i don't even understand for a second how people can say that TAE lost that argument he completely explained it and the caller even said "ill give you that point' but for some reason he wanted more he couldn't understand that that's the whole argument that's the complete point there's nothing else to add
The guy seems to repeat the same idiotic question that that halfwit William Lane Craig posed to Christopher Hitchens when Hitchens was destroying him in a debate. Craig knew it was a foolish question, this guy doesn't. But that is what makes him the perfect dupe for religious hucksters. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
of fire, just as of the previous, unbelievers dying, rejecting, and thus, receiving no life. If you deny that, then you might as well deny all of history.
@12345soccerguy I believe the atheist argument has always been... WHAT evidence? Also the concept of proving something doesn't exist is a dishonest argument. I would put forth that nothing can be proved to not exist. Please sir, disprove unicorns, or leprechans, or literally anything. The burden is on you to prove what you claim to be true or to exist. Looking it up in a book doesn't count.
@12345soccerguy Actual evidence. In order to assert that what is written in your bible is fact and could be used as evidence to support a claim, you would first have to prove that the bible is anything other than some people writing a book. All we have to go by is their claims that it was god inspired. But we can see from history and other holy books that man seems to like making this claim when writing books and this claim doesn't require truth to make.
@ilrichard Creation,Moses and Mount Sinai, the kings of Israel who spoke with God and recorded his word, the Birth of the Messiah, etc... That's the evidence, the history of Israel.
@12345soccerguy That is NOT evidence. There is no historical account of most of this other than the ones in the bible so right off the bat your argument falls flat. If you want to believe this stuff anyway then more power to you. But don't come in here and call it evidence...it makes you look rediculous.
@ilrichard Then give me evidence for the History of Israel. Give me evidence for the History of History, as you would want for the Bible. Is there any evidence for the evidence of the history of the world? is that even necessary? It just shows your poor scholarship and ignorance.
@12345soccerguy If I were the one making outrageous claims I would damn sure back them up or I would be honest enough to say I didnt know. All of this is beside the point. Even if you could prove that the birth of jesus happened, that brings you no closer to proving his divinity. All you can prove is someone was born who others believed was divine. You really shouldnt speak of poor scholarship and ignorance. That whole sentences just smacks of irony.
@12345soccerguy Yet no other religion is convinced and they have as much evidence for prophecy, as you do. None. Miracles don't exist and those prophecies are self-fulfilled. This is why they were fulfilled decades after the supposed fact.
@12345soccerguy No it is not sir. It is proved by your belief that is is true which is backed up by years of people telling you that it's true. That is the only reason a rational person would ever claim that a couple of stories in a book proves anything.
And yes it does smack of irony. Though you go on believing anything you want to believe. You've already shown your tendency to believe literally anything.
@12345soccerguy If god speaks to people, why need a book at all. Is it because the "believers" knew there wasn't a god and this was the only way to push an idea onto people; using a material object? How come your "evidence" doesn't convince the other abrahamic religions?
@clipsryan What "other" Abrahamic religions? Islam accepts it and includes some of the stories in their Quran, the Torah/ Tanakh accepts it, obviously.
Atheists are intellectual and Christians are stupid because Atheists have no proof of atheism, aka the disprove of God? completely nonsensical. There isn't any proof to support the claim that God doesn't exist, there only is evidence that God DOES exist. Atheist want proof of God by him revealing himself to the world. God has done countless times and has been recorded for thousands of years. Also, God promises that he will come, thus will prove his existence, and the wicked cast into the lake
@12345soccerguy "There isn't any proof to support the claim that God doesn't exist" I hear this dishonest arguement presented over and over by theists. If something doesnt exist, how can it leave proof of anything? It is not possible to prove that something doesnt exist. Anyone who bases a defense of a position on the argument that is it possible is either being dishonest on purpose or isnt intelligent enough to realize this.
Why do i keep hearing this challenge: show proof and evidence that atheism is true and accurate which
is like asking a religious person *show proof and evidence that your belief in god is true and accurate....do they want us to take a lie detector test or sumthin?:P
@12345soccerguy ty for proving my point, see no evidence... even if u could show evidence for my question, shockofgods question would still be dumb, it was a bad example from my part, lets say the lack of belief in bigfoot is abigfootism, could u show evidence for that you dont believe in bigfoot? except lie detector test or just ur word. and when u cant i say i win -.- so misleading and dishonest.
@Willibab See no evidence? Would not such a person that denies evidence be blind? Who cannot see the evidence, the truth? God is irrelevant to myths. He has communicated with man, he has inspired them to write of his word, they wrote what he said, and the thousands of manuscripts of recording proves itself. If you really want God to just reveal himself to the world, just wait until Judgement day. I don't say you win, because there is nothing for you to win by wanting more evidencethantheprovided
@12345soccerguy yes such a person would be blind indeed :) we have a different definition of *evidence* it seems. doesnt the other religions also have a ton of *inspired* recordings? what makes your manuscripts real and theirs fake? and wanting god to reveal himself would be silly seeing as i dont even believe he exsists ^^ ..anyway we got way off topic here. i just wanted to point out how its dishonest for shockofgod to claim *victory* for a question that is poorly made.
@12345soccerguy You just basically listed the bible and 4 other things that indirectly come out of the bible. All your "evidence" falls flat if you cant prove the bible is more than just a book written by men.
I got BANNED from commenting by Atheist Experience SIMPLY for suggesting they tackle other religions like Judaism, and look into the racism and other immorality within the Jewish oral law.
That PROVES right there that they're NOT an atheist organization at all, rather simply an anti-Christian organization (and I'm not a Christian).
Because some of these hypocrites are ethnically Jewish (some of the hosts) they REFUSE to talk about the Jewish religion, so they're not proper atheists at all!
We dont have definitive proof unicorns dont exist.
But we're pretty positive they dont because we cant perceive them.
We cant see them, hear them, taste them, smell them or touch them. We have only 5 senses. If we cant perceive it with these 5 senses then we assume that it doesn't exist. Just like your "God".
If unicorns turn out to be real, and we can perceive them we wouldn't need to "believe" they are real because its obvious that they are.
@bassboy360 things can exist beyond our perception. so what about unicorn. does it exist ? unicorn is a product of human mind , a human fantasy. Yes it can exist (its not impossible), but there is no shred of evidence or slightest hint in favor of it. So there is no reason for it to exist. No reason to dedicate my life after that hypothesis.
@ptango101 Your first comment I wont argue with. As you said, you have no dogmas of faith (though technically, you do, you cant believe in a god, otherwise, youre not an athiest). But still, the first comment describes your personal beliefs, which you are entitled to. So thats fine. But, your second comment is where you continue to misinterpret me.
@ptango101 No, yall still dont get it! TECHNICALLY, no you dont require evidence. By legal rules and debate rules, whatever, you DO NOT NEED PROOF. We, technically, do. BUT, if you want to be SUCCESSFUL in convincing us, then you do. Tell me what youre not understanding herd, guys. Im speaking plain English.
@midnightapalooza I am not the one trying to convince anyone of anything. You say there is a god and I don't accept your evidence. Your evidence is all I have to work with. I don't have a church or dogma. I can't say "here is the proof god doesn't exist". I'm not making a 100% statement either, unlike most theists. I have no idea that there isn't something bigger than us somewhere but I am fairly sure it isn't the ill defined judeo-christian god. That's my atheism.
@midnightapalooza I also understand where you are coming from. You are defining atheism to fit your terms and the logical part of you is rejecting these terms. So we don't have to bring anything to the table but at the same time we do. Like what? please give me some indication of the type of evidence we do and don't have to produce.
The Atheist Experience team are a bunch of hypocrites; they don't want reasoned sensible discussion or debate; if you make any relevant point they end up blocking you; clearly they just want the fundie fruitcake calling who will only be aware of this idiotic reductive literalist extreme interpretation of the Bible; this is old hat; debated down the centuries; they offer nothing new, only extremism and they become the same as the people they accuse
@vyshious They didn't. There are a lot of sad theists who feel they must convince everyone else to convince themselves and they can't bring themselves to believe anyone else truly does not believe in their god.
@vyshious I believe SoG mean ShockofGod style. This is a style of argument where you win by remaining ignorant. This is how they were proven wrong - by the sheer will power of a believer unwilling to question his faith.
The refutation of mind/body dualism is proof and evidence that atheism is accurate. At the core of theism is the idea that a conscious, intelligent mind is responsible for everything. Reality shows us that intelligence and consciousness comes from biological brains, which had to evolve and grow from infancy.
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
@MJ63551 The disciples wrote down what they saw in the bible as well as what they experienced. they wrote it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
@midnightapalooza ... So if they chose to reply they are more than likely to spend a lot of time on it whilst gaining very little. Not to mention youtube comments are an extremely inefficient way to have a discussion with replies as long as that. My advice if you want it would be this: If you want people to respond to your arguments, bring them forward one at a time while trying to keep the maximum number of comments at 4-5 per response/rebuttal.
This is kinda funny because even bat shit crazy fundamentalist christians were able to understand the answer Matt gave to SoG and to accept it as rational, while SoG probably doesnt get it untill this day. I heard that VenomfangX wants to study biology to disprove evolution, so if he was honest then its only matter of time when he will abandon his believes. And I think SoG needs something like that too. Lets hope that one day SoG will be able to reabilitate.
@DemimondXXIII Beliefs. Rehabilitate. Those were literally your ONLY mistakes. You sound like my Mexican gf. Quit apologizing and just speak. You're obviously very intelligent. You even used the correct form of "too." Your English is better than most average Americans. Now go forth my son, and troll fundamentalists!
@civwarfan Wow, none of you understand me, do you? I'm speaking plain English! YES, the burden of proof is on the believer. I agree with you 100%! BUT...
Let me put it this way: If you said there was an invisible unicorn behind me, and I turned around and said, no, there's not, I would want you to prove that to me. That makes sense, and I agree. BUT, if there were 1,000,000 people all telling me there was an invisible unicorn behind me, and they all believed that, then I would
@midnightapalooza "BUT, if there were 1,000,000 people ... then I would have to give some kind of proof that no, there's not"
No. You wouldn't. ALL of the burden of proof lies with the claimant. You're succuming to the Argumentum ad Numerum logical fallacy. If over a certain number of people tell you something, you have to provide proof that contradicts their claim? That's hogwash. What does a number count have to do with it?
@civwarfan have to give some kind of proof that no, there's not, if I want to win the argument. They can give me proof, but if I want to be successful, I also have to give proof that there is no invisible unicorn behind me. Do you get it now? I agree that the majority of proof lies on the believer, but the nonbeliever still has to say SOMETHING to prove he's correct. Otherwise, by official debate rules, if he has no evidence, he loses, no matter who's right.
@midnightapalooza "BUT, if there were 1,000,000 people all telling me there was an invisible unicorn behind me, and they all believed that, then I would" Argumentum Ad Populum. Your logic is not sound logic, please try again. :)
@midnightapalooza "but the nonbeliever still has to say SOMETHING to prove he's correct." No he doesn't. Not if he is not the one making the assertion. The majority of us atheists DO NOT make an assertion on whether a God exists or not. We simply observe the evidence and make a decision on what is PROBABLY correct. We lack belief in a God because of the lack of evidence yet we do not make an assertion as to whether he exists or not.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 YES YOU DO!!!! Hahaha, you really dont understand what im saying! That's a cop out! You have to give evidence if you want to be succesful! Just as you say that in order for me to convince you there is a God, I have to give you evidence, you also have to show me the evidence for your claim as well! You are making a claim that there is no God. You must show me the evidence as to why there's not. If you are so right, then why do you refuse to show me your
@midnightapalooza I completely understand what you are saying. You clearly don't understand how the burden of proof, evidence and logical reasoned argument works. You would make a terrible lawyer (I can safely assume you are not one). I am not making a claim that God doesn't exist. I am making a claim that it is illogical to believe in a God because of the complete lack of evidence. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That is a fact....
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 evidence? I gave a lot on another video... Look on my page, you should find it. It's like two whole pages of evidence, so I'm not going to repeat it here. Click on my name and read it and weep.
@midnightapalooza ... You could think of my evidence as the complete LACK of it to back up your own claim. I took a quick look at your so-called evidence and though I didn't read all of it, I was unimpressed with the contents. But that is not the biggest problem: Do you seriously expect people to reply to all that? I mean come on, it is going to take ages! And for what? 99.99% of the religious never visibly change their mind while arguing on youtube. Most people are aware of this...
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 I completely understand you as well. I took a law class... Hated it, but learned enough (specifically for these purposes). And yes, you are fully correct that you don't have to prove a negative. In court, they wouldn't ask you to prove that someone didn't commit the murder. You're right. I get you from a technical standpoint. But, IF YOU WANT TO WIN, you really need to give us some proof too. You don't technically HAVE to, but if you want to be successful
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 then you do. Sorry to keep this argument going, but I just want to make you understand what I'm saying. We, from a technical standpoint, do have to prove our claim, but you don't have to prove your claim. But if you want to win and be successful in arguing against us, if you want to try to convince us, then you gotta bring something to the table too, not just rebuttals.
@midnightapalooza God is something that supposedly exists outside of space and time. The very idea was created so that it would be technically impossible to refute it. Can I disprove Yahweh's existence? No. But the bible makes many assertions, some of which are actually refutable by modern science. Many of these assertions contradict each other. The bible also paints a very questionable picture of God's character. it makes his personality out to be...
@midnightapalooza ... many contradicting things such as extremely cruel, sadistic and barbaric at some times but at other times he is loving and forgiving. Sometimes he is no better than the most immature, insecure and idiotic of people, but at other times he is all-powerful, almighty and way above humans in every way. The picture the bible paints of God's character is extremely inconsistent.
@midnightapalooza Sorry to just interject here but what a strange mindset. You are agreeing that we are not the ones with burden of proof while arguing that we have to bring it anyway. Our position is there is no proof that your deity of choice exists. You can't say "well bring this lack of evidence to the table and we can talk".
@midnightapalooza "if he has no evidence, he loses" Exactly. When you are working outside the realm of the tangibly observable, and you have no evidence for your claim, you lose, period. Provably quantify, or GTFO.
@elspoko No, youre missing my point: I undertand what youre saying and dont necessarily disagree, but still, if you want to be successful in winning an argument, you have to provide evidence for your claim as well. And yes, it is a claim. Because the logic youre using is this: God is not real, so its not a claim. I can say the same thing, bit say He is real, and therefore also have a claim. Either way, in order for one of us to win, we both need to have proof. So Im waiting for yours
@jjclownyseed2008 Hey, dont feel bad about arguing here... This video was posted specifically for encouraging religious debayes. Ayheists (not all, but some) like to offend us and start arguments. Its good for you to defend your faith publically. It shoes you truly care. IlAnd you handled it well. Dont back down! You got me backing you up, if you need it.
And I realize this is your guys's thread. I will no longer tread on your territory, I realize the anger is from territorial protection. I can discern that no one wants to be wrong, but I admit I was wrong with my "faith" argument, and that I was wrong for arguing period, for I truly do not belong here.
@jjclownyseed2008 That's not the case at all, I as long as lots of others welcome discussion. However, from my perspective (and you have your own), the argument you presented and the arguments many present tend to be offensive or plain wrong, which I'm aware you admitted, which is very admirable of you. Of course you can talk here, many people will insult you, but you get that talking to anyone on the internet. There are idiotic atheists.
@KonijNx2 I just realized that I've been rambling like a mad man. I have no hate or anger towards any of you guys I have been arguing. And I do agree that there is massively confused ideas tossed around (in general), and I evidently did my share on this thread. Sorry to be offensive and judgmental. I know you guys are trying to make sense of this world like all people, but we just differ on how to make it make sense.
@jjclownyseed2008 That as it may be, but we will meet eachother on the battlefield, as it were. Since you have referred to yourself as a creationist, you almost certainly believe it is scientific and want it in schools - and things like that will get people riled up too. It's a shame it can not be a live and let live situation. But as far as I'm concerned creationism has no place in science classrooms, and the fact and theory of evolution does.
@KonijNx2 If a battle comes or a battlefield ensues I will not be present, nor will I fight, but I'll pray. You are also entitled to your opinion. I'll recede. As for the schools, what they teach doesn't matter to me, because they are ineffective (assertion of opinion).
@jjclownyseed2008 There's nothing wrong with fighting for your beliefs and I apologise for putting words in your mouth.
It should matter to you what they teach because of the fact that they are ineffective, surely education is the path to a better future.
My point previously was that creationism isn't scientific whether a creationist believes it or not, and therefore creatists that push for it in science classes have my ire - though you're not one of them.
@KonijNx2 Hey man, I have faith and it is strong faith, but no matter how strong it is I have no dictation in the lives of others. I am glad that we can end on a peaceful note. People who think differently should still show peace and love to one another. It was nice arguing, even though I got a little worked up for my own good! Peace.
@RapeJesusWithAStick i think you Spammer but yeah, he is an ignorant spammer, so is anyone that makes viddeos saying they can "destroy atheism" or Evolution, recently in human history Evolution has identified the place in the ancestral ape/chimp chromozome line where humans were "created" from Evolution of Chimpanzees, i forget the vid name but go watch it, its real science working to prove Evolution correct
@alphaenemy That is so weird. The scientific debate has never been creationists vs evolutionism. It has always been nominalism vs realism. Well, carry on than.
Religion's stupid it bars humanity from evolving and exploring the galaxy. If all theists would work towards exploration and evolving our humanity we would be much better off. If all atheists started going to church and BELIEVING well...... nothing would happen.
This argument that atheists are believers in just like theists is a waste of time. Get a telescope explore the stars, or a microscope start looking at atoms and cells. I'll keep exploring , You keep praying we'll see who gets further.
Asking for proof that atheism is correct is like asking for proof that bigfoot doesn't exist. I can go into the woods and search 100 acres without finding any evidence that bigfoot exists, does that prove it doesn't? No, I haven't searched everywhere. I could search another 1000 acres and not find anything, that still doesn't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist. It's asking for proof of nothing; if there is nothing, the proof is nothing!
lol Bible is evidence and because he stopped the caller how is that breaking his 1st amendment rights? I didn't know that The Atheist Experience was a government program.
Not to get into the middle of your internet war, but this is a legitimate question that he can't provide an answer to. Atheists are theists, but they put their faith in "no gods."
@jjclownyseed2008 Your ridiculous comment; "Atheists are theists, but they put their faith in "no gods," is a total non-sequitur and, possibly, one of thee dumbest things it has been my misfortune to read.. Atheism is as much a faith/religion as celibacy is a sexual position, or the off button is a tv channel...
@rrdab1 Do you have complete trust and confidence that there is no god? If so, you have faith in "no gods," according to the accepted definition of faith. To be godless, you have to have faith in no higher power. I don't literally mean atheists are theists, because atheism is the anti-thesis of theism. You probably smugly think you are elevated above theists, but they came first. Without the theist, you would never get to enjoy your faithless existence. Sorry to cause you great misfortune.
@jjclownyseed2008 Your premise that theists came before atheists is demonstrably, patently, not the case. Man invented gods to explain natural phenomena and things that scared them. The clever developed this, seeing it as a way of control, they built up the gods and punished those who did not believe. Thus we entered the time of gods. Prior to this ALL were atheists but, of course, they had no idea they were, because there was not a god to NOT believe in. Simple really.
@rrdab1 That is not true. Atheism relies on theism. As long as I believe my God, you have to fight for your cause, which is denying my God. I agree on rulers creating pagan gods for control systems and empire building. Nimrod and Babylon-The Roman Empire-Modern Day Corporate Church systems. They were so clever, they hi-jacked christianity and tainted it. To be an Atheist requires you to know what you are refuting, or else its blind faithlessness. It is complex really, to say otherwise is nuts.
@jjclownyseed2008 Try reading my post again, and understand that i was refuting your assertion that theists pre-dated atheists. To re-iterate we were all once, before the invention of god/s, atheists. I was NOT questioning that the very word atheist arose from theist, that is an obvious generic conclusion. Try it this way; Anti-nazi is a term, but prior to nazism people didn't have the expression. That does not mean that people were against the doctrine. Same with religion.
@rrdab1 So you're stating that people before Nazism had the moral predisposition to disagree with the doctrine before the conception of the term anti-nazi, just as how people before religion had a predisposition to disagree with the doctrine, but that oversimplifies a complex reality. And it still comes back to faith. You think men lied about Gods to control, and you use logic, reason, and science as proof. You have faith in devices that can be used against God. I have faith in god. Its faith.
@jjclownyseed2008 It doesn't over simplify, because it IS simple. You don't need a word to describe something that you DON'T believe in. However, you need a word to describe that which you do. Ant-theist is a tag, but it's the same as anti-astrologer or anti-alchamist, it's unnecessary. Your admission that your religion is simply based upon faith is sadly deluded, childish, and wishful. Evidence requires NO faith, something is either true, or it is not. I am done.
Atheism isn't the assertion that there is no god, it is simply the disbelief.
To ask someone if atheism is correct, you would have to be making the assumption that atheism is asserting that there IS no god, but that isn't what Atheism is.
And NO, you cant be a theist if you DONT believe in a god, it has nothing to do with having faith in something. you can have faith that aliens created the world and still be an Atheist.
@jjclownyseed2008 There is no legitimacy to the question, period, and your idiotic strawman built your idiotic conclusion, now either fuck off or find a way to rephrase the question so it's not a dishonest mess of word games.
@alphaenemy Well, ok I'll rephrase the question. When you die nothing previous to the death matters, because your done. Why do you guys care so much about arguing Christians? And don't say because Christianity is ruining the world, because that is a load of shit. Corrupt organized religion is ruining the world, just like corrupt organized government, and corrupt organized science. I'm not dishonest, nothing matters in this world after we die according to the atheist belief of just being dead.
@jjclownyseed2008 Why do you think that nothing previous to the death matters? Why must life be pointless if there isn't a God? I don't understand that, and neither do almost all atheists. If almost all atheists feel like there is a point to life, then on what authority do you have it to say that there is no point if you're an atheist?
As for why argue with Chrstianity, it has less to do with its influence on the world, and more to do with its not staying out of my life.
@alphaenemy Oh I am saying if it is true that we die, regardless of belief, and that is it, why argue others? If you are right, than you are right, you don't need to save anyone from anything after death. Death is the end, there is no point afterwards. My belief is that there is a point afterwards, but why do you need to organize and work to prove there is nothing afterwards. I just wonder why atheists don't accept their conclusion and move forward, instead they organize and argue other belief
@jjclownyseed2008 I shouldn't speak for most, but I do think that most atheists don't really care about your afterlife and are not attempting to disprove it. There's nothing in that for us. We just shouldn't be expected to live by the laws of your religion, as there isn't much good evidence to suggest that it's true. Also, if a religion is attempting to usurp science (mostly in the case of evolution), then to be responsible is to deal with it directly.
@alphaenemy The point you're missing here is that it doesn't necessarily have to be an argument (jjclomnyseed, I don't know your opinion but, if I understand this is what you're getting at). I mean, you brought up evolution... Why do all athiests say that Christians can't believe in it? It's a possibility... There's no reason why God couldn't have used evolution. If the evidence truly is there (which I honestly don't think there is, but that's besides the point), then it must be true
@midnightapalooza All atheists do not say that Christians can't believe in evolution. Hell, Richard Dawkins is happy to name off evolutionary biologists who are Christians. I've heard it with my own ears. Now, iIf you don't think the evidence is there, you should spend more time learning about it or ultimately admit that you have an uninformed opinion on it and stay out of it.
@alphaenemy Okay, I will admit that I do currently have an uninformed opinion, I have not taken the time to learn about that portion of this debate, that's my fault and I'll admit it. If you want me to stay out of your argument, then I will. But first, let me just say this: When I was discussing evolution, my point wasn't to disprove it, it was simply to say that both can work together.
@midnightapalooza Religion and evolution can certainly work together, but Creationism and evolution cannot. Creationists are those who outright reject evolution, and will jump through as many logical hoops they have to in order to continue the rejection because there is an underlying fear that evolution will deconvert people from their religion. Hell, some of the BEST evolutionary scientists are religious.
@alphaenemy That's a fair statement and proves that you get my point. I agree with you, therefore there is no reason to continue that specific argument. I'm not a creationist necesssarily, and you are clearly not. If you have another point for a different argument to bring up, go ahead. I'll be happy to debate you. But we agree with this one. And, I can't speak for him, but if I understand correctly, jjclownyseed does too.
@midnightapalooza Yes. Fuck Eli Manning. No, I don't know if you're a Giants fan or not, nor jjclownyseed, but that's what I do have to say. Cuz fuck him. You didn't say I had to be topical!
@alphaenemy So, therefore, if it is there, then it happened. If it happened, then that can still work with Christianity. There's some who say no, God had to have made the universe, and specifically humans, but still, even then, He did specifically make humans. He just made them through a way other than from dust, as Scripture says. But as for the whole "from dust" thing, think about it: to primitive minds, would it make more sense to say "You came from monkeys, which came from
@alphaenemy mammals that lived underground after the dinosaurs died and were able to rise up without the dinosaurs as their predators" and then go through all of time and history? No, to them it would make more sense to say, "you came from dust."
@midnightapalooza I see your point, but if God is all powerful, then why has he not seen that we have learned enough to understand where he was going with his explanation and come back and refine it in light of our knowledge today? Why accept the confusion? Why just sit idly silent forever while we debate and fight and sometimes even kill each other over our inability to correctly interpret his infallible word that he could correct if he wanted? Sorry, I just don't buy it.
@alphaenemy Well, first off, let me just say, there is no confusion anymore. The evidence is there, you can believe it or not, but the confusion is gone That's what He would have wanted if you are correct (and I'm not saying you're not correct). I think that anyone who disagrees with the idea may or may not have his or her reasons, but ultimately, if there is evidence, there's not confusion. I'll admit, there is no evidence for us being made from dust, there's evidence for evolution.
@alphaenemy Second of all, think about it this way: We thought we were right thousands of years ago that we were made "from dust" and we had our "evidence" to back that up. Now, we say that's wrong,evolution is right, and we have our evidence to back that up. What about a thousand years from now? Science will come up with a new idea, regard us as retarded (as some regard old cutures as retarded)and move on. But our faith will still be there. That won't change. It hasn't yet.
@jjclownyseed2008 It's humorous that Christians used to look upon faith as one of their strong points, yammering on about the virtues of faith, and yet; now Christians attempt to label atheists as having faith because so many more people are putting pressure on them to account for it.
Stating that atheists have faith is asanine but that won't stop you. If we have faith, then ours is justified and yours is not and the position hasn't changed. But we don't have faith.
@KonijNx2 Faith is still the strength of Christians for we know there is an all loving God and place our trust in him. I guess it is not faith for you, but it is an assertion from your heart. You say in your heart, "there is no God." I understand, you are faithless. That is actually a dumb argument. All of you have no faith, you are all empty of faith. I actually feel dumb, just realized this. My mistake. All of you have no faith. I was wrong, I admit.
@jjclownyseed2008 "for we know there is an all loving God and place our trust in him.", well it depends upon which definition of faith you're ... putting your faith into. But if we're talking about faith I as I understand it - that isn't faith.
"You say in your heart, "there is no God.". No, I don't. I say in my mind, that I don't believe in God. Saying there is for sure no God and saying that I do not believe in God are two very different things.
@jjclownyseed2008 Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Come on, you're in public. Try a little harder than that.
@elspoko Maybe it is not like religion according to the dictionary definition, but it is like religion in the way of fools that gather together to reinforce one another's destitute understanding of life.
@jjclownyseed2008 Thanks for admitting religion is for fools. Helps out your argument a lot. Especially after a comment like "Maybe it is not like religion according to the dictionary definition". Don't tell me, you have a better definition right? One that suites your argument better perhaps? I would like to remind you that you're in public.
@elspoko The theologically confused know nothing. Religion means to respect great demons, Paul called out the greeks for their pagan ignorance, "Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious." Christianity is a fellowship in Christ, and he is the way to the one true God. You atheists have theological deficiencies, you look, but do not see. In public with a group of fools, if I may add.
@jjclownyseed2008 Sorry, I apologize. I have no reason to judge any of you or call you fools, it is just that you atheists get vicious with your attacks. I have no right to stereotype, and I add to the problem when I do.
@jjclownyseed2008 Good going on avoiding my original point though! I'm glad to see you that realize you have no foundation for the idiotic comment you put up. Again, try harder.
Like. A. Boss.
m88888 3 hours ago
0:40 Matt laughs because he knows this guy is an idiot as soon as he poses the question.
happydude04 1 day ago
i don't even understand for a second how people can say that TAE lost that argument he completely explained it and the caller even said "ill give you that point' but for some reason he wanted more he couldn't understand that that's the whole argument that's the complete point there's nothing else to add
Team3starftw 1 day ago
what evidence do you have that you do not see any evidence for something? How does someone provide evidence that they do not see any evidence?
evilyig 2 days ago
The guy seems to repeat the same idiotic question that that halfwit William Lane Craig posed to Christopher Hitchens when Hitchens was destroying him in a debate. Craig knew it was a foolish question, this guy doesn't. But that is what makes him the perfect dupe for religious hucksters. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
lumpheadthump 3 days ago
of fire, just as of the previous, unbelievers dying, rejecting, and thus, receiving no life. If you deny that, then you might as well deny all of history.
12345soccerguy 3 days ago
@12345soccerguy I believe the atheist argument has always been... WHAT evidence? Also the concept of proving something doesn't exist is a dishonest argument. I would put forth that nothing can be proved to not exist. Please sir, disprove unicorns, or leprechans, or literally anything. The burden is on you to prove what you claim to be true or to exist. Looking it up in a book doesn't count.
ilrichard 3 days ago
@ilrichard Well then what does count?
12345soccerguy 3 days ago
@12345soccerguy Actual evidence. In order to assert that what is written in your bible is fact and could be used as evidence to support a claim, you would first have to prove that the bible is anything other than some people writing a book. All we have to go by is their claims that it was god inspired. But we can see from history and other holy books that man seems to like making this claim when writing books and this claim doesn't require truth to make.
ilrichard 2 days ago
@ilrichard History.
12345soccerguy 2 days ago
@12345soccerguy Please give an example of any history that shows the bible was god-inspired.
ilrichard 1 day ago
@ilrichard Creation,Moses and Mount Sinai, the kings of Israel who spoke with God and recorded his word, the Birth of the Messiah, etc... That's the evidence, the history of Israel.
12345soccerguy 1 day ago
@12345soccerguy That is NOT evidence. There is no historical account of most of this other than the ones in the bible so right off the bat your argument falls flat. If you want to believe this stuff anyway then more power to you. But don't come in here and call it evidence...it makes you look rediculous.
ilrichard 1 day ago
@ilrichard Then give me evidence for the History of Israel. Give me evidence for the History of History, as you would want for the Bible. Is there any evidence for the evidence of the history of the world? is that even necessary? It just shows your poor scholarship and ignorance.
12345soccerguy 1 day ago
@12345soccerguy If I were the one making outrageous claims I would damn sure back them up or I would be honest enough to say I didnt know. All of this is beside the point. Even if you could prove that the birth of jesus happened, that brings you no closer to proving his divinity. All you can prove is someone was born who others believed was divine. You really shouldnt speak of poor scholarship and ignorance. That whole sentences just smacks of irony.
ilrichard 1 day ago
@ilrichard His divinity is proved by miracles and prophecy. Ignorance of History does not "smack of irony".
12345soccerguy 17 hours ago
@12345soccerguy Yet no other religion is convinced and they have as much evidence for prophecy, as you do. None. Miracles don't exist and those prophecies are self-fulfilled. This is why they were fulfilled decades after the supposed fact.
clipsryan 16 hours ago
@12345soccerguy No it is not sir. It is proved by your belief that is is true which is backed up by years of people telling you that it's true. That is the only reason a rational person would ever claim that a couple of stories in a book proves anything.
And yes it does smack of irony. Though you go on believing anything you want to believe. You've already shown your tendency to believe literally anything.
ilrichard 27 minutes ago
@12345soccerguy If god speaks to people, why need a book at all. Is it because the "believers" knew there wasn't a god and this was the only way to push an idea onto people; using a material object? How come your "evidence" doesn't convince the other abrahamic religions?
clipsryan 16 hours ago
@clipsryan What "other" Abrahamic religions? Islam accepts it and includes some of the stories in their Quran, the Torah/ Tanakh accepts it, obviously.
12345soccerguy 16 hours ago
@12345soccerguy Yet all three believe the others will go to hell.
clipsryan 7 hours ago
Atheists are intellectual and Christians are stupid because Atheists have no proof of atheism, aka the disprove of God? completely nonsensical. There isn't any proof to support the claim that God doesn't exist, there only is evidence that God DOES exist. Atheist want proof of God by him revealing himself to the world. God has done countless times and has been recorded for thousands of years. Also, God promises that he will come, thus will prove his existence, and the wicked cast into the lake
12345soccerguy 3 days ago
How do you decide which claims from the past are evidence? Do you believe all records from the past?
evilyig 2 days ago
@evilyig Dead sea scrolls.
12345soccerguy 2 days ago
@12345soccerguy "There isn't any proof to support the claim that God doesn't exist" I hear this dishonest arguement presented over and over by theists. If something doesnt exist, how can it leave proof of anything? It is not possible to prove that something doesnt exist. Anyone who bases a defense of a position on the argument that is it possible is either being dishonest on purpose or isnt intelligent enough to realize this.
ilrichard 12 minutes ago
Why do i keep hearing this challenge: show proof and evidence that atheism is true and accurate which
is like asking a religious person *show proof and evidence that your belief in god is true and accurate....do they want us to take a lie detector test or sumthin?:P
Willibab 4 days ago
@Willibab The Bible, the Prophesy, the History, the Spirit, the Logic.
12345soccerguy 3 days ago
@12345soccerguy ty for proving my point, see no evidence... even if u could show evidence for my question, shockofgods question would still be dumb, it was a bad example from my part, lets say the lack of belief in bigfoot is abigfootism, could u show evidence for that you dont believe in bigfoot? except lie detector test or just ur word. and when u cant i say i win -.- so misleading and dishonest.
Willibab 3 days ago
@Willibab See no evidence? Would not such a person that denies evidence be blind? Who cannot see the evidence, the truth? God is irrelevant to myths. He has communicated with man, he has inspired them to write of his word, they wrote what he said, and the thousands of manuscripts of recording proves itself. If you really want God to just reveal himself to the world, just wait until Judgement day. I don't say you win, because there is nothing for you to win by wanting more evidencethantheprovided
12345soccerguy 2 days ago
@12345soccerguy yes such a person would be blind indeed :) we have a different definition of *evidence* it seems. doesnt the other religions also have a ton of *inspired* recordings? what makes your manuscripts real and theirs fake? and wanting god to reveal himself would be silly seeing as i dont even believe he exsists ^^ ..anyway we got way off topic here. i just wanted to point out how its dishonest for shockofgod to claim *victory* for a question that is poorly made.
Willibab 2 days ago
@12345soccerguy You just basically listed the bible and 4 other things that indirectly come out of the bible. All your "evidence" falls flat if you cant prove the bible is more than just a book written by men.
ilrichard 2 days ago
I think unicorns are neat...
CyberWeez 5 days ago
again, another dumb fuck...
MrKeepless 6 days ago
The depressing thing is that SoG and the people who actually listen to him will take this as irrefutable proof that he's right.
crabbieappleton 6 days ago
@crabbieappleton You assume they actually will watch this without changing it in their heads.
sonic8005 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I got BANNED from commenting by Atheist Experience SIMPLY for suggesting they tackle other religions like Judaism, and look into the racism and other immorality within the Jewish oral law.
That PROVES right there that they're NOT an atheist organization at all, rather simply an anti-Christian organization (and I'm not a Christian).
Because some of these hypocrites are ethnically Jewish (some of the hosts) they REFUSE to talk about the Jewish religion, so they're not proper atheists at all!
GnosticHumanist 1 week ago
@GnosticHumanist maybe some jewish people should call in occasionally. The fact is that they don't.
TheDharmawheel 3 days ago
We dont have definitive proof unicorns dont exist.
But we're pretty positive they dont because we cant perceive them.
We cant see them, hear them, taste them, smell them or touch them. We have only 5 senses. If we cant perceive it with these 5 senses then we assume that it doesn't exist. Just like your "God".
If unicorns turn out to be real, and we can perceive them we wouldn't need to "believe" they are real because its obvious that they are.
bassboy360 1 week ago
@bassboy360 things can exist beyond our perception. so what about unicorn. does it exist ? unicorn is a product of human mind , a human fantasy. Yes it can exist (its not impossible), but there is no shred of evidence or slightest hint in favor of it. So there is no reason for it to exist. No reason to dedicate my life after that hypothesis.
freakiest421 1 week ago
I can't believe this idiot SoG thinks the Bible is evidence. Wait, he's a theist. I CAN believe it.
JoseATurner 1 week ago
@ptango101 Your first comment I wont argue with. As you said, you have no dogmas of faith (though technically, you do, you cant believe in a god, otherwise, youre not an athiest). But still, the first comment describes your personal beliefs, which you are entitled to. So thats fine. But, your second comment is where you continue to misinterpret me.
midnightapalooza 1 week ago
Matt is afraid of John! Matt has evolved into a chicken! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa
Donking595 1 week ago
Great video, terrible captions.
SquidRooster 1 week ago
@ptango101 No, yall still dont get it! TECHNICALLY, no you dont require evidence. By legal rules and debate rules, whatever, you DO NOT NEED PROOF. We, technically, do. BUT, if you want to be SUCCESSFUL in convincing us, then you do. Tell me what youre not understanding herd, guys. Im speaking plain English.
midnightapalooza 1 week ago
@midnightapalooza I am not the one trying to convince anyone of anything. You say there is a god and I don't accept your evidence. Your evidence is all I have to work with. I don't have a church or dogma. I can't say "here is the proof god doesn't exist". I'm not making a 100% statement either, unlike most theists. I have no idea that there isn't something bigger than us somewhere but I am fairly sure it isn't the ill defined judeo-christian god. That's my atheism.
ptango101 1 week ago
@midnightapalooza I also understand where you are coming from. You are defining atheism to fit your terms and the logical part of you is rejecting these terms. So we don't have to bring anything to the table but at the same time we do. Like what? please give me some indication of the type of evidence we do and don't have to produce.
ptango101 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Atheist Experience team are a bunch of hypocrites; they don't want reasoned sensible discussion or debate; if you make any relevant point they end up blocking you; clearly they just want the fundie fruitcake calling who will only be aware of this idiotic reductive literalist extreme interpretation of the Bible; this is old hat; debated down the centuries; they offer nothing new, only extremism and they become the same as the people they accuse
no1hoopsman 1 week ago
What's SoG? :x
Naxide 1 week ago
@Naxide It's an acronym for shockofgod
ptango101 1 week ago
That was the 10-IQ fucktard himself, so it's not spreading much! : )
winterstellar 1 week ago
you can't talk logic to idiots why try?
michaelflorida56 1 week ago
And BOOM goes the dynamite...
BillHicks420 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When they get proven wrong they just cut the caller off Lololol
puffinlah 2 weeks ago
@puffinlah Where exactly did they get proven wrong?..
vyshious 2 weeks ago 13
@vyshious they didn't
TheCycadsAreAudible 2 weeks ago
@vyshious They didn't. There are a lot of sad theists who feel they must convince everyone else to convince themselves and they can't bring themselves to believe anyone else truly does not believe in their god.
Estragon17 1 week ago
@Estragon17 Of course, I wanted to see if puffinlah could give me something resembling an answer.
vyshious 1 week ago
@vyshious I believe SoG mean ShockofGod style. This is a style of argument where you win by remaining ignorant. This is how they were proven wrong - by the sheer will power of a believer unwilling to question his faith.
jancar2012 4 days ago
@puffinlah No, just when the call is going nowhere
TheCycadsAreAudible 2 weeks ago
@puffinlah
You are a true idiot.
NUTCASE71733 1 week ago
The refutation of mind/body dualism is proof and evidence that atheism is accurate. At the core of theism is the idea that a conscious, intelligent mind is responsible for everything. Reality shows us that intelligence and consciousness comes from biological brains, which had to evolve and grow from infancy.
Staunts 2 weeks ago
jesus was an intangible translucent unicorn, miniature in size, nothing more, nothing less
IAINoodle 2 weeks ago 25
@IAINoodle Exactly. You can't prove that wrong. lol
TheCycadsAreAudible 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IAINoodle Hmm wrong you are.
elibeth121 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
MJ63551 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
MJ63551 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
MJ63551 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
MJ63551 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
MJ63551 2 weeks ago
At one point in the video a caption saying "the bible is proof" popped up. How on earth is that proof that god exists? Some old man who lived in a cave on top of a mountain a couple of thousand years ago may have written it for a laugh. And anyway if god really does exist, why would he need to write a book on it, surely he would have just installed it all in our heads. Would have saved him a lot of effort
MJ63551 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MJ63551 The disciples wrote down what they saw in the bible as well as what they experienced. they wrote it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
elibeth121 2 weeks ago
its all on the video called pact with the devil... look it up. All of my evidence for God's existence. I havent seen an athiest provide that much....
midnightapalooza 2 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza ... So if they chose to reply they are more than likely to spend a lot of time on it whilst gaining very little. Not to mention youtube comments are an extremely inefficient way to have a discussion with replies as long as that. My advice if you want it would be this: If you want people to respond to your arguments, bring them forward one at a time while trying to keep the maximum number of comments at 4-5 per response/rebuttal.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza well, you haven't been looking hard enough
TheCycadsAreAudible 2 weeks ago
This is kinda funny because even bat shit crazy fundamentalist christians were able to understand the answer Matt gave to SoG and to accept it as rational, while SoG probably doesnt get it untill this day. I heard that VenomfangX wants to study biology to disprove evolution, so if he was honest then its only matter of time when he will abandon his believes. And I think SoG needs something like that too. Lets hope that one day SoG will be able to reabilitate.
P.s.: sorry for my english.
DemimondXXIII 2 weeks ago
@DemimondXXIII Beliefs. Rehabilitate. Those were literally your ONLY mistakes. You sound like my Mexican gf. Quit apologizing and just speak. You're obviously very intelligent. You even used the correct form of "too." Your English is better than most average Americans. Now go forth my son, and troll fundamentalists!
metalElvalover 2 weeks ago
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. We simply reject that claim.
It is really that simple.
civwarfan 2 weeks ago
@civwarfan Wow, none of you understand me, do you? I'm speaking plain English! YES, the burden of proof is on the believer. I agree with you 100%! BUT...
Let me put it this way: If you said there was an invisible unicorn behind me, and I turned around and said, no, there's not, I would want you to prove that to me. That makes sense, and I agree. BUT, if there were 1,000,000 people all telling me there was an invisible unicorn behind me, and they all believed that, then I would
midnightapalooza 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@midnightapalooza "BUT, if there were 1,000,000 people ... then I would have to give some kind of proof that no, there's not"
No. You wouldn't. ALL of the burden of proof lies with the claimant. You're succuming to the Argumentum ad Numerum logical fallacy. If over a certain number of people tell you something, you have to provide proof that contradicts their claim? That's hogwash. What does a number count have to do with it?
Inclousid 2 weeks ago
@civwarfan have to give some kind of proof that no, there's not, if I want to win the argument. They can give me proof, but if I want to be successful, I also have to give proof that there is no invisible unicorn behind me. Do you get it now? I agree that the majority of proof lies on the believer, but the nonbeliever still has to say SOMETHING to prove he's correct. Otherwise, by official debate rules, if he has no evidence, he loses, no matter who's right.
midnightapalooza 2 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza "BUT, if there were 1,000,000 people all telling me there was an invisible unicorn behind me, and they all believed that, then I would" Argumentum Ad Populum. Your logic is not sound logic, please try again. :)
blazearmoru 2 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza "but the nonbeliever still has to say SOMETHING to prove he's correct." No he doesn't. Not if he is not the one making the assertion. The majority of us atheists DO NOT make an assertion on whether a God exists or not. We simply observe the evidence and make a decision on what is PROBABLY correct. We lack belief in a God because of the lack of evidence yet we do not make an assertion as to whether he exists or not.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago 2
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 YES YOU DO!!!! Hahaha, you really dont understand what im saying! That's a cop out! You have to give evidence if you want to be succesful! Just as you say that in order for me to convince you there is a God, I have to give you evidence, you also have to show me the evidence for your claim as well! You are making a claim that there is no God. You must show me the evidence as to why there's not. If you are so right, then why do you refuse to show me your
midnightapalooza 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@midnightapalooza I completely understand what you are saying. You clearly don't understand how the burden of proof, evidence and logical reasoned argument works. You would make a terrible lawyer (I can safely assume you are not one). I am not making a claim that God doesn't exist. I am making a claim that it is illogical to believe in a God because of the complete lack of evidence. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That is a fact....
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 evidence? I gave a lot on another video... Look on my page, you should find it. It's like two whole pages of evidence, so I'm not going to repeat it here. Click on my name and read it and weep.
midnightapalooza 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza ... You could think of my evidence as the complete LACK of it to back up your own claim. I took a quick look at your so-called evidence and though I didn't read all of it, I was unimpressed with the contents. But that is not the biggest problem: Do you seriously expect people to reply to all that? I mean come on, it is going to take ages! And for what? 99.99% of the religious never visibly change their mind while arguing on youtube. Most people are aware of this...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 I completely understand you as well. I took a law class... Hated it, but learned enough (specifically for these purposes). And yes, you are fully correct that you don't have to prove a negative. In court, they wouldn't ask you to prove that someone didn't commit the murder. You're right. I get you from a technical standpoint. But, IF YOU WANT TO WIN, you really need to give us some proof too. You don't technically HAVE to, but if you want to be successful
midnightapalooza 1 week ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 then you do. Sorry to keep this argument going, but I just want to make you understand what I'm saying. We, from a technical standpoint, do have to prove our claim, but you don't have to prove your claim. But if you want to win and be successful in arguing against us, if you want to try to convince us, then you gotta bring something to the table too, not just rebuttals.
midnightapalooza 1 week ago
@midnightapalooza God is something that supposedly exists outside of space and time. The very idea was created so that it would be technically impossible to refute it. Can I disprove Yahweh's existence? No. But the bible makes many assertions, some of which are actually refutable by modern science. Many of these assertions contradict each other. The bible also paints a very questionable picture of God's character. it makes his personality out to be...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 week ago
@midnightapalooza ... many contradicting things such as extremely cruel, sadistic and barbaric at some times but at other times he is loving and forgiving. Sometimes he is no better than the most immature, insecure and idiotic of people, but at other times he is all-powerful, almighty and way above humans in every way. The picture the bible paints of God's character is extremely inconsistent.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 week ago
@midnightapalooza ... Does this disprove God's existence? No. But it means that if he does exist then he is not how you think he is.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 week ago
@midnightapalooza Sorry to just interject here but what a strange mindset. You are agreeing that we are not the ones with burden of proof while arguing that we have to bring it anyway. Our position is there is no proof that your deity of choice exists. You can't say "well bring this lack of evidence to the table and we can talk".
ptango101 1 week ago
@midnightapalooza "if he has no evidence, he loses" Exactly. When you are working outside the realm of the tangibly observable, and you have no evidence for your claim, you lose, period. Provably quantify, or GTFO.
foobee2 1 week ago
@elspoko No, youre missing my point: I undertand what youre saying and dont necessarily disagree, but still, if you want to be successful in winning an argument, you have to provide evidence for your claim as well. And yes, it is a claim. Because the logic youre using is this: God is not real, so its not a claim. I can say the same thing, bit say He is real, and therefore also have a claim. Either way, in order for one of us to win, we both need to have proof. So Im waiting for yours
midnightapalooza 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Sorry about the typos... Im typing on my work phone, and the buttons are too small for my fingers.
midnightapalooza 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Hey, dont feel bad about arguing here... This video was posted specifically for encouraging religious debayes. Ayheists (not all, but some) like to offend us and start arguments. Its good for you to defend your faith publically. It shoes you truly care. IlAnd you handled it well. Dont back down! You got me backing you up, if you need it.
midnightapalooza 2 weeks ago
And I realize this is your guys's thread. I will no longer tread on your territory, I realize the anger is from territorial protection. I can discern that no one wants to be wrong, but I admit I was wrong with my "faith" argument, and that I was wrong for arguing period, for I truly do not belong here.
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 That's not the case at all, I as long as lots of others welcome discussion. However, from my perspective (and you have your own), the argument you presented and the arguments many present tend to be offensive or plain wrong, which I'm aware you admitted, which is very admirable of you. Of course you can talk here, many people will insult you, but you get that talking to anyone on the internet. There are idiotic atheists.
KonijNx2 2 weeks ago
@KonijNx2 I just realized that I've been rambling like a mad man. I have no hate or anger towards any of you guys I have been arguing. And I do agree that there is massively confused ideas tossed around (in general), and I evidently did my share on this thread. Sorry to be offensive and judgmental. I know you guys are trying to make sense of this world like all people, but we just differ on how to make it make sense.
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 That as it may be, but we will meet eachother on the battlefield, as it were. Since you have referred to yourself as a creationist, you almost certainly believe it is scientific and want it in schools - and things like that will get people riled up too. It's a shame it can not be a live and let live situation. But as far as I'm concerned creationism has no place in science classrooms, and the fact and theory of evolution does.
KonijNx2 2 weeks ago
@KonijNx2 If a battle comes or a battlefield ensues I will not be present, nor will I fight, but I'll pray. You are also entitled to your opinion. I'll recede. As for the schools, what they teach doesn't matter to me, because they are ineffective (assertion of opinion).
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 There's nothing wrong with fighting for your beliefs and I apologise for putting words in your mouth.
It should matter to you what they teach because of the fact that they are ineffective, surely education is the path to a better future.
My point previously was that creationism isn't scientific whether a creationist believes it or not, and therefore creatists that push for it in science classes have my ire - though you're not one of them.
KonijNx2 2 weeks ago
@KonijNx2 Hey man, I have faith and it is strong faith, but no matter how strong it is I have no dictation in the lives of others. I am glad that we can end on a peaceful note. People who think differently should still show peace and love to one another. It was nice arguing, even though I got a little worked up for my own good! Peace.
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
@alphaenemy Okay, thats fair... i agree. But you gotta admit, that chorvette they gave him was fucking awesome!
midnightapalooza 3 weeks ago
Shock you are an ignorant spanner
RapeJesusWithAStick 3 weeks ago
@RapeJesusWithAStick i think you Spammer but yeah, he is an ignorant spammer, so is anyone that makes viddeos saying they can "destroy atheism" or Evolution, recently in human history Evolution has identified the place in the ancestral ape/chimp chromozome line where humans were "created" from Evolution of Chimpanzees, i forget the vid name but go watch it, its real science working to prove Evolution correct
Lavos2007 3 weeks ago
@Lavos2007 I quite agree with you however I did mean spanner. Brit way of saining fool
RapeJesusWithAStick 3 weeks ago
@RapeJesusWithAStick my mistake then, sorry about that
Lavos2007 2 weeks ago
@RapeJesusWithAStick think you mean* gah
Lavos2007 3 weeks ago
So atheists will stand up for the theory of evolution in the way that Christians stand up for God?
jjclownyseed2008 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Except that evolution has more evidence for it.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy That is so weird. The scientific debate has never been creationists vs evolutionism. It has always been nominalism vs realism. Well, carry on than.
jjclownyseed2008 3 weeks ago
Religion's stupid it bars humanity from evolving and exploring the galaxy. If all theists would work towards exploration and evolving our humanity we would be much better off. If all atheists started going to church and BELIEVING well...... nothing would happen.
This argument that atheists are believers in just like theists is a waste of time. Get a telescope explore the stars, or a microscope start looking at atoms and cells. I'll keep exploring , You keep praying we'll see who gets further.
UnrealChainz420x2 3 weeks ago 2
Asking for proof that atheism is correct is like asking for proof that bigfoot doesn't exist. I can go into the woods and search 100 acres without finding any evidence that bigfoot exists, does that prove it doesn't? No, I haven't searched everywhere. I could search another 1000 acres and not find anything, that still doesn't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist. It's asking for proof of nothing; if there is nothing, the proof is nothing!
ridered300 3 weeks ago
@ridered300 now take the word atheism out wherever you used it in that comment and replace it with the word "christianity". works well too.
ROEmusic1001 3 weeks ago
lol Bible is evidence and because he stopped the caller how is that breaking his 1st amendment rights? I didn't know that The Atheist Experience was a government program.
SuperPhoenixFrog 3 weeks ago
Not to get into the middle of your internet war, but this is a legitimate question that he can't provide an answer to. Atheists are theists, but they put their faith in "no gods."
jjclownyseed2008 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Your ridiculous comment; "Atheists are theists, but they put their faith in "no gods," is a total non-sequitur and, possibly, one of thee dumbest things it has been my misfortune to read.. Atheism is as much a faith/religion as celibacy is a sexual position, or the off button is a tv channel...
rrdab1 3 weeks ago
@rrdab1 Do you have complete trust and confidence that there is no god? If so, you have faith in "no gods," according to the accepted definition of faith. To be godless, you have to have faith in no higher power. I don't literally mean atheists are theists, because atheism is the anti-thesis of theism. You probably smugly think you are elevated above theists, but they came first. Without the theist, you would never get to enjoy your faithless existence. Sorry to cause you great misfortune.
jjclownyseed2008 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Your premise that theists came before atheists is demonstrably, patently, not the case. Man invented gods to explain natural phenomena and things that scared them. The clever developed this, seeing it as a way of control, they built up the gods and punished those who did not believe. Thus we entered the time of gods. Prior to this ALL were atheists but, of course, they had no idea they were, because there was not a god to NOT believe in. Simple really.
rrdab1 3 weeks ago
@rrdab1 That is not true. Atheism relies on theism. As long as I believe my God, you have to fight for your cause, which is denying my God. I agree on rulers creating pagan gods for control systems and empire building. Nimrod and Babylon-The Roman Empire-Modern Day Corporate Church systems. They were so clever, they hi-jacked christianity and tainted it. To be an Atheist requires you to know what you are refuting, or else its blind faithlessness. It is complex really, to say otherwise is nuts.
jjclownyseed2008 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Try reading my post again, and understand that i was refuting your assertion that theists pre-dated atheists. To re-iterate we were all once, before the invention of god/s, atheists. I was NOT questioning that the very word atheist arose from theist, that is an obvious generic conclusion. Try it this way; Anti-nazi is a term, but prior to nazism people didn't have the expression. That does not mean that people were against the doctrine. Same with religion.
rrdab1 3 weeks ago
@rrdab1 So you're stating that people before Nazism had the moral predisposition to disagree with the doctrine before the conception of the term anti-nazi, just as how people before religion had a predisposition to disagree with the doctrine, but that oversimplifies a complex reality. And it still comes back to faith. You think men lied about Gods to control, and you use logic, reason, and science as proof. You have faith in devices that can be used against God. I have faith in god. Its faith.
jjclownyseed2008 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 It doesn't over simplify, because it IS simple. You don't need a word to describe something that you DON'T believe in. However, you need a word to describe that which you do. Ant-theist is a tag, but it's the same as anti-astrologer or anti-alchamist, it's unnecessary. Your admission that your religion is simply based upon faith is sadly deluded, childish, and wishful. Evidence requires NO faith, something is either true, or it is not. I am done.
rrdab1 3 weeks ago
@rrdab1 I am as worn as you are. You were a respectable opponent to butt heads with. We kept it clean, and can leave without a big mess. Peace!
jjclownyseed2008 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008
"Atheists are theists, but they put their faith in "no gods.""
In that case, if you don't believe in Santa, you put your faith in no-Santa XD
TurboDally 3 weeks ago 13
@TurboDally Just so you know I admitted my error, all of you have no faith.
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 If atheism is a faith, then "off" is a TV channel, bald is a hair color, and not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Andromeggedon 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed No it isn't, Its a stupid question.
Atheism isn't the assertion that there is no god, it is simply the disbelief.
To ask someone if atheism is correct, you would have to be making the assumption that atheism is asserting that there IS no god, but that isn't what Atheism is.
And NO, you cant be a theist if you DONT believe in a god, it has nothing to do with having faith in something. you can have faith that aliens created the world and still be an Atheist.
evilyakko 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 There is no legitimacy to the question, period, and your idiotic strawman built your idiotic conclusion, now either fuck off or find a way to rephrase the question so it's not a dishonest mess of word games.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy Well, ok I'll rephrase the question. When you die nothing previous to the death matters, because your done. Why do you guys care so much about arguing Christians? And don't say because Christianity is ruining the world, because that is a load of shit. Corrupt organized religion is ruining the world, just like corrupt organized government, and corrupt organized science. I'm not dishonest, nothing matters in this world after we die according to the atheist belief of just being dead.
jjclownyseed2008 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Why do you think that nothing previous to the death matters? Why must life be pointless if there isn't a God? I don't understand that, and neither do almost all atheists. If almost all atheists feel like there is a point to life, then on what authority do you have it to say that there is no point if you're an atheist?
As for why argue with Chrstianity, it has less to do with its influence on the world, and more to do with its not staying out of my life.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy Oh I am saying if it is true that we die, regardless of belief, and that is it, why argue others? If you are right, than you are right, you don't need to save anyone from anything after death. Death is the end, there is no point afterwards. My belief is that there is a point afterwards, but why do you need to organize and work to prove there is nothing afterwards. I just wonder why atheists don't accept their conclusion and move forward, instead they organize and argue other belief
jjclownyseed2008 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 I shouldn't speak for most, but I do think that most atheists don't really care about your afterlife and are not attempting to disprove it. There's nothing in that for us. We just shouldn't be expected to live by the laws of your religion, as there isn't much good evidence to suggest that it's true. Also, if a religion is attempting to usurp science (mostly in the case of evolution), then to be responsible is to deal with it directly.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy The point you're missing here is that it doesn't necessarily have to be an argument (jjclomnyseed, I don't know your opinion but, if I understand this is what you're getting at). I mean, you brought up evolution... Why do all athiests say that Christians can't believe in it? It's a possibility... There's no reason why God couldn't have used evolution. If the evidence truly is there (which I honestly don't think there is, but that's besides the point), then it must be true
midnightapalooza 3 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza All atheists do not say that Christians can't believe in evolution. Hell, Richard Dawkins is happy to name off evolutionary biologists who are Christians. I've heard it with my own ears. Now, iIf you don't think the evidence is there, you should spend more time learning about it or ultimately admit that you have an uninformed opinion on it and stay out of it.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy Okay, I will admit that I do currently have an uninformed opinion, I have not taken the time to learn about that portion of this debate, that's my fault and I'll admit it. If you want me to stay out of your argument, then I will. But first, let me just say this: When I was discussing evolution, my point wasn't to disprove it, it was simply to say that both can work together.
midnightapalooza 3 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza Religion and evolution can certainly work together, but Creationism and evolution cannot. Creationists are those who outright reject evolution, and will jump through as many logical hoops they have to in order to continue the rejection because there is an underlying fear that evolution will deconvert people from their religion. Hell, some of the BEST evolutionary scientists are religious.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy That's a fair statement and proves that you get my point. I agree with you, therefore there is no reason to continue that specific argument. I'm not a creationist necesssarily, and you are clearly not. If you have another point for a different argument to bring up, go ahead. I'll be happy to debate you. But we agree with this one. And, I can't speak for him, but if I understand correctly, jjclownyseed does too.
midnightapalooza 3 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza I'm a creationist, not a giants fan, and generally a nice guy. Just thought I'd jump in with my input. :)
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
@alphaenemy Do you have anything else to say?
midnightapalooza 3 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza Yes. Fuck Eli Manning. No, I don't know if you're a Giants fan or not, nor jjclownyseed, but that's what I do have to say. Cuz fuck him. You didn't say I had to be topical!
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy Okay, I guess thats a no. Good night,, and may God bless you.
midnightapalooza 3 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza And may your final minutes be peaceful and painless.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy So, therefore, if it is there, then it happened. If it happened, then that can still work with Christianity. There's some who say no, God had to have made the universe, and specifically humans, but still, even then, He did specifically make humans. He just made them through a way other than from dust, as Scripture says. But as for the whole "from dust" thing, think about it: to primitive minds, would it make more sense to say "You came from monkeys, which came from
midnightapalooza 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy mammals that lived underground after the dinosaurs died and were able to rise up without the dinosaurs as their predators" and then go through all of time and history? No, to them it would make more sense to say, "you came from dust."
midnightapalooza 3 weeks ago
@midnightapalooza I see your point, but if God is all powerful, then why has he not seen that we have learned enough to understand where he was going with his explanation and come back and refine it in light of our knowledge today? Why accept the confusion? Why just sit idly silent forever while we debate and fight and sometimes even kill each other over our inability to correctly interpret his infallible word that he could correct if he wanted? Sorry, I just don't buy it.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy Well, first off, let me just say, there is no confusion anymore. The evidence is there, you can believe it or not, but the confusion is gone That's what He would have wanted if you are correct (and I'm not saying you're not correct). I think that anyone who disagrees with the idea may or may not have his or her reasons, but ultimately, if there is evidence, there's not confusion. I'll admit, there is no evidence for us being made from dust, there's evidence for evolution.
midnightapalooza 3 weeks ago
@alphaenemy Second of all, think about it this way: We thought we were right thousands of years ago that we were made "from dust" and we had our "evidence" to back that up. Now, we say that's wrong,evolution is right, and we have our evidence to back that up. What about a thousand years from now? Science will come up with a new idea, regard us as retarded (as some regard old cutures as retarded)and move on. But our faith will still be there. That won't change. It hasn't yet.
midnightapalooza 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alphaenemy systems. And I'm not trying to convert or judge you or anything, you know I am just curious.
jjclownyseed2008 3 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 It's humorous that Christians used to look upon faith as one of their strong points, yammering on about the virtues of faith, and yet; now Christians attempt to label atheists as having faith because so many more people are putting pressure on them to account for it.
Stating that atheists have faith is asanine but that won't stop you. If we have faith, then ours is justified and yours is not and the position hasn't changed. But we don't have faith.
KonijNx2 2 weeks ago
@KonijNx2 Faith is still the strength of Christians for we know there is an all loving God and place our trust in him. I guess it is not faith for you, but it is an assertion from your heart. You say in your heart, "there is no God." I understand, you are faithless. That is actually a dumb argument. All of you have no faith, you are all empty of faith. I actually feel dumb, just realized this. My mistake. All of you have no faith. I was wrong, I admit.
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 "for we know there is an all loving God and place our trust in him.", well it depends upon which definition of faith you're ... putting your faith into. But if we're talking about faith I as I understand it - that isn't faith.
"You say in your heart, "there is no God.". No, I don't. I say in my mind, that I don't believe in God. Saying there is for sure no God and saying that I do not believe in God are two very different things.
Fair enough
KonijNx2 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Come on, you're in public. Try a little harder than that.
elspoko 2 weeks ago
@elspoko Maybe it is not like religion according to the dictionary definition, but it is like religion in the way of fools that gather together to reinforce one another's destitute understanding of life.
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Thanks for admitting religion is for fools. Helps out your argument a lot. Especially after a comment like "Maybe it is not like religion according to the dictionary definition". Don't tell me, you have a better definition right? One that suites your argument better perhaps? I would like to remind you that you're in public.
elspoko 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elspoko The theologically confused know nothing. Religion means to respect great demons, Paul called out the greeks for their pagan ignorance, "Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious." Christianity is a fellowship in Christ, and he is the way to the one true God. You atheists have theological deficiencies, you look, but do not see. In public with a group of fools, if I may add.
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Sorry, I apologize. I have no reason to judge any of you or call you fools, it is just that you atheists get vicious with your attacks. I have no right to stereotype, and I add to the problem when I do.
jjclownyseed2008 2 weeks ago
@jjclownyseed2008 Good going on avoiding my original point though! I'm glad to see you that realize you have no foundation for the idiotic comment you put up. Again, try harder.
elspoko 2 weeks ago
@elspoko I realize I have nothi