Autism???LOL! Down Syndrome?????? LOL! 9/11????LOL! Crusades??? LOL! Circumcision...???LOL2x!!! Westborough baptist church???LOL!!! Middle East??? LOL!!! Slaughterhouses??? LOL!!!! Btw, that's such a christian thought knowingly eating (in excess) mistreated chickens, missfed cows, genetically engineered cows/chickens, thus supporting the fact that there is overpopulation on this planet and yet eating more and making more and more babies, destroying mother earth...LOL!
Provide physical evidence for the spiritual? As soon as our technology comes up with the tools to measure the spirit...no problem. :) Til then man must use his spirit to know the Spirit of God. :)
The problem with this is that using the "spirit" of man to know the "spirit" of god is unrepeatable and has no means of external verification. Thus we can't repeatably and reliably show god to exist.
You should pray to god to give us the technology to do so. I think he'll give it to you. After all, he's been so good with giving us technology up 'till now. ;-P
Of course, if he give it to me, you wouldn't need to use it. it would be proof. Ha! LOL So you should believe based on all the other technology He has already given. :)
although it's logically incorrect... Some proof for the non-existence of god!
1: the predator/prey arms race
2: lots of predatory animals like to play with their prey (cats, snakes)
3: 200 years ago we didn't know what viruses were. 100 years ago we didn't understand atoms. 50 years ago we didn't know about some subatomic particles that we do now. 25 years ago, we had no clue why gravity was so much weaker then the other fundamental forces. Simply put: god lives in the margins of science.
Although I agree with your sentiments, yes, this is logically flawed. It's merely an argument against a omnibenevolent, kind, peacefull, fuzzy warm god. In theory, "god' could could be many things. You also argue against "god of the gaps" thinking, but the argument doesn't apply to a Deistic or Pantheistic god. It is an effective argument against all theistic gods, however.
2But they (atheist) know everything? if you do not have all the evidence you can not take a correct decision? And then you call on faith, you believe that there is no god, but you do not know, you do not know because you have not enough data. So you believe.
This is faulty logic, think about it. Do you know everything? Can you PROVE that unicorns don't exist? You do not know because you don't have enough data, so you believe.
Do you see how stupid that sounds??
It is the default position to not believe in something untill there is sufficient evidence to believe in it. It isn't my job to prove there isn't a god, it's your job to provide evidence for a god.
"the first appearance of the invaders on horseback from asia, the europeans do not knew the horse, and began to conceive, mythical Animals."
While I agree with this argument, it still isn't PROOF that these animals don't exist by the standards you just used to prove god. You have to provide knowledge of every living thing on Earth, past and present, in order to show that none of those living things were, in fact, unicorns. You even use the word "perhaps" 3 times.
Holy Fuck.......all your videos suck!!! I only thought the one I originally viewed was bad, but after checking out the rest......you really are a fucktard. Wow....an honest to goodness fucktard. Ugly as shit too!
your too busy trying to disprove that there is a god to even take a second to realize that there IS one. How can you disprove a book that has been written by so many different people collectivley...that links together so perfectly. Pages found in different regions of the world, written by different people with symbolic and true meaning behind it. Refrences made back then that remain true till this day. WHat proof do u want? u want his body? u want his fossil? what proof are u lookin for lol
yea...the sky is blue...what color is it in the world you live in? lol and alright im willin to hear your points here...can you give me some examples of the bible contradicting itself in genesis please?
Yes, Gen 1:25-27 contradicts Gen 2:18-22. In chapt 1, tha animals are made first, then Adam and Eve are made at the same time. In chapt 2, Adam is made first, then the animals, then Eve is made. That's only one of over 400 contradictions in the bible that you can find at Skepticsannotatedbible dot c o m.
Wanker? Oh god, I mean, you're so stupid that you can't even use words appropriate to the situation? Why do you even bother typing? You just make yourself look like an idiot. Such as your usage of the word cogent.
Uh, I have no idea how you can deduce that I did not know what cogent meant before you used it here, especially since I pointed out you misused it. I mean, how did you get THIS stupid?
I wish you were just making this up, but either you're a really good troll, or a really stupid person.
your misunderstanding of the word cogent doesn't equal me misusing the word. That's an argument from ignorance.
"...you're a really good troll..."
You're saying this while making comments on MY channel. Stick with projection and obfuscation. They're your strongest suits. You'll get killed trying to use logic around here.
"There is a good deal of evidence that indicates the universe had a beginning. So we are left with two options:
1) Either no one created something out of nothing, or
2) Someone created something out of nothing.
Which view is more reasonable and scientific?"
This is known in logic as a false dichotomy. There's some loaded language in there as well, but this argument can be largely dismissied because it ignores any other causes for the universe other than the two, equally false, ideas.
I think you might be confused in your definitions. Look at the following two statements:
I believe there is no God.
I do not believe in God.
"I believe there is no God," is a claim to know something. It's the claim to know not-X. That being said, there is a burden of proof to carry. And if you're the type of atheist that makes the claim "I know not-X," then you fall in this category.
"I think you might be confused in your definitions. Look at the following two statements:
I believe there is no God.
I do not believe in God."
I'm not confused at all, I simply have no reason to believe in something, simply because someone else proposes it to exist.
I can say there is no god with the same degree of certianty that I can say there are no unicorns. All descriptions of god thus far, have been proven to be man-made fabrications, just like the claims for unicorns.
The other statement, "I do not believe in God," is not a claim to know something. Someone who doesn't know if God exists or not can say, "I do not believe in God." Heck, anyone with a lack of belief in God falls into this category, even inanimate objects, like rocks and chairs, etc. They all lack a belief in God.
Also, you can prove a universal negative. For instance, I'm positive that no dogs have wings, and that no rocks have brains. Now, you might say: we can survey the rocks and the dogs..
"Someone who doesn't know if God exists or not can say, "I do not believe in God." Heck, anyone with a lack of belief in God falls into this category"
You're confusing the definitions of agnosticism and atheism.
... and see that no dogs have wings and no rocks have brains, but we can't do this with God! Well, there are other ways of coming to the knowledge of a negative. For instance, you can show that somehow the concept of God is logically impossible. If you did this, we would know that God did not exist, for example, "There are no married bachelors."
I'm not demanding absolute certainty - that's impossible. I just want to see some arguments.
"I'm not demanding absolute certainty - that's impossible. I just want to see some arguments."
As I've stated above, all theistic religions proposed by humanity so far have been fabrications. Since god has,nt revealed himself to the human race, an absence of evidence can be correctly interpreted as an evidence of absence.
I'm not sure what this is in reply to. I'm just pointing out that the atheist needs to justify his position just as much as the theist.
Absense of evidence is not evidence in the other direction. What I mean is, just because there's no evidence that extraterrestrial intelligence exists elsewhere in the universe, doesn't mean that they don't either. In order to prove that there is no E.T.I, you need evidence in the other direction.
"I'm just pointing out that the atheist needs to justify his position just as much as the theist."
Following your logic, you would need to justify why you don't believe th the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorns, Russel's teapot, Bgfoot, Lochness Monster etc...
So... what I'm saying is. If we both have to justify our non-belief in unicorns and other fairy beings, then why don't atheists have to justify their non-belief in God?
But see, you don't just have a non-belief. You're not just saying, "I don't know X." If that were the case, you would be an agnostic. But you're not an agnostic (obviously), because you're saying, "I know not-X (that God does not exist)." Saying that you believe there is no God is a claim to know something, and therefore, you have a burden of proof to shoulder. Sorry, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Let me ask you a question: Are you reasonably certain that God does not exist?
If you are, then you're claiming to know something and therefore have a burden of proof to shoulder. If you're not, then you lack certainty and you're agnostic.
"I'm saying there is no reason to believe in X unless there is sufficient evidence supporting X."
This is fine. Don't believe in X without sufficient evidence, I wouldn't....
"Let me ask you a question: Are you reasonably certain that God does not exist?
If you are, then you're claiming to know something and therefore have a burden of proof to shoulder."
Resonably certain is a bit of an ambiguous term. Yes, I'm reasonably certain, but I only need to meet a low burden of proof to make that case. I can simply point out the fact that after 10,000 years of looking for god, we're no closer to finding a creator, thah when the search began.
Think of the seach for bigfoot. After all of these years of looking, SOME indisputable evidence must've turned up by now, if bigfoot existed. None has, and in this sense we can say that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
We can use the same logic towards god. Since we've been looking for so long, we should've found something by now, we haven't, therefore it is reasonable to assume that god doesn't exist.
I'm following you. When I said reasonably certain, I mean certain beyond a reasonable doubt (which is how I think you understood it). Anyways, you're major contention is that there is no evidence for God. So, I have a few more questions (big surprise). What if I presented one piece of evidence for God? Would that blow your whole case out of the water? What about two pieces? How many would it take? What kind of evidence? The search for God is different than Big Foot or unicorns, in that God is...
... metaphysical. It's not as though we'll find fossils or anything like that.
So what kind of evidence are we talking here? How much of it? I mean, at one point do you have to let go of the contention that there is no evidence? What is convincing?
and anything that contradicts the church is held back.
check out the hadron collider this will solve everything it has the potential to be a "blasphemy machine" (a device that ultimately debunks religion/superstition) we wil know how it all began.
as for nothing being the evidence, evolution is the basis of genetics. the fact that dogs are selectively bred wolves is accepted, the idea of other galaxies is also accepted.
Bzzzz WRONG ANSWER!!! thank you for playing. Theists want to tell us what we can learn in science class and how politicians should vote to give two quick examples. If they are doing so on the basis of some stupid superstitious belief, then it becomes my business AND THEREFORE they are obligated to prove why they think they are right. "Because the bible says so" doesn't cut it.
lol, proof is always a totally subjective thing, it works both ways whether you like it or not. The bible has nothing to do with the existance of god, it was probably written by atheists.
You really wanna know? Well considering the limits of a text comment, I'm unlikely to be able to give you my understanding without it just sounding like generalised gibberish. If you really did want to know, you could ask God and you would be shown. Experiment!
I am asking for Good arguments for atheism and why it is better than theism, I like danmill23's response; he is just a skeptic but agrees that atheism does make a claim.
Now, God does not exist because you cannot prove he doesn't and visa versa, but what I am acquiring is an understanding.
Are you asking if it's better to be an atheist than a theist?? If so, that's another topic altogether.
The closest that atheism comes to making a "claim" is that god almost certianly doesn't exist. Nothing in science is held 100% in either direction, since new evidence can always surface to disprove an existing theory. However, the preponderence of evidence points towards no creating god.
Autism???LOL! Down Syndrome?????? LOL! 9/11????LOL! Crusades??? LOL! Circumcision...???LOL2x!!! Westborough baptist church???LOL!!! Middle East??? LOL!!! Slaughterhouses??? LOL!!!! Btw, that's such a christian thought knowingly eating (in excess) mistreated chickens, missfed cows, genetically engineered cows/chickens, thus supporting the fact that there is overpopulation on this planet and yet eating more and making more and more babies, destroying mother earth...LOL!
OffspringFTW65 5 months ago
@OffspringFTW65 Asphinctersayswhat?
Scrapheap71 5 months ago
@OffspringFTW65 HERP A DERP DERP
TheIPGCorporations 5 months ago
Provide physical evidence for the spiritual? As soon as our technology comes up with the tools to measure the spirit...no problem. :) Til then man must use his spirit to know the Spirit of God. :)
AVTPro 2 years ago
The problem with this is that using the "spirit" of man to know the "spirit" of god is unrepeatable and has no means of external verification. Thus we can't repeatably and reliably show god to exist.
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
Right. :)
Not until we develop scientific tools to quantify spirit reliably. Not sure how long that will be tho. :)
AVTPro 2 years ago
You should pray to god to give us the technology to do so. I think he'll give it to you. After all, he's been so good with giving us technology up 'till now. ;-P
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
Of course, if he give it to me, you wouldn't need to use it. it would be proof. Ha! LOL So you should believe based on all the other technology He has already given. :)
AVTPro 2 years ago
although it's logically incorrect... Some proof for the non-existence of god!
1: the predator/prey arms race
2: lots of predatory animals like to play with their prey (cats, snakes)
3: 200 years ago we didn't know what viruses were. 100 years ago we didn't understand atoms. 50 years ago we didn't know about some subatomic particles that we do now. 25 years ago, we had no clue why gravity was so much weaker then the other fundamental forces. Simply put: god lives in the margins of science.
ReddmanDGZ 2 years ago
Although I agree with your sentiments, yes, this is logically flawed. It's merely an argument against a omnibenevolent, kind, peacefull, fuzzy warm god. In theory, "god' could could be many things. You also argue against "god of the gaps" thinking, but the argument doesn't apply to a Deistic or Pantheistic god. It is an effective argument against all theistic gods, however.
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
1Probably yes! There are plenty of arguments
2But they (atheist) know everything? if you do not have all the evidence you can not take a correct decision? And then you call on faith, you believe that there is no god, but you do not know, you do not know because you have not enough data. So you believe.
VyckRo 2 years ago
This is faulty logic, think about it. Do you know everything? Can you PROVE that unicorns don't exist? You do not know because you don't have enough data, so you believe.
Do you see how stupid that sounds??
It is the default position to not believe in something untill there is sufficient evidence to believe in it. It isn't my job to prove there isn't a god, it's your job to provide evidence for a god.
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
Can you PROVE that unicorns don't exist?
Yap and Centaur and Pegasus to.
the first appearance of the invaders on horseback from asia, the europeans do not knew the horse, and began to conceive, mythical Animals.
unicorns - perhaps a horse with a rider with a impal?
Centaur - perhaps a horse with a rider dressed in animal skins?
Pegasus - perhaps a very fast horse?
VyckRo 2 years ago
"the first appearance of the invaders on horseback from asia, the europeans do not knew the horse, and began to conceive, mythical Animals."
While I agree with this argument, it still isn't PROOF that these animals don't exist by the standards you just used to prove god. You have to provide knowledge of every living thing on Earth, past and present, in order to show that none of those living things were, in fact, unicorns. You even use the word "perhaps" 3 times.
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
Oh just a hint....it is Psychological, not Psycological!!
ericthatsme1 2 years ago
Suck my balls Spellling Natzee!!
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
Holy Fuck.......all your videos suck!!! I only thought the one I originally viewed was bad, but after checking out the rest......you really are a fucktard. Wow....an honest to goodness fucktard. Ugly as shit too!
ericthatsme1 2 years ago
Comming from a coward troll who is too afraid to show his face.
Banned for blatant hypocricy
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
your too busy trying to disprove that there is a god to even take a second to realize that there IS one. How can you disprove a book that has been written by so many different people collectivley...that links together so perfectly. Pages found in different regions of the world, written by different people with symbolic and true meaning behind it. Refrences made back then that remain true till this day. WHat proof do u want? u want his body? u want his fossil? what proof are u lookin for lol
nestleness 2 years ago
"How can you disprove a book that has been written by so many different people collectivley,that links together so perfectly."
Is the sky blue in the world you live in??
You can't even make it through the 2nd chapter of Genesis before the bible starts to contradict itself.
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
"Is the sky blue in the world you live in??
yea...the sky is blue...what color is it in the world you live in? lol and alright im willin to hear your points here...can you give me some examples of the bible contradicting itself in genesis please?
nestleness 2 years ago
Yes, Gen 1:25-27 contradicts Gen 2:18-22. In chapt 1, tha animals are made first, then Adam and Eve are made at the same time. In chapt 2, Adam is made first, then the animals, then Eve is made. That's only one of over 400 contradictions in the bible that you can find at Skepticsannotatedbible dot c o m.
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
your videos & your channel should be DELETED because they suck, you suck and you are boring & ugly
GratefulChristian 2 years ago
"you suck and you are boring & ugly"
You swallow... I might just have a use for you!
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
You are a fart
GratefulChristian 2 years ago
you are GROSS
GratefulChristian 2 years ago
"you are GROSS"
You're a booger face, a ninny ninny boo boo, and a doo doo head!!
X-P
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
OMG please tell me...how old are you 4, 5 maybe 6...what an idiot....doo doo head, wow talk about maturity...you dum ass
GratefulChristian 2 years ago
"wow talk about maturity...you dum ass"
Google "Psycological Projection", then take a good, long hard look in a mirror!
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
^
trolled
EikC 2 years ago
blah ... what ever....
rachelmaddowmyhero 3 years ago
u got it backwards
U must PROVE something in order for it to become real, the truth or a fact.
Someone chops this dudes nuts off so he can't poison the gene pool more than it already is
rachelmaddowmyhero 3 years ago
"u got it backwards
U must PROVE something in order for it to become real, the truth or a fact."
No kidding, that was my point. I don't have to disprove god, Veritas48 has to proove his god.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
Thank you! You have helped me discover how boring people can truly be. Keep up the good work!
You2bstinks 3 years ago
Perhaps I'f I had half the amount of Meth you had, I'd be just as lively... perhaps more.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
Why are you so stupid?
berrypievision 3 years ago
Says he who can't make a cogent argument.
wanker
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
Wanker? Oh god, I mean, you're so stupid that you can't even use words appropriate to the situation? Why do you even bother typing? You just make yourself look like an idiot. Such as your usage of the word cogent.
berrypievision 3 years ago
Says he who doesn't know what cogent means without looking it up.
tommy try too hard.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
Uh, I have no idea how you can deduce that I did not know what cogent meant before you used it here, especially since I pointed out you misused it. I mean, how did you get THIS stupid?
I wish you were just making this up, but either you're a really good troll, or a really stupid person.
berrypievision 3 years ago
your misunderstanding of the word cogent doesn't equal me misusing the word. That's an argument from ignorance.
"...you're a really good troll..."
You're saying this while making comments on MY channel. Stick with projection and obfuscation. They're your strongest suits. You'll get killed trying to use logic around here.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
[your misunderstanding of the word cogent doesn't equal me misusing the word. That's an argument from ignorance.]
That would be valid if you were not misusing the word cogent. How stupid can you be..?
[
You're saying this while making comments on MY channel.]
What, you never heard of trolls luring people to their own place to troll them? Again, how stupid can you be?
berrypievision 3 years ago
[Stick with projection and obfuscation. They're your strongest suits. You'll get killed trying to use logic around here.]
Yawn...project troll...yawn.
berrypievision 3 years ago
Your trolling doesn't even rise to the level of second rate...
banned!
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
why do trolls always shave their heads?
gamingasshole 3 years ago
Why do punk ass 16 year-olds always have sockpuppet accounts?
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
so you believe in nothing and nothing is evidence for your belief?
with all our progress we can observe few percent of this planet and the claim is that "something" is not anywhere???
LiberalOption 3 years ago
I AM GOD >>>>>
GAYonlywhenprovoked 3 years ago
Ironically, if you can't believe that nothing caused something, then you don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
prettyblueplanet 3 years ago
""Ironically, if you can't believe that nothing caused something, then you don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Pop quiz, prettyblueplanet, what is that a quote from??
Hint: it's evidence of how brainwashed you are, that you could believe that something IS its opposite.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
There is a question that we all need to ask and answer.
"If there is no God, as the atheists say, than why is there something (the universe, time, space, matter) rather than nothing?"
There is a good deal of evidence that indicates the universe had a beginning. So we are left with two options:
1) Either no one created something out of nothing, or
2) Someone created something out of nothing.
Which view is more reasonable and scientific?
prettyblueplanet 3 years ago
"There is a good deal of evidence that indicates the universe had a beginning. So we are left with two options:
1) Either no one created something out of nothing, or
2) Someone created something out of nothing.
Which view is more reasonable and scientific?"
This is known in logic as a false dichotomy. There's some loaded language in there as well, but this argument can be largely dismissied because it ignores any other causes for the universe other than the two, equally false, ideas.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
This really doesn't work. Atheism is just as much a claim to know something as theism is.
Here, let me ask this:
Is there any evidence that leads you to the conclusion that atheism is true?
If the answer is no, then why are you an atheist?
If the answer is yes, then please use that evidence to defend your position.
jmcrist85 3 years ago
This really doesn't work. Aunicornism is just as much a claim to know something as unicornism is.
Here, let me ask this:
Is there any evidence that leads you to the conclusion that aunicornism is true?
If the answer is no, then why are you an aunicornist?
If the answer is yes, then please use that evidence to defend your position.
See... cut, copy and paste with a minor edit shows why you're a fucking retard
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
I think you might be confused in your definitions. Look at the following two statements:
I believe there is no God.
I do not believe in God.
"I believe there is no God," is a claim to know something. It's the claim to know not-X. That being said, there is a burden of proof to carry. And if you're the type of atheist that makes the claim "I know not-X," then you fall in this category.
jmcrist85 3 years ago
"I think you might be confused in your definitions. Look at the following two statements:
I believe there is no God.
I do not believe in God."
I'm not confused at all, I simply have no reason to believe in something, simply because someone else proposes it to exist.
I can say there is no god with the same degree of certianty that I can say there are no unicorns. All descriptions of god thus far, have been proven to be man-made fabrications, just like the claims for unicorns.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
The other statement, "I do not believe in God," is not a claim to know something. Someone who doesn't know if God exists or not can say, "I do not believe in God." Heck, anyone with a lack of belief in God falls into this category, even inanimate objects, like rocks and chairs, etc. They all lack a belief in God.
Also, you can prove a universal negative. For instance, I'm positive that no dogs have wings, and that no rocks have brains. Now, you might say: we can survey the rocks and the dogs..
jmcrist85 3 years ago
"Someone who doesn't know if God exists or not can say, "I do not believe in God." Heck, anyone with a lack of belief in God falls into this category"
You're confusing the definitions of agnosticism and atheism.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
... and see that no dogs have wings and no rocks have brains, but we can't do this with God! Well, there are other ways of coming to the knowledge of a negative. For instance, you can show that somehow the concept of God is logically impossible. If you did this, we would know that God did not exist, for example, "There are no married bachelors."
I'm not demanding absolute certainty - that's impossible. I just want to see some arguments.
What do you think?
jmcrist85 3 years ago
"I'm not demanding absolute certainty - that's impossible. I just want to see some arguments."
As I've stated above, all theistic religions proposed by humanity so far have been fabrications. Since god has,nt revealed himself to the human race, an absence of evidence can be correctly interpreted as an evidence of absence.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
I'm not sure what this is in reply to. I'm just pointing out that the atheist needs to justify his position just as much as the theist.
Absense of evidence is not evidence in the other direction. What I mean is, just because there's no evidence that extraterrestrial intelligence exists elsewhere in the universe, doesn't mean that they don't either. In order to prove that there is no E.T.I, you need evidence in the other direction.
jmcrist85 3 years ago
"I'm just pointing out that the atheist needs to justify his position just as much as the theist."
Following your logic, you would need to justify why you don't believe th the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorns, Russel's teapot, Bgfoot, Lochness Monster etc...
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
Yes, I think you're correct. I would need to justify these things,... but then again, so would you.
jmcrist85 3 years ago
The gig is up poofball... you're full of shit.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
So... what I'm saying is. If we both have to justify our non-belief in unicorns and other fairy beings, then why don't atheists have to justify their non-belief in God?
It just doesn't make any sense.
jmcrist85 3 years ago
NOOOOO RETARD!!! you don't have to justify your non-belief in anything that there is no good evidence for.
One more retarded comment like that and this conversation is over on the basis of your own abject stupidity.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
But see, you don't just have a non-belief. You're not just saying, "I don't know X." If that were the case, you would be an agnostic. But you're not an agnostic (obviously), because you're saying, "I know not-X (that God does not exist)." Saying that you believe there is no God is a claim to know something, and therefore, you have a burden of proof to shoulder. Sorry, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
jmcrist85 3 years ago
"You're not just saying, "I don't know X." If that were the case, you would be an agnostic."
Once again, you're confusing atheism and agnosticism
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s)
Agnosticism is a lack of certianty about a position.
I'm saying there is no reason to believe in X unless there is sufficient evidence supporting X.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
Let me ask you a question: Are you reasonably certain that God does not exist?
If you are, then you're claiming to know something and therefore have a burden of proof to shoulder. If you're not, then you lack certainty and you're agnostic.
"I'm saying there is no reason to believe in X unless there is sufficient evidence supporting X."
This is fine. Don't believe in X without sufficient evidence, I wouldn't....
jmcrist85 3 years ago
"Let me ask you a question: Are you reasonably certain that God does not exist?
If you are, then you're claiming to know something and therefore have a burden of proof to shoulder."
Resonably certain is a bit of an ambiguous term. Yes, I'm reasonably certain, but I only need to meet a low burden of proof to make that case. I can simply point out the fact that after 10,000 years of looking for god, we're no closer to finding a creator, thah when the search began.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
Think of the seach for bigfoot. After all of these years of looking, SOME indisputable evidence must've turned up by now, if bigfoot existed. None has, and in this sense we can say that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
We can use the same logic towards god. Since we've been looking for so long, we should've found something by now, we haven't, therefore it is reasonable to assume that god doesn't exist.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
I'm following you. When I said reasonably certain, I mean certain beyond a reasonable doubt (which is how I think you understood it). Anyways, you're major contention is that there is no evidence for God. So, I have a few more questions (big surprise). What if I presented one piece of evidence for God? Would that blow your whole case out of the water? What about two pieces? How many would it take? What kind of evidence? The search for God is different than Big Foot or unicorns, in that God is...
jmcrist85 3 years ago
... metaphysical. It's not as though we'll find fossils or anything like that.
So what kind of evidence are we talking here? How much of it? I mean, at one point do you have to let go of the contention that there is no evidence? What is convincing?
jmcrist85 3 years ago
"What if I presented one piece of evidence for God? Would that blow your whole case out of the water?"
Not only that, you'd win a Nobel Prize in science for being the first person in history to find evidence for god.
"So what kind of evidence are we talking here? How much of it?"
Since you've said that god is metaphysical, by definition, you can't provide emperical evidence so how about giving up already??
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
"Since you've said that god is metaphysical, by definition, you can't provide emperical evidence so how about giving up already??"
So, in your view the evidence is empirical evidence?
jmcrist85 3 years ago
Empirical evidence is the only reliable evidence.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
If empirical evidence is the "only" reliable evidence, then how do you come to know anything that's not empirical?
jmcrist85 3 years ago
Is there a point behind your babbling attempt at an interrogation??
In other words: WRAP IT UP AND GET TO THE POINT BEOOOTCH!
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
How do you come to know things that aren't empirical, ie. things that there is no empirical evidence for?
jmcrist85 3 years ago
Discussion over on account of failure to follow instructions.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
If you look at history basicly every theory takes atleast 100 years to be excepted.
ZuiLung 3 years ago
Your ignorance of the scientific peer-review process is quite apparent.
Einstein's theory of relativity was accepted within a decade.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
and anything that contradicts the church is held back.
check out the hadron collider this will solve everything it has the potential to be a "blasphemy machine" (a device that ultimately debunks religion/superstition) we wil know how it all began.
as for nothing being the evidence, evolution is the basis of genetics. the fact that dogs are selectively bred wolves is accepted, the idea of other galaxies is also accepted.
Paradoxical003 3 years ago
Well at least I'm guessing you don't delete comments like that jamieR2006 twat. Waste of skin!
thechoccybiccy 3 years ago
Oh! They've appeared back, must have been youtube. Oh well, he's still a knob.
thechoccybiccy 3 years ago
Theists are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone.
thechoccybiccy 3 years ago
Bzzzz WRONG ANSWER!!! thank you for playing. Theists want to tell us what we can learn in science class and how politicians should vote to give two quick examples. If they are doing so on the basis of some stupid superstitious belief, then it becomes my business AND THEREFORE they are obligated to prove why they think they are right. "Because the bible says so" doesn't cut it.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
lol, proof is always a totally subjective thing, it works both ways whether you like it or not. The bible has nothing to do with the existance of god, it was probably written by atheists.
thechoccybiccy 3 years ago
You're right, the bible likely was writen by atheists. that would explain its despotic, athoritarian message.
So why didn't god come down to correct humanity??
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
You really wanna know? Well considering the limits of a text comment, I'm unlikely to be able to give you my understanding without it just sounding like generalised gibberish. If you really did want to know, you could ask God and you would be shown. Experiment!
thechoccybiccy 3 years ago
If you hear god talking to you, it isn't really god, it's schizophrenia. Go see a qualified psycologist.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
LOL!! Weak
thechoccybiccy 3 years ago
For schizophrenia you need a psychiatrist not a psycologist :)
wormygermy 3 years ago
Thanks for the clarification.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
The marriage with mother nature didn't work out, so they divorced and he even neglected paying walfare.
Peaguy 2 years ago
scrapheap your the man , i love watching your videos , you're always clear and organized with your thoughts
BreadWinner06 4 years ago
I do pretty damn good for an Autistic with ADD
Scrapheap71 4 years ago
Scrapheap, the spakker champion of autism!
peegai2 4 years ago
you sure do
BreadWinner06 4 years ago
Thanks for the response
Watch my second video to that video.
I am asking for Good arguments for atheism and why it is better than theism, I like danmill23's response; he is just a skeptic but agrees that atheism does make a claim.
Now, God does not exist because you cannot prove he doesn't and visa versa, but what I am acquiring is an understanding.
theskepticantidote 4 years ago
Are you asking if it's better to be an atheist than a theist?? If so, that's another topic altogether.
The closest that atheism comes to making a "claim" is that god almost certianly doesn't exist. Nothing in science is held 100% in either direction, since new evidence can always surface to disprove an existing theory. However, the preponderence of evidence points towards no creating god.
Scrapheap71 4 years ago