How To Ineffectively Shift The Burden Of Proof To Atheists
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- What do you say if someone thinks they're being clever and not not saying that they're non not convinced of a god? Yellow sweater here thinks he may have a really smart way to shift the burden of proof... but I'm not convinced...
Who has the burden of proof of a god? We should see...
Original video here - • I don’t believe in God...
Dumb reasons atheiusts are wrong - • Dumb Reasons Why Athei...
Atheists are 'dumb' playlist - • Atheists are dumb?
** T-Shirts Are Here - my-store-cf9db... **
Patreon - / theskeptick
Facebook - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/thes...
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
title - How To Ineffectively Shift The Burden Of Proof To Atheists
tags - burden of proof,shifting the burden of proof,atheists have to prove god,proof of god,theist vs atheist,shift the burden,atheists have the burden of proof,how to shift the burden of proof,how to outsmart an atheist,outsmart an atheist,are atheists right,are atheists wrong,is atheism wrong,is agnosticism wrong,agnostic,atheist,atheism,atheists,proving god,is there any proof of god
It's amazing that it's 2024 and people are still saying "you can't prove God DOESN'T exist!".
I still hear "if we came from monkeys why are there monkeys?"
We don't have that burden. The theists need to prove their God DOES exist! And so far, they have failed.
@@odinson6348 I've seen that one flipped on theists. "If Adam came from dirt, why is there still dirt?" 🤔
I still can't prove i have a family of weebles in my closet they dissapeare every dam time i look! But i believe they are living in my closet.
To be fair, I don't like ANY appeal to PROOF™. Whether it be to prove a god does exist or doesn't exist. As Michael Mann wisely quipped, "Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science.”
The burden still exists, although it's a burden of evidence and reason.
If you want to convince others of whatever claim you might be making, the standard of evidence and reason, is whatever standard satisfies them.
The old adage "you're entitled to believe anything you want" doesn't really help me, because I can't choose my beliefs, but It aught to stand as a principal in the opposite direction, that you're just as entitled to *disbelieve* anything you want. In fact if it's an unconvincing claim, not believing it will, and aught to be inevitable.
90% of us won’t understand what he’s talking about. I’m going to guess that 100% of him doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.
I understood everything just fine, he very clearly said: "I'm approaching my 50s but I think I can still relate to the yutes hey by the way is planking still cool should I wear a baseball cap sideways and talk about how much I love Jazzy Jeff haha PUCE OUT"
I mean, I would never "dab", but he gives me the impression that if *_he_* tried to do it he'd somehow kick himself in the ear.
@EdwardHowton He's probably approaching his 20's but is an early developer. No one can have that low a reading age in their 40's, can they?
@@mdug7224 you haven't been to Alabama!
(No offence Alabama, but you have a reputation throughout the rest of the world...)
He don't even understand that he's speaking.
@@thedeadmoneyallstars Please, Alabama ain't got nothing on Texas - and I can say that because I am from Texas and have been to Alabama.
You know what pisses me off? Someone explaining something to me like I'm five years old... AND NOT EVEN BEING ABLE TO DO THAT RIGHT!!
You just made me think of, and now I really want the chance to use: "You must have misheard me. I said explain like *I'm* five."
There's nothing that pisses me off faster than someone speaking to me like I'm an idiot.
@@chameleonx9253 _"There's nothing that pisses me off faster than someone speaking to me like I'm an idiot."_
Really? What about poking you in the eye with a twig before coffee?
@@Dr_Wrong That's never happened, but I imagine it would be quite annoying.
@@Chetlannice one, I'm gonna use this xD
I was agnostic before, but he managed to convince me. I think rain really does exist.
Hang on. You only think rain does exist. You are still agnostic.😂
What do you mean by agnostic? You are an atheist right?
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307agnostic about the rain, I assume.
@@mdug7224 Damn I hate it when I mess up my own jokes. Then again you know in your heart that there is rain, so you're without excuse!
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 Technically, agnostic atheist in the sense that I cannot say with absolute certainty that no kind of god exists. On a more practical level I consider gods a nonsense idea so I believe none exist. But I'm usually not losing too much sleep over the whole definition part. I'm more concerned about the weather because I wanted to go for a run but it's currently raining 🙄
If he thinks these simple concepts are "pretty nuanced" we know which side of average his intelligence falls. . .
Nuanced could have been on his word of the day toilet roll
Be nice, it's the first word longer than 5 letters he's every learned
Sure, he knows how to say it,only needs to learn it's meaning now.
@@Jcs57 In what way?
Like, think of a football field (American), the 50 yard line is halfway. Dragon said he is before the 50 yard line. That's _broad,_ but it isn't generous. 1 and 49 are both before the 50 yard line.
Also, I barely know anything about football. I'm just avoiding being too specific about what was actually meant, lest it get me an auto-delete.
“The 99% of you who aren’t in comas probably won’t be convinced by my arguments.”
I'm currently in a coma induced by hearing his arguments.
"It's about what's more plausible".
A mundane reason (no matter how unlikely) is always going to be several orders of magnitude more plausible than a super-natural one. Always.
“There is no greater fool than the fool who considers himself wise.”
No one is wiser than Socrates.
@@chameleonx9253 whos the more foolish, the fool or the fools that follow him?
Never think there is nothing new to learn
It's raining outside.
_"Uhh... it's full sun with a cloudless sky. It's absolutely beautiful out today, it's not raining."_
It's raining outside ...spiritually.
It is raining outside, maybe not on the particular spot I am at the moment but given the vast surface of the earth somewhere should be raining right now
It's a metaphorical rain...
yesterday, i heard rain, it was pretty dark at noon, and even someone coming into the house was wet, and thus i didn't leave home for a while. when i finally had to go out to get some food, i took an umbrella with me ... and then saw the sun shining, with no rain at all.
what had happened? some scaffolding in front of the house had kept the water back and cast shadows on my windows, and all the water from previous rain continued dropping on water sills (louder than normal rain) all day long and together with wind and some broken covers appeared to be a thunderstorm.
*_tldr : most of the time, there are more than only two "obvious alternatives" ..._*
Actually it's snowing outside 😂
It's all about context 😂 how and where you're looking 😂
I'm looking outta my window 🇬🇧
You can deny it's snowing but that's you being biased towards your window 😂
🎼🎵 It's cold outside, there's no kind of atmosphere🎶
🎶I'm all alone, more or less🎵🎶
Let me fly, Far away from here
Fun, fun, fun, In the sun, sun, sun 🎶🎶🎵
Sorry, had a 'free association' moment..
I heard what sounded like rain outside, so I went outside and told the neighborhood kid to stop spraying my house.
Not only doesn’t he seem to know what “atheist” means, he also doesn’t seem to know what “nuanced” means.
It seems clear that a comprehensive list of things he doesn't know the meaning of would fill several libraries...
When people ask me why I am, or what I mean by atheist, I always respond with, theists have failed in their obligation to convince me that a god or gods exist.
I don't know how I could make it any clearer.
I look out my window and I see drops of water hitting the ground.
It's not raining though, the snow on my roof is melting. This is why trying to cherry pick things that don't prove you wrong will never outperform trying to disprove your hypothesis.
Also, a more accurate analogy would be that you read a book written thousands of years ago that said it was raining, and you just believe the book even though you've never actually seen the rain yourself.
Noah
@@Dr_Wrong so you tape you dog's mouth, take a picture of it and post it on line. you're a POS!!
Burden of proof is really a simple and straightforward concept. How do so many get it wrong? Russel's teapot is easy to understand by anyone... one would think.
Oh yeah? You say there's NOT a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Mars' and Jupiter's orbits? Prove it!
@@jaybeemhardscrote7466
... esacly.
They get it wrong because they don't really want to concede the weaknesses of their position, sometimes not even to themselves.
Ever hear of "Morton's Demon"? It's the nickname for a response to cognitive dissonance which causes people to fail to process or retain information/concepts which contradict an emotional belief. This is why flat-earthers will often try provide evidence for their position while failing to realize that it actually debunks their own position (i.e. hidden height of distant objects).
Because theists are in the unenviable position of trying to prove that Russell's Teapot DOES exist. So, it's not so much they don't understand, it's that they know the effort is futile, so they desperately try to find a way around it.
@@jaybeemhardscrote7466,
Do you really want me to?
He didn't shift the burden of proof; he demonstrated he failed grade school by using a double negative. _sigh_
It's always nice to see theists admitting that they have absolutely no prof of their sky man :)
@juliebabygirl
Out of curiosity and to pushback against your uncharitable characterization, what are your core values and their origin?
If you need “charity” to support your argument, it’s because you don’t have evidence.
@@FuddlyDud Leave it to a theist to start off with an insult.
@@samuelschick8813
The guy being reacted to was indeed insulting.
That said, what was my insult? I only see “uncharitable characterization” as a candidate, yet I’d say “sky man” is fairly uncharitable. Would you say it’s actually charitable or neutral? :P
@FuddlyDud , The difference is simple really. He called God a "sky man" but you insulted him personally because you don't like what he called your god. As for core values and there origins, prove your god exist before implying they come from the Christian god. The biblical god is the most immoral and worse behaved figure in the Bible.
I can see him saying to himself "I'm really going to blow people's mind with this one, I better wear my lucky yellow sweatshirt".😂
I love how he admits it's *easy* to find alternative explanations for his God claims...but doesn't wonder why.
Well, he did say he doesn't think it's good practice to evaluate evidence or determine whether the inferences from what they're claiming as evidence are correct. Smh
@trolleyfan
It’s easy because it feels good to be god and do what makes the self pleasured.
It being easy to think of alternatives to reject God is a central theme of the Bible, so I’m confused on why you are speaking of this as if it has extra explanatory power than, say the Christian position. :P
Who "rejects" god?
It's merely that all the god arguments ever presented just suck.
@@FuddlyDud”it’s easy to be god”
How would you know that? You’ve never successfully been God.
@@awkwardukulele6077
EDIT: Reply got deleted by Internet being spotty.
Sorry for the confusion, I am using specifically Christian terms and language, such as talking about being "god" with a lowercase 'g' rather than being "God" with an uppercase 'G.'
In short, any idol we treat with reverence/glory/obsession is our 'god' which can include ourselves acting as the ultimate arbitor of good, or as 'god.' However, this is a perversion of how the 1 True God deserves all of said glory and reverence. Hopefully that makes more sense! :)
AronRa I'm always thankful you help me on my journey to atheism.
I used to be an 1/8thiest but then I started buying ounces and then full pounds.
What would happen if you switched to metric?
@@mjjoe76 Then I'd have to explain to people that I used to be a 3.5gramsiest but now when they go high, I kilo.
@mjjoe76 metrics are for powders, that's bad ju ju.
😂😂😂😂😂✌️🤘🤘👍✨️
@mjjoe76 That's usually how it's weighed, in grams. Unless you are talking about larger quantities. Not sure after a pound. I am lucky to get the 1/8theist these days. Lol
*looks outside* not raining
“Hey why are your shoulders we-“
“The damn sprinklers broke!”
I lack the belief this guy knows what he's talking about. I feel it in my heart of hearts.
"It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"
I have a friend who's a Christian who I hold very dearly in my life. Some time last year, his grandma had a stroke, and he told me about it. He told he believed another of his friends who use to be a nurse had claimed vaccines are harmful, and concluded that she must of been right because his grandma had that stroke only about 2 weeks or so after getting a vaccine shot. I'd told him I was disappointed in him for believing her claim so easily, and expressed the disappointment I had with him because of how smart he is normally. He usually thinks for a good while about things before making a conclusion. "I'm disappointed in you cause you're smarter than that. It could of been the vaccine interacting with any meds your grandma takes, or something to do with her diet or activity levels. It could just be cause she's outright old as can be, being over 80 now." I wanted to remind him the importance of making sure he has proof before believing in such statements.
He's a smart kid, but I do worry about him sometimes. Easily gullible and easy to manipulate if not careful, and I've seen it firsthand what he can do when given a chance to think and "bloom."
...and that kid,
...was Albert Einstein😎
I'm reminded of a joke away status one of my sister's friends had on AIM years ago:
_"I knew a guy who bought a used car once. 15 years later.... BAM! Herpes."_
@@BaronVonQuiply Hahaha! I love it!😂
If this was a couple of years ago, thousands of people dropped dead from a certain jab. Excess death numbers per year are still well above normal.
Take all the jabs you want, but please dont forget that those who made the jabs did it for money, not help.. that period saw the largest transfer of wealth in human history.
@@Goldenhawk583Yeah, it's so weird how the two companies that invented safe and functional vaccines to save millions of lives worldwide made so much money, and the one company that made a faulty vaccine that had a higher risk of side effects had to recall it and thus made a lot less money.
It's almost like making a product that works is the best way for a company to make money. It's almost like that's how free market capitalism works. It's almost like people who spread stupid conspiracy theories are majorly projecting when they call others sheep who just blindly believe what they're told.
3:27 "The word 'atheist,' the definition of that has changed..."
No; despite apologists' best efforts, the definition of "atheist" has not actually changed.
Matt, D. and Aron would DESTROY HIM!
I'd feel bad watching that because its would be like watching the weak kid in class decide to try to prove himself by punching the biggest guy on the football team and get an epic beatdown as a result. I mean, I'd still watch. I would just feel bad.
I can already hear "no sire, no sire, no sire".
@@MrCanis4 The word "sir" doesn't have an e on the end.
@@donnievance1942 oops, my bad. English is not my first language.
Seth would destroy this clown, and he's not really a debater.
I have the "burden of proof" to him...like shit, I do!
"Before, in the past"
As apposed to Before in the Future?
"The burden of proof won't be on me if I say I don't not believe on stuff instead of saying I believe on it" - the ramblings of a mad man.
I served on submarines. It is surprisingly difficult to know if it is raining while submerged. And sometimes it was actually important to know because of the possible impact on sonar.
Interesting. I never thought of that. Would the rain mask an approaching vessel, or throw out false positives?
And if you are cruising at 300ft, it is hard to tell if the fills up the ocean by 1/10” …
@@chameleonx9253 Pretty much. Before getting close to the surface you always stop for a few minutes and listen because well collisions are bad. Sometimes it's not easy to distinguish between a squall on a bearing or a ship.
He is just as dull as dish water if you're supposedly excited about god .
The definition of atheist has changed, multiple times. I mean almost two millennia ago Christians where considered atheists for rejecting other deities in the Roman Empire. And I think in philosophy the term atheist still refers to a hard stance against the existence of deities, but yes, colloquially it means these days just not having any deities as a more psychological state of mind.
To me it just means anti-Christian
replacing god with Santa Clause in his argument makes it much more entertaining 😁
Aethiesm: I do not believe you when you say there is a God
@@WikiPDiazcan you clarify what you’re asking here? Are you asking for someone to prove that they are not convinced of a proposition?
The general rule is, if someone says they’re not convinced of something, you have to accept that they are not convinced of something, unless you have really good grounds for thinking they’re lying. Certainly assuming that you know their mind better than they do wouldn’t be the way to go.
@@WikiPDiazIts the definition🤨Aethiesm: I do not believe you when you say there is a God.
OR put more directly if you wish
Aethiesm: I do not believe that a god exists.
not a statement to be proven, its the answer to the question "Do you believe God or a god exists?"
the answer "no i do not"
@@WikiPDiazHypothetically speaking, you could hook him up to a lie detector and then ask him if he believes there's a god...
@@chameleonx9253 Lie detectors aren't really reliable evidence, though - unless you can read minds, you have no way of knowing what anyone believes or doesn't believe.
Atheism, the belief that no gods exist.
here, i fixed the rain analogy:
i lock you in a room with no windows "until it stops raining outside". 4 months later, i'm still telling you "it's raining outside" every time you ask to leave. oh, so you don't believe me? i can make my shoulders wet outside, though! simply prove to me it isn't raining, and i'll let you go.
When he hears thunder, how does he know it's not Thor?
It's not nuanced, it's flat out denial of responsibility.
"It's raining"
I don't believe you as you haven't demonstrated it.
"Ah, so you're saying it isn't raining? Burden of proof on you now"
😑
I claim god doesn't exist and I accept the burden of proof.
I cite the lack of evidence proving a god, and the lack of a religion without logical inconsistencies, and the evidence that man can make shit up, as my evidence for there being no god.
Now the burden of proof switches to theists, as I have met my burden of proof for a negative claim.
Exactly. Theists love to pretend that a belief in non-existence requires turning over every rock in the universe to confirm no god was there, but that isn't the standard we use for anything else.
The other misrepresentation is that strong atheism is dogmatic, but this isn't the case. I'm as hard an atheist as can be, but it's still provisional and open to change if I encounter new information. I'm not the one saying that, _"I know that I know that I know that I know."_
@@Oswlek I do know there is no god through personal experience, it's not something I can prove though, just as they can't prove god from personal experience either.
I am pretty well set in this knowledge though, I think there's 0% chance a Christian god exists.
However I know there's things about the universe we've yet to discover, I'm not bold enough to claim to know what they are, it seems like a big assumption to assume one of those things might be a god though.
Still everyone thinks different things, that's fine. However when looking at external evidence we can all agree on, I agree most atheists will shift their thinking when presented with new evidence. However most Christians will ignore new evidence if it doesn't suit their personal internal experiences.
That is, hands down, the absolute worst attempt at arguing for god I've ever heard.
I also lack a belief that god doesn't exist. I'm not sure what that gains him.
I lack a belief that I need to care whether a god or gods exist.
Real or not, I reject the character presented in the Bible as God, and the people who pretend to speak on his behalf either way.
Even when I was a fundamentalist evangelical, I understood the concept of burden of proof when making a claim. In retrospect, that probably helped with the whole deconstructing thing years later.
Mr. Double Negative slappin' us with the sillies. 😆
Working under the definition that atheism is a lack of belief in a god, him saying he as a theist only lacks belief that a god doesn't exist wouldn't necessarily mean he believes a god exists. He would just fall into the same epistemic position that Plink takes at that point.
Exactly.
"Nuanced" - I don't think that word means what you think it means.
We can add "nuanced" to the list of things he doesn't understand the meaning of
I hate it when they say "This is all nuanced" about something that isn't. Every time one of these theists say that, I assume they are on the weak side and say this to try and seem that both sides are the same.
It was about as nuanced as a brick through a shop window after a faulty purchase. He is either very patronising or not the sharpest tool in the box.
I chatted with this guy in the comments under his original video.He seems nice, but the conversation fizzled out with him saying it was all very nuanced and hard to explain.
To be fair, it probably seems nuanced to someone who believes an invisible sky wizard impregnated a teenage girl with himself so that he could sacrifice himself to himself to provide a loophole to the rules he created.
He probably thinks draining spaghetti without pouring boiling water all over his kitchen is "nuanced and hard to explain."
This guy was just literally not very swift. I mean actually with an IQ somewhere around 90 or less. It's kind of mean of us to be too hard on him. He's a dumb, but nice guy.
I lack a belief that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. Checkmate, theists.
Wow. This guy’s logic is great.
He thinks you "arrive at truth" by just believing in god without actually proving the god exists? How do you "arrive at truth" , based on things not proven true?
Maybe he's confused.
Or he means arriving at "Truth®"
"How do you "arrive at truth" , based on things not proven true?"
Because the bible tells you to.
worse: he did not even try to just explain the g0d.
Rain demonstrates its existence but falling on you…
He knows what nuanced means?!?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"I lack a belief that there is not a god" is a double negative that grammatically translates to "I believe there is a god." Cute try, but another fail.
I think you missed a good point to bring up with the room that we can't confirm its raining in, i.e. locked doors no windows etc.
He says "I believe its raining"
you say "I don't believe you"
Just because I say I don't believe you, doesn't mean I think its NOT raining.
r
I dont believe you. 🙂
Thinking clouds mean rain is not skipping class, it's skipping outside.
He has a mind?!?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
“It’s raining outside” requires less evidence than, “It’s raining outside, because God is crying.”
Dunning-Kruger effect on full display with this guy. 🙄
The better question is - who doesnt have Dunning-Kruger effect? People show their pride and lack of understanding all the time, especially on youtube.
Nothing more classic than "God real because atheist said ""nah."""
Epic fail from this theist. His video was only for fellow theists. He knows atheists will shoot down his dishonest burden shifting attempt at promoting a god that has never been proven to exist.
He wasn't dishonest. He was just dumb. Never attribute to malice what is just as attributable to stupidity (or ignorance). This guy was actually just a dope who's been primed by the more evil in his "field."
Not true, i am not a believer and i like his video.
Awww, bless! Nice to see they’re doing “let’s make a video” projects at the home for “special” people. I hope they gave him a nice cookie for his efforts. 🤪
I'm betting the op could fill the apologetics bingo card given enough time. He's already got shifting the burden of proof, incoherent analogies, and insulting non-believers. All that in 1 short video. Thanks for another great video, Mr Tick.
Yellow Hoodie Guy: No, no, no it's not my burden of proof *plays 2 Uno Reverse cards and stares at you blankly not realizing that makes it still his turn*
Exactly! Wow, eh.. 😂
I lack a belief that this guy isn't stupid.
Nuanced? More like confused.
That was...incredibly frustrating.
@@WikiPDiaz an interesting thought experiment, but I have to contest P1. Or rather what you're describing as a simulation. In order for that to be true, you would require an exact replica of, not a simulation. By the same line of reasoning you would be able to deny reality itself.
A simulation of our world is not reality (true inside the simulation), therefore our world outside the simulation is not reality?
I hope I conveyed my objection clearly, I'm pretty tired after working all day today. Have a good one!
@@WikiPDiaz Your "proof" is lacking a necessary premise: that the simulation mentioned in P1 thrugh P3 is real and not just a hypothetical. Asserting its reality would bear a huge burden of proof, which you have not even pretended to meet. Therefore, your conclusion is a buried equivocation. You are equivocating "some hypothetical simulation is created by a hypothetical creator" with "The world is created by an intelligent Creator" under the implication that you are talking about the actual world we live in.
All simulation "theory" suffers from the fact that there is no evidence whatever that we live in a simulation. While it is not possible to prove otherwise, the positing of our universe being a simulation constitutes an introduction of an unnecessary ontological entity and a violation of Occam's razor. Also, it is an unfalsifiable assertion with no predictive value and is therefore not a respectable hypothesis. It doesn't explain anything; it's untestable; and it is useless for predicting future events or achievable observations. Anyone can make a valid syllogism "proving" anything whatever. They just have to use abstract hypotheticals disguised or equivocated as ontological facts like you have done. Or, more simply, they could just invent any unsound premises, as needed, without any evidentiary support.
Furthermore, all simulations we actually know anything about are deterministic algorithms and are only known about from the outside. We have no information suggesting that the "creations" internal to any simulation are conscious or could be conscious. Yet you are implying that we, conscious beings that we are, are internal to some simulation, with no metaphysical theory at all about the manner in which phenomena internal to a simulation could be conscious. Did you ever hear of the illegitimate reification of abstract concepts? I can write you a valid syllogism "proving" anything you want. So can any halfway intelligent sixth grader. Try learning something a little deeper than the format for laying out a syllogism. You're only faking being this stupid, right?
"I _believe_ it's raining outside." "Can you prove that?" "I don't need to. Beliefs - and disbeliefs - don't require proof. Just some rational justification." "Okay, then can you rationally justify your belief?" "Yes, the weatherman said there was a very high chance of rain today and it was raining hard when I came in 5 minutes ago." "Well...that still doesn't prove anything." "Shut your face."
As an atheist my claim is I haven't seen your proof.
♫ I bless that rains that totally exist ♫
♫ Gonna take some time to do the things we never baaaaaaad goddd (bah-bummm) ♫
This guy is totally bananas
You know this guy thought he was “destroying” our arguments like a hot knife through butter. I’m happy for him, I hope he felt really proud of himself.
My claim is not: 'It's not raining.' My claim is: 'I do not believe it's raining.'
Only thing that I need to prood is my disbelief, not the absence of rain.
Nevertheless, your rejection of such a mundane claim as "it's raining outside" would seem a little extreme unless you had some particular reason to think the claimant was lying. A more appropriate analogy would have been, "the Blue Pixies have granted me three wishes."
Christians love their word games!
Sorry I don't have more to give this week. Keep up the fight floaty circle man!
I'm not SkepTick and right now I don't have the means to support him so from a fellow, logical agnostic atheist I thank you for supporting him!
Here's my Burden of Super Thanks! Keep up the amazing work!
This guy needs to have a Bill and Ted voice
Floating British circles have hands? Go figure.
"I'd like to share my thoughts." How generous, seeing as he clearly has very few of them. 😏
I love this saying!
This is the very first theist video I've seen wherein the theist gave a correct explanation for the burden of proof
He absolutely did not give a correct explanation of the burden of proof. He did not say 1) that an assertion that one does not believe in God is not a positive claim or affirmation of the contrary, that "no gods exist," and therefore carries no burden of proof, or that 2) it is impossible to prove a universal negative, and that therefore the demand to prove that "no gods exist" is an intellectually illegitimate demand, or that 3) the rejection of the God claim relies on the priority of the null hypothesis (the principle that "claims put forward without evidence can be rejected without evidence") and that therefore disbelief does not rest on impossible evidence for a universal negative, or that 4) virtually no atheist claims that the non-existence of God can be positively established, and therefore virtually no atheists ever expose themselves to a legitimate demand for an assumption of the burden of proof. It's dismaying how many atheists are as ignorant about the issue of the burden of proof as the bozo theist in this video. For the very simple minded: we atheists do not claim that the non-existence of God is susceptible of proof, any more than we would claim that the non-existence of the Blue Pixies is susceptible of proof, and therefore we do not acquire impossible burdens of proof for the non-existence of the Blue Pixies or any gods.
Man in yellow
" I'm about to blow their minds with something they never heard before, check mate atheists!"
Good one, thanks, mate!
Only thing I'm saying is I'm Atheist, not Agnostic. But I see your point buddy! And definitely on theists with the burden of proof! I'd rather call it the burden of evidence and data personally.
Whomever makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. Especially if it's an extraordinary claim.
Not only can we tell when it's raining, we can predict when it's going to rain, for how long and how much. We can and have determined where rain comes from and what it consists of, when becomes snow or ice, and even why you hear that thunder in the distance.
“I lack a belief that there is no god, yet I follow the rules of a specific god, and need you to do the same.” How about; “I lack a belief that there is no god, so I must believe in all of them- my prayers take days to complete.”
“Where there’s clouds, there’ll probably be rain” has he never been outside before 🤔
So close, he almost had it, then dashed it on the rocks.
wait, did he just say 1 % of his viewers understand what he is saying...
In my experience, those who have the facts to back up their claims _welcome_ the burden of proof. I don't say "There is no god," I say "the god you are trying to preach to me is a myth." I'm actively assuming the burden of proof because I know I can meet it. Believers who try to shift the burden are admitting they can't back up their claims.
The same people who redefined Atheism to be "belief that there is no god" also took the definition of Atheism and placed it onto the new term "Agnosticism".
This guy's mind would explode if he met someone who said they were an agnostic atheist!
I don't believe that he don't believe that I don't believe that...
I forgot what I wanted to say.
"believe" But great snark.
@@donnievance1942 thx
Yellow hoodie guy: I lack the belief that there is no God. (Checkmate atheists, I'm not making a claim!)
Me: Which god dont you believe doesnt exist?
Yellow: fuck!
😂😂
The most annoying argument is "so you believe a god doesn't exist." In a face to face discussion, they never accept that not believing isn't a belief and you get nowhere.
Not annoying at all, just tell them what you really believe about God. 🤷♂
_"you can just kind of flip the script"_ - wait is this Greg Koukl's new intern? 🤔
If you as a theist feel the need to shift your burden of proof in a god's existence, it's an admission that you can't meet that burden of proof.
"You can't prove he DOESN'T exist!" doesn't shift the burden. It basically terminates a conversation.
Sprinkler/irrigation systems...
It's built into the "DNA" of nonbelievers to disagree.
This is all new to Mr Yellow Jacket, isn't it.
Hi! Glad to see you here today. I’ve been having trouble keeping track of what day it is. Happy Saturday
He can think CLEARLY?!!?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hey, that old response! I've heard it a few times in the past 40 years. If I remember correctly, the first time a theist told me he just "lacked a belief that there was no god," I as an atheist replied, "So do I. The difference is that I also lack a belief that there IS a god."
But I may be remembering it in a way that puts my answer in a better light. There may have been more sarcasm involved.
Lacking both beliefs means that you are an agnostic.