Atheism Isn't Rational? How to Respond to a Theist
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Why the heck isn't atheism rational? Greg Koukl, with his dulcet tones, explains why a tweet (or X) that he got his silly and irrational and that he has EVIDENCE for the existence for a god in his very well thought out and perfectly adequate twitter message. So there's evidence for a god RIGHT HERE, apparently...
This is the original video - • No Evidence for God?! ...
DuMb ReAsOnS wHy AtHeIsTs ArE wRoNg - • Dumb Reasons Why Athei...
Godsquad videos - • GodSquad Videos
** T-Shirts Are Here - my-store-cf9db... **
Patreon - / theskeptick
Facebook - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/thes...
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
Title - Atheism Isn't Rational? How to Respond to a Theist
Tags - atheism is irrational,atheists are irrational,atheists aren't rational,atheism isn't rational,atheism,atheists,atheist,agnostic,greg koukl,young earth creationist,how to respond,respond to a theist,respond to an atheist,atheist response,is atheism wrong,is atheism true,are atheists right,atheists are wrong,how to prove god,prove god to an atheist,why don't atheists believe in god
TweeXer : "There's no evidence at all for any gods."
Theist : "First show me why Atheism is rational!"
TweeXer : "... um, 'no evidence for gods'.. ??"
i bet the twee[X]ter is the correct one here,if not, ...
The invisible sky wizard you talk about is the same argument you atheist make. Instead of putting God in the gap you put time in the gap
@@kylearmstrong1188 _"you put time in the gap"_
How long does it take you to go to the grocery store?
See! TIME magically transports you!
How long does it take corn to grow?
See! TIME magically feeds you!
Stup¡d argument.
@@kylearmstrong1188
This is the silliest to stupidest thing I've read today. Were you trying for meta humor? It's the evidence, Kyle, that's not an argument. It's refuted by a normal question - how old are you or when were you born? There's a 'gap', you age, there. Do better.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to direct that comment your way.
It’s not a stupid argument, though. Creationists, say God. Atheist say billions of years. With no proof. Science can’t even create a single cell in the lab.
Please demonstrate for me the existence of a "transcendent moral law". I'll wait.
Also explain me what the fuck it mean ''Transcendantal moral law''🤣
I'd settle for any moral law. Sure, groups of people have rules governing what they should and should not do. However, those rules are regularly ignored. People find ways to justify whatever they want to do.
Even if such a thing exists, we would have to align ourselves to it for it to be of any value, any use. And, depending on what it consisted of, we may not like it.
@@Lord.Ningirsu "Transcendental moral law" = "My opinion, because God said so."
@@LadyDoomsinger my opinion "Because God said so...in the opinion of a bunch of people who I agree with who put it in a book."
I've yet to find an apologist who isn't a liar.
This is why I ask:
"please help me take Step1 toward your religion, by showing that deities (any count or character) are plausible... this is a simple proof of concept request... details of your preferred religion would be Step4/5 at best"
Some try to respond with quotes from ancient texts, but never reply when I point out that's just part of the claim.
Apologists are fractally dishonest in my experience, but I keep looking :-(
Aww you sooo mean stopping them at the first hurdle
I would ask them to define a god in a way that doesn't use incoherent words.
Here's some examples of incoherent words: timeless, spaceless, immaterial, supernatural.
Some of the other words they use imply incoherence, like "transcendent." You'd have to drill down into what they mean.
Edit: They have a ton of meaningless words, too, but I actually meant "incoherent." Replaced "meaningless" with "incoherent."
@@Mythraen "divine". "spirit". "grace"Even "evil", "good" or "consciousness" if they mean them as nouns. Loads more. How TF can we converse with meaningless words?
@@MythraenAll those words are synonyms of "fantastical" which comes from the root word "fantasy" which is a synonym of words like "imagined" and "delusion".
@@chrisgrill6302 It's easy! Just add capital letters!
Yeah, "grace" doesn't mean anything, but what about "Grace"?
Demonstrate sufficient evidence to convince me or GTFO. That is all it takes.
6:35 he did a thing there. He added a requirement to his idea of atheism that doesnt exist: that of explaining anything/everything. Atheism in itself does not and needs not explain anything. Then he skipped past that to the rational justification part. So he's basically saying for athiesm to be rationally justified it has to explain the universe when no, no it doesnt need to.
It's just him lying and manipulating words to try and make atheism into a cult just like his. Then it becomes a matter of comparing cults. However, atheism isn't a cult - it's a lack of belief in any god or gods, which is a world view and not a cultic phenomena.
@@nickryan3417 Yep. Same with evolution, science, etc. They like to claim its a religion, or its taken on faith and so on to try to bring everything down to their level. Which is hilarious to me since its a tacit admission that they realize faith and religion is not based in anything but wishful thinking and arent good things to let guide you.
@@nickryan3417
An ABSENCE of some belief, as with atheism, is not a world view. It's not the basis of a world view. It's not a component of a world view. It's the absence of any of these things.
Think about this next statement carefully. Atheism is fully compatible with EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD VIEW except theistic ones.
It's compatible with methodological naturalism. It's compatible with metaphysical idealism. It's compatible with solipsism. It's compatible with skepticism, humanism, nihilism, utilitarianism, consequentialism, cynicism, utopianism. But atheism is not itself a world view nor a component of a world view. That's why it can be compatible, because it's not incompatible.
I can't take moral cues from someone that orders their followers to kill children, punishes a person for allowing people that weren't his enemy to flee.
Or honors vows of sacrifice of their own children.
I'm not even religious but this is just navel gazing. I'm not suggesting you believe this, but 84% of atheists believe in abortion, so obviously there is a certain irony to suggesting child murder as the biggest deal breaker for you.
Religion isn't the only one riddled with hypocrisy, and the religious aren't the only ones relying on a belief system to justify the unjustifiable. Morality is entirely subjective, the flaw in the structure is the fault of the architect, the flaw isn't religion, the flaw is human nature.
But carry on with your edgy teenager brand of atheism. Poorly thought out, dogmatic and hypocritical. If you're going to crucify one group for doing something, you better make sure your side is clean. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, all atheists, all murdered a bunch of people...but I guess that doesn't count because they didn't get on their high horse about the value of human life. They didn't value it that much, so, not being hypocrites. You can say you're not a communist but communism was based upon the abolition of religion.
You don't get to throw the baby out with the bath water only when it benefits you.
In Greg's own tweet, he said he was making 3 "claims". That's not evidence, Greg. Facts are evidence. A claim is not a fact.
I suppose the fact is that he made claims?
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -- Christopher Hitchens
Good ole Hitchen's razor.
Lame cop out..
Superb for staying under debate timers and requiring opposition to better prepare, but lame in any situation allowing one peaceful reflection.
Also lame to argue via dismissive quotes from better thinkers.
@@Dr_Wrong
You asserted that without evidence. I will dismiss it.
@@Dr_Wrong
It's only dismissive if there's no evidence to reasonably accept the proposition
And it says CAN be dismissed... It doesn't say has to be or always should??
@@Diviance
So did you. I will dismiss yours too.
Greg's "case" is built on his presuppositions.
Greg has almost as many thought stoppers as Frank. His whole video is making sure his audience doesn't think about the tweet to which he is responding.
by frank you mean Turek, the king of thought stopping excuses?
Also trying to drag out a very short tweet into multiple minutes of basically saying the same thing over and over again.
@photonerd1968 Yes. Yes, I do mean Mr. thought stopping Turek.
6:45 Atheism is NOT an "explanation" for anything. It's a description of person's view. That's all.
7:30 Koukl makes the same mistake so many apologists make. He confuses philosophical arguments with evidence. They are NOT. They _may_ be useful in pointing us in a direction where we might find evidence. But the arguments, in themselves, are not evidence. This is such a common problem that I made a short video about it called, "Philosophy and Logic are not Evidence".
7:37 "Many many people have found this compelling. Smart people." And many smart people have not found it compelling. Therefore it is nowhere near an irrefutable argument. It's also the Appeal to Popularity fallacy, which may explain why so many smart people _don't_ find it compelling.
11:38 I'm a "designer" by nature, education and profession. I have Master's Degrees in both architecture and structural engineering. Nothing in the natural processes of the universe, or in the results, look "designed" to me. It's clear that matter has consistent qualities, such as mass having gravitational attraction to mass, such as electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces acting on sub-atomic particles. Matter behaves consistently and consequently we are largely able to predict the effects of given causes. But none of this in the least looks "designed" to me. It's all just the nature of matter. For matter to have a consistent nature is no wondrous thing. It requires no miracles or intent on the part of some supernatural superhuman being. It's just physical stuff with physical qualities.
My pet thesis is that Homo Sapiens is by nature a designer, a hugely curious manipulator of the environment. This quality in our mental make up has made us extremely adept at altering our environment to favor our needs. But that is simply a result of the evolutionary pressures at work upon us as we evolved. It's our brains, grey matter, the stuff that rots away when we die. Other animals facing different pressures evolved entirely different mental approaches to responding to their environments. So when we look out upon the world from the mouths of our caves and wonder what makes lightning happen and what makes the tides move, we look for something, or someone, much like ourselves in their ability to alter the environment, but vastly more powerful than us, able to cast lightning bolts (Zeus) and move the oceans (Poseidon). In short, we assume gods in our image. Then we try to find ways to propitiate them, in the hope they will help us.
It's not long before some clever shyster comes along and says, "Hey! Zeus spoke to me and he said you should give me 10% of your income and sacrifice a goat on this here altar and he'll be happy with you and reward you with lots of wives and baby boys."
Agreed the very best ( and they fail at that) is a god could exist
fepeerreview3150, writes _"Koukl makes the same mistake so many apologists make. He confuses philosophical arguments with evidence."_
That's not a mistake, he's doing it on purpose to mislead his audience.
This comment should be pinned to the top
"Evidence that is not adequate to the task" = "No evidence"!
Greg knows that is a common meaning of "no evidence", but he is deliberately being uncharitable because he is an apologist and ALL apologists are dishonest.
When somebody addresses his audience as "friends" you know he is lying to them.
And when he moves on to "brothers and sisters", you know he is about to fleece them.
Claims are not evidence, Greg. Neither are arguments.
Theists HATE evidence
Arguments can be considered evidence as long as it's paired with empirical evidence, otherwise it's just a logically valid argument but not a logically sound argument.
@@madara211000
Arguments, like all ideas, are never evidence except for their own existence.
What if the claims are in a *very* special book, is it evidence then?
Once (years ago) I had a discussion with a Christian and we got on the topic of all the other gods in the other religions. He gave reasons why all the other gods were not real. I said those were all pretty good reasons. Those same reasons can also be applied to the god you believe in, and that's why I don't believe. I don't remember his response to that, exactly. It boiled down to Nuh uh and special pleading. It was the only time I had a theist basically fall into his own hole.
I find it funny when theists argue that science is only faith-based and belief systems are bad, without realizing that this argument falls on their feet.
Theist: "There is no evidence for evolution, it is just a belief system"
Not a theist: "So having a belief system is bad?"
**Theist has stopped working**
"The universe is perfectly designed" say the bald guy wearing glasses...
So Greg good design, so your god created a universe that could be corrupted by one man taking a bite out of one magical fruit ❓️
Making a case for your belief is logical, yes... but that doesn't make the case itself logical. 🤣
Well I wouldn't say that making a case for your belief is logical per se. It's more that it's a rational objective IF it just happens, that your belief is justified well by logic as it comports with evidence.
What Greg tries to do, is make an end run around the EVIDENCE part and claim a well reasoned case on logic alone.
His arguments may be valid, but not *sound* as they're based on faulty premises. Logic without evidence isn't the basis for a rational argument. It may be an ad hoc rationalisation of an a priori presupposition, but trying to make some claim seem reasonable isn't automatically rational, nor is wanting to present a belief as rational, a logical approach a priori, in any sense other than the motive of a partisan, emotionally motivated mind.
Yes, we're still calling it Twitter. If someone adopted a kid and announced that the kid had a new name, and filled out forms to legally change the name, but that kid hated the new name and didn't respond to it, and all their friends used their preferred name, then we can say that we're still calling that kid by their preferred name.
I had to use that specific analogy because some people claim that continuing to use the old name is "deadnaming", but it's the opposite. The platform is made up of the people that use it, not the moron who bought it, and most of the people that use it still call it Twitter. One of the main reasons that X is a stupid name is that it's too ambiguous, and the number of times you see or hear "X (formerly Twitter)" attests to that.
That rename to "X" was *_such_* a stupid move, it's essentially what cemented my view of Musk as little more than an immature child with ADHD and too much money...
Well, he completely ruined it, so I'm going to stick with Ex-Twitter.
But, holy crap, that "deadnaming" argument is so freaking bad. Did this person _like_ the Citizens United ruling that made corporations people?
Nah fuck twitter. I'm glad the people who previously owned it are having their vision crushed.
@@huguesdepayens807I don't think they're unhappy about being billions of dollars richer, tbf.
People, it's obvious-- now it's Xitter, pronounced "shitter." Sincerely, your pal Elon.
And of course they are incredibly arrogant because it has to be their Christian invisible sky wizard never mind the thousands of deities humans have worship over the millennials.
They don't even consider the other gods in the Canaanite pantheon, of which Yahweh was just the god of war/metallurgy. These other gods categorically exist with exactly the same level of evidence that their chosen god, Yahweh, exists... because they are mentioned in their own bible stories which they will happily claim are totally perfect and inerrant.
@@nickryan3417I remember several years ago temple ruins with Yahweh's wife statue was unearthed. Nihil Novi in the religion department over thousands of years.
I note that Thor has an element named after him, and Mercury, and... There is one obviously missing.
I don't need evidence for any god. If a god, any god, wants me to worship him/her, he/she can get off his/her fat behind and ask me himself/herself. Until then I will continue to live in a rational, godless world.
ehm.... that's requiring evidence.
Surely the christian god is sexless so would be an it? If not then maybe sexual frustration explains all the morally repugnant acts attributed to it. As for evidence that the christian god does not exist we have the story of Noah. If the god that was capable of making everything out of nothing and creating life could just wish away all the humans he did not want and just leave Noah and his family alive, why go through the nonsense of a year long flood covering the Earth? Killing all the animals that were so "perfectly designed" and the innocents as well was not the action of clever mind with unlimited power.
This is crazy. It's religion that has to prove God. Not something from a book
Ol' Greg "I just side-step the question" Koukl is looking a bit less confident these days methinks.
But... but, he's got a degree in something or other...
@@pineapplepenumbra I wonder what his net worth is? He's sold some books.
"I gave you evidence!"
Umm...you gave me arguments and opinions based on emotion and/or speculation. I remain unbelieving of your deity or any other
If god is the designer of the universe why are galaxies crashing into each other. Is killing all life on a planet not enough for him and now does he need to kill all life in a galaxy. Is he like gomez addams and likes crashing things.
mYsteRIous wAys...........!
"The watchmaker designer".
It started with a stick and a shadow on the ground.
Then sand running into a glass tube.
Then we had springs, wheels and dials.
And then something happened with Quartz and something.
And now we have a SmartPhone that gives us the time.
See, an Evolution on its own.
My take on the “Twitter” vs “X” situation is that, when Eon Musk stops calling his trans daughter by her old name, and starts respecting the fact she goes by a different name and pronouns now, imma start calling Twitter “X.” Until then, nah, why would I respect a company’s title when it’s owned and run by a dude who can’t remember the names of his own kids.
Was the "Eon" intentional? Because, I mostly approve, except that name sounds cooler than his real name.
@@Mythraen lol no, autocorrect just doesn’t acknowledge that the word “Elon” is a word that exists.
Corporations aren't people, you can't deadname a corporation.
@@matthewgagnon9426 You're in the wrong thread. OP didn't say anything about deadnaming a corporation.
I looked up that word "gainsay". I have always thought it to mean "false". I was almost right. "Gain" ="against" +"say"= "to say, to speak". Thus, "to say against; i.e., to contradict". Atheism is NOT a claim; it is a lack of a claim. That is, I have never seen a photograph of God (or any god); I have never heard His voice on a tape recorder or cd. I have never seen any detection of Him, e.g., Geiger counters, anemometers, temperature readings, etc., of Him. All I have seen are supposed -and VERY CONTRADICTORY -so-called prophets saying they talked with Him. I make only the claim that there is no evidence for Him. (See above.) Famed comedian Ray Stevens pondered in one of his songs (I forget which) as to whether God would claim to have talked with all those people who say they've talked with Him.
I think that the song that your thinking of is " Would Jesus wear a Rolex ".
@@oldgoatsgarden4897 Yeah, that rings a bell. I'll look it up. It fits the Kenny Copelands and Joel Osteens and the like. I remember when I was in my late teens in the early 80's and "Profit" Oral Roberts said that God commanded him to get -was it seven million dollars? to build a college or God would kill him. A friend chuckled at Roberts' stupidity in saying this. Dad dryly pointed out that Roberts was pretty shrewd. He got the money, didn't he? It was all those other knuckleheads that sent him the money to keep him from being killed that were stupid. We hoped that Roberts wouldn't get the money just to see if God really would strike him dead. My family were very devout Mormons (dad not included) though I was agnostic at the time (atheist now). These are the type of false prophets to which I -and Stevens -refer.
Yup that was the one.@@oldgoatsgarden4897
If you could erase knowledge of all religions, none of them would ever return. If you erased all scientific knowledge, with time we will come to know exactly the same things.
And, if it is so obvious, people around the globe would have come to the same understanding, which they definitely didn't.
None of the *same* religions would return. I'm pretty confident *some* religion would return.
@@darrennew8211 Yes, because of human nature. We seem to require some form of religion or spiritual beliefs, up until a certain point in our development at least.
Very specific aspects may not return, but if religion is crafted by humans then humans will tend to remake certain things. Animism would return because it's not based on a specific entity, as would the concept of ghosts - these are simply mirrrors of anthropomorphization of the natural world. Sun gods are probable as are moon gods. Would Athena goddess of the hunt make a comeback? Unlikely, but hunter gods in an era of hunting would.
“There’s an everything so there must be a god to make that everything.”Wow! How can you dispute that logic? Lol
I love how many of the people who claim "human body was perfectly designed" wear glasses.
Love your content.
I refer to X as the social media compay formally known as Twitter, and I identify the posts as Xcrement.
Xcrement might be my new favourite thing! 🦒🍃
@@TheSkepTick Clearly Lisa is attended by a retinue of dung beetles.
One would be kind to accept Mr Koukl's performance as no less fabricated than his imaginary friend.
Atheism does not cause wars. Religion does.
🦒🍃
"Atheism" does not need to be justified. It is not a positive claim. It is simply the negation of the not-sufficiently-supported positive claims of others. It is up to you to convince me your god exists, not my job to convince you it doesn't (although I am still allowed to attempt to demonstrate my reasoning if I wish). Mine is the rational position simply because I properly recognize where the burden of proof lies.
Depends entirely on how you define it. To many people it is a positive claim, and there's no correct or incorrect way to use the word.
12:34 "Well, they can't both be right." True. And in my experience studying philosophy and comparative religion at a Jesuit university for 2 years (before tossing it aside and becoming rational) not only can't they both be right. But there's a very good chance they might both be wrong. And the real problem is, within their epistomological framework, there is no way to determine whether any of them is right or wrong. Only empirical evidence can do that and that falls outside the realm of philosophical argument.
You can sit and listen to 2 philosophers make philosophical arguments about how toenails grow until the cows come home. But until you talk to a podiatrist who has studied the evidence you aren't going to get an answer.
Combine the names and call the site “Xitter”. But pronounce the X as the Portuguese would.
Zitter? Sounds like a spot removal cream.
@@Sundaydish1 Usually the letter is pronounced /sh/ when it’s at the start of a word.
@@mjjoe76 I know. I was being facetious
Greg is great at obfuscation. He is also blinded by his need for a God to justify his existence. Yet he thinks theism is rational. The arrogance is astounding.
“Ex-Twitter.”
Xitter. Pronounced 'shitter', naturally.
Crazy X
The site formerly known as Twitter
Twattex
I would say there are evidence, but they are extremely weak and do not meet any burden of proof to be taken seriously.
Arguments aren't evidence
It would depend on what you mean by evidence. Like some people say that they just care for scientific evidence but even that statement is not scientific. If you think that something is true, then where does truth come from?
Evidence isn't proof..
@@bilal535
Arguments aren't evidence. They need to be supported _by_ evidence otherwise they are completely meaningless.
@@bilal535 There are certain claims that I think are true. Ie water is wet or 2+2=4. I think these claims are helpful in understanding reality.
If I ever came across water that wasn't wet, or a scenario where 2+2 wasn't equal to 4, then that water or that scenario would be evidence.
@@mesplin3
Technically, "wet" is a property that water applies to other things. Water is, itself, not wet.
Yep the god that couldn't design somethon better than a giant radioactive ball that gives us cancer for heat and light.
That same mythical sky fairy, who 'designed' everything would be considered the most incompetent engineer ever allowed to design anything.
I wonder when the idea of morals became the idea of a Grand Old Deception?
Peace
'Atheism is irrational! Here's vague things that have no bearing on the argument!' "Uh, no, it's not." "THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE! ARGUE WITH ME SO I CAN FIND CRACKS IN YOUR WORDING!" ".... no."
Elon Musk owns its so let's call it a twit.
😂😂🤣🤣😜😜
🦒🍃
At least Greg didn’t trot out his total misunderstanding of the problem of evil and just mentioned it in passing.
And he thought it was an argument FOR his religion XD
@@witkacysracy He always does.
I say.....there is no god.....ahha....prove it. Why do you have Togo to Sunday School( or equivalent) to learn about a god. What if we didn't "learn" about a god/s .....then there would be no god/s. Dada
Why did I know Koukl was going to produce garbage when I heard him call the X poster “eye-CARE-us” 62? Really, Greg - never heard of Icarus in Greek mythology?
At 12:22 does Koukl claim that he has a Master’s degree in Philosophy? WTF? Did he find it in a box of Cracker Jacks?
Just call it twitter since musk dead names everyone.
1:52 when his opening statement starts off with ad hominem, it tells you everything you need to know about his complete lack of any integrity; the rest of his speech confirms it.
Proof, thank you, that an invisible god who created everything, but who now does nothing at all!
God is real. I met him in a pub last week. He goes by the name of Jack, Seen him twice in one night, He was a double Jack.
And jezuz is coke! 🦒🍃
X is still pronounced Twitter in my mind.
It's pronounced "the social media network formerly known as Twitter" but the symbol for it happens to look like a capital X. It doesn't have an actual name any more.
I've heard it called "X-chan" a few times lately, which seems appropriate seeings it's now come to resemble 4-chan, etc.
Atheism Isn't Rational, but complete faith in something that cannot be proved is I suppose. Do you even understand what rational means?
Well, the real problem is, the person who left the response didn't annihilate the absurd claim of the tweet. He just claimed atheism was the only rationally justifiable position. YOU, on the other hand, did annihilate his claims. So, I would criticize the atheist commenter for being `lazy` in their response and thereby opening themselves up to his response. It's not that the commenter was "wrong," but rather lazy.
Greg is a presuppositionalist. He assumes that much of objective reality simply cannot exist unless his specific deity made it so. Presuppositionalism is one big argument from incredulity.
I posted this on his video:
All top-down origin scenarios (gods or the like first) necessarily include the infinite regression issue, something that cannot be defined away. If you reject the possibility of an infinite regression in objective reality then you admit that your favorite deity, or any deity for that matter, cannot be the origin of anything. if you accept that infinite regressions can exist in objective reality then you must accept that your deity does not sit at the origin. There is simply no possibility that a top-down origin scenario works in objective reality. Deities do exist, but only in the living brains of believers.
Bottom-up origin scenarios (quantum fields or something similar first) can work because quantum theory, supported by innumerable objective empirical experiments, shows that there are hard limits to how small and simple things can be.
All of our available verified objective empirical evidence points exclusively and unambiguously to an objective reality that is built from the bottom up. Everything that can be shown to objectively exist is made of the quantum fields and nothing else.
To believe that a deity sits at the origin of objective reality is both irrational and illogical, full stop.
I feel like around the 3 minute mark he made a "god of the gaps" argument. Like, I'm almost certain he implied that an answer is a must in regard to areas where people have questions and he insists that answer is a god.
What is it about "I don't know" that bothers these people so much? Do they see not knowing an immediate answer as some sort of weakness or defect? I just see it as a temporary situation which can be solved by learning.
Saying "god did it" is lazier than using a calculator. It's more like just writing any old number!
Lisa and the Flying Spaghetti Monster hath brought the universe into existence! The pink unicorn in my garage says so!
Do you have a holy book filled with silly stories to prove that assertion 😂
@@martinconnelly1473 No,but we can write one.
@@martinconnelly1473 Lisa appeared on my toast this morning. That should be proof enough, I feel.
@@lidbass Does that witnessing of a miracle make you a saint in the church of Lisa and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
@@martinconnelly1473 Probably. Particularly if it means that people will send me money...
You are, in fact, allowed to tell people with no valid evidence that they have no valid evidence. Otherwise, claiming you have evidence would end every argument because no one is allowed to refute it. This is elementary school playground argument rules, which no respectable intellectual should have any reason to evoke, Greg.
Upon further reflection i now believe in talking snakes. Thanks greg.
We still call it twitter. Elon musk doesn't get to change my vocabulary just because he spent alot of money
The problem here is that he thinks his own belief is proof. He thinks there must be a creator and lawgiver, therefore God is real to him, but that "proof" only works for him personally.
"Making a case" shouldn't need to be done if the "claim" can be demonstrated. They can't demonstrate shit, so they have to pretend like arguments and "making cases" and so forth are on the same level as just simply demonstrating their god exists. Don't let them get away with that sleight of hand.
Koukl's tweet is a series of claims. In that tweet he does not make a "case" for any of his wholly unsupported claims.
Now it's not reasonable to expect somebody to make much of a case for anything in the length of a tweet. Nonetheless, let's be clear. Koukl did NOT make a "case" for any of his claims.
So it's entirely reasonable for someone to respond with an unsupported counter-claim, especially given the Twitter context.
One thing is for sure. Until Koukl actually provides a "case" to back up his claims it's entirely rational to dismiss his claims.
Who was it that said, "Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? That's what we're dealing with here.
Now Koukl may well have made cases for his claims elsewhere, not on Twitter. But in that case it would behoove him to mention where this respondent can go to review his cases. That would be an appropriate response on Koukl's part.
As far as his claims, it's easy to read between the lines and see that his cases are the same old tired arguments that have been well and thoroughly debunked over and over again. But that's the follow up discussion.
'I don't even want to call it a response...this kind of reaction.' Right out of the gate, Koukl immediately implies to his audience that the atheist argument springs from emotion and not reasoning.
Koukl himself stated he made claims, claims are not evidence. All we heard was the same apologist codswallop repeated yet again.
Sorry Greg, but no one owes you an explanation as to why they believe what they believe. Maybe come up with some new arguments, and will do our best to answer those.
I suspect that Greg is probably very well aware that his statements in the tweet are just assertions based on an argument from ignorance fallacy. He seems to be taking great pains to avoid his audience not realizing that about his own position.
So, it would be more *rational* to believe someone making a claim just on the basis of him saying "Trust me, bro."?
The guy can't even pronounce "Icarus". What are we expecting?
SMH Can’t even dress his word salad properly.
Basically he got Hitch slapped, and he doesn't like it.
He is trying to change the burden of proof with a super word salad.
I may be wrong but I believe the correct term for a tweet is now an Xcretion. The verb to tweet can now be replaced with to Xcrete.
2:06 yes, everyone still calls it twitter, it's probably gonna stay like this
Greg comes across so whiney in this. Knowing it's Twitter (never X) makes it a bit more understandable why the atheist doesn't elaborate. For that matter, Greg didn't really give more than a bunch of assertions himself. His original Tweet was functionally a Gish gallop, especially with Twitter's limits. Even then, I'm sure several people gave elaborate responses he's choosing to ignore.
And he's kind of making my point for me in his video as he continues to say a whole lot of nothing. Okay, I'm sure he expanded on those points elsewhere, but by Greg's rules, if it's not right in front of me in a single, specific interaction, it apparently doesn't count. And the only attempted justification I've heard so far is some non sequitur about the problem of evil that is incoherent without background knowledge of other apologist propaganda. Even then, it took me a bit to figure out what he was trying to say. Hypocritically, it's just a dumb NOU that completely dodges the actual point of the problem of evil. In no way does it require "transcendant moral laws."
The longer I get into this, the more I notice he just keeps repeating himself. That supports the idea that you're just padding out nothing, Greg. No, not everyone thinks things look designed. Firstly, appeal to popularity fallacy. Secondly, whem you actually think about it instead of just taking for granted what people tell you, the idea that conditions are specific so they must have been created by someone doesn't make sense & is clear anthropocentric bias. Especially given how much we now know about how natural processes shape the world. The conclusion that people came from these processes but it somehow wraps around to a person on the other side is just bizarre. Let alone an incorporeal magic person, which we have no evidence suggesting is even possible.
Sorry, Gregg. "Nuh-uh" is a repudiation, not gainsaying.
I know we all think about this stuff, talk about it, sometimes laugh about it.
But when you stop and think about it, it's actually pretty crazy that a large percentage of the world, a very large majority, think like this. They believe it's stupid not to believe in something without evidence.
They believe if you don't believe what they believe without evidence, that there is something wrong with your thinking.
And that's why I feel so damn smart
"Twitter" is a rare case of acceptable deadnaming 😏
I still call it twitter/tweets, not for any reason other than you know it has to piss Musk off
3:36 did you hear that flat earthers? Nah ah isnt enough!😂
Just because something "looks" like something (looks designed) doesn't mean it's rational to believe it is. It doesn't mean it isn't either, but saying that some atheist admitted that some stuff "looks" designed isn't an argument that it's rational to believe it actually is designed. I could say that the layers in the Grand Canyon "looks" like cake. Maybe someone would even agree with me. That doesn't mean it's rational to believe the Grand Canyon actually IS cake. That's nothing, one way or the other. Fine, it looks that way. But what does the actual evidence show? I would argue it would be irrational to argue that the Grand Canyon is literally made of cake, just because some people said it kinda looks that way.
Greg is right that they didn't back up their tweet but neither did he.
I had to read the tweet (I still say Twitter and Tweet. X is forgettable and makes it impossible to find the app on phones.) a few times to be sure just what this guy was trying to say.
I overall have a problem with the fact he says "universal experience" without explanation. Is he meaning that all humans have the same experience, or is he saying all humans have this particular experience where a god is needed? If it's that all humans have the same experience: wrong, even just in terms of preferences. Some men like women. Some men like men or nonbinary genders or the genderless. Some women like men. Some women like woman or the nonbinary or the genderless. Some folks don't want anything to do with anything about getting to it under the covers. Even what people find beautiful / aesthetically pleasing is subjective. Some people like butterflies. To me, those things are batsh*t crazy. So we don't all have the same overarching experience, and even those who say they do probably experience the brain responses to the same thing differently.
If it's about the one particular experience where god is needed: then why do people grow up secular and never adopt a belief in god? Why do some people grow up in a relgion that indoctrinates them for two or more decades and then come to the conclusion that it's all a farce? Yes, some people as an adult come to religion after living secular (though cultural infleunce plays a hand), but it seems to be more the effect of a traumatic exeperience where a spiritual experience helps them heal, or love-bombing from manipulative church-goers / church leaders before saying "Here's the thing. You're going to hell if you don't do everything this god says. But we will intercede if you do what we want."
I want to know if people who left their theistic religion for atheism ever actually returned to that theistic religion, or similar sects. Maybe Christians become Hindu, but to return to the same seems unlikely, and when I've looked the findings are skewed toward this sky daddy not getting a return interest from people who leave the church.
It's a subtle way to use the Appeal to Popularity fallacy.
@@fepeerreview3150 Yeah. That checks out.
Dammit! Greg stole my flannel.
Fun fact, it's the same one from Beetlejuice, as worn by Adam Maitland and by Beetlejuice when he copies his wardrobe.
Hermano!
Algorithm Addition!
😎👉
Question: APPROXIMATELY (or guess)...How many Atheists (Percentage-Wise) are also Nihilists?...comment with your guess (or poll result) below
Yeah but god is necessary. Why so? It's in the definition of god!
Right. So if I put an extra, non functional knob on my door and DEFINE IT AS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, it... magically.... becomes necessary??? That's not how anything works......
I agree that it is unproductive to simply deny the possibility that any evidence of gods exists. I much prefer to simply say that the evidence that I've seen has been unconvincing.
And Greg's "case" here was extremely unconvincing.
"Exterior testicles". That reminds me of nonstampcollector's "High Stakes Intelligent Design" video, from long ago.
'What's your academic background, Greg?'
'Why'
'Because you don't seem to know what the word 'evidence' means'
I lean towards an ever recycling system expanding & contracting for existence. Since all matter seems to undergo this process, it’s reasonable to assume.
Response:
Similar words
From Oxford Languages
noun
*reaction*
reply
reciprocation
retaliation
feedback
comeback
retort
pushback
rebuttal
refutation
riposte
When you play semantics over a reply to a Tweet but don't understand synonyms.
SkepTick... I agree with you on all of the major points... but I do think that Greg did have a point.
First of all, what Greg offered, and insisted on calling "a case", was actually some ARGUMENTS.
And, to be fair, they weren't incorrect so much as just...
- really old arguments
- that weren't especially compelling the first time around
- and haven't aged well (being thoroughly and effectively "countered" more times than I can count)
However, to be fair, all the other fellow did was to point out that Greg hadn't provided any evidence that supported his claims.
And he then ASSERTED that, "based on the evidence, or lack of it, atheism seemed like the most rational conclusion".
(I happen to agree with that assertion... but I think it did fall short of "proving that atheism was the ONLY logical conclusion"...)
At most he proved that atheism was a more well supported conclusion than the one Greg was "claiming to have made a case for"... and failed.
Ok. How about, I don't believe your bible and by extension your God. The Bible is flawed and can't be a product of a infallible deity. The smugness of this guy is breathtaking.
"Why doesn't anyone accept my evidence?!"
The Evidence: "I define the universe as requiring a God. The universe exists, therefore God must exist, checkmate atheists"
I dispute his definition of gainsay. I doesn’t have to be a straight up negation without reason.
But if it did , perhaps Hitchen’s Razor should be tweeked for Greg Koukl.
“That which is asserted without evidence can be gainsaid”
It might actually be an improvement.
*"We're making a claim that fits our universal experience."*
"Experience"? So, they're making a subjective observation?
*"Moral laws need a law giver."*
We judge things as morally good, morally acceptable, or morally bad based on their consequences. There is no such thing as "moral laws," meaning "moral law giver" does not need to exist.
*"Things coming into existence need an adequate cause."*
These people are hypocrites who never apply the same logic to God Himself. And if God can "just exist" why can't universe *also* "just exist"?
*"Design requires a designer."*
Universe was not designed. Earth was not designed. Animals and plants were not designed. Humans were not designed. Therefor, "designer" does not need to exist.
*"It's the atheist, then, that is making the claim that seems to fly in the face of the facts."*
A conclusion that does not follow because of how flimsy the previous claims are.
Two questions for theists:
1 - What is a moral fact?
Without that, all morality is relative, including for god. That means my moral opinion can be better than God's.
2 - What is the soul made of?
It can't be matter. We would detect it. It can't be energy. Then, it would disperse from its source at light speed in every direction until it's absorbed by and indistinguishable from the background radiation of the universe. Nothing to reward or punish.
3 - I'd like to know how God can intervene in this world and still be an objective judge of our sins?
Ok, three questions.
They aren't called "tweets" anyone, they're called "excretions".
😊♥️✌️
Let see... Moral laws are societal constructs that change over time and between various societies. Then, any «objective morality» can only be above any and all gods, and those gods would be bound by it and be judged in compliance with it.
Things needing an adequate cause ? How about purely naturalistic causes for everything NOT clearly man made ?
Design demand a designer ? Care to show ANY trace of design in the natural world ? That is, in things NOT designed by someone.
The actual name of that channel is not «stand to reason» but «Dismiss Any Rational Thought».