Video

Why is this trash in my recommended videos? AI voice, a bunch of tired assertions and presentations of long-debunked 'evidence'. Go look up criticism of the arguments and evidence you presented here. It's not worth the effort to bring it to you because you clearly made no effort to find it and address it.

Here is my argument for anyone who want to exercise critical thinking of the Bible and slavery. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do to another person. Nevertheless, Christian’s apologists, attempting to shield their Holy Book, are blaming people for slavery, discounting slavery all together or trying to disassociate themselves from slavery in the Old Testament.

PhD? You have a good sense of humor

Hmmm so I take it you would have no issue with it being declared that the Easter Bunny is the one true god? After all, you don't KNOW it's not true. You have no evidence that's not true. So it would be an argument from ignorance fallacy to say the Easter Bunny isn't the one true good. Cool! See how useless you these stupid philosophy CZcams channels are?? Philosophy with its premises and fallacies is useless faux-intilectual prattle.

Soft bodied creatures don't fossilize well. The cambrian is thought to be when shells and exoskeletons started. Even if you disproved evolution tomorrow, creationism isn't accepted by default. You still have to demonstrate it. Same reason that abiogenesis doesn't matter. You don't need a counter explanation to refute something. Things have to stand on their own merit.

The designer needs a designer also and so on. In this day and age people still believe in ancient superstitions. It is mind boggling.

OMG, this TTS nitwit is so wrong. Atheism really is just the absence of belief in any gods. That's it. Period. It wouldn't know a fallacy if it snuck up and bit it. Then, like a typical creationist, this robot tries to sneak in "Intelligent Design" (as if that has anything to do with it) which is a religious belief. ID is *not* science, and anybody who claims that it is is a liar. This video is a total fail.

The title alone says you don't understand the idea of what athiest means.

This video could be 15 years old with this content. Yet it is just a day old. It was bad reasoning then, its bad reasoning now.

no evidence just bull

This is just bad. You need to update your Christian apologetics.

DISLIKE

No evidence has been presented so I am not convinced. That’s not an argument. It’s a stance. Try harder.

Atheist pope Richard Dawkins said he even if God showed himself and wrote on the moon and told him to worship with lightning he’d say maybe I was in a simulation, or perhaps the aliens made it so that I saw it that way. Or I was hallucinating, Also many Atheist prophets lie or were raised Mormon with a different sect and belief of the original founding of the entire bases of Christianity. Like Aaron Ra who lie about what the Bible says or horribly interpreters it, or perhaps atheist president Matt Dillahunty butchering interpretation of scripture claiming to have better moral values than God and the Bible while also running away from debates about morality when you start to question his morals and compare them to sin. like he did against Andrew. Not even the Atheist prince himself Bible scholar Bart Ehrman “one of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate” can deny Christs crucifixion. Atheist say believers are crazy for believing in a sky daddy, who are you to question us who live underground about a world up above! Go back to your Flying Spaghetti Monster where you get to enjoy the fake conforts you make up for yourself, about a Holy heaven so that I don’t feel bad about about dwelling in this puddle of pride, lust, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth, & wrath. Who are you to question my guilty pleasures!” Tell me atheist, what is a woman? Can a man give birth? Are you pro choice or pro life? And does it matter anyway, if it all goes black at the end?

The burning of witches is a moral stance of the god of the bible. Exodus 22:18 “You shall not permit a sorceress to live. " Leviticus 20:27 “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” Thus, if you no longer do that as a Christian, it shows that even the morality of god changes. As for Stalin, well, while it is certainly arguable that communism would be untenable in a theistic climate - making atheism necessary for communism - the apologetic fails because atheism isn't sufficient for communism; fires only start in the presence of oxygen, but no fire has ever said to have been caused by the presence of oxygen. Indeed, (weak) atheism can't be considered sufficient for any action. For this reason, this argument is an instance of the association fallacy being employed between atheism and Stalin. As the de facto ruler of the USSR, he initiated many purges. Many clergy were killed and this is often cited as Stalin's anti-christian mark. However, like Henry VIII he did not simply remove clergy, he replaced them. He established a new national church of Russia, which of course answered to him. He considered the church very important to extending control from Moscow to the satellite nations. Stalin's church was called the Russian Orthodox Church or The Moscow Patriarchate; and the suppressed church was called the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. They have a bitter history. Stalin was many things, a former theologian, the head of the national church, and one of the most brutal dictators in history. His own views on religion are difficult to guess. Many scholars think of Stalin as a ruler who envisioned himself as a god. Furthermore, there is the concurrent claim that the USSR was an atheist nation. While the Communist Party suppressed religious fervor, it did so only out of jealously of loyalties. The Communist Party demanded loyalty to itself above all others, even above God. Russia has always been an intensely religious nation. They consider the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be equal to the Vatican's Pope; or even above the Pope. To claim that Russia became atheistic overnight in 1917 only to emerge deeply religious in 1989 is incredibly ignorant. One may also note that almost all of the leaders of the USSR, from Lenin to Gorbachev, except for Malenkov, were atheist or non-religious or did not have their religion documented. Yet only Stalin committed such historic atrocities. Gorbachev explicitly affirmed his atheism, but he nonetheless campaigned for religious freedom and was very friendly toward believers. It is clear that while Stalin was an atheist, he was not a Secular Humanist, and his form of rule would not be tolerated under Secular Humanist ideals, thus showing that not all atheists are the same, nor do they follow the same set of beliefs, other than the lack of belief in a god. I already covered the golden rule that Jesus copied from prior belief systems in the other video. I will repeat it here for anyone looking at this video. Confucius, founder of the ancient atheistic religion of Confucianism, stated his own version of the so-called “Golden Rule” - do not impose on others what you would not choose for yourself - some five centuries before Jesus was teaching a very similar ethical code. Similar formulations are also found in the works of Isocrates, Diogenes Laertius, Epictetus and in the Mahabharata, and it can be argued the Golden Rule is essentially a derivative of the basic principle of reciprocal altruism dating back to our Paleolithic ancestors. So, basically the Moral Argument begs the question as to whether morality is in fact ultimately authoritative, and whether morals actually exist or have meaning independently of us or whether, as many believe, there are alternative explanations for the existence of morals. In reality, it is neither necessary to follow a religion in order to be moral, nor is a religious person necessarily a moral one. Certainly, there appears to be no good reason to suppose that the absence of religion predisposes a person to be “bad”. Furthermore, atheism is quite compatible with philosophies like humanism which does have a system of ethics and purpose. For theists who argue that atheists have no motivation to be moral, the atheist could answer that virtue is its own reward and that, as Aristotle believed, being good and living virtuously is the only way to a fulfilled, self-actualized life. God and religion do not need to come into the equation at all.

_"Why does something exist instead of nothing?"_ We don't even know whether philosophical nothing is attainable or not, let alone whether there could be philosophical nothing. _"How is it possible for something to arise from nothing"_ Any honest apologist should know that atheists generally don't think that something can arise from nothing. _""The vast intricacy of our world could not have emerged spontaneously"_ Exactly what level of intricacy would be possible and what mechanism puts a limit at that level? That's an unfounded argument from incredulity. We don't know enough about the fundamental nature of the universe to make such claims. If a good enough universe can't exist, how could a perfect being exist?

_"How can such abstract and intangible traits emerge from the physical substance of the universe"_ It's called emergent properties. It's what makes water molecules wet. _"Wouldn't morality still be considered arbitrary"_ About as arbitrary as the spectrum of colors we can perceive. _"How can significance emerge in a chaotic physical cosmos"_ _"How can the concept of purpose arise in a cosmos that lacks inherent purpose"_ Transcendental significance or purpose can't, perceived significance or purpose can. _"Science is essentially interchangeable with atheism"_ Nope. Science is a tool, atheism is a state of mind, or a proposition in philosophy.

lol Dr and PhD he must know what he’s talking about. GLWT

Yes, youtube atheists (for exemple Forrest Valkai with his degree in biology) are ignorante not young earth creationist....

Robot voice. Dull.

No one cares what you think. Humans are a silly bunch. Endlessly trying to justify their silly beliefs. Just look at the size of work focused on fiction. Humans love making stuff up. The historical creation story that sticks gets repeated and after thousands of years one must rise to the top. This is how it works in all societies. And geographical birth place has more to do with what religion you choose or are than any other factor. They’re all nonsense. That’s a fact.

The bible literally tells you to kill people for working on Sabbath. Considering that you made this video, I assume you are not prison for following all of the bible's morals, so according to yourself you are a cafeteria Christian. "These people are called cafeteria Christians because they only follow the faith doctrines that suit them" -Dan

Complete idolotry on display. God does not need our help to build His Kingdom for Him. We are called to be a community who practice the teachings of Christ, not impose or coerce a society to obey Old Testament law, which Jesus fulfilled for us. His two commandments: love God, and love your neighbor. That is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. We are to be light and salt. Showing the way by our love, mercy, compassion, kindness, the way we treat the poorest and the stranger by lifting people up, not terrifying them with harsh rules. These people have created for themselves a golden calf and call it "Kingdom." It is counterfeit and idolotrous. What they worship is power and wealth. Jesus ran from that temptation, and He is God's own Son. He used His power by laying it down in an act of supreme selflessness in order to purchase redemption for all mankind. Aat the heart of the NAR is desire to control and uphold White Supremacy. Jesus died for all of mankind; He gave Himself away. The contrast could not be more pronounced. If you gave been sucked into this heresy because of hope of a healing miracle, Jesus can and does still heal but not by these means. Do not believe that the Holy Spirt is behind this movement. This is great deception and apostate. It elevates man rather than glorifies Jesus. I know,; I was caught up in this nonsense looking for a miracle, instead of looking to the miracle worker, getting to really know Him, and surrender my life completely to Him in trust. Read the teachings of Paul. It's all there. Read again the Gospels, study them, dive deep. God is far more interesting in developing our character than in gratifying our every desire. Suffering plays a big role in testing our true motivations. If you are caught up in the lies and manipulations, the chasing after signs and wonders rather than faithfully following Jesus, you are in deception. Dies He still do signs and Wonders? Yes, but we chase after Him, not the signs or gifts. Keep your eyes on Him. All that glitters is not gold.

The big giveaway is your last sentence, 'I hope to see you on the other side'. Hoping that something is true does not make it true. Only when there is enough evidence.

Ah, ye olde "I can't understand it, therefore it has to be like they said at church" rebuttal

Godless morality beats Xian morality. Because Xians are forbidden to call any act commanded or committed by their god _absolutely_ immoral. That would be to admit that God acted immorally, a strict Xian taboo. This means Xians can only evaluate _one single act_ to be absolutely immoral: disobedience. But obedience does not = morality! Hitler's cronies ignored that maxim and hanged for it.

The most atheistic countries and states are the most peaceful and prosperous. The most religious countries and states are the most violent and unstable.

I hate fake voices almost as much as I hate idiot apologists...

this channel is pure dishonesty

What a load of shit. Stick to your day job because you’re really bad at arguing theology. You didn’t give any evidence for your faith, just unsubstantiated claims, and your claims against atheism and evolutionary theory are just false assumptions. These are tired arguments used again and again. Abiogenesis does have evidence. We have fossil evidence for simple sedimentary layers of growth called stromatolites and lab tests designed to replicate early Earth conditions have resulted in the creation of amino acids through natural processes. There. That’s evidence. It’s not absolute, but it’s far more than you provided for God and proves you didn’t even bother to research counter claims.

Super biased take, what’s displayed in the video is the extreme stereotype and fringe of the movement. The NAR isn’t perfect but man you made it look much worse then it already is

What a load of bolloux, I hope it didn't take you too long to come up with this rubbish.

that's the same AI voice that sends out raunchy morning TikTok videos. To hear it talk about morality made me laugh pretty hard

1:57 they don't point towards intelligent designer. The fact, that you didn't study well enough to come up with other explanation than "magic" (designer, god, whatever) doesn't mean, that such explanation doesn't exist. It just means that you were either too lazy or too ignorant to look for it.

Religion poisons everything. Every single time.

You expect anyone to take an AI voice seriously? Wouldn't bother listening to this garbage that was somehow suggested for me.

Atheism is only the answer to one question: 'Do you believe in god?' Now, then, lets see, what does a PhD in Public Policy & Administration even mean? Well, it seems to be an advanced degree to help give a person an understanding of public policy theory, research, ethics, and practice in a global context. Oh, so you should be good at research, yet this video is not very well researched. "materialism, relativism, social Darwinism and secularism are all part of atheism" Those positions are not held by every atheist. Myself, I reject Social Darwinism, as the beliefs associated with Social Darwinism were discredited during the 20th century, as the increasing knowledge of biological, social, and cultural phenomena does not support its basic tenets. "religious rituals include" and you listed things that again, not every atheist holds to. You do understand there are anti-abortion atheists right? This objective morality rant is nothing more than your personal feelings towards morality, thus proving that morality is subjective. Moral codes clearly do change over time. For one example the torture and burning of possible witches in 17th Century Europe can be seen as either a supreme act of morality or as the product of evil incarnate, depending on one's perspective. Religious moral systems tend to be absolutist and ignore the importance of context and consequences (for example, in certain circumstances, a lie might have better all-round consequences than telling the truth). Morality, in practice, is necessarily a function of social interactions and human communities and, in modern ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse communities, there is no longer a single set of religious principles and traditions which community leaders can unthinkingly rely upon for crafting public laws or standards. The Argument from Values or Moral Absolutes rests on an indefensible premise: that moral absolutes require a god. The very existence of living, breathing atheists who follow moral absolutes seems in itself to negate the claim. Confucius, founder of the ancient atheistic religion of Confucianism, stated his own version of the so-called “Golden Rule” - do not impose on others what you would not choose for yourself - some five centuries before Jesus was teaching a very similar ethical code. Similar formulations are also found in the works of Isocrates, Diogenes Laertius, Epictetus and in the Mahabharata, and it can be argued the Golden Rule is essentially a derivative of the basic principle of reciprocal altruism dating back to our Paleolithic ancestors. Moral absolutes, then, arise not from some divine edict, but from common-sense societal rules established over the millennia to safeguard communities and ensure their efficient continuation. Take a look at Secular Humanism, as it posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently good or evil, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. As a Secular Humanist my morals are simply put: decrease harm, increase well being. Secular Humanism frames morality as not causing unnecessary pain, harm, or suffering; easing or relieving the pain or suffering; comforting those who are vulnerable or weak; working to increase health, happiness, and well-being in our families, communities, and society at large; fighting for fairness and justice; being empathetic and compassionate; being honest, conscientious, and caring; treating people the way in which we ourselves would want to be treated.

Clown

You are fucking idiots for not seeing what a joke of a human being Donald Trump is.

Believers use the same fallacy-ridden arguments day after day and think it makes them philosophers. If they were interested in forming a worthwhile argument, they’d watch debates between atheists and theists instead of playing chess against their own brains and patting themselves on the back for “winning.”

So your degree is irrelevent here. Ok. You say "truth matters", but you just make movie-criticism. Uhhuh. There are no atheistic beliefs regarding abiogenesis and evolution. So you fail with the truth-seeking already. So you say "abiogenesis is the hypthesis that life arose from non-life through natural processes lacks empirical evidence." Well, no, it's not. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life arose from non-life, and how this occures. The scientific field also has plenty of evidences, thank you. So you got the definition wrong, and missed an entire field of science in general. Are you sure you are able to do administration? Well, I quit bothering after just 40 seconds of this.

What's not to believe? I don't accept God claims. That's it.

There is no way this dude has a PhD

this sh*t is 100% AI-generated

(Non)Intelligent Design is yet another LIE. The LIE of Creationism is well known. Now the LYING Creations dress up their LIE in new clothes and label it "Intelligent Design". This LIE has already FAILED IN A COURT OF LAW. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Yet the LYING Creationist will rummage around in the SEWER to find a brainwashed tame academic, who cares nothing for his honour, to LIE for them. These FAKE Christians IGNORE THE 9TH COMMANMENT. CREATIONISTS ARE GOING TO HELL. RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING.

1:56 what evidence???

Worst version of arguments wich Forrest Valkai debunked...

Goddam maybe you should've gotten your phD in math because your logic is completely fucked

AI video: 'Because truth matters i dont believe in abiogenesis due to lack of evidence ' Also AI video: 'the bible is truth because the claim without evidence says so'.

The argument from ignorance does not apply. If I were to say "there is no evidence, and that proves there is no god" I would be committing that fallacy. However if I said "there is no evidence, so I do not yet accept your claim of there being a god", I would not.