To grab a fresh pack of linen with your didgeridoo dollars, here ya go: www.debunkedcardgame.com/ Debunked is now also available, I'm happy to announce, to New Zealand :) Lastly, I apologise again for my awful impression.
It would be great if it will be, in time, available in other languages. You know, to play this game with your family that do not have English as their first language. By the way, I'm Dutch so... :)
Not sure they just borrow. Wasn’t the Kalam named after the Muslim guy who invented it? I also believe that there’s a good deal of “convergent evolution” since the internet and the extreme ease of exchanging ideas is very recent and apologists have been at work for ages. Similar religions will breed similar arguments even without actively copying each other.
@ayham kimo I've managed to offend many people of all three faiths by suggesting, I think correctly so, that Islam and Christianity are both sects of Judaism. I am uncertain if fetishizing is quite the right way to phrase that. I think what it amounts to is that liberally minded people have a tendency to jump on bandwagons like anyone else does. There was a great deal of Islamic persecution following 9/11 and many people responded by trying to justify Islam rather than simply pointing out that persecution of anyone is wrong. It requires absolutely no respect for a belief to recognize a person's right to that belief. This is a concept many people seem to struggle with. For myself, I was still a religious man. But I recognize very freely that faith and knowledge are not the same things and when the two are at odds faith must surely give way to evidence. I have had both atheists and religious people tell me that because I accept this as an axiom, I am not actually a religious believer. Go figure.
Its so painfully obvious that islam isn't as used to bring questioned as Christianity. Muslim apologetics sound outright infantile when compared to Christian apologetics...and even christan apologetics are utterly unconvincing.
I think a lot of it has to do with the relative positions of power for both religions in the world. Christianity, in practical terms, holds the strongest amount of power and has had it for so long that more people have found reasons to challenge it. Muslim-majority nations have not held a similar level of influence in global affairs, so there haven't been as many reasons to widely confront it by scholars. Of course, as Islam has become more and more influential in global affairs, it finds itself under the scope more and more.
What? Have you listened to apologists like William Lane Craig? He's gone from to infantile straight to senile. Then there's nutters like Plantinga, Ray Cumfart, Ken Ham, J Warner Wallace etc Only difference is christians take their nonsense seriously and invest a lot of marketing into their porpaganda apologetics.
@@jaclo3112 still they use valid structures and at least know what evidence is. A lot of Islamic apologetics is just repeating the claim over and over again.
@@djinghiskhan9199 it depends on the country,as for living in fear yes as sincr your early childhood people use god to threaten you, for example when u lie or something, you will be told something like:" don't lie or god will hang you from your eyelashes on top of hell and you will burn from heat" which is a pretty gross and scary image for a child. Then you grow up and learn to live with huge internal paradoxes, like: you drink during the whole week except on Fridays because its a holy day, you have sex the whole year except for Ramadan, because come on, it's a holy month, you have sex with other women but you ask your parents to pick you a virgin for marriage, you accept a lady boss but in her back you say that she is "incapable" in the sense that in Islam women are lesser than men at 2 major levels: they are considered to have a lower intellect and a lower set of duties religiously because when they are on their period, they are exempted from praying and a lot of similar bullshit ...
Wow this Sheikh is insufferable. Spouting nonsense with such confidence lol. Sadly this is the state of the vast majority of apologists in the muslim world.
When I want to learn how the universe works, I tend to prefet listening to physicists rather than religious people. Physicists have been known to make errors numerous times in the past, but they tend to correct their textbooks when that happens.
Islam has many faces and dimensions. The Salafi side uses extremism. Sufis, Ahle Hadith, and Shiites are other sides of the coin of Islam. What about them?? Have they lost too??
@@stoneruler Iran is Authoritarian, Shiism had nothing to do with that. For analogy, look at Soviet Rus, Stakin killed millions and purged hundreds, but Communism as an ideology is pretty good.(Depends if u r not a paranoid american boomer) Shiism is diverse.There are Asna Asharis, Zaydis, Hazaras, all with different Marjas. Some Marjas condemn the death penalty for apostates, and some do not. I was also a shiite, so I know how peaceful are shias at the ground level compared to wahabis. I left Islam in 2016, and now I live in Lahore, Pakistan and an athiest. Nobody calls for my head😂
I genuinely wonder if these apologists who so confidently discuss scientific matters would actually be able to pass a middle school science exam. My suspicion is that most of them could not.
It amuses me when I hear Christians and Muslims using those arguments for their version of Yahweh. Neither side has compelling evidence that their version is correct or that their version exists.
It gets worse . Face to face, if they are on the back foot, they will comment about your appearance, that you smell or are dirty, perhaps the smell is of cannabis or alcohol, that you are a bigot , all of it deflection , dog whistling to their sycophants followers to recognize the kufir not the point.
Because religion makes people narcissistics, they're taught their way is the only way and everyone else is wrong, they place their beliefs over everyone else's and you must comply or be dammed to hell, the lack of empathy in God and his followers is sad
@@RickReasonnz It was indeed a very famous family. Percy Shelley married the daughter of William Godwin and Mary Wollstoncraft. Both were well known and ahead of their time.
Exmuslim here. Again, thank you very much Steve for delving into the muslim apologetics! They are basically what christian apologetics was 100 years ago! These philosophical fallacies are relatively new to them! So they think they have some irrefutable proof of God in their ignorance! And thank you very much for speaking up for exmuslims!
To be honest Christian apologetics haven't changed much in the last half millennium. Same old bullshit being projectile vomited by people who don't put even an ounce of thought into arguments that have been debunked for centuries. Arguments used so much Ive seen copy pasted refutations with minor contextual changes (like watchmakers but they use the human body or something to that effect) and it still works on several different random people across RU-vid.
@Kaen Alhamdoulillah I became muslim. Then because when you have all the proves in front of you you can't denie. And why did you live Islam? Basic lack of knowledge ? Because of the same shubuhat of today that have been destoyed centuries before the birth of your grandfather ? Or you have a solid argument ?
@@donnyh3497 they say it's eternal, and you say it's just special pleading, then they say it's a spaceless/timeless being, and I just want to vomit because it's sickening to me that they don't realize the ridiculousness and contradiction that something without space/time is. Oh yeah and it somehow affects reality. 🗿
@@Daniel-wr9ql if they say it's timeless and spaceless, then we can say it doesn't exist. because we have yet to find anything existing outside of space and time
@@eh9618 exactly. What's the difference between something timeless/spaceless and something that doesn't exist? Theists just dodge the question like Neo in the fucking Matrix lmao.
@@Daniel-wr9ql yep. we don't have any example of a "timeless and spaceless" thing.. they'll probably use another fallacy. and besides. even IF we give them that HUGE leap to a conclusion of a creator, how do they know it's THEIR specific god?
A muslim taxi driver recently asked me about my religion, and I told him I was raised a Christian and now identified as an atheist. He threw all the usual arguments at me, including the watchmaker argument. It was interesting how everything he said was almost identical to the arguments I heard while growing up in church. It's quite annoying theists can't see that their 'arguments' for God can be used for almost any religion, and can therefore never be definitive proof for either.
@@shuush875 Except it's improvable by definition because there is no reliable, physical and replicable way to prove something that defines its whole existence on special pleading. And anyone that wastes their breath on trying to prove it with the laws of this world (which it supposedly does not follow) sounds no different than a person in psychosis trying to convince others of invisible gnomes from other realms with unearthly laws in the woods. And that they ocassionally steal their socks 🤷♀️
@@ina7084 Alright then. Judging from what I've just read, I'm assuming you only take truth from science only and reject all other mediums to truth. Am I wrong in saying that?
@@Heathcoatman Obviously religious people view us faithless people as a big threat. They desperately want to keep their power, so they lie. And it works, stupid or desperate people WILL fall for this crap. Just like they will fall for all pseudoscience, such as flat earth, energized water and high vibrational food.
@@TroyLad Prove it. I've never seen an argument from a religious person that can't be rejected with simple philosophy or science. Go ahead, prove me wrong. p
When he constantly invokes "either it was nothing or something or someone" then you can tell he has no clue. If he knew, he would stay with one claim and work with that. Well, thats what honest people would do.
"Someone or something" covers kind of a lot of ground. Sure it's a true dichotomy, but atheists will tend to be quite happy to go with the "something".
@@Z4r4sz it had to be someone, sorry but this globe was designed perfectly for us and our needs. this is not nature, evolution is just a theory and scientists admit that
I always hated the argument from complexity. Anyone who has ever designed something will tell you that you want to be as simple as it is possible to be while still fulfilling the intended function. There are far too many flaws in the human "machine" to have been made by a conscious designer.
Ah, but you're forgetting about the fall in the garden of Eden. When mankind sinned, we were no longer perfect. Our bodies deteriorated and could no longer become 900 years old. So, we used to be functioning perfectly but our genes have flaws now because of sin. Sounds stupid? Sure does. Still believed it though, and this would've been my answer during my Christian days.
@@roeliethegoat , and our bodies would have had to deteriorate according to god's design. That deterioration wouldn't/couldn't just be random. Our supposedly all-loving god decided exactly how we would be imperfect. If a perfect god chose that imperfection then I can only assume that that imperfection is perfect.
I always wonder how "sin" affects reality or in this case human DNA. And only human DNA, not any other species or plant. When I ask how to detect this sin force thats supposed to behave like gravity I get alot of silence from christians. Probably because they have no clue either.
I think you are underestimating the complexity of life comparing it to a machine. Life in itself is so unique (to our part of the universe) that it's a bloody miracle that it came into existence in the first place. And for it to last for years, also a miracle. True, you don't need an Abrahamic god for this. But I think we all agree that even if we are the result of a typewriter falling down an infinite flight of stairs for infine time, we are a bloody masterpiece compared to everything else. A true jackpot of the universe's lottery!
@@konstantinlozev2272, sticking with your lottery analogy, just about every lottery ever held has been won by someone and possibly multiple people. It's pretty much inevitable. It may well be that life is exactly the same. It's not a miracle at all. I know that you're using the word in a colloquial sense but, in this context, that's very poor form. Of course life seems amazing to us because we're the ones who are alive. Winning a lottery seems amazing to the winner but, to lottery organisers, nothing could be more mundane. It may well have been inevitable that life would arise somewhere in the universe and it may have arisen in many places.
Probably apathy in play. Easy to satisfy oneself by thinking as being the wisest in the room, without being able to reflect positions in space and time. Fleeting moment tho. If parenting is done sufficiently, children grow into determined and humble adults. Everything starts from home and ends home.
Completely agree. Theists are utterly boring and unimaginative, using the same predictable "arguments" over and over. It's almost like they're not encouraged to think for themselves ...
@@Car_Mo It's rather sad, but i can only feel bad to a certain extent. They were indoctrinated as children but when they grow up, they never leave that system.
Because confidence, or even the convincing appearance of confidence, is persuasive to people. A great many people aren't really looking for a detailed answer about remote topics like cosmology. They just want to hear something superficially plausible from someone they feel they can trust, so they can get on with their day, satisfied in the answer. Scientists who are intellectually honest usually have to use weasel words and admissions that what we know is incomplete; things that are often interpreted as being weakness in conviction and a lack of confidence in their results. Theists often see an opportunity in that. Of course, the same is true of most 'communicators,' including nefarious ones like con artists and any 'professional liar.' Say something loudly and confidently, and even it's pure nonsense, some people will believe it. And when a few people believe something, that belief will slowly but surely...and accelerating over time...spread.
Good point. The arch propagandist of the Third Reich, Goebbels, is accredited with the statement: Tell a lie often enough and people will start to believe it. He may have had other failings, but on that he was amazingly accurate.
This is an evolutionary consequence of overweighting the importance of cause and effect in primitive mammalian brains. In other words,, the ability to link cause and effect was so overwhelmingly useful that it was reinforced over and over through generations, despite the fact that it was clearly wrong much of the time. It was, in fact, so useful that it gave mankind an existential dread of the yawning vacuum of explanation so immense that they will gladly hurl their reason into the abyss in order to avoid confronting the absence of an explanation.
A theist walks along a beach and sees a watch in the sand. He assumes that it is a naturally occurring phenomenon because it obviously had a creator and the sand and water and, you know, everything obviously had a creator. How could he differentiate between them with no un-created phenomena to compare them to?
RR, if I weren't already subscribed, I would subscribe simply in appreciation of your phrase near the end of this video, "a preacher's confidence". Priceless!
For the falling keyboard analogy, I have a modification of it that I believe better represents the truth. You see, the falling keyboard isn't just any keyboard, but a mobile phone's predictive text keyboard. The predictive text represents the laws of the universe, that force the text to follow certain pre-defined patterns. As it falls down, it keeps hitting the next option among several words suggested by the predictive text, and in the process, by the time the phone reaches the bottom, it has generated an entire novel. This model shows how the laws of the universe cause convergence to occur, as the laws of thermodynamics virtually guarantee that gas will converge together to form stars, the stars explode to form planets, the weather patterns on the planets produce mountains and rivers, and, that a small number among the trillions of planets in the universe have the right set of conditions that cause life to emerge and evolve. While the novel generated by the predictive text may be grammatically correct, and even has coherent sentences at certain points, the vast majority of the text is somewhat unintelligible. This perfectly describes the nature of DNA, where only a small fraction of the entire chain contains actual instructions for the cell to carry out, and the majority of the DNA chain is just random gibberish that does nothing. It also explains how humans and other animals, despite the best attempts at evolution, have such glaring imperfections in them, like bone cancer in children, parasitic leeches whose entire life cycle and purpose is to make their host regret ever being born, and various genetic defects that always appear in every species.
@@shadowmax889 I'd be flattered if you shared it to more people. Honestly, most of the people who try to use the watchmaker analogy always forget that the processes are not completely random, but rather that there are natural laws and entropic laws that make certain results - results which emulate complexity - statistically more likely in the long term.
I would tend to disagree that DNA is gibberish. It might look gibberish to us, but we are like monkeys trying to read in that respect still. And those "imperfections"/mutations that you refer to are actually the reason we have species and so much complexity. True, natural selection "wastes" 99% of those mutations out of existence. But the very presence of mutations in life forms is what drove us from an amoeba into something that can gaze the stars and ponder about our own existence.
@@konstantinlozev2272 That's an interesting point to make, but I'm not completely convinced. The actual percentage estimated after proper study is that only 8.2% of human DNA is actually functional. Mutations in the rest of the 91% of our DNA have been shown to have no effect on us at all. My source for this is a 2014 study by the University of Oxford. I'd like to link my source, but RU-vid comments don't allow web links.
i want to know what type of wireless keyboard this guy is using to drop down the stairs off a big building... i cant even put my keyboard on my lap without the wireless not working🤣
CAn't wait for the next episode!! btw thank you so much for consolidating what Hitchens said into a thing, using it becomes almost always necessary since people like to throw words in the air and provide no actual evidence for what they're arguing. Also, it's a great way to let the world know what a clever guy Christopher was.
14:18 This passage reminds me of this quote from Spinoza : "So they will pursue their questions from cause to cause, till at last you take refuge in the will of God-in other words, the sanctuary of ignorance". Spinoza, Ethica
To further expand on why the “keyboard down the stairs” analogy is flawed: one doesn’t need to resort to an infinite number of tosses, or an infinite number of keyboards, to get a keyboard to make a sensible output. If, instead, one has a single keyboard and a very, *very* long staircase, then a simple text filter that passes those inputs that are English words in grammatical order will ensure that, at any point along the way, the output is spelled correctly and grammatical, and at some point something “profound” will possibly come out. The real-word counterparts of this analogy are time (the staircase), self-replicating molecules (the keyboard generating output), and the principles of natural selection (the filter). Given that self-replicating molecules exist, and can have small variations and still replicate, then those molecules will become more complex and better able to replicate over finite periods of time. I will suggest that the diversity of life on Earth is the “something ‘profound’” from the keyboard analogy. The biggest danger with this analogy is that it reinforces the idea that evolution via natural selection (and sexual selection, a special case of natural selection) has some sort of “designed” filter that selects for traits that somehow lead to intelligence, or even that inevitably lead to humans. (That is one of many flaws in the argument “God exists and created the universe such that humans would evolve” that so many religious scientists seem to believe.) To circle back to infinity for a moment, any time one invokes either an infinite number of something, or an infinite span of time, one must be careful because infinity defies common-sense. For example, the digits of Pi (or any other transcendental number) are countably infinite, and every finite subset of digits can be found in the infinite digits of Pi, thus the binary representation of this comment can be found somewhere in the digits of the binary expansion of Pi (but good luck finding it!). Human intuition fails us when we consider “an infinite time” or “an infinite space.” A sound argument can be made that over an infinite time, all *possible* events *must* happen, and that in an infinite space containing matter, all *possible* configurations of matter *must* occur. So now, with infinity, one can “prove” most anything, much like the devious mathematician who cheekily proves that 1=2 by hiding a divide-by-zero fallacy in the proof.
I do like the infinite staircase analigy. But I think you are skipping a point here. The "spelling filter" of natural selection applies to living things that replicate. Not to everything else. And the second law of thermodynamics actually means that with time, with regard to the inanimate universe, the typewriter will be spitting more and more the interval key. And life is very, very unique. So, yes, the staircase becomes much shorter once you have life in the picture. But we all know that, unlike the universe, life definitely has a beginning and, damn, do you need a long staircase for that to happen! Ah, and for sure you cannot trace any life in our universe earlier than the bug bang.
Its admittedly kind of cute and hilarious how convinced the preacher is of how Franky /frankly not very bright arguments. And from "atheist receives the lesson of his life" I figure, the other nodding guy is supposed to play an atheist? Oh my. That's so hopelessly fake that one can't help but find it a bit adorable.
Very erudite, very logical, very much based in logic and reasoning debunking. You have more patience then me. For me it stops as soon as someone expresses that either something can come from nothing or that it came from god/allah/deity of choice. Their utter failure to see that if everything needs a creator then it means their precious god needs one too, per default. In short, it's just them clinging desperately to the idea that something cares about this little blue dot and specifically it's insignificant inhabitants. But we, that don't think so, are deemed by them as the egoists and narcissists. The irony.
The even more amusing thing about strawmanning the big bang theory is that the sitcom of that name has a VERY catchy opening song and *explicitly* states our understanding of the state of the universe before that moment. "the whole universe was in a hot dense state" is hardly ambiguous and makes no reference to nothing having existed prior. And the Islamic assertion that all phenomena are simply the expressed will of Allah is INFURIATING. If that is the case, then your faith is meaningless, as its presence or absence would be the will of Allah. All the things prohibited by the Hadiths, all the condemnations and praises accorded to individuals... all meaningless as everything is ultimately the will of Allah in action. What a MONSTROUS way of thinking/. And all supposing that Muslims know the mind and the intent of God. That's some pretty enormous hubris there buddy. If there is a creator, I'm sure he'll forgive me for doing my best and treating others with respect and love, regardless of my faith. If a creator wouldn't do that, then I wouldn't be interested in their opinion and so faith in them would be pointless, as it would merely compel me to defiance. And if there's no creator, then all their idiocy is for naught (and that includes any manner of spiritual belief that does not require a guiding, interventionist, intelligence)
Christian apologists are the same. Hypocrite I mean. When you point out contradiction ie “why god lets bad things happen to good people?” God’s will is inscrutable, and yet they know perfectly and spend all their time telling you what to do and not to do to please god.
11:12 "Someone being in control of this actions" is a very fringe philosophical position called occasionalism. It was first defended by Muslim theologian Al-Ghazali, then it was defended by Ockham and Malebranche (also, it also influences, probably because of Ockham, Berkeley and Hume).
@@etincardiaego jic I sounded weird or unnecessarily repetitive, the only reason I made that comment was to remind myself to look it up later. Was too lazy to back off from YT then.
Seeing these two seriously grappling with the analogy of the keyboard (surely they mean a laptop) which irl would be broken by the first floor down makes me giggle uncontrollably. These two are convinced of their own intelligence. I can assure you it is not as obvious as you might think.
So a keyboard writing a fantastical story by falling down the stairs is preposterous, but when a toaster darkens a slice of bread in such a way that 'the face of a prophet' appears is a sign of (a) god's existence? For me, the more we find out how complex the universe really is, the less likely I find it to be something staged by a supreme being.
When you've been fed the same lies every single waking moment of your life from your relatives, friends, colleagues, TV programs, the internet, from having to go to the mosque every week on friday and listen to the same 3 or 4 one-sided talking points from preachers being paid generously to make sure certain ideas are drilled into people's minds (especially the young ones), you get people so thoroughly brainwashed that they become very cocky and arrogant towards those who disagree with them on the fundamentals of their religion, it would be like disagreeing that the sky is blue for them. That's the power of mind control and mohammed knew very well what he was doing.
To be fair, the same accusation could be leveled at most science education and its pervasiveness. I don't disagree that constant repetition and reinforcement are powerful tools for converting people to a certain dogma or set of beliefs, but this doesn't have to be limited to just religion. Imagine presenting Richard Dawkins with dome solid evidence against evolution by natural selection (just a thought experiment, I don't know of any such evidence) and how he'd react. He'd have spent his whole life working on a theory he'd have developed a great attachment to, and would be very reluctant to let go of his beliefs even if it was the rational thing to do.
@@bakarenibsheut12 You forgot one crucial aspect of science, it's testable and you get paid big bucks if you prove something wrong so everything is constantly under scrutiny and scientists are trying to disprove one another on a regular basis. So there isn't anything dogmatic about science, you get taught things that have been tested and peer reviewed by thousands of people before you but you're welcome to challenge everything you learn and if you can prove it wrong we'll be hearing about you in the news. If Dawkins was presented evidence against evolution he'll switch immediately and throw it all in the water, but that is highly unlikely to happen since the theory of evolution is built on centuries of research and work, although disproving it completely is not impossible, is not very likely to happen. It's like saying what if tomorrow gravity was proven to not exist. It's theoretically possible but highly unlikely.
@@bakarenibsheut12 if you showed him new information that would BECOME his theory he’d spent his life working on. Science is always based on the best available information. If you present new knowledge that would become the new best understanding of biology.
@@bakarenibsheut12 furthermore science is nothing like religious apologists drilling the same 4 points. Science is a universally applicable evidence based understanding of reality with infinite depth. Science’s knowledge builds upon itself in a logical way. Religion is simply a hodgepodge assortment of myths and religious instructors will teach any number of contradictory ways of interpreting that intended meaning. Meaning it’s fundamentally confusing. The more you study doesn’t guarantee increased understanding or improved outcomes in practical areas of life.
0:25 Twenty-five seconds in and I am already confused. "You see millions and billions of stars...doesn't this provide a sign of a creator" I'm not sure how that follows. How many stars are needed to point to a creator? If there were only 10 000 stars, would that not point to a creator? What if there were 10? Already I can see this is going to be a dumb argument.
Actually, having billions and billions of stars should rather point away from a Creator argument. This is such an inefficient way to set up the stage which that creator put us in the center of. Why waste billions and billions of stars and planets in order to put us in one of them? Can you not design one planet and one sun in the first place?
Where did such people get the statement "Everything comes from nothing."? I've never heard anything like it from scientists, teachers or read in books.
Where have you been? "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing-involving the absence of space itself and-which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction." (Wikipedia. )
@@spanish_realms "In doing so, he comes to the conclusion that everything can have arisen out of nothing - and probably disappears into nothingness again..." It is a conjecture that he puts up in a humorously written book, not a fackery that he sets up. At least that's how it is written in the German book.
I'm an ex-Muslim, and my understanding of the story of Abraham was always that Allah's intention was to test Abraham, and never intended for Ismaeil to be killed and therefore he did not change his mind in that regard. I can't speak for all Muslims on this matter, but it was always what I was taught. I just wanted to clarify that.
I'm not an ex muslim but this has always been my understanding of the story as well. Allah always knew the outcomes but we dont which is why our tasks appear to be difficult choices that are tests.
Yeah that's how I've come to see it as well. I think the problematic parts of that story is that A. The request was something that Abraham thought his god would actually ask of him. B. That being willing to sacrifice your son to this god is presented as the virtuous course of action. It teaches that should this god ask something of you, even something horrific, then you shouldn't question it and do it. Because that is virtuous.
Steve, in addition to “why preachers speak with such confidence” can you also cover why they feel compelled to use arguments from absurdity? Specifically, how preachers preach about atheists and evolution so often, things that they propose to be absurd. Why even talk about it if it’s not something you find reasonable?
Because an appeal to incredulity has a powerful appeal for most people. People, as a whole, would prefer even an unsettling lie to the yawning gape of uncertainty.
"Why even talk about it if it’s not something you find reasonable?" Same reason why atheist philosophers and commentators talk so much about religion; A lot of people are convinced by it and the speaker thinks that needs to change (at least I assume so).
@@OzixiThrill I think the main issue atheist philosophers have with religion is the burden of proof was on the atheist, not the theist. This is true until very recently in the last 40 years.
I almost fell for a mind fart yesterday. I was eating a bannana, and thought: "Why is there so much food I can eat? It is almost as if these things were made for me/us. And why are so many foods good for me?" Luckly, I could point ot the fallacy. Dodged a bullet there. As a former theist, and a person who really wants there to be an after life, and a loveing careing God. These things are a constant fight :/
Almost all the food you eat WAS "made" for you by selective breeding performed by farmers and scientists over the centuries. Only a tiny percentage (and perhaps none at all) of your diet comes from wild type organisms. Wild caught seafood is the one obvious exception to this. I'm an ex-evangelical Christian who would also love there to be an afterlife of eternal bliss. But as I've learned more about science, religion and philosophy, my confidence grows that no (personal) gods exist, and clearly no version of an Abrahamic god. I would say that I'm now 100% convinced that no gods exist, so for me, the "fight" is over. Keep learning, and you'll reach this point as well soon enough.
@@1970Phoenix I think to children, believing in Santa is beneficial. The real question is: can the general population move away from a child's thinking. It's quite a leap for most individuals. And I cannot expect that from the general population. Most people cannot bear the notion of there being no life after death. Most people need a good fairy tale before the essential message at the end. So, I think our efforts are probably better spent on making sure the fairy tale is kept harmless and not implying that you should discriminate against other human beings.
@@konstantinlozev2272 hmmm I’m not sure I agree, disbelief is on the increase, in more developed regions anyway, it’s kind of funny that the more a religion is “defanged” and turned “harmless” (I’d agree with the other comment that having people believe in something that isn’t proven is still harmful, to the cognitive function of the individual) then the religion begins to die anyway, look at Christian in the west especially, take away the power of inquisition and monopoly on power, coupled with the ability to actually read the scriptures then it begins to wither away
"Lesson of a lifetime" = "But... just look at the TREEEEEES!!!" + "But... you can't get something from nothing!!!!" (unless that "something" is an invisible, infinitely powerful, all-powerful being, with unlimited, undetectable, blank-check magical powers, of course; THEN "just existing", "eternal and uncreated", through sheer random chance, with no cause, out of literally nothing, no problems at all!!!)
Yes, seeing the vast deepness of the universe with its uncountable number of stars and galaxy immediately creates an impulse to think something must have designed this, but an argument for a creator of the universe is not an argument for Allah as Islam is a product of it's time, medieval Arabia, and was invented by humans that lived during that period of time in that certain place.
Im digging ur haircut- i just showed my 19 yr old son -who’s hair has been receding for a few years already-and said “let’s cut it like this good looking RU-vidrs hair- hes atheist too!” 🥰 Poor kid- at least his acne stopped last year (and at least he made the decision to be atheist on his own) I didn’t know how I would handle children but I let them make up their own minds and I took them to churches to show them but they knew how I felt probably, but I still had Santa shit- i love the holidays for family not god.
Can someone please tell me why there’s sometimes lines crossed thru what I write- when I’m looking at my comment from eight seconds ago the second, third and fourth line is cut in half and all I mentioned was my 19 yr old son’s receding hairline…
@@ginamarie975 Hmmm.....try writing the same sentence now............at first I thought you must have pressed a key to turn it on or off. (Like * at the start and end of a word to put it in bold)
@@ginamarie975 Yeah......I know what you've done.....you've put a - immediately in front and behind a word/sentence........put a space between the hyphen and the word or sentence and it shouldn't happen.......failing that use brackets instead if you want to do an aside.
@@ginamarie975 ☝️ what he said. You did .-this- (ignore the full stop. I put that there to stop the effect from triggering.) The other effects of note are *bold* (using asterisks) and _italics_ (using underscores). Cheers.
29 seconds in and one "Because you see certain stuff, god has made it" in and I am already thinking to myself: "F... me, here we go again..." This is going to be fun.
"Who caused that cause to begin with? There has to be [someone who started it all]" Infinite regression is a problem, and it's kind of hard to wrap your head around any infinities whatsoever, but assuming that there must therefore be an intelligent and exceedingly powerful conscious being that, while being powerful enough to create everything, is somehow exempt from that logic and, at the same time, has utterly failed to manifest itself outside self-contradictory scriptures and anecdotal private experiences easily explained by other means... Well, doesn't that sound even less convincing?
The shake also uses a false dichotomy. Some things may be from nothing and others designed, or, like the Greeks believed there were multiple designers -- Poseidon designed horses, Prometheus humans, Dionysus dolphins, Hera the tail of the peacock, Epimetheus most of the animals, and all kinds of things.
About Abraham sacrificing Issac: the bible (I don't know if it was written in the Quran) says at the beginning of said chapter that god tried Abraham, he was testing him. Why would an omniscient being test someone if they know the answer already or why would a supposedly omnibenevolent being tell someone to sacrifice their son, even if it's just a test, that the problem of those who believe god holds this attributes. My point is that in this specific scenario, god didn't change his mind.
Same with Job. God made a bet with Satan/the devil (its been about a decade since I cracked open my Bible, and even longer than that since I read the story of Job, so I can't remember all the details) about Job having unfailing faith in God. To follow through with the bet, God allowed all sorts of horrible shit to happen to Job to test Job's loyalty to God. Yeah, God supposedly gave everything back to Job, but does that make up for his family that he lost during the trials? I think God killed his kids. It's a fucked up bet.
About the likelihood that a series of random letters would result in every possible work of literature possible, I'm pretty sure Michael from VSauce once mentioned a website trying to do exactly that. Some kind of library of every book possible. I can't remember the name of this website but I think it was in his video on the Zipf mystery.
Okay, TY for including Australia in a widening scope of Asiatic countries. Now, where's Japan!?!? I want my copy of Debunked! Who's with me?.... (crickets)....
Abu Dharr narrated, “Once I was with the Prophet riding a donkey on which there was a saddle or a (piece of) velvet. That was at sunset. He said to me, ‘O Abu Dharr, do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said, ‘It sets in a spring of murky water, (then) it goes and prostrates before its Lord, the Exalted in Might and the Ever-Majestic, under the Throne. And when it is time to go out, Allah allows it to go out and thus it rises. But, when He wants to make it rise where it sets, He locks it up. The sun will then say, “O my Lord, I have a long distance to run.” Allah will say, “Rise where you have set.” That (will take place) when no (disbelieving) soul will get any good by believing then.’” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21459 al-Risala ed.)🤪🤣🤣😁😁😁
How does an atheist even communicate with someone like this, it's almost disheartening. Someone needs to understand logic and epistemology at a basic level for you to explain fallacies to them, someone needs to understand science at a basic level to explain physics to them. How do you even communicate with someone that insulates themselves from ever gaining that background knowledge and just lives in an echo chamber of faith.
Ive been arguing in the comments section of some of these videos and I’ve never delt with people this aggressive and straight up willing to advocate violence. I bring up that im gay when talking about morality and i get the most vulgar attacks I’ve ever experienced. They seem to also have tied logic directly to their god and absolutely will not consider the possibility that they are wrong so there’s little chance for an honest conversations so far. I thought Christians where difficult to argue with but most have nothing on the people in his comments section.
They speak with confidence because they're 'questioned' by a fellow believer pretending to be an atheist asking leading, pre-prepared questions. People like this wouldn't have the guts to face someone like you in a live discussion
I’m interested that he said that Allah ‘planned’ the universe. Surely a more powerful god wouldn’t need to plan anything. It would just know without having to organise its divine thoughts.
So I find it rather odd that "god" has no beginning or end, having been around all along, yet according to the Creationists, it teaches that the Earth has been around for just a meager 10,000 years.... So what happened? Did "god" wake up from "his" slumber on Mount High one day and think to "himself" "Gee, I'm bored/lonely. I think I will create a plaything/companion and call it man" Then he takes 6 days to do this with, and then resting on the 7th day.... I wouldn't think that an all powerful being of Supreme Power would have to do such a thing. And for praying, that is odd as well. Why would you have to pray for anything if "god" is all powerful, it would just happen and you wouldn't have to pray to begin with. All your needs would be met without having to go through all of that. It seems very masochistic to me that you would have to literally get onto your knees to beg for what you need, either for yourself, or someone else. This is why I am sure that it is a good idea to question the origins of it all. Seems suspect at best.
Yes it is strange. I have often wondered when theists describe god as a perfect being. What could a perfect being , be lacking? Why does a perfect being require or need to create imperfect humans?
One might ask why a supremely powerful being needed to rest. Surely it would have an inexaustable supply of energy? It could well be that God twiddling his thumbs for an eternity got so bored he created the universe for his own amusement. However, must have quickly got bored even with that, since he seems to have lost interest ever since and left the universe to its own devices. But if God has been around for an eternity how does that square with the assertion that infinite regress is impossible? Just asking.
Once your argument for your god converts all other believers, then you can come take a crack at us atheists. Until that time, save your fallacies for the believers.
11:20 You can actually see and hear the sheikh hesitate here. It looks as if he does not believe what he's saying, as if a inner voice of reason tells him he's not actually convinced of this conclusion, but still goes on with it, which is understandable considering his position.
Idk if this is entirely relevant to the content of this video, but this is why I don't like the idea of respect for its sake at all. I feel the host sort of agree with what the Sheikh had to say but I'm not sure he's completely convinced either and I feel like this "respect" is what deters him from asking questions... out of respect. And if there's anything I could change in this world is the belief that respect is unearned. Or maybe simply the abolition of respect. You can agree with the authorities on the subject without having to be "respectful" in a self-submitting way
"Either it all came out of nothing, or someone or something brought it into existence"...out of nothing? Pulled it out of his arse? Adding a creator add nothing to human understanding of how the universe came into existence, unless you go on to explain the process.
Your point on the Universe always existing fails on philosophical/rational grounds. It is not possible for there to be an infinite amount of time elapsing. It is also not possible to get to infinite time through successive addition.
@@truthboom Time is subjective, there's no substance. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. As for your question, time being applied to God would imply that God is contingent which is not the case. Similarly, God is not material.
AFAIK as far as we know the vast majority of the universe is empty. To expand on the wireless keyboard analogy, there's a lot of jumbled nonsense but we don't notice this because we're living on a "the" that happened to be created in the process.
It's funny because the keyboard example argues the opposite of what he thought it did. As he said, there might be a few words in there, in this analogy, we are the occasional words in that keyboard randomly being pressed
Without even seeing the intro I can predict the video you're responding to is pathetic. Muslim apologists are even worse than Christian ones, and those are already so ridiculously bad it makes you feel physically ill just to hear the extreme nonsense they put out. But at least Christian apologists try to use something that at first glance appears to be an argument with some reasoning behind it. Not having seen even a second of the video, I'm willing to go out on a limb and predict the points - if you can call them that - made are all of them logical fallacies, quite often multiple ones in a single point, but more importantly most of them actually can't be called logical fallacies because that assumes there is at least some form of structure that suggests logic and that's just not going to be there a whole lot. Let's see how accurate my prediction is going to be...
Usually for the fun of it i throw them off the path by saying something "Aliens did create everything". Then they say something "prove it" and i go by "You first since your claim came first" etc
The problem with the tumbling keyboard argument is much the same as the fine tuning claim. They are attempts to try and make an event fit a wanted conclusion rather than any conclusion. What if the keyboard types out something that makes sense but in a language no one recognises as a language. With the teleological argument where the claim is that the Universe was designed for man rather than man being one result of the Universe.
Regardless of which religion, all the apologists always use the same tired and discredited tropes in their argumentation. For Stephen, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
