I'm glad you're against the cop-outs as an atheist. Do do you believe the origins of Life came into existence without the Creator without God ? If so please provide evidence to why you believe that. And if I'm not convinced in return I will provide evidence to why I believe in God and we will see which one is more logical. If you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God just admit to me that you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God I hope you're not going to cop out because you said you dislike it.
@@BidenIsraelFirst you are asking me for the burden of evidence because I refute as a heretic the existence or first origins of life, I don't need to provide evidence for something that doesn't ontologically make sense to me. I also never claimed to know with validity that there isn't a deity and it doesn't mean that there is or still might be a first creater. You need actual evidence for the existence of a god not sensational philosophical treaties or propositions. This is not a contest to have the best convincing argument to satisfy our egos it's about having circumstantial evidence or logical unfalsifiable sound proof to verify your assertion of a creator god."
@@BidenIsraelFirst your asking me for the burden of proof when I am not claiming for the existence of a deity creator and do not need to provide evidence for just something that doesn't't ontologically make sound sense to me. This one is not a contest of having the best convincing argument to satisfy our egos. I don't need philosophical treaties or propositions it's about having circumstantial unfalsifiable evidence or proof for your assertion of a creator god." (Paraphrasing my first accidentally deleted comment.)
@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr This. It is a way of being lazy as. Instead of doing the work of thinking what their choices mean ( in relation to who they are & consequences ), & learning what morality actually means & why, & learning how to make moral choices of what's right or wrong, then practicing it, to brain-train to make sure of their continued good choices in the future. Instead, they've latched onto the ( outdated, un-updated ) ready-made cookbook, that's all setup for them, of what to do/ say etc. But still not knowing WHY or HOW to do it by themselves. The "no thought or effort needed" book of living So they've never actually learnt the reasons for morality & why it's important to human society. ( except for "cos I, god, said so" ) You simply are NOT & can't be moral, if you haven't practiced those moral choices. When you just do what you're told, you aren't being moral. If you don't actually choose it yourself, youre not deciding, making moral choices, based on what your morals are. So, no wonder they make crappy choices when they have to figure it out all on their own. When that exact situation isn't written down with the exact answers, of what to do. Just like a kid that copies the answers, but doesn't know HOW & WHY those are the right answers. sad as. 😁🌏☮️
@@bobgarrett7134 "Belief in God is taking ultimate responsibility for your life, future, virtue, overall conduct, and eternal destination." Haha, no it isn't! It's the complete opposite - handing over all responsibility to your imaginary sky daddy and celebrating the murder of his son for _your_ sins 😂
I don't believe you is not a worldview I don't believe you is not a dogma I don't believe you is not a cult or a religion And i don't believe god claims because, no believer has met my standard of evidence
There's no standard of evidence they could meet because it's an incoherent claim. I don't believe theists nor do I demand evidence of them because they fail to meet my standard of intelligibility.
They don't really understand how a lot of words actually work. They understand some words through their religious ideology. Why would you need faith for/in something you have clear evidence of? They want to make claims about knowledge and evidence, but use faith as one of their foundations for "knowledge and evidence".
An encouraging note, the more people are leaving Religion and society becomes secular the more people will recognize typical theist arguments to be absurd and cult like.
The constant obsession with pigeon-holing atheism into some strawman worldview, gets tedious to listen to after awhile. It's as though the goal is to simply make the label `atheism` into something so ambiguous, it doesn't fit anyone. `There! We defined atheism out of existence!` 🙄
I've seen that argument from actual apologists, and I think that's their goal. The very existence of an atheist is very threatening to someone who believes god wants a personal relationship.
These types of people do this with so many things. Try to define something into something else it isn't to make the people who use that label or even people who think about going in that direction, as somehow inherently evil and/or wrong. Then it's extremely dishonest because when told they're wrong they refuse to acknowledge what these terms actually mean and/or represent.
Then don’t believe.. I believe in God but would never force you to believe what I believe because what right do I have in doing that? Some of you overthink anything that challenges your beliefs and why is that? No one twisted my arm to believe in God and how would that make me believe in God? I reached out by the Faith giving to all Romans12v3. And anyone else can to.. or choose not to and that is that.
@@davidrexford586 I was that kind of christian too. I didn't push my beliefs. Believe what you want. I think people under think it. They think about assuming he's real. As soon as you look at it as he is just a story. They look at the Bible. It couldn't be more clear. What would we look like if the bible was true? Why are we not made of dirt? Why aren't we solid? Why isn't the earth solid? Why is there a universe that we have no hope of ever seeing? Why as big as the universe is, would a god care about who we have sex with? Why do we have to eat and drink to live? Why do we poop? Doesn't it seem like a being that thinks so highly of itself would make its best creation poop something so nasty?
@@gracefulsledge2857 God is not just a story.. were you born again and baptized in the Holy Spirit? Did you have a real conversion or just believe you were saved because someone told you that you were? Did you do things for God to strengthen your Faith in God?
@@davidrexford586 Yes he is just a story. A bad story at that. That god is an incompetent a$$ clown. It's best creation was screwed up in the first chapter. He murders millions in the Bible. For little to no reason. He is fake, but if he was real. He would be unworthy of worship.
People who know they can’t prove their god. When you have no facts you have to rely on feelings. Which wouldn’t be a problem if you accept your religion is personal/emotional. The same crew that says “your feelings aren’t facts” are the same crew as the caller. What the MEAN is: YOUR feelings aren’t facts but mine are!
C: "There is a God" A: "...cool, that sounds great! Can you show me?" C: "no" A: "...ah I see, what made you believe that it exists? Happy to listen" C: "what you asking me for? Burden of proof is on you bubby," A: "..." C: "well, why cant you show me that there isn't a god? I am right!"
That dialogue seems very unrealistic. Average atheists wouldnt say "cool that sounds great!", because they really like the idea of no God, no afterlife, no objective morality, etc. Also, believers rarely talk about burden of proof, and even if they do, it is just because the atheist side brought this topic up.
Unlike atheists online, most atheist simply don’t think about the supernatural. It doesn’t come up often in real life. Other than sleeping in on Sundays, atheism is only as mind & time consuming as not collecting stamps. Most people, most days, are getting through their days, focused on the issues in front of them.
@@Savyy_ahmad You also have to believe that a certain set of three stamps, which appear different from one another, are really all the same stamp. And that if you mumble some words over a small piece of paper it becomes a stamp, even though it still appears blank.
The "I don't know" was the best thing that happened to me.....Once I left the rigid fundamental pentecostal denomination and started an independent church I began reading much more broadly, every question I studied about problems with the bible the more questions I created. The glorious conclusion was that there is zero convincing evidence for a god.
While Tom was respectful, the bulk of his calls revolved around grievances with atheism. His reasoning for belief often veered into the realm of the absurd, relying on tired arguments straight from the theist's playbook as his so-called "evidence."
Evidence shows us that the belief in God is an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion. Where is believing the origins of Life came into existence without God it's not an instinctive thought or logical conclusion. Atheism is a biased position it's a disbelief it's a lack of belief it has nothing to do with evidence science. Matter of fact atheism doesn't even require thought it doesn't require a consciousness you can be a vegetable and be an atheist. If you had no ability to think if you had no consciousness you wouldn't have the ability to accept God as true therefore you would be an atheist.
@@BidenIsraelFirst And that (the evidence that believing in god is natural) doesn’t make that fact true. It’s in fact almost the opposite : it explains why people tends to join religions and why there are so many different religions Edit: hey look, NEPy saw that his comment backfired because they saw my answer using his point on the other direction, and so they had to delete it !
@@quentind1924 how is the belief in God being an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion evidence of God be the opposite of a fact that doesn't make any sense
@@BidenIsraelFirst Where’s your original comment ? And to answer that question, it’s more likely to have many false religions in a world where it’s natural for people to believe in the existence of a god than if it wasn’t. Admit it, considering that there are over 3,000 different religions, evidence showing we tend to believe in god no longer means anything to prove the god of one specific religion
how can one engage in conversation with someone who uses different definitions for 'logic', 'evidence', 'epistemology', 'knowledge', ...and all these defined around and based on their faith in tribal mythology!
Even if God was proven by the scientific method atheist still wouldn't accept God as true because atheism is a disbelief or lack of belief. Atheists believe stupid things all the time. Just look at how they put their sons in a dress 👗 because of the things they believe.
Do you say that God does not exist. Or do you say, you have not made your case for God's existence. When you and I were younger Atheism meant saying God did not exist. Now it includes saying that believers have not made their case. There are still people saying God does not exist and I wish they would shut up or start saying believers have not made their case.
This is absolutely ridiculous. This old guy doesnt believe in Zeus. Does he need evidence for not believing in him? He literally is an atheist to every god except his. We just go one further.
@@petermeichan3160I think the callers were much more reasonable back in these days, even though they sprouted ridiculous nonsense also, they were not completely nuts in general
@@ARoll925the problem with atheism is it's a biased position it's rejection or unwillingness to accept God as true. And on top of that the vast majority of atheists don't actually believe the origins of Life came into existence without God So how do you debate somebody who's not willing or able to accept God as true but at the same time doesn't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God.
It's just a simple misunderstanding on the part of theists. I am an atheist because I have yet to be presented with any compelling evidence for any given god. Until I do my default position is that I don't think one exists. My reasoning for rejecting the christian god claim is no different than my reasoning for rejecting the muslim god, the hindu gods, the norse gods, the roman gods, etc. etc. etc. There is no compelling evidence. It really is that simple. It is the apologists for religions that muddy the waters and try to portray disbelief as something different from what it is.
I’m an atheist from the UK, Marcus, and the theist imposition here is exactly the same although not a heavy as in the US. Over here, theists cannot accept “I don’t know” and can’t accept the atheist view point because their way of filling the gap is god - an unfalsifiable claim, of course. A clear case of special pleading because for any other topic belief is not adopted without proportional evidence.
My default position is that I dont think that one (objective) default position exists. I think there are many subjective default positions, but whether there is at least one objective default position and whether it is on non-believers side is debatable.
I can kind of understand the Thiest frustration of just being told “I don’t believe you, prove it”. Let’s be honest, it’s really easy to throw your hands up and say I don’t know or I don’t believe you. I’m full blown atheist but I do understand how annoying it can be to argue with someone who has no work to do on their side of the argument (no burden of proof)
@@sexton824 The theist frustration of being told, "prove it" would be like the frustration by prosecutors when they charge people for crimes and the defendants keep saying, "prove it". Also, if the theists are using their beliefs to justify their bigotry or to push for some legislation that affects everyone, then they should be ready to either prove their beliefs or stop using their religion to bash others. Otherwise, they are no different than someone believing in astrology. But what would you say if the President of the US relied on astrology in their job?
Actually atheism is a disbelief or lack of in God or gods which means it's a rejection for an inability to accept God as true If it's only a rejection of a claim as you suggest it would mean that a person couldn't become an atheist reflecting in their own thoughts.. meaning they couldn't think of their own head whether or not humanity is the result of a Creator or a non intelligent occurrence. That would mean the only way they would be able to be an atheist is if they rejected a claim. So again atheism is a rejection to accept or an inability to accept God as true.
@@Spooky90097according to the OP a person couldn't be an atheist thinking on their own they can only be an atheist if they reject a claim. Atheism is a biased position it's in unwillingness or inability to accept God as true Which means even if God was proven by the scientific method and atheist still wouldn't believe in God. It's not possible to believe something you're not willing or able to accept as true.
Sorry, but when this guy tried to shift the burden of proof you should have taken him to the woodshed, however respectfully. You two didn’t acquit yourselves very well here.
Most theists act as if they are totally unaware of other religions. They ask, "Do you believe in God?" I will always ask: Which god? It is ridiculous not to ask because there are so many proposed gods both currently and in the past. For example, ask a JW Christian if they believe Jesus is God and they'll say NO. There are completely different god beliefs even within Christianity, let alone other religions (some without god beliefs).
If a person had never known about theism/deity, they would not be an atheist until after encountering the notion of deity/theism AND found it unconvincing. For such a person, inventing a label for a notion they had never encountered or conceived of would be ridiculous. So it is that atheism only exists in contrast/contradiction to theism. ** Arguments about the purported evidence offered by theists are then subject to the many vicissitudes & faults of relative valuation amongst people. Among the worst faults (IMO), is the shifting of the burden of proof from the claim of theism to the non-claim of atheism.
"they would not be an atheist until after encountering the notion of deity/theism AND found it unconvincing" Not true. "So it is that atheism only exists in contrast/contradiction to theism." Not true. Atheism would exists even without theism because atheism literally means without theism. 😀People are born as atheists and stay atheists. Until someone brainwash them and indoctrinate theistic nonsense into their brain, then they will stop being atheists. That means atheism is default position and it's independent on existence of theism.
@@Seticzech I think we may mean the same thing. If no one had ever proposed theism/deity to explain a phenomenon, and merely said 'I don't know yet, then there wouldn't be theism, either as concept or as a word. Therefore, the term 'atheism' would be unnecessary in concept or word. (Cue music for What A Wonderful World It Could Be). 👍
For some strange reason, the people who feel atheists are burdened to prove the Christian god doesn't exist... don't feel burdened to prove that deities in other mythologies don't exist. Odd
Hypocrisy and projection cop-out where having faith in a looney tunes character like Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck allows you to cheat death and gain immortality.
I was just watching a NonStampCollector video about Lowbar. Billy boy was spouting BS 15 years ago, and he's gotten worse since. I'd say these days he's just phoning it in.
Unless the answer is god done did it, they don't have answers I'd even go as far as to say, the majority of the time they don't understand the question
More like: Atheism gets you out of doing boring AF God ritual activities like worship and prayer 😎 And a good Saturday Morning 🌞 AXP, Fans and Theists ❤❤❤ Peace Love Empathy From Australia 💪🤠🍌
I have no problem with Jesus, just his dad. If we were blaming Jesus for what his dad did, we'd be going by what the bible says. As a historical figure, Jesus was good. As god, not so much.
@@ApatheticFish3667 As a character, Jesus is extremely flawed in our modern morality. He does draw parallels with other heroes of their era, maybe not as many deaths. One wonders how much is common in the average citizen of their era and how much is copied from contemporary stories.
@AXKfUN9m - How? How is Jesus flawed? You guys are pushing a false narrative. You want proof of his grace: the entire book of John. Imagine what he went through. You got Barabas, a guy that was a murder and extremist who is the equivalent of Bin Laden. Jesus took his place and he was spared from being executed. That’s grace. I think the worst part of the crucifixion story is the fact that he was abandoned by everyone including his 12. Actually John was there with Mary. But the feeling of betrayal, humiliation, and total abandonment in my opinion is one the worst part of the crucifixion other than the crucifixion itself. And yet you sit here condemning him.
"Do all atheists believe this one type of worldview?" "No. Some of us do, and others do not. I happen to believe that, and other atheists often disagree with me." "See, the fact that you believe this is proof that all atheists have the same worldview!"
As a 57 year old who's been an atheist all his life, I do get confused by this "new atheism" thing. Did you have to be introduced to the concept of religion being utter BS by Hitchens, Harris, Dennett or Dawkins, or do theists just use the term for every atheist? Shame we've now lost two of these guys, Dawkins has an anti-woke streak a mile wide due to his age, and Harris isn't far behind from all accounts.
If you ask me, religion is the cop out. People use it as a way to try and explain the unexplainable or to excuse the random things that happen in life as being the work of some benevolent overseer who has perception that mortal humans do not. Most of the religious people that I know are more focused on their belief about what will happen after they die. To me that is a tragic waste of the life we are living right now.
you know Im tired of this shhhh. Next time I run into a theist. I'll proudly say that my confidence is in that there is no god and you know what it still isn't on me to prove anything. deal with it theists. psssh.
I think that so-called "new atheism" is characterised by pointing out how full of shit apologists are on the internet. That's really what it comes down to. There have been outspoken atheists before but there were fewer of them and they were less visible. Now that anyone and everyone can call out religious BS on the internet, it had to be labelled so it could be demonised.
We could say the same thing about religion. It's easy canned answers to important philosophical questions in place of looking at reality and doing the hard work of thinking for one's self. It's like tapping out at the first ring of the bell.
I do not believe in any gods, I do not have to justify my belief and I certainly don't have to prove the existence of any God. Even if the God of the Bible does exist I would not worship the evil lying bully.
"Atheism Is Just A Cop-Out!" "The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist" is the saying, right? What if the greatest trick that "god" ever played was convincing the world that "he" DID exist?
I would agree that there is a subset of atheists that combines soft atheism, skepticism, and humanism. Still, no organization or dogma is telling them how to think on any particular issue. There are also atheists with entirely different worldviews such as Buddhists, and those who don't believe in gods but believe in other woo-woo spiritual or supernatural ideas.
Humanism is pretty much a religion, where the dogma is whatever the virtuous say (which is circular ⭕, but so is all religion). But it is distinct from Atheism. And they don't overlap completely.
@@Gerryjournal I don't see why it would imply a "proscribed" subset. Sets can just as easily be formed because they incidentally have common characteristics. With that said many proponents of atheism or secular humanism describe a similar philosophy, so in that way, it is to a degree proscribed. Still, many individuals take an eclectic approach to what ideas they include in their worldview.
The hosts frustrated me more than the caller. They allowed this caller to make fallacious generalisations about atheism. Atheism does not make claims and it is NOT complicated. If they had corrected that properly at the very beginning the caller would not have been able to make his generalisations. He was also allowed to get away with suggesting a so-called "new atheism" was a philosophical system. This is clearly trying to shift the burden of proof. Russ even suggested there was something in the claim. No there is not. The caller proceeded to suggests atheists were naturalists and scientific empiricists and if that was the case, then they did have a burden of proof. No! If an atheist makes a claim about naturalism or scientific empiricism , then they have a burden of proof on their claim about naturalism or scientific empiricism, not about their atheism. I have great admiration for the hosts and they have a lot more courage than me to go public to be challenged, but on this occasion they did not do well at all. They allowed this caller to get away with far too much.
Would be nice to add the date of the clip. It does not matter whether it is 5 days, 5 weeks or 5 years ago. The arguments do not change, Good calls like this one can be old and are still interesting. Edit: In the meantime I saw it, so thanks for the hints.
@@joshsheridan9511 If it starts with the year, it's usually yyyy-mm-dd. The mm/dd/yyyy is just because Americans want to do thinks in their own way while thinking we are miles ahead of others.
@@queuecee+1, MM-DD-YYYY Make as much sense as DD-YYYY-MM. Either you go from the most precise to the least (DD-MM-YYYY), or starting general then precise further (YYYY-MM-DD) but not a mix between both
Being complicit in genocide is pretty gross. Dems are absolutely as fascist as Republicans, have you seen the crack down on protests that Dems and Repubs are so proud of, at the behest of a foreign government? And they fund literal Nazis so idk what you think you're proving.
"Naturalism, scientific empiricism... they have to cough up some evidence for some of that." -- Requiring evidence to substantiate claims is what leads people to not believe in things for which there is no evidence, e.g. the supernatural. You can't know about something that can't be detected.
Yeah they say it is. Something with the four horseman Dawkins, Hitchens and such. I have heard that english guy (cosmic skeptic maybe?) talking about it.
Christian - "Accept jesus into your heart, repent, and be saved!" Old Atheist - "That's interesting. If you don't mind, I have an errand to run" Christian - "Accept jesus into your heart, repent, and be saved!" New Atheist - "BWA HA HA HAHA!!! I didn't know that cabbages could talk!"
How can asking for evidence for any claim be a « cop out »? Imagine a court case where the judge and jury ask for evidence to prove the defendant is guilty of murder and the prosecution says that is a « cop out ». It preposterous.
I think that he's falling for apologists' propaganda when he says that, because they complain when we say that we "lack a belief in god" because it's harder for them to attack. They want us to have to do the work to prove them wrong rather them their having to justify their own position. They want us to make a positive claim so they can shift their own burden of proof to us. My only positive claim is that they have failed to convince me that they're correct. My proof is that I am unconvinced.
Theists argue that the universe cannot have made itself. That something which exists must be made by a 'something' else. Surely, that same argument applies to the 'maker'.
You would think so, but theists have a bootstrapping problem that permeates their apologetics. In order to argue their god into existence they insist that everything must be grounded in that god, no exceptions…except, as Josh pointed out, their god. And, yes, it does tend to undermine their arguments.
Translation: I don’t like that you’re not following my script and it makes it harder for me to dismiss you with the tired old script that’s been handed down to me.
Tom was a good caller, seemed intelligent and articulate, however why does not having a position on religion have to be a cop out? When I was 3, I didnt believe in a god, now im 59 and still dont. For him to say I have a burden of proof is ridiculous. You make something up and now i have to prove it doesnt exist.
Religious people just do not want to accept burden of proof, how can anyone rigorously disprove unfalsifiable claims? Because this is uncomfortable for them, they simply reject it as if that gets them anywhere.
I've been atheist for 50 years. "New Atheist" is something some theists started to call me...20 years ago. New atheists are 20 years old. The "New" Testament is 100x that. These theists seem both limited and bad in their naming of things.
I don't believe you, but im not saying youre wrong. therefore, in an argument, until you can prove what you say, my position is the only right one........ Christian : ...... that's not fair!!! That's a cop out!!!
The biggest problem with theists trying to switch the burden of proof is, it doesn't really matter as much as they think. An atheist not being able to prove their claims about why a god doesn't exist for sure, doesn't prove the claims that a god does exist. The fact that they can't prove their claims about the existence of god is a big reason why most people are atheist. Even when they think they can prove a god is possible, that still doesn't prove a god or which god, also a lot of their arguments to prove possiblity don't necessarily prove a god. They must think it's a contradiction to "believe in atheism" if we don't follow a burden of proof to "believe in atheism". There's so many theists that try to play apologists and think they can catch atheists in contradicting their arguments and that an atheist possibly having contradicting arguments means theism is true, without having to prove it.
To me why I am an atheist is not just no direct evidence for a deity but because I need consistency with my other beliefs of which there are many. My beliefs need a framework on which to stand and believing in a deity does not stand up as being consistent. If I started believing in a deity, I would regard that as illogical thought processes and that would create internal conflict and difficulty for me. To me even attempting to believe would be bad for me just like taking a substance that messes with the mind would be bad for me.
(paraphrase) 'atheists use faith' - then takes definition of faith... from his bible - d'oh!!! It's hilarious when theists use 'faith' as an accusation.
I'd claim the assumption society and culture's default position beleiving in god is true in USA, in Europe there's basically no discussion at all related to faith, beside the islamic presence due to immigration but that's actually a different topic. Faith, if any considering a majority are atheists, is a subject being personal and respected as lack of faith. Many religions (or faiths) seems having a social function in the sense belonging to a group (social belonging) while - as i see it - atheists base their position on individual reasoning and there's no need to receive other atheists confirmation of this position.
There was photographic proof at one time. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (author of Sherlock Holmes) believed. There was a movie based on the photos. A photographic expert ar the time said, I don't know if fairest are real but those wings were moving when the photo was taken. One of the girls involved confessed several decades later.
The fact we have to identify as atheists or the word atheist even exists shows the power a religious person has over us nonbelievers. I could ask a random Christian if they believe i have a fire-breathing dragon that can only be seen if you believe it exists. If they say no, do i then create a word to categorize them based on their inability to accept my delusion? No because that would be ridiculous. Before i get crap about it being Greek for Godless i already know this.
He's going for the multiversal record for longest game. He's just got another two billion years to go before he beats C'thulu from universe 90210's record.
One of the less objectionable callers. But I don't know where he acquired the phrase "new atheism". (Like, what was OLD atheism?.) And he doesn't seem able to process the idea that you don't need proof for DISbelief.
Mr Glasser is quite wrong here (1:46). It's not complicated or difficult to rebut the assertion that Atheism is a worldview or a philosophy, and it definitely does not involve making any truth claims. Atheism is merely the absence of a definite god-belief. Some atheists might also describe themselves as 'anti-Theists' which would mean that they not only have a high degree of confidence in the non-existence of a deity (though few would claim to 'know' this for an absolute fact, because there's no way to prove it empirically) but also reject the entire notion of worship and organised religion. Of course, some atheists could be religious themselves, as long as their religion did not involve any gods (Buddhism for example), and there's no necessary connection between atheism and trust in science or the Scientific Method (although this may often be the case amongst well-educated atheists). It is most definitely true that someone coming along with the ideas that atheism is a belief system or a worldview or a philosophy or a religion in its own right... will have got this idiotic notion from religious/Theistic propagandists, because those are the only people who dishonestly spread these absurd lies.
@@stephenolan5539 There is no god..... How's that ? And see that's not what atheism is or the stance it takes by way of the term usage. It only means disbelief in a god or gods. Not that there is no god, As in having Knowledge, but that they do not believe there is, atheism... I personally claim the burden though and say I know there is no god. So it depends totally on who you speak with. The term does not bind anyone to any specific definition of.
@@stephenolan5539 No you should not tell people to not say there is no god. Because there is no god and we can show this easily. Physics are in control here, not god powers. Humans cannot walk on the surface of water. We all adhere to and operate under physics, the mama bear teaches her cubs to not play too near the cliffs edge. Same as we teach our children, we step out of the way of an errand hit ball and we look both ways when crossing the street. Because physics ... Not god powers.. And newsflash ... I'm a label, since labels are the issue. I'm what's ignorantly known as a Boomer. People need to focus on the issues, not misplaced labels and the ignorant attributes given to the labeled...
Atheism is beautiful in it's simplicity and the fact that theists struggle so with the statement of "I don't believe you" when confronted with "there is a god!" is simultaneously funny and tragic. To be fair there are many atheists who struggle with theists' standards of evidence being so low. So if theists would employ empathy to put themselves in the opposition's shoes they'd understand atheists just a little bit more. Instead atheists get told "you're cop outs!" or "you actually believe what we do, you're just lying about it!" These are frankly insulting statements and atheists at large don't make these accusations of theists. But theists almost have to make these accusations as an affirmation of their belief. Atheists don't tell theists: "you don't actually believe what you say you do!" that would make atheists mindreaders which is almost more ridiculous than believing in god(s).
How is the new atheism? Any different than the old atheism except that there is a stronger segment of society and thinkers that are outspoken about their atheism.?
It's funny. I watched a lot of these while getting stoned back during my stoner years. A fun time, but not really a productive one. Long behind me now. I would literally just watch these and crack up the entire time. Religious people are way funnier when you're high. Now listening to them is just kind of annoying.
Accepting the fact, or believing, that there is or isn't a God is irrelevant because God has no real definition. But.... It is the Bible that is the central Factor in Christian belief. Either someone is a fundamentalist who believes that the Bible is literally true or you don't. And pretty much that makes all the difference. The argument is about the Bible being somehow special.
A cop-out? The degree of projection is just staggering. There's no bigger cop-out than "I dunno, so God must have done it."
God of the gaps fallacy is easy to spot it's widely used.
@@Mankind-Journey the origins of Life coming from a non intelligent occurrence of the gaps fallacy is easy to spot .
I'm glad you're against the cop-outs as an atheist.
Do do you believe the origins of Life came into existence without the Creator without God ? If so please provide evidence to why you believe that. And if I'm not convinced in return I will provide evidence to why I believe in God and we will see which one is more logical.
If you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God just admit to me that you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God
I hope you're not going to cop out because you said you dislike it.
@@BidenIsraelFirst you are asking me for the burden of evidence because I refute as a heretic the existence or first origins of life, I don't need to provide evidence for something that doesn't ontologically make sense to me. I also never claimed to know with validity that there isn't a deity and it doesn't mean that there is or still might be a first creater. You need actual evidence for the existence of a god not sensational philosophical treaties or propositions. This is not a contest to have the best convincing argument to satisfy our egos it's about having circumstantial evidence or logical unfalsifiable sound proof to verify your assertion of a creator god."
@@BidenIsraelFirst your asking me for the burden of proof when I am not claiming for the existence of a deity creator and do not need to provide evidence for just something that doesn't't ontologically make sound sense to me. This one is not a contest of having the best convincing argument to satisfy our egos. I don't need philosophical treaties or propositions it's about having circumstantial unfalsifiable evidence or proof for your assertion of a creator god." (Paraphrasing my first accidentally deleted comment.)
Christianity is a sneaky way for people to absolve themselves of responsibility.
@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr
This. It is a way of being lazy as.
Instead of doing the work of thinking what their choices mean
( in relation to who they are & consequences ),
& learning what morality actually means & why, & learning how to make moral choices of what's right or wrong,
then practicing it,
to brain-train to make sure of their continued good choices in the future.
Instead, they've latched onto the ( outdated, un-updated ) ready-made cookbook,
that's all setup for them, of what to do/ say etc.
But still not knowing WHY or HOW to do it by themselves.
The "no thought or effort needed" book of living
So they've never actually learnt the reasons for morality & why it's important to human society.
( except for "cos I, god, said so" )
You simply are NOT & can't be moral, if you haven't practiced those moral choices.
When you just do what you're told, you aren't being moral.
If you don't actually choose it yourself, youre not deciding, making moral choices, based on what your morals are.
So, no wonder they make crappy choices when they have to figure it out all on their own.
When that exact situation isn't written down with the exact answers, of what to do.
Just like a kid that copies the answers, but doesn't know HOW & WHY those are the right answers.
sad as.
😁🌏☮️
@@claudiaarjangi4914what is with your formatting your comment feels intentionally obtuse and im not sure what you are even trying to say
@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr ... Belief in God is taking ultimate responsibility for your life, future, virtue, overall conduct, and eternal destination.
@@bobgarrett7134 no its a get out of jail free card do bad things go confess them and get away with it lmao
@@bobgarrett7134 "Belief in God is taking ultimate responsibility for your life, future, virtue, overall conduct, and eternal destination."
Haha, no it isn't! It's the complete opposite - handing over all responsibility to your imaginary sky daddy and celebrating the murder of his son for _your_ sins 😂
I don't believe you is not a worldview
I don't believe you is not a dogma
I don't believe you is not a cult or a religion
And i don't believe god claims because, no believer has met my standard of evidence
In most cases they don't even meet their own standards of evidence, which is why they have to rely on faith
There's no standard of evidence they could meet because it's an incoherent claim. I don't believe theists nor do I demand evidence of them because they fail to meet my standard of intelligibility.
Yes
Nobody else: …
Theists: "We need faith because there's so much evidence!"
Ha! Faith is based on the total lack of evidence.
Atheism makes no assertions or claims, and has nothing to prove or defend.
@@johnsperry9494exactly can’t understand why theists don’t understand that
They don't really understand how a lot of words actually work. They understand some words through their religious ideology. Why would you need faith for/in something you have clear evidence of? They want to make claims about knowledge and evidence, but use faith as one of their foundations for "knowledge and evidence".
An encouraging note,
the more people are leaving Religion and society becomes secular
the more people will recognize typical theist arguments to be absurd and cult like.
@AdmiralBison ... There are more Christians and believers every decade -- atheism has taken some serious hits and is much more cult like.
Every con-man everywhere hates to hear "I don't believe you". Even worse when someone in his audience stands up and says it out loud.
@qwadratix ... Con artists love atheists. They'll believe anything, even that there's no God. God is knowable by all with some astute discernment.
The constant obsession with pigeon-holing atheism into some strawman worldview, gets tedious to listen to after awhile. It's as though the goal is to simply make the label `atheism` into something so ambiguous, it doesn't fit anyone. `There! We defined atheism out of existence!` 🙄
I've seen that argument from actual apologists, and I think that's their goal. The very existence of an atheist is very threatening to someone who believes god wants a personal relationship.
Christians can’t handle the existence of nonresistant nonbelievers because that firmly disproves the notion of a God who has revealed himself.
These types of people do this with so many things. Try to define something into something else it isn't to make the people who use that label or even people who think about going in that direction, as somehow inherently evil and/or wrong. Then it's extremely dishonest because when told they're wrong they refuse to acknowledge what these terms actually mean and/or represent.
I hate the "everyone has faith in something argument" because it's straight up wrong.
I don't have faith in *_A N Y T H I N G_*
Atheism is an answer to religious claims. "We don't believe you". That's it.
Then don’t believe.. I believe in God but would never force you to believe what I believe because what right do I have in doing that? Some of you overthink anything that challenges your beliefs and why is that? No one twisted my arm to believe in God and how would that make me believe in God? I reached out by the Faith giving to all Romans12v3. And anyone else can to.. or choose not to and that is that.
@@davidrexford586 I was that kind of christian too. I didn't push my beliefs. Believe what you want.
I think people under think it. They think about assuming he's real. As soon as you look at it as he is just a story. They look at the Bible. It couldn't be more clear. What would we look like if the bible was true? Why are we not made of dirt? Why aren't we solid? Why isn't the earth solid? Why is there a universe that we have no hope of ever seeing? Why as big as the universe is, would a god care about who we have sex with? Why do we have to eat and drink to live? Why do we poop? Doesn't it seem like a being that thinks so highly of itself would make its best creation poop something so nasty?
@@gracefulsledge2857 God is not just a story.. were you born again and baptized in the Holy Spirit? Did you have a real conversion or just believe you were saved because someone told you that you were? Did you do things for God to strengthen your Faith in God?
@@davidrexford586 Yes he is just a story. A bad story at that. That god is an incompetent a$$ clown. It's best creation was screwed up in the first chapter. He murders millions in the Bible. For little to no reason. He is fake, but if he was real. He would be unworthy of worship.
@@davidrexford586 you're doing all that pushing you _just_ claimed you weren't gonna do, brother. Mind your manners
As if we had some duty to believe that a God exists. What makes anyone think that such a duty exists?
People who know they can’t prove their god. When you have no facts you have to rely on feelings. Which wouldn’t be a problem if you accept your religion is personal/emotional.
The same crew that says “your feelings aren’t facts” are the same crew as the caller. What the MEAN is:
YOUR feelings aren’t facts but mine are!
@@ThinkDontRepeatAScript
The answer is I don't know. That is not a feeling.
People who lack critical thinking skills
Arrogance?
Deity duty.
Snerk
C: "There is a God"
A: "...cool, that sounds great! Can you show me?"
C: "no"
A: "...ah I see, what made you believe that it exists? Happy to listen"
C: "what you asking me for? Burden of proof is on you bubby,"
A: "..."
C: "well, why cant you show me that there isn't a god? I am right!"
Definitely how any conversation goes with Tom from Oregon. Yegads...
"Also, the fact that all atheists eat food and breathe air proves that atheism is a worldview and a belief system"
That dialogue seems very unrealistic. Average atheists wouldnt say "cool that sounds great!", because they really like the idea of no God, no afterlife, no objective morality, etc. Also, believers rarely talk about burden of proof, and even if they do, it is just because the atheist side brought this topic up.
@@eklektikTubb Why does it matter how rare it is? (paraphrased) is what happened in this video.
@@a-o-s I dont think it happened in this video, but perhaps i missed something (?)
Unlike atheists online, most atheist simply don’t think about the supernatural. It doesn’t come up often in real life. Other than sleeping in on Sundays, atheism is only as mind & time consuming as not collecting stamps. Most people, most days, are getting through their days, focused on the issues in front of them.
I'm an online atheist and I spend very little time thinking about gods or the supernatural
lol is that reference from Eve was framed? I was thinking of getting a t-shirt that says “collect stamps or burn”
@@Savyy_ahmad You also have to believe that a certain set of three stamps, which appear different from one another, are really all the same stamp. And that if you mumble some words over a small piece of paper it becomes a stamp, even though it still appears blank.
@@wizardsuth why thank you for explaining that! lol
It NEVER happens in life
The "I don't know" was the best thing that happened to me.....Once I left the rigid fundamental pentecostal denomination and started an independent church I began reading much more broadly, every question I studied about problems with the bible the more questions I created. The glorious conclusion was that there is zero convincing evidence for a god.
While Tom was respectful, the bulk of his calls revolved around grievances with atheism. His reasoning for belief often veered into the realm of the absurd, relying on tired arguments straight from the theist's playbook as his so-called "evidence."
I remember Tom from Oregon. No matter how many times his arguments are debunked he keeps making the same old arguments - he's not an honest person.
Evidence shows us that the belief in God is an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion.
Where is believing the origins of Life came into existence without God it's not an instinctive thought or logical conclusion.
Atheism is a biased position it's a disbelief it's a lack of belief it has nothing to do with evidence science. Matter of fact atheism doesn't even require thought it doesn't require a consciousness you can be a vegetable and be an atheist. If you had no ability to think if you had no consciousness you wouldn't have the ability to accept God as true therefore you would be an atheist.
@@BidenIsraelFirst And that (the evidence that believing in god is natural) doesn’t make that fact true. It’s in fact almost the opposite : it explains why people tends to join religions and why there are so many different religions
Edit: hey look, NEPy saw that his comment backfired because they saw my answer using his point on the other direction, and so they had to delete it !
@@quentind1924 how is the belief in God being an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion evidence of God be the opposite of a fact that doesn't make any sense
@@BidenIsraelFirst Where’s your original comment ?
And to answer that question, it’s more likely to have many false religions in a world where it’s natural for people to believe in the existence of a god than if it wasn’t. Admit it, considering that there are over 3,000 different religions, evidence showing we tend to believe in god no longer means anything to prove the god of one specific religion
how can one engage in conversation with someone who uses different definitions for 'logic', 'evidence', 'epistemology', 'knowledge', ...and all these defined around and based on their faith in tribal mythology!
"Atheism Is Just A Cop-Out!"
He is right. Atheism is a cop out... of believing stupid things.
No it requires as much Faith as anything else....... The world is strange enough that anything at all is possible.
I mean to say they still have faith it's just a faith in no faith.
@waltershumer4211 So, no claim or belief is any more less well founded than any other?
Even if God was proven by the scientific method atheist still wouldn't accept God as true because atheism is a disbelief or lack of belief.
Atheists believe stupid things all the time. Just look at how they put their sons in a dress 👗 because of the things they believe.
@@amtlpaul sure but in context of knowledge on whatever the subject might be... And of the nature of reality we know almost nothing at all.
I've been an atheist for all 61 years of my life
Does that make me a old atheist or a new atheist?
A vintage atheist.
Do you say that God does not exist.
Or do you say, you have not made your case for God's existence.
When you and I were younger Atheism meant saying God did not exist. Now it includes saying that believers have not made their case.
There are still people saying God does not exist and I wish they would shut up or start saying believers have not made their case.
@@stephenolan5539 I've never been an antitheist but they have a right to voice their claim just like theists.
@@joshsheridan9511
And have the same obligation to provide evidence. Which muddies the waters.
@@stephenolan5539 that's what happens when humans are involved with just about anything
This is absolutely ridiculous. This old guy doesnt believe in Zeus. Does he need evidence for not believing in him? He literally is an atheist to every god except his. We just go one further.
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." --- Voltaire
it seems to me tom is trying to transfer theists insercurities about them not being able to prove their claim on to us ,
Don't they almost always do that?they constantly try to shift the BOP
These throwbacks are really fun. Keep 'em comin'!
agreed, much better than the current shows, sorry guys
@@petermeichan3160I think the callers were much more reasonable back in these days, even though they sprouted ridiculous nonsense also, they were not completely nuts in general
@@ARoll925 i think they were much more intertaining, these days its all ' theory ' arguments and im using theory in the lyman term
@@petermeichan3160 hard disagree. love the throwbacks but the quality hasn't gone down. imo
@@ARoll925the problem with atheism is it's a biased position it's rejection or unwillingness to accept God as true.
And on top of that the vast majority of atheists don't actually believe the origins of Life came into existence without God
So how do you debate somebody who's not willing or able to accept God as true but at the same time doesn't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God.
Atheists do not share any other opinion other than our answer to the god question.
The moment you find yourself listening to wlc you need to rethink your life choices
It's just a simple misunderstanding on the part of theists. I am an atheist because I have yet to be presented with any compelling evidence for any given god. Until I do my default position is that I don't think one exists. My reasoning for rejecting the christian god claim is no different than my reasoning for rejecting the muslim god, the hindu gods, the norse gods, the roman gods, etc. etc. etc. There is no compelling evidence. It really is that simple. It is the apologists for religions that muddy the waters and try to portray disbelief as something different from what it is.
For some it's a misunderstanding, for other's it's a deliberate way to strawman atheism.
I’m an atheist from the UK, Marcus, and the theist imposition here is exactly the same although not a heavy as in the US. Over here, theists cannot accept “I don’t know” and can’t accept the atheist view point because their way of filling the gap is god - an unfalsifiable claim, of course. A clear case of special pleading because for any other topic belief is not adopted without proportional evidence.
My default position is that I dont think that one (objective) default position exists. I think there are many subjective default positions, but whether there is at least one objective default position and whether it is on non-believers side is debatable.
@@eklektikTubb do you believe I have a Lamborghini?
@@cy-one I have no idea if you really have a Lamborghini or not, but i accept the possibility that you do.
Atheisim is the rejection of the thiest claim that a or any god(s) exist, how difficult is that !
Theists can’t imagine someone outright thinking god doesn’t exist. It’s outside their thinking range
I can kind of understand the Thiest frustration of just being told “I don’t believe you, prove it”. Let’s be honest, it’s really easy to throw your hands up and say I don’t know or I don’t believe you. I’m full blown atheist but I do understand how annoying it can be to argue with someone who has no work to do on their side of the argument (no burden of proof)
@@sexton824 The theist frustration of being told, "prove it" would be like the frustration by prosecutors when they charge people for crimes and the defendants keep saying, "prove it".
Also, if the theists are using their beliefs to justify their bigotry or to push for some legislation that affects everyone, then they should be ready to either prove their beliefs or stop using their religion to bash others. Otherwise, they are no different than someone believing in astrology.
But what would you say if the President of the US relied on astrology in their job?
Actually atheism is a disbelief or lack of in God or gods which means it's a rejection for an inability to accept God as true
If it's only a rejection of a claim as you suggest it would mean that a person couldn't become an atheist reflecting in their own thoughts.. meaning they couldn't think of their own head whether or not humanity is the result of a Creator or a non intelligent occurrence. That would mean the only way they would be able to be an atheist is if they rejected a claim.
So again atheism is a rejection to accept or an inability to accept God as true.
@@Spooky90097according to the OP a person couldn't be an atheist thinking on their own they can only be an atheist if they reject a claim.
Atheism is a biased position it's in unwillingness or inability to accept God as true
Which means even if God was proven by the scientific method and atheist still wouldn't believe in God.
It's not possible to believe something you're not willing or able to accept as true.
Sorry, but when this guy tried to shift the burden of proof you should have taken him to the woodshed, however respectfully. You two didn’t acquit yourselves very well here.
Most theists act as if they are totally unaware of other religions. They ask, "Do you believe in God?" I will always ask: Which god? It is ridiculous not to ask because there are so many proposed gods both currently and in the past. For example, ask a JW Christian if they believe Jesus is God and they'll say NO. There are completely different god beliefs even within Christianity, let alone other religions (some without god beliefs).
If a person had never known about theism/deity, they would not be an atheist until after encountering the notion of deity/theism AND found it unconvincing. For such a person, inventing a label for a notion they had never encountered or conceived of would be ridiculous. So it is that atheism only exists in contrast/contradiction to theism. ** Arguments about the purported evidence offered by theists are then subject to the many vicissitudes & faults of relative valuation amongst people. Among the worst faults (IMO), is the shifting of the burden of proof from the claim of theism to the non-claim of atheism.
"they would not be an atheist until after encountering the notion of deity/theism AND found it unconvincing" Not true.
"So it is that atheism only exists in contrast/contradiction to theism." Not true.
Atheism would exists even without theism because atheism literally means without theism. 😀People are born as atheists and stay atheists. Until someone brainwash them and indoctrinate theistic nonsense into their brain, then they will stop being atheists. That means atheism is default position and it's independent on existence of theism.
@@Seticzech I think we may mean the same thing. If no one had ever proposed theism/deity to explain a phenomenon, and merely said 'I don't know yet, then there wouldn't be theism, either as concept or as a word. Therefore, the term 'atheism' would be unnecessary in concept or word. (Cue music for What A Wonderful World It Could Be). 👍
@@myteric117 Well, yes, you're right, without term "theism" there will not be term "atheism". 🙂
For some strange reason, the people who feel atheists are burdened to prove the Christian god doesn't exist... don't feel burdened to prove that deities in other mythologies don't exist. Odd
They know they cannot meet the burden so they just pretend there is no such burden.
They think they disprove Zeus' existence, for example, by simply stating that Jesus exists
Hypocrisy and projection cop-out where having faith in a looney tunes character like Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck allows you to cheat death and gain immortality.
william lane craig - eyes roll
I was just watching a NonStampCollector video about Lowbar. Billy boy was spouting BS 15 years ago, and he's gotten worse since. I'd say these days he's just phoning it in.
should be lame craig
Why can’t trolls, oops I mean “Christians” just answer a question put to them without all the tap dancing around it?
Unless the answer is god done did it, they don't have answers
I'd even go as far as to say, the majority of the time they don't understand the question
More like: Atheism gets you out of doing boring AF God ritual activities like worship and prayer 😎
And a good Saturday Morning 🌞 AXP, Fans and Theists ❤❤❤
Peace Love Empathy From Australia 💪🤠🍌
Morning mate. You're up early on a Saturday!
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 Morning mate.
Yeah, I'm up early every day.
Jesus: Lawful good
Satan: Chaotic good
Yahweh: Lawful evil
NEPy: Chaotic evil
I have no problem with Jesus, just his dad. If we were blaming Jesus for what his dad did, we'd be going by what the bible says. As a historical figure, Jesus was good. As god, not so much.
@@ApatheticFish3667as a historic figure, Jesus was a liar and a hypocrite
So not that good.
@@ApatheticFish3667 As a character, Jesus is extremely flawed in our modern morality. He does draw parallels with other heroes of their era, maybe not as many deaths. One wonders how much is common in the average citizen of their era and how much is copied from contemporary stories.
@joshsheridan9511 - That’s blasphemy and your statement is false.
@AXKfUN9m - How? How is Jesus flawed?
You guys are pushing a false narrative. You want proof of his grace: the entire book of John.
Imagine what he went through. You got Barabas, a guy that was a murder and extremist who is the equivalent of Bin Laden. Jesus took his place and he was spared from being executed. That’s grace.
I think the worst part of the crucifixion story is the fact that he was abandoned by everyone including his 12. Actually John was there with Mary. But the feeling of betrayal, humiliation, and total abandonment in my opinion is one the worst part of the crucifixion other than the crucifixion itself.
And yet you sit here condemning him.
"Do all atheists believe this one type of worldview?"
"No. Some of us do, and others do not. I happen to believe that, and other atheists often disagree with me."
"See, the fact that you believe this is proof that all atheists have the same worldview!"
Lol
No such thing as new atheism. 😅 Its just another stupidity of religious framework.
As a 57 year old who's been an atheist all his life, I do get confused by this "new atheism" thing. Did you have to be introduced to the concept of religion being utter BS by Hitchens, Harris, Dennett or Dawkins, or do theists just use the term for every atheist?
Shame we've now lost two of these guys, Dawkins has an anti-woke streak a mile wide due to his age, and Harris isn't far behind from all accounts.
@@ziploc2000
Do you say, God does not exist?
I've told people not to say that for decades. And so have other more influential people.
If you ask me, religion is the cop out. People use it as a way to try and explain the unexplainable or to excuse the random things that happen in life as being the work of some benevolent overseer who has perception that mortal humans do not. Most of the religious people that I know are more focused on their belief about what will happen after they die. To me that is a tragic waste of the life we are living right now.
"I get you guys mixed up a little bit," he says. I know, right? I mean, they could be twins.
They're both wearing glasses, anyone could get confused probably.
you know Im tired of this shhhh. Next time I run into a theist. I'll proudly say that my confidence is in that there is no god and you know what it still isn't on me to prove anything. deal with it theists. psssh.
tbh a truth claim? thats exactly what atheism does NOT do. it makes no claim whatsoever. it just rejects the god-claim.
They always talk about new atheism as if our stance has changed from "I don't believe your claim" 😂😂
I think that so-called "new atheism" is characterised by pointing out how full of shit apologists are on the internet. That's really what it comes down to. There have been outspoken atheists before but there were fewer of them and they were less visible. Now that anyone and everyone can call out religious BS on the internet, it had to be labelled so it could be demonised.
We could say the same thing about religion. It's easy canned answers to important philosophical questions in place of looking at reality and doing the hard work of thinking for one's self. It's like tapping out at the first ring of the bell.
*me just drinking coffee, not making a claim*
Christian: "stop it, that's cheating".
I do not believe in any gods, I do not have to justify my belief and I certainly don't have to prove the existence of any God. Even if the God of the Bible does exist I would not worship the evil lying bully.
"Atheism Is Just A Cop-Out!" "The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist" is the saying, right? What if the greatest trick that "god" ever played was convincing the world that "he" DID exist?
All from ONE GUY back in the day.
Wants more respect and some good meat. Comes up with the Invisible Dad gambit...
Thr rest...
Is history.
I would agree that there is a subset of atheists that combines soft atheism, skepticism, and humanism. Still, no organization or dogma is telling them how to think on any particular issue. There are also atheists with entirely different worldviews such as Buddhists, and those who don't believe in gods but believe in other woo-woo spiritual or supernatural ideas.
Humanism is pretty much a religion, where the dogma is whatever the virtuous say (which is circular ⭕, but so is all religion).
But it is distinct from Atheism. And they don't overlap completely.
A 'sub set' implies there is a proscribed 'set'.
@@Gerryjournal I don't see why it would imply a "proscribed" subset. Sets can just as easily be formed because they incidentally have common characteristics. With that said many proponents of atheism or secular humanism describe a similar philosophy, so in that way, it is to a degree proscribed. Still, many individuals take an eclectic approach to what ideas they include in their worldview.
There is no 'set' about atheism. No amount of discussion, however academic, will alter that
Religion and God are the biggest crutches to overcome people’s fear of the unknown!
The preachers are the liars.
The hosts frustrated me more than the caller. They allowed this caller to make fallacious generalisations about atheism. Atheism does not make claims and it is NOT complicated. If they had corrected that properly at the very beginning the caller would not have been able to make his generalisations. He was also allowed to get away with suggesting a so-called "new atheism" was a philosophical system. This is clearly trying to shift the burden of proof. Russ even suggested there was something in the claim. No there is not. The caller proceeded to suggests atheists were naturalists and scientific empiricists and if that was the case, then they did have a burden of proof. No! If an atheist makes a claim about naturalism or scientific empiricism , then they have a burden of proof on their claim about naturalism or scientific empiricism, not about their atheism. I have great admiration for the hosts and they have a lot more courage than me to go public to be challenged, but on this occasion they did not do well at all. They allowed this caller to get away with far too much.
Would be nice to add the date of the clip. It does not matter whether it is 5 days, 5 weeks or 5 years ago. The arguments do not change, Good calls like this one can be old and are still interesting.
Edit: In the meantime I saw it, so thanks for the hints.
2017-6-4 represents the date of the show. Not sure what you thought that was encoding.
It’s in the bottom right of the video, and it’s always has been somewhere on the screen on every videos
@@queueceeit might be the way it's written
A lot of people are used to day/month/year or month/day/year
@@joshsheridan9511 If it starts with the year, it's usually yyyy-mm-dd. The mm/dd/yyyy is just because Americans want to do thinks in their own way while thinking we are miles ahead of others.
@@queuecee+1, MM-DD-YYYY Make as much sense as DD-YYYY-MM. Either you go from the most precise to the least (DD-MM-YYYY), or starting general then precise further (YYYY-MM-DD) but not a mix between both
This is probably the best speech I have ever heard on the show, from Russel. Defined.
i am voting for SCIENCE (democrats)!!!
I am voting for the people who aren't fascists, racists, Nazis, and nationalists (also the Democrats)
Aren't those the same people that can't define what a woman is😂
@@waltershumer4211
No - you just don't like the definition.
@@waltershumer4211No. Those are the people who know the difference between biological sex and the societal construct that is gender 😂
Being complicit in genocide is pretty gross. Dems are absolutely as fascist as Republicans, have you seen the crack down on protests that Dems and Repubs are so proud of, at the behest of a foreign government? And they fund literal Nazis so idk what you think you're proving.
"Naturalism, scientific empiricism... they have to cough up some evidence for some of that." -- Requiring evidence to substantiate claims is what leads people to not believe in things for which there is no evidence, e.g. the supernatural. You can't know about something that can't be detected.
Atheist and when I specify everything about what I believe it's more of a skeptic.
“Atheism is just a cup-out”. And what about all those people who believe in another god or gods? Or are they okay?
Is there a "New Atheism"? Nobody told me. Do I have to pay dues to get in? Is there a secret handshake? And what was wrong with the old one?
Yeah they say it is. Something with the four horseman Dawkins, Hitchens and such. I have heard that english guy (cosmic skeptic maybe?) talking about it.
Only in the sense that atheists are no longer willing to stay silent.
Christian - "Accept jesus into your heart, repent, and be saved!"
Old Atheist - "That's interesting. If you don't mind, I have an errand to run"
Christian - "Accept jesus into your heart, repent, and be saved!"
New Atheist - "BWA HA HA HAHA!!! I didn't know that cabbages could talk!"
@@holgerlubotzki3469
lol at cabbages
@@holgerlubotzki3469 new atheists: " I dont know what a women is"
How can asking for evidence for any claim be a « cop out »? Imagine a court case where the judge and jury ask for evidence to prove the defendant is guilty of murder and the prosecution says that is a « cop out ». It preposterous.
I think that he's falling for apologists' propaganda when he says that, because they complain when we say that we "lack a belief in god" because it's harder for them to attack. They want us to have to do the work to prove them wrong rather them their having to justify their own position. They want us to make a positive claim so they can shift their own burden of proof to us. My only positive claim is that they have failed to convince me that they're correct. My proof is that I am unconvinced.
Theists argue that the universe cannot have made itself. That something which exists must be made by a 'something' else. Surely, that same argument applies to the 'maker'.
But, but special pleading
You would think so, but theists have a bootstrapping problem that permeates their apologetics. In order to argue their god into existence they insist that everything must be grounded in that god, no exceptions…except, as Josh pointed out, their god.
And, yes, it does tend to undermine their arguments.
Never underestimate the power of the Indoctrination + Special Pleading Fallacy combo.
Yeah but "always wuz". So they got that covered.
Translation: I don’t like that you’re not following my script and it makes it harder for me to dismiss you with the tired old script that’s been handed down to me.
The thumbnail is weird, but thanks for the video!
I love these old episodes.
If he liked chaos he would just say the chaos is evidence of God....
"Faith is the evidence" = the belief alone is the thing that demonstrates the claim is true/factual. This simply is false.
Faith = belief without evidence.
So belief without evidence...is his evidence?
It says four comments, but I can only see two other comments. 😐😑
You have now entered the Twilight Zone.
Quick. Demand a refund
@@brucebaker810 😂😂😂
"as a preacher I get tired" Say no more.
What is this new atheism?
nuthing, it's just apologists trying a new tactic. and lie. as usual.
Same as the old atheism.
(With apologies to Pete Townsend.)
It's theists panicking about the uncomfortably obvious truth being spoken by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett.
Atheism was saying God does not exist.
Now people are smarter and say, you haven't shown that God exists.
@@stephenolan5539 it never was. Only difference is that people used to say it like that, until the army of apologists abuse it with their wordgames
Tom was a good caller, seemed intelligent and articulate, however why does not having a position on religion have to be a cop out? When I was 3, I didnt believe in a god, now im 59 and still dont. For him to say I have a burden of proof is ridiculous. You make something up and now i have to prove it doesnt exist.
Religious people just do not want to accept burden of proof, how can anyone rigorously disprove unfalsifiable claims? Because this is uncomfortable for them, they simply reject it as if that gets them anywhere.
“‘New Atheism’”??? 🤦♂️
Give me that OLD TIME Atheism!
So if he dont show evidence for his non-belief in big foot, is that a cop-out? How about his non-belief in fairies? He need to prove they dont exist.
“…the New Atheism..”
Me: “the what now?”
I've been atheist for 50 years. "New Atheist" is something some theists started to call me...20 years ago.
New atheists are 20 years old.
The "New" Testament is 100x that.
These theists seem both limited and bad in their naming of things.
I don't believe you, but im not saying youre wrong. therefore, in an argument, until you can prove what you say, my position is the only right one........
Christian : ...... that's not fair!!! That's a cop out!!!
"I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." Isaac Asimov
I've worked it out to 4 decimal places. Surely that's good enough.
He is the type of caller that must not call again it's pointless
The biggest problem with theists trying to switch the burden of proof is, it doesn't really matter as much as they think. An atheist not being able to prove their claims about why a god doesn't exist for sure, doesn't prove the claims that a god does exist. The fact that they can't prove their claims about the existence of god is a big reason why most people are atheist. Even when they think they can prove a god is possible, that still doesn't prove a god or which god, also a lot of their arguments to prove possiblity don't necessarily prove a god. They must think it's a contradiction to "believe in atheism" if we don't follow a burden of proof to "believe in atheism". There's so many theists that try to play apologists and think they can catch atheists in contradicting their arguments and that an atheist possibly having contradicting arguments means theism is true, without having to prove it.
To me why I am an atheist is not just no direct evidence for a deity but because I need consistency with my other beliefs of which there are many. My beliefs need a framework on which to stand and believing in a deity does not stand up as being consistent. If I started believing in a deity, I would regard that as illogical thought processes and that would create internal conflict and difficulty for me. To me even attempting to believe would be bad for me just like taking a substance that messes with the mind would be bad for me.
(paraphrase) 'atheists use faith' - then takes definition of faith... from his bible - d'oh!!! It's hilarious when theists use 'faith' as an accusation.
The blind leading the deaf. Dispite how ignorant caller is, im still not suprised hes a preacher.
I'd claim the assumption society and culture's default position beleiving in god is true in USA, in Europe there's basically no discussion at all related to faith, beside the islamic presence due to immigration but that's actually a different topic. Faith, if any considering a majority are atheists, is a subject being personal and respected as lack of faith.
Many religions (or faiths) seems having a social function in the sense belonging to a group (social belonging) while - as i see it - atheists base their position on individual reasoning and there's no need to receive other atheists confirmation of this position.
If religion is the default position, why are there so many different religions?
Religion isn’t the default for anyone it’s a learned behaviour.
Denying the existance of Fairies is a cop out...
There was photographic proof at one time. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (author of Sherlock Holmes) believed.
There was a movie based on the photos. A photographic expert ar the time said, I don't know if fairest are real but those wings were moving when the photo was taken.
One of the girls involved confessed several decades later.
At what age to i move into the old atheism category?
Boomers are old Athiests. Old Athiests said that God does not exist. New Athiests say, you have not made your case.
The fact we have to identify as atheists or the word atheist even exists shows the power a religious person has over us nonbelievers. I could ask a random Christian if they believe i have a fire-breathing dragon that can only be seen if you believe it exists. If they say no, do i then create a word to categorize them based on their inability to accept my delusion? No because that would be ridiculous. Before i get crap about it being Greek for Godless i already know this.
Why is God hiding? Is he afraid of us?
He's going for the multiversal record for longest game. He's just got another two billion years to go before he beats C'thulu from universe 90210's record.
Atheism does make a truth claim. That claim: I'm not convinced.
That's true.
One of the less objectionable callers. But I don't know where he acquired the phrase "new atheism". (Like, what was OLD atheism?.) And he doesn't seem able to process the idea that you don't need proof for DISbelief.
Mr Glasser is quite wrong here (1:46). It's not complicated or difficult to rebut the assertion that Atheism is a worldview or a philosophy, and it definitely does not involve making any truth claims. Atheism is merely the absence of a definite god-belief. Some atheists might also describe themselves as 'anti-Theists' which would mean that they not only have a high degree of confidence in the non-existence of a deity (though few would claim to 'know' this for an absolute fact, because there's no way to prove it empirically) but also reject the entire notion of worship and organised religion. Of course, some atheists could be religious themselves, as long as their religion did not involve any gods (Buddhism for example), and there's no necessary connection between atheism and trust in science or the Scientific Method (although this may often be the case amongst well-educated atheists). It is most definitely true that someone coming along with the ideas that atheism is a belief system or a worldview or a philosophy or a religion in its own right... will have got this idiotic notion from religious/Theistic propagandists, because those are the only people who dishonestly spread these absurd lies.
By his definition, how is religion not a cop out?
There's nothing new about the new atheists, we're just recent ...... Christopher Hitchens
Athiests used to say there was no God.
@@stephenolan5539 There is no god..... How's that ? And see that's not what atheism is or the stance it takes by way of the term usage. It only means disbelief in a god or gods. Not that there is no god, As in having Knowledge, but that they do not believe there is, atheism... I personally claim the burden though and say I know there is no god. So it depends totally on who you speak with. The term does not bind anyone to any specific definition of.
@@johnnybickle13
I have told people not to say there is no God.
All that needs to be said is that the believers have not made their case.
@johnnybickle13
And if someone says that Atheism is saying there is no God then you can reply, OK Boomer.
@@stephenolan5539 No you should not tell people to not say there is no god. Because there is no god and we can show this easily. Physics are in control here, not god powers. Humans cannot walk on the surface of water. We all adhere to and operate under physics, the mama bear teaches her cubs to not play too near the cliffs edge. Same as we teach our children, we step out of the way of an errand hit ball and we look both ways when crossing the street. Because physics ... Not god powers..
And newsflash ... I'm a label, since labels are the issue. I'm what's ignorantly known as a Boomer. People need to focus on the issues, not misplaced labels and the ignorant attributes given to the labeled...
It’s just a question of what the default position is. This Guy, I don’t understand that.
Atheism is beautiful in it's
simplicity and the fact that
theists struggle so with the
statement of "I don't believe you"
when confronted with "there
is a god!" is simultaneously
funny and tragic. To be fair
there are many atheists who
struggle with theists' standards
of evidence being so low. So
if theists would employ empathy
to put themselves in the
opposition's shoes they'd
understand atheists just a
little bit more. Instead atheists
get told "you're cop outs!" or
"you actually believe what we do,
you're just lying about it!"
These are frankly insulting
statements and atheists at
large don't make these accusations
of theists. But theists almost have
to make these accusations as
an affirmation of their belief.
Atheists don't tell theists:
"you don't actually believe what
you say you do!" that would
make atheists mindreaders
which is almost more ridiculous
than believing in god(s).
I don't believe in fairies. That is not a world view or a belief system.
Order arises from chaos where there are forces like gravity and magnetism involved
Or even just entropy (e.g., water freezing).
Gravity overcame the initial entropy of the young universe to start the formation of celestial objects.
Is order not affected by gravity? If so, how does it rise from chaos when gravity is present?
If it involves the magnets...how does THAT work?
@@brucebaker810 Gravity is the weak force that overcame the entropy of the young universe. The phenomenon is called accretion. It's still happening.
Out of what?
That Hebrews verse simply makes no fucken sense at all. Period. It’s telling WLC confuses him. He should think that through… if he’s able.
Guess what, we are all agnostic.
En vodka Veritas. 😂
How is the new atheism? Any different than the old atheism except that there is a stronger segment of society and thinkers that are outspoken about their atheism.?
I think because they dismiss philosophy.
I think we've come a long way since 2017. It seems like most of the time on calls nowadays, this explanation is not needed.
It's funny. I watched a lot of these while getting stoned back during my stoner years. A fun time, but not really a productive one. Long behind me now. I would literally just watch these and crack up the entire time. Religious people are way funnier when you're high. Now listening to them is just kind of annoying.
Accepting the fact, or believing, that there is or isn't a God is irrelevant because God has no real definition. But.... It is the Bible that is the central Factor in Christian belief. Either someone is a fundamentalist who believes that the Bible is literally true or you don't. And pretty much that makes all the difference. The argument is about the Bible being somehow special.
So you just ignore the other 3000 Gods worshiped around the world ? People define God all the time.