Loading...

The 1 Question All Atheists Fear!

448,557 views

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Sep 4, 2010

www.lifeafterdeathquestions.com explains why atheist have "nothing" but guesswork to argue with.

Comments • 27,337

TheIronwil
I'm an atheist, and thought I'd take a stab at explaining things you've misunderstood and, in some cases, gotten completely wrong. I'll list my points, and if you can refute any of them successfully, I'll gladly concede that point. :30 - Atheists ask for evidence of God. This should come as no surprise. You're proposing a number of supernatural claims for God to exist as depicted in the Bible. To date, no god or gods have ever been demonstrated to exist.  :42 - You said you have scientific evidence. There is NO scientific evidence for the existence of any deity, much less something specific like the Christian God. If you contest this point, then provide a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected scientific journal that provides this evidence. Arguments alone are neither scientific nor evidence.  :43 - Historical evidence claimed. There is no historical evidence at all that validates any supernatural claims made in the Bible. The Bible can't confirm itself, much in the same way a science book can't confirm itself.  :45 - Archaeological evidence claimed. As far as I know, there's not even a means possible for archaeological evidence to support any supernatural claim of any kind. Archaeological evidence does support evolution, however. :47 - Third-party evidence. Not even going to bother with this one, which is also known as "hearsay" in court, and inadmissible. Something that someone tells you someone else told them is in no way evidence. :48 - Biblical prophecy evidence claimed. This is simply false. The way a "prophecy" is validated is to make a prediction before the event occurs. The way biblical prophecies are "validated" is to read through the Bible, and then search through the last 2000 years of history to find something that sounds sort of like it. I can do the same thing with nearly any book I read. :50 - Statistical probabilities? WTF? Sorry, but this is simply a crap claim. I would love to see how you've developed (or found) a statistical model that validates God. Just throwing up some ridiculous number as I've seen done in many creationist videos is not evidence. :55 - 500 witnesses that saw the events claim. I'm assuming you're referring to the resurrection, but correct me if I'm wrong. The problem is that you don't have 500 witnesses. What you have is someone writing down that there were 500 witnesses decades after the alleged event. As I mentioned before, the Bible can't confirm itself, nor does a claim that 500 people witnessed something mean they actually did, or were even there. Also, ask any police officer how reliable eye witness testimony is, and why they want to get statements immediately, and not the next day or two after the fact. The answers you get should illustrate why this doesn't qualify as evidence. 1:02 - 25,000 original documents. Citation, please. No originals of any of the writing of the Bible exist. If you contest this, please provide a citation of where these thousands of original documents can be viewed. If you meant something else, please elaborate. Regardless, your assertion that the text has never been altered is known to be false by... well, just about everyone, including biblical scholars. 1:12 - Atheist discount these "mountains of evidence". Evidence is observable, repeatable, testable, and falsifiable. The quick reference for determining if you are talking about a belief or knowledge is that knowledge can be demonstrated, while something that's only a belief can't. If you think you have evidence which is supported by science (something you made multiple claims of in this video in the first minute alone), then I'd love to see your sources cited.  1:30 - You're stunned that atheists won't accept the things you've listed as evidence. If you didn't actually supply any evidence along with your claims that you have evidence, I can understand why. Just stating that you have scientific evidence is NOT evidence. Provide the actual scientific material publications that provide evidentiary support for your claims, and then we'll discuss it.  1:40 - Atheists just "brush it all aside"... I'm still waiting for something that would require evaluation at all. Your claims that you have evidentiary support needs to be accompanied by the actual evidence. 1:56 - Prove that God does not exist (the question all atheists fear!) I was really hoping you weren't going to pull out one of the most stupid arguments theists make, but you did. Long before I knew anything about epistemology, I still knew a crap argument when I heard one. A coworker tried this exact same argument against me. I told her that it had just been revealed to me that she was partially correct, and that God did exist, but as a pair of undetectable blue unicorns, living in each of my butt cheeks. We didn't have the FSM back then, so I just made something up. Of course she got upset and told me it wasn't true, but I pointed out that she couldn't prove that it wasn't true, so it must be. At first she tried asking about x-rays, but of course I said they were undetectable. After a few minutes she got flustered and left without asking what I thought was the best question - how did I know that undetectable blue unicorns were blue?  So I'll respond to your question with a few that will hopefully demonstrate why it's a poor argument. #1 Can you prove that vampires don't exist? If not, do you load up on garlic and holy water before bed every night? #2 Can you prove that leprechauns don't exist? If not, do you chase rainbows in hopes of getting that pot of gold? #3 Can you prove that werewolves don't exist? If not, surely you have guns loaded with silver bullets, right? Trying to assert that a thing exists because it can't be disproved is idiotic. By that precise same argument. I could argue that ANYTHING exists which by its nature can't be falsified. All I have to do is tack on some attribute such as "outside of space and time" or something similar, and boom! Unfalsifiable claim achieved. 
View all 14 replies
HappyHippieGaymer
Darryl Elam most og those writing just vaguely mention christians that existed at the time and their belief in the character of christ. Thats like me writing about how some anciant people believed a toga wearing god was the reason for lightning bolts, there for that is proof that zuse is real.
Darryl Elam
TheIronwil 1:02 - 25,000 original documents. Citation, please. No originals of any of the writing of the Bible exist. From what I understand these 25,000 original documents are not from the time of Jesus, the earliest is from 40-70 years after his claimed time of death. And these documents are not like what they sound, many of them are just a few words.
Hide replies
Damarni Cross
So much faith in God that you had to disable your ratings. nice.
View all 3 replies
hannes jacobsson
Apply holy water to the burn
Ryan Whitear
Someone call the fire brigade!
Hide replies
Ari Kotler
The burden of proof is on theists, not atheists. By definition. In addition, atheists don't claim that there is no god. They disbelief the theistic assertion that there is a god, simply because there is no evidence for a god. Theists have to provide scientific, testable, observable, falsifiable, demonstrable material evidence to get anywhere even close to proving the existence of god. Trust me, if someone found proof of god, they would win a Nobel prize.  Regardless, it wouldn't even matter. I simply use that same argument for anything, like saying that an untraceable, transcendent pencil sharpener created the universe because "you can't prove it didn't." Even if all scientific theory was disproved, it wouldn't make the theory for God any truer. You would still need to find just as much evidence as before. Thankfully, our current scientific theories are very solid, have tons of potential, are constantly being improved, and have a massive foundation of material, demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence. 
View all 14 replies
Erik Graul
@george bond "a fruit fly is still a fruit fly lizard is still a lizard" Yes, and evolution doesn't suggest they would drastically turn into something else. New species only, and I repeat "ONLY" add new classifications, they never stop belonging to older classifications that came before them. Humans for example. We're still hominin, we're still hominids, we're still primates, we're still mammals, we're still animalia. We're only a new classification added to those groups, but we still belong to those groups. Vertebrates arose in the seas, before there were any land dwelling creatures. Guess what, we're still vertebrates. We never stopped belonging to those groups either. Morphological differences doesn't make you a different species. There are bird species, that the male and female of that species looks very different. They could be classified as two different species, if we looked at morphological differences. And lets not forget about all the different dog breeds. All of them are the same species, but look very different. We classify something as a different species, if (1) they can not breed, or (2) they can breed, but there young can't breed at all. For example, Horses and donkeys are two different species, they can breed together, and produce a mule. But that mule can't breed with another mule and produce offspring of their own, that mule can't even reproduce with a horse, or donkey. Being that a horse and donkey can produce offspring, means they are very closely related. But to distantly related to produce viable young. A species is something that can produce viable young. They can have offspring, that can have offspring, so on, and so forth. One of the key factors of evolution, is reproducing offspring within a gene pool. How a new species might come about from a parent species. The key is separating the gene pool into separate groups, no longer reproducing with one another, and thus no longer influencing each other. So, let's say a species gets separated by a mountain, or river, or lake, or they just go into two different directions. east and west. We now have two different groups of the same species. These two groups have separated gene pools now as well. There's no gene flow between the two groups, because they are no longer breeding with each other, because there is a mountain, river, lake, or distances between them. They are separated gene pools. These two groups are reproducing with other members of their same group, but no longer reproducing with the other group. Every Time a new member is born into that group, small genetic change is happening. And these changes happen every generation. Giving enough generations, there will be a build up of new genetic information. Each group is producing young, that is also producing new genetic information, that is different in each group. After many generations of reproducing young, and new genetic information, the two groups genetically will no longer be able to breed, or have viable offspring. The two groups can be officially considered two different species. And from there on, they can only diverge from each other. Because neither gene pool can no longer influence the other. This is called speciation, and it has been observed in laboratory settings, and in the wild. This is what they call macro-evolution, change that happens at, or above the level of species. These two groups, are different species. But they can still look very much alike. Evolution works, by passing down genetic information every generation. If you are unable to live long enough, or unable to reproduce, your genetics gets weeded out. Evolution is a slow process, small genetic changes every generation. So we'll never observe the entire process in one human generation. But we however can see bits and pieces of that process through evidence. And there is plenty of it. I can suggest a book for you to read, that goes over all the evidence. Its called (Why evolution is true, by Jerry A. Coyne). And its a good place to start, if you are truly wanting to know the answers to your questions.
Electric Skeptic
+George Bond Where did the whale come from? It took me literally seconds to google: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
Hide replies
The Faceless Stranger
I own an invisible, ethereal elephant. Can you please prove that it does not exist?
View all 35 replies
Elite_Mythical
Hello I'm a Christian✝
cool dude who has lotsa frens
+The Faceless Stranger No, friend. The honour is mine.
Hide replies
Dieg00lestat
k, prove to me that unicorns dont exist.
View all 15 replies
HappyHippieGaymer
Jarrod no it wasnt. the unicorn is based on an anciant practice of moving the horn buds of young goats in order to fuse them together in the center of the head. This was to make it so the Buck could defend the herd from preditors without the need for a shepherd to watch them all the time. It used the goats natural defences and changed it from ramming power to stabbing power. Thats why you see anciant tapestry showing unicorns as short with goat like beards and cloven hoofs. The side affect would be an enlarged frontal lobe, making that goat insainly intelligent, even for a goat which are smart to begin with. the practice was replicated in the 70s (i think). They are NOT talking about rhinos. That asside the bible is still shit.
Jarrod
To be completely fair to the bible... A unicorn in those days was a Rhinoceros. Specifically, the indian Rhino: Rhinoceros unicornis. A unicorn referred to a single horned animal, not necessarily a single horned horse. In that context, it's probably the only thing true about the bible, was that the unicorns it referred to: did in fact, exist. Now if only they referred to a god that existed...
Hide replies
Chris Humphreys
1) Looking through the comments posted in response to this video, it sure doesn't look to me like the response from the atheist community has been silence which right off the bat refutes your main point that they have no response to "The 1 Question All Atheists Fear". 2) "I came on the one question that all atheists fear and no atheist can answer by accident because one day I was so flustered I said OK, show me the evidence you have to prove that god does not exist. And I got an answer like this <silence> it was a blank stare. Uh, they don't have evidence that god doesn't exist. None. They never have. And the very thing they accuse Christians of having which is blind faith turns out is exactly what atheists have. They have no evidence to support their position. They have no evidence to support that god doesn't exist, So they live with a blind faith that god doesn't exist. I mean I thought that was interesting, and a little bit poetic." The person making a claim is the person that must demonstrate that their claim is true. Most atheists do not claim that a god does not exist rather their position is that you have not demonstrated your claim that your god exists. The fact that you do not seem to understand this, or to be able to distinguish between the two is probably why on some occasions you've apparently received silence. The people you were talking to were most likely dumbfounded that you would give such an inane answer. It would be akin to someone saying "sure you can claim it was my parents now, but you can't prove to me that the tooth fairy didn't come into my room and leave money under my pillow for my teeth". Furthermore literally millions of children throughout history have experienced the tooth fairy. Books have been written about the subject of tooth fairies... See where I'm going with this? The rest of your so called evidence is of the exact same veracity. That is why it is so easily dismissed. Just because a book claims 500 people witnessed something does not mean that 500 people actually witnessed anything. Now if you had letters from the 500 people addressed to various family members that might better demonstrate that something happened, but it still would not demonstrate what happened. 3) "25,000 pieces of parchments and documents that are original and show that the text has never been altered" Your claims here are dead wrong on the face of it. Those parchments are copies, not autographs (the originals), they do not agree with one another, and numerous alterations and outright forgeries are well documented. Read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Erhmann as a good introduction to the subject of textual criticism.
View all 9 replies
KuiProductions
I don't necessarily fear anything. So eXCUSE YOu 
Jebus
+kosimiki Its times like this I fear for our species.
Hide replies
Blake Payne
"that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
THE UNETHICAL ETHICIST
You cannot prove a negative. That's why we cannot prove that God is a complete myth. We can however show that's lots of other stuff in the bible is extremely improbabilistic. However the burden of proof is on the believer, not the unbeliever. 
View all 21 replies
Der deutsche Adler
+chrismay1a No problem. Looks like I said something other people can use.
chrismay1a
+Der deutsche Adler so well put i just stole it from you, hope you dont mind im talking about "I make the claim there is a invisible pink unicorn in my room. If you dont believe it you will go to hell. Please proof me wrong! You dont understand logic. It is impossible to proof that something dont exist. It is only possible to proof that something exist"
Hide replies
Hooptie Hamburger
It is impossible for something to be infinitely powerful and totally good and also allow suffering to exist. The concept contradicts itself. There is your proof.
View all 13 replies
Hooptie Hamburger
+lProN00bl I agree with that. If it turns out that God is real and he is good for the most part, I'm joining him.
lProN00bl
+HooptieHamburger  Well it's obvious the guy in the video is an idiot regardless. Just sayin, if there were a god-like being who'd get me into a heaven or sorts for all eternity, I'm there. I'd be totally okay if they weren't always so potent.
Hide replies
Will Thornton
Can you prove that unicorns do not exist?
David Borisyuk
unicorns might exists, its just a myth
Luis Gabriel Negron
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...