I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that some god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument concluding there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating such a claim. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument that also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 5. Of the many logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain either logical fallacies or false or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
You seem to be searching though Mr Theo . You also seem to have put a lot of thought into your essay as well. Just say this one thing in an audible voice “ God or Jesus show your self to me , make your self known to me “ He/they will honour your request.❤
I won't try to convince you to believe in God, but I must tell you it seems you have some misconceptions about Christianity. First, God isn't supposed to be proven to exist, if He was we wouldn't be able to have faith in Him, and that's the whole point, having faith and trusting Him without knowing. There isn't any merit in believing something you already know to be true, is it? Second, although many people have used the "God of the gaps" fallacy (point 7) and that's lazy and absurd, when we say, for example, that rain happens because of God, or that God created all the species on Earth, we aren't saying that there's no natural process which makes those things happen. You can believe in the water cycle and evolution and all knowledge from science while also being a Christian and recognizing that God is the ultimate cause of everything. There isn't any contradiction in this, science and religion answer two different questions. Science tells you HOW something happens, religion answers WHY things happen. It isn't correct to think that the more things we understand, the less "room" there is for God. Whether we know or not HOW something happens, a Christian will believe it was caused or originated by God by a natural mechanism also created by Him, and although it is a subtle difference I hope you realize this isn't falling into the God of the gaps fallacy. Hope this made sense to you, I'm happy to explain or clarify anything else you're interested in, it seems you're genuinely curious to understand our beliefs respectfully and that's delightful. Have a great day :)
I'm pretty sure morality does indeed change over time. If not, how do you explain the fact that slavery was allowed and regulated in the Bible, although no Christian today would approve of slavery (I hope)? Or stoning people to death, do Christians still believe that is morally acceptable in a variety of circumstances??
@JulianGentry I believe you may be confusing _ethics_ with morality. Ethics concern social, societal, cultural, religious, and sometimes legal concern about human behavior. Morality is an individual cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are morally appropriate (ought to occur in a certain moral dilemma) from those inappropriate (ought not to occur in a certain moral dilemma.)
@@JulianGentry I have given you 2 examples of things that were considered morally acceptable in the Bible and that are today no longer considered morally acceptable (including by most Christians). This proves morality changes over time and your word-games don't convince me otherwise.
@@JulianGentry morality changes over time. ''God's laws" are a poor apologist attempt to frame their view as morally superior. For instance, the Hebrew Bible frames marriage in a polygamous way, but do you have 2 wives? If no, then please read your own god given book, and THEN you should come back and post your opinion on the world wide web. Kindly, Everyone who has read more than 3 books.
@@JulianGentryso… what you’re saying here is that it is acceptable to stone people to death? Or that god changes? If it’s okay to stone people to death in your eyes I seriously worry for your mental health, but if you think god changes, I would argue by the nature of change, god cannot be a perfect being in totality.
@@JulianGentryThe mind is not material. It is a realm in which all thoughts reside (imagination). The brain resides in the realm of reality (organic). The brain is (organic)
@@JulianGentry You haven't answered my question: why would logic require an immaterial mind? I said logic requires a brain (which is material) and you haven't proven otherwise.
@@JulianGentry No, of course mind and brain are not separate. Sure they are different things, but you can't have a mind without a brain, not even ourselves Christians believe we can exist without our bodies (remember the apostle creed: "I believe in [...] the resurrection of THE BODY"), so how do you convince a non-deist about logic requiring an inmaterial mind? Sorry but I'm not following the argument you're making.
8:20 If they say no it is likely that that is because there are other objections, i have plently of objections and a dismantling of one would not take awy the others. It may not just be an emotional position. That being said i did enjoy the video and i have subscribed
Really easy one for you, truth is relative because it exists in relationship. It is never objective, its always shared relational experience. Hope that helps.
Right, let me attempt this with as much brevity as possible: Since some of the questions have to be asked in response to an assertion, as an example let's make the assertion that there is insufficient evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. If you'd like to suggest a different but as popular atheistic assertion, you're welcome to do so. 1 - I mean that the story as recounted in the 4 Gospels accepted in the New Testament that details the death and resurrection of Jesus, are not sufficiently supported by evidence as it pertains to his resurrection. 2 - No, I have not asserted this as absolute truth. There could be evidence uncovered in the future that adds to the evidence that currently exists. 3 - By the standard that is used when assessing evidence both in a court of law, as well as that which historians use to assert events in the past as factual 4 - I know this because I have read the 4 gospels, as well as many sources that pertain to establishing their historicity, as well as having knowledge that froma medical perspective we have no evidence of any human dying and then coming back to life more than 2 days later. 5 - I would disagree with the use of the term 'belief', rather that I am satisfied with my conclusion based on the evidence provided. 6 - If my objection were true, it would undermine the entire purpose of the Christian bible. 7 - If there was indeed evidence for the resurrection of Christ, I would then have to address the biblical evidence that deals with the prophesy of this event, as well as certain other implications, but I cannot say that i would immediately convert 8 - I mean that the bible describes either certain events that contradict instructions relayed by God prior, or that clash with the nature of God, or in respect of the Gospels where they cannot be harmonized 9 - The hardening of Pharaoh's heart, the empty tomb narrations, the consequences of eating of the fruit to name a few 10 - A contradiction is bad when it undermines the claim of biblical inerrancy 11 - I'm not sure you mean by 'are those laws real'? This is a leading question that is designed to coax a specific answer which would be a contradiction. I can't answer this question because you would need to explain how the laws of logic could be anything other than a human convention. 12 - No, this is a fallacious assertion. Humans are the ones who identified logic as having laws. How do you assert that these laws require an immaterial mind? No, I do not believe in such a mind. 13 - I don't say God is evil because God does not exist. What I think you are trying to get at, is do I claim that the God of the bible is evil? No, I would only claim that the God of the bible does act at times in a manner which I would call evil by the standards presented in the bible. What do I mean by that? God kills Onan because he 'spilled his seed' - this action did not contravene any laws that God had implemented up to that point, and the punishment was not in accordance with that imposed by the time of disobedience Onan was guilty of. Therefore God committed murder, therefore God is evil because murder has been asserted as evil. 14 - Again, this is a question that has been phrased in this manner to draw out a specific answer which then allows the theist to pursue the angle of objective morality. I reject that any standard of morality exists, therefore one cannot judge good vs evil unless a framework of morality has been developed in another manner. 15 - I believe morality is subjective, because objective morality as proposed by the bible is impossible, since a morality provided by a sentient being that can at any point change that moral framework, is not objective. 16 - Any framework of morality that does not allow for a change over time cannot be the most effective version of that framework - I don't even know what an eternal moral law even looks like. 16 - Agreeing to adhere to a set of laws that in turn has a penal structure in place should the obligation not be met, makes moral obligations binding 17 - I don't know what you mean by 'lawgiver'. Do moral laws require a structure whereby moral laws are imposed and judged, then yes. 18 - I would ask why it was that Christians had to end slavery in the first place, since that presumes it was existent in their domain to begin with. Societies that did not practice slavery did not have a requirement to end it. I would also counter that ending slavery is to disobey God, since God permits slavery. 19 - I do not claim that Christianity is unscientific. I do not believe the bible is intended to deal with questions of science, but I would assert that passages in the bible if taken literally, are unscientific. 20 - I don't view science and Christianity to be in opposition, so I don't really make much of the first scientists being Christian anymore than I make of many current scientists being agnostic or atheist. 21 - It depends what you mean by truth. If you mean a claim that adheres to what we have observed about our world and the universe, I would agree that the scientific method is the best way we have to verifiy whether a claim is valid or not. This is the only definition of truth that matters. 22 - I don't think the laws of physics are consistent, in that black holes for example seem to break the laws of physics as we currently understand them. If we're talking about laws that relate to our experience of life on earth, I don't think there is anything keeping the laws consistent - they currently behave the way they do and there's no way of knowing whether this will ever change. 23 - Because the results of induction when performed correctly correspond with reality as I perceive it 24 - I don't believe the human brain is aimed at either of those. 25 - Citation for Einstein being shocked? What you seem to be getting at is the notion that math is somehow a law that exists outside of the human experience. This is a fallacy, math is simply a language that we have developed to assign certain values to understanding the world around us. If I have what I call 'one' of something, and I include an identical item, I now have 'two'. This would be true for a dog putting two things together, yet math does not exist for dogs.
Have you ever thought of doing ASMR. Read a very short book , 📚 read a chapter with easy English. Your voice is soothing. Maybe read an instruction book ,like how to put together a tent. Just saying.thnx
I cordially invite anyone to practice their apologetic tactics with me. I vow to answer any question you may about my position of atheism (check my comment above or below). All I ask is that you ask one question at a time (one per comment) and that you refrain from asking loaded questions. If you are familiar with this fallacious approach (tactic), please take the time to study this logical fallacy _before_ asking me one. If you can convince me that the Christian god is a reality, in my humble opinion, you can convince anyone. So if you'd like to sharpen your skill, introduce yourself, and begin asking. Peace.
Are you genuinely trying to convert, or are you looking to debate for the fun of it? Which type of atheist are you (strong/positive or weak/negative)? I apologize for making two questions but I would ask the second regardless of your answer.
@@freshrockpapa-e7799 If you have a _convincing_ argument I will have no CHOICE but to believe and convert. I have been convinced (by sound argument) of many other convictions I now hold. I am not trying to convert. I am trying to discover that which is true. It that pursuit leads to conversion (in my case re-conversion) I am open to it. I am an agnostic atheist.
@freshrockpapa-e7799 Both. The first position you mention is that of atheism (lack of belief). The second is the position of agnosticism (lack of sufficient knowledge). I am an agnostic atheist.
@freshrockpapa-e7799 My position of atheism is to suspend any acknowledgement as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position of agnosticism is that I haven't sufficient knowledge, data, or information to warrant a change in my _default_ position of atheism.
