Humans are fallible. One religion could be wrong and another right. They could all be wrong and God could still exist. This is common knowledge.
CK3890 10 months ago
@CK3890 "Why does every atheist on youtube think I'm a theist because I argue that atheism is a belief" Because generally only theists are dumb/ignorant/dishonest enough to say such ridiculous things.
"I lack the belief "
There you go. How can you "have" a belief if you "lack" belief?
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@CK3890 "Why does every atheist on youtube think I'm a theist because I argue that atheism is a belief" Because generally only theists are dumb/ignorant/dishonest enough to say such ridiculous things.
"I lack the belief "
"They could all be wrong and God could still exist" Theism is a specific kind of god. It's the personal, intervening one. The one who listens to prayers and can break natural law. Theism =/= deism.
There you go. How can you "have" a belief if you "lack" belief?
ScientificBob 10 months ago
"There simply is no evidence to support the claim that a god exists." And there's no evidence to support the claim that a God doesn't exist. We're beating a dead horse. "There is your third answer. No belief at all. No positive assertions. No faith. Simply a rejection of a claim unless evidence in support is provided." And again, when you reject the claim of something's existence, you are accepting the claim of something's non-existence.
CK3890 10 months ago
@CK3890 "And there's no evidence to support the claim that a God doesn't exist." That's not a claim that needs supporting. The burden of proof is on the side of the proposer, which is you.
The default response to an unsubstantiated claim is NOT "we'll accept it until proven false". It's rather "your claim is irrelavent until you substantiate it".
Existance needs to be proven. non-existance CAN'T be prove.
How do you "prove" that unicorns are NOT real?
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob I am not proposing anything. And the claim that Gods do not exist requires just as much proof as the claim they do. You just don't think that not believing in Gods is the same as believing Gods do not exist. They are equivalent. Tell me how they are not.
EXACTLY. You cannot even PROVE the non-existence of anything! This is why atheism is a bigger leap of faith than theism.
CK3890 10 months ago
@CK3890 "And the claim that Gods do not exist " Here's where you're confusing yourself. Nobody is actually claiming that no gods exist. Someone needs to claim existance of gods first, before you can reject the claim.
And yes, ultimately, rejecting this claim will result in you going on with your life with indifference towards that claim. Just like you're indifferent to santa claus or thor.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@CK3890 You're basicly saying that if I come up saying there's invisible birds on my shoulder, without any relevant evidence and thus completely unsubstantiated, you would NOT be justified in rejecting that claim because you don't have evidence? That's insane.
The proposer has the burden of proof. You say you're an atheist... well, the theist has the burden of proof. They come up to us with the god claim. You're "beliefs" are not the same kind as their "beliefs"
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@CK3890 "You cannot even PROVE the non-existence of anything! This is why atheism is a bigger leap of faith than theism. "
You cannot prove a negative because it is a logical fallacy. Non-existance doesn't require evidence. Existance does. Non-existance can't have evidence, because there is nothing to study. What you are suggesting is just dumb.
"hifmdjqfmidjfmknjei" is a real son of god and lives under my house. Now you need "faith" to reject that? Come on...
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@CK3890 "when you reject the claim of something's existence, you are accepting the claim of something's non-existence. " Wrong.
When you reject a claim saying "x exists", then that just means that insufficient evidence was provided to justify accepting said claim. It's NOT the same as saying that the opposite is true. it's just saying that believing said claim is not justified because of lack of evidence.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob But again, it's not just x. It's every God. Atheists don't just reject ONE God, they reject all Gods. Just because you leave the possibility of a God existing in your head (agnosticism) doesn't mean you don't reject all Gods, you do. And since you do in fact reject all Gods, you are rejecting all variables existing.
CK3890 10 months ago
@CK3890 "they reject all Gods" They reject all god CLAIMS.
"agnosticism" Agnosticism tells you about how you stand towards your beliefs. An agnost can have faith, but doesn't "know". As an agnost, you can still be a theist or an atheist. Gnostic theist: "there is a god". Agnostic theist "I believe there is one, but don't know", gnostic atheist "there are no gods", agnostic atheist "i don't believe in any gods". You'll find that most atheists are actually agnostic.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob You are wrong. The term Agnostic is defined as someone who can not accept the claim God exists or does not because the information is unavailable He simply states the Question is mute.
flight1100 10 months ago
@flight1100 No. The term agnostic is meaningless unless you also mention a subject. (A)theism is the subject. So you are agnostic about atheism or agnostic about theism.
This misunderstanding comes from america, where people look at you like you are some sort of demon when you say you are an "atheist" - so you say you're "agnostic" instead. For some reason the word "atheist" carries a lot of negative baggage in the US, probably because of the cold war and "atheist commies".
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@flight1100 "Agnostic is defined as someone who can not accept the claim God exists" You see... what you define is simply atheism. You need to believe something to a theist. The moment you do NOT believe the claims - no matter how you formulate it - you are an atheist.
It doens't matter how you qualify your disbelief (gnostic/agnostic), you ARE an atheist if you do not accept the theist claims.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob The terms theist / atheist is concerned with belief (in one or more particular deity). The term Gnostic refers to knowledge. A Gnostic priest is one who claims absolute Knowledge. Agnostic is to claim absolute knowledge impossible.
flight1100