@@Stephanopoulosaugustus that is not an argument FOR atheism. That is an argument against one interpretation of one religious story (many that believe in even the Christian God view this story as allegorical and not to be taken at literal face value).
99% of the atheist arguments i've ever faced were: 1 - "I believe in science", which doesn't answer anything and it's not a mutually exclusive thing; 2 - "Many Christians do bad things", even though the bible itself says that will be the case and that does not prove anything; 3 - "you believe in talking snakes and donkeys", without realizing applying materialistic logic to something obviously not natural is dumb; 4 - my favorite ones, horribly misquoting bible verses by taking them completely out of context and botching their interpretation. As a former atheist, getting into philosophy changed my mind, when i noticed how cheap and weak most of the arguments by the "four horsemen" were, how sterile materialism as an idea is, and how my 15 year old "skeptic" phase wasn't very rational and logically sound whatsoever. I'm not sure you'll read this, but you were one of the first sparks in me changing my mind on all of this, David. Thank you!
Philosopher here. You are totally misguided, the vast majority of philosophers are atheists, because there's no evidence whatsoever, logical or empirical that there's a god. You can't even define what god is
that's very interesting, because learning philosophy has made my atheistic stance even stronger than when I merely deconstructed from Christianity and was merely an agnostic atheist. Now I'm a gnostic atheist towards abrahamic Gods and just skeptical towards non-supreme deities.
The rise of materialism and "rationalism" (actually just empiricism in disguise) has made people dumber. So many people nowadays are just incapable of grasping abstract or philosophical concepts that people even just a hundred years ago would have had no problem understanding. What's worse, these new "philosophers" think they're smart for "seeing through the bull crap" when they're really just too stupid to understand something that doesn't have a scientific paper written on it. The only philosophies they seem to engage with are the "edgy" ones like nihilism and absurdism, which are also probably the least complex philosophies out there. All they really say is "life is too wacky and complicated, I'm not even going to try and make sense of it."
As Catholics living in Turkiye, we would love to see Turkish subtitles on your videos. There is no youtube channel where we can watch in our language. Therefore, this action you will take will help us a lot.
Looking at how the online atheists elevate themselves is part of what drew me to Christianity. The smarter they tried to make themselves look, the dumber they looked to me.
@@bjk8794 Don't bother. These are christians, so they don't debate honestly, they prefer to make up lies and claim they are the truth. They lie about everything, it's the only way to maintain their delusional faith. They'll just lie to you until you give up talking and then they'll think they've won.
Dawkins made a public claim that absolutely nothing could convince him of God's existence--and that if he saw the world fall apart and Jesus and His angels descending from the sky he would merely assume that he was having a delusional experience. That gives a whole new twist on "blind faith" and "holding your belief in spite of the evidence" that atheists are always accusing Christians of possessing, and a twist on how they themselves "need" there "NOT to be a god." Oh, the irony!
If you want a smart atheist Graham Oppy is good ....most of the popular ones are a bit limited when it comes to understanding the non physical realm in my view ....to say if you saw something you did not want to believe in and then claim your own hallucination might to be slightly unhinged.
@@tomgreene1843 There's a difference between a "hallucination"--which certainly can occur--and the witness of multiple people, particularly those who were willing to stake their life on verifying what they saw and experienced.
Funny, the lack of atheist comments on this particular post. They're rampant in this thread otherwise. It's amazing how quickly a "valid" position can crumble when the champion of science and reason admits that he's a fraud. How lost do you need to be to follow a scientist who'd ignore evidence because it supports a contrary belief to what he currently holds.
What if it were a technological highly advanced alien civilization that could change water to wine, walk on water, bring back the dead and heal the crippled and sick. Should science accept that as "God"? Of course not! It would have to be studied with scientific scrutiny to verify that claim. Otherwise, people would be bowing to a false god.
David is indeed quite smart that's the reason i subbed to him in the first place. But this time he was quite condescending towards atheists. grouping them all together with the completely deplorable indivudualls dwelling on twitter and reddit. I agree they are a total POS but i don't feel like i do the things he described and i think most of us think the same.
@@hydraph4843 As Atheist Nobel Prize winning physiologist George Wald, wrote candidly in 1954: “When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. … Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 100 years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spelazani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion - that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. … I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” As you can see, the reality is Atheism is also a belief system similar to any other religious systems. Fortunately for us, most Nobel Prize winners in science is not prideful enough to deny this reality. "A little knowledge makes men atheists; but a more thorough acquaintance with the sciences brings them back again to religion." (Francois Bacon a staunch Christian; father of empiricism, developed scientific method) Albert Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 65.3% of Physics Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background. (4.7% for atheist, agnostics, and freethinkers) In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 72.5% of Chemistry Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background. (7.1% for atheist, agnostics, and freethinkers) In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 62% of Medicine Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background. (8.9% for atheist, agnostics, and freethinkers) Ernest Walton 1903 - 1995. A devout Methodist, who said science was a way of knowing more about God. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics after he artificially split the atom and proved that E = mc2. J. J. Thomson 1856 - 1940. A practicing Anglican who prayed and read the Bible daily. Discovered the electron; invented one of the most powerful tools in analytical chemistry - the mass spectrometer; Charles Babbage 1791 - 1871. A Protestant devotee who devoted a chapter of his autobiography to a discussion of his faith. The father of the computer, invented the Analytical Engine, a Turing Complete computer in 1837 - the first general purpose computer. Werner Heisenberg 1901 - 1976. A Lutheran with deep Christian convictions. One of the primary creators of quantum mechanics. Formulated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Humphry Davy 1778 - 1829. Said that God’s design was revealed by chemical investigations. Discovered the electrical nature of chemical bonding. Used electricity to split several substances into their basic building blocks for the first time, discovering chlorine and iodine; produced the first ever samples of the elements barium, boron, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and strontium. Other earlier scientists before 1900 who consider themselves committed Christians include: Leonhard Euler (1707 - 1783) Published more mathematics than any other single mathematician in history, much of it brilliant and groundbreaking. Michael Faraday (1791 - 1867) Discovered electromagnetic induction; discovered the first experimental link between light and magnetism James Clerk Maxwell (1831 - 1879) Transformed our understanding of nature: his famous equations unified the forces of electricity and magnetism, indicating that light is an electromagnetic wave. Gregor Mendel (1822 - 1884) Founded the science of genetics; identified many of the mathematical rules of heredity; identified recessive and dominant traits. Bernhard Riemann (1826 - 1866) Transformed geometry providing the foundation of Einstein’s theory of general relativity; the Riemann hypothesis has become the most famous unresolved problem in mathematics. Isaac Newton (1643 to 1727) spent more time on Bible study than math and physics. Profoundly changed our understanding of nature with his law of universal gravitation and his laws of motion; invented calculus; Willard Gibbs (1839 - 1903) Invented vector analysis and founded the sciences of modern statistical mechanics and chemical thermodynamics. John Dalton (1766 - 1844) Dalton’s Atomic Theory is the basis of chemistry; discovered Gay-Lussac’s Law relating temperature, volume, and pressure of gases; discovered the law of partial gas pressures. Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777 - 1855) believed science revealed the immortal human soul and that there is complete unity between science and God. His profound contributions to the physical sciences include Gauss’s Law & Gauss’s Law for Magnetism. Florence Nightingale (1820 - 1910) Transformed nursing into a respected profession; used statistics to analyze wider health outcomes; advocated sanitary reforms largely credited with adding 20 years to life expectancy between 1871 and 1935. Alessandro Volta (1745 - 1827) Invented the electric battery; wrote the first electromotive series; isolated methane for the first time. Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) Pascal’s wager justifies belief in God. Devised Pascal’s triangle for the binomial coefficients and co-founded probability theory. Invented the hydraulic press and the mechanical calculator. Samuel Morse (1791 - 1872) Took part in the invention of a single-wire telegraph and patented it. Developed the Morse code. William Thomson (also known as Lord Kelvin) (1824 - 1907) who Codified the first two laws of thermodynamics, deduced the absolute zero of temperature is -273.15 °C. and many more.. Einstein said in correspondence, "the fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who-in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'-cannot hear the music of the spheres." Dr Arno Penzias(Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist): “I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century’s worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like…In order to achieve consistency with our observations we must…assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well. The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” Allan Rex Sandage (famous astronomer, dubbed the 'Grand Old Man of Cosmology' by the New York Times, and a former atheist): “It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It was only through the supernatural that I could understand the mystery of existence.” To seek God with all our heart is fundamental to God’s revealing himself to us (Jer. 29:13). As the philosopher & famous pascal Blaise Pascal put it: Willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
@@cthulhucrews6602 hmmm...interesting argument...if we believe that God is as real as Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy....but since he's not...well...your argument is nullified...
exactly - it's just the rejection of the proposition that theism makes. And as there is no proof of a deity, it's the default position. What's the best argument for aunicornism or aleprechaunism? - it's the same principle. Everyone is an aunicornist because nobody has proved unicorns to exist.
It does if its trying to convince others, problem is you can't prove the non-existence of a thing so you can't prove God doesn't exist which creates a problem when Atheists try to argue that there is no God or mock people that do believe as they have no bases for their mockery. Basically atheists have to take it on faith that they are correct.
@@stephenschneekloth1535 no one is trying to convince you of anything. we haven't made any claim and we take nothing on faith. you are the ones who want us to believe in god. you aren't convincing.
@@stephenschneekloth1535 The only thing it's trying to convince you of is that there is insuffient evidence to warrant belief in the first place. But that approach isn't limited to (a)theism. There should be no belief if anything if there isn't good reason to warrant it. And as an atheist, I would suggest that 'good reason' should be based on having something that is demonstrable.
@beLogicalPlease Which is why I never understood atheism. You can give your devotion to God but live your life the same as you are now (unless you're a terrible person then you will have to change that up) and save yourself from a terrible fate. If you believe in God and you're wrong then nothingness is all that waits, while if you're an atheist and wrong, then you have a good chance of experience pain that no one has ever experienced on this earth.
@@Boss-ot1iy look up Pascal's wager. If you don't believe then you can't force that. Going through the motions doesn't make you a true believer and will still end up of experience pain that no one has ever experienced on this earth as you put it.
Jordan Peterson is turning a young generation of atheists raised in a hedonistic and epicurean worldview into believers in the One True God, Our Lord Jesus Christ "To the King Eternal, imortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory, forever and ever. Amen."
Be careful what you wish for. He only believes in metaphores so he could convince some (but mostly Christians who believe he is a Christian) but... He could convince many that the biblical stories and claims are metaphores but contain an important message.
@@KasperKatje yes, I acknowledge he's not quite a Christian yet, but he's been bringing to the youth something that for years had been pretty out of their reach. That's a good thing
@@mgvilaca There is a risk he will be missing 2 boats when Christians realize what he is really saying and declaring him a blasphemer and atheists or doubters who stop listening when he attacks atheism and starts about god and Jesus. Time will tell, we will see where this leads to.
He might be turning them towards Islam. You're treating it as a false dichotomy: atheism or Christianity. Really it's between atheism Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Celtic paganism, Hellenic paganism, or any other of the thousands of religions both extant and extinct.
I don't pretend to know where JP is, but a lot of the movement is political, not spiritual. It's a reaction to the excesses of wokism. It's eventually going to end in a different type of brokenness. Christianity is about changing society one reformed sinner at a time, not reforming sinners by changing society.
I used to be hardcore Christopher Hitchens cultist. I even gave some Jehovah Witnesses a Hitchens books thinking i was a legendary logic master. Thank god i grew out that ☦️
There is no such thing as a "Christopher Hitchens cult". No one prays to or worships Hitchens. Classic projection. You KNOW you are in a cult so you just HAVE to accuse others of it.
Considering how he calls Richard Dawkins fanboys like a cult, yeah (he could’ve just call then fanboys and I wouldn’t mind since well, Dawkins do have fanboys). Funny how some here straw man atheist arguments and then get mad when atheists (not saying they should) do the same or the whole group ish thinking not realising Christianity does the same thing (or any other major religion). The other thing I find hilarious is using Jordan Peterson to argue for Christianity because he’s just a dumb person idea of a smart person
As an EX atheist, I am allowed to study anything you as an atheist are being forbidden by your religion to study, and there is simply nothing you can tell me about this cult, from the opression pyramid to the goal of genocide on christians. That's right - *surah 5:101-102* and *9:29* are as valid in atheist religion as it is in islame. Atheists have a belief system which is a blank piece of paper, and to fill that paper, they go to their imams (the atheist dawah channels) and their prophets (richard Dorkins, vladimir lenin, Commie harris, mao zedong, Mad Pedolahunty) - in order to find out what they by necessity must believe.
@@joshd3502 When Atheist knows his own thoughts and why he is rejecting God, his eyes opens up. Best examples are in question answer of Cross Examined program where an atheist were asked If I give you a book to read, would you read it?" He will say "NO" Why? Because he has decided not to believe in God! Even Richard Donk es says, Even if I hear God talking to me from heaven, I will think it is hallucinations"
Dr. Wood is a convert from Atheism. He was a hardcore atheist, willing to commit crimes at one time to prove his own evolutionary superiority and lack of conscience. He knows what he's talking about.
@@PaoloMilan keep spreading apologetics roadshow and acts 17 polemics on Facebook and twitter and Instagram and in your country and other countries but it is going to take years so take your time and be a messenger my friend
@@apologeticsroadshow hello! Time to take the fight to the next level! *The Islam Paul paradox!* Paul refutes the islambookgod in one way or another! Is Paul telling the truth or not! Was Paul real or not! Because this islambookgod doesn't know what Paul taught = what Christians believe
@@apologeticsroadshow An example! *The Islam Paul paradox!* (The battle slogan is important) Every Muslim grows up with the certainty that Christians believe God has a child! But Paul never taught that Son of God means God has a child!
@@apologeticsroadshowCan you make a video on ,,Better Call George"? He is a self improvement RU-vidr, but recently started talking about God and his experience with God. At first I was happy he was doing that, but quickly realized nothing about his explanations was biblical. He was preaching that all religions are true and that religions are scam. I asked him about it one time and he dodged it,insulted me and made a video about me called ,,fatherless people are unsavable". So there are many young people right now who will get deceived by him, can you make a video about it?
@@larkiess And the God of the spaghetti Monster is Jesus Christ. For He is God above all gods. Lord above all Lords. King above all kings. Nice try though 🤭 oh and Jesus loves you so much!
i like your content.. but as an athiest, this one was very disapointing. using the strawman argument and not even trying to present any of the arguments of atheists its not a good thing. the lack of evidence, the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, the rejection of concepts that cannot be falsified, and the argument from nonbelief, just to name some are arguments athiest talk about for years. if you never heard of them just google it. i belive that we should look for the truth, seeing you tying to debunk them, or at least present them is not much to ask. i also have to add that I have a lot of respect for believers in god, I think that insightful conversation is important for both sides to make sure we can live together as one.
I think even believers might be confusing this with the best EVIDENCE for atheism. In which that would be ridiculous. I agree that the God hypothesis requires evidence for it whereas atheists start from ground zero. As a Christian I find the genuine discussions between atheists and apologists very interesting.
He is actually correct, even though he himself doesn't understand how. Those arguments you giver here are not really arguments for atheism. They are arguments against some gods. The problem of evil-argument for instance doesn't work against the old Norse gods, so that is not an argument for atheism. And a hindu could have many of the same arguments against a christian for instance, and in that case, he would argue for other gods, not atheism. What is really wrong here is that people expect there to be an argument for atheism. How could there be a general argument for "I don't believe you."? That would always depend on what the other person is claiming.
@@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w he chooses the best, the meanest, the vilest, the most putrid, the mass murderers, the foulest, the scummiest, the bentest, he chose me!!!!!
@@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w he's the most clever by a country bloody mile!!!! The poorest of kids always look up to who has the most clever skills!!!! Because we have nothing else!!!!! He is sooooooo clever!!!!!! We serve the most original clever Lord!!!!! Think of a lush jungle setting, and think of a stealthy ambush predictor, green upon green upon green, our Lord decides let's make it bright orange with black stripes!!!! Who the F does that??? Our Lord!!!!! Mic drop moment there!!!!!!
@@Godsambassador3 The logical and rational thinking. Who makes the claim, must provide evidence. Atheism does not need to prove god doesn't exist, theism must prove god exists.
@@Godsambassador3 Subjective. You do not have objective. The goal of humanity is simply survive as long as possible. We do what ever is needed. Right now we want be nice to each other as it is in our best interest. Who knows if in future, things may go mad max (or even worse).
I know it's tempting for theists to view Jordan Peterson as being on their side, but Jordan has the strangest idea of god that I've ever heard. You probably agree that there's no good arguments for atheism, but I suspect that Jordan means something very different when he says that than anyone else who would make that claim.
When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible, and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing.
@sn0wy180 jesus existing is not proven in any way, there is some evidence but the evidence is lacking. evidence for him rising from dead simply does not exist and even the bible contradicts itself on this event. people claiming stuff is not evidence. many people claim a lot of bullshit. the marvel universe makes many claims about the universe, and everyone in marvel comics sees those claims. everyone in the marvel universe has seen spiderman and knows he exists. and yet, people for some reason don't belive that marvel comics are right about the universe, and neither they should with the bible
I have really come to appreciate Alex O'connor actually. Since he did his degree he has risen way above pretty much every other popular atheist youtuber. But AP is still better.
Alex was my favorite atheist until he thought he should model himself after Christopher Hitchens. And frankly, he claims he studied theology but I don't see any of that in any of his takes on Christianity. He seems just as clueless as most other atheist channels when it comes to the Bible.
@@MrSeedi76 I haven't paid too much attention to his takes in Christianity it religion, but at least I appreciate his take on philosophy and the philosophical arguments for God etc. His philosophical takes at least elevate him next to guys such as Rationality Rules (NOT) and Dillahunty.
With due respect, I agree that there are some obnoxious prideful atheist characters (who have done well in special courses of logic and philosophy) but there are also obnoxious theists! Let's just stick to truth and respect each other's views without being obnoxious or condescending!
🤣🤣🤣🤣 I love you David. While people will be looking for Bible heroes in heaven, I will be looking for you because I am pretty sure we will never meet on this side of eternity. You made my day! ❤❤❤❤❤
Its all BS. Belief systems. The power of saying I dont know: Why must we claim to have all the answers? Why is it a race to shut the door and move onto the next open one only to be closed as soon as we have "the answer"? Whether your athiest or religions the fact is we don't know a damn thing. Too many people claim to have the answer, the "true meaning" of words from a book. Never blindly listen to anyone, always question what you know. The source of creation is throbbing within you but instead you choose to look outside to find it. This will not work, the road is endless. However once you turn inward its just one small step, one U turn to realize the potential of being Human. Whether or not there is a heaven or a hell I am not concerned. The only thing I know is that I am experiencing this life right now. To not strive for a higher state of being in the this life is a wasted life. To at least not try to realize your true nature is a crime against life.
@@perennem_equitem_57 I am Human. It is time for us as a species to transcend the limited identifications of the mind. You see all the things you identify with in life your gender, your country, your culture, skin color, sexual status, political thoughts, your religion, your thoughts; all of these things have nothing to do with life. One goal of my life is to strive for an experience where these identifications are no longer apart of my living experience. There is a space beyond body, beyond mind, that is devoid of all identification. It is only when the mind is in charge of your experience that identifications arise and begin to mold the intellect. Over time these become stronger and stronger until you say "this is who I am". No all you are is a collection of things. Body is a collection of food. Mind is a collection of impressions. Its your identification with theses things that is causing the suffering. Existence is not suffering its just that in your current experience existence is suffering.
If presented with the question of whether to accept or reject the FSM as a (or the) god, we would either need to explain why we make the choice we do, or basically say, “I don’t know, or I don’t want to say”. I think we can do better than that though. We can simply say there is literally no evidence for its existence. The earliest testimony we have of it, in the form of an open letter, is much more plausibly explained by the hypothesis that the writer of the letter was writing a satirical fiction in order to try and make a case against teaching young-earth creationism in schools. In the absence of any evidence, it makes more sense to follow a more plausible worldview instead.
@@cthulhucrews6602The fact you even asked that shows how little you know about Gods. Jews believe in God because thousands of them heard his voice at once. Christians believe in God because of Jesus, who all athiest scholars admit existed, died, and thousands saw him alive again. I suggest reading up on things before you are against it. It's silly to hare something when you can't even tell the difference between a meme and a real historical person.
"Tell everyone you don't know what atheism is without saying it." The question "What is the best argument for atheism?" is the illegal chess move. Atheism is just "I don't believe what you say.", and it's impossible to have an argument for that, because that always depends on what you say.
I wonder where this school educated redditor idea that "everything needs proof" really came from, not everything needs tangible proof, God's existence can be explained philosophically and logically.
@@worldcorpenterprisesarchivewrong on both counts, you need a lack of logic to believe in something that doesn’t have proof and god lacks philosophical ideas
@@worldcorpenterprisesarchive No, everything has tangible evidence, so where is yours? I can say that I'm God, and philosophically, you can argue against me, but you can't say otherwise, so that gets us nowhere. And logic comes from tangible proofs, so you're contradicting yourself.
@@Cpnpd922 You don't need evidence for atheism-It's not a belief. We ask for evidence for God and then disprove that “evidence.” You can't prove or disprove God because he doesn't exist in our world, but we can determine that believing in him is irrational.
Divine hiddennes.the real reason for atheist? "We will not have God rule over us. We are going to build a perfect world without Him." Y'all doing great! Move to Chicago and reap all that wonderful virtue!
@@nisonatic Not particularly disagreeing, but I consider Deism to be basically proto-atheism. Richard Dawkins said that "... although atheism might have been _logically_ tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” The point is that prior to Darwin, it was hard to justify atheism intellectually, so you sort of _had_ to acknowledge some basic view of God. Which made you a Deist.
@@PJRayment Deism isn't proto atheism at all, Darwin didn't make it possible to be atheist because the question of what started everything still exists. Evolution doesn't change that question You can use basic logic to come to a conclusion of a singular all powerful God, the question is, is it a personal God or an impersonal God? These days I lean more and more towards Deism because it does seem the creator of this universe doesn't particularly care
Crazy how D.w and J. P where atheist and now they can look back and see how dumb some of the things they believed were . People grow in wisdom through not there own understanding but with god . Thanks bro for the dope video
Great video! I was making some of the faces you were making! 😂😂😂 I'll come back later to see atheists regurgitating the same old cliched arguments! 🤟🏻💀
@@Acolyte82 Another one! How exciting! Did you read my comment? You see any arguments about the existence of God? No! You're just reacting to a comment! Just like I knew some of you will! You can't help it! That's why you are here! 🤟🏻💀
@@Trabunkle Just because an argument is cliched does not make it irrational or wrong. Maybe it is cliched because we tied of hearing the same old rhetoric.
David I started following you right after the Twin Towers fell I think it's been almost 23 years you are still saving people buy your videos and voice thank you so much for all you've done for people David and May our Lord bless you
I mean, you dont need to argue for atheism since its nott a claim but a statement. Religions people say ther is a god and atheists say they dont belive the religious people. They are the ones making a statement mening the burden of proof is on them, not the person being critical of them. If someone said look ther is a squirl over ther and the other said I dont see it. Would you demand they argue for nott seeing it?
I like to see it shift too. But is it? Much as I respect Peterson, what he seems to be teaching is that the Bible has a lot of good teaching, not that it's actually true. So yes, he's shifting the tide, but perhaps toward another lie rather than the truth.
@@PJRaymentI'm also very careful about all these "luminaries" floating around on the internet. I like both Wood and Peterson very much, but they are not my ultimate guide for truth ... that's only Yeshua and the Bible.
Years ago, pre Rona and all that jazz, Petersons lectures about Genesis made me realize there is actually some cool stuff and wisdom in the Bible. Which did heal some false ideas I had about the bible, and made it possible for quite a landslide conversion to take place. Did dear Jordan have the whole Truth back then? Of course not. Perhaps I would not have listened to that Truth anyway. But his interpretation opened Genesis for me in a way I could understand back then, and it is not wrong! Gods word is deep in many, many different directions. Fun fact, I tried reading his 12rules for life, and ironically had much trouble with his Genesis connections there, it put me off, even though i loved his Genesis vids... atheists are very inconsistent sometimes😆
@@MrsYasha1984 "Petersons lectures about Genesis made me realize there is actually some cool stuff and wisdom in the Bible." That's great, but did it help you realise that Genesis is actual history?
@@lyntonblair9016 That's a good question. I honestly have a hard time finding a way to coincide Christianity with reality on so many levels, so picking a single thing that would convince me would be tough. I think it would have to be a series of provable discoveries that not only prove the existence of God, but also prove that said God is indeed the God of the bible, while also fixing some of the inconsistencies, at least what many perceive as inconsistencies, in the bible itself and between the bible and reality.
@PDilling this probably wont convert you but i think it is something to think about. Verified by the Romans, jews and early church was the execution of the disciples and apostles, who all died and for the Jewish followers would have been hell for blasphemy for what they could have known to be a lie, also being offered by the Romans to declare the Roman emperor as lord instead of christ and deny the resurrection. Why would they die and also surely go to hell for a lie that they knew to be wrong?
Nope, that would be an argument for agnosticism. Atheism affirms a negative position, that God does not exist. Presumably they have evidence in favour of that position that satisfies them. But so do the theists. The agnostic is the one who is not satisfied by the evidence and so maintains a position of not knowing on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Being a theist or atheist is basically the mirror image of each other. The truth is that nobody knows if there is a point to life or not, and that is very scary to a lot of people who need something to keep on going.
@@MrSeedi76 So what group are you talking about? The Muslims, the Hindus's, The Christians, the Jews, the Buddhists or maybe the Taoism or Shinto people? And what makes that group more right than the other ones?
@@MrMrs-g2wThere are atheists who have huge egos. When they cannot make sense of things, they won't consider the fact that it can be because they are not smart enough to understand it.
@theconfusedoromo5361 The Biblical nonsense about Jesus, who everyone including athiests agree died, and was then seen again alive by thousands of people? I do believe in proof. I believe Jesus.
@@shadyd2544 You believe in atheism. That's YOUR theory. You need to have a reason for doing that, so no, the burden of proof lies on YOU when defending YOUR argument
@a.f.2330 No it's not. Not believing is simply not believing in something in the complete lack of evidence of it. Otherwise people can completely make up stuff than tell me I need to refute it. That's bullshit.
If theism were so easy to disprove, there wouldn't be as many believers in the world. When posed with the question, "If there was 100%, irrefutable evidence that Gid exists woukd you believe?" A lot of atheists say no. Which gets to the crux of what atheists are really about. It's all pride.
@littleone1656 People are just scared of death so they make stuff up to try and make themselves feel better. It's not actually because there is any evidence for it. The majority of people used to think the world was flat. Doesn't mean that argument ever held any water.
It really is an ego boost that makes an individual the arbiter of truth. "If I don't see it, it didn't happen. Those who claim to have seen it are liars, delusional and or deceived."
People claim to see Shiva or Rama all the time. One of the most remarkable things about apologists is how totally they forget about the reasoning they employ to reject other religions when it comes to defending theirs.
@@MrCmon113 I don't doubt they experience something. The question is does it align with anything reported in history. The Christian message isn't just visions, but things they experienced in real life - miracles, a risen savior, things Jesus taught. There are visions, but not just visions. Hinduism doesn't have any historical support. Same with Islam. Islam has a history, but nothing the Quran claims can be validated. The huge iron and copper wall bridging two mountains can't be found. The stones (hardened clay - essentially pottery) that pelted the people of the elephant can't be found. Neither can any archaeology that supports Mecca being as old as Abraham. It is missing. In contrast, we have a clay tablet found in Babylon that speaks of King Jehoachin of Judah. It has ties to history.
@@hydraph4843 Skeptical is fine. Cynical to the point you deny everything is irrational. What qualifies as evidence? Do you need everything have a hard, physical form to believe? Do you have to experience everything yourself to believe? Have you experienced everything you believe? Are there exceptions to your experience that did happen? Consider your priors.
A majority of the atheists will never believe God exists , for one simple reason? They'll never admit that people of the past, who they consider primitive and superstitious? Were the ones who were right! Their egos wouldn't allow it!
Well, do you believe the early Israelites were right when they believed many gods were real and El assigned Israel to Yahweh as 1 of his 70 sons? Do you believe the Canaanites were right? Or the Egyptians? Why do you draw the line at Jesus?
Unfortunately, you're absolutely correct. Atheism feeds the narssisist in us, very much the same way it does for false prophets; who claim that they have a 'new' revolution from god, then make their every whim a 'revolution from god'.
He isn't bothered. He finds it laughable that they view themselves as intellectually superior while using hyperbolic and prejorative language. When they fail to make a sound argument, they resort to their, go-to, old faihtful "sky daddy" to admit they have nothing intelligent to say.
I've always seen god as just a projection of the believer's ego, and as such it always conveniently embodies all the believers hopes and fears, a psychological construct that the theist 'feels' he needs to believe in to make his life significant. Belief in god is a theist's way of playing god, you theists want to be god and that's all that drives your delusions.
@@rozzgrey801 Wow, the irony. See, I've always seen Atheism as a refusal to accept a being of higher authority than they are, an easy way out of taking accountability for their actions. Disbelief in God is a way of playing God. You can see this when they repeatedly claim to be more moal than God. They claim their own worldview to be superior to that of God, who is infinitely smarter and wiser than they are. They are arrogant enough to claim "God, who knows everything, doesn't do what I would do, therefore must not exist." They make their own morals. They construct their own worldviews, and call things they cannot see "delusions." They worship themselves. And If that's not the ultimate ego boost, I don't know what is.
@@rozzgrey801OK bro. No. I believe in God because I believe in the proof of Jesus, the proof the universe had a beginning and thus had to have a beginner (because physics), and the scientific belief that disorder cannot breed order. It would take faith for me to believe all that science and history is wrong. Jesus is who he is. I can't and won't change him. Perhaps you should stop projecting and spend some time truly reading about him.
My Daughter came home from Ohio State U for the summer; I noticed she was reading “spirituality for an atheist”. My first thought was that’s an oxymoron . My second thought was how to strike up a conversation in an attempt to show her how intellectually absent this ideology is. This episode was a gift from above, I now know how to begin this conversation.
It's not an oxymoron for many Buddhists. Only the believers of the Abrahamic God find it hard to understand, though spirituality is actually an absent Idea in original Christianism.
God allow atheists to exist because he never makes good mechanism to all people to became sure that god exists with different intelligent and idea and way of thinking just like your exiting and the arguments against meterlism is basically we don't know how in logical or science manner where this came from (possibly because we don't have enough knowledge in some attributes of the matters) therefore god exists.
Why are you blaming God for not drinking or milk on time? Are you going to blame God for failing your test too? The test for which you did not prepare nor study. God is not the cosmic vending machine that gives you all that you want with the right prayer tokens nor is God the genie from Aladdin that grants you your every wish. Take some personal responsibility, lunkhead!
Honestly as an atheist I was quite shocked by the level of disrespect. When will both sides at least try to see each other point without mocking them, and wrongfully, besides??
@@GeneralYen the atheists that Dr. Wood typically engages with do not offer the same respect, so I have no problem with parodying them. I personally don't really agree with Jordan Peterson here. You could see that Pints with Aquinas was having trouble following and he's a staunch Catholic. Atheism is a secular religion where evidence doesn't actually matter no matter how much they claim it does. That level of irrationality is hard to take seriously, though I realize most atheists come by their atheism honestly.
First of all, where do scientific laws come from? Why are there laws in the natural universe that have remained the same for thousands of years? If the world is just some random popped out blizzard, then why are there all these natural laws? There should be no gravity, no physics, no dimensions, no entropy, no time, no aging. Why did mother nature condemn us with the idea that we only live for a set amount of time? Not only that, but towards the end, we experience entropy--we deteriorate. We should just be ageless particles randomly roaming the universe. Secondly, where does language come from--the idea of communicating? Did mother nature speak to the rest of the universe and say, "Come on, guys, we need to get together and explode! We need to create our first atom!" Language is a marvel. If we came from nothing, we should say nothing. We should have no purpose, and no expression. But that's not true. We express ourselves, we experience feelings, and we have creativity. None of these are necessary. So why do we have them? Thirdly, and most important, where does evil come from? Why is a person tempted? If there was no purpose but just some random explosion, then there should be no right and no wrong. Where does temptation fit in the world of reality? If a person does something bad, it's just as real as if he didn't do it. For instance, if a person is tempted to lie, he can decide. If he lies it's just as real as if he didn't lie. So why are human beings tempted?
@@leondepientopresents9623 Where do you get your expertise on how universes work? If I do not know the answer to a question, then obviously there is a god. Now all we have to do is decide which one. What about the one the Aztecs sacrificed all those people to, or Zues maybe. Yeah, I would like one or more of the European gods. I am bored of the Asian ones.
Expertise? You learn about scientific laws in elementary school. And if we have a problem with growing old, too bad. We age whether we like it or not. And what's so difficult about language? Every day we communicate. It's pretty obvious. You have a language inside you called your DNA. That's a language and it creates your very being. Everyone knows about DNA. These are basics. And everyone who ever walked the face of this earth has known temptation. It's something that goes along with being human. And now that you're asking about which god to serve....people asked that question thousands of years ago. It's nothing new. If you really want answers to that, read the book, "Against the heathen," by saint Athanasius. He can answer you much better than I can.
The Bible is the living word of God you can believe everything the Bible says. If you read and obey the gospel you will see you will become born again. Jesus said you have to be born again to enter heaven. Also you have to repent of all your sins.
The problem of evil is a billion times worse for pdf file atheist religion, because: According to atheist religion, there is no free will, and this means, that words like evil, sin, guilt, shame, even words like remorse and forgiveness do not exist ion atheist religion. Which means, it wasn't evil when mao did away with 70 million people, remember he _had no free will_ so he was forced to do what he did, it was not his doing then, and therefore he was innocent and it was not evil.
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable ok man how is atheism a pedophile religion maybe youre thinking of Islam lol anyway as for free will it is a problem Ill give you that but if we define evil as intentional malice without good reason we can still have the word evil without free will
@Anti And... that is exactly the strawman theists put up. Atheism = LACK of belief in god = I see no evidence of god, so I do not believe in god. Agnosticism = UNSURE of belief in god = There may or may not be a god, I don't know. Literally, its not antitheism, its A - Theism, or not a theist. Theist = believes in god, atheist = does not believe in god. Whether god actually exists or not is another question entirely. The question of theism is a question of belief.
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppableNo words like guilt, shame, remorse and forgiveness do exist in an atheistic worldview. And while you cant say that the actions of Mao were evil, you can still say that those actions were bad and harmfull. And yes according to Atheism you are still be considert innocent after causing 70 million deaths, but according to christianity you are just as evil and deseriving of hell as mao when you just think about stealing a lollipop.
“ The best argument for Atheism” is another form of “shifting the burden of truth”. Those that make the various claims of religions have the burden of proving them. Since most believers admit they cannot prove a god exists - then the logical conclusion is that their claims should not be accepted.
The majority of the world is real is religious, why does presupposition favor your idea instead of what the majority is? Not saying religious people shouldn’t have reasons, but why favor yourself?
@@chadparker5517 a basic life will not display any sign of a god, religion is a belief attached onto life. and therefore should be proven. it's like if I walked up to you and said you had to prove to me you weren't dancing at the moment just because everyone thought were, and you're stupid if you think I have to prove you are dancing first
@@Millticker what does a display of God look like to you in a person? Do you think God would be naturally occurring or do you think He would have to reveal himself? Would you even know what to look for if life displayed a sign of God?
Your god literally is a sky daddy. That's the historic background, that's how he's portrayed. He is not just a father, but "The Father". He's always referred to as being in the sky.
@@MrCmon113 So when Yhwh was with Adam in the garden on earth he didn't come down to earth?? Or when Yhwh was with Abraham in sodom and he rained down fire from Yhwh from heaven he wasn't on earth? No this shows you are making jokes about something you don't even understand.... go somewhere else with that b.s.
You will have to explain your stance here, because at the surface level, that seems like utter nonsense. I mean, it really feels the same as saying that the best argument for a spherical Earth is flat Earthers. Other people making bad arguments doesn't provide evidence for your stance.
@@ikeillue8385 I accept the possibility of a creator. I don't accept the possibility of a creator as described by religion. I don't accept that religion is anything but a political manipulation and atheism is more often a reaction to that. I don't really mean political in the democratic sense.
@@alpharoo4251 I see. Though that seems more of a social stance, than a truth stance. Regardless of whether there is political, social, or any other form of manipulation, there is still truth that is separate from that. Like, the people in power could make up a false religion in order to control the masses. But at the same time, they could also twist the truth to manipulate the masses. In short, just because humans are easily corrupted by power, and use whatever tools they can to keep/gain power, doesn't mean that the tools they use are all inherently false.
The best argument for Atheism is the one they make all the time : emotionalism. Or the argument from how you feel about god Appeal to ppl emotions and use their ignorance to do it..by saying god is evil if [Insert statement based on ignorance here] Or say You need a god to tell you whats right from wrong? I think they appeal to emotions so much because emotions can override logic and reason if the emotion is strong enough..
Or, it's because we're a social species, and so empathy and compassion is pretty important for the functioning of social groups we live in. Also, Christians appeal to emotions A LOT. For example, pascal's wager is literally just appealing to peoples' fear of death
I'm simply one who realizes on evidence. No evidence has been provided as of yet for any deity, and no holy book I've ever read doesn't have massive contradictions contained therein or have massive conflicts with scientific discoveries. It's simple, really. If I am to take the bible for example at literal face value then I will not be able to trust it because of the Speed of Light disproving a literal reading of the agecof the Earth. Then there is the problem of the global flood, Lot's wife, and the fall of Babylon. Throwing in contradictions of the birth and childhood of Yeshua bar Yusuf, makes the Bible an untrustworthy witness if I were to compare it to a living human.
The new atheist movement of the early 2000s redefined atheism to equate it with agnosticism. Traditionally, atheism meant the belief that there is no god. However, when this belief was challenged, modern atheists changed the definition to avoid the negative connotations of agnosticism, clinging to the atheist label they had loudly proclaimed. This redefinition was seen by critics as an attempt to sidestep the burden of proof and maintain their social identity without fully confronting their beliefs.
It's the most wicked argument, the worst of the arguments against theism. The evidence of God is that the world we live in is ordered and designed. How do we now that? Well, because we as human beings create things, we can compare the way that we create with the way our world exists, and we can find out that the things that are happening in our lives accidentally, they can't be perfect, yet the laws by which nature is ruled are perfect. Even we as humans can't create something that will work perfectly. So, the evidence of God is that our world does have order and design, and if it's ordered and designed, then there must be someone who ordered it and designed it.
@@christian-lyrics180um no actually we live in a simulation and a super developed ai created our world which is the reason it is as perfect as it is! Prove me wrong !!
*"I don't think there's a good argument for atheism."* I agree 1000%. But I've been watching David Wood's videos for nine years and haven't seen a good argument for God, either.
Creation itself is a good argument for “God”, whatever form the creator of humans, and the living world takes, a creator is the only possibility if you believe humans and the living world came about by some sort of spontaneous combustion, your an idiot, if I told you a car was the result of a particle explosion, you’d say I was an idiot, the human body is much more complex than a car, so there is obviously a creator, what form that creator takes is what is unclear.
@@ladidaohoh3168 imagine literally believing in cosmic santa claus and calling someone an idiot for not doing the same because there's things we don't understand Oh wait you don't have to imagine, you self-righteous degenerate
@@ladidaohoh3168 Technically, we've never actually witnessed anything being "created", we've only seen preexisting matter and energy changing form. For all we know, the universe and all the matter within it may always have existed in some form or another. In that case, no creator would be necessary. Even if the universe was created somehow, it still seems like a massive leap of faith to conclude that the only possible explanation is some sort of intelligent supernatural being.
@@yee2631 I’m sorry it has always boggled my mind, how someone can imagine that every structure, every invention, every item we use in our society has a creator, some of those creators are even revered as important historical figures. Yet the most complex things in our world, just happened by some magic accident, to me it’s obvious there is a creator that created humans, I’m just not sure what that creator intended or wanted for us, or from us. If you witnessed a house building, you’ve witnessed creation, it’s everywhere in our material world.
@@rvtalltales9327 do you need fantastic evidence to show that Zeus does _not_ exist? of course not. the person making the fantastic claim has the burden of producing the fantastic evidence.
@@onsenguyeven atheist scholars will tell you that the death of Christ is the most undisputed fact about the historical Jesus. They will also claim that the apostles had truly believed that they had seen something after the death of Jesus; the resurrected Jesus. The 11 remaining apostles and the more to come were all then persecuted, tortured, and faced great hardship for years on end until meeting their grueling demises. They died testifying to the truth they claimed to have been witnesses to. I believe that the testimony of the apostles (plus the others) and the evidence found outside the Bible itself generate an ample argument for the validity and authenticity of the scriptures. Extraordinary claims do not always need extraordinary evidence. Take this for example: a picture of a galaxy. A galaxy in and of itself is incredibly complex yet the picture that shows us this is fairly simple and can be produced by technology people use on the daily. I do believe that the extraordinary claims of the Bible do have some extraordinary evidence, however. I would recommend reading about Eucharist miracles and the science on the shroud of Turin, among many other things. Have a nice day/night and God bless.
@@onsenguy You assume there's no fantastic thing that happened. So prove to us who believe in God that there's no such fantastic thing like the Gods resurrection and how God created the universe.
I'm an atheist. This Is the best argument i found for myself: I just don't feel the need for it. If I ask myself why did the universe came to be and consider the answer "god created it" I just don't feel rewarded by it. It's a piece of information that I can't trust. Some Christians talk about faith as a gift. I don't have this gift. I don't think i'm better or worse than anybody because I don't have this gift. I'm very sorry that many atheists are judgemental toward believers, it's stupid, and they should stop. But I don't want to be judged either. I didn't choose to not have faith. I just don't. I pay my taxes like everybody else. I try to live honestly and in harmony with everybody. I will admit without any problem that my morality is probably very heavely influenced by christianity. Unfortunately i just can't bring myself to believe the core story. Am I a bad person for this? Should I lie and just act as I believed that a god created everything for a jew to die on a cross?
"I just don't feel the need for it." Do you need creation to survive? Romans 1:18-20, "The wrath of God is REVEALED from heaven against all the godlessness & wickedness of people, who SUPPRESS the TRUTH by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is PLAIN to them, because God has made it PLAIN to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-His eternal power & divine nature-have been CLEARLY seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are WITHOUT excuse." Do you need logic? Christianity is the most logically reasonable, cohesive, consistent explanation for actual, objective reality & real scientific findings, explaining origin (Genesis 1), meaning (ex.Isaiah 43:7), morality (ex.Exodus 20), destiny (ex.Hebrews 9:27), order, logic, reason, sense, beauty consistent from an orderly, logical, sensible, reasonable, beautiful God (1 Cor 14:33) Do you need morals? If anything is declared evil, it logically assumes good exists, necessitating moral law to differentiate good/evil, necessitating moral law giver (the triune God); there’s no meaningful morality from a godless worldview of an unguided/blind/pitiless/indifferent universe (R.Dawkins) born from chance/chaos/nothingness/unknown/stardust (C.Sagan/L.Krauss) where a rock in the road is as valuable as a person, made from the same theoretical primordial material.....
@@FindingGod365 I wouldn't say it's "hard", it's practically impossible. It's like asking me to stop having heartbeats. I don't have any control over It. Either I'm convinced of an information or I'm not. And if I'm not I don't even see the point in trying. For example I don't know why and how the universe came into existence. I Just trust the science about the origin of the observable universe, and I'm consciouss that It Is incomplete. But I'm happy to have incomplete trustworthy informations that do not answer everything and are the result of a process that I trust over having "something more" that comes in the form of a revelation. That's the part I Just can't bring myself to accept: the revelation. Everything I know and I trust I know because I or someone who I trust worked very hard to know. The Key thing about a scientist Is that he must explain his methodology, he must let you inquire what he did. That Is what makes It easy for me to trust scientific theories. If some scientists go rogue and invent for example gender studies I can go see what the methodology Is and Attack the root of their so called "knowledge". That Is the Key. Even thou scientists are humans and often they are politically motivated or morally corrupted I can go see their methodology and understand if it's okay for me to accept their work. I can use the work of literal nazis without being infected by their ideology, and I can reject the work of good people that are simply wrong, that Is how I want my knowledge to grow. But I don't see any of that in religious doctrines, nothing can be tested indipendently, many things are tribalistic in nature, concepts like dogmas and revelations are very frequent and some times irrational believes are protected by the criminalization of blasphemy. I don't want to offend anyone's believes but it's very clear to me that the idea of blasphemy itself often act as a protection against very fair criticism. It Is extremely evident in Islam: you can't practically say anything bad against muhammad without committing blasphemy. In Christianity the problem Is not as bad but Is still there as in any other religion. I also deeply dislike the pope, and I find the Idea that the holy spirit choose Bergoglio to guide christianity insulting to christians (I'm from a catholic country). My question Is "why Is all of this necessary?" I don't think It Is. We can get along together Just fine. If God does exist I know what I will say to him the day I die. I will just tell him "you didn't gave me the gift, and you know you didn't. I Just wanted to be honest with myself and if that's a good enough reason to be damned for eternity then ok, damn me for eternity, but that's clearly not Fair" I see that people with Faith often live good healthy and Happy Life. I just think I can do the same without believing in God. I don't want to corrupt anybody. By all means, please, keep believing, keep christianity alive, but don't force It on me. I won't do anything, except speaking my mind and explain my personal feelings, that could move someone to atheism. I also don't believe many people would be happy as atheists, but I know for a fact I wouldn't be happy as a believer, I wouldn't even be me, that person can't exist. I was not happy when I lied to myself and went to church desperately trying to ignore the many questions and perplexities I had.
@@robmc120 do you honestly believe that I value a rock as much as a human being? Do you really think It would be impossible for me to argue as an atheist that a human has more value than a rock? Moral value comes from the origin of the material you're made of? Why? Who said so? Why should I accept such a strange predicament?
@@alessandropallotta9838 " do you honestly believe that I value a rock as much as a human being?" If youre consistent with your atheism/agnosticism they have the same value from the same primordial origin, what gives man more value in your worldview?
Arguments could be made that we do not understand everything. I would think that's pretty obvious at this point. If, if something can be determined to exist it is no longer supernatural. I could really do without all the ad hominems in this video.
@@Deridus That may be so, but then you also cannot claim that it is supernatural. So far all attempts at this are just nonsense if you look at all thousands of diverse propositions. If you make such a claim, you must be able to back it up with compelling evidence before you force other people to accept it. It is time for this to end.
@@kohlhofers Exactly so. Mind you, I'm a Hard Atheist in that I deny the validity of any form of deism. In regards to what we might perceive as the supernatural, I do not rule out the possibility that there are some things that could potentially exist. Thing is, if a thing exists, it is thereby natural and with careful study, explicable. Gods and devils, souls, heavens and hells, reincarnation and karma, all fall in the supernatural and therefor I reject that they exist as they by definition cannot be proven. I may be wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it.
It’s not an argument of “did Jesus exist.” It’s an argument on if Jesus is God. Atheists do not believe there is evidence that can prove the existence of God.
There is a difference between saying Jesus existed (which he most probably did) and saying he is the savior of humanity, the son of God, and God himself... Not all atheists are mythicists.
@@GeneralYen There's a difference between saying that men exists (which they undoubly do and we see proof of that every day) and then, the claim of pdf file atheists that men can menstruate and give birth (which has never been observed in history til this day)
The only, absolutely only, atheist I'm watching is Alex O' Connor. He seems as if he isn't trying to score points and actually knows a lot about Christianity and considers what the "opponent" is saying. Also, have you heard about Jonathan Pageau saying that:"Jordan is obviously not a Christian, he's a heretic"? I tend to believe him since he made a lot of videos and is a friend of Jordan. I guess Jordan, currently, is a Deist of some sort. I appreciate these videos David. One question - Is there more about the story with Randy? I'd love to hear it.
1. Something cannot come from nothing. 2. Disorder cannot creat order. 3. Nothing movies without a trigger. Therefore, someone outside time and space created time and space. Basic scientific understandings. Also, the overwhelming proof Jesus said and did what he said and did. That he died and lived again. All that alone is enough. It would take years for me to write everything I have found, but I would look into this if I were you.
Best argument? That's a silly proposition, atheism doesn't require an argument. You're either a theist or an atheist. If you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist, it actually that simple.
Atheism is not a belief; it is a lack of belief. This is what everyone gets wrong. I am an atheist and I have no desire to prove Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, or anybody else wrong. Believe what you want; I simply do not. There is no argument.
My thoughts as well. It strikes me that if theists are declaring there are no good arguments for atheism, this is more them trying to convince themselves than the atheists and any atheists arguing for atheism are also really just trying to convince themselves. Both sides can be secure in their belief / nonbelief and it's only an issue for argument when you're trying to convince or push your view onto someone else or convince yourself.
If you truly want an answer to this question, it is available and many people have answered it, but it is not a short answer you can simply spell out in a RU-vid comment. It gets into some deep issues that involve your whole perspective on what is going on in the world. I would suggest searching Mike Winger videos as one possible source to address this question. He has done many well thought out presentations on difficult subjects. ***Warning - his videos tend to be lengthy.***
Oops, there were a few small typos in your query. "Atheism" isn't a valid input into the Religion field. That's probably why you got that result. There's a few other issues too. But no worries. I fixed it for you: SELECT ( COUNT(*) = 0 ) AS Number_Of_Good_Atheist_Arguments FROM Arguments WHERE Quality='Good' AND Religion IS NOT NULL; +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Number_Of_Good_Atheist_Arguments +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 1 +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
@@danielle_vandress ""Atheism" isn't a valid input into the Religion field." Religion (Britannica): human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, ABSOLUTE, spiritual, divine, OR worthy of especial reverence. Religion (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition): noun A particular variety of such BELIEF, especially when organized into a SYSTEM of doctrine & practice (evolution) noun A cause, principle, or activity pursued with ZEAL or conscientious DEVOTION.
The difference between arguments for atheism/theism is that their arguments/objections agaisnt God (problem of evil, ...) have already been answered millions of times. Now, how do they respond to our arguments for God (for example the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the risen Jesus)? Well it probably was a collective halucination 😂
"Now, how do they respond to our arguments for God (for example the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the risen Jesus)?". There are countless atheist channels who literally most of the time respond to Christian arguments specifically. The Atheist Experience literally the entire point of it is to answer calls from Christians who come in and try to convince atheists they are right. With the eyewitnesses example, I think atheists tend to use the argument that we don't actually have individual accounts from each of those people, so we don't know if they saw anything. It's like me saying 100 people saw me lift a cat with my mind, but you don't hear from any of those people to know they did indeed see me do that
@@hydraph4843 Yes, but at least of 6 you have. So was that a collective halucination? And just so you know, that's just one of the many questions you don't have a answer to. You also have to explain the missing body, the several miracles perfomed by Jesus that are described by multiple people, just to name a few.
@@fcampos10 I don't really know much about this topic, that bit about the witnesses is just one thing I heard one time. I am happy to talk about these things, it's just that you might need to elaborate more on them like the evidence. Because well how do we know those people who wrote that thing were actually telling the truth? I don't think it was a collective hallucination (maybe, it seems like a logical explanation just because of how drugs or exhaustion etc can influence the mind, so I don't think it should be discounted as a possible explanation, but I don't see evidence it likely happened or even that they tend to occur nowadays so it isn't too convincing), but that doesn't mean they saw anything. Muhammad made claims he saw God or whatever. Simply someone making claims they saw something, even if it's multiple people, doesn't mean it's right. So yeah for miracles, I would argue there isn't evidence he did any of those. There is the testimonies, but they come from people whose accounts are all included in a holy book the entire purpose of which is to try and convince you that specific religion is true. And people can be wrong on things for whatever reason. People constantly claim today that they know of people who did miracles or could tell the future or whatever. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so a few testimonies won't do it, especially when they aren't corroborated by anyone outside of that belief circle
@@hydraph4843 First you got to ask yourself: Why would they be incentivized to lie? To be tortured? Killed? That's weird right? Secondly, that classic "extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence" it's completely false. The way science is done is completely the opposite. We look at the evidence and ask "given this evidence, what's the more probable explanation?". That's how science is done. In fact that's how you should approach everything. The fact is: given the historical, archeological and written evidence we have, the most probable explanation was that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
To my mind the best argument for atheism is that all religions are clearly false. From that follows that if there's a creator god, we have no idea what it wants, if anything. And considering it doesn't perceptibly interact with us, it functionally as if it doesn't exist, even if it does.
@@1faithchick7 the proof of Muhammad is just as overwhelming, and he was quite a bit more precise about what our creator wants us to do. And the proof of David Koresh and L Ron Hubbard are even more overwhelming; I don't know any atheist denying them. So why aren't you muslim, Branch Davidian or Scientologist? Why choose one sect leader over another?
Those are huge claims/assumptions and clearly many people would disagree. God doesn’t perceivably interact with us ? I’ve heard many say otherwise. Sounds like you haven’t REALLY engaged with Christianity or any other thought systems on what they have to say on those points. If you knew what this creator god wanted would you be willing to follow it ?
