Your major premis is that god exists so therefore all your arguments are a falicy. If you got on youtube to debate G-2 that's sad becuase you don't even realize that their name is actually G-I-I as in God Is Immaginary...and you will never get a chance to debate them...they do not care about you or your very weak, double-speak baseless aruguments. Do you really belive in what you are saying or have you outgrown these silly view points...like any child out grows his love for superman?
Nice try, but none of your aruguments actually apply to any of G-I-I videos. You have prepared a lot of common philosopical axioms (do I smell someone took a first year philospy class?) and attmepted to overlay them on the points made by the video. Your only leverage is that video are about 10 minutes in length; given the time anyone could easily take apart your retorts very easily. You are trying to purport intellecualsim but sound like a prison lawyer trying to be an attorney.
I have to say that although you put up a somewhat strong argument to back your case, it is not enough, because your main argument seems to be that giivideo cannot be trusted because they use science, reason, and logic (which are inherently and naturally on an atheistic plane) to back up their points, and you seem to have trouble with that fact because you yourself have a bias towards the supernatural, which goes completely against all scientific and logical basis' that have gotten us to where w
You seem book smart but not very rational cuz your own personal beliefs most of science and historians are on the other side of this issue because of the of evidence which old Gospels are not btw and the term delsional was used correctly on the Giivideo which explains even smart people like this guy suffers from.
@DB0175 This is very vague. So wherever the majority is, that's the right position? What's more, unless you have some argument you would like to supply on the overwhelming evidence of "the other side of the issue" this is an assertion. Lastly, if want to go buy the majority, the majority believe in God of some stripe.
@telemantros exactly the majority do believe in god but not all just like most of scentist evidence it does'nt care how many people believe it is just there to exam and this is what most of sceince goes on. whats so vague about it?
@DB0175 You are contradicting yourself, in your original post you said most science and historians are on the 'other side' and now you are saying that the majority do believe in God. What is vague is there are at least 5 different ways to use irrational, and more to the point, you simply assert without argument your opinions where I argued with arguments in video. Your posts are vague, assumptive, and contradictory.
@telemantros I did not contradict myself you just don't understand what i'm saying, I meant most scientist are agnostic or atheist i never said they all believe in god you pointed that out and i agreed most people do believe just not everyone that is not my opinon that is a fact you mention the bible and your opinions in your videos and how you intrepid things so your the one with the contradictory.
GIIVideo just got his pompous ass kicked by basic philosophical concepts. Thank goodness there are much more intelligent atheists on YouTube besides him, and thank goodness there are intelligent theistic apologists here as well, even if both groups are criminally undersubscribed. I guess appeals to emotion and melodrama garner more subscribers than intellectual discussion, something I blame the public education system for.
telemantros you seem too intelligent to believe in fairy tales, then again looks can be deceiving. You obviously over analyse things too much, enjoy your life before its over. Pop your delusional bubble champ.
The bible is complretely wrong on so many levels. It is chock full of lies, murder, rape and slavery as it was written by a bunch of primitive barbarians. It really is a crock of shit and those who believe in it are completely fucking stupid. There is no magical sky daddy watching over you nor is the a red skinned horned man in the centre of the earth who wants to deceive you. Just fuck off chrsitians.
Being that there is absolutely no evident for a Christian, Jewish, Muslim God or any other God(s) aka Hindu etc. Or that any religious belief is real, I guess your reason for choosing Christianity is based on either your parents beliefs or that America is mostly Christian. Actually we need not take on religious systems or beliefs individually since No proof or evidence that exsists that ANY supernatural belief is any more real than fantasy fiction writing.
@wb8594 This has got to be the largest generalization that I have ever received in text comments. To state, as you have, that there is no evidence for God at all goes against the past 50 years of atheistic philosophical discussion ... the majority of atheistic philosophers don't deny evidence that points towards a first mover so I find your comments uninformed.
@telemantros Your statement "the majority of atheistic philosophers don't deny evidence that points towards a first mover so I find your comments uninformed" Is completely FALSE! There is NO EVIDENCE that "points towards a first mover"
Where do you get such information from?
Certainly not mainstream science!
There is NO evidence that points toward a thinking, sentient, omnipotent supernatural being!
As eloquent as you try do be you are still delusional
There is no evidence for Jesus as all the mentioned ones are irrelevant or fakes. There is no evidence for any of the gods, Nessie or aliens.
I'll go with 1 Corinthians 13: When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Ignoring those Christians who infer God from logical inferences from, say, Natural Theology or those who hold to their beliefs via Historical argument are far from what you describe. Either you are not aware of the most recent and majority position in Philosophy or you choose to ignore it. Appeals to ridicule and ad hom. are quite cheezy evans ... GII's arguments are invalid and poorly constructed.
Not all imaginary friends answer prayers? Lmao When you'll burn you'll understand and be very sorry And You'll Soon believe? That Is After u Realize u acually have a perpose
@AshleyRussianInVa You are an idiot, hell is completely non-existant. If you actually had half a brain that would be plainly obvious for you to see. I might also like to point out that god answers absolutely no prayers whatsoever and the only thing he has done for the planet is give it a book full of absolutely useless and disgusting information and yet you blindly worship him? Wake up from your dellusion and start living properly before its too late.
I find it interesting that you did not address your feelings toward the stories of Mormonism or Islam and why you think the stories of Christianity is more believable. Instead, you argued about the possibility of God's existence, which was not the point of the original video at all.
Ok, while you do make some valid points with this video, I really have to disagree with another statement. There is scientific evidence for God's existence? Are you kidding me? Your not gonna find many people, including Christians, agree with that. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for God's existence.
yeah its my understanding that tangible evidence of the existance of god would devalue faith and without faith god is nothing. So there cannot be any physical evidence for the exisatnce of god, if you believe in god. So u cannot prove he exists anyway. So it is what you then decide yourself, that provides the justification of your believe in god, not physical evidence. The crux of the matter is, is the bible the literal word of god, well its a small jump to look and see all the seperate
books and determine that they were all written by seperate men in the same faith structure, or that they wrote it as directed at god (why he wudnt get it over and done with in go like he did with muhammad is beyond me but hey ho). This decision boils down to whether you believe that supernatural events can occur. So here science steps in you either believe that all events can be explained by the laws of science, or that some events occur that do not follow these laws. As a rational man I
conclude that there are no events that have ever occured that have not been explained by the laws of science. So therefore the bible stories must be written by men. But if you choose to believe in the irrational then god directed the bible to the prophets and the apostles, but once this irrational door is open wat else comes through why is the bible true yet shaman eating magic mushrooms, and invoking animal healing spirits unture, when they take the same irrational step into the supernatural
What the hell, naturalists use personal experience for evidence? No they don't, if by naturalist, you mean someone who uses science to evaluate claims, then no they DO NOT use personal experience to evaluate claims. Personal experience is not evidence in the realm of science.
The reason christians don't throw themselves from bridges and buildings (Which they do as suicude rates are consistent in all of society) is because they have the supersticious fear of hell. If you have a shitty life and want to go to heaven you have to endure all the crap because else you face the risk of hell.
Can this be labeled as anything other than pure evil?
GII's video was so ridiculous. The fact you responded in such a proper rational manner deserves recognition. Take joy in knowing what virtues you've done.
Using big words doesn't prove the argument. You can say what you, I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe you are a complete dumb ass.
telemantors, you seem like you might have been a smart person, if religion didnt scare the crap out of you so bad.... Its ok to doubt, there is no hell...
Its ieasy. GIIvideo is showing that the structure and basic justification for belief is similiar with christians mormons and muslims. Its all the same crap!!
Stop trying to act all sophisticated and philosophical.
To properly rebuttle GIIVideo, you MUST show how christian belief differs from the other beliefs.
He has actually done this tempemonkey2323. Check out the information that he has given in the description. History, Philosophy, and yes, even science rightly done, support the validity of the Bible.
No, dumbasses. GII stands for God Is Imaginary. You can actually just ignore it because you aren't intelligent enough to get it. You're not the kind of people we want to on the atheist side. Please continue being ignorant.
It's "G-I-I" (Golf, India, India), so, most likely the I's are roman numeral meaning '2'.
Like the 'VII' at the end of my name. It's roman numeral for '7'. If you think about it, who would name themselves with capital letters, that aren't roman numerals, at the end of there name instead of numbers or words?
Hmmm, perhaps you're right about that, but did you really have to call me dumb? I attempted to prove my point by using factual truth's and you call that dumb?
Don't bother calling people dumb if you can't even say it right...
Regardless, I'm pretty sure even GII pronounces it 'G2' and tries to make it look like roman numerals and pronounces it G2.
Which one sounds dumber to say: Gee-two or Gee-eye-eye?
ok I might not have called you that... -.- I'm from Holland, I'm not a pro at English, what do you think? If you're so angry you better stay friendly, like me, or you look more like a douchebag then me.
No, the person that looks like a douchebag is the one who uses an insult first. I was informing you, and you called me an idiot. It's okay though, you're young. I was a douchebag back then, too. Soon you'll learn etiquette and you'll be more respectful towards other peoples views. But for now, your hormones don't really allow you to be a nice person. It's the curse of being a teenager.
Oh and from your comments section, what you see as proof for Jesus' existance and if he existed he was the son of god... seems not only untrue in the eyes of these people but they even ridicule.
They dont mention his miracles, they clearly write that its only the disciples that believe in his return to life.
And all but Josephus dont fit in this because they speak of the followers nt the person, followers does not equate existance.
Personal experience IS NEVER evidence, because a personal experience cannot be falsified and is colored by the persons cultural background.
You did nothing here but prove the point GIIVideo. You cant step outside your own bubble. And within your bubble you seem rational, but to a Muslim or Mormon or Hindu you are very delusional.
And the flaw with your supposition is in the GII video, the exact same arguments could be made by followers of any other religeon. And all have the same amount of evidence from the same or in some cases more sources, I belive there is more historic evidence of mohommed for instance. The naturalist point of view is the only view that relies on imperical evidence. Allthough indeed the evidence is negative, it is a vast negative.
at 7:23 you talk of the writings of tactus. Who is that then? do you mean tacitus? He isn't really a first hand account though since he wasn't born until at least 20 years after any of the events.
these christians who are replying to your video are merely cheering their own ignorance without actually questioning the actual religion they believe in. they see you as a learned savior against oppressiveness on their beliefs.
i have nothing against christians who actually take the time to think about what they believe in and coming to terms with that belief realistically.
now how you use this is up to the individual seeing how each and every single persons outlook on life is relative towards their own experience, you may not force the opinion of one on the other it just isn't possible without some sort of confrontation.
so in the end what remains true is, unless there is undeniable evidence we remain at odds with one another.
oh no of course not, i do have my beliefs but that does not mean i need to share them with you. but on a subject as grand as the creation of life itself?
sure, i don't think some evidence would be too much to ask for would it? :)
but i was merely trying to state that people believe in different things. we are born into certain ideologies that might or might have not been forced upon us. unless the evidence is right in our faces, we will stick to what we "think" is correct.
i would agree with you that some evidence would not be too much to ask for, but I was merely questioning your statement, 'unless there is undeniable evidence we remain at odds with each other.' Why the double standard in relation to God but not other beliefs, say the trustworthiness of a friend? Another hidden premise would be what you consider evidence? Only via science? Would you allow logic, history, etc?
I would argue that there is evidence and it is sufficient. Peace.
ah well, you see the whole concept of a universal being is just too large to just believe in, imo.
i would prefer my evidence to be scientific. problem with historical and logical data is that they can both be perceived differently from different people. leading towards more arguments etc.
not to say that you CAN find irrefutable historical data, but that usually also comes down to using science.
we are talking about the creator of the world here. master of the universe and all other infinite amount of universes.
the one who governs the earth and its people, and all variations that might spawn out of the infinite parallel dimensions etc. not to mention the probability of trillions of other alien lifeforms out there in our known universe currently and unknown.
i think irrefutable evidence that he IS there shows some respect towards the guy.
I'm glad to hear you do not place evidence exclusively into the scientific realm. However, I must repeat my original conviction that I simply cannot understand the double standard of requiring irrefutable evidence for God while you do not require such evidence for your other beliefs. Appealing to God's power in no way logically leads that he is necessarily or required to be an empirical entity.
What would you consider to be irrefutable evidence and how can you be sure that you would accept it? I'm not sure that your own standard could ever be met.
My main criticism for theism, is this point. Does God really have any influence over us? I find it incredibly convenient that God can only communicate with Christians through prayer, and how his miracles can always be attributed to something else. Is there any other evidence that he still exists?
In religion everything is so convenient. They have an answer for everything, and it doesn't matter if that answer is complete nonsense, as long as they have something to rationalize with.
Logic does NOT necessitate that a god exists. Logic tells u that there is NO evidence proving that a god exists. There is NO irrefutable evidence for the existence of god. You WANT god to b true and, imo, r doing exactly what u accuse G2 of. Problem 4 u is burden of proof and even if u COULD supply it, it discounts ur sects whole premise!
"Logic tells u that there is NO evidence proving that a god exists."
After sifting through your 14 comment essay, I think this point will sum up a descent response to your thoughts. Logic, tells us that we cannot rule out the God hypothesis because you nor I can know all possible evidences in all possible times and hence, to rule out God as a desire would be illogical. I'll end this conversation before it begins, peace to you julz.
No, we can't rule out a creator but to say that the god of religiousity IS or that the Father of Abraham exists and IS fact is no less illogical. I don't rule out ur god because of desire alone as u have assumed. I see ur not willing 2 discuss ur beliefs with someone who disagrees with them...not very objective or open r u? U know, logic requires these things.
The Gospel accounts ARE myth as they have NEVER been prooven to b anything more than fiction! There r some historical facts within the Bible but it doesn't make it divine!! Accounts of Jesus only exist within the Bible. Josephus was debunked as far as the rest, I 'd love to know more but, to date, have never heard of them.
Christianity brings purpose, meaning and value?!?! yeah, like a crack pot does for a crack head!!!!lol! An atheist has just as much...if not more...purpose, meaning and value in their life! If we're good it's for goodness sake not 2 b granted access to heaven. We live 4 today...4 this life not merely for some supposed spiritual righteousness!
Christians believe that the flesh profits nothing and while they don't kill themselves becuz of it, they use this concept to explain why god smotes babies and why wars r necessary and why they have to blow up the abortion clinic. Although, missionaries like to put themselves in harms way!
Most Christians live for the afterlife. They live for God. Their whole belief system is based on a reward/punishment system. A large reason 4 them 2 believe is 2 get into heaven. MANY of them use heaven or hell 2 try to convince others to join their sect! To say they live for today and not the afterlife goes against A LOT in the Bible and within this sect.
Ever hear of the salem with hunts, suicide bombers or thosw who blow up abortion clinics? All religious! Prayer IS a superstition as it has, as YOU pointed out, never been tested. If personal experience and so called logic r the criteria 4 the prayer test, prayer will lose!
Overdramatic and erroneous, eh?!? Wow, 2 words that sound like YOU not G2!! Alleged problems with Christianity? It's obvious to most that there r many problems with this sect! Exhibit A) u require scientific study to show u that prayer is in effective? If prayer WERE effective do u think the world would b as it is? Do u think parents would lose their kids and people would die of cancer etc etc? HELLLooooooo!
Faith or belief in god...esp. the Chritian god is necessary for initiation and for being saved. Faith doesn't require proof. IF there was proof or evidence of god then your faith, as well as that of ur whole sect, becomes null and void as it would, then, no longer b faith.
God does NOT exist and has NEVER been proven in science, history, philosophy or ESPECIALLY logic. YOU have bias yourself and YOU have made assumptions/asssertions and PREsumptions...all that u have accused G2 of doing!
Philisophical dillema's arise without God? Do tell! Religion IS false as NO god has ever been proven! Religion is manmade and so r the gods within them. Religions r NOT distinct from one another. Believing Christianity to b false is a "false belief base"?
It's easy to deduce that something does NOT exist when there is NO EVIDENCE for it! All of the supposed evidence from the various scientific groups u mentioned has all been considered inconclusive or has been refutted.
So even though thousands of miracles have been proven false...we can't deduce them to ALL b false becuz we don't know every single so called miracle??!? If 99% r false and there's no LOGICAL reason 2 believe them, then I think its safe to rule them out. I think YOU r stretching here as well as being bias and presupposing!
If assuming a claim to be true is NOT evidence as u say then u and ALL Christians need to rethink your religion. Division is illogical? No miracle nor super natural has ever been proven...who's assuming?
I think G2's argument presupposes rational thinking. How would it b "dubious" to say that Christians r delusional? The super natural IS impossible! R those who know that unicorns don't exist bias or just sane?
Apply that same logic to your bible and you will discover an epic FAIL. Start with page 1.
For instance, is the earth older than the stars? (Earth on day 1, stars on day 4) The very first paragraph in the bible is a factual error. And then it gets worse.
Let's not change the subject without answering the first one. Is the earth 3 days older than the stars? The bible says it is. This is a factual error. Is it not?
It's not changing the subject, it was meant as a question to start the creative juices. The first 'day' was creation of light indicating to me a source of that light.
You are looking at order (i.e. what was created first the earth or stars) in verses 3-13 earth, 14 for stars. What I am asking is a guiding question to verse 1 where it says God created all of the universe and the earth, then he creates light in verse 3.
There would have to be a source for that light.
I also don't necessarily agree with your assumption that the word day here is a 24 hour period.
Did you look up Confirmation Bias? You're still doing it! I didn't ask you about verses. I didn't ask you about a source of light. I didn't ask you about your interpretation of what the word "day" means.
I asked you ON WHAT DAY DOES YOUR BIBLE SAY THE EARTH WAS CREATED? And ON WHAT DAY DOES YOUR BIBLE SAY THE STARS WERE CREATED?
Simple questions any child could answer. You are clearly trying to run from the truth.
you analysed all the GII's arguments so carefully, but you belive in what bible tells you? you look at atheist claims with all that analytical stuff but you dont look at the religious stuff that way? all the dogmas and statements that just cant be proved, what about that? analyse that
christianity just cant be proved, just isn't logical
you know that (you probably do), thats why you dont actually use any arguments, you just pick on every word instead of actually replying to what was said
Phoenykilla, greetings. You have to admit that what you wrote is mere assumption and circular reasoning correct? You make two assumptions: 1) that Christianity is not logical and 2) that I have not tested my faith. Both are incorrect.
I make many arguments for God and plan to make more, I defend my faith and plan to continue and I find Christian Theism exceptionally logical. I both defend and point out poor arguments. Peace.
Well 1) christianity is not logical for me, i was a christian but i am not anymore, it just doesnt add up for me, 2) you probably did test your faith but seein how analytical you are, it seems strange that you don't doubt what is written in the bible, sure, it can all be explained, but with what? with stuff that is written in the bible and has no actual proof behind it
like i said, i was a beliver too, and when i started to think about it and rise doubt, i changed my opinion about it, peace :)
You personal experience should be noted phoenykilla as my should be. However, in addition to personal experience there are other areas to examine such as argumentation, evidence, and consistency.
I believe in the Bible and it can be explained by historical criticism, collaborative sources and archeology as well as anthropology and customs of Judaism. Peace.
havent watched any of your "evidence" videos because there are too many, but if they consist of unreliable stuff like your quotes, they arent worth watching anyway
you seem to use a lot of "fancy" words( well english is not my mother tongue so they seem fancy to me) but actually, if i understood all, you are just saying that GII's statements are poorly built, you dont actually have any proof or arguments that would prove GII's wrong
ROFL...each relgion is different.. thats not true, catholics, jews, and christians are basically the same, muslim is different and there are so many different gods why the hell would you think there is only 1...
"ROFL...each relgion is different.. thats not true..."
One can't seriously believe this and if they do then they generalize religion to the highest degree. If this view is genuinely held, then there is no wonder why people see issues in theism, its because of straw men.
You know... you religious people ruin are worlds... get over it there isnt a god... i think that christians are just pussys and scared to die so they need to make a special place anyone can get to...Now...get your religious ass of youtube cuz you ruin our world
Yes, common sense is often an appeal to fallacious reasoning, and logical clarity is important, but don't put the cart ahead of the horse; don't put Logic ahead of Reason. The essence and bound of Logic is in mechanically uncovering truths implicit in truths we've already established, but how do we know anything to begin with, and what tempers Logic's missteps? Here Reason, in the guise of common sense, enters the picture. There are a limitless number of logically valid yet ridiculous theories.
Reason deals in semantics and understanding. It deals in plausiblity and common sense. I could claim that elves in a tiny eldritch bubble at the center of the sun are solving differential equations for all the electrons in the universe, determining their behaviors. Such a ridiculous claim could be elaborated into a theory unassailable by Logic operating on observations, but Reason - in its varying non-logical aspects like common sense, plausiblity, parsimony, etc - dismisses it with ease.
GII's video asks Christians to turn the mirror of Reason onto themselves. By full force of Reason they dismiss the literal claims of other religions (regardless their internal consistency!) as obviously premised on myths, but fail to apply the same standard to their own. Within a "bubble of delusion", Reason is an enemy, and must be denigrated and replaced by Logic, its mindless component, so that convoluted theological arguments can permit the religious to harmoniously remain within the bubble
Concisely, the manner of foundational empirical abduction is full Reason, not just its Logic aspect, and this applies not only to the religious theories of others, but to one's own as well.
I see from your videos that you've been studying WL Craig. Presup apologetics fails not only in its itemized arguments, but in the structure of the project itself. It mistakes internal consistency and explanatory power for the proper method of abductive evaluation, which is the full robust force of Reason
Your arguments were generally good (I'd take some issue), but irrelevant, because you missed the point of GII's video. It wasn't attempting a rigorous argument. The appeal wasn't to theologians, but to the average person and how they in practice evaluate the world. In practice, people use common sense and note obvious problems with positions...or rather, obvious problems with the positions of others.
Thanks for your thoughts. The idea of common sense has come up several times in the comment section, however, I wonder if the implications of such a statement resound within those who make it?
Common sense is based of deductive thought processes, or in other words logic. Things can make sense at first glance (a priori) however, on further examination fall into fallacious reasoning. Common sense should be rooted in logic, otherwise it isn't common sense anymore but fallacious reasoning.
No position is so ridiculous that some theologian can't make it sound perfectly reasonable to those already "inside the bubble of delusion."
Example: Tens of millions of Americans, if told (correctly) that the serial killer Ted Bundy was saved prior to his execution, and that Gandhi didn't take Jesus as his personal savior, will say with sincerity that "Bundy has eternal life in heaven, and Gandhi will suffer torment for eternity in hell, and that ILLUSTRATES just how awesome God's love is."
Back to GII: Are Protestants not Mormons or Muslims because they've engaged in rigorous historical/theological analysis and a detailed exegesis of those religions? The answer is overwhelmingly no. They remain Protestants because they're content AND because the other religions look ridiculous on their face. GII's POINT was to turn the mirror on Christians, basically showing "the same things that easily convince you that other religions are obviously false applies to your religion as well."
The zeitgeist movie provides more reasons & information in favor of it's arguments... but it's two hours long. Most Christians do not understand how important it is to back up one's assertions with strong physical evidence. I see no reason why GII should go out of his way using physical evidence, when what he's trying to disprove is based on zero physical evidence.
Furthermore, if you've ever read comments from most youtube Christians, you'll realize these people wouldn't know what evidence is if it came up & hit them in the face. They simply don't understand the whole idea. All they know is, they have something they can't prove & they'll never change their mind no matter what anyone says. Now where does one begin an argument with people such mentality? You have to dumb it down to their level a little, then you can fight over evidence once they get it.
I don't think GII at all tries to make philosophically tight arguments.
The video your responding to I think really only made one point, which was that a double standard is applied.
It's not that he assumes the universe is physically sensible, therefore Islam AND Christianity are false. It's that when others make supernatural claims not associated with one's particual religious presupposition, we all assume the universe is a sensible place.
The irony of the post escapes you I think. For someone who adamantly denies God you sure claim to know a lot about Theology. I make claims about God, there is no assumption present in my claims because I explain myself, something you are not doing. I addressed your comments in my original post, your definition of faith is incorrect and I get the feeling all you want to do is argue so I think i'll pass this discussion.
You have a lot of insight for an individual who has never met me, I'd watch your assumptions.
Evidence and faith work together, the former building off the latter. As for your opinion of God, it is inaccurate and overdramatic, i'm sorry but it is.
The way I understand the argument what he means is that the belief in X is rational when there is evidence for X. Something does not qualify as evidence if it depends on counter intuitive starting assumptions and in addition to that is not verifyable.
I agree that GIIVideo's video does not really give arguments, but it just shows you how (some) atheists look at Christians; pretty much the same way that Christians look at other religions.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Humanist Manifesto:
Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.
What these guys don't understand is that a true believer cannot disbelieve once he has believed. By believe I mean the Salvation experience. It takes faith. What would cause someone to have faith and someone else not to have faith? The Bible says you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. The Holy Spirit gives us the ability to have faith in Christ Jesus. The Holy Spirit helps us see the need of a Savior. Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Nice Vid;)
you are making a video response when your title says that we should ignore mushfer brains (his real name is Marshall brain, he also runs howstuffworks(dot)com, I call him mushfer brains because it's a semi-funny pun) but by making a video response you are not ignoring him.
Are you serious? Unless you're an idiot, which I don't think you are... you KNOW that he is explaining why we should ignore what GIIVideo is saying in his video. Not literally ignore the video!
Atheism is an illusion caused by selectively looking at evidence you do want to see, and avoiding the whole Universe of evidence you don't want to see, this is why atheists aren't skeptical at all over videos like that. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence this is why Atheism requires more evidence than Christianity, but the fact atheists have produced none at all and make such horrible arguments against God, shows they need to attack reason itself to try and get at God.
That was a horribly mistaken analysis of atheism. Basically you are asserting that since a postulation, God, can account for x, y and z and the atheist cannot explain x, y and z then he is absurd in not believing God. But this is fallacious from the get go because, for example, before ancient cultures understood how lightning could occur they would make up stories of gods fighting each other. At least this was an explanation instead of saying I don't know right?
"Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence this is why Atheism requires more evidence than Christianity"
The flaw in your argument is that atheists just don't believe in God. There aren't asserting a positive claim of how the universe is the way it is. Or it came from nothing. They are more or less attacking what you call evidence for the existence of God and giving reason for why God is not needed or just complicates matters.
Great video... I'm planning on making a series on the history of Christianity (to combat much of the comments that "religion causes violence", "devalues life", "more people have been killed in the name of God", etc).
People who misrepresent the beliefs of others in straw man arguments and presuppose scientific knowledge is the only knowledge one can have are irrational, illogical, and closed-minded antagonists, and in no way have any valid intellectual ideas to add to the conversation. Darkforce...sounds superstitious to me...are you also self-exemplified contradiction?
"People who misrepresent the beliefs of others in straw man arguments and presuppose scientific knowledge is the only knowledge one can have are irrational,"
Are you referring to me? Ok they were fisherman who may have not been as superstitious as the rest of the people during the time period that were. Technically it wasn't the bronze age and we shouldn't just trust in scientists. Lol, you assume I am ignorant but you don't realize I know and have believed what you think is true.
"Darkforce...sounds superstitious to me...are you also self-exemplified contradiction?"
You got me I'm a superstitious guy for believing what I can't verify myself. I mean why did I trust historians of a copy of a copy of what ancient people claimed about supernatural occurances. I mean evolution is of course a conspiracy; in other words we can't trust the 95% of scientists who hold to it and give solid evidence. But if you reject the disputed evidence for Jesus than you are delusional!
You said people who believe in the superstition of bronze age goat herders are delusional. I was just making a ridiculous claim using your own foundation for such claims. Didn't seem to work out in either case, did it? That is because of misrepresentation. And check this out, I know theologians who dispute the evidence for Jesus. Hmmm. Is there not a spectrum of positions out there? Yes there is. So what good is it to demand all Christians are delusional and superstitious?
" I was just making a ridiculous claim using your own foundation for such claims."
I couldn't tell the difference. I hear so many Christians say the same things :P
"So what good is it to demand all Christians are delusional and superstitious?"
Did i say all Christians are superstitious and delusional? I for one wasn't that way, but arguably you might have called me a true Christian. I wasn't all into the "pop" Christian prosperity and god does everything for me beliefs, but most do.
The sad thing is you don't realize that people who are criticising you aren't always making an argument. But since you know how close your beliefs are to rediculousness you feel threatedned when people make fun of your "evidence" for Christianity. I know cuz that's how I felt and would feel if I was a Christian. I don't mean to sound cocky, but I seriously have been on both sides of the fence and still hate atheists who make stupid straw mans arguments at Christianity. I just like rubbing it in.
If people resort to nothing more than criticism without an argument attached (which would an appeal to ridicule), they do nothing to advance their point. What they do is establish their deep rooted bias and inability to think outside their worldview. I would be cautious to attribute a feeling of 'threatened' when it could equally be awe at the logical inability of the presenter.
"What they do is establish their deep rooted bias and inability to think outside their worldview."
What you just did is made a biased assumption that happens to be false if you're refering to me.
I think that is called a logical fallacy. I have no problem criticizing my views and making arguments against others. I know very few Christians who can argue on the points that skeptics and atheists actually believe in. I know all sorts of views, philosophies, and theologies of Christianity.
(continued) I dare you to test me. See if I'm a narrow minded, blind bigot. I can probably make even stronger arguments for your view then most Christians can. I don't know enough about you, so I wouldn't say I know more than you, but I've been there and done that apologetic stuff.
"What you just did is made a biased assumption that happens to be false if you're refering to me."
I did not mention your name; from what I wrote I mentioned those that ridicule, there's no need to get defensive and look at things that aren't there.
Then my question is why did you respond to me with that comment? It doesn't really matter to me. I'm not going to defend either Christians or skeptic/atheists who make bad arguments and logical fallacies. I don't play sides.
It was a general thought of mine to what you originally typed:
"... people who are criticising you aren't always making an argument. But since you know how close your beliefs are to rediculousness you feel threatedned when people make fun of your "evidence" for Christianity. "
I agree that GII videos have a lot of logical fallacies, but I think the point is still valid. That doesn't mean it's rationally fatal to your position, but it challenges Christians to see why they believe what they believe. I mean if people from all cultures tend to follow their cultures religions and see others as sill there needs to be a rational basis for believing your perticular religion has to be true. Any rational Christian shouldn't get too damaged by it.
What you say has some merit to it; Christians, whether they know it or not, are instructed to 'test' their faith by their own holy book. It's not a new concept GII is raising. I prefer more logical formulations of points.
"It's not a new concept GII is raising. I prefer more logical formulations of points."
Yes, and I totally understand. It's just I don't think GII meant to make it a philosophically strong video. He's trying to question your faith in a kind of common sense way. Even though it is kind of too simplistic and full of assumptions I think some of his points cannot be ignored as non-problematic for the Christian faith. But you have to see as an "outsider" would or it doesn't work that well.
I would suggest that his points aren't 'common sensical' but rather they are 'at first glance.' The questions are answered if one invests (X) amount of time in researching the question. Instead, he throws up the questions and appears to delight in calling Christians delusional.
The presentation seems to help conclude that the questions are meant to be somewhat (if not entirely) malignant.
I understand. I wasn't a Christian too long ago, so I know what you mean. But to many scientifically minded, genesis is full of bs, yet we still have to argue formally because people want to "ad hoc" defend their beliefs that don't make any sense in the first place.
Once I got out of the Christian defensive shield I saw how much the Bible is undefensible. But I'm not saying that we all don't have are shields in some way. It just takes a lot of explaining away reality to believe in the bible.
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want evidence that God exists, or are interested in 9/11 search Jonathan Cahn 1 - Harbinger the Warning, on youtube here.
IwillhonorGod 4 months ago
Your major premis is that god exists so therefore all your arguments are a falicy. If you got on youtube to debate G-2 that's sad becuase you don't even realize that their name is actually G-I-I as in God Is Immaginary...and you will never get a chance to debate them...they do not care about you or your very weak, double-speak baseless aruguments. Do you really belive in what you are saying or have you outgrown these silly view points...like any child out grows his love for superman?
AtheistSongs 9 months ago
Nice try, but none of your aruguments actually apply to any of G-I-I videos. You have prepared a lot of common philosopical axioms (do I smell someone took a first year philospy class?) and attmepted to overlay them on the points made by the video. Your only leverage is that video are about 10 minutes in length; given the time anyone could easily take apart your retorts very easily. You are trying to purport intellecualsim but sound like a prison lawyer trying to be an attorney.
AtheistSongs 9 months ago
At 1 minute, 49 seconds: "This is ???????" What word are you saying? (It sounds like "delicious?")
Xenophile665 10 months ago
Just a note of correction: His name isn't "G Two Video." GII stands for "God Is Imaginary."
Xenophile665 10 months ago
I have to say that although you put up a somewhat strong argument to back your case, it is not enough, because your main argument seems to be that giivideo cannot be trusted because they use science, reason, and logic (which are inherently and naturally on an atheistic plane) to back up their points, and you seem to have trouble with that fact because you yourself have a bias towards the supernatural, which goes completely against all scientific and logical basis' that have gotten us to where w
gameraxe146 1 year ago
You seem book smart but not very rational cuz your own personal beliefs most of science and historians are on the other side of this issue because of the of evidence which old Gospels are not btw and the term delsional was used correctly on the Giivideo which explains even smart people like this guy suffers from.
DB0175 1 year ago
@DB0175 This is very vague. So wherever the majority is, that's the right position? What's more, unless you have some argument you would like to supply on the overwhelming evidence of "the other side of the issue" this is an assertion. Lastly, if want to go buy the majority, the majority believe in God of some stripe.
telemantros 1 year ago
@telemantros exactly the majority do believe in god but not all just like most of scentist evidence it does'nt care how many people believe it is just there to exam and this is what most of sceince goes on. whats so vague about it?
DB0175 1 year ago
@DB0175 You are contradicting yourself, in your original post you said most science and historians are on the 'other side' and now you are saying that the majority do believe in God. What is vague is there are at least 5 different ways to use irrational, and more to the point, you simply assert without argument your opinions where I argued with arguments in video. Your posts are vague, assumptive, and contradictory.
telemantros 1 year ago
@telemantros I did not contradict myself you just don't understand what i'm saying, I meant most scientist are agnostic or atheist i never said they all believe in god you pointed that out and i agreed most people do believe just not everyone that is not my opinon that is a fact you mention the bible and your opinions in your videos and how you intrepid things so your the one with the contradictory.
DB0175 1 year ago
GIIVideo just got his pompous ass kicked by basic philosophical concepts. Thank goodness there are much more intelligent atheists on YouTube besides him, and thank goodness there are intelligent theistic apologists here as well, even if both groups are criminally undersubscribed. I guess appeals to emotion and melodrama garner more subscribers than intellectual discussion, something I blame the public education system for.
NashvilleKildCountry 1 year ago
All of those big, multi-syllabic words, and he still didn't say a damn thing. Wow.
getridofgod 1 year ago
telemantros you seem too intelligent to believe in fairy tales, then again looks can be deceiving. You obviously over analyse things too much, enjoy your life before its over. Pop your delusional bubble champ.
wackydan74 1 year ago
The bible is complretely wrong on so many levels. It is chock full of lies, murder, rape and slavery as it was written by a bunch of primitive barbarians. It really is a crock of shit and those who believe in it are completely fucking stupid. There is no magical sky daddy watching over you nor is the a red skinned horned man in the centre of the earth who wants to deceive you. Just fuck off chrsitians.
birdbrain500 1 year ago
Being that there is absolutely no evident for a Christian, Jewish, Muslim God or any other God(s) aka Hindu etc. Or that any religious belief is real, I guess your reason for choosing Christianity is based on either your parents beliefs or that America is mostly Christian. Actually we need not take on religious systems or beliefs individually since No proof or evidence that exsists that ANY supernatural belief is any more real than fantasy fiction writing.
wb8594 1 year ago
@wb8594 This has got to be the largest generalization that I have ever received in text comments. To state, as you have, that there is no evidence for God at all goes against the past 50 years of atheistic philosophical discussion ... the majority of atheistic philosophers don't deny evidence that points towards a first mover so I find your comments uninformed.
telemantros 1 year ago
@telemantros Your statement "the majority of atheistic philosophers don't deny evidence that points towards a first mover so I find your comments uninformed" Is completely FALSE! There is NO EVIDENCE that "points towards a first mover"
Where do you get such information from?
Certainly not mainstream science!
There is NO evidence that points toward a thinking, sentient, omnipotent supernatural being!
As eloquent as you try do be you are still delusional
siaynoqau 1 year ago
whats the name of the music at the start?
1yellowapple 1 year ago
his name isn't g2, its G I I, Which is an abriviation for god is imaginary
thevulgurvlogger 1 year ago 7
@thevulgurvlogger
More evidence of why people laugh at Creationists
psychobackpacker 1 year ago
What is not allowed to be, can't be.
There is no evidence for Jesus as all the mentioned ones are irrelevant or fakes. There is no evidence for any of the gods, Nessie or aliens.
I'll go with 1 Corinthians 13: When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
GIIvideo is wonderful
lizichell 2 years ago 6
christians are the people who want god to exist, the 'god is imaginary' video is just stating facts, u chrisians are just wasting your time.
Also he does say which surveys were done on his website.
You are such an idiot, 20 odd years old and you still have an imaginary friend!! Hahaha
Evansd07 2 years ago
Ignoring those Christians who infer God from logical inferences from, say, Natural Theology or those who hold to their beliefs via Historical argument are far from what you describe. Either you are not aware of the most recent and majority position in Philosophy or you choose to ignore it. Appeals to ridicule and ad hom. are quite cheezy evans ... GII's arguments are invalid and poorly constructed.
telemantros 2 years ago
Not all imaginary friends answer prayers? Lmao When you'll burn you'll understand and be very sorry And You'll Soon believe? That Is After u Realize u acually have a perpose
AshleyRussianInVa 2 years ago
@AshleyRussianInVa You are an idiot, hell is completely non-existant. If you actually had half a brain that would be plainly obvious for you to see. I might also like to point out that god answers absolutely no prayers whatsoever and the only thing he has done for the planet is give it a book full of absolutely useless and disgusting information and yet you blindly worship him? Wake up from your dellusion and start living properly before its too late.
birdbrain500 1 year ago
I find it interesting that you did not address your feelings toward the stories of Mormonism or Islam and why you think the stories of Christianity is more believable. Instead, you argued about the possibility of God's existence, which was not the point of the original video at all.
tkdrocks66 2 years ago
Ok, while you do make some valid points with this video, I really have to disagree with another statement. There is scientific evidence for God's existence? Are you kidding me? Your not gonna find many people, including Christians, agree with that. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for God's existence.
Elitehunter34 2 years ago
yeah its my understanding that tangible evidence of the existance of god would devalue faith and without faith god is nothing. So there cannot be any physical evidence for the exisatnce of god, if you believe in god. So u cannot prove he exists anyway. So it is what you then decide yourself, that provides the justification of your believe in god, not physical evidence. The crux of the matter is, is the bible the literal word of god, well its a small jump to look and see all the seperate
weeweepoopoohead 2 years ago
books and determine that they were all written by seperate men in the same faith structure, or that they wrote it as directed at god (why he wudnt get it over and done with in go like he did with muhammad is beyond me but hey ho). This decision boils down to whether you believe that supernatural events can occur. So here science steps in you either believe that all events can be explained by the laws of science, or that some events occur that do not follow these laws. As a rational man I
weeweepoopoohead 2 years ago
conclude that there are no events that have ever occured that have not been explained by the laws of science. So therefore the bible stories must be written by men. But if you choose to believe in the irrational then god directed the bible to the prophets and the apostles, but once this irrational door is open wat else comes through why is the bible true yet shaman eating magic mushrooms, and invoking animal healing spirits unture, when they take the same irrational step into the supernatural
weeweepoopoohead 2 years ago
What the hell, naturalists use personal experience for evidence? No they don't, if by naturalist, you mean someone who uses science to evaluate claims, then no they DO NOT use personal experience to evaluate claims. Personal experience is not evidence in the realm of science.
Elitehunter34 2 years ago
The reason christians don't throw themselves from bridges and buildings (Which they do as suicude rates are consistent in all of society) is because they have the supersticious fear of hell. If you have a shitty life and want to go to heaven you have to endure all the crap because else you face the risk of hell.
Can this be labeled as anything other than pure evil?
Mokkarev 2 years ago
GII's video was so ridiculous. The fact you responded in such a proper rational manner deserves recognition. Take joy in knowing what virtues you've done.
Ichthus91 2 years ago
GII videos are awesome you asshole!
Deidara1724 2 years ago
If you consider haughty self-entitled imperial arrogance as awesome then yes, GII's video was very "awesome".
Ichthus91 2 years ago
But everything he says is completely true, you dumb ass christians just wont admit it.
Deidara1724 2 years ago
Using big words doesn't prove the argument. You can say what you, I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe you are a complete dumb ass.
supercow749 2 years ago
When you are a christian you are secure in what God says about you and therefore couldn't care less if somene calls you a dumbass.
Just thought I'd point that out and save you the trouble of name calling next time.
Sophiethefembot 2 years ago
telemantors, you seem like you might have been a smart person, if religion didnt scare the crap out of you so bad.... Its ok to doubt, there is no hell...
Its ieasy. GIIvideo is showing that the structure and basic justification for belief is similiar with christians mormons and muslims. Its all the same crap!!
Stop trying to act all sophisticated and philosophical.
To properly rebuttle GIIVideo, you MUST show how christian belief differs from the other beliefs.
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
He has actually done this tempemonkey2323. Check out the information that he has given in the description. History, Philosophy, and yes, even science rightly done, support the validity of the Bible.
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
And this is why I'm agnostic...
Nobody has a straight answer.
aoishounen 2 years ago
Neutrality does NOT mean assuming something has a 50/50 chance of being true. YOUR pressuposition is blatant.
megamanium 2 years ago
hogwash. you lose.
shreddez 2 years ago
No, dumbasses. GII stands for God Is Imaginary. You can actually just ignore it because you aren't intelligent enough to get it. You're not the kind of people we want to on the atheist side. Please continue being ignorant.
JupiterJazzjaa2 2 years ago
its Gii not G2... but his vids are right, theyre totally logical and rational
bangNL94 2 years ago 2
It's "G-I-I" (Golf, India, India), so, most likely the I's are roman numeral meaning '2'.
Like the 'VII' at the end of my name. It's roman numeral for '7'. If you think about it, who would name themselves with capital letters, that aren't roman numerals, at the end of there name instead of numbers or words?
I do agree with you about your point though.
OreoVII 2 years ago
no you dumb, G I I stand for God Is Imaginary, like his channel page says.
bangNL94 2 years ago
Hmmm, perhaps you're right about that, but did you really have to call me dumb? I attempted to prove my point by using factual truth's and you call that dumb?
Don't bother calling people dumb if you can't even say it right...
Regardless, I'm pretty sure even GII pronounces it 'G2' and tries to make it look like roman numerals and pronounces it G2.
Which one sounds dumber to say: Gee-two or Gee-eye-eye?
OreoVII 2 years ago
ok I might not have called you that... -.- I'm from Holland, I'm not a pro at English, what do you think? If you're so angry you better stay friendly, like me, or you look more like a douchebag then me.
bangNL94 2 years ago
No, the person that looks like a douchebag is the one who uses an insult first. I was informing you, and you called me an idiot. It's okay though, you're young. I was a douchebag back then, too. Soon you'll learn etiquette and you'll be more respectful towards other peoples views. But for now, your hormones don't really allow you to be a nice person. It's the curse of being a teenager.
OreoVII 2 years ago
ehm, yeah, for sure
bangNL94 2 years ago
Oh, I understand now. You're 14. That explains why you're such a little prick that can't type and calls people names unwarranted.
I remember that phase... enjoy it! You'll feel like a douche bag later for how you treated others! Trust me...
OreoVII 2 years ago
Oh and from your comments section, what you see as proof for Jesus' existance and if he existed he was the son of god... seems not only untrue in the eyes of these people but they even ridicule.
They dont mention his miracles, they clearly write that its only the disciples that believe in his return to life.
And all but Josephus dont fit in this because they speak of the followers nt the person, followers does not equate existance.
Nice try, try harder next time
Freeze01 2 years ago
Personal experience IS NEVER evidence, because a personal experience cannot be falsified and is colored by the persons cultural background.
You did nothing here but prove the point GIIVideo. You cant step outside your own bubble. And within your bubble you seem rational, but to a Muslim or Mormon or Hindu you are very delusional.
Freeze01 2 years ago
And the flaw with your supposition is in the GII video, the exact same arguments could be made by followers of any other religeon. And all have the same amount of evidence from the same or in some cases more sources, I belive there is more historic evidence of mohommed for instance. The naturalist point of view is the only view that relies on imperical evidence. Allthough indeed the evidence is negative, it is a vast negative.
phookadude 2 years ago
retarded.
gii = GOD IS IMAGINARY, not G2.
kykebero 3 years ago
at 7:23 you talk of the writings of tactus. Who is that then? do you mean tacitus? He isn't really a first hand account though since he wasn't born until at least 20 years after any of the events.
oberonstark 3 years ago
its not g2, its gii
puddinglickers 3 years ago
We DO see quite a few Christians martyring themselves. I guess those are the only ones with true faith.
Perrine234 3 years ago
i do have one thing to add though..
these christians who are replying to your video are merely cheering their own ignorance without actually questioning the actual religion they believe in. they see you as a learned savior against oppressiveness on their beliefs.
i have nothing against christians who actually take the time to think about what they believe in and coming to terms with that belief realistically.
blind faith is what i detest.
yoops 3 years ago 2
what he is basically trying to say.
you cannot say there is no god.
but you can say that there might be a god.
now how you use this is up to the individual seeing how each and every single persons outlook on life is relative towards their own experience, you may not force the opinion of one on the other it just isn't possible without some sort of confrontation.
so in the end what remains true is, unless there is undeniable evidence we remain at odds with one another.
yoops 3 years ago
If you require undeniable evidence for all the beliefs in your worldview then you must not believe very many things.
telemantros 3 years ago
oh no of course not, i do have my beliefs but that does not mean i need to share them with you. but on a subject as grand as the creation of life itself?
sure, i don't think some evidence would be too much to ask for would it? :)
but i was merely trying to state that people believe in different things. we are born into certain ideologies that might or might have not been forced upon us. unless the evidence is right in our faces, we will stick to what we "think" is correct.
yoops 3 years ago
i would agree with you that some evidence would not be too much to ask for, but I was merely questioning your statement, 'unless there is undeniable evidence we remain at odds with each other.' Why the double standard in relation to God but not other beliefs, say the trustworthiness of a friend? Another hidden premise would be what you consider evidence? Only via science? Would you allow logic, history, etc?
I would argue that there is evidence and it is sufficient. Peace.
telemantros 3 years ago
ah well, you see the whole concept of a universal being is just too large to just believe in, imo.
i would prefer my evidence to be scientific. problem with historical and logical data is that they can both be perceived differently from different people. leading towards more arguments etc.
not to say that you CAN find irrefutable historical data, but that usually also comes down to using science.
yoops 3 years ago
cant*
yoops 3 years ago
we are talking about the creator of the world here. master of the universe and all other infinite amount of universes.
the one who governs the earth and its people, and all variations that might spawn out of the infinite parallel dimensions etc. not to mention the probability of trillions of other alien lifeforms out there in our known universe currently and unknown.
i think irrefutable evidence that he IS there shows some respect towards the guy.
yoops 3 years ago
I'm glad to hear you do not place evidence exclusively into the scientific realm. However, I must repeat my original conviction that I simply cannot understand the double standard of requiring irrefutable evidence for God while you do not require such evidence for your other beliefs. Appealing to God's power in no way logically leads that he is necessarily or required to be an empirical entity.
telemantros 3 years ago
What would you consider to be irrefutable evidence and how can you be sure that you would accept it? I'm not sure that your own standard could ever be met.
telemantros 3 years ago
"the one who governs the earth and its people"
My main criticism for theism, is this point. Does God really have any influence over us? I find it incredibly convenient that God can only communicate with Christians through prayer, and how his miracles can always be attributed to something else. Is there any other evidence that he still exists?
Laurence000001 2 years ago 2
In religion everything is so convenient. They have an answer for everything, and it doesn't matter if that answer is complete nonsense, as long as they have something to rationalize with.
yoops 2 years ago
Logic does NOT necessitate that a god exists. Logic tells u that there is NO evidence proving that a god exists. There is NO irrefutable evidence for the existence of god. You WANT god to b true and, imo, r doing exactly what u accuse G2 of. Problem 4 u is burden of proof and even if u COULD supply it, it discounts ur sects whole premise!
julzabro 3 years ago
"Logic tells u that there is NO evidence proving that a god exists."
After sifting through your 14 comment essay, I think this point will sum up a descent response to your thoughts. Logic, tells us that we cannot rule out the God hypothesis because you nor I can know all possible evidences in all possible times and hence, to rule out God as a desire would be illogical. I'll end this conversation before it begins, peace to you julz.
telemantros 3 years ago
No, we can't rule out a creator but to say that the god of religiousity IS or that the Father of Abraham exists and IS fact is no less illogical. I don't rule out ur god because of desire alone as u have assumed. I see ur not willing 2 discuss ur beliefs with someone who disagrees with them...not very objective or open r u? U know, logic requires these things.
julzabro 3 years ago
The Gospel accounts ARE myth as they have NEVER been prooven to b anything more than fiction! There r some historical facts within the Bible but it doesn't make it divine!! Accounts of Jesus only exist within the Bible. Josephus was debunked as far as the rest, I 'd love to know more but, to date, have never heard of them.
julzabro 3 years ago
Christianity brings purpose, meaning and value?!?! yeah, like a crack pot does for a crack head!!!!lol! An atheist has just as much...if not more...purpose, meaning and value in their life! If we're good it's for goodness sake not 2 b granted access to heaven. We live 4 today...4 this life not merely for some supposed spiritual righteousness!
julzabro 3 years ago
Christians believe that the flesh profits nothing and while they don't kill themselves becuz of it, they use this concept to explain why god smotes babies and why wars r necessary and why they have to blow up the abortion clinic. Although, missionaries like to put themselves in harms way!
julzabro 3 years ago
Most Christians live for the afterlife. They live for God. Their whole belief system is based on a reward/punishment system. A large reason 4 them 2 believe is 2 get into heaven. MANY of them use heaven or hell 2 try to convince others to join their sect! To say they live for today and not the afterlife goes against A LOT in the Bible and within this sect.
julzabro 3 years ago
Ever hear of the salem with hunts, suicide bombers or thosw who blow up abortion clinics? All religious! Prayer IS a superstition as it has, as YOU pointed out, never been tested. If personal experience and so called logic r the criteria 4 the prayer test, prayer will lose!
julzabro 3 years ago
Overdramatic and erroneous, eh?!? Wow, 2 words that sound like YOU not G2!! Alleged problems with Christianity? It's obvious to most that there r many problems with this sect! Exhibit A) u require scientific study to show u that prayer is in effective? If prayer WERE effective do u think the world would b as it is? Do u think parents would lose their kids and people would die of cancer etc etc? HELLLooooooo!
julzabro 3 years ago
Faith or belief in god...esp. the Chritian god is necessary for initiation and for being saved. Faith doesn't require proof. IF there was proof or evidence of god then your faith, as well as that of ur whole sect, becomes null and void as it would, then, no longer b faith.
julzabro 3 years ago
God does NOT exist and has NEVER been proven in science, history, philosophy or ESPECIALLY logic. YOU have bias yourself and YOU have made assumptions/asssertions and PREsumptions...all that u have accused G2 of doing!
julzabro 3 years ago
Philisophical dillema's arise without God? Do tell! Religion IS false as NO god has ever been proven! Religion is manmade and so r the gods within them. Religions r NOT distinct from one another. Believing Christianity to b false is a "false belief base"?
julzabro 3 years ago
It's easy to deduce that something does NOT exist when there is NO EVIDENCE for it! All of the supposed evidence from the various scientific groups u mentioned has all been considered inconclusive or has been refutted.
julzabro 3 years ago
So even though thousands of miracles have been proven false...we can't deduce them to ALL b false becuz we don't know every single so called miracle??!? If 99% r false and there's no LOGICAL reason 2 believe them, then I think its safe to rule them out. I think YOU r stretching here as well as being bias and presupposing!
julzabro 3 years ago
If assuming a claim to be true is NOT evidence as u say then u and ALL Christians need to rethink your religion. Division is illogical? No miracle nor super natural has ever been proven...who's assuming?
julzabro 3 years ago
I think G2's argument presupposes rational thinking. How would it b "dubious" to say that Christians r delusional? The super natural IS impossible! R those who know that unicorns don't exist bias or just sane?
julzabro 3 years ago
Excellent video. I don't care what these other folk say: your videos are well done!
isin17123 3 years ago
Apply that same logic to your bible and you will discover an epic FAIL. Start with page 1.
For instance, is the earth older than the stars? (Earth on day 1, stars on day 4) The very first paragraph in the bible is a factual error. And then it gets worse.
But let me guess... No science, right?
AcesLucky 3 years ago
Let's start with this question, how can there be light without a source of light?
telemantros 3 years ago
Let's not change the subject without answering the first one. Is the earth 3 days older than the stars? The bible says it is. This is a factual error. Is it not?
AcesLucky 3 years ago
It's not changing the subject, it was meant as a question to start the creative juices. The first 'day' was creation of light indicating to me a source of that light.
telemantros 3 years ago
If you're into logic, look up Confirmation Bias. You'll notice you have ignored my question again and replaced it with yours.
You're overlooking information that DIS-proves what you WANT to believe, seeking only information instead to "confirm" what you already believe!
Again: ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE
1. on what day was the earth created?
2. on what day were the stars created?
Q: is this factually true or factually false?
AcesLucky 3 years ago
You are looking at order (i.e. what was created first the earth or stars) in verses 3-13 earth, 14 for stars. What I am asking is a guiding question to verse 1 where it says God created all of the universe and the earth, then he creates light in verse 3.
There would have to be a source for that light.
I also don't necessarily agree with your assumption that the word day here is a 24 hour period.
telemantros 3 years ago
Did you look up Confirmation Bias? You're still doing it! I didn't ask you about verses. I didn't ask you about a source of light. I didn't ask you about your interpretation of what the word "day" means.
I asked you ON WHAT DAY DOES YOUR BIBLE SAY THE EARTH WAS CREATED? And ON WHAT DAY DOES YOUR BIBLE SAY THE STARS WERE CREATED?
Simple questions any child could answer. You are clearly trying to run from the truth.
AcesLucky 3 years ago
Comment removed
aoishounen 2 years ago
you analysed all the GII's arguments so carefully, but you belive in what bible tells you? you look at atheist claims with all that analytical stuff but you dont look at the religious stuff that way? all the dogmas and statements that just cant be proved, what about that? analyse that
christianity just cant be proved, just isn't logical
you know that (you probably do), thats why you dont actually use any arguments, you just pick on every word instead of actually replying to what was said
Phoenykilla 3 years ago
Phoenykilla, greetings. You have to admit that what you wrote is mere assumption and circular reasoning correct? You make two assumptions: 1) that Christianity is not logical and 2) that I have not tested my faith. Both are incorrect.
I make many arguments for God and plan to make more, I defend my faith and plan to continue and I find Christian Theism exceptionally logical. I both defend and point out poor arguments. Peace.
telemantros 3 years ago
Well 1) christianity is not logical for me, i was a christian but i am not anymore, it just doesnt add up for me, 2) you probably did test your faith but seein how analytical you are, it seems strange that you don't doubt what is written in the bible, sure, it can all be explained, but with what? with stuff that is written in the bible and has no actual proof behind it
like i said, i was a beliver too, and when i started to think about it and rise doubt, i changed my opinion about it, peace :)
Phoenykilla 3 years ago
You personal experience should be noted phoenykilla as my should be. However, in addition to personal experience there are other areas to examine such as argumentation, evidence, and consistency.
I believe in the Bible and it can be explained by historical criticism, collaborative sources and archeology as well as anthropology and customs of Judaism. Peace.
telemantros 3 years ago
frankly, all of those quotes don't prove a thing
havent watched any of your "evidence" videos because there are too many, but if they consist of unreliable stuff like your quotes, they arent worth watching anyway
you seem to use a lot of "fancy" words( well english is not my mother tongue so they seem fancy to me) but actually, if i understood all, you are just saying that GII's statements are poorly built, you dont actually have any proof or arguments that would prove GII's wrong
Phoenykilla 3 years ago
It's G I I video.
I'm an atheist and I like his videos, but they're not nessicarily good for argument.
philman302 3 years ago
ROFL...each relgion is different.. thats not true, catholics, jews, and christians are basically the same, muslim is different and there are so many different gods why the hell would you think there is only 1...
gaybaby00 3 years ago
"ROFL...each relgion is different.. thats not true..."
One can't seriously believe this and if they do then they generalize religion to the highest degree. If this view is genuinely held, then there is no wonder why people see issues in theism, its because of straw men.
telemantros 3 years ago
You know... you religious people ruin are worlds... get over it there isnt a god... i think that christians are just pussys and scared to die so they need to make a special place anyone can get to...Now...get your religious ass of youtube cuz you ruin our world
gaybaby00 3 years ago
Yes, common sense is often an appeal to fallacious reasoning, and logical clarity is important, but don't put the cart ahead of the horse; don't put Logic ahead of Reason. The essence and bound of Logic is in mechanically uncovering truths implicit in truths we've already established, but how do we know anything to begin with, and what tempers Logic's missteps? Here Reason, in the guise of common sense, enters the picture. There are a limitless number of logically valid yet ridiculous theories.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
Reason deals in semantics and understanding. It deals in plausiblity and common sense. I could claim that elves in a tiny eldritch bubble at the center of the sun are solving differential equations for all the electrons in the universe, determining their behaviors. Such a ridiculous claim could be elaborated into a theory unassailable by Logic operating on observations, but Reason - in its varying non-logical aspects like common sense, plausiblity, parsimony, etc - dismisses it with ease.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
GII's video asks Christians to turn the mirror of Reason onto themselves. By full force of Reason they dismiss the literal claims of other religions (regardless their internal consistency!) as obviously premised on myths, but fail to apply the same standard to their own. Within a "bubble of delusion", Reason is an enemy, and must be denigrated and replaced by Logic, its mindless component, so that convoluted theological arguments can permit the religious to harmoniously remain within the bubble
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
Concisely, the manner of foundational empirical abduction is full Reason, not just its Logic aspect, and this applies not only to the religious theories of others, but to one's own as well.
I see from your videos that you've been studying WL Craig. Presup apologetics fails not only in its itemized arguments, but in the structure of the project itself. It mistakes internal consistency and explanatory power for the proper method of abductive evaluation, which is the full robust force of Reason
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
Your arguments were generally good (I'd take some issue), but irrelevant, because you missed the point of GII's video. It wasn't attempting a rigorous argument. The appeal wasn't to theologians, but to the average person and how they in practice evaluate the world. In practice, people use common sense and note obvious problems with positions...or rather, obvious problems with the positions of others.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
Thanks for your thoughts. The idea of common sense has come up several times in the comment section, however, I wonder if the implications of such a statement resound within those who make it?
Common sense is based of deductive thought processes, or in other words logic. Things can make sense at first glance (a priori) however, on further examination fall into fallacious reasoning. Common sense should be rooted in logic, otherwise it isn't common sense anymore but fallacious reasoning.
telemantros 3 years ago
No position is so ridiculous that some theologian can't make it sound perfectly reasonable to those already "inside the bubble of delusion."
Example: Tens of millions of Americans, if told (correctly) that the serial killer Ted Bundy was saved prior to his execution, and that Gandhi didn't take Jesus as his personal savior, will say with sincerity that "Bundy has eternal life in heaven, and Gandhi will suffer torment for eternity in hell, and that ILLUSTRATES just how awesome God's love is."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
Back to GII: Are Protestants not Mormons or Muslims because they've engaged in rigorous historical/theological analysis and a detailed exegesis of those religions? The answer is overwhelmingly no. They remain Protestants because they're content AND because the other religions look ridiculous on their face. GII's POINT was to turn the mirror on Christians, basically showing "the same things that easily convince you that other religions are obviously false applies to your religion as well."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
Well done, nicely put together. But, i think you wasted 8 mins talking because you did not think it through properly.
1. It's called a short video, thus no enough time to debate about evidence for every statement he makes... Although evidence is crucial.
2. The people he's appealing to (Christians), cares not about physical evidence whatsoever. If they did they wouldn't be Christians.
3. What can be asserted without physical evidence can also be dismissed without physical evidence.
assive2007 3 years ago
The zeitgeist movie provides more reasons & information in favor of it's arguments... but it's two hours long. Most Christians do not understand how important it is to back up one's assertions with strong physical evidence. I see no reason why GII should go out of his way using physical evidence, when what he's trying to disprove is based on zero physical evidence.
assive2007 3 years ago
Furthermore, if you've ever read comments from most youtube Christians, you'll realize these people wouldn't know what evidence is if it came up & hit them in the face. They simply don't understand the whole idea. All they know is, they have something they can't prove & they'll never change their mind no matter what anyone says. Now where does one begin an argument with people such mentality? You have to dumb it down to their level a little, then you can fight over evidence once they get it.
assive2007 3 years ago
have you examined zietgeist's claims for yourself or from nuetral sources?
UstaskaOluja 3 years ago
I don't think GII at all tries to make philosophically tight arguments.
The video your responding to I think really only made one point, which was that a double standard is applied.
It's not that he assumes the universe is physically sensible, therefore Islam AND Christianity are false. It's that when others make supernatural claims not associated with one's particual religious presupposition, we all assume the universe is a sensible place.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
You, my friend, are a machine! Keep up the good work!
sdogg1m 3 years ago
The irony of the post escapes you I think. For someone who adamantly denies God you sure claim to know a lot about Theology. I make claims about God, there is no assumption present in my claims because I explain myself, something you are not doing. I addressed your comments in my original post, your definition of faith is incorrect and I get the feeling all you want to do is argue so I think i'll pass this discussion.
telemantros 3 years ago
You have a lot of insight for an individual who has never met me, I'd watch your assumptions.
Evidence and faith work together, the former building off the latter. As for your opinion of God, it is inaccurate and overdramatic, i'm sorry but it is.
telemantros 3 years ago
Total PWNAGE!
Bosco239 3 years ago
When I grow up I want to be just like you, Telemantros.
isin17123 3 years ago
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
lps45s8tracks 3 years ago
The way I understand the argument what he means is that the belief in X is rational when there is evidence for X. Something does not qualify as evidence if it depends on counter intuitive starting assumptions and in addition to that is not verifyable.
This makes quite a lot of sense...
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
Great job my friend.
OblivionMon 3 years ago
Great video, I'm glad I subbed
Shenalmighty 3 years ago
I agree that GIIVideo's video does not really give arguments, but it just shows you how (some) atheists look at Christians; pretty much the same way that Christians look at other religions.
jnoort 3 years ago
Christianity and the value of human life:
Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Humanist Manifesto:
Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.
Deliratio 3 years ago
One of your best, man. It was ruthlessly true. I feel sorry for GII.
NomosCharis 3 years ago
Christian you tube videos are a lot more dry than atheist ones. You guys need to lighten up.
darkforce333 3 years ago
What these guys don't understand is that a true believer cannot disbelieve once he has believed. By believe I mean the Salvation experience. It takes faith. What would cause someone to have faith and someone else not to have faith? The Bible says you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. The Holy Spirit gives us the ability to have faith in Christ Jesus. The Holy Spirit helps us see the need of a Savior. Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Nice Vid;)
Jasper50 3 years ago 2
Actually its not G2, but G.i.i.V
But good video.
Deliratio 3 years ago
"How Do We Know that Christians Should Ignore GIIVideo?"
why are you making a video response then?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Huh?
telemantros 3 years ago
you are making a video response when your title says that we should ignore mushfer brains (his real name is Marshall brain, he also runs howstuffworks(dot)com, I call him mushfer brains because it's a semi-funny pun) but by making a video response you are not ignoring him.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Are you serious? Unless you're an idiot, which I don't think you are... you KNOW that he is explaining why we should ignore what GIIVideo is saying in his video. Not literally ignore the video!
jimmybbeam 3 years ago
a good reason would be to settle the topic once and for all
Deliratio 3 years ago
It's an explanation as to why GII should be ignored.
telemantros 3 years ago
Atheism is an illusion caused by selectively looking at evidence you do want to see, and avoiding the whole Universe of evidence you don't want to see, this is why atheists aren't skeptical at all over videos like that. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence this is why Atheism requires more evidence than Christianity, but the fact atheists have produced none at all and make such horrible arguments against God, shows they need to attack reason itself to try and get at God.
grandconjunct 3 years ago
That was a horribly mistaken analysis of atheism. Basically you are asserting that since a postulation, God, can account for x, y and z and the atheist cannot explain x, y and z then he is absurd in not believing God. But this is fallacious from the get go because, for example, before ancient cultures understood how lightning could occur they would make up stories of gods fighting each other. At least this was an explanation instead of saying I don't know right?
darkforce333 3 years ago
"Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence this is why Atheism requires more evidence than Christianity"
The flaw in your argument is that atheists just don't believe in God. There aren't asserting a positive claim of how the universe is the way it is. Or it came from nothing. They are more or less attacking what you call evidence for the existence of God and giving reason for why God is not needed or just complicates matters.
darkforce333 3 years ago
Man, telemantros you have to be my favorite youtube material.
SaintJimmyI 3 years ago 3
Great video... I'm planning on making a series on the history of Christianity (to combat much of the comments that "religion causes violence", "devalues life", "more people have been killed in the name of God", etc).
gCuezy 3 years ago 2
"But so many people have gotten sucked into it."
About 392,000 so far. With 4,521 ignorant folks rating his fallacious video high.
theman77777777232 3 years ago
Wow Good Job on your Vid! Thanks!
1121TGCross 3 years ago
Great video enjoyed.
Atheists Are Delusional
2 Thessalonians 2:10 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
lps45s8tracks 3 years ago
Atheism is a crutch : )
AtheismIsACrutch 3 years ago 3
Actually, atheism is a delusion : )
AtheismIsADelusion 3 years ago 3
"Atheists Are Delusional"
I guess babies who don't know your particular God are delusional as well. I didn't know having no view on the origin of the universe was a dumb view.
darkforce333 3 years ago
babies who are 20 years old are delusional.
legodesi 3 years ago
People who believe in superstitious goat herders from the bronze age over modern scientists are delusional.
darkforce333 3 years ago
People who misrepresent the beliefs of others in straw man arguments and presuppose scientific knowledge is the only knowledge one can have are irrational, illogical, and closed-minded antagonists, and in no way have any valid intellectual ideas to add to the conversation. Darkforce...sounds superstitious to me...are you also self-exemplified contradiction?
cruelfate45 3 years ago
"People who misrepresent the beliefs of others in straw man arguments and presuppose scientific knowledge is the only knowledge one can have are irrational,"
Are you referring to me? Ok they were fisherman who may have not been as superstitious as the rest of the people during the time period that were. Technically it wasn't the bronze age and we shouldn't just trust in scientists. Lol, you assume I am ignorant but you don't realize I know and have believed what you think is true.
darkforce333 3 years ago
"Darkforce...sounds superstitious to me...are you also self-exemplified contradiction?"
You got me I'm a superstitious guy for believing what I can't verify myself. I mean why did I trust historians of a copy of a copy of what ancient people claimed about supernatural occurances. I mean evolution is of course a conspiracy; in other words we can't trust the 95% of scientists who hold to it and give solid evidence. But if you reject the disputed evidence for Jesus than you are delusional!
darkforce333 3 years ago
You said people who believe in the superstition of bronze age goat herders are delusional. I was just making a ridiculous claim using your own foundation for such claims. Didn't seem to work out in either case, did it? That is because of misrepresentation. And check this out, I know theologians who dispute the evidence for Jesus. Hmmm. Is there not a spectrum of positions out there? Yes there is. So what good is it to demand all Christians are delusional and superstitious?
cruelfate45 3 years ago
" I was just making a ridiculous claim using your own foundation for such claims."
I couldn't tell the difference. I hear so many Christians say the same things :P
"So what good is it to demand all Christians are delusional and superstitious?"
Did i say all Christians are superstitious and delusional? I for one wasn't that way, but arguably you might have called me a true Christian. I wasn't all into the "pop" Christian prosperity and god does everything for me beliefs, but most do.
darkforce333 3 years ago
The sad thing is you don't realize that people who are criticising you aren't always making an argument. But since you know how close your beliefs are to rediculousness you feel threatedned when people make fun of your "evidence" for Christianity. I know cuz that's how I felt and would feel if I was a Christian. I don't mean to sound cocky, but I seriously have been on both sides of the fence and still hate atheists who make stupid straw mans arguments at Christianity. I just like rubbing it in.
darkforce333 3 years ago
If people resort to nothing more than criticism without an argument attached (which would an appeal to ridicule), they do nothing to advance their point. What they do is establish their deep rooted bias and inability to think outside their worldview. I would be cautious to attribute a feeling of 'threatened' when it could equally be awe at the logical inability of the presenter.
telemantros 3 years ago
"What they do is establish their deep rooted bias and inability to think outside their worldview."
What you just did is made a biased assumption that happens to be false if you're refering to me.
I think that is called a logical fallacy. I have no problem criticizing my views and making arguments against others. I know very few Christians who can argue on the points that skeptics and atheists actually believe in. I know all sorts of views, philosophies, and theologies of Christianity.
darkforce333 3 years ago
(continued) I dare you to test me. See if I'm a narrow minded, blind bigot. I can probably make even stronger arguments for your view then most Christians can. I don't know enough about you, so I wouldn't say I know more than you, but I've been there and done that apologetic stuff.
darkforce333 3 years ago
"What you just did is made a biased assumption that happens to be false if you're refering to me."
I did not mention your name; from what I wrote I mentioned those that ridicule, there's no need to get defensive and look at things that aren't there.
telemantros 3 years ago
Then my question is why did you respond to me with that comment? It doesn't really matter to me. I'm not going to defend either Christians or skeptic/atheists who make bad arguments and logical fallacies. I don't play sides.
darkforce333 3 years ago
It was a general thought of mine to what you originally typed:
"... people who are criticising you aren't always making an argument. But since you know how close your beliefs are to rediculousness you feel threatedned when people make fun of your "evidence" for Christianity. "
telemantros 3 years ago
I agree that GII videos have a lot of logical fallacies, but I think the point is still valid. That doesn't mean it's rationally fatal to your position, but it challenges Christians to see why they believe what they believe. I mean if people from all cultures tend to follow their cultures religions and see others as sill there needs to be a rational basis for believing your perticular religion has to be true. Any rational Christian shouldn't get too damaged by it.
darkforce333 3 years ago
What you say has some merit to it; Christians, whether they know it or not, are instructed to 'test' their faith by their own holy book. It's not a new concept GII is raising. I prefer more logical formulations of points.
telemantros 3 years ago
"It's not a new concept GII is raising. I prefer more logical formulations of points."
Yes, and I totally understand. It's just I don't think GII meant to make it a philosophically strong video. He's trying to question your faith in a kind of common sense way. Even though it is kind of too simplistic and full of assumptions I think some of his points cannot be ignored as non-problematic for the Christian faith. But you have to see as an "outsider" would or it doesn't work that well.
darkforce333 3 years ago
I would suggest that his points aren't 'common sensical' but rather they are 'at first glance.' The questions are answered if one invests (X) amount of time in researching the question. Instead, he throws up the questions and appears to delight in calling Christians delusional.
The presentation seems to help conclude that the questions are meant to be somewhat (if not entirely) malignant.
telemantros 3 years ago
I understand. I wasn't a Christian too long ago, so I know what you mean. But to many scientifically minded, genesis is full of bs, yet we still have to argue formally because people want to "ad hoc" defend their beliefs that don't make any sense in the first place.
Once I got out of the Christian defensive shield I saw how much the Bible is undefensible. But I'm not saying that we all don't have are shields in some way. It just takes a lot of explaining away reality to believe in the bible.
darkforce333 3 years ago
If you want to discuss the validity of the Bible, that would be anot