reply to kalin666 and capnordinary

***I was feeling camera shy***

This is a video response to kalin666's my problem with agnostics video and to some of the text comments posted there as well.

Again let me clarify. I AM AN ATHEIST

My atheism FAQ: http://jaywalker-1982.tabulas.com/2007/05/30/@1429191/

My debate blog:
http://infidelboy.blogspot.com/

=============================
Clarification:
What i'm arguing against here is the claim that god is impossible. I'm not making an argument for theism, i'm not making an argument for agnosticism. I'm making an argument against ABSOLUTISM

Being an atheist, it's already given that i subscribe to the hypothesis that god doesn't exist. But I will not claim that that hypothesis is an absolute truth

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• agnosticism
• atheism
• kalin666
• capnordinary

[freetaught]

I didn't mention this before but I just loved your animation! It might make an interesting tradmark for your videos.

[jaywalker23]

thanks. I can't talk straight in front of a camera anyway so most of my future vids will be like this

[CousinoMacul]

I'm sorry but what is the difference between God and what people claim about him? The claims are ALL we have. Without the claims, how would you recognize God? How do we even know what God is except through the claims made about him. You yourself in this video are making claims about God (namely that he can't be disproved because he isn't what people claim he is). By your logic, I'll declare that God isn't what YOU claim he is.

[jaywalker23]

What did I claim god to be? I am an atheist and I have no claims about god. What I was saying was that most Christians say that the bible is non-literal. That is their claim not mine. Take note that what I'm arguing against here is the claim that god is impossible. Being an atheist, it's already given that I subscribe to the hypothesis that there is no god. However that is different from claiming absolute knowledge of god's nonexistence. Absolute positions require absolute knowledge or faith..

[jaywalker23]

You can disprove all claims about god and still not arrive at an ABSOLUTE conclusion that he doesn't exist. At most, you can prove that he isn't what he and his followers claimed he was. If you manage to prove that god isn't omniscient then you prove that he is omniscient. You can't prove that he is IMPOSSIBLE because you can never devise a fully encompassing test for that. Same thing with abiogenesis. You can devise an experiment that would disprove a specific model for abiogenesis but the

[jaywalker23]

concept itself is unfalsifiable because you can't test for all the possible conditions in which life could've arisen

[CapnOrdinary]

I never claimed that every god concept conceivable was impossible. My claim was that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity is. Other definitions of god or godhood can go on their merry way, completely ignoring that.

And the same thing for the prayer thing: It shows us that Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu etc. don't exist (because their claimed miracles are notoriously absent), it has no bearing on any definition of god that does not make those claims. Hope that clarifies my position.

[kalin666]

I thought I had commented on this video, nearly a year ago at this point, but i don't see it here! So, let me remember . . . . . ah yes, I stated that the god described in the bible defined itself out of existence (read as probability "asymptoting" to 0). So anyone who says they believe in god actually believes in an imaginary construct specific to their own mind. Though it's possible that any one of these imaginary creatures just happens to exist, there is still no good reason to believe.

[freetaught]

Rockin!

[D4Shawn]

I just go with theological noncognitivism. "God" can't exist if "God" can't be defined.

[freetaught]

I was only asking in the hypothetical sense. However,lets assume,for a moment,that one of the known monotheistic gods were proven to be definitively true.We are immediately confronted with the fact that all other gods on earth were manufactured in the absence of the true god. This tells us a lot about how mankind collectively thinks.If there isn't any evidence to support the claim for any gods existence(now we are in reality again)why can we not disqualify all of the gods that have been claimed?