Non-believer here. I was indoctrinated into Methodist Christianity from childhood, and became a skeptic as an adult. I've heard it said that the difference between a cult and a religion is about a hundred years. I absolutely get that religious believers get a sense of life structure, or purpose, or warm fuzzies from feeling they are in a community which is on the right path. I was there - at least as much as I could be. But, the whole thing fell apart when I finally admitted to myself that MY religion was just a different man-made product than the Jew's religion, or the Muslim's religion, the Mormon's religion, or any of the thousands of different religions currently being practiced in this world. If you really let yourself think about it with an open mind, you will likely come to admit that you are basing your belief, and your rejection of, say, Islam, in the same way the average Muslim bases his/her belief and rejects Christianity. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it's because you've been indoctrinated by your family, community, and society into an unquestioning faith in a certain book. The Emperor isn't wearing beautiful clothes which we can't see. We can see perfectly well, and he's naked.
2:16 _"So, you're rejecting the fact that my God exists, based on, like you said, there being no evidence."_ Not necessarily. It could be that there is evidence which positively contradicts *specific claims* made in your Scriptures about your God.
For instance, Christians that claim the Bible has no contradictions. I see contradictions, therefore I believe they're wrong. Now, Christians who don't hold that view, I can't use that line of reasoning.
Before reading the rest of this comment, I have not watched the original video this was on if it peaks my interest or additional clarification is needed I will. 0:00 No problems with the first statement. 1:00 While it may not make someone wrong, it does not make them right either. 1:45 Yes evidence in a sense can be anything, including falsifiable information. But let's break down each of what you listed. The Moral Argument: You didn't mention which specific one, so I will have to make an assumption (and please correct me if am strawmanning this) that you are saying all morals come from a divine being. This doesn't hold any water. If a god created good and evil, there would be no gray areas. Our current morals would still be the same as when they were "created." Even the Christian's God morals are not consistent through their holy book. An example being the entirety of the book of Job. Fine-Tuning: Again, I do not wish to strawman. The argument I am assuming here is that, the world is too "perfect" to not have been created. The easiest to understand argument to counter this one is the puddle theory. Let's assume you find a puddle on the ground. would it make more sense that the water was there first shaped as it is and the hole in the ground formed to the shape of the water, or would it make more sense a hole was formed and the water came after and formed into the shape of the hole? Teleological (I actually had to look this one up never heard of this term before): There are two definitions that pop up on google so I will just use both. PHILOSOPHY relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise. This one doesn't quite fit for a religious argument, and seems more for something along the lines of humans inventing a wheelchair to help those with mobility difficulties. With this example: a human needed to fix a problem and invented a solution giving a purpose to the wheelchair. Instead of the wheelchair just existing because humans may have mobility difficulties. THEOLOGY relating to the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world. This one is extremely vague in its definition. Looking up what "the doctrine of design and purpose" is though pointed me towards that a god must exist because it seems to be designed. Again, just point back to what I said about fine-tuning. 2:05 I actually am disagreeing with the comment here. He is describing agnosticism, not atheism. Not all atheists believe there is a posibility there is a god. For a breakdown for those who don't know the difference: agnosticism is the lack of knowledge for, gnosticism is knowledge for, atheism is a lack of a belief in god(s), theism is the belief of a god(s). You can be a agnostic theist, meaning you think there is a god(s) but don't know for sure. and you can be a agnostic atheist, meaning you don't believe there is a god, but you don't have proof for it either. 2:18 Yikes, just because you say something is a "fact" does not make it true. Also, while he may have some wrongly worded arguments in his comment, it is not up to him to prove that your god doesnt exist. The preponderance of evidence is on the positive claim. In this case, you are claiming that a god exists (positive claim), you would have to provide the evidence that the specific god you are talking about exists with evidence. He is making a claim that your god does not exist (negative claim). He does not have to disprove the existence of your god, because he has no evidence to dismiss. In easier terms, if I make the claim that there is an invisible pink elephant that is only observable in any way through me, I can not tell you to disprove me, it would be on me to prove it exists. 2:50 That is 100% correct. That is because atheism is not a religion, but rather the lack of a religion. The ONLY commonality that ALL atheists hold, is the lack of belief in a god(s). Which is why it is so hard for many to argue against atheists. 3:20 This is not about is being an easier way to go. Pushing any religion directly violates my rights (in the United States) of the first ammendment. While you may not singularly pushing your beliefs onto others, Christianity in the United States is heavily stepping over the lines of acceptable behavior in forcing Christianity into legislation. The same way people react when hearing about the Taliban in Afghanistan is quite literally what is happening in the United States except with Christian beliefs instead of Islamic beliefs. Closing statements: While you have some okay arguments, a lot of the video is riddled with logical fallicies or ommitted information. As for the production quality, it actually is much better than I was expecting seeing the view count and subscriber count. Good luck on your journey, but to help understand the disconnect between yourself and another it is better to steelman an argument than to strawman.
The reason why people mention other gods, typically, is to point out the precarious and arbitrary nature of holding a specific region or God. Doesn't really apply to theism generally.
1. Everyone's an Atheist, false... Polytheist, believes in many gods, monotheist believes in one god, atheist believes in no gods. 2. As an atheist I get this too but I remind myself, while I wish I had an answer for every "gotcha" that a rampant theist offers me, while my spectrum of knowledge is broad, I cannot know everything, that would make me omnipotent and it honestly feels like that's what theists who argue expect from us. 3 and 4. The thing about evidence is whether its objective or not, any atheist worth his/her salt is most likely an adherent to the scientific principle wherein the evidence must be testable, repeatable and provide consistent results. Our argument is that biblical evidence doesn't hold water in that light. Its fine if you believe that for yourself but the education system must be built on objective facts and that's where I clash on the subject. In the US especially, religion has made significant efforts to push objective, scientific learning out the door. 5. Definition of an atheist, pure and simple, its a lack of belief in any god or gods, anything beyond that is self assigned importance. By raw definition, an agnostic is the in between, neither a theist nor an atheist, neither believing nor disbelieving in a god or gods. 6. I'm a fan of the "think what we think" kinda path and Ill argue day and night to that end. Its absolutely OK to believe and share your worldview, but its not ok to make laws or discriminate based on those views.
To add to #5, I've always heard agnostic is a way to specify the type of atheist/theist. Agnostic means without knowledge and gnostic means with knowledge. In the case of atheism, if someone says, "I'm not convinced that any gods exist" they're not claiming to know that no gods exists, so they'd be an agnostic atheist. If someone said, "I know that no gods exist" they'd be a gnostic atheist. It gets weird with theism, but if a theist said, "I am not convinced that any gods exist" they'd be an agnostic theist (which is nonsensical to me, but that's how it would shake out). If a theist said, "I know that at least one god exists" they're a gnostic theist.
@@Blyron1 i think agnostic theist makes sense. it's actually the preferred position according to the bible. you shouldn't seek evidence, do not test your god, you should just accept, on faith, that god exists. if you knew he existed, you wouldn't have faith anymore, because faith requires an absence of knowledge to exist. it is the hope for things promised, the assurance of things not seen. it literally is believing (theist) without knowing for certain (agnostic)
@@sebcw1204 "I am not convinced that any gods exist" is a different statement than "I don't know that any gods exist" Knowledge (knowing) is a justified true belief. One can hold countless beliefs that do not fall into the category of knowledge. That being said, I think I did misrepresent the definition with my prior example. Here's my correction: An agnostic atheist would say, "I don't believe any gods exist and I don't know if any gods exist." Gnostic atheist: "I don't believe any gods exist and I know that no gods exist." Agnostic theist: "I believe god exists and I don't know if any gods exist." Gnostic theist: "I believe at least one god exists and I know that at least one god exists."
*Point 3 and 4.* If you only allow for repeatable experiements then you are incapable of doing history. The Bible is a historical document. I agree with you that the biblical evidence doesn't hold water in an empirical evidence light, but I wouldn't expect it to as this would be called a category error. When it comes to the Christianity/Atheism debate then physics is pretty irrelevant. Most arguments are based on history and philosophy. When we ask about things like the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life and miracle claims then empirical evidence would come into play. But if you exclude all non-natural explanations from the get-go in those specific circumstances, then you would basically be begging the question.
As an atheist, I understand the frustration at antagonism but I think a lot of that is reactionary on our part in response to theist antagonism. You seem calm and sincere in your measured approach but for some atheists we have been browbeaten so often that our kneejerk reaction is to treat theists the same in the same way that theists are taught to view atheists as deluded, willful sinners. A large part of your point seemed to be semantic in nature but to lay it all out: Atheists do not believe there is any viable evidence that a god exists. I am personally fine with people sharing their faith but that needs to stop during working hours in a public office. Each theist has their own personal interpretation of their chosen religion and it makes no sense that any of those perspectives be a focal point of legislation.
I like it when they bring religion up at work, that's when I start asking them questions. If they're going to bring it up, seems like it's fair game for criticism.
@@BlasterMaster80 And there shouldn’t be such a negative stigma around that conversation as long as people don’t get emotional. I do my best to pose just enough questions to make them wonder about the foundations of their beliefs.
@@ElationInStellation Exactly, as long as you can keep it civil and the other person is ok with it, I see nothing wrong with some polite Socratic banter. I can't tell you how many jaws I've seen drop from simply mentioning I'm an atheist, when Christians proselytize at work. They're like, "but, you're so nice." Always, like a deer in headlights, they can't imagine an atheist being a kind friendly person. It's unfortunate that they've been conditioned to think that way about atheist. I do enjoy popping that bubble though.
I understand Christians think they're doing a good thing by "sharing" their beliefs. However what they're actually doing is advertising. If you're watching a program, or walking onto a used car lot, you expect to hear a few sales pitches.... But you shouldn't have to endure that crap in casual conversation. It's a huge insult and is the main reason why theists are not respectable.... Not to mention the immorality of what they're selling.
I've heard plenty of Atheist doing critical comments about Christianity out of nowere. They are doing it just as much, but you don't notice it because you agree with their opinion.
@@benrex7775 Out of nowhere?... I doubt that... Atheism isn't selling anything. Most of us avoid the topic as much as possible either because of fear of social persecution, or because of the massive energy drain that it takes.
@@BloatedOtis It has been out of nowhere. Usually when they assume no Christian is present or when they are in a position of power like a teacher and where they don't care if a student may disagree. But perhaps my social environment is different as I life in Switzerland.
@@BloatedOtis I'm a student so I just rent an appartment. I can't really say. For one because I didn't have to look into it. But also because I don't have a comparison. American salaries and expenses vary a lot and in some places both of them are higher while in other places both of them are lower. Based on myths and reinterpretations from what I've heard, Switzerland is not doing that great in that aspect, but America is doing considerably worse. But those are so generalized statements which are based on heresay that I wouldn't trust my statement. --- By the way if you feel triggered by Christianity then you would feel horrified by one advertisement company in Switzerland. They buy poster advertising space and put bible verses there. And they do it for 35 years now. Also our churches often have bells that ring. We have two Christian political parties that are participating in politics, but they are not that vocal in evangelizing. Also we do have Christians in various places. Some of them try to evangelize. But based on what I've heard, if you ignore a few "public inconveniences" and if you got the right environment it is quite easy to completely be unaware of Christians. school, media and politics is pretty secular. If you are triggered by the mere (vocal) presence of stuff like this then Switzerland may not be the right place for you. Our culture is built on having multiple views and then coming together and finding a compromise that everybody can live with. And once we found the compromise we accept the result even if we don't agree with it. For us freedom of opinion is a lived out value. So if you want to live in a purely secular state then in some ways, Switzerland may be better than America, but it is not an utopia. So I recommend other European countries for a more secular culture. But as every European country has a Christian history you won't be able to fully escape it. So you may be better off in that aspect if you go to China or Japan. Over there they also have some religious background, but it is stuff like buddism. And based on what I've heard, some Atheists define religion in a way that Buddism is not part of it.
Out of love for you guys as atheists, a lot of us just want to share more realistic and well-reasoned perspectives that are evidence based and testable. I know a lot of you don't want to hear these scientific proofs and arguments, because life feels more meaningful and safe to you when you believe that there is more awaiting you after death, but you're also doing yourselves a great disservice with the time you have available to you right now. Your "cumulative case" for god is just the decades of brainwashing you've been subjected to, condensed into a few talking points you can use to defend yourself from cognitive dissonance. I know its hard to change your entire worldview, especially as adults, but its never too late to wake up and create a fulfilling life worth living for yourselves. Wishing you all the best. Peace and love.
To clarify, because I think what you said is correct about my wording, its not that there is no evidence put forward for specific gods claims, it is that the evidence that is put forward is unconvincing. As you say, we differ on whether that evidence is acceptable. You believe it is, I do not. For instance, you mentioned the teleological argument. I like this one because to me, its a great case of goal post moving. Christian scripture and history both say that humanity came about via the account of genesis, i.e. God created man and women in the garden of Eden. This is clearly and obviously entirely counter to the facts we have about human evolution from biology and history. Most christians now reject the Adam and Eve story as a myth. I don't know your position or claim to so I won't put words in your mouth. But the teleological argument, the argument from design IS compatible with Adam and Eve, but is incompatible with science and history if humans were created as they are and not evolved. While historically, the Adam and Eve story was believed by most christians for most of the history of Christianity, the theory of evolution provides a much more powerful explanation of how humanity came to be, albeit, without an explanation (yet) for the very earliest life forms. When evolution pretty much debunked the genesis story, the teleological argument remains using much vaguer terms. It concludes that there is a designer and that that designer must be more complex than us, the argument doesn't support a god over advanced aliens of course and is carefully neutral on any details that could be checked against scientific evidence like 1) when this happened, 2) how this happened, 3) who the creator was. Its actually a WORSE explanation than the Adam and eve story because that is at least testable and falsifiable. The teleological argument is neither and is hence, a bad argument. I also said YOUR god, which needs clarification, by YOUR, I meant "All claims for specific gods", not just the Christian god you follow. I think you understood what I meant as you didn't mention it, but I thought it worth clarifying.
If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith! You also wouldn't need to keep shoring up your unfounded beliefs by going through rituals at church whey week being harangued by preachers and mixing with other believers to reinforce those beliefs.
Hey, atheist here. I'd just like to reference the example you gave with the camera. There surely is some weird unfalsifiable claim you don't believe, right? Imagine your friend called and told you they're actually Morpheus and you're in the Matrix. You say that's baloney, and they say "well can you prove this isn't the Matrix?". What do you tell them? Do you hold an actual positive belief you're not in the Matrix, or do you just reject the idea as silly until given some evidence?
That "no evidence" reply was not very good. Long disproven logical arguments aren't evidence. They're arguments. And when we say "no evidence" we mean no empirical evidence, not no "cumulative evidence." Something doesn't become evidence just because it's paired with several other things that also aren't evidence. Weak evidence is always weak evidence. At best, seemingly unrelated facts can constitute evidence when put together in an argument or paper, but that's not what "cumulative evidence" is.
Hindu here! I would like to offer a small correction if I may; Technically, we are also monotheists as the multiple gods are avatars of a root god (This depends on the tradition on whom that founding god would be, some say it's Shiva or Vishnu.). I don't speak for all bhaktis of Sanatana Dharma of course, as some might be more polytheist in nature and some are atheist while also being Hindu. Thank you for the video and I hope you continue creating, your video quality is so good and I can tell you're passionate! Jai Shree Ram, blessings to you❤🙏
@@anastasiagault5229 i think there is a recent (ill informed) trend of claiming the country influences the religion of a person. i think it is more accurate to say family. i would suggest that family has the most impact on religion, not country. in fact, an antagonistic country can further solidify faith. i also think there is a (much MORE ill informed) trend of assuming american means christian. i had not known that hindu gods were avatars of a root god. that makes it interestingly similar to the trinity doctrine. the more interesting idea to me is that you can be hindu and atheist. is that like the difference between an ethnic jew and a practicing jew?
@@anastasiagault5229If born in America you're more likely than not to be a Christian. The fact that you and I aren't Christians, doesn't disprove the probability 😁
It's a classic technique to use a poorly understood or articulated counter-argument to try to strengthen or legitimise your own. Watching this video and reading some the comments below it appears there is as much confusion about what it means to be an Atheist as there is about what it means to be a Christian or a person of any other faith. Most of this confusion seems to arise from people not understanding what it means to BELIEVE something vs to KNOW something. 1. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god (they do not KNOW) 2. People of faith BELIEVE there is a god (they do not KNOW) This makes EVERYONE technical Agnostics. The difference is what we choose to believe. 500 years ago everyone believed the sun orbited the earth. The "EVIDENCE" was overwhelming because every sunrise and sunset could be predicted perfectly. It didn't make it true. Our beliefs are shaped by the time and place into which we are born. BELIEFS are personal and owned by the individual/group, KNOWLEDGE is shared by everyone and can't be claimed without definitive proof. Personally I BELIEVE there is no god, just as I believe there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden and there is no analogous Bertrand Russell teapot orbiting Venus. But I can't KNOW any of this for certain and surely the burden of proof for knowing of their existence falls to those making the claim and not simply evidenced by the fact they cannot be disproved.
Re "1. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god (they do not KNOW)" No, I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that's essentially incorrect. The channel creators make this exact same false claim in the video source before this. They claim that "atheism used to mean you believe there is no god," but that's just not accurate. You claim atheists believe there is no god, and that is not necessarily accurate either. You have every right to speak for yourself and say "this is what I mean when I say 'atheist'" and then have it mean such in your own statements, but even a cursory search of atheist communities or comment sections where atheists come into contact with theists would demonstrate that your definition is a minority position. Atheism, from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), is defined most often in current usage as "The lack of belief in the existence of any deities." In modern context, atheism can represent several different viewpoints, but is most commonly conceived of as a rejection of belief in gods. A person can be both atheist and religious, provided that they believe in a religion that does not have any deities, such as some forms of Buddhism. The word "atheism" is not a proper noun, so there is no need to capitalize it except in grammatically appropriate circumstances, such as the beginning of a sentence. Theism is a belief in at least one god. Thus, religions such as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism are all considered theistic. Any person who believes in one or more gods is a theist. Any person who is not a theist is an atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It has no dogma, no credo, no congregation, no holy leaders, no sacred texts. It's just not believing gods are real. You also bring up agnostics, which also does not need to be capitalized. The term agnosticism comes from Greek: a (without) + gnosis (knowledge). An agnostic is someone who claims they don't know ("weak agnosticism") or it is not possible to know ("strong agnosticism") for certain whether or not gods exist. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. "Agnosticism" is not some third position which is neither "atheism" nor "theism". They are different answers to different questions, in this case "Do you believe that any gods exist?" and "Do you believe it is _possible_ to know whether any gods exist?". Anyone who does not hold a belief in one or more gods is an atheist. Someone who holds an active belief in the nonexistence of particular gods is specifically known as a "strong" or "explicit" atheist, as opposed to "weak" or "implicit" atheists who make no claims either way. On the other hand, the vast majority of atheists are at least technically agnostic, even if they are willing to treat fairy tales about Zeus or Allah with the same contempt that they treat tales about unicorns and leprechauns. Describing yourself as "Just an agnostic", or stating "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" makes about as much sense as saying "I'm not Swedish, I'm female." Again, I'm not telling you that you can't use a word in a particular way, especially if you're doing the work of defining how you're meaning/using it. What I'm trying to say is that the above outlining of terms is what the majority of atheists and agnostics mean when they use the terms, and if you choose to use them differently, you're just making communication about these issues more difficult or complex.
Rather than trying to intellectually explain why you believe in Christ, why not just try to be a witness for him? Because, I’m sorry, but one of the most power pieces of evidence against the power of Christ is seeing just how awful his followers are. You can’t say you’ve been transformed by the Holy Spirit into a new creature if you’re just like everyone else we see around us.
Pretty good responses. I don't have any major issues with any of them. I do want to discuss the "sufficient evidence" portion, but any quibbles I have with what you say here are minor at best. It is true that what comprises "sufficient" evidence for a claim is a normative question. It's really what "should" comprise sufficient evidence for a claim, and that's squishy and entirely subjective. Now we go about our everyday lives with subjective standards, such as a given P value in hypothesis testing or what comprises a "tolerable" debt-to-GDP ratio. So it being subjective makes it neither worthless nor unusual. But it does allow you and them to have different standards of evidence without a clear arbiter of who is "correct." However, there are claims that are clearly false, even if the underlying god concept indeed were true. The first thing to watch out for is any "must" or "necessarily" claims: a single, trivial counterexample is enough to defeat such a claim. Another thing to watch out for, especially in your cumulative case scenario, are "this increases the probability" claims; those can be objectively false. These come in a few forms, but a common one is someone asserting A->B, and B is true. In this case the claimant smart enough not to affirm the consequent, and doesn't claim that A is therefore *necessarily* true, but does claim that this _increases the probability_ that A is true. But it's easy to construct cases where this in no way increases the probability of A: B might necessarily be true, or A might necessarily be false. A->B will be trivially true in those cases, but neither increases the probability of A at all. In other words, you can think you have a normative and subjective conclusion, but it contains demonstrably false or unsupported alethic statements, and can be shown to be invalid. (This does not imply your conclusion, specifically "god exists," is untrue; it simply demonstrates it not to be something you can derive from your premises.) These conversations can get incredibly pedantic, and while an atheist who claims to not have "sufficient" evidence might mean precisely that and is making a normative claim about what "should" convince them or you, it could also just be an inelegant way of stating (correctly or not) that your arguments are invalid because the conclusions do not derive from the premises.
I think there is much debate in epistemology and philosophy of science over what qualifies as sufficient evidence. If theists could meet any single one of these standards, it would be a different story, but they mostly can't. That's why theologians invented "reformed epistemology."
Not only is the bible inconsistent and contradicts itself, there hasn’t been a demonstration of anything within scripture since its inception. Exactly what I would expect from a man made system of superstition and authority.
So, the very first reaction, to the @misanthropos6211 comment (0:02) has some problems. First, the commenter makes some word choices I'm going to say are ambiguous. It's not correct to say "everyone is an atheist" without adding "about most gods." Unfortunately, you compound the mistake here by reading more into the comment than is actually there. You say " in order to be a theist you don't have to accept or approve every _potential_ God, ..." -- true, but that isn't what the commenter said -- "...you just have to have belief in God, or believe in _a_ God... ...and so to say that I'm an atheist just because I don't accept every single god doesn't actually hold up logically." No, logically it wouldn't, if that was what the comment said. But you're utterly mischaracterizing the real point that misanthopos was, I believe, attempting to make. They didn't say you had to accept _every single_ god or you're an atheist -- you just don't believe in any god, among the thousands, except your own (hence the part with all the numbers). So it's being pointed out that you're an atheist _about_ all other gods but one. This is in no way saying you have to believe in all or nothing -- this is such a preposterous idea that I wouldn't insult your intelligence by saying that you actually thot this was the commenter's intended message.
the idea behind the first point is that we are all born atheist and require teaching in order to come to a religion. if a baby born to hindu parents becomes orphaned and adopted by christian parents, that child will most likely grow up christian. religion is pure nurture. moral argument fails because we can see how morals evolve and supply a species with a survival advantage over species that regularly engage in killing their own kind. it does not have a supernatural origin. fine tuning fails because we have nothing to compare our universe to. we have no way of knowing if the constants can even be different. and we do know that the constants can be changed a buit and still get stellar formation and planetary formation. fine tuning argument is the puddle remarking that the shape of it's hole fits perfectly. the reason to reject the christian god is that the bible makes positive assertions as to it's features. all powerful and all loving. so to test that assertion, we ask questions. and we find that the christian god does not meet the criteria of all powerful and all loving. so perhaps there IS a god, but it is not described in any work of mankind thus far. no evidence means no evidence. we don't need evidence for absence of evidence, what? i listened to this several times and i can't for the life of me understand what you might be trying to say here. perhaps you could clarify? ok, definition time. atheist is the opposite of a theist. a theist is a person who believes in a god or gods. so the opposite is a person who DOESN'T believe in a god or gods. it's not a positive assertion, it is the lack of belief gnostic is to know. agnostic is the opposite, not knowing. so most atheists are agnostic atheists, they just lack the belief. gnostic atheists are the ones who make the positive assertion that there are no gods. i personally think it's arrogant to say that. humanity will have to go much further in our understanding of the universe before we can say anything like that with any degree of certainty. that's why there are plenty of theist scientists. "don't push your belief" is kind of a toxic thing to say. the whole point of social interaction is to share beliefs, especially with videos like this. it's no mystery what it's going to be about, nobody's getting tricked into it, it's not autoplaying on our phones. that phrase is more appropriate when it comes to politics and laws. we shouldn't base laws and policies on theism, because not everybody has the same idea of what god is and what god wants, so basing laws on religious principles will by default violate the religious principles of other religions. you should understand that is where the antagonism usually comes from. it comes from this recent trend of religious organizations intruding DEEPLY into our personal lives.
It generally issnt an argument that because you believe in only 1 out of a billion gods thaat youre atheist to most of them, this saying should more be like a, this is how i also feel about christianity, how do you feel about islam? you dont believe it is the true god right? well, to me christianity doesnt feel any different, the way youre feeling about islam is how i am thinking about christianity. a way to put in perspective to show how i look at your faith. while i agree with the guy that there is no evidence for any god, i absolutely think there is evidence against a litteral biblical god. the god of teh bible doesnt adhere to what we find in nature and in history, also if we examine the god of the bible we can not even describe the character of god. it more looks like yahweh is the accumilation of ancient stories about how to explain the world. yahweh was the vulcano god of the mesopotanian pantheon. also in this time every group of people, had their own god they worshipped. yahweh was the god of the jewish people. and elohim, or el for short, was like father god of all the other gods in the region. slowly though time this polytheistic god turned into monotheism. which is 100% what we would expect if god was just as human concept it changes with the humans and their culture. but is totally the opposit of expectations compared to if there was a real unchanging god out there. this is in my mind the strongest proof that the god of the bible is just a human made god.
I don't really see how you gave christians the tools to defend themselves against atheists nor why defending themselves would be necessary. Most atheist-christian interactions are just like: C: So yeah God made us like that. A: I don't really believe in God. C: Oh, I didn't know that, anyways [subject change] Though i find many Christians will then continue with a "But why don't you/but it's so much better" and not the other way around. Nobodys attacking Christians. If you feel attacked you should discuss your feelings directly with the other person so they may explain or you might realize it's a misunderstanding. It's possible to have an open discussion with an atheist since most won't try to convonce you from joining (contrary to many christians). Though the fact that many christians try convincing atheists of their religion may have led to rather strong responses from *some* atheists, none of which were in the video. Also let's not forget who pursued whom for centuries? Witch hunts, etc? Those that wanted to exterminate christians in the very beginning weren't atheists either but convinced of their own Gods? Just sayin
Yes you're right it is all about belief. It has to be about belief because there's no proof. It's a belief system, there's been loads, your claims are no more credible than any of the others. .
0:24 TIME // Correction, Sir ! ''...you just have to have believe in a God, ...etc '' ? BIBLICAL JEWISH - CHRISTIANITY, WHICH is what I AM......ACTUALLY BELIEVES GOD ! THAT, IS ALOT MORE THAN MILLIONS, UPON MILLIONS......BELIEVING IN GOD. BELIEVE, WHAT HE STATES, WRITTEN DOWN BY OVER 40 FAITHFULL messengers.....SENT, OVER 1600 YEARS = OUR BIBLES. THE ORIGINAL ONE....NOT THAT catholic ONE, NOR ANY OTHER ! BELIEVE GOD - ALL OF IT ; GENESIS 1 : '' LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE '' / JOHN 1:1 '' IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD, HE WAS WITH GOD FROM THE BEGINNING '''.....etc. GOD, IS THE ' FAMILY NAME '.....OF WHICH, YOU AND I, IF CALLED OUT (ecclesia ) MAY/ CAN BE ONE, OF WHAT ?......'' many BRETHREN '' ! SONS, IN A SPIRIT GOD-FAMILY........///anyway...on with this video....
@@TheDragonageorigins This is not just an assumption, it is an observation of personal experience. Also, the original comment started with a huge assumption themselves, so calling out only me is hypocritical.
@@aLeft95The OP can also see my comment. TH-cam doesn't let you auto include other people, and it's a pain to type it out on phone. Message was for everyone.
I actually gave the dictionary definition of new atheist The only difference is that they see religious beliefs as irrational I'm just an ordinary house atheist and I don't like this new atheist attitude There is nothing irrational about believing in God But I would consider it irrational for anyone to think they know what God Is or what he thinks and wants Basically I believe if a God does exist then it would be impossible to know anything about him To believe everything in the Bible takes some serious suspension of disbelief You can't live in a whales stomach for 3 days You would die from suffocation then be dissolved by the stomach acid of course the standard response is " it was a miracle" and nothing is impossible for God Until you point out that God can't create a rock that is so heavy he can't lift it
@@krølle-1 Irrational is just not the correct term Because they can easily rationale by the perceived benefits Like there is a reason for everything, they will live after death and be with their loved ones Or if it was Sun worship, just the fact that today the Sun rose again and we get to live another day And let's face it humans are gullible and mostly pretty stupid Most religious people have been indoctrinated since birth If you have your family and friends and whole community that believe in a God and everything else they tell you appears to be true Which is the case for most religious people Then you can't call it irrational I guarantee that there are things you believe are true , but you are actually wrong Atheists are not any smarter than theists I've met atheists who believe in ridiculous stuff like tarot cards or horoscopes Humans are great at believing crap without any evidence at all It was only 200 years ago we stopped burning women for being witches So we can call that type of human behaviour delusional, but not irrational They always have a rationale The cows milk went bad and there is a spinster with many cats lives not far away , obviously she must be a witch Not irrational but delusional Anyway none of this matters since this is just a simulation (joke) 🤗
"There is nothing irrational about believing in God " It is entirely irrational to believe in a god. The same way it is irrational to believe in sock stealing pixies or space dogs burping up suns. It's 100% unfounded in reality and the only "evidence" they have for it is other people claiming it's true. Rationality comports with reality. Theism doesn't.
@@krølle-1this, i'd absolutely agree with religious beliefs being irrational. this is from a logical/empirical view, and it cannot be said otherwise. but I understand faith & culture isn't based in that. belief in a god is irrational, it's not any different to believing then that X god thinks this or wants that like the original commentator said.
1: i agree.....as an atheist myself, i cant stand the "everyone is an atheist" argument. im an atheist because i dont believe in the existence of ANY god; if you believe in just one god, you are a theist 2: yes, they are a theist just like you are a theist. you're contradicting your previous argument by saying that. they might not be part of a monotheistic religion like you, but as a theist, you are both the same......you believe in a god or gods. 3: to counter the evidence claim; to put it like matt dillahunty does...."there is no "good" evidence for the claim. now, to my own counter.......its a bullshit argument. there is all kinds of "evidence" for flat earth; that doesnt mean that the claim that the earth is flat is true.....in fact the lack of REAL, demonstrable evidence of the earth being flat is the nail in the coffin for that claim. similarly, the complete lack of REAL, demonstrable evidence for ANY god, let alone yours, is pretty much all the proof you need that said gods dont exist. now you could argue that a lack of evidence does not disprove a claim.......but that would be a completely dishonest argument........you cant prove a negative. it would be like me telling you that faeries exist, and then telling you to prove that they dont when you reject that claim. the burden of proof lays with the person making the claim, not on the one rejecting it. 4: yes, there are a lot of morons who want to put atheism in separate boxes. its not that complicated, so let me explain it. atheism is the negative answer to the question of "do you believe that a god, or gods exist"; the answer being no. now what all these idiots are arguing about is this.......theism and atheism is about belief. gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowledge. these two latter terms should only be used as an adjective, being a you literally cant ride the fence on the belief issue. you either believe, or you dont......there literally is no middle ground. as such, the proper term is agnostic atheist/theist, or....gnostic atheist/theist. for instance, while most of the time i will refer to myself as atheist, if the conversation warrants it, i will refer to myself as an agnostic atheist; this is because while i believe that no gods exist (atheism), i also have enough humility to understand that it is something that i cannot know as fact(agnostic). MOST atheists are agnostic, and for the ones that are gnostic, i would say that they are just as bad as theists who claim that they know for a fact that god exists. now, to wrap this up, you also have the stupidity of dividing the camps up into hard atheists vs soft atheists. all that means is that some atheists are more militant with their atheism than others. thats its. atheists who try and make this distinction are just weakening their arguments with it, since its a moot concept 5: and i think my way is the best way to live; i would bet that we both have similar wants for society at large, the difference between us is that i just want to make that shit happen through the will of the people and our respective governments. now, im talking about making society better by implementing universal healthcare, college, daycare; making sure that people make a wage they can actually live on.......etc; i am NOT talking about making society better in how we treat each other, as that will come naturally once you make everyone's actual lives better. i would imagine that you want the same kind of things.........but your way of doing is literally forcing a theocracy on our society. you want those things, but with the caveat that we all believe in the same things you do. well, i dont, and never will. im a 54 yr old man who has been an atheist since around the age of 12. so if you were to implement a theocracy (as the maga crowd is literally trying to do), where would that leave people like me? ill tell you.....we would either be hunted down and imprisoned or killed, or we would become second class citizens.....,much like arabs in israel are. (and as the arabs in gaza are being killed just for being members of the wrong religion/ethnicity)
The "everyone is an atheist" thing isn't an argument. It's just a mirror for religious people who nonchalantely reject all other religions while giving their own religion a free pass. It's a word play to show how hypocritical theists generally are. There is just as much evidence for judaism as there is for christianity or aztec folk religions: Namely none bar the fact that some people assert them as true.
@@1369StilesYeah, because it's a valid critique of religious people. I use it too, because it highlights their selection bias. They are perfectly capable of criticizing other religions and using logic on them, but entirely unwilling to do the same with their religion. Which is why it is a valid critique in my book.
Non-believer here. I was indoctrinated into Methodist Christianity from childhood, and became a skeptic as an adult. I've heard it said that the difference between a cult and a religion is about a hundred years. I absolutely get that religious believers get a sense of life structure, or purpose, or warm fuzzies from feeling they are in a community which is on the right path. I was there - at least as much as I could be. But, the whole thing fell apart when I finally admitted to myself that MY religion was just a different man-made product than the Jew's religion, or the Muslim's religion, the Mormon's religion, or any of the thousands of different religions currently being practiced in this world. If you really let yourself think about it with an open mind, you will likely come to admit that you are basing your belief, and your rejection of, say, Islam, in the same way the average Muslim bases his/her belief and rejects Christianity. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it's because you've been indoctrinated by your family, community, and society into an unquestioning faith in a certain book. The Emperor isn't wearing beautiful clothes which we can't see. We can see perfectly well, and he's naked.
2:16 _"So, you're rejecting the fact that my God exists, based on, like you said, there being no evidence."_
Not necessarily. It could be that there is evidence which positively contradicts *specific claims* made in your Scriptures about your God.
For instance, Christians that claim the Bible has no contradictions. I see contradictions, therefore I believe they're wrong. Now, Christians who don't hold that view, I can't use that line of reasoning.
Before reading the rest of this comment, I have not watched the original video this was on if it peaks my interest or additional clarification is needed I will.
0:00 No problems with the first statement.
1:00 While it may not make someone wrong, it does not make them right either.
1:45 Yes evidence in a sense can be anything, including falsifiable information. But let's break down each of what you listed.
The Moral Argument: You didn't mention which specific one, so I will have to make an assumption (and please correct me if am strawmanning this) that you are saying all morals come from a divine being. This doesn't hold any water. If a god created good and evil, there would be no gray areas. Our current morals would still be the same as when they were "created." Even the Christian's God morals are not consistent through their holy book. An example being the entirety of the book of Job.
Fine-Tuning: Again, I do not wish to strawman. The argument I am assuming here is that, the world is too "perfect" to not have been created. The easiest to understand argument to counter this one is the puddle theory. Let's assume you find a puddle on the ground. would it make more sense that the water was there first shaped as it is and the hole in the ground formed to the shape of the water, or would it make more sense a hole was formed and the water came after and formed into the shape of the hole?
Teleological (I actually had to look this one up never heard of this term before):
There are two definitions that pop up on google so I will just use both.
PHILOSOPHY
relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
This one doesn't quite fit for a religious argument, and seems more for something along the lines of humans inventing a wheelchair to help those with mobility difficulties. With this example: a human needed to fix a problem and invented a solution giving a purpose to the wheelchair. Instead of the wheelchair just existing because humans may have mobility difficulties.
THEOLOGY
relating to the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
This one is extremely vague in its definition. Looking up what "the doctrine of design and purpose" is though pointed me towards that a god must exist because it seems to be designed. Again, just point back to what I said about fine-tuning.
2:05 I actually am disagreeing with the comment here. He is describing agnosticism, not atheism. Not all atheists believe there is a posibility there is a god. For a breakdown for those who don't know the difference: agnosticism is the lack of knowledge for, gnosticism is knowledge for, atheism is a lack of a belief in god(s), theism is the belief of a god(s). You can be a agnostic theist, meaning you think there is a god(s) but don't know for sure. and you can be a agnostic atheist, meaning you don't believe there is a god, but you don't have proof for it either.
2:18 Yikes, just because you say something is a "fact" does not make it true. Also, while he may have some wrongly worded arguments in his comment, it is not up to him to prove that your god doesnt exist. The preponderance of evidence is on the positive claim. In this case, you are claiming that a god exists (positive claim), you would have to provide the evidence that the specific god you are talking about exists with evidence. He is making a claim that your god does not exist (negative claim). He does not have to disprove the existence of your god, because he has no evidence to dismiss. In easier terms, if I make the claim that there is an invisible pink elephant that is only observable in any way through me, I can not tell you to disprove me, it would be on me to prove it exists.
2:50 That is 100% correct. That is because atheism is not a religion, but rather the lack of a religion. The ONLY commonality that ALL atheists hold, is the lack of belief in a god(s). Which is why it is so hard for many to argue against atheists.
3:20 This is not about is being an easier way to go. Pushing any religion directly violates my rights (in the United States) of the first ammendment. While you may not singularly pushing your beliefs onto others, Christianity in the United States is heavily stepping over the lines of acceptable behavior in forcing Christianity into legislation. The same way people react when hearing about the Taliban in Afghanistan is quite literally what is happening in the United States except with Christian beliefs instead of Islamic beliefs.
Closing statements: While you have some okay arguments, a lot of the video is riddled with logical fallicies or ommitted information. As for the production quality, it actually is much better than I was expecting seeing the view count and subscriber count. Good luck on your journey, but to help understand the disconnect between yourself and another it is better to steelman an argument than to strawman.
The reason why people mention other gods, typically, is to point out the precarious and arbitrary nature of holding a specific region or God. Doesn't really apply to theism generally.
1. Everyone's an Atheist, false... Polytheist, believes in many gods, monotheist believes in one god, atheist believes in no gods.
2. As an atheist I get this too but I remind myself, while I wish I had an answer for every "gotcha" that a rampant theist offers me, while my spectrum of knowledge is broad, I cannot know everything, that would make me omnipotent and it honestly feels like that's what theists who argue expect from us.
3 and 4. The thing about evidence is whether its objective or not, any atheist worth his/her salt is most likely an adherent to the scientific principle wherein the evidence must be testable, repeatable and provide consistent results. Our argument is that biblical evidence doesn't hold water in that light. Its fine if you believe that for yourself but the education system must be built on objective facts and that's where I clash on the subject. In the US especially, religion has made significant efforts to push objective, scientific learning out the door.
5. Definition of an atheist, pure and simple, its a lack of belief in any god or gods, anything beyond that is self assigned importance. By raw definition, an agnostic is the in between, neither a theist nor an atheist, neither believing nor disbelieving in a god or gods.
6. I'm a fan of the "think what we think" kinda path and Ill argue day and night to that end. Its absolutely OK to believe and share your worldview, but its not ok to make laws or discriminate based on those views.
To add to #5, I've always heard agnostic is a way to specify the type of atheist/theist.
Agnostic means without knowledge and gnostic means with knowledge. In the case of atheism, if someone says, "I'm not convinced that any gods exist" they're not claiming to know that no gods exists, so they'd be an agnostic atheist. If someone said, "I know that no gods exist" they'd be a gnostic atheist.
It gets weird with theism, but if a theist said, "I am not convinced that any gods exist" they'd be an agnostic theist (which is nonsensical to me, but that's how it would shake out). If a theist said, "I know that at least one god exists" they're a gnostic theist.
@@Blyron1 i think agnostic theist makes sense. it's actually the preferred position according to the bible. you shouldn't seek evidence, do not test your god, you should just accept, on faith, that god exists. if you knew he existed, you wouldn't have faith anymore, because faith requires an absence of knowledge to exist. it is the hope for things promised, the assurance of things not seen. it literally is believing (theist) without knowing for certain (agnostic)
@@sebcw1204 "I am not convinced that any gods exist" is a different statement than "I don't know that any gods exist"
Knowledge (knowing) is a justified true belief. One can hold countless beliefs that do not fall into the category of knowledge.
That being said, I think I did misrepresent the definition with my prior example. Here's my correction:
An agnostic atheist would say, "I don't believe any gods exist and I don't know if any gods exist."
Gnostic atheist: "I don't believe any gods exist and I know that no gods exist."
Agnostic theist: "I believe god exists and I don't know if any gods exist."
Gnostic theist: "I believe at least one god exists and I know that at least one god exists."
*Point 3 and 4.* If you only allow for repeatable experiements then you are incapable of doing history. The Bible is a historical document. I agree with you that the biblical evidence doesn't hold water in an empirical evidence light, but I wouldn't expect it to as this would be called a category error.
When it comes to the Christianity/Atheism debate then physics is pretty irrelevant. Most arguments are based on history and philosophy. When we ask about things like the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life and miracle claims then empirical evidence would come into play. But if you exclude all non-natural explanations from the get-go in those specific circumstances, then you would basically be begging the question.
The Romans called early christians Atheists, as they didn't believe in all the Roman gods.
As an atheist, I understand the frustration at antagonism but I think a lot of that is reactionary on our part in response to theist antagonism. You seem calm and sincere in your measured approach but for some atheists we have been browbeaten so often that our kneejerk reaction is to treat theists the same in the same way that theists are taught to view atheists as deluded, willful sinners. A large part of your point seemed to be semantic in nature but to lay it all out: Atheists do not believe there is any viable evidence that a god exists. I am personally fine with people sharing their faith but that needs to stop during working hours in a public office. Each theist has their own personal interpretation of their chosen religion and it makes no sense that any of those perspectives be a focal point of legislation.
well said. 👍
I like it when they bring religion up at work, that's when I start asking them questions. If they're going to bring it up, seems like it's fair game for criticism.
@@BlasterMaster80 And there shouldn’t be such a negative stigma around that conversation as long as people don’t get emotional. I do my best to pose just enough questions to make them wonder about the foundations of their beliefs.
@@ElationInStellation Exactly, as long as you can keep it civil and the other person is ok with it, I see nothing wrong with some polite Socratic banter. I can't tell you how many jaws I've seen drop from simply mentioning I'm an atheist, when Christians proselytize at work. They're like, "but, you're so nice." Always, like a deer in headlights, they can't imagine an atheist being a kind friendly person. It's unfortunate that they've been conditioned to think that way about atheist. I do enjoy popping that bubble though.
I understand Christians think they're doing a good thing by "sharing" their beliefs. However what they're actually doing is advertising. If you're watching a program, or walking onto a used car lot, you expect to hear a few sales pitches.... But you shouldn't have to endure that crap in casual conversation. It's a huge insult and is the main reason why theists are not respectable.... Not to mention the immorality of what they're selling.
I've heard plenty of Atheist doing critical comments about Christianity out of nowere. They are doing it just as much, but you don't notice it because you agree with their opinion.
@@benrex7775
Out of nowhere?... I doubt that... Atheism isn't selling anything. Most of us avoid the topic as much as possible either because of fear of social persecution, or because of the massive energy drain that it takes.
@@BloatedOtis It has been out of nowhere.
Usually when they assume no Christian is present or when they are in a position of power like a teacher and where they don't care if a student may disagree. But perhaps my social environment is different as I life in Switzerland.
@@benrex7775
That would explain it. I've never been there but it looks like a beautiful country.... What's the real estate market like over there?
@@BloatedOtis I'm a student so I just rent an appartment. I can't really say. For one because I didn't have to look into it. But also because I don't have a comparison. American salaries and expenses vary a lot and in some places both of them are higher while in other places both of them are lower.
Based on myths and reinterpretations from what I've heard, Switzerland is not doing that great in that aspect, but America is doing considerably worse. But those are so generalized statements which are based on heresay that I wouldn't trust my statement.
---
By the way if you feel triggered by Christianity then you would feel horrified by one advertisement company in Switzerland. They buy poster advertising space and put bible verses there. And they do it for 35 years now. Also our churches often have bells that ring.
We have two Christian political parties that are participating in politics, but they are not that vocal in evangelizing.
Also we do have Christians in various places. Some of them try to evangelize.
But based on what I've heard, if you ignore a few "public inconveniences" and if you got the right environment it is quite easy to completely be unaware of Christians. school, media and politics is pretty secular.
If you are triggered by the mere (vocal) presence of stuff like this then Switzerland may not be the right place for you. Our culture is built on having multiple views and then coming together and finding a compromise that everybody can live with. And once we found the compromise we accept the result even if we don't agree with it. For us freedom of opinion is a lived out value. So if you want to live in a purely secular state then in some ways, Switzerland may be better than America, but it is not an utopia. So I recommend other European countries for a more secular culture. But as every European country has a Christian history you won't be able to fully escape it. So you may be better off in that aspect if you go to China or Japan. Over there they also have some religious background, but it is stuff like buddism. And based on what I've heard, some Atheists define religion in a way that Buddism is not part of it.
Out of love for you guys as atheists, a lot of us just want to share more realistic and well-reasoned perspectives that are evidence based and testable. I know a lot of you don't want to hear these scientific proofs and arguments, because life feels more meaningful and safe to you when you believe that there is more awaiting you after death, but you're also doing yourselves a great disservice with the time you have available to you right now.
Your "cumulative case" for god is just the decades of brainwashing you've been subjected to, condensed into a few talking points you can use to defend yourself from cognitive dissonance. I know its hard to change your entire worldview, especially as adults, but its never too late to wake up and create a fulfilling life worth living for yourselves. Wishing you all the best. Peace and love.
not decades! century's. even millennia some places.
@@krølle-1 I'm referring to the individual brainwashing, not the group as a whole.
brainwashing! what on earth do you think bible study is
Cumulative case for god isn't a result of brain washing. This is just handwaving away the arguments at hand with no actual refute to them.
@@Easternromanfan It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
To clarify, because I think what you said is correct about my wording, its not that there is no evidence put forward for specific gods claims, it is that the evidence that is put forward is unconvincing. As you say, we differ on whether that evidence is acceptable. You believe it is, I do not.
For instance, you mentioned the teleological argument. I like this one because to me, its a great case of goal post moving. Christian scripture and history both say that humanity came about via the account of genesis, i.e. God created man and women in the garden of Eden. This is clearly and obviously entirely counter to the facts we have about human evolution from biology and history. Most christians now reject the Adam and Eve story as a myth. I don't know your position or claim to so I won't put words in your mouth. But the teleological argument, the argument from design IS compatible with Adam and Eve, but is incompatible with science and history if humans were created as they are and not evolved. While historically, the Adam and Eve story was believed by most christians for most of the history of Christianity, the theory of evolution provides a much more powerful explanation of how humanity came to be, albeit, without an explanation (yet) for the very earliest life forms. When evolution pretty much debunked the genesis story, the teleological argument remains using much vaguer terms. It concludes that there is a designer and that that designer must be more complex than us, the argument doesn't support a god over advanced aliens of course and is carefully neutral on any details that could be checked against scientific evidence like 1) when this happened, 2) how this happened, 3) who the creator was. Its actually a WORSE explanation than the Adam and eve story because that is at least testable and falsifiable. The teleological argument is neither and is hence, a bad argument.
I also said YOUR god, which needs clarification, by YOUR, I meant "All claims for specific gods", not just the Christian god you follow. I think you understood what I meant as you didn't mention it, but I thought it worth clarifying.
If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith! You also wouldn't need to keep shoring up your unfounded beliefs by going through rituals at church whey week being harangued by preachers and mixing with other believers to reinforce those beliefs.
Hey, atheist here. I'd just like to reference the example you gave with the camera. There surely is some weird unfalsifiable claim you don't believe, right? Imagine your friend called and told you they're actually Morpheus and you're in the Matrix. You say that's baloney, and they say "well can you prove this isn't the Matrix?". What do you tell them? Do you hold an actual positive belief you're not in the Matrix, or do you just reject the idea as silly until given some evidence?
That "no evidence" reply was not very good. Long disproven logical arguments aren't evidence. They're arguments. And when we say "no evidence" we mean no empirical evidence, not no "cumulative evidence." Something doesn't become evidence just because it's paired with several other things that also aren't evidence. Weak evidence is always weak evidence. At best, seemingly unrelated facts can constitute evidence when put together in an argument or paper, but that's not what "cumulative evidence" is.
Hindu here! I would like to offer a small correction if I may; Technically, we are also monotheists as the multiple gods are avatars of a root god (This depends on the tradition on whom that founding god would be, some say it's Shiva or Vishnu.). I don't speak for all bhaktis of Sanatana Dharma of course, as some might be more polytheist in nature and some are atheist while also being Hindu. Thank you for the video and I hope you continue creating, your video quality is so good and I can tell you're passionate! Jai Shree Ram, blessings to you❤🙏
Do you agree that if you'd been born into an American family in America, you'd most likely be a Christian and if born in Pakistan you'd be a Muslim?
@@jomc20 I was born in America (And thus, have an American family) and am not nor have I ever been Christian. So, no I do not agree.
@@anastasiagault5229 i think there is a recent (ill informed) trend of claiming the country influences the religion of a person. i think it is more accurate to say family. i would suggest that family has the most impact on religion, not country. in fact, an antagonistic country can further solidify faith.
i also think there is a (much MORE ill informed) trend of assuming american means christian.
i had not known that hindu gods were avatars of a root god. that makes it interestingly similar to the trinity doctrine. the more interesting idea to me is that you can be hindu and atheist. is that like the difference between an ethnic jew and a practicing jew?
@@anastasiagault5229If born in America you're more likely than not to be a Christian. The fact that you and I aren't Christians, doesn't disprove the probability 😁
@@jomc20 Do you agree that if you were born in a different country you would not be Atheist?
It's a classic technique to use a poorly understood or articulated counter-argument to try to strengthen or legitimise your own.
Watching this video and reading some the comments below it appears there is as much confusion about what it means to be an Atheist as there is about what it means to be a Christian or a person of any other faith. Most of this confusion seems to arise from people not understanding what it means to BELIEVE something vs to KNOW something.
1. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god (they do not KNOW)
2. People of faith BELIEVE there is a god (they do not KNOW)
This makes EVERYONE technical Agnostics. The difference is what we choose to believe.
500 years ago everyone believed the sun orbited the earth. The "EVIDENCE" was overwhelming because every sunrise and sunset could be predicted perfectly. It didn't make it true. Our beliefs are shaped by the time and place into which we are born. BELIEFS are personal and owned by the individual/group, KNOWLEDGE is shared by everyone and can't be claimed without definitive proof.
Personally I BELIEVE there is no god, just as I believe there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden and there is no analogous Bertrand Russell teapot orbiting Venus. But I can't KNOW any of this for certain and surely the burden of proof for knowing of their existence falls to those making the claim and not simply evidenced by the fact they cannot be disproved.
Re "1. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god (they do not KNOW)"
No, I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that's essentially incorrect. The channel creators make this exact same false claim in the video source before this. They claim that "atheism used to mean you believe there is no god," but that's just not accurate. You claim atheists believe there is no god, and that is not necessarily accurate either. You have every right to speak for yourself and say "this is what I mean when I say 'atheist'" and then have it mean such in your own statements, but even a cursory search of atheist communities or comment sections where atheists come into contact with theists would demonstrate that your definition is a minority position.
Atheism, from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), is defined most often in current usage as "The lack of belief in the existence of any deities." In modern context, atheism can represent several different viewpoints, but is most commonly conceived of as a rejection of belief in gods. A person can be both atheist and religious, provided that they believe in a religion that does not have any deities, such as some forms of Buddhism. The word "atheism" is not a proper noun, so there is no need to capitalize it except in grammatically appropriate circumstances, such as the beginning of a sentence.
Theism is a belief in at least one god. Thus, religions such as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism are all considered theistic. Any person who believes in one or more gods is a theist. Any person who is not a theist is an atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It has no dogma, no credo, no congregation, no holy leaders, no sacred texts. It's just not believing gods are real.
You also bring up agnostics, which also does not need to be capitalized. The term agnosticism comes from Greek: a (without) + gnosis (knowledge). An agnostic is someone who claims they don't know ("weak agnosticism") or it is not possible to know ("strong agnosticism") for certain whether or not gods exist.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. "Agnosticism" is not some third position which is neither "atheism" nor "theism". They are different answers to different questions, in this case "Do you believe that any gods exist?" and "Do you believe it is _possible_ to know whether any gods exist?".
Anyone who does not hold a belief in one or more gods is an atheist. Someone who holds an active belief in the nonexistence of particular gods is specifically known as a "strong" or "explicit" atheist, as opposed to "weak" or "implicit" atheists who make no claims either way.
On the other hand, the vast majority of atheists are at least technically agnostic, even if they are willing to treat fairy tales about Zeus or Allah with the same contempt that they treat tales about unicorns and leprechauns. Describing yourself as "Just an agnostic", or stating "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" makes about as much sense as saying "I'm not Swedish, I'm female."
Again, I'm not telling you that you can't use a word in a particular way, especially if you're doing the work of defining how you're meaning/using it. What I'm trying to say is that the above outlining of terms is what the majority of atheists and agnostics mean when they use the terms, and if you choose to use them differently, you're just making communication about these issues more difficult or complex.
I suggest you look up "Divine Council" many Xhristians believe in many Gods.
Rather than trying to intellectually explain why you believe in Christ, why not just try to be a witness for him? Because, I’m sorry, but one of the most power pieces of evidence against the power of Christ is seeing just how awful his followers are.
You can’t say you’ve been transformed by the Holy Spirit into a new creature if you’re just like everyone else we see around us.
Pretty good responses. I don't have any major issues with any of them. I do want to discuss the "sufficient evidence" portion, but any quibbles I have with what you say here are minor at best.
It is true that what comprises "sufficient" evidence for a claim is a normative question. It's really what "should" comprise sufficient evidence for a claim, and that's squishy and entirely subjective. Now we go about our everyday lives with subjective standards, such as a given P value in hypothesis testing or what comprises a "tolerable" debt-to-GDP ratio. So it being subjective makes it neither worthless nor unusual. But it does allow you and them to have different standards of evidence without a clear arbiter of who is "correct."
However, there are claims that are clearly false, even if the underlying god concept indeed were true. The first thing to watch out for is any "must" or "necessarily" claims: a single, trivial counterexample is enough to defeat such a claim. Another thing to watch out for, especially in your cumulative case scenario, are "this increases the probability" claims; those can be objectively false. These come in a few forms, but a common one is someone asserting A->B, and B is true. In this case the claimant smart enough not to affirm the consequent, and doesn't claim that A is therefore *necessarily* true, but does claim that this _increases the probability_ that A is true. But it's easy to construct cases where this in no way increases the probability of A: B might necessarily be true, or A might necessarily be false. A->B will be trivially true in those cases, but neither increases the probability of A at all.
In other words, you can think you have a normative and subjective conclusion, but it contains demonstrably false or unsupported alethic statements, and can be shown to be invalid. (This does not imply your conclusion, specifically "god exists," is untrue; it simply demonstrates it not to be something you can derive from your premises.) These conversations can get incredibly pedantic, and while an atheist who claims to not have "sufficient" evidence might mean precisely that and is making a normative claim about what "should" convince them or you, it could also just be an inelegant way of stating (correctly or not) that your arguments are invalid because the conclusions do not derive from the premises.
BTW, I'm subscriber# 497 now. Pre-congrats on 500 subscribers.
I think there is much debate in epistemology and philosophy of science over what qualifies as sufficient evidence. If theists could meet any single one of these standards, it would be a different story, but they mostly can't. That's why theologians invented "reformed epistemology."
Not only is the bible inconsistent and contradicts itself, there hasn’t been a demonstration of anything within scripture since its inception.
Exactly what I would expect from a man made system of superstition and authority.
So, the very first reaction, to the @misanthropos6211 comment (0:02) has some problems.
First, the commenter makes some word choices I'm going to say are ambiguous. It's not correct to say "everyone is an atheist" without adding "about most gods." Unfortunately, you compound the mistake here by reading more into the comment than is actually there.
You say " in order to be a theist you don't have to accept or approve every _potential_ God, ..." -- true, but that isn't what the commenter said -- "...you just have to have belief in God, or believe in _a_ God... ...and so to say that I'm an atheist just because I don't accept every single god doesn't actually hold up logically." No, logically it wouldn't, if that was what the comment said.
But you're utterly mischaracterizing the real point that misanthopos was, I believe, attempting to make. They didn't say you had to accept _every single_ god or you're an atheist -- you just don't believe in any god, among the thousands, except your own (hence the part with all the numbers). So it's being pointed out that you're an atheist _about_ all other gods but one. This is in no way saying you have to believe in all or nothing -- this is such a preposterous idea that I wouldn't insult your intelligence by saying that you actually thot this was the commenter's intended message.
the idea behind the first point is that we are all born atheist and require teaching in order to come to a religion. if a baby born to hindu parents becomes orphaned and adopted by christian parents, that child will most likely grow up christian. religion is pure nurture.
moral argument fails because we can see how morals evolve and supply a species with a survival advantage over species that regularly engage in killing their own kind. it does not have a supernatural origin.
fine tuning fails because we have nothing to compare our universe to. we have no way of knowing if the constants can even be different. and we do know that the constants can be changed a buit and still get stellar formation and planetary formation. fine tuning argument is the puddle remarking that the shape of it's hole fits perfectly.
the reason to reject the christian god is that the bible makes positive assertions as to it's features. all powerful and all loving. so to test that assertion, we ask questions. and we find that the christian god does not meet the criteria of all powerful and all loving. so perhaps there IS a god, but it is not described in any work of mankind thus far.
no evidence means no evidence. we don't need evidence for absence of evidence, what? i listened to this several times and i can't for the life of me understand what you might be trying to say here. perhaps you could clarify?
ok, definition time. atheist is the opposite of a theist. a theist is a person who believes in a god or gods. so the opposite is a person who DOESN'T believe in a god or gods. it's not a positive assertion, it is the lack of belief
gnostic is to know. agnostic is the opposite, not knowing.
so most atheists are agnostic atheists, they just lack the belief. gnostic atheists are the ones who make the positive assertion that there are no gods. i personally think it's arrogant to say that. humanity will have to go much further in our understanding of the universe before we can say anything like that with any degree of certainty.
that's why there are plenty of theist scientists.
"don't push your belief" is kind of a toxic thing to say. the whole point of social interaction is to share beliefs, especially with videos like this. it's no mystery what it's going to be about, nobody's getting tricked into it, it's not autoplaying on our phones.
that phrase is more appropriate when it comes to politics and laws. we shouldn't base laws and policies on theism, because not everybody has the same idea of what god is and what god wants, so basing laws on religious principles will by default violate the religious principles of other religions.
you should understand that is where the antagonism usually comes from. it comes from this recent trend of religious organizations intruding DEEPLY into our personal lives.
Well done 👍
It generally issnt an argument that because you believe in only 1 out of a billion gods thaat youre atheist to most of them, this saying should more be like a, this is how i also feel about christianity, how do you feel about islam? you dont believe it is the true god right? well, to me christianity doesnt feel any different, the way youre feeling about islam is how i am thinking about christianity. a way to put in perspective to show how i look at your faith.
while i agree with the guy that there is no evidence for any god, i absolutely think there is evidence against a litteral biblical god. the god of teh bible doesnt adhere to what we find in nature and in history, also if we examine the god of the bible we can not even describe the character of god. it more looks like yahweh is the accumilation of ancient stories about how to explain the world. yahweh was the vulcano god of the mesopotanian pantheon. also in this time every group of people, had their own god they worshipped. yahweh was the god of the jewish people. and elohim, or el for short, was like father god of all the other gods in the region. slowly though time this polytheistic god turned into monotheism. which is 100% what we would expect if god was just as human concept it changes with the humans and their culture. but is totally the opposit of expectations compared to if there was a real unchanging god out there. this is in my mind the strongest proof that the god of the bible is just a human made god.
I don't really see how you gave christians the tools to defend themselves against atheists nor why defending themselves would be necessary. Most atheist-christian interactions are just like:
C: So yeah God made us like that.
A: I don't really believe in God.
C: Oh, I didn't know that, anyways [subject change]
Though i find many Christians will then continue with a "But why don't you/but it's so much better" and not the other way around. Nobodys attacking Christians. If you feel attacked you should discuss your feelings directly with the other person so they may explain or you might realize it's a misunderstanding. It's possible to have an open discussion with an atheist since most won't try to convonce you from joining (contrary to many christians). Though the fact that many christians try convincing atheists of their religion may have led to rather strong responses from *some* atheists, none of which were in the video.
Also let's not forget who pursued whom for centuries? Witch hunts, etc? Those that wanted to exterminate christians in the very beginning weren't atheists either but convinced of their own Gods? Just sayin
You should find yourself a girlfriend.
Good looking, well dressed, charismaitc and interesting guy like you?
You must have women falling all over you!
Yes you're right it is all about belief. It has to be about belief because there's no proof.
It's a belief system, there's been loads, your claims are no more credible than any of the others.
.
0:24 TIME // Correction, Sir ! ''...you just have to have believe in a God, ...etc '' ? BIBLICAL JEWISH - CHRISTIANITY, WHICH is what I AM......ACTUALLY BELIEVES GOD ! THAT, IS ALOT MORE THAN MILLIONS, UPON MILLIONS......BELIEVING IN GOD. BELIEVE, WHAT HE STATES, WRITTEN DOWN BY OVER 40 FAITHFULL messengers.....SENT, OVER 1600 YEARS = OUR BIBLES. THE ORIGINAL ONE....NOT THAT catholic ONE, NOR ANY OTHER ! BELIEVE GOD - ALL OF IT ; GENESIS 1 : '' LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE '' / JOHN 1:1 '' IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD, HE WAS WITH GOD FROM THE BEGINNING '''.....etc. GOD, IS THE ' FAMILY NAME '.....OF WHICH, YOU AND I, IF CALLED OUT (ecclesia ) MAY/ CAN BE ONE, OF WHAT ?......'' many BRETHREN '' ! SONS, IN A SPIRIT GOD-FAMILY........///anyway...on with this video....
Praying for all the strayed souls out there!
Very well-answered!
His office must be near a Donut shop!
I just saw the first comment before I saw this, most atheists are so mindless. great video btw
😂 Really "atheists" are mindless? so why then is most advanced scientists atheists?
Funny that you say that, when it is usually theists, who follow scriptures mindlessly, because their god said so.
Running with assumptions isn't a good way to base claims. Lots of us are doing research because ultimately we want to find the truth@aLeft95
@@TheDragonageorigins This is not just an assumption, it is an observation of personal experience. Also, the original comment started with a huge assumption themselves, so calling out only me is hypocritical.
@@aLeft95The OP can also see my comment. TH-cam doesn't let you auto include other people, and it's a pain to type it out on phone. Message was for everyone.
I actually gave the dictionary definition of new atheist
The only difference is that they see religious beliefs as irrational
I'm just an ordinary house atheist and I don't like this new atheist attitude
There is nothing irrational about believing in God
But I would consider it irrational for anyone to think they know what God Is or what he thinks and wants
Basically I believe if a God does exist then it would be impossible to know anything about him
To believe everything in the Bible takes some serious suspension of disbelief
You can't live in a whales stomach for 3 days
You would die from suffocation then be dissolved by the stomach acid
of course the standard response is " it was a miracle"
and nothing is impossible for God
Until you point out that God can't create a rock that is so heavy he can't lift it
but it is irrational to believe in a god. you are allowed to do it but its irrational.
@@krølle-1 Irrational is just not the correct term
Because they can easily rationale by the perceived benefits
Like there is a reason for everything, they will live after death and be with their loved ones
Or if it was Sun worship, just the fact that today the Sun rose again and we get to live another day
And let's face it humans are gullible and mostly pretty stupid
Most religious people have been indoctrinated since birth
If you have your family and friends and whole community that believe in a God and everything else they tell you appears to be true
Which is the case for most religious people
Then you can't call it irrational
I guarantee that there are things you believe are true , but you are actually wrong
Atheists are not any smarter than theists
I've met atheists who believe in ridiculous stuff like tarot cards or horoscopes
Humans are great at believing crap without any evidence at all
It was only 200 years ago we stopped burning women for being witches
So we can call that type of human behaviour delusional, but not irrational
They always have a rationale
The cows milk went bad and there is a spinster with many cats lives not far away , obviously she must be a witch
Not irrational but delusional
Anyway none of this matters since this is just a simulation (joke) 🤗
"There is nothing irrational about believing in God "
It is entirely irrational to believe in a god. The same way it is irrational to believe in sock stealing pixies or space dogs burping up suns. It's 100% unfounded in reality and the only "evidence" they have for it is other people claiming it's true. Rationality comports with reality. Theism doesn't.
@@krølle-1this, i'd absolutely agree with religious beliefs being irrational. this is from a logical/empirical view, and it cannot be said otherwise. but I understand faith & culture isn't based in that. belief in a god is irrational, it's not any different to believing then that X god thinks this or wants that like the original commentator said.
1: i agree.....as an atheist myself, i cant stand the "everyone is an atheist" argument. im an atheist because i dont believe in the existence of ANY god; if you believe in just one god, you are a theist
2: yes, they are a theist just like you are a theist. you're contradicting your previous argument by saying that. they might not be part of a monotheistic religion like you, but as a theist, you are both the same......you believe in a god or gods.
3: to counter the evidence claim; to put it like matt dillahunty does...."there is no "good" evidence for the claim.
now, to my own counter.......its a bullshit argument. there is all kinds of "evidence" for flat earth; that doesnt mean that the claim that the earth is flat is true.....in fact the lack of REAL, demonstrable evidence of the earth being flat is the nail in the coffin for that claim. similarly, the complete lack of REAL, demonstrable evidence for ANY god, let alone yours, is pretty much all the proof you need that said gods dont exist. now you could argue that a lack of evidence does not disprove a claim.......but that would be a completely dishonest argument........you cant prove a negative. it would be like me telling you that faeries exist, and then telling you to prove that they dont when you reject that claim. the burden of proof lays with the person making the claim, not on the one rejecting it.
4: yes, there are a lot of morons who want to put atheism in separate boxes. its not that complicated, so let me explain it.
atheism is the negative answer to the question of "do you believe that a god, or gods exist"; the answer being no.
now what all these idiots are arguing about is this.......theism and atheism is about belief. gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowledge. these two latter terms should only be used as an adjective, being a you literally cant ride the fence on the belief issue. you either believe, or you dont......there literally is no middle ground.
as such, the proper term is agnostic atheist/theist, or....gnostic atheist/theist. for instance, while most of the time i will refer to myself as atheist, if the conversation warrants it, i will refer to myself as an agnostic atheist; this is because while i believe that no gods exist (atheism), i also have enough humility to understand that it is something that i cannot know as fact(agnostic). MOST atheists are agnostic, and for the ones that are gnostic, i would say that they are just as bad as theists who claim that they know for a fact that god exists.
now, to wrap this up, you also have the stupidity of dividing the camps up into hard atheists vs soft atheists. all that means is that some atheists are more militant with their atheism than others. thats its. atheists who try and make this distinction are just weakening their arguments with it, since its a moot concept
5: and i think my way is the best way to live; i would bet that we both have similar wants for society at large, the difference between us is that i just want to make that shit happen through the will of the people and our respective governments. now, im talking about making society better by implementing universal healthcare, college, daycare; making sure that people make a wage they can actually live on.......etc; i am NOT talking about making society better in how we treat each other, as that will come naturally once you make everyone's actual lives better.
i would imagine that you want the same kind of things.........but your way of doing is literally forcing a theocracy on our society. you want those things, but with the caveat that we all believe in the same things you do. well, i dont, and never will. im a 54 yr old man who has been an atheist since around the age of 12. so if you were to implement a theocracy (as the maga crowd is literally trying to do), where would that leave people like me? ill tell you.....we would either be hunted down and imprisoned or killed, or we would become second class citizens.....,much like arabs in israel are. (and as the arabs in gaza are being killed just for being members of the wrong religion/ethnicity)
The "everyone is an atheist" thing isn't an argument. It's just a mirror for religious people who nonchalantely reject all other religions while giving their own religion a free pass. It's a word play to show how hypocritical theists generally are. There is just as much evidence for judaism as there is for christianity or aztec folk religions: Namely none bar the fact that some people assert them as true.
@@Finckelstein i've literally seen atheists use this argument on videos on this platform. not a lot......but i have seen them
@@1369StilesYeah, because it's a valid critique of religious people. I use it too, because it highlights their selection bias.
They are perfectly capable of criticizing other religions and using logic on them, but entirely unwilling to do the same with their religion. Which is why it is a valid critique in my book.