Dotoree, you wrote "I think that Christianity is far more rational than atheism since ~99% of the atheists I've met in ~20 years don't even attempt to provide evidence for their faith." I won't block you. I"m more than happy for you to make such terrible arguments on my videos. It serves my purpose. Yeah, atheism is a faith. Just like "off" is a tv channel.
It depends on the god. Certainly we can imagine a universe forming due to Bob from Accounting playing Universe Simulator 5000 on his home PC, and Bob might just not care what the sentient inhabitants of his universe believe because they're meaningless to him. Alternatively maybe Bob _does_ care, but because the game is so big he never finds the corner of the universe with life and those various religions. But certainly reality is inconsistent when it comes to a god who's omniscient, omnipresent, and cares about our belief/worship. Such a god could and would provide evidence they exist.
@@abdulrahmann.9024 I've heard that. That seems to be a strategy some religions use to avoid criticism. Yet if a religion was truth, why would it need to avoid reasonable skepticism? It wouldn't. A true religion would simply lay down the evidence, and let it speak for itself. Skeptics' questions could be answered honestly.
I remember being asked (by one particularly vacant, nauseatingly smiley and unreasonably overly-certain born-again Christian woman) their favorite 'old chestnut' of a question : *_"But what if you're wrong ?"_* I stopped walking past her and acted overly-serious for a few seconds, as if I had never heard of, or thought about the question before and I could already sense the first hints of a different kind of smile start to play about the corners of her mouth, she was apparently thinking that I was about to concede her point or admit that _'I'd secretly always believed in God after all, deep down.'_ or something as equally crazy as that. So, still acting with gravitas, I looked deep into her eyes with unusual earnest (and saw worrying little behind that pair of blank, glassy orbs, no unique spark of character or individual personality.) : *_'Well, in that case..'_* I said, whilst nodding at her in a slow, slightly melancholy and resigned way *_'I suppose that we'd both better hope that Zeus was in a really good mood.'_*
Well i mean,yeahweh promised to kill all wicked people or some shit with a flood.But i still see wicked people in this world. But Zeus won a war againts the titans...And we don't see any titans now do we? ZEUS IS REAL MOTHEFUCKERS THERES THE EVIDENCE!
AsDeadAsDillinger my answer is, if I'm wrong all I have to do is repent on my deathbed. not visit the church every week, not be a good person, not live a fruitful life, not make anything of myself... if you are wrong, you just wasted your one and only life kissing the ass of your imaginary friend tho. that's a much bigger waste because either way I live forever. the only difference is heaven or hell. it's tantamount to losing a few cents from your bank account. but if you are wrong, you just threw away your entire life savings on snake oil.
@@steveonrock if you think about he is kinda right, even if I know the Definition of atheism. The Athiest just rejects one God more than any religious Person
@@steveonrock Athesit is when you don't believe in a god. Anyone who only believes in 1 God, is there by an atheist by default, as they are then rejecting a whole bunch of God's. Of course, I know that's not really what the definition means, but you get my point, Right?
Lennox has to prove that even if mathematical intelligibility indicates an intelligence responsible for it, that THAT intelligence is one that delights in the smell of burning animal carcasses, has an aversion to its creatures keeping the foreskins it bestowed upon them, can willingly stand by and watch its creation ruined by allowing its arch enemy to fuck with the FIRST people it creates, and is satiated by sacrificing itself unto itself. Good luck, Lennox.
Well I figure it can be argued that the mathematical improbability is irrelevant, infinite monkeys eventually write Shakespeare. We have no idea how many failed big bangs there might have been the fact of the matter is that the only way we could ever end up perceiving things the way they are is if everything happened the way it did. Mathematical probability is meaningless in a space where time isnt a factor, how many universes formed that didn't have the necessary foundations to create life? How many died off before we came along? Whos to say ours is even as good as it could have turned out? We may never know. Theism and worship is nice in the vaccum assuming that we were special or different in some way but the instant you think you might not be all that unique in the grand infiniteness of it all, the concept kinda falls apart. So what if there is a god? Who gives a shit? Is a being that has immense power somehow worth more than your average rock or tree? Jeffery Bezos has immense power over my life and existence, does that deem him worthy of my worship? Does the scale of the power even matter in the end? Weather I get shot by a hitman or "divinely" smitten im dead either way so whats the difference? But nihilism is just toxic atheist propaganda so i guess thats a moot point. P.s. "it exists so it must have been created by god" is such a silly argument. god can always have been without a need for a creator but the universe cant have just been without the help of God, hypocrisy at its finest.
I assume that you believe that fairies don't exist. Provide evidence for your faith that fairies do not exist. Can't provide evidence for your faith? THen your faith is irrational. How do you like arguing against garbage like that? Well stop arguing that way. It's garbage. It does not deserve to be dignified with a response. Fuck knows why I'm bothering. Why are atheists always schooling theists about general, basic rules of coherent argument? You should be embarrassed.
@Hehe Hehe Why do you believe that Jesus really got resurrected? It's because it's "written in the bible"? You probably know that the bible is a really old book, which means that in order for it to be preserved, it had to be copied many times by multiple people. You probably also know that humans are flawed, so mistakes can happen and information can be written down incorrectly. Therefore, it's not farfetched to assume that the bible, due to it's age and the fact that it was preserved by humans, not by a powerful and perfect being, has mistakes in it.
@Hehe Hehe dude have you not heard of a resuscitation, or it could be faked, or a million other things, this does not get you past deism, A million other people claim to have been resurrected /healed etc. I’m not even an atheist and I know this. (I’m Sikh for those wondering)
Hehe Hehe I thought you were seriously joking. “You just don’t want to believe” what does that even mean? And no claiming something is not proof that something exist you’re just saying it does and take it as fact.How can one choose to believe Anyways? If I choose to believe I am immortal and not die or that I can start flying or my car won’t run out of gas will it still happen? Yes it will because the truth doesn’t care about what you believe in, I don’t think you even choose to believe in anything you don’t have much control over it, if you have a basic knowledge of how something works you can’t choose to believe against it.Kind’ve like knowledge you wish you could unknow. I bet you wish you could unknow things like this because you know these arguments are silly and flawed.
What the hell is THIS?! "Do we see life coming from non-life as atheism MUST claim since it says Gods don't exist. NO. We NEVER see this. We ALWAYS see life coming from more intelligent life as the Bible claimed LONG before spontaneous generation was in vogue." The Hindu texts claimed that too! As did Egyptian ones, Taoist ones and Shinto ones. I guess that proves that they're all true? Polytheism is therefore PROVEN? Such UNBELIEVABLY weak arguments. Just TERRIBLE. Just SO BAD.
As someone who is an Omnist (me) I can definitely agree. Why should one religion be more correct then the other. It’s clear that not all religions are perfect and that’s okay. Sometimes I just beleive that religions themselves are puzzle pieces into not only god but also to ourselves. (Sorry for the religious talk I’m just saying that I agree.)
Nope, your argument is the weak one atheist. All these proofs support the one and only truth : The Almighty Great Flying Spaghetti Monster created life with Holy Noodly Appendages. 🙏🙏🙏
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Beerus (from DBS) stand more chance than Yahweh and Allah? I mean, he has at least a 21 century show depicting him. Not some 2000 years old books.
Because 99% of all theists know deep down that their gods are fictional, and would therefore fail such a test. If they would really believe it, they would happily agree to such a test.
Omega0850 not likely. I cant speak for other religions but Christians teach that it is a sin to tempt/test the lord. So they dont test him because they believe thats a sin. Its not because they know they're wrong, not by a long shot.
Because Con Artists cover their tracks. On one hand a Con Artist will Promise you ANYTHING you ask for in prayer, and he will do that many times to sell his Con. But then what? How does he cover his tracks after having made such Huge claims? Easy. After you make those claims, you make it Clear that "Thou shall not put your lord your god to the Test". That way, no matter how many times your prayers do not come true, the Con can say it was because you TESTED him. .......................Truly Pathetic that here we are only 3 months away from 2019 in the U.S. and the vast majority still believe in those Fairy Tales............. “The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits.” - Albert Einstein
@@Lord_Skeptic I was just thinking about that one earlier today myself; because for some reason, the quote, "Come on Baal. Light my fire." was stuck in my head.
You also say :"the point of your fictional debate is wether God exists. And all of those arguments prove a god exist. " No, they don't. Perhaps the answer is polytheism. Perhaps the answer is mass consciousness. Perhaps it's something to do with alien life forms from another dimension, who created a 3-D universe because they could. Perhaps it's the matrix. We have NO IDEA what it is. Why do you think it's A god? A (singular)? There is NO particular reason to believe that. None at all.
"What caused the Big Bang, see it had to be our God(/s)" - Thiests "Where did your God(/s) come from" - Athiests "You can't apply human logic" - Thiests
Even if you apply human logic some questions are still unanswerable. God is such a being that God is being comprehension and human imagination. We can't even answer questions about all that exists in the universe, how can we then answer questions about the one who created it. You can actually use human logic to prove God's existence I pray Allah guide us
@@the_polish_prince8966 Yes it is but its is more logical for there to be a God and believe in a God than not. Atheist view is always subjective. Peace ✌
Never understood why people felt as though the unlikelyhood of our existence points to a god. We're dealing with an infinite time scale. It doesn't matter how unlikely our specific big bang rules were, cause there could've been quadrillions of big bangs before it that were duds until we eventually got ours.
The British army had a great marching song that proved this, sung to the same tune as 'Auld Lang Syne', the words are' We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here...... and so on' ad nauseum.
Exactly. The universe could have collapsed and expanded multiple times with slightly different universal constants every time, until the constants were just right enough for the universe to not collapse again. That way the universal constants could have reached optimal values that balance the universe. In the end, it's just one of the infinite possible reasons for our universe's existence. To find out what really happened, we will have to keep aside all supernatural, illogical possibilities and think with reasoning and logic. That's how we discovered so much about our universe and will continue to do so.
"Science is almost 100% on the theist side with hardly a single testable case on the atheist-evolution side. " Face-palm. How can anyone have a pulse and say things like this? Continue posting, but I just cannot bring myself to read any more of your comments, and I won't. They're just so bad. "hardly a single testable case" I just cannot believe that such ignorance exists inside someone capable of typing. I'm stunned. "hardly a single testable case". Gob-smacked. Beyond comprehension.
I am also getting fed up of stupid people. Today someone told me that joe Biden was Satans pet and that leftists want to rule the world and fulfill the prophecy of the bible by having it under one leader. I was on a right wing site and felt frustrated that no one was agreeing with me and I should have ignored him but it was so outrageously stupid.
No, I can't. But what is it called when we express doubts that gods such as Molech, Ranganui, Osiris, Chak, Minerva or Chemosh exist, in the face of opposition to those who claim to have scientific knowledge that they DO exist? What is it called to simply reject the idea that a lightning-throwing deity called Zeus exists? Do I need to provide proof? Is "Zeus" a scientific theory? Is Horus? Is Yahweh? Atheism is to disbelieve in them all, the same way YOU disbelieve in all but one of them.
I think that’s because this animation was made by an atheist as propaganda for his position, and only portrays an extreme and not universal form of theism.
@@the_polish_prince8966 not only that this person thinks religions fight with each other, that's not what Islam teaches. Islam says to come in common terms as one another. Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 64: قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَلَا نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَقُولُوا اشْهَدُوا بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ Say (O Muhammad SAW): "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims." (English - Mohsin Khan) via iQuran The verse ends with that "you go your way and I will go mine" Like following verse mentions. Surah Al-Kafiroon, Verse 6: لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism)." (English - Mohsin Khan) via iQuran
Syed Hussain Cool, but you’re forgetting the part where Islam says you have to kill me. Or are you simply forgetting the fifth verse of the ninth Surah? I’m polytheist, by the way.
Guys chill out we found who the true god is. Based on the bing bang theory and that the earth is round we can be sure that ancoent greece was correct all this time since it had a creator and the greeks said the earth was round first(pls ignore that the earth being round had nothing to do with the religon)
Back off everyone. THE REAL GOD IS KUKULKAN now lemme say a prayer Rogjrokfhekfiowrjifhonfoeirotbjtojeofnwoitgnekotjdbrofbworitpfnosnfkdjfjdjowtkjdkegodnriginjrofnejrfjjdwifjjdiwfnjfkwirjfh
Everyone is born a Muslim: Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: The mother of every person gives him birth according to his true nature. It is subsequently his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian. Had his parents been Muslim he would have also remained a Muslim. Every person to whom his mother gives birth (has two aspects of his life) ; when his mother gives birth Satan strikes him but it was not the case with Mary and her son (Jesus Christ). حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ، - يَعْنِي الدَّرَاوَرْدِيَّ - عَنِ الْعَلاَءِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " كُلُّ إِنْسَانٍ تَلِدُهُ أُمُّهُ عَلَى الْفِطْرَةِ وَأَبَوَاهُ بَعْدُ يُهَوِّدَانِهِ وَيُنَصِّرَانِهِ وَيُمَجِّسَانِهِ فَإِنْ كَانَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ فَمُسْلِمٌ كُلُّ إِنْسَانٍ تَلِدُهُ أُمُّهُ يَلْكُزُهُ الشَّيْطَانُ فِي حِضْنَيْهِ إِلاَّ مَرْيَمَ وَابْنَهَا " . Reference : Sahih Muslim 2659 aIn-book reference : Book 46, Hadith 40USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 33, Hadith 6429
@@freddycuevas5743 no but how do we know what our fitra (natural disposition) at birth was. No one can know this but the one who created us. And other religions Don't teach this. You will only find this in Islam. So the same thing can't be said about them also. Peace brother
@@Soyodi lol you are working from the assumption of a creator, thing that you need to prove first in order to even make it relevant in the conversation. by your own standards any so-called good could fill that gap. If you were born in Italy you should be a Catholic since birth mate. that is how absurd your position is.
@@freddycuevas5743 Yes I agree with you if I was born in to a Catholic family I mostly would have grown up to be a Catherine Christian. The hadith I provided shows this. But the Prophet ﷺ also said that fitra of a child born is a Muslim. As the child grows up it gets influenced by it's parents and follows them. What Islam teaches is that we shouldn't follow our forefathers and to seek knowledge and truth for ourselves.
hate to say it. but no. That’s just as bad as teachers teaching religion in a direct way, instead of a historical way. Teaching them atheism and teaching them theism will hold the same problem
One thing I don't hear people ever mention about the big bang being perfectly fine tuned for all of existence to happen the way it has is..... Just the notion our universe worked out perfectly does not mean it was the only time that a big bang ever happened. It just means that it happened eventually, and that's why we're all here. For all we know, there were millions of big bangs before, and the factors just did not work out in our favour until now. Fairly similar to why we've only found life on Earth...so far: Because there's bound to be life on some planet at some time given the sheer size & diversity of the universe would yield nearly infinite possibilities. So, for all we know, we might just be here as an inevitably; Not as a result of some intelligent designer. All we know about the big bang doesn't actually prove ANYONE'S points in this video. 🤣
Yeah, arguments like that always feel like: *tips over crate full of dice* "Woah, I rolled exactly a 13,127. Do you have any idea how rare and unlikely that is? That crate surely was fine-tuned to roll this exact number!"
Certainly good point, though to me the bigger problem with Pascal's Wager is the implication that there's no cost to a belief. (There's always an _opportunity cost_ to whatever we choose to do/believe.)
@@majmage - That's a very good point as well, although I wonder what, to Pascal, constituted "belief" in terms of how much it could/should affect his behavior or inconvenience him on a day-by-day basis. Even today, many believe that a death-bed confession and absolution is enough to put you in heaven. Another problem with the wager is that it seems to be the same as essentially taking out "heaven insurance" ("can't hurt, right?... just in case") with no real belief or faith behind it; it's a calculation, not a revelation.
@@Malt454 Well in Pascal's defense the foundation of Pascal's Wager was published in 1670, well before the concept of opportunity costs was formalized in 1894. So I'm not sure if we can fault him _too_ much for being a product of his times. (It's just now we know better, so we can certainly fault theists who rely on the argument. ;) ) And yeah, I agree with the other problems you've mentioned.
@@majmage - Yes, and, as a product of his times, Pascal's problem was greatly simplified by society itself; his question was simply whether to believe, not one of who/which/what to believe in. Indra, Thor and Zeus weren't on the table.
@@majmage Even worse, there is also another counter argument. Since pascels wager is a thought experiment assuming there is absolutely 0 evidence for god, then we can "make up" any hypothetical god we want because there is just as much evidence for that god as there is any other. So assume >for every god that exists that says if you dont do what they say and believe in them and worship them yada yada, you go to hell and if you do you go to heven >that you have an ANTI-God that does the exact opposite. If you DO believe in the other god and worship them you go to hell and if you dont you go to heaven. Then you run the cost/benefit analysis again, and there you go. Even assuming that beliefs have no cost, the balance is perfectly equal. There is no reason to believe in any specific god over another or even in any god in general. And then when you do factor in a cost to believe, no matter how small, it always becomes the logical choice then to never believe in a god(s) without evidence.
@@lastfirst2021 The flaw in the idea of religion is that it can only function with an absent of facts. Hence faith. Science functions entirely with factual evidence so it is capable of error. Religion cannot be wrong or else all evidence written in the book becomes uncreditable as the writer is imperfect and does not know all...
@@averroes6279 Einstein was not a theist. He explicitly stated that he was an agnostic. Darwin was only a theist for the first part of his life. He, too, explicitly described himself as an agnostic. There are similar issues with others on your list as well. People who argue using falsehoods deservingly invite scorn.
This reminds me of a funny cartoon dialogue between two characters. It goes something like this: "Look at our universe. Do you really think this whole magnifiscent work, just "poofed" into existence? NO! It must've had a creator! It couldn't have been due to just random chance, and it's not possible that the universe just 'was'!" "Then who created God?" "No-one. He just was there, since forever."
The human DNA is long, but it could fit on *one* CD. We have 3.235 billion base pairs in our DNA. Each base pair can be saved in 2 bits of information (00, 01, 10, 11 = A, G, T, C), which means we can fit 4 base pairs in one byte. That totals to slightly less than 810MB data, which just barely fits on one CD-R, which can hold 800-815MB, if I remember correctly. Just for perspective. It's long, but it's not insanely long. You can fit an entire family's DNA on a DVD, and 10 families' DNA on a BluRay disc. I could fit the DNA of almost *3000* people in the harddrive space on my computer. (2.4TB)
+antiHUMANDesigns well it does. you must know the position of each primary element of helix. but knowing one side also means you know the other. so if the word is ACCTAG, you already know the other side is TGGATC. This makes coding faster, becaouse you only need to encode one side of healix.
Danilo Popović You'd still need one bit of information to store which side the they are on, which meanas it's the same. I didn't propose to encode both sides, but our DNA is still 2bit/base4.
antiHUMANDesigns but why? You can just zse MSB to say what side you are coding and then just make a line of 2-bits characters. If you need other side, you would use program thet calculates what is on the oposit side. So its 1 one bit for side (0-left, 1-right) and array of n 2-bits characters. If you are encoding just a part of genom, you need tqo more memory informations, for start and end. So, you need two lets sya 16-bite for location, one 1-bite tipe for side and n 2-bite characters for genom.
"So far ALL testable evidence of life forms evolving falls within creation science limits. " OK, so for a fair minded person like me, who has just read the evidence outlined in Dawkins' new book, taken from the more than 2,000,000 peer reviewed publications that deal with evolution - where are the published papers that support what you've said here? What scientific papers, for example, refute the accepted decay rates of the radioactive isotopes that allow us to date rocks so accurately?
I’m tempted to correct your wrong statement, but not for the reason you think. I’m a Heathen, I worship the gods described in that story. Ymir was Jotun, Titans are Greek. Ymir was killed and the universe made from his corpse, he wasn’t the creator.
3:05 that's what I call the "Generic Deity Fallacy" which is a special case of the Strawperson Fallacy. They try to defend their specific god by defending a more realistic and generic version of it, because they know that their specific version is easily debunkable, while the generic version is unfalsifiable
@@shatterhacked on second thought, I should rename it to Straw-Human or Straw-{They/Them} to be more politically correct. Ok, jokes aside, it wasn't necessarily because of that. I just found it weird that it was called "straw-man". In my main language, it would be called "dummy" or "straw doll", which is inherently genderless and non-human
@@Rudxain I was just saying… it has a name. The name is the strawman fallacy. That’s like referring to a person with a nickname that no one knew about. Idk, it just makes me feel weird when you rename things that have official names. Especially when you write it like this is how it’s always been.
This was my exact line of thinking when I started questioning. In World Religions class in high school, I realized that basically all the religions are the same so why is christianity the correct one?
Supposing there is some supernatural entity, and further suppose that at least one human group has actually, genuinely described the nature of that entity correctly. On odds, it’s just as likely to be some golden buffalo in a cave painting as any religion we’ve heard of today. No supernatural being seems much more probable.
religions aren’t the same their concept and teachings are different. most of the religions were corrupted and followers just blindly believe it to be true. christian preachers start with good points, yet, after giving you some doubts they start forcing paganic beliefs on you(man god, sacrifice, etc)
Best channel ever, I wish I'd discovered it a long time ago. I've been showing these videos to my young kids and they love them as well. They can enjoy the sarcasm and the humour, and at 8 and 10 years old they can recognise religion for the nonsense that it is; why some adults can't seem to outgrow these silly superstitions? It baffles the mind...
To be a theist, you have to make several assumptions without evidence. To be an atheist, all you have to do is not make m those assumptions and accept reality as it is. If kids were not indoctrinated into it, I dare say most of them would skip the assumptions altogether. Kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. I was raised in a religious home, and you could probably say I believed in god as a kid, just as much as I believed in Santa and the Easter Bunny. My family eventually told me the latter two were fake, but the first, totally real. Well, it doesn’t really take a genius to connect the dots. I didn’t have a massive de-conversion moment. Over time I just dropped the assumption of god’s existence because without evidence, there was no reason to hold on to it. As one might say of Santa or the Bunny, I just outgrew God. I didn’t need to lean on an imaginary being to explain anything. If not forced into their parents beliefs, but instead taught critical thinking and allowed to make up their own minds, I honestly think most kids would reject religion.
The Fine Adjustment argument is like looking at a chair that is so fragile that all it takes is for a slightly heavy person to sit on it and it falls over, and then you say "See? The chair is so precise and perfect that all it takes is a little weight is placed on it and it already falls, this can only be the work of an intelligent carpenter".
Did you not just type: "Atheists are some of the most dogmatic people blind to evidence on the entire planet, equal in nearly every respect to the most extreme Christian right fundamentalists" No, that's not stereotying now, is it.
I would like to see an Apologist Christian and Fundamentalist Christian debate. I'm not quite sure how that would go though. I guess it would be rather one-sided. The Fundamentalist would just keep saying, "I have a book...".
Science must prove how life can originate without WHICH god? And why aren't you saying any of these: Science must prove how life can originate without gods / aliens from a seven-dimensional universe / magic life-giving unicorns / the ether / Zeus / the New Zealand deities Ranganui and Papatuanuku. ?
@Hehe Hehe Someone's intellect doesn't surpass the room's temperature, because in the comment he actually stated that you should prove Zeus didn't create the world in the same way you claim that god created everything. Which doesn't make sense, claims become reality once they're proven, the same applies for everything, but since all deities lack evidence, how would you claim that your god is the only true god ?
@Hehe Hehe Before one billion people believed that the solar system is geocentric, does that make this claim any more credible? Not in the slightest, only solid evidence has proven that the solar system is heliocentric. So the number of believers doesn't define a claim's truthness, only solid evidence does, the same can be applied to your god, give me one solid evidence and I'll convert to whichever cult you belong to.
@Hehe Hehe Well on the second one you completely missed the point, there is no mount Olympus with gods on top, I second that, but is there a magical creator hiding in the skies and clouds for 2 millennia, no, at least not until solid evidence is presented, and that is my point.
@Hehe Hehe Someone's got a very peculiar brain, because I never ever mentioned the big bang but whatever, let's see, so my unicorn has no proof, and your god too, therefore my unicorn is real, see ? You used the same reasoning to "respond" which does not make any sense, one entity not having evidence doesn't make your beliefs true in the sligtest. Second of all, you can't compare a simple, inconsistent, incoherent, unprovable belief to a theory that has loads and loads of evidence, supported by the whole world's scientific communities, and as a quick example, gravity is just a theory too.
Here is another thing on the whole "the odds" argument. The big bang could have tried to start many times before. If you told me to bet 500 dollars that two dice will make a snake eyes on my first try, I laugh in your face. But if you said I could keep rolling until I got it, then I would take it without missing a heart beat. Any odds are possible given enough time.
So, what "claim" do you think that atheism is making? Do you actually think that atheism is making a claim any more solid than your "belief" that Zeus doesn't exist? Or Thor? Do you think that we are obliged to provide evidence that a deity such as, say, Yahweh, doesn't exist because we doubt its existence in exactly the same was as you doubt that of Ra? What is the "alternative" that you think atheism is failing to provide evidence for?
It's actually a fair enough argument to be a deist. I mean, I'm atheistic, but I'd accept this explanation over the bible, Torah, Quran, Hindu scriptures, etc.
+B0badenvero8 Well first, that's contingent on your definition of "nothing", and second, just because we don't have examples of other universe's being created - using these examples for documentation and study - doesn't mean that we can automatically assign our inception to something supernatural or beyond our recognized dimensions. That's an argument from ignorance, and it's similar to the facile watchmaker analogy. We merely haven't reached the scientific point where we can definitively assert that we know the answers to these questions, but an equally valid question would be: what examples of other supernatural deities do we have to compare to the one that supposedly made us and our universe? All I'm doing is siding with the null hypothesis until evidence, not speculation, is presented in a scientific manner.
***** What logical explanation? One that consists of an unfounded and unsubstantiated belief in a deity that hasn't been seen nor detected whatsoever by anyone, ever? All you're doing is appealing to complexity and ignorance. Just because you don't understand something or something is complex doesn't mean that a deity is responsible for it. That's absurd to assume that without evidence, hard evidence. That's the personification of irrational.
+B0badenvero8 Again, if you're going to insist on appealing to complexity or ignorance, then we have nothing to debate. I'm not going to keep reiterating that neither complexity nor being unaware of all the complexities this universe has to offer = deity. Without even knowing it, you made my point. Before we knew and understood electricity, it was thought that supernatural forces made lighting appear and disappear. Your stance is basically insinuating that they were justified in asserting that a deity caused said lightning. Reality and science shows otherwise, even if it took us longer to understand exactly what electricity was. That's why your argument is facile. No, we don't know EXACTLY how the universe formed, but we can make some damn good extrapolations based on evidence and mathematical calculations. Inserting a deity into the equation is superfluous.
The way I look at it, the entire universe just kept crunching and banging, crunching and banging, forever, with slight alterations, till it finally exploded into the universe we enjoy today. It's really that simple.
I'm not enjoying it, actually i'm finding it pretty fucked. I agree with you're theory though, it's probably what happened/is happening and will happen continue to happen forever. We won't even be a memory. I can see why religious nuts have trouble processing that and choose fairy tales to comfort themselves to the fact. Fuck.
MadNotAngry another way to think about it is that we wouldn't be existing in a universe where it would be impossible to exist, so by the nature of existence, we had to be, by definition, within a universe that could support us
@Alex Gowers but as long as gravity still affect on some level wouldn't it eventually consume the momentum of the big bang and start to pull everything back toward each other? even if it is an infinitesimal amount of pull if it just doesn't stop wont it eventually win?
@@NuclearLama No. Imagine this super simplified example: at time t1 something is moving away at speed 2 and gravity is slowing it down by rate 1. Now at time t2 the speed of 'something' is 1, but gravity is only slowing it down at rate 0.5 (because of increased distance). At time t3 it's moving at speed 0.5 but the slowing is 0.25 etc. time speed slowing (rate) t1 2 1 t2 1 0.5 t3 0.5 0.25 So in this example the speed is always double the slowing rate and it will never catch up. Gravitational pull will never stop but the speed is always ahead of it. (I realize that after all this might not be 'super simplified example' but I hope you get the point)
My video is making the claim that the ontological and teleological arguments do not assist any one religion over any other. Therefore, it is NOT a non-sequitor. The non-sequitor is being made whenever a believer in a particular branch of theism uses those arguments to "prove" their god's existence. If you're against non-sequitors, as I guess you are, you have a whole lot of religions out there to take issue with over this matter. Tell THEM to stop using deistic arguments to promote theism.
Thanks man. I tweeted it. It's a nice succinct version of what I usually say (which isn't my original anyway), namely that God sacrificed itself unto itself to convince itself to allow itself to forgive its own creations and save them from its own punishment in the eternal torture chamber that it had created.
remember back when a video with a "10 years ago" meant that it was some of the first videos on youtube, feels so weird seeing that and for it to seem more inline with modern youtube
My thoughts exactly. William Lane Craig can do well in a debate when he approaches things from a vague philosophical standpoint. Once he starts talkin' Jebus, it falls apart. I was horrified by some of the stuff he wrote in reasonable faith. It's disgusting.
Why do your videos keep popping up in my feed!? I have other things to do you know! But every time one pops up I can't help but watch it, they're funny as hell.
I hope this isn't happening to others. When I get back to making videos, I'll make sure that they're boring and not at all funny. Countless hours of my viewers' productive lives are being wasted.
I put 3 pots outside with seeds in them. One i put under the deck with no light or water. The second one i put under my patio so it got light but no water. The last one I put in a spot with adequate sunlight and rain. 2/3 pots didn't grow anything, therefore there's no creator. This logic is just as true as "there was a beginning so there must have been a beginner.
Isn't this about The Puddle Fallacy, Basically, the universe is 'fine-tuned' (it necessarily isn't ) to support human life (as we know it), and if the events or constants that help form our universe any different there would be nothing. (would it really?) It presents a false dichotomy (this happens a lot) that 'if so and so were different, there won't be a universe' How would theists know that? It'll be different sure, but won't there still be a universe? Who's to say that life won't form? The only certainty that there won't be a universe if everything that was is and will be discovered . No constants of any sort, no form of energy or matter. Just complete and utter nothingness from which no patterns can emerge because there is nothing form those patterns
Woes, that is a real trip! I'm glad to help spread the message of rationality. Thank you for getting my comment out there! I hope you keep up your awesome video work.
Just checking something - people who block users do so because they don't want a free discussion of ideas (similar to Soviet Russia, China, North Korea).... does this apply to christian channels who block and edit comments? Are they also like totalitarian regimes? Just checking to see if consistency is important to you...
I claim their arguments in the name of MANA-YOOD-SHUSHAI Before there stood gods on olympus, before allah was allah before Jesus and his trinity existed There he flew in the infinite darkness and cold that he created "In the mists before the Beginning, Fate and Chance cast lots to decide whose the Game should be; and he that won strode through the mists to MĀNA-YOOD-SUSHĀĪ and said: "Now make gods for Me, for I have won the cast and the Game is to be Mine." "
truth is that atheists did not torture, killed, burned, raped etc ppl who disagree with them about god's existence. religious ppl have done all this things to ppl who didn't believed in their version(atheists, ppl from other religions, sometime ppl who said something or asked something "wrong"). very good video with very good point...
Guys let's be real everyone fights to different extremes to get their way for it's human nature. Does not matter what religion, race, or place that these fights occur since it happens in all three. Let's just be glad that social conditions are favorable for fighting strategically with verbal words so that we can discover for ourselves what truths are out there in the real world.
Please, come on people. "Allah" is not the name of the islamic god, it's just the Arabic word for "God". And I don't see why it's kept being sayed that the islamic god is different from the christian god or jewish god. It's the same mythological caracter!
Yes and no.. Yes the word allah is word used for God. It is basically two words combinded. Al means "The" and Lah means "God". Are they essential the same for all religion yes and no. For judaism God is for a certain groups of people who are bound by commandments and instructions (torah etc..) ; For christians God is for those who believe in a Triune figure/s as the ultimate divine being.. And in the triune, one of them took earthly form..? Lived and died..? And resurrected.. They threw out the old laws and follow new belief but hold to the old laws as a reminder and a connection to show the continuity of religion ; For muslims, it is very simple just like what the bible says in the early books God is the Only, Unique noting like him. Nothing earthly of him. Not a Male or a Female. Not for one group or nation but for all. Does not share, no intermediaries. And that's about it..
It's like this is a spoof of so many debates that I've watched lately ... except that this was made first. It's almost like prominent Christians literally wrote their debate scripts from this video. :P
Ever hear the one about the two atheists who decided to get married? It didn't last - they couldn't agree on which religion NOT to bring up the children in.....
Exactly. He ignores me every time on things like this. He says I need to have evidence to doubt Yahweh, but seems content to leave himself off the hook for doubting every single other deity as well as things like fairies and leprechauns.
I imagine if there is a god, they're laughing at us because of all these labels we created for our own self satisfaction, and that those labels doesn't match their descriptions at all
What does the Qaran tell you to do with people like me, who don't believe in Allah or his "prophet". Perhaps I ought to tell you if you can't tell me. Let's see if you know how "peaceful" your "religion of peace" really is.
A great answer to a perennial problem. First the theists present arguments for theism over atheism, then they take a huge unjustified leap to _their_ god.
Dotoree, you wrote "I think that Christianity is far more rational than atheism since ~99% of the atheists I've met in ~20 years don't even attempt to provide evidence for their faith."
I won't block you. I"m more than happy for you to make such terrible arguments on my videos. It serves my purpose.
Yeah, atheism is a faith. Just like "off" is a tv channel.
Great channel 😀
Off is a TV channel !!!!
I love you .
You are the best .
Obviously, atheism is wrong
The Norse Titan Ymir created the universe
And Not Stamp Collecting is a hobby!
Baldness is a hair style.
The fact that there are multiple religions at all says enough really.
It depends on the god. Certainly we can imagine a universe forming due to Bob from Accounting playing Universe Simulator 5000 on his home PC, and Bob might just not care what the sentient inhabitants of his universe believe because they're meaningless to him. Alternatively maybe Bob _does_ care, but because the game is so big he never finds the corner of the universe with life and those various religions.
But certainly reality is inconsistent when it comes to a god who's omniscient, omnipresent, and cares about our belief/worship. Such a god could and would provide evidence they exist.
Wikipedia -> Cargo cults 😁
@@majmage you know here in the arab world, people like you are very few and not completely come out as non believers / infidels in terms of belief
@@abdulrahmann.9024 I've heard that. That seems to be a strategy some religions use to avoid criticism. Yet if a religion was truth, why would it need to avoid reasonable skepticism? It wouldn't. A true religion would simply lay down the evidence, and let it speak for itself. Skeptics' questions could be answered honestly.
Not really if one was real that doesn't mean that there are not gonna be fake ones
"But our book is so full of truth only some parts of it contradict each other" 7:48 Absolute gold.
I keep looking at the guy at the podium, and all I can see is a bell curve.
+Justin Porteus
Dr. Stamp is very well distributed.
Justin Porteus didnt even know what it was called but same
And the theists are to the left of it
There's plenty of smart theists out there, I'm well aware
It's a normal thing to see.
Sorry, I gauss I will be going.
Lol it also disturbs me XD
I remember being asked (by one particularly vacant, nauseatingly smiley and unreasonably overly-certain born-again Christian woman) their favorite 'old chestnut' of a question :
*_"But what if you're wrong ?"_*
I stopped walking past her and acted overly-serious for a few seconds, as if I had never heard of, or thought about the question before and I could already sense the first hints of a different kind of smile start to play about the corners of her mouth, she was apparently thinking that I was about to concede her point or admit that _'I'd secretly always believed in God after all, deep down.'_ or something as equally crazy as that.
So, still acting with gravitas, I looked deep into her eyes with unusual earnest (and saw worrying little behind that pair of blank, glassy orbs, no unique spark of character or individual personality.) :
*_'Well, in that case..'_* I said, whilst nodding at her in a slow, slightly melancholy and resigned way *_'I suppose that we'd both better hope that Zeus was in a really good mood.'_*
AsDeadAsDillinger i love you
+Jaroslav At Amsterdam The difference being we believe in one less god than Christians do.
I prefer Thor. He goes around helping people in his chariot pulled by goats. can their god top that? Nah, all he does is kill people for fun.
Well i mean,yeahweh promised to kill all wicked people or some shit with a flood.But i still see wicked people in this world.
But Zeus won a war againts the titans...And we don't see any titans now do we?
ZEUS IS REAL MOTHEFUCKERS THERES THE EVIDENCE!
AsDeadAsDillinger my answer is, if I'm wrong all I have to do is repent on my deathbed. not visit the church every week, not be a good person, not live a fruitful life, not make anything of myself... if you are wrong, you just wasted your one and only life kissing the ass of your imaginary friend tho. that's a much bigger waste because either way I live forever. the only difference is heaven or hell. it's tantamount to losing a few cents from your bank account. but if you are wrong, you just threw away your entire life savings on snake oil.
They don't know it but they're all atheists for each other's gods.
SGerard you look like a great guy ! (=
@@steveonrock if you think about he is kinda right, even if I know the Definition of atheism.
The Athiest just rejects one God more than any religious Person
@@steveonrock Athesit is when you don't believe in a god. Anyone who only believes in 1 God, is there by an atheist by default, as they are then rejecting a whole bunch of God's.
Of course, I know that's not really what the definition means, but you get my point, Right?
Not necessarily true. Being polytheist means I don’t have to hold to that kind of inconsistency.
@@the_polish_prince8966 Do you believe in ALL gods? Cuz if you don't you aren't your point is null.
Atheist: *"If I stay still for long enough they'll start killing each other."*
And he wouldn't be wrong
@@nathanmckenzie904 Nope.
@@concept5631 History shows they would.
@ Yep.
😂
Lennox has to prove that even if mathematical intelligibility indicates an intelligence responsible for it, that THAT intelligence is one that delights in the smell of burning animal carcasses, has an aversion to its creatures keeping the foreskins it bestowed upon them, can willingly stand by and watch its creation ruined by allowing its arch enemy to fuck with the FIRST people it creates, and is satiated by sacrificing itself unto itself.
Good luck, Lennox.
Damn bro that's still thousands of Christians you're talking to xD
lennox is an idiot. he's one of the best teachers that -
deism is pointless and theism is ridiculous
Well I figure it can be argued that the mathematical improbability is irrelevant, infinite monkeys eventually write Shakespeare. We have no idea how many failed big bangs there might have been the fact of the matter is that the only way we could ever end up perceiving things the way they are is if everything happened the way it did. Mathematical probability is meaningless in a space where time isnt a factor, how many universes formed that didn't have the necessary foundations to create life? How many died off before we came along? Whos to say ours is even as good as it could have turned out? We may never know.
Theism and worship is nice in the vaccum assuming that we were special or different in some way but the instant you think you might not be all that unique in the grand infiniteness of it all, the concept kinda falls apart. So what if there is a god? Who gives a shit? Is a being that has immense power somehow worth more than your average rock or tree? Jeffery Bezos has immense power over my life and existence, does that deem him worthy of my worship? Does the scale of the power even matter in the end? Weather I get shot by a hitman or "divinely" smitten im dead either way so whats the difference? But nihilism is just toxic atheist propaganda so i guess thats a moot point.
P.s. "it exists so it must have been created by god" is such a silly argument. god can always have been without a need for a creator but the universe cant have just been without the help of God, hypocrisy at its finest.
I assume that you believe that fairies don't exist.
Provide evidence for your faith that fairies do not exist.
Can't provide evidence for your faith?
THen your faith is irrational.
How do you like arguing against garbage like that?
Well stop arguing that way. It's garbage. It does not deserve to be dignified with a response. Fuck knows why I'm bothering.
Why are atheists always schooling theists about general, basic rules of coherent argument? You should be embarrassed.
@Hehe Hehe
Stop humping the keyboard you dumbass, words not clear.
@Hehe Hehe
Why do you believe that Jesus really got resurrected? It's because it's "written in the bible"? You probably know that the bible is a really old book, which means that in order for it to be preserved, it had to be copied many times by multiple people. You probably also know that humans are flawed, so mistakes can happen and information can be written down incorrectly.
Therefore, it's not farfetched to assume that the bible, due to it's age and the fact that it was preserved by humans, not by a powerful and perfect being, has mistakes in it.
@Hehe Hehe dude have you not heard of a resuscitation, or it could be faked, or a million other things, this does not get you past deism, A million other people claim to have been resurrected /healed etc. I’m not even an atheist and I know this. (I’m Sikh for those wondering)
Hehe Hehe I thought you were seriously joking. “You just don’t want to believe” what does that even mean? And no claiming something is not proof that something exist you’re just saying it does and take it as fact.How can one choose to believe Anyways? If I choose to believe I am immortal and not die or that I can start flying or my car won’t run out of gas will it still happen? Yes it will because the truth doesn’t care about what you believe in, I don’t think you even choose to believe in anything you don’t have much control over it, if you have a basic knowledge of how something works you can’t choose to believe against it.Kind’ve like knowledge you wish you could unknow. I bet you wish you could unknow things like this because you know these arguments are silly and flawed.
Because if Theist actually understood general basic rules of coherent arguments, they likely wouldnt be Theist anymore.
What the hell is THIS?!
"Do we see life coming from non-life as atheism MUST claim since it says Gods don't exist. NO. We NEVER see this. We ALWAYS see life coming from more intelligent life as the Bible claimed LONG before spontaneous generation was in vogue."
The Hindu texts claimed that too! As did Egyptian ones, Taoist ones and Shinto ones. I guess that proves that they're all true? Polytheism is therefore PROVEN?
Such UNBELIEVABLY weak arguments. Just TERRIBLE. Just SO BAD.
True, for a monotheist.
As someone who is an Omnist (me) I can definitely agree. Why should one religion be more correct then the other. It’s clear that not all religions are perfect and that’s okay. Sometimes I just beleive that religions themselves are puzzle pieces into not only god but also to ourselves.
(Sorry for the religious talk I’m just saying that I agree.)
Nope, your argument is the weak one atheist.
All these proofs support the one and only truth :
The Almighty Great Flying Spaghetti Monster created life with Holy Noodly Appendages.
🙏🙏🙏
Hopefully The Running Ramen Beast and The Swimming Pasta Ghost aren't angry at me.
I'm so sorry Sprinting Potato Zombie.
🙏🙏
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Beerus (from DBS) stand more chance than Yahweh and Allah?
I mean, he has at least a 21 century show depicting him.
Not some 2000 years old books.
Why not just solve it with a prayer test, like the disciples of Baal?
Because 99% of all theists know deep down that their gods are fictional, and would therefore fail such a test. If they would really believe it, they would happily agree to such a test.
Omega0850 not likely. I cant speak for other religions but Christians teach that it is a sin to tempt/test the lord. So they dont test him because they believe thats a sin. Its not because they know they're wrong, not by a long shot.
carultch dark matter 2525 did a video on that
Because Con Artists cover their tracks. On one hand a Con Artist will Promise you ANYTHING you ask for in prayer, and he will do that many times to sell his Con.
But then what? How does he cover his tracks after having made such Huge claims? Easy. After you make those claims, you make it Clear that "Thou shall not put your lord your god to the Test". That way, no matter how many times your prayers do not come true, the Con can say it was because you TESTED him.
.......................Truly Pathetic that here we are only 3 months away from 2019 in the U.S. and the vast majority still believe in those Fairy Tales.............
“The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits.” - Albert Einstein
@@Lord_Skeptic I was just thinking about that one earlier today myself; because for some reason, the quote, "Come on Baal. Light my fire." was stuck in my head.
Does a forest fire need someone to start it? Sure a person CAN start a forest fire, but a forest fire can start any time the conditions are right.
Preach!!
It's just wonderful how this comment can be applied to both the origins of life *and* the -dumpster fire of an- argument of the theists
@@ernesik4636 how could a theist use this as an argument?
No, I meant that it's what the theists were saying, meaning: nobody primed their "forest fire" (infighting), it happened by itself.
It happens so nature can fix itself
Imagine this as theatre act!
Yes!
I'll pay for it.
Dito I’ll do it in school if you want.
@@WiisonicHedgehogGamer And I'd pray for it.
Id pay for my first and only theatre act in my entire life lmaoo
You also say :"the point of your fictional debate is wether God exists. And all of those arguments prove a god exist. "
No, they don't. Perhaps the answer is polytheism. Perhaps the answer is mass consciousness. Perhaps it's something to do with alien life forms from another dimension, who created a 3-D universe because they could. Perhaps it's the matrix.
We have NO IDEA what it is. Why do you think it's A god? A (singular)? There is NO particular reason to believe that. None at all.
"What caused the Big Bang, see it had to be our God(/s)" - Thiests
"Where did your God(/s) come from" - Athiests
"You can't apply human logic" - Thiests
Even if you apply human logic some questions are still unanswerable.
God is such a being that God is being comprehension and human imagination.
We can't even answer questions about all that exists in the universe, how can we then answer questions about the one who created it.
You can actually use human logic to prove God's existence
I pray Allah guide us
*monotheists. Your point is moot when it comes to theists who don’t hold a position like that.
@@the_polish_prince8966 Yes it is but its is more logical for there to be a God and believe in a God than not.
Atheist view is always subjective.
Peace ✌
Syed Hussain Uh, I’m a theist...
@@the_polish_prince8966 Fixed it. Even in polytheism, it's still special pleading.
Never understood why people felt as though the unlikelyhood of our existence points to a god. We're dealing with an infinite time scale. It doesn't matter how unlikely our specific big bang rules were, cause there could've been quadrillions of big bangs before it that were duds until we eventually got ours.
Exactly. We only know of this one because it happened and caused us to exist. If this one didn't work, we wouldn't know about it as we wouldn't exist
Agreed
The British army had a great marching song that proved this, sung to the same tune as 'Auld Lang Syne', the words are' We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here...... and so on' ad nauseum.
@@solentbum LOL that's a great example, my family always says that when we arrive somewhere but I never knew it came from a song!
Exactly. The universe could have collapsed and expanded multiple times with slightly different universal constants every time, until the constants were just right enough for the universe to not collapse again. That way the universal constants could have reached optimal values that balance the universe.
In the end, it's just one of the infinite possible reasons for our universe's existence. To find out what really happened, we will have to keep aside all supernatural, illogical possibilities and think with reasoning and logic. That's how we discovered so much about our universe and will continue to do so.
"Science is almost 100% on the theist side with hardly a single testable case on the atheist-evolution side. "
Face-palm.
How can anyone have a pulse and say things like this?
Continue posting, but I just cannot bring myself to read any more of your comments, and I won't. They're just so bad.
"hardly a single testable case"
I just cannot believe that such ignorance exists inside someone capable of typing. I'm stunned.
"hardly a single testable case".
Gob-smacked. Beyond comprehension.
@Hehe Hehe did you just reply to a 10 year old comment
bruh
@@frostfire4513 he is also rejecting evolution in other comments 😂😂
I am also getting fed up of stupid people. Today someone told me that joe Biden was Satans pet and that leftists want to rule the world and fulfill the prophecy of the bible by having it under one leader.
I was on a right wing site and felt frustrated that no one was agreeing with me and I should have ignored him but it was so outrageously stupid.
@Hehe Hehe he is just fed up with these that's why he is not providing any proofs
No, I can't.
But what is it called when we express doubts that gods such as Molech, Ranganui, Osiris, Chak, Minerva or Chemosh exist, in the face of opposition to those who claim to have scientific knowledge that they DO exist?
What is it called to simply reject the idea that a lightning-throwing deity called Zeus exists? Do I need to provide proof? Is "Zeus" a scientific theory? Is Horus? Is Yahweh?
Atheism is to disbelieve in them all, the same way YOU disbelieve in all but one of them.
HAHA The atheist doesnt even have to say a word!
Virginia Davis XDDD
In all this no one actually bothered to search for truth.
I pray Allah guide us
I think that’s because this animation was made by an atheist as propaganda for his position, and only portrays an extreme and not universal form of theism.
@@the_polish_prince8966 not only that this person thinks religions fight with each other, that's not what Islam teaches. Islam says to come in common terms as one another.
Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 64:
قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَلَا نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَقُولُوا اشْهَدُوا بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ
Say (O Muhammad SAW): "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims."
(English - Mohsin Khan)
via iQuran
The verse ends with that "you go your way and I will go mine"
Like following verse mentions.
Surah Al-Kafiroon, Verse 6:
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
"To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism)."
(English - Mohsin Khan)
via iQuran
Syed Hussain Cool, but you’re forgetting the part where Islam says you have to kill me. Or are you simply forgetting the fifth verse of the ninth Surah? I’m polytheist, by the way.
Even after all these years, your videos are still on point and hilarious as the first time I watched them.
Lol I laughed my ass watching this. It's funny as hell when the moderator points at the atheist with an angry face lol. Great video!
god i'll be laughing the entire day now.
That's not the moderator, that's a member of the theistic team
Thankyou Eric Kartman, very cool!
Ha they are all wrong they don't know of our true creator
Lord Cthulhu
Cthulhu is a weird way to say Yog-Sogoth.
@@somethingsomewhat8860 Yog-Sogoth is a weird way to say Azathoth.
Guys chill out we found who the true god is. Based on the bing bang theory and that the earth is round we can be sure that ancoent greece was correct all this time since it had a creator and the greeks said the earth was round first(pls ignore that the earth being round had nothing to do with the religon)
Back off everyone. THE REAL GOD IS KUKULKAN
now lemme say a prayer
Rogjrokfhekfiowrjifhonfoeirotbjtojeofnwoitgnekotjdbrofbworitpfnosnfkdjfjdjowtkjdkegodnriginjrofnejrfjjdwifjjdiwfnjfkwirjfh
Excuse you my Helix fossil begs to differ
Everyone is an Atheist until there are talking their particular religion belief. -Richard Dawkins
Everyone is born a Muslim:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
The mother of every person gives him birth according to his true nature. It is subsequently his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian. Had his parents been Muslim he would have also remained a Muslim. Every person to whom his mother gives birth (has two aspects of his life) ; when his mother gives birth Satan strikes him but it was not the case with Mary and her son (Jesus Christ).
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ، - يَعْنِي الدَّرَاوَرْدِيَّ - عَنِ الْعَلاَءِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " كُلُّ إِنْسَانٍ تَلِدُهُ أُمُّهُ عَلَى الْفِطْرَةِ وَأَبَوَاهُ بَعْدُ يُهَوِّدَانِهِ وَيُنَصِّرَانِهِ وَيُمَجِّسَانِهِ فَإِنْ كَانَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ فَمُسْلِمٌ كُلُّ إِنْسَانٍ تَلِدُهُ أُمُّهُ يَلْكُزُهُ الشَّيْطَانُ فِي حِضْنَيْهِ إِلاَّ مَرْيَمَ وَابْنَهَا " .
Reference : Sahih Muslim 2659 aIn-book reference : Book 46, Hadith 40USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 33, Hadith 6429
@@Soyodi why? Because the islamic Holy book say so? Under that logic any other religion book should apply the same logic...
@@freddycuevas5743 no but how do we know what our fitra (natural disposition) at birth was. No one can know this but the one who created us.
And other religions Don't teach this. You will only find this in Islam. So the same thing can't be said about them also.
Peace brother
@@Soyodi lol you are working from the assumption of a creator, thing that you need to prove first in order to even make it relevant in the conversation. by your own standards any so-called good could fill that gap. If you were born in Italy you should be a Catholic since birth mate. that is how absurd your position is.
@@freddycuevas5743 Yes I agree with you if I was born in to a Catholic family I mostly would have grown up to be a Catherine Christian. The hadith I provided shows this. But the Prophet ﷺ also said that fitra of a child born is a Muslim. As the child grows up it gets influenced by it's parents and follows them.
What Islam teaches is that we shouldn't follow our forefathers and to seek knowledge and truth for ourselves.
"our book is so full of truth that only SOME parts of it contradict each other-er, no they don't"
I actually screamed
This should be shown in classrooms!
Try this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult. 😁
That would be taking a stance on religion in a school setting, no better than teaching a particular faith in class.
hate to say it. but no. That’s just as bad as teachers teaching religion in a direct way, instead of a historical way. Teaching them atheism and teaching them theism will hold the same problem
Absolutely not
One thing I don't hear people ever mention about the big bang being perfectly fine tuned for all of existence to happen the way it has is.....
Just the notion our universe worked out perfectly does not mean it was the only time that a big bang ever happened.
It just means that it happened eventually, and that's why we're all here.
For all we know, there were millions of big bangs before, and the factors just did not work out in our favour until now.
Fairly similar to why we've only found life on Earth...so far:
Because there's bound to be life on some planet at some time given the sheer size & diversity of the universe would yield nearly infinite possibilities.
So, for all we know, we might just be here as an inevitably;
Not as a result of some intelligent designer.
All we know about the big bang doesn't actually prove ANYONE'S points in this video.
🤣
I believe it was Hawking who said that if our universe was fine tuned for anything, it would be for black holes
@@chrisphinney8475 🤣
Yeah, arguments like that always feel like:
*tips over crate full of dice*
"Woah, I rolled exactly a 13,127. Do you have any idea how rare and unlikely that is? That crate surely was fine-tuned to roll this exact number!"
@@TheHeavyshadow 🤣
That's hilariously accurate.
It's the same problem as with Pascal's Wager: even if all the "logic" leads you to believe in God, which God do you then believe in?
Certainly good point, though to me the bigger problem with Pascal's Wager is the implication that there's no cost to a belief. (There's always an _opportunity cost_ to whatever we choose to do/believe.)
@@majmage - That's a very good point as well, although I wonder what, to Pascal, constituted "belief" in terms of how much it could/should affect his behavior or inconvenience him on a day-by-day basis. Even today, many believe that a death-bed confession and absolution is enough to put you in heaven. Another problem with the wager is that it seems to be the same as essentially taking out "heaven insurance" ("can't hurt, right?... just in case") with no real belief or faith behind it; it's a calculation, not a revelation.
@@Malt454 Well in Pascal's defense the foundation of Pascal's Wager was published in 1670, well before the concept of opportunity costs was formalized in 1894. So I'm not sure if we can fault him _too_ much for being a product of his times. (It's just now we know better, so we can certainly fault theists who rely on the argument. ;) ) And yeah, I agree with the other problems you've mentioned.
@@majmage - Yes, and, as a product of his times, Pascal's problem was greatly simplified by society itself; his question was simply whether to believe, not one of who/which/what to believe in. Indra, Thor and Zeus weren't on the table.
@@majmage Even worse, there is also another counter argument.
Since pascels wager is a thought experiment assuming there is absolutely 0 evidence for god, then we can "make up" any hypothetical god we want because there is just as much evidence for that god as there is any other.
So assume
>for every god that exists that says if you dont do what they say and believe in them and worship them yada yada, you go to hell and if you do you go to heven
>that you have an ANTI-God that does the exact opposite. If you DO believe in the other god and worship them you go to hell and if you dont you go to heaven.
Then you run the cost/benefit analysis again, and there you go. Even assuming that beliefs have no cost, the balance is perfectly equal. There is no reason to believe in any specific god over another or even in any god in general.
And then when you do factor in a cost to believe, no matter how small, it always becomes the logical choice then to never believe in a god(s) without evidence.
Nice one. The ending is also very positive. The troubles sort themselves out by themselves, humanity is saved.
Totally unrealistic though.
In reality each of them force others to kill each other on their behalf.
Great facepalm moments when theists start talking about science
Platymus and no when their are no atheists region will always argue amongst themselves
Nothing is more ridiculous than a religious person trying to use science for proving his/her believe.
@@lastfirst2021
The flaw in the idea of religion is that it can only function with an absent of facts. Hence faith.
Science functions entirely with factual evidence so it is capable of error. Religion cannot be wrong or else all evidence written in the book becomes uncreditable as the writer is imperfect and does not know all...
Aquila Athena Doesn't mean they weren't wrong
@@averroes6279
Einstein was not a theist. He explicitly stated that he was an agnostic.
Darwin was only a theist for the first part of his life. He, too, explicitly described himself as an agnostic.
There are similar issues with others on your list as well.
People who argue using falsehoods deservingly invite scorn.
7/10, Too much truth. -IGN
Cuthbert Nibbles 1/10 to much stupidity-IGN
ya the BuyBull is filled with too much stupidity....
The talking snake was just too much.
10/10.
Whoops, forgot the negative sign
This reminds me of a funny cartoon dialogue between two characters. It goes something like this:
"Look at our universe. Do you really think this whole magnifiscent work, just "poofed" into existence? NO! It must've had a creator! It couldn't have been due to just random chance, and it's not possible that the universe just 'was'!"
"Then who created God?"
"No-one. He just was there, since forever."
Someone has actually said this to me when I asked where their god came from
Sounds like futurama. At least, it has the same vibe.
The human DNA is long, but it could fit on *one* CD.
We have 3.235 billion base pairs in our DNA. Each base pair can be saved in 2 bits of information (00, 01, 10, 11 = A, G, T, C), which means we can fit 4 base pairs in one byte.
That totals to slightly less than 810MB data, which just barely fits on one CD-R, which can hold 800-815MB, if I remember correctly.
Just for perspective. It's long, but it's not insanely long. You can fit an entire family's DNA on a DVD, and 10 families' DNA on a BluRay disc.
I could fit the DNA of almost *3000* people in the harddrive space on my computer. (2.4TB)
well since pares are only a-t g-c, you just need to code one side of double helix.
Danilo Popović Does it make no difference which side the A or T is on?
+antiHUMANDesigns well it does. you must know the position of each primary element of helix. but knowing one side also means you know the other. so if the word is ACCTAG, you already know the other side is TGGATC. This makes coding faster, becaouse you only need to encode one side of healix.
Danilo Popović You'd still need one bit of information to store which side the they are on, which meanas it's the same.
I didn't propose to encode both sides, but our DNA is still 2bit/base4.
antiHUMANDesigns but why? You can just zse MSB to say what side you are coding and then just make a line of 2-bits characters. If you need other side, you would use program thet calculates what is on the oposit side. So its 1 one bit for side (0-left, 1-right) and array of n 2-bits characters. If you are encoding just a part of genom, you need tqo more memory informations, for start and end. So, you need two lets sya 16-bite for location, one 1-bite tipe for side and n 2-bite characters for genom.
"So far ALL testable evidence of life forms evolving falls within creation science limits. "
OK, so for a fair minded person like me, who has just read the evidence outlined in Dawkins' new book, taken from the more than 2,000,000 peer reviewed publications that deal with evolution - where are the published papers that support what you've said here?
What scientific papers, for example, refute the accepted decay rates of the radioactive isotopes that allow us to date rocks so accurately?
I love that the atheist didn’t have to say a single word and still sort of won the debate.
"I don't know" seems to be the hardest thing to swallow.
Nonsense, the universe was created, as we all know, by the great Norse Titan Ymir.
I’m tempted to correct your wrong statement, but not for the reason you think. I’m a Heathen, I worship the gods described in that story. Ymir was Jotun, Titans are Greek. Ymir was killed and the universe made from his corpse, he wasn’t the creator.
You heathen! The flying spaghetti monster is the only god with the precision to create a universe like this!
3:05 that's what I call the "Generic Deity Fallacy" which is a special case of the Strawperson Fallacy. They try to defend their specific god by defending a more realistic and generic version of it, because they know that their specific version is easily debunkable, while the generic version is unfalsifiable
Did you just rename the strawman fallacy to try to be politically correct?
@@shatterhacked on second thought, I should rename it to Straw-Human or Straw-{They/Them} to be more politically correct.
Ok, jokes aside, it wasn't necessarily because of that. I just found it weird that it was called "straw-man". In my main language, it would be called "dummy" or "straw doll", which is inherently genderless and non-human
@@Rudxain I was just saying… it has a name. The name is the strawman fallacy. That’s like referring to a person with a nickname that no one knew about.
Idk, it just makes me feel weird when you rename things that have official names. Especially when you write it like this is how it’s always been.
@@shatterhackedI kinda agree 👍
It's the motte and bailey fallacy
This was my exact line of thinking when I started questioning. In World Religions class in high school, I realized that basically all the religions are the same so why is christianity the correct one?
Because christianity claim to be the true religion only because of competition, not because it is the only one.
I don't remember where I've heard it that "Christians won because we count years based on Christianity"
Supposing there is some supernatural entity, and further suppose that at least one human group has actually, genuinely described the nature of that entity correctly.
On odds, it’s just as likely to be some golden buffalo in a cave painting as any religion we’ve heard of today.
No supernatural being seems much more probable.
religions aren’t the same their concept and teachings are different. most of the religions were corrupted and followers just blindly believe it to be true. christian preachers start with good points, yet, after giving you some doubts they start forcing paganic beliefs on you(man god, sacrifice, etc)
The Atheist through all this.
A:.....................
well, you just wait for the circular reasoning to tire them out, and then you go in for the kill.
Yet he won
I am a christian and i think this video is dumb
the fallen emperor why explain
@@TheGamer14300 i have no idea why, i don't even remember commenting that
It's meant to be subtle, but your William Lane Craig impression is fuckin spot on! Haha
When the guy in middle had a realization... I felt that
Best channel ever, I wish I'd discovered it a long time ago.
I've been showing these videos to my young kids and they love them as well. They can enjoy the sarcasm and the humour, and at 8 and 10 years old they can recognise religion for the nonsense that it is; why some adults can't seem to outgrow these silly superstitions? It baffles the mind...
To be a theist, you have to make several assumptions without evidence. To be an atheist, all you have to do is not make m those assumptions and accept reality as it is. If kids were not indoctrinated into it, I dare say most of them would skip the assumptions altogether. Kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for.
I was raised in a religious home, and you could probably say I believed in god as a kid, just as much as I believed in Santa and the Easter Bunny. My family eventually told me the latter two were fake, but the first, totally real. Well, it doesn’t really take a genius to connect the dots. I didn’t have a massive de-conversion moment. Over time I just dropped the assumption of god’s existence because without evidence, there was no reason to hold on to it. As one might say of Santa or the Bunny, I just outgrew God. I didn’t need to lean on an imaginary being to explain anything.
If not forced into their parents beliefs, but instead taught critical thinking and allowed to make up their own minds, I honestly think most kids would reject religion.
This feels like UA-cam archeology ) And finding nuggets of pure wit!
I, myself, am a UA-cam fossil.
Imagine my surprise when this gem of a channel was recommended 10 years late. Atleast I can enjoy it now
@@NonStampCollector You are best fossil we got
With every new video I watch from you I call it my favorite. 😂 it’s great work really
Oh my gosh nonstampcollector is still around?
@@starsaversyes, he just doesn't upload that much. but he still actively reads and replies to comments
@@arytecht haha you're only 3 months late to this party
@@starsavers lmao
The Fine Adjustment argument is like looking at a chair that is so fragile that all it takes is for a slightly heavy person to sit on it and it falls over, and then you say "See? The chair is so precise and perfect that all it takes is a little weight is placed on it and it already falls, this can only be the work of an intelligent carpenter".
That's a good way to explain it.
@@NonStampCollector OH NO-GOD, AN ATHEIST CHANNEL ANSWERED ME. I am now a realized atheist.
Do you feel seen?
@@NonStampCollector Yeah
Still?
Sort of reminds me of how the Ken Ham / Bill Nye debate went. Ken's answer to all Bill's scientific evidence was "magic".
Did you not just type: "Atheists are some of the most dogmatic people blind to evidence on the entire planet, equal in nearly every respect to the most extreme Christian right fundamentalists"
No, that's not stereotying now, is it.
I would like to see an Apologist Christian and Fundamentalist Christian debate. I'm not quite sure how that would go though. I guess it would be rather one-sided. The Fundamentalist would just keep saying, "I have a book...".
+Phillip Moore Or maybe repeat, "How do you know that?" ad nauseam.
"But our book is so full of truth that only some parts of it contradict eachother"
I fucking died and went no where when i heard this
"No they don't".
You should write for an comedy show. Your work is brilliant.
Science must prove how life can originate without WHICH god?
And why aren't you saying any of these:
Science must prove how life can originate without gods / aliens from a seven-dimensional universe / magic life-giving unicorns / the ether / Zeus / the New Zealand deities Ranganui and Papatuanuku. ?
@Hehe Hehe Someone's intellect doesn't surpass the room's temperature, because in the comment he actually stated that you should prove Zeus didn't create the world in the same way you claim that god created everything.
Which doesn't make sense, claims become reality once they're proven, the same applies for everything, but since all deities lack evidence, how would you claim that your god is the only true god ?
@Hehe Hehe Oh
and why isn't Yahweh too just mythology?
Just like zeus
What makes your god more credible ?
@Hehe Hehe Before one billion people believed that the solar system is geocentric, does that make this claim any more credible? Not in the slightest, only solid evidence has proven that the solar system is heliocentric.
So the number of believers doesn't define a claim's truthness, only solid evidence does, the same can be applied to your god, give me one solid evidence and I'll convert to whichever cult you belong to.
@Hehe Hehe Well on the second one you completely missed the point, there is no mount Olympus with gods on top, I second that, but is there a magical creator hiding in the skies and clouds for 2 millennia, no, at least not until solid evidence is presented, and that is my point.
@Hehe Hehe Someone's got a very peculiar brain, because I never ever mentioned the big bang but whatever, let's see, so my unicorn has no proof, and your god too, therefore my unicorn is real, see ?
You used the same reasoning to "respond" which does not make any sense, one entity not having evidence doesn't make your beliefs true in the sligtest.
Second of all, you can't compare a simple, inconsistent, incoherent, unprovable belief to a theory that has loads and loads of evidence, supported by the whole world's scientific communities, and as a quick example, gravity is just a theory too.
Here is another thing on the whole "the odds" argument. The big bang could have tried to start many times before. If you told me to bet 500 dollars that two dice will make a snake eyes on my first try, I laugh in your face. But if you said I could keep rolling until I got it, then I would take it without missing a heart beat. Any odds are possible given enough time.
great point! especially given the immense age of the universe already, it is certainly plausible
@@swiftmk5480 Thank you!
So, what "claim" do you think that atheism is making?
Do you actually think that atheism is making a claim any more solid than your "belief" that Zeus doesn't exist? Or Thor? Do you think that we are obliged to provide evidence that a deity such as, say, Yahweh, doesn't exist because we doubt its existence in exactly the same was as you doubt that of Ra?
What is the "alternative" that you think atheism is failing to provide evidence for?
It's actually a fair enough argument to be a deist. I mean, I'm atheistic, but I'd accept this explanation over the bible, Torah, Quran, Hindu scriptures, etc.
fair? I don't know about that. The most rational position to take into account anything metaphysical - absolutely.
***** That our universe's inception was purely natural?
+B0badenvero8 Well first, that's contingent on your definition of "nothing", and second, just because we don't have examples of other universe's being created - using these examples for documentation and study - doesn't mean that we can automatically assign our inception to something supernatural or beyond our recognized dimensions. That's an argument from ignorance, and it's similar to the facile watchmaker analogy. We merely haven't reached the scientific point where we can definitively assert that we know the answers to these questions, but an equally valid question would be: what examples of other supernatural deities do we have to compare to the one that supposedly made us and our universe? All I'm doing is siding with the null hypothesis until evidence, not speculation, is presented in a scientific manner.
***** What logical explanation? One that consists of an unfounded and unsubstantiated belief in a deity that hasn't been seen nor detected whatsoever by anyone, ever? All you're doing is appealing to complexity and ignorance. Just because you don't understand something or something is complex doesn't mean that a deity is responsible for it. That's absurd to assume that without evidence, hard evidence. That's the personification of irrational.
+B0badenvero8 Again, if you're going to insist on appealing to complexity or ignorance, then we have nothing to debate. I'm not going to keep reiterating that neither complexity nor being unaware of all the complexities this universe has to offer = deity. Without even knowing it, you made my point. Before we knew and understood electricity, it was thought that supernatural forces made lighting appear and disappear. Your stance is basically insinuating that they were justified in asserting that a deity caused said lightning. Reality and science shows otherwise, even if it took us longer to understand exactly what electricity was. That's why your argument is facile. No, we don't know EXACTLY how the universe formed, but we can make some damn good extrapolations based on evidence and mathematical calculations. Inserting a deity into the equation is superfluous.
"Well, I guess we could start a war...", priceless!
The moderator switching back and forth from happy/smiling to aggressively angry is so point
come on you infidels out in the car park now
The way I look at it, the entire universe just kept crunching and banging, crunching and banging, forever, with slight alterations, till it finally exploded into the universe we enjoy today.
It's really that simple.
I'm not enjoying it, actually i'm finding it pretty fucked. I agree with you're theory though, it's probably what happened/is happening and will happen continue to happen forever. We won't even be a memory. I can see why religious nuts have trouble processing that and choose fairy tales to comfort themselves to the fact. Fuck.
MadNotAngry another way to think about it is that we wouldn't be existing in a universe where it would be impossible to exist, so by the nature of existence, we had to be, by definition, within a universe that could support us
I logged in to comment the same thing poorly worded
@Alex Gowers but as long as gravity still affect on some level wouldn't it eventually consume the momentum of the big bang and start to pull everything back toward each other? even if it is an infinitesimal amount of pull if it just doesn't stop wont it eventually win?
@@NuclearLama No. Imagine this super simplified example: at time t1 something is moving away at speed 2 and gravity is slowing it down by rate 1. Now at time t2 the speed of 'something' is 1, but gravity is only slowing it down at rate 0.5 (because of increased distance). At time t3 it's moving at speed 0.5 but the slowing is 0.25 etc.
time speed slowing (rate)
t1 2 1
t2 1 0.5
t3 0.5 0.25
So in this example the speed is always double the slowing rate and it will never catch up. Gravitational pull will never stop but the speed is always ahead of it.
(I realize that after all this might not be 'super simplified example' but I hope you get the point)
My video is making the claim that the ontological and teleological arguments do not assist any one religion over any other. Therefore, it is NOT a non-sequitor.
The non-sequitor is being made whenever a believer in a particular branch of theism uses those arguments to "prove" their god's existence.
If you're against non-sequitors, as I guess you are, you have a whole lot of religions out there to take issue with over this matter. Tell THEM to stop using deistic arguments to promote theism.
I can't get enough of your videos NSC!
Thanks man. I tweeted it. It's a nice succinct version of what I usually say (which isn't my original anyway), namely that God sacrificed itself unto itself to convince itself to allow itself to forgive its own creations and save them from its own punishment in the eternal torture chamber that it had created.
Why are you so good? I think you're really awesome, NonStampCollector. I love you. :D
remember back when a video with a "10 years ago" meant that it was some of the first videos on youtube, feels so weird seeing that and for it to seem more inline with modern youtube
This is f***ing brilliantly well done
My thoughts exactly. William Lane Craig can do well in a debate when he approaches things from a vague philosophical standpoint. Once he starts talkin' Jebus, it falls apart. I was horrified by some of the stuff he wrote in reasonable faith. It's disgusting.
Lol, btw, I just wanted to ask why you and others say jebus? (I'm an atheist btw!:)
Sammy Puro Simpsons.
I still don't get it? :(
Sammy Puro youtube search Jebus
cbbuntz exactly. even Thomas Aquinas conceded that no logical man could get from deism to theism.
Hold on, which one advocates the virtues of faith in things unseen?
I’ve always wondered what would happen if I asked, “If everything has a creator, then what created God?”
Why do your videos keep popping up in my feed!? I have other things to do you know! But every time one pops up I can't help but watch it, they're funny as hell.
I hope this isn't happening to others.
When I get back to making videos, I'll make sure that they're boring and not at all funny. Countless hours of my viewers' productive lives are being wasted.
@@NonStampCollector 😂
I put 3 pots outside with seeds in them. One i put under the deck with no light or water. The second one i put under my patio so it got light but no water. The last one I put in a spot with adequate sunlight and rain. 2/3 pots didn't grow anything, therefore there's no creator.
This logic is just as true as "there was a beginning so there must have been a beginner.
Man, "your" tweet got 130+retweets and was seen by 60,000 people.
right before he left, the atheist should have said "my work here is done"
Kevin Tisano
Personally, I reckon he should have sat there until the video ended, or go up to the podium and say "I win."
I thought that the atheist should stand up, walk toward the center of the stage, and take a bow.
I think he should've just turned to the audiance and said, "I rest my case."
@finalsmasher Simple. By asking them which god or gods they're talking about, and why.
"COME ON, YOU INFIDELS! OUT IN THE CAR PARK, NOW!"
These guys should come back...We need the content
Isn't this about The Puddle Fallacy,
Basically, the universe is 'fine-tuned' (it necessarily isn't ) to support human life (as we know it), and if the events or constants that help form our universe any different there would be nothing. (would it really?)
It presents a false dichotomy (this happens a lot) that 'if so and so were different, there won't be a universe' How would theists know that? It'll be different sure, but won't there still be a universe? Who's to say that life won't form?
The only certainty that there won't be a universe if everything that was is and will be discovered . No constants of any sort, no form of energy or matter. Just complete and utter nothingness from which no patterns can emerge because there is nothing form those patterns
Woes, that is a real trip! I'm glad to help spread the message of rationality. Thank you for getting my comment out there! I hope you keep up your awesome video work.
Just checking something -
people who block users do so because they don't want a free discussion of ideas (similar to Soviet Russia, China, North Korea)....
does this apply to christian channels who block and edit comments? Are they also like totalitarian regimes? Just checking to see if consistency is important to you...
The silliness of "knowledge" by faith exposed so easily...
I had to come back and watch this sublime reflection of humanity and its idiotic superstition, irrationality and prejudice, once more - bravo 10/10
Just discovered your content, you produced videos of higher quallity than the ones produced in that time.
I love your content.
they all have the exact same argument, but it's all for a different god. What a twist.
Funny how the atheist didn't even speak and the theists started tripping all over themselves. Says a lot about religion.
I claim their arguments in the name of MANA-YOOD-SHUSHAI Before there stood gods on olympus, before allah was allah before Jesus and his trinity existed There he flew in the infinite darkness and cold that he created "In the mists before the Beginning, Fate and Chance cast lots to decide whose the Game should be; and he that won strode through the mists to MĀNA-YOOD-SUSHĀĪ and said: "Now make gods for Me, for I have won the cast and the Game is to be Mine." "
I have looked at a few of your videos but this one was the best yet. Keep it up.
Man, can you tweet that so I can retweet it?!
truth is that atheists did not torture, killed, burned, raped etc ppl who disagree with them about god's existence. religious ppl have done all this things to ppl who didn't believed in their version(atheists, ppl from other religions, sometime ppl who said something or asked something "wrong").
very good video with very good point...
Wrong. Communist regimes. Mao and Pol Pot.
conscience aginBlackadder yeah i was gonna say that. And what about Nazis?
Guys let's be real everyone fights to different extremes to get their way for it's human nature. Does not matter what religion, race, or place that these fights occur since it happens in all three. Let's just be glad that social conditions are favorable for fighting strategically with verbal words so that we can discover for ourselves what truths are out there in the real world.
@vvenomm 492 one principle tenet of Marxism is atheism, because religion is a means for people to gain power over others
@Buddy3439 everybody serves something.
Please, come on people. "Allah" is not the name of the islamic god, it's just the Arabic word for "God". And I don't see why it's kept being sayed that the islamic god is different from the christian god or jewish god. It's the same mythological caracter!
In a way. But since Judaism and Christianity essentially believe it's fanfiction he may as well be treated as a different character.
What's that got to do with the price of rice in china?
Yes and no.. Yes the word allah is word used for God. It is basically two words combinded.
Al means "The" and Lah means "God".
Are they essential the same for all religion yes and no. For judaism God is for a certain groups of people who are bound by commandments and instructions (torah etc..) ; For christians God is for those who believe in a Triune figure/s as the ultimate divine being.. And in the triune, one of them took earthly form..? Lived and died..? And resurrected.. They threw out the old laws and follow new belief but hold to the old laws as a reminder and a connection to show the continuity of religion ; For muslims, it is very simple just like what the bible says in the early books God is the Only, Unique noting like him. Nothing earthly of him. Not a Male or a Female. Not for one group or nation but for all. Does not share, no intermediaries. And that's about it..
S Clair But Judaism says that Jesus and the Father are fanfiction.
Bread Hime
But they both use the old testament. Islam doesn't use it. They rewrote it.
30 seconds in, already thumbs up the video! "you are going to regret trying to take us on, on your own" - moderator.
It's like this is a spoof of so many debates that I've watched lately ... except that this was made first. It's almost like prominent Christians literally wrote their debate scripts from this video. :P
Brilliant!!
Love how youtube captions have a problem with the word "Atheist" and catches it as "habeas" or "eighties"... Trully brilliant xD
Wonderful. You, sir, are a creative genius.
Ever hear the one about the two atheists who decided to get married? It didn't last - they couldn't agree on which religion NOT to bring up the children in.....
That doesn't work. Athiest don't believe in ANY so they'll reject it ALL.
@@cameoshadowness7757 r/woooosh
Wow that was horrible
Exactly. He ignores me every time on things like this. He says I need to have evidence to doubt Yahweh, but seems content to leave himself off the hook for doubting every single other deity as well as things like fairies and leprechauns.
Why can we not see the people you are replying to?
I imagine if there is a god, they're laughing at us because of all these labels we created for our own self satisfaction, and that those labels doesn't match their descriptions at all
These videos have stood the test of time…excellent
It’s ironic that the best arguments I’ve ever heard for theism was from an athiest.
What does the Qaran tell you to do with people like me, who don't believe in Allah or his "prophet".
Perhaps I ought to tell you if you can't tell me.
Let's see if you know how "peaceful" your "religion of peace" really is.
Nothing. Read the 109th chapter
@@potatoking1656 perfect
A great answer to a perennial problem. First the theists present arguments for theism over atheism, then they take a huge unjustified leap to _their_ god.
this is by far the greatest and most epic channel on youtube!