Wow, we have seen quite a response to this video in the comments section. Thanks for the dialogue, everybody! We recorded a video in response to a few of the main ideas we saw among them all. That video is now live and you can watch here: th-cam.com/video/CU3ZkmYpxaM/w-d-xo.html
The word atheist literally means without god. If there were no theists there would be no atheists. So do theists believe in anti-anti-theism? You can't be an atheist without there being theists as it is a rejection of what some other people believe. What ideology is it that atheists have that theists object? Most atheists are naturalists and theists are unnaturalists/supernaturalists.
Different biography, different experiences, just ignoring the facts that don't fit in one's mindset... Just don't feel dumb because someone doesn't get it if that someone has only to offer "nothing".
@@avishevin1976 Well, the bible did ;-D but I understand that you will not accept this. There are many scientists around the globe that are christians and ex-atheists that turned christian. Get out of your atheist bubble and listen to what they have to say. There is evidence for those willing to see.
We made a response video to some of the comments, and yours is one. Thanks for the comment! See the video here: th-cam.com/video/CU3ZkmYpxaM/w-d-xo.html
I’m an atheist, but I was a Christian so I understand and empathize with the sting of trying to share your faith and getting coldly shut down. Now, I can see why athiests were so blunt and apprehensive towards me. It was because the arguments I made to them, that genuinely made sense to me, were things they heard over and over again. So they were responding from a place of irritation.
Same. Christians defend their religion with logics that can be used against them too, while atheists have actual arguments, like "why among thousands of gods only yours is the true one?"
I feel a lot of frustration and misunderstanding in this creator's presentation. Most atheists, of whatever stripe, are not "bent on hating you" (0:10), although any number of them may confess to hating your beliefs. This is a common problem among believers, who seem to identify so thoroughly with their religious or political (or sportive or musical) dogma, that they experience any criticism of it as an "attack" on themselves. To clarify; if I criticize your beliefs, I am not "attacking" you, even if you feel that way. Any attempt by you to frame an intellectual discussion in the rhetoric of violence should be seen for what it is; a cynical ploy to manipulate the discussion in your own advantage by creating an emotional "us versus them" atmosphere.
Exactly, they should have some experience with this through the "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" approach that they have taken to the LGBT community. Except of course that's always been an excuse to pander to bigotry and you can stop being religious, you can't stop being gay.
Yeah. I know some Christians who are great people. I will say they're great in many ways, but I think they're wrong on this. How is that attacking them? Because I don't think they're perfect?
@tos100returns I think you may be too harsh. I think it's more that people who belong to a certain group or tribe that is shrinking and/or losing power or standing will automatically feel vulnerable, and when that group has an internal mythology based on persecution and revering persecution and sacrifice, then it will be very easy for them to feel "attacked". Now, of course I also think they should know better, but that doesn't mean that I feel I can just dismiss their experience altogether.
Dear apologist person, I am convinced that the Christian god is just a story in an old book. I will consider any evidence you care to offer in support of your opinion to the contrary. Please be aware, evidence means something I can verify for myself. Do not provide any of those typical apologist arguments that require belief in your god as a prerequisite.
@ 5:30: "An atheist will ask for evidence of your faith, and then without even listening reject it". Fine, I'm listening. Please give me one piece of solid evidence of the existence of the Christian God. I an pretty sure you will not be able to give me this evidence!
If you read that article linked above, you will see that God in his Word, the Bible has given adequate proof of his existence and the veracity of the Bible itself.
"New Atheism" is nothing more than greater freedom of speech, an unwillingness to cave in to religious bullying. What you call a "tricky" argument is mere clarity. It's not a "middle ground " on a true/false question. Fanatics despise clarity. Your characterization of 21st century atheism is pure twaddle.
@@scytale6 Wow, you're really just pulling claims out of thin air. Nothing supernatural has ever been shown or proven to exist whatsoever so I'm not sure where you got that from. More to the point, what's the point of theism if none of the supernatural claims made in the bible can be proven to be true?
@@scytale6 The most rational and reasonable position for EVERYTHING in life is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is found and proven. It is irrational and absurd to believe things exist before any actual evidence is found. Atheism is obviously not a religion. Look up the definition of things before making dumb statements.
"You know what else lacks belief in God... trees, rocks, piece of bread... " - Magnified(Frank Turek much!) And that's all you really need to know about this dudes intellectually dishonest way of presenting himself.
Everyone is an Atheist. I'm pretty sure you don't believe in Zeus, right? Not made any sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl lately, right? Why would you, you don't believe in him. Ishtar...you'll agree with me, doesn't exist. Manannán...who even is that? But I bet none of us believe they are a real existing god. The only difference between what Christians traditionally view as an Atheist and a Christian is this: An Atheist doesn't believe in the 742,986 deities that have been invented over the ages. A Christian doesn't believe in 742,985 deities.
Yeah, but Zeus’s existence would have to be explained by something else. If he were to exist, he would be a part of nature as conceptualized. And therefore not God.
@@yiin And I would say how the hell would they know that? Seems like they just don't like the implications and will make up anything with zero reason to believe that (not surprising for a christian) to avoid those implications.
I am an atheist; not an antitheist. If you wanna worship a god; have at it. However; where I draw the line is when you try to impose your religion upon a society which I am a part of. That's when I become antitheist, and that goes for a lot of atheists. Now, if you have actual proof of a god, by all means; share it. Actual proof; not an argument. Anyone can make an argument for anything. You also can't use personal experience. Perception is exceptionally flawed. There are people who honestly believe that they have been abducted by aliens. How much stock into their personal experience? I'm not saying that your your crazy for having a personal experience, or that you didn't actually have one. I'm just saying that it is not evidence of anything other than your brain perceived something in a specific way. Rejecting these types of claims is an attack on theism. It's just that we've heard all of this a million times before, and it's not evidence of a god.
"They will outright lie, to build you into something you're not, just so they can tear you down." That was a self-report, right? They don't actually lack this much self-awareness do they?
The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim (any claim). "There is a god" or "There is no god" either need evidence. Atheism is the lack of belief. "A" meaning without. Knowing a person is an atheist tells you nothing about the person except they lack belief in a deity.
@@benrex7775 A person who believes there's no god is an atheist, anti-theists assert there's no god and thus need to the bare burden of proof...... agnostics just aren't sure if there's a god or not, you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist
@@benrex7775 atheist is an umbrella term, when you encounter an atheist, ask the person questions and listen carefully to really understand what their stand point is
@@Atlantislives So is Christian or Islam. I always do that with anyone I meet. My problem is that I have encountered many Atheists who are quick to put labels on for example Christians and generalize and stereotype their opposition. But whenever I make a general statement about Atheists they relativize that word to the point of it having no meaning at all anymore. If you call yourself an Atheist and make that word have no meaning then why even call yourself an Atheist? For example you wrote: - Anti-Theists assert there's no god - Atheist believes there's no god - Agnostic aren't sure if there's a god That word belief is very nicely chosen as you can use it as an assertion and go on the attack and then say you are not sure as soon as you are questioned. That way you can flip from Anti-Theist to Agnostic whenever it is most suited for most rhetoric effectiveness. But this strategy has the consequence of not being logically coherent. I don't say you do it, but I have noticed that this is a common occurrence. Also I'm curious if you deliberately chose the word belief. Because this word implies that Atheism is a belief-system or in other words some form of religion.
If she isn’t watching you being filmed, all she can say is that it’s probable that you are because she knows you! All she has to work with are probabilities to account for gaps in knowledge. Nobody knows the Bible god, or its authors. All we have are old records of their claims that turn out to be insane and wrong. It’s not at all probable that it’s remotely accurate, so we withhold belief.
Indeed all his claims in the phone call consist of things we know can and have happened. There is a camera. Someone spoke. There was a script. She might not believe he is Infront of a camera and being recorded, but she is very likely fully aware that his scenario can happen. Unlike the bible that has about 160 miracles. Miracles that just seems unlikely to happen. Miracles for which there is hardly any proof. Only proof is what is written in the bible, the source of the miracle claims. Just like the "trees lack the believe in god" or whatever. This is also a very weak argument and really is nonsensical.
If you’re not convinced of x; that’s different than being convinced that x doesn’t exist-true. Characteristically though, being convinced that unicorns don’t exist is evidenced by the lack of debate around the issue. In other words: To have integrity in being atheist is to have virtually no desire to comment or debate x. It seems to me then, that they should rightly be called “theist vs agnostic” debates. As there is precedent in being agnostic to want to debate at all! …And most importantly, since the agnostic isn’t convinced of x, and admittedly isn’t incapable of demonstrating the non existence of x; there would be no precedent for the 1st point of this video; which is to show disrespect of, both the another persons belief and of the person. In reality, thats a maturity issue.
@Reformed_Zoomer Being an atheist isn’t a debate, not everything in life is a debate. Atheism describes a position or lack thereof depending on how you choose to define it. Describing a position is not the same as putting forth a stance to take in a debate.
“So called atheists” do not understand what the term means. The majority of people don’t even use it in the way of “lack of belief” just atheists who believe there are no gods, running from the burden of proof. Or edgy agnostics who just don’t like religion. Or maybe even people who been lied to and fell for it. Either way.
You are missing the point. I don't believe in dragons because I see no proof that they exist. That's different from saying that I know that they don't exist. Also, I can't prove that dragons don't exist because I can't prove a negative. That's why the burden of proof is on the person who made the claim
@@Samu-xc2tc Are you seeking an explanation or are you trying to imply the OP doesn't know? Because those terms have nothing to do with the OP's comment.
@@avishevin1976 What I'm trying to do it's to show that someone can have a different way to see the Baptism (for example) and, however, worship the same God. Heterodoxy doesn't mean heresy.
How about what is happening right now between Palestinians and Israel?? Are they worshiping the same god? @@Samu-xc2tc They are killing each other and NO god is showing up to defend them. Neither side 😢
I have never encountered a reason to believe in God. I do, however, wish to know what is true. If what Christians claim is true, then I want to believe it. I have just not been convinced as of this moment.
Fair enough. Keep seeking truth and eventually you'll find God at the centre and end of all things. Truly, without hope for life beyond death all effort and strain is made meaningless against the sands of time.
@@jeremysmetana8583 you want evidence to prove that life without God is made useless given time? History and anyone with a brain. We've already forgotten most of humanity that lived, and those who are remembered are mere caricatures of the real person who lived. Every memory of you will cease as if you'd never existed... unless God exists and cares to do otherwise. If you can't see this... you'll have to face the reality of Ecclesiastes' message by the end.
If you're being "unceremoniously dismissed," maybe it's because your evidence is lacking. You have evidence, but it's not good enough to convince someone who doesn't have your belief. For example, have you ever considered how preposterous the census in the Nativity story is? For purposes of staffing and administration, governments need to know where people *currently* live, not where their ancestors are from. That part of the story clearly was made up in order to make Jesus born in "the City of David" (Bethlehem) to appear to fulfill a prophecy.
You are correct. Joseph already knew he was of the lineage of David. You should read the gospel of Luke because what you’re claiming does not line up with its historical account. And for those that want to argue that the census didn’t happen at the time Luke described, we cannot rule out the possibility that there could have been a census during an earlier term of Quirinius.
You: "I'm being filmed!" Skeptic: "Okay, sure" You: "... By aliens from Jupiter" Skeptic: "um, I'm gonna need some evidence of that" You: "why wouldn't you believe that I'm being filmed?"
Your definition of " new atheist" is totally wrong You are describing an agnostic A new atheist would have the normal stance that god's do not exist as well as the opinion that such beliefs are irrational It is a more aggressive stance but necessary because we are in disagreement with people who claim that the Bible is true and the proof that the Bible is true is that the Bible says that it is true ! So perhaps you may understand why we see such beliefs as irrational People are claiming what they only have in faith as truth You will agree that humans can absolutely be convinced something is true when it is absolutely untrue For example witchcraft or reincarnation Would you say those were irrational? Of course you would Well that means you are partially a new atheist as they believe anything supernatural is irrational All you have to do is take that small step to realise the belief in the existence of god's is irrational
We made a response video to some of the comments, and yours is one. Thanks for the comment! See the video here: th-cam.com/video/CU3ZkmYpxaM/w-d-xo.html
I don't think you realise Atheists don't much care if you believe in God or Gods , that's completely up to you personally. What Atheists will argue about is when you make laws because of your faith or make unsubstantiated claims because of your faith . I had a Christian tell me the other day that rapists ,murderers and paedophiles can all go to heaven if they accept jesus into their heart , but myself, I will go to hell ( even though I have done none of these nasty things and I'm a helpful polite human being), for the heinous crime of not believing what other humans wrote down a few hundred years ago . That Christian's belief sounds pretty backwards to me . So believe what you like ,but understand it's called faith for a reason ( their is no evidence) .
Wages of sin is death, If you want to know If you're guilty of breaking God's law, check the ten commandments. Jesus paid the fine for everyone, but If you don't accept It don't get angry for not being bailed out.
@@neonkscksc I have questions? If you were God ( all powerful ,omnipotent etc ) would you put Do not Murder ,number 1 on the list or would you make the first 4 All about yourself . In other words ,do think someone is more sinful if they work the sabbath day than if they murder someone? Because that seems to be implied by the order of the 10 commandments? Oh and there's no anger here at not being bailed out ( because I don't believe in a God ,who would I think could bail me out and what would I be bailed out from? ). You can also sin as much as you like apparently ( I keep getting told this by religious folk ) all you have to do is accept jesus into heart after all the sinning . This is why I'm told I will go to hell while rapists and paedophiles will still go to heaven . Me and 69% of humans on the planet are ,according to Christian's so sinful just for not believing in God ,that we will suffer for eternity in hell . It all sounds a bit over the top and bullying for an omnipotent superbeing to be saying . ?
@@kirkwoodley7685 Second paragraph. God is good and perfect and he cannot compromise his integrity by accepting sin into his domain. He cannot accept imperfection to stay perfect. 4th and 1st paragraph. No, you cannot sin as much as you like. You have to repent, reject sin and trust Jesus by living by his teachings(Accept him into your heart). You cannot live on the broadway that leads to hell and expect to enter the narrow gate to heaven. Those who believe they can, broke the first commandment by creating false version of God to accommodate their sin. Which makes the 1st commandment the most important one, don't you think? 5th paragraph. No, ALL broke God's law and only those who repent, will go to heaven. If you want nothing to do with God, don't expect to enjoy his stuff. It makes you sound like a woman that left her husband, but still wants his money. 6th paragraph. You have a choice, you can be with him or without him. He won't force you to love him, you send yourself to hell.
@@neonkscksc Another question. What do you do if following one of the commandments means you break another . Here's an example , My dad is a murderer so I've informed the police ( because YOU SHALT NOT KILL ) So now I've broken an earlier commandment ( HONOUR THY FATHER AND MOTHER ) . To make things worse this all happened on a Saturday, so now I've made the police break another commandment and do some work preventing them from keeping the sabbath holy ( REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY AND KEEP IT HOLY ) . If my dad is given the death penalty and it was me who turned him in I might feel responsible for him being killed ( YOU SHALT NOT KILL ) . I'd love to know whether I would end up On the right or wrong side of God for this one 👍
@@kirkwoodley7685 Honour thy father and mother doesn't mean let them get away with evil. Regarding police, Works of [true] necessity and works of mercy are certainly permissible. God's work of creation ended on the sixth day, and He rested. But His work of providence (necessity and mercy) continues. John 5:17 You would be on the right side of God.
@@tarjan68 But somehow theists especially christians are superhumans while simaltenously according to themselves they're being as humble while being holier than thou? God complex impersonation?
You have a book. Great. Everybody has a book. Well, not everybody. As an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in anyone's book. I am convinced that, if a god exists, it isn't the god found in anyone's book. Do you ever ask yourself why you believe in your book? Have you ever studied a different book? How can you know that your book is the "one true book" and ALL the other books are wrong?
"Atheists will ask you for evidence for your belief, and then, without even listening, reject it." No, it's that the "evidence" you bring is either feelings that can't mean anything to anyone but those who already believe, or arguments that fail miserably to demonstrate your case. And when you continuously misrepresent my position, it gets to the point that it's almost impossible to have an honest conversation with you. As an atheist, I don't dislike you, but I despise what your religion does to people's minds. You're free to believe whatever you want, but when you start using your religion to control other people, to take away their rights, to marginalize people, and as an excuse to hate people, that's where we get angry.
How can you miss it so big? Name any fantastical creature or person (santa, tooth fairy, leprechaun, whatever) that you dont believe in (i hope there is such a thing) and then think about how you would prove it definitively that they dont exist? You cannot. Refusing to prove there is no God is not an easy way out of the question, expecting someone else to prove a nonexistence is the easy way out.
Yup, appears to be. He's trying to make a point, with satire... from what I have seen of the comments, there's a whole slew of real atheists out there that are not aggressive, but ordinary wonderful people, who don't fit the mold of this satire. There are also aggressive ones too. Humanity is a mixed bag of personalities and individuals.
Haven't you seen all the Christians who preach hate on groups of people they don't agree with? Lets be honest, the only real truth is that nobody knows for sure if there is a god or not. World-wide more than 3,000 gods worshipped, the chance you have chosen the only true one is remote in the extreme. May Lord Kamadeva, Hindu God of love and desire pour his blessings upon you. There's as much chance he exists as Jesus. Having said that, if Jesus really can turn water into wine tell him he's welcome at my next party.
Hey, here's the theists playing martyr. This is how they justify their judgement and hatred. They just pretends its Gods word. True evil is ignorance. Thanks for keeping it alive. (Last line was sarcasm)
You said that if someone doesn't believe your claim then they are believing the opposite claim. But in your own example your friend says that they neither believe that you are being filmed, nor that you are not being filmed. There is not a middle ground as to whether the claim is true or false, but just because it is either true or false doesn't mean that there isn't a middle ground of not knowing which is correct. The honest answer is 'I don't know the truth'.
The Christian god is not the only god atheists contend with. We can "not believe the claims" of many religions and at the same time "believe that some of those claims are not true" without contradiction. Regardless of the definition of "atheist", the definition of "Christian" is that the person believes a specific set of ideas. If those ideas are not supported by sufficient evidence, then no one is obligated to believe them. You can argue all day about what atheism is, but if you can't articulate what Christianity is in a convincing manner, then you can't expect others to get on board with it.
I'm just going to say that you are wrong. Just because the jury find the person not guilty does not mean that the person is innocent. It just means that there is not enough evidence to convict the person of being guilty.
In face-to-face interactions I don't want to tear anyone down, unless they do or say something utterly objectionable - I just want to be intellectually honest. If anyone asks me what ny position is regarding faith, I'll tell them. If nobody asks, I'll keep it to myself.
How to survive an atheist attack? Easy. Put on your headphones, listen to a sermon from Kenneth Copeland and turn up the volume. And enjoy the fact that your task is much easier than that of atheists of the past who were not able to survive theist attacks like during the crusades, the inquisition or during aggressive evangelization of native tribes.
I think you missed the point, on at least two fronts. To put this into modal logic, with "B" as the "belief" modal, then ¬Bp ≢ B¬p. Your claim that one "must believe the opposite" is incorrect, because whether one has a belief is a separate binary from whether the statement is true. If "C" is "can conceive" and the corresponding unary operator to "B," then it would be defined as Cp ≡ ¬B¬p (not believe not p). ¬Bp ≡ ¬(¬C¬)p ≡ C¬p, or "I can conceive of it being the case that p is not true." The Matt Dillahunty analogy would be a jar full of gumballs, that must contain either on odd or even number of gumballs. Not believing (not finding it inconceivable to be false) that there are an odd number of gumballs does not imply that one *believes* there are an even number; one merely finds it to be conceivable that there are an even number. Second, you are making a claim, and you therefore *always* have a burden of proof. Even if you can demonstrate that your interlocutor also made a claim and also has a burden of proof, that doesn't remove your own burden of proof. If you are debating someone who flatly asserts that no god exists, and you assert some god exists (not even necessarily the very specific god you believe in, just "something" rational people would agree was a god), and you both FAIL to meet your burden of proof, then what is the rational conclusion? To believe neither claim: ¬B¬p ∧ ¬Bp, or Cp ∧ C¬p. Neither claim earned a belief in this case. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with probability. (Or more accurately, confidence; we have no way to measure actual probability here. But most people use these terms interchangeably.) Cp ∧ C¬p doesn't imply that both p and ¬p are equally likely, equally anticipated, that someone is on the fence, or someone is "one step closer to Jesus." It simply means that we failed to be convinced of either p or ¬p, and that's the strongest statement we can make on the subject. I think getting hung up on the labels doesn't help much. What you are your interlocutor do and don't believe or do and don't find conceivable is important; what label you call that is irrelevant. I personally don't like the "agnostic" label because it makes it sound like I don't have firm conclusions, and a slight nudge could send me spiraling into either direction. But if my honestly about my inability to solve a problem analogous to hard solipsism (which even an omniscient god could never prove it wasn't a brain in a jar) isn't going to sit well with you with an "atheist" label glued to it, then feel free to cover that with a sticker that says "agnostic" or anything else that helps you sleep at night. It's obviously a distraction for you.
If you told me that you are filmed by a group of media people, I wouldn't be convinced that your proposition is true, because the proposition seems unlikely. But since it isn't impossible, I'd be just as unreasonable to say that your claim is false. And this is where the middle ground comes in. Yes, a proposition is either true or false. But that has no bearing on whether or not I am convinced of either the truth or falsehood of a claim. I can just be unsure of either position. That's not a constructed debate strategy (and certainly not a malicious attempt to knock you off your feet, but thanks for the well-poisoning anyway), that's just a simple everyday occurrence. People are constantly in limbo between not having enough reason to affirm or negate a claim.
It's quite interesting that you're actually some serious doubts about your faith and your religion which initself eventually will lead you of losing your faith but nowadays you're doing this to enforcing your own faith and religion. And of course you'll be denying this statement from me vemehently right now and into the near future. All this is being quite obvious especially when you've seen it several diffirent times before.
There is no change of tactics, all that is required is for you to understand the atheist position clearly. Nobody knows if there is some intelligence behind the universe and those who honestly accept that will lack belief. In the same way that nobody knows if there are aliens in some far away galaxy, I'm sure if you honestly accept that, you will not have a positive belief that there are aliens - this means you lack belief in aliens - you may say this means you are neutral, but in practical terms this is equal to a lack of belief since I do not have to rearrange my life or perceptions of reality based on aliens. But that does not mean my position cannot change when evidence supports the proposition. It would be ridiculous to ask me to show evidence that there are no aliens.
“I tried to answer faithfully, construct a thorough argument from a place of truth or love and I was rejected because they don’t accept my argument”. Arguments don’t become good if they “come from the heart and sincere belief” they are considered valid and sound if their premises are supported and lead to a true conclusion. Unfortunately, every argument for god is built on either fallacious logic or unsupported premises. Sorry you’re confused and frustrated by the burden of proof. All you need to do is actually support your claims. The phone call analogy was very revealing. Perhaps the person on the other line doesn’t have reason to just believe you based on a claim. The difference is you could actually demonstrate the scenario by showing the doubter the cameras, script and resulting video. You think you have evidence on par with that for any of the claims about god, Jesus or the Bible? You don’t and I’m sorry that frustrates you.
Do you believe in the goddess Hera? Do you know what else lacks a belief in Hera? Trees and grilled cheese sandwiches. Prove that Hera doesnt exist. Also, theres evidence that youre filming. And lastly, a lot of atheists have family and friends that are theists and many of us dont put theists down. Im gonna go feed our cat now.
3:45: Expecting someone to believe you are being filmed when they have no evidence except your say-so? This feels REALLY familiar, can't quite put my finger on it...
They're just trying to explain to you, speaking from a position of what they consider truth and love, why they don't believe your claim, and you come back with "So you're telling me what you don't think?" Well, allrighty then.
Atheist isn't short for antitheist, bud. The "a" symbolizes a lack of, in this case, of religion. Most of us aren't against religion per se. We just don't believe what you believe, it's that simple. You don't believe in the Islam or Buddhism or The Flying Spaghetti Monster either and that's fine. Some atheists might ask you why you believe in God, a few may make fun of you but that's just them being assholes, there's christian assholes too. It's not an attack if someone doesn't believe what you believe, it's just a matter of opinion.
Sorry, but you just come across as whiny here. The comments below are sufficient enough that I don't think I can add much to the discussion but to say that many of your statements strain the meaning of disingenuous, and push more than a little across the line into dishonesty. Nearly every one of your statements concerning the stance or intent of your hypothetical atheists is made from a position that the atheist is wrong in the first place, but is somehow robbing you of your right to tell them so, and darn it, you think that's just not fair. How can anyone expect an honest discussion with you?
This video is quite bad. The very example you give regarding being filmed is a perfect example of how you don’t get it. She may not be convinced you are being filmed but this doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s convinced you aren’t. You try to say she’s presenting an opinion that is contrary to the evidence…evidence she can’t verify because you are pointing to a camera while speaking on the phone. Additionally this hypothetical also shows the willingness to fallaciously shift the burden of proof without realising that this is a fallacy. When someone says “I’m not convinced of your claim” and you say “provide evidence that it’s false” this is a fallacy, blatantly so. And in this, all you do is just claim that someone not accepting your claim means they take an opposite stance and believe the claim is false. You literally just assert it with no justification. Let me ask you this. Do you believe I am wearing a black shirt? The answer to this is either yes or no. Either you do believe the shirt I’m wearing is black or you don’t believe this. If you say no, does this mean you think my shirt isn’t black or are you just not convinced my shirt is black. It’s entirely possible my shirt is black, you just don’t have the evidence to justify concluding that it is. Let’s take binary option. I just flipped a coin. Are you convinced it landed on heads? If your answer was no your logic would say that you are convinced it landed on tails.
@ Nothing I wrote contradicts that chum. But thanks for stopping by to state the uselessly obvious of “something either exists or does not.” For your next trip I suggest you also include “a bachelor is not married.”
How is she supposed to know you’re being filmed? I suppose if she knows you she has good reason to believe you’re being truthful. But if you’re a random stranger, or worse a voice mail from a random stranger why should she believe anything you have to say? It’s far worse when you apply this analogy to the Bible. It would be like if the voice mail claimed to be your parents but then talked about how we all deserve to burn forever and that the world was made in 6 days. This isn’t something that anyone can reasonably believe. But it gets worse, because the Bible is incompatible with itself! God’s character is a total disaster. He’s supposed to be perfectly just, yet in job he punished an innocent man by his own admission. He’s supposed to be all powerful and all loving, yet he created hell for some reason? Not to mention couldn’t even successfully make DNA that allows for everyone to be born equally.
How does this fellah, or anyone, have the audacity & the persecution complex to cause them to react to hearing 4 little words expressing a sentiment that they do not share, by making an outrage-bait video that labels the experience as an "attack"!?!? Is his life really so banal?!? Amazing. **SMDH**
I’d be willing to bet that if you debated someone over the validity of the Bible they could use the Bible to disprove what you say that is how flawed the Bible is not only from a chronological perspective but a common sense one as well
Atheism isn't a club or a gathering or an effort to "embarrass" believers -- they can do that on their own -- its simply critical thinking leading to an intelligent choice. Reading a bible helps as well.
Not a very honest presentation, doesn't show your belief in Christianity as very honorable. Here's the thing, if you want to know how an atheist or agnostic describes their lack of belief, just ask them, as there are even other atheists who are willing to die on the hill of what the true definition actually is, some embarrassingly so. Words and usage change over time. Atheism describes a lack of belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge, and there can be many combinations along the continuum of each. Speaking for myself, as much as I detest labels, I would be considered an agnostic atheist sentientist. I am an atheist concerning all known and revealed gods and assorted deities that I have come across and researched. I am 100% convinced that none of those gods exist and that even to consider such is incoherent. And I am agnostic when it comes to the possibility of a deity somewhere who has absolutely zero concern for the comings and goings of life on this planet, though I'd rate the possibility of such a deity along the same continuum that I reserve for leprechauns and fairies. Regardless of what you believe or not, just treat one another with respect and kindness. And by the way, "New Atheism" isn't a thing, same old atheism that has been around since the first con man came up with the concept of god and religion...
I'll tell you what: why don't you take ME on concerning your religion. We'll start where this was all supposed to have begun: in Eden's garden. We'll discuss the events that occurred there and thereafter, if you still feel up to it after I have pointed out some things you obviously haven't noticed in the story, we'll discuss other parts. Let us see who enlightens whom, shall we?
We made a response video to some of the comments, and yours is one. Thanks for the comment! See the video here: th-cam.com/video/CU3ZkmYpxaM/w-d-xo.html
The most rational and reasonable position is to WITHHOLD belief until sufficient evidence is found and proven bro. You have to seriously learn what logical and rational arguments are.
Sadly you're being mistaken but if it soothes your soul and making you feeling good about feeling the way you're wanting so please go ahead with that. Peace.
4:54 1 Corinthians 2:11: "For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." How do you know the thoughts of atheists?
Present evidence or shut up. It's that simple. Unless this is satire that I've not picked up on. Surely this is satirical, I'm gonna try get to the end of the video.
@@Joe-pu3qi It's kind of hard trying to convince people that they're magically immortal when you don't have any evidence isn't it. If only they'd just just believe those old myths and legends that your parents told you were true. It is human nature to make things up when we don't have all the facts and are fearful of the unknown, which is why you're not alone. Unfortunately death is just a part of life and without us the natural universe just goes on existing. We are just living organisms on a relatively tiny planet in an immense, possibly infinite universe. I'm only interested in what is most likely to be true that's all. 😉
"they're just explaining to you what they don't think, which, who cares" I have a great deal of sympathy for this opinion. However, the problem is, you are bound by your great commission, so having people tell you they don’t believe you, kinda comes with the territory. The only things that stopped this happening earlier were, the power of the church in society, and social convention. Religions who keep themselves to themselves have much less of an issue with this. “You know what else lacks belief in God, tress…” That should have been beneath you. I think the error of your skit is pretty obvious, so I’ll let that be. Then it just degenerates into a misunderstanding of propositional logic. The root of this line seems to stem from irritation at constantly being asked to justify your belief. Personally, I don’t think you should have to. However, that changes when you are trying to convince others or legislate based on what you think the God wants.
Exactly this, everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe. But if you're going to try to convince me to believe something, you're going to have to provide evidence to back it up. I wouldn't go into a church service on a Sunday and try to tell people there is no god, so I don't expect religious people to come to my house and try to tell me there is one.
@ButConsiderThis “Funny though the great commission isn't in the oldest copies of the gospels” That’s weird, I was thinking about the dispute over Matthew 28:19 when I was typing ‘great commission’, but made a judgement call that this channel ain’t the place for that level of discussion! And based on the stream of nonsense posted by @nuramgad128 in the other thread, I was probably right.
@@mattyouds5843 We made a response video to some of the comments, and yours is one. Thanks for the comment! See the video here: th-cam.com/video/CU3ZkmYpxaM/w-d-xo.html
Wow. A video from a tiny channel puts out a video about how to handle anti-theism in today's culture gets hundreds of comments (a few notable exceptions aside) mocking the video and it's premise. Way to prove the need for this video to exist.
Would a lower number of responses make the statements correct instead? Doesn't seem to matter what size the channel is or how many people respond: the criticism are either valid or not. You're focusing on the wrong thing.
I wouldn't say Atheism has strengthened it's position. It certainly has adapted to the new situation, but new Atheism is philosophically speaking a big mess. Their foundation is a mixture of circular reasoning, motte and bailey fallacy and plain old not thinking things through. But what they have strengthened on is the delivery and the rhetorics. If you argue against a new atheist you feel dumb, even if you notice that their way of arguing doesn't work with their own claims they made 5 seconds ago. The lack belief theism is theoretically a possible position one can hold. in the past we called that agnostic. - You can be an agnostic as in you have not enough information to form a belief. - You can be an agnostic because you think both sides have good arguments. - And you can be an agnostic and think it is not possible to know. But all those positions are reached based on certain assumptions and reasoning. And because of that they are a positive claim that have a burden of proof. Of course if someone comes to you and asks you what the truth is about Christianity then they don't need to justify their position. But that also requires them to have a learning stance and it also means they have a view of their own which they have their reasons for holding and which they currently don't defend but are willing to defend if needed. The people who are lack-theists usually don't come with a stance of learning and trying to understand. They come with the intention of trying to entertain themselves. They use the excuse of "not having a stance" to never have to justify any claim they make. They make big claims which fall well into the Atheism camp (aka the positive belief that there is no God) and whenever those claims are questioned they go back to their motte of "I'm just asking questions and don't have any believes on that topic". I think it is valuable if someone is mature enough to say "this is my view" and "on this matter I won't state any opinion on as I'm not informed enough". But if you just use that as a rhetorical strategy to play skeptic at anything but your own believes then this turns from a respectable behavior to the equivalent of a philosophical toddler.
your logic is like me saying, since you don't believe in fairies, you now have a positive claim to disprove them. Shifting the Burden of proof to the person not making a claim simply because they dont believe what you say is unreasonable. We are faced with dozens of things we don't believe daily. That dont mean we have the burden of proof for every claim that come our way. We reject what sounds unreasonable and keep moving. If a person say they have a talking dog, you can not believe them until they can show the dog and have it talk. It is not up to you to go find their dog to see if it talks.
@@defenestratefalsehoods I have the position that I don't belief in fairies and I will defend it when I meet a person who believes otherwise. I'm not arrogant enough to think my own view is the default position people ought to have and therefor any person having a different position than me have to demonstrate it to me while I don't have to do it myself. Just because I have a burden of proof doesn't mean I have to justify it to every person I meet without them even asking. And if they ask there is always the option to say that I don't know and I am not interested in learning more. But in that case I don't go around saying people who disagree with me in a topic where I don't know enough to have a position are wrong and stupid. But if I reject something then that means I have looked at the position enough to form an opinion on it. Which comes with the burden of proof. Let's go with your talking dog example. The common human experience I'm aware off is that nobody has seen a talking dog. Also based on what I know, dogs lack anatomical and neurological features to be able to talk. This is my reasoning against a talking dog and therefor I fulfill my burden of proof. Now I can either say I don't care about the dog and switch topic or I can ask the other person for their arguments. I will listen to their arguments and possibly even a demonstration. Perhaps I am wrong and that way I can find out. Or it may be that we use a different definition of "talking" or "dog". The point is that we are intellectually humble and are open to listen to people we disagree with. If we just argue for our own entertainment and never even consider the option that our view can be falsified then that is what we call a blind belief.
@benrex7775 That's the best answer I have gotten in years. thanks. From a bible prospective people seem to believe in the talking snake and donkey. When atheist point out this all the other impossible things and stories that have no evidence, you have people like the guy in the video calling is irrational. Most atheist have looked into many religious claims for a God and there is not enough evidence based on any holy text to say there is a god. It all have a lot of mythology in it. Why do thiest claim Atheist are wrong when we point out our disbelief, especially in the bible. 6300 year old universe, a creation story that don't match what we see in the universe, animals don't talk, the evidence for evolution show there was no Adam or Eve but a split from a group of many chimpanzees, a flood story that never happened and couldn't happen the way the story claims, and not 1 peice of evidence for the entire exodus story. Everything has been looked at and everything said about the abrahamic God is mythology. Why are atheist wrong when most of us are still looking for evidence? Because you cant prove or disprove the idea of a god, we can disprove propersitions of a god. For example: we know Ra don't pull the sun across the sky with his chariot. This propersition can be disproven based on knowledge of the sun and planets. However if we go with any of the creator gods, it become more difficult to prove depending what is said about one.
@@benrex7775 I've been reading this thread and you're missing the point of why Theists are argued with . You feel I am free to believe in fairies and talking dogs ( just as Atheists believe you have the right to believe in God or Gods ) . Now look at your last comment and add one point . The fairies/talking dog believers say that the teachings of Fairies/ talking dogs tell us all that every child has to be taught about them in school, That if you are Heterosexual it's a sin and that ever woman Must have an abortion at least once . The believers lobby government and even the majority of members in government believe and agree with the believers and try to pass laws making these beliefs punishable!!! Now ,can you say you wouldn't push back and argue that they have crossed the line and are clearly wrong in trying to make everyone bow to their beliefs. Especially as there is zero evidence for the Fairies/talking dog , there is only the believers faith they are correct and a book on fairies / talking dogs written 1600 years ago . This is the only reason I argue with Theists . My claims ( as someone who hasn't seen any reason to believe in any Gods) are simple No religion has ever given me evidence to believe it's real and what is put forward as evidence by believers always amounts to faith and nothing more . As you can agree ,at least with the faith of fairies/ talking dogs there's no place in school for it ,no place in government for it and faith has no place telling others how they must live their lives. ( I also think it's weird I'm told I'm going to hell for eternity from people who claim their religion's where morals come from , with no sense of irony )
Ironic, coming from a philsophy that depends on argument from ignorance and argument from authority fallacies. And Motte and Bailey? More than 50% of formal atheist/theist debates have the Christian position being defended as essentially theism with the Christianity removed.
I got to go ahead and give you thumbs up job on this one. The tables need to be turned on their denial and make them prove or reveal their basis for their denial and then show them how illogical they are.
My doG talks to me. But he does it only when I'm around. He stops talking as soon as someone else comes close and he never talks when a recording device is near him. If you don't believe me, it's on you to prove me wrong. The tables have to be turned.
My invisible friend told me that Jesus was the devil. He fooled gullible people into writing the Bible and believing he was good. If you don't believe me, you must prove me wrong.
You're conflating the fact that a statement can be true or false with what is reasonable to believe about that claim. Suppose I present you a jar full of jelly beans. You have no idea how many are in there, but the number is necessarily either even or odd. If I ask you if you believe the number of jelly beans is odd and you answer "No", does that mean you believe the number is even? Obviously not. So try to think through this, and don't mislead your fellow Christians into fallacious thinking.
Can you guys first sort out which God is true before countering the atheists' position? Islam claims the Christians are worshipping the wrong God, and I assume you would say Muslims have the wrong God... both of you cannot be right.
well nice mixing up atheism and agnosticism. atheism doesn't claim there is a god that they are rejecting and have never done so, they just speak on their own thought about christianity and what it looks to them and why it doesn't make sense for them to think that a god exists, and christianity isn't the only belief they feel this about it's every belief of a supernatural claim. the reason why they even dig on it is because they are curious as how the rest of the world can believe in something that doesn't give or detract from their life at all. sometimes it's a good thing when they do things for good in the name of their faith, sometimes it's not so good. but overall an atheist couldn't care less what you believe in as it doesn't really make you the person you are, just your justifications to what you do. a good person that believes in christ will be generally a very nice person, a not so good person that believes in christ is not generally a nice person. now there's different kinds of atheists, not everyone is a hedonist or a nihilist, i think most really believe in the idea of eudaimonia which is the greek philosophy of a life well lived. and what i mean by a life well lived, it's doing good for goodness sake through virtue both for yourself and for others. as in helping your neighbour makes you feel good because you did a good deed that makes you feel fulfilled. you took care of your body and even if it was a bit rough you feel fulfilled knowing you did something good for yourself. now with that said, people are still people and religions are what they are, they wouldn't exist if there wasn't a great deal of evangelizing, that's what i think can rub someone the wrong way. imagine getting ads in real life, that's what religions are to most atheists. it's just a nuisance in their daily life so it's not so farfetched to why some atheists get agitated about it. i mean you don't exactly see a bunch of atheists in america complain about hinduism, it's because it doesn't come up to bother them. now however i will level with you god worshippers, there are a bunch of woke fucks out there and to that, we atheists who don't subscribe to all that nonsense we feel the same you do about them and there's more atheists that don't believe in that shit than there are those who do. self-aggrandizing pricks the lot of them with nothing to stand on, to that we can bond over, after all a person who's good to others is good to me. now pray to your hearts content because it doesn't bother me none.
These types compare God to dragons and fairies, and demand empirical and testable evidence. These statements let you know right away that they don’t really understand the arguments for God or the different kinds of evidences and when they apply. It would be like me arguing against evolution and saying, “why are there still monkeys if evolution happened.” The evolutionist would know right away that I don’t understand the claims being made.
God himself may be ethereal and outside the realm of space, time, and matter but if he ever interacts with the world in any way either through influencing events, performing miracles, or talking to people, then those are now testable claims subject to the scientific method. If you want to argue that god is just outside of our realm and leave it at that then that's fine. But it's the physical interaction with the physical world that people question
@@biggbeeferIf God does exist, He is claimed to be super natural, or outside this realm. We can detect the effects of the super natural. We can not directly detect the super natural itself, otherwise it wouldn’t be supernatural.
@@PaulRezaei right exactly. So the only way to detect a god is to prove physical actions in the world were done by this god. The most I've ever seen is someone be able to argue one or two points that point to a god. But never have I seen someone able to explain for example how the necessity of a god beginning the universe proves that their specific god and no others were responsible for it.
@@biggbeeferah I see, it sounds like a misunderstanding on the different kinds of evidence and how we arrive at truth. Do you believe that physical and repeatable evidence is the only way to know truth?
Stop assuming anyone cares about what you believe and those attacks from atheist would dramatically decline. I am unkind to people that think what they believe about a god should have anything to do with me. it's the narcissism particularly Christians and Muslims display that puts me in attack mode..Theists think what convinces them should automatically convince an athiest and be our absolute standard of what should constitute as evidence when no where else do they set the bar so low other than for their religion with them acting as if we should share their emotional bias and not look at what they are tellling us objectively. and when it does not add up to an atheist they go heavy on the assumpitons and think they know us and our reasons better than we do ourselves and that we are somehow deficient in our charcter and understanding. and that we require some fixin They think the way they arrive at conclusion is the foundation of logic and anyone who thinks independently of them is irrational, which only pisses me off more when they are so blind to the blatant fallacies they present in their arguments that they in turn accuse us of being incredulous for not buying. They think they get to decide for others what is meaning and purpose and that if you do not embrace their belief then ultimately you can have no meaning or purpose and that nihilism is the only alternative for atheist simply because they/theists would feel that way if they were to ever accept no god exits, they tremble in fear of the possiblity which puts them right back in your face with something to prove that they will either try harder to convince the atheists or talk sht about them for not believing what they think atheist ought to. They are more concerned about what is in my head and what I believe than I am. They try and make atheism about any and everything but the simple most basic fact that they have made a claim they have no way of demonstrating, and have absolutely nothing that would compell us to believe, so what difference would it make if atheist actively believe no god exists or just lack a belief in a god,? Either way it goes you have nothing to convince us with..Theist are suggesting we believe in a god so what do we have to prove to them? If they do not feel they should have to prove anything to us then they should be just fine with us being atheists and if they are not they already know what they must do to covince us so it's a put up or shut up.situation I know what I am not convinced of and why I am not convinced with absolutely no need to prove it to you. I have no problem whit anyone asking me what for if they just accept the answer I give them without trying to make anything more out of it. Theist are simply on a mission to try prove atheist wrong, so they can feel rightm given the implications and their emotional attachement to a certain outcome and this is what make them some of the most annoying creatures on theh planet.. Its nothing new, or novel about noticing that no god interacts with humans, no god can be detected, nothing that indicates its possible for one to exist in the capacity most theist describe, and that it simply doesn't comport with reality and it takes no Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins or scientific theory to realize that., There is hardly any argument you could throw at us that we did not already consider or have not heard once before. For most of us being an atheist did not just happen overnight. Christians and Muslims in one way or another always have to try and make what they believe have something to do with everyone else, they act as though what they believe deserves some special consideration ,and owed some alligiance as if there god is anymore special than all the other alleged gods presented to us with no evidence,. I simply remind theists that they are no more special than anyone else who holds a belief they are stongly convinced is true although I am not truley convinced theist believe as strongly as the let on doubt more often than they would like to admitt so they try and convince themselves through trying to convince atheist and ever so pissed when atheist do not give them validation that their god is real. They see atheist as the walking, living, embodiment of the doubt they are trying to escape from within themselves and put a target on us, when none of us have anything to do with all that crap they carry around in their heads and would not at all mind remaining oblivious to it.
@@Herrendez I was only speaking of the Christians and Muslims who come across that way which was not an assumption. Rarely do I ever get the chance to talk to any that does not behave in such a way.
@@marksnow7569 no one is innocent next to God. Show me someone charging God with an offense and I'll show you someone rejecting Him as a holy God. Rejecting God's holiness in favor of our own is idolatry. No one is above Him. But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
The god Yahweh that you believe in is an invention of the ancient Hebrews living on the Sinai Peninsula and his son Yeshua is a wandering Jewish preacher who worshiped Yahweh and believed the end of the world was imminent. Is this the same god that you believe in and pray to?
Religious people think they are clever with this? I wonder if the court system would agree with them. You have a problem with new atheists, but quote Jesus in your bible about atheists who did not buy his story back then either. Stop playing victim
I’ll say outright that I think god is completely silly as a concept. I think there’s enough evidence that this reality is incompatible with any loving god that I can say this confidently. That’s the reason I’m atheist and not an agnostic. To be fair, there are plenty of unknowns in reality where a god could theoretically exist to our knowledge. But is it remotely probable? Heck no. Absolutely everything we have points against it. At best, we have the few “I don’t knows” and then theists just say “therefore god” like all of their ancestors before them.
how can you not want to believe in this god that condones slavery, death for carrying wood on the sabbath, commands genocides occasionally, and will burn you in eternal damnation for not loving him?
People hate God, simple as that. They hate goodness and love themselves. People love darkness, selfishness, hedonism, narcissism, greed. Atheists think the world revolves around them. Even the angels rebelled against God, why wouldnt you think humans would do the same thing.
To all my atheist friends in the comments, this video ends encouraging Christians to continue showing love and respect AFTER they have had a negative experience with you. It literally ends with a call to action to bless you and pray for your wellbeing. I'm sorry you've had negative interactions with Christianity or religion, but coming here to troll proves the point Micah is making. That being said, may God bless you abundantly and give you peace ❤
Since when is disagreeing equivalent to trolling? Serious question, especially when immediately out of the gate he poisons the well by claiming that atheists "seem bent on hating you." People deserve respect; beliefs don't, especially when your beliefs literally include the fact that I will be tortured eternally, that I deserve that, and that you are in support of it. Trolling, my hinder. Christianity is an existential problem for non-Christians in the same way that Islam is an existential problem for non-Muslims: it threatens our existence.
@@sjhoneywell6235 very fair questions- I think there are some genuine trolls in the comments, but I would also say there are some people who have obviously been hurt by Christianity or people claiming to be Christian, who drastically fell short of the mark. For your second point, I would say we both look at the modern view of "hell" to be contradictory to a God of compassion and mercy. A point I struggle with modern Christians over and have my whole life. Why would God condemn to hell those He loved? Especially when all sin is forgiven by those who seek it? The scriptures point to a "second death" but not eternal damnation- a concept stemming from Greek and Roman mythology. Someone else in the comments mentioned the numerous groups of Christianity- I and those of like mind have struggled with the same issues you have but found a new avenue of hope and joy to pursue instead of what we would consider vain nihilism. I don't think if you reject the God who I love and worship, you will burn or suffer eternally. Consider it more just a form of non-existence, ultimately chosen by you. My God and Savior love you whether or not you deem them worthy of Being.
@@scootsmagoots86 I appreciate the measured response. I'm just going to focus on one thing: "Consider it more just a form of non-existence, ultimately chosen by you." Would you accept this blithely if the person who ultimately "chose" this by not being convinced by weak evidence (yes, that's my opinion) was your spouse? Or your child? How much of eternity will you enjoy knowing that person who you likely love more than life itself will vanish from existence? This is less cruel than a hell, but not by much, especially since the cruelty is heaped upon the saved. EDIT: Worth noting that you skipped the part about Christianity being an existential problem in the literal sense for atheists and non-Christians. As for what you consider "vain nihilism," why don't you ask us about that instead of just assuming that's what it is? This is one of the reasons why Christianity is an existential issue for us--you assume you know the answers to things without bothering to ask us, and you act in ways based on your thoughts rather than our reality.
@@sjhoneywell6235 Bear with me, friend. These ideas and concepts are difficult to convey in a short amount of text. As I said, I don’t fit in the typical Christianity “box”. We butt heads over many things and to them, based on their own standards, I will be burning in hell right along with you when this is all over. I reject that notion just as you have. I understand the foul taste in your mouth left from dealing with self-righteous zealots and the poison of what passes for “Christianity” these days. I don’t know your story or all the nuances to your life, so I won’t strawman you as an “atheist” or assume I can just say the magic alignment of words to make all your doubt melt away. I can, however, provide you with a small amount of exegesis that points to hope and salvation for all. Based on my understanding of scripture, God will give everyone a chance to be included in His family. If I understand your “existential problem” point, there are obviously billions of people in the world who were never given the opportunity to know God or hear of the sacrifice of Christ. What about them? What about my friends and family members who, like you, have come to the same conclusions about God? Again, basing my beliefs from what God has said, He loves and cherishes you whether you’re a believer or not, and wants you specifically to be a part of His family. After you die, you will stand before Him. You will finally get all the proof you could want, and a final olive branch will be extended to you to join Him. This applies to you and every single other atheist and non-Christian alike. There are some who even after all this will choose what I referred to earlier as the “second death”, or non-existence. It is still their choice to go this route, and God will respect that wish. And again, basing my views from God’s Word, this is an act of supreme mercy and compassion. Will it be sad if I know people who ultimately make that choice? Absolutely. But it’s still their choice. God respects them enough to let them make it, so I must as well. “As for what you consider "vain nihilism," why don't you ask us about that instead of just assuming that's what it is? This is one of the reasons why Christianity is an existential issue for us--you assume you know the answers to things without bothering to ask us, and you act in ways based on your thoughts rather than our reality.” What is life to you then? What is your purpose and from what do you derive meaning? Do you not also make a bold claim that you have the answers? Why is your “reality” the only acceptable one? How do you know you don’t act from your own biases instead of the truth? Do you think we don’t also wrestle with our faith and strive against the chaos around us? For many, our decision to believe God and accept His call was a hard-fought battle that still requires daily faith that all the many terrors of life will be set right again, and that you will have as much opportunity and right to be in God’s future kingdom as me, and that together, we have hope.
@@scootsmagoots86 ”I won’t strawman you as an “atheist”” No need for quotes. I’m an atheist. I do not believe a god or gods exist. “I can, however, provide you with a small amount of exegesis that points to hope and salvation for all.” Before I care about this small amount of exegesis, you need to demonstrate why I should care about these or any scriptures. Demonstrate that these scriptures are the right ones. Why not the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bardo Thodol, the Qur’an, Dianetics, or Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? Are you including the Book of Mormon? If so, why? If not, by what right do you exclude it. “If I understand your “existential problem” point, there are obviously billions of people in the world who were never given the opportunity to know God or hear of the sacrifice of Christ.” You do not, in fact, understand the existential problem, and I was very clear on this. The existential problem is that Christianity is a threat to non-Christians, not in some presumed afterlife but in this actual life. This is exactly what I said-it is a threat to our existence. Likely not from you personally, but you don’t have to look very hard to spot "good Christians" with opinions that anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus doesn’t deserve the right to life. How exactly do you think your average Southern Baptist would feel about a mosque going up in their neighborhood? “After you die, you will stand before Him. You will finally get all the proof you could want, and a final olive branch will be extended to you to join Him. This applies to you and every single other atheist and non-Christian alike.” You claim this as a bit of exegesis. I’m familiar enough with Christian scripture, and I don’t see where you get this without some wishful thinking on your part that this might be how things work. Where, precisely, are you getting this in your exegesis? “basing my views from God’s Word” You don’t get to call anything “God’s Word” until you demonstrate that it is, in fact, the word of a god. You don’t get to sneak that definition in and pretend like everyone agrees with that assessment. Demonstrate this first, and then we can talk. Until then, it’s just presumption on your part. “What is life to you then?” Life is just life. It is the way the sun is. “What is your purpose and from what do you derive meaning?” I derive meaning from the people around me, from the world around me. From my wife and children, from my students. From acts of kindness and opposition to what I consider to be evil. “Do you not also make a bold claim that you have the answers?” I make the bold claim that I have the answers for me specifically and for no one else, and that no one else has the right to provide answers for me. “Why is your “reality” the only acceptable one?” It's not. I strive to live in actual reality and I don’t accept the idea that we each have our own. I’m happy to accept information that demonstrates reality-which is precisely why I ask for evidence of things. In terms of religion, that evidence proves to be thin on the ground, but I’m still asking. “How do you know you don’t act from your own biases instead of the truth?” I don’t, which is why I question things, including my own biases. “Do you think we don’t also wrestle with our faith and strive against the chaos around us?” Frankly, no. I think you do. Do you seriously think the average person does? Do you think the average Christian does? Maybe they do secretly, but in terms of how they act and present themselves, not so much. “For many, our decision to believe God and accept His call was a hard-fought battle that still requires daily faith that all the many terrors of life will be set right again, and that you will have as much opportunity and right to be in God’s future kingdom as me, and that together, we have hope.” And again, you need to show that the god you are talking about exists. “Faith” as I see it, has no value, and that faith is the only thing that allows you to believe in that future kingdom in the first place. Provide evidence.
If atheism is now to be defined as 'just not believing in God', we need to coin a new term for those who do have an actual belief that there is no God: perhaps distheists.But in fact, most atheists really are distheists (and liars about it, too).
i actively believe there is no god in the same way that i actively believe there is no invisible purple unicorn on my roof. i don’t think i’d need to prove that “belief” to you, even if some guys in the middle east wrote about it a few thousand years ago
@@leem2155 But you're being disingenuous because the existence (or non-existence) of God is one of the most important questions in human life. Plus the evidence for God is actually good (you're just denying it). So the scenarios are not comparable. Unfortunately I've learnt to expect nothing better from people willing to use the sort of rhetoric you've employed here. Here's a whole lot of evidence for God, btw: th-cam.com/play/PLwaiQXAdTRa19LNS8Qf3RHrGsEXSRJJB4.html Prove my expectations wrong.
I've had situations like this a lot. I am first and foremost Christian because of experiences i had in my life. I've had experiences in my life that turned my belief into knowledge. I know that God exists, and the His name is YHWH and that he came on earth as Jesus Christ. Then i got introduced into all of these philosophical, logical and scientific arguments, because i realize that personal experience wouldn't be accepted as evidence. I'm a science nerd and an engineering graduate. I've read so many scientific books and they seem to reaffirm the design behind everything in the physical world. I even recall books saying that when humans design anything, it is often something already present in the world. Almost as if we are trying to replicate a simplified version of the physical world. God is the father, the son and the holy spirit, and His name is YHWH/Jesus.
All anybody including yourself should ask is for evidence. Your certainty is an emotion. I can't process your emotions. And a god who wants you to share that experience needs to provide what you'll need for influencing another person. If you're the science nerd, you must understand how science works. It begins with observation. If you give me nothing to observe, then the process stalls.
@@jenna2431 Hi there. 2 things I would like to point out. 1)i don't think that science can find God, i think science provides evidence for Him. God is above science so ee can't write an equation and say it equals God. Science is one of different things our mind and reality allows us to do, and we have to acknowledge its limitations. For example, you can't scientifically prove in a lab that George Washington was a US president. But you find it in history, a different branch of human knowledge and capabilities. 2) There is very strong evidence for an intelligent creator. Scientifically, logically and philosophically. Let's go through some ideas. Ask yourself this: do we as humans have intelligence and consciousness? Yes, we do. So it seems very illogical to me to say that what created us didn't have intelligence or consciousness. Where would I get them from? If whatever created didn't do it in an intelligent way, how would I have any intelligence about me? Is science random and inconsistent? Is it unintelligent and illogical? Math, physics, biology etc? No, it is very structured and very mesmerizingly beautiful and consistent and logical. This is why we can do science. So would it be rational to think that it's origin was unintelligent, random chance? Again seems very illogical to me to say so. Can i get a piece of hardware (processors, memories, SPI lines and so on) and ask them to make me a software? Of course not. But i can ask AI (software) to design a circuit (hardware). I like analogies :).
@@jenna2431 Hi there. 2 things I would like to point out. 1)i don't think that science can find God, i think science provides evidence for Him. God is above science so ee can't write an equation and say it equals God. Science is one of different things our mind and reality allows us to do, and we have to acknowledge its limitations. For example, you can't scientifically prove in a lab that George Washington was a US president. But you find it in history, a different branch of human knowledge and capabilities. 2) There is very strong evidence for an intelligent creator. Scientifically, logically and philosophically. Let's go through some ideas. Ask yourself this: do we as humans have intelligence and consciousness? Yes, we do. So it seems very illogical to me to say that what created us didn't have intelligence or consciousness. Where would I get them from? If whatever created didn't do it in an intelligent way, how would I have any intelligence about me? Is science random and inconsistent? Is it unintelligent and illogical? Math, physics, biology etc? No, it is very structured and very mesmerizingly beautiful and consistent and logical. This is why we can do science. So would it be rational to think that it's origin was unintelligent, random chance? Again seems very illogical to me to say so. Can i get a piece of hardware (processors, memories, SPI lines and so on) and ask them to make me a software? Of course not. But i can ask AI (software) to design a circuit (hardware). I like analogies :).
@@jenna2431 Hi there. 2 things I would like to point out. 1)i don't think that science can find God, i think science provides evidence for Him. God is above science so ee can't write an equation and say it equals God. Science is one of different things our mind and reality allows us to do, and we have to acknowledge its limitations. For example, you can't scientifically prove in a lab that George Washington was a US president. But you find it in history, a different branch of human knowledge and capabilities. 2) There is very strong evidence for an intelligent creator. Scientifically, logically and philosophically. Let's go through some ideas very briefly. Ask yourself this: do we as humans have intelligence and consciousness? Yes, we do. So it seems very logical to me to say that what created us had intelligence or consciousness. Otherwise where would I get them from? If whatever created didn't do it in an intelligent way, how would I have any intelligence about me? Is science random and inconsistent? Math, physics, biology etc? No, it is very structured and very mesmerizingly beautiful and consistent and logical. This is why we can do science. So would it be rational to think that it's origin was unintelligent, random chance? Again seems very illogical to me to say so. Can i get a piece of hardware (processors, memories, SPI lines and so on) and ask them to make me a software? Of course not. But i can ask AI (software) to design a circuit (hardware). I like analogies :).
@@jenna2431 Hi there. 2 things I would like to point out. 1)i don't think that science can find God, i think science provides evidence for Him. God is above science so ee can't write an equation and say it equals God. Science is one of different things our mind and reality allows us to do, and we have to acknowledge its limitations. For example, you can't scientifically prove in a lab that George Washington was a US president. But you find it in history, a different branch of human knowledge and capabilities. 2) There is very strong evidence for an intelligent creator. Scientifically, logically and philosophically. Let's go through some ideas very briefly. Ask yourself this: do we as humans have intelligence and consciousness? Yes, we do. So it seems very logical to me to say that what created us had intelligence and consciousness. Otherwise where would I get them from? If whatever created me did it in an unintelligent undesigned way, so would my thoughts be. At what point does chaos become ordered? Is science random and inconsistent? Math, physics, biology etc? No, it is very structured and very mesmerizingly beautiful and consistent and logical. And it has to be. Otherwise it wouldn't be science. So would it be rational to think that it's origin was unintelligent, random chance? Can i get a piece of hardware (processors, memories, SPI lines and so on) and ask them to make me a software? Of course not. But i can ask AI (software) to design a circuit (hardware). I like analogies :).
Heh heh! Yes it is well defined, that "an atheist is a person with no invisible means of support". Without support from God, i know i wouldn't be alive today ...so, i am daily thankful. If we look into the vast universe or check out the tiniest organism of life or atom on Earth, the genius of God our Father and His Son Jesus Christ is ever-present, as our great Creator, Lifegiver, Lawgiver, Sustainer, Designer, Answerer of Prayer, Supreme Prophet, who has laid out for us God's right way of life, that really produces the right results (John 7:17) ...and God is the only One who can resurrect us to eternal life (John 6:68), as sons and daughters in God's eternal Family (2 Cor 6:17-18). Only a fool has said in their heart, there is no God. (Psalm 14:1, 54:1)
Wow, we have seen quite a response to this video in the comments section. Thanks for the dialogue, everybody! We recorded a video in response to a few of the main ideas we saw among them all. That video is now live and you can watch here: th-cam.com/video/CU3ZkmYpxaM/w-d-xo.html
The word atheist literally means without god. If there were no theists there would be no atheists. So do theists believe in anti-anti-theism? You can't be an atheist without there being theists as it is a rejection of what some other people believe. What ideology is it that atheists have that theists object? Most atheists are naturalists and theists are unnaturalists/supernaturalists.
If you feel dumb and attacked when someone doesn't accept your claim, you might want to spend a bit of time thinking about why that is.
Different biography, different experiences, just ignoring the facts that don't fit in one's mindset... Just don't feel dumb because someone doesn't get it if that someone has only to offer "nothing".
@@begruendeteHoffnung
No one has offered facts in support of a god's existence.
@@avishevin1976 Well, the bible did ;-D but I understand that you will not accept this. There are many scientists around the globe that are christians and ex-atheists that turned christian. Get out of your atheist bubble and listen to what they have to say. There is evidence for those willing to see.
@@begruendeteHoffnung
The Bible is evidence of god the same way that Lord of the Rings is evidence of Sauron.
There is no evidence for god.
We made a response video to some of the comments, and yours is one. Thanks for the comment! See the video here: th-cam.com/video/CU3ZkmYpxaM/w-d-xo.html
I’m an atheist, but I was a Christian so I understand and empathize with the sting of trying to share your faith and getting coldly shut down. Now, I can see why athiests were so blunt and apprehensive towards me. It was because the arguments I made to them, that genuinely made sense to me, were things they heard over and over again. So they were responding from a place of irritation.
Religion is a tribal group identity. Getting saved is joining the group/tribe and accepting their ideology. Our tribal nature is naturally us/them.
Same. Christians defend their religion with logics that can be used against them too, while atheists have actual arguments, like "why among thousands of gods only yours is the true one?"
I feel a lot of frustration and misunderstanding in this creator's presentation.
Most atheists, of whatever stripe, are not "bent on hating you" (0:10), although any number of them may confess to hating your beliefs. This is a common problem among believers, who seem to identify so thoroughly with their religious or political (or sportive or musical) dogma, that they experience any criticism of it as an "attack" on themselves.
To clarify; if I criticize your beliefs, I am not "attacking" you, even if you feel that way. Any attempt by you to frame an intellectual discussion in the rhetoric of violence should be seen for what it is; a cynical ploy to manipulate the discussion in your own advantage by creating an emotional "us versus them" atmosphere.
Exactly, they should have some experience with this through the "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" approach that they have taken to the LGBT community. Except of course that's always been an excuse to pander to bigotry and you can stop being religious, you can't stop being gay.
Yeah. I know some Christians who are great people. I will say they're great in many ways, but I think they're wrong on this. How is that attacking them? Because I don't think they're perfect?
@tos100returns I think you may be too harsh. I think it's more that people who belong to a certain group or tribe that is shrinking and/or losing power or standing will automatically feel vulnerable, and when that group has an internal mythology based on persecution and revering persecution and sacrifice, then it will be very easy for them to feel "attacked". Now, of course I also think they should know better, but that doesn't mean that I feel I can just dismiss their experience altogether.
Dear apologist person, I am convinced that the Christian god is just a story in an old book. I will consider any evidence you care to offer in support of your opinion to the contrary.
Please be aware, evidence means something I can verify for myself. Do not provide any of those typical apologist arguments that require belief in your god as a prerequisite.
Nice! "...convinced it's just a story in an old book."
@@vtvita It is quite a bizarre story at that.
@ 5:30: "An atheist will ask for evidence of your faith, and then without even listening reject it". Fine, I'm listening. Please give me one piece of solid evidence of the existence of the Christian God. I an pretty sure you will not be able to give me this evidence!
read unityinchrist.com/ProofOfTheBible-FulfilledProphecy.htm
If you read that article linked above, you will see that God in his Word, the Bible has given adequate proof of his existence and the veracity of the Bible itself.
@@petebenson7003 So the Bible is proof of the Bible? Sure....
@@petebenson7003 circular argument. try again.
"New Atheism" is nothing more than greater freedom of speech, an unwillingness to cave in to religious bullying.
What you call a "tricky" argument is mere clarity. It's not a "middle ground " on a true/false question.
Fanatics despise clarity. Your characterization of 21st century atheism is pure twaddle.
100% Conrad. 100%
So new atheists admit that it's possible that supernatural things exist. Then what is the point of atheism?
@@scytale6 Wow, you're really just pulling claims out of thin air. Nothing supernatural has ever been shown or proven to exist whatsoever so I'm not sure where you got that from.
More to the point, what's the point of theism if none of the supernatural claims made in the bible can be proven to be true?
@@TheTruthKiwi Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm trying to prove that atheism is a religion.
@@scytale6 The most rational and reasonable position for EVERYTHING in life is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is found and proven. It is irrational and absurd to believe things exist before any actual evidence is found.
Atheism is obviously not a religion. Look up the definition of things before making dumb statements.
"You know what else lacks belief in God... trees, rocks, piece of bread... " - Magnified(Frank Turek much!)
And that's all you really need to know about this dudes intellectually dishonest way of presenting himself.
That looks true to me
Everyone is an Atheist. I'm pretty sure you don't believe in Zeus, right? Not made any sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl lately, right? Why would you, you don't believe in him. Ishtar...you'll agree with me, doesn't exist. Manannán...who even is that? But I bet none of us believe they are a real existing god.
The only difference between what Christians traditionally view as an Atheist and a Christian is this: An Atheist doesn't believe in the 742,986 deities that have been invented over the ages. A Christian doesn't believe in 742,985 deities.
I think many Christians would say that those 742,985 deities are the same one God or representation of it, just with a different name.
If that is true then everyone is a bachelor. I am a bachelor to 742 985 wives and you seem to be a bachelor to just one more.
Yeah, but Zeus’s existence would have to be explained by something else. If he were to exist, he would be a part of nature as conceptualized. And therefore not God.
@@yiin definitely not. There are bibles verses stating that Yahweh is the ONE true god
@@yiin And I would say how the hell would they know that? Seems like they just don't like the implications and will make up anything with zero reason to believe that (not surprising for a christian) to avoid those implications.
I am an atheist; not an antitheist. If you wanna worship a god; have at it. However; where I draw the line is when you try to impose your religion upon a society which I am a part of. That's when I become antitheist, and that goes for a lot of atheists. Now, if you have actual proof of a god, by all means; share it. Actual proof; not an argument. Anyone can make an argument for anything. You also can't use personal experience. Perception is exceptionally flawed. There are people who honestly believe that they have been abducted by aliens. How much stock into their personal experience? I'm not saying that your your crazy for having a personal experience, or that you didn't actually have one. I'm just saying that it is not evidence of anything other than your brain perceived something in a specific way. Rejecting these types of claims is an attack on theism. It's just that we've heard all of this a million times before, and it's not evidence of a god.
"They will outright lie, to build you into something you're not, just so they can tear you down."
That was a self-report, right? They don't actually lack this much self-awareness do they?
The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim (any claim). "There is a god" or "There is no god" either need evidence.
Atheism is the lack of belief. "A" meaning without. Knowing a person is an atheist tells you nothing about the person except they lack belief in a deity.
What would you call a person who believes that there is no God? And how do you distinguish between an Atheist and an Agnostic?
@@benrex7775 A person who believes there's no god is an atheist, anti-theists assert there's no god and thus need to the bare burden of proof...... agnostics just aren't sure if there's a god or not, you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist
@@Atlantislives You say _"A person who believes there's no god is an atheist"._ How is that not a positive claim?
@@benrex7775 atheist is an umbrella term, when you encounter an atheist, ask the person questions and listen carefully to really understand what their stand point is
@@Atlantislives So is Christian or Islam. I always do that with anyone I meet.
My problem is that I have encountered many Atheists who are quick to put labels on for example Christians and generalize and stereotype their opposition. But whenever I make a general statement about Atheists they relativize that word to the point of it having no meaning at all anymore.
If you call yourself an Atheist and make that word have no meaning then why even call yourself an Atheist?
For example you wrote:
- Anti-Theists assert there's no god
- Atheist believes there's no god
- Agnostic aren't sure if there's a god
That word belief is very nicely chosen as you can use it as an assertion and go on the attack and then say you are not sure as soon as you are questioned. That way you can flip from Anti-Theist to Agnostic whenever it is most suited for most rhetoric effectiveness. But this strategy has the consequence of not being logically coherent. I don't say you do it, but I have noticed that this is a common occurrence.
Also I'm curious if you deliberately chose the word belief. Because this word implies that Atheism is a belief-system or in other words some form of religion.
If she isn’t watching you being filmed, all she can say is that it’s probable that you are because she knows you!
All she has to work with are probabilities to account for gaps in knowledge.
Nobody knows the Bible god, or its authors.
All we have are old records of their claims that turn out to be insane and wrong.
It’s not at all probable that it’s remotely accurate, so we withhold belief.
Indeed all his claims in the phone call consist of things we know can and have happened. There is a camera. Someone spoke. There was a script. She might not believe he is Infront of a camera and being recorded, but she is very likely fully aware that his scenario can happen.
Unlike the bible that has about 160 miracles. Miracles that just seems unlikely to happen. Miracles for which there is hardly any proof. Only proof is what is written in the bible, the source of the miracle claims.
Just like the "trees lack the believe in god" or whatever. This is also a very weak argument and really is nonsensical.
You want to conflate “I’m not convinced of X” with “I’m convinced of the opposite of X.”
He doesn’t get it. Some people never will.
If you’re not convinced of x; that’s different than being convinced that x doesn’t exist-true.
Characteristically though, being convinced that unicorns don’t exist is evidenced by the lack of debate around the issue.
In other words: To have integrity in being atheist is to have virtually no desire to comment or debate x.
It seems to me then, that they should rightly be called “theist vs agnostic” debates. As there is precedent in being agnostic to want to debate at all! …And most importantly, since the agnostic isn’t convinced of x, and admittedly isn’t incapable of demonstrating the non existence of x; there would be no precedent for the 1st point of this video; which is to show disrespect of, both the another persons belief and of the person.
In reality, thats a maturity issue.
@Reformed_Zoomer
Being an atheist isn’t a debate, not everything in life is a debate. Atheism describes a position or lack thereof depending on how you choose to define it. Describing a position is not the same as putting forth a stance to take in a debate.
@@garymanz3403 How would you demonstrate the non-existence of unicorns? And do you believe in everything which can't be demonstrated to not exist?
“So called atheists” do not understand what the term means. The majority of people don’t even use it in the way of “lack of belief” just atheists who believe there are no gods, running from the burden of proof. Or edgy agnostics who just don’t like religion. Or maybe even people who been lied to and fell for it. Either way.
You are missing the point. I don't believe in dragons because I see no proof that they exist. That's different from saying that I know that they don't exist. Also, I can't prove that dragons don't exist because I can't prove a negative. That's why the burden of proof is on the person who made the claim
He dont have any evidence and the next best thing is to pass finding evidence on to someone elso.
As today, there is more than 45000 Christian denominations, 4000 different gods worshipped. But, no worry, your god is true.
Do you understand the difference between "heterodoxy" and "heresy"?
@@Samu-xc2tc
Are you seeking an explanation or are you trying to imply the OP doesn't know? Because those terms have nothing to do with the OP's comment.
Yes his invisible deity is real, and it gets mad whenever 2 girls kiss.
@@avishevin1976 What I'm trying to do it's to show that someone can have a different way to see the Baptism (for example) and, however, worship the same God. Heterodoxy doesn't mean heresy.
How about what is happening right now between Palestinians and Israel?? Are they worshiping the same god? @@Samu-xc2tc
They are killing each other and NO god is showing up to defend them. Neither side 😢
I have never encountered a reason to believe in God. I do, however, wish to know what is true. If what Christians claim is true, then I want to believe it. I have just not been convinced as of this moment.
Fair enough. Keep seeking truth and eventually you'll find God at the centre and end of all things. Truly, without hope for life beyond death all effort and strain is made meaningless against the sands of time.
@@Veritatis.Cupitor Those are some heavy assertions. Show your evidence for them.
@@jeremysmetana8583 you want evidence to prove that life without God is made useless given time? History and anyone with a brain. We've already forgotten most of humanity that lived, and those who are remembered are mere caricatures of the real person who lived. Every memory of you will cease as if you'd never existed... unless God exists and cares to do otherwise. If you can't see this... you'll have to face the reality of Ecclesiastes' message by the end.
If you're being "unceremoniously dismissed," maybe it's because your evidence is lacking. You have evidence, but it's not good enough to convince someone who doesn't have your belief. For example, have you ever considered how preposterous the census in the Nativity story is? For purposes of staffing and administration, governments need to know where people *currently* live, not where their ancestors are from. That part of the story clearly was made up in order to make Jesus born in "the City of David" (Bethlehem) to appear to fulfill a prophecy.
check out the evidence in this article: unityinchrist.com/ProofOfTheBible-FulfilledProphecy.htm
You are correct. Joseph already knew he was of the lineage of David. You should read the gospel of Luke because what you’re claiming does not line up with its historical account. And for those that want to argue that the census didn’t happen at the time Luke described, we cannot rule out the possibility that there could have been a census during an earlier term of Quirinius.
You: "I'm being filmed!"
Skeptic: "Okay, sure"
You: "... By aliens from Jupiter"
Skeptic: "um, I'm gonna need some evidence of that"
You: "why wouldn't you believe that I'm being filmed?"
Sums up the problem with this video perfectly! Lol
Great analogy 😂
To think there is something wrong with a person who questions a book that has talking animals in it and thinks it's not true.
Better analogy than the channel owner 😂😂😂 I hope he watches himself 😁
Your definition of " new atheist" is totally wrong
You are describing an agnostic
A new atheist would have the normal stance that god's do not exist as well as the opinion that such beliefs are irrational
It is a more aggressive stance but necessary because we are in disagreement with people who claim that the Bible is true and the proof that the Bible is true is that the Bible says that it is true !
So perhaps you may understand why we see such beliefs as irrational
People are claiming what they only have in faith as truth
You will agree that humans can absolutely be convinced something is true when it is absolutely untrue
For example witchcraft or reincarnation
Would you say those were irrational?
Of course you would
Well that means you are partially a new atheist as they believe anything supernatural is irrational
All you have to do is take that small step to realise the belief in the existence of god's is irrational
We made a response video to some of the comments, and yours is one. Thanks for the comment! See the video here: th-cam.com/video/CU3ZkmYpxaM/w-d-xo.html
@@Magnified_UCG
Thank you
That's really cool 👍
I appreciate the effort you are putting in
I don't think you realise Atheists don't much care if you believe in God or Gods , that's completely up to you personally.
What Atheists will argue about is when you make laws because of your faith or make unsubstantiated claims because of your faith .
I had a Christian tell me the other day that rapists ,murderers and paedophiles can all go to heaven if they accept jesus into their heart , but myself, I will go to hell ( even though I have done none of these nasty things and I'm a helpful polite human being), for the heinous crime of not believing what other humans wrote down a few hundred years ago . That Christian's belief sounds pretty backwards to me .
So believe what you like ,but understand it's called faith for a reason ( their is no evidence) .
Wages of sin is death, If you want to know If you're guilty of breaking God's law, check the ten commandments.
Jesus paid the fine for everyone, but If you don't accept It don't get angry for not being bailed out.
@@neonkscksc I have questions?
If you were God ( all powerful ,omnipotent etc ) would you put Do not Murder ,number 1 on the list or would you make the first 4 All about yourself .
In other words ,do think someone is more sinful if they work the sabbath day than if they murder someone? Because that seems to be implied by the order of the 10 commandments?
Oh and there's no anger here at not being bailed out ( because I don't believe in a God ,who would I think could bail me out and what would I be bailed out from? ).
You can also sin as much as you like apparently ( I keep getting told this by religious folk ) all you have to do is accept jesus into heart after all the sinning .
This is why I'm told I will go to hell while rapists and paedophiles will still go to heaven . Me and 69% of humans on the planet are ,according to Christian's so sinful just for not believing in God ,that we will suffer for eternity in hell .
It all sounds a bit over the top and bullying for an omnipotent superbeing to be saying . ?
@@kirkwoodley7685
Second paragraph. God is good and perfect and he cannot compromise his integrity by accepting sin into his domain. He cannot accept imperfection to stay perfect.
4th and 1st paragraph. No, you cannot sin as much as you like. You have to repent, reject sin and trust Jesus by living by his teachings(Accept him into your heart). You cannot live on the broadway that leads to hell and expect to enter the narrow gate to heaven. Those who believe they can, broke the first commandment by creating false version of God to accommodate their sin. Which makes the 1st commandment the most important one, don't you think?
5th paragraph. No, ALL broke God's law and only those who repent, will go to heaven. If you want nothing to do with God, don't expect to enjoy his stuff. It makes you sound like a woman that left her husband, but still wants his money.
6th paragraph. You have a choice, you can be with him or without him. He won't force you to love him, you send yourself to hell.
@@neonkscksc Another question.
What do you do if following one of the commandments means you break another . Here's an example ,
My dad is a murderer so I've informed the police ( because YOU SHALT NOT KILL )
So now I've broken an earlier commandment ( HONOUR THY FATHER AND MOTHER ) .
To make things worse this all happened on a Saturday, so now I've made the police break another commandment and do some work preventing them from keeping the sabbath holy ( REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY AND KEEP IT HOLY ) .
If my dad is given the death penalty and it was me who turned him in I might feel responsible for him being killed ( YOU SHALT NOT KILL ) .
I'd love to know whether I would end up
On the right or wrong side of God for this one 👍
@@kirkwoodley7685
Honour thy father and mother doesn't mean let them get away with evil.
Regarding police,
Works of [true] necessity and works of mercy are certainly permissible.
God's work of creation ended on the sixth day, and He rested. But His work of providence (necessity and mercy) continues. John 5:17
You would be on the right side of God.
It is sad, the absolute level of tremendous dishonesty, and or ignorance expressed in this video
Still waiting for y'all to present any actual evidence.
"Religion Poisons Everything" - Christopher Hitchens
Sadly exactly yes.
The irony of a theist stating that atheists can be quite aggressive.
So true!
Of course they can be aggressive, they're only human!
@@tarjan68
But somehow theists especially christians are superhumans while simaltenously according to themselves they're being as humble while being holier than thou?
God complex impersonation?
@@fredriksundberg4624 Why are you asking me? I never stated anything like that!
You have a book. Great. Everybody has a book. Well, not everybody. As an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in anyone's book. I am convinced that, if a god exists, it isn't the god found in anyone's book. Do you ever ask yourself why you believe in your book? Have you ever studied a different book? How can you know that your book is the "one true book" and ALL the other books are wrong?
you can use the same logic to see if it applies. replace "god" with anything else. do you believe in leprechauns? why not?
"Atheists will ask you for evidence for your belief, and then, without even listening, reject it."
No, it's that the "evidence" you bring is either feelings that can't mean anything to anyone but those who already believe, or arguments that fail miserably to demonstrate your case. And when you continuously misrepresent my position, it gets to the point that it's almost impossible to have an honest conversation with you. As an atheist, I don't dislike you, but I despise what your religion does to people's minds. You're free to believe whatever you want, but when you start using your religion to control other people, to take away their rights, to marginalize people, and as an excuse to hate people, that's where we get angry.
How can you miss it so big? Name any fantastical creature or person (santa, tooth fairy, leprechaun, whatever) that you dont believe in (i hope there is such a thing) and then think about how you would prove it definitively that they dont exist? You cannot. Refusing to prove there is no God is not an easy way out of the question, expecting someone else to prove a nonexistence is the easy way out.
Attack?
By asking a question you'll not answer?
If that's somehow making you happy?
Is this satire?
Yup, appears to be. He's trying to make a point, with satire... from what I have seen of the comments, there's a whole slew of real atheists out there that are not aggressive, but ordinary wonderful people, who don't fit the mold of this satire. There are also aggressive ones too. Humanity is a mixed bag of personalities and individuals.
Haven't you seen all the Christians who preach hate on groups of people they don't agree with? Lets be honest, the only real truth is that nobody knows for sure if there is a god or not. World-wide more than 3,000 gods worshipped, the chance you have chosen the only true one is remote in the extreme. May Lord Kamadeva, Hindu God of love and desire pour his blessings upon you. There's as much chance he exists as Jesus. Having said that, if Jesus really can turn water into wine tell him he's welcome at my next party.
Hey, here's the theists playing martyr. This is how they justify their judgement and hatred. They just pretends its Gods word. True evil is ignorance. Thanks for keeping it alive. (Last line was sarcasm)
You said that if someone doesn't believe your claim then they are believing the opposite claim. But in your own example your friend says that they neither believe that you are being filmed, nor that you are not being filmed.
There is not a middle ground as to whether the claim is true or false, but just because it is either true or false doesn't mean that there isn't a middle ground of not knowing which is correct. The honest answer is 'I don't know the truth'.
The ultimate goal of propaganda is to so muddy the waters that the average person can no longer distinguish truth or fiction.
As do all religions in some way.
You didn't provide the person on the phone with evidence of you being filmed, thus they have every right to not believe you. What nonsense! :D
The Christian god is not the only god atheists contend with. We can "not believe the claims" of many religions and at the same time "believe that some of those claims are not true" without contradiction. Regardless of the definition of "atheist", the definition of "Christian" is that the person believes a specific set of ideas. If those ideas are not supported by sufficient evidence, then no one is obligated to believe them. You can argue all day about what atheism is, but if you can't articulate what Christianity is in a convincing manner, then you can't expect others to get on board with it.
I'm just going to say that you are wrong.
Just because the jury find the person not guilty does not mean that the person is innocent. It just means that there is not enough evidence to convict the person of being guilty.
In face-to-face interactions I don't want to tear anyone down, unless they do or say something utterly objectionable - I just want to be intellectually honest. If anyone asks me what ny position is regarding faith, I'll tell them. If nobody asks, I'll keep it to myself.
How to survive an atheist attack? Easy. Put on your headphones, listen to a sermon from Kenneth Copeland and turn up the volume. And enjoy the fact that your task is much easier than that of atheists of the past who were not able to survive theist attacks like during the crusades, the inquisition or during aggressive evangelization of native tribes.
I think you missed the point, on at least two fronts.
To put this into modal logic, with "B" as the "belief" modal, then ¬Bp ≢ B¬p. Your claim that one "must believe the opposite" is incorrect, because whether one has a belief is a separate binary from whether the statement is true. If "C" is "can conceive" and the corresponding unary operator to "B," then it would be defined as Cp ≡ ¬B¬p (not believe not p). ¬Bp ≡ ¬(¬C¬)p ≡ C¬p, or "I can conceive of it being the case that p is not true." The Matt Dillahunty analogy would be a jar full of gumballs, that must contain either on odd or even number of gumballs. Not believing (not finding it inconceivable to be false) that there are an odd number of gumballs does not imply that one *believes* there are an even number; one merely finds it to be conceivable that there are an even number.
Second, you are making a claim, and you therefore *always* have a burden of proof. Even if you can demonstrate that your interlocutor also made a claim and also has a burden of proof, that doesn't remove your own burden of proof. If you are debating someone who flatly asserts that no god exists, and you assert some god exists (not even necessarily the very specific god you believe in, just "something" rational people would agree was a god), and you both FAIL to meet your burden of proof, then what is the rational conclusion? To believe neither claim: ¬B¬p ∧ ¬Bp, or Cp ∧ C¬p. Neither claim earned a belief in this case.
Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with probability. (Or more accurately, confidence; we have no way to measure actual probability here. But most people use these terms interchangeably.) Cp ∧ C¬p doesn't imply that both p and ¬p are equally likely, equally anticipated, that someone is on the fence, or someone is "one step closer to Jesus." It simply means that we failed to be convinced of either p or ¬p, and that's the strongest statement we can make on the subject.
I think getting hung up on the labels doesn't help much. What you are your interlocutor do and don't believe or do and don't find conceivable is important; what label you call that is irrelevant. I personally don't like the "agnostic" label because it makes it sound like I don't have firm conclusions, and a slight nudge could send me spiraling into either direction. But if my honestly about my inability to solve a problem analogous to hard solipsism (which even an omniscient god could never prove it wasn't a brain in a jar) isn't going to sit well with you with an "atheist" label glued to it, then feel free to cover that with a sticker that says "agnostic" or anything else that helps you sleep at night. It's obviously a distraction for you.
Today, children, we're going to knock down a strawman.
Atheism makes a single claim: _the atheist does not believe in [a] deity._
That's it. That's all atheism is. There is no argument presented.
And it is so easy to disprove: Just present evidence of a god, any god. Why have they never done this?
If you told me that you are filmed by a group of media people, I wouldn't be convinced that your proposition is true, because the proposition seems unlikely. But since it isn't impossible, I'd be just as unreasonable to say that your claim is false. And this is where the middle ground comes in. Yes, a proposition is either true or false. But that has no bearing on whether or not I am convinced of either the truth or falsehood of a claim. I can just be unsure of either position.
That's not a constructed debate strategy (and certainly not a malicious attempt to knock you off your feet, but thanks for the well-poisoning anyway), that's just a simple everyday occurrence. People are constantly in limbo between not having enough reason to affirm or negate a claim.
It's quite interesting that you're actually some serious doubts about your faith and your religion which initself eventually will lead you of losing your faith but nowadays you're doing this to enforcing your own faith and religion.
And of course you'll be denying this statement from me vemehently right now and into the near future.
All this is being quite obvious especially when you've seen it several diffirent times before.
There is no change of tactics, all that is required is for you to understand the atheist position clearly. Nobody knows if there is some intelligence behind the universe and those who honestly accept that will lack belief. In the same way that nobody knows if there are aliens in some far away galaxy, I'm sure if you honestly accept that, you will not have a positive belief that there are aliens - this means you lack belief in aliens - you may say this means you are neutral, but in practical terms this is equal to a lack of belief since I do not have to rearrange my life or perceptions of reality based on aliens. But that does not mean my position cannot change when evidence supports the proposition. It would be ridiculous to ask me to show evidence that there are no aliens.
“I tried to answer faithfully, construct a thorough argument from a place of truth or love and I was rejected because they don’t accept my argument”. Arguments don’t become good if they “come from the heart and sincere belief” they are considered valid and sound if their premises are supported and lead to a true conclusion. Unfortunately, every argument for god is built on either fallacious logic or unsupported premises. Sorry you’re confused and frustrated by the burden of proof. All you need to do is actually support your claims. The phone call analogy was very revealing. Perhaps the person on the other line doesn’t have reason to just believe you based on a claim. The difference is you could actually demonstrate the scenario by showing the doubter the cameras, script and resulting video. You think you have evidence on par with that for any of the claims about god, Jesus or the Bible? You don’t and I’m sorry that frustrates you.
What sort of arguments that you are presenting are getting dismissed out of hand by atheists?
Thx for material for my short for tomorrow :V
Do you believe in the goddess Hera? Do you know what else lacks a belief in Hera? Trees and grilled cheese sandwiches. Prove that Hera doesnt exist.
Also, theres evidence that youre filming.
And lastly, a lot of atheists have family and friends that are theists and many of us dont put theists down. Im gonna go feed our cat now.
Did Epstein unalive himself?
No answerers:
Too many coincidences lining up.
Witness testimony of suspicious sounds.
Powerful enemies.
Yes answerers:
Authority assertion.
Did all this come into existence by accident?
No answerers:
Too many coincidences lining up.
Witness testimony of suspiciously providential events.
Powerful enemies.
Yes answerers:
Authority assertion.
We're after the equal sign, not before it.
You forgot the "I don't know" or the "It's more complicated than that."
I don't know for sure but official story feels a bit sus.
3:45: Expecting someone to believe you are being filmed when they have no evidence except your say-so? This feels REALLY familiar, can't quite put my finger on it...
They're just trying to explain to you, speaking from a position of what they consider truth and love, why they don't believe your claim, and you come back with "So you're telling me what you don't think?" Well, allrighty then.
Atheist isn't short for antitheist, bud. The "a" symbolizes a lack of, in this case, of religion. Most of us aren't against religion per se. We just don't believe what you believe, it's that simple. You don't believe in the Islam or Buddhism or The Flying Spaghetti Monster either and that's fine. Some atheists might ask you why you believe in God, a few may make fun of you but that's just them being assholes, there's christian assholes too. It's not an attack if someone doesn't believe what you believe, it's just a matter of opinion.
Sorry, but you just come across as whiny here. The comments below are sufficient enough that I don't think I can add much to the discussion but to say that many of your statements strain the meaning of disingenuous, and push more than a little across the line into dishonesty. Nearly every one of your statements concerning the stance or intent of your hypothetical atheists is made from a position that the atheist is wrong in the first place, but is somehow robbing you of your right to tell them so, and darn it, you think that's just not fair. How can anyone expect an honest discussion with you?
This video is quite bad. The very example you give regarding being filmed is a perfect example of how you don’t get it. She may not be convinced you are being filmed but this doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s convinced you aren’t. You try to say she’s presenting an opinion that is contrary to the evidence…evidence she can’t verify because you are pointing to a camera while speaking on the phone. Additionally this hypothetical also shows the willingness to fallaciously shift the burden of proof without realising that this is a fallacy. When someone says “I’m not convinced of your claim” and you say “provide evidence that it’s false” this is a fallacy, blatantly so.
And in this, all you do is just claim that someone not accepting your claim means they take an opposite stance and believe the claim is false. You literally just assert it with no justification. Let me ask you this. Do you believe I am wearing a black shirt? The answer to this is either yes or no. Either you do believe the shirt I’m wearing is black or you don’t believe this. If you say no, does this mean you think my shirt isn’t black or are you just not convinced my shirt is black. It’s entirely possible my shirt is black, you just don’t have the evidence to justify concluding that it is. Let’s take binary option. I just flipped a coin. Are you convinced it landed on heads? If your answer was no your logic would say that you are convinced it landed on tails.
You can't have it both ways. Either God exists or He doesn't.
@
Nothing I wrote contradicts that chum. But thanks for stopping by to state the uselessly obvious of “something either exists or does not.” For your next trip I suggest you also include “a bachelor is not married.”
How is she supposed to know you’re being filmed? I suppose if she knows you she has good reason to believe you’re being truthful.
But if you’re a random stranger, or worse a voice mail from a random stranger why should she believe anything you have to say?
It’s far worse when you apply this analogy to the Bible.
It would be like if the voice mail claimed to be your parents but then talked about how we all deserve to burn forever and that the world was made in 6 days.
This isn’t something that anyone can reasonably believe.
But it gets worse, because the Bible is incompatible with itself!
God’s character is a total disaster. He’s supposed to be perfectly just, yet in job he punished an innocent man by his own admission.
He’s supposed to be all powerful and all loving, yet he created hell for some reason? Not to mention couldn’t even successfully make DNA that allows for everyone to be born equally.
How does this fellah, or anyone, have the audacity & the persecution complex to cause them to react to hearing 4 little words expressing a sentiment that they do not share, by making an outrage-bait video that labels the experience as an "attack"!?!? Is his life really so banal?!?
Amazing. **SMDH**
I’d be willing to bet that if you debated someone over the validity of the Bible they could use the Bible to disprove what you say that is how flawed the Bible is not only from a chronological perspective but a common sense one as well
Chocolate Chip cookies work for me. Insomnia is amazing. But Ill take other brands.
Atheism isn't a club or a gathering or an effort to "embarrass" believers -- they can do that on their own -- its simply critical thinking leading to an intelligent choice. Reading a bible helps as well.
Reading a Bible made me leave religion.
Not a very honest presentation, doesn't show your belief in Christianity as very honorable.
Here's the thing, if you want to know how an atheist or agnostic describes their lack of belief, just ask them, as there are even other atheists who are willing to die on the hill of what the true definition actually is, some embarrassingly so. Words and usage change over time.
Atheism describes a lack of belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge, and there can be many combinations along the continuum of each.
Speaking for myself, as much as I detest labels, I would be considered an agnostic atheist sentientist. I am an atheist concerning all known and revealed gods and assorted deities that I have come across and researched. I am 100% convinced that none of those gods exist and that even to consider such is incoherent. And I am agnostic when it comes to the possibility of a deity somewhere who has absolutely zero concern for the comings and goings of life on this planet, though I'd rate the possibility of such a deity along the same continuum that I reserve for leprechauns and fairies.
Regardless of what you believe or not, just treat one another with respect and kindness.
And by the way, "New Atheism" isn't a thing, same old atheism that has been around since the first con man came up with the concept of god and religion...
I'll tell you what: why don't you take ME on concerning your religion. We'll start where this was all supposed to have begun: in Eden's garden. We'll discuss the events that occurred there and thereafter, if you still feel up to it after I have pointed out some things you obviously haven't noticed in the story, we'll discuss other parts. Let us see who enlightens whom, shall we?
Let believers believe, and let nonbelievers not believe. Pretty easy. To each his/her own.
HOLY WAAAARRRRR 😂😂😂😂😂
We made a response video to some of the comments, and yours is one. Thanks for the comment! See the video here: th-cam.com/video/CU3ZkmYpxaM/w-d-xo.html
We do listen, you just haven't come up with anything new. The "evidence" that you have presented has been weighed and the rejected time and again.
The most rational and reasonable position is to WITHHOLD belief until sufficient evidence is found and proven bro. You have to seriously learn what logical and rational arguments are.
Are you still staying with your parents?
Strawman.
random word
This guy doesn’t get it but… he is almost there!
Keep up the good work- the atheists are increasingly on the back foot❤
Sadly you're being mistaken but if it soothes your soul and making you feeling good about feeling the way you're wanting so please go ahead with that.
Peace.
Read Heavens on Earth by Michael Shermer.particularly the chapter soul stuff.
Helpful and funny. Thank you
4:54 1 Corinthians 2:11: "For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."
How do you know the thoughts of atheists?
Because Frank Turek telling him what to be belevieng about people that not sharing their version of reality, that's why.
@@fredriksundberg4624 oh, of course I didn't think of that, how stupid of me
Present evidence or shut up. It's that simple. Unless this is satire that I've not picked up on. Surely this is satirical, I'm gonna try get to the end of the video.
I used to debate atheists but after 11 years, I noticed it was totally UNFRUITFUL. Ha ha. Time to move on.......
Is that because you never won a debate?
@@TheTruthKiwi Won a soul is Better
@@Joe-pu3qi It's kind of hard trying to convince people that they're magically immortal when you don't have any evidence isn't it. If only they'd just just believe those old myths and legends that your parents told you were true.
It is human nature to make things up when we don't have all the facts and are fearful of the unknown, which is why you're not alone.
Unfortunately death is just a part of life and without us the natural universe just goes on existing. We are just living organisms on a relatively tiny planet in an immense, possibly infinite universe.
I'm only interested in what is most likely to be true that's all. 😉
@@TheTruthKiwi Thank God for miracles then!
@@Joe-pu3qi What miracles?
"they're just explaining to you what they don't think, which, who cares" I have a great deal of sympathy for this opinion. However, the problem is, you are bound by your great commission, so having people tell you they don’t believe you, kinda comes with the territory. The only things that stopped this happening earlier were, the power of the church in society, and social convention. Religions who keep themselves to themselves have much less of an issue with this.
“You know what else lacks belief in God, tress…” That should have been beneath you.
I think the error of your skit is pretty obvious, so I’ll let that be. Then it just degenerates into a misunderstanding of propositional logic. The root of this line seems to stem from irritation at constantly being asked to justify your belief. Personally, I don’t think you should have to. However, that changes when you are trying to convince others or legislate based on what you think the God wants.
Exactly this, everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe. But if you're going to try to convince me to believe something, you're going to have to provide evidence to back it up. I wouldn't go into a church service on a Sunday and try to tell people there is no god, so I don't expect religious people to come to my house and try to tell me there is one.
@ButConsiderThis “Funny though the great commission isn't in the oldest copies of the gospels” That’s weird, I was thinking about the dispute over Matthew 28:19 when I was typing ‘great commission’, but made a judgement call that this channel ain’t the place for that level of discussion! And based on the stream of nonsense posted by @nuramgad128 in the other thread, I was probably right.
@@mattyouds5843 We made a response video to some of the comments, and yours is one. Thanks for the comment! See the video here: th-cam.com/video/CU3ZkmYpxaM/w-d-xo.html
Wow. A video from a tiny channel puts out a video about how to handle anti-theism in today's culture gets hundreds of comments (a few notable exceptions aside) mocking the video and it's premise.
Way to prove the need for this video to exist.
Would a lower number of responses make the statements correct instead? Doesn't seem to matter what size the channel is or how many people respond: the criticism are either valid or not. You're focusing on the wrong thing.
gob does not exist
Your friend is right
I wouldn't say Atheism has strengthened it's position. It certainly has adapted to the new situation, but new Atheism is philosophically speaking a big mess. Their foundation is a mixture of circular reasoning, motte and bailey fallacy and plain old not thinking things through. But what they have strengthened on is the delivery and the rhetorics. If you argue against a new atheist you feel dumb, even if you notice that their way of arguing doesn't work with their own claims they made 5 seconds ago.
The lack belief theism is theoretically a possible position one can hold. in the past we called that agnostic.
- You can be an agnostic as in you have not enough information to form a belief.
- You can be an agnostic because you think both sides have good arguments.
- And you can be an agnostic and think it is not possible to know.
But all those positions are reached based on certain assumptions and reasoning. And because of that they are a positive claim that have a burden of proof. Of course if someone comes to you and asks you what the truth is about Christianity then they don't need to justify their position. But that also requires them to have a learning stance and it also means they have a view of their own which they have their reasons for holding and which they currently don't defend but are willing to defend if needed.
The people who are lack-theists usually don't come with a stance of learning and trying to understand. They come with the intention of trying to entertain themselves. They use the excuse of "not having a stance" to never have to justify any claim they make. They make big claims which fall well into the Atheism camp (aka the positive belief that there is no God) and whenever those claims are questioned they go back to their motte of "I'm just asking questions and don't have any believes on that topic".
I think it is valuable if someone is mature enough to say "this is my view" and "on this matter I won't state any opinion on as I'm not informed enough". But if you just use that as a rhetorical strategy to play skeptic at anything but your own believes then this turns from a respectable behavior to the equivalent of a philosophical toddler.
your logic is like me saying, since you don't believe in fairies, you now have a positive claim to disprove them. Shifting the Burden of proof to the person not making a claim simply because they dont believe what you say is unreasonable. We are faced with dozens of things we don't believe daily. That dont mean we have the burden of proof for every claim that come our way.
We reject what sounds unreasonable and keep moving.
If a person say they have a talking dog, you can not believe them until they can show the dog and have it talk. It is not up to you to go find their dog to see if it talks.
@@defenestratefalsehoods I have the position that I don't belief in fairies and I will defend it when I meet a person who believes otherwise. I'm not arrogant enough to think my own view is the default position people ought to have and therefor any person having a different position than me have to demonstrate it to me while I don't have to do it myself.
Just because I have a burden of proof doesn't mean I have to justify it to every person I meet without them even asking.
And if they ask there is always the option to say that I don't know and I am not interested in learning more. But in that case I don't go around saying people who disagree with me in a topic where I don't know enough to have a position are wrong and stupid. But if I reject something then that means I have looked at the position enough to form an opinion on it. Which comes with the burden of proof.
Let's go with your talking dog example. The common human experience I'm aware off is that nobody has seen a talking dog. Also based on what I know, dogs lack anatomical and neurological features to be able to talk. This is my reasoning against a talking dog and therefor I fulfill my burden of proof. Now I can either say I don't care about the dog and switch topic or I can ask the other person for their arguments. I will listen to their arguments and possibly even a demonstration. Perhaps I am wrong and that way I can find out. Or it may be that we use a different definition of "talking" or "dog".
The point is that we are intellectually humble and are open to listen to people we disagree with. If we just argue for our own entertainment and never even consider the option that our view can be falsified then that is what we call a blind belief.
@benrex7775 That's the best answer I have gotten in years. thanks.
From a bible prospective people seem to believe in the talking snake and donkey. When atheist point out this all the other impossible things and stories that have no evidence, you have people like the guy in the video calling is irrational. Most atheist have looked into many religious claims for a God and there is not enough evidence based on any holy text to say there is a god. It all have a lot of mythology in it.
Why do thiest claim Atheist are wrong when we point out our disbelief, especially in the bible.
6300 year old universe, a creation story that don't match what we see in the universe, animals don't talk, the evidence for evolution show there was no Adam or Eve but a split from a group of many chimpanzees, a flood story that never happened and couldn't happen the way the story claims, and not 1 peice of evidence for the entire exodus story.
Everything has been looked at and everything said about the abrahamic God is mythology.
Why are atheist wrong when most of us are still looking for evidence?
Because you cant prove or disprove the idea of a god, we can disprove propersitions of a god. For example: we know Ra don't pull the sun across the sky with his chariot. This propersition can be disproven based on knowledge of the sun and planets.
However if we go with any of the creator gods, it become more difficult to prove depending what is said about one.
@@benrex7775 I've been reading this thread and you're missing the point of why Theists are argued with . You feel I am free to believe in fairies and talking dogs ( just as Atheists believe you have the right to believe in God or Gods ) . Now look at your last comment and add one point .
The fairies/talking dog believers say that the teachings of Fairies/ talking dogs tell us all that every child has to be taught about them in school, That if you are Heterosexual it's a sin and that ever woman Must have an abortion at least once . The believers lobby government and even the majority of members in government believe and agree with the believers and try to pass laws making these beliefs punishable!!!
Now ,can you say you wouldn't push back and argue that they have crossed the line and are clearly wrong in trying to make everyone bow to their beliefs. Especially as there is zero evidence for the Fairies/talking dog , there is only the believers faith they are correct and a book on fairies / talking dogs written 1600 years ago .
This is the only reason I argue with Theists . My claims ( as someone who hasn't seen any reason to believe in any Gods) are simple No religion has ever given me evidence to believe it's real and what is put forward as evidence by believers always amounts to faith and nothing more . As you can agree ,at least with the faith of fairies/ talking dogs there's no place in school for it ,no place in government for it and faith has no place telling others how they must live their lives.
( I also think it's weird I'm told I'm going to hell for eternity from people who claim their religion's where morals come from , with no sense of irony )
Ironic, coming from a philsophy that depends on argument from ignorance and argument from authority fallacies.
And Motte and Bailey? More than 50% of formal atheist/theist debates have the Christian position being defended as essentially theism with the Christianity removed.
I got to go ahead and give you thumbs up job on this one. The tables need to be turned on their denial and make them prove or reveal their basis for their denial and then show them how illogical they are.
My doG talks to me. But he does it only when I'm around. He stops talking as soon as someone else comes close and he never talks when a recording device is near him.
If you don't believe me, it's on you to prove me wrong. The tables have to be turned.
@@biedl86 is that a no to fornication and evolution and white racism?
My invisible friend told me that Jesus was the devil. He fooled gullible people into writing the Bible and believing he was good. If you don't believe me, you must prove me wrong.
@@StepnieW is this a no to abortion and evolution?
Huh???
You're conflating the fact that a statement can be true or false with what is reasonable to believe about that claim.
Suppose I present you a jar full of jelly beans. You have no idea how many are in there, but the number is necessarily either even or odd. If I ask you if you believe the number of jelly beans is odd and you answer "No", does that mean you believe the number is even? Obviously not.
So try to think through this, and don't mislead your fellow Christians into fallacious thinking.
Can you guys first sort out which God is true before countering the atheists' position? Islam claims the Christians are worshipping the wrong God, and I assume you would say Muslims have the wrong God... both of you cannot be right.
well nice mixing up atheism and agnosticism.
atheism doesn't claim there is a god that they are rejecting and have never done so, they just speak on their own thought about christianity and what it looks to them and why it doesn't make sense for them to think that a god exists, and christianity isn't the only belief they feel this about it's every belief of a supernatural claim.
the reason why they even dig on it is because they are curious as how the rest of the world can believe in something that doesn't give or detract from their life at all.
sometimes it's a good thing when they do things for good in the name of their faith, sometimes it's not so good.
but overall an atheist couldn't care less what you believe in as it doesn't really make you the person you are, just your justifications to what you do.
a good person that believes in christ will be generally a very nice person, a not so good person that believes in christ is not generally a nice person.
now there's different kinds of atheists, not everyone is a hedonist or a nihilist, i think most really believe in the idea of eudaimonia which is the greek philosophy of a life well lived.
and what i mean by a life well lived, it's doing good for goodness sake through virtue both for yourself and for others.
as in helping your neighbour makes you feel good because you did a good deed that makes you feel fulfilled.
you took care of your body and even if it was a bit rough you feel fulfilled knowing you did something good for yourself.
now with that said, people are still people and religions are what they are, they wouldn't exist if there wasn't a great deal of evangelizing, that's what i think can rub someone the wrong way.
imagine getting ads in real life, that's what religions are to most atheists. it's just a nuisance in their daily life so it's not so farfetched to why some atheists get agitated about it.
i mean you don't exactly see a bunch of atheists in america complain about hinduism, it's because it doesn't come up to bother them.
now however i will level with you god worshippers, there are a bunch of woke fucks out there and to that, we atheists who don't subscribe to all that nonsense we feel the same you do about them and there's more atheists that don't believe in that shit than there are those who do.
self-aggrandizing pricks the lot of them with nothing to stand on, to that we can bond over, after all a person who's good to others is good to me.
now pray to your hearts content because it doesn't bother me none.
You saying things with good voice doesn't make it correct.
also doesnt make it incorrect
These types compare God to dragons and fairies, and demand empirical and testable evidence. These statements let you know right away that they don’t really understand the arguments for God or the different kinds of evidences and when they apply. It would be like me arguing against evolution and saying, “why are there still monkeys if evolution happened.” The evolutionist would know right away that I don’t understand the claims being made.
God himself may be ethereal and outside the realm of space, time, and matter but if he ever interacts with the world in any way either through influencing events, performing miracles, or talking to people, then those are now testable claims subject to the scientific method. If you want to argue that god is just outside of our realm and leave it at that then that's fine. But it's the physical interaction with the physical world that people question
@@biggbeeferIf God does exist, He is claimed to be super natural, or outside this realm. We can detect the effects of the super natural. We can not directly detect the super natural itself, otherwise it wouldn’t be supernatural.
@@PaulRezaei right exactly. So the only way to detect a god is to prove physical actions in the world were done by this god. The most I've ever seen is someone be able to argue one or two points that point to a god. But never have I seen someone able to explain for example how the necessity of a god beginning the universe proves that their specific god and no others were responsible for it.
@@biggbeeferah I see, it sounds like a misunderstanding on the different kinds of evidence and how we arrive at truth. Do you believe that physical and repeatable evidence is the only way to know truth?
@@PaulRezaei yes
Stop assuming anyone cares about what you believe and those attacks from atheist would dramatically decline.
I am unkind to people that think what they believe about a god should have anything to do with me. it's the narcissism particularly Christians and Muslims display that puts me in attack mode..Theists think what convinces them should automatically convince an athiest and be our absolute standard of what should constitute as evidence when no where else do they set the bar so low other than for their religion with them acting as if we should share their emotional bias and not look at what they are tellling us objectively. and when it does not add up to an atheist they go heavy on the assumpitons and think they know us and our reasons better than we do ourselves and that we are somehow deficient in our charcter and understanding. and that we require some fixin
They think the way they arrive at conclusion is the foundation of logic and anyone who thinks independently of them is irrational, which only pisses me off more when they are so blind to the blatant fallacies they present in their arguments that they in turn accuse us of being incredulous for not buying. They think they get to decide for others what is meaning and purpose and that if you do not embrace their belief then ultimately you can have no meaning or purpose and that nihilism is the only alternative for atheist simply because they/theists would feel that way if they were to ever accept no god exits, they tremble in fear of the possiblity which puts them right back in your face with something to prove that they will either try harder to convince the atheists or talk sht about them for not believing what they think atheist ought to. They are more concerned about what is in my head and what I believe than I am.
They try and make atheism about any and everything but the simple most basic fact that they have made a claim they have no way of demonstrating, and have absolutely nothing that would compell us to believe, so what difference would it make if atheist actively believe no god exists or just lack a belief in a god,? Either way it goes you have nothing to convince us with..Theist are suggesting we believe in a god so what do we have to prove to them? If they do not feel they should have to prove anything to us then they should be just fine with us being atheists and if they are not they already know what they must do to covince us so it's a put up or shut up.situation I know what I am not convinced of and why I am not convinced with absolutely no need to prove it to you. I have no problem whit anyone asking me what for if they just accept the answer I give them without trying to make anything more out of it.
Theist are simply on a mission to try prove atheist wrong, so they can feel rightm given the implications and their emotional attachement to a certain outcome and this is what make them some of the most annoying creatures on theh planet.. Its nothing new, or novel about noticing that no god interacts with humans, no god can be detected, nothing that indicates its possible for one to exist in the capacity most theist describe, and that it simply doesn't comport with reality and it takes no Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins or scientific theory to realize that., There is hardly any argument you could throw at us that we did not already consider or have not heard once before. For most of us being an atheist did not just happen overnight.
Christians and Muslims in one way or another always have to try and make what they believe have something to do with everyone else, they act as though what they believe deserves some special consideration ,and owed some alligiance as if there god is anymore special than all the other alleged gods presented to us with no evidence,. I simply remind theists that they are no more special than anyone else who holds a belief they are stongly convinced is true although I am not truley convinced theist believe as strongly as the let on doubt more often than they would like to admitt so they try and convince themselves through trying to convince atheist and ever so pissed when atheist do not give them validation that their god is real. They see atheist as the walking, living, embodiment of the doubt they are trying to escape from within themselves and put a target on us, when none of us have anything to do with all that crap they carry around in their heads and would not at all mind remaining oblivious to it.
For someone who doesn’t like other people assuming their motivations, you sure make a lot of assumptions about other people.
@@Herrendez I was only speaking of the Christians and Muslims who come across that way which was not an assumption. Rarely do I ever get the chance to talk to any that does not behave in such a way.
It is arrogant idolatry to indict God for the work of Satan.
Can you prove that things you believe to be the work of Satan are really the work of Satan?
@@marksnow7569 accusing God of wrongdoing is the work of Satan. You need proof?
@@drsaxum Innocent until proven guilty- basic legal principle.
@@marksnow7569 no one is innocent next to God. Show me someone charging God with an offense and I'll show you someone rejecting Him as a holy God. Rejecting God's holiness in favor of our own is idolatry. No one is above Him.
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
@@drsaxum A God that designs living beings to cause suffering is not a good God.
THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!
The god Yahweh that you believe in is an invention of the ancient Hebrews living on the Sinai Peninsula and his son Yeshua is a wandering Jewish preacher who worshiped Yahweh and believed the end of the world was imminent.
Is this the same god that you believe in and pray to?
Religious people think they are clever with this? I wonder if the court system would agree with them. You have a problem with new atheists, but quote Jesus in your bible about atheists who did not buy his story back then either. Stop playing victim
PROVE THE IS A GOD SHOW THE EVIDENCE
I’ll say outright that I think god is completely silly as a concept.
I think there’s enough evidence that this reality is incompatible with any loving god that I can say this confidently.
That’s the reason I’m atheist and not an agnostic.
To be fair, there are plenty of unknowns in reality where a god could theoretically exist to our knowledge.
But is it remotely probable? Heck no.
Absolutely everything we have points against it.
At best, we have the few “I don’t knows” and then theists just say “therefore god” like all of their ancestors before them.
how can you not want to believe in this god that condones slavery, death for carrying wood on the sabbath, commands genocides occasionally, and will burn you in eternal damnation for not loving him?
Richard Dawkins is certainly making a claim. He says that natural science can prove supernatural claims.
How about a citation for that claim?
@@campfireaddict6417 It's on TH-cam.
People hate God, simple as that. They hate goodness and love themselves. People love darkness, selfishness, hedonism, narcissism, greed. Atheists think the world revolves around them. Even the angels rebelled against God, why wouldnt you think humans would do the same thing.
Stop projecting.
To all my atheist friends in the comments, this video ends encouraging Christians to continue showing love and respect AFTER they have had a negative experience with you. It literally ends with a call to action to bless you and pray for your wellbeing.
I'm sorry you've had negative interactions with Christianity or religion, but coming here to troll proves the point Micah is making.
That being said, may God bless you abundantly and give you peace ❤
Since when is disagreeing equivalent to trolling? Serious question, especially when immediately out of the gate he poisons the well by claiming that atheists "seem bent on hating you."
People deserve respect; beliefs don't, especially when your beliefs literally include the fact that I will be tortured eternally, that I deserve that, and that you are in support of it.
Trolling, my hinder. Christianity is an existential problem for non-Christians in the same way that Islam is an existential problem for non-Muslims: it threatens our existence.
@@sjhoneywell6235 very fair questions-
I think there are some genuine trolls in the comments, but I would also say there are some people who have obviously been hurt by Christianity or people claiming to be Christian, who drastically fell short of the mark.
For your second point, I would say we both look at the modern view of "hell" to be contradictory to a God of compassion and mercy.
A point I struggle with modern Christians over and have my whole life.
Why would God condemn to hell those He loved? Especially when all sin is forgiven by those who seek it?
The scriptures point to a "second death" but not eternal damnation- a concept stemming from Greek and Roman mythology.
Someone else in the comments mentioned the numerous groups of Christianity- I and those of like mind have struggled with the same issues you have but found a new avenue of hope and joy to pursue instead of what we would consider vain nihilism.
I don't think if you reject the God who I love and worship, you will burn or suffer eternally. Consider it more just a form of non-existence, ultimately chosen by you. My God and Savior love you whether or not you deem them worthy of Being.
@@scootsmagoots86 I appreciate the measured response. I'm just going to focus on one thing:
"Consider it more just a form of non-existence, ultimately chosen by you."
Would you accept this blithely if the person who ultimately "chose" this by not being convinced by weak evidence (yes, that's my opinion) was your spouse? Or your child? How much of eternity will you enjoy knowing that person who you likely love more than life itself will vanish from existence?
This is less cruel than a hell, but not by much, especially since the cruelty is heaped upon the saved.
EDIT: Worth noting that you skipped the part about Christianity being an existential problem in the literal sense for atheists and non-Christians.
As for what you consider "vain nihilism," why don't you ask us about that instead of just assuming that's what it is? This is one of the reasons why Christianity is an existential issue for us--you assume you know the answers to things without bothering to ask us, and you act in ways based on your thoughts rather than our reality.
@@sjhoneywell6235 Bear with me, friend. These ideas and concepts are difficult to convey in a short amount of text.
As I said, I don’t fit in the typical Christianity “box”. We butt heads over many things and to them, based on their own standards, I will be burning in hell right along with you when this is all over.
I reject that notion just as you have.
I understand the foul taste in your mouth left from dealing with self-righteous zealots and the poison of what passes for “Christianity” these days. I don’t know your story or all the nuances to your life, so I won’t strawman you as an “atheist” or assume I can just say the magic alignment of words to make all your doubt melt away.
I can, however, provide you with a small amount of exegesis that points to hope and salvation for all.
Based on my understanding of scripture, God will give everyone a chance to be included in His family.
If I understand your “existential problem” point, there are obviously billions of people in the world who were never given the opportunity to know God or hear of the sacrifice of Christ. What about them? What about my friends and family members who, like you, have come to the same conclusions about God?
Again, basing my beliefs from what God has said, He loves and cherishes you whether you’re a believer or not, and wants you specifically to be a part of His family.
After you die, you will stand before Him.
You will finally get all the proof you could want, and a final olive branch will be extended to you to join Him. This applies to you and every single other atheist and non-Christian alike.
There are some who even after all this will choose what I referred to earlier as the “second death”, or non-existence.
It is still their choice to go this route, and God will respect that wish. And again, basing my views from God’s Word, this is an act of supreme mercy and compassion.
Will it be sad if I know people who ultimately make that choice? Absolutely. But it’s still their choice. God respects them enough to let them make it, so I must as well.
“As for what you consider "vain nihilism," why don't you ask us about that instead of just assuming that's what it is? This is one of the reasons why Christianity is an existential issue for us--you assume you know the answers to things without bothering to ask us, and you act in ways based on your thoughts rather than our reality.”
What is life to you then? What is your purpose and from what do you derive meaning? Do you not also make a bold claim that you have the answers? Why is your “reality” the only acceptable one? How do you know you don’t act from your own biases instead of the truth? Do you think we don’t also wrestle with our faith and strive against the chaos around us?
For many, our decision to believe God and accept His call was a hard-fought battle that still requires daily faith that all the many terrors of life will be set right again, and that you will have as much opportunity and right to be in God’s future kingdom as me, and that together, we have hope.
@@scootsmagoots86 ”I won’t strawman you as an “atheist””
No need for quotes. I’m an atheist. I do not believe a god or gods exist.
“I can, however, provide you with a small amount of exegesis that points to hope and salvation for all.”
Before I care about this small amount of exegesis, you need to demonstrate why I should care about these or any scriptures. Demonstrate that these scriptures are the right ones. Why not the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bardo Thodol, the Qur’an, Dianetics, or Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? Are you including the Book of Mormon? If so, why? If not, by what right do you exclude it.
“If I understand your “existential problem” point, there are obviously billions of people in the world who were never given the opportunity to know God or hear of the sacrifice of Christ.”
You do not, in fact, understand the existential problem, and I was very clear on this. The existential problem is that Christianity is a threat to non-Christians, not in some presumed afterlife but in this actual life. This is exactly what I said-it is a threat to our existence. Likely not from you personally, but you don’t have to look very hard to spot "good Christians" with opinions that anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus doesn’t deserve the right to life. How exactly do you think your average Southern Baptist would feel about a mosque going up in their neighborhood?
“After you die, you will stand before Him. You will finally get all the proof you could want, and a final olive branch will be extended to you to join Him. This applies to you and every single other atheist and non-Christian alike.”
You claim this as a bit of exegesis. I’m familiar enough with Christian scripture, and I don’t see where you get this without some wishful thinking on your part that this might be how things work. Where, precisely, are you getting this in your exegesis?
“basing my views from God’s Word”
You don’t get to call anything “God’s Word” until you demonstrate that it is, in fact, the word of a god. You don’t get to sneak that definition in and pretend like everyone agrees with that assessment. Demonstrate this first, and then we can talk. Until then, it’s just presumption on your part.
“What is life to you then?”
Life is just life. It is the way the sun is.
“What is your purpose and from what do you derive meaning?”
I derive meaning from the people around me, from the world around me. From my wife and children, from my students. From acts of kindness and opposition to what I consider to be evil.
“Do you not also make a bold claim that you have the answers?”
I make the bold claim that I have the answers for me specifically and for no one else, and that no one else has the right to provide answers for me.
“Why is your “reality” the only acceptable one?”
It's not. I strive to live in actual reality and I don’t accept the idea that we each have our own. I’m happy to accept information that demonstrates reality-which is precisely why I ask for evidence of things. In terms of religion, that evidence proves to be thin on the ground, but I’m still asking.
“How do you know you don’t act from your own biases instead of the truth?”
I don’t, which is why I question things, including my own biases.
“Do you think we don’t also wrestle with our faith and strive against the chaos around us?”
Frankly, no. I think you do. Do you seriously think the average person does? Do you think the average Christian does? Maybe they do secretly, but in terms of how they act and present themselves, not so much.
“For many, our decision to believe God and accept His call was a hard-fought battle that still requires daily faith that all the many terrors of life will be set right again, and that you will have as much opportunity and right to be in God’s future kingdom as me, and that together, we have hope.”
And again, you need to show that the god you are talking about exists. “Faith” as I see it, has no value, and that faith is the only thing that allows you to believe in that future kingdom in the first place. Provide evidence.
If atheism is now to be defined as 'just not believing in God', we need to coin a new term for those who do have an actual belief that there is no God: perhaps distheists.But in fact, most atheists really are distheists (and liars about it, too).
i actively believe there is no god in the same way that i actively believe there is no invisible purple unicorn on my roof. i don’t think i’d need to prove that “belief” to you, even if some guys in the middle east wrote about it a few thousand years ago
@@leem2155 But you're being disingenuous because the existence (or non-existence) of God is one of the most important questions in human life. Plus the evidence for God is actually good (you're just denying it). So the scenarios are not comparable. Unfortunately I've learnt to expect nothing better from people willing to use the sort of rhetoric you've employed here.
Here's a whole lot of evidence for God, btw: th-cam.com/play/PLwaiQXAdTRa19LNS8Qf3RHrGsEXSRJJB4.html
Prove my expectations wrong.
I've had situations like this a lot. I am first and foremost Christian because of experiences i had in my life. I've had experiences in my life that turned my belief into knowledge. I know that God exists, and the His name is YHWH and that he came on earth as Jesus Christ. Then i got introduced into all of these philosophical, logical and scientific arguments, because i realize that personal experience wouldn't be accepted as evidence. I'm a science nerd and an engineering graduate. I've read so many scientific books and they seem to reaffirm the design behind everything in the physical world. I even recall books saying that when humans design anything, it is often something already present in the world. Almost as if we are trying to replicate a simplified version of the physical world.
God is the father, the son and the holy spirit, and His name is YHWH/Jesus.
All anybody including yourself should ask is for evidence. Your certainty is an emotion. I can't process your emotions. And a god who wants you to share that experience needs to provide what you'll need for influencing another person. If you're the science nerd, you must understand how science works. It begins with observation. If you give me nothing to observe, then the process stalls.
@@jenna2431 Hi there.
2 things I would like to point out.
1)i don't think that science can find God, i think science provides evidence for Him. God is above science so ee can't write an equation and say it equals God.
Science is one of different things our mind and reality allows us to do, and we have to acknowledge its limitations. For example, you can't scientifically prove in a lab that George Washington was a US president. But you find it in history, a different branch of human knowledge and capabilities.
2) There is very strong evidence for an intelligent creator. Scientifically, logically and philosophically. Let's go through some ideas.
Ask yourself this: do we as humans have intelligence and consciousness? Yes, we do. So it seems very illogical to me to say that what created us didn't have intelligence or consciousness. Where would I get them from? If whatever created didn't do it in an intelligent way, how would I have any intelligence about me?
Is science random and inconsistent? Is it unintelligent and illogical? Math, physics, biology etc? No, it is very structured and very mesmerizingly beautiful and consistent and logical. This is why we can do science. So would it be rational to think that it's origin was unintelligent, random chance? Again seems very illogical to me to say so.
Can i get a piece of hardware (processors, memories, SPI lines and so on) and ask them to make me a software? Of course not. But i can ask AI (software) to design a circuit (hardware). I like analogies :).
@@jenna2431 Hi there.
2 things I would like to point out.
1)i don't think that science can find God, i think science provides evidence for Him. God is above science so ee can't write an equation and say it equals God.
Science is one of different things our mind and reality allows us to do, and we have to acknowledge its limitations. For example, you can't scientifically prove in a lab that George Washington was a US president. But you find it in history, a different branch of human knowledge and capabilities.
2) There is very strong evidence for an intelligent creator. Scientifically, logically and philosophically. Let's go through some ideas.
Ask yourself this: do we as humans have intelligence and consciousness? Yes, we do. So it seems very illogical to me to say that what created us didn't have intelligence or consciousness. Where would I get them from? If whatever created didn't do it in an intelligent way, how would I have any intelligence about me?
Is science random and inconsistent? Is it unintelligent and illogical? Math, physics, biology etc? No, it is very structured and very mesmerizingly beautiful and consistent and logical. This is why we can do science. So would it be rational to think that it's origin was unintelligent, random chance? Again seems very illogical to me to say so.
Can i get a piece of hardware (processors, memories, SPI lines and so on) and ask them to make me a software? Of course not. But i can ask AI (software) to design a circuit (hardware). I like analogies :).
@@jenna2431 Hi there.
2 things I would like to point out.
1)i don't think that science can find God, i think science provides evidence for Him. God is above science so ee can't write an equation and say it equals God.
Science is one of different things our mind and reality allows us to do, and we have to acknowledge its limitations. For example, you can't scientifically prove in a lab that George Washington was a US president. But you find it in history, a different branch of human knowledge and capabilities.
2) There is very strong evidence for an intelligent creator. Scientifically, logically and philosophically. Let's go through some ideas very briefly.
Ask yourself this: do we as humans have intelligence and consciousness? Yes, we do. So it seems very logical to me to say that what created us had intelligence or consciousness. Otherwise where would I get them from? If whatever created didn't do it in an intelligent way, how would I have any intelligence about me?
Is science random and inconsistent? Math, physics, biology etc? No, it is very structured and very mesmerizingly beautiful and consistent and logical. This is why we can do science. So would it be rational to think that it's origin was unintelligent, random chance? Again seems very illogical to me to say so.
Can i get a piece of hardware (processors, memories, SPI lines and so on) and ask them to make me a software? Of course not. But i can ask AI (software) to design a circuit (hardware). I like analogies :).
@@jenna2431 Hi there.
2 things I would like to point out.
1)i don't think that science can find God, i think science provides evidence for Him. God is above science so ee can't write an equation and say it equals God.
Science is one of different things our mind and reality allows us to do, and we have to acknowledge its limitations. For example, you can't scientifically prove in a lab that George Washington was a US president. But you find it in history, a different branch of human knowledge and capabilities.
2) There is very strong evidence for an intelligent creator. Scientifically, logically and philosophically. Let's go through some ideas very briefly.
Ask yourself this: do we as humans have intelligence and consciousness? Yes, we do. So it seems very logical to me to say that what created us had intelligence and consciousness. Otherwise where would I get them from? If whatever created me did it in an unintelligent undesigned way, so would my thoughts be. At what point does chaos become ordered?
Is science random and inconsistent? Math, physics, biology etc? No, it is very structured and very mesmerizingly beautiful and consistent and logical. And it has to be. Otherwise it wouldn't be science. So would it be rational to think that it's origin was unintelligent, random chance?
Can i get a piece of hardware (processors, memories, SPI lines and so on) and ask them to make me a software? Of course not. But i can ask AI (software) to design a circuit (hardware). I like analogies :).
The core truth doctrine points to God
Got any evidence for that claim?
@@alanhobden8847 is that a no to evolution?
no, why?@@bretherenlee1404
Heh heh!
Yes it is well defined, that "an atheist is a person with no invisible means of support".
Without support from God, i know i wouldn't be alive today ...so, i am daily thankful.
If we look into the vast universe or check out the tiniest organism of life or atom on Earth, the genius of God our Father and His Son Jesus Christ is ever-present, as our great Creator, Lifegiver, Lawgiver, Sustainer, Designer, Answerer of Prayer, Supreme Prophet, who has laid out for us God's right way of life, that really produces the right results (John 7:17) ...and God is the only One who can resurrect us to eternal life (John 6:68), as sons and daughters in God's eternal Family (2 Cor 6:17-18).
Only a fool has said in their heart, there is no God. (Psalm 14:1, 54:1)
Do you people think pulling insults from your only book is meant to impress anyone or move the discussion?