The Worst Atheist Argument
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 бер 2021
- Music performed and directed by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
If I was going to evaluate what made a bad argument it would be some combination of the fallaciousness and popularity of the argument. If it’s extremely egregious and obviously wrong but also very popular, then it becomes a contender for one of the worst, and this one ranks up there.
I’ve seen it in comments on my videos and popular atheist celebrities love to use it. Ricky Gervais famously uses it whenever he gets to exfoliate his atheism in front of an audience, and Richard Dawkins used it in The God Delusion when he said, “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
In the context of something like a late night tv exchange, it’s extremely effective because it’s succinct, it carries an air of cleverness about it which makes it, at least, appear to be logical.
As a rhetorical instrument, it hits the right notes, but rhetoric without sound logic is just sophistry. That’s why in a classical liberal arts education, they taught dialectic before rhetoric. You had to have a sound understanding of logic before you could apply persuasive speech to your arguments.
But at some point in history, our educational superiors decided we didn’t need to learn logic any more, which is why sophistry has such free reign over our conversations about big ideas. From politics, to advertising, to books like the God Delusion.
From a theist’s perspective, it’s hard to reply to because it’s a targeted shot and it seems clever, but refuting it would require a much less witty exposition of why it’s fallacious. The truth is, it’s a non sequitur to the highest degree and that’s a compliment.
It doesn’t follow that because you only believe in “one less God” than I do that I’m practically an atheist too. It also doesn’t follow that there is no God or that atheism is true or that theism is false.
There’s nothing valid in its content and it doesn’t even seem to assert a conclusion. We’re only left to try to infer what the conclusion is. But because it’s so common and popular, it does seem to require a reply
Do you really think Ricky Gervais was using that statement as an argument for his position? Or just making an amusing comment on a tv talk show ?
Ricky was making a statement on his belief. He was saying in believes in one less god. The point was to say Christians are atheist to all other gods other than jeaus.
I'm pretty sure this statement has never been presented as "an argument" for anything. It's an example to theists of HOW atheism works. It a way of explaining disbelief to people that think there is a god.
@@byebry and Mr. Holdsworth presenting this as an "atheist argument" is a straw man.
I believe the video was not meant to debunk atheism or any proper atheist argument but one that seems smart amd witty at first but is actually quite baseless and doesn't say anything useful for the reasons mentioned in the video. Thats the reason the title is the worst atheist argument. Peace to you.
@@chigo999 I think one of the related points is that Christians would likely think belief in Thor or Vishnu was absurd, but from an atheist perspective, belief in Yahweh is essentially the same, and equally absurd.
This was never supposed to be used as an argument. It’s just a simple way to explain ones belief to a theist in a way they can relate to.
This.
atheists are rather fervent in their dogmatic hatred of religion its easy to understand why they would twist this into an argument.
It’s always used as an argument, and it’s always wrong.
@@sly8926 You're making a claim without presenting evidence to prove your claim is true.
How is it wrong?
@@TonyEnglandUKBecause atheism, by definition, denies the existence of any God. Acknowledging God’s existence means acknowledging that atheism is objectively false.
Simply put the reason this is not a good argument is that this is not an argument. It's not trying to change your mind, it's trying to get you to understand someone else's mind. That you think it's an argument at all is a problem.
I was fairly clear that I don't consider it an argument, but the fact that it gets used in place of an argument is the problem. If someone challenges your reasons for believing something, and you resort to this reason (reasons are the compositions of arguments), then you have revealed yourself to be someone who does not rely on logic, but sophistry. That's the exact criticism of the video.
@@BrianHoldsworth A sophism is still an argument. This is not an argument and therefore cannot be sophism. Argument is inherent to the definition of sophism.
But this is not an argument. It is not phrased as "... I just believe in one god less therefore you should not also." or as "... I just believe in one god less therefore there is no god". Those would both be arguments. But they don’t exist and you are implying the argument from two statements (Personally I find classifying them as premises or reasons a stretch).
In your cited example Gervais is trying to frame atheism in terminology that a theist would understand with no attempt at changing anyone's mind or making an argument. Same with Dawkins as best I can tell but I could not find a sufficiently extended quote quickly to be completely sure.
@@BrianHoldsworthyet you still titled the video “the worst atheist argument.” Doesn’t sound like very honest presentation.
But no, it’s not sophistry that shows the person doesn’t rely on logic. It’s meant to build a connection between interlocutors, to show that some common ground exists, to combat specific attitudes that seem surprised anyone could even be an atheist.
You say that “you make it clear you don’t think it’s an argument” but then everything you say about it is analyzing it AS an argument, which doesn’t make a lick of sense. People are allowed to use rhetorical devices without being dishonest or without trying to make it be a substantive argument. You might not like how it’s said - and that’s totally fair - but that’s a separate issue.
@@BrianHoldsworthwhy are you always lying? (Yeah yeah, I actually know, you're an apologist). No atheist ever uses this as an argument. We use it to point out the absurdity of theist not being able to grasp why someone would not believe in their particular god, while simultaneously thinking it's obvious to not believe in all those other gods. What's more we don't need a reason to not believe something, not believing is the default position for everything. You need reasons to start believing something.
@@BrianHoldsworth The atheist stance/argument is that they have not been presented any convincing evidence that any god exists.
Rather than engaging in very poor reasoning how about presenting atheists with some convincing evidence that your particular god exists ??
As for me I'm pleased to say no religion has paid any significant part in my 64 years I call myself an apatheist, I really don't care if one exists or not.
It is not something that I find important enough to worry about .. however I do find myself having the urge to correct flawed reasoning.
I want to give my perspective on this argument as an atheist. First of all I will say that this argument proves nothing, but I don't think that it supposed to prove anything either. If an someone (and I know that some do) use this argument trying to prove that a certain religion is false, then all of the things you said are valid. But I wouldn't use this argument to prove anything, I use it more when people are shocked to hear that I'm an atheist and I want them to realise that it's not that strange. I just want them to realise that I feel the same way about their religion as they feel about other religions. Ultimately it proves nothing, it's more about perspective.
I agree, I don't see it used as an argument at all. It's usually just a way of getting someone to start to understand the perspective of an atheist.
Exactly… this isn’t even an argument.
Brian even says in the video there was no conclusion and he was forced to draw his own conclusions that he then proceeded to argue against. He didn’t realize he was missing the point entirely
No arguments prove anything according to you atheists. All you do is conjecture
@@JLBorges2803 I agree - it was simply Ricky saying to Stephen _"We aren't so different in our beliefs after all"_
This is not an "argument", and isn't intended to be. It's a witty analogy that aims to demonstrate to theists by listing a convocation of dead gods (who were all once revered but are now reduced to comic book stereotype status by our culture), the absurdity of fervently believing that your flavour is radically different, without any distinguishing reason.
Apparently, you think there's evidence in the Bible to support the idea that your god "is being itself" (whatever that means!). You think it's a "category error" to compare Christianity with the faith of the ancient Greeks because it's possible to setup an empirical test to determine whether Zeus once lived on Mount Olympus (I'd challenge you to do this, by the way.) I'm not sure why you're sure it's a "category error" when there are numerous accounts of God's interactions with man "inside" the universe in the Bible. For an entity that is "being itself" 'he' seems to have a gender, family relationships, human emotions, numerous physical incarnations (notably Jesus, in some mysterious triune form) and so on.
I was just about to type a reply very similar to this, but you’ve already done it better. For all his talk about the lack of logical and rhetorical education, he doesn’t seem to understand either.
Not everything an atheist says about religion is intended as a syllogism to disprove the existence of any gods. This line in particular is just intended to explain what atheism is to a nation of people who seem incapable of grasping the concept.
The problem with Atheists is they don't realize their worldview is just as faith-based as everyone else. Absolute truth *only exists* in mathematics and logic. This means faith is required to form any worldview for humans. No human can form a worldview without faith. You just choose religious faith in academia as your religious text.
Atheism is rooted in Dogmatic Scientism (blind faith in the current academic consensus like a religious text). Heck, you even have Scientism priests (top academics).
For example, you believe you evolved from primordial soup, don't you? You believe you live on a spinning water ball that defies physics with a sky vacuum, don't you? You believe in the Heliocentric model and "outer space" don't you? You believe you're spinning at 1,000mph right now? You believe heavy objects fall down because of "gravity" ?
Are any of these beliefs independently verifiable? They are not. They don't even have any scientific evidence supporting them that anyone reading this could verify if their lives depended on it. Yet, you believe them anyway on faith alone.
Dogmatic Scientism / Atheism is the most dangerous form of dogmatism known to humanity because its members don't even recognize their own faith / dogmatism. They falsely believe they're just "following the science" when they're doing anything but. They end up defending the current consensus religiously, even mocking/censoring anyone daring to question their pre-existing beliefs (the current consensus)... making real science impossible. Science is about doing everything one can to prove oneself wrong, not censor/mock conflicting evidence.
Science is a method of discovery requiring no faith... including no blind faith in academia. The scientific method was actually specifically designed to avoid dogmatism like that when applied correctly.
So it's the ultimate Dunning-Kruger Effect. Scientism Dogmatists / Atheists often assume a higher sense of scientific literacy while behaving this way.... not realizing what they're doing is completely antithetical to science.
Science is not an ideology or a body of knowledge to be blindly believed on faith alone. Its a method of discovery requiring no faith... and *requires* the ability to independently verify.
The ability to independently verify is what differentiates science from pseudoscience... it's how we tell if a claim is a lie, corrupt, or wrong for any other reason. Yet, Atheists / Scientism Dogmatists blindly believe all consensuses from the academic community on faith alone without even bothering to think about whether they, or any of the public, could ever verify it. It doesn't get any more religious than that.
Academia is your God. Worse yet, your blind faith in them is being taken advantage of to hide the existence of your real creator.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Your argument is based in a common misconception: that an adherence to atheism presupposes a necessary belief in some other value system, for example, what you dismiss as "Dogmatic Scientism".
This is not true. Atheism simply suggests a lack of belief in a God. It says nothing about any other beliefs a person may or may not hold.
You make some truly incredible claims here: that our belief in a heliocentric model for our solar system, our understanding that the Earth isn't flat, and even our insights about gravity (!) don't have "any scientific evidence supporting them". What the heck are you talking about?! The scientific evidence for these claims has been established with reams of empirical data over many decades. To casually dismiss the careful exploratory and analytical work of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton (to name but a few) in this fashion is breathtakingly wrong-headed.
You then flatly contradict these outlandish claims by stating later that "the ability to independently verify is what differentiates science from pseudoscience".
In fact, your entire post is riven with such contradictions.
For example, you start out by saying: "faith is required to form any worldview for humans". But you state further on: "Science is... a method of discovery requiring no faith".
These are fundamentally contradictory statements, and cannot be held simultaneously.
For the record, I personally agree with the second of these truth claims, but this is not a necessary condition for my atheism - which is simply a lack of belief in something. By analogy, you probably don't believe in Santa Claus; I can't deduce from that fact alone whether or not you're an atheist or a "Scientism Dogmatist" or anything else.
You appear to be tilting at a straw man. The "academia" you deride is simply the forum for scientific theories to be debated. Nobody regards academic research as a holy or immutable text never to be challenged. Quite the contrary: the whole advantage of the scientific method is that our theories can shift and change to account for new evidence. Eisteinian relativity is a radical shift away from the Newtonian conception of the universe. Quantum physics and string theory pose a similarly radical challenge to the scientific orthodoxy.
Should compelling independent evidence for the existence of God emerge (suppose, for example, He rearranged the stars in the sky to form a message of greeting) I would change my views without trouble. So far, I haven't encountered any evidence of this type, but I'm quite open to it.
Hoo boy. That is some impressive gobbledygook. Every one of those things is independently verifiable.
A “sky vacuum” doesn’t defy physics. You seem to be under the impression that vacuums are vacuum cleaners? They are not. They don’t suck things out into space like dirt from a carpet. It’s just empty space.
You can absolutely verify a spinning spherical earth. The ancient Greeks figured it out over 2,000 years ago. The motion of the stars, sunrises and sunsets, the fact that everyone sees exactly the same face of the moon regardless of location, and eclipses are a few easy ways. The fact that people in the southern and northern hemispheres see entirely different skies. The fact that things disappear over the horizon bottom up. The fact that you can see farther as you rise in elevation. Time zones. The fact that GPS actually works. The 15 degree per hour drift Mr. Bob picked up with his fancy gyroscope. Live satellite feeds. The insane conspiracy of tens of millions of people that would be required for the flat earth to be true. The fact that objects accelerate downwards.
@@ajitterbug How much have you looked into the Flat Earth debate? My guess is you haven't at all, whatsoever, based on your response. Will you at least admit this? You know it's true and so do I.
You dismissed it prior to actually understanding even the basics of both sides of the debate. And this is exactly what is expected from a Scientism Dogmatist.
I expect fully that every Atheist I say this to will become very triggered and deny their worldview is rooted in Dogmatic Scientism... while their arguments simultaneously confirm it absolutely is. (I'll explain why below).
That's the problem with Dogmatic Scientism. Members of this form of dogmatism are completely unaware of their own form of dogmatism. This is what makes it so dangerous. It's members falsely believe they're just "following the science" when they're doing anything but. Instead, theyre blindly believing the current consensus on faith alone like a religious text... instead of what the scientific method reveals in real life when applied honestly and objectively.
For example, can you provide a single example of independently verifiable evidence that I can walk outside and verify in real life that proves Heliocentric Globe Earth over Geocentric Flat Earth?
The answer will be no. You can't. You may think for a moment that you could... without realizing it all works on Geocentric Flat Earth just the same, if not actually proving Geocentric Flat Earth over Heliocentric Globe Earth instead if you went out and actually verified it for yourself instead of blindly believing what others claim they observed with the scientific method on faith alone.
Here's 7 years of scientific experiments conducted by an independent group of the world's top topographers and scientists proving Earth's surface doesn't curve by experimenting directly on Earth's surface with top-of-the-line equipment and lasers: ua-cam.com/video/v4fnnvnzQdc/v-deo.html
I've personally verified many of them myself in real life, as have many thousands of others with the same results every time. Earth's surface does not curve.
Every experiment is fully documented, shown step-by-step, and independently verifiable.
So far, every time I present this scientific evidence to Scientism Dogmatists, the only response I get is ad hominem fallacies directed at the world-class professionals conducting the experiments (all of whom have easily verifiable credentials) such as suggesting they don't know how to conduct valid experiments and other ridiculous dismissive nonsense that they'd normally never say about world-class topographers and scientists if the results agree with their pre-existing beliefs.
Anyhow, let's see if you can be different. Let's see if you can actually respond to the independently verifiable science presented against your stance without the use of any logical fallacies or obfuscation tactics.
Beyond that, if you wish to dispute my claims that none of the beliefs I brought up have scientific evidence supporting them (such as Heliocentrism, gravity, etc) simply present some. Just provide a link to scientific evidence supporting any of the beliefs I mentioned. I already know all of them that you likely think are scientific evidence and will be able to explain to you why it, in fact, is not scientific evidence supporting the belief in question coherently.
Your claims that they have "reams of data supporting them" only confirms everything I've said. Data/math is not scientific evidence. Data/math only makes predictions. It does not count as scientific evidence, which involves actual observation/experimentation of reality and must be independently verifiable.
The question I'd ask is... why are you believing the data? Because you trust the scientists who claim they did science to get it. That's exactly my point... You're a Scientism Dogmatist who blindly trusts the consensus without actually applying the scientific method to your surroundings yourself to verify.... even if no one reading this could possibly verify any of it even if their lives depended on it.
Exactly my point. It's no different than a religious person believing their religious text on faith alone. Your religious text is just the current consensus. And your priests are top academics.
The worst part is they're taking advantage of your religious faith in their claims... and they're hiding your real creator from you. Most of them don't even know they're helping deceive you... as they're just as deceived themselves.
I think you missed the point of the argument. The "I just don't believe in one more" is meant to exemplify that we have more in common than people tend to believe. It's meant to help religious people understand that it isn't a big deal to be an atheist. That to us not believing in the Christian God is the equivalent of not believing in Odin or Thor. Furthermore it's meant to help people reflect on their own beliefs. Not to change their mind but to inspire empathy. Its not some "gotcha" like you make it out to be.
I don't think he delivered his point as well as he could, but I think the core of what he was trying to get at was similar to what you're saying…
By "the worst atheist argument" I think he's saying that when people use "I just don't believe in one more than you" as an argument on it's own against the concept of the Christian God, it really is "the worst" because, like you said, it doesn't work as a "gotcha".
@@markpugner9716 That's not really how it's used, though, so talking about it as if this way of using the comparison is some common thing is rather silly.
@@JackgarPrime I've heard/seen it used that way many times
"Rhetoric without sound logic is just sophistry." Yes, perfect statement.
I agree. Reminds me of all those silly bible quotes Christians throw around
Yes, and all this clown did was to throw sophistry around.
RevolutionDrummer47: The logic of Gervais' statement is absolutely clear.
I love it when the religious wax lyrical about logic.
Well said! I totally agree with you. I love Ricky Gervais and Karl Pilkington and laughed and cried at Ricky Gervais’s Derrick series as I work in healthcare. But it always made me cringe when Ricky went down this celebrity atheist virtue signalling route rubbing shoulders with the Oxford elites such as Richard Dawkins. The same Dawkins who was publicly criticised by prominent humanists because his hubris/arrogance and condescension got the better of him and his real intentions were revealed when he tweeted to 2.8 million followers that eugenics would work on humans without explicitly condemning it.
According to Richard Dawkins....
“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” ( Richard Dawkins).
Eugenics experts pointed out how bizarre a statement this is when Dawkins eventually tried to backtrack due to public pressure because as well as being unethical it is extremely scientifically illiterate. Because empirical science demonstrates that eugenics is very harmful to animals including humans not to mention the obvious moral and ethical issues and the warnings from history in the form of the Nazis Third Reich. l think the bereaved relatives of the people who died under the Nazis eugenics policy would beg to differ that eugenics would work on humans.
“As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this clown” one doctor tweeted.
“Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert).
The prominent humanist Greg Hepstein from Harvard who thankfully condemned this statement for obvious reasons responded.....
“So unacceptable for Richard Dawkins to tweet about eugenics without clearly condemning it. Dawkins is *supposedly* one of our exemplars of humanism & science outreach. Yet today he's given every manner of passive and active bigot an opening to "consider" persecution on steroids” (Greg Hepstein).
Another one of Dawkins associates Sam Harris boasts that....
“I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.”
(Sam Harris).
I wonder why he’s one of the few ? Is it because he’s more enlightened than the rest of us or is it because torture is unbelievably evil and has never been justified by appeals to emotion as there is no clear distinction on where to draw the lines.Dawkins associate Harris argues that there are scientific “neurological" grounds for supposing that his moral reasoning is logically correct and that we “ought” to be torturing people for collateral reasons. We all know which group of people he has in mind and if your associates who are also considered prominent public intellectuals such as Daniel Dennette believe that moderate religious believers are as dangerous as extremists where do you draw the line ??? Where Dawkins and Harris get there we “ought” to use torture or eugenics from is beyond most normal people as you can’t get an “ought” from an “is” (David Hume) no matter how much you pretend you can. Methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral. Also are women and children exempt from Harris and his associates state sponsored torture program if they had information that was required by the state.?
“Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette).
If you’re going to defend Dawkins don’t forget to defend eugenics and his associates Sam Harris and Daniel Dennettes beliefs in torture including the very disturbing belief that moderate religious believers are more dangerous than extremists.
I love unintended irony! Thank you!
Its not a argument.. It is a statement intended to make a point. Learn what a argument is.
The fact it isn't an argument, in place of an argument is the problem. That's the definition of sophistry. See my pinned comment for an explanation.
@@BrianHoldsworthIt is absolutely an argument, and a powerful one at that. The plethora of gods throughout history proves that religion is man-made. It isn't a description of objective reality. If it was, religion would be uniform. BTW, you are using "sophistry" incorrectly.
@@BrianHoldsworthit simply isn’t used in place of an argument. You are wrong about that. Full stop. And until you realize what people are actually trying to do when saying it, you’ll be very confused and frustrated by it.
Also - there’s no pinned comment that I can see unless UA-cam is simply messing up(which is possible).
@@BrianHoldsworthno one placed it as an argument you're the one who assumed it was so no. U're wrong bro
Mr holdsworth, always wanted to know the origin of your surname. It is honestly befitting.
Is habitational surname
I don't actually know. There's a town in England with the name so it probably originated there.
@Justin Gary That's quite a list you have there Justin.
1. Even if Jesus "Of Nazareth" existed, it doesn't follow that the Gospels are biographical accounts of his life. See, for instance, the "Sharpe" series for a fictional series about the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon and Wellington existed, the battles were fought, but that doesn't mean that Maj. Sharpe was traipsing around the countryside having adventures and lucky escapes every week. (Watch it if you haven't. It's a lot of fun).
2. Even if Jesus was observed to have "died" and been taken down from the cross and laid to rest in a tomb, we cannot get from there to ".. and then he was resurrected 3 days later." We have to consider how vastly more superstitious people were in the 1st century, how death was being misdiagnosed even as late as the 19th century (bells were fitted in some tombs in case the deceased "woke up." It's the subject of several popular horror stories). We also have to consider the psychological phenomenon associated with grief. People today sometimes *believe* they see their dead loved ones after death, or see their face in passers-by who are not remotely related. I've experienced it as a divorcee and my ex is still alive.
3. No atheist in their right mind would accept that Restoration as prophecy. It's far too vague and subjective, and you applied it having seen the outcome. If something's only prophetic *after* an event happens, it's probably you reading into the text, not a prophecy at all. This is what got the 2012 Apocalypse book-sellers all their ill-gotten gains.
4. Daniel was written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes IV and contemporary to those events. "Daniel" was a hero in an adventure story and a vehicle to comment on the times of the writer, centuries later. Applying it to the modern-day is a mis-step.
5. You're cherry-picking your historical evidence. You've ignored that the fall of Jericho shows no sign of battle and appears to have been due to an earthquake, that there *was* no conquest of Canaan because what happened was an internal revolution, not an external conquest, and that the Exodus of 3 million Jews and their livestock was impossible (especially given the former). *Some* slaves might have escaped and joined the newly established low country settlements, but they were not the *founders* of those settlements.
6. Attacking evolution just makes you look like a conspiracy crank. Stop it.
7. ID is question-begging. Physics can produce forms that look designed too, and you are ignoring that.
8. Hell is a Zoroastrian concept, co-opted into Judaism post-Reformation. It's "Pagan."
You might want to rethink what you count as evidence, because that ain't it.
@Justin Gary How rude! Maybe if you didn't repeat arguments that have been debunked _ad nauseum_ you wouldn't hear the same answers? Perhaps you should consider that maybe your arguments actually *are* flawed and that is why you are hearing the same type of responses?
"Early Jericho, by Art Ramos, published on 19 September 2016, World History Encyclopedia
"Bible says Canaanites were wiped out by Israelites but scientists just found their descendants living in Lebanon," by Ian Johnston, Science Correspondent, Thursday 07 September 2017, The Independent
"First Israel, Core Israel, United (Northern) Israel," Near Eastern Archaeology 82 (2019), pp. 8-15, Near Eastern Archaeology, 2019, Israel Finkelstein
The way you see all gods except for yours is how I see all gods including yours. It is not an argument it is a comparison.
I believe in one less god is 100% accurate.
Your sophistry is astounding.
I agree. Gervais points out the irony of each religion claiming to be "the one true" religion among the thousands of other religions that claim the same thing.
@@nicholaswiedman1409 I guess I didn't communicate myself clearly. I am skeptical because, after thousands of years of human history with different religions often at the cores of those histories, there is no sound pieces of empirical evidence supporting the credibility of any religion. Despite the absence of evidence, religions still insist that they are the "one true religion." Scientific theories are a little different. I understand that there are multiple theories of everything. The most credible ones have some empirical support, though not definitive proof. As our understanding of the universe grows, old theories will be improved upon and/or new theories will arise. The same cannot be said for different faiths and the mythologies they preach.
@Paul Jacobs
What exactly is your problem with my comment?
I did not make an argument.
I did not try to refute anything.
I provided my viewpoint on what was said in the video.
This argument is pure nonsense, philosophically, theism is the believe in the all powerful entity, the causeless cause, as the ultimate source for everything, the very same concept of a all powerful entity implies there's only one, if there's more than one, they logically can't be all powerful... So, religions are different interpretations or theories, trying to define that very same entity. How many religions are out there are completely irrelevant for the discussion theism vs atheism in the first place 🤷🏻♂️ calling his rebuttal sophistry clearly without even understanding his point of view is pretty pathetic actually... Shows you got triggered to see a fallacy you used to hold on to being destroyed and you just couldn't offer anything intellectually relevant to keep it alive... Atheists behave exactly like children, when they've pointed wrong, they start crying...
@@EduRB99
"This argument is pure nonsense"
You sound like a sad little snowflake that has been told "No, you cannot have a cookie before dinner."
"philosophically"
I could not care less about philosophy. It is nothing more that mental self pleasuring.
"the very same concept of a all powerful entity implies there's only one"
"trying to define that very same entity."
Demonstrate that.
Demonstrate this causeless cause and that it is an entity.
"calling his rebuttal sophistry clearly without even understanding his point of view is pretty pathetic actually"
He did that for me at 1:30 "but rhetoric without sound logic is just sophistry"
"Shows you got triggered"
Ahem ahem. Hello pot, meet kettle.
"fallacy you used to hold on to being destroyed and you just couldn't offer anything intellectually relevant to keep it alive"
A theist believes that at least on god exists. An atheist does not believe any gods exist. A person saying "I believe in one less god" is not fallacious. It is a fact.
" Atheists behave exactly like children, when they've pointed wrong, they start crying..."
And here you are throwing a temper tantrum.
How have I been pointed out to be wrong.
Your grammar is atrocious. Your "sentence" structure makes it quite difficult to try to understand what you are trying to say. Do not us elipses when a single period will suffice. If you do not attempt to construct better sentences in any further replies, they will be ignored.
It works if it is used in response to Pascal's wager. You do often hear it in other contexts where it doesnt make sense though
wrong it's a great argument in any context. All of these nutty fantasies claiming exclusive access to truth. It proves that religion is man-made nonsense.
Whenever someone uses Pascal's Wager I counter by informing them that they are saying to decide what to believe based on the flip of a coin ( heads I will believe a god exists, tails I won;t believe a god exists) when their wager requires a huge roulette wheel with every creator deity as choices ( Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, Brahma, Ptah, etc).
This isn't actually an argument it's a responce to questions about how you could possibly not belive in god. It's an explanation of perspective to Foster at least a superficial understanding. I don't really understand how you could miss that point.
It's not a triangle, it's a square with one less side
😅🏆
So epic 😂😂😂😂😂
You're not a dufass, you're an intelligent guy with one less brain cell than a dufass!
It's God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit..
So that makes it 1+1+1 = 1 according to the jesus crowd,
But they don't see the irony.
This guy in this video started with a Maths analogy. He said 1+1 = 2.
But I bet you when it comes to the TRINITY he will be trying to assure us that 1+1+1 = 1.
That's religion for you..
lol
I remember reading that argument of Dawkins somewhere before, only I had absolutely no clue that it was supposed to be an argument when I read it. I seriously thought it was just him stating that atheists exist and that he's one of them. That's it.
I never thought it was used to assert that ‘those who reject all other gods but the one they believe in, to be atheists’ or that it means ‘atheism is thus true and theism false’. It assumes nothing. It’s simply saying, you believe in 1 out of many and I believe in none out of many; I’m an atheist, that is, without god. Full stop. Would he be ‘straw manning’ those who use it by assuming a conclusion?
If an atheist uses it to assert that Christians or any believer are really atheists since they reject all but one god, or that it logically follow that they should reject all gods, then I’d say it’s fallacious but I’ve never heard it used that way.
@@lizamorganno9862 I always thought it was to make clear to the monotheist, how not believing in a god works and feels.
Well you're kinda right we aren't arguing its more of a statement for people that can't believe we don't specifically believe in Christianity so we're pretty much just asking you to think of how you think of the rest of the religions and that's just our perspective on all of them. He was right when he said its not a valid argument for god because it was never an argument for god and the fact he based this off "logic" and he missed the first part so badly is kinda sad hahaha
Edit: yeah an atheist shouldn't use this as an argument but guess who would. Yes the answer is theists ua-cam.com/video/kpXshOGlYAE/v-deo.html
well
maths has a lot of evidence that comes from common sense which lays down some axioms one which math is built upon
but bible or quran or gita is not common sense like the way 1+1=2 is common sense. It is more like 1+1= R which does not have any evidence
now in the real world it is like some people say 1+1=a some say 1+1=b some say 1+1=c....etc and each one of them think the others are wrong
AND since there no evidence for any of them therefore i believe all of them are wrong
That’s because you’re correct. This whole video is a misdirect. He’s set up a straw man for the statement. It wasn’t meant to be an argument. It’s a throwaway joke line. He doesn’t even address the point of the line in this video. Just minutes of setting up a false argument and attacking that one instead.
When Dawkins or Gervais say the line, they mean “You have dismissed all other religions as untrue, I am just not convinced that your religion isn’t just another one.”
I think the underlying point of the argument is that somehow the theist has managed to reject every god humanity has invented but somehow the believer thinks their religion just happens to be the right one. An atheist just looks at that last religion and rejects it too. I agree that this is more an argument against religion than theism. A deist god could still exist and every religion be false. Thus the argument doesn't undermine theism. But it is pretty strong against any specific religion.
Great way to explain this!
there are literally only three main religions in the world and only islam is the one that has no contradictions unlike the other two, if you actually read the Quran and sahih Hadis you would also know that no human can ever write this.
Very nice and succinct response.
Well done.
Always enjoy these uploads...thanks for sharing..
theres no good argument against a creator, only a good argument that you shouldn't be forced to be part of a religion, thats it
Are you saying that this universe, which has laws tuned so life can only exist for a brief moment before becoming physically impossible forever and so that we suffer and die horribly, is designed? How do you reason that out?
"Most women are not my mother. Therefore all women are not my mother."
This is an analogy that doesn't pan out. You have proof of who your mother is and proof that all women are not mothers.
@@paymweaver5650 you're moving the goalposts. The point is: don't confuse the parts for the whole.
@@paymweaver5650 That’s actually incorrect. Even if you don’t know who your mother is and you have no proof of having a mother, you know you have a mother because you exist. Something can’t come from nothing, there needs to be cause and effect for something to exist and the same goes for God and the universe.
@@epicman004 so the cause and effect for god is....
@@relative2you438 God is eternal, He is beyond our universe, beyond time and space. He isn’t a magic man with a white beard in the sky. He isn’t an entity or being. Also it’s a silly question, because whatever was the cause of God also had to have a cause, and the cause before that also needed a cause, it’s an endless cycle. Everything stops at God, He IS the cause.
"to say yes to anything is to say no to everything else."
Integral /Process theology would disagree.
Multiple perspectives may all be true.
The Last Line brought it all together! Two things that appear to oppose each other at first glance, might actually both be right! Logically most people can not agree or believe in an opposing parallelism... It's like taking an object and telling someone that it is both straight and curved simultaneously, they just can not perceive it.
That really isn't an argument for atheism. It's just more like a conversation starter to help theists understand how we perceive god claims.
Again, the people he cited used it as an argument. In this case, your average athiests may be smarter than athiest scholars.
@@realmless4193 if you listen to the full Gervais-Colbert conversation where Ricky used this statement, you'd see that he mentioned it as a way to explain what he means when he says he's an atheist.
@@homfes okay, so that was also part of the point of the video. This statement reveals that the way athiests view God claims is fundamentally flawed (that was about half the video). But I have heard this used as a legitimate argument.
@@realmless4193 Your wording does not make sense to me. When do atheists reveal god claims?
@@homfes I think he means where Brian said the Greek Gods et al were believed to be part of reality but the Christian God was believed to be outside reality and its author, which Brian considered a category error. Personally, I just view presentations of claims about the existence of gods as a claim about a supernatural entity and whether or not it created reality itself is irrelevant in that framework.
It's not an argument, it's a rhetorical tool used to facilitate a shift in perspective.
Exactly. Rhetoric divorced from logic = sophistry.
Thomas Edison tried 5999 experiments that all failed but that one more attempt at number 6000 worked and he created the lightbulb which lit up the world
It was tesla who invented the light bulb , Edison was the first to patent it that's why he wad credited with the invention .
Good example. It was the last experiment which proved to be the important one. It's also the last and everlasting God that proves to be the important one.
@James Patrick Actually, it's the reverse. Nikola Tesla was one of the pioneers of alternating current, alongside Westinghouse, while Thomas Edison pioneered direct current. There's a whole slew of articles out there about the various lawsuits Edison had with Tesla and Westinghouse about the dangers of alternating current. The famous Electric Chair came from these very suits.
Billions of people didn’t go and worship his failed experiments tho did they.
@@Lumbervr : As far I as know, billions of people don't continue to worship Apollo, Zeus, or any of the other fake gods. Actually, the emperors of the past Greek and Roman empires used these fake gods to give themselves some sense of justification. In other words, they "claimed" those gods chose them to rule over the people. But I'm pretty sure the average Joe around Caesar's time didn't really believe in those gods and just played along because it was the social thing to do and also because if they didn't they would be killed.
On the contrary, the God of Moses still exists because he actually does tangible things like, inspired men to write a book that has been a best seller for over 2,000 years, inspired men to build massive churches in every city of the world and every small town, inspired learned men to pursue advanced degrees in theology in the most prestigious universities in the world, and I could go on.
People believe in the God of Moses because he does stuff that people recognize as beyond human effort and have a major impact on the world. What did Zeus ever do?
Faith is by definition not a reliable pathway to truth. The implication being that if you can deny all the others because of a lack of faith and faith is all you have to hold your current religion it doesn't matter what story you make up, it can be denied in the same way.
(except for maybe those who directly worshiped the sun, because we can see, feel and measure its worth. they have more of a leg to stand on.)
While I disagree with you, I actually enjoy your content. There is a sincerity to you, and I love your calm approach to arguments.
“Faith is by definition not reliable”
No offence intended but I thought everything was based on faith to a degree!. Equally, in order for anything to be epistemologically reliable you have to presuppose logic and “truth” but you can’t empirically “prove” logic as it is a metaphysical presupposition that can not be grounded in the materialistic paradigm as everything is arbitrary and ad hoc under this world view. Everything is just the blind mindless motion of atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities under the materialistic/atheistic world view so in reality there’s no such thing as “truth”. This is why Nietzsche said...
“logic is an illusion” (Nietzsche)
So you have to presuppose logic and empiricism including metaphysical categories as you can’t even carry out basic scientific experiments without metaphysical presuppositions and philosophical claims to “truth”. “Truth” can not be grounded in the materialistic paradigm as materialism excludes metaphysical categories as everything is arbitrary and ad hoc under this world view. Richard Dawkins even admits that under this world view even values such as morals and ethics are arbitrary. When Richard Dawkins was asked about values and whether the rape and murder of a child was immoral his response was that he believed that the belief that the rape and murder of a child is immoral and evil is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six. This is clearly absurd and most people recoil in disgust at such a callous response to an horrific crime committed against a child. This is also why people find objective morality so compelling and why for many atheists it was a big part of the reason they rejected their atheism and moved towards the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism. “Truth” is a philosophical that is a metaphysical claim and you can’t even carry out basic scientific experiments with out metaphysical presuppositions such as “truth”, knowledge, logic, identity, being, time and space including identity over time. Empiricism itself is a dogma and a metaphysical presupposition under the materialistic paradigm hence the famous essay by W. Quine (The Two Dogmas of Empiricism). So everything is based on (faith) in our sense data. For example you can’t prove sense data (empiricism) using sense data. No one can prove using empiricism that logic is true or that sense data (empiricism) is providing an accurate picture of the external world including reality and existence. Hence the argument from Cartesian doubt that demonstrates that we can doubt the external world but not our mind that is our inner world (our conscious reality). The reason we can’t doubt our inner world (our mind and consciousness) is because by the mere fact of attempting to doubt it this proves it exists that is (mind and consciousness exists) above and beyond physicalism. Mind and consciousness/theism has the greatest explanatory power and is the most parsimonious hypothesis. If our minds were nothing more than “matter” we should be able to doubt them but because we can’t mind must be immaterial. The fact is that “we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.” (Bernardo Kastrup). So basically the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism is just a default position until materialists/atheists can prove that “matter” is all there is to reality and existence. It’s just a (non belief) in materialism/atheism as a complete theory of reality and existence. However, the problem for materialists is that quantum superposition has demonstrated that we don’t even know what “matter” is!! Some prominent atheist philosophers such as Thomas Nagel have spotted this specific epistemological problem contained in materialism and actually claim that materialism and Darwinism is false. Nagel wrote a book called (Mind and Cosmos). It’s a real eye opener! So the conclusion is that even logic is a metaphysical presupposition and empiricism is a dogma as it is based on faith in sense data. And all we can truly know is the qualitative subjective experience of mind and consciousness. According to the brilliant linguist and cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky, the father of philosophy and science Rene Descartes conclusions regarding mind and consciousness still stand...
“Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum”
“I doubt therefore I think therefore I am” (Rene Descartes)
No offence intended all the best to you keep safe ❤️
According to C.S. Lewis if....
“there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God. (C.S.Lewis). Equally I like what the late Professor Haldane of Oxford University said concerning the logical conclusion of a strict naturalism: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true … and hence I have no reason to suppose that my brain to be composed of atoms.”
Similarly, prominent contemporary idealists have gone as far as to say that “materialism is baloney” and that “Matter” is a theoretical abstraction of the mind. Nevertheless, the scientific method is supposed to be fundamentally a non dogmatic, objective, open-minded method of acquiring knowledge about reality and is actually founded on the conscious observer, that is the ability of the human mind and consciousness to experiment and describe phenomena. It is the conscious observer not “matter” that ultimately developed new knowledge and even a new language to describe phenomena through the use of appropriate metaphors and analogies. The scientific method is not synonymous with “materialism” or atheism and should not be committed to any particular attachment to materialistic belief systems, doctrines, dogmas, or ideologies. In the end, everyone's starting point and first line of defense is trust in one's mind and conscious experience. We have to trust that the emotions, feelings, sensations, and thoughts provided by our conscious experience are correct and an accurate description of reality. In theism, this trust is grounded in mind and consciousness/theism “that of which nothing greater can be conceived.” (Anselmo d’Aosta). In atheism, this trust is grounded in the motion of atoms. The latter form (random atoms) of grounding trust in the brain is weaker than the former (the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism). But they both flow from “faith” (in the trustworthiness of the external world and our mind) Theists believe in the qualitative subjective experience of reality and existence and atheists believe everything will be eventually quantified using only the descriptive language of science.
However, according to Einstein “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” (Albert Einstein).
And it does not help to say that we can confirm that our brains are indeed correct about the map of London or anything else because we can double check their conclusions with the reality around us. It does not help because that reality is, once again, filtered through the experience of our mind and conscious experience.
For all we know, we cannot even be sure there is a reality around us. The belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism has the greatest explanatory power and is the most parsimonious hypothesis. According to the brilliant philosopher Alvin Plantinga...
“there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism.” (Alvin Plantinga)
All the best to you ❤️
It is a terrible argument.....because it's not an argument. How are theists so consistently dense?
Thank you, sir!
John Lennox has often simply retorted that "you are talking about created gods and none of us believe in those" . "Created gods are by definition a delusion". As theists, we believe in an eternal uncreated God. This atheist argument trades on the false equivalence fallacy.
0:32
Some misspelling there, FYI.
Keep up the good content. 🙏🏻
"Rhetoric without sound logic is just sophistry"
What?!
Stating that atheists disbelieve in one more god than theists do is a factual statement. How on earth can a factual statement not be considered sound logic?!
Your first analogy about maths was nonsensical.
The worst atheist argument is the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs.
As an atheist, I have to agree that that is the worst argument put forward by atheists. The worst thing about it is that it is not actually an argument in the logical sense. I will even add two more points against the "argument" that Mr. Holdsworth is welcome to use:
1. A theist is someone who believes that a god exists; an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any gods exist. There might be the odd theist that believes in more than one god, but I don't think that anyone believes in all gods. The definition of theist is such that one need not believe in a plethora of gods, just one is enough to qualify. The disbelief in many gods is something to be expected simply by definition. Of course, someone who believes that a god created everything but does not know which of the possible gods it was - or possibly one that nobody knows about.
2. a person cannot be an atheist with respect to one god and a theist with respect to another. Atheism is not holding a belief that any god or gods exist. If you believe in just one god, you are not an atheist. At all. Period.
But, in defense of the "argument", is is not an argument but an apparently ironic bit of word play. It will never convince a theist that he is an atheist or should become one. Where it does make sense as a statement would be if a theist said to me "I don't understand how you cannot believe that some god must have created everything, whether that be the god of the bible, Allah, or some other". The "argument" would be my way of demonstrating that I am not some kind of freak, as we do have similar opinions about gods other than that of the theist. In this sense, it actually says more about the nature of the atheist position than the theist one.
That said, my only other comment on this is that the best response to the argument is to laugh, and not treat it as if it were a serious argument.
_"a person cannot be an atheist with respect to one god and a theist with respect to another."_
You can but there's a specific term for it, "local atheist."
To use "atheist" when meaning "local atheist" is to equivocate.
@@RustyWalker interesting. I found a definition of "local atheist" as someone who believes that gods of a certain "sort" do not exist. The article contrasts this local atheism with global atheism which it defines as "the proposition that there are no Gods of any sort".
So, if the "argument" used the term local atheism, are you saying the "argument" would be correct? Do many (or any) religious people identify as local atheists? I suspect not because of the apparent ambiguity.
Speaking of ambiguity it is rife in such discussions, in part because of differences in definitions. For example, the definition for global atheism is at odds with the common definition of atheism as lacking a belief in any god or gods.
@@AlDunbar It isn't an argument. It's a statement of a position. Arguments have premises, implicitly or explicitly, and a conclusion.
The most famous argument in Philosophy takes the form:
P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates is a man.
C. Therefore Socrates is mortal.
_"Do many (or any) religious people identify as local atheists? I suspect not because of the apparent ambiguity."_
Many religious people aren't even aware such a term exists, just like many atheists are unaware of it. However, if you ask a religious person, "Do you believe in Zeus,"" they *will* say "no." That is not controversial. Therefore, it follows that they are atheistic towards the proposition that Zeus exists. The scope of that atheism is limited to only the consideration of that single proposition regarding the existence of Zeus, hence the qualifier "local" is appropriate.
_"Speaking of ambiguity it is rife in such discussions, in part because of differences in definitions."_
Indeed it is. You see many occasions where the focus of the discussion is on semantics rather than the thought-content of the individuals in the discussion. What do they _think,_ and *why?*
_" the definition for global atheism is at odds with the common definition of atheism as lacking a belief in any god or gods."_
It's not so much at odds as that it has been more rigorously defined as to what it entails.
"Atheism" has its classical meaning of "disbelief" as well as the modern usage of "belief in the proposition isn't found to be justified." Global atheism specifically refers to the disbelief of all god propositions.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy thinks this is hard for a global atheist to justify, omitting to consider that "atheism is a response to theism," and that we are discussing whether belief in a proposition is justified.
If a proposition doesn't justify belief, why would one "choose" to believe it? If you haven't encountered a specific proposition as to the existence of some form of deity, then you likewise are ignorant of any evidence that would justify its existence, and therefore have no grounds to believe in it.
Stanford makes a poor argument here.
@@RustyWalker if you reread my post you will see that I do understand this is not actually an argument. In my reply above, I put the word "argument" in quotes to indicate that someone other than me called it an argument.
Always top notch
You have low standards
@@Topazdemonia Maybe. And it sill doesn't explain why my standards would be relevant to you at all.
@@stephenson19861 good point..you have very interesting tehnik of debating..do you use that in someting else?paiting?drawing?
@@bernardokrolo2275 Sure. I use it in pottery as well.
@@stephenson19861 how do you use chiaroscuro in potery?
Do you play those guitars on your Christian rock albums?
Thank you!
One plus one can be equal to three, depending on the size of one
Careful, these post-modern thinkers have already begun to deny math as well.
And you have to cut down on your Peterson.
@@8fot why?
@@8fot how about you cut down on your hate and misery?
As an atheist trying to delve deeper into different beliefs and see why people think certain ways, I’m excited to start this video.
Ok first edit
I’ve never really seen the idea being presented in the video as an actual argument against religion, just as a tool for understanding and a simple thing to think about.
2nd edit
You can make a multitude of excuses for Santa’s existence not being proven or it being seemingly disproven (what if he’s invisible, etc.)
3rd edit
So you’re saying that your god is better than all the other gods because you say so, this is how you interpret it? Therefore your god doesn’t apply to this “argument” against religion.
4th edit
At the end of the day, for me they are the same thing. So this rings a bit hollow. To me your god isn’t better than all the other gods, to me your god is equal to all the other gods because to me your god and no gods exist, making them all equally fictional to me.
"The way you feel about other gods, in terms of the likelihood of their existence and their attributes, is exactly how we feel about your god, and your proposed afterlife, and your 'objective' moral system. Because both have equal justification for belief, namely none." There, I clarified the "argument" for you. Maybe you could actually address the point.
I thought 1 + 1 == 2/3 (according to the catholics)
I think you just keep updating your math.
Damn that actually was funny, thank you
Or perhaps 10 if your in a base 5 number system. Which is why there has to be an agreement on some core rules. Or as the joke goes, there are 10 types of people who understand binary....
" when inventing a god, the most important thing is to make it invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." anonymous
Oh give me a break, you dogmatic predictable know-nothing.
Yeah people just came up with Jesus and the story for you... some people just sat down one day and planned it out all, yeah, ok. Even today we don't understand as much about the world and you want to be so convinced that there is no God. You take your life and existence for granted without appreciation otherwise you wouldn't seek self glorification of your intellectual pride and waste your time on creating division.
@@kubasniak that's not how mythology and legends work. They actually evolve over the course of decades or centuries. Granted, some people may create large swathes of the myth at once, but this is probably more the exception than the rule. Frauds like Mormonism and Scientology certainly show more rapid, intentional invention of their mythos. But, the main reason for their status as more obvious frauds is their temporal and geographic proximity. The evolution of the Urgaritic El into Yahweh into Jesus took thousands of years. Henotheism into monotheism into tri-une omni-benevolence. My post was tongue-in-cheek, but still makes a valid point. The gods of all things, should have a sense of humour, if they exist and safe enough targets for jest if they don't.
If I am dying from leprosy and you are perfectly healthy, there are millions of diseases we both don’t have. I only have one more disease than you.
So I’m pretty much as healthy as you… right?
Yes, the 'one god further' comment may be glib, - but can be effective in explaining that 1) you don't believe in all those other gods... so 2) take that feeling you have for all those other gods, and that's how I feel about ALL of them. - for me, it's a way to help religious folk understand how I understand the idea of gods, without being a jerk - it's not meant to be a conversation stopper, but continuer. Understanding each other is more important than believing the exact same stuff. Variety is the spice of life. Brian - this is my first video of yours, and I like your thought-provoking and approachable style - keep it up.
Santa Claus was real but lived in what is now modern day Turkey: St. Nicholas of Myra.
Santa claus is Odin
@@douglastankersley4546 Very true. And I would also suggest that the Jesus of the gospel is very different from the historical Jesus
Ohhhh so let's stress this a little bit...
Was Rudolf, the red nosed reindeer from Turkey as well?
@@Mykahaia Rudi was the red jumped 🐫.☺
4:15 bachelor vs husband analogy was brilliant
The fact that logical thinking is required but such an illogical argument is given - and found “brilliant” is irony
@@StefanHendriks Besides, the terms are all synthetic.
Not really. You can show that non bachelors exist, not so for your god claim.
See, the problem is the comparison isnt fair... a more honest/accurate comparison would be married or NOT MARRIED... in which case, thats the truth.... a person is either married or not married and is one person away from being NOT MARRIED... You either believe in a god or you dont.... but to say married or a bachelor isnt an accurate comparison... you could be dating... his whole argument/comparison is nonsensical...
No the analogy was lame. As a bachelor is a man who is not and has *never* been married.
You see there is more to being a bachelor then not having a spouse. You see I am a bachelor yet my father who is no longer married is not a bachelor.
To make an comparison of 'bachelor vs husband' and 'theist vs atheist' is plan stupid. Because being an atheist simply means that you are not a theist where being a bachelor means that you have never been married.
1. Ricky Gervais "exfoliates his atheism?" That may sound intelligent, but . . . ? In this context it makes no sense. 2. Humor is powerful, because it "punches up" (my colloquialism to describe how those without power point out the ridiculousness of those with power) so successfully to "exfoliate" (strip away layers of) the pompous self-importance of institutional apologists like Brian here. 3. Brian's "category mistake" of a God "of creation" versus a god "within creation" is merely a self-described, self-satisfied, self-important distinction that makes no sense beyond his unsupported claim. I'd charitably respond "Nice try," but I'd be lying. Ridiculous.
What camera are you using?
the problem with your Santa clause analogy is that you cant disprove him you say you could just look in the north pole for his workshop but what if the workshop has an invisibility shield. this is why we should base our beliefs on positive evidence and not negative evidence (which dousn't exist). another analogy is the needle in the hay stake, as much as you look you cant disprove it's in there but you can prove it is in there by finding it.
but he said himself that they never claimed to be in the clouds. To build off the invisibility shield that would be like saying god is deeper into the cosmos
What Christian don’t want to admit is that their deity has as much evidence for it as any other deity. So please present any evidence you have and stop making empty assertions.
I'm an atheist myself and agree the statement alone is indeed not a proper argument within itself. The argument is implied rather than stated, which is faulty logic. I would say the argument actually stated outloud, though I dont necessarily subscribe to it, would be something along the lines of "if one believes in one unfalsifiable claim( ie christianity, a claim that cannot logically be proven nor disproven rationally because its fundamentally based on pure faith), what stops that person from also believing in another? Why believe in one unfalsifiable claim instead of one or all others? It may be true that believers in such things feel emotionally justified in their beliefs, but so do all others in other unfalsifiable claims such as the doctrine of islam. Muslims feel just as justified in their beliefs as Christians do, so why should I, an atheist, take one more seriously than the other since they are both unfalsifiable?"
1) The early Christians were considered atheist by the Romans, because they didn't worship the Roman gods - something to keep in mind 2) the context of atheist's saying this is oftentimes in response to "How can you not believe ___ god exists? (But look at the trees, etc)" While it may not be much of an argument, as a rebuttal it's perfectly reasonable. Since there's at least thousands, probably millions of Gods that have been said to exist, from a monotheistic perspective at most one God can exist - of a God exists at all. I think this argument is better understood as a point of commonality bridging the Gap between atheist/agnostic/religious people, aka there's more common ground between one another then may be realized. And is basically just a retort of "Is it really so hard for you to understand how I don't believe in ___ God, when you yourself don't believe in all these other gods?"
Yes, this can't be used as proof (and I don't think they want you to) .
It can be used as a starting observation that starts off the journey of finding arguments tho.
"Hmmm, 1000 mutually exclusive gods...
At most one of them is correct. Should I believe in one of them, another one or in none?" It makes you realize other people are just as sure as you are but with another explanation which isn't compatible with yours. That means you probably have too much confidence in your belief.
I also think it is perfect for when people ask how it feels to not believe in this one God (because they can't relate as they always lived a certain way). Then you can say:
"Do you believe in... See you don't believe in n and I just don't believe in n+1 gods. I feel just like you probably feel towards these others."
First argument: you claim a non-sequitur and try to prove it with a false analogy. Faith doesn't require proof, by definition. Maths, on the other hand, like all science, is based on what is provable, demonstrable and predictable. It's not a valid comparison. Belief versus knowledge. Faith against empirical evidence. Atheism is a lack of belief, denying maths is a lack of education.
The problem here, I think, is that you treat your faith as you treat maths: an absolute truth that cannot be denied. When you realise that you have no basis to treat faith that way, like you have with regards to maths, that's your first step towards atheism.
Very well stated
This has got to be the weakest "argument" I've had the displeasure of listening to.
Noticed you changed your intro music for lent👍🏽
I have seen equal evidence for all gods... NONE!
If you think evidence is even relevant, you've completely misunderstood and belong in kindergarten.
There's far less evidence that you exist
Lol same. I've never seen evidence for God's existence; just evidence of humans using god as a justification for their own personal gain.
@@topologyrob Well as far as evidence of their existence goes, this person clearly left a comment on UA-cam. I don't see God posting anything.
@@jakethepillowsnake4098 "i've never seen it, it must be false!"
But, it's not ment to be an argument against any god. I'm sorry if some atheists use it as such, but it's just an attempt to explain how I think about your particular god and why I don't believe in that god.
Which is a false equivalency, as explained on the video.
The problem is that even as just an attempt to explain how we think about their particular god, it falls flat and thus shouldn´t be used. The problem is that our reason to reject all gods is based on logic (due to a lack of evidence we withhold believe), while theirs is based on their believe that they worship the right god and if that is the case ofc all the other gods must be fake. So you see its not the same. At best you could say something like. "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why people of other religions reject yours.”
@@BrianHoldsworth Yes, but since this is just a very general attempt to explain a state of mind, the ambiguity is part of the argument.
Until you provide all the specific properties of your particular god, I can only address the general idea of not being convinced by weak evidence.
@@hermaeusmora424 Personally I only use it as a direct response to questions about how I can not believe in any god.
Still, as long as Pascal's wager is used by apologists, I think atheists can use this argument. Neither prove anything, but both are about ways of thinking.
@@hermaeusmora424*When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods you will understand why people of other religions reject yours*
No, this doesn’t work, either. The reason I reject other gods is because the arguments I accept as proving God simultaneously disprove all others. To say, then, "The same reason you reject other gods is the reason I reject yours," is tantamount to saying, "I am an atheist because I think the Kalaām is true."
Religious people FEEN to make something that CANNOT BE PROVEN a fact.
Sounds to me like it's a remark that gets under your skin. No one uses it as a genuine argument. A clever phrase? Sure. But it's not something they would use in a formal debate as anything other than a way to engage the spectators. They're describing what it means to be an atheist by pointing out a shared non-belief, using mild humor to punctuate the point.
How can an atheist equate the Judeo-Christian god with Zeus or Poseidon? The answer to this question is something the atheist hopes the theist will take the time to reflect upon.
just to cut to the chase here
your claim: god exist.
what do I have to measure, experience, detect IF he does? And if he does not?
you know, "Fire needs oxigen" style. No matter what you think, feel, know, hope about fire and about oxigen, you can test this claim, and the test always gives you the same result.
5:17 The great thing about the Christian god is that it's unfalsifiable?
And you love logic, not sophistry? Sure about that?
What is Logic? Something that is a True || False statement. These are words with meaning and yet we can represent their concepts with numbers. Numbers themselves are conceptual ideas or constructs of the mind. They don't exist in nature directly. You can not reach out and grab a number two. Yet one can have two apples and two oranges. They are both fruit in which they have a relationship but they are both distinct from each other. The one thing they do have in common is their twoness. Now going back to the concept of logic we can substitute True with 1 and False with 0. Now we have a 2-State System. This is a binary system and from it comes boolean algebra and the operators within are either algebraic or logical or a combination of the two. The binary number system algebraically can be represented by Log Base 2, or 2^N. It is said that a binary state system with an infinite amount of digits and in our case binary digits or bits is Turing Complete. Also, through Lambda Calculus it has been proven that the Binary Number System is also Turing Complete because Lambda Calculus itself is Turing Complete. Everything that has been mentioned here is all mathematically related.
Mathematics itself is all conceptual and a product of the mind, consciousness. As humans we do not invent mathematics or numbers, we discover them. Here's an example, we are all familiar with Pythagorean's Theorem: A^2 + B^2 = C^2. Well this relationship of the length of the legs of any given Right Triangle still had these properties long before Pythagorean discovered them. More than just that, as our current technology advances helping us to model our environment our reality the more we end up learning through Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics is that Nature, The Universe, The Cosmos all have one thing in common. They obey the laws of the sciences in which they obey numbers and mathematics, and they have done this long before we humans ever walked this earth, yet numbers are a product of the mind. So, whose mind is it that generated, created all of these numbers, their operations, and their properties? There is Only 1 I can think of and that is the Divine Trinity! Look around you and look at the complexity of everything and yet they are all held together by simple mathematical operations.... This most definitely implies intelligent design!
Don't think so? Check out this video on the Mandelbrot Set: ua-cam.com/video/kEyPWJVYp84/v-deo.html
@skilz8098 //this relationship of the length of the legs of any given Right Triangle still had these properties long before Pythagorean* discovered them.//
*Pythagoras
Firstly, understand that measurements like degrees are human inventions. They are descriptive not prescriptive.
Your incredulity is a bit like saying "there are no married bachelors! OMG, mind blown, God is so wonderful". Like... but that's just true by definition. Axiomatic mathematical properties are just the same. Did God make it so that you can't draw a 2-sided polygon? Really? Did god set the properties of right triangles? Did Klein bottles exist in nature a million years ago, waiting for a human to discover the properties of one?
@@stephengalanis God's mind is Infinite. He is Spirit and pure Consciousness. You are not going to be able to find God within the Physical Universe. He transcends above and beyond all matter, time and space. He created them, he is the source of it all. It is his mind that numbers and their properties comes from. He is the author of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and life! All of the Cosmos even as vast as they are is just a fleeting spec of dust compared to the Spirit of God. So yes God did set the precipice for algebra, geometry, trigonometry, etc. Einstein discovered that E=mC^2. Energy is equally proportional to the product of the amount of mass within a given system and the velocity of light squared. In both physics and nature there are two distinct or main types of energies, Sound and Light. Yes there are others, but these are the primary two sources that creates or gives all matter its properties. Within these sciences we use mathematics to help model these natural phenomenons. When it comes to energy or motion especially sound and light we typically will use either a Sine or Cosine wave function to map their physical behaviors. Both of these functions are defined by the Right Triangle, the ratio of two of their legs and a given angle between their two vectors that creates a specific vertice. What does this have to do with anything? It's quite simple. A triangle has 3 sides, 3 vertices with 3 interior angles that when added equal 180 degrees or PI radians provided it is a flat planar euclidean surface. The Godhead is a Trinity. And when you read the first few verses from Genesis, the one verse says it all. ...And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light. Right here is when matter, time, space, mass, motion, and energy all began... His voice (Sound) brought (Light) into existence. And both energies and their properties are governed by the properties of wave motion which is also governed by the trig functions, the Law of Sines and Cosines! God is the Author of Mathematics and the Author of the Numbers!
Right. So there's no evidence for God. Any other things with no evidence I must believe in?
@@stephengalanis If you're looking for empirical evidence for the existence of God, then you are looking in all of the wrong places... He's not of the Physical World, He is of the Spirit World for He is Spirit! And Spirit is something that you can not quantify or measure because it is both infinite and eternal!
The head of a nomadic tribe did not believe in human built dwellings. He, and his people dwelled under the sky and slept on the earth. He was a mono-dwellingist, who believed only one domicile was fit for human beings- the earth. His roof was the sky. His floor the ground.
A challenger came to battle the leader for his place, and told him, in front of the people, “You believe in one dwelling, but I can outdo you. I believe in one less dwelling than you, for I do not believe in the earth.” The leader had the man taken to the edge of a high cliff. “If you are right and I am wrong, you will not hit the earth at the bottom when we throw you off.”
To take that last step of atheism is to remove the very ground of all being, and leave us with nothing upon which to stand.
Good stuff
I like the response “I do believe in all those other gods. They are just demons”
St George approves this message.
Or they are different cultural names for the same entity
Rahul Roy demon is a description, not a name
@@thomasfiacco1992 Exactly, and that's why description matters more than names. Names can be different but description should be similar
Atheist here. If you legit tell atheists that you think the other gods are demons, you'll just sound like a cultist.
No, I believe in all those other “gods” too, I just call them demons.
-Equally witty and succinct response
You mean Santa Claus is a demon?
I just call them comic book characters if not Greek gods.
Haha, I like that. Won't convince atheists, unfortunately, but it's still a good one! xD
The word we are looking for is, PRINCIPALITY. Entities that manifest often in the human character. Think of Zeus, the king of the Olympians, I can’t help but notice that Zeus is the personification of human will that overcomes chaos, observe the Titans and Kronos’ defeat. That being said, It would be wrong to simply assume that because Zeus embodies willpower, YHWE merely means he is the idea of Being that just happened to be worshipped by the Israelites. Zeus and the others can and probably and should be though of phony imitations of God, the lesser ideal that claims to be the highest. In many regards, very evil. But yeah if by ‘belief’ we mean: to accept their existence, then yeah, most of these gods are, and were real, I just don’t believe them to be the Truth Absolute.
@Hellenback Santa Claus is St. NICHOLAS, a real person and a Christian bishop.
So it's wrong because the video maker is a polytheist? I don't think this guy knows the difference between an argument and an explanation.
_”He isn’t some being within our reality, He is the source of all reality.”_
Yeah, it’s gonna be hard to find the atoms that make up God when God is not made of created matter.
If he doesn't exist in reality that means he isn't real.
@@StaggersonJagz Depends how you define "reality," I guess. The intent of the statement was that God is not created by an arrangement of atoms, but exists in a state of more fundamental reality than the "reality" we experience as created things.
@@billbadson7598 however you define reality, God either exists within it or not. That's a hard dichotomy.
@@StaggersonJagz _"however you define reality, God either exists within it or not. That's a hard dichotomy."_
Hard disagree. If you don't define reality, it has no meaning, and you cannot make any true/false statements involving the word, because all statements using an undefined word are nonsense statements. I'm defining "reality" as all matter and physical laws (maybe "physical reality" would work better?). But God is not made up of physical matter, or beholden to physical laws, preexisting both.
@@billbadson7598 that makes no sense, and does not address my point
What you see as "Asserting an argument", is not meant to assert an argument at all.
It's merely stating a fact.
The comparison, of which you speak is simply a method by which, the atheists can help to clarify the two sides to the argument.
Many christians are not really that aware the god that they believe in is simply one of thousands that have been made up over many thousands of years.
People create gods. Not the other way around.
It is not up to the atheist to "disprove" the existence of a god. (Yours or any others)
It is up to the people who assert that their particular god is real, to come up with evidence to back their assertion.
The atheist simply assumes the default position until such evidence is presented.
This goes equally for all gods.
In the end, what you state as "The worst Atheist Argument", has never been stated as an argument, just a fact.
He addresses that in the latter half of the video. Christians (or Jews or Muslims) don't claim to believe in a particular god out of many, or in a particular being in our existence, but in the very foundation of life itself, that which sustains our whole reality and thus is above and outside it, and that idea has followed humans through millennia, cultures and places. So much that you can say that believing in this force is one of the things that makes us human and it's a unique belief unlike any other fairy tale or mythology.
@@hullie7529 Any believer in any of the gods, will look from inside their particular belief and see the world and their particular god or gods in exactly the same way that you do.
Believers in many of the gods have considered their belief to be the very foundation of life itself.
They will see your god and your belief as just another belief.
Belief in your particular god is in no way unique.
What you see as "mythology" is, or at some time in history was, a live belief and all of the things you believe about your particular god, would have been believed about the gods in what you now call mythology.
Your god has only been around for three to four thousand years, which makes it relatively recent,, compared to many others.
it was the Egyptians, who pioneered the idea of a single god.
From among the many that they believed in, they chose Ra, the sun god to be their one true god.
The Jewish people copied the idea from the Egyptians and your god evolved from theirs, carrying with it, many of the beliefs and customs.
The one thing that all gods have in common, yours included, is a total lack of evidence to support their existence.
@@jusfugly You missed the point dude - why are you pushing such an agenda? And why do you repeat babyish nonsense about evidence, pretending that God is an object in the universe, and using inside-the-universe notions to try and apply to outside-the-universe? Do you go about pretending the physical world operates by Super Mario rules too? Any person who knows God (or gods) will tell that it's through direct experience. You can bleat as much as you like about evidence, but if you know God, you know God - you don't need to prove or believe - you just know directly. Go have a satori.
@@topologyrob I am not pushing an agenda.
I am helping to inform misguided, deluded people of the facts. Something thy will not get in church.
I can just imagine the look on peoples faces if the judge stood up in court and said, "And why do you repeat babyish nonsense about evidence".
I can just imagine a scientist who has just had his paper rejected by peer review and stating, "And why do you repeat babyish nonsense about evidence".
It's because evidence is the only thing we have to determine if something claimed is real or not.
How did you come to determine that your particular god is an object in the universe?
Other than the fact that you were indoctrinated as a child to believe it, what method did you use to determine your god was a real thing?
Give me a list of other things that exist outside of the universe that have been proven to exist.
The Super Mario reference eludes me.
There are zero people who know your god or gods.
There is no direct experience. More like direct imagination and gullibility.
I will bleat as much as I can about evidence, as it is the only way to prove anything.
Do you believe in the existence of Wotan, Zeus, Ra or Odin?
I didn't think so.
But none of them have any evidence to back up their existence, so by your standards, they all exist, because we don't need any of that childish evidence stuff.
He has another video talking about this ua-cam.com/video/49jLgR7O-D4/v-deo.html. Also you are incorrect about Christianity or at minimum Abrahamic Religions being generic and just one out of many different equally viable options. It would be extremely foolish to conflate pagan religions which explain natural phenomena through a multitude of gods with Christianity. This video I linked from Brian Holdsworth talks about this exact issue with atheism or theism being viewed as unreasonable views based on rationale alone. You have basically presented a non-argument. Your entire series of comments is just "Presume atheism, we need extraordinary extreme evidence to believe God is real. Also all religions are basically the same." Which is just ridiculous.
The first mistake is claiming this is an "argument against the existence of God", it's not. It's an analogy, a way to suggest that believing in only one God isn't that different from believing in none when there are thousands. But it does not prove God's non-existence whatsoever, it's not intended to
And that's exactly why it's "the worst argument"
That’s not an argument. It’s a descrpition of the relationship between atheists and theists.
One thing you forgot to mention is that it is also only targeted to Christians...and not like the other dozens of Monotheistic religions/traditions that exist.
It can be applied to any God concept.
@@stevenhorr I never said it cant. I said it isnt.
@@npswm1314 How do you know that? You see it used against Christians because that's the majority religion in the culture you (presumably, at least) and I live in, so that's who you see it put against. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard it used at least once towards a Muslim apologist. It's just that the Christian ones VASTLY, VASTLY outnumber how many you see of other religions here.
You are right that this isn’t an argument against the existence of (a) God. Just like Russel’s theapot God is unfalsifiable. The burden of proof lies with theists. So atheists need no arguments to disprove God, theists need arguments to prove his existence. A thing no religion has done so far.
well
maths has a lot of evidence that comes from common sense which lays down some axioms one which math is built upon
but bible or quran or gita is not common sense like the way 1+1=2 is common sense. It is more like 1+1= R which does not have any evidence
now in the real world it is like some people say 1+1=a some say 1+1=b some say 1+1=c....etc and each one of them think the others are wrong
AND since there no evidence for any of them therefore i believe all of them are wrong
True, but we’re not looking to PROVE God, otherwise we would need no faith. We are looking at the reasonable evidence that POINTS to God. That’s what I do, at least 😃
Atheists take the leap of faith to say God isn’t real. Agnostics are the ones who literally don’t know. Atheists take the faith the opposite way. Don’t try to shift the burden of proof. Anybody making a truth claim has BOP on them
@@BabyBudders oh I totally agree! But you can’t prove the existence of an immaterial being. And you can’t disprove the existence of one either. So you’ll never have proof, unless your definition of proof is strong evidence
@@timothyvenable3336 exactly my man!
idk how i got here but your hair is amazing
Tell me you have no idea about other religions without telling me you have no idea about other religions. XD
Time to help out with the algorithm.
We're all doing our bit
That's not much but it's honest work
An atheist would say they go that one step farther.
I'd ask why they reject That One?
It appears to be an amalgam of more than one god, a human construct. Its predecessors were among the Canaanite pantheon, because, ultimately, the Jews descended from the Canaanite population when the city-states collapsed.
A tribe referred to as "the Shasu" lived in the low hill country and essentially began an insurrection. A letter from one of the kings of one of those city-states begged Pharoah for help to deal with them, but he couldn't because he was fighting "the sea peoples," the Hyksos if I recall.
The story - and I'll try to be careful how I say this - involving an Exodus of millions of Israelites (600,000 men, plus their wives, children, and livestock) from Egyptian slavery to Canaan that they took by conquest is false, although some runaway slaves may have left Egypt and joined the newly established settlements in the hills.
The Israelites were initially polytheists but became monolatrists, elevating one god over many, and it was only after the Exile and Reformation that monotheism was established when the priests and nobles were returned by the Persians from captivity, bringing with them the myths and legends from the Babylonians that went back to the Akkadians and the Sumerians, along with the Zoroastrian beliefs of the Persians.
This is why there are two creation stories and two flood stories in Genesis, and why sometimes God is a person and other times a spirit, and other times presents dreams, and yet other times sends messengers. The various editors had different concepts of who and what god was and reframed the stories to match their own beliefs.
That's a synopsis of the basic theory. I find it parsimonious and a good account of the evidence.
Then, there's the evidence for the evolution of our minds, going back to cave paintings, which are ambiguous as to whether they were spiritual or ritual or neither, to ancestor worship and animism, to anthropomorphising forces of nature, to small, local gods of cities and small states, to large, powerful, mighty gods of nations, and eventually, the monotheistic, all-powerful Gods that are believed today.
In short, they evolved with us, and are a side-effect of our neurological evolution.
Not enough evidence.
@@korbendallas5318 exactly.
Because the evidence for that one God is no better than the evidence for the the thousands of other "false" Gods.
@@colinmatts
Said no reasonably intelligent person ever.
Keep being a stud dude!
To date I thought the worst atheist argument was the omnipotence paradox.
You do understand positions don't require arguments, right? States of affair (conditions) are simply factual. Or are you lacking the competence to grasp that fact?
@@theoskeptomai2535 sure, if want to undermine your own ideas with badly constructed arguments you are free to do it.
Just don't dare to blame it anyone else when you are unable to convince someone.
@@theoskeptomai2535 if someone desn't even take the least effort on defending their own ideas, then said ideas aren't worth keeping. Just saying.
I used to make that argument as an atheist and I think back on it with shame.
Don't be shameful. No need to. Not many atheists today can give a good argument for the non-existence of a god or why a divine is an absurd or illogical thing. Then again, same thing with many Christians for an argument for a god or a divine.
@@TickleMeElmo55
Except mah boi Thomas Aquinas
@@tryhardf844 Sure, but how many Christians let alone Catholics refers to Aquinas? I will assume not many. The most well-read Catholics may refer to C.S. Lewis. Maybe.
@@TickleMeElmo55
Nearly all catholics refer to Aquinas when it comes to arguments to prove God's existence,nevertheless in topics of more modern issues they might refer to the magisterium or in other cases Chesterton or C.S. Lewis in topics like pacifist societies or more digestable sexual morality.
But i cringe everytime some protestants for example only resort to Craig or Occam.
@@tryhardf844 Nearly all? I think not. I believe you're being too generous. In the States, Catholics in general are poorly catechized. It's an outright embarrassment. Those who are well catechized may refer to Aquinas as a source, but those who aren't probably aren't familiar with his name.
i like the theistic most popular claim. "without god nothing makes sence" (given that no theist in a room shares the exact same opinion of what gods will is and still think they are on one team) mindblowing in a bad way
It's not an argument. It is meant to point out the arrogance of theists that they dismiss thousands if God claims but consider theirs valid.
I am an atheist, I would not say that. I’ve read the Bible and I don’t remember anyone saying in that book that those other gods didn’t exist, the book merely said don’t worship other gods. Theist merely put that spin on it that other gods don’t exist. Only when Christians gained the militaristic advantage is when it began that their god is the only one. During Jesus time the romans even had other religious leaders on their government council, Hebrews and later Christians wiped out people with other gods. And thankfully America was based on Greek and Roman philosophy and not Christianity.
I am sorry. But Math can be demonstrated, studied, challenge and reviewed.. From what I know at this time.. your God and any other Gods.. have not been demonstrated, reviewed.. etc...The comparison of Math to an Myth seems fallacious.
When I, as an atheist, makes the statement "I believe in one less God than you.." it's an answer to a question from a believer.. not an argument on an existence of a God, believe it is the same with Gervais and Dawkins..
I respect that you have your comments open.. a rarity in theist youtube circles.
Using “sound logic” to come to the reasoning that God exists is blasphemous. The best you would be able to come to with a defensible argument is Agnosticism. They use this “argument” to elaborate and shed light on the hypocrisy of Christian Americans believing in their God whole heartedly and not recognizing that the same person could use their reasoning and upbringing to determine that their God (from other religion) is the true god...
You’re basically attacking a straw man and identifying one argument and using it to defend your religious belief.
Logical reasoning would concur that you have just proven this “argument” to no be the Total answer to the God question, rather than proving God Exists.
The issues many atheists have with religious people is the fact that they claim scientific Understanding and logical reasoning when in reality it’s laughable.
Conclusion: This argument Ricky Gervais and many others have used is shedding light on how FAITH is not a good argument or reasoning to believe. They are pointing out that Others have FAITH in other gods, yet Christians don’t believe their FAITH is good reasoning/true. Same way vice versa when other religions don’t believe what Christians have FAITH in.
Faith is the lack of evidence, and using the lack of evidence AS evidence is laughable. It’s what most religions pin their whole reasoning on mostly because they lack actual good reasoning or evidence elsewhere.
We have more evidence Pluto exists than God exists... assuming that God just doesn’t want to be found or tested in any human experiment is very convenient. Why would I believe in a God if there is no reasoning to
Exactly this. Theists come to believe in God(s) through faith (and/or fear of death, a need for meaning, etc.). Then they work backwards to try and rationalize their belief.
God bless you, Brian.
Going "one god further" isn't an argument. It is an explanation that theists already reject the bulk of gods anyone ever imagined, so being atheistic isn't hard, since we merely hold their god in the same regard as they hold others. Of course if you consider it an argument it will be a bad one, it isn't trying to be a good one. It is a soundbite, nothing more.
Okay but if I believe that the Christian God is real this belief necessitates that all other Gods are false or don't exist by the nature that the Christian God does. They are mutually exclusive.
Atheist don't believe in any God and their isn't something that they do believe which excludes the belief in the others like theist have, they individual don't believe any of them. That's much more different.
@@jjaros964
*Okay but if I believe that the Christian God is real this belief necessitates that all other Gods are false or don't exist by the nature that the Christian God does. They are mutually exclusive.*
What I hear is: If I perform special pleading for my god, then blah blah blah.
*Atheist don't believe in any God and their isn't something that they do believe which excludes the belief in the others like theist have, they individual don't believe any of them. That's much more different.*
I don't believe in your god precisely like I don't believe in the others. I think your god is incoherent, lacking even a cogent definition let alone any actual evidence for its existence. I don't need a dogmatic rejection of him based on the acceptance of another equally unproven deity.
Beyond that, I'm confused as to the point of this paragraph. Different than what, theism? In which case, of course it is, who thinks otherwise.
@@jjaros964 and you must have specific reasons for why you believe in the christian god and not brahman or allah or vishnu. there must be something that has convinced you that you are right to believe in his existence.
i havent seen such a piece of evidence so i treat your god just like i treat all the other gods for whom i havent seen suffcient evidence. i dont believe their claims until i see a god-claim that convinces me.
the correct answer here is for you to present the evidence that convinces you that the christian god is real and all the others arent.
I like the Napoleon analogy. Many confused people have claimed to be Napoleon over the past 200 years. We can all agree to deny those false Napoleons. But is it sensible to go that final step and deny the existence of the actual Napoleon Bonaparte?
Nepolian actually existed, and he was just a human. Many other humans exist.
Now prove your imaginary sky daddy ever existed.
@@TheRealCatof Things exist. Things change. We can reason back from these observations of the world to a nessesary cause.
@@jeremysmith7176 So what caused the cause?
@@jeremysmith7176 Good point. Harry Potter was the necessary cause.
@Skydaddy Myth-Busters Exactly. Brian is making the claim that his god exists outside the natural universe, without ever providing evidence that it's possible for something to exist outside the natural universe.
Thanks...
The statement is not and was not intended to be an argument for God. This is a response to statements like "I could never be an atheist", or "atheists are evil." I've been watching this guy. His arguments are kind of like flat earth arguments. Except for God.
I've never used that argument bucause it sounded fallacious. I have heard it though, as a defence of atheism, rather than an attack on theism. As a defence of atheism, it does hold a little more water. A christian will reject the claims of Hinduism, and a hindu will reject the claims of Christianity. I reject them both... 😕
We need to discard a lot more from our heritage. Belief in gods being one of those things.
gold pure gold....
And what´s the best atheist argument?
1. The term "local atheist" refers to not believing in specific deities. Without the qualifier "local," I think your accusation is correct. You are locally atheistic to all gods but one, which is the definition of being a monotheist.
2. Ricky didn't say "atheism is true or theism is false." He just described (given above) that we've all come to agree that most gods people in our history believed don't exist and never did. Ricky simply states he doesn't believe in the ones that are left.
3. The problem with your analogy is that 1 + 1 = 2 *by definition.* That is a fact. It is not relevant whether you deny any other answer, because every other answer to that question is wrong by definition. Saying "I just deny one more possibility" does not work, because it isn't merely a possibility - it's a fact. Another analogy might work if you don't pick one that has a single true answer that is true by definition. The bachelor analogy doesn't work because, again, that is the definition of "married man" and "bachelor." These are known as "synthetic."
4. It doesn't matter what you claim. It matters what you can tie that claim to. 'Richard Barron said, "God isn't one being among many in the universe. He is being itself."' It's an interesting idea and smacks of Spinoza's God, but can he tie it to anything concrete, or is he just redefining "God" to avoid the problems attached to a more traditional definition?
5. The thing about Zeus and Santa Claus is that you can provide contrary evidence to their existence."
I can do the same with Yahweh. Typically, I point to the archaeological find from the 10th century BC that shows Yahweh with El, Baal, and Asherah on the same figurine, the JEDP documentary hypothesis, and more recently the anthropological and archaeological evidence of the evolution of our ability to believe in gods that emerged over time. I find the best explanation of these multiple strands of evidence is that Yahweh does not exist and is a human construct, but I respect your right to see that evidence in a different light, like "The Israelites are recorded as being idolaters in the Bible, and that's where that statue must have come from."
6. "If there's nothing there, then somebody has some explaining to do." Exactly. There's no sign of a God in "the heavens."
7. "Instead, what is being claimed about God is that He transcends the universe." Convenient, don't you think, that you'd redefine God at the exact moment in history when we can go into space and find that He isn't actually there. That's a *major* red flag in my book of goalpost-shifting and redefining your beliefs to match discoveries. Although, in all honesty, that is *vastly* preferable to *not* re-evaluating your beliefs with emerging evidence like Young Earth Christians and flat Earthers. They do a *major* disservice to all other Christians who do try to incorporate modern knowledge into their worldviews.
8. "He isn't some being within reality. He is the source of all reality." Thanks for taking on that burden of evidence, though I don't know why you believe in something that exists outside reality. Perhaps that needs a rephrase because it sounds self-defeating from here?
9. Actually, I just understand "gods" as supernatural entities, so there's no category error in that framework.
That was fun, and you know, I'll leave you a like for the courteous presentation.
This atheist has class.
@@g07denslicer Thank you. I'm trying to make myself leave the door open for common ground, which is not a natural instinct in this type of debate.
God has not been redefined.(#7) You are mistaken about what Christians have always believed about God. The idea of a "God in the heavens" is a secular interpretation taken from poetic wording in Scripture. That doesn't mean that we have ever believed that God is literally somewhere "up in the clouds". It has only been in the last century that we have been able to physically send people up into space and unmanned probes even farther out into space. The Catholic Church has always understood God to be OUTSIDE of time and space, as He is the Creator of it.
@@joan8862 I respectfully disagree. That *is* my analysis.
@@joan8862 Well, all I can say to that is that many Christians still to this day believe that heaven is up in the sky.
An acquaintance of mine told me once his pious Baptist once said she didn't want to go to heaven. When asked why, she said that it would be rather boring just sitting on clouds and singing hymns all day.
Now, I understand that many educated Christians that are involved in apologetics and theology don't in fact believe in the "God in the sky" part, but I put forward to you that many Christians did and still do.
My favourite atheist "argument" is: If there really is a God why does He let bad things happen?
@Universalkritik an argument in the form of a question.
@Universalkritik if you say so. I often see arguments formed in rhetoric via questions. I’ve also never heard a good answer to it outside of: “Something something Adam ate an apple” or “something something fallen world.”
“Why does God let bad things happen”
That’s a really good question because if God is good surely he would give us everything that we want ? Is that right though ? because what usually happens to a child who is spoilt and gets everything he/she wants from his/her parents without working for it or learning how to help, share and give to others as well. The results can be catastrophic with regards to lack of morality and ethics. Apparently Hitler was really spoiled by his mother. Nevertheless, if you think of all the heroes of social change, those heroes who stood up to racism, died fighting for human rights, the heroes of flight and space aviation of the last century, heroes such as Martin Luther King JR, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, Noam Chomsky, Mary Robinson, Buzz Aldrin, Amelia Earhart, the Wright brothers.
Now imagine if a supreme being had intervened and removed all the moral danger and natural danger from the world and from these heroes lives. In order to remove all moral evil from the world all you have to do is remove everyone’s free will. To remove natural danger all you have to do is remove all obstacles all challenges and make everything safe meaningless and purposeless. Some would argue pointless and lifeless. Because without the risk of moral evil and natural evil non of these amazing people would have been the heroes that they are and would have non of the virtues they had such as real courage, real bravery, real altruism, creativity, empathy, real love and imagination that our children and generations of children and adults have taken great inspiration from as there would be no such thing as bravery, courage, altruism, self sacrifice that is real love and real virtue with out real free will, real moral danger and natural danger. Similarly, the combined efforts of all these heroes creates a beautiful effect a mythological truth, a true myth in a sense in the collective consciousness and memory of humanity that is greater than the sum of each individual part/virtue and is greater than each individual hero that points to a reality a joy that we all yearn for that transcends the materialistic, selfish, self centred, narcissistic, nihilistic and fatalistic paradigm.
“Romance is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of eucatastrophe, of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world poignant as grief.”
(JRR Tolkien).
Interestingly, all of our physical theories at the fundamental level of “matter” have been replaced by quantum mechanics and string theory. Classical materialism has crumbled under the weight of evidence from quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that “particles” exist, for want of a better word, that are invisible, unmeasurable, timeless, non locational/bi locational and can influence other, other “particles” at great distances and appear to travel faster than the speed of light. So empirical science has demonstrated that particles exist that have no definitive “location in space and time”. Is it “logically coherent” to believe that things that can be in two places at the same time actually exist. ? Is it “logically coherent” to deny this despite the weight of evidence from empirical science demonstrated in quantum mechanics. ? Is this pseudo science and is it synonymous with omnipresence. ? Who knows!!
“Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum”
(“I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”) - Rene Descartes.
This quote is the pillar on which science, rationality and the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism/being stands and according to the brilliant linguist and cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky, Rene Descartes conclusions regarding mind and consciousness still stands today.
All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis. ❤️
If Tolkien was a good person, why did he create Sauron?
If Shakespeare was a good person, why did he write tragedies?
Evil can exist for a higher purpose. We already know this.
For example, people actually choose to go through the pains of childbirth in order to get a child when they can avoid it by not having children. We think some suffering is more than offset by the result. Evil is not absolute -- there are greater goods. People will choose to undergo evil to attain something higher. We don't just avoid all evils whatsoever, even when we can. No one would ever run a marathon if suffering were an absolute evil. The issue is not the existence of evil, but whether the world that contains evil is, nonetheless, worthwhile. Does the evil in a story, in a world, have a point? Sauron has a worthwhile role to play in Tolkien's stories despite being evil. Shakespeare is writing worthwhile plays, even when they are tragedies. Our world may be worthwhile because of its evil and its overcoming -- and there is no logical reason why that worth must be evident to us, right now.
God thinks the end-result in our universe, and for each person who turns to him, will more than offset all the suffering for all the people who underwent it -- and God is in a position to know that. We aren't. But even we can see that suffering could be worthwhile in certain circumstances, and God can see that it will be in our circumstances.
If there really is a God, why not trust him when bad things happen?
The argument points out that all gods are illusory and unnecessary.
Whatever, fundie.
@@topologyrobI'm not a, 'fundie,' unless fundie has some new definition I'm unaware of.
You have an amazing way of reasoning.
If your god exists outside of detectable reality, and has no detectable effect on reality, how is that different from your god not existing at all? How is your god more than imaginary? Asking for a friend.
Gevais simply made a statememt. It was not a syllogism. And he's correct.
Dorothy called. She wants her straw man back.