Atheist Storms out of Q&A for THIS Reason!? 

The theist view - it's better to have an answer to a question, even if it is a lie, than no answer at all.

@@JoeThomas-m4b the atheist view - better to live in ignorance and hope it doesn't come back to bite me later down the line

but in this example, theism is the rotten egg. And atheists aren't trying to lay a batter one, they just know the other one is rotten.

@@mike16apha16 how is a genuine disbelief ignorance?

@@mike16apha16 do you really think atheists fear hell?. I was born and have lived without any religions. Your gods scare me as much as voldermort or Freddie kruger. I just find it amusing triggering theists, flat earthers and other conspiracy nuts.

He’s chosen not to believe.

😂

If a skeptic is truly a skeptic they would be skeptical of their own beliefs or lack therof.

One glance at the thumbnail, and you know INSTANTLY which man is the atheist, and which man is the believer.

Atheism in a nutshell.

And what does that have to do with this video?

BELIEF is NOT *"CHOICE"* or a mere act of volition. Sure someone can pretend to believe anything but the things one actually believe are not something you choose they are an involuntary response to one's level of information and understanding of their environment. You are either convinced or you are unconvinced and its EVIDENCE that convinces. I could not just make myself believe in pixies no matter how much I closed my eyes and stamped my feet. Anymore than you could right now "choose" to be convinced that God is not real or that the laws of gravity don't apply to you if you step off that cliff. Tell me could you genuinely "choose" to believe the internet does not exist and we are not having this discourse now ?? I'm talking about being CONVINCED of it bud not just pretending!! Give me an honest answer , could you right now "Choose" to believe in Thor or Zeus ??? 🤔 for exactly the same reason I can't choose to believe in Yahweh. Now if I recieved some irrefutable knowledge or evidence then I would have no "choice" but to believe, I would have to deny my own reasoning and senses. That what changes beliefs, not "choice" If you came home and found your spouse in bed with the neighbour, could you just "CHOOSE" to believe in her fidelity and go back downstairs to make her a nice cup of tea ?? 🤣😅🤣

​​@@trumpbellend6717 in christianity youre chosen to believe before birth. Your atheism only leaves your god hole to be filled up with narcissism. Most modern atheists are social constructs created by pop culture to help the great reset agenda. Others like you are being primed to attack christians specifically.. im fairly certain hari krishnas get to avoid your criticism and attacks. They dont make you angry enough to respond online. Why is that? They are much more pushy than christians. Every sentence is about hari krishna.

@@HANKHILLFORTXGOVERNOR _"chosen to believe before birth"_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Go back to your colouring book and leave these discussions to the adults dear 😉

That's a good one. I like that.

His first point was that atheism is just a rejection of evidence claiming god exists. It is not an ontological foundation like theism., which has claims to creation. If you are atheist, you can substantiate your belief in the current science and theories of everything that do not pertain to a god theory. God theories are very far in the metaphysical, and can vary infinitely. Which is why we reject them. This Q+A does no justice to any side because they both don’t understand each others disposition or presupposition

To be fair though, and Im not a debater by any means, it would maybe depend on who has burden of proof. I guess such a statement could sometimes be true of - you need to defend but i dont have to

Can I ask - what is Atheism defending?

​@@FrostFawksa view.

​@@majorsalt649do you know that provably, the bible is an integrated message system outside our space time domain knowing the end from the beginning; His story in advance, Jesus Christ and the truth thereof, learn it and trust in the one who gave it to us, immortal grace, so little time 🙏

Who has "feelings of pride"?

​@@DRayL_The Atheist

@@Fil_the_spil Do you think Frank Turek has any pride in the way he comports himself?

Release The KREDDIT!

@@jonc3214 “Grossly?” More like hideously. Horrifically. Terrifyingly.

such lovely people. I hope there is a hell so you can go to it

@@kgpspyguy What a refreshing comment.

@@norelizrosa3469 Honesty is refreshing sometimes. EVERYBODY is thinking it. A person who’s DESTROYED their one and ONLY body to that degree is surely too foolish, and immature to be an authority on anything. He opened his mouth, and he did NOT disappoint. I’ve never met a truly obese person who wasn’t infantile, irrational, and utterly self serving.

"I don't know" is a perfectly honest and acceptable answer. Everyone is on their own journey to truth. You offer Christianity and claim to have all (most of) the answers. Don't be angry when the skeptic pokes holes.

@@FrostFawkshe didn’t poke holes. And besides…. The person that seemed “angry” was ol boy that walked out.

nonsense. atheists do not always run away. one guy in one video decided he'd had enough and walked out. There are entire atheist movements, organisations, societies, dedicated to standing up against religious indoctrination. Atheists do not expect christians to answer hard question, they just dont believe the answers that a christian is giving. "I don't know" is more honest than "I have faith"

​@@FrostFawks7:34 nobody poke holes in it though. It's the atheist that's getting mad when we poke holes in their faith. And yes even atheists have faith.

@@bobbyhempel1513 I'm curious what you mean by "atheists have faith"?

Better too accept anything without any moral discretion

It's easy to criticize someone who is wrong and won't set in stone what your position is.

​@@daviduxparker1632your sarcasm smells

Easy to criticize; hard to create. Yo mamma was right!

It's definitely easier to criticize an argument, than it is to create a good one. The problem of course, is that it apparently is really easy to follow errors in thinking, and even easier to never address the problems with your thinking. The benefit of a skeptic is that they point out the flaws in your thinking, which allows you to improve that thought. But if you're unwilling to even address those errors... Yep, it's even easier to literally be oblivious to life, than it is to be a critic.

Cause Frank's a slick salesman and knows no money flows to an obnoxious blowhard, but if he keeps his cool and plays the well-meaning softie, he'll get more of them dolla-dolla-bills from the already-swayed-believers who don't care about truth or honesty, just reinforcement of their unsubstantiated beliefs.

Because the shows are planned , the questioners plants, instead of just blindly gobbling up.this bullshit because it promotes what you have been indoctrinated to.accept as true, how about searching " Debunking Turek" to see what and absolute grifter he is that makes a lucrative living off the backs of the gullible .

He has a truly amazing capacity for patience with people. Impressive. I dont know how he does it.

@@FindingGod365 it's a simple salesman technique, you dummy, together with spiele and knowing ones customers gullibility.

Ha ha! Christianity is a fairytale .. how can anyone in 2024 believe such drivel

Did you follow the conversation? I mean really, the guy was upset about his perception that the theist was lying. Why did he have to stay, because you demand it? Grow up.

@@miguelortiz-fn7xp he should have stayed because educated and respectful adults can listen to the opposing argument without having to storm out because you are “offended” by what the opposition says.

@@k4r1zm4 He did not storm out but realised Frank was wasting his time by dishonestly diverting the argument.

@@wagstaffphilip Your explanation does not denounce that he uncivilly stormed away from the mic when he did not receive his predetermined validation. I have a question for you. Why are you an atheist? You seem pretty confident in your outlook that Christianity is false. Why is that?

can only hope he went to 'getting hit on the head' lessons next, then...

One of my faves...

He’s right …the burden of proof is on the person making the claim… thats like me saying my purple t shirt made the universe okay prove it … okay you cant im not going to believe you

​@@chrisrendon461 whoosh!

@@chrisrendon461wow…can’t even grasps the basics, can you.

If there is no valid option,...there _is_ no "choice",...only honesty.

​@@DRayL_so you choose not to choose? 🍿

@@itsgeodoodz You're not understanding.

@@DRayL_ your not explaining well 🤷‍♂️🏂

@@itsgeodoodz If you state, 'choose not to choose', that indicates that a legitimate choice is valid. Choosing whether you like Mexican food better than Chinese food. Those are choices. But even then, if you don't have an opinion...that still isn't 'choosing'. So how about Mexican food vs 'food on Jupiter's moon, Europa'. If 'food on Europa' has no evidence of existing, you cannot use that as part of a legitimate choice.

CORRECT. They all demand evidence, until I roll up and drop it on them. Then they say it's just lies, and run away without reading and watching the scientific proof of God.

@@VengefulPolititron Go on then, drop it on me here and now and I promise not to run away, but no bible quotes, just put your claims and arguments, no read this and that. Let's duke it out eh?

​@@wagstaffphiliphow about life itself. I know evolution and all but earth is 4 billion years old with all the necessity to create life and we still haven't observe life emerging from non life. the chance of a protein molecule being created out of nowhere is highly unlikely to ever happen let alone a living one with complex molecule like dna and all over the planet. enlight me. maybe I'm missing something

A common atheistic tactic. I will look at your evidence as long as it fits my definition of what constitutes evidence and you present it using only the criteria I give and agree to. I have found the vast majority of online atheists are intellectually lazy, their go to is I refuse to believe therefore I win.

@@Cpnpd922 As @VengefulPolititron failed to pick up the gauntlet I look to you.As you appear not to accept the standard definition of evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." what's yours?

If “well, akshually” was a person

That guy needs to skip some meals 😊

And when you offer the truth Reddit will flag you as a hate speech. 😊

He’s literally too fat to take seriously. What wisdom could POSSIBLY dwell in a mind so steeped in addiction to “Chicken Tendies?”

*tips hat* Milady

Yes, exactly, and then Frank is trying to tell him what he DOES believe, as if he could read his mind, but he's just playing tired old word games that have been used and debunked through the ages. Frank's an idiot. A polite, civil idiot, but an idiot nonetheless.

That's the gist, it's an ontological claim about knowledge, we cannot reliably rely on our five senses, knowing they only provide a model of the world we exist it. Therefore maybe someone didn't put the proof on the map we are using and we missed it. That is all he is really saying. Myself, I believe that we cannot be 100% about god or which god is real, but once we write it down like in the bible it is easy to tear down god "as described" as a simple literary figure, and one that is an incoherent mess that reveals the human emotions and contradictions of several authors over several epochs, facing different dilemmas.

If you know something is not real you don’t have to stand up for it because others say so

​@@grateful3300 Yet you cannot expect others to take you seriously if you claim you know better and don't prove it.

@@greymangaming1877 I agree wholeheartedly with you!! I love proof

Agnostics/atheists do stand for something though

@@mrrickstur Yes, but what they stand for is relative.

It looked staged to me, but your assumption was quite impressive. How deluded are these believers?I find it quite sad. As an Atheist for over 36 years I have yet to hear any shred of evidence for any religious claims let alone a reasonable definition of what god even is?

@@edwinreyes7946What is your thoughts on the Kalam Argument?

@@edwardmajewski434ahhh this is a very natural thing we as humans do … like a watch a watch doesn’t spontaneous come into existence … but then where do you stop now god has a creator and its an infinite loop … but if you say god always existed say the same thing with the universe… we dont know if the universe even really had a beginning yes the big bang but who knows how it started or even if it is one of billions of big bangs we just dont know … so just say we have no clue instead of yea god did it well which one first off of course your god and if you go back to ancient rome it would be zeus or Apollo that

​@@edwinreyes7946 dont be a remedial knight templar fighting a holy war against religion while having no god. Be an atheist and move along sir.

@@edwinreyes7946 Just because we've experienced God, doesn't mean we're delusional. It just means you haven't experienced Him. Usually that happens w/humility and seeking out truth. You need both of those things.

I see theists cutting people off all the time in videos. I've seen Turek do it. I've seen Durbin do it. _They_ are contrarian to anything that isn't "god beliefs". Why do you appear to think that "only god people have the answers"?

Agree

Exactly

@@thatblokeshere explain.....?

What is God?Honest question.

No these conversations are pointless. There is no way to have a useful conversation with someone who either makes up their own definitions of words or with which you do not share a common frame of reference. It is like one side playing chess and the other water polo. There may be a lot of noise but zero light. Atheists are silly, sad, and irrelevant. They make up 2% of the population. None of them are sane. The Bible calls them fools.

"Rebellion" against what? Because if you say "god",....then the "god" has to be demonstrable first before you can even suggest "rebellion".

@@DRayL_ But would you be capable of receiving a demonstration? I have recently heard Dawkins say that even if it was demonstrated beyond doubt, he would not believe, because his rebellion has thickened to that extent. In any encounter, a minimum of two parties have obligation to relate or not relate to each other, to determine whether or not there is meaningful contact. If the ignorant party is hell-bent on being out to lunch (in his rebellious mind), for the encounter, he can't holler that the other one didn't show up.

@@harrychristian4291 First, the demonstration [and it be verifiable] must take place. But I really have no care what Dawkins says. However, if it was demonstrated beyond doubt that the Biblical "god" and "Jesus" were true and all the Christian doctrines as well, I would "believe" it to be factual. Better stated, I would recognize the evidence provided and accept that evidence. But that doesn't mean I would embrace the "god/Jesus", nor the Christian message. That isn't "out of rebellion", but because I cannot condone those ideologies/doctrines, nor any "god" who would institute them.

@@DRayL_ so why ask?

@@Kryssi709 Why ask? Why shouldn't I?

he wasn't discounting, he was correcting - Frank was putting words in the atheists mouth, telling him that he does have a world view. The atheist was not allowing him to do that.

@@andrewdickson1556 which is silly since the only question you can really answer is I think therefore I am. After that, everything else is built on faith. At the end of the day, faith simply means you have confidence in a person, thing, or concept.

​@@andrewdickson1556but he does have a world view everybody has a world view whether you realize that's what it is or not the worldview is the lens through which you view the world.

@@bobbyhempel1513 YES! Everyone does have a world view. Atheists all have world views but NONE of those world views are contingent on their atheism! Buddhists and Nihilists can both rightly be described as atheists but they don't share a world view!

​@@andrewdickson1556Worldview or philosophy is basically a way of thinking. Everyone has a way of thinking. An atheist has a way of thinking. And even you have a way of thinking.

Wrong. And a baseless assertion meant to be insulting...for no reason. Are you a Christian?

There's no hate like Christian love. Your Jesus would be very disappointed in your post. 🤣

@@jasbo9734 Nah, at this point I genuinely believe we need more Crusades christians and fewer Ned Flanders christians. The latter has allowed for too much degeneracy and decay. I know you don't actually care and just saw an opportunity to copy and paste some line you saw on twitter, but that's how I genuinely feel. Enough is enough.

@@bonelessthincrust Lazy. Why not do what your Scripture urges, in fact orders, you to do. Preach your nonsense.

Nah he’s just a Redditor

God is not real.

@@t-bonewtfI would ask you to provide evidence of your claim my friend. If you have no evidence to back it up then you’ve already lost. If God doesn’t exist, then answer this question: Why is Christianity the #1 most popular and most hated religion in the world?

No one is required to have an "alternative", or a "solution". Having neither does absolutely nothing to prove your assertion. It's a dishonest deflection, that reveals your lack of critical thinking, logic, and reason.

​@@findingjesusministries4783 Are you sure Christianity is the most hated religion right now ? 🤔

@@peekaboopeekaboo1165 oh 100% no body mocks other religions as blatantly as Christianity.

Oh man, that is so true!! Or backg round music that overwhelms the narrator 🤦🏻‍♂

Essentially isn't that a reaction video? You can't really put a time on someone's reaction because everyone is diffrent.

the main problem was he had someone that knows nothing easy to win with that i can ask a few questions and he would walk away from me just like so many ministers have and christens i can tare the bible apart with facts. just like most christens never study the history of the bible or the stories in the bible to see how far they go back to and how they changed over time

@@jeffrey4547The quality of your spelling and grammar cast serious doubts on your claims.

Misinformation can be asserted with a mere word or phrase. Refuting and replacing misinformation can take paragraphs or pages. Also, sometimes a person has a message for which the clip serves as a mere prompt or illustration. So, I’d avoid blanket statements about length of commentary.

I like watching these debates

have you seen the ones where frank does not claim to have won them?

I can easily stop. Frank Turek has been saying the same thing for years

​@@damianwhite504sounding like an addict saying you "can stop anytime you want" 😂 and yet you just claimed you've been listening to him for years? 🤨🤔🤦‍♂️😂 are you intentionally making a fool of yourself for our entertainment? because you're definitely seeming like a clown right here 😂🤣

​@@damianwhite504 think about it, you're showing a piss-poor attitude against Frank saying you could easily not be here, and yet, lo and behold, here you are 🤔 if that's your attitude why not go find something that you don't have a piss-poor attitude towards? 🤷‍♂️

Lol I think he was frustrated that he could not get Frank to give him an honest answer dear 🤭🤫

​@@trumpbellend6717more like he didn't get the answer he wanted to hear. most lgbt, trans and pro choice do flee when they get challenged.

@@fancy3774 Lol he never mentioned lgbt trans or pro choice dear. 🤭🤣 The subject matter at hand was who has "the burden of proof" and it's YOU that's attempting to "flee" it to misdirect the discourse. Perhaps it would be best if you just go back to your colouring book and leave these discussions to the adults dear 🤫

😂🤣🤣 🤡 keep talking to yourself ! Am a naturalist , that's how I interpret things !

Good response

Hope he finds the answer. Window shoppers are left in the cold.

@@ordinarychap1085 cold window shoppers exist , where is your God ?

@@mainamwangi5374 Not where you are.

So he doesn't belive in your God now he's a fatty... You sound like a true, genuine, loving Christian... 😂😂😂

And everything else in the frig

Oh ha ha! You have an excellent sense of humor!😊😁

Being a bully is cool apparently

You do realise that you have probably insulted most of the people in your religion, and certainly most of America.

Yes! *A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.* [Pro 18:2 ESV]

Sounds like any regular theist. Most theists sound unintelligent by the second sentence.

@@miguelortiz-fn7xp We appreciate you expressing your opinion.

He's regurgitating the same talking points I've heard many other atheists/agnostics say.

I think he came for the free cake and pie.

This atheist and some others. Not all atheist are like this luckily. As a Christian I've debated many who were insufferable but others were open minded and respectful.

Cry baby 👶 Want a tissue?

@@robertmitchell-tv5yf 💀💀💀💀

@@robertmitchell-tv5yf Over 2000 years and they still can't prove the existence of their invisible beings. The only place these invisible beings live is in the delusional minds of non critical thinking people. Frank only serves to perpetuate the delusion.

​@@andresdanielemCorrecting Frank on his absurd reasoning is NOT being "disrespectful".

Sounds like Frank

All unbelievers in Jesus Christ and radicals are like that.

Yes, but that's not how public debates works. Public debates involve a third party: the viewer. Even if you debater behaves like a chess pigeon, you still have to emit your arguments and retain composure, for the sake of who is watching.

I don’t understand your response.

@@josephc.wright6841 I think michelferreira is saying that the questioner atheist should've held his composure. Unless I am missing something...

@@robertmitchell-tv5yf I don’t think you read my post. Like I said previously, it’s not my job to convince you or anyone else of anything. I am supposed to tell you the message of Christ and that He is the only way to heaven. If you want to argue and bicker back and forth go right ahead, but I will not do that because it is literally a waste of time to talk to someone who deep down doesn’t want to hear the truth, they’re just really angry and are looking for an excuse to keep living how they are living.

@@jude915 In that case yes. Frank was more than willing to stand and talk with the man and reason with him. Once the guy called him a liar and stormed off like a child the conversation is over. Period.

Typical leftist.

privilege* 👌✌️

Atheism is a bratty 8 year old rejecting their dad. No point arguing with 8 year olds, they haven't grown logic yet.

I feel that if your trying to discuss something with someone and they start spouting lies and you know that they know they are lying but they are going to say it anyway then that is the end of the conversation and you may as well walk away.

@@Hansca nice.. now think instead of feeling and recognize that Frank wasn't lying about anything.

You simply ASSERT that _"this world is a creation"_ and that _"therefore this requires a creator"_ ....... This is fallacious reasoning it's called begging the question. If your initial premise cannot be demonstrated then all that follows is nonsense. It's like saying _"the moon is made of cheese_ ........., _"therefore of course mice would like to eat it"_ 🤣😅🥰😅🤣

On 1 front.

🤦 Skepticism is the only legitimate means we have to intellectually improve. The problem with people that have problems with skepticism, is that you're taking it emotionally and personally... As though it has something to do with your psychology or the other person psychology. But, there's nothing better for us than a healthy examination of reality. EG. Person 1: You look like crap, my friend. Are you okay? Person 2: You're just jealous. Look at how smart You think You Are. You have problems cuz you're foolish looking. There's no need to just tear people down like that. Person 1: I was just concerned because you look like you are having a rough time. You have bags under your eyes, you look like you're walking slower than usual, and you're humped over a little bit. These things made me very concerned for you.

everyone has a world but to say unbelief is a worldview is ridiculous

@@jonc3214atheist stains?

No it just highlights the fact that theists cant support their OWN worldviews...🤷🏽‍♂️

Are always right because not believing in magic is not a worldview it's common sense

Atheists are not making any claims and therefore cannot be "right" or "wrong".. We are simply rejecting your claim, which is not backed by any evidence. It is up to the people making the claim to present evidence that their claim is right.

Pascal's bet

This just seems kinda dumb. You’re going to follow a religion on fear that you MIGHT be wrong? how about all the other religions that use fear to gain followers; and say that you must believe in their gods or else? Are you going to believe all religions? Cause as you put it; “better be safe than sorry haha”

So you heard of Pascal's wager? It's been around for around 400 years.

Salvation is of grace, not works.

@@TheRageEnterprise the point isn't about fear. If you look at it strictly from a logical standpoint, the potential outcome of one choice over the other precludes one of those choices. Fear of God in Christianity isn't about fear but reverence. You have two paths. One leads to either a neutral or positive outcome, the other is either neutral or negative if you were to remove Theism from the statement.

He wasn't "losing the debate". He felt Turek was being dishonest. And with someone as arrogant as Turek...who "can never be wrong, nor corrected by anyone", there is little reason to remain talking to him.

@DeavonReye He wasn't winning my friend. But it's not about winning. it's about what you chose to believe. And what you choose to beleive will determine your life - and ultimately after your life. To storm out and accuse someone of lying while in the midst of a civil conversation Is based of what he believes. Depending on what you beleive will determine how you treat conversations, situations and your own thinking. If truth is only a man made construct then the human race would have died a long time ago.

@@colbywidener7092 He shouldn't have left. I wish he hadn't. As for "after my life", there isn't any verifiable evidence that anything will happen. I've come to this conclusion after many years of research, debate, and contemplation. It isn't something I could "believe".

@@DRayL_ How do you say you have evidence. Have you died before?

@@colbywidener7092Amen man. Good insight and wisdom!

Lol he was right though... Turek repeatedly strawmanned his position and misplaced the burden of proof and consistently does so in all his debates... The atheist realized this and became understandably frustrated... Turek either doesn't understand atheism and burden of proof or is being disingenuous... At least he admits his position is a "rotten egg".... 😂😂😂

@@amac9044 Atheism is a faith based stance presented as a scientific fact, without scientific evidence. Agnostism is an actual stance in which no evidence is required and is a stance open to all evidence. Atheist cannot stand on their own principles that they themselves chastise others for. They have a strong faith in science, structure, purpose. Yet when the idea of an intelligent designer is speculated, they have an absolute stance (aka a stance that requires evidence to prove) that such things do not exist. Then they fold their arms and lazily sit back believing that their claim requires no proof while claiming all other positions require proof. Their claim is just as much faith based as a theist. Prove to me without a doubt that the universes structure was not by sentient design and that nothing has purpose. Things that have designs, like a human body, have purpose. Purpose is given to something by a sentient mind. Prove otherwise. Prove that something can have a deliberate design with no intelligable purpose. No atheist will do that. Yet that is their claim. It is a contradiction in scientific process.

@@amac9044 Plus how can a person who was not part of an event tell someone who was part of it what the criteria was. That's like a 3rd party telling an abuse victim that they werent abused, even though they clearly experienced the attacks. It is stupid. Frank is the authority on this subject because he experienced it.

@@Urrelles Many of Turek's debates (namely the ones referenced here) are on his own, and other websites for public consumption...We can all see first hand what the subject matter was and how Turek, evades, strawmans and misplaces the burden of proof. None of this was secret. The atheist was just calling him on it. If you tell me you got "abused" and I see a RU-vid video of you getting lightly brushed on the shoulder, I'm well within my rights to call you out...lol!

@@amac9044 Then he should have questioned specific strawmans that did not align with the debate. Not tell the debator what the premise of a scenerio he took part of was about. Also these debates tend to have moderators who ensure the participants remain on subject. If he was aloud to do strawmans or whatever, then it must have been in line with the criteria of the debate. That is a way to point out Frank did not debate well, is to show the moderator had to correct him. The guy did a poor job trying to call out Frank.

Is that it, that's your contribution to the debate, just a slogan?

Lol no dear, facts and evidence are what shape my beliefs and thus perspective of reality. Knowledge of FACTS, also called "propositional knowledge", is defined as true belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification. A "FACT" is a point of data that is objectively verifiable ( demonstrable ) Absent "Facts" one has only the opinion or guesswork and no justification to claim such knowledge. Science has all the FACTS yet claims nothing as "absolute" truth. Christianity conversely claims absolute truth in everything yet has no FACTS 😜

Literally just commented this lol

Reddit died.

Try a few NSFW pages

😃 😀 😄 😁 🤣 😂

😂😂😂😂 Lol 😂 you can 🥫

that's all they have. throwing around terms that are often flawed. Total rejection of the evidence. No honesty. Just bitter crying childish midwits.

Well said!

Correct. Frank was not sophisticated enough, I agree he uses logical fallacies and assumptions. Well spotted, although it's not hard, as it's clear as day.

​​@@sids5002 he wasn't referring to Frank. Read again... and listen to the video again.

@@JesusProtects I realise that. I was using the vague description used in the previous post, to be sarcastic and pretend I thought he was referring to Frank. I guess that went over your head, sorry.

***as you like it*** WRT I encounter this type of debate from both sides and embarrassingly have been guilty as well. ***can you be more VAGUE? *** The underlying issue is ego/pride. ***we might disagree about WHOSE *** We can only see or acknowledge our claims as having validity rather than being open-minded and understanding our opponents' viewpoint. ***never mind the centuries of violent "enforcement" of frank's neo-apologetics and arguable neo-calvinism*** This guy refused to even acknowledge that the debate rules Turek will require are what he says that he requires. ***frank has no authority to establish nor enforce "debate rules". He has tried to do that before, and been thrown down for it by hitchens and others*** He got upset because he wasn't sophisticated enough to have seen that. ***bullshit. we can only GUESS why "scott" appears to have left the camera pan. My take would be that he was just disgusted with frank's evasive tactics and found the interchange ultimately pointless. The bare fact that both Frank and hat-guy droned on for almost another 10 minutes after that, emphasizes their tedency to bloviate and sermonize rather than DEBATE *** And he wasn't able to see how his own side uses logical fallacies. ***feel free to describe those, since you are implying to know them. make my day. *** It's only those guys who do it. Not us. ***the history of your "christian" movement is not about "seeing other sides" rather it was about smearing, arresting, imprisoning, torturing and murdering them. And also attempting to destroy their writings ***

serotonin

Why vs how.

​@@freegraceauswho vs what

​@@freegraceausalso When vs where 🤯

worldview is still a religion

​@@roastedvegetables3737. Worldview has which god?

@@scottbroadfoot3530 anyone you want or don't want it's your worldview.

@@roastedvegetables3737 so backup your claim. Worldview is a religion.

@@roastedvegetables3737 I have never worship imaginary things like gods. It would be like worshipping an orc..

do u think that atheist is, attractive?

Atheism itself is not a world view, we agree on one issue and one issue alone. That insufficient evidence has been provided to justify belief in a god, that's it. We have different positions with regard to most else, politics, race, sexual equality, evolution, morality almost everything. So I find it strange you feel can judge atheism with a sweeping all encompassing generalization. Of course *"I"* that is to say me personaly have a WORLD VIEW, atheism however does not as I said it has views on one single isolated issue. There are many people who have a non belief in pink unicorns, yet no one would ask them what the Apinkunicornist worldview was with respect to the Ukraine situation dear 😂🤣🤣

@trumpbellend6717 As I implied it doesn't dictate everything, but a belief in whether God or "a god" exists changes how you see the world and approach it, that doesn't mean every one with the same belief will approach life exactly the same, but it does affect how they approach life nonetheless. While you can have more specific world views in ideologies such as humansim, or a specific religion, I don't believe that discredits broader beliefs such as theism and atheism.

@@EIA-Observer The only specific "way I approach the world" that differs from you is that I really care about the truth of my beliefs therefore I determine reality using FACTS and EVIDENCE not "faith". My epistemology requires sufficient evidence to justify my beliefs. Thus the perceived whims of anyone's subjective invisible guardian play no part in my reasoning.

You believe a first century jew was god incarnate and rose from the dead...... And your gonna question an atheists intelligence?

My worldview is naturalism as an atheist !

your teachers didn't implement T/F tests properly. Correct answers get points, incorrect answers cost points, no answer no points given or taken.

​@@HeadRoaster Even in that instance, you lose out on the opportunity to earn the point, than if you had guessed correctly. When tests are graded that way, the teacher adds up all your points to determine your score, you need a certain score in order to pass the test, or else everyone would just answer no questions at all. For example, suppose there were 100 questions on a test, and each question was worth 1 point. You need at least 50 points to pass the test, but you only know 49 of the answers, but were unsure of the other 51 questions. From there you have two options, A) You can either leave the other 51 questions blank and guarantee that you're going to fail the test, or B) Of the 51 questions, try to use logic and reason to answer some of the easier ones and hope you get enough right to pass. Most people in school and in life would do B because they want to pass, atheists try to tell you that A is the better approach because they don't actually care about passing, just judging everyone who gets lower than their score, the highest of which is 49%, a failing grade.

Today's schools will say, "There are only two genders. True or false?"

@@donnyjones5600 you're getting it but not getting it. Wrong answers hurt more than no answers and knowing the right answers is the only way to actually succeed - you can judge people all you want, but if you didn't get a passing grade who cares about your opinion? I can tell you from experience that the educated guess method leaves most people failing. The only people who excel at tests organized that way are those that KNOW the answers and can demonstrate that they know them.

@@donnyjones5600 also 50 to pass the test? the worst passing grade available when I was in school (I'm 50 and between k and 12 was in Cali, NJ, and OK schools, all had the same grading paradigm) was 60%, anything less was failure, and anything below 70% was contemptible.

Yes the analogy was wrong and so was Turek. It never works with me when theists say to me can you prove gods doesn’t exist 🤦🏻‍♂️. That was the implication and what happened, the audience applaud. 😖. Not many atheist there was there.

Tell that to my sentient AI water bottle that also makes vomit noises whenever I drink from it.

Guy claims I was created by an invisible magical being who is PERFECT "just" merciful and LOVING but if I don't believe him using faith he will torture me forever 🤔🙄

@@trumpbellend6717 Mostly correct, except he is not torturing you forever. He has the power to grant you your ultimate wish of mortality, but you reject it. He will not force it upon you. If you are drowning and you are thrown a life preserver, no one can save you from a horrible drowning incident if you refuse. Simple as that. It is not someone else's responsibility to convince you. Real science proves there are invisible forces we can't comprehend, and a magic trick is only a mystery until you see behind the curtain and know how it is done. For something to be true, there is no requirement that you believe in it.

@@notsure1582 Let's structure this in the form of a logical syllogism with premises and a conclusion, then you can indicate which specific premises you disagree with that would invalidate the derived conclusion ........ *Premise one* The Christian God is said to be morally perfect, loving, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. *Premise two* Belief in this specific god is required to prevent an eternal torture and attain salvation. *Premises three* The Christian God wants all to know of his existence and thus be saved. *Premise four* The Christian God would have both the ability and desire to demonstrate his existence to all. *Premise five* More that three quarters of the world population do not think the Christian God exists. *Conclusion* The Christian God as described does *NOT* exist

@notsure1582, bad analogy lol. Atheists don't believe in the idea of "being saved" by some higher power.

@@trumpbellend6717I suggest you look into Frank’s response of this.

What's the prob in have holes? We're full of holes ourself :D... It's pointless filling that holes with fantasy... y can do that but still remain a fantasy, not a solid proof. That's what metaphysic is. It's not a proof is a bet chosed by interst.

@@AriesAstaroth if you're going to talk smack at least make sure your spelling and grammar are on point, man.

'Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.' Atheism is not about explaining reality. Neither is religion actually. Religion explains nothing, it only makes claims you can either accept or reject. 'God did that.' is not an explanation.

Atheism doesn't _have_ to explain reality.

​@@kevinkelly2162 But if your worldview doesn't explain reality then aren't you believing that worldview on faith? So isn't atheism just another religious belief system that relies on faith?

The crazy thing is, technically it's not all blind faith, there is plenty of historical evidence showing various biblical events occurring. Ironically, both Theism and Atheism at some point both require to take a blind leap of faith, whether that faith be the LORD, or that faith be things happening over time.

That guy has blind faith that God isn't real. He doesn't want to prove it 😅

There is historical evidence, philosophical evidence (Aristotle’s unmoved mover), evidence in the form of objective morality (good/evil), evidence when you look at the complexity of the universe, etc. There is more evidence for Christianity than there is that everything (space, time, matter) came from nothing. Every computer program needs a programmer, every watch needs a watchmaker, every book needs an author. These things don’t just randomly appear from nothing.

You’re welcome!

I believe so, yes. It’s part of a broader movement encompassing cultural Marxism and neo paganism.

@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Would love to see you break that down in a video.

Their world view spawns LGBTQ ideas and yes a religion, kind of like environmentalism.

@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdomman I don’t think y’all know what theism, “god” is a title not a person, so if you asking someone if they believe in god, the person should ask you back which of the gods? Is it christian god, yahweh or allah? So you have a yahweh worldview. Read your Old Testament better called tanakh man!

@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdomesus Christ 🫣. Sexuality is a world view? What next? Having brown colored hair is a worldview? What the hell is your definition of a worldview?

lol. I wonder how many people will get that remark

He didn't change the meaning of anything… That's just your confusion

Hes actually very correct with his wording … most people get atheist and agnostic definitions wrong but he is right

Cope

Turek wasn't interested in honest conversation? Not sure where you are getting that. Gonna have to be more specific. It actually appears as if that is exactly what he is doing.

@@ramseycattn5941 no, he's working from a long prepared script, and employs diversions to steer the conversation in the direction he wants. He repeats ideas that he knows are incorrect - he has been corrected before, and yet he still does it. He has no excuse. Choose any moment you like, and I'll tell you how he is being dishonest.

@@bengreen171 "Repeats ideas he knows are incorrect-he has been corrected before." It sounds like he just doesn't agree that he has been 'corrected.' I could easily flip that around and say that the people Frank debates are dishonest, because Frank has corrected them and they still keep saying it. Believing something and saying it doesn't make you dishonest, on the contrary, it means exactly the opposite. Silly.

"Judge not by appearance but judge by righteous judgment." Jesus Christ Atheists deny God exists because He is not perceptible. Some believers, Frank Turek included, look at the physical world and say God had to create it. According to Jesus, the physical world is not real. We know God through prayer, not the body. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

@@robertdouglas8895 what??? "according to Jesus the physical world is not real"... The Lord Jesus NEVER SAID THAT. and you are misunderstanding "what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the spirit is spirit". i think you DONT EVEN understood why Jesus said to Peter - whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever shall you loose (or set loose) on earth shall be loose in heaven. Your statement "according to Jesus the physical world is not real' IS A LIE!!! if you are one of them atheist, you will NEVER UNDERSTAND Scripture or the Bible.

@@albertcabrerajr992 "I have all power over heaven and earth." We do, too. "These and greater things shall you do." We do that through the will of God. We make things happen on the earth and as we know we are doing the will of God, we are uniting with his will as one.. "Thy will be done on earth and it is in heaven." “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who [a]will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. On earth we think we are separate bodies but in reality, we are one spirit. "Judge not by appearance but judge by righteous judgment." These bodies do not show us what is true and real. For truth we must know that "You have the mind of Christ."

I actually thought that was a poor analogy. The makings of a good detective is being able to disprove or point out the flaws of someone else's explanation of events. You could prove Candidate X could not have done it because he was at location Y at the time. It's fine if the detective does not know yet or will ever know who committed the crime, but eliminating suspects is perfectly viable and standard procedure. Plus this system of proof is also regularly done in the scientific space.

@@robertdouglas8895 there you go again saying "these bodies do not show us what is true and real"... something is really off with you robertdouglas... Do you even understand why the Lord Jesus/GOD MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH?? do you understand why scripture SAYS ... "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world *to confound the wise* and God hath *chosen the weak things* of the world *to confound the things which are mighty*; and the *base things* of the world, and *things which are despised*, hath God chosen, yea, and *things which are nought*, to bring to nought things that are*... one of the best pastors i have listened to said this *You must present your bodies as LIVING SACRIFICE in God's altar*. "remember that the Altar is Greater than the sacrifice ... It is God's Altar that sanctifies the sacrifice"... Do you understand why the Lord Jesus says that ... he (Paul) has become *A VESSEL* if you have NOT ACCEPTED Jesus or even DENY Jesus, then what makes you think that you have Power over the earth? ONLY those who have believed and abide and WALK IN JESUS are partakers of HIS ESTATE. you think witches and sorcerers can partake of Jesus' Estate? if the body you have is not real to you, do you also deny that Jesus manifested in the flesh? No flesh will see the Kingdom of Heaven. True. So robertdouglas... are you a partaker in the Lord Jesus' Estate? are you a vessel of His Holy Spirit? Do you walk/abide in His will as He did in the Fathers Will. Do you deny Jesus' body in the Cross? So what are you ... Robertdouglas?

I second this

Yep if you have a problem with peoples non belief in your subjective imaginary friend, then the "solution" is real easy........ present sufficient objective evidence to back up your claim before asserting its veracity 👍

So if everyone thought that way then the problems would never arise for debate etc . Have you heard of the thing called questions?

@@ds31579 That is the epitome of the statement. So many people want to disagree just for the mere fact of being opposite rather than having an educated discussion at a modest tone. Instead they yell at one another your wrong just because the belief isn't the same.

@@brandonmoran3590 Lol its difficult to have an "educated discussion" when one side thinks baseless assertions of "MAGIC" constitutes a rational position requiring evidential refute dear 🤭😂🤣🤣

We're the ones that are Not so gullible.

@@Bugsy0333 now that’s funny

@@heknows5418 You're the one that believes an invisible man in the sky Right ?

@@Bugsy0333 yep I am and I gotta feeling not gonna be to long before the unveiling and then it will reveal who was wrong, but consider if I’m right then eternity awaits you with a big bad surprise, but if you’re right then both of us just cease to exist. I think I’ll take my chances with Jesus, if you’re right then I give you permission to nag me about it , as long as you wish if you believe in any after life. Praying for you man

@@heknows5418 After sixty years on this earth i'm quite confident that when you die your dead. Your life ceases to exist. There is nothing else. The feeling when you die will be the same feeling you had prior to being born.Nothing.

is your cake circular like his pie? or is his pie round like your cake? hmm soo many questions hahaa

@@koopasayer5999I like my pies to be rectangle! 😂

Looks like he likes both.

He loves both 😂

@@mrs.shanieekennedy2728 This world ia becoming more and more divided, those who like the cake and those who like the pie

so if god is so omniscient and powerful, why can mere mortals pose questions that "He" does not seem to even bother to answer. Maybe he needs to pray for himself.

Part of the joy of science is that there are still so many things to discover. I find it sad that theists deny themselves that joy by being content with, "God did it".

@@OneTheBlue Content. That statement would work if theists were not scientists. Yet they are and have been.

@@joshd3502 And I genuinely find it fascinating that they are able to hold both views at once. This is especially true of biologists, and geologists who have to deal directly with data that contradicts what most Christians and Muslims believe.

@@soulseeker1729 I think I would accept the hypothesis of God being real if the universe showed signs of being designed by a benevolent creator. Honestly, just the existence of the Guinea Worm seems to cancel out that hypothesis. I can see natural selection resulting in a creature that causes that much suffering. If a god created that though, he is not a good god and doesn't deserve worship.

The truth is that Frank can not prove that God exists.End of story !

@@Bugsy0333 None of us can 'prove' God exists, it's that the existence of a God/intelligent design makes far more logical sense than no god at all. The atheist has to sit in the realm of magic to be intellectually honest. Nothing comes from nothing.

@@RS54321 Then who created your creator ? Remember nothing comes from nothing? Can't wait to hear this one ?

​@@Bugsy0333 Ah, yes. The expected yet tired atheistic assumption that God is created. God created everything, including time (since we know there was a singularity), so He cannot have been created. He is the source of _everything_ so He cannot be bound by anything temporal or material. If He is, He's not God, and you end up with infinite regress, which is impossible. -Everything that begins to exist has a cause. -God did not begin to exist. -God has no cause. This is not special pleading for God b/c this is what the atheist has traditionally said about the universe, that it's eternal and uncaused, but we have good evidence that this is not true (e.g., expansion from a singularity). You're the one who must resort to everything coming from nothing if you reject an intelligent designer, which amounts to magical thinking.

Some theists claim that everything needs a creator and that the universe cannot have existed forever or just come into existence out of nothing. The creator of the universe they call God. Then they immediately break their own rule that everything needs a creator and claim that God does not need one and has always existed. That of course is illogical nonsense. Either everything needs a creator, even God, which leads to a neverending chain of creators, the infinite regression, or nothing necessarily needs a creator and then the universe does not need a creator either. This all is nothing but prestidigitation to cram God into the equation, nothing more. The “counterarguments” usually go along the lines that God is beyond human reasoning and therefore it is reasonable to break off the infinite regression at God but that of course is paradoxical because you cannot base human reasoning on something that is beyond human reasoning. Religious beliefs of that kind are inherently irrational. Today people are expected to act rationally and believe in some kind of god at the same time. That leads to desperate attempts to rationalize those irrational beliefs. Amusing at the start but rather tedious if repeated ad nauseam.

I'm an atheist and the thing I "hold onto" is that its dishonest to make assertions without sufficient evidence. Thats because I actually care about the truth of my beliefs 😜

@@trumpbellend6717 Can you honestly say where did you find the truth you are talking about with regards to what life is? About your love, joy and peace? Ohh, it should have sufficient evidence to "convince me" ;-)

You haven't seen man create humans because it's women that do that!

That is what got me too. It isnt just the individual creations, but that they all work perfectly together. What are the odds of that randomly? Earth isnt too hot or too cold to sustain life - it is just right. We are just the right distance from the sun to allow for that. Not miles off that would effect the temperature, just right. There isn't too much oxygen or not enough, it is just right. Male and female of each species work together just right to continue life and procreate. We breathe in oxygen and out carbon dioxide to live, and trees breathe in carbon dioxide and out oxygen to live. A perfect balance. Our bodies are able to process the minerals, vitamins, protein, fat and carbohydrates to make fuel for our bodies and those things are found in the rest of creation. Things decay and refuel creation. It has to be by design. It takes more faith to believe it was all random than it does to believe there is a hand in it all.

_"Atheism is literally worldview, a worldview that God does not exist. "_ Atheism is just the position of not believing in any gods.

@@markh1011 which is literally a world view. "a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world." Definitions, learn them.

@@ri3m4nn _"Definitions, learn them."_ Aw look at you trying trying to be all clever and sarcastic.. Do you consider not believing in unicorns to be a worldview kid?

@markh1011 providing the definition you clearly don't know, it's far from sarcastic. Yes, you have the worldview that unicorns do not exist. You conceive the world is without unicorns, that is the literal definition of having a worldview. Now you have proven to be remedial.

@@markh1011 are you under 18? This is super basic

Could this not be true in certain types of arguments though? Are there not true dichotomies that exist?

It's total cope. I'm so tired of them. I destroy them intellectually every time. they become enraged and run away like little children.

I mean if it’s actually a straw man, it’s important to call out. But this wasn’t.

Strawman, fallacy , my truth, ughhhhhhh shut up!

Strawman argument is a standard rhetorical fallacy, its part of the language of debate.

People hold those phrases in their pockets waiting to pull them out, because they think it makes them look smart and educated in debate. But most people who mention those things are terrible at real debate.

Because you are not listening and you have already made up your mind.

Yes, and the method proves the Evolutionist wrong too.

🤣🤣 🤡 👎🏾🥱