youtube movies

February 12, 2007

More Like Roflthiesm To Me

Filed under: interesting, Video, videos, youtube — youtubemovie @ 3:30 pm

Youtube Commments:
I do not declare that there is no god. I declare that there is no evidence, and until there is evidence, I will not believe in a god. There is a subtle difference between strong and weak (or agnostic) atheism. Furthermore, I encourage everyone to refrain from deciding what others do and do not believe.

I have found that I don”t make ‘final” decisions. Everything is in a constant state of change. To keep up with the pace I must know as much as I can about what I am ‘deciding upon’. If I know I have looked at all sides, i make decision and go to the next thing. Information is Power

Scot, you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Agnosticism is not the middle ground between theism and atheism. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge. I like how you decided to take on this topic but this video needs to be redone.

Send me a video camera or paypal me the money to buy one and I’ll be more then happy to make a video. Until then, my comment will suffice. Redone was the wrong statement though- Instead, I would like to see a part II with any counter-arguments to the ones that have been raised.

I think the point is that the “conflict” just can’t be settled. It isn’t supposed to be. If there were evidence about God, that wouldn’t be faith, it would just be a fact. I don’t have any evidence, but I still believe in God. I can’t prove that I’m right and I don’t even have the urge too. The only evindence I have are deep inside me and I can’t and don’t want to convince or force anyone to feel the same.

What a terrible argument he has made. His argument is for agnostics, by saying that atheism is faith, he says “give me facts that disprove the existence of god. Evolution. Not one religion accepts the scientific conclusions that give us the evolutionary basis for humanity, they all claim a god just put us here. Therefore, none of the so called gods exist according to our modern science.

But you’re saying that God doesn’t exist because we have no evidence. If you’re going to say that, then you have to have evidence he doesn’t exist, just as much as you say you need evidence that he does exist. Evolution does not disprove God’s exist whatsoever. That’s how I understood what Scott was saying.

ok… so what kind of evidence would you have to acquire to disprove the evidence of something? As soon as you use that logic and attempt to disprove other things like… faeries and invisible pink unicorns you see how silly they sound and you also see how much said things have in common with the god idea.

actually I would like to point out (although I do not believe this personally) that there are some “Christian” groups that say god created the world, and created the original cells or w/e and then left it there to let us evolve on our own, he started it but let evolution take over, so there u go, there’s ur one, have fun, sorry i couldn’t be more specific, but like i said, i don’t actually believe it, i just know a little about it.

Utnow, this video is full of information and conversation that I for one am extremely interested in, from science to religion. However, your music selection is also extremely interesting and good AND distracting. I’ve paused the video just now because daftpunk is on and i pretty much have to dance now.

Well, I would argue that atheism is the lack of a belief in God, rather than the direct statement that there is no God. I know I can’t disprove a God, I simply don’t think one exists because it can’t be proven. If that makes me an agnostic, sobeit… Although I think I’m a bit more tough on religion than your average agnostic.

you are a atheist… you understand it’s improbable that god exists which means you do not belive in god which is what atheism is.

agnostic just means you belive the evidence for and against is inconclusive and don’t see which is more probable… very much a person who doesnæt ave all the facts i’d say🙂

do all christians believe the same thing…it would seem NOT since there are so many churches all fighting for our attendance and pocketbooks…i don’t know scott, at my grocery there are green bananas, miniature bananas, black banana, and RIPE banana…tre’

The semantic ‘no belief in god’ defense depends on god being an unnecessary assumption, which it isnt. If you ‘lack belief in god’ you must either defend alternate explanations for the mysteries god answers for, or admit you cant explain them, in which case you have no basis to summarily rule god out.

That is, unless you can provide or proof or convincing evidence that god doesnt exist in the first place. But the whole point of the semantic, ‘no belief in god’ defense of atheism is, to avoid having to provide such proof or evidence (because it cant be done)

This is the problem with ‘weak’ atheism. If you simply plead ‘no belief,’ you are still left with the problem of explaining the orgin of the universe etc. If you cant explain it, you must either prove god doesnt exist, or you must admit he could be part of the explanation, for all you know.

I think you’re confusing “athiest” with “antitheist”. I can’t disprove the existence of unicorns and bogies either, but I don’t really believe in them based on the evidence I have on hand.

I might not see a 4-ton bus speeding down the street I’m about to cross. It might be there, but if the street looks empty, there’s no real need to stand on the corner waiting to see if it comes along. Now. No, wait, now. Um, no… er, now.

Ive already told you, it doesnt matter what you think of god as an answer, my argument doesnt depend on god being any kind of answer. Youre just repeating yourself to no purpose. I suggest you forget occams razor for a while and work on your basic reading comprehension.

Well I will clarify: It matters to my argument that god is put forward as some kind of answer, by somebody. It doesnt matter to my argument that he isnt any kind of rational, testable answer. There. And do try to understand that occams razor isnt some esoteric mantra known only to an elect few cellar bound pimple squeezers like yourself.

So you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too, because someone somewhere happens to use him to explain the origin of the universe.
Your argument is the ultimate Argument From Ignorance fallacy. “I don’t know how the universe began, therefore any damn explanation must be the absolute truth.”

Yes indeed, Im not specifying the christian god at all. If you were interested in disproving the FSM you couldnt do it with occams razor any more than you could any other supposed god or superstition that anyone cared to explain the universe with. All of which says nothing except, you dont know.

Did I say that? No, I didnt. Nor did I say ‘Any damn explanation must be the absolute truth’ My argument is, you cant explain how the universe got here, therefore you dont know if some god was involved or not. Are you a careless reader, or do I have reason to charge you with intent to mislead with a straw man fallacy?

I responding to your initial argument which was: “The semantic ‘no belief in god’ defense depends on god being an unnecessary assumption, which it isnt. If you ‘lack belief in god’ you must either defend alternate explanations for the mysteries god answers for, or admit you cant explain them, in which case you have no basis to summarily rule god out.”

Yes and I think I put that well enough too, given the space reqs. Understand that when I say god ‘answers for’ some mysteries, I am merely stating that this is his traditional function in church. I am saying nothing about his suitability, as presented, as a complete and testable theory of anything, though for all you know he could be part of one.

So then you admit that you have no real argument to counter the weak atheist’s use of Occam’s Razor, justified by pragmatism?
You were basically claiming that weak atheism is irrational. I’ve shown how it’s not, and in fact you are holding the irrational position because you do not believe in FSM or any other flight of fantasy. You secretly use Occam’s Razor on these concepts but give God a special pass. That’s called Special Pleading fallacy.

No I admit no such thing, of course not. god cant be ruled out as unnecessary by occams razor because in this case the razor rules everything out. There are no justified assumptions. You have no working explanations. If all assumptions are unjustified, then you simply know nothing, and therefore, pragmatically, can rule nothing out. Including god, and not limited to him. That is your straw man again.

Attacking pragmatism? Im applying it. What assumptions about the orgin of the universe does occams razor allow you? None. You have no idea what happened, therefore anything’s possible. That’s not pragmatic? Good lord you must be a philosopher. They’re the only ones that stupid.

God solves no mysteries = god is an unnecessary assumption.
Occam’s razor = dump the unnecessary assumption.

“you have no basis to summarily rule god out.”
Yes we do. Occam’s razor.

Do you hold a belief that FSM exists? Yes or no.

You dont know what mysteries god might be an actual explanation for, unless you already have determined all the explanations, which you havent. Neither do I have to declare that god is a necessary assumption, in order point out that he isnt unnecessary until you have grounds to rule him out, which you dont. I have no opinion about god, whether you want to call it jehovah or FSM, nor do I need one to make this argument.

“You dont know what mysteries god might be an actual explanation for”
Give me a single one that god solves and I will believe in god. Until then, I will use Occam’s Razor to keep my worldview nice and clean without a superfluous god concept clouding up the works. That is the position of weak atheists and your argument does nothing to damage that position. Your argument is an argument from ignorance and could ‘justify’ belief in virtually anything.

You have no way of knowing what part god may play in any explanation unless you can formulate one and then test it. Until then you are simply ignorant. Im not saying you need to believe in god, that is a straw man. Im saying you need to admit what you dont know.

“Im saying you need to admit what you dont know.”
This is a completely different argument than your argument against weak atheism. Weak atheism, the lack of belief in a god, is not a knowledge claim, it is a belief claim, “I do not believe in a god”, and so getting a weak atheist to admit they don’t know whether god exists does not actually weaken their claim that “I do not believe in a god”.

It is exactly the argument Ive been making all along. ‘if you must admit god could exist, then you are not an atheist at all, but an agnostic, and have completely conceded the argument.’ Thats from 4 days ago, Ive said it many times since. Youve been persistently misrepresenting my arguments, I notice. Youre either a damn poor reader or damn dishonest, one.

Hahaha. Seriously man. Do you UNDERSTAND that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive? You seemed to understand it during our exchange, but now I seriously doubt it. Proving a weak atheist is agnostic does NOT undermine the weak atheist position, which is a belief claim and not a knowledge claim. Yeah, sure, retreat to nihilism and see how far that gets you.

Sure I understand that. Doesnt stop every 2 bit atheist on YT from insisting that agnostics call themselves atheists and help out with their dumbass crusade. Why shouldnt I argue the other end of that and say, hey go by my label and stop acting a damn fool already.

Well in my limited experience with this breed, Ive yet to see any of them admit it, except very rarely, under extreme duress. And the implication of agnosticism, I mean the basic human need to respect other peoples religious beliefs, a value sometimes ascribed to the nation in general for example, appears to be entirely lacking to say the least.

“Youre just repeating yourself to no purpose. I suggest you forget occams razor”
If God does not answer any mysteries, then Occam’s Razor rules him out pending new evidence. QED. Your argument does not counter this. God does not get special ‘default’ treatment.
“It only matters that you have no complete answer to offer as an alternative.” So, you favour our incomplete answer to your total non-answer. Okay, just want you to see how irrational that is.

Occams razor cant rule out anything if there are no complete answers for it to choose between. It suggests, choose the simplest answer that fits all the facts. There is no such answer to choose from. It is therefore useless, as a means to rule out god or anything else. Maybe you should look it up.

Im not even going to bother pointing out that occams razor is nothing but a heuristic, that it only suggests lines of inquiry, with no guarantee that those lines are correct, that it isnt intended as proof of anything, and by itself proves nothing. If you have the slightest idea what youre talking about you should know all that already.

No, it does not say the simplest answer which fits all the facts, it says choose the most accurate theory with the fewest unjustified assumptions. In fact there are many formulations of Occam’s Razor, but ‘simplest answer’ is too vague to be useful. You are creating a Straw Man fallacy. I suggest YOU look it up.

No need, I will go with your wonderfully formal definition: You cant formulate an explanation for the existence of the universe. Therefore you have no basis to judge is god is a justified assumption or not. For all you know he could be the only one.

“you have no basis to judge is god is a justified assumption or not”
It is easy. If there is a justification, it is justified. Since there are none, it is by def’n unjustified.
“For all you know he could be the only one.” He could be, and that is no justification for not applying Occam’s Razor. Find me a valid justification and the razor no longer applies. I’ve not found any after many years.

Yes, ‘He could be.’ Which is all the admission I require. Moreover, youve cant justify any other assumptions either, god or otherwise. Until you know something, occams razor simply rules out everything, tells you what you already know, nothing. Which is what I am arguing you know here: nothing. Not that god must exist. Just that you dont know.

“Yes, ‘He could be.’ Which is all the admission I require.”
No it is not. Your argument is flawed, as I showed. It does not counter the argument I gave using Occam’s Razor, and also commits either the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance (if you believe FSM exists) or Special Pleading (if you don’t believe FSM exists, but give a free pass to ‘god’).

Ive told you I have no opinion on god, FSM, or any other such creature, nor do I need one for this argument. Youre the one who just admitted ‘He could be,’ that is, god (or FSM, or whatever), could exist, for all you know. Youve admitted your ignorance. And you have no working explanation, no justified assumptions, at all. Which is the equivalent, literally of saying anything is possible. God, FSM, you name it.

“youve cant justify any other assumptions either, god or otherwise.”
Bullcrap. Cogito ergo sum. Pragmatism justifies everything else I believe. Occam’s razor eliminates those things unsupported by pragmatism.
“Not that god must exist. Just that you dont know.”
Weak atheism is not a knowledge claim, it’s a belief claim. It is justified by pragmatism. Your argument against weak atheism has failed. Have a nice day!

Heh. Claim cogito, its as useless here as your appendix. And again, your pragmatism is useless if it simply rules out everything. You have no working explanation, no justification for any assumption. And can therefore rule out nothing. Yes, weak atheism is indeed a belief, but pragmatism doesnt support it; only your ignorance. You are as crutchbound as any christian. Good day to you too.

“And again, your pragmatism is useless if it simply rules out everything.”
^^^ Proof you don’t understand pragmatism and are shooting blanks. Thanks, but I don’t have time to school you on pragmatism. Your initial argument failed, and you have no coherent attack on my pragmatic justification for weak atheism. If you’d like to engage some others on this topic, I suggest atheistforums(dot)com.

Yeah, I’m really convinced by that argument. So, you advocate nihilism then, that nothing can be known? You are just digging yourself into deeper and deeper holes as you struggle to defend your lame-duck argument. Take it to atheistforums if you think you’re such hot shit.

Who said anything about nihilism? If you were trying to explain some bump in the night, yeah you could say ‘well I KNOW it aint no ghost.’ That would be sensible, because you could easily come up with dozens of more likely explanations. With the orgin of the universe, there are no likely explanations to propose. You literally have no clue how it happened. You can rule out nothing. And no this is just a hobby, Im not in the market for a circle jerk, thanks, you go enjoy.

“If you were trying to explain some bump in the night, yeah you could say ‘well I KNOW it aint no ghost.’ That would be sensible, because you could easily come up with dozens of more likely explanations.”
Bingo.
“With the orgin of the universe, there are no likely explanations to propose.”
What makes you think it needs one? Why can’t it always have existed?

‘What makes you think it needs one?’ You mean like as in, ‘who was and ever shall be,’ and no need to question further? Sure thats one way out. But people do like to ask questions, like what does that mean exactly, how the heck does that work, is there a larger context. Its not known, probably never be known.

“Who said anything about nihilism?”
Because you say things like this: “You literally have no clue how it happened. You can rule out nothing.” and “You know nothing and can therefore rule nothing out. End of story.”
You are essentially saying nothing can be known. That is nihilism. It is an utterly pointless position to hold to.

‘You are essentially saying nothing can be known.’ Just practical statements. Nothing known about some things for now. Ok Im really rude, sorry about that, thats how I tend to argue sometimes, youre really being decent about it, but now Ive been up a good 20 hours at least, its the start of my wknd, and if I dont crash Im gonna have a migraine later. Take it easy.

The bottom line is that we can still use Big Bang theory as a starting point, because if a better theory comes along, which it surely will, it will have to explain everything that Big Bang theory now does.That’s why it is undergoing refinement. But the purpose of this is not to explain where the Big Bang came from. The purpose is to better explain direct observations we are now making and which can be corroborated independently.

atheist.

I am a skeptic. I believe, as do scientists, that all knowledge is theory… NO KNOWLEDGE is absolute, if knowledge had to be absolute to be “knowledge”, then there is no knowledge. But there is knowledge, knowledge as theory.

We do not have to prove atheism is absolutely true, we only have to demonstrate it is a superior theory to theism. There are ways to compare theories to each other, to “relate” them.

I agree that followers of any religion have a burden of proof. And up until I took my senior catholicism class I would have agreed that theres no basis of logic in faith. But there really is. Look up St. Augustus’ Five Proof’s of God’s existence. I think for me thats how I logically figured that God had to exist.

the idea of evolution and the big bang in no way prove or disprove the existence of god. it may prove parts of the bible or other books wrong but why couldn’t god have created the universe using the big bang? this argument is right up there with the people who say if there’s a god why do bad things happen to good people. it doesn’t prove anything

There is a fine line between disbelief and unbelief which wasn’t recognized in this- a major flaw. Most Atheists don’t claim that there is no god, they merely don’t see it fit to live their life under the assumption that there is. Unbelief does NOT carry the burden of proof. Unbelief IS logical.

Other than that, excellent video, and I agree with you on most other points. Cheers.

I’m agnostic, myself. What I’ve noticed about the atheists that I know is that they rely on the fundamentalists inability to prove the existence of a god. They say “if they can’t prove that he/she/it DOES exist, then obviously he/she/it doesn’t.” That’s their “proof”. Sad, really.

The first thing you need to know is the definition of existence; not just what you see in time/space realm, but above and beyond it. I am not advocating for a God for Christianity, I am advocating for a loving Creator. Our world was created there is no doubt about it. In order for the creator be God, he cannot be limited for what you understand about time and space.

Re: Saddam hanging. “We” did not “glorify murder.” At the most, his family who were cheering did. More important, though is the imitation factor for children who see things on television. It happens every day around the world, just usually not with hangings. But I’ve come to the conclusion that watching tv is not healthy for the human being.

I BELIEVE that there is not a God, because there is no proof of a God. Just like there is no proof of a magic cow in orbit around mars. Why would I believe that there is a God and I just don’t know what it is? A God is a human invention, it doesn’t make sense when you look at the universe. That’s why I’m an atheist.

First I would like to say that you made a valid point in the comparison of the faith in God versus the faith in a lack of God. However, I believe you made a great mistake in the your comparison. While they both have an illogical basis, religion is much more illogical in its beliefs. Atheists simply believe in a lack of God. Theist who practice major religions believe in a great deal more in such a way as to describe God in detail.

They describe him in many was, whether through his (which in itself is an addition belief) actual abilities, the belief in an afterlife (whether through reincarnation or a heaven and hell), moral values that one should follow, the creation of the universe, the age of the universe, various events that have occurred through history relating to God, and many other irrational beliefs.

In addition, I believe that the majority of Atheists only argue against religion in terms of the various other beliefs that come in addition to the just a simple belief of in the existence of God. The majority of people in the various religions practiced, both past and present, also seem to try, in one way or another, force their beliefs on others either politically or through other avenues.

Hi UTNOW, I don’t know if you remember me but we had a discussion about my mathematical proof that the probability of any specific religion being true. This is a response to your video about atheists having faith like religious people do. I can start by saying that’s completely false and I’m hoping to prove it to you🙂.

– Well, atheist is usually defined in 2 ways.
1. Lack of belief in god
2. Belief in that god does not exist

…[to be continued, don’t post yet]

The 1. Requires no assumptions but I think it’s the 2. That you’re using.

– Definition of faith: Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.
As you can see faith is blind acceptance, belief when there is no evidence or reason. In short it’s belief in the improbable or belief where there is no reason to believe either way.

…[to be continued, don’t post yet]

through history suggests there is no god. Therefore just as it’s ludicrous to say the belief that I won’t die tomorrow requires faith it’s ludicrous to say that the statement there is probably no god doesn’t require faith. And do remember that atheists says there is probably no gods, not that there can’t be any gods because any such claim is of course flawed since there is always a possibility for anything.

…[to be continued, don’t post yet]

– Now for the evidence
If you look at the world rationally you will conclude there is probably no god. For example we know from observation that complex things comes into the universe last, a conscious supernatural creator (god) would certainly be complex. In response to this it’s often argued that god is outside of the system and therefore not governed by the laws of this universe, this doesn’t change the fact that this

…[to be continued, don’t post yet]

requires there to be something outside the system which is an assumption, and as weknow many assumptions means improbability (Occam’s razor). Some are confused by this and tries to argue that the big bang which the atheist’s way of explaining the beginning requires ton’s of assumptions, however

our assumptions are well reasoned and for god to exist the assumption there is something outside is absolutely necessary

…[to be continued, don’t post yet]

This is not the case for the assumptions that allow big bang as there could be many other unknown explanations to how the universe came to exist while the requirement of an outside is absolute in there being a god. Also notice that the argument god could be in this universe but we haven’t discovered the reason why he isn’t affected by the universal laws, like the complex things comes into the universe last theory, requires an

…[to be continued, don’t post yet]

absolutely crushing leap of faith since it goes against a established theories. And as we know the lesser leap of faith that is required the higher is the probability.

– Facts are that the world doesn’t look like it was created. There is simply nothing that suggests the existence of a god and assuming there is, is irrational.

– There is also one more thing that makes this a shut case, when you have no evidence either way, although I find it to be

…[to be continued, don’t post yet]

overwhelming evidence in support of atheism, you should assume the negative, just like if you were given a math problem you’re going to assume the answer isn’t 4 because probably it isn’t since there are so many other possibilities. Similarly there are many ways to explain the creation of the universe without god, these ways might not have any scientific basis but neither does god.

…[to be continued, don’t post yet]

Doesn’t your comment only say that it takes less faith because your only assumeing one possibility wrong? Since you can’t 100% proove the accused God does or does not exist you still have a small amount of data you can’t depend on and thus your useing faith to determine its lack of truth.

no, as i said in the beginning faith is belief in the improbable… in all probability god does not exist. you can’t prove there’s no santa so do you have faith in that santa doesn’t exist? you belive he doesn’t exist based on evidence (and evidence is not proof), this is not faith.

faith and belief are 2 VERY different things and are often confused.

well, that changes everything… that leads me to belive you don’t know what matter is either, matter has no conciousness, and is certainly not in any way a deity. and if god is all matter you’re basically saying god created himself xD. hilarity ensues. i beg you, don’t leave this debate!

on the other hand i think i might be a part of god’s penis.

Is it “just stupid” because YOU say it is ? Find me one scientist or one physician that knows exactly how consciousness works. You can’t, because they can’t explain it. But YOU are smarter then all of them, YOU know how it all works, so why don’t you bestow this new knowledge on the rest of us, the scientific world awaits this great new discovery.

we don’t know in detail but we do have a good idea, and what we do know is very complicated and i wont go into it, but pretty much it’s the ability to identify ones relationship with the outside world.
i would say it’s the gathering of our senses and thought patterns where all electric impulses in our brain are analyzed in relation to each other which forms our conciousness.

no one knows how it works 100%. HOWEVER, we do know what makes us have a conciousness and all the matter in the world simply don’t meet the requirements… conciousness IS a product of very complex brain activity, there is no question about this and unless you’re arguing that all the matter in the world is one big brain (lol) you’re pretty much shut down here.

what? i’m saying you do need “brain matter” as you so elequently put it to have a conciousness. reread my comment… what you’re saying is that ALL of the matter is one collective brain since you belive ALL of the matter to be god, which is a completely ridiculous notion i might add.

and where did i state i didn’t count electric impulses as energy? what i said doesn’t mean electric impulses carry thoughts or feelings or anything if that’s what you thought, electric impulses is either 1 or 0, stimulized or non stimulized. you seem to have no knowledge of how the brain works, although i have little myself i at least don’t try to state a ridiculous claim like god is all matter/energy with my limited knowledge of matter, energy and conciousness…

Is it really necessary to insult proponents of the opposing view? I find it discredits you, and it also wastes precious space that could be used for text. Firstly, I will point out that belief is a synonym of faith, so claiming that an atheist has belief in the nonexistence of God, is the same as saying he has faith in the nonexistence of God.

Anyways, the main problem that I have with your argument is that you keep attempting to apply laws of the natural universe to something that clearly belongs in the realm of the supernatural. If God exists, then he must be a supernatural being. Thus, he should not be subject to the laws of the natural universe.

Your application of Occam’s razor to the subject is quite fitting, as it is indeed used for this argument. However, you seemed to have used it oddly, seeing as you only cited one “assumption” and not “many.” (Please refrain from selectively “shaving away” anything that you dislike.)

Generally Occam’s razor is referenced in the statement; “if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, God is irrelevant and should be cut away.” (Wikipedia). However, even this statement cannot prove God’s nonexistence, rather, it just supports the claim that God is nonessential.

Note that there is a difference between something being nonessential and something being nonexistent. However, even the “nonessentialism” of God can be contested, since in some arguments, God directly or indirectly affects the creation of the universe. For example, the Cosmological Argument which reasons that since everything has a cause, there must have been a first cause, and that must have been God.

And to conclude… I don’t see any evidence in support of Atheism, and I see nothing that suggests the nonexistence of God. I really doubt that God’s existence/nonexistence can be proven at all, and even if it could be done, if the great philosophers couldn’t do it, I skeptical of any YT users being able to.

well, first of all, if you make stupid comments then you get insulted, i feel it doesn’t really discredit me as it has nothing to do with my arguments… and faith is not a synonym to belief, although it might be used that way sometimes because they can overlap, this is not the initial meaning nor in the context that is here clearly used here.

and if god is in this universe he is affected by the laws of this universe, to think he’s here and defies the laws requires a MASSIVE leap of faith and is highly assumptious. and occam’s razor basically says the more and bigger assumptions we have to make the lesser is the chance.

there is good evidence for atheism… the best one is that the opposite is exstremely improbable and all religions, which is where we get the notion of a god, are seriously discredited… it’s just as dawkins says, belief in santa-claus is just as logical as the belief in god.

The fact is I leave all possibilities open until they can be completely discounted, you’ll find that is how most scientist work. (and no I’m not saying I’m a scientist, but their way seems to be a good way to look at things) and yes this is true “btw, youtube comment system sux”

lol. while that is correct, what Schrodinger was trying to illustrate with his paradox was that the opposite was true as well (and that it was ridiculously stupid to think it could occur). The cat is both alive and dead before the box is opened. And once the box is opened the probability equation collapses and one outcome is observed.

I Guess that is why my dad is living on a $2000 per month (below minimum wage) salary in the middle of Mozambique… please do get your facts straight. My dad is reaching out in compassion. There are about as many Christians in it for the money as there are murderers in the entire population of a country….a fractional amount.

I actually meant between the two of them. They are hardly getting rich off of the whole “scheme”. Keep in mind Christianity is based on a book that came into existence about 3000 years ago (granted, it was only finished 2000 years ago (or so)). If we REALLY wanted your money, we would say that you HAD to give us your money to get into heaven, lucky you we don’t😛.

thanks for making evolutionsists look bad bro, that’s what we need to educate these people *shakes head*. he’s not talking about evolution, he’s talking about initial life which is completely explainable through sience but has nothing to do with the FACT of evolution.

The world is full of uncertainties. I fall on the side that believes in God. I believe its better to live under the assumption that there is a God. In the end, if there isnt a God, no hard feelings. Ill be dead. And if there is a God, then wonderful, I know where Ill be. If you live your life like there is no God, and there isnt, fabulous. But if there turns out to be one…

ONOES IT’S THE PASCAL MONSTER!

If you believe that “it’s better” to believe in a God because of Hell, then fine. But it’s retarded. You gotta pick the right God! Maybe Thor, Zeus, or Vishnu exist, and when you die they’ll tell you “Oh but you didn’t choose ME!” and send you to Hell. Choosing out of fear is really idiotic. With that criteria, choose the religion with the worst Hell, just in case it exists.

Assume that you know half of everything there is know know in the ENTIRE universe.

Is it possible God exists in the half….you dont know?

No one knows everything. You can present all the facts ever record to disprove a god. but since you don’t know everything you cant be positively sure.

“And assuming everything in the world came about by random chance is like saying a tornado can blow through a junk yard and take the pieces and assemble a 747”

i see you managed to misquote hoyle who acctually compares the likelihood of the emergence of a cell to that… he wasn’t right either btw

Atheism is not a faith! Its based on evidence available to any that research and works on probability! 00.1% there is no god. That’s not exactly sitting on the fence agnostic style. IMPORTANT HERE.>>>
Lack of proof does not prove the contrary. SANTA, SPAGHETTI MONSTER, UNICORNS, TEAPOT, ETC. So absolutely the claim of god lay with religion.
Nice delivery are you an evangelist?

Your quite the atheist preacher. All you did is say “nuh uh, THEY have to prove it.” You’re an agnostic, at best, who thinks he’s an atheist. But if you’re going to claim “no god” as the atheist does, then the burden of proof lies with you my friend.

Sorry i thought I’d made it clear.
The absence of proof, cannot automatically prove that it must be god who’s responsible, which is all your argument is based on. Therefore the claim of god lay with religion.
Thanks for the preacher compliment my friend.

Guy 1: “That guy killed my dog!”
Judge: “What do you have to say about that Guy 2?”
Guy 2: “I didn’t kill his dog.”
Judge: “The burden of proof is on you Guy 2 since you are trying to dispute Guy 1’s claim.”
Guy 2: “Ummmm I didn’t. I’m not even from around here.”
Judge: “Guilty! Guy 2 goes to jail.”

elightened, and with no hope for a life after death. How do atheists benefit from their belief? If we are right (christians) we will have an eternal afterlife. If you are right….big deal, I sacrificed a bit of freedom in this brief life, but at least had some hope during my life. I die and there is nothing after life.

Did I say I condoned everything that PEOPLE (imperfect and sinful) did in the name of religion? I don’t like the word religion because it brings along all its legalism and bloodshed. I call what I believe a “relationship betwee me and God”. I can sleep quite well at night, that is, unless I am stressed about an exam.

sorry, that just doesn’t fly with me. you’re promoting ignorance. religion is very much a popularity thing, if many people subscribe to it then many others will for cultural reasons… basically if you’re not a part of the solution you’re a part of the problem.

There has to be a benefit?o_O So you’re only a believer because you hope it will pay off?😛 Yah.. I guess for you people there needs to be more than just this.. life isn’t good enough for you or something.. you need to be rewarded.. you want others to burn.. you can’t live without some higher purpose.. bleh..

I have pity!

Um… yeah, like most people, I don’t like the idea of dying and never living again…but that is just me. The pay off was the incentive to become a Christian, and being a Christian taught me that there is more to it than the pay off. It is a relationship with the almightly God who created you. He wants you to acknowledge him too.

Did I once say I didn’t believe in it? My integrity come FROM what Christianity has taught me. I was just trying to appeal to the more selfish person. Without God in my life…um, wow, I don’t even want to begin trying to think of how I would act. Without a relationship with God, I would have no reason to live a good life. My integrity and maturity comes from God.

interesting topic for a video. i can imagine this will get a lot of a response and i’m interested in seeing what you manage to do with them all. i’m not going to attempt to prove my position in what i believe to be true, but i will offer the opinion that i believe it’s a little irresponsible of our species to condone the notion of a supernatural creator. everything in life is based on reality. why attribute the unknown to a fairytale?! god’s gap gets smaller by the day.

I doubt you really take your dichotomy between agnosticism and atheism seriously. Consider we were talking about the existence of fairies or trolls. Is it unreasonable to say, “fairies and trolls don’t exist”? No, and in fact both you and I would say so. A god has the same probability of existing as a fairy or any other supernatural being. It’s not a 50-50 equal probability that god exists or he doesn’t. Such a complex thing would inevitably be extremely improbable.

“the god delusion” by richard dawkins. first line… of the second chapter… entitled, “the god hypothesis” says, “the god of the old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. The death penalty is a legal punishment in Iraq. A number of times you referred to his death as murder, which implies an unlawful killing took place. What part of Saddam’s execution was illegal or unlawful?

I had the same thoughts, but ran out of room. I don’t blame the government or media for that little boy’s death. Awful sorry it happened, but let’s question the grown adults who apparently celebrated Saddam’s death for influencing what that little boy did. Let’s also wonder why he was so starved for attention and acceptance.

Etymology is not equivalent to meaning. It would be like saying that a regular forest is a rainforest when it rains, “because the word says so!”. Atheism is not the belief that there is no God. It’s the DISBELIEF in God or gods. You can be both atheist (“I have no belief in a God”) and agnostic (“I don’t know if there is one”)

Atheism is NOT a religion, and faith is not involved. It’s the -lack- of belief. Atheists are open to the possibility of existence of God, they just don’t believe in one.

no, atheism is beliving there is no god, lack of belief is agnosticism… you’re making us atheists seem stupid.

and lack of belief is not the same as beliving there is no god, lack of belief is simply neutral.

atheism isn’t faith though, our claim is backed up by evidence and logic.

Atheists simply consider God an unsupported assertion; not disproven but rejected as an inferior hypothesis as per Occam’s Razor. I don’t think any atheist outright denies any possibility of gods existence, but many will point out that that possibility is equal to that of Santa Claus existence (something many interprete as a denial of gods existence, rather than a statement that both have zero support and are unfalsifiable).

Then there’s the Agnostics. They refuse to take a position on Gods existence on the grounds that God can neither be proven nor disproven. Personally I feel there is a fundamental logical problem with that stance (there exists an infinite number of entities which can neither be proven nor disproven!) but it is quite popular.

no, just… no. atheism is the belief that deities does not exist, lack of belief is the neutral posistion that agnostics have, agnostics see the evidence as inconclusive and can’t make up their mind, it has nothing to do with refusing to take a stance (you can’t control your beliefs btw).

Dictionaries disagree unfortunately. But ask any atheist on YouTube. Atheism is LACK OF BELIEF. If you don’t believe in a God or gods, YOU’RE AN ATHEIST. Etymology does not equal meaning. To be an atheist doesn’t mean you claim there is no God, you just don’t believe in one. Agnosticism is claiming it’s impossible or irrelevant to know.

you are wrong my friend, dictionaries also bring up your version either because it’s commonly (mis)used that way, the semantics change over time anyway… atheism is the belief that there is no god. and even if you were right that is only semantics, it’s still obiouvs in which context utnow used it.

i’m an atheist and don’t worry, we have a strong case either way (check my comments further up)

I disagree. It’s not misused. Your definition is misused, lol😀 To claim there is no God is to be what is called “strong atheist”, which is not referred to when you speak about atheism in general. Atheism is a disbelief. You don’t believe in deities = weak atheist (or atheist in general), you believe there’s NO deities = strong atheism, quite rare.

By the way the youtube comment system is working like shit.

Wikipedia is not very trustworthy, I can just go over and edit it. But it DOES include my definition too (hint: read line 3 and 4).

I know the context is clear, but that’s why it pisses me off. He assumes all atheists are strong atheists, when in fact referring to atheists is (here I go again lol) referring to the disbelief in a God or gods. It’s semantics I guess. But I don’t like the generalization, that’s what bothers me.

wikipedia is more trustworthy than brittanica (fact!).
i did see those lines but it was a “however” before there. my definition is the main definition… but whatever, the point still remains that since he used atheism correctly and the context is clear, stop attacking him on his semantics. he isn’t generalizing when he’s using the correct definition.

“Fact”? Back it up.
I disagree. I don’t think he used the correct concept. I call myself an atheist, and there’s no faith in my life, at all. I don’t rule out the possibility of a God in the Universe, but I don’t believe in one. That’s my position, and I think that there are others out there who feel the same way. I’m not cool with everyone under the same name, ok?

yes, good company indeed, all liars/deluded. and most of these “experiences” i bet can be explained without need for the supernatural, you just interpret your “experiences” however you see fit and basically puzzle together your belief, tbh i think you’re nothing short of a joke and a disgrace to mankind… just like christians and anyone who belives in a specific religion

ahh but you see, millions of people would bet you’re wrong too… the difference is that the people supporting me is the people who have an education and acctually understand sience and psychology.. the intelectual elite if you will. what also supports me is the evidence. no, not the blue pills you take, that’s extacy… EVIDENCE!

ahh but you see, millions of people would bet you’re wrong too… the difference is that the people supporting me ARE the people who have an education and actually understand science and psychology, the intellectual elite if you will. And, the only pills I take are aspirin, thank you for the stereotype, that is also wrong. Please, note the spelling and grammar corrections needed since you are so smart and intellectual.

FIXED
Ah, but you see, millions of people would bet you’re wrong, too, the difference is, that the people supporting me are the people, who have an education and actually understand science and psychology, the intellectual elite, if you will. What also supports me is the evidence, no, not the blue pills you take, that are Ecstasy. EVIDENCE!

# Arthur Eddington, an important mathematical cosmologist, was a Quaker.
# Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang theory.
# Henry F. “Fritz” Schaefer is one of the foremost theoretical chemists of our day.
# William Phillips was co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics.
# Francis Collins director of the U.S. Human Genome Project.
# Rustum Roy, one of the world’s foremost materials scientists, holds three chairs at the Pennsylvania State University.

do these guys give any credit to your arguments? no, they all probably agree with me that these “experiences” are nothing of the supernatural kind. and the fact that these people was religious doesn’t help your argument, of course there will be alot of religious scientists as well… especially among old deceased ones… still the statement: “higher education = less religious” holds true

Well I’m Baptist, and we’ll be the first to tell you there is no hard proof. When Christians look around them, since they already believe there is a God, they see things such as: detail in creation, everyday miracles, answered prayer, etc, as God working. But if you see all of the same things with the eyes of someone looking to attribute those same things to something else. Either way, it’s pure faith. Okay, there’s my two cents.

Must we assume there may be carnivorous eggplants in existance because we can’t prove otherwise? Atheism is more logical than deism/theism, according to that guy from Ockham.
I think most Atheists are as such in the sense that they reject the notion of a personal God that religions tend to provide. If a personal God made himself known to me in an obvious manner, I would cease to be an Atheist, and I imagine most atheists would under the same circumstances. We’re all agnostic in that regard.

You mentioned the “flying spaghetti monster” in your video. Wait Wait Wait, let me first introduce myself as one of those wild zealot christians. So yes, I am a Christian, but I do not agree with what you say about athiests, that they have faith that there is no diety. Do I have faith that santa doesn’t exist simply because I cannot prove it?

“there is no proof that there is a god, that is my proof.there is proof of evolution.”

There is no proof there isn’t a God either. So is that proof that there must be a God? Lack of proof or evidence isn’t evidence or proof against it.

As for evolution, that just shows that the Universe could exist without a God. It does not mean however that there was no God to start it in the first place.

I dont have proof in the existence of God, but i think thats the point. Youre SUPPOSED to have faith and ONLY faith in God. God wants that because it shows devotion to Him. If He wanted to, He could show Himself and erase all doubt but He doesnt. Thats because it takes nothing special to believe in something when there’s clear proof of it. cont…

Believing in God with no (or little) evidence in some ways is what it takes to be a christian (although there is more to it of course).
So my faith is on purpose more than it is a lack of evidence.
sorry if thats long and confusing…In short its impossible to PROVE God because He doesnt want to be proven

No its faith to believe in something that there’s no PROOF of, thats how you show devotion. (ie theres no proof, but there is basis) Im not brainwashed, i made a conscious decision and im sticking to it based on my own personal reasons.
God created humans to be creatures that would choose to believe and love Him, just like a father/mother wants their children to do the same.

There is more evidence/basis then the the bible and i used the father/mother thing to try to describe Gods reasons for creating humans with free will(and the ability to decide to trust in Him or not)
I didnt come here to get into a debate. I came to post my opinion on this debate in general: Neither side can be proven and he (scott) knows that fully well. I just gave reasons as to WHY the existence of God cannot be proven (at least by science). cont…

there is no other basis than the bible, and don’t give me bible prophecy because that’s BS and don’t try to say it’s historically accurate because it’s not… nothing can be proven 100% but everything suggests god doesn’t exist… go read my previous comment on this vid.

and being narrowminded wont get you anywhere… but hey, fine with me if you want to stay ignorant of the vast amounts of evidence against god, do whatever you like, if you want to at least try to see all the facts before making up your mind go see brettkeane’s videos.

Satiricsoul, did you miss that “retaliation” and “revenge” are besically the same thing?

You’re not arguing with him; you’re agreeing with him.

You only think you’re not, because you either don’t own, or can’t use, a dictionary.

I’ve honestly never thought about atheism in that context. I usually consider myself an athiest just because I doubt that there is any sort of god, but under your definition I’d definitely be agnostic because I’m also open to either possibility should I be given real evidence or proof.

Brettkeane claims to define atheism as “no belief,” not the belief there is no god. If he held to this, he would be agnostic. He rejects agnosticism, b/c he wants to hold a belief- that there is no god. He refuses to acknowledge his true belief because he knows he cannot logically defend it… He is a former christian, btw, and aside from which goal hes decided to “defend” Id say nothing has changed for him

Right on alls the way. Most atheist seem focus on religious texts and people and proving them wrong, but overlook possibility that those don’t necessarily reflect what or who god actually may be, wholly or accurately. To me the exsistance of life and the universe is so phenomenal that there being a God, and all kinds of other stuff earth people will never know about, is not a leap at all. Being an atheist is confining your beliefs/faith to what is known.

People have faith in whatever it is that they _want_ to be true. They’ll oppose everything that is inconvenient to them. Ask yourselves why you have your faith in the first place. Was it the immortality? The rewards? Most scientists are atheists most probably because they find it moot to do any research at all if god can be used to explain everything. I could be wrong though.

Im sure almost all scientists at least disregard the possibility of god in the course of their work. This is perfectly reasonable. If they go further however and state a claim that god does not exist, then they are holding a belief as unfounded as that of any christian.

So what you’re saying is that even if there is no evidence toward an existence of something we should at least entertain the possibility that it does, am I right? But without evidence, there is no point for its existence, and no point for any of us to believe in it. But when believing in it brought negative effect to our lives(lost of interest in understanding the universe, etc), then isn’t it best to claim that it doesn’t exist and help accelerate science more?

No, Im saying when theres no evidence either way, and the point is moot anyhow, its reasonable to disregard it. But it is important to recogize that this itself is not evidence of anything. Your wish to deny god “to help accelerate science” is a political argument, which is fine, as long as you dont insist that it is also a logical argument, which it is not.

Which brings us back to my 1st point. It doesn’t matter if the argument holds or not. Or if there is any evidence at all. We stick to a belief that is beneficial to us, and force it unto others to help our cause. Logical or not, people could actually care less. Humans are selfish like that.

Brett, atheism is only sometimes defined as a “lack of beliefs.” Youre the one not being honest, claiming to have “no beliefs.” If that were true youd have to acknowledge the christians *could be right* for all you know. But then you couldnt slam them could you. You have a problem with mom and dad, not god you fat fool

Yes, exactly, the belief that there is no God. This is the def. Brett wishes to deny he holds to. He prefers the def. that specifies a simple lack of any beliefs on the subject, pro or con. But that would make him a agnostic, and he specifically claims agnostics are illogical.

because I think what I said serves as a criticism of weak atheism in general- an attempt to pass off the belief in no god as “no belief,” thus ducking burden of proof. Not much better than sophistry at best. Typical product of modern philosophy, the sinkhole of academic BS.

“I know there isnt one because there is no evidence for it” is a non sequitur. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially in a case like this. Of course it is just words, and I dont care what people want to believe, but I do think its important not to pass off mere belief as logical argument, which is what I charge brettkeane tries to do

Of course you can believe or disbelieve whatever you want, about god or leprechauns or the afterlife or what have you, anything that lies outside the realm of the empirical, anything that by definition cannot be observed or tested. It is only an error to suppose that your belief is anything but that, a belief, based on nothing.

That was actually very interesting to hear someone talk through the points I thought through myself quite a while ago and come to the same conclusion.
Oh and the saddam thing? Yeah spot on, to punish brutal acts and try to discourage others from doing the same WITH a brutal act just makes us hypocrites, not right.

But then whatever, I’ve been strongly opposed to the death penalty since I was old enough to grasp the meaning of it, so I’m fairly likely to agree aren’t I.😉

Do you mean agnostic is the midpoint of belief like “r” is the midpoint of “moron?” Agnostic/Atheist labels presume God exists, are applied by the religious, and generally adopted by society to bound group anxiety. Logically, without God, the other states do not exist. Religion is the indoctrination of human attachment, and there is no comparison between physics and fables. So, what is there to disbelieve? Not God, at least. I do, however, believe cats exist, despite your faulty analogy.

Although you frequently bring up the fact that many of our leading scientists are Atheists, that does not necessarily mean that they are correct in believing so. Religion lies outside of their area of expertise, so they are not qualified to make definitive statements on the subject. For that matter, there are also renown scientists who are theists, a good example being Francis Collins.

i’m not saying all acientists are atheists, i’m saying all scientists, and everyone who’s smarter than a bag of cabbage, understand that you don’t need faith to be an atheist. because probably there is no god just like harry potter probably doesn’t exist. there is no reason to belive in harry potter so therefore i’m led to belive he doesn’t exist. did that take faith? (faith: belief without basis or belief in the improbable)

For all the atheist out there! Here is something to ponder:
Humans have only been able to witness life to come from life itself. Those who believe in God tend to believe that life came from God who is generally viewed by them as an eternal life force while atheists generally believe that life on this planet came from non-living matter. My question to all atheists is: How can you honestly believe this when you claim your belief is based on inductive reasoning and logic and not blind faith?

god lacks the attributes needed to prove or disprove god using science but science assumes that anything for which there is no proof doesn’t exist.
asking me to disprove something i can’t detect with my senses is like asking me to prove the invisible magical unicorn noone can touch and leaves no apparent proof of it’s passing it’s like asking for -1 apple.

Science cant properly make any assumption about anything except that for which it has evidence. The assumption of nonexistence is as much an assumption as the opposite. Your second sentence is an admission of your inability to argue for the assumption of nonexistence.

Now yes it is common practice to produce theories in line only with available evidence, however there is no guarantee the theories thus arrived at will work out; when they dont it is necessary to find more evidence, for something has been missed…the original lack of evidence meant nothing

Regarding agnostics: Imagine if we were as reluctant to assume a position (ie, hypothesis) in every scientific question – does the fact that we don’t completely understand gravity mean our current understanding is not valid? Nobody considers being skeptical of whether or not gravity exists.

Scientific method requires a hypothesis; an assumed position. There is nothing logical or practical about being an agnostic.

the question of god is not a scientific question unless there is evidence to look at, one way or the other, which there will likely never be. Without the ability to test hypothesis there is no point in creating one…other than to provide the supposed scientist with a false sense of security about his ability to understand a very large universe

We can test the hypothesis quite easily by looking for the ‘need’ for there to be a God. If we can explain things to the best of our knowledge, without the need to introduce God, this would validate the hypothesis that there is no God.

Theists and Deists have a nasty habit of taking everything we don’t understand and attributing it to God – this is not a valid conclusion, and it only confuses people into agnosticism.

You mean we COULD test it, if we COULD explain things…however, some of the things that need explaining include, what is consciousness? Is the universe infinite or not? Either way, what does that mean? Where did the universe come from? Out of nothing? How does that work? Are there other universes?…it is quite possible we will NEVER be able to explain things…with god or w/o him

Every piece of information in the universe isn’t required to form a suitable hypothesis or theory – the point is that, given the information we currently have, there is no need to introduce a personal God to explain what we know. This is therefore more sound than a theory which introduces an unneccessary element: God. The possibility of a personal God, in fact, introduces more problems than it solves.

no you dont need every bit of info to explain for example how an infinite? universe comes out of nothing? No you only need some very specific info that you dont happen to have…nor did I say the idea of god, personal or otherwise, explains anything…only that it cant be ruled out

About Saddam. First, the parents shouldn’t have allowed that kid to watch the news with them. Second, Saddam had to die to prevent any one from trying to free him or hold people hostage for the release of Saddam. Killing him eliminates any issues that may arise in the future, it’s closure and people can move on. It was done for the benefit of the Iraqis to know that there is no way Saddam can ever come back to power.

You have lumped all atheists into the position of the “strong” atheist, who argues that there is no god with absolute certainty. You have ignored the position of the “weak” atheist. In essence, you have used a straw man argument to argue that there is “faith” involved in atheism by looking at the marginal within us non-believers (I don’t like the term atheist either: I think the term non-believer is more appropriate).

By definition, an atheist is a non-believer. Non belief in something does not require belief in the opposing concept. Neither does it require a “burden of proof” (which rests with people who claim existence, by the way). It merely requires you to destroy the arguments for existence.

If the only critique you have is that a “weak” atheist MUST believe in the fashion of a theist or a “strong” atheist, then your critique is silly. We simply refuse to believe. We refuse to close our minds in the way that you do. Because the key here is what being a “weak” atheist means. A “weak” atheist does not believe. They do not have faith. As you do. Cheers.

What you believe or dont believe is your business. If you express the opinion that there is no god, however, you are obligated to support that opinion, or you must admit you dont know. The agnostic simply states he doesnt know, makes no claim, therefore requires no faith. Your “non belief” is in fact a belief- you are simply refusing to support it…because you cant

Remember that the “weak” atheist on the other hand starts at the position of agnostic and then decides which side the evidence places you. The “weak” atheist argument consists of discrediting the arguments for god and examining the evidence for alternative explanations for the various supposed god phenomena. It is a movement in the direction of the non-existance of god, not the leap of faith that requires you to claim non-existance with certainty.

Consider a unit line: at zero are the theists who claim god exists with certainty. At one are the “strong” atheists do claim that god does not exist with certainty. The agnostics are at 0.5. The “weak” atheist is to the right of 0.5. They never make the leap of faith to either extreme, even though they think the preponderence of evidence points to non-existance.

I understand why you feel the way you do about Atheists (there’s been a lot of fanatics on YT lately) but I hope you understand that we aren’t ALL like that. They’re the vocal minority. So please stop saying Atheist and say religious fanatic instead.

Sorry didnt realize there was an actual gurl in that crowd. Weak atheism is a flawed attempt to absolve atheists of the burden of proof, by asserting that god is an unnecessary assumption. Not enough is known about the universe to justify such summary dismissal. The atheists are not owed automatic assumption of their
position

I do not think burden of proof lies in Atheist, Religious people are “usually” the ones trying to convert people – Atheist simply don’t believe, it has nothing to do with faith – for me it is kinda of like – meh, makes no sense, so I don’t believe it.

Your assumption that god does not exist requires proof because, for example, there is literally no likely explanation, supernatural or otherwise, for the existence of the universe. You have no more basis to assume some god is not involved, than theists do to assume the opposite.

Of course you are entitled to believe whatever you like, you are simply not entitled to claim logical, empirical support for your position, not when the context of the debate is so completely unknown. There is no basis for assumption on either side.

Yes scientific evidence has logic behind it(and yes I am using the words proof and evidence interchangeably and of course improperly). Your assumption that god does not exist, however, has no evidence or logic behind it. It is not a scientific position. Neither is the theist position, but I am addressing you not them right now

You can not prove something isn’t there. I say there is an elephant in my trunk, prove that it’s not there.
Atheism does rely on faith, anybody who disagrees is fooling himself. But believing that God can do things discourages us from finding out the true reasons behind said things.

Atheism has nothing to do with faith. You don’t need to believe something arbitrarily without evidence to say there’s no Zeus or Thor, or to say Jack and the Beanstalk is a folk-tale not a historical event. You are so delusional that you can’t even understand the parallels. Your free will is an illusion too, so I really can’t blame you for being stupid, irrational, and surrounded by equally stupid and irrational people who have fooled you into believing bronze-age mythology.

Abundant triphosphates somehow arose to provide energy
Prebiotic peptide catalysts somehow arose
Myriads of different RNA-like molecules somehow formed from phosphates
“Rare true-RNA” molecules evolved by Darwinian evolution
RNAs began to make proteins out of the abundant amino acid soup
The RNAs began to make cell walls
The genetic code for specific proteins arose via Darwinian evolution

Now as for your big question, eventhough I am an agnostic, I disagree with it.
What about unicorns, dragons, Nessie, big foot, santa, ect.? I don’t believe in them becasue of logic, and for athiests god is just another character on that list. So what do you think? Is not beliving in unicorns faith? I don’t think so. And what’s the difference between unicorns and god? Just the fact that many more people believe in god.

I think that this was very well put. I am agnostic and I don’t choose to believe either way because I have no proof. I agree with the fact that athiests do not believe in a god out of faith. They have no proof that he/she/they do not exist just as fundamentalist have no proof that god does. I found this very interesting…

Okay, I’ve seen this argument presented a couple times before in the comments, but I think I’ll state it again in my own way. A burden of evidence does NOT rest with atheism, because it is impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist, whereas it is possible to prove that something does exist.

Wrong. Insofar as science ever proves anything, it is quite possible to prove things dont exist, by showing that their existence would imply a contradiction with accepted facts. You cant disprove god because there isnt enough known about the universe to build such a case, not because such proofs are impossible (they arent)

If you had all available info, and could explain the mysteries that currently confront us (like how exactly all creation got here out of nothing for example), without reference to god, then there would be a basis for declaring god an ‘unnecessary assumption,’ at the very least.

Though God is an ‘unnecessary element,’ that does not necessarily mean that God does not exist. In my opinion, God exists in the realm of the supernatural, and therefore, no matter how much knowledge is gained in regards to the natural realm, it still would not be possible to disprove the existence of God.

Also, the point of my earlier post was meant to point out that you made the assumption that someone would be able to disprove the existence of God if they ‘knew everything.’ That statement seems to be based solely upon your opinion, and if you consider that scenario, then you might as well also consider the one involving the existence of God. The ‘facts’ you cite could just as likely prove his existence as disprove it.

And in regards to your original response to intuos, I’ll also mention that in science, “accepted facts” must be changed/revised as new information is gained. Therefore they are not necessarily constants, and though we may consider them to be “facts,” until we have a complete understanding of the universe, they are not certainties.

I disagree with the statement that god can currently be called an unnecessary element, not when you have the existence of the universe itself to explain for example. There being no rational explanation whatsoever, no explanation can be relegated unnecessary, not even god.

2nd, I agree that even if god could be called unnecessary, this would not strictly disprove him. I am not using the word proof in its strict sense. Mere convincing empirical arguments, based on evidence, will do for me. Yes it would always be possible to suppose some supernatural realm, forever beyond the reach of empirical investigation

3rd, yes its certainly my opinion that if all empirical info were available, if we could explain the mysteries we face in terms of that info, w/o god, that would constitute ‘proof,’ that is, a convincing empirical case, to me, that god was an a unnecessary assumption. I am not demanding a strict mathematical disproof of god. I am incredibly generous that way.

4th and yes, I will happily concede that, were all the info available, its possible an empirical case for god would emerge. But I am arguing against so called weak atheism here, did I mention that? The case where evidence for god emerges is irrelevant to my argument.

5th yes, I am arguing against weak atheism and for agnosticism, much as you appear to be doing. Certainly the accepted facts of science must change, we are not living in a realm of platonic ideals, and indeed this could all be just a dream for all anyone really knows, and Im terribly grateful YT can attract discerning folks willing to point out such annoying technicalities. But again I am generous and willing to argue on the shifting sand of mere empiricism.

If God exists, then under your definition of God, (and this is assuming that you are referring to the Christian God) he is most definitely a supernatural being. There is no supposition, God most definitely lies in the realm of the supernatural, as the feats and miracles supposedly performed by God conflict with many scientific concepts.

Lastly, you’re actually being rather closefisted with your demands. As it has been mentioned before, it is impossible to disprove something God. For example, intuos has brought this up this scenario before, but I will modify it a bit; If I were to claim that there’s a unicorn that exists somewhere, but it cannot be detected through modern means, is it really up to you to disprove my statement? Or is it up to me to prove my statement?

Yes, it is a rather ludicrous statement, and yet I find it a bit similar to our current situation. There is no way that you can disprove the existence of God. If you think about it logically, if God exists, then God is most likely a being that far surpasses human beings. If God does not want to be found, then he will not be found. And if God does not exist, then God cannot be found.

Also, mildly off-topic, I didn’t notice your last two posts until after I had already finished posting my replies, and after reading those posts, and reading through my replies, I noticed that my posts might seem a bit harsh, but I assure you that I did not intend for them to be that biting. My apologies.

yes Im sure if god exists he wont be found unless he wants to be, which probably wouldnt be on his best day either so Im not looking real hard myself, but hey no problem Im having a great time here rabidly defending my case of which Im so sure, this being the interent and all

Yes it is impossible to disprove God, but not because there is any logical or empirical principle against trying to do so, only because you lack the info to build the case. Negative proofs are standard fare in logic, math and science. You are right to admit you cant prove god doesnt exist, logically or empirically. You are wrong to suppose your case should be accepted without a case, because there is no rational explanation for the universe to prefer over it.

As for that unicorn, I might well dismiss it, since it is intended to explain nothing. I cant make case against it, but I have no stake in doing so. Only the person insisting its there has any reason to prove his case. But atheists have a stake in disproving god, as evidenced by the fact that they insistently argue about it.

Now for atheists to argue, they must build a case. They insist they dont need a straightforwrd case, that their position should be accepted by default. But for atheists to be absolved of burden of proof, it must be accepted, at least, that god is an unnecessary assumption, for example to explain the universe. But there is no supportable explanation for the universe. So there is no basis to declare any supposed explanation unnecessary, not even god

Im not necessarily referring to a christian god,’Supernatural’ is def’d by our ability to observe nature, which has changed over time. It may only mean that part of creation we still cant see. Feats/miracles of folklore might be made up, or crude descriptions of a science beyond our own, our known facts being subject to further investigation, or ‘supernatural’ as you say, whatever that means. Theres no way to know, they are evidence of nothing either way

The Big Bang theory describes the very first moments of the universe we are able to observe. It does not explain what caused this creation to happen, or what if anything went on before, if that even means anything, or if there is anything to the universe apart from what was created in the Big Bang, and if not how exactly all creation simply appeared out of…nothing? Forget Why.

Well, as of the moment, we only have a hazy idea of what occurred before the Big Bang, and since I don’t know much in that field, I’ll respond to it in a different way. If God exists, and he created the universe, then what created God? If God can be considered as the beginning, then why can’t the Big Bang (or rather, whatever happened before the Big Bang)?

Yes indeed, where did god come from for example, or the big bang. This is the mystery we face. I dont claim god is a rational, acceptable explanation for it. I claim there is no rational, acceptable explanation for it, afaik, and therefore no more basis to summarily dismiss the supposed god explanation than any other

“Will we ever be able to disprove the existence of god?” well, in my opinion we already have based on what definition of proof you want to use. Proof really means to confirm something to be very very improbable.
If god were to be in this world he would be improbable right away, this is based on the fact that he’d defy everything we have seen so far and all the laws of nature that we know, this is enough to disprove god just as Santa-claus getting around the world in 1 night being impossible is

enough to disprove Santa-claus. This was commonly debated until the religious people came up with this outside the box argument. They claim he’s outside of this world where the laws of this universe aren’t present. However there’s a big problem with that argument, god being outside the system requires the assumption that there is an outside of the universe; the outside is an absolute prerequisite for the existence of god. The assumptions we make for other creation theories like

big bang are well reasoned and mathematically supported, and besides, we can make other theories and do not require every assumption we make to be true for the thing to work whilst gods existence absolutely require the assumption of an outside world.

So to summarize. God requires the blind assumption of an outside, without god requires nothing we haven’t empirical evidence for and isn’t supported by sience.

What you’re saying is that when we have proof it doesn’t mean it’s true, only that it appears to be exceedingly likely? Was being struck by lightning a myth before it happened?

Did you ever consider that God and His miracles could be based on parts of the universe we simply don’t understand yet? Unexplained phenomena happen all the time, which is why we even have a thing called science. We want to learn more and be able to explain these things, but we don’t have all the answers.

A problem with the concept of a supernatural realm? The term can easily be taken to mean nothing more than those parts of creation we cant observe or test, and there are many known and supposed examples of such places, from astronomy, from quantum physics, from theoretical cosmology.

Its also not at all unknown for scientists to theorize that indeed there is an ‘outside of the universe,’ that there are multiple universes, and so on. None of which presumably they would have the slightest idea how to observe or perfom tests on.

Also the big bang theory only describes the first moments of creation. It does not explain how the big bang happened to come about, or if anything exists outside the universe created by the big bang, or conversely how the universe could have appeared out of nothing and nowhere, if there is nothing else.

Also the mathematical support of the most advanced cosmologists is a poor substitute for actual empirical investigation, to which their ideas can likely never practically be subjected. Their theories are beautiful, symmetric, self consistent, and completely untestable.

So to summarize, god does not require an ‘outside the universe,’ though ‘outside the universe’ is a common idea in science anyway, and while god itself is hardly a rationally acceptable explanation for all creation, without god science has, literally, nothing more plausible to offer in that line

If the enigma of universal creation isnt enough for you we can always talk about the mystery of consciousness. Also completely unexplainable by rational means to date. The point being since science cant explain these things there is no basis for summarily dismissing the religious view of them

Yes there is. Just because we can’t explain consciousness doesn’t mean we should accept a theory that says little green fairies sprinkled purple sparkle consciousness dust on us.

We should not simply accept irrational beliefs simply because we can not formulate a rational beliefs…

No you dont have to accept any belief you dont like, but you cant claim empirical evidence for your rejection in cases like consciousness, where there is none to be had, especially when you cant even formulate anything you would be more pleased to call a rational explanation as an alternative

Not that I claim purple fairies or god suffice as explanations,theyre just supposed agents of some occulted presumably rational means. The empirical question is whether such agents can be ruled impossible or unnecessary. w/o the ability to observe or test the context, w/o the ability even to imagine whatever rational means are involved, it isnt possible to judge if they are impossible or unnecessary

Theres no need to assume the biblical description is accurate, or that god isnt completely tautological with all observations to date. Its also not unusual for science to run across things that defy a lot of what it knew before. And of course there are universal mysteries for which science has as yet no explanation at all. The ultimate orgin of the universe for example.

yes but the “supernatural” realm is yet another assumption and it goes against tons of observations of the world around us… and i think the mathematic support of quantum theory plays an decisive role in proving that quantum theory which is largely based on educated assumptions must be at least part right.

“supernatural” need not be interpreted as a magical, irrational place, any more than the word “atom” must strictly mean what Aristotle said it did. Our tons of observations show that there are vast areas of spacetime we cant observe, will never observe. Even in the fraction we can see, there are mysteries.

Quantum physics, which is supported by experiment as well as math, describes an absolute limit on our ability to get information about any part of the universe, visible or otherwise. Because of quantum phsyics, science has literally given up on the logical postivist view that human knowledge can encompass literally all of creation

And of course scientists in trying to understand these mysteries have floated many assumptions to account for them, multiple universes, extra dimensions and so on. Within this sea of speculation there is lots of room for some “supernatural,” though presumably non-magical realm, w/o making any extra assumption to account for it

i can agree with you mranenome that the outside or the idea of multiple universes is embeded into string theory/quantum physics but it would make no sense for god to create them if he’s a part of them himself. then again quantum mechanics really isn’t my field.

God creating a universe hes part of himself is enigmatic, though no more enigmatic than the idea of the universe appearing out of nothing and nowhere by itself. I wouldnt necessarily require that big a trick from a god. A god existing in some extrauniversal, extradimensional frame could create all the universe we’ll ever see and still count as god to us, even if he didnt create himself or the frame in which he exists

another thing i’d want to point out is that a outside is assumed and the world was created from this place then it’s still not logical to assume that there was a “god” in the sense of a conciousness that created the world, could just aswell and much more likely imo been a undefined non conciouss process since god would be more complicated..

Yes I agree the idea of a conscious god is more complicated than the idea of an unconcious process. But is it more complicated than necessary? Light bulbs are more complicated than rocks, but rocks arent complicated enough to make light. How complicated does a process have to be, to create a frame of existence in which a universe like ours can come about? I dont think its possible to know that right now.

Im not interested in preserving god as a possibilty, if he can be ruled out so be it. Im concerned that the limits of logic and empiricism should be recognized for what they are. If we think science tells us more than it really can, we are as superstitious as any witch doctor. Not that I have anything against superstition, but the idea of superstition disguised as science does bother me quite a bit.

Technically, your assumption that my statement is false is a form of belief, but if that’s the definition you use of a belief, then it can be applied to any aspect of life. You “believe” that the universe isn’t going to explode in 20 seconds. You “believe” that molecules actually do exist, and scientists didn’t make the whole thing up. You “believe” that the world actually exists, and that it isn’t just a projection of the Matrix.

Agnosticism doesnt claim the atheist claim is false. Agnosticism expresses no opinion on the matter. Its true theres a lot of fundamental beliefs inherent in empiricism generally, that this isnt all just a dream and so on. Feel free to challenge them.

not anything else “ever”…only that about which you cannot test, which is perfectly reasonable. It doesnt matter what weird claims are made, without the ability to observe and test no case or countercase can be made, not logically, not empiracally.

I’ve always laid stake to being an Atheist, but my stance is this: I believe (admitting it is a belief and not knowledge) there is no God or divinity that rules or controls or whatever they’re supposed to do over Earth or mankind. Now, on the chance that there was, even if I was presented with proof of such an entity, for all that I have seen, experienced and learned, I would not accept them in any form as ‘higher’ or perhaps even equal. Where would that cast me?

There are plenty of examples of things I don’t believe in that can’t be falsified. You might as well be talking about ghosts, flying saucers, Elvis sightings, or anything else in the National Enquirer. I do see a bunch of delusional nut cases killing each other over who is getting into “heaven”. Which group do you think is getting in?

The examples you cite can all be readily investigate empirically. So could the claim of god, presumably, if enough were known about the universe. But enough is not known, may never be known. That is the only problem with claims about god. That is why it makes no sense to make any such claim, either way

Actually you can’t scientifically investigate any of the above because you can’t set up a falsifiable hypothesis to test. You can’t prove anything doesn’t exist. We already know enough for reasonable, intelligent people to draw the conclusions that the examples above do not exist, but you can’t prove that about anything with an experiment. Same thing with Thor causing lightning.

The creator of the universe is also the creator of all life. This creator predates the existence of humanity, and our universe. Despite no one being able to provide physical proof of this creator, there is proof of creation. Agnostics might not need to believe in a God, but they must believe in their creation as well as that of this universe, since both clearly exist. How can one believe in creation, without believing that someone or something created it?

Scott your videos always kicks ass, will you write my UTA college essay for me? LOl. BTW daft punk ROCKS! Dude, it’s so weird because I myself used to be a faithful catholic and I went through a proc ess in which I started turning to atheism. But then I somehow got myself agnostic. It’s still weird, because I barely know much about it. I wish I knew more, but life is a learning process, which has yet to begin for me! ^^

If I say, “an invisible dog poops on my head everytime I watch your videos” then by your argument those who don’t believe it are JUST AS ILLOGICAL as those who do? You can’t prove either so it would be illogical to say it isn’t true??Search’Invisible Pink Unicorn’ or ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ on Wikipedia.

If you insist your invisible dog poop lies entirely outside the realm of the empirical, that there is no evidence to look at, then yes there is no way to properly apply logic or empiricism to that claim. This is merely the consequence that logic and empiricism are limited to what can be observed and tested.

Of course you would be equally unable to prove your case as well. Why should anyone care? The question is completely academic. The only concern I have is that you have no business claiming a logical, empirical argument either way. Aside from that, you could end up in a funny farm, but this is simply a practical matter, to deal with your readily observable, testable, weird behavior, if you become overly insistent

and by the same token, as long as you acted normal otherwise, did your job as usual, refrained from running naked down the street with underwear on your head, etc, you could go your whole life believing such stuff, secure in the knowledge that noone would ever be able to prove you wrong (if anyone cared)

I trust you’ve heard of Occam’s razor. I think any time we are considering a concept or idea we have to ask “what is the evidence for it?” and if we cannot find any, it seems most rational to reject the idea. That doesn’t mean closing one’s mind to the idea but merely withholding belief in the idea until some evidence appears. Call it “soft atheism” if you will. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian myself and I’ve known many other fundamentalist Christians and also atheists, and I think…

Occams razor is very useful in cases where there is actual evidence to look at, but it only suggests lines of inquiry. There is no guarantee the suggestions are valid. If a line suggested fails, there is no option but to go back and try another. It is a heuristic, a handy technique. It is not a basic principle of logic, and by itself proves nothing.

Now look at the question of the ultimate orgin of the universe. The razor is for choosing between possible explanations, but here there is literally no comprehensible explanation, afaik, god included, and no hope of getting evidence about what went on beforehand, if that means anything. The razor is useless here. There is nothing for it to work on.

…atheists are FAR MORE open-minded and rational in general. It is rare you will ever find an atheist who won’t at least admit that they don’t know for certain what might be out there, but plenty of religious fundamentalists will say they have absolute certainty in a God. You’re right that it’s perfectly fine to hold your personal convictions, but there’s a big difference between that and organized religion. I’m an agnostic myself but I don’t see atheism and religious fundamentalism as being…

that may be, and Ive been voting against the religious incursion into politics since 1980, but I do believe in religious freedom and I doubt very much that crusading for atheism will do a single thing to make people act more rationally or compassionately towards each other in general.

now lets be rational here. when you say religious incursion it sounds like it’s something new(from my perspective)

religion has been in American politics and government from the very beginning, religion is even(partly) the reason why people moved to america before it became the United states.

I think it’s more accurate if you say you’ve been voting for religious revocation

[3] …anything like each other. But perhaps that’s because I’ve experienced fundamentalism for myself and I know the kind of pervasive grip it can have on a person’s mind–imagine being tortured not physically, but mentally by images of an eternal torment in hell whenever you dare to question the faith.

your basically asking a christian to not be one
a christian cannot possibly do this, prove that there is a God.
an arguement is derived from some sort of notion/knowledge that something is or isnt
Faith = belief without knowing
your basically going against everything you just said by presenting that challenge of yours

btw- bad choice in soundtrack in the end dude

Awesome job as always, Scott. Glad I subscribed.
Thank you so much for making that point- I’ve held a similar opinion for a while now, but every atheist I talk to brushes off what I say as me just being a stupid, mean old Christian. Dx

Unfortunately, I agree one hundred percent with the fact that I don’t have any evidence that my god or any other god exists, so now I can’t argue against you. -pout- Ah well, maybe next week.

I have a random, stupid request that doesn’t relate at all to the video, but-
Could you use the song “waiting on the world to change” by John Mayer somewhere in one of your videos? The song is just so unlike you- you’ve done nothing even close to waiting- I guess it’d just make me giggle to hear that and see you talking in the same video. xD
Feel free to ignore this, btw. I don’t care all that much.

Your argument is weak. You can’t prove anything. You can only collect evidence from your observations. Our observations have always pointed away from the existence of a God. If you must have absolute proof to believe in something then you will never believe in anything.

Did you not hear the challenge?
Give him the proof. There will never be a definite decision on this.

I would explain how I personally know there is a God, but it has no basis in reason, and I’m not about to try to convince anyone that there is a God, especially with the complete lack of scientific proof, as far as I know.

If you have proof that there is no God, however, say it. Convince me, convince all of us.

A better example:
You accuse someone of being a witch. I stand up to defend the person who is my friend by saying “My friend is not a witch!” Do I now have to provide proof of my claim?

I also should remind you that being an atheist doesn’t require you to deny the existence of God, only that you lack belief. Everyone is born an atheist and learns religion, are we all born with this burden of proof?

In times when ppl believed in witches, when there was no legal principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ you may well have been required to prove it…’innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle btw, not a logical or scientific one…instituted in recognition of inevitable imperfections in the legal process, to lower the odds of convicting the innocent

Also, ppl are born ignorant, not atheist, having no opinion on the subject nor knowledge of any need for such an opinion. The weak atheist has an opinion, which is that he has no reason to believe. But this assumes belief in some god is unnecessary to understand the universe. It is not established that this is the case. The ultimate nature of the universe is a complete mystery, and may always be. The weak atheists position requires support therefore, no less than any other

Yes, exactly we are born ignorant of God. In other word we lack a believe in an God. You are mistaking lack of a belief in God, with denial that God can/does exist. Saying that a lack of belief requires proof, is like saying that not collecting stamp a hobby.

I won’t be replying to this thread as I am working on a video response to address all of this.

I could as easily say the newborn lacks a belief in atheism. The newborn has no opinion either way, has no knowledge of the debate. You assume that atheism is the neutral position arrived at by suspension of belief. But atheism cant account for the existence of creation any more than theism can. It therefore requires either more evidence, or unreasoning belief. You are as faith driven as the theists. The only neutral position is to relinquish belief in either position.

As I said, I meant reasoning. Dx

As mranenome says, one is born ignorant, not atheist, as one doesn’t really comprehend there is something to believe in or not until they grow older.

You sound agnostic, not atheist, at least by my definition.
Can’t wait to see your video, I’ll look for it in a sec.

I’m just thinking about it at this point, but I might invite three of my friends (one each being mormon, agnostic, and the last one being… pagan, I think… wiccan, maybe) and record a debate session. Would you believe they all actually get along? Crazy.

Hah, my itunes started playing “tower of ‘babble'” from godspell while I was writing my last post. Ironic. X3

Atheist: One who believes there is no deity
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Nine out of ten ‘atheists’ I know are agnostics, not atheists. When they argue that they are atheist but claim it’s only a lack of belief, it doesn’t give them credibility.

I would argue that there are both atheists as well as religious people who take a logical approach to this. Believing there is no proof either way takes faith, too, unless you are prepared to prove it.😉

Faith:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

allegiance to duty or a person
fidelity to one’s promises
sincerity of intentions
belief and trust in and loyalty to God
belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
firm belief in something for which there is no proof
complete trust
something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Only one of these relies on a lack of proof.

Alright! You came back with full force Scott. That was a scary couple of weeks.

About proof though: I can offer no proof of the existence of God. I can however offer proof of the existence of Satan.

Go get in your car, drive to the nearest Taco Bell and order 5 grilled stuffed burritos with extra red sauce and bring a bucket to fill with hot sauce packets. Slather that shit on there good and just knock ’em back. Now you’ll be glad you brought a bucket…
Do that and tell me there is no Devil.

Logic is not an antonym to faith. Just as “red” is not an antonym to “black”. You seem to blatantly confuse Logic and Common Sense (two very different concepts). Logic is not personal or subjective. Such expressions such as “In my logic…” are incorrect in the sense that Logic is one and unique. Logic is based on the principal that there is a truth (vertù) and that it is one and only one.

The unique aim of any logical argument is to prove that something is true. If two seemingly logical paths lead to two incompatible truths we can be sure that at least one of them is false and therefore not logical. Atheists do not inherit logical concepts in their belief that there is no god. Atheists base their non-spiritual faith in Common Sense.

atheist dont belive in faith…at least i dont think so. I Belive in God, but i also belive that as long as you live life with the best intentions, society would be a lot better. Faith for me…whether it is real or not is a very power full thing, and can be for anything…If God is only your imagination….imagine how much you can still do. The power of the mind

Atheistic Common Sense is based on the principal that everything is non-existence as long as it cannot be proven to be otherwise (god included). I can’t help thinking about “Je pense donc Je suis” (Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”). Descartes refutes what he cannot prove. So much so, that he wonders if he himself really exists. He is ultimately assured that he does because he has the capacity of thought.

uhhuh, so until the microscope was invented diseases happened all by themselves because there was no way to prove germs existed, so they didnt. So in France do they design cars, social programs and military strategy using logic, or common sense. Im guessing its not logic

If Descartes were incapable of proving his own existence all other notions would become irrelevant. Atheistic “faith” is therefore constructive and not deconstructive nor nihilist : All that I logically prove is in fact true and All that I cannot prove is irrelevant. Theocratic belief is therefore irrelevant to an atheist way of life.

But if theocracy is irrelevant and the person takes no position either way, that is not atheist. It’s agnostic. If, on the other hand, he believes there must be no God because he hasn’t found proof, what can be said of all the discoveries and inventions of our past? Are we calling our pioneers gullible, stupid, or just insane? I believe a person can prove God, but only first-hand. Only those adventurous enough to give Him a chance can see.

Great post, Scott!!

They have faith in a lack of evidence. Schrodinger’s cat says that perhaps there is evidence and no evidence for God simultaneously.

Ken Wilber says that all entity’s have both a tangible and non-tangible form at the same time. So numbers are both “graphite on paper” and “mental concepts” at the same time.

Similarly, God is both real and unreal, having evidence to support both sides. Thus making an Agnostic’s view that “we’re sure that we’re unsure” illogical.

while your video was very good. the official definition for atheism is “the disbelief in any deities”. essentialy an atheist does not believe there is no god. as an atheist i can say for myself that i dont have the belief that there is no god. i have disbelief in god. which means i dont believe that hes not there, i just believe he doesn’t care. the universe is a giant place, and i dont buy into the thought that a god is constantly watching over us like a concerned parent.

Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity.

Agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary

Atheism is a belief that there is no deity, not the lack of a belief that there is one. Agnostics lack a belief that there is or is not a deity.

Well, the English language doesn’t have a formal definition. However, there are two terms commonly accepted to mean two separate things. A disbelief in something is not just a lack of belief in it. It is a belief that it is not true. Atheists, by commonly accepted definition, make the implied statement that they believe God does not exist. I think most are Agnostics that lose credibility early because of this miscommunication of terms. Do they not like the term Agnostic?

Merriam-Webster seems to be getting further and further away from reality all the time. They used to define the word ‘antitheist’ correctly, but now claim it is synonomous with atheist (which it is not).

I wouldn’t be surprised if an agenda were to blaim.

Many of the Atheists here, the ones claiming they don’t hold a belief that God doesn’t exist, still seem geared toward talking religious people down and saying they’re wrong. If they don’t have a belief that God isn’t real, why would they state Christians or Muslims are wrong? It it’s just a lack of belief, then why can’t they leave those with a belief alone?

I could say you didn’t post your last comment, that someone else did using your account. And in spite of the fact that you probably sat and typed it up yourself, beyond a shadow of doubt, I did not see you do it. So because you cannot prove it to me, should I say you are wrong to believe it?

this is the flaw in your statement, you automatically assume that something is wrong because you can’t prove it, when he clearly states you have a choice to believe through faith whether a god exists or not, so in his defense, u have a choice to believe whether he typed his last comment, and without physical evidence, its through faith which ever way u choose to go

It would be faith for me to believe it without seeing it, but I’m talking about him. He has proof that he typed it, if he did, because he bore witness to it. My argument is that something doesn’t have to be presentable to others to be proof, but it is only proof to those who can personally confirm that it is true from experience.

Also, faith is not always blind. I understood what you meant, but I think too many people, religious and not, define all faith as blind faith. I believe you can have faith in something for which you have evidence. In fact, the more credible and important the evidence, the more faith one can have. This is my faith in Christianity. I attempt to avoid assumptions on such an important issue.

Neither is a big deal right now, but thank you. To be honest, the misunderstanding about the word faith probably originated from the religious side. There are many facets of Christianity that do claim to rely solely on the grand assumption. But I can’t get past the fact that we should avoid assumptions in every area, but those people think the one place we should have one of the biggest assumptions is with our Creator and His plan for our lives. I don’t buy it, not that way.

There is this mean leprechaun at the edge of the universe. There, now you are all “Ameanleprechaunattheedgeoftheuniversists” and you have “faith”, except, of course, for all of you agnostics who realize that it cannot be proven or disproven. Get it?

I don’t remember the last time a leprechaun taught me things out of thin air. One could call me crazy, but it always proved to be true. Hey, I don’t know everything, and I make mistakes. But when I center myself on the things the God from the Bible seems to care for, it’s interesting how much more I learn as a result.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, the only thing I really disagree with is your use of the word “atheism”. Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more deities, and, as you know, the prefix “a-” means “not”, “without”, “lacking” and so on. So, then, it only makes sense that “atheism” would be non-belief in the existence of deities, or lacking belief in the existence of deities. That sort of thing.

And, I mean, just look at words like asymmetrical — not symmetrical; lacking symmetry, and asexual — lacking a sexual orientation (if we’re talking about a person), or reproducing non-sexually (if we’re talking about asexual reproduction). So you see, it just doesn’t make sense to define atheism as “denying the existence of God.” Like, where the heck did that come from?

Ok, so then, if you say Atheism means no god, then agnostics, by your definitions, also have no god, as they are with holding their judgement, so aren’t they atheists too? Your logic is flawed with the example of the coin. There might be a coin in the red safe, yes, but if you said there is a 3-ton elephant in there, then I would say no, there isn’t without seeing what’s inside. That is what a god is to atheists.

Boolean logic says that if something is not considered true, it is considered false. However, there are two higher forms of logic. Using fuzzy logic, if something is not considered certainly true, it doesn’t make it certainly false. Agnostics, while not claiming God exists, also don’t deny that he may. Atheists claim God does not exist. There is a definite difference there.

I like this analogy: Think of it in terms of a football game. There is one team, let’s say the protestant team, and another team, let’s say the muslims, and the catholic team, the mormon team and so on. Agnostics don’t belong on a team, their just spectators, and atheists are the people who don’t even watch football!

In the interest of saving time, why don’t we all just post which definition of Atheism we support?

A. Atheism is ‘A’, without, ‘theism’, belief in a deity. But it is not a belief that there must not be a deity. These people would not stand against theists, because they simply don’t have evidence to believe in a deity themselves.

B. Atheism is a belief that there is no deity. These people hold beliefs in opposition to theists, therefore disagree that theists can be correct.

I don’t care whether there is a god or not, the earth won’t stop spinning if there isn’t one and it won’t start spinning any faster if there is. You can’t trust anyones words (Bible, Koran etc.) because underneath those words, they have most likely been influenced by someone else. Who is to say that sources are always accurate? Its merely opinion based.

People can believe what ever they want in my eyes, as long as it’s not harmful to anyone else.

Regardless of your religion, it comes down to faith… I think that sums it up VERY effectively… i agree with a lot u say and disagree with a bit too… you say some astounding things and some stupid things… and i enjoy every moment of it… of the satire… and everything🙂 keep em coming…

I gotta add to this.

From a scientific stance, there is no scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God. It’s right there in the design. A god is something or someone that is not human nor terrestrial. A god can also be, and is usually, an omnipresent being. That simple concept is that we cannot prove the existence of spirit as much as we can prove that there is a giant candy-coated wall at the edge of the universe.

I think that just about everyone is agnostic in the sense that they are able to change their viewpoint if new evidence contradicts their belief (or lack thereof). Because belief is a binary variable, though, everyone will be either theistic or athiestic at any given time. “Sitting the fence” is like hitting the speed of light; it would be a singularity, a black hole of intellectual activity.

There is no point in having opinions on academic matters like the existence of god. Human knowledge is indeed subject to revision, it gives quite possibly little more than a very distorted, fish eye lens view of reality, as has often proved the case in the past.

Oh, and just for the record — I think this is a very thought-provoking video. I feel a little embarassed to claim philological kinship with a couple of the folks who posted (who seem to have NO agnostic tendencies). Ah, well; it’s all good.

Oh, and for the record, you would class me as agnostic, although I really don’t have reason to believe in any kind of supernatural, guiding intelligence.

To quote George Smith:
“Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief.
“An atheist is not priamrily a person who BELIEVES that a god does NOT exist; rather, he does NOT BELIEVE in the existence of a god.”
Got that? Can you grasp the distinction? See where the burden is placed between the two?

As you have said that all atheist stats as fact that there is no God and that they think that is truth but can’t the same be said of the Christians or any other religious person. Don’t they do exactly the same thing but on the opposite side of the discussion? Any religious person says without a doubt that there is a God with nothing more than faith and no proof.

God is an archaic idea that was used to control the masses and nothing more.

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: