The choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red). Do you feel that as an atheist that you have taken the blue or the red pill? I feel that as a theist I have taken the red pill, but one could always claim red because we all deal with reality. Since faith is such a hard thing to defend I take red, to me it is not blissful, yet, if ever.
No, Atheism is not just rejection of a divine deity,Atheism is the belief that there is no Divine at all.& Yes Atheism takes faith to believe because it is a worldview that isnt based on evidence or lack of evidence but based on personal preference,anytime you have to believe in anything at all,it takes faith. Example:When you put on a parachute, you have faith that it will open when you jump. Any & every worldview/ideology takes faith to believe.Even if supported by evidence,nothing is forsure
That's simply a factually incorrect definition of atheism. Period.
As for the parachute example, examining the parachute would at least offer some guidance toward a decision. Religious faith is like jumping out of an airplane with nothing attached to you, and being told to believe you'll be fine.
Yes, even evidence-supported decisions may be wrong, but at least we they are informed. I don't believe a claim without evidence. Why should I? Belief is not the default, doubt is.
The way you describe yourself is more agnostic. You either believe in a God or you do not. If you are an atheist you have to reject the existence of every god out there and turn a blind eye to the supernatural. It takes more faith to believe there's nothing, than to believe there's something, since the universe statistically begs for something.
That's not what atheism means. Atheism and agnosticism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Atheism is not the active belief against a god, but a lack of belief in a god. If one does not believe in a specific god or gods, then one is an atheist.
Atheist = "I don't believe a god exists."
Agnostic = "I don't know if a god exists."
Atheist does NOT equal "I am certain that a god does NOT exist."
Furthermore, not believing in god is not the same as believing there's nothing.
@actresscp atheism isnt a belief in nothing, it's a disbelief in a god, disbelief doesn't require faith, it requires a lack of faith (and evidence, usually) amongst other things.
Also, you can be agnostic and atheist, you can be gnostic and atheist, you can be gnostic and christian, or agnostic and christian. They're not mutually exclusive dude.
hehe, crazy commentors (sp?) you have there, they truly live up to the rules of the internet, except ofc the primary 3, at least they won't admit that.
Ah, but that's not what an atheist believes. The only thing an atheist has to do is NOT believe in a god or gods. That means that an atheist can believe that a god MIGHT exist without having to claim knowledge about what characteristics that god may or may not possess.
And also, why COULDN'T the universe have always existed on its own? Isn't the counter claim that GOD has always existed on his own? Why is one more likely than the other?
(Also, there are other possibilities beside these two)
I believe the universe had to have been created at one point--I don't believe it could possibly have always existed on its own. Without some sort of creator, I don't see how the universe and its contents could have always existed.
I believe God was always able to exist because He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
You're alive. Aren't YOU a part of the universe? Just the same way that many believe that we are all a part of god? Can't the universe be alive in ways that might not be so obvious to us?
Every assertion you have made is without basis or explanation. A god can and does have these characteristics, yet the universe as it exists must have these other characteristics. This is why the statement of faith is as it is. You require faith, because you give no reason or explanation to why the universe could not exist without a god. I see many possibilities, including yours, but have no reason to believe any one of them over another. This is why what you have is called faith. Thank you.
Okay, you can believe whatever you like, but you've made absolutely no case here as to WHY you believe that or why anyone else should, and you've done and said everything you could to demonstrate the contrary. If you have anything to add that might attest otherwise, please let me know. Peace.
What characterizes each atheist as being an atheist is the LACK of having the theistic belief that there is a (or any) 'God' or gods.
It takes no faith to LACK having a or any particular belief - including to lack having the belief that there is or are a or any existent 'God' or gods.
If they do not believe in God, then they need to be able to explain how the universe came about via other means.
One may not care about how everything came to be. But, I'm pretty sure that everyone - at one point in their life - questions the origins of life and everything else.
Only IF there is a 'God' is there a 'God' who can be believed IN.
The wording of your comment indicates that you have assumed there to be an existent 'God' who can - therefore - be believed in. There seeming to you to be a 'God' is not cause for you to assume that there necessarily IS a 'God'.
You also wrote: "...then they need to be able to explain how the universe came about via other means."
Despite the fact that it may seem to you to be the case that "the universe CAME ABOUT", that is not necessarily a correct idea. Likewise, the idea that "everything came to be" is also not necessarily a correct idea.
If you require that anyone must explain "how the universe came about", then you must first prove that the universe did - in fact - come about. Otherwise, you would be beginning with what is nothing more than an assumed to be correct premise.
In the same way that the question: "Why is the floor brown?" assumes a.) that the belief that there is a floor is a correct belief, and b.) that the belief that the assumed to be existent floor is brown is a correct belief, -
- the question, "If 'God' did not create the universe, then who or what created the universe?" assumes a.) the belief that there is a 'God' is a correct belief , b.) the belief that there is a universe is a correct belief, and c. ) the belief that the apparently existent universe was - in fact - created is a correct belief.
How is that assuming that there is a God? I personally believe that God does exist, but some do not. So, I want to know how they think that the universe came about.
By "universe," I mean everything that exists. Who could argue that there is no universe?
You asked: How is that assuming that there is a God?
To see how the question , If God did not create the universe, then who or what created the universe? includes the assumption that there necessarily is an existent God, direct your attention to the first five words of the question: If God did not create..., - if there is no God, then there is no God who could have created or not created. Only that which does exist could create or could NOT create.
My point was that if no omnipotent being created the universe (in this case, whether said being exists or not is irrelevant), it (the universe) wouldn't be here. Yet, it is.
The idea that something exists - merely because it seems to be the case that something exists - is an idea that is based in circular reasoning. It is circular, because it is based upon the irrational presumption that the perception of the apparently existent thing is necessarily NOT a perception of an imagined to be existent "thing". It's sort of like a person saying that a belief that he or she has is not an incorrect belief, merely because it does not seem to him or her to be incorrect.
If there is no God, then the question , If God did not create the universe, then who or what created the universe? is the equivalent to asking the following : If (not existent, not thing/ not being) did not create the universe, then who or what created the universe? There is no such thing as a not existent , not thing , not being - so no such non-thing/non-being could create or could not create anything.
If the question was instead phrased as follows: Who or what created the universe?, then there would be no implied assumption that a God necessarily does exist included within that question.
I would not presume to know or to be able to speak any atheist person's perspective other than my own. What I can tell you, however, is that I lack having the belief that the universe DID (past tense) come about (past tense). I am not convinced that the idea that the universe did come about is not a misconception of occurrences.
The idea that 'appears to exist' necessarily indicates 'is existent' may - in fact - be an incorrect idea.That there appear to be existent things and existent beings does, therefore, not mean that there necessarily ARE existent things and existent beings. As unlikely and as outrageous as it may seem, each and every one of all apparently existent things and apparently existent beings could in fact only be being imagined.
You wrote: "I believe that the universe is real, ..."
Nevertheless, believing (based on seemingness) that there is an existent universe (not just that there appears to be an existent universe) and knowing whether or not there is an existent universe are two very different things.
No offense intended, but any person who is experiencing the having of a delusion does not perceive of his or her own state as being that of someone who is having a delusion.
To assume that any or even that every apparently existent mind is not capable of perceiving that which is nothing more that a mirage of apparently existent things and apparently existent beings is only to assume. I do not hold the belief that the assumption that there are existent things and that there are existent beings necessarily is a correct assumption, regardless of how correct that assumption may seem to be.
Okay.. and we can do that. But that's irrelevant anyway. The creation of the universe has nothing to do with a god, at least to an atheist. We are fine with accepting that we do not know how the universe was created, because it is incredibly complex. Conversely, theists say that they DO know, which is dishonest. You don't know, anymore than we do, and if you did know, you could prove it. Saying that atheists require faith is an ironic series of strawmen transference of YOUR OWN BELIEFS.
My point still remains: it takes faith to be an atheist; atheists do not believe in any kind of omnipotent being, which is the only thing that could have possibly created the universe.
"Saying that atheists require faith is an ironic series of strawmen transference of YOUR OWN BELIEFS."
Those who believe in God aren't trying to prove themselves to be right by stating that atheists require faith. It's merely something that we want to point out.
"atheists do not believe in any kind of omnipotent being, which is the only thing that could have possibly created the universe."
If you're going to start your statement with a wild assertion that has no scientific backing, and proceed as though said assertion is a demonstrable (or even logical) fact, then no wonder you two can't agree.
Prove that an omnipotent being is required in order for the universe to exist, and we can then take the claim of faith seriously. Until then, pinworm is right.
I guess that there is no point in continuing this if we can't even agree on whether or not the universe's formation required action from an omnipotent being.
Also, Pinworm isn't right simply because I can't prove that an omnipotent being is required.
No, but he IS right when he says that you are projecting your beliefs onto him. By making a bald assertion that creation cannot exist without an omnipotent being without some kind of evidence to that statement, and by building everything else you say on that very statement, you are projecting your view onto him and anyone else listening. Address that view first and move on, otherwise the claim that you are creating a straw-man argument by projecting your beliefs seems true.
Well, I guess that this won't be going very far; I can't prove that the universe needed God in order to have been formed, but I still believe that He was necessary. And I believe that it takes great faith to be an atheist.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your beliefs. I simply ask for evidence to those beliefs, especially if they make a statement about or toward my own beliefs, particularly when you refer to doubt as faith. Atheism is the ongoing practice of doubt, of the refusal to accept a claim without sufficient evidence. If you can't provide evidence to your claims, then my refusal to accept them is in fact the polar OPPOSITE of faith.
"I can't prove that the universe needed God in order to have been formed," "atheists do not believe in any kind of omnipotent being, which is the only thing that could have possibly created the universe." And you people wonder why we constantly call you theists dishonest. Could it maybe be the fact that you are? I don't understand how people like you can constantly outright lie like this and still feel like you have the moral highground. I would be sickened with myself if I lived like this.
I'm using logic; it is clear to me that the only thing that could possibly account for the universe's origin is God. It sickens me how some people can be so blind, but you may have it your way.
And it frustrates us that you can be so certain that no other possibility exists for the universe's origin, yet you can't cohesively explain WHAT brought you to that conclusion. I'm not talking about a solid, no questions asked case here. Just explain the logic that leads you to this belief. What evidence do you present here? If there is none, then why is this the ONLY possibility? What's so difficult about asking you to back up your own claim?
Do you see that this is merely an argument from ignorance? Inserting an answer to a question because you can't think of a better one is not an effective way to find the truth.
And if something can't come from nothing (which is NOT actually what the big bang theory tells us at all) then WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?
If something can't come from nothing, then God also needs an explanation. If god is eternal and could always have existed, then why couldn't the universe have always existed?
You're applying one type of logic to your god and a completely different type of logic to everything else. If this isn't intellectual dishonesty, WHAT IS?
How do you know that God, whom we can't see, has always existed, and that the universe, which we can clearly see, could not have always existed in some form? And furthermore how do you know that the universe is not a living thing? What logic or proof led you to these beliefs?
These are just wild assertions that have no evidence and that you want us to treat as facts upon which you can build further ideas. They are not facts, they're merely your opinions.
Something omnipotent had to have created the universe.
Do you honestly want me to prove that the universe is not alive and that it has not always existed? In my opinion, a person shouldn't have to; it should be obvious that the universe couldn't have always existed and that it is not living.
@madworld10 No, I don't expect you to prove that the universe is not a living thing, merely to explain how you came to such a belief.
Many people feel the presence of things that are not there. Amputees feel the present of their missing limbs. Ghost hunters feel the presence of spirits. Children feel the presence of the boogie man. I feel the presence of surrounding things in my dreams, but i don't know they're not there until I wake up.
And of course, people of different religions feel the presence of THEIR OWN GOD, who often tells them that YOUR GOD is the false one. Charles Manson, Jim Jones and Rasputin all felt the presence of God, and they said that he told them ALL that they were the messiah
So maybe feeling a presence is enough evidence for you, but it is NOT enough evidence for me.
I don't know why I continue but I enjoy it, so why not.
So, you're using Logic. Rather than all the scientific evidence pointing to things such as abiogenesis and string theory (which is not proven, however, it does have much evidence, and since you're logical and honest, you'll see that.. right?), you choose to ignore that, and instead believe a book written by man several thousand years ago (when the earth was flat) which has been proven wrong in nearly all accounts? and you call that logic?
Abiogenesis is merely a theory. It attempts to explain how life could have arisen via inanimate matter. But how does one explain where this matter came from?
Also, man may have written the Bible, but he was inspired by God. And there are various pieces of scripture that actually describe the Earth as round.
What do you mean it's "merely a theory"? Do you understand what a theory is? It's something that's a proven fact. A theory is what unifies various laws and facts. Something must be proven to be a theory. On that note, we've already created Abiogenesis in a lab. It's been done. You can't debate this.
And I never said it had anything to do with where matter came from, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I gave you string theory. I can't fight your own ignorance.
Abiogenesis is life arising from inanimate matter, is it not? So, I still don't see how this is possible; the matter would have had to have come from somewhere.
@madworld10 This statement implies that a requirement that does not exist must exist in order for a theory to be valid.
It's like saying that music theory is useless to a musician because it doesn't tell us anything as to where musical instruments come from, which it was never intended to do.
Also, you're continuing to assume that matter could not have always existed in some form, that it MUST have been created with purpose.
@madworld10 If you continue to assert that "only an all-powerful being" could or could not do certain things, I still have to ask how you came to such a conclusion.
If there is no process to this, and you simply "can't think of anything better" then you're just using an argument from ignorance, which is not a real case.
I'm not sure about your question concerning abiogenesis. I only mentioned it in response to your statements.
Can you honestly say that you think that the universe could have originated without an omnipotent being? And do you think that the universe could have always existed (also without an omnipotent being)?
Why are you telling us that Abiogenesis isn't how the universe came into existence? no one ever said that. Would you like to tell us that helicopters aren't vehicles to traverse tunnel networks? We know. Thanks.
wow, thank you pinworm, ur the reason why i question myself as a human being by saying that theory is based on fact... various laws.... THEIR IS A REASON why its called THEORY and not a law like LAW of ATTRACTION not THEORY of attraction. not everyone believes that the THEORY of evolution is true or has facts or various laws and tahts why it is dubbed as a theory A FUCKING THEORY. not a fact, not a law, just a god damn could be, maybe and should be.
@ryanireland187 You should question yourself, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and what you just said literally could not possibly be more incorrect. Worse than that, you expect people with knowledge and education to take your ignorance as evidence for anything other than your own ignorance.
Lets not forget the Goddess Echo. She liked to talk a lot and just could not get enough of her own voice. So she was punished by the other gods to eternal silence, except only to repeat, in the voice of a mortal, what the mortal said, when a mortal shouted something at the mountains or caves.
Makes perfect sense.
WTF is a "sound wave"? It takes as much faith to believe in "reflection" of "sound waves" as to believe in the Greek goddess Echo.
no your referring to denying doctrines because jews and christians believe in the same God and in in India in the Gupta age a bunch of religious leaders meet and talked and they all agreed on a higher being it is just the ignorant part that says it a different god all together
how he does things and how he rules is merely opinion and doctrine.
So Atheism pretty much says no good usually by viewing their doctrines and beliefs so you denounce their beliefs and doctrines.
I agree with you. but.. and i cant remember the name, what if you are open to the concept of religion but are not entirely sure on what religion is right? does that mean that you dont technically denounce any of the religions?
Are you referring to agnosticism possibly? Atheism isn't necessarily DENOUNCING anything, as in calling it a bad thing, just expressing a lack of belief.
The question itself makes no logical sense. Faith by definition is belief that is not based on evidence or proof. Atheism is a LACK of belief in god, a LACK of faith, by definition.
I am agnostic-atheist. I believe in what I can observe. I cannot observe god, he has not been detected in a laboratory, therefore I do not believe in god. That does not require any faith. I do not believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for a god to exist, but until there is evidence, I remain athiest. No faith.
faith does not have to entail God though that is a common presumption when discussing faith, you put your faith (trust in a belief) into not God; that doesn't make not faith. I don't think you're a failure at faith and I think even if you make the choice to not beliieve in God that God will still love you and hold you up in some way. If you have problems with having Christian faith I may be able to help you there. You have to want to have faith in order to gain it if you don't have it though
atheists do share a ground of some kind of faith with theists. It is funny because atheism has its faith in nothing (not no no faith though) whereas theists put their faith in God as the source of all things (not the source of no-things or contradictions if you will). People then stand as beings with free wills, freedom to be in submission or accordance or love with God, or freedom from God to choose to try to live without God though God's love still waits for an admission and an open heart
Not Zeus, not Apollo, not Yahweh or his son. I also don't believe that Bigfoot exists. Does that mean I have FAITH that Bigfoot isn't real? Did I FAIL the Loch Ness Monster FAITH test?
People think that atheists are so insulting, but listen to what we're told by Christians. Every message a veiled insult. You're better than us because you believe, you're soul is saved while ours are lost, we're FAILURES at faith.
You are going to HELL because you love evil, Not because you do not believe in GOD. I have to bring NO PROOF or argument for you. You will go to Hell bro Don't Doubt That !!! You love evil and hate good and are going to HELL
They can never specify that. No matter what kind of person you are, how kind and gentle you behave toward your fellow man, whether you give to charity or help others, you are always evil in their eyes. All who don't believe like them are wrong and deserve to die and be tortured forever. Religion makes you view the world in this way. Sad really.
you know what God's word says, obey that, and you are good, Don't obey and you are NOT good. But if you come to find that you cannot keep God's word no matter how hard you try, then admit that you are a sinner / Repent and ask Jesus Christ to help you.
NO. I know what YOUR religion SAYS is god's word. I do not (and neither does anyone else) know GOD'S word. Is it so much of a stretch to have the simple humility to admit that you don't know what really is god's word? Are you so arrogant to assume that in a sea of countless religions and dogmas, all of them man made, that YOURS has to be the correct one? Can you not humble yourself a little to the idea that you might not know? REALLY???
I Guess faith really is arrogance disguised as humility.
You have no sin in your life dude?? What sin do you have to cover up?? Watching Porn Lusting Drunk Drugs Hate Jelous Unfair Mean Selfish Coward Accuser Abuser of people, Backbiting, Gossip, Unfriendly, Prideful Arrogant Fornication Masturbation, most sins are in your heart, Not from what you eat
Leviticus 11:11 says They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Now in these days we know that bottom feeders are dirty they are the vacuum cleaners of the sea they eat the bad stuff. It's like eating cockroaches. wouldn't you say eating roaches is an abomination to you??? God wants what is best for us. It is unhealthy an abomination like eating crap
But if you wanna ask dumb questions because you want to go to bed with a man. Then say it straight what you are. You are going to hell dude whether the bible is real or not
Neither of those statements had anything to do with the question posed to you.
You were given a reasonable question about shellfish. If bottom feeders are so bad, why not outlaw catfish while you're at it. Instead you choose to discuss roaches, like there was ever a connection.
And then you imply that this person wants to go to bed with a man? WHAT? We see what's on YOUR mind.
"You are going to hell dude whether the bible is real or not"
Actually, if the bible is NOT real, then there is no hell. PERIOD. Why is it so hard to admit that maybe you just DON'T KNOW what's out there? Is that slight bit of humility so hard to swallow that you must assert that you really have all the answers?
Wow, it's good to see what a humble nature religion can bring people. Seriously, the arrogance it takes to judge another human being like that is staggering!
I have no reason to answer any trick questions. God can have the right to say don't eat steak if he wants too lol !! And you are going to HELL!!! Don't doubt that dude remember I told ya
It wasn't a trick question. Just a simple statement about your own arrogance and your willingness to pass judgment on your fellow human beings.
Religion has clearly made you a worse person, not better. If Christ was alive and real like you believe, he would WEEP for people like you. I feel sorry for you. Condemning someone to hell has nothing to do with love but is all about HATE. You HATE joy and delight in torture. I pity you.
Open your eyes dude, the people that control the world, indeed believe that there is a God and a devil, and they have chosen whom they will serve, and they prefer to keep you believing in nothing, that is MORE ignorant than being a satanist. Wishy Washy dude ain't down for anything
How can you say things like "I have to bring no proof" and still believe your own words and not recognize yourself as dishonest?
The answer is either you are incredibly stupid, or you are purposefully dishonest and are simply too scared to admit it, because you've been indoctrinated and forced to believe that questioning your faith leads to eternal torture. Nice god you have, but I think I'd prefer an atheist world that would be demonstrably less hate and sin filled.
crucial here, atheism is kind of an anti-faith, it is like when someone tries to fail at a test, they still have taken the test though. Any surmise of reality is a faith of that person doing the surmising; thus atheism is a faith that there is nothing out there in a way. No faith at all would be complete unconsciousness. Whereas someone who believes in eternal truth (what science looks for as well) in all realms including those beyond us would be refining their beliefs and scope of reality.
a·the·ist - noun - unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities. From the Greek "godless" or "without theism"
Not an assertion that there is no god, but a rejection of the idea that there is. No faith required to listen to someone's assertion (a rather arrogant assertion) that they KNOW what created the universe and saying "I don't believe that."
Yes, the first edition of the compact OED defines atheism as the belief that God does not exist.
The second edition however was expanded because this definition was too narrow to coincide with the origin: from Greek a- without + theos god.
Godless
One who doesn't believe that there is a god, but doesn't believe that there isn't a god, being insufficiently convinced of either side, is godless by default.
Actually, gnosticism refers to knowledge, theism refers to a religious belief. To state that you lack KNOWLEDGE that there is or is not a god says nothing as to whether or not you accept a claim as being believable. The two are not mutually exclusive, you can be both, or neither. This is a common misconception of the word agnostic.
Atheists don't assert that there is no god, we just reject the claims that there is. Asking for proof of a negative is one of the oldest and silliest logical fallacies. It's like asking for proof that there is no bigfoot, it's a silly request.
That is not what atheism means. Look it up. A lack of theism is merely the rejection of or absence of belief. That's what the word means. Plain and simple. I see no evidence for the existence of a god. Disproving anything else is not proof of a god, or proof of what god or gods we may be talking about. So, if you believe in a god, you have a claim which I reject. That's how logic works. Feel free to offer any proof you may have if you like. Thanks.
1) your tone leaves a certain implication of belief
2) your GRAMMAR implies that you DIDN'T quote straight from any dictionary.
a⋅the⋅ist
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
156575; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist
3) Not believing in something doesn't mean you do believe it doesn't exist. I don't believe in Big Foot, but I don't actively claim that he doesn't exist. He might. I just don't think he does.
If you really believed that disproof of one thing didn't equal proof of another, you wouldn't have followed that up with a statement about faith in science. I have no faith in science, because it is constantly changing as we get new data and it is presented to us with evidence. That evidence may be very compelling, or not so compelling, and a belief is formed through the comparison of different ideas being presented. No faith is ever required for such a system, because the ideas can change.
Religion, on the other hand, is a baseless assertion of ideas that have to be taken at face value, and can never change no matter what evidence might be later introduced. This is a bad system for deciding anything in life.
If you have more to say on the subject, I would appreciate it if you would make a video response so that you can properly explain yourself to .."one who believes there no deity."
1)My tone implied that I disagreed with you. 2) Yes I left out the word is, so shoot me; athe·ist Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\ Function: noun Date: 1551 :one who believes that there is no deity — athe·is·tic \ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective — athe·is·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb 3) Then you are agnostic not atheist. 4) You can tell me what I agree with. You tend to read a lot into things. My words are simple maybe too simple.
1) Exactly. I don't believe in a god, and you disagree.
2) Lacking theism makes me someone an atheist. Lacking absolute certainty in rejecting a claim just makes someone rational.
3) These two terms are not mutually exclusive. One can be both. If you mean by agnostic that I lack knowledge of the origin of the universe, then we're ALL agnostic.
4) You claim to agree with one statement, then make another statement contradicting that agreement.
1) I disagree with your statement that "It Takes NO Faith to be an Atheist"
2) Not sure what you were trying to say.
3) Yes you can be an agnostic who leans toward atheism or toward theism.
4) There was no contradiction in my statement. I compared the two most prevalent lines of thinking, "faith in science or in God." I never claimed that they are the only possibilities nor that if one is wrong the other is right.
If you will quit twisting everything I say to fit your agenda then are done.
1) Of course you do. A non theist would recognize this statement to be a point of fact.
2) That doesn't surprise me.
3) Yes, or you can be an agnostic atheist.
4) I've explained what faith is and what science is, and how the two disagree.
And if your next response isn't in a video format, we are done. If you don't want to participate in the process of making videos then stop wasting everyone's time.
It seems to me that you have a deepseated problem with Christians and Jews. Is this because you reall have a reason or do you just randomly dislike us? please respond.
What about polytheists? I know it's not the most creative question, & no I'm not one, but you can't say that everyone is an athiest, if you include people that believe in every religion. Maybe I'm just to tired to make any since. Sorry if this comment, sounds pointless, but I just want to know what someone thinks about polytheists.
the universe is not uncreated , it was created by an uncreated power , thats god. organized sophisticated and holy. you believe in right and wrong good and evil.
we reject foolish believes for fact.
the roman catholic church is the preiminent religion.
bible is one way , the roman catholic church the full way.
watch video " god exists atheists"
and has anyone ever said when it comes to the new testament and jesus , that he should have said this instead or that it would be better this way. never.
science knows that the universe was created. what created it. something had to. and it has to be uncreated and all powerful sympathetic to humans ,like us , and organized and knowing of right and wrong. thats god. now who and what is it and how does he fully reveal himself to us. the
the bible is an unverifiable source with plenty of scientific errors (flat earth, light-generating moon, etc), so if that's ur scientific resource then ur argument is already at a loss. there are plenty of errors and immoral statements by jesus (supporting slavery and violence), as well as the NT. science says nothing about the universe being "created", but instead points toward cosmological evolution. if the creator is uncreated then it is just as likely that the universe was uncreated.
I guess the logic is that by putting the omnipotent creator God - who prophesied thru His prophets the origins and demises of nations, in detail, hundreds of yrs before the actual events; all of which is documented in detail in the OT - in the SAME category as fictional, pathetic, clear creations of human beings' furtive imaginations' 'gods' - it really puts the true God Christians trust in in His place.
What a joke. Do atheists seriously take themselves seriously with this transparent fraud?
God told Abraham He'd make him the father of many nations - today it's true. Billions of people examine the evidence and put their trust in Jesus Christ - the same way Abraham trusted God to deliver a substitute in his own son's place.
Not to mention the rise and fall of nations in extreme detail, which played out exactly like predicted by God's prophets.
Muhummad and Nostradomus? Clear frauds - it doesn't even take much study to discover how untrustworthy they are, or were. Now deceased.
"The billions believing in Allah and Vishnu obviously haven't examined the evidence "
What, all of them? Get real. There are millions who study these things just as hard as you do, but within a different faith. They fall for the same logical fallacies, and excuse the inconvenient truths to maintain their precious belief that some sky pixie will look after them when they die.
Yes, all of them. I'll write it again - the billions believing in Allah and Vishnu obviously haven't examined the evidence. It's simple, uncomplicated. Not sure what you mean about 'sky pixie' - know of no religion that communicates anything about a 'sky pixie'. Disrespecting what people believe and trying to diminish their beliefs with snide decriptions, doesn't reinforce your position one-iota.
Ok, I'll look for the list when I get a chance, and give it to you since you're truly interested.
Red Pill vs. Blue Pill
The choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red). Do you feel that as an atheist that you have taken the blue or the red pill? I feel that as a theist I have taken the red pill, but one could always claim red because we all deal with reality. Since faith is such a hard thing to defend I take red, to me it is not blissful, yet, if ever.
What if you eat both?
{Faith = "nothing" * (yet + hope)^?}
yrrebyam666 1 year ago
atheist = NO FAITH
catholic = paganism
CHRISTian + son of GOD = follower of CHRIST
lakayna 1 year ago
@lakayna Atheist = demands evidence before believing a claim
Catholic = branch of Christianity (they gave you your bible, your church and all the infrastructure of your religion)
Person who hasn't read the ENTIRE bible yet claims to be a Christian = Idiot
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
Yes, except, unlike your "scape-goat gods", Jesus actually exists. Ask historians, he actually walked this earth.
Merry Christmas and Peace be with you.
aflo82 1 year ago
i noticed you said Shiva and Bramha. if i may point out these are demigods. thanks
guitarhero666759 1 year ago
Hercules is a demi-god not a god , bu it doesn't really matter
Frikgeek 1 year ago
I disagree.
TheDairies 1 year ago
great way to put it.
TrevorHarris881 1 year ago
No, Atheism is not just rejection of a divine deity,Atheism is the belief that there is no Divine at all.& Yes Atheism takes faith to believe because it is a worldview that isnt based on evidence or lack of evidence but based on personal preference,anytime you have to believe in anything at all,it takes faith. Example:When you put on a parachute, you have faith that it will open when you jump. Any & every worldview/ideology takes faith to believe.Even if supported by evidence,nothing is forsure
GrotesqueKevin 1 year ago
@GrotesqueKevin
That's simply a factually incorrect definition of atheism. Period.
As for the parachute example, examining the parachute would at least offer some guidance toward a decision. Religious faith is like jumping out of an airplane with nothing attached to you, and being told to believe you'll be fine.
Yes, even evidence-supported decisions may be wrong, but at least we they are informed. I don't believe a claim without evidence. Why should I? Belief is not the default, doubt is.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
great point!
julzabro 1 year ago
Yes, that's right, it takes no self delusion to not believe in god
Dakayrus 1 year ago
GREAT VIDEO!!
JUANMO94 1 year ago
Rest assure that when a Christian expresses a bible based opinion, the opposite is probably true.
sweetsweatyfeet 1 year ago
The way you describe yourself is more agnostic. You either believe in a God or you do not. If you are an atheist you have to reject the existence of every god out there and turn a blind eye to the supernatural. It takes more faith to believe there's nothing, than to believe there's something, since the universe statistically begs for something.
actresscp 1 year ago
@actresscp
That's not what atheism means. Atheism and agnosticism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Atheism is not the active belief against a god, but a lack of belief in a god. If one does not believe in a specific god or gods, then one is an atheist.
Atheist = "I don't believe a god exists."
Agnostic = "I don't know if a god exists."
Atheist does NOT equal "I am certain that a god does NOT exist."
Furthermore, not believing in god is not the same as believing there's nothing.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
@actresscp atheism isnt a belief in nothing, it's a disbelief in a god, disbelief doesn't require faith, it requires a lack of faith (and evidence, usually) amongst other things.
Also, you can be agnostic and atheist, you can be gnostic and atheist, you can be gnostic and christian, or agnostic and christian. They're not mutually exclusive dude.
OpinionatedAussie 1 year ago
Comment removed
harpo10 1 year ago
Obviously, the universe had to either have originated or always existed; it couldn't have done both.
So I was just wondering if you really can believe one of them.
madworld10 1 year ago
@madworld10 I don't believe in either because I have no proof of either.
If you are following someone, and they are out of your site, and you come to a fork in the road, you KNOW that they must have gone left or right.
So, which do you believe is true?
There are only 2 CHOICES!
It must be one or the other.
Do you believe the person went a certain way? OR do you believe that neither way is more likely because you just don't have enough information?
If you're honest, I think I know.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
hehe, crazy commentors (sp?) you have there, they truly live up to the rules of the internet, except ofc the primary 3, at least they won't admit that.
nice vid though 'n whatnot ^^
Sutskoen 2 years ago
interesting and occasionally hilarious comment stream on this well-spoken vid.
Elvisdogg 2 years ago
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a special exception to your "one less god" rule.
The FSM is the only God, and he made all those other gods as part of his master plan to plant fake evidence for evolution.
Elvisdogg 2 years ago
"It takes no faith to be an Atheist."
Well, that depends on what you specifically believe.
If an Atheist believes the universe was able to have always existed on its own, then that does require a lot of faith.
madworld10 2 years ago
Ah, but that's not what an atheist believes. The only thing an atheist has to do is NOT believe in a god or gods. That means that an atheist can believe that a god MIGHT exist without having to claim knowledge about what characteristics that god may or may not possess.
And also, why COULDN'T the universe have always existed on its own? Isn't the counter claim that GOD has always existed on his own? Why is one more likely than the other?
(Also, there are other possibilities beside these two)
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
I believe the universe had to have been created at one point--I don't believe it could possibly have always existed on its own. Without some sort of creator, I don't see how the universe and its contents could have always existed.
I believe God was always able to exist because He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
madworld10 2 years ago
Nonetheless, I still believe a lot of faith is required if one does not believe in God.
madworld10 2 years ago
"I believe God was always able to exist because He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent"
That's not an answer. It isn't even a statement of any real value and meaning. It's the same as saying you believe because you believe.
If your god doesn't need a creator, or even a beginning, then why couldn't the universe have always been here, with no creator and no begining?
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
The universe doesn't have any amazing supernatural power. It doesn't even think. It's not even alive.
madworld10 2 years ago
You're alive. Aren't YOU a part of the universe? Just the same way that many believe that we are all a part of god? Can't the universe be alive in ways that might not be so obvious to us?
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
In my opinion, no. I don't believe the universe could exist at all without God.
madworld10 2 years ago
Every assertion you have made is without basis or explanation. A god can and does have these characteristics, yet the universe as it exists must have these other characteristics. This is why the statement of faith is as it is. You require faith, because you give no reason or explanation to why the universe could not exist without a god. I see many possibilities, including yours, but have no reason to believe any one of them over another. This is why what you have is called faith. Thank you.
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
It is faith, yes; however, I still believe it, too, requires faith to be an Atheist.
madworld10 2 years ago
Okay, you can believe whatever you like, but you've made absolutely no case here as to WHY you believe that or why anyone else should, and you've done and said everything you could to demonstrate the contrary. If you have anything to add that might attest otherwise, please let me know. Peace.
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
"If an Atheist believes the universe was able to have always existed on its own, then that does require a lot of faith."
While it may take faith for any person to have that belief , it is not the having of that belief that characterizes any person as being an atheist.
MENCADO 2 years ago
What characterizes each atheist as being an atheist is the LACK of having the theistic belief that there is a (or any) 'God' or gods.
It takes no faith to LACK having a or any particular belief - including to lack having the belief that there is or are a or any existent 'God' or gods.
MENCADO 2 years ago
@MENCADO
I think that it does.
If they do not believe in God, then they need to be able to explain how the universe came about via other means.
One may not care about how everything came to be. But, I'm pretty sure that everyone - at one point in their life - questions the origins of life and everything else.
madworld10 2 years ago
madwordl10,
You wrote: "If they do not believe in God,..."
Only IF there is a 'God' is there a 'God' who can be believed IN.
The wording of your comment indicates that you have assumed there to be an existent 'God' who can - therefore - be believed in. There seeming to you to be a 'God' is not cause for you to assume that there necessarily IS a 'God'.
MENCADO 2 years ago
madworld 10,
You also wrote: "...then they need to be able to explain how the universe came about via other means."
Despite the fact that it may seem to you to be the case that "the universe CAME ABOUT", that is not necessarily a correct idea. Likewise, the idea that "everything came to be" is also not necessarily a correct idea.
MENCADO 2 years ago
madworld10,
If you require that anyone must explain "how the universe came about", then you must first prove that the universe did - in fact - come about. Otherwise, you would be beginning with what is nothing more than an assumed to be correct premise.
MENCADO 2 years ago
madworld10,
In the same way that the question: "Why is the floor brown?" assumes a.) that the belief that there is a floor is a correct belief, and b.) that the belief that the assumed to be existent floor is brown is a correct belief, -
MENCADO 2 years ago
- the question, "If 'God' did not create the universe, then who or what created the universe?" assumes a.) the belief that there is a 'God' is a correct belief , b.) the belief that there is a universe is a correct belief, and c. ) the belief that the apparently existent universe was - in fact - created is a correct belief.
MENCADO 2 years ago
@MENCADO
I do not think that "A" is true..
How is that assuming that there is a God? I personally believe that God does exist, but some do not. So, I want to know how they think that the universe came about.
By "universe," I mean everything that exists. Who could argue that there is no universe?
madworld10 2 years ago
madworld10,
You asked: How is that assuming that there is a God?
To see how the question , If God did not create the universe, then who or what created the universe? includes the assumption that there necessarily is an existent God, direct your attention to the first five words of the question: If God did not create..., - if there is no God, then there is no God who could have created or not created. Only that which does exist could create or could NOT create.
MENCADO 2 years ago
@MENCADO
My point was that if no omnipotent being created the universe (in this case, whether said being exists or not is irrelevant), it (the universe) wouldn't be here. Yet, it is.
Therefore, I claim that there is a God.
madworld10 2 years ago
The idea that something exists - merely because it seems to be the case that something exists - is an idea that is based in circular reasoning. It is circular, because it is based upon the irrational presumption that the perception of the apparently existent thing is necessarily NOT a perception of an imagined to be existent "thing". It's sort of like a person saying that a belief that he or she has is not an incorrect belief, merely because it does not seem to him or her to be incorrect.
MENCADO 2 years ago
If there is no God, then the question , If God did not create the universe, then who or what created the universe? is the equivalent to asking the following : If (not existent, not thing/ not being) did not create the universe, then who or what created the universe? There is no such thing as a not existent , not thing , not being - so no such non-thing/non-being could create or could not create anything.
MENCADO 2 years ago
If the question was instead phrased as follows: Who or what created the universe?, then there would be no implied assumption that a God necessarily does exist included within that question.
MENCADO 2 years ago
"So, I want to know how they think that the universe came about."
The idea that "they" (meaning atheists) think the universe came about is based on two presumptions:
#1 - that any atheist does think that the universe did come about, and
#2 - that EVERY ATHEIST does think that the universe did come about
MENCADO 2 years ago
I would not presume to know or to be able to speak any atheist person's perspective other than my own. What I can tell you, however, is that I lack having the belief that the universe DID (past tense) come about (past tense). I am not convinced that the idea that the universe did come about is not a misconception of occurrences.
MENCADO 2 years ago
"By "universe," I mean everything that exists."
The idea that 'appears to exist' necessarily indicates 'is existent' may - in fact - be an incorrect idea.That there appear to be existent things and existent beings does, therefore, not mean that there necessarily ARE existent things and existent beings. As unlikely and as outrageous as it may seem, each and every one of all apparently existent things and apparently existent beings could in fact only be being imagined.
MENCADO 2 years ago
@MENCADO
I definitely do not agree; I believe that the universe is real, and that it is not being imagined.
madworld10 2 years ago
madworld10,
You wrote: "I believe that the universe is real, ..."
Nevertheless, believing (based on seemingness) that there is an existent universe (not just that there appears to be an existent universe) and knowing whether or not there is an existent universe are two very different things.
No offense intended, but any person who is experiencing the having of a delusion does not perceive of his or her own state as being that of someone who is having a delusion.
MENCADO 2 years ago
To assume that any or even that every apparently existent mind is not capable of perceiving that which is nothing more that a mirage of apparently existent things and apparently existent beings is only to assume. I do not hold the belief that the assumption that there are existent things and that there are existent beings necessarily is a correct assumption, regardless of how correct that assumption may seem to be.
MENCADO 2 years ago
Okay.. and we can do that. But that's irrelevant anyway. The creation of the universe has nothing to do with a god, at least to an atheist. We are fine with accepting that we do not know how the universe was created, because it is incredibly complex. Conversely, theists say that they DO know, which is dishonest. You don't know, anymore than we do, and if you did know, you could prove it. Saying that atheists require faith is an ironic series of strawmen transference of YOUR OWN BELIEFS.
Pinworm4 1 year ago
@Pinworm4
My point still remains: it takes faith to be an atheist; atheists do not believe in any kind of omnipotent being, which is the only thing that could have possibly created the universe.
"Saying that atheists require faith is an ironic series of strawmen transference of YOUR OWN BELIEFS."
Those who believe in God aren't trying to prove themselves to be right by stating that atheists require faith. It's merely something that we want to point out.
madworld10 1 year ago
"atheists do not believe in any kind of omnipotent being, which is the only thing that could have possibly created the universe."
If you're going to start your statement with a wild assertion that has no scientific backing, and proceed as though said assertion is a demonstrable (or even logical) fact, then no wonder you two can't agree.
Prove that an omnipotent being is required in order for the universe to exist, and we can then take the claim of faith seriously. Until then, pinworm is right.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
@kippmcleodtheheretic
I guess that there is no point in continuing this if we can't even agree on whether or not the universe's formation required action from an omnipotent being.
Also, Pinworm isn't right simply because I can't prove that an omnipotent being is required.
madworld10 1 year ago
No, but he IS right when he says that you are projecting your beliefs onto him. By making a bald assertion that creation cannot exist without an omnipotent being without some kind of evidence to that statement, and by building everything else you say on that very statement, you are projecting your view onto him and anyone else listening. Address that view first and move on, otherwise the claim that you are creating a straw-man argument by projecting your beliefs seems true.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
@kippmcleodtheheretic
Well, I guess that this won't be going very far; I can't prove that the universe needed God in order to have been formed, but I still believe that He was necessary. And I believe that it takes great faith to be an atheist.
madworld10 1 year ago
Well, you're certainly entitled to your beliefs. I simply ask for evidence to those beliefs, especially if they make a statement about or toward my own beliefs, particularly when you refer to doubt as faith. Atheism is the ongoing practice of doubt, of the refusal to accept a claim without sufficient evidence. If you can't provide evidence to your claims, then my refusal to accept them is in fact the polar OPPOSITE of faith.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
"I can't prove that the universe needed God in order to have been formed," "atheists do not believe in any kind of omnipotent being, which is the only thing that could have possibly created the universe." And you people wonder why we constantly call you theists dishonest. Could it maybe be the fact that you are? I don't understand how people like you can constantly outright lie like this and still feel like you have the moral highground. I would be sickened with myself if I lived like this.
Pinworm4 1 year ago
@Pinworm4
We're not dishonest.
I'm using logic; it is clear to me that the only thing that could possibly account for the universe's origin is God. It sickens me how some people can be so blind, but you may have it your way.
madworld10 1 year ago
And it frustrates us that you can be so certain that no other possibility exists for the universe's origin, yet you can't cohesively explain WHAT brought you to that conclusion. I'm not talking about a solid, no questions asked case here. Just explain the logic that leads you to this belief. What evidence do you present here? If there is none, then why is this the ONLY possibility? What's so difficult about asking you to back up your own claim?
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
@kippmcleodtheheretic
There is no other possible explanation (that I can come to) that can be used in regard to a planet - and all of its life - coming into existence.
I just consider God to be the only rational and possible way to explain how something came from nothing.
madworld10 1 year ago
Do you see that this is merely an argument from ignorance? Inserting an answer to a question because you can't think of a better one is not an effective way to find the truth.
And if something can't come from nothing (which is NOT actually what the big bang theory tells us at all) then WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?
If something can't come from nothing, then God also needs an explanation. If god is eternal and could always have existed, then why couldn't the universe have always existed?
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
You're applying one type of logic to your god and a completely different type of logic to everything else. If this isn't intellectual dishonesty, WHAT IS?
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
@kippmcleodtheheretic
God has always existed. The universe has not; it is not omnipotent or even living.
madworld10 1 year ago
Okay, so there is another assertion.
How do you know that God, whom we can't see, has always existed, and that the universe, which we can clearly see, could not have always existed in some form? And furthermore how do you know that the universe is not a living thing? What logic or proof led you to these beliefs?
These are just wild assertions that have no evidence and that you want us to treat as facts upon which you can build further ideas. They are not facts, they're merely your opinions.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
@kippmcleodtheheretic
I feel His presence.
Something omnipotent had to have created the universe.
Do you honestly want me to prove that the universe is not alive and that it has not always existed? In my opinion, a person shouldn't have to; it should be obvious that the universe couldn't have always existed and that it is not living.
madworld10 1 year ago
@madworld10 No, I don't expect you to prove that the universe is not a living thing, merely to explain how you came to such a belief.
Many people feel the presence of things that are not there. Amputees feel the present of their missing limbs. Ghost hunters feel the presence of spirits. Children feel the presence of the boogie man. I feel the presence of surrounding things in my dreams, but i don't know they're not there until I wake up.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
And of course, people of different religions feel the presence of THEIR OWN GOD, who often tells them that YOUR GOD is the false one. Charles Manson, Jim Jones and Rasputin all felt the presence of God, and they said that he told them ALL that they were the messiah
So maybe feeling a presence is enough evidence for you, but it is NOT enough evidence for me.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
I don't know why I continue but I enjoy it, so why not.
So, you're using Logic. Rather than all the scientific evidence pointing to things such as abiogenesis and string theory (which is not proven, however, it does have much evidence, and since you're logical and honest, you'll see that.. right?), you choose to ignore that, and instead believe a book written by man several thousand years ago (when the earth was flat) which has been proven wrong in nearly all accounts? and you call that logic?
Pinworm4 1 year ago
@Pinworm4
Abiogenesis is merely a theory. It attempts to explain how life could have arisen via inanimate matter. But how does one explain where this matter came from?
Also, man may have written the Bible, but he was inspired by God. And there are various pieces of scripture that actually describe the Earth as round.
madworld10 1 year ago
What do you mean it's "merely a theory"? Do you understand what a theory is? It's something that's a proven fact. A theory is what unifies various laws and facts. Something must be proven to be a theory. On that note, we've already created Abiogenesis in a lab. It's been done. You can't debate this.
And I never said it had anything to do with where matter came from, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I gave you string theory. I can't fight your own ignorance.
Pinworm4 1 year ago
@Pinworm4
Abiogenesis is life arising from inanimate matter, is it not? So, I still don't see how this is possible; the matter would have had to have come from somewhere.
madworld10 1 year ago
@madworld10 This statement implies that a requirement that does not exist must exist in order for a theory to be valid.
It's like saying that music theory is useless to a musician because it doesn't tell us anything as to where musical instruments come from, which it was never intended to do.
Also, you're continuing to assume that matter could not have always existed in some form, that it MUST have been created with purpose.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
@kippmcleodtheheretic
Well, I was explaining how Abiogenesis can't be used to explain how the universe came into existence.
Yes - I assume that matter could not have always existed. How could something - that is not omnipotent - have always existed?
madworld10 1 year ago
@madworld10 "Well, I was explaining how Abiogenesis can't be used to explain how the universe came into existence."
And I was stating that Abiogenesis isn't meant to explain how the universe came into existence.
"Yes - I assume that matter could not have always existed. How could something - that is not omnipotent - have always existed?"
How could something that IS omnipotent have always existed? For that matter, how could something omnipotent exist AT ALL?
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
@kippmcleodtheheretic
That is difficult to explain; we can't fathom something having always existed.
Only something that is all-powerful could possible accomplish that, though.
madworld10 1 year ago
@kippmcleodtheheretic
What were you hoping by talking about Abiogenesis?
madworld10 1 year ago
@madworld10 If you continue to assert that "only an all-powerful being" could or could not do certain things, I still have to ask how you came to such a conclusion.
If there is no process to this, and you simply "can't think of anything better" then you're just using an argument from ignorance, which is not a real case.
I'm not sure about your question concerning abiogenesis. I only mentioned it in response to your statements.
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
@kippmcleodtheheretic
I'm simply using logic.
Can you honestly say that you think that the universe could have originated without an omnipotent being? And do you think that the universe could have always existed (also without an omnipotent being)?
madworld10 1 year ago
Why are you telling us that Abiogenesis isn't how the universe came into existence? no one ever said that. Would you like to tell us that helicopters aren't vehicles to traverse tunnel networks? We know. Thanks.
Pinworm4 1 year ago
wow, thank you pinworm, ur the reason why i question myself as a human being by saying that theory is based on fact... various laws.... THEIR IS A REASON why its called THEORY and not a law like LAW of ATTRACTION not THEORY of attraction. not everyone believes that the THEORY of evolution is true or has facts or various laws and tahts why it is dubbed as a theory A FUCKING THEORY. not a fact, not a law, just a god damn could be, maybe and should be.
ryanireland187 1 year ago
@ryanireland187 You should question yourself, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and what you just said literally could not possibly be more incorrect. Worse than that, you expect people with knowledge and education to take your ignorance as evidence for anything other than your own ignorance.
Pinworm4 1 year ago
@ryanireland187 Pinworm is right, you clearly don't know what these terms mean in a scientific sense, and should stop pretending that you do.
Is the theory of gravity JUST A FUCKING THEORY as you so eloquently put it?
kippmcleodtheheretic 1 year ago
@Pinworm4
I'm not trying to be disrespectful; rather, I'm being straightforward.
madworld10 1 year ago
atheists are on the higher end of the IQ bellcurve.
sammygee17 2 years ago
Sir, You are wise. no one should judge you in what you beilve in.
xnjzxcubanboii93 2 years ago
Lets not forget the Goddess Echo. She liked to talk a lot and just could not get enough of her own voice. So she was punished by the other gods to eternal silence, except only to repeat, in the voice of a mortal, what the mortal said, when a mortal shouted something at the mountains or caves.
Makes perfect sense.
WTF is a "sound wave"? It takes as much faith to believe in "reflection" of "sound waves" as to believe in the Greek goddess Echo.
Spanky00Cheeks 2 years ago
no your referring to denying doctrines because jews and christians believe in the same God and in in India in the Gupta age a bunch of religious leaders meet and talked and they all agreed on a higher being it is just the ignorant part that says it a different god all together
how he does things and how he rules is merely opinion and doctrine.
So Atheism pretty much says no good usually by viewing their doctrines and beliefs so you denounce their beliefs and doctrines.
Idontknowwhat2type 2 years ago
I agree with you. but.. and i cant remember the name, what if you are open to the concept of religion but are not entirely sure on what religion is right? does that mean that you dont technically denounce any of the religions?
BloodLord22 2 years ago
Are you referring to agnosticism possibly? Atheism isn't necessarily DENOUNCING anything, as in calling it a bad thing, just expressing a lack of belief.
Ieatbabies8 2 years ago
The question itself makes no logical sense. Faith by definition is belief that is not based on evidence or proof. Atheism is a LACK of belief in god, a LACK of faith, by definition.
I am agnostic-atheist. I believe in what I can observe. I cannot observe god, he has not been detected in a laboratory, therefore I do not believe in god. That does not require any faith. I do not believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for a god to exist, but until there is evidence, I remain athiest. No faith.
Skepnostic 2 years ago
good video man
exitskaterjeff 2 years ago
Nice vid. :)
BTW, it is a vid on you tube, listing many 'extinct' and present gods hte humans have worshipped.
It is around 10000 name on that list, and I doubt he made a 100% complete list.
Look it up, it's called "a short list of gods"
BelieveNoGod 2 years ago
faith does not have to entail God though that is a common presumption when discussing faith, you put your faith (trust in a belief) into not God; that doesn't make not faith. I don't think you're a failure at faith and I think even if you make the choice to not beliieve in God that God will still love you and hold you up in some way. If you have problems with having Christian faith I may be able to help you there. You have to want to have faith in order to gain it if you don't have it though
dukenstein 3 years ago
atheists do share a ground of some kind of faith with theists. It is funny because atheism has its faith in nothing (not no no faith though) whereas theists put their faith in God as the source of all things (not the source of no-things or contradictions if you will). People then stand as beings with free wills, freedom to be in submission or accordance or love with God, or freedom from God to choose to try to live without God though God's love still waits for an admission and an open heart
dukenstein 3 years ago
Okay, I DON'T Believe in a god of any kind.
Not Zeus, not Apollo, not Yahweh or his son. I also don't believe that Bigfoot exists. Does that mean I have FAITH that Bigfoot isn't real? Did I FAIL the Loch Ness Monster FAITH test?
People think that atheists are so insulting, but listen to what we're told by Christians. Every message a veiled insult. You're better than us because you believe, you're soul is saved while ours are lost, we're FAILURES at faith.
How dare you sir.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
hahahaha, you're excellent!! :D
PunkCabaretFTW 2 years ago
You are going to HELL because you love evil, Not because you do not believe in GOD. I have to bring NO PROOF or argument for you. You will go to Hell bro Don't Doubt That !!! You love evil and hate good and are going to HELL
renndragon 2 years ago
Could you specify that? What is this good that I hate? What is this evil that I love?
Tleilaxu0 2 years ago
They can never specify that. No matter what kind of person you are, how kind and gentle you behave toward your fellow man, whether you give to charity or help others, you are always evil in their eyes. All who don't believe like them are wrong and deserve to die and be tortured forever. Religion makes you view the world in this way. Sad really.
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
you know what God's word says, obey that, and you are good, Don't obey and you are NOT good. But if you come to find that you cannot keep God's word no matter how hard you try, then admit that you are a sinner / Repent and ask Jesus Christ to help you.
renndragon 2 years ago
NO. I know what YOUR religion SAYS is god's word. I do not (and neither does anyone else) know GOD'S word. Is it so much of a stretch to have the simple humility to admit that you don't know what really is god's word? Are you so arrogant to assume that in a sea of countless religions and dogmas, all of them man made, that YOURS has to be the correct one? Can you not humble yourself a little to the idea that you might not know? REALLY???
I Guess faith really is arrogance disguised as humility.
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
Would that be the Bible, then? Does that mean that eating shellfish makes me evil?
Tleilaxu0 2 years ago
You have no sin in your life dude?? What sin do you have to cover up?? Watching Porn Lusting Drunk Drugs Hate Jelous Unfair Mean Selfish Coward Accuser Abuser of people, Backbiting, Gossip, Unfriendly, Prideful Arrogant Fornication Masturbation, most sins are in your heart, Not from what you eat
renndragon 2 years ago
Good sir, the Bible very clearly states that eating shellfish is a sin. I ask you now, is this an evil act?
Tleilaxu0 2 years ago
Leviticus 11:11 says They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Now in these days we know that bottom feeders are dirty they are the vacuum cleaners of the sea they eat the bad stuff. It's like eating cockroaches. wouldn't you say eating roaches is an abomination to you??? God wants what is best for us. It is unhealthy an abomination like eating crap
renndragon 2 years ago
But if you wanna ask dumb questions because you want to go to bed with a man. Then say it straight what you are. You are going to hell dude whether the bible is real or not
renndragon 2 years ago
Neither of those statements had anything to do with the question posed to you.
You were given a reasonable question about shellfish. If bottom feeders are so bad, why not outlaw catfish while you're at it. Instead you choose to discuss roaches, like there was ever a connection.
And then you imply that this person wants to go to bed with a man? WHAT? We see what's on YOUR mind.
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
"You are going to hell dude whether the bible is real or not"
Actually, if the bible is NOT real, then there is no hell. PERIOD. Why is it so hard to admit that maybe you just DON'T KNOW what's out there? Is that slight bit of humility so hard to swallow that you must assert that you really have all the answers?
Wow, it's good to see what a humble nature religion can bring people. Seriously, the arrogance it takes to judge another human being like that is staggering!
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
I have no reason to answer any trick questions. God can have the right to say don't eat steak if he wants too lol !! And you are going to HELL!!! Don't doubt that dude remember I told ya
renndragon 2 years ago
It wasn't a trick question. Just a simple statement about your own arrogance and your willingness to pass judgment on your fellow human beings.
Religion has clearly made you a worse person, not better. If Christ was alive and real like you believe, he would WEEP for people like you. I feel sorry for you. Condemning someone to hell has nothing to do with love but is all about HATE. You HATE joy and delight in torture. I pity you.
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
I may not believe in a heaven for you to go to, but I genuinely hope you have a good life, even though I think differently than you do.
YOU on the other hand would laugh and be joyful to see a complete stranger be tortured and burned for not believing as you do. It's sick.
kippmcleodtheheretic 2 years ago
Open your eyes dude, the people that control the world, indeed believe that there is a God and a devil, and they have chosen whom they will serve, and they prefer to keep you believing in nothing, that is MORE ignorant than being a satanist. Wishy Washy dude ain't down for anything
renndragon 2 years ago
How can you say things like "I have to bring no proof" and still believe your own words and not recognize yourself as dishonest?
The answer is either you are incredibly stupid, or you are purposefully dishonest and are simply too scared to admit it, because you've been indoctrinated and forced to believe that questioning your faith leads to eternal torture. Nice god you have, but I think I'd prefer an atheist world that would be demonstrably less hate and sin filled.
Pinworm4 1 year ago
kippmcleodtheheretic, you blew my mind, great video, great views
xnjzxcubanboii93 2 years ago
crucial here, atheism is kind of an anti-faith, it is like when someone tries to fail at a test, they still have taken the test though. Any surmise of reality is a faith of that person doing the surmising; thus atheism is a faith that there is nothing out there in a way. No faith at all would be complete unconsciousness. Whereas someone who believes in eternal truth (what science looks for as well) in all realms including those beyond us would be refining their beliefs and scope of reality.
dukenstein 3 years ago
Atheism is the distinct belief "god does not exist" and yes it is a faith.
Douglas1102 3 years ago
Swing and a miss...
That's not at all what the word atheist means, I suggest you look it up.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
No... it's you that needs to look it up.
Douglas1102 3 years ago
Okay, if you insist:
a·the·ist - noun - unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities. From the Greek "godless" or "without theism"
Not an assertion that there is no god, but a rejection of the idea that there is. No faith required to listen to someone's assertion (a rather arrogant assertion) that they KNOW what created the universe and saying "I don't believe that."
Watch the video again, I don't think you got it.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
Use a real dictionary.. like Oxford.
Douglas1102 3 years ago
Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines "atheism":
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
Doesn't say "an assertion that god DOES NOT exist, does it?
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
I don't know where you got that but it is NOT from Oxford.
askoxforddotcom
Anyone can check themselves.
Douglas1102 3 years ago
Yes, the first edition of the compact OED defines atheism as the belief that God does not exist.
The second edition however was expanded because this definition was too narrow to coincide with the origin: from Greek a- without + theos god.
Godless
One who doesn't believe that there is a god, but doesn't believe that there isn't a god, being insufficiently convinced of either side, is godless by default.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
I don't claim with absolute certainty that there is no god, only that I'm not convinced that there is a god.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
That's agnostic.
Douglas1102 3 years ago
Not true.
Douglas1102 3 years ago
Actually, gnosticism refers to knowledge, theism refers to a religious belief. To state that you lack KNOWLEDGE that there is or is not a god says nothing as to whether or not you accept a claim as being believable. The two are not mutually exclusive, you can be both, or neither. This is a common misconception of the word agnostic.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
If atheist don't need faith then you have proof that there is no God?
Unquestionable, verifiable, quantifiable, repeatable, solid proof that there is no God?
daimyolord 3 years ago
Atheists don't assert that there is no god, we just reject the claims that there is. Asking for proof of a negative is one of the oldest and silliest logical fallacies. It's like asking for proof that there is no bigfoot, it's a silly request.
Don't be silly.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
An atheist is one who believes there no deity. Therefore you must assert that there is no God.
It is not a silly question, my point is that without proof you have to have faith. Whether it is faith in science or in God.
Science is more quantifiable but not an absolute. Hence you must have faith that it is the correct line of thinking, whether logical or illogical.
daimyolord 3 years ago
That is not what atheism means. Look it up. A lack of theism is merely the rejection of or absence of belief. That's what the word means. Plain and simple. I see no evidence for the existence of a god. Disproving anything else is not proof of a god, or proof of what god or gods we may be talking about. So, if you believe in a god, you have a claim which I reject. That's how logic works. Feel free to offer any proof you may have if you like. Thanks.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
1) I never claimed that there is a God.
2) I gave you the definition of an atheist quoted straight from the dictionary;
.."one who believes there no deity."
3) Your own words state the very same thing.
"the rejection of or absence of belief."
4) I agree that disproving 1 thing does not inherently prove another.
From the start I have had only one major issue and that is that atheist MUST have faith in science because it is not complete.
I am not challenging your belief but your video statements.
daimyolord 3 years ago
1) your tone leaves a certain implication of belief
2) your GRAMMAR implies that you DIDN'T quote straight from any dictionary.
a⋅the⋅ist
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
156575; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist
3) Not believing in something doesn't mean you do believe it doesn't exist. I don't believe in Big Foot, but I don't actively claim that he doesn't exist. He might. I just don't think he does.
4) No, you don't.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
If you really believed that disproof of one thing didn't equal proof of another, you wouldn't have followed that up with a statement about faith in science. I have no faith in science, because it is constantly changing as we get new data and it is presented to us with evidence. That evidence may be very compelling, or not so compelling, and a belief is formed through the comparison of different ideas being presented. No faith is ever required for such a system, because the ideas can change.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
Religion, on the other hand, is a baseless assertion of ideas that have to be taken at face value, and can never change no matter what evidence might be later introduced. This is a bad system for deciding anything in life.
If you have more to say on the subject, I would appreciate it if you would make a video response so that you can properly explain yourself to .."one who believes there no deity."
Honestly, look at that sentence again.
Stay rational.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
daimyolord 3 years ago
1) Exactly. I don't believe in a god, and you disagree.
2) Lacking theism makes me someone an atheist. Lacking absolute certainty in rejecting a claim just makes someone rational.
3) These two terms are not mutually exclusive. One can be both. If you mean by agnostic that I lack knowledge of the origin of the universe, then we're ALL agnostic.
4) You claim to agree with one statement, then make another statement contradicting that agreement.
Are we done sir?
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
1) I disagree with your statement that "It Takes NO Faith to be an Atheist"
2) Not sure what you were trying to say.
3) Yes you can be an agnostic who leans toward atheism or toward theism.
4) There was no contradiction in my statement. I compared the two most prevalent lines of thinking, "faith in science or in God." I never claimed that they are the only possibilities nor that if one is wrong the other is right.
If you will quit twisting everything I say to fit your agenda then are done.
daimyolord 3 years ago
1) Of course you do. A non theist would recognize this statement to be a point of fact.
2) That doesn't surprise me.
3) Yes, or you can be an agnostic atheist.
4) I've explained what faith is and what science is, and how the two disagree.
And if your next response isn't in a video format, we are done. If you don't want to participate in the process of making videos then stop wasting everyone's time.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
It seems to me that you have a deepseated problem with Christians and Jews. Is this because you reall have a reason or do you just randomly dislike us? please respond.
ArynSol 3 years ago
I don't dislike you at all. I dislike your beliefs and the actions that have come of them.
I dislike the Crusades, the Witch Trials, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and 9/11.
Remove the bible from history and all those things go with it.
kippmcleodtheheretic 3 years ago
haha this video was done with style! NICE!
dogyear82 3 years ago
What about polytheists? I know it's not the most creative question, & no I'm not one, but you can't say that everyone is an athiest, if you include people that believe in every religion. Maybe I'm just to tired to make any since. Sorry if this comment, sounds pointless, but I just want to know what someone thinks about polytheists.
RaebNitsirt 3 years ago
this dudes a genius.
angryzacky 3 years ago
Stunningly enough, the Christian responder to your video disabled comments and ratings.
pumkinpi2 3 years ago
Atheism is reason based not faith based.
nogogma 3 years ago
nice job!
justPLAINolEZ 3 years ago
the universe is not uncreated , it was created by an uncreated power , thats god. organized sophisticated and holy. you believe in right and wrong good and evil.
we reject foolish believes for fact.
the roman catholic church is the preiminent religion.
damiantvz 3 years ago
any evidence for this "uncreated power"???
DIRTYDUNNZ 3 years ago
bible is one way , the roman catholic church the full way.
watch video " god exists atheists"
and has anyone ever said when it comes to the new testament and jesus , that he should have said this instead or that it would be better this way. never.
damiantvz 3 years ago
science knows that the universe was created. what created it. something had to. and it has to be uncreated and all powerful sympathetic to humans ,like us , and organized and knowing of right and wrong. thats god. now who and what is it and how does he fully reveal himself to us. the
damiantvz 3 years ago
the bible is an unverifiable source with plenty of scientific errors (flat earth, light-generating moon, etc), so if that's ur scientific resource then ur argument is already at a loss. there are plenty of errors and immoral statements by jesus (supporting slavery and violence), as well as the NT. science says nothing about the universe being "created", but instead points toward cosmological evolution. if the creator is uncreated then it is just as likely that the universe was uncreated.
DIRTYDUNNZ 3 years ago
I guess the logic is that by putting the omnipotent creator God - who prophesied thru His prophets the origins and demises of nations, in detail, hundreds of yrs before the actual events; all of which is documented in detail in the OT - in the SAME category as fictional, pathetic, clear creations of human beings' furtive imaginations' 'gods' - it really puts the true God Christians trust in in His place.
What a joke. Do atheists seriously take themselves seriously with this transparent fraud?
desertTRUTH 3 years ago
Would you care to name one specific prediction made in the OT that has come true?
What about other "prophets" whose predictions have come true according to their followers, such as Muhammad or Nostradamus?
askegg 3 years ago
God told Abraham He'd make him the father of many nations - today it's true. Billions of people examine the evidence and put their trust in Jesus Christ - the same way Abraham trusted God to deliver a substitute in his own son's place.
Not to mention the rise and fall of nations in extreme detail, which played out exactly like predicted by God's prophets.
Muhummad and Nostradomus? Clear frauds - it doesn't even take much study to discover how untrustworthy they are, or were. Now deceased.
desertTRUTH 3 years ago
"Billions of people examine the evidence and put their trust in Jesus Christ."
And billions belief in Allah and Vishnu (to name but two).
"Not to mention the rise and fall of nations in extreme detail, which played out exactly like predicted by God's prophets"
Details? Which nations? When?
"Muhummad and Nostradomus? Clear fraud"
Their followers don't think so. In fact they call Jesus a clear fraud.
askegg 3 years ago
The billions believing in Allah and Vishnu obviously haven't examined the evidence - big difference.
You can continue to use these nonsensical comparisons to the creator of the universe - but it's just stupid.
When I get a chance, I'll look up the nations prophesied about in detail by God's prophets - and give you the list, if you're truly interested.
Muhammad and Nostradomus followers should examine the evidence better. Plus Muslims actually DON'T call Jesus a clear fraud, just not God
desertTRUTH 3 years ago
"The billions believing in Allah and Vishnu obviously haven't examined the evidence "
What, all of them? Get real. There are millions who study these things just as hard as you do, but within a different faith. They fall for the same logical fallacies, and excuse the inconvenient truths to maintain their precious belief that some sky pixie will look after them when they die.
"if you're truly interested."
Sure - always interested to look at the evidence.
askegg 3 years ago
Yes, all of them. I'll write it again - the billions believing in Allah and Vishnu obviously haven't examined the evidence. It's simple, uncomplicated. Not sure what you mean about 'sky pixie' - know of no religion that communicates anything about a 'sky pixie'. Disrespecting what people believe and trying to diminish their beliefs with snide decriptions, doesn't reinforce your position one-iota.
Ok, I'll look for the list when I get a chance, and give it to you since you're truly interested.
desertTRUTH 3 years ago