Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

re:Super Atheist Bros...

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
132 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Jul 2, 2009

Lets be realistic.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 2 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (SYNICtheAtheist)

  • You don't need evidence for everything. Especially Things or events that u know happened. However, people who only live by logic could probably never understand...unless u take into consideration "variable change".

  • The requirement for evidence would be based upon the topic at hand. If i saw i went to the store today i'm sure it would require no evidence for someone to believe that claim. But if i say i went to the moon today everyone can clearly see that evidence would be needed to back up my claim.

  • "thats truly classic."

    Instead of typing a simple "lol" or anything of that sort, would you care to refute what I said?

  • i take it you diodn't read past "lol". Your statement has already been refuted.

see all

All Comments (8)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Really? By all means explain.

  • Do you have even the slightest understanding of Christian theology to understand why G-d does not directly reveal Himself? Just wondering, cuz I don't really want to waste my time anymore.

  • Exactly. And since there is no evidence you have no basis for your claims.

  • About the genetic fallacy? You just brushed it off.

    I can barely make out what you are saying between the grammatical and spelling errors sorry, let me re-read it.

    Again, how can we get evidence of G-d, who is unbound by naturalistic methods of testing things?

  • lol. "how Christianity developed is unrelated to how it's veracity relates to the rest of the religions" thats truly classic. I do understand the scientific method. what you are argueing for in essence is the christian god. All of the imaginary characteristic traits christians give their god can replicated and reflective of any other mythilogical being of old and even one just made up recently as opposed to back then. Since there is no evidence of that gods like all then its just speculation.

  • Sorry, this doesn't even really merit as a video response.

    Do you even understand the basic tenets of the scientific method, clearly not, science is bound by methodological naturalism, which by definition, cannot comment on the existence of the supernatural. Then again, you hit what is called the genetic fallacy, how Christianity developed is unrelated to how it's veracity relates to the rest of the religions.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more