A Logic Lesson for Lack of Belief Atheists
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2024
- A logic lesson for Lack of Belief Atheists explaining Modus Tollens and how they don't really lack a belief, they believe Chrisitanity (et al) to be false.
Photo Credits:
Dog: David Locke, www.flickr.com..., Creative Commons license
Clearly missing the mark.
Wow! “Thinking” is supporting preconceived conclusions w/ confirmation bias. Ha to all those imbeciles who said I wasn't thinking when I dragon-proofed my car! There’s sulfur everywhere! How do you think it got there you non-thinkers?!!! btw, that's rhetorical because my preconceived notion is true. Thanks MTM Method!
Logic...not really your thing.
Eh, you're over-estimating yourself
This post is an ad hominem attack (since you didn't even attempt to rationally justify the accusation with specificity).
So, you're demonstrating fallacious reasoning while simultaneously accusing others of bad logic. Projection.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Learn what an Ad Hom is.
"Ideally, he'd bring his pet unicorn to the meeting." 😂
First! I love modus tollens. It's my favorite weapon of refutation-after retortion. This is going to be good.
A quick question:
What is the logical position to take about a claim of existence that has not been demonstrated to be correct?
Depends on how good the evidence is. If evidence seems to be completely lacking, I would go with Apathetic Agnosticism. For example, my view on unicorns and pixies is Apathetic Agnosticism, I do not know if they exist and I do not really care. If someone thinks they do, I roll my eyes and move on.
Not accepting the claim.
initially you dont accept the claim. then you would make a hypothesis about the claim and after that you would try to prove or disprove the hypothesis
@@GimliofGarden *"Depends on how good the evidence is."* no, that's avoiding the question. The question was "What is the logical position to take about a claim of existence that has not been demonstrated to be correct?
"
If there was evidence, that would be part of the process of demonstrating it.
Now, answer the question please: "What is the logical position to take about a claim of existence that has not been demonstrated to be correct?
"
@@antediluvianatheist5262
"no, that's avoiding the question."
Perhaps it would have been, if I had not immediately answered the question in that same paragraph.
"If there was evidence, that would be part of the process of demonstrating it."
Do you not know the difference between evidence and proof? Do you not understand that evidence can be interpreted many ways? Do you not understand that evidence can be inconclusive, but hint at more likely outcomes? This statement of yours is idiotically simplistic: the mark of an unevolved mind.
"What is the logical position to take about a claim of existence that has not been demonstrated to be correct?
"
As said above, I did answer immediately after the part you quoted. If the evidence is outright lacking and unconvincing, I default to apathetic agnosticism. Of course, that depends on the nature of 'demonstrated to be correct'. People can have very different standards of what constitutes such a demonstration.
As you are apparently a self-described atheist, though, I do not blame you for failing basic reading comprehension and overall demonstrating that you are a mentally maladapted monkey since atheists are by definition fools.
Now, if you are talking about God, which of course you are, there is pleeenttttyyyy of evidence. Which you know full well. The internet is full of all sorts of arguments for God from history, science, personal experience, and outright philosophical necessity. But you will say none of that has been 'demonstrated to be correct', because you do not want to believe that they are. Probably because if a God exists you will be judged for your many personal failings and you hate the idea of being held to any sort of standard.
Fine.
Christianity -> slavery is moral (Exodus 21, Leviticus 25)
~(slavery is moral)
:.
~Christianity
What's the problem? Atheists have been saying this for ages.
Check out WhatDoYouMeme's recent series on Slavery!
@@JustinGrace1123 I'm sorry, but WhatDoYouMeme's video series was yet another disgraceful attempt at arguing for the morality of Biblical slavery.
The phrase "lack of a belief" is self-contradictory. You can't lack a belief in nothing which is essentially what an atheist is trying to claim (by virtue of denying the existence of a god). By contrast,the theist would hold to the following three things: (1) God exists, (2) acknowledge that evidence for God exists, and (3) hold a belief that this evidence . If you LACK belief you have lack belief in something rather than have a lack of belief in nothing. The is mental gymnastics that atheist is forced into - the claim that atheism is "simply the lack of belief in a god" is a self-contradictory. The correct definition or explanation of atheism should be more along the lines of "the rejection of the evidence provided by theists for THEIR belief in a god". And this in turn means that atheists do hold a belief - they believe that theistic evidence is unsatisfactory and/ or inconclusive. But for atheists to simply claim they "lack belief" is meaningless - lack belief in what exactly something or nothing?
The difficulty with your position is that someone could invent a new religion tomorrow and ask me to take some sort of logical stance about it. There is nothing inherently special about Christianity that requires me to take a position. Same with Islam, Scientology, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't use logic to refute a posture of indifference.
As a human being you have a moral duty to try to discover the truth. To be indifferent to whether something important is true is to be a rabbit instead of a human being.
So you needed a second video to show how flawed your logic is?
You shouldn't have, we picked up on that in the first one.
If you understood validity, as a function of argument... you'd stop professing!!!
How likely is that!?!?! ;-)
The really great thing about this argument is that virtue ethics, many deontological systems, and other ethical systems besides utilitarianism also disagree heavily with the prescribed ethics of Christianity which is why most philosophers aren't Christians. Even better, you can throw in the contradiction with Christianity providing objective ethics with the possibility that error theorists are correct and things just get even messier for the Christian. Truly a great thing, that logic.
This is a troll-video, right?
...right?
The irony is, I have seen videos like this... back in 2008. Why do so many theists make videos like this thinking they are the FIRST to say this shit that has been debunked.
BionicDance “implies” is not meant in an everyday English sense. It’s a mathematical term, obviously, since it is widely used in mathematics.
This straw man at least indicates you know the meaning of the word “implies”. The word “if” is a different story.
If Socrates has horns. Note use of the word “if”, because up until now, you’ve completely ignored it. Socrates having horns is a property enabling Socrates to be a bull, his having horns or not having horns are the only “circumstances”. It’s a thing called “propositional calculus” that doesn’t have to do with zoology or amateur surgery.
You then say that Wikipedia has a better example before going on to show that it’s actually worse, trying imply (everyday English) that because of this we should just throw propositional calculus out on you say so.
Not gonna happen, sorry.
You've ignored the relevant part here, which is that, if Socrates does not have horns, then Socrates _IS NOT A BULL._
No horns = Not bull.
That's not implication, that's a statement of _certainty._ It's one that does not allow for various circumstances.
For example, what if Socrates is a breed of cow known as a Polled Hereford, which are naturally hornless cattle...the statement that, if Socrates is a bull, Socrates will have horns--which is the initial proposition--is simply false.
If Socrates is a bull, Socrates only _might_ have horns...but the proposition made _requires_ Socrates to have horns in order to be a bull; it's a checkbox that _must_ be filled.
And I did _not_ say that the example given in Wikipedia was better; that was a _previous_ example.
I used the Wikipedia example _to point out a similar flaw,_ to point out circumstances which had not been considered in the proposition.
BionicDance The example is not meant to be illustrative of Excluded Middle. That’s already covered in other parts of logic.
Instead what your meant to do accept the ‘given’ of the original premises, instead of picking at it like it’s a plate of fish and broccoli, you’ve decided you don’t like.
I could easily say “Why a bull? Why not an Ibex or Narwhal?”. I would still, in the end, have to understand the whole idea is going completely over my head, if I’m going to be so painfully literal minded about it.
And I'm obviously _NOT_ doing what I'm meant to do...because doing so is foolish and ignorant.
And the premise given was not that having horns _makes_ Socrates a bull, but rather that being a bull _requires_ having horns.
And this is obviously not the case, thus my dispute with the premise, with the attempt at logic.
This isn't exactly rocket surgery, here/
I hold pretty much all Christian morals as correct but I'm still lack of belief atheist. I would love to believe in God. I really much would like to think God is real. But coming from atheistic family and culture there is very little that actually points towards this conclusion. I can't just jump into belief just by faith. It wouldnt feel intellectually honest towards me or anyone else, even more towards Christian belief.
Christianity entails a lot of truths (doctrines) that don't necessarily all stand or fall together. If God had made the world in 8 days, then the Sabbath law as written would be false. But what else would be false by implication?
The Bible doesn't say God made the world in 8 days, so you're essentially cresting a new (slightly altered) non-Christian worldview.
Then you're using that to say there isn't actually a Christian worldview. But there is.
This video is a lesson in valid logic and a challenge to use moral questions to refute Christianity. No sound argument has been presented.
As to the reference to the first video, you are using premises that concern facts and not beliefs. As such using the syllogism to critique lack of beliefs atheist is the wrong choice. It would be more accurate to say:
If the LOBA belief about the nature of the universe is true than all contradicting beliefs about the nature of the universe are not true.
The LOBA belief is true
All other contradicting beliefs are not true.
Not a sound argument but it is valid and better demonstrates how our beliefs are arrived at the same way. Any critiques?
As to the morality point, how are you determining something to be moral?
hey Mark, made a video response to this video :)
Please tell me this is a troll video. For the love of (pick whatever god) let this be a troll video.
*uses the Christianity -> ~Islam example to demonstrate the distinction between validity and soundness in formal logic*
*Gets downvoted by morons who think it's mean't to be an actual argument about Christianity's truthfulness as a premise*
I fear you're trying to combine two meanings of "belief" to make it seem like some atheists hold position they do not.
Word "belief" can mean accepting something is true, or confidence that something is true. It is true that atheists do not believe in any god in former sense, but they do not claim latter absolute certainty that god doesn't exist.
Theists sometimes try to score cheap gotcha!-moment from the fact that it is impossible to prove that some god doesn't exist.
If it's also impossible to prove God does exist, which is why Christians call it "faith" and why smart apologists don't bother.
While it would be impossible to prove no god exists, it is not impossible to prove a specific god doesn't exist.
Let's consider the following definition of a god (X):
All-knowing , All-powerful, Perfectly good creator of the universe that wants to have a personal relationship with it's creation, yet creates a hell, and doesn't make it's existence easily demonstrable.
Using
1) argument from non-belief against the existence of god
2) the omnipotence paradox
3) the omniscience paradox
4) the omnipotence-omniscience paradox
5) the problem of natural evil
...it's quite simple to prove that "god X" doesn't exist.
Just to stress this (if it is not yet clear), this does not prove no god exists. It only proves that "god X" doesn't exist. Unfortunately, I am aware that some Christians sees this as the same thing.
Many believers try to fallaciously equivocate:
"Your god doesn't exist" and "There is no god"
Jaakko Järvinen
Aren't those two synonyms? Obviously you need to have confidence when you are accepting something is true.
Wlof25 Not really. If i tell you a thing, like say, then number of marbles in the jar is even, you can accept that.
If someone says 'Are you confident that the number of marbles is even?' you can say 'Eh, not really.'
It's a lot like the difference between 'i don't believe in gods' and 'i believe there are no gods.'
One is a lack of beleif. And the second is the belief in the absence.
The problem here is that you're choosing propositions that are not statements of absolute fact (which is how these arguments are supposed to be formulated), but mere subjective opinion. You actually acknowledge this yourself: if the non-believer doesn't agree that fornication is okay, then you'll simply move on to another subject (masturbation, adultery...) until you find one that fits. So the basic structure of your logic can be defined as: "this argument is universally true (sound), unless I find myself in a context where it isn't, in which case I'll keep swapping the subject until I find one that works within the given context, then proceed..."
3:44 The problem with haughty statements like "if you hold that you aren't yet capable of working through basic syllogism..." is that you have to be pretty darn sure that you're actually capable of understanding basic syllogisms yourself, otherwise you can end up with proverbial egg on your face. Better to take a humble tone, rather than high 'n' mighty, as the drop if you should fall is not so crushing. In your case it does (humbly) appear to me you've made a schoolboy error of taking something that is highly subjective (like personal views on adultery, masturbation, abortion, etc.) and tried to use them in a form of logic that requires objective statements of fact for the conclusion to work. The most disappointing part is that you already recognised this yourself, as signified by the "OR masturbation OR adultery OR whatever" escape clause you created -- suggesting that you were either having a particularly bad day at the office, or don't understand the basic requirements for propositions in such arguments if you want the conclusions to be true.
What is it you’re trying to say “lack of belief atheists” believe? You seem to be implying that they’ve failed at logic, but in what way? What is it that they claim, that is logically inconsistent?
Do I qualify as a “lack of belief atheist”, being that I admit that I don’t know whether or not there is A god, that is, some kind of designer behind the creation of the universe, because the full extent of human knowledge does not allow any of us to properly address that possibility, but then go on to explain that I have much higher certainty that your specific interpretation of “god” is a work of fiction and a human invention, because it is entirely consistent with every god created by mythology, as an effort to provide an immediate, simple explanation for phenomena that people can’t or don’t want to understand?
All personal held beliefs are beliefs
⚛ Thanks for posting
Maybe you should debate a lack-of-belief atheist. Bring your brick on again.
The obvious failure of your argument is that you leave out an important and quite obvious premise. Believing fornication is not wrong is not sufficient to make this "argument" sound. One must believe fornication is not wrong AND their moral code is objectively true in order for the former to imply that Christianity is false. Given that the later premise is not demonstrable, and "lack of belief atheists" typically don't believe in objective morality in my experience, the argument falls apart and lack of belief atheism is an entirely logical position for someone who does not claim objective morality.
Moral of the story: anyone can pick up a book on formal logic, or take a class in college on the topic as I did. However understand basic logical forms and actually being able to apply those forms to real-life issues are entirely separate skills, as this video quite clearly demonstrates.
Believing fornication is not morally wrong would mean the person believes a non-Christian worldview by necessity (since the Christian worldview includes a Revelational Epistemology with the Bible being the ultimate standard for truth. And the Bible says fornication is morally wrong.) So the denial of the Christian worldview necessarily follows, by virtue of their affirmation of belief in a non-Christian worldview.
Worldviews are mutually exclusive. The affirmation of worldview X is an implicit denial of all worldviews that are not-X.
Literally, the most illogical argument I've heard. It reminded me of of the flat earther, debbie
Did Atheists suddenly start affirming Christian morality? Did I miss something?
If not, what was this video trying to prove?
I usually love your stuff, but I'm very confused
Wow, very funny and savage. Bad week with atheists???
What’s the difference between the statements, lacking a belief in God and a belief that God doesn’t exist?
The first is merely a claim about the person making it, the second is a claim about reality outside of the person.
@@MissingTheMark I think I understand it now. That makes sense. It took me a few minutes of staring at the text to understand it for some reason. Something is wrong with my brain.
The problem here is that if you don't like the rules of Christianity is that if you disagree with the moral rules you can just make your own "branch". Just ask Martin Luther.
People can do lots of things. Doesn't make it right or true.
My biggest problem with this is that Christianity =/= God. Typically, 'lack of belief' atheists DO hold that the particular God of Christianity (and various other particulars) doesn't actually exist, but the 'lack of belief' pertains to the proposition that NO God exists. Logically, it'd be better expressed in second order logic or epistemic modal logic (though I understand that's a bit advanced for average viewers). The "lack of belief" response comes up when an atheist is told that he has a position (and subsequently a burden of proof) that there are is no God at all, when that's not his position. Instead, it's almost always the case that the [vocal] atheist believes assertively that one or more particular propositions of God are false.
"Lack of belief" is just a way to attempt shirk responsibility for one's belief system, nothing more or less. An honest atheist needs no such construct. They just say, "I believe there is no God." No need to go into constructs of what happens when someone does. And they deal with enormity of that statement, because it is enormous. They go about their day and have no need to come up with the painful constructs in your post. Obviously, "lack of belief" is something deeply psychological in militant atheists that they cannot deal with what the implications of they supposedly believe. They want to hedge their bets without really dealing with Christianity in particular is saying. (Atheists are constantly rejecting the Christian God -- they never seem to want to argue about Deism.) Well, okay. There's nothing to discuss, Mr. "I lack belief". One might as well be talking to door jam, which also "lacks belief" in anything.
_"They just say, 'I believe there is no God.' "_
But's that isn't what they all believe, though! Not many people have the bold stance of "there is no God of any form, even a deistic god, that exists", which is what "no god exists" means as a general claim. And while I agree that it can certainly be employed and leveraged dishonestly, it's wrong to reject all those who claim that position to be doing so. You are heavily stereotyping when you ascribe common motives to a large demographic of people as you are doing without some form of statistical evidence.
And why would a "lack of belief" atheist have nothing to say? Such a person is free to examine and offer up opinions on many things, such as the validity or strength of evidences and arguments both for and against the existence of a God. Obviously, he just doesn't find them convincing, but he's free to discuss why that is.
"But's that isn't what they all believe, though!" Yes, it's all they believe. That's all needs to be said on the subject. The alpha and omega as it were. The complete rejection of stating their beliefs in the positive - "I believe there is no God" is a testament to a base dishonesty, the unwillingness to face up the enormity of their supposed beliefs.
" it's wrong to reject all those who claim that position to be doing so" You're an atheist, there's not such thing as right and wrong, remember? All morality is just subjective, as it must be for accidental large bags of meat who pay taxes and stand in line at the DMV. Our perceptions change through time and what not.
"You are heavily stereotyping" Stereotyping is not actually wrong if I'm treating individuals with respect, so I don't care. The only people it might bother are those who are not honestly facing the implications of their supposed belief system. I've held all sorts of pleasant conversations with honest atheists and it does not apply to them.
" why would a "lack of belief" atheist have nothing to say? " Rocks, bricks, dogs, babies, etc all lack beliefs. I don't hold conversations with them because it's rather dull because it's all me. The only interesting conversations, or really conversations at all, come from people who have actual beliefs.
Spectrum Atheist
Ah, I see you've beaten me to the reply. Cool. I have a couple trivial disagreements, and one with the statement:
_" 'I believe there is no god' is an intellectually dishonest statement.",_ but I largely agree, overall. I enjoy seeing a unique mind now and again. ;)
A M do you lack belief in the number of marbles in my jar?
If i tell you it's odd, do you believe it's even?
Or do you lack belief?
Atheism is not defined as "The lack of belief in the truth of Christianity". So lacking a belief in God and believing Christianity to be false is not a contradiction.
That's one usage of the word, another would be the non-belief in the existence of a god/gods.
OscaRRR *"An atheist is someone who maintains that the proposition "God exists" is false."* incorrect.
And athiest holds that statement to not be true, or not be proven true.
Some may also say that it's false.
These are not the same things.
As dead-wrong as Aron Ra is on theological (and historical, biblical, & philosophical matters), at least he doesn't pussyfoot around with muh lack of belief when backed into a corner. He'll still claim there is no God
Hahaha Ra is a low IQ moron.
Cameron Gilchrist l wouldn't say that. He is a moron but not low IQ. He's smart when it comes to the science, but even then it's more like 80s introductory-level stuff
Not exactly a too go guy for the science and his complete lack of self awareness exposes the shallow nature of his thinking.
Darryl Elam Tim O'Neill, that atheist historian. Don't believe me, ask him what he makes of guys like Aron Ra, he'll tell you. You can find him on historyforatheists.com "If you're not a feminist, you're sexist and a misogynist" - Aron Ra. Even Thunderf00t called him out. Yeah, he has been refuted thoroughly, you don't wanna face that reality because, again, you're loyal to him and you're a like-minded ideologue. Wrong, l don't hate him, l just have zero tolerance for bullshit and his impressionable followers who swallow the crap that comes out of his mouth without any skepticism or critical thinking whatsoever. As l said, he should stick to science, that's his area of competence, not bible-bashing or anti-God apologetics. His argumentum is totally circular; "God does not exist because there is no evidence and nothing counts as evidence because there is no God". It's totally ridiculous that you actually think that miserable sod has anything meaningful to say. Pathetic, Darrel, pathetic. Are you related to Paul Elam by any chance?
Darryl Elam "All you can do is mock what you don't understand", sounds familiar...
Booooorrrriiinnngggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's talk about prescriptive versus descriptive language. Theists generally understand logic, physics, etc to be prescriptive. Suppose there were an infinite number of universes - in NO universe could something be both true and false at the same time. This is the prescriptive view of logic. The descriptive view of logic would say "we merely have not observed something be true and false at the same time, and this is our current understanding - we have an infinite number of universes to explore, so let's keep exploring until we see otherwise". A prescriptive view of physics would say "There is an underlying and unyielding principle that causes my pencil to fall to the ground, and this principle is called gravity", and a descriptive view would say "My pencil has fallen to the ground 1000 times out of a 1000, and this statistical cluster is called gravity".
Just because two people are talking about logic doesn't mean they're talking about the same thing. If logic is merely descriptive, it doesn't necessarily inform you about Real Life, it just encompasses certain statistical clusters, and may not apply to all circumstances. A descriptive use of language is very powerful - it is never wrong. You have the power of Humpty-Dumpty, where all words mean what you want them to mean. But it is unable to predict the future, discern the past, or advise the present, which is the realm of prescriptive language.
I'll do a brief post of this on mine own channel, but I think you'd do a better job of it.
It seems that you are talking about deduction and induction and I never heard logic to be both perspective an descriptive, but only descriptive, because logic describe existence.
Both "Descriptive" and "Prescriptive" are supposed to describe reality, but only one of them insists that a pattern exists. I have had long-form discussions with people who actually view logic itself to be only descriptive- ie, maybe it's possible that, at the same time, X=X and X=/=X. That a tree could be there and not there at the same time. We just simply haven't observed it yet.
I am sorry, but you kinda repeated yourself here.
What you call descriptive logic is actually inductive reasoning and it can be logically fallacious and or can have false conclusions.
Swans exist (true and descriptive).
All the swans I observed are white (it describes what I gathered with my senses and it can be true).
Therefore, all swans are white (description and not necessarily true).
Deductive reasoning is not prescriptive, it describes existence and what things are and we are reaching the true conclusion about existence and what things are.
All men are mortal (true and descriptive).
Socrates is a man (true and descriptive)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal (true and descriptive).
No, there's a subtle difference here. Inductive reasoning is based off of observation, sure, and descriptive thinking/language is also based off of observation. What I am saying, is that I have met people who have a Descriptive view of even deductive logic. The rules of logic themselves aren't ironclad. Or, if you prefer, they think that deductive reasoning rests on the foundation of inductive reasoning. I think this is absolutely bonkers, but this is a mode of thought I have encountered.
Ok, I was thinking about this a little more. One difference in general between serious theists and serious atheists is that the theist believes in a sufficiently ordered universe, with chaos in the order, and the atheist believes in a sufficiently disordered universe, with order in the chaos. You've heard the joke about a programmer who was supposed to create a random number generator, and the RNG would do nothing but spit out the number 1. Well... maybe it is random, and it just randomly spat out 1 a trillion times in a row. Until you observe the N+1th time, it's just speculation what N+1 will be. Fair enough. It is just speculation. But that person doesn't believe in true laws of nature and science at that point, they believe Stuff Happens.
Both the person who believes in (logic and laws of nature) as well as the Stuff Happens guy will agree that stuff happens, and that sometimes stuff looks like it follows a pattern. The Stuff Happens guy leaves it at that, and if something happens to buck the pattern, well, stuff happens. The Pattern guy thinks there's a deeper or adjacent pattern that got involved. Where this differs from inductive/deductive logic is that you and I believe that both inductive/deductive logic are real patterns and real order that undergirds existence, and the Stuff Happens guy says they're just useful descriptive tools, but could be changed at a whim if the description ceases to be useful.
Normally, 'corresponds to reality' means useful, but not always. If "boys and girls are equal in every way, but girls are even better" is a useful stance for someone, it doesn't matter that it's illogical by our view of logic. These people use logic descriptively, and re-describe logic to be more useful to them. Does this make sense, or are we talking past each other? It might be a distinction without a practical difference.
He can't possibly be serious?
I don't believe in any god/s. That is a fact. You are conflating religion with god/s. At least you're living up to your channel name.
More like "Moron Trollics"
Why even argue with atheists?
Dude, that was a logic lesson. It's teaching, not arguing. They're free to ignore it, just as students in calculus class are free to learn nothing and fail the class, if they wish to.
@@MissingTheMark
Appreciate your efforts. I hope you get through to the atheists of 'good will' out there.
But you have to be exhausted.
Yes, I agree that Christianity is false. Not because of the argument you made, but that's another story. Also, I'm not specifically a "lack of belief" atheist. I both lack belief in gods, AND believe they don't exist.
However, it seems to me that Christianity being false does not necessarily imply that you have to be certain that God doesn't exist. I mean, Christianity could just be yet another false interpretation of what God actually intended, like all the other religions *you* don't believe in. It would just mean that there is no reason to believe God, as described by Christians, exists. Hence it would be valid to be a "lack of belief" atheist towards that God.
Did you miss the point that "lack of belief" atheism is about lacking belief in gods, and not just lacking belief in general? You did, didn't you?
I can't only guess this is a joke that downplay their viewer.
Your argument is just useless because the conclusion doesn't tell us anything.Might as well say X is true, Therefore X is true
Example:
Premise1: If Harry Potter is real, magic real
Premise2: Harry Potter is Real
Conclusion: Magic is Real
I just prove magic is real but it tell us nothing.
This is a negative-positive because it try to prove X without ever proving X.
Uhhh you haven't PROVEN anything. You simply assert that your arguments are true.
What's this?! A video I disagree with!? Better dislike it! Don't you ever make me think, ever again! You hear me!? ;)
as what would probably be termed a "lack of belief spirtualist" one who lacks any belief for anything supernatural, but still practices magic, reads holy books etc. I dont believe in say ghosts for instance, because the proof hasnt been good. thought it was faked, whatever. I got no problem with ghosts, would love to know they exist, give me something to look forward to, and maybe someone to help me out. This is the same with god, they may find christianity, to be wrong, or doubtfully, they could have never investigated into it. either way, this doesnt mean that god would be out of the possibility, just a different god, but they find no reason to believe in such a being. they also dont find any proof that such a being doesnt exist-other than the lack of proof that it does.
I dont get it. I mean, any "lack of belief atheist" could just agree with that fornication argument and accept it as a good argument against Christianity, so where is the logic lesson for him?
At that point he would not be a "lack of belief" atheist, he would be an atheist affirming a conclusion. That is the lesson.
@@MissingTheMark Ok. But there are many "lack of belief in God, but believe in good reasons for that lack" atheists. I am not sure if that is a lesson for them.
@@eklektikTubb it can help them to admit that they believe that God doesn't exist, and to stay thinking about what that means - what its logical implications are. That would be a huge improvement.
@@MissingTheMark Yes, i see... maybe it is not as huge as you think, but it is definetly a good start.
@@MissingTheMark I think the main thing we need to focus on with atheists is getting them to understand worldviews.
Everyone has a worldview (whether they realize it or not). Atheists are no exception to this.
In a paradigm-level debate (worldview debate), both sides must defend their worldviews as a complete system and argue for why their worldview is more rational than the opposition.
I think you'd really like Presuppositionalism, Missing the Mark. It's right up your alley and it's an actual proof the Christian worldview is necessarily true. The only 100% certain proof for God there is.
Another Christian fail.
It's a big "IF", unless you present EVIDENCE for your claim, I tend to disbelief you. and I could as easily claim that if Christianity is true, so is Islam (it's the same "God" both worship). And I have an other example for P->Q, ~Q = ~P, Christianity implies a "God", there is no evidence for a "God", so Christianity is not true. See how I can turn this any way I want? There are billions of people that hold Christianity for false, are they all morons just because they hold an other belief than you do in a "God" or "Gods"? That's arrogant. Sorry, but morality has nothing to do with Christianity. Well, I think it's very rational to not believe in things unproven, your "God" is unproven to exist, so why would I belief in it? No, unless one of those religions can prove their "God" to exists, we do not believe them. Again: my logic dictates not to believe in unproven things, that's rational.
" if Christianity is true, so is Islam (it's the same "God" both worship)"
Seriously? You do know that just because both believe in one God, that does not make those two entities the same, right?
+Wlof25
I would not go so far to say that both are right, but yes; it's the same Abrahamic "God" the Jews, Christians, AND Muslims worship, no doubt about that. It is indeed one and the same "God", why don't you do some research on the topic, before showing your ignorance?
So Muslims also believe that God has 3 persons and that one of three was Jesus? No doubt about that?
Have you ever heard about law of identity?
+Wlof25
No Wlof, I didn't say that. Muslims do believe this Jesus was nothing more than a prophet, not "God" in the flesh like Cristians do, that makes them Christians. But they do believe that the "God" of Abraham is the same one as theirs and the Hebrew one. The Jews also reject this Jesus as being the messiah predicted in the Torah (which is practically the same as the Cristian Bible), and so is the Quran.
Law of identity, nope, only in the sense of being able to identify yourself for legal reasons.
If Muslim God is not the same God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit God, then logically those two entities are not the same.
If Muslim God exists, then Trinity one cant exist and if Trinity God exist, then Muslim one cant exist.....because it is not the same thing.
And you should learn what law of identity is. It is one of three principles in logic and it states that things have their nature, that is, certain characteristics which makes them what they are and if things differ there, they are not the same.