It's clear now from archeology: there was no Flood, 10 Plagues, Exodus, Wanderings or Conquest. These stories are myths, as well as most of the characters in those tales. Noah, the Patriarchs, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua: all Bronze Age myths. But the biblical Jesus believed in Noah's flood and apparently the rest of "scripture" (which he often references in his teachings) as genuinely historical. Either Jesus said those words - and was wrong - or they were forged into his mouth.
I want to thank you for correctly defining atheist as someone "who does not believe that god exists". Far too often, theists tend to (dishonestly in my opinion) insist that atheists are always making a positive claim that they are convinced that no gods exist.
@@erikt1713 The terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are used differently by different people. For me, those two terms address different things. Theist/Atheist refers to your BELIEF, while Gnostic/Agnostic refers to KNOWLEDGE (or at least claims of knowledge). I dentify as an agnostic atheist - that is, I do not believe in any gods, but I'm not claiming to know that none exist. If someone claims knowledge (rather than just belief), then they inherit a burden of proof to adequately demonstrate that alleged knowledge.
@@1970Phoenix I capitalized "God" as I was referring to the God of Christianity and Islam. This is defined as a "person" you can talk (pray) to and who created the world. He is also benevolent ("good"). This is impossible given the struggle for existence in the natural world and the complete "hiddenness" and inaction of this being. Now for "gods" in general it would have to be defined if the existence of order in the universe is a "divine principle" or if very advanced aliens with high intelligence can count as "gods" compared to us. That would be hard to say.
@@erikt1713 I agree with that. Personally, I am convinced that most versions of the Abrahamic God cannot exist as the omni properties this hypothesised being has are mutually exclusive.
Yes, theism = belief in a god or gods. But there are 2 types: affirmers and believers. (Gnostic) _affirmers_ claim (to know) a god exists. This carries a burden of objective proof. (Agnostic) _believers_ needn't _prove_ anything but should still be able to rationally justify their belief. (Of course, affirmers also believe but not vice versa). What does the mere believer say? "I don't _know_ if any gods exist but I _believe_ it's the case. But don't ask me if it's one god or many; male, female or neither; good, evil or neither; cares about humans or not. Nor what this god or these gods might love or hate, like, dislike or want. On these I have no beliefs." IOWs, deism. But having a _personal_ god makes one an affirmer. Proof, please!
0:45 No study of the human body, no study of what you call creation, and no study of what you call the word of God indicates that a god was necessary or present, yet alone that it was a god thst resides in heaven, yet alone still your version of a heavens abiding god. Less than a minute in and I can already stack every scientific study ever performed against you.
I don’t believe in God, and frankly, I’ve never heard a compelling reason to. You talk about God revealing himself through the Bible, creation, and humanity being "fearfully and wonderfully made," but none of that holds up as evidence. The Bible is a collection of ancient writings riddled with contradictions, written by people who didn’t even agree on key points about God. It’s not a reliable source of truth, let alone divine revelation. As for creation, pointing to complexity in nature doesn’t prove the existence of a god-it just demonstrates that nature is intricate and fascinating, which science can and does explain without resorting to supernatural causes. Evolutionary biology explains how life developed, and cosmology reveals how the universe formed. Claiming “God did it” isn’t an explanation; it’s a placeholder for ignorance. And this idea that humans are “fearfully and wonderfully made” ignores all the imperfections and inefficiencies in our bodies, from the appendix to the blind spot in our eyes. If this is evidence of a designer, then that designer isn’t particularly impressive. You say you “cannot” be an atheist, but that’s not because the evidence leads you to belief-it’s because you start with the assumption that God exists and then filter everything through that belief. The truth is, you’re doing exactly what you accuse atheists of: ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit your worldview.
Meh. Lose your deucentrism. If the "fool" says in his heart, there is no "God," then the supposed fool is far more likely to be a religious theist. Probably a Muslim or Hindu. They have their own gods, none of whom is God. So why single out atheists for criticism? What's the difference between the rejection of God by the atheist vs that of the Hindu? But if it's atheism in particular that has you vexed then it seems you're saying any god'll do, as long as you belong to Club Theism. In either case, you should stop defining atheists as those who don't believe in God because, although true, that definition includes billions of theists as well. Again, if your problem is with rejecting God, your target should be "non-Christians" (which includes atheists). If it's atheism in particular you disagree with then you should be aiming at those who don't believe in "gods" (which includes God). Theists and atheists alike reject God. Only atheists reject gods. Pick a lane! 😉
You need to put that book down and start reading others. We no longer need Superman in the Sky, we have intelligent humans that have shown that book simply isn't true. Do you really believe a Virgin gave birth?? A (Man), boy god, rose from the Dead?? to forgive you of a SIN your GREAT, GREAT, GREAT....... (Adam and Eve) made by listening to a talking Snake????? Come on now.
It's clear now from archeology: there was no Flood, 10 Plagues, Exodus, Wanderings or Conquest. These stories are myths, as well as most of the characters in those tales. Noah, the Patriarchs, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua: all Bronze Age myths. But the biblical Jesus believed in Noah's flood and apparently the rest of "scripture" (which he often references in his teachings) as genuinely historical. Either Jesus said those words - and was wrong - or they were forged into his mouth.
I want to thank you for correctly defining atheist as someone "who does not believe that god exists". Far too often, theists tend to (dishonestly in my opinion) insist that atheists are always making a positive claim that they are convinced that no gods exist.
I never really noticed a difference. I do not believe in God. I'm certain He does not exist. Is what you mean an "agnostic" maybe?
@@erikt1713 The terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are used differently by different people. For me, those two terms address different things. Theist/Atheist refers to your BELIEF, while Gnostic/Agnostic refers to KNOWLEDGE (or at least claims of knowledge). I dentify as an agnostic atheist - that is, I do not believe in any gods, but I'm not claiming to know that none exist. If someone claims knowledge (rather than just belief), then they inherit a burden of proof to adequately demonstrate that alleged knowledge.
@@1970Phoenix I capitalized "God" as I was referring to the God of Christianity and Islam. This is defined as a "person" you can talk (pray) to and who created the world. He is also benevolent ("good"). This is impossible given the struggle for existence in the natural world and the complete "hiddenness" and inaction of this being.
Now for "gods" in general it would have to be defined if the existence of order in the universe is a "divine principle" or if very advanced aliens with high intelligence can count as "gods" compared to us. That would be hard to say.
@@erikt1713 I agree with that. Personally, I am convinced that most versions of the Abrahamic God cannot exist as the omni properties this hypothesised being has are mutually exclusive.
Yes, theism = belief in a god or gods. But there are 2 types: affirmers and believers. (Gnostic) _affirmers_ claim (to know) a god exists. This carries a burden of objective proof. (Agnostic) _believers_ needn't _prove_ anything but should still be able to rationally justify their belief. (Of course, affirmers also believe but not vice versa). What does the mere believer say? "I don't _know_ if any gods exist but I _believe_ it's the case. But don't ask me if it's one god or many; male, female or neither; good, evil or neither; cares about humans or not. Nor what this god or these gods might love or hate, like, dislike or want. On these I have no beliefs." IOWs, deism. But having a _personal_ god makes one an affirmer. Proof, please!
0:45 No study of the human body, no study of what you call creation, and no study of what you call the word of God indicates that a god was necessary or present, yet alone that it was a god thst resides in heaven, yet alone still your version of a heavens abiding god.
Less than a minute in and I can already stack every scientific study ever performed against you.
I don’t believe in God, and frankly, I’ve never heard a compelling reason to. You talk about God revealing himself through the Bible, creation, and humanity being "fearfully and wonderfully made," but none of that holds up as evidence. The Bible is a collection of ancient writings riddled with contradictions, written by people who didn’t even agree on key points about God. It’s not a reliable source of truth, let alone divine revelation.
As for creation, pointing to complexity in nature doesn’t prove the existence of a god-it just demonstrates that nature is intricate and fascinating, which science can and does explain without resorting to supernatural causes. Evolutionary biology explains how life developed, and cosmology reveals how the universe formed. Claiming “God did it” isn’t an explanation; it’s a placeholder for ignorance.
And this idea that humans are “fearfully and wonderfully made” ignores all the imperfections and inefficiencies in our bodies, from the appendix to the blind spot in our eyes. If this is evidence of a designer, then that designer isn’t particularly impressive.
You say you “cannot” be an atheist, but that’s not because the evidence leads you to belief-it’s because you start with the assumption that God exists and then filter everything through that belief. The truth is, you’re doing exactly what you accuse atheists of: ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit your worldview.
Someone who says there is no god IS a fool, since god is not a falsifiable proposition. The wise man says there's probably no god.
Your complexity argument is a logical fallacy. It’s the argument from personal incredulity.
Meh. Lose your deucentrism. If the "fool" says in his heart, there is no "God," then the supposed fool is far more likely to be a religious theist. Probably a Muslim or Hindu. They have their own gods, none of whom is God. So why single out atheists for criticism? What's the difference between the rejection of God by the atheist vs that of the Hindu? But if it's atheism in particular that has you vexed then it seems you're saying any god'll do, as long as you belong to Club Theism. In either case, you should stop defining atheists as those who don't believe in God because, although true, that definition includes billions of theists as well.
Again, if your problem is with rejecting God, your target should be "non-Christians" (which includes atheists). If it's atheism in particular you disagree with then you should be aiming at those who don't believe in "gods" (which includes God). Theists and atheists alike reject God. Only atheists reject gods. Pick a lane! 😉
You need to put that book down and start reading others. We no longer need Superman in the Sky, we have intelligent humans that have shown that book simply isn't true. Do you really believe a Virgin gave birth?? A (Man), boy god, rose from the Dead?? to forgive you of a SIN your GREAT, GREAT, GREAT....... (Adam and Eve) made by listening to a talking Snake????? Come on now.