Why Do You Atheists Think There Is No God? | The Atheist Experience: Throwback
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use your computer to save on long-distance charges: tiny.cc/calltheshow
► LinkTree: linktr.ee/atheistcommunityofa...
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Find all of our links here: linktr.ee/atheistcommunityofa...
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/theathe...
► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: https:tiny.cc/merchaca
► Become a CZcams member: / @theatheistexperience
► Join our discord:
tiny.cc/acddiscord
Note: We request pronouns as part of the call screening process on our shows, and we display the pronouns our callers provide. If you see a caller with no pronouns indicated, this is because they chose not to provide us with any, and we respect that decision.
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is a 501(c)(3) educational non-profit organization based in Austin, Texas. The Atheist Community of Austin is dedicated to promoting atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the separation of religion and government.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
www.atheist-community.org (The Atheist Community of Austin)
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysegal.com/
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2024 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Watching these throwback clips is always interesting because it's like comparing vintage callers to the modern ones-it's the same old arguments but now with fancier vocabulary thrown into the mix. It's like they upgraded from flip phones to smartphones but kept dialing the same old numbers.
vintage callers only had the "Yellow Pages" book to connect
i prefer these to the current ones, callers and hosts
@@petermeichan3160Really? Hmm. I have a shorter amount of patience listening to the vintage callers than I do with the modern-day callers even though I have gripes with how they deal with those callers as well. I find the old clips super cringe-worthy because the arguments presented are so simplistic that it's frustrating. They would blow through callers because the majority of them had zero debating skills and only called to assert a bunch of shit without wanting to or knowing how to back it up. So, they got dropped much quicker than the callers now. Modern-day callers understand that relying on "because the Bible said so" won't suffice, so they claim to have evidence to engage with the hosts. However, when no evidence materializes (as expected), they either complain about being cut off or find ways to rephrase the same argument to prolong their time on the show. Vintage callers used to present some weak ass arguments or long monologues about "look at the trees," prompting hosts to end the calls swiftly to avoid dealing with close-minded or argumentative individuals. In contrast, modern-day callers and hosts engage in repetitive arguments with the same individuals week after week, enduring lengthy rambles or preachings for 10, 15, and sometimes even 20 minutes. The old show and hosts would have allocated a five-minute window for repeat callers like Yetmas or Jon to present substantive points before moving on to the next caller. I prefer the old approach but with the modern-day callers.
@@petermeichan3160 And . . . ?
It’s always amusing when they ask why DON’T you believe in a god.
Why should anyone believe in magical beings?
Michael, think about why you know there's no Santa Claus and boom, there's your answer.
What Noooooooooooooo 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😕🙁☹️😣😫😩🥺😢😭😭😭😭 when did he die me sooooooooo sad 🤭🤭❤️
@@Sweetie-zf3ss Oh no, hey I was only pretending! I, er, meant to say no Easter Bunny. Slip of the tongue 😇🤗
@@Sweetie-zf3ss Santa didn't die. He still exists... he's just retired to that upstate farm.
That was sad to learn. I'm glad the tooth fairy is real. I still have the dollar she left me as evidence. 😜
@@user-ln1ec9qr5y OK but I'm reporting you for incisor trading.
It’s like asking “what makes you think that there’s no giant cotton candy monster stomping your town into oblivion?”
Don't ask me that question, rather ask why believers think there IS a god.
That's an easy question. It's the same answer as to why did people believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus? Because that were fooled as children. Some people grow up and learn the truth while others do not
We don’t think there is a God, we know there IS a God and he’s awesome.
@@minitzonthesun
How do you know?
@@minitzonthesunif I would have slave from other countries around me, torture my children ethenrly for doing something bad or for not having faith in me, drawn every animal comes near me for the action of my children, knocking to my neighbour door to remain every male how they are superior to their wives and those women are nothing more than propriety and going in gay bars to throw rocks at them until they stop existing, would you think that I'm am an awesome guy too?
I don't think you're going to be able to find too many Hindus to answer that question but who knows.
As far as believing in God evidence shows us that believing in God is an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion.
My problem with atheism well one of my many problems with atheism is the unwillingness to accept God .
For example I don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God but I'm willing to accept it as true. I just haven't heard anybody who claims this is true be able to provide any evidence that can convince me and as I stated before the belief in God is an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion so when I reflect in my own thoughts God is logical and the idea of the origins of Life coming into existence without God is Not.
My question to you is do you believe the origins of Life came into existence without God and if so why do you believe that.
And if you can explain why you believe that if you do believe that I will then provide evidence to why I believe in God and we will see which one is more logical..
If you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God well at least we found some commonality and that would be the fact neither one of us believes the origins of Life came into existence without God.
Why do theists think there’s no fairies?
Besides themselves 😂
well they make do with angels ...
The Bible doesn't mention fairies. Therefore they don't exist. The Bible is the infallible word of God remember. It is very comprehensive, it even includes rules on keeping slaves.
It also doesn't mention kangaroos, even though they remarkably made it from Australia to the Holy Lands to board the ark, I assume, carrying koalas in their pouches.
Do they?
Atheism is a single answer to a single question
The fact that I don't believe in any supernatural clap trap is separate
to not believing in gods.
That's not true atheism is a disbelief which means it's an unwillingness or inability to accept God as true. It doesn't answer a question it's not willing to undertake God .
And atheists believe in the supernatural it depends on the atheist there's some atheists that believe the origins of Life popped into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence rather than God that would be a belief in the supernatural
Some atheists believe that babies can be born with a brain of a different of a different gender in their body. Matter of fact they believe this in faith so much that they will mutilate crossdress and give their children unsafe drugs.
Some atheists also believe their ancestors were sea creatures. I actually remember an atheist laughing because we believe in faith as Christians that Jesus walked on water but then he convinced himself that he believes because of scientific evidence that his ancestors were lizards that walked on water. That atheist doesn't understand he believes this in faith and that it's a belief in the supernatural. Of course if this was proven true it would no longer be considered supernatural
The belief in God and the belief the origins of Life came into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence rather than God are both considered beliefs in the supernatural but only one is actually supernatural it just hasn't been proven by the scientific method which one is supernatural and which one isn't.
@@MeTooAshleyBiden.Rubbish
@@joshsheridan9511 thank you for expressing your feewings but do you think you could be a little more specific. Tell me precisely what you believe is rubbish in my argument
@@MeTooAshleyBiden. nope.
@@MeTooAshleyBiden.
Please continue to equate atheism with every bigoted thought you have for everyone’s amusement.
The only book I've read that claims there is a god also claims that talking snakes and beasts with seven heads are real. 🤣
And don't forget the boat that managed to fit two of every species of animal on Earth onto it! 😂
It also says God is a very stupid monster
15 years ago, and still no fresh arguments? All religions and gods are man made, in our own image, specifically by men.
During COVID they declared they had an immune system created by God.
15 years? These foolish arguments have existed since the first priest tried to drum up some suckers for his congregation. Some of the oldest books in literature are debunking and lampooning religion.
Exactly.
It's kinda like ghosts or Bigfoot. When you have no new evidence in decades or centuries then the concept is unlikely to have any validation.
It's kinda like ghosts or Bigfoot. When you have no new evidence in decades or centuries then the concept is unlikely to have any validation.
As Ricky Gervais said:"the word Atheist wouldn't need to exist if people would go around inventing crazy deities " (sorry if i misquote slightly)
Is it didn't or wouldn't go around?
I use Atheist, everybody understands that I don't believe in the supernatural and transcendental.
Because I'm not a caveman.
"Why do you think there is no God?"
- I don't. I have no evidence that there is no god, and I have no evidence for any god. I don't think there is "no god" I don't believe there is a god.
"Why don't you believe in God?"
- Which god?
"God. The God of the Bible. Why don't you believe in the God of the Bible?"
- Same reason you don't believe in any of the Aztec gods?"
"....errrr...."
Without faith it is impossible to please God/Jesus Christ. One must be born again, born of the Spirit (Holy Spirit), born from above. read the gospel of John chapter three if honestly want to know the truth. One cannot know the truth if he or she rejects the truth. Jesus Christ is the truth, the way and the life no one will escape hell accept by grace through faith in the blood Christ shed and the finished work that Christ completed on the cross. The Pharisees were the most religious men on the planet in Christ's day and Christ Jesus told them their father was the devil because they didn't accept the truth even though the truth was standing right in front of them.
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
The same reason he doesn't believe in every god ever claimed apart from one.
Indeed, it's entirely possible to be an atheist without using rationality to get there. I'm personally rational, but that trait isn't required.
Dear Theists
I'm thinking of a number. If you correctly tell me the exact number, I'll convert on the spot. I'd wish you luck, but since your deity is helping you you don't need it... right.....
42. Final answer 🤞
@@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr😂😂
@@jonclark8252 69?
@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr well that is one of my top.... and bottom.... favorite numbers....hehehe...
Theists are still normal humans with no superpowers. You can ask this question to any prophet/cult leaders, but it doesn’t make sense to ask the average theists to do that
Buddhism and Jainism are known as atheistic religions. Just like an atheist does not believe in god but could very well believe in astrology, so too can a Buddhist not believe in god but believe in reincarnation and other stuff.
Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation. That is a fallacy perpetuated by people who don't understand what the Buddha taught.
Proof would be nice
Why do you think that you need a God? What purpose do you think he serves in your life? Are you that incapable of rational thought? Do you need to be ruled over by someone you can never see, never hear and never feel?
Pathetic.
Those apologists who think that individuals cannot have a moral code without God - I'm happy for them to have God. I mean, I don't go raping, killing and stealing because I know it's wrong - not because I fear some cosmic watchdog. But for those people out there for who the only reason they don't go raping, killing and stealing is because of their faith in God - then please, for the good of humanity - stick with it.
The idea that a transcendental, all-powerful being beyond human comprehension requires absolute obedience and worship is so silly to me. What could a being like that possibly obtain from worship? Why am I, a mere mortal, expected to cater to and supply a god's ego?
_Why do you think there’s no god_ ?
1) It’s a presumption based on an assumption
2) It’s based on the unsubstantiated premise that there was at some point nothing which in order achieve something the god hypothesis somehow was needed to solve it. If there was indeed nothing then there was no god if there was something and it is presumed to be a god that negates the nothing claim and replaces with a something claim that is then _presumed_ to be god.
3) God isn’t demonstrated it is simply asserted
4) The asserted god is fundamentally claimed through a litany of fallacies including special pleading, incredulity, circular reasoning, and arguments from ignorance being some of the more common flaws in the presentation.
5) God is a human construct who’s attributes and characteristics are dependent not only on the latitude and longitude of those making the assertion it also dependent on the culture at that location and each individual making the claim. Ex. God is all loving-god is vengeful-god is omnipotent-god is limited by logically possible, god is apparently inconsistent and incoherent.
I have less poignant reasons based around the Bible’s construction and the claims within but those pertain more to a specific god.
I think there is no God because I think there are no miracles.
When asked, I first refer to myself as a humanist. That is what is important to me. I don't care if people have any superstitions or not if they have humanist values. There is indeed a lot about Christianity that makes it incompatible with humanism. This is unfortunate since there are so many of them.
I don't think there's "no gods, " although I don't have justification to believe in any gods so I don't believe in gods.
However, I believe we do have sufficient justification to believe the Abrahamic God does not exist, from archaeology and textual criticism that shows the concept evolved and is actually a conflation of more than one God going back to at least the Canaanite pantheon.
The Abrahamic God is actually a logical impossibility, quite apart from being a conceptual absurdity.
@@qwadratixIf that’s a reference to the omnipotence contradiction, most believers these days would say “omnipotence” does stop at logical impossibilities. Or if you don’t mean that, what did you mean?
@@Leith_CrowtherIt isn't just that the most extreme notion of omnipotence is incoherent. Even if we limit it to all that is logically possible (which would mean that God is limited by the rules of logic), the omnipotence is not consistent with the alleged omnibenevolence , for example.
@@Leith_Crowther They may make that claim, but declaring your argument immune to logic isn't much of a 'gotcha' IMO.
I am a biological machine and I will return to bilological substance.
Maybe an evolved heat engine 😂
@@geoffcrumblin9850 When I am dead I will not give off any heat. And when you you are dead you will not give off any heat in your evolved machine.
The term atheist is from 1674. Ask the caller why do we call the color red red? He has no point.
Go to any of those weird local market or festivals, always a fair amount of people ( although often very dominated by middle age women😏) selling crystals, dream catchers, fairy things, fake healing stuff....they believe all sorts of irrational crap & magical beings...but nothing that could be defined as a “god”
Religion is fear based voodoo
Jeff is being very transparent in this episode lol
For the same reason that I think Superman doesn't exist.
But, but... Superman exists. I read a book about Superman.
There might be more evidence to support the superman claim...
If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence
As a life long atheist, this is a complete load of baseless assertion pulled right out of your arse...
"You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts."
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
- Bertrand Russell
A ‘complete load’???
It’s one quote in the name of the one nobody should believe in!
Are you in that special time of the month or did your wife turned you down yesterday? :)
I use the word "nullifidian" to describe my stance on religion. It means "one who has no religious creed."
Simple, because I've never seen any Gods 😎
Have you looked down the back of the sofa? 🕵♂
God. Annual hide-and-go-seek winner, 10,000 BCE to 2024.
Bright” does not seem very bright!
He means, "Why do you think there are no gods." The answer is: "No."
This is such a bullsh*t call. Essentially, the implication is, "I don't like that you call yourself an atheist, therefore your position is invalid.'
What difference does it make what word we use to describe our position? If I identify myself as an atheist, it should be immediately clear to everyone within earshot that I don't believe in gods. If you're going to quibble about vocabulary, then you're clearly not interested in a productive discussion.
Atheism isn't a philosophy. Atheism means one thing only. Trying to add in all kinds of other things is no longer atheism. How can people not understand that?
Because their theism tells them what to think, and they simply can't understand that atheism, doesn't do this also.
@@vertigo4236 Except this guy wasn't a theist. He was just tone policing.
He just wanted to have a semantic discussion. It’s a relevant subject because not all people use “atheism” in the same sense. For many it means holding the position that there is no god, whilst for others it means not accepting the proposition. Etymologically, both usages of the word can be accepted, but because they are two different meanings, yes, it’s a discussion worth having. One possible and accepted resolution for the ambiguity is qualifying the word “atheism” with “hard” or “soft”. It’s a patch but it works.
Buddhism doesn't seem to care if there is a God or not.
What is *a* "bright"? Not familiar with that term, and a definition lookup just returns the usual definition of "bright" - dealing either with luminance, or intelligence. (?)
Philosophical movement found by Chicago-born atheist activist Paul Geisert in 2003. They advocate for naturalism, materialism, and empiricism and most are atheists. Some may be other types of nontheists or deists or pantheists. I think the label didn't really take off because it came across as condescending and seemed to imply that "brights" were brighter than everyone else.
Changed deeply felt love to word God and now many pple talking,… feeling no love
Why it is completely obvious that ALL gods are imaginary... Irrefutable.
One two part question for people with superstitious religious beliefs.
(A) If someone told you (or you read in a book) that the sun used matches and candles to spread light and heat at night.
Would it be obvious to you, how self evidently illogical, irrational, unreasonable and nonsensical this idea was? (Would you understand why)?
(B) If someone told you (or you read in a book) that something capable of creating a universe and everything in it, used puny humans and books to spread accurate information.
Would it be obvious to you, how self evidently illogical, irrational, unreasonable and nonsensical this idea was? (Would you understand why)?
All gods are imaginary. No people = No imagined gods.
Why don't you believe in unicorns?
Isn't this one more about what atheists should be called? I don't even think the caller asked why
You're the only person using your brain in this comment section
Buddhism is a rather broad gamut, as it accepts theism and atheism. One can be a Buddhist and Christian, Buddhist and Muslim, or Buddhist and Hindu, for example. So, they are a gray-area. Buddhism is really more a philosophy than religion, but has religious overtones, as well. Buddhism believes in a divinity of Buddha, not just his supreme enlightenment. So, while they may not believe in a god, they believe in a divine spirit. SO, perhaps if we interpret atheism strictly as not believing in any gods, I guess Buddhism is atheistic, but as they still believe in all the other trappings of religions- spirit, afterlife, a system of post life reward and punishment, etc., then I do not see them as truly atheistic in a broader sense. I call myself atheist as I do not believe in any gods, nor the trappings of religion, whether a god or not.
Ill believe in god when given good reason. Ive never heard anything but arguements from ignorance or personal experience. We dont know how something works, therefore god.
It always amuses me that the word 'atheist' shouldn't really need to exist anyway.
I know it's perhaps useful to determine terminology, to make it all neat with a 'label' and to categorize, etc, but if I dont believe in leprechauns, am I an aleprechaunist?
No.
So why is there a need to label us as that?
I have no issue with it per se and I'm proud to be one, but it just seems unnecessary when put in that context.
But, hey ho.
Outside the threads I never refer to myself as an atheist
@@joshsheridan9511 Don't you have to refer yourself as an atheist when you attend the weekly hedonistic bacchanal of sex, drugs, and rock and roll? They give you a discount on the membership fee when you declare that you are an atheist.
@@quecee Yes, I look forward to that hedonistic bacchanal of sex, drugs, and rock and roll every week. My local PTA sure knows how to hold a meeting.
I rather ask, How was God watching the most horrific terrific happenings like in Rome Coliseum, Dark Ages, Slavery days, Holocaust and Hiroshima during WW2? How can someone that claims I am Almighty and Love just was watching those😢and why couldn’t any of his angels if have heart tell their God “let me go down and rescue people in danger!” BUT allowed them to go down and marry beautiful women according to Genesis😅
Today people are waking up to falsehood of religion.
I see no reason for their to be one. there's no real evidence for there to be one. there doesnt need to be one. i dont see anything that suggests to me that god is any different than any other fictional being
uh, what? haha. lol. i'm a firm believer that chatGPT needs to be ported to all keyboards and comment sections to avoid grammar nonsense. i hate my phone's auto correct and auto suggestion features. i have automatic autocorrect disabled, i still see the suggestions, but they're infuriatingly stupid. chatgpt told me some AI alternatives for my phone,but they're not in the Google Play store, so you have to nerd out to install them...
@@jimmythebold589 that is one weird spambot
A better question for theists to ask atheists would be: do you dare to play "atheism"-roulette? What it is? It's simple: It's basically spin the bottle, but you stand in a ring with ten theists, in a church during service, and who ever the bottle-neck points at must scream "I denounce god!" (if theist) or "Ok, god is real!" (if atheist) three times and group message ALL their family, friends and acquaintances on their phone as they do.
Cute peer pressure power fantasy.
Dont quit your day job.
Do I get anything for playing this game?
Saying god exists doesn't magically make it exist
So your post is bizarre
I think it's better theists would ask that themselves or other theists.
Who do you think will run into more problems playing this peer pressure game?
I am sure the theist will run into problems the most by far.
What would be the point of this, other than to make the participants feel uncomfortable? Pressurising people into saying things they don't believe proves nothing.
Who gave people the right to call certain religions miths
Umm, lack of evidence.
As I understand it Hindu's believe in several Gods and therefore are not atheist. Oops, he did say Buhddist's, not Muslim. My bad.
Yes they are. Everyone is an atheist of some stripe or another. In fact, it would be impossible to believe in every god that's ever been proposed. Believing in one god doesn't make you a theist with regard to another.
although there are fundamentalist hindus, i think it's a cool religion, i've read both the upanishads and the bhagavad gita. they are much better reads than the bible, and definitely more enlightened, and not so much evil shit. i just found a copy of the quran and have been reading it, and am surprised by the quality of writing compared to the bible, it seems very authoritative and a wee bit more enlightened than the bible. of course that's relatively, since there's no enlightenment in believing in gods, i'm just being comparative. some buddhists mention 'deities' but they're projections of the human psyche, and i think that's cooler than thinking god is a man behind a curtain running things. i like zen buddhism, which has zero concern for gods, the supernatural and even ponderous philosophy. it's simplicity and 'be here now' at its core, although i disagree with any forced discipline like sitting in those painful postures...
@@jimmythebold589 I think much of Zen 'teaching' is an attempt to break the disciple's acceptance of external authority. The very opposite of Christian teachings of course.
Starts out (Pan)tone trolling.
Then figures "atheist" doesnt fit, since show is "anti-religion".
Then suggests branding suicide.
When the Atheist Experience was good, before they went woke.
Railians!? 😂 i had no idea that's what i am.. 🎉
Raelians..you might want to research them a little before claiming that title.
@poiujnbvcxdswq aliens are more likely than any stupid "book god" we have, they also make more sense.
Maybe people should do more research about relijjy before claiming to be Christian ✝️...know your book supports slavery b4 going to church
@@mobilegamersunitealiens did it makes no more sense than god did it
Both rely on unproven assumptions
God is an atheist.. yeah? c'mon, let's be real, it's a word or words which best define our rational reality .
Jesus Christ is God and what a beautiful God he is.
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
No I don't think there is any gods I know there's no gods
You can prove a negative? That's amazing. I don't believe in a god, but I can't prove it.
@@GoodBrotherGrimm thats the thing, you dont neeed to prove theres no god!!
@@lincthomas7178 When you make a claim, you have the burden of proof. "I don't believe in a god" is not a claim. "There is no god" is. So yes, you do.
@@GoodBrotherGrimm I DIDNT MAKE THAT CLAIM THO, I SAID THERES NO GOD, I DIDNT SAY I DIDNT BELIEVE IN A GOD, THATS THE DIFFERENCE, I MADE A TOTALISTIC STATEMENT!!
@@lincthomas7178 Reread my comment. You've misunderstood.
It is interesting that Jeffro thinks that "seeding life on earth " is nonsense. Yet the dude who first identified DNA (Crick) believed that directed panspermia was how it happened. I guess Crick was not rational?
To be clear, did Crick believe that, or did he just hypothesize it? If he didn’t believe it, that makes sense because you don’t believe hypotheses until you try to prove them wrong and fail. Or if he did believe it, then he was not being rational in that respect.
To believe something doesn't mean that something is true. That's repeated every show.
He didn't say the concept is nonsense, he said the claims as made by the Raëlians is nonsense. Those are two very different things.
Raëlians claim "this is what happened" and that IS nonsense. Jeff wasn't making any comment on whether or not it's possible or actually happened, he's pointing out that believing it happened based on the claim is unjustified, is "nonsense."
Do you see the difference? Perhaps his language wasn't as precise as you would prefer.
The claim of directed panspermia is currently unfalsifiable just as panspermia itself is but that has nothing to do with Crick's opinion or it's "rationality."
Crick didn't "identify" DNA. DNA was known at the time of Watson and Crick's work as the substance that allowed inheritance of genetic information. Watson and Crick, using Rosalind Frank's X-ray crystallography (for which she didn't get recognized during her lifetime), proposed a double helix STRUCTURE of the DNA.
@@Leith_Crowther Crick hypothesized for directed panspermia. But I'm pretty sure that he believed in it. He believed in it enough to publicly offer the hypothesis. It's a hypothesis because there wasn't data that directly supported it, but that doesn't mean that Crick didn't believe in it or that he was irrational in believing it.
So is this like the end of the organization since you’re not putting out new content anymore?
What a bizarre thing to say. They've put up seven new videos in the last week.
They put out clips from the live show nearly everyday
I take it you're not a subsciber?
@@Hampton_Doubleday_Jrit's probably wishful thinking on OP's part
@@joshsheridan9511 Well, he'll be devastated to know that another new one's just gone up 😆
They pretty much alternate between old calls and recent ones
Because they hate the thought of being accountable to their Creator.
But answer they will, whether they like it or not.
Nope, there is no creator. We don't share your delusion
@@UnderTheKoscheii
Whether you like it or not.
@@deniss2623 yes, whether I like it or not there is no creator
@@UnderTheKoscheii
No escape.
@@deniss2623 I know. We're all going to die and that will be the end
Repent and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. Become a new person in this life........ John 3:16 KJV For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Matthew 4:17 KJV From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
"Repent and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation"
No
For God so "loved" the World that...
1 Thessalonians 5: 1-4
Deuteronomy 23: 1-2
Ephesians 6: 5
Exodus 12: 29
Exodus 21: 7
Genesis 6: 17
Luke 14: 26
Matthew 10: 34-36
Numbers 4: 27
Numbers 31: 1-54
Psalms 137: 9
Titus 2: 9
⚠🚨👎
You can't even format your text, what makes you "think", I take life advice from a random nutter?
Reported for spam.
quoting from a book written by humans over eons (who probably had agendas and less knowledge than most of people in today's world) ... means a b s o l u t e l y ... n o t h i n g. Nothing at all because it has been suggested many times to have lies and contradictions intermingled with really nasty situations ... slavery etc.
You want to just make a claim that Jesus is "salvation" without providing any evidence. And what is the salvation that your Jesus is promising? That there's a god that will, by default simply for being born a human, send all of us to an eternal torment. But whether you've committed no other sin (than that of being born) or a horrendous genocide, you can go to heaven, just as long as you "repent and believe".
What if I said that you should repent and believe in Baal, the storm god from the Babylonian pantheon which was used as a template for one of the various personas of god in the old testament? It is older than the YHWH of the old testament. Will you accept Baal?
If theism is a belief in a God/Goddess/Pantheon of Gods/Goddesses then anything that does not believe in any of those is by definition atheism, it's a pretty simple concept and though the caller was being calm and rational about his question, I don't believe he understood either his own question, or the answers the boys were giving him.
It's a pretty basic if/then concept
The caller seems to have trouble with categories.
There should not be a word Atheist, you don't have a special word for people that don't believe in fairies do you, same thing.
Buddhists don't believe in an afterlife, it was never part of the Buddha's teachings.
There is a teaching of anatta or no self. No self to live on in an afterlife. However, nothing ever really dies, it merely changes into it raw elements and away it all goes again.
WE Atheists do NOT believe in any gods because we are smarter than any mindless believers. We use Logic, Common sense, and critical thinking. 3 things Believers have that dumb believers do not.------Question Answered. Going through life STUPID is tougher.