Two men playing Texas Holdem. First man says I've AA I win. Second man says I've only K.K, you win, show your cards. First man refuses & asks the second man to prove that he doesn't have A.A
The second man isn't making any claims of any kind, it's not up to him to prove or disprove a claim that has been made.
It is up to the first man to prove the claim he's making, as he's the one making the claim the burden of proof is with him. Lets all play poker like this guy & see how long our BS last
You know what she meant and acting like a jack pie doesn’t change the question. Describing what “a-biogenesis” is (the term is just biogenesis) is not the same as an answer to the question. Pointing out a lack of knowledge is no substitute of having actual knowledge yourself.
Scientific knowledge should not be used as the penultimate support for atheism. The only religious viewpoint that science currently supports is agnosticism, given the fact that until science can explain absolutely everything, no definitive conclusion can be reached. This is in harmony with Christianity because the resurrection is not based on scientific evidence but faith. Remember "science" once told us that smoking was good for us, that theory was trashed later on, but for a time it was true.
@Intellectualbogan agnosticism is not a stance like atheism is. Agnosticism is the REASON for the stance. Science provides the basis for agnosticism, yes, and it does not (can not) prove that there is no "god", but you can prove that the christian god does not exist simply by reading the bible and comparing it to reality.
That is why I am an atheist. I do not have faith in your god just like you do not have faith in the Hindu gods, and for the same reason. You can't prove it.
@Intellectualbogan Actual randomised trials never told us smoking was safe. Science is a methodology; it can't 'tell' you anything, much less reach conclusions without actually being performed.
Cigarette companies told people smoking was good for them.
A point you are missing is that the universe is a finite sphere, it grows but still has a physical limit. Eg there is an edge to the universe. Outside of this edge is eternity. Imagine an empty white room with a ball inside it, as the best anology I can come up with. Outside this universe is no mass, time, length, Hight etc
it is possible that there was something before the big bang (or caused it), and maybe not. but it doesn't matter, because everything was determined in the moment of the bang. and because what was prior to the big bang doesn't matter (it has no affect on our lives and universe) we cannot even study what was there before. so we cannot know what was before the big bang (we can only "guess" based on physical processes that simulate the big bang).
4:15 I have an answer for her #5... Your question about the relevancy of experiences is, ironically, irrelevant, because it assumes both that I have never had an experience, *and* that I assume you haven't either. I hold neither of these positions. I have both had experiences, *and* I believe you have, too. Aren't they great? But someone has proven to me that they can recreate those experiences by stimulating a part of my brain that was already there. That's just something we can do.
I'm not sure I agree with the relationship between the law and morality implied in the video. Certainly, the law of a state is a good window into a cultures ethics. However, after bashing my head against the wall trying to explain to MANY people that they don't have to think homosexuality is morally right to uphold the civil rights of homosexuals...I wanted to mention the difference between the morals of a state guiding the law and the law enforcing morality.
@herpiethelovebug I think a good argument could be that it is both instinctive and learned. As a matter of developmental milestones, a child will develop empathy. My intuition tells me that once empathy is developed in a child, that they would have to unlearn it (through abuse or indoctrination).
@sinmantyx I would have to see evidence of instinctual morality. Think about what you are claiming here. What morals do you think babies are born with?
@herpiethelovebug If the only things that were instinctual were those that babies were born with, the only instinct any human would have would be to suck. :)
@herpiethelovebug I think perhaps many things that we consider "instinct" or human nature are not considered part of "morality" not because there isn't a moral nature to humans (or other animals for that matter) but that some of the largest religions (Christianity and Islam, etc) think it is moral to go against one's nature, which it has characterized as "evil".
@sinmantyx I think the word "instinct" is the same as saying "i don't know". Everything is learned. We are products of our environment. Everything that you are came from your family, your friends, your neighborhood, schools, the town, the city, the country, and so on. I have seen studies that show that environment can trigger certain genes, which may cause reactions considered instinctual, but that was with monkeys. I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just explaining it as I understand it.
@herpiethelovebug I think it just depends on where you put your definitions. Certainly, a child with no nurture and no society to support him or her would not survive. If they had no role models for behavior, they could not function. The theistic argument however, seems to boil down to an assertion that morality comes only from biblical teachings, as if nature has nothing to do with it and the nature of man is inherently evil. I have children, so my experience leads me to dispute that.
@sinmantyx I agree with you. I don't know how theists can assert that with a straight face. It seems a very childish view. I guess I will never understand how people can base the only life they get on stories written by men over thousands of years. It is only in the last 200 that the age of reason has begun to take hold, and hopefully in the future, religion, as it is, will wither and become the mythology that it so plainly is.
Morality does not go throughout the animal kingdom. In fact morality is only ever really exhibited in humans.
LOL "We athiests dont bother religious people unlike christians" That is so wrong its hilarious. As soon as i mention that I am catholic to an atheist they laugh and go on why my religion is wrong and THEN they always say that im stupid for believeing in a religion and that they are right and im wrong. Although i never try to force my views on others it seems that is all atheists do.
Umm first off my country has loonies not dollar bills. Secondly the writing on the dollar bill was made when the majority of Americans were christian and they were not up in anyones faces because there wasnt really any atheism in europe or north america at the time of the creation of the american one dollar bill.
@matKilla9801 Atheism has always been around, but people being persecuted for admitting they're atheist has subsided somewhat. This has allowed people to come out of the closet about a lack of belief in a god. I am also a Canadian, and an atheist one. Clearly you have not met ALL the atheists in this country, because you haven't met me yet, so just as you don't like being painted with a brush that covers all Catholics, atheists don't like to have the same done to them.
This lady asked these questions? Let me guess she has set her settings as to not allow or to filter responces? I ask this as the voice did not seem to be hers and the fact this video isn't Re; (whatever her original video was called.)
the thing is, that ever since energy was created, it worked by itself, like an engine that was started, or a line of dominoes that was given a push.
in other words - nothing affected the universe besides the universe itself. there is no god that has a will and tests people or rewards them. there are no miracles.
some would say "ok, so god planned the whole course of the universe". that might be true. but it just doesn't matter.
@JohnHenryAlex "I think the problem and confusion lies in the definition. So many people assume atheist means "One who asserts God does not exist," when really and literally it means, "One who lacks a belief in god."..." I understand this, my point is directed too those atheists (of which there are many) who claim there is no god in no uncertain terms. Thx.
@JohnHenryAlex Not believing in something is not necessarily unviable.
I agree that knowledge is not the same as belief, (though believing can be the result of acquired knowledge)- that is yjr point I'm trying to bring across. No- one can know for sure there is no god(s). And there is no burden of proof on just the theists and slimily there is no burden of proof on just the atheists to prove their position. Each party can just provide what they see as the evidence for why they belive.
same answers i gave to my classmate's catholic mom... her mom is like ultra conservative but has no problems with me and her daughter being atheists... she asked me those questions just to make conversation...
@JohnHenryAlex You are blabbering on about rabbits. I understand the position you state here and it is not viable. This is a popular way atheists try to get round the fact they cannot actually know there is No god. So you blurt on. I have answered this and your example was expected, BTW.
im an athiest but i do have a moderate fear of death,i think it helps me appreciate life more.when i say fear i dont mean (OMG im scared someone save me) its more like (ahh man i dont wana die)
One more question.....Why, why, why, do soooo many Christian female youtubers use the word "rocker" in their user name?.....Seems like they're trying to be cooooool...
Even though I originally subscribed because I heard through Coughlan you were DMCA-ed, your videos are really well done and well thought out, excellent job on this one too.
I don’t know how it is in America, but here in Australia we atheist don’t suffer any inconvenience from Christians, maybe because Australia is predominately Catholics.
Even though I’m an atheist, but I do have a soft spot for Christianity; it is part of my heritage.
@caseagainstfaith You see this is just words. Verbal Diarrhoea You cannot know there is no God and setting a standard which states the rules to form your unbelief is not really viable it is just hot air. Most things at their basic level are simple to grasp, atheists love to jump through mental hoops making impossible, unnecessary and silly definitions.
@Grospoliner You are making your own standards. Nice. There is no court just belief. You either belive in god/ gods or you hold a position of not knowing or you believe in god/ gods. It is THAT simple.
@foreskinforest Not exactly. The standard is the burden of proof. In order for someone to believe a claim, a suffecient level of evidence must be provided. This doesn't mean that individuals will properly understand that evidence, which is why we require education and exploration.
The lack of understanding gives rise to mysticism as even the most primative human has a fundamental understanding that any cause must have an effect.
@Grospoliner There is no burden of proof. Tell me and show me the law that says there is. These belief system iseem to be part of human makeup. this is not an issue for a court of law
@foreskinforest Okay if you really want me to... read the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. These outline the judicial practices of court hearings in which, no person accused of a crime may be punished for it without due process, a trial by his peers, and the presentation of evidence to that jury to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" the guilt of the accused party.
"Maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit"
@foreskinforest Before you want to mince words over the legal systems definition of proof, all me to inform you of this. The legal system is predicated on logic. Through logic and logic theory, we establish the fundamental system through which reasoning takes place. In other words, logic is what tells us when we are correct in forming coherent thoughts. As such, logic is instrumental in human nature, as is all extentions of it. We can not have philosphy, math, or art without logic.
@Grospoliner Justice is found through evidence and a full knowledge of all the facts involved in the situation. You see no evidence for a god but others say there is plenty of evidence. The logic is at that starting point. There is no logic because like I said you just cannot know their is a god, you can only believe there is no god
@foreskinforest You seem to be attempting to twist my words. That is a tactic those without understanding tend to resort to. Any claim made by a person requires the claimant to provide evidence to support his claim. It matters little of the claim is true or not, what matters is the evidence provided properly modeling a phenomena. However, we must adhere to logical standards when we make our claims, otherwise they will be false. For example:
Thus we can see logic demonstrating something to be incorrect. If I were to arrive at the conclusion that bananas where in fact apples, I would be completely illogical. By extention most of us do not simply believe the first thing someone tells us (exceptions made for the gullible and uneducated). It requires evidence to prove the claim to us.
We would have to assume their claim was indeed correct as an initial point of reasoning. This is not only illogical but both unsafe and unwise. After all if someone told you jumping off a bridge wouldn't hurt, would you believe it? This logical system applies both in the court room and out of it. If you still fail to understand, please read up on logic and reasoning.
@foreskinforest If you do not understand what I have just said, I suggest you go to the nearest book store immediately if not sooner and purchase a book on Logic. It may do a better job of clarifying what I have said for you.
@Grospoliner It has nothing to with logic. Your logic, maybe, but not true logic. The argument your proof is needed is not valid on this issue. There is no court case in the sky. Only how we view the world and universe there in and none of this proves a god or lack of a god. Only what we see.
@foreskinforest As for your latter statment, a person can claim gods exist, they can claim gods don't exist, they can claim they don't know if gods exist, or they can reject claim that gods exist, they can reject claims that gods don't exist.
Of the latter two, the first is atheism and the second would be a-anti-theism (no proper word that I know of). The rejection of such a claim is based on the lack of evidence presented, as the value of evidence must be scrutinized against natural criteria
@foreskinforest That's is to say, emperical evidence as well as the chain of custody, which you can research on your own if you need to further your understanding of it.
Thusly, a person can be both agnostic and atheistic whilst adhering to an acceptable objective scientific standard.
So yes, it is simple, but not so nearly clear cut and dry as you might think.
@FUCKOFFYOURGAY Well it has to be that he believes because I just used an atheist to theist dictionary and hypothesis is defined as belief.
I've pointed out before to theists their ignorance in what he said.
They hear" .........aliens landed here and ......seeded life" instead of "I suppose its a possibility aliens landed here and may have seeded life" paraphrased
do you have the sources for the studies of religious/non-religious and their morality? i was righting an essay on this subject a few months back but couldn't find any good website. do you know of any that could point me in the right direction? you know, just incase there is a next time...
btw, sucks that your channel was taken down, starting from scratch sucks.
Death isn't a thing that people can experience. It's logically impossible for anyone to be dead from their own perspective. From our own perspectives, we spend 100% of eternity alive. There isn't a moment we spend not-alive. Also, Mark Twain's chin kind of looks like balls.
btw she is soo pretty I have a new crush. What the fuck, I always fancy those christian chicks, haha (I had a crush on mad babe kassie dill for weeks)
@freedom0speech I know, II think I need help with this issue. I had a huge crush on Kassie Dill for a few weeks hahha I even stalked her facebook account lol, I need a girlfriend :) I dunno what it is coz i hate her anti- gay stance an d she is one ass of a bigot on many things, etc.
I don't understand how you can separate the outside from what's inside. Their personalities, and beliefs are so ugly it's impossible for me to see beyond it.
@TheNakedAtheist hello, me and every other man, bar you. haha. I'm not talking about a long term relationship just a passing crush. And, I was mostly joking by making the comment. The comment was only meant to be light hearted :)
@caseagainstfaith YES it is IS, as an atheist you state a belief that there is no God. I state you cannot really back this belief with a viable apotheosis.
Why should a non-believer be any more scare of death than a believer?
I mean, believers are rolling the dice too. Even if they've got the right belief system, did they do it all right? How do they know they won't find it that the correct religion was Mormonism and they're all going to hell? Oh, right. They don't.
@caseagainstfaith Yes I can. Goblins live on Mars and they live under yer bed,too. To base your belief around what you can only believe is not substance for anything rewarding nor does it mean it is therefore am automatic fact . The standard you offer is produced is in the head of people who wish it too be so. But, there is no standard on this issue. Only the bare fact that no-one can possibly be certain for sure. Non belief is just that, a firm belief that for sure there is no God,.
i wish i could favourit and link this video more than once but that would be like being religious about it so i'll do with just once, am i not the most rational man in the univers? hahahah.
I cannot believe people (theists) are still asking these same lame questions.
She has been answered, but $20 says she will refuse to believe those answers, as most believers do, because for them to be content, non believers must live miserable lives, live by no rules and hate everything.
WHY, when I've posted the word PROSCRIPTION in the past, does it turn into the non word "proion" (in lower case only)?
IS there reason to believe a conspiracy against words with the suffix – ion, or (an atom or molecule with a net electric charge due to the loss or gain of one or more electrons) – is behind this bizarre deletion?
WHAT about random algorithmic "prejudice" as a reason?
@freedom0speech This is because youtube comments were hacked using a $cr1pt recently. You may have seen some videos with the word "gay" scrolling across the page. Youtube has now banned the word in the middle of de$cr1ption as a "fix".
@LukasValeyammie Actually I really do think they're real studies, but if he doesn't want everyone to just dismiss them out of hand he should cite them.
Agnosticism is an answer to the question of knowledge. Atheism/theism is an answer to the question of belief. I withhold belief because I have no knowledge/evidence of a deity. Therefore I am an agnostic atheist.
I never said there was a 'middle ground'. I understand all your dogma, but the simple fact is, no-one today can possibly know there is no God or creator. So athism is not a credible position. It relies on belief in no belief. Agnostism is simply being honest.
@foreskinforest Why is it so hard for some people to grasp definitions?
I've seen a lot of theists confuse gnostic atheism with atheism or agnostic atheism(which most atheists are)
They even pervert the meaning within the meaning they think all atheist are gnostic atheists but instead of the knowledge of Gods non existence and not believing.
They think it means Knowing God exists but denying his existence because of hate or, they want to Sin or some other ridiculous reason.
@foreskinforest Agnosticism is being honest yes. However that is not the point. You are either an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist.
I have no dogma. You seem pretty gnostic that no-one today can know. Atheism is not the positive claim you seem to think. Atheist is a lack of belief, because there is no knowledge(agnosticism) of a deity. Atheism is not a belief. Off is not a TV channel.
I can look to the words of others who claim to be, especially when is the 'leaders'. The allegory 'off is not a TV channel' is meaningless when compared to the message we read in many of the top publications by well known atheists that are found in our bookstores because these authors clearly do pass on a message that belief in a god is like a virus of the mind. They really do believe or desire to believe that there is no god or why else compare it to a virus of the mind?
@foreskinforest I have no leaders. You are confusing pop culture with leaders. Dawkins himself claims to be agnostic he even created a point system. I guess you missed that part. You are either willfully ignorant or have not actually read what they said.
I know Dawkins claims he is agnostic when it suits him and he does this to avoid the unavoidable rebut that no-one can know there is no creator. My point was He says that belief in god is a virus of the mind (how did you misplace this point I made in my last comment?) Icecream trucks sound yummy BTW
@foreskinforest Because there's nothing wrong with being an atheist. It only a postion regarding an opinion on whether any gods exist. We just don't believe there are no gods because there is no proof for any, what is there to really justify?
@foreskinforest Agnosticism isn't some happy middle ground.. Do you "believe" in any of the god claims presented to you? If you do even slightly you would be considered an agnostic theist ... even if you don't "know "you can still believe in it ... But, if you have not accepted any of the god claims because of lack of evidence, then you are an agnostic atheist ... You don't believe in god because you don't know for a fact he exists ..There is also Gnostic Theism and Gnostic Atheism but yeah ..
This has been flagged as spam show
Two men playing Texas Holdem. First man says I've AA I win. Second man says I've only K.K, you win, show your cards. First man refuses & asks the second man to prove that he doesn't have A.A
The second man isn't making any claims of any kind, it's not up to him to prove or disprove a claim that has been made.
It is up to the first man to prove the claim he's making, as he's the one making the claim the burden of proof is with him. Lets all play poker like this guy & see how long our BS last
damplyons 3 months ago
Humans have a finite mind, therefore we cannot possibly understand the infinite mind of G-d!
TheJazuma 3 months ago
I was wondering where I could get those studies regarding crime and the religious?
travistia 4 months ago
You know what she meant and acting like a jack pie doesn’t change the question. Describing what “a-biogenesis” is (the term is just biogenesis) is not the same as an answer to the question. Pointing out a lack of knowledge is no substitute of having actual knowledge yourself.
nicodemous52 8 months ago
All christians/muslims should study and question their religion, if your god is 100% true then there is nothing to hide. WAKE UP PEOPLE !!
God is as true as santa FACT !!
xXTeamProvoXx 9 months ago
So what is energy?
player1vladimir 10 months ago
Scientific knowledge should not be used as the penultimate support for atheism. The only religious viewpoint that science currently supports is agnosticism, given the fact that until science can explain absolutely everything, no definitive conclusion can be reached. This is in harmony with Christianity because the resurrection is not based on scientific evidence but faith. Remember "science" once told us that smoking was good for us, that theory was trashed later on, but for a time it was true.
Intellectualbogan 10 months ago
@Intellectualbogan agnosticism is not a stance like atheism is. Agnosticism is the REASON for the stance. Science provides the basis for agnosticism, yes, and it does not (can not) prove that there is no "god", but you can prove that the christian god does not exist simply by reading the bible and comparing it to reality.
That is why I am an atheist. I do not have faith in your god just like you do not have faith in the Hindu gods, and for the same reason. You can't prove it.
spazmat2 9 months ago
@Intellectualbogan Actual randomised trials never told us smoking was safe. Science is a methodology; it can't 'tell' you anything, much less reach conclusions without actually being performed.
Cigarette companies told people smoking was good for them.
Fortramnasdaq 8 months ago
Evolution does not preclude creation. A creature could be created from other creatures by the use of bioengineering.
Science strives to explain the laws of the universe.
Engineering uses the findings of science.
Neither Science, nor Engineering can change those rules.
The rules are eternal, apply to everything, cannot be changed, and determine the fate of the universe. Thus the rules can be thought as God.
Of course, is a different view of what God is than from Judeo-Christian view.
xanatose 1 year ago
A point you are missing is that the universe is a finite sphere, it grows but still has a physical limit. Eg there is an edge to the universe. Outside of this edge is eternity. Imagine an empty white room with a ball inside it, as the best anology I can come up with. Outside this universe is no mass, time, length, Hight etc
smartcomputersystems 1 year ago
I liked the Hawking quote <3
LietenantAwesome 1 year ago
That wasnt anything like 5 question's!
(Great video btw)
Patrickthebass 1 year ago
it is possible that there was something before the big bang (or caused it), and maybe not. but it doesn't matter, because everything was determined in the moment of the bang. and because what was prior to the big bang doesn't matter (it has no affect on our lives and universe) we cannot even study what was there before. so we cannot know what was before the big bang (we can only "guess" based on physical processes that simulate the big bang).
kidi1232 1 year ago
4:15 I have an answer for her #5... Your question about the relevancy of experiences is, ironically, irrelevant, because it assumes both that I have never had an experience, *and* that I assume you haven't either. I hold neither of these positions. I have both had experiences, *and* I believe you have, too. Aren't they great? But someone has proven to me that they can recreate those experiences by stimulating a part of my brain that was already there. That's just something we can do.
SnarkLicker 1 year ago
Excellent level headed response.
BloggerMusicMan 1 year ago
I'm not sure I agree with the relationship between the law and morality implied in the video. Certainly, the law of a state is a good window into a cultures ethics. However, after bashing my head against the wall trying to explain to MANY people that they don't have to think homosexuality is morally right to uphold the civil rights of homosexuals...I wanted to mention the difference between the morals of a state guiding the law and the law enforcing morality.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
Really excellent video!
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
Morality is not instinctive. It is learned. Otherwise, good video.
herpiethelovebug 1 year ago
@herpiethelovebug I think a good argument could be that it is both instinctive and learned. As a matter of developmental milestones, a child will develop empathy. My intuition tells me that once empathy is developed in a child, that they would have to unlearn it (through abuse or indoctrination).
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx I would have to see evidence of instinctual morality. Think about what you are claiming here. What morals do you think babies are born with?
herpiethelovebug 1 year ago
@herpiethelovebug If the only things that were instinctual were those that babies were born with, the only instinct any human would have would be to suck. :)
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@herpiethelovebug I think perhaps many things that we consider "instinct" or human nature are not considered part of "morality" not because there isn't a moral nature to humans (or other animals for that matter) but that some of the largest religions (Christianity and Islam, etc) think it is moral to go against one's nature, which it has characterized as "evil".
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx I think the word "instinct" is the same as saying "i don't know". Everything is learned. We are products of our environment. Everything that you are came from your family, your friends, your neighborhood, schools, the town, the city, the country, and so on. I have seen studies that show that environment can trigger certain genes, which may cause reactions considered instinctual, but that was with monkeys. I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just explaining it as I understand it.
herpiethelovebug 1 year ago
@herpiethelovebug I think it just depends on where you put your definitions. Certainly, a child with no nurture and no society to support him or her would not survive. If they had no role models for behavior, they could not function. The theistic argument however, seems to boil down to an assertion that morality comes only from biblical teachings, as if nature has nothing to do with it and the nature of man is inherently evil. I have children, so my experience leads me to dispute that.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx I agree with you. I don't know how theists can assert that with a straight face. It seems a very childish view. I guess I will never understand how people can base the only life they get on stories written by men over thousands of years. It is only in the last 200 that the age of reason has begun to take hold, and hopefully in the future, religion, as it is, will wither and become the mythology that it so plainly is.
herpiethelovebug 1 year ago
@herpiethelovebug Agreed. :)
sinmantyx 1 year ago
WOW! I've been using the "north of the north pole" analogy all over youtube. Where did I/you get that? was it Hawkins?
breaneainn 1 year ago
Morality does not go throughout the animal kingdom. In fact morality is only ever really exhibited in humans.
LOL "We athiests dont bother religious people unlike christians" That is so wrong its hilarious. As soon as i mention that I am catholic to an atheist they laugh and go on why my religion is wrong and THEN they always say that im stupid for believeing in a religion and that they are right and im wrong. Although i never try to force my views on others it seems that is all atheists do.
matKilla9801 1 year ago
@matKilla9801 Does your dollar bill say "In Reason we Trust" on the top? Who's in whos face here?
breaneainn 1 year ago
@breaneainn
Umm first off my country has loonies not dollar bills. Secondly the writing on the dollar bill was made when the majority of Americans were christian and they were not up in anyones faces because there wasnt really any atheism in europe or north america at the time of the creation of the american one dollar bill.
matKilla9801 1 year ago
@matKilla9801 Atheism has always been around, but people being persecuted for admitting they're atheist has subsided somewhat. This has allowed people to come out of the closet about a lack of belief in a god. I am also a Canadian, and an atheist one. Clearly you have not met ALL the atheists in this country, because you haven't met me yet, so just as you don't like being painted with a brush that covers all Catholics, atheists don't like to have the same done to them.
lorianne03 1 year ago
Nice work.Seems like all your good vids load slow.Is it just my computer?
jmacx2334 1 year ago
On the 'universe from nothing' questions and your answers: Did you ever watch the 'A Universe From Nothing' lecture from Lawrence Krauss?
watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
This lady asked these questions? Let me guess she has set her settings as to not allow or to filter responces? I ask this as the voice did not seem to be hers and the fact this video isn't Re; (whatever her original video was called.)
mrgionni 1 year ago
Bravo!!! Bravo!!! I could not have said it any better my friend.
IlovemyGlock21 1 year ago
And what started energy?
turtlen 1 year ago
@turtlen
I don't know... therefore, god?
I don't know where one of my socks are... therefore, sock gnomes?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
freedom0speech 1 year ago 37
@turtlen You have to know what energy "is" first, before you can ask if it can "start".
breaneainn 1 year ago
@turtlen you can call it "god" if you want to.
the thing is, that ever since energy was created, it worked by itself, like an engine that was started, or a line of dominoes that was given a push.
in other words - nothing affected the universe besides the universe itself. there is no god that has a will and tests people or rewards them. there are no miracles.
some would say "ok, so god planned the whole course of the universe". that might be true. but it just doesn't matter.
kidi1232 1 year ago 2
@JohnHenryAlex "I think the problem and confusion lies in the definition. So many people assume atheist means "One who asserts God does not exist," when really and literally it means, "One who lacks a belief in god."..." I understand this, my point is directed too those atheists (of which there are many) who claim there is no god in no uncertain terms. Thx.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest Incidentally, what is the proper term for "One who asserts God does not exist"? Just curious...
kentonagbone 1 year ago
@kentonagbone Why ask me, cleaver tits?... just curious...
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@JohnHenryAlex Not believing in something is not necessarily unviable.
I agree that knowledge is not the same as belief, (though believing can be the result of acquired knowledge)- that is yjr point I'm trying to bring across. No- one can know for sure there is no god(s). And there is no burden of proof on just the theists and slimily there is no burden of proof on just the atheists to prove their position. Each party can just provide what they see as the evidence for why they belive.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
same answers i gave to my classmate's catholic mom... her mom is like ultra conservative but has no problems with me and her daughter being atheists... she asked me those questions just to make conversation...
RAGHUVARVASUDEV 1 year ago
@JohnHenryAlex You are blabbering on about rabbits. I understand the position you state here and it is not viable. This is a popular way atheists try to get round the fact they cannot actually know there is No god. So you blurt on. I have answered this and your example was expected, BTW.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
I just HAD to comment on this. I only have two words for you Mr.freedom0speach!
THANK YOU!
CMRage 1 year ago
im an athiest but i do have a moderate fear of death,i think it helps me appreciate life more.when i say fear i dont mean (OMG im scared someone save me) its more like (ahh man i dont wana die)
TheLastLogicalOne 1 year ago
perfectly answered, but she is so hot man ... :(
X3QT0R 1 year ago
That was marvelous.
censorshipfails01 1 year ago
Love the Mark Twain quote ! :)
55ella2007k 1 year ago
One more question.....Why, why, why, do soooo many Christian female youtubers use the word "rocker" in their user name?.....Seems like they're trying to be cooooool...
216trixie 1 year ago
@216trixie that is sooo true. lol.
amnm1000 1 year ago
e=mc2 takes matter for the energy to exist in the first place to creat the plasma, hello!
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@JohnHenryAlex I have responded to enough times to give an answer to your questions..
foreskinforest 1 year ago
Great responses, glad to see some great logic from the sensible side of the fence.
rockafellateatime 1 year ago
Nice job. Great answers.
kclem69 1 year ago
I love the Mark Twain quote at the end!
99minerkc 1 year ago
to understand big bang need to go to quantum field dynamics for that
i like quantum physics
jmm1233 1 year ago
The format is great, i appriciate the way you articulate logic and reason.
Mrtitmice 1 year ago
@JohnHenryAlex lol, what bad logic
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@caseagainstfaith I never said you had to prove I just pointed out that you cannot know. I think you are agnostic.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
Even though I originally subscribed because I heard through Coughlan you were DMCA-ed, your videos are really well done and well thought out, excellent job on this one too.
F3YR3 1 year ago
sub and like. Loved the video.
WallieTF 1 year ago
0 dislike, wow
TheMeatloaflover 1 year ago
Turning christian chicks out is a sport.
socialgarbage2 1 year ago
Impressive, very good job.
I don’t know how it is in America, but here in Australia we atheist don’t suffer any inconvenience from Christians, maybe because Australia is predominately Catholics.
Even though I’m an atheist, but I do have a soft spot for Christianity; it is part of my heritage.
Samueldeeb 1 year ago
@caseagainstfaith You see this is just words. Verbal Diarrhoea You cannot know there is no God and setting a standard which states the rules to form your unbelief is not really viable it is just hot air. Most things at their basic level are simple to grasp, atheists love to jump through mental hoops making impossible, unnecessary and silly definitions.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest We dont have to prove god doesn't exist. Theists are the one's who have to prove he does.
If I told you little green men live on mars, would you be required to believe me until someone proved me wrong? Of course not, that would be silly.
Grospoliner 1 year ago 26
Comment removed
foreskinforest 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grospoliner You are making your own standards. Nice. There is no court just belief. You either belive in god/ gods or you hold a position of not knowing or you believe in god/ gods. It is THAT simple.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest Not exactly. The standard is the burden of proof. In order for someone to believe a claim, a suffecient level of evidence must be provided. This doesn't mean that individuals will properly understand that evidence, which is why we require education and exploration.
The lack of understanding gives rise to mysticism as even the most primative human has a fundamental understanding that any cause must have an effect.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner There is no burden of proof. Tell me and show me the law that says there is. These belief system iseem to be part of human makeup. this is not an issue for a court of law
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest Okay if you really want me to... read the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. These outline the judicial practices of court hearings in which, no person accused of a crime may be punished for it without due process, a trial by his peers, and the presentation of evidence to that jury to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" the guilt of the accused party.
"Maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit"
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@foreskinforest Before you want to mince words over the legal systems definition of proof, all me to inform you of this. The legal system is predicated on logic. Through logic and logic theory, we establish the fundamental system through which reasoning takes place. In other words, logic is what tells us when we are correct in forming coherent thoughts. As such, logic is instrumental in human nature, as is all extentions of it. We can not have philosphy, math, or art without logic.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
Note: Line 2 should read "allow me"
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner Justice is found through evidence and a full knowledge of all the facts involved in the situation. You see no evidence for a god but others say there is plenty of evidence. The logic is at that starting point. There is no logic because like I said you just cannot know their is a god, you can only believe there is no god
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest You seem to be attempting to twist my words. That is a tactic those without understanding tend to resort to. Any claim made by a person requires the claimant to provide evidence to support his claim. It matters little of the claim is true or not, what matters is the evidence provided properly modeling a phenomena. However, we must adhere to logical standards when we make our claims, otherwise they will be false. For example:
Grospoliner 1 year ago
1.All apples are fruit. (True)
2.Bananas are fruit. (True)
3.Therefore, bananas are apples. (False)
Thus we can see logic demonstrating something to be incorrect. If I were to arrive at the conclusion that bananas where in fact apples, I would be completely illogical. By extention most of us do not simply believe the first thing someone tells us (exceptions made for the gullible and uneducated). It requires evidence to prove the claim to us.
Otherwise, in all claims made by persons...
Grospoliner 1 year ago
We would have to assume their claim was indeed correct as an initial point of reasoning. This is not only illogical but both unsafe and unwise. After all if someone told you jumping off a bridge wouldn't hurt, would you believe it? This logical system applies both in the court room and out of it. If you still fail to understand, please read up on logic and reasoning.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner I never tried to twist your words. I just presented the bare facts of the matter.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest If you do not understand what I have just said, I suggest you go to the nearest book store immediately if not sooner and purchase a book on Logic. It may do a better job of clarifying what I have said for you.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner It has nothing to with logic. Your logic, maybe, but not true logic. The argument your proof is needed is not valid on this issue. There is no court case in the sky. Only how we view the world and universe there in and none of this proves a god or lack of a god. Only what we see.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest As for your latter statment, a person can claim gods exist, they can claim gods don't exist, they can claim they don't know if gods exist, or they can reject claim that gods exist, they can reject claims that gods don't exist.
Of the latter two, the first is atheism and the second would be a-anti-theism (no proper word that I know of). The rejection of such a claim is based on the lack of evidence presented, as the value of evidence must be scrutinized against natural criteria
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@foreskinforest That's is to say, emperical evidence as well as the chain of custody, which you can research on your own if you need to further your understanding of it.
Thusly, a person can be both agnostic and atheistic whilst adhering to an acceptable objective scientific standard.
So yes, it is simple, but not so nearly clear cut and dry as you might think.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
rofl "do you agree with Dawkins, that life came form other planets?"
FUCKOFFYOURGAY 1 year ago
@FUCKOFFYOURGAY Well it has to be that he believes because I just used an atheist to theist dictionary and hypothesis is defined as belief.
I've pointed out before to theists their ignorance in what he said.
They hear" .........aliens landed here and ......seeded life" instead of "I suppose its a possibility aliens landed here and may have seeded life" paraphrased
robvlob 1 year ago
@robvlob they do that a lot ay lol... They need to kick that strawman habit
FUCKOFFYOURGAY 1 year ago
do you have the sources for the studies of religious/non-religious and their morality? i was righting an essay on this subject a few months back but couldn't find any good website. do you know of any that could point me in the right direction? you know, just incase there is a next time...
btw, sucks that your channel was taken down, starting from scratch sucks.
mrmyxlptlk 1 year ago
Death isn't a thing that people can experience. It's logically impossible for anyone to be dead from their own perspective. From our own perspectives, we spend 100% of eternity alive. There isn't a moment we spend not-alive. Also, Mark Twain's chin kind of looks like balls.
Flyborg 1 year ago
Again, brilliant!! And I've know that Mark Twain quote by heart for years! You are one of the most eloquent and intelligent fellows on YT.
KCKatheist 1 year ago
btw she is soo pretty I have a new crush. What the fuck, I always fancy those christian chicks, haha (I had a crush on mad babe kassie dill for weeks)
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest
Kassie Dill? Eww! LOL
freedom0speech 1 year ago 7
@freedom0speech I know, II think I need help with this issue. I had a huge crush on Kassie Dill for a few weeks hahha I even stalked her facebook account lol, I need a girlfriend :) I dunno what it is coz i hate her anti- gay stance an d she is one ass of a bigot on many things, etc.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest
I don't understand how you can separate the outside from what's inside. Their personalities, and beliefs are so ugly it's impossible for me to see beyond it.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist hello, me and every other man, bar you. haha. I'm not talking about a long term relationship just a passing crush. And, I was mostly joking by making the comment. The comment was only meant to be light hearted :)
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest SPURM! [sic]
Rationalific 1 year ago
@Rationalific lol, I forgot about this. She is the Surrm chick forever.haha
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@caseagainstfaith YES it is IS, as an atheist you state a belief that there is no God. I state you cannot really back this belief with a viable apotheosis.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
Great vid.
AcidRain64 1 year ago
Man, I like that Mark Twain quote. I've heard it so many times, and it doesn't lose it's touch.
CraniumOnEmpty 1 year ago
Why should a non-believer be any more scare of death than a believer?
I mean, believers are rolling the dice too. Even if they've got the right belief system, did they do it all right? How do they know they won't find it that the correct religion was Mormonism and they're all going to hell? Oh, right. They don't.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@caseagainstfaith Yes I can. Goblins live on Mars and they live under yer bed,too. To base your belief around what you can only believe is not substance for anything rewarding nor does it mean it is therefore am automatic fact . The standard you offer is produced is in the head of people who wish it too be so. But, there is no standard on this issue. Only the bare fact that no-one can possibly be certain for sure. Non belief is just that, a firm belief that for sure there is no God,.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@caseagainstfaith
She shut her channel down a long time ago.
freedom0speech 1 year ago
i wish i could favourit and link this video more than once but that would be like being religious about it so i'll do with just once, am i not the most rational man in the univers? hahahah.
tersse 1 year ago
I cannot believe people (theists) are still asking these same lame questions.
She has been answered, but $20 says she will refuse to believe those answers, as most believers do, because for them to be content, non believers must live miserable lives, live by no rules and hate everything.
messiahjonz 1 year ago
nice channel, ironically i took notice of it after it was deleted ...
i subbed!
Jaschna 1 year ago
I hate when people ask where evolution came from, like it just popped up all of a sudden. It's like asking where did gravity come from.
StanMarsh1 1 year ago
Can you cite the studies you refer to in this video?
AndrewWSUDE 1 year ago
@AndrewWSUDE
Gimmie time. I'm collecting all the descriptions for all my videos again. I need to fill them all out, including sources. This is quite a task.
freedom0speech 1 year ago
@freedom0speech
For some reason, when I type deions youtube changes it to deions. wtf?
freedom0speech 1 year ago
@freedom0speech
WHY, when I've posted the word PROSCRIPTION in the past, does it turn into the non word "proion" (in lower case only)?
IS there reason to believe a conspiracy against words with the suffix – ion, or (an atom or molecule with a net electric charge due to the loss or gain of one or more electrons) – is behind this bizarre deletion?
WHAT about random algorithmic "prejudice" as a reason?
whyiswhat 1 year ago
@freedom0speech This is because youtube comments were hacked using a $cr1pt recently. You may have seen some videos with the word "gay" scrolling across the page. Youtube has now banned the word in the middle of de$cr1ption as a "fix".
SpookyFan 1 year ago
@SpookyFan
That explains it perfectly. Thanks.
freedom0speech 1 year ago
@AndrewWSUDE
im gonna guess HIMSELF
LukasValeyammie 1 year ago
@LukasValeyammie Actually I really do think they're real studies, but if he doesn't want everyone to just dismiss them out of hand he should cite them.
AndrewWSUDE 1 year ago
Agnosticism is an answer to the question of knowledge. Atheism/theism is an answer to the question of belief. I withhold belief because I have no knowledge/evidence of a deity. Therefore I am an agnostic atheist.
Magusim 1 year ago
@Magusim Now that's a way to go, that I definitely agree with.
caligulaincarnate 1 year ago
@Magusim
I never said there was a 'middle ground'. I understand all your dogma, but the simple fact is, no-one today can possibly know there is no God or creator. So athism is not a credible position. It relies on belief in no belief. Agnostism is simply being honest.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest Why is it so hard for some people to grasp definitions?
I've seen a lot of theists confuse gnostic atheism with atheism or agnostic atheism(which most atheists are)
They even pervert the meaning within the meaning they think all atheist are gnostic atheists but instead of the knowledge of Gods non existence and not believing.
They think it means Knowing God exists but denying his existence because of hate or, they want to Sin or some other ridiculous reason.
robvlob 1 year ago
@foreskinforest Agnosticism is being honest yes. However that is not the point. You are either an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist.
I have no dogma. You seem pretty gnostic that no-one today can know. Atheism is not the positive claim you seem to think. Atheist is a lack of belief, because there is no knowledge(agnosticism) of a deity. Atheism is not a belief. Off is not a TV channel.
Magusim 1 year ago
@Magusim
I can look to the words of others who claim to be, especially when is the 'leaders'. The allegory 'off is not a TV channel' is meaningless when compared to the message we read in many of the top publications by well known atheists that are found in our bookstores because these authors clearly do pass on a message that belief in a god is like a virus of the mind. They really do believe or desire to believe that there is no god or why else compare it to a virus of the mind?
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest I have no leaders. You are confusing pop culture with leaders. Dawkins himself claims to be agnostic he even created a point system. I guess you missed that part. You are either willfully ignorant or have not actually read what they said.
Magusim 1 year ago
@Magusim
A literal interpretation of the title 'agnostic atheist' could mean "you really don't know if you are an atheist or not" ??? :S
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest A literal interpretation is without knowledge without belief in god.
Icecream Truck means an truck made of icecream.
Magusim 1 year ago
@Magusim So the position of atheist is void?
I know Dawkins claims he is agnostic when it suits him and he does this to avoid the unavoidable rebut that no-one can know there is no creator. My point was He says that belief in god is a virus of the mind (how did you misplace this point I made in my last comment?) Icecream trucks sound yummy BTW
foreskinforest 1 year ago
I'm agnostic. I just can't see how people can justify being atheist.
foreskinforest 1 year ago
@foreskinforest Because there's nothing wrong with being an atheist. It only a postion regarding an opinion on whether any gods exist. We just don't believe there are no gods because there is no proof for any, what is there to really justify?
caligulaincarnate 1 year ago
@foreskinforest Agnosticism isn't some happy middle ground.. Do you "believe" in any of the god claims presented to you? If you do even slightly you would be considered an agnostic theist ... even if you don't "know "you can still believe in it ... But, if you have not accepted any of the god claims because of lack of evidence, then you are an agnostic atheist ... You don't believe in god because you don't know for a fact he exists ..There is also Gnostic Theism and Gnostic Atheism but yeah ..
LukeTOK 1 year ago