Theism is Not Rational
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- This is a response to "God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?"
• God vs. Atheism: Which...
The first thing I have to point out is that it's not God vs atheism; it's theism vs atheism. God isn't involved in this because God doesn't exist. And it's not which one is MORE rational; it's which one is rational at all, and which one is wholly irrational.
Some months ago, I said I wouldn't do any more pwnage videos because I wouldn't waste any more time responding to anyone who didn't have a significant negative impact on the community at-large. Then Dr. Peter Kreeft made a video attacking atheists with the same fallacious arguments typical of amateur trolls. He misrepresents both his own position and ours with the lies of equivocation and projection, by pretending that assuming baseless conclusions doesn't require faith, but that NOT believing all that unsupported nonsense somehow DOES require faith.
It's bad enough that he does this as a professor of philosophy at Boston college, but here he is representing Prager University. A quick look at Prager University's website shows that they're nothing more than a right-wing conservative propaganda machine. They have multiple 'courses' against feminism and social justice, liberals and education, and they promote unregulated free-market capitalism and prioritize military spending and defense of Israel. After reviewing their list of 'courses', I was actually surprised that I didn't see any on climate-change denial or any arguments against vaccination. Maybe next semester? So yeah, they deserve it.
www.pragerunive...
Apistevist shirt in the video. www.mavericmedi...
Please check out my Patreon. / aronra
I just checked the stats on this video, compared to the one it's responding to. The original video has been up for half a year, and has way more than a quarter million views. That is annoying. But it also has hundreds more dislikes than it has likes! This one, after only two days already has 14,000 views, and one hundred times as many likes as dislikes. :-D
You should start smiling a bit at least around the one month mark AronRa!
AronRa Thanks because, one that was an awsome video. two, I was fighting The guys video, but I did not have valid facts to back it up...
and it deserves a lot more likes. Got mine for sure.
***** what are those?
Oh.. that makes sence
When I clicked on this video, it was preceded by a video promoting a Texas Republican creationist running for lieutenant governor of my state. I wish other people saw that too, just so they'd know what I'm up against.
Love the video and it does reason away all that religious nonsense. I especially love the thing about gods fingerprint on the cosmos. He really could do with watching either of the versions of Cosmos. Try as you might god will be hard to extract from any version of it. But he just gave us the fingerprint and then left the cosmos there.
I clicked on it and got a video about Mormonism. I was like WTF???
The times are changing fast and the christian apologists are sounding crazy even to children living in the modern information age. The social friction is heating up with rapid change and overpopulation. Thanks for all you do... I can't thank C. Hitchens
LOL, I watched a video discussing some issues with the Mormon church and it was preceded by an add for "The Latter Day Saints".
Heywood Juhblowme I see you're truly following the religious texts of compassion and love there.
No, oil and water are both liquids. Oil and water has WAY MORE in common than faith and reason.
Faith and reason both are ways to reach a conclusion.
Faith and reason are like water and gunpower. Or water and elephants. Water and and basketball. Water and nazism.
Dav, i think you are on the right trail. God gave man science back in Genesis and commanded us to use it. While some refuse science and others worship it, it's ultimately just a tool that we should use to sort out our human condition. Yes, God and science agree many many times. Remember, when science finally agreed with God that bacteria existed, Man developed antibiotics, and thank God for that!
TyDie85 have*
They are like fire and water. Fire often being more destructive than water.
Too much fire (faith) and water (reason) evaporates. Enough water (reason) extinguishes fire (faith).
"But science will never find the first cause. That's no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause is magic. Now join me in praising the power of our First Cause Wizard."
The often used special pleading.
You assert first cause is magic. Show your proof.
@@nookymonster1 that's the point lol
The only power your sky wizard has is that which you give it. And that is very little.
All hail the first cause
It's rational to not WANT to die. It's rational to WANT an afterlife instead of dying. BELIEVING in an afterlife where you go through the pearly gates and hang out with god in some magical cloud land is bat shit crazy.
While others burn for eternity for finite crimes or beliefs is even more crazier 😂
Imma chill w da Easter Bunny
@@1sgr1999 honorable mention is that "the natural man cannot understand things of god", "no man can come [to jesus] unless it were given him of the father", "all who the father gives [Jesus] will come to [him]", and "no man shall pluck him out of [jesus'] hands"... as Paul said in ephesians 1, Christianity is very predeterministic! Even Solomon, proclaimed wisest king of the jews, dictated the reality of predetermination in proverbs a time or two
@@tabsinabox what’s your point?
@@1sgr1999 how in the holy hell did you not get that my comment was about predestination??? LOL
Regarding 9:30, that's exactly how my mom's church works. They have a prayer hotline where people who need help (or are calling on behalf of someone else who needs help) can call in to get people to pray for help, and the prayer line calls out to the subscribers for them all to pray for the person who needs help. Recently one of the subjects of the prayer hotline was a man who's disabled, in a wheelchair, unemployed, and desperate for monetary help. The church's solution: pray for some fucking magic to come along and help him instead of actually DOING anything to help him. That church is big enough that if every member donated $10 towards that one guy, it would help him out beyond his wildest dreams. But no, they'd rather place that responsibility for help on their imaginary friend in the sky.
You have got to be one of the most well articulative and intelligent individuals I have ever had the pleasure to listen to. I wish I could have known you when I was younger.
Hehe. Big banger. 10:40
Why am I 12? :(
If you are, than I am too. Because that's funny as hell. (No pun intended.)
mytmouse57 he's not
The first 40 years are the harder time in a life of a boy.
VarVarith the fourth 40 years are the easiest
WTBGold - ha ha ha bwahaha mwahaha
I absolutely hate the idea that the universe can’t come from nothing, but god can.
God could be the universe not a separate being and has no concern of our personal lives
That is the thinking that just because we don't understand it or that science hasn't figured out how it works that it automatically doesn't work.
10:43 "There must be a big banger."
*chuckles*
Bro youre like a warrior fighting for the future of humanity. You literally are a hero, you saved me from religion and ill never be thankful enough. I look up to you.
Major Premise: Nihilism is the only rational atheism. R + A = N
Minor Premise:
(a) You believe in being rational. (You enjoy this this video about being rational.)
(b) You reject nihilism. ("warrior fighting for the future of humanity")
Conclusion: You reject atheism. R - N = -A
@@Mygoalwogel Your "major premise" is nonsense, so from that starting point your whole argument crumbles. Atheism is rational because that's what all the evidence points to. Nihilism has nothing to do with atheism...it has to do with meaning. You are I presume a religious/God believer so you find meaning in mythology, Atheists like myself find meaning in other things. Doppy Do has his own path to meaning as well, of that I'm sure. That's all.
Sure, I agree that both sides have members who fall into dogma and stubbornness and never leave there, cultists as you say. I was merely pointing out that his argument that for an atheist to be rational he has to be a nihilist is pure nonsense. And that is because in his mind only if there is his God, from his book of beliefs can life have meaning....ludicrous.
@@Mygoalwogel When people try to balance morals being sacred and morals being arbitrary with some kind of in-between mumbo-jumbo you're bound to get a contradiction somewhere.
@@Mygoalwogel Hello, I am 2 years late to this but you sir, you are stupid.
"there must be a big banger" I hear laughs coming from the UK
That's funny in more than just the UK. I'm from the U.S., and that made me laugh.
AllSeeingEye ofGod you wrote all that just to be wrong
that's what you get from $2000/day speaking gigs
'He's got his own big banger .. so he won't be needing yours ..' (Dipper, actually) Bernie Taupin or did Elton do the lyrics for this one?
@AllSeeingEye ofGod I'm a Berkeley .. cos' I strongly suspected that Bernie didn't write much on the album and indeed Gary Osbourne appears to be the lyricist on this one (Big Dipper) .. The homophobic comment can go where it belongs (and Trump is a 'loser'). A more interesting come back might have been that the song is closely related to 'Hey Big Spender' but hey .. being a bigot is more fun I suppose!!!!!
Hail Sagan!
Sagaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!
I hate when theists try to argue this. I'm not sure whether it's close-mindedness, deceit, or general ignorance.
A lil of all of that :)
growing up in a church and having been a very devout Christian for many years, I would say, from my experience, ... its a little of all three.
Monique Pihl Concurred.
what everyone above said. Monique Pihl I was in a situation very similar, and I absolutely concur. People want to listen to what makes them feel better and are taught that being open minded will lead to sin/evil. They call closing your mind to other ideas and facts the Armor of God.
I would be sure to call it "willful" ignorance. They don't want to be informed.
THe interesting thing is that they can't actually explain what theories like evolution say. They have to try to change the description in order to be able to sway anyone.
"Human vanity, ignorance, fear of the unknown, and fear of knowing, are among the last reasons anyone still believes in a god."
*-Aron Ra*
That needs to be a T-shirt!
Very hard to fit all that on a T shirt
Paul Schultz can you answer those claims instead of just saying their false without any evidence
frank whelan would fit twice on his
Cloe Jarozenski I can make a shirt out of it if you guys like.
Elvis Sorna Its a Nick name like wrestlers have nick names lol.
Listening to you speak is like a breath of fresh air right now for me. Not the content because you’re preaching to the choir here but the manner in which you organized your argument was beautiful. That’s Missing in the world right now
3:12 "A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas..." No, matey, that's an exceedingly terrible place to start, as it has logical fallacy hard-wired into it. Also, common sense is NOT useful in understanding cosmology and quantum physics; in fact, it is a positive hindrance.
Frances Snowflake well, it’s probably special pleading (everything has a cause except God) to avoid the problem of infinite regression, though I’d also argue that “there cannot be an infinite regression, so there must be an unmoved mover” is a contradiction of the “everything has a cause premise”.
Frances Snowflake Just claiming that it is not “special pleading” is another fallacy “hand waving”.
Back when I was a Christian there was a lot of emphasis on faith, keeping the faith, defending the faith and so on. In recent times, however, looking back on those beliefs, it occurs to me that what was generally meant by 'faith' was more akin to 'loyalty'.
It wasn't simply a matter of believing something, it was attaching your identity to it, remaining loyal and "faithful" to it.
This all got mixed up with the notion of 'believing on faith'. Which basically meant, when you broke it down, to believe because you've sworn your loyalty to that side. It was no longer, really, a matter of truth, but one of defending the thing you have attached your loyalty to.
It is disturbing to me to see atheists I used to respect acting in very much the same way recently. Misogynists, racists, nationalists and homophobes all exhibit this behaviour of having attached their loyalty and in many cases, part of their identity to an idea. As a result, defending that idea becomes a matter of self defense. Admitting to being wrong becomes all the more difficult because you're no longer arguing about truth, you're simply trying to win. Even if you win an argument, if you're wrong, it shouldn't count if you actually care about truth.
Keep up the good work, Aron!
I've never heard it summed up like that but, yah. you pretty much hit it right on the head.
Monique Pihl It's especially difficult to have a conversation when this is the case. Because someone can be earnest and desperately emotional because they've attached so much of their character and identity to something. And to ever admit to being wrong is to "betray" the thing you've tried to be "faithful" to. And that "betrayal" if seen by others, is felt like a condemnation of your character. As if you'd now be an untrustworthy person that nobody should want to be around. Because being faithful meant maintaining the position against all attacks. Social persecution, violence, demons, and even facts - all are seen as challenges to your loyalty.
This was the kind of thing that got to me when I first got out of Christianity. It felt like I'd betrayed people, that I'd let them down by not being able to stay "faithful" to the religion. And to fail is to break some deeply held characteristic that you've been taught is valuable.
***** I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.
***** _"this is your life (tell if does not describe you): Luke __8:14__"_
No, reasoning usurped wishful thinking. Plain and simple. Did you not read into (or at least understand) the implications found within the OP's comment?!?!
Try rereading the comment. Then reread it again. Perhaps then you might see yourself being described therein. See anything familiar?
***** Nobody gives a shit what you say. You should go away. You're actually making Christians look worse.
If you are spreading the word of god, and you are making it so that people of god look like idiots, isn't that doing the opposite of the will of god, because you keep turning people away from God by being such a spammer of '" the word?"
Conundrum numba one
If religion did not promise eternal life (persistence of thoughts, memories, and consciousness) after physical demise, then there would be no religion. Religious people are absolutely terrified of their own death.
That was his point: terrified of death so you believe in eternal life to recomfort yourself and bear it. Manning up is not what you think it is.
"Sin" is an idea, made up by the brain. My father is about to die, and he is ready to die since several years - he basically will not die yet (by starvation) simply for the sake of my mother. The fear of ATheists is just shit that you are stirring, Dear "Handy" friend.
>>> You atheists are the ones who are fearful . You know that with God, there will come judgement for your sin
"Sin" is just a human idea. Your "G-D" is a human idea too. Among other, all "laws" are human ideas too. INCLUDING the physical laws. Ideas = descriptions, nonphysical tools, illusionary images.
***** When a faithful appeals to emotion by asking 'What will you say to God when you appear before Him to be judged?' I would identify the logical fallacy and reverse the scenario:
What if there is no God and when you die all of your thoughts, memories and consciousness are eternally terminated? You will never know that you are dead. You will never know that you voluntarily wasted your one and only life in superstition, ignorance and needless fear. Also, your proselytizing would have condemned others, especially children, to the mental anguish of the threat of eternal agony and torture in a non-existent Hell. Children cannot distinguish between empty threats versus real threats, especially when the threat comes from someone they implicitly trust for honesty and they rely on that person for their survival and well-being. Such threats against children are horrific child abuse, because it leaves mental scars for life.
“Nothing moves for no reason, so everything must have been caused by something that moved for no reason.”
"Something must cause that movement" - Isaac Newton is spinning in his grave...
@@РыжковИванСергеевич😂😂
Reminds me of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. Well worth looking up.
@@РыжковИванСергеевич Newton's religious views were quite interesting.
Reminds me of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.
"*Prager University is not an accredited academic institution" Quelle surprise!
***** Oh look, a fundamentalist Christian that can't type anything coherently, completely misses the point in everything, and tries to justify his criticisms of atheists with biblical passages that are a few letters short of a word salad. Well done.
*Slow clapping ensues*
VectornautACR That would be the theist troll who also sockpuppets under the name WINDY STAIRS and COHERENT APOLOGIST. Ignore him. He's a demented fuckwit who's nuttier than a squirrel turd.
Sorry for feeding him, but let's be honest, he could have easily been serious. Poe's law is a real bitch to deal with on the internet, huh?
VectornautACR Indeed it is. And hey, if you want to play with him, that's entirely up to you. I just figured you deserved fair warning up front.
I just figured out that it's Dennis Prager university. He teaches the classes! lol. It must be like Kahn Academy for right wing numbnuts.
The funny thing is:
The higher the level of education, the less theistic I became.
I believed in the christian God in kindergarden and my first 4 years in school.
Because i was being told he was real.
Despite my (and many other kid's) fascination with dinosaurs, we have never talked about evolution. I started questioning the Christian god in secondary modern school. I thought "If there was a big bang, maybe a god made it and didn't bother to interact with his creation any further"
Needless to say: I never once have been told about the theory of evolution.
Once in high school, I searched for any information about science i could find. I wanted to learn on my own, and aply this knowledge partly in school. This is when I became agnostic. I became an atheist. I learned about Evolution not through school, but through my own fascination for my origin.
And I learned an important thing:
Being wrong, can sometimes lead to new knowledge. And accepting that one can be wrong is the most honest position there is.
After 2 years i discovered many youtube channels talking about atheism and in that time I encountered the first creationist i have ever met. In my proximity noone actually took the bible literally. And my parents didn't really care that much about religion (catholic father and christian mother (as it is divided in many parts of europe altho catholics are christians)
It was a reminder to me that there are people, that think as i thought as a child.
A reminder of something (upon looking back) disgusts me: Gullability.
Something I personally couldn't understand being explained by something noone can understand. This is when i started trying to reason with some creationists in the youtube comment section. I had bad conversations (insults at me and others) and good ones. Some even made some valid points (not related to creationism or theism) onwhich I learned new things. I have met some people from different countries and different fields of expertise, many of them atheistic.
I have had debates with atheists and lighthearted conversations with many of them too. Upon going to University, I began to dig deeper into more complex topics. And i had people explaining things to me i couldn't understand on my own.
I improved in my spelling.
I improved my arguments.
I learned how to recognize logical fallacies (not only with others but also when i used them in the past)
I started reading peer reviewed literature and studied them, untill i understood them.
I am truly greatful that there are people like Aronra, Thunderf00t, Martymer81, The bible reloaded, CoolHardLogic, Armoured Skeptic, Cult of Dusty, Drunken Peasants (including TJ the amazing atheist), The vegan atheist, TheMesianicManic, King Crocoduck, Potholer54, Darkmatter2525, JaclynGlenn, Finite Atticus, Logicked, MrRepsion, The Atheists Voice, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Baud Bits just to name a few, who fight the ignorance and gullability i once had so deeply forced into my brain.
There is just so much Joy in the atheistic "community".
Maybe I will one day start making videos too :P
But untill then:
Thanks.
Yeah, education is an uttter waste of some parents resources (money, energy, pain etc).
See: Georges Lemaître; first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s,
when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial
atom- even einstein, the 1st cousin marrying (like darwin?!?) apostate jew, got it wrong;
Raymond Damadian; invented the MRI machine among many others that have made tangible, not "theoretical", or useless if not detrimental (see: darwin; eugenics) contributions to scholarship, academia and society. Now thats education; as God intended ;)
@
Thank you for demonstrating that even a heavy duty mental ward is too mild for you.
@ "See: Georges Lemaître; first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s"
Yes and the Big Bang theory has tramendous predictive power. You see: "The universe began from a single primordial atom" is NOT everything he and others have predicted. Let us take a look:
You see. If a Theory is correct, then it will have predictive power. It can say "This is what we should see", then go out and test it and if it is correct: We should see it.
The Expansion of the Universe was predicted in 1915. It was first observed in 1929. Meaning: it was predicted 14 years in advance.
The Isotropy/Homogeneity of the universe was predicted in 1923. The Isotropy/Homogeneity of the universe was confirmed within 1 part of 100.000 in 1993.
In the 1930s multiple predictions of the Big Bang Theory where made:
1) The Existance of the Afterglow of the Hot-Dense epoc of the Big Bang. The CMBR was discovered in the 1960s.
2) The Temperature of Said afterglow. Confirmed in the 1960s.
3) The Distribution of Elements, including a overabundance of Helium due to previously mentioned Hot-Dense state. Confirmed in 1986 (For helium) and 1993 (For the rest of the elements).
This theory is so solid, that it predicted discoveries with precision DECADES in advance. The time to doubt the BBT has come and gone.
"even einstein, the 1st cousin marrying (like darwin?!?) apostate jew, got it wrong;"
Yes and he called it his "biggest blunder".
You see: If you take the Einstein Constant away from his calculations (meaning returning them to their original state) then his calculations predict that the universe was expanding.
He however believed in a static universe, which he later on regretted. You cite how a misstake from Einstein went against the big bang as evidence for the big bang not being correct? This is not going to fly.
"Raymond Damadian; invented the MRI machine among many others that have made tangible"
Raymond Damadian did BUILD the first MRI machine. But he did not invent it. That honor belongs to Peter Mansfield and Paul Lauterbur. THEY invented the imaging system that an MRI uses. Which is why these two gentlemen recieved a Nobel Price for it.
Don't get me wrong: Damadian was a talented man, but you should not acredit onto him what he did not deserve ... or trust proven liars like Ken Ham from which you got this "information".
"not "theoretical", or useless if not detrimental (see: darwin; eugenics) "
Darvin did NOT invent eugenics.
That "honor" belongs to his half-cousin. Francis Galton.
Besides that: You falsely acredit Damadian with the MRI and then proceed to ignore the fact that most of modern medicine is based upon evolution, that General relativity predicted Time Dialation, which is an important factor in Satelite communication etc. etc.
I mean let us just look at General Relativity and what it could give us that is "not theoretical":
You see one consequece is that the speed of light is constant. Meaning if we have Satelites all around the earth telling use their position and Time, with a syncronised Clock that acts as a reciever we could know how far away from the satelite we are. So with 2 Satelites we could triangulate our current position.
We could call it ... hmmm ... a:
Global
Positioning
System ... wait.
Yes: GPS is one of the many inventions that are possible because of the discoveries you so easily chuck aside.
@RadioTSM {Operator Teddy Timis} Well Hello there.
@RadioTSM {Operator Teddy Timis} Indeed it does. I think we can add it onto the many things that the bible got wrong. : )
AaronRa, while I listen to you and your arguments I only come to one conclusion.
You are a god, and therefore I am no longer an atheist.
you stll don't believe in the same number of divinities than a christian.
Visfor Vegan u have to be kidding! The man is a joke!!
Brian Emuss you’re comment is the joke, everything he states is backed by facts you can research and discover yourself if you throw away your ties to a “faith” based belief system
Daniel Samwell lol. Oh ok! I assume your interpretation of faith is the same as Aron’s. And I have researched thanks and his facts are wrong.
Brian Emuss you’re delusional lmao drown in your ignorance
You already won the argument when you popped up and said "no sir" lol
1:49 "no you wont" Thanks a lot ***** you just made me spit out my tea. I know your not trying to be funny but that was a perfect dead pan.
Tom Leeds yeah, AronRa does that style of deadpan extremely well.
ixtl guul He has talked to far too many theist, he has a permanent expression of "You have got to be fucking kidding me"
Tom Leeds LOL yes
I was too preoccupied reading the "fingerprints" part as "I do cheap poetry, so I must be right" to appreciate it 😂👌
I love this one✅ You took on the lies, logical fallacies and emotional manipulation in a cogent, succinct, demolition style. Prager should get a Unicornology chair
All of his arguments would only lead to deism.
Deism is a nice philosophy. Deists are the logical, rational counterpart to theists anyways, so it would be an upgrade. That quote in this video from Einstein about “Spinoza’s God” explains a deistic viewpoint pretty well (not saying he was a deist, nevertheless that was a good explanation of a deistic viewpoint). Deists look at the natural world. The Abrahamic God is definitely bullshit. Deism simply explained: if there is a God or gods, it really doesn’t matter since they don’t care about our existence anyways. We might just merely be an experiment or entertainment to them, nothing more. Which would mean there’s no reason to expect an afterlife either. Basically, live your life and maybe even use your time and effort to better the world and humanity instead of worrying about judgement or wasting time praying for divine intervention.
Read Revelations while watching the news.
If you cant see there is a God; that knows whats going on; cares about it enough to intervene, you might as well auto-erotically asphixiate yourself as its "theorized" to be the best thing any darwinian eugenic atheist could do for their existential selves. And society.
While taking a selfie of course..thats called progress.. _that_ He aint too interested or impressed with..
the condition of 3rd world countries, all the children and babies suffering and dying disprove a God who cares and intervenes. Go do the world and civilization a favor and drink ble.ach. You’re holding back human progression
Binguh Bungah r3t4rd
שי אביב
If I am a bully for expressing my sincere view of people like you who believe a man made man written book with no divine influence, like you believe, with contradictions, failed prophecies, disproven science and history inaccuracies (and a bunch of other stuff Aron, scientists, philosophers and scholars have addressed); then my bad. You’re right, I shouldn’t pick on delusional possibly mentally ill people disconnected with reality. Carry on with your delusions, while I live in reality explained by logical and rational science; which is a great way to live for human progression. 👍🏼
the fact that there are 688 dislikes but just a few negative responds shows how badass Aron is against Christianity
Para is right, we don't come here to watch it we just make fun of it elsewhere
medium.com/the-liturgical-legion/aronra-isnt-rational-5a4ecb74b39#.6kujaevce
dietrich otto if u have anything against him and have the guts to admit it, u tell it to his face, not making fun of him elsewhere
Okami no Tamashi Okay
Wow, Para-otto-Maximus, just how many screen names do you have?
Gen Meow Maximus is not me. Here is
merely a friend of mine
A *superb* rebuttal of *absurd* theistic, circular/special-pleading "reasoning"! This will join several other AronRa videos on my list of favourites!
*ATTENTION VIEWERS*: The flag icon located above right all comments was *created* by the deity YT. Like the catholic novena, or any other prayer, it may be reverently clicked in order to express to the deity YT that the *blaspammy* of wicked ones like The *Bible Apologist* must be *smote* from our midst. This is the only way to cease and desist that evil one's *blaspammy*!
~The Minister of Offense
***** Beautiful!
***** and he has pretty hair
Gipsy Dangeresque Indeed, he does. Were it not for the justifiable protest certainly forthcoming from Missus Aron Ra, I'd enjoy running my fingers through his abundant locks.
Kaycee K im a straight male and id still be right there behind you :-D
Damn i just realized most of the youtubers are americans o_O
WOW I visited "Prager" university and they have a fucking DONATE BUTTON. rofl God needs MONEY
Like you don't wish you could take 2000 for a gig.
Good coin. Well deserved.
Kicking ass like a boss... Love this guy
Yeah, me too. He's like Darwin's bulldog part 2. And, I guess, atheism's bulldog? If that makes sense.
Paul TheSkeptic you only listen to him because you wanna be deceived by atheistic ideas... One blind guy guiding another
Yeah, I'm not seeing it. I think that you listen to your preacher because you want to be deceived by theistic ideas. One blind guy leading hundreds. It sounds the same but since your preacher would have you believing things that are demonstrably untrue, and AronRa says things that are demonstrably true, well,... I win. I know you won't see that but you're deceived and all so,...
Paul TheSkeptic no, 90% of what he says is either lies or twisted info..
He lies about the bible, God and science (by preaching pseudoscience such as evolution, atheists' new tenet of faith)
Willy et scientia
Obvious troll is obvious 😂
I am not an atheist...nor a theist. I just observe. But arguments like this are essential to understand the nature of...well..nature...
I think the argument presented here is well spoken, thought out and rational. And that's really what we need at this point in history, rational thinking. We cannot explain everything with science. At least not yet, and I assume we never will. So as long as there are unknowns, mankind's nature will be to create explanations for what he sees around him.
I would like as much as the next person to believe that I will live for eternity in happiness, and that life here is merely a gateway or a test. I don't buy it, and my heart will not fall for simple explanations. As in assuming the answers to life can all be found in a book... but so many do.
The major discomfort of conscious being comes from the knowledge we will one day die. Get over it, life life. We can't just sit and wait for a savior, as the only help we will get comes from our dedication to Truth.
And...if there is a god....then it would be sure that it is true that it only helps those who help themselves. And that means their world. So sitting around waiting for the rapture could be viewed as the most selfish action one could commit to. Religion is not going away, but at least we live in a time where we no longer burn people at the stake for having seizures. What will we think of today's world?
take care peeps-
Many a true word in my eyes, I feel sorry for
all the ppl persecuted in the name christianity
ie Witches
carpo719 "I am not an atheist...nor a theist."
So you are a Deist?
"I am not an atheist...nor a theist"
Lol, you either believe or not, pick one.
Don't you like labels, should I call you a girl then? are you ok with that?
GuitarWholesale Who are you to say "pick one"? You tried to insult him by saying he was a girl? I guess your mother must be on lucky lady to have you as her son.
carpo719
I'm not calling you anything, chill.
You just need to ask, do you believe or not??, therefore we can get you a label, those labels you hate so much.
The boy girl thing is a label, again I could ask you based on what you said if you like those labels.
Do you believe or not??
Scientific theory = believing something is temporarily true based on certain premises and observations for practical purposes only
Faith = believing jesus died and resurrected then flyed up the sky *WITHOUT QUESTIONING ANY OF IT*
Our universe, our space/time seems to have started inflating/expanding about 13.7 billion yrs ago.
We know nothing of what may, or may not, lay beyond our local universe. Maybe there is litterally nothing but the infamous 'nothing', the vacuous void, of classical philosophy? Or maybe an endless sea of unique universes, continually popping in and out of existence! And yes, there could even be an admittedly jealous, embarrassingly insecure, omnipotent creator readying his compound for your eternal sycophantic devotion!! But most like its just the casing to a cosmic computer in some higher dimensional kids basement, lol
Im not sure where i was going with this, i just hate it when creatards try to conflate the beginning of our local space/time universe i.e. 13.7 billion yrs ago, with the beginning of everything. (Whatever that is) when we has absolutely no way of interacting with it.
So unless some entity is able to influence us in some detectable way, which hasnt happened yet, we should stop believing in fucking MAGIC!!!
@ So you're an ignorant Zionist puke are you, lol, you do realize you're no different than Nazis & white supremacists right? Or are you just a twisted bloodthirsty Christian salivating at the thought of Armageddon? Either way it stinks of wishful thinking
It always makes me laugh when a creationist unironically uses the word projection, because it shows they have a concept of the term but are completely unaware that they themselves are a walking talking textbook example of just that.
In your case, being stubbornly entrenched in a baseless, backward, bigoted, hateful, cult of blood sacrifice & vicarious redemption. Though, I am curious as to what you think I am projecting?
Your first example was simply me ridiculing an idea that deserves to be mocked i.e. that a supposed all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god, which is portrayed as an emotionally stunted, sadistic bully, is somehow worthy of worship, even though there is zero compelling evidence to believe he even exist.
Side note, are you positive God is a he? And if so, what gets his dick hard??(I hear he loves the smell of burning flesh, maybe that's it) And what does he stick it in once it gets hard??? Maybe that's what the worshipers are for! Would you suck it for him?(not that you'd have a choice) I bet it's a big vainy dick too, not a shriveled little American dick like mine, hope you don't have a gag reflex, lol
Your second example was just me making a joke, showing that you could literally come up with any example of what is outside our universe and it would be exactly as likely as any other proposed possibility, since, as far as we know, we can not interact with the outer limits of our local universe, let alone that which may, or may not, lay beyond. Making it non-falsifiable I.e. useless.
The correct answer to what lies outside our local universe, or what came before inflation, is I do not know.
Which is not to say that there is no god, just that the time to believe in such a thing, or anything, is when there is evidence for it. I was a fair-weather Christian until I was 18 and then I became a born-again Christian and eventually a youth group leader. But the more I got involved, the more I learned. And the more I learned, the more I realized this was nothing but baseless bullshit, so I changed my mind. But if I am presented with sufficient evidence, I will once again change my views accordingly. Which seems to me to be the opposite of entrenched.
And for the record I used to keep comfort in the notion that at least god knew of my true thoughts & actions. But what I would like to be true, has no bearing on the actual truth. Though, anyone who is in favor of thoughtcrime is simply an immoral monster
I know it's a trope to say that the Bible was written by bronze age sheepherders, but the truth is we have no idea where the original tales came from, since they were written down decades after the fact, at the earliest. But the fact that it contains a creation mythos is hardly unique.
Nearly every civilization has tried to imagine the beginning at some point or another. Humans crave answers, even if they need to make them up. The Bible itself smashes two distinct creation myths together, which is why the first few lines of Genesis contradict themselves.
The Two Creations in Genesisby David Bokovoy
"The Bible opens with two different creation stories. The accounts are similar in that they both describe the creation of animals, plants, and humans. But they are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues.
For example, though the stories describe some of the same events, they order them differently. InGen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male. Additionally, the two stories employ different names for the deity. The first account uses the Hebrew word Elohim, meaning “God,” whereas the second uses the tetragrammaton, YHWH (often represented by “Lord”)..."
Neither of these accounts come remotely close to the reality. For the first 250,000 - 300,000 years there was nothing but clouds of protons, neutrons and electrons, swirling around in an opaque soup, slowly combining into hydrogen and helium. The CMB is an image of that first light, a baby picture of the universe, if you will.
It then took a few hundred million years for the first stars & galaxies to form, and another 9 or so Billion for the earth to form. Once it cooled down, It didn't take long for life to develop, but it took a billion years to go from single-celled organisms to multi-celled, then another 3 or so billion before primates.
Which makes absolutely no sense if you assume this was the perfectly designed plan of an all-powerful blah blah-blah and his weiner-puss son.
Here's a link if you want to actually learned about the origins of our universe, though it's a little more complicated & detailed than the magic incantations & golem spells you're used to getting for an answer
phys.org/news/2016-11-universe.html
Lastly, it doesn't have to be a conscious observer to collapse the wave function. If a photon comes in contact with the path of an electron going through a double slit experiment, the wave function will still collapse. But let's say you're right, for the sake of argument, if there was some cosmic observer, that would only push the problem back one step, cuz you would still need to explain where the universe, or space, came from, in which this cosmic observers brain was able to develop in.
Presenting God as an answer to anything does nothing but complicate matters exponentially
Not to mention, if your view of the wave function is correct, and there is an ever observing cosmic entity, we would never be able to detect something such as a wave function. A double slit experiment would always show the electron passing threw one of the 2 slits, as opposed to the interference pattern we sometimes see today. Or maybe weiner-puss just needs to take a nap every once in awhile, lol, after all, observing all that hentai porn can sure tire one out 🥒💦😁
People actually pay 2000$ to listen to that horseshit? He doesn't even represent christianity correctly by throwing faith out the window. Faith is central to the religion.
Fabian N-E
None but in the religion faith is how you reach christ and become a christian. The faithless are shunned and will not go to heaven.
Fabian N-E
Indeed. Christianity is stupid.
Alexstrasza as to "He doesn't even represent christianity correctly by throwing faith out the window."
1) He is NOT throwing faith out of the window;
2) whether he is representing Christianity correctly or not seems to be beyond what you can judge.
I am reminded of when Tolkien was considered as "believing the Anglican doctrine of predestination" and having to answer that predestination is a Calvinist doctrine and that what the commenter was thinking about was the Christian doctrine of Providence. Common to Calvinists, Anglicans and as in his case Catholics.
Alexstrasza lol....you poor poor dumb idiot
Sylvanas Windrunner I think he is intending to represent more than just Christianity. But yes, for sure faith is the smugness behind which a certain type of Christian hides from rational thought.
What I find even more hilarious is the other type of Christian, the William Lane Craigs who pay lip service to evidence and ignore Hebrews 11... I'm not sure which version is more dishonest.
Very well done! I hope there was no trouble getting his bloodstains off your boots.
Hell, any remaining bloodstains on AronRa's boots should be a sign of pride, and should be flaunted :)
Mr. Ra. You are fast becoming one of my favorite speakers on atheism. I appreciate your calm delivery and unshakable logic. I have learned from you every time I watch another video. Thank you.
As someone with epilepsy, the religious people who think that seizures (thankfully my full on ones have seemingly stopped but I have small mini seizures that I hardly notice) are demonic possession terrify me.
Awesome video man. Little by little people are waking up and leaving behind childish beliefs in the supernatural and dogmatic bronze age ideas for reason and logic rooted in evidence.
The universe exists, therefore a man named Moses made it rain frogs.
This logic is impossible to deny.
Excellent video as always, Aron. I went and purchased an Apistevist shirt from Maveric Media's shop; I'm very glad I was finally able to acquire one of these great designs. Thanks for the video and your continued pursuit of educating reason.
"You don't have evidence and we don't have faith" - Aron has a way to explain concepts of logic and philosophy clearly and simply. Keep doing what you do! When is your next visit to Montreal? ;)
i love this guy, every word that comes out of his mouth is good,'' because it's true''. thank science for the internet''
+Pat Brennan dumbass
ROFL I am waiting for you to do any such thing. You cannot even spell!
Pat Brennan Thank science, the biggest slap to a Christians face. That should be coined as some sort of catchphrase, between atheist.
@@oldgordo61 Most current scientists aren't theist.
The ones in the past were raised in a culture that enforced belief in a religion.
Additionally, there were a lot who were theist, but not xtian, so you can't ride their coattails.
I wonder if Galileo, Kepler, Maxwell, Newton, etc. would still believe in the xtian fairy tale if they knew what we know today: very old earth, very large-ass universe, evolution, and that the bible doesn't hold up to scrutiny - especially the parts about jesus
@@GuitarDog_atx Even if they had the kind of "'enlightenment" and knowledge we have today. I think they would still be theistic. You can be an atheist and contribute to science yes..but atheism is not a requirement to do science. The presumption atheists make that God and science are not compatable and believing a higher being somehow stunts one's abilty to advance the cause and purpose science the atheists are no better than what the Church leaders did to Gallileo and Corpinicus centuries ago.
This comes from Prager University, whose initials nicely reflect the stench of the ideas emanating therefrom - PU.
+Pat Doyle
It thought it meant "uncomprehenisble pile of shit."
*****
Well, that would be UPS :-)
Pat Doyle Not in languages like French which puts the adjective after the noun.
PU and WLC are both dedicated to the invalid Gnostic praemise "monocausality"
Atheism isn't an academic philosophy, it's a philosophy of religion.
The sad part is they don’t see the hole in their own illogic. If everything has a beginning and nothing can come from nothing what created the god that created the god that created the god. Lol it’s not possible by their own standards for god to come from nothing. You can have a being that exist outside time that created time without that being having to had be created outside of time. It makes no sense and I just can’t stand it anymore. While I’ll respect people’s right to believe what they want I don’t think they should have any positions that would have them make laws for the whole of all people.
You tell him, Aron!
Yes Janet, I was fooled into Sunday School and Church as I got older but now with a big help from Aron and others I reject faith, religion and the Bible and now not because of my stance on religion or such my life has changed for the better and more valuable time spent living a life, not a lie.
Aussie chrisso 🤠
10:44 "Since there was a Big Bang, there must be a big banger"
I nearly fell overall laughing! Do these guys never listen to themselves before they speak? That.sounds.so.dirty! Lol!
It figures the Dennis Prager's ego would move him to create a "university" with his name on it.
He looked at LaRouche's plate and said to the waitress "I want the same."
MenwithHill One time, I had it out with the Larouchies in front of my local PO. I saw them standing there, and simply couldn't let it go. Their bullshit is so toxic, and just plain crazy. Mostly, however, they are not honest people.
I stood in front of their stand for about two hours. They actually called the cops. lol. It was great fun to be telling those little bastards that they couldn't do shit about me standing here and telling the people about Larouche.
MrOttopants What a bunch of drones. Still quite creepy. Political cults tell alot more about human nature.than religious ones.
Theism is Not Rational but neither is the Atheism+ movement.
Go fuck yourself, and pray that your god smith me. And enjoy the thought of me being roasted in hell. And again, go fuck yourself, fuck your god and whatever is holy to you. :D
Abraxas1177 Abrax I'm a atheist nothings holy to me? Someone's stupid lol.
Garmr
Yes, guess who...
Santa?
Mike Newton
Read my comment, then get raptured.
Ignorance is the mother of all religions.
Frequency does cause mood swings. It's called music. Planets do carry, there own unique frequency. As does the universe. Hinduism holds truths. We are just finding out bear merit. As for magik, the monks are still doing things. Which you can't explain. Dim Mak comes to mind. Trying to define what neither debater can prove or could possibly understand. Defeats the very purpose of both videos. While both sides try to prove an unprovable postion. Religion is killing our population. Science does the same and as such. You miss the unity of both. If we could all drop the ego and work together. Shedding useless research and the dogmatic principles. We as a human race might actually embrace the enigma of the mystic. Something which would truly raise up humanity as a whole. Thank you.
>"God exists beyond science."
>proceeds to explain science with God
@@ShayAviv1000 like minecraft, steve and Notch
Sometimes there are atheists capable of honest and respectful discourse. Unfortunately, that is not the case here
@@Tyler-Hoskins poisening the well aren't you?
@@MouldMadeMind am I?
@@Tyler-Hoskins yes you are.
Great video. I KNOW there is no god and I KNOW most of the world knows
that as well. They just won't admit it because there is another thing they know. They know they are going to die and it freaks them out to think it's over and you just become dirt. They feel it. They try to suppress it, and if you bring it up they get angry because it freaks them out, so they lie to themselves and create a god.
Wow you are so far gone
@@caleb_sully24seems logical given that the only common thing between all religions is the belief in the after life
"A first cause lies outside the realm of science."
He's conceded his argument that faith and rationality are compatible -- wrap it up people, we're done here.
Uh, no.
Proof of a "first cause" would negate the existence of the Abrahamic gods including the Christian god so many worship. But this "first cause" logic is never ending because what created the first cause?
A Deist can accept this "first cause" as a force of nature outside of our understanding. However, to go from being a deist to accepting all the man created trappings of the Christian god is way too much of a leap. Watch a video from Christopher Hitchens to see how ridiculous that leap is.
Evidence of a flood does not prove "noah's flood"; mention of a "jesus" in some old book does not prove the Christian jesus; evidence of "david" scratched on a stone does not prove this early mythical Hebrew king existed; stories in the bible do not prove any of this ever happened.
The bible is not history, the bible is not truth, and the bible is not a good book. It is all a mixture of fantasy, mythology, plagiarism and an attempt to control ignorant shepherds 2500 years ago with fear and misplaced hope.
@ silence theistard
The biggest leap is that a monkey one day decided to just walk on 2 legs and that caused it to invent something so abstract and utterly alien to its immediate material senses and surroundings and mental capacity as an all seeing knowing creating AND intervening diety that gives them rules to live by. With "other worldly" consequences. While fending for fodder, after they figured out that they didnt die from it and maintaining a relationship(s) to procreate and feed everyone. From a cave. Without cable and the "ancient aliens" show on the pre-history channel..riiiiiiight....
@ Are you a real person?
This guy is a PROFESSOR at Boston College? It has always puzzled me how anybody can get a degree in philosophy and still be a theist. Did he skip his readings?
Prager university. There is a link in the description. I nearly busted a gut at the propaganda on the "course" page.
In philosophy facts don't really matter. This guy probably believed this crap for what.. 70 years? Now tell him that he was simply deluded for that long.. A God is more self-aggradizing.
SilortheBlade
Yeah but in the description it says he is also a Prof at Boston College. I would "Pray" for his students but of course that would be futile.
LmOver
Ah, philosophy isn't so bad when done properly. This guy is a poor philosopher, more a theologian actually. But then a friend of mine who has a PhD in Philosophy once told me that theology while technically is philosophy, it is bad philosophy. Kind of like alchemy was the forerunner to chemistry, theology should have been left behind long ago.
SilortheBlade
I just went to the site. HAHAHA! Tried watching the "does god exist?" video but I have enough brain damage as it is and turned it off.
What a treat watching Aron Ra dismantle that creepy cultist! LOL
+Para Handy ad hominim attacks are not that bright. try again ;)
can you see yours? Atheism is as much a cult as "off" is a tv channel
+Para Handy Atheists don't believe in the Devil :v
+Para Handy Then prove his existence with scientific evidence, not with an Old book filo of nonsense.
*Full
They deny that their God is evil too.
Stockholm syndrom....they are in love with their dictator...
I want to see AronRa vs Dr. William Lane Craig...hope AronRa has the credentials to debate him.
A multiverse is more plausible than a god because we can demonstrate that a universe at least exists; there is no demonstration of gods existing.
I guess tho one could argue that the universe or multiverse is a demonstration of an eternal being(s) If the big bang is true then space and time and had to have been created somehow. An eternal type being fits that. We don't have any tools or measuring devices to see that or observe that with our senses but it does follow logically somewhat.
Why? Why does that indicate an eternal being? Explain that to me.
Why not argue that at the point at which time is zero (the singularity), is eternal and infinite? That's how I've heard it described. And even if time wasn't infinite at the point of the singularity, why not just argue that the universe is eternal, then? Both of these things are still more likely than a god, because we can demonstrate that they exist.
Common sense and logic is only applicable on it's own when it is something that occurs commonly. It's normal for people to eat breakfast, so if I say "I ate breakfast", it's perfectly logical to believe that. But we do not normally see or interact with gods (or if we do, nobody has been willing to demonstrate it scientifically so it can be verified), so claiming that a god is eternal and created timespace (it also needs to be demonstrated that things can exist outside of timespace as well; which hasn't been demonstrated either, as everything we know of exists inside of timespace) needs evidence to prove that it's logical.
We also have a lot of evidence that humans create myths to explain things they don't understand or can't explain. In history, we believed the same thing about rain, and rainbows, and volcanoes, but science eventually explained those things, and will eventually reach a conclusion about how the singularity came to be. And even science never is able to explain it, the answer remains "we don't know", not "god did it". To say that a god did it needs it's own body of evidence, just like the big bang has it's own body of evidence.
I agree that a multiverse is more likely than a god, although they still currently have the same amount of evidence - none.
Although, should a multiverse later be evidenced, I think we'd have ourselves yet another frontier to explore. Although admittedly, unless all universes operate on the same fundamental laws, we would have to come up with 'dimensional science' - science based on different dimensions such as;
"Kritzneas' Laws of Dimension-X Gravity" or something.
I don't really take a firm stance on whether or not there is a multiverse. I was simply pointing out that it is more plausible than a god. It is mathematically viable, as I understand it (though I am not great at mathematics), but I still take the stance of "we don't know" at present. I just think it's very inappropriate (scientifically) to fill in the blanks of what we don't know with "god". It's fine if people want to make assumptions about the origins of the universe, but I feel as if those explanations should at least be plausible and possibly testable and/or demonstrable (since you can show multiverse theory in math, at least that's *something* evidentiary).
*****
Why should it be logical? How many other universes do we have to show that a god did it? We have one and even in this one we have no evidence whatsoever that someone did it. We can claim that but this is neither logic nor evident. It is the classical god of the gap argument: "We do not know, we do not understand so god must have done it."
This is an unbiased claim.
AronRa responds to a professor of philosophy at Boston college and explains to him once again why theism is still not rational.
Someone should send Aron's video to the professor.
In fact, I think I might just do that now.
***** Did you do it?
***** Not really, we might get a interesting response for Aron to deal with.
***** Well I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.
It is funny seeing this professor talk about this. Without knowing his background he could as easily be talking about any god.
Perhaps reupload that video and tag it with: _Why we believe in Thor._ :D
AronRa, I know it's rather late to respond to this, but I appreciate all you do. Keep on being awesome good sir, we need more reasonable, well spoken and above all calm and collected people speaking on our behalf to negate all the negative effect of "internet atheists" or the loud-mouthed and often times unreasonably hostile youths that make up a part of the population that considers themselves atheist. I'm currently a student and I really don't have money to donate to you, but when I get a real job and have money to donate you bet your ass I'll be donating so you can go out there and win debates, not just for yourself, not just over your opposition, but for the greater benefit of reason and humanity itself.
Prager U is to education what dog vomit is to epicurean dining.
Brilliant, as usual. Keep up the phenomenal work, Aron Ra. The world literally needs you and your work.
"Yet some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a creator." We can observe at least one universe so it's not too farfetched that there could be more. Present at least one divine creator and then we'll talk.
No, we don't, that is a theory, learn how to read.
as philhellenes said "what have we found that there is only one of?"
“...there could be more.”
That sounds like an appeal to faith.
Present at least one line of evidence that suggests there is even one universe beyond this one, then I’ll consider your case
@@Tyler-Hoskins there is none. The multi universes idea is a hypothesis
@@teamatfort444 are hypotheses not formed based on certain amounts of evidence? Come on, that’s grade school science.
A heavy metal version of Matt Dillahunty, haha! keep up the good!
That’s a petty thing to say. AronRa is his own version of himself. Your comment treads on disrespect.
@@secularargument9012 I couldn't agree more
Would you like it if someone said you were the metal version of someone else?
the big banger is Carlos. he lives down the block and no-one fucks with him.
I think I might have to refer to god as "The Big Banger" from now on.
You are phenomenal AronRa, and I don't say it about many. I am grateful that we still have people like you on the board.
Right on. Having to Hide in a world of "Believers" living in the south as I do is intensely fatiguing. Your words and videos give me rest and hope that the world will one day wake up from there magical dreams. Probably not in my lifetime but ya know. All I can do is try and teach my kids better and pass on to them knowledge and not theism
if Christians were rational their faith would fly out the window
Thank you for so eloquently stating what I myself have concluded after my six decades on this insignificant little planet. Man-made religious faith is frankly embarrassing in this day-and-age, and I resent the deception foisted on me in my youth. The world is very plainly an unfair, cruel and nasty place for the majority of people through no fault of their own, but religions brush this off as the work of an imaginary 'devil', not the so-called loving 'god' (how convenient). Political power and religious power are just flip sides of the same coin, except that religion is the oldest con going.
Common sense and an open mind are not reliable ways of finding truth. Common sense or inductive reasoning can be wrong in any number of ways, depending on the magnitude of the logical leap one must make to go from available information to the conclusion. An open mind can be a magnet for any number of false ideas. How arrogant of theists to believe they are infallible when they use clearly fallible methods!
It always makes my head hurt when they try to apply common sense to something like the idea that all of space, time, matter, and energy was condensed into a singularity. Black holes are bad enough, but at least black holes are _in_ the universe...not the universe itself.
Maybe tomorrow a miracle will happen and we will discover what "caused" the Big Bang, and the answer turns out to be "not God." I'd love to see where they scramble to next.
There are few things so uncommon as common sense.
Tessa Bain Nice linguistic dancing, ma'am, but I do not understand how that makes theistic arguments based on common sense and open mind any more valid.
Tessa Bain The problem with "common sense" is that it is pure evolved human intuition. It is clear why common sense breaks down when discussing things like atoms and space-time- we did not evolve in such a way as to perceive those things. Common sense only works with mundane things humans have evolved around, and science deals with everything we did not evolve to perceive as well.
mathewfinch - About the best I ever heard it put.
If God can create things by speaking, then why does he always need money?
Because he's a broke ass bitch. He spent all his money creating the universe.
James West If he spent all his money creating the universe, then where are the invoices, bid documents and scope of work? Were there other bidders or even subcontractors? Who did he buy the materials or labor from?
No, it is not rational to believe anything without evidence. God, Bigfoot, Lochness monster, Unicorns, Angels, or Fairies. We should withhold belief in anything (the default position) until such time as we have evidence enough to believe it is true.
"Amen" brother lol
Now that I see again Aquinas' first mover argument, it seems to be based in an geocentric and Aristotelian view of the world. When you understand the universe as a place with no privileged point of view where nothing is still, even in a Euclidean/Newtonian model of the universe the argument has no sense; less so in the relativity/quantum model.
rataflechera That's actually irrelevant. There has been a few good responses to this claim, for example:
McLaughlin, Thomas. "Local Motion and the Principle of Inertia: Aquinas, Newtonian Physics, and Relativity." _International philosophical quarterly_ 44.2 (2004): 239-264.
*****
You realize that the article you cited, even by the title is even more irrelevant because it makes no mention of Quantum mechanics or string theory which break relativity and Newtonian physics into pieces that can only be used a small portion of the observable universe.
Nicholas Abraham The objection had to do with Newtonian physics and relativity, so I replied accordingly. If you have an objection regarding quantum mechanics, then let me know.
*****
Your argument is irrelevant. You may define your _god_ into existence by words, and anyone of _faith_ could do the same thing (of any religion), but you can't get from that _god_ to the monster known as YHWH.
Rand Huso I do not see how the first way is defining God into existence. lol But, sure I could. That is what the Summa Theologica of Aquinas does.
God glasses? Surely you meant “Godggles?”
More like the "irrational goggles"
Mr. Aronra you really did a wonderful job in this presentation. I agree with everything that you've said. Bravo!
Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274-03-07 lived before even the most primitive science had been discovered. He lived long before Newton. His understanding of motion was flawed. His understanding was equivalent to a four-year-old's. That is what we should expect of a theologian.
6:00 "...and defensible only with logical fallacies." "meow"
"Mere matter never moves itself"
Really. Your mouth is made of matter, and it seems to be moving by itself.
There definitely isn’t a brain telling it to. This dude is an airhead.
@@oogieboo1 How is he an airhead when he's right?
The Bible, and religion in general, has gotten numerous things wrong so far. It claimed outer space, for example, was covered in water.
This was disproven when people finally went to space. Otherwise they would have taken a boat to the moon.
It also claimed stars had minds of their own and were tiny, that the world was flat, and that the entire planet wasn't billions of years old.
Ok theists listen. Proving a God exists and proving your God exists are not the same thing. Proving the former does not prove the latter. If you can't do it at the same time then keep on walking.
@Fernando Scasioso I think you replied to the wrong post because I said nothing about theism being irrational.
@Fernando Scasioso No. Theism by it's very nature requires you to believe in unprovable and/or unfalsifiable supernatural things either to prop up it main tenets or in addition to its main tenets. That doesn't mean I think all theists are idiots for believing because I once did but theism doesn't promote free thought or critical thinking just illusions of it.
@Fernando Scasioso if you're gonna try and refute someone's arguement try refuting the arguement they are actually making. I said nothing about God in the last post and personal attacks are unnecessary. It's obvious you have no intention of being an honest interlocutor so do bother commenting after this because I will no longer respond to you.
@Frances Snowflake how does it work then
@Frances Snowflake yes, I agree, but you said it’s not like that just above my comment, or not?
It is quite simple: God was created by mankind not the other way around
Particles can pop in and out of existence, out of nothingness. It's been proven. Everything is made out of particles, even the fabric of time and space. SO if anyone tells you that something can't come from nothing, that there needs to be a creator; refer him to quantum mechanics.
Someone should bring this up EVERY TIME someone brings up "first cause", "prime mover", or "Kalam cosmological argument". EVERY TIME.
Dan Cosme Origin of quantum mechanics?
The concept of "nothing" is an unproved concept as we have never observed nothing. For instance someone might say there is nothing in this box but that would be untrue. An empty box still has several types of gaseous molecules , dust , the forces of gravity , air pressure and the box its self. The same could be said about deep space. It might appear to be a vast nothingness but its still something.
@@chriscunliffe1542 it’s not that we have never observed nothing, it’s that observing it would be impossible, as there would be no properties of which to observe
@@teamatfort444 , observation has as much to do with what can and is observed and what is not observed.
Thank you Aron - excellent video.
Flagged the other comment for spam. He does this on all videos
All matter must face the possibility of "dark matter" which will absorb it. The fact is that some "dark matter" is not "matter" *AT ALL* and we should simply ignore it - much like the ROBO-calls from reduced-rate credit hawks. IGNORE them and they will die off from starvation.
***** I take it from your comments that you are angry about something. Are you for or against religion?
The argument from causation (the cosmological argument) rests on an inaccurate premise and naive notions of space, time, and causality.
The major premise of the cosmological argument is that "everything has a cause." The minor premise is that "the universe is a thing," from which follows the conclusion that the universe had a cause.
But the argument is flawed because the major premise is so imprecise as to be inaccurate.
The major premise is necessarily inductive; it is based on observations of things existing within the universe. (See Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," for confirmation that there are no analytic or a priori truths.)
The major premise of the cosmological argument must therefore be that "everything existing within the universe has a cause."
That claim is not itself true (as Aron notes), but we can assume it to be true for the moment. It is certainly a much more accurate version of the claim made by theists, who leave out important information about the basis of the observation.
Even if we assume this new major premise to be true, it makes no sense to assert as our minor premise the claim that the universe is a thing that exists within the universe. In other words, the minor premise does not match the major premise. We may conclude that everything existing within the universe has a cause, but that doesn't tell us whether the universe itself had a cause.
Further, the cosmological argument rests on a model of causality that is based on our observations of how things work within this space-time continuum. But nothing gives us any basis to conclude that our notions of causality--i.e., of the way things happen in space and time--accurately reflect the way things work outside of the space-time continuum. We cannot see beyond the space-time continuum, so we cannot make any conclusions about causality beyond it. Instead, given that our understanding of causality is bound to the universe, to this space-time continuum, we must conclude that our understanding is limited to this space-time continuum. We have no reason for believing that the same principle or principles of causality work outside this space-time continuum.
Another way of thinking of this is to reflect on the fact that there is no such thing as "before" the universe. Time as we understand it is a characteristic of the universe. We have no justification for abstracting from that contingent notion of time another notion of time, one that imagines a time before time.
In short, the evidence available to us is limited to observations within this universe. We have no basis for claiming that those observations extend beyond the universe--i.e., to some imagine time and space before it.
Further, all of our understandings--including the major premise of the cosmological argument--rest on observations of material or natural conditions within the universe. All of the causes that we see are material or natural causes. Within the universe itself, we do not observe supernatural causes.
Accordingly, the major premise of the cosmological argument must be that "everything existing within the universe has a material or natural cause within the universe."
That premise--which reflects fairly well our actual observations--does not support a conclusion that the universe had a cause--or, even if it did, that the "cause" was supernatural. We are warranted only in concluding that any cause is likely to be material or natural, not supernatural.
Daniel Gunter so, no actual rebuttal to the cosmological argument? Just as expected, you simply cannot argue against facts, against the very reality! The Universe points to a Creator, as does life, there is no argument to counter that
Daniel Gunter so you just admitted that science cant prove nor dos prive religion.
Really? I didn't rebut the cosmological argument? Are you truly that stupid?
"Prove religion"? You are so incredibly simple-minded that it's almost painful to read your comment.
My point is that there is no reason to believe that a supernatural creator entity--i.e., a "god"--exists.
If you want to believe in things without having a rational basis for doing so, have at it. And I'll point at you and call you stupid.
i didnt said i didnt had a rational basis for believing in god. i said that science can not experiment with things that are not natural therefore you cant have definite proof of gods existance
"Religion is a crutch for those too weak to stand up to their fear of the unknown without help"- R. Heinlein
The total irony here is that the defense of reason and logic, is filled with a stream of logical fallacies.
Is that rational?
Well, actually, yes, it is. For exactly the same reason that theism is rational.
Further irony is that the theists, and AronRa, will both accuse the other side of failing to see the big picture...when in fact they both fail to see the bigger picture, but neither will ever admit it.
Which is probably why scientists should stick to science, and the religious should stick with their religion, and each one stay in their own yard. Because when either one starts to muck about on the other side of the fence, they just end up looking like window-licking asses.
Can you point out these logical fallacies please then? Attempting to discredit logic through the use of logic only self-validates logic.
xkcd.com/774/
exodiathecoolone Just watch the video again. It shouldn't take you long to spot where they start. But counting them all, that's the difficult part.
***** If it's so easy, point them out.
stlchucko If you can't spot them a mile away then either you don't know what a logical fallacy is, or you just don't want to see what's right in front of you.
Either way, I can't help educate you if you don't want it, or point out the obvious if you are determined to just ignore it.
It's one or the other, you decide.
Aron...keep kickin' ass!!!
I stumbled upon this a couple days ago. Thinking back about it, I thought I had found ways to address some of the arguments used in your (AronRa's) video. Consider this a good faith analysis of this video's arguments (I apologize for answering a video so late after it has been posted, but I was not aware of its existence until recently).
You begin by stating that God was imagined by "superstitious primitives who didn't understand anything about the natural world around them", and then use this statement as evidence that God is irrational. But religions could as well have been invented by a wannabe religious leader to subjugate others (which should be the most likely explanation to an atheist), or a storyteller whose stories were taken seriously. I mean, the premise of your argument is itself an assumption. Even if we ignore this flawed premise, I would tend to think your immediate conclusion (that God is irrational) follows from it (a person who is mistaken or outright lies about most things still has some chance to be right about a particular thing). However, you conclusion only becomes mildly convincing after you say there is no evidence for God and plenty of evidence against God. This would be a good argument if properly demonstrated (take no offense, but I don't think it is).
You say that "belief in God requires faith", using secular definitions of both faith and belief which make them quasi-synonyms. But the Bible gives different definitions and distinguishes between the two. James 2:19 explicitely says the demons believe in the existence of God, but Acts 19:15 has a demon admit he knows Jesus (knowledge requires factual evidence). So the Bible counts even people with factual proof of the existence of God (by the narrative, at least) as people who believe. John 20:29 also counts Thomas as a believer even though his belief was grounded in facts. However, the verse shows that belief in God assumed in the absence of personal testimony to his resurrection is equally valid.
The book of James clearly distinguishes between belief (proved by facts or assumed without facts) from faith. For James, faith can only show itself in the deeds of a person (James 2:18), which parallels other biblical passages such as Romans 14:22. Paul says that faith gives righteousness to all believers (Romans 3:22), not that faith makes you a believer. Given that not all self-proclaimed believers are righteous, however (many fundamentalists are hypocritical at their core), not all believers have faith, and in the example of Thomas from John 20:29, belief can sometimes result from factual proofs, though not always. What I am trying to show is that the biblical perspective of belief (or faith) does not make it an opposite of reason. When talking about a religion, that religion's definitions of standard terms (such as belief or faith) should be preferred over secular ones.
This is then followed by a counter-argument to the often-appealed teleological argument for God, which I think was taken from Romans 1:20 (which was among the verses you quoted earlier in the video). But given the context of Romans 1:20, I do not think it has anything to do with the teleological argument (Paul was refuting paganism, because a fabricated idol could not have created the world, because creating the world would require eternal power and a divine nature). This has no incidence on the rest of your argument, but I am saying this in case someone would claim refuting the teleological argument is equivalent to refuting the Bible.
What follows is rather the observation that no trace of God's fingerprint was found, and that the immensity of the cosmos would suggest that most of it wasn't designed for human beings in mind. Take no offense that I find this argument uncompelling. Many places even on Earth are "inaccessible to us, inhospitable to us". Oceanic deeps or Earth's core are examples. Despite the fact that no human resides there (though technological advancement could allow us to in the future), we make indirect use of them (stars brighten the Earth at night, oceanic deeps could be inhabited by as of yet undiscovered life forms, and Earth's core creates a magnetic field around us that protects us from solar irradiation). They are not "clearly not designed for us". I am not saying they were, only that your argument is not compelling to me. If my own logic in the one at fault here, please tell me. How does the immensity of the Universe prove that God does not exist?
The unmoved mover argument may have been disproved by modern science, or it may not. Your opponent in the video (Dr. Kreeft?) already makes a fallacy by stating that science cannot find the first cause. Following this I have noticed your video takes on a ruder tone (I apologize if this is only an impression I got). You say God doesn't exist because an omnipotent entity "speaking" everything into existence is absurd, did I got it right? I thought this was an argument from incredulity, so I am not sure how to respond to this. When after that you extensively compare God to a genie who "existed for all eternity until he decided to create something besides himself", it appears similar to a reductio ad absurdum. Then it becomes argument from incredulity again when you say it is irrational to believe the first cause has any kind of intelligence. However, you are right when you later note that superstition (I would say, not necessarily the belief in a creator God) has led people to stop from seeking real causes. I found this funny as I was immediately reminded of Plato's world of ideas, where every physical occurrence has to have an imaginary cause in addition to the physical cause. Aside from this, I commend you for attacking superstitions. I even think the Bible approves it (1 Timothy 4:7).
Your attacking on the irrational belief that God will come and solve everything, I would say the Bible also approves of. As I wrote earlier, the Bible states that faith makes someone righteous. If a person is immoral, she is an hypocrite, and one consistent thing within the New Testament is caution against hypocrisy (Matthew 7:5 and 7:18, James 2:19 and 2:24, etc.). But unlike you, I do not think all people who believe in God are fundamentally hypocritical.
I wouldn't contest your statements about the origin of the Universe, existence of a Multiverse, or Deism, but when you say that miracles are by definition impossible I would disagree on how miracles, the laws of nature, and impossibility are defined. For a Theist, it certainly doesn't appear irrational to believe that direct divine intervention is physically possible. But this would require a definition of miracle that does not make it synonym of superstition.
As for whether there is no evidence for God, I would personally use the same evidence we have of the historicity of Jesus. Eye witnesses of his life on Earth said he was resurrected. Given that they were persecuted for it and lived miserably, attested to the legitimity of each other and consistently insisted against the hypocrisy of lying for the faith, I personally feel their testimony has legitimate credibility. This is an indication, though not necessarily an irrefutable proof, of God's existence. You will probably disagree.
Thanks for reading this far. Sorry if I could not make it as polite and polished as I'd like, so if you see anything in my comment as rude, please tell me. I look forward to reading your answer.
WOW! You don't need faith to believe in a god, but you have to have faith to be an atheist?
WTF!?
An admission that "faith" is stupid and they don't even realize...
NOTHING lies outside of the "realm" of science!
@@elijahlees8655, Literally everything can be explained into further detail by science, when tested and found.
@@elijahlees8655, but everything can be explained by science, WITH PROOF, things as simple as dropping a paperclip, or swinging on a swing, *can* be explained by science.
Yes, Quantum Physics has not yet been explained. But it is still science, science has not yet discovered how it has worked.
Things don't just do, they have a reason.
@Frances Snowflake Technically, everything is science, true or not. But that proves my point, everything is science.
@Frances Snowflake Uhm, yes.
Lol, at 0:17 I was about to klick away from the video when Aron poped up.
This is more than brilliant! AronRa - I think I love you!
ALL HAIL ARONRA THE GLADIATOR OF ATHEISM! THE BUTCHER OF THEIST! THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!
Every anti-theism argument you give in this video is wrong.
Could you point them out or is your whole argument just the word "no"?
Is this what passes for an intelligent rebuttal in your world?
No wonder it's becoming easier to make theists into atheists but almost impossible to do the reverse.
Ebola has a cure but there is no cure for Stupid.
dave19941000 Well... his very first statement is a strawman fallacy.... and he goes down a path of pure sophistry from there on out.
He starts out with "Given that God is a magic anthropomorphic immortal evidently imagined out of nothing by superstitious primitives who didnt understand anything in the natural world around them"
This premise is false...
God is not a "magical anthropomorphic immortal", God is not "imagined out of nothing", and God certainly was not the invention of "superstitious primitives who didnt understand anything about the natural world"
There really is no need to refute everything he says when it is based on a false premise.
That would be like saying "you need to respond to everything in mein kamph, but you only addressed the premise that jews are the source of all Germany's problems"
No... I dont need to respond to everything he says because the PREMISE is false.
Charles Allison Actually he is, by definition, a magical anthropomorphic immortal. The statement is not wrong in any meaning of the words.
Imagined out of nothing has its trouble, but to say there was no rationality behind it would be accurate, and that was the point behind what he said.
As for those who created the image of god we have today via holy texts, to call them superstitious, primitives or people who didn't understand anything in the natural worlds is, well, appart from being politically incorrect there's nothing which isn't true about that statement either. We know they where superstitious, and we also know that their knowledge of the natural world was laughably limited at best.
dave19941000 "Actually he is, by definition, a magical..."
Stop right there, cause you are already wrong.
I've heard the word "rational" explained as coming from the word *ratio*, and it means that you *proportion* your belief (or your level of conviction) to the level of evidence. I found this enlightening. With that in mind, theism is not rational since there's no evidence for a deity, and thus believing in one anyways would mean that your level of conviction is _wildly out of whack_ with the level of evidence.
When you include the fact that gods actually _contradict_ much of what we _do_ know about the universe (they're magic, minds with no bodies, and they aren't designed or evolved and yet function without any parts, etc etc), and when you include the evidence that men invented every popular deity from every popular religion, not only is _non-belief_ rational, but I would argue that *negative* belief is rational as well. If you have no problem saying "Mickey Mouse does not exist", you shouldn't have a problem saying "God does not exist"; not only is there no evidence for either entity, but there's enough evidence _against_ them to confidently (and rationally) say that they do *not* in fact exist.
AronRa was for me a perfect example of dont judge a book by its cover. I originally thought he was some pompous full of himself person because of his appearance. But after hearing a few sentences, it was not the case at all. And I do enjoy his rapid pace speaking that's to the point and covers a lot of subjects.
Glad you got past your personal prejudices.
Theist: god is all knowing and have a unwavering plan for everyone life before you was even conceived.
Atheist: why do you pray if the plan is laid out already?
Theist: you have to have faith and god works in mysterious ways.
Atheist: you didnt explain anything
Theist: blasphemy!
@papí 4chan you missed the entire point
@papí 4chan you got the point. If god is all knowing and his plan is laid out before anyone was born what would be the point. The bible say god dont change so praying for anything is pointless because it change nothing.
Aron created a straw man by defining faith (which wasn't even the biblical definition) and then proceeded to destroy the strawman. That is not that hard. Whaddo you meme??? eloquently disassembled Aron's arguments: th-cam.com/video/WT8BjswL9ZY/w-d-xo.html WOW.