@pimpymcdougall There is a well known maxim among Debaters - "Name calling is not an argument." In fact, seasoned Debaters know that when your debate opponent ridicules you with a demeaning word (such as "idiot") it is an indication that the name-caller is conceding that they have little support for their arguments.
Correction: I meant to say "STR is nothing more than Mr. Koukl's self-publishing and self-promotion company, i.e., those he employs to market and sell his own books, lectures, workshops, recordings, pamphlets and anything else this huckster can scrape together to fleece gullible hillbillies."
I love it. "Greg Koukl, President of STR." STR is nothing more than Mr. Koukl's self-publishing company, i.e., those he employs to market and sell his own books.
@bc9021010001 I don't get what you're trying to hate on, so to speak.?? Koukl has an enterprise... yeah... so what? That's a bad thing, as you're saying. I'm not following your negativity.
Is it perhaps that you simply need to hate him for some reason, and you've decided that you'll hate him for publishing?
@zenowing "President of STR" is a ludicrously pompous title, if not deliberately misleading, when STR is your own self-publishing and self-promotion company. But then he is in the business of getting idiots to believe anything ...
I really don't know why we are still arguing over claim but hey ho. That definition is flawed i think. Its like you are confusing the word "claim" with sequent. A claim does not require any reasoning or absolute certainty, which is why it can be made on belief. "I know it will win" is a claim, but i will also contest that "i think it will win" is also a claim.
"I think it will win" is a claim but I've separated it for the sake of the argument. In this instance the fact that I am the one speaking IS the evidence.
Behaviour that corresponds with the belief would also be considered evidence for the claim, ie: placing a bet that they will win.
If the atheist is trying to prove to the theist there is no God, they have the burden of proof. If a theist is trying to prove to the atheist there is a God, they have burden of proof.
"because you can never disprove a negative stand point"
You believe there is a ball inside a box. I claim there is no ball in the box. You ask for evidence. I open the box to find no ball.
All you did with your example was show that throwing a pig of a roof is not a valid way of determining whether pigs fly. However we can biologically examine them and find characteristics of an organism that does fly and conclude that it is highly highly unlikely that pigs do fly.
(in science there is no proving/disproving only probability)
"However we can biologically examine them and find characteristics of an organism that does fly and conclude that it is highly highly unlikely that pigs do fly"
But exactly the same problem will apply to that form of test. You going to test all the pigs in the world? Honestly mate you have to be the only person i have ever debated that thinks the onus of proof is on the person discounting the claim because of lack of evidence. Thats not how it works in science or anything else for that matter
"But exactly the same problem will apply to that form of test. You going to test all the pigs in the world?"
It's called population sample... the same way all scientific studies are done.
"Honestly mate you have to be the only person i have ever debated that thinks the onus of proof is on the person discounting the claim because of lack of evidence."
"It's called population sample... the same way all scientific studies are done."
Yes it is but you're missing the point. The first example i gave is actually scientifically sound as well. But we're not debating the validity of the tests. The point is that in circumstances such as someone saying pigs can fly or god is real, the onus of proof is that person, because you can never really disprove such.
"The first example i gave is actually scientifically sound as well."
No it's not, for the very reason you gave. That method in circumstances such as that are unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. You can contest that Popper's unfalsifiable principle is not a means to distinguish science from pseudoscience but that is a whole different issue.
Yes the onus is on the person claiming pigs can fly/god exists, but they can be disproven, in some cases.
..atheist) to act our lives according to its beliefs. As it is doing this it must provide evidence for its claims.
The onus of proof is not on the atheist, because you can never disprove a negative stand point. Take this as an example. Someone tells you pigs can fly, but say you have to disprove them. So you take 20 pigs push them off a tall building and they all fall and die. Does this prove pigs can't fly? No it only shows those pigs can't or were unwilling to fly on this occasion...
The "amputee argument" is irrelevant to this issue. It might be relevant to a video on faith healing, as you suggest, but it has nothing to do with this. Secondly, Jesus Christ raised people from dead (not merely resuscitation), healed people with "withered" hands (Mat. 1210) which presumably involved tissue regrowth, "cleansed lepers" by restoring them physically (Mat. 11:5), which all counters and nullifies the "amputee argument". The Christianity of the Bible is quite reasonable and rational.
Debating is critical - if you don't actually debate the topic you will fail. ridiculing the opposite argument is foolish and will lose you the debate.
I believe the point he is making is that when this happens be aware that the opposite side is not making a valid argument against your case - just telling you you are silly. They can not carry the debate with this technique.
As for where it cuts off there are a few more parts to the video.
This guy just talks in circles. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic. I'd love to see him debate Hitchens; he'd retire and think twice about opening his mouth on this topic with a blatantly retarded rationale.
No... the burden of proof is on the person trying to change the other person's belief. Hitchens is an entertainer... he isn't taken too seriously in the philosophical community.
"No... the burden of proof is on the person trying to change the other person's belief."
No its not. If i said you people need to give me £100 every week as there is an invisible space monkey living in my house that only i can see an he demands it, who is the burden of proof on? Obviously it would be on me, to show people that he really is there. Its not on everyone else to try and disprove my claim. You logic is flawed.
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
No it's not flawed at all. You just didn't understand what I said. As it is you who is trying to convince us of the existence of the invisible space monkey the burden of proof is on you. HOWEVER... If one where to approach you and say "space monkeys don't exist... your belief is delusional" etc, then they have just made a claim. The burden of proof is then on the other person who is trying to assert the non-existence of the invisible space monkey.
1.Again that is wrong. There is no evidence to support the existence of a god. All an atheist says is that they reject the claim that any god exists on the premise there is no evidence. An atheist is not making unsupported claims about the mechanics of our universe and the attributes of an entity and how we should worship it. Theists are, they say - there is a god and he wants you do XZY. Because you are making these claims you provide the evidence. Its how science works, you can't just...
"All an atheist says is that they reject the claim that any god exists on the premise there is no evidence"
That's called appealing to ignorance. Logical fallacy.
"An atheist is not making unsupported claims ... Theists are"
Not always. You seem to be pairing "belief" with a "claim". Just because someone believes in X doesn't mean they are claiming X. It doesn't become a claim until they try to enforce their beliefs/non-beliefs on another.
"That's called appealing to ignorance. Logical fallacy."
no its not. You make a claim which is supported by NO evidence. I say there is no evidence to make me believe your claim. Where is the ignorance? IF there was evidence and i ignored it then maybe it would be. But there isn't any and you can't present any. So i'm afraid you are still wrong.
"Seems to me that you're picking and choosing what you will accept as evidence to make your position rational... "
how can one "pick and choose", you either have evidence or you don't. Someone who is making a claim (and it is a claim) that god created the world should be able to provide simple evidence. If someone asked for evidence for evolution you could provide a simple list of evidential points. You can't do that for religion, hence why people need faith - belief without evidence.
I meant you're picking and choosing what you consider evidence. to which you just said there is no evidence for a God. There are many people who believe they have had "experiences" etc. These are considered evidence. Whether it is strong or weak is a different issue.
I wouldn't call the evidence for evolution "simple".
"I meant you're picking and choosing what you consider evidence"
No - something is either evidence or it isn't. I'm not just ignoring something because i want to i'm ignoring but it isn't evidence that can be falsified.
"There are many people who believe they have had "experiences" etc. These are considered evidence"
That most certainly is not evidence. Who exactly considers this evidence? Its not even weak evidence. I've had an "experience" with underpants gnomes - is that evidence?
"That most certainly is not evidence. Who exactly considers this evidence?"
Lets see... The judicial system? It's called eye-witness testimony. Using your line of reasoning there are millions of people in prison right now convicted with no evidence. lol
"Lets see... The judicial system? It's called eye-witness testimony. Using your line of reasoning there are millions of people in prison right now convicted with no evidence. lol
"
You have to be joking!?!? I mean come on. You're comparing someone witnessing a crime to someone having a vision of god - you think both instance deserve equal merit? This is laughable, it really is. Not only that but someone does not go to jail solely on one persons testimony.
"You're comparing someone witnessing a crime to someone having a vision of god - you think both instance deserve equal merit?"
Where did I say vision of God?
"Not only that but someone does not go to jail solely on one persons testimony."
In some cases they have. Watch CI channel. And even then your avoiding the point. Many people are convicted where ALL the evidence is reports of personal testimony.
Actually lets assume I did say vision of God. Notice how you say it's laughable etc but you don't provide any reason why. They are both equally evidence but their merit as evidence will be different. The validity and strength are determined by examining the evidence alone with the background information regarding the situation.
Saying it's laughable is not a reason to dismiss it - Appealing to ridicule.
@BeforeTheNoose We're comparing someone witnessing an act with someone else witnessing another act. YOU are the one claiming that a certain act is out of bounds due to the preconception that there could be no God. That is as reasoned, educated, logical, sound and convincing as claiming that witnesses for a crime are wrong because the crime cannot possibly have been commited. This level of argumentation against God being the best atheists got is why I cannot be an unbeliever.
@Xwarzone Preconception?! You have a lot to learn my friend. I don't say there could not be a god, altho the god of the bible is so highly unlikely i think we can confidently dismiss his existence. The default position is to not believe until evidence shows otherwise. What you said is akin to "YOU are the one claiming that a cetain act is out of bounds due to the preconception that there could be no Santa Claus"
@Xwarzone Where are these witnesses? I hope you're not using the Bible as evidence for them, becuase thats circular reasoning. Also, as said, eye witness testimonials are known to be among the weakest and least reliable forms of evidence. How many people have seen aliens? Seen the prophet mohumed? The loch ness monster? Weak.
"I wouldn't call the evidence for evolution "simple". "
You can go into as much detail as you want. But the lines of evidence are as follows:
# Fossil evidence
# Homologies
# Distribution in time and space
# Evidence by example
There i have managed to put down some lines of scientific evidence in four simple points. Ask a Christian to do the same and they won't. They'll either tap dance around the idea or offer something laughable like argument from experience.
You seriously think that just saying those four fragments of a sentence is going to convince a person of evolution. You're going to need to go into more detail then that...
"You seriously think that just saying those four fragments of a sentence is going to convince a person of evolution. You're going to need to go into more detail then that... "
I'm not worried if it convinces someone or not. The fact is that IS evidence. As i said they are four lines of evidence which can be followed. You can't even do that for god. Convincing someone to believe something is not always based on evidence. Hell is a good example.
"I'm not worried if it convinces someone or not. The fact is that IS evidence."
You're ignoring the point. I said evidence is not always simple. You can take any one of those 4 fragments and it will take you into a large web of evidence that link together. If the evidence where so "simple" for evolution why was it such a break-through when it was theorized?
"Not always. You seem to be pairing "belief" with a "claim". "
By believing in, for example, the story of adam and even you are also making claims. You are claiming that a snake talked, the first creature was man who was made of clay and a women who was made from his rib. Not only is that a claim about the mechanics of our universe and the natural world but religion will also force this into schools and other public sectors.
No... By believing in the Adam and Eve story you believe a snake talked, the first creature was created out of clay etc etc. It doesn't become a claim until religion attempts to force it into public sectors.
"No... By believing in the Adam and Eve story you believe a snake talked, the first creature was created out of clay etc etc. It doesn't become a claim until religion attempts to force it into public sectors. "
No. Look please try to understand. A claim is just the assertion you are right, doesn't matter whether you say it to yourself or a football stadium. If you have a belief which you "know" is right then you are also making claims subject to that belief.
I understand this issue completely... I've had this discussion so many times I'm tempted to just make a video on it.
Just because one believes something doesn't mean they think it's true. ie: I can belief that one day man will live on mars. I can believe one day I will become president. I don't pretend to "know" these things nor do I assert them as such. These are not claims, They're just petty beliefs I have. Unless I'm trying to convince you they are true then I have no burden of proof.
"It doesn't become a claim until they try to enforce their beliefs/non-beliefs on another. "
unfortunately it is still a claim even if you don't force me to believe it. BUT that is irrelevant as religion does try and force people to believe it. Its written in the bible that you have to try and convert non-believers for a start.
Religion is forcing its beliefs on us every day, whether it being the use of condoms or stopping stem cell research.
Fraid not. Claim is an assertion of truth (objective) while a belief is personal (subjective). If I thought a particular horse was going to win a race... It's not a claim... It's just my opinion/belief/guess. It can be based on evidence or nothing at all, it doesn't matter.
However if I were trying to convince you that a particular horse is going to win a race, that is a claim. I would then have to provide some form of evidence for my opinion that I'm trying to enforce on you.
"BUT that is irrelevant as religion does try and force people to believe it"
Irrelevant? That's what the whole discussion is about. You seem to be confusing me with someone who's trying to defend religion. I completely support people who question belief systems. But if one tells me that my beliefs are wrong/false I expect to see some evidence. Otherwise it's nothing more then an opinion... isn't it?
"rrelevant? That's what the whole discussion is about"
Talk about quoting out of context. I said its irrelevant because religion does force itself on others all the time. So its a bit pointless us arguing over the word "claim" and its context when really whether your or my definition is correct it still doesn't matter.
We started this debate because you said the onus of proof is on the person dismissing the claim, which is wrong. Religion is forcing us all (whether we it theist or...
haha, you accuse me of taking you out of context and then you take me out of context. Religion has nothing to do with my argument. Why do you think all my examples are of non-religious issues...
In most cases the burden of proof is on religion as it is usually them forcing their beliefs on others. I'm not contesting that... I never was...
No, I said the onus of proof is on the person forcing their beliefs/non-beliefs on the other. I've said that 2 or 3 times now.
"I did it in my last post didn't I? I forced my non-belief that a ball was in the box onto you providing evidence."
Yes but by doing that it then becomes a belief. An atheist is simply evaluating what a theists says and then says there is no evidence which supports it.
"No we haven't gone anywhere. I've been sitting here this whole time watching you argue a strawman figure of me across the room. "
"Yes but by doing that it then becomes a belief. An atheist is simply evaluating what a theists says and then says there is no evidence which supports it."
I have no problem with that. Although you can't deny the vast amount of so called "weak-atheists" who claim theism is a delusion and do attempt to prove the non-existence of a God. Those are the people I am attacking here...
"Maybe you should make your position clearer then."
It says it in my first post, and I've repeated it 3 times.
"However if I were trying to convince you that a particular horse is going to win a race, that is a claim."
You don't need to convince me to make it a claim. Just saying that you know it will win is making a claim whether you try to tell me or not, just as christian will claim god created everything based on the beliefs they hold. They don't have to tell anyone or try to persuade anyone for that to become a claim.
2...have people going around making wild unsupported claims (which in religions case also dictates the running of everyones lives) and then entertain them simply on the basis that we have to prove the negative. If someone is making a wild claim the onus is upon them to support it with evidence, and the for people to either agree or reject the claim based on this evidence - or lack of in the case of god.
This video has nothing to do with amputees and if Jesus healed any, maybe this is one of those arguments that Greg Koukl is talking about "its almost like they lose there mind" "and they say the most foolish and unrational things" all sorts of arguments that don't go anywhere" It appears to me that the video is about prompting to people to have a think about God and just a little tease to make people look a bit harder, if this is the object of the video I would suggest that it has done this
Clear the brush... ok so if someone says millions of phd educated people are making exactly the same mistake, that no bible educated person has made.
The fact is there is NO evidence FOR any God, and plenty of evidence against all of them. So if you believe in something without being shown any proof, and refuse to let go of it when shown it is wrong, I will feel free to point out you are irrational, and all those other fun things.
gods normally require will volition and a set of character traits. The universe has none of these, or at least has not have any evidence for any of these, and so is not a God.
Why does God require any of those things to exist. Pantheism (and deism) is/are legitimate beliefs in a God that has neither characteristics or will volition.
Gods are usually defined as beings of power, with intelegence, will and some kind of moral outlook. "THE UNIVERSE" can not be shown to have any of these. I've never seen a set of definable criteria for a god, which would allow the universe to all within its definition. Yes the idea of pantheism exists, but my understanding is that it usually refers to the universe being on object of wonder and worthy of study as opposed to a true god.
@mordinvan The Bible is a legal case for the existance of God, with hundreds of details authenticated, and little reason to believe (even by modern forensic standards) that the witnesses were lying even on the data hardest to believe (i.e. miracles).
To disbelieve that evidence is one thing. To dismiss its existance is to refuse to argue against evidence, tantamount to admitting of having no case. It's weak, irrational and illogical. Completely unconvincing.
A legal case you say? The fact it was written down generations after the events occurred, thus was passed down by word of mouth, thus is 'hearsay' and would completely discount the entire bible as being used in a court of law to prove the veracity of any of the claims made in it?
No reason to believe the witnesses were lying? Yes there is, laws of physics were broken, on sometimes massive scales, and there is no physical evidence of any of these events happening.
Look at the fish and loaves of bread example. 5 thousand people were fed, assume 1lb of 'matter' made to feed each person, meaning 5000 lb of matter created during the 'miracle'. e=mc^2 means ~205*10^18 joules of energy were used to create that food. Which means about the same energy as a 50 gigaton thermonuclear explosion. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, this energy would have had to come from somewhere.
So one can either believe that enough energy to completely destroy the entire United States, was gathered from nearby, without anyone noticing, and shaped into bread and loaves, and no one picked up on the fact the rest of the planet's surface just reached absolute zero, 'or' one can assume the events are those of legend, and did not infact occur the way they are portrayed in the bible. Same for creation story, which occurred at the same time Babylonians invented glue.
Give me one good example of a biblical miracle for which there is no evidence to believe the people who finally wrote it down were providing an accurate description of the events which actually took place, as opposed to at best a 'swollen' version of the events? I know I can't think of one.
I was waiting for your examples of irrational arguments against God by famous, intelligent people. Oh well, next time maybe...
(Most) Atheists do not believe there is no God, just that there is no evidence for a God (or Gods). Consequently, atheists ask that the certaintly with which you hold a certain belief should be commensurate with the evidence. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all appear to me to have the same amount of supporting evidence.
On the matter of miracles for instance, the evidence is either very poor, or non-existent.
We see claims of Jesus healing the sick, sometimes of supposedly incurable ailments. But he's never healed an amputee - why? What does he hate so much about amputees that he's never ever healed one?
I know this comment is a bit cheeky, but it's a serious question touching on reason and evidence.
What difference does it make weather Jesus did or did not heal an amputee? There is no record of him healing cancer, the measles, malaria and 1000s of other diseases. Seriously, is your argument this: Jesus hates all people that don't have a disease that he once healed? Not very reasonable bondiwatch
Liesel, my intention was to illustrate with an example of what might be called 'blind faith' compared to reason, and hoped readers would be able to 'read between the lines' just as you have in fact done.
Hopefully not too tangential to my previous comment, plus I found the video painfully short of substance.
The point is, all of the other diseases miracles cure have in many recorded medical cases gone into remission on their own, with the possible exception of being blind from birth, but that is most likely an alagorical tale about how his eyes were opened to the 'new one true saviour' as opposed to an actual factual event.
hey, i commented before under the LieselinQLD account. I am managing that account and this one, and meant to reply under this account. Hope that makes sense. Anyway, I am a bit lost as to where this conversation is going. Are you still looking for an answer to the question about amputees? It seems clear that you logically conclude that Jesus hates amputees because he never healed one. Is this your view?
your question is loaded and i think you know why? why can't you pose it w/o the distortion? lets see if you can correct your own error 1st, and then your question can warrant a response
Honestly, you should have put up the part where he actually goes deeper into his first premiss, that atheists make very foundational, fundamental mistakes in thinking.
Perhaps more importantly, is this supposed to be a lesson in clear thinking? He suggests to these people to take it as an axiom that intelligent and educated people "say foolish, irrational things" and then says that the first step of "critical thinking" is to distinguish between argument and nonsense. When you are reading an academic, you can assume they have developed clarity of thought. In any case, has this man never heard of the principle of charity?
Why is it cut off before he gives any examples of Christopher Hitchens using ad hominem attacks? I can only assume that whatever examples he was about to raise (if any) were entirely relevant in the context -though I'll never know now, will I?
Some ideas are worthy of ridicule, and sometimes ridicule _IS_ appropriate. Namely, when you are discussing the legitimacy of some world view. Does Christianity make sense? If this is the context then it does make sense to point out absurdities.
I would call this guy an idiot but I am sure everyone in that room paid him money to be there. So I will just call the audience idiots.
pimpymcdougall 7 months ago
@pimpymcdougall There is a well known maxim among Debaters - "Name calling is not an argument." In fact, seasoned Debaters know that when your debate opponent ridicules you with a demeaning word (such as "idiot") it is an indication that the name-caller is conceding that they have little support for their arguments.
DrAndrewC 7 months ago
@DrAndrewC Who said anything about a debate. I was just calling them idiots.
pimpymcdougall 7 months ago
@pimpymcdougall Indeed, "Who said anything about a debate?" (I agree with you, you certainly are not doing that).
DrAndrewC 7 months ago
Christopher Hitchens disliked this video 12 times.
Jovan14606 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Correction: I meant to say "STR is nothing more than Mr. Koukl's self-publishing and self-promotion company, i.e., those he employs to market and sell his own books, lectures, workshops, recordings, pamphlets and anything else this huckster can scrape together to fleece gullible hillbillies."
bc9021010001 1 year ago
I love it. "Greg Koukl, President of STR." STR is nothing more than Mr. Koukl's self-publishing company, i.e., those he employs to market and sell his own books.
bc9021010001 1 year ago
@bc9021010001 I don't get what you're trying to hate on, so to speak.?? Koukl has an enterprise... yeah... so what? That's a bad thing, as you're saying. I'm not following your negativity.
Is it perhaps that you simply need to hate him for some reason, and you've decided that you'll hate him for publishing?
If so, that illustrates your deficit, not his.
zenowing 4 months ago
@zenowing "President of STR" is a ludicrously pompous title, if not deliberately misleading, when STR is your own self-publishing and self-promotion company. But then he is in the business of getting idiots to believe anything ...
bc9021010001 2 months ago
I really don't know why we are still arguing over claim but hey ho. That definition is flawed i think. Its like you are confusing the word "claim" with sequent. A claim does not require any reasoning or absolute certainty, which is why it can be made on belief. "I know it will win" is a claim, but i will also contest that "i think it will win" is also a claim.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"I think it will win" is a claim but I've separated it for the sake of the argument. In this instance the fact that I am the one speaking IS the evidence.
Behaviour that corresponds with the belief would also be considered evidence for the claim, ie: placing a bet that they will win.
Clarency 3 years ago
..under those conditions. So you can never really disprove it. Hence why it is up to the person who says pigs can fly to provide evidence.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"The onus of proof is not on the atheist"
If the atheist is trying to prove to the theist there is no God, they have the burden of proof. If a theist is trying to prove to the atheist there is a God, they have burden of proof.
"because you can never disprove a negative stand point"
You believe there is a ball inside a box. I claim there is no ball in the box. You ask for evidence. I open the box to find no ball.
I just proved a negative.
Clarency 3 years ago
All you did with your example was show that throwing a pig of a roof is not a valid way of determining whether pigs fly. However we can biologically examine them and find characteristics of an organism that does fly and conclude that it is highly highly unlikely that pigs do fly.
(in science there is no proving/disproving only probability)
Clarency 3 years ago
"However we can biologically examine them and find characteristics of an organism that does fly and conclude that it is highly highly unlikely that pigs do fly"
But exactly the same problem will apply to that form of test. You going to test all the pigs in the world? Honestly mate you have to be the only person i have ever debated that thinks the onus of proof is on the person discounting the claim because of lack of evidence. Thats not how it works in science or anything else for that matter
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"But exactly the same problem will apply to that form of test. You going to test all the pigs in the world?"
It's called population sample... the same way all scientific studies are done.
"Honestly mate you have to be the only person i have ever debated that thinks the onus of proof is on the person discounting the claim because of lack of evidence."
There's that strawman again...
Clarency 3 years ago
"It's called population sample... the same way all scientific studies are done."
Yes it is but you're missing the point. The first example i gave is actually scientifically sound as well. But we're not debating the validity of the tests. The point is that in circumstances such as someone saying pigs can fly or god is real, the onus of proof is that person, because you can never really disprove such.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"The first example i gave is actually scientifically sound as well."
No it's not, for the very reason you gave. That method in circumstances such as that are unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. You can contest that Popper's unfalsifiable principle is not a means to distinguish science from pseudoscience but that is a whole different issue.
Yes the onus is on the person claiming pigs can fly/god exists, but they can be disproven, in some cases.
Clarency 3 years ago
..atheist) to act our lives according to its beliefs. As it is doing this it must provide evidence for its claims.
The onus of proof is not on the atheist, because you can never disprove a negative stand point. Take this as an example. Someone tells you pigs can fly, but say you have to disprove them. So you take 20 pigs push them off a tall building and they all fall and die. Does this prove pigs can't fly? No it only shows those pigs can't or were unwilling to fly on this occasion...
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
The "amputee argument" is irrelevant to this issue. It might be relevant to a video on faith healing, as you suggest, but it has nothing to do with this. Secondly, Jesus Christ raised people from dead (not merely resuscitation), healed people with "withered" hands (Mat. 1210) which presumably involved tissue regrowth, "cleansed lepers" by restoring them physically (Mat. 11:5), which all counters and nullifies the "amputee argument". The Christianity of the Bible is quite reasonable and rational.
DrAndrewC 3 years ago
@DrAndrewC He healed Malchus' ear too, after Peter chopped it off.
OneEyedJack1970 1 year ago
@OneEyedJack1970
And Dorothy killed two wicked witches. Hail Dorothy !!
bc9021010001 1 year ago
Debating is critical - if you don't actually debate the topic you will fail. ridiculing the opposite argument is foolish and will lose you the debate.
I believe the point he is making is that when this happens be aware that the opposite side is not making a valid argument against your case - just telling you you are silly. They can not carry the debate with this technique.
As for where it cuts off there are a few more parts to the video.
delphintrust 3 years ago
This guy just talks in circles. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic. I'd love to see him debate Hitchens; he'd retire and think twice about opening his mouth on this topic with a blatantly retarded rationale.
matucon312 3 years ago
No... the burden of proof is on the person trying to change the other person's belief. Hitchens is an entertainer... he isn't taken too seriously in the philosophical community.
Clarency 3 years ago
"No... the burden of proof is on the person trying to change the other person's belief."
No its not. If i said you people need to give me £100 every week as there is an invisible space monkey living in my house that only i can see an he demands it, who is the burden of proof on? Obviously it would be on me, to show people that he really is there. Its not on everyone else to try and disprove my claim. You logic is flawed.
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
No it's not flawed at all. You just didn't understand what I said. As it is you who is trying to convince us of the existence of the invisible space monkey the burden of proof is on you. HOWEVER... If one where to approach you and say "space monkeys don't exist... your belief is delusional" etc, then they have just made a claim. The burden of proof is then on the other person who is trying to assert the non-existence of the invisible space monkey.
Clarency 3 years ago
1.Again that is wrong. There is no evidence to support the existence of a god. All an atheist says is that they reject the claim that any god exists on the premise there is no evidence. An atheist is not making unsupported claims about the mechanics of our universe and the attributes of an entity and how we should worship it. Theists are, they say - there is a god and he wants you do XZY. Because you are making these claims you provide the evidence. Its how science works, you can't just...
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"All an atheist says is that they reject the claim that any god exists on the premise there is no evidence"
That's called appealing to ignorance. Logical fallacy.
"An atheist is not making unsupported claims ... Theists are"
Not always. You seem to be pairing "belief" with a "claim". Just because someone believes in X doesn't mean they are claiming X. It doesn't become a claim until they try to enforce their beliefs/non-beliefs on another.
Clarency 3 years ago
"That's called appealing to ignorance. Logical fallacy."
no its not. You make a claim which is supported by NO evidence. I say there is no evidence to make me believe your claim. Where is the ignorance? IF there was evidence and i ignored it then maybe it would be. But there isn't any and you can't present any. So i'm afraid you are still wrong.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
Lots of people argue that they have evidence for God. So I'd say its the former.
Seems to me that you're picking and choosing what you will accept as evidence to make your position rational...
Clarency 3 years ago
"Seems to me that you're picking and choosing what you will accept as evidence to make your position rational... "
how can one "pick and choose", you either have evidence or you don't. Someone who is making a claim (and it is a claim) that god created the world should be able to provide simple evidence. If someone asked for evidence for evolution you could provide a simple list of evidential points. You can't do that for religion, hence why people need faith - belief without evidence.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
I meant you're picking and choosing what you consider evidence. to which you just said there is no evidence for a God. There are many people who believe they have had "experiences" etc. These are considered evidence. Whether it is strong or weak is a different issue.
I wouldn't call the evidence for evolution "simple".
Clarency 3 years ago
"I meant you're picking and choosing what you consider evidence"
No - something is either evidence or it isn't. I'm not just ignoring something because i want to i'm ignoring but it isn't evidence that can be falsified.
"There are many people who believe they have had "experiences" etc. These are considered evidence"
That most certainly is not evidence. Who exactly considers this evidence? Its not even weak evidence. I've had an "experience" with underpants gnomes - is that evidence?
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"That most certainly is not evidence. Who exactly considers this evidence?"
Lets see... The judicial system? It's called eye-witness testimony. Using your line of reasoning there are millions of people in prison right now convicted with no evidence. lol
See how stupid your argument is?
Clarency 3 years ago
"Lets see... The judicial system? It's called eye-witness testimony. Using your line of reasoning there are millions of people in prison right now convicted with no evidence. lol
"
You have to be joking!?!? I mean come on. You're comparing someone witnessing a crime to someone having a vision of god - you think both instance deserve equal merit? This is laughable, it really is. Not only that but someone does not go to jail solely on one persons testimony.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"You're comparing someone witnessing a crime to someone having a vision of god - you think both instance deserve equal merit?"
Where did I say vision of God?
"Not only that but someone does not go to jail solely on one persons testimony."
In some cases they have. Watch CI channel. And even then your avoiding the point. Many people are convicted where ALL the evidence is reports of personal testimony.
Clarency 3 years ago
"You have to be joking!?!? I mean come on"
Actually lets assume I did say vision of God. Notice how you say it's laughable etc but you don't provide any reason why. They are both equally evidence but their merit as evidence will be different. The validity and strength are determined by examining the evidence alone with the background information regarding the situation.
Saying it's laughable is not a reason to dismiss it - Appealing to ridicule.
Clarency 3 years ago
@BeforeTheNoose We're comparing someone witnessing an act with someone else witnessing another act. YOU are the one claiming that a certain act is out of bounds due to the preconception that there could be no God. That is as reasoned, educated, logical, sound and convincing as claiming that witnesses for a crime are wrong because the crime cannot possibly have been commited. This level of argumentation against God being the best atheists got is why I cannot be an unbeliever.
Xwarzone 1 year ago
@Xwarzone Preconception?! You have a lot to learn my friend. I don't say there could not be a god, altho the god of the bible is so highly unlikely i think we can confidently dismiss his existence. The default position is to not believe until evidence shows otherwise. What you said is akin to "YOU are the one claiming that a cetain act is out of bounds due to the preconception that there could be no Santa Claus"
BeforeTheNoose 1 year ago
@Xwarzone Where are these witnesses? I hope you're not using the Bible as evidence for them, becuase thats circular reasoning. Also, as said, eye witness testimonials are known to be among the weakest and least reliable forms of evidence. How many people have seen aliens? Seen the prophet mohumed? The loch ness monster? Weak.
BeforeTheNoose 1 year ago
"I wouldn't call the evidence for evolution "simple". "
You can go into as much detail as you want. But the lines of evidence are as follows:
# Fossil evidence
# Homologies
# Distribution in time and space
# Evidence by example
There i have managed to put down some lines of scientific evidence in four simple points. Ask a Christian to do the same and they won't. They'll either tap dance around the idea or offer something laughable like argument from experience.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
You seriously think that just saying those four fragments of a sentence is going to convince a person of evolution. You're going to need to go into more detail then that...
Clarency 3 years ago
"You seriously think that just saying those four fragments of a sentence is going to convince a person of evolution. You're going to need to go into more detail then that... "
I'm not worried if it convinces someone or not. The fact is that IS evidence. As i said they are four lines of evidence which can be followed. You can't even do that for god. Convincing someone to believe something is not always based on evidence. Hell is a good example.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"I'm not worried if it convinces someone or not. The fact is that IS evidence."
You're ignoring the point. I said evidence is not always simple. You can take any one of those 4 fragments and it will take you into a large web of evidence that link together. If the evidence where so "simple" for evolution why was it such a break-through when it was theorized?
Clarency 3 years ago
"Not always. You seem to be pairing "belief" with a "claim". "
By believing in, for example, the story of adam and even you are also making claims. You are claiming that a snake talked, the first creature was man who was made of clay and a women who was made from his rib. Not only is that a claim about the mechanics of our universe and the natural world but religion will also force this into schools and other public sectors.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
No... By believing in the Adam and Eve story you believe a snake talked, the first creature was created out of clay etc etc. It doesn't become a claim until religion attempts to force it into public sectors.
Clarency 3 years ago
"No... By believing in the Adam and Eve story you believe a snake talked, the first creature was created out of clay etc etc. It doesn't become a claim until religion attempts to force it into public sectors. "
No. Look please try to understand. A claim is just the assertion you are right, doesn't matter whether you say it to yourself or a football stadium. If you have a belief which you "know" is right then you are also making claims subject to that belief.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
I understand this issue completely... I've had this discussion so many times I'm tempted to just make a video on it.
Just because one believes something doesn't mean they think it's true. ie: I can belief that one day man will live on mars. I can believe one day I will become president. I don't pretend to "know" these things nor do I assert them as such. These are not claims, They're just petty beliefs I have. Unless I'm trying to convince you they are true then I have no burden of proof.
Clarency 3 years ago
"It doesn't become a claim until they try to enforce their beliefs/non-beliefs on another. "
unfortunately it is still a claim even if you don't force me to believe it. BUT that is irrelevant as religion does try and force people to believe it. Its written in the bible that you have to try and convert non-believers for a start.
Religion is forcing its beliefs on us every day, whether it being the use of condoms or stopping stem cell research.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
Fraid not. Claim is an assertion of truth (objective) while a belief is personal (subjective). If I thought a particular horse was going to win a race... It's not a claim... It's just my opinion/belief/guess. It can be based on evidence or nothing at all, it doesn't matter.
However if I were trying to convince you that a particular horse is going to win a race, that is a claim. I would then have to provide some form of evidence for my opinion that I'm trying to enforce on you.
Clarency 3 years ago
"BUT that is irrelevant as religion does try and force people to believe it"
Irrelevant? That's what the whole discussion is about. You seem to be confusing me with someone who's trying to defend religion. I completely support people who question belief systems. But if one tells me that my beliefs are wrong/false I expect to see some evidence. Otherwise it's nothing more then an opinion... isn't it?
Clarency 3 years ago
"rrelevant? That's what the whole discussion is about"
Talk about quoting out of context. I said its irrelevant because religion does force itself on others all the time. So its a bit pointless us arguing over the word "claim" and its context when really whether your or my definition is correct it still doesn't matter.
We started this debate because you said the onus of proof is on the person dismissing the claim, which is wrong. Religion is forcing us all (whether we it theist or...
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
haha, you accuse me of taking you out of context and then you take me out of context. Religion has nothing to do with my argument. Why do you think all my examples are of non-religious issues...
In most cases the burden of proof is on religion as it is usually them forcing their beliefs on others. I'm not contesting that... I never was...
No, I said the onus of proof is on the person forcing their beliefs/non-beliefs on the other. I've said that 2 or 3 times now.
Clarency 3 years ago
"No, I said the onus of proof is on the person forcing their beliefs/non-beliefs on the other. I've said that 2 or 3 times now"
Forcing non-beliefs on others?? Is that even possible?
"In most cases the burden of proof is on religion as it is usually them forcing their beliefs on others. I'm not contesting that... I never was..."
At last we are getting somewhere, you do seem to be back tracking though. Cos your stand point never came across like that earlier.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"Forcing non-beliefs on others?? Is that even possible?"
I did it in my last post didn't I? I forced my non-belief that a ball was in the box onto you providing evidence.
"At last we are getting somewhere, you do seem to be back tracking though. Cos your stand point never came across like that earlier."
No we haven't gone anywhere. I've been sitting here this whole time watching you argue a strawman figure of me across the room.
Clarency 3 years ago
"I did it in my last post didn't I? I forced my non-belief that a ball was in the box onto you providing evidence."
Yes but by doing that it then becomes a belief. An atheist is simply evaluating what a theists says and then says there is no evidence which supports it.
"No we haven't gone anywhere. I've been sitting here this whole time watching you argue a strawman figure of me across the room. "
Maybe you should make your position clearer then.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"Yes but by doing that it then becomes a belief. An atheist is simply evaluating what a theists says and then says there is no evidence which supports it."
I have no problem with that. Although you can't deny the vast amount of so called "weak-atheists" who claim theism is a delusion and do attempt to prove the non-existence of a God. Those are the people I am attacking here...
"Maybe you should make your position clearer then."
It says it in my first post, and I've repeated it 3 times.
Clarency 3 years ago
"However if I were trying to convince you that a particular horse is going to win a race, that is a claim."
You don't need to convince me to make it a claim. Just saying that you know it will win is making a claim whether you try to tell me or not, just as christian will claim god created everything based on the beliefs they hold. They don't have to tell anyone or try to persuade anyone for that to become a claim.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
"I know it will win" - claim.
"I believe it will win" - not a claim.
It can't get any simpler then that.
Clarency 3 years ago
2...have people going around making wild unsupported claims (which in religions case also dictates the running of everyones lives) and then entertain them simply on the basis that we have to prove the negative. If someone is making a wild claim the onus is upon them to support it with evidence, and the for people to either agree or reject the claim based on this evidence - or lack of in the case of god.
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago
This doesn't go against anything I've said.
Clarency 3 years ago
This video has nothing to do with amputees and if Jesus healed any, maybe this is one of those arguments that Greg Koukl is talking about "its almost like they lose there mind" "and they say the most foolish and unrational things" all sorts of arguments that don't go anywhere" It appears to me that the video is about prompting to people to have a think about God and just a little tease to make people look a bit harder, if this is the object of the video I would suggest that it has done this
edwron 3 years ago
Clear the brush... ok so if someone says millions of phd educated people are making exactly the same mistake, that no bible educated person has made.
The fact is there is NO evidence FOR any God, and plenty of evidence against all of them. So if you believe in something without being shown any proof, and refuse to let go of it when shown it is wrong, I will feel free to point out you are irrational, and all those other fun things.
mordinvan 3 years ago 2
Really?
Pantheism.
1. God is the universe.
2. The universe exists.
Conclusion:
3. God exists.
Refute please.
Clarency 3 years ago
To say something exists it must first be defined. What testable qualities does your God have?
Once we can agree on a set of criteria, we can proceed from there.
mordinvan 3 years ago
It's answered in the first premise.
Clarency 3 years ago
gods normally require will volition and a set of character traits. The universe has none of these, or at least has not have any evidence for any of these, and so is not a God.
mordinvan 3 years ago
Why does God require any of those things to exist. Pantheism (and deism) is/are legitimate beliefs in a God that has neither characteristics or will volition.
Clarency 3 years ago
actually deism does
Pantheism is little different then calling a block of wood god, just a proveable and just a legitmate, however you wish to take that
mordinvan 3 years ago
Pantheism is just as much a God as any other, despite the differences.
Clarency 3 years ago
Gods are usually defined as beings of power, with intelegence, will and some kind of moral outlook. "THE UNIVERSE" can not be shown to have any of these. I've never seen a set of definable criteria for a god, which would allow the universe to all within its definition. Yes the idea of pantheism exists, but my understanding is that it usually refers to the universe being on object of wonder and worthy of study as opposed to a true god.
mordinvan 3 years ago
"Gods are usually defined as beings of power, with intelegence, will and some kind of moral outlook"
keyword - Usually. There may be some differences in how the term is used but you did say:
"The fact is there is NO evidence FOR any God"
"plenty of evidence against all of them"
Right?
Clarency 3 years ago
@mordinvan The Bible is a legal case for the existance of God, with hundreds of details authenticated, and little reason to believe (even by modern forensic standards) that the witnesses were lying even on the data hardest to believe (i.e. miracles).
To disbelieve that evidence is one thing. To dismiss its existance is to refuse to argue against evidence, tantamount to admitting of having no case. It's weak, irrational and illogical. Completely unconvincing.
Xwarzone 1 year ago
@Xwarzone
A legal case you say? The fact it was written down generations after the events occurred, thus was passed down by word of mouth, thus is 'hearsay' and would completely discount the entire bible as being used in a court of law to prove the veracity of any of the claims made in it?
No reason to believe the witnesses were lying? Yes there is, laws of physics were broken, on sometimes massive scales, and there is no physical evidence of any of these events happening.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@Xwarzone
Look at the fish and loaves of bread example. 5 thousand people were fed, assume 1lb of 'matter' made to feed each person, meaning 5000 lb of matter created during the 'miracle'. e=mc^2 means ~205*10^18 joules of energy were used to create that food. Which means about the same energy as a 50 gigaton thermonuclear explosion. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, this energy would have had to come from somewhere.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@Xwarzone
So one can either believe that enough energy to completely destroy the entire United States, was gathered from nearby, without anyone noticing, and shaped into bread and loaves, and no one picked up on the fact the rest of the planet's surface just reached absolute zero, 'or' one can assume the events are those of legend, and did not infact occur the way they are portrayed in the bible. Same for creation story, which occurred at the same time Babylonians invented glue.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@Xwarzone
Give me one good example of a biblical miracle for which there is no evidence to believe the people who finally wrote it down were providing an accurate description of the events which actually took place, as opposed to at best a 'swollen' version of the events? I know I can't think of one.
mordinvan 1 year ago
I was waiting for your examples of irrational arguments against God by famous, intelligent people. Oh well, next time maybe...
(Most) Atheists do not believe there is no God, just that there is no evidence for a God (or Gods). Consequently, atheists ask that the certaintly with which you hold a certain belief should be commensurate with the evidence. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all appear to me to have the same amount of supporting evidence.
bondiwatch 3 years ago
On the matter of miracles for instance, the evidence is either very poor, or non-existent.
We see claims of Jesus healing the sick, sometimes of supposedly incurable ailments. But he's never healed an amputee - why? What does he hate so much about amputees that he's never ever healed one?
I know this comment is a bit cheeky, but it's a serious question touching on reason and evidence.
Can anyone answer my question?
bondiwatch 3 years ago
What difference does it make weather Jesus did or did not heal an amputee? There is no record of him healing cancer, the measles, malaria and 1000s of other diseases. Seriously, is your argument this: Jesus hates all people that don't have a disease that he once healed? Not very reasonable bondiwatch
LieselinQLD 3 years ago
Liesel, my intention was to illustrate with an example of what might be called 'blind faith' compared to reason, and hoped readers would be able to 'read between the lines' just as you have in fact done.
Hopefully not too tangential to my previous comment, plus I found the video painfully short of substance.
bondiwatch 3 years ago
The point is, all of the other diseases miracles cure have in many recorded medical cases gone into remission on their own, with the possible exception of being blind from birth, but that is most likely an alagorical tale about how his eyes were opened to the 'new one true saviour' as opposed to an actual factual event.
mordinvan 3 years ago
hey, i commented before under the LieselinQLD account. I am managing that account and this one, and meant to reply under this account. Hope that makes sense. Anyway, I am a bit lost as to where this conversation is going. Are you still looking for an answer to the question about amputees? It seems clear that you logically conclude that Jesus hates amputees because he never healed one. Is this your view?
houghtonator 3 years ago
your question is loaded and i think you know why? why can't you pose it w/o the distortion? lets see if you can correct your own error 1st, and then your question can warrant a response
veritaslogos 3 years ago
Good video. I'd love to see the rest of the presentation. If you aren't going to post it, do you know if I can find it anywhere?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Does he have anything better than that?
Honestly, you should have put up the part where he actually goes deeper into his first premiss, that atheists make very foundational, fundamental mistakes in thinking.
Atheistblindchick 3 years ago
Perhaps more importantly, is this supposed to be a lesson in clear thinking? He suggests to these people to take it as an axiom that intelligent and educated people "say foolish, irrational things" and then says that the first step of "critical thinking" is to distinguish between argument and nonsense. When you are reading an academic, you can assume they have developed clarity of thought. In any case, has this man never heard of the principle of charity?
neotropic9 3 years ago
Why is it cut off before he gives any examples of Christopher Hitchens using ad hominem attacks? I can only assume that whatever examples he was about to raise (if any) were entirely relevant in the context -though I'll never know now, will I?
Some ideas are worthy of ridicule, and sometimes ridicule _IS_ appropriate. Namely, when you are discussing the legitimacy of some world view. Does Christianity make sense? If this is the context then it does make sense to point out absurdities.
neotropic9 3 years ago