I can't prove the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of the Origin of the Species for myself, and I haven't read through all of the existing proof, but I go on about my life as if they are true.
one question totally not connected with this topic:Have you ever watched The phantom tollbooth and do you like it? :) It's a cartoon but I really love the meaning,or at least many points it makes.What do you think about it?Could you please share,thank you very much and have a nice New year holiday.
The Bible definition and dictionary definition of faith are not the same. Can faith be reasonable based on the dictionary definition? No...because the dictionary defines faith as being without reason.
House built on sand, are you making a biblical reference? You know it is kind of odd, but I think Athiests have read the bible more by percent then the religious, lol.
Tell us the reason why anyone should listen to some dude drest as a supper ugly girl. Ass for God if you are right non of us will know, but if most of the world (who believes God is real) is right then we will all know. You just keep up with your thinking and your cross dressing but I think you are talking to your self and the poor 2900 other people who made the mistake of clicking on your transvestite ass talking about how smart you think you are.
Tell us the reason why anyone should listen to some dude drest as a supper ugly girl. Ass for God if you are right non of us will know, but if most of the world (who believes God is real) is right then we will all know. You just keep up with your thinking and your cross dressing but I think you are talking to your self and the poor 2900 other people who made the mistake of clicking on your transvestite ass talking about how smart you think you are.
theism and atheism require faith that there is or is not a deity or deities. An Agnosticist would say, "I neither have a belief in a deity nor do I have a belief in the absence of such a deity."
@dav37777777 Not necessarily. Atheism is the lack of faith in that there is a god, rather than having faith that there is not God. this is an important difference seeing as a rational athiest doesn't believe in God because of the lack of proof. A rational atheist would quickly change his mind once confronted with real evidence of a god. A faithful believer, on the other hand, would not change his mind in the face of facts.
this is why science and religion doesnt mix. dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. carbon data has never been provin beyond a doubt and the fact is inacurate. unless you were there millions of years ago or even 6000 years you cant prove anything. no one knows forsure how old the world is let alone mountains etc. and yes you can have faith and reason. to study religion is to have faith. i have faith and I reason quiet well with the society.
LoL! What's wrong wit doing good 2 others, believing in a God that has an eternal life in a perfect place 4 us IF we believe. And faith, READ THE BIBLE, We're to test it and then believe in Jesus And when u READ New Testament reason/understanding comes after. On top of that, ALL aspects of life are found in it. + atheist still has 2 have FAITH in the 100s of different stories made up by flawed men about the beginning with no ultimate hope except to die What's wrong with believing?
"believing in a God that has an eternal life in a perfect place 4 us IF we believe"
The lack of evidence for such a belief is what's wrong with that. Orienting your life around the baseless assumption that you'll get to enjoy an eternity in paradise could very well be a mistake.
Religion... If you read the bible, Jesus in particular is against it. Religion doesn't do anything for you. Youre RiGHT! :-)
I think evidence it the lives of people who have changed and act/live different because of the believing in it is sufficient...
Could be a mistake but if not... I hope your right. Either way we both know once it happens/we die... it's FOREVER... Whats wrong with hope?? Reaching out, caring for others. (AND NOT FOR RELIGION!)
Well, most outspoken atheists are in the Western world where Christianity has run rampant in Western society and politics. European atheists tend to speak more about Islam than American atheists. Muslims here in the US don't get very pushy, but in Europe Islamification is starting to be a big influence. We focus on the threats that are most dominant in our lives.
Very well put! Excellent video! If I were a fundamentalist Christian I would counter your argument by covering my ears and eyes and yelling at the top of my lungs.
Faith is kind of a restriction from direct knowing. Though, most religious and spiritual people use faith as a guide in their life; an intuitive sense of being rightly directed beyond the mind of reason can come to. Whether faith is good or not is unknown. What I know for sure is that most people use it. Though I think reason is more reliable than faith.
I assume that since you're agnostic you're unaffiliated with any religion, and don't believe in any god.
Would i be going too far if i were to say that you already are atheist by direct definition, and that agnostic is a useless term, as no one can actually know in the existance of a god?
There is a difference. An atheist renounces belief in god. An agnostic simply sees no evidence. It may not make a difference to a churcher, but to sane people it does.
I've never seen a religion that accepts you into their "heaven" (or at least the western ones) for simply not renouncing their god. You must worship it, if you do so, you aren't agnostic, you are a practicing (insert religion.)
Atheism is to believe firmly in the nonexistance of God. Agnostic is basically saying "I don't know, and I'm happy to admit it". Agnostics tend to listen to both sides of the argument, instead of preaching either for or against God's existence. We're the mild-mannered cousins of full-blown atheists; we're not sold on the idea of God, but if ever you give us something concrete to go on, we'll be the first to convert.
You're right; scratch that post, and I'll try again, :s. I guess agnosticism is a loaded definition to begin with; you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, technically. Everyone SHOULD be an agnostic, because agnosticism is about the absence of sure, categorical knowledge of God, not belief of God. No-one, theists or atheists alike, knows that there is a God; theists BELIEVE that there is, atheists don't.
I agree about your argument of faith and reason. Finally someone articulate enough is able to describe the differences in a clear and indisputable manner, although people with faith will still try to use reason to prove you wrong. Like you said, its not happening.
rationalism cannot prove it's own validity...It's always been a philosophical dead end so accepting ,at some point ,faith, in principle(and ironically) becomes a reasonable choice. I wish this person well but there seems to be some personal issues here.
Ive ALWAYS had to much reason to have faith in religion. GREAT story & irrefutable reasoning!! ... I hope Charlie wasn't hurt in the demonstration. LoL! ;) .. i bet he still doesnt speak polish ;)
it's about agreeing what reality is and keeping that consistant, keeping the community together.
in the eyes of believers you are kicking the legs out from under the chair of their entire understanding of what the world is.
by accepting what you " believe" rather then what everyone they know believes you force them to alienate all they know and love just so they can be factual.
yet what they fear the most isn't being wrong it's being alone it's having their fellows turn their backs on them.
Good point, I agree with you-- reason before faith.
I do feel sorry for you and your experience with that certain church you referred to. I'm assuming it claimed to be some sort of Christian church.
The thing is I don't know any true Christian churches that teach falsehoods like that. There are many churches that claim to be Christian and many men and women who graduate from seminary who simply are not Christians. They may claim to be, they may think they are, but many simply believe lies.
Another perfectly argued point. Faith and reason act to cancel each other out. In an ideal world reason would always cancel faith out, but some people prefer delusion.
i walked into a system of faith for lack of reason. Even though the system of faith says very clearly specifies to "rule out the mundane world" before making any claims. i honestly couldn't give a logical reason for what i believe in other than things that i've seen, which is inconsequencial to reason for the fact that only i can claim to have seen...
Therefore, of all that i believe in is beyond reason because my beliefs have no reason.
Well i csn tell you this, you weren't with me when i "walked into a system of faith". Hence why you couldn't follow me.
But in all seriousness, the reason we disagree on this is because we both don't have the same faith. Now, we could go on and on about whether one of us is right or wrong but lets face it...neither you nor i can convince the other when we, individual, saw two different things. Arguing about faith will lead us nowhere.
That's what it means to rule out the mundane world.
There is a slight indication that 'God' might exist, miracles for example. But more likely miracles are a result of the human spirit and its divine power rather than a guy with a beard in the clouds.
However, the evidence that 'God' does NOT exist is overwhelming; death, disaster, mayhem, child abuse, war, insanity, misery all around. Good work "God.''
We can't prove that God doesn't exist, by you can prove he does. A wise man once said, if God didn't exist, we would have to invent him.
"However, the evidence that 'God' does NOT exist is overwhelming; death, disaster, mayhem, child abuse, war, insanity, misery all around. Good work "God.'' "
I don't think any of this is evidence that God does not exist.
For example, God has justly killed people. He has the right to do his will with his creation. Do we reason that a potter has no right to destroy a pot that he made. No, we don't.
Because God is an infinitely higher being than man, a potter and his pots are a good comparison.
No it's not a question of value of a person's life. In fact there is no question here at all. God has the right to kill if he sees fit. He is a just God and therefore will only kill people who deserve it in his eyes.
He created humans and therefore has the right to do with them as he wishes.
First, God doesn't simply want people to worship him, he wants a relationship with people.
Second, your line of reason here is that if someone does their own will with something they create, then they are a prick if you (Janus) disagree with their decisions.
Yeah YOUR idea of God wants a relationship with us, an ABUSIVE relationship. "Do what I tell you because I can kill you at any moment and then send you to a land of torment and pain for all eternity". Sounds kinda like my ex girlfriend. So why would ever want a relationship with something so judgmental, unpredictable, and violent?
You rock ZJemptv! Thanks for all these wonderful videos, your words are much appreciated here (and apparently on reddit, too).
I never understood why religions need facts or reason. Isn't the lack of facts and reason involved why they have faith? When did religious groups start telling everybody that what is in the bible is absolute historical fact? At some point, in the beginning of religion, was it not simply faith? Let us have our facts and I am happy letting them have their faith.
To make a statement that rats can't speak Polish, requires you to have knowledge of all rats in the entire universe, that you don't have, and so you can't logically make that statement.
So you're saying some rats might possibly be able to speak polish, reilender1? You're right, we can't show 100% proof that no rats speak polish, but believing that there could possibly be a rat that could even make a single syllable or grasp the concept of language is too far fetched to even be plausible.
So you're saying no one can know anything without exhaustive evidence? Even for knowing something in the commonplace manner, and not as an epistemological absolute? Leave your phony barns at the door.
Of course they aren't compatible. But debating that with someone with faith is like debating the modern cultural relevance of Shakespeare with a brick wall. You just wont get anywhere.
But be careful when championing reason against faith, ZJ. As an atheist, your beliefs are just as much based on faith as theirs.
Actually, we atheists have scientific, quantitative evidence and data that minimize the likelihood of an intelligent creator to nearly zero.
Whereas theists have none of the above to prove a god does exist. And since the onus of proof is on them, as they are the ones making an existential claim, they are the ones that must provide the evidence, which they verily cannot.
Ergo, their beliefs are based on faith, and ours on reason.
No, sorry, you atheists have just as much evidence for the lack of a god as theists have for the existence of one. None.
We're debating reason here and any reasonable man, especially these scientists that apparently have all this data that they're not sharing, must admit that there is a possibility that he is wrong.
Therefore, as we can never be 100% sure either way, as we have no evidence whatsoever either way, we must accept that both are a possibility. e.g. Agnosticism.
You cannot provide me evidence that there is not an invisible unicorn dancing on my keyboard as I type this. You can't.
Does that mean I should believe it's possible, even though it cannot be disproved? It is highly unlikely given all scientific evidence that says unicorns are merely mythological creatures and invisibility is, as of today, impossible.
I have no *faith* in unicorns, because *reason* tells me not to. So no, you're wrong. I'm sorry.
No, you're wrong and unreasonable. Yes, there is a very real chance that as you were typing that an invisible unicorn was dancing on your keyboard, and any reasonable person will admit that possibility.
Of course, we know that the chance is very small because we know quite a lot about our planet and yet we have never found a trace of invisible keyboard dancing unicorns. we can safely say the probability of their existence is very slim.
This is where reason comes into play. The question is now: which is more likely? And the undeniable answer is Nature is more likely than God.
If you're going to argue that evolution is every bit faith-based as creation, then, well, I'd advise you to read a book. But I don't think you're making that claim.
Your 2nd comment- We know a lot more now about what 'existed' before the big bang and what caused it. I know a lot about it, and you can too.
That's exactly the point I was driving at: the probability is "slim". So slim, in fact, that it's dubious; indeed, unlikely.
Revert to my initial statement -- "we atheists have scientific, quantitative evidence and data that minimize the likelihood of an intelligent creator to nearly zero."
So you're right, there are no absolutes in this matter, only probabilities. And the probability of god is far less than the probability of natural explanations, as they have been observed and proven tru
Firstly, what went wrong lol? I got emailed the same comment like 5 times!
Anyway, I don't know why you're bringing evolution into it, evolution has been observed in nature, the big bang hasn't, and superstring theory is just that, a theory. Not even in the scientific sense of the word theory, in the dictionary definition of the word theory.
But all we really know about the beginning of the Universe is that it started as a singularity. Thats it. We know the direction it came from and the point in space that it started from, and nothing more.
There is no evidence whatsoever to disprove the existence of a creator, just as there is no evidence to prove the exitence of one.
True, though I have never met even a strong atheist who isn't agnostic, atheism is a lack of belief, not active disbelief, even with active disbelief, you are a 6.9, teapot, or cosmic bunny agnostic, as everything after I think therefor I am is an assumption, nothing cannot be truely proven, there is more to this argument that goes into nearly every common definition of atheism.
Saying faith is based on reason is dishonest. At least the lunatic Martin Luther was honest when he stated his belief that faith and reason were absolute opposites.
humans are so weird, I really can't understand why are they so afraid, to the point they need to create beliefs from nowhere and then justify them eith a shiny word like faith...
I just learned about carbon dating in my science class, and it's actually accurate up to 70,000 years old. Even better for us. :D
LexiePersonForever 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@LexiePersonForever Potassium 40 - Argon 40 has a half life of 1.2 billion years and is accurate up to 14.4 billion years.
That's older than the universe it'self. As such K40 is prized by geologists for it's potential for astounding precsion.
Chayraz2 1 month ago
I faithfully search for truth based on experience, experience is the REASON for faith. that simple
ghfjtuflhg 5 months ago
Yes everyone knows rats speak English duh see rats of nimh!
way2jaded1 5 months ago
I can't prove the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of the Origin of the Species for myself, and I haven't read through all of the existing proof, but I go on about my life as if they are true.
shackupyourstruly 7 months ago
one question totally not connected with this topic:Have you ever watched The phantom tollbooth and do you like it? :) It's a cartoon but I really love the meaning,or at least many points it makes.What do you think about it?Could you please share,thank you very much and have a nice New year holiday.
JanIsBoy5 1 year ago
The Bible definition and dictionary definition of faith are not the same. Can faith be reasonable based on the dictionary definition? No...because the dictionary defines faith as being without reason.
ZorekR 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ARE YOU ???????
simonwacko 1 year ago
House built on sand, are you making a biblical reference? You know it is kind of odd, but I think Athiests have read the bible more by percent then the religious, lol.
Jesses001 1 year ago
Faith with no reason or prove? Good luck trying that in a court of law. I won't even mention science
saigondj 1 year ago
Tell us the reason why anyone should listen to some dude drest as a supper ugly girl. Ass for God if you are right non of us will know, but if most of the world (who believes God is real) is right then we will all know. You just keep up with your thinking and your cross dressing but I think you are talking to your self and the poor 2900 other people who made the mistake of clicking on your transvestite ass talking about how smart you think you are.
jmkaudio 1 year ago
@jmkaudio -
1) Saying someone looks like a girl =/= Argument
2) Calling them ugly and a tranvestite =/= Argument
3) Appealing to the majority =/= Argument
4) Scorning those who actually agree with him =/= Argument.
FibonaziProductions 1 year ago
Tell us the reason why anyone should listen to some dude drest as a supper ugly girl. Ass for God if you are right non of us will know, but if most of the world (who believes God is real) is right then we will all know. You just keep up with your thinking and your cross dressing but I think you are talking to your self and the poor 2900 other people who made the mistake of clicking on your transvestite ass talking about how smart you think you are.
jmkaudio 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why are you talking like that?
yuccasyrup 1 year ago
theism and atheism require faith that there is or is not a deity or deities. An Agnosticist would say, "I neither have a belief in a deity nor do I have a belief in the absence of such a deity."
dav37777777 1 year ago
@dav37777777 Not necessarily. Atheism is the lack of faith in that there is a god, rather than having faith that there is not God. this is an important difference seeing as a rational athiest doesn't believe in God because of the lack of proof. A rational atheist would quickly change his mind once confronted with real evidence of a god. A faithful believer, on the other hand, would not change his mind in the face of facts.
Zeddythebest 1 year ago
I love the "rats can speak Polish" analogy. :D
spidersandbats 1 year ago
DINOSAURS AREN'T REAL??!? D:/
LaQuishmia 1 year ago
this is why science and religion doesnt mix. dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. carbon data has never been provin beyond a doubt and the fact is inacurate. unless you were there millions of years ago or even 6000 years you cant prove anything. no one knows forsure how old the world is let alone mountains etc. and yes you can have faith and reason. to study religion is to have faith. i have faith and I reason quiet well with the society.
nellyr06 1 year ago
Good vid.
DeaconVerter 2 years ago
wtf? crossdresser?
iipeeepgameii 2 years ago
You have masculine voice..
Yet point is gr8!!!
S00rabh 2 years ago
"hey Hovind, we cant Carbondate this. THERE IS NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT"
Potholer54debunks
DeHerg 2 years ago
"god put fossils in the ground to test our faith"-to quote Bill Hicks, is god a prankster?
auriciangelescu 2 years ago
nice. my dad always tries validating his faith with rationality.
haha Tak. Czi mowiem po Polsku :D
BeatNick13 2 years ago
LoL! What's wrong wit doing good 2 others, believing in a God that has an eternal life in a perfect place 4 us IF we believe. And faith, READ THE BIBLE, We're to test it and then believe in Jesus And when u READ New Testament reason/understanding comes after. On top of that, ALL aspects of life are found in it. + atheist still has 2 have FAITH in the 100s of different stories made up by flawed men about the beginning with no ultimate hope except to die What's wrong with believing?
IsaacAlfaro3 2 years ago
"What's wrong wit doing good 2 others"
Nothing -- but this can be done without religion.
"believing in a God that has an eternal life in a perfect place 4 us IF we believe"
The lack of evidence for such a belief is what's wrong with that. Orienting your life around the baseless assumption that you'll get to enjoy an eternity in paradise could very well be a mistake.
ZJemptv 2 years ago 7
Religion... If you read the bible, Jesus in particular is against it. Religion doesn't do anything for you. Youre RiGHT! :-)
I think evidence it the lives of people who have changed and act/live different because of the believing in it is sufficient...
Could be a mistake but if not... I hope your right. Either way we both know once it happens/we die... it's FOREVER... Whats wrong with hope?? Reaching out, caring for others. (AND NOT FOR RELIGION!)
IsaacAlfaro3 2 years ago
@ZJemptv sad u became athiest just caus yer parents wer dickkss,as for" faith"i got 1 word for u,precognitioonnhuhrh
1acount 1 year ago
He's so right
GodzWrath35 2 years ago
but why do atheist mostly build their non belief based on one religion and mostly its Christianity?/
Mohannad192 2 years ago
Well, most outspoken atheists are in the Western world where Christianity has run rampant in Western society and politics. European atheists tend to speak more about Islam than American atheists. Muslims here in the US don't get very pushy, but in Europe Islamification is starting to be a big influence. We focus on the threats that are most dominant in our lives.
Does that help answer your question?
prolefeedprocessor 2 years ago
really no, but thanks anyway
Mohannad192 2 years ago
Very well put! Excellent video! If I were a fundamentalist Christian I would counter your argument by covering my ears and eyes and yelling at the top of my lungs.
davism97 2 years ago
me Polish too, but not speak English...
heh, joking, how about if I write a book about speaking rats in Poland? Would you believe then? :)
soth3d 2 years ago
Yay speaking Polish! I'm Polish!
dragonofthedarknight 2 years ago
Yay I'm Polish ^^
fikujez 2 years ago
Faith is kind of a restriction from direct knowing. Though, most religious and spiritual people use faith as a guide in their life; an intuitive sense of being rightly directed beyond the mind of reason can come to. Whether faith is good or not is unknown. What I know for sure is that most people use it. Though I think reason is more reliable than faith.
CerebralTwilight 2 years ago
Someone marked you as a negative because you scared the truth into 'em lol.
hoboboxerjoe 2 years ago
fuck atheism , im agnostic
Reelmaster2 2 years ago
I assume that since you're agnostic you're unaffiliated with any religion, and don't believe in any god.
Would i be going too far if i were to say that you already are atheist by direct definition, and that agnostic is a useless term, as no one can actually know in the existance of a god?
metalshoes 2 years ago
There is a difference. An atheist renounces belief in god. An agnostic simply sees no evidence. It may not make a difference to a churcher, but to sane people it does.
intolerantape 2 years ago 2
I've never seen a religion that accepts you into their "heaven" (or at least the western ones) for simply not renouncing their god. You must worship it, if you do so, you aren't agnostic, you are a practicing (insert religion.)
metalshoes 2 years ago
Atheism is to believe firmly in the nonexistance of God. Agnostic is basically saying "I don't know, and I'm happy to admit it". Agnostics tend to listen to both sides of the argument, instead of preaching either for or against God's existence. We're the mild-mannered cousins of full-blown atheists; we're not sold on the idea of God, but if ever you give us something concrete to go on, we'll be the first to convert.
NashX 2 years ago
Heh i don't follow that definition at all. As far as the direct terminology goes, it just means without a belief.
metalshoes 2 years ago
You're right; scratch that post, and I'll try again, :s. I guess agnosticism is a loaded definition to begin with; you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, technically. Everyone SHOULD be an agnostic, because agnosticism is about the absence of sure, categorical knowledge of God, not belief of God. No-one, theists or atheists alike, knows that there is a God; theists BELIEVE that there is, atheists don't.
NashX 2 years ago
Yeah, that's basically how i've come to define it. It makes Atheist encompass what most agnostics define themselves as.
metalshoes 2 years ago
Perfect description. IMO Agnosticism is the best route to take in the eternal debate
FollyxXxFallen 2 years ago
I can tell you are reading off your computer screen.
johntm77 2 years ago
No kidding, Sherlock.
PiesCanFly 2 years ago
WOW, THESE ARE AWESOME
I agree about your argument of faith and reason. Finally someone articulate enough is able to describe the differences in a clear and indisputable manner, although people with faith will still try to use reason to prove you wrong. Like you said, its not happening.
acesilver01 2 years ago
rationalism cannot prove it's own validity...It's always been a philosophical dead end so accepting ,at some point ,faith, in principle(and ironically) becomes a reasonable choice. I wish this person well but there seems to be some personal issues here.
peppilepiu 2 years ago
'' faith requires ignoring reason '' ___ totally agree. good job man -- keep up .
globalarte 2 years ago
Ive ALWAYS had to much reason to have faith in religion. GREAT story & irrefutable reasoning!! ... I hope Charlie wasn't hurt in the demonstration. LoL! ;) .. i bet he still doesnt speak polish ;)
kujo1025 2 years ago
Nice scarf.
Anon1696 2 years ago 8
it's about agreeing what reality is and keeping that consistant, keeping the community together.
in the eyes of believers you are kicking the legs out from under the chair of their entire understanding of what the world is.
by accepting what you " believe" rather then what everyone they know believes you force them to alienate all they know and love just so they can be factual.
yet what they fear the most isn't being wrong it's being alone it's having their fellows turn their backs on them.
papervampire 2 years ago
I like the way to reason, ZJemptv. BTW, do you happen to read Ayn Rand? Many of your arguments are consistent in both form and style with hers.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago
Good point, I agree with you-- reason before faith.
I do feel sorry for you and your experience with that certain church you referred to. I'm assuming it claimed to be some sort of Christian church.
The thing is I don't know any true Christian churches that teach falsehoods like that. There are many churches that claim to be Christian and many men and women who graduate from seminary who simply are not Christians. They may claim to be, they may think they are, but many simply believe lies.
jrmckamey 2 years ago
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Bberryman2 2 years ago
Another perfectly argued point. Faith and reason act to cancel each other out. In an ideal world reason would always cancel faith out, but some people prefer delusion.
limegreensquid 2 years ago
If you choose to hide your head in the sand and pretend the world is not there. ....the world itself is unaffected.
It's still there, no matter how hard you choose to ignore it.
AnalogKid19732008 2 years ago 3
Excellently put.
limegreensquid 2 years ago
If God is real then atheism and agnosticism are delusions.
jrmckamey 2 years ago
And if a freezer works, the inside of it is cold. So what's your point?
JanusChrist 2 years ago
i walked into a system of faith for lack of reason. Even though the system of faith says very clearly specifies to "rule out the mundane world" before making any claims. i honestly couldn't give a logical reason for what i believe in other than things that i've seen, which is inconsequencial to reason for the fact that only i can claim to have seen...
Therefore, of all that i believe in is beyond reason because my beliefs have no reason.
If any of what i said makes sense, let me know...
shyvr 2 years ago
I didn't quite follow you there. :)
And, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a system of faith.
Although I will say this:
Faith is not about the idea that is has to "rule out the mundane world."
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
That's according to God himself.
jrmckamey 2 years ago
Well i csn tell you this, you weren't with me when i "walked into a system of faith". Hence why you couldn't follow me.
But in all seriousness, the reason we disagree on this is because we both don't have the same faith. Now, we could go on and on about whether one of us is right or wrong but lets face it...neither you nor i can convince the other when we, individual, saw two different things. Arguing about faith will lead us nowhere.
That's what it means to rule out the mundane world.
shyvr 2 years ago
There is a slight indication that 'God' might exist, miracles for example. But more likely miracles are a result of the human spirit and its divine power rather than a guy with a beard in the clouds.
However, the evidence that 'God' does NOT exist is overwhelming; death, disaster, mayhem, child abuse, war, insanity, misery all around. Good work "God.''
We can't prove that God doesn't exist, by you can prove he does. A wise man once said, if God didn't exist, we would have to invent him.
blueboyblue 2 years ago
"However, the evidence that 'God' does NOT exist is overwhelming; death, disaster, mayhem, child abuse, war, insanity, misery all around. Good work "God.'' "
I don't think any of this is evidence that God does not exist.
For example, God has justly killed people. He has the right to do his will with his creation. Do we reason that a potter has no right to destroy a pot that he made. No, we don't.
Because God is an infinitely higher being than man, a potter and his pots are a good comparison.
jrmckamey 2 years ago
Are you implying that God considers us no more valuable than inanimate pottery? If so he seems like he would be quite a dick.
JanusChrist 2 years ago 2
No it's not a question of value of a person's life. In fact there is no question here at all. God has the right to kill if he sees fit. He is a just God and therefore will only kill people who deserve it in his eyes.
He created humans and therefore has the right to do with them as he wishes.
jrmckamey 2 years ago
Wow. If God was even real and was really was that much of a prick, I still wouldn't worship him.
JanusChrist 2 years ago 3
Two Things
First, God doesn't simply want people to worship him, he wants a relationship with people.
Second, your line of reason here is that if someone does their own will with something they create, then they are a prick if you (Janus) disagree with their decisions.
jrmckamey 2 years ago
Yeah YOUR idea of God wants a relationship with us, an ABUSIVE relationship. "Do what I tell you because I can kill you at any moment and then send you to a land of torment and pain for all eternity". Sounds kinda like my ex girlfriend. So why would ever want a relationship with something so judgmental, unpredictable, and violent?
JanusChrist 2 years ago 2
Lipstick? Really?
canadianfigor 3 years ago
Hey, you can put lipstick on ZJ... it's still ZJ!
ZJemptv 3 years ago 9
Hey, you can put lipstick on ZJ... but why?
Doinge 3 years ago
@ZJemptv - All the better for kissing people with.
FibonaziProductions 1 year ago
You look faaaaaaabulousss.
58694003 3 years ago
You rock ZJemptv! Thanks for all these wonderful videos, your words are much appreciated here (and apparently on reddit, too).
I never understood why religions need facts or reason. Isn't the lack of facts and reason involved why they have faith? When did religious groups start telling everybody that what is in the bible is absolute historical fact? At some point, in the beginning of religion, was it not simply faith? Let us have our facts and I am happy letting them have their faith.
BrentonSteinhilber 3 years ago 2
Relax, I was being sarcastic. The argument is one we've all heard before and I thought it was just a good example of how stupid it sounds.
reilender1 3 years ago
Guh you're smart :]
kykebero 3 years ago
To make a statement that rats can't speak Polish, requires you to have knowledge of all rats in the entire universe, that you don't have, and so you can't logically make that statement.
reilender1 3 years ago
So you're saying some rats might possibly be able to speak polish, reilender1? You're right, we can't show 100% proof that no rats speak polish, but believing that there could possibly be a rat that could even make a single syllable or grasp the concept of language is too far fetched to even be plausible.
kykebero 3 years ago 2
So you're saying no one can know anything without exhaustive evidence? Even for knowing something in the commonplace manner, and not as an epistemological absolute? Leave your phony barns at the door.
squidwalk 3 years ago
So you believe that rats can speak Polish then? Truly, your faith is strong.
jlangli 3 years ago
LOL!!
haterdesaint 3 years ago
No, but I think you have trouble with reading English. It was just a sarcastic comment made for fun.
reilender1 3 years ago
Of course they aren't compatible. But debating that with someone with faith is like debating the modern cultural relevance of Shakespeare with a brick wall. You just wont get anywhere.
But be careful when championing reason against faith, ZJ. As an atheist, your beliefs are just as much based on faith as theirs.
TheSmiterer 3 years ago
Actually, we atheists have scientific, quantitative evidence and data that minimize the likelihood of an intelligent creator to nearly zero.
Whereas theists have none of the above to prove a god does exist. And since the onus of proof is on them, as they are the ones making an existential claim, they are the ones that must provide the evidence, which they verily cannot.
Ergo, their beliefs are based on faith, and ours on reason.
etwascool 3 years ago
No, sorry, you atheists have just as much evidence for the lack of a god as theists have for the existence of one. None.
We're debating reason here and any reasonable man, especially these scientists that apparently have all this data that they're not sharing, must admit that there is a possibility that he is wrong.
Therefore, as we can never be 100% sure either way, as we have no evidence whatsoever either way, we must accept that both are a possibility. e.g. Agnosticism.
TheSmiterer 3 years ago
No evidence can prove something doesn't exist.
You cannot provide me evidence that there is not an invisible unicorn dancing on my keyboard as I type this. You can't.
Does that mean I should believe it's possible, even though it cannot be disproved? It is highly unlikely given all scientific evidence that says unicorns are merely mythological creatures and invisibility is, as of today, impossible.
I have no *faith* in unicorns, because *reason* tells me not to. So no, you're wrong. I'm sorry.
etwascool 3 years ago
No, you're wrong and unreasonable. Yes, there is a very real chance that as you were typing that an invisible unicorn was dancing on your keyboard, and any reasonable person will admit that possibility.
Of course, we know that the chance is very small because we know quite a lot about our planet and yet we have never found a trace of invisible keyboard dancing unicorns. we can safely say the probability of their existence is very slim.
TheSmiterer 3 years ago
This is where reason comes into play. The question is now: which is more likely? And the undeniable answer is Nature is more likely than God.
If you're going to argue that evolution is every bit faith-based as creation, then, well, I'd advise you to read a book. But I don't think you're making that claim.
Your 2nd comment- We know a lot more now about what 'existed' before the big bang and what caused it. I know a lot about it, and you can too.
Look up superstring theory.
etwascool 3 years ago
That's exactly the point I was driving at: the probability is "slim". So slim, in fact, that it's dubious; indeed, unlikely.
Revert to my initial statement -- "we atheists have scientific, quantitative evidence and data that minimize the likelihood of an intelligent creator to nearly zero."
So you're right, there are no absolutes in this matter, only probabilities. And the probability of god is far less than the probability of natural explanations, as they have been observed and proven tru
etwascool 3 years ago
Firstly, what went wrong lol? I got emailed the same comment like 5 times!
Anyway, I don't know why you're bringing evolution into it, evolution has been observed in nature, the big bang hasn't, and superstring theory is just that, a theory. Not even in the scientific sense of the word theory, in the dictionary definition of the word theory.
TheSmiterer 2 years ago
Comment removed
etwascool 3 years ago
But all we really know about the beginning of the Universe is that it started as a singularity. Thats it. We know the direction it came from and the point in space that it started from, and nothing more.
There is no evidence whatsoever to disprove the existence of a creator, just as there is no evidence to prove the exitence of one.
TheSmiterer 3 years ago
Comment removed
etwascool 3 years ago
True, though I have never met even a strong atheist who isn't agnostic, atheism is a lack of belief, not active disbelief, even with active disbelief, you are a 6.9, teapot, or cosmic bunny agnostic, as everything after I think therefor I am is an assumption, nothing cannot be truely proven, there is more to this argument that goes into nearly every common definition of atheism.
rjswolfman 3 years ago
Saying faith is based on reason is dishonest. At least the lunatic Martin Luther was honest when he stated his belief that faith and reason were absolute opposites.
klangsteiner 3 years ago 4
Rather ironic that the class I attended was at a Lutheran church, studying Luther's catechism.
ZJemptv 3 years ago 5
@ZJemptv can i fuck my under age sister?
symba 7 months ago
faith n. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
( also the foundation of religion )
Faith of this sort stands in stark contrast to the plastic "beliefs" arrived at via the application of the scientific method.
Besides, it was the FSM that contrived to mislead. We all Believe that I'm sure,
Ockham's razor not withstanding.
xwidget 3 years ago 3
humans are so weird, I really can't understand why are they so afraid, to the point they need to create beliefs from nowhere and then justify them eith a shiny word like faith...
It's so much fun to be open to anything
haterdesaint 3 years ago 13
To being freed from religion, is like having a shower after being sweaty.
Only you are showering your mind.
It feels Intellectually fresh.
kristijan12 3 years ago 3
See, when you agree with what someone says, it leaves one without much to say in the comments section, except perhaps, "Bravo!" or even, "First!"
Alas.
BionicDance 3 years ago 4