just as much 'logic' in various religions as atheism, neither has remote definite proof for how existence has occurred and, especially, consciousness. blindly proclaiming God is responsible is no different than blindly stating that everything came from nothing. the issue in the OP is the preacher's statement was dumb. there are certainly SOME things you can know while not knowing other things
Lmfao, no it’s not the same at all. You clearly don’t understand what atheism believes either.
So there is a universe. You don’t know how it got here.
One person says: I don’t know how we got here. I should look for evidence and data to create hypotheses that we can test against. If new data comes along that challenges the hypotheses, we scrap it and revise our beliefs. We have no reason to believe anything that isn’t based on science, because why would we if the data doesn’t lead to that conclusion.
The other person says: Thousands of years ago people wrote that there’s a magic man in the sky who made all of this. In his infinite wisdom and power, he decided to make people out of nothing maybe 6thousand years ago. BTW he hates gay people but says it’s ok to have slaves if you follow some minor rules. Yea we assert he is responsible for the universe and won’t change our minds if new evidence contradicts this…
These are not even REMOTELY equivalent views. One is simply looking for truth based on evidence, the other is asserting a final truth without evidence and then saying “you can’t disprove what I said, therefore it is an equally valid view!”
If I assert there’s an invisible hippy ghost wearing a “Frankie says relax” t-shirt, and he’s flopping his sweaty ghost nuts on your chin 24/7/365, would you believe me? You can’t disprove it, so therefore by your logic, you should believe me correct? And if you don’t believe me and you think it’s not likely to be true, then by your logic, as you can’t prove a negative we are equally as likely to be correct and there’s a 50/50 that the ghost is splattering his nuts on your chin right now.
See how that false equivilancy works?
Logical people would say “without data, we shouldn’t blindly believe that crazy story, it’s based on nothing and is easily just a made up story. There’s no data to support it. We can’t disprove it, but you can make up any number of untrue things that are not disprovable”
If you follow a man made religion you lack serious critical thought. The reason atheism involves more critical thought than any religion is that it relies on logical reasoning, observation and fact, as opposed to faith and fictional stories.
I personally don’t deny the possibility of a god. No one truly knows anything about reality. That’s why religion involves the least critical thought, it is a declaration that mankind has solved god and the universe, which is stupid stupid stupid.
and it's not so much that there isn't faith in both groups. they just look different. a scientist observed and follows a curiosity due to some form of faith that there may be something there to learn and observe.
a religious person has faith in their being an intrinsic abstract connection between all things and beings.
both follow their curiosity to discover more about what they perceived to be important. whether it's important to themselves, their soul/consciousness, or to society and community. Most importantly, imo, both can show signs of zeal and lose their footing in realty.
This weirdo in the video is an example of this. like bruh 🤣💀 the "how old are you?" got me.
yes sir, you got clapped by a 12 year old asking very basic logical questions elementary logic if you will.
We don’t need faith in the idea that science has something to teach us because it already teaches us new things constantly.
The entire concept of religion requires faith in something that is completely unproven to be true. And deciding that one religion is more reliable than the rest is stupid considering they are all equally faith based.
You might as well make up your own God because that’s what every religion is based on.
This is why i am Agnostic, maybe yes, maybe no, we're not going to find the answer right now, so instead of losing your mind it's best to let people believe what they want.
I can ask ChatGPT to make up a billion religions, and they'll all have equal chance of being the right one as Christianity. Statistically speaking, you can be sure of any one religion being wrong, even if no one can prove anything.
Not to mention all religions are pertty much based on humans, but we have only existed for a short while. This is what our ancestors looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatorius. Yet the creators of the universe made humans? It's obvious all religions are poor man-made explanations that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
We don't know the answer to the universe, but saying "it might as well be this logically incosistent fan-fiction written by a cave man" is not using your brain.
My idea/how I say it is there’s a 0.000000000000000000000001% chance Christianity exactly how Christians believe it is what the afterlife is (I apply the infinite monkeys writing hamlet idea where while it could feel impossible, it’s still possible at an extremely low chance) I apply it to all religions alive or dead though as well (we could wake up in Olympus with Zeus, could be Pagan, see Odin in Valhalla, etc.) so while I personally believe it wouldn’t be Christianity or Jesus in the next life, I won’t be shocked either if it is, more so impressed that someone actually wrote a book perfectly lol (basically I’m agnostic with the belief towards something not as cut throat as nothingness in the afterlife as that sucks ass if it’s true but it’s still a possibility)
This is so dumb. We used to do this to priests all the time at my school. We exploited the fact that they have to answer it right away or look like their religion is false. This type of discussion, if you want it to be accurate, should be between professionals, who have ample time to consider what they know and come to a complete answer.
Examples like this are just people who don’t know fully what they’re talking about vs kids like me who are hating for the love of the game
Listen, I’m against the church as much as anyone, but that’s just wrong. People devote their lives, not just to the faith, but to the study of it. If you’re ever given the chance, do strike up a conversation with a theologist. The way they see and say things can honestly change your views on a lot. It’s so much different when it doesn’t come from your average sunday mass hypocrite, but from someone who has studied their field through highschool, college, and after graduation, and understands it on a fundamentally different level.
In my experience, those folks become SO knowledgeable about their field they forget the immense amounts of knowledge people get in other fields. They get a false confidence about "knowing" things and then flounder when confronted with anything outside of their focus.
Why does this matter? Because history, physical science, and psychology are primary aspects to debating about religion and belief. They also, often, assume that people who do not study their topic are uneducated or uninformed. I can't count the number of times I've heard "if you knew what the [holy book] said" or "if you actually believed in [god/book/religion] you would realize..."
That's a major flaw.
It does NOT take a specialist to dismantle religious claims. I do not need to know everything about Christianity to see that it is a farce, just like I do not need to know everything about Scientology to draw the same conclusion. I have knowledge outside of the religions that help me understand that.
On a final note, it is no coincidence that religions will call my "kind" of knowledge sinful or misguided. Even the most goatee, guitar playing, linen pants wearing youth pastor who claims "knowing stuff is great, being smart is so good" has a dissonance about this because their religion teaches the only truly valuable knowledge comes from their religion.
One can devote themselves all day long to the study of a mythology but it is not a science, it’s a philosophy that anyone can dismiss or disagree with on virtually any basis and no amount of research is going to edge you over a kid who just has their own ideas about the universe. Period.
This guy Hovind got rightfully destroyed and it’s not a stunt or a trick on the kid’s part, it’s just a demonstration of how easy it happens when you’re not dealing with expertise, but feels and doctrine that shifts with the wind. Theologians may know Hebrew texts and some history of their subject but they are going in defenseless against a kid like this who is just employing a minimal amount of critical thought
Also, I could tell you exactly what would happen if that kid went up against a seasoned theologian as you suggest… they’d avoid the question and retreat from trying to defend anything that touches on the tenets of the faith, knowing that most of it is irrational and choosing not to engage with most anything the kid would charge them on. In fact the encounter would not likely ever occur because they often know better than to put themselves in Hovind’s position but beyond that (if they did) they’d still get destroyed the same way.
All said I would point out that Hovind’s exchange here is just a tiny part of the encounter and he’s mostly focused on Young Earth Creationism but sometimes they have to attempt some gaslighting of the crowd first (presuppositional tactics) and all theists do this even if some are just a bit more talented at it. The OECs just tend to avoid it when they can.
Actually you need to try to know enough about the world around you and acknowledge the miracles within yourself to acknowledge that all this creation is made by a creator ✨️ ❤️
And if this life is a test of good and bad there should be a manual that why there are prophets and spiritual books exist. Based on most divine revelations, Death is only the end of your test. That's why there must be a day of judgment, where scores must be settled.
For me I choose Islam, as I was fascinated by Quran and the scientific details it contained.
Do your own research.
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth; the alternation of the night and day; the sailing of the ships in the sea for the benefit of people; the sending down of rain from the sky by Allah, reviving thereby the earth after its death; the spreading of all kinds of creatures therein; the directing of the winds and clouds between the sky and earth – in all these, there are signs for people of understanding.
I think I agree. There is no time to push your beliefs on people. To express your beliefs, defend your faith, and show the true heart of Christ as best you can, sure. But that never looks like forcing people. The crusades, and all other faith based terrorism, proved that you can’t force beliefs on people.
I like this take. I always say, if people see people forcing faith or standing outside of colleges yelling slurs and aren’t being nice in general, they aren’t Christians
This quip was probably guided by a combo of quotes from Ricky Gervais and Stephen Roberts.
It's saying "sure your god exists" the same way any fictional character "exists", but then so does every other god that people have conceived of.
It is ironic because this is usually said to someone in a monotheistic religion, asking them to consider that their god is just as valid as all the others.
If we say objective certainty or empirical certainty, then yeah. But according to the faithful, they themselves are certain since they do believe in it.
Believing something is uncertainty, scientists don't believe in science as they ground their studies in facts. At least that's my thought process, so by your definition they themselves are not certain?
I think you can (and should) be certain about something you believe in, even if you dont have a scientific proof.
Looked up definition of belief:
"Accept that (something) is true, especially without proof."
So from the believer's perspective, what they believe in is true and therefore certain. That's what believing is. It's kind of like this: Belief is being personally certain about something that is objectively not certain.
Edit: Not to say that every believer has a 100% resolve in what they believe in. Because everyone has different circumstances. But at least in theory and as a general principle, I think that's how it should be.
I think we all already have stuff that we believe in even though we dont have a proof or all the facts, even if it's not religious. But yeah, religion can be a different story. I respect your view.
Good reminder, I should also drink up. Thanks and thank you for your time as well :)
That is the dumbest argument for God that I have ever heard. It’s so dumb that it’s probably staged. I can’t imagine anyone being that totally catastrophically stupid
Ask any religious person about the proof for the soundness their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whom ever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. Abu Bakar Muhammad ibn Zakaryyā
Horrible and inaccurate generalization. ANY religious person will start spilling blood because someone asked them a question? Your ignorance is staggering. And it's so ironic because you're talking down to those "dogmatic, bigoted" religious people. Get the f/ck out of here.
as someone who grew up as a muslim in a christian country i had something similar. i asked how do they know they are the right religion and then they said some nonesense and i just asked “wouldn’t christians and other religions use the same argument, that they are “the one true religion?” that sealed it for me
The breaking point for me was the realization that most of what Mormons call modern blessings/miracles can fall under chance. While the chances of some the events may be very low, it's basically a guarantee to happen to someone. The other half of the breaking point was when i finally accepted that i was failing to gaslight myself into thinking there was a god (i was trying to please my family)
Similar situation. I asked my mom this same question about Christianity when I was maybe 10 and she said "You gotta have faith." That answer was not good enough for me even as a child.
I was met with silence, then I got a lot of dirty looks, and my guide plucked me out of the area, and we speed walked away a few blocks away back to our car. A couple of the guys followed us for a bit but turned back eventually.
On the drive back to the hotel, he let me know that I was very likely about to be assaulted or killed.
Believing in anything is irrational. I think what you really mean is, that you are considering religious people to be totally dumb (while trying to make it sound nice or sophisticated.)
The claim, that only rational things and behaviour are good and valuable is however itself just a belief.
Because faith literally asks you to believe without evidence that’s kind of the opposite of critical thinking. A rational thinker questions everything, while religion often tells you not to.
Wrong. Faith is about trust, not blind belief. Blind belief does not make a good Christian or a good follower of any religion for that matter. I can't speak for other religions but Christianity absolutely does not tell you not to question anything. At worst, it tells you to accept that there are things you will not know and may never know
Look, calling it “trust” doesn’t really change the core issue. Faith still means accepting claims without verifiable evidence that’s literally what separates belief from knowledge. History shows that whenever societies leaned more on faith than reason, progress stalled. The Enlightenment, scientific revolution, democracy all of that came from questioning religious authority, not obeying it.
And let’s be honest: most religions throughout history did discourage questioning. The Church silenced Galileo, burned heretics, banned books all in the name of “faith.” Nations that broke free from that mindset advanced faster in science, technology, and human rights. That’s not a coincidence; it’s cause and effect.
Critical thinking built the modern world. Faith might offer comfort, but reason built civilization. You can’t claim to be rational while holding onto beliefs that demand you stop questioning when it gets inconvenien
( I don't even want to waste my time cuz ik religious people are deaf)
It should come as no surprise that I disagree with everything you just said in the first 2 paragraphs. The Church silenced Galileo not because he was a critical thinker but because he very frequently ridiculed the Church, for instance.
All I can really say is science and religion do not oppose each other and anyone who thinks they do are delusional. Science cannot explain where life came from. At least not yet. What we know to be true today may become false tomorrow. Science is about learning and observing the world, studying creation. Religion is about worship and lifestyle. It suggests answers to the questions we don't know, and gives us purpose for something other than to eat, kill, breed and die.
Now we can agree that when people become too religious, things go tits up. That's because people are too focused on looking religious rather than actually practicing their faith, which can be seen in Christianity, and actually Israel. Jesus was persecuted the hardest by the religious establishment. By the same view, when people become areligious, everything goes to hell. I present to you communism. I'd also suggest the French Revolution but that risks a rabbit hole of people saying the French Revolution was the foundation of democracy in the world (which it absolutely was not). When people become too detached from faith, they're far more prone to commit acts of atrocities. Not even out of malice, but because it is human nature.
I would have to disagree with your final paragraph.
There’s countless examples of religion being a cause or catalyst for wars, conflicts and tragedies but the same can’t be said for atheism.
When’s the last time you heard of a terrorist attack in the name of atheism? I can’t think of any and whilst I’m sure atheists do commit terrorist attacked it unlikely to be caused by their atheism.
You bring up communism as an example of atheism causing hell but I don’t think you can attribute the horrific acts committed under Stalin as motivated or permitted by atheism.
The idea that Communist massacres or something similar wouldn’t have happened if they were more religious is shaky at best. We know that similar tragedies happen under religious rule.
Absolute nonsense. There are/were a few semi-obscure Christian philosophers who dodged the question of faith by calling it a deep call to action or something similar, like Paul Tillich in modern times. But that is entirely an attempt to avoid the fact that 100% or Christians believe a higher power will save them and raise them to heaven.
The Bible with its hundreds of thousands of known inconsistencies is the word of a deity, despite the writing not starting until half a century or more after Jesus ever could have existed. Not a single person who wrote, scribed or decided what was in the Bible ever met anybody named Jesus. But of course…magic etc.
Hundreds of successive generations have argued that we’re in the end time and god is coming etc etc, and at this point OP is right to call it irrational at best.
I had a friend once say, for me, nobody exists, everything is a creation of my brain. So the colour that I know as red, may be different than what you know as red. It’s a doozy to think about
Oh there is a term for it?! That’s awesome imma go read up on it.
In my opinion it does follow in a sense, if all is a projection of my brain, then the chances are we have different definitions for what we know to be true. For example, a couple of friends were doing shrooms and one was like I remember the tree moving and dancing and in a way communicating with me, and he points out the tree to the other person and says yoooo do you see what that tree is doing? And he looks and suddenly says wow it’s moving and trying to talk to us. And he said at that moment I had a realization, there is no way in hell that he is saying exactly what I’m seeing since the hallucinations were being generated by his brain; so what I sed above about the colour red isn’t exactly irrelevant either
Red is defined by the 620 - 750 nanometer (nm) wavelength of light; that's a universal, measurable physical fact. Your eye has three types of cones (L, M, S) that convert that specific wavelength into a neural signal. Since your cones and my cones are virtually identical, the signal for 'red' is the same. That's why colorblindness is specific and not arbitrary: it's a defect in those specific cone types.
I think what they were saying, and what I've heard throughout the years is; your red could look different than my red. Your blue could be my green. We call them the same color, and we could never know we see them differently because we refer to them the same. But our unique selves could see colors differently than others, but never know because we all think the color blue is the color blue at the end of the day.
It is because if everything and everyone is just a creation of your own brain, then it follows that other people you perceive don't actually exist, being just a projection of your own creation.
Solipsism is indeed a whole branch of philosophy. A widely discredited one at that, being criticized for reflecting an immature and narcissistic interpretation of reality. Toddlers are naturally solipsistic, but they tend to evolve past it.
I mean considering we’re all making up our own reality the dude’s not far off. “So I don’t know you exist?” Not really, no. Nothing “exists” until it’s observed. The spooky thing about Schrödinger’s cat is that it’s whatever you want it to be which most people cut that part off when discussing it. God is real because they made him real.
I’ll keep this 2D. If they can create God in their own lives and God has the ability to manipulate space time are you suggesting you exist in a separate space time than other people and those manifestations of God wouldn’t affect you?
Not who you asked but, just where the thread took me: a believer, from those who just have faith and live by a certain worldview, all the way to those who believe so strongly that they say they hear the voice of the creator of the universe in their head; from those who host food banks to those who go on killing sprees because the voice told them to; it's pretty common to believe that their version of god controls everything, or at least sees and fairly judges it all. I know generalities aren't great but I believe it's fair to say most religions believe their version of god has a hand in everyone's life, or that you can maybe deny the god access but you'd be lacking something fundamental to life, and of course you'd still be powerless if the god has a plan for you, unless they're a very casual believer.
Anyway, all that to say, of course their manifestations of God affect the world and others around them: Because it influences their actions and reactions. It does motivate people to donate money, time, energy or food. It does motivate people to bomb things, and people.. There's a vast range of human action and interaction, much of which is documented and you could spend your life learning a fraction of what we know about people, the world, the universe, the human mind and condition, and thanks to the time we live in there will be countless incredible discoveries to come. To answer your question more directly;
They can create God in their lives but they can't force anyone else to accept it so the true test of faith is whether you show the same values to people who don't believe the same things, not just about religion. But just because they say that their God can control everything doesn't mean that there's proof. Anything their God can actually do to anyone is through nature, or them, and they're the one held responsible in this lifetime, so I don't know how well claiming god made you do it will work, but otherwise
How do they know their image of god is the same as their preacher? Their teachers, their father, mother, sister, brother, neighbor? Either there is a right answer or everyone is wrong, or the secret options: both, because there could be something intelligent above or spiritual throughout the universe but we're all way off on the specifics, or there's truly infinity time and space and somehow everyone is right, somewhere. The good thing is it doesn't matter who's right, and most people don't mind just believing different things, some people just suck at getting along with other people and they tend to rise to power or at least be vocal.
But based on every piece of actual evidence, we created gods in our image because we're self important, scared animals with the weight and wonders of the world and a deep tradition for shared history through allegorical storytelling and the only creatures on the planet that can turn our imagination into thousands of pages of text while also having language way before modern science
None of this is to bash the actual beliefs; only the notion that any human being who has ever lived, has ever actually, truly, and most certainly not provably been aware of the exact origins of the universe or the actual mechanics of a potential afterlife
That's not how that works. It was meant to be absurd for one, but the idea is it is in both states before observing it. Not whatever your imagination wants it to be.
I just watched a video about the sinking of the battleship Yamato and that big steel tug went down more gracefully and with less burn than this idiot.
And Max just kept dropping napalm bombs on the dude. The kid just told the preacher, using his own logic, that he didn't exist is one fucking epic burn.
This isn’t religion, or at least it’s not supposed to be. I’m not religious myself but I can see a certain someone never had the spiritual experience of asking themselves what if their wrong. No faith thrives in blind adherence.
You can have a belief in something really stupid and degrading. You'd call this blinded by faith and you'd be subjected to your own downfall of whatever that is. The point is to not be so blind to follow faith to the point of being a problem.
1 reason I dont like religion is the more you explain it to someone the more you have to ride on blind faith. Also explanations that need explantions are never a good argument...
Well there is the argument that a rational person believes in god because they lose nothing if they’re wrong and gain everything if they’re right. But that’s not technically about evidence. Lack of evidence is also not evidence of the negative. It’s just a difficult subject.
That man shouldnt be discussing that with children. He doesnt know enough correct information regarding Christianity, and he doesnt represent our religion
Yeah leave the brainwashing to the professionals that represent your religion
And which professionals would that be? Priests, cardinals? The Pope? Cause last time I checked child molesters shouldn't be brainwashing children either
What's he supposed to know before he starts trying to indoctrinate children? Is he supposed to be just a little better at manipulating them into blindly believing in something he wants them too? Is he supposed to study human psychology and debate so he has various strategies to fall back on when manipulating people with his propaganda until they submit to the will that someone manipulated him into believing?
People say that kids nowadays are stupid. I worked for a year with kids. No. They are far more clever than we used to be. I've got a 10 years old quoting the United Nations Right of the Child Treaty as argument as to why he and his friends should be let access to parts of the park that was closed. That's just one example.
i disagree. the question isn't only "does god exist", but also "how does this universe exist". atheism can answer the first question by basic human logic, but the second question has no proven answer. therefore, "we can't know" or agnosticism is more logical
I don't know about that. The Buddhism thing about the way to stop feeling pain is to stop caring about stuff is quite logical. Also, in Buddhism, they kind of tell you to shove the emotions in the incinerator.
I suspect that what you meant is that Atheism is the only faith system that doesn't do superstition, and that would be truer.
Atheism is itself an emotional stance, whether because of an aversion to organized religion and everything that it brings, or because of the need to feel like you have the real answer and are therefore better or more enlightened than others. The only true logical stance is “we don’t know”.
Except, no, they made a half truth by making a generalization of all atheists (it's either aversion to organized religion or the need to feel like you have the real answer) and then saying the real truth, which is "we don't know". It's still an offensive statement. All they had to say was the "we don't know" part and then they would be "entirely correct".
We don’t know if fairies exist either but we’re all perfectly reasonable to assume they don’t, right? Would you honestly say you don’t know if dragons, vampires, werewolves are real or not?
Yes in some philosophical sense we can't know anything with absolute certainty, that is true. But if you always bring that up when talking about god as if it's some kind of deep insight, while never once bringing it up about any other issue in life, you're just being dishonest to yourself
Nah, Ghost is right. "We don't know" is the most logical stance here since we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of deities without defining what even is a deity and then working back up to find eminent examples
Faith isn't about knowing it's about believing and this guy tried to make it opposite and found out why you don't.
I have respect for people who understand the flaws of faith while being religious. But this guy, man...
Yeee Max.
Logic and faith, seldom dance well.
I don’t know anything to be true, but Max is right.
Sit down you failed!
Young Sheldon
Oh no! Don’t use logic against my god!!!🤣🤣🤣
What sounds like a 12 year old just dismantled this adult man’s religious faith.
Atheism requires critical thought that Christians never fully acquire
just as much 'logic' in various religions as atheism, neither has remote definite proof for how existence has occurred and, especially, consciousness. blindly proclaiming God is responsible is no different than blindly stating that everything came from nothing. the issue in the OP is the preacher's statement was dumb. there are certainly SOME things you can know while not knowing other things
Lmfao, no it’s not the same at all. You clearly don’t understand what atheism believes either.
So there is a universe. You don’t know how it got here.
One person says: I don’t know how we got here. I should look for evidence and data to create hypotheses that we can test against. If new data comes along that challenges the hypotheses, we scrap it and revise our beliefs. We have no reason to believe anything that isn’t based on science, because why would we if the data doesn’t lead to that conclusion.
The other person says: Thousands of years ago people wrote that there’s a magic man in the sky who made all of this. In his infinite wisdom and power, he decided to make people out of nothing maybe 6thousand years ago. BTW he hates gay people but says it’s ok to have slaves if you follow some minor rules. Yea we assert he is responsible for the universe and won’t change our minds if new evidence contradicts this…
These are not even REMOTELY equivalent views. One is simply looking for truth based on evidence, the other is asserting a final truth without evidence and then saying “you can’t disprove what I said, therefore it is an equally valid view!”
If I assert there’s an invisible hippy ghost wearing a “Frankie says relax” t-shirt, and he’s flopping his sweaty ghost nuts on your chin 24/7/365, would you believe me? You can’t disprove it, so therefore by your logic, you should believe me correct? And if you don’t believe me and you think it’s not likely to be true, then by your logic, as you can’t prove a negative we are equally as likely to be correct and there’s a 50/50 that the ghost is splattering his nuts on your chin right now.
See how that false equivilancy works?
Logical people would say “without data, we shouldn’t blindly believe that crazy story, it’s based on nothing and is easily just a made up story. There’s no data to support it. We can’t disprove it, but you can make up any number of untrue things that are not disprovable”
If you follow a man made religion you lack serious critical thought. The reason atheism involves more critical thought than any religion is that it relies on logical reasoning, observation and fact, as opposed to faith and fictional stories.
I personally don’t deny the possibility of a god. No one truly knows anything about reality. That’s why religion involves the least critical thought, it is a declaration that mankind has solved god and the universe, which is stupid stupid stupid.
and it's not so much that there isn't faith in both groups. they just look different. a scientist observed and follows a curiosity due to some form of faith that there may be something there to learn and observe.
a religious person has faith in their being an intrinsic abstract connection between all things and beings.
both follow their curiosity to discover more about what they perceived to be important. whether it's important to themselves, their soul/consciousness, or to society and community. Most importantly, imo, both can show signs of zeal and lose their footing in realty.
This weirdo in the video is an example of this. like bruh 🤣💀 the "how old are you?" got me.
yes sir, you got clapped by a 12 year old asking very basic logical questions elementary logic if you will.
We don’t need faith in the idea that science has something to teach us because it already teaches us new things constantly.
The entire concept of religion requires faith in something that is completely unproven to be true. And deciding that one religion is more reliable than the rest is stupid considering they are all equally faith based.
You might as well make up your own God because that’s what every religion is based on.
This is why i am Agnostic, maybe yes, maybe no, we're not going to find the answer right now, so instead of losing your mind it's best to let people believe what they want.
I can ask ChatGPT to make up a billion religions, and they'll all have equal chance of being the right one as Christianity. Statistically speaking, you can be sure of any one religion being wrong, even if no one can prove anything.
Not to mention all religions are pertty much based on humans, but we have only existed for a short while. This is what our ancestors looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatorius. Yet the creators of the universe made humans? It's obvious all religions are poor man-made explanations that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
We don't know the answer to the universe, but saying "it might as well be this logically incosistent fan-fiction written by a cave man" is not using your brain.
My idea/how I say it is there’s a 0.000000000000000000000001% chance Christianity exactly how Christians believe it is what the afterlife is (I apply the infinite monkeys writing hamlet idea where while it could feel impossible, it’s still possible at an extremely low chance) I apply it to all religions alive or dead though as well (we could wake up in Olympus with Zeus, could be Pagan, see Odin in Valhalla, etc.) so while I personally believe it wouldn’t be Christianity or Jesus in the next life, I won’t be shocked either if it is, more so impressed that someone actually wrote a book perfectly lol (basically I’m agnostic with the belief towards something not as cut throat as nothingness in the afterlife as that sucks ass if it’s true but it’s still a possibility)
Room temp IQ
Voltaire said: If they can make you believe absurdities, you can be made to do atrocities.
Circular talk
This is so dumb. We used to do this to priests all the time at my school. We exploited the fact that they have to answer it right away or look like their religion is false. This type of discussion, if you want it to be accurate, should be between professionals, who have ample time to consider what they know and come to a complete answer.
Examples like this are just people who don’t know fully what they’re talking about vs kids like me who are hating for the love of the game
Then why is he, the adult, choosing to hold events like this and take questions?
If your argument can be dismantled in one sentence by children, maybe it's a bad argument.
There is no such thing as a professional religious nut
doesn't professional pretty much only means you get paid for doing the thing?
because I know of several religious nuts who are filthy rich
Listen, I’m against the church as much as anyone, but that’s just wrong. People devote their lives, not just to the faith, but to the study of it. If you’re ever given the chance, do strike up a conversation with a theologist. The way they see and say things can honestly change your views on a lot. It’s so much different when it doesn’t come from your average sunday mass hypocrite, but from someone who has studied their field through highschool, college, and after graduation, and understands it on a fundamentally different level.
A theologist is like one of those wine expert snobs. It's all junk science.
In my experience, those folks become SO knowledgeable about their field they forget the immense amounts of knowledge people get in other fields. They get a false confidence about "knowing" things and then flounder when confronted with anything outside of their focus.
Why does this matter? Because history, physical science, and psychology are primary aspects to debating about religion and belief. They also, often, assume that people who do not study their topic are uneducated or uninformed. I can't count the number of times I've heard "if you knew what the [holy book] said" or "if you actually believed in [god/book/religion] you would realize..."
That's a major flaw.
It does NOT take a specialist to dismantle religious claims. I do not need to know everything about Christianity to see that it is a farce, just like I do not need to know everything about Scientology to draw the same conclusion. I have knowledge outside of the religions that help me understand that.
On a final note, it is no coincidence that religions will call my "kind" of knowledge sinful or misguided. Even the most goatee, guitar playing, linen pants wearing youth pastor who claims "knowing stuff is great, being smart is so good" has a dissonance about this because their religion teaches the only truly valuable knowledge comes from their religion.
One can devote themselves all day long to the study of a mythology but it is not a science, it’s a philosophy that anyone can dismiss or disagree with on virtually any basis and no amount of research is going to edge you over a kid who just has their own ideas about the universe. Period.
This guy Hovind got rightfully destroyed and it’s not a stunt or a trick on the kid’s part, it’s just a demonstration of how easy it happens when you’re not dealing with expertise, but feels and doctrine that shifts with the wind. Theologians may know Hebrew texts and some history of their subject but they are going in defenseless against a kid like this who is just employing a minimal amount of critical thought
Also, I could tell you exactly what would happen if that kid went up against a seasoned theologian as you suggest… they’d avoid the question and retreat from trying to defend anything that touches on the tenets of the faith, knowing that most of it is irrational and choosing not to engage with most anything the kid would charge them on. In fact the encounter would not likely ever occur because they often know better than to put themselves in Hovind’s position but beyond that (if they did) they’d still get destroyed the same way.
All said I would point out that Hovind’s exchange here is just a tiny part of the encounter and he’s mostly focused on Young Earth Creationism but sometimes they have to attempt some gaslighting of the crowd first (presuppositional tactics) and all theists do this even if some are just a bit more talented at it. The OECs just tend to avoid it when they can.
Sunday school hated to see me coming
Straight up menaces putin wide walking into the church, about to disturb the peace for no goddamn reason
I told you who said/wrote it
He sounded so defeated
Actually you need to try to know enough about the world around you and acknowledge the miracles within yourself to acknowledge that all this creation is made by a creator ✨️ ❤️ And if this life is a test of good and bad there should be a manual that why there are prophets and spiritual books exist. Based on most divine revelations, Death is only the end of your test. That's why there must be a day of judgment, where scores must be settled. For me I choose Islam, as I was fascinated by Quran and the scientific details it contained. Do your own research.
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth; the alternation of the night and day; the sailing of the ships in the sea for the benefit of people; the sending down of rain from the sky by Allah, reviving thereby the earth after its death; the spreading of all kinds of creatures therein; the directing of the winds and clouds between the sky and earth – in all these, there are signs for people of understanding.
Holy moly.
My belief is that any religion that involves fanatics like you is a cult.
So you should be arrested for cringe and embarrassing yourself.
As a Christian, I gotta say: wrong place wrong time. You’re not making any sort of positive impact here.
There is no time and place to push beliefs. Ever.
I think I agree. There is no time to push your beliefs on people. To express your beliefs, defend your faith, and show the true heart of Christ as best you can, sure. But that never looks like forcing people. The crusades, and all other faith based terrorism, proved that you can’t force beliefs on people.
I like this take. I always say, if people see people forcing faith or standing outside of colleges yelling slurs and aren’t being nice in general, they aren’t Christians
I can appreciate your candor and respect towards reality.
Them:“god exists!” Me: yes, which God? There’s literally thousands of Gods which exist. Checkmate monotheist!!!
I don’t fallow. The video is about a kid proving that you can’t prove God exists. Are you saying you’ve proven the existence of thousands of gods?
This quip was probably guided by a combo of quotes from Ricky Gervais and Stephen Roberts.
It's saying "sure your god exists" the same way any fictional character "exists", but then so does every other god that people have conceived of.
It is ironic because this is usually said to someone in a monotheistic religion, asking them to consider that their god is just as valid as all the others.
(This isn't AI, just me.)
Yawn ur boring
Weird response to someone who just asked you to explain what you meant because they don’t understand lol
Yawn ur boring too
LOL
Thanks for trying to get uuuuhhhh???
descartes during that 2 pages where he proved god exists. jk yall i dont understand descartes
This felt pretty good watching a 2nd time, ngl.
STUN LOCKED
Mad because I quoted someone from a few centuries ago? Hmmmm
Gosh. You must be a Christian. Getting mad cause I quoted someone from a few centuries ago
As an atheist....Isn't the whole point of faith, is that there is no certainty?
The whole point is you don't know, but God (or Jesus) knows and through prayers it is that they guide you.
Thus, his argument is wrong just going by the basics
For a lot of religious people, no. The point is there is certainty. I have met some of them.
Yes 100%. However there is a lot of performative certainty in many Christian communities.
About god's existence?
I thought that was the point in the word "faith"
If we say objective certainty or empirical certainty, then yeah. But according to the faithful, they themselves are certain since they do believe in it.
Believing something is uncertainty, scientists don't believe in science as they ground their studies in facts. At least that's my thought process, so by your definition they themselves are not certain?
I think you can (and should) be certain about something you believe in, even if you dont have a scientific proof.
Looked up definition of belief: "Accept that (something) is true, especially without proof."
So from the believer's perspective, what they believe in is true and therefore certain. That's what believing is. It's kind of like this: Belief is being personally certain about something that is objectively not certain.
Edit: Not to say that every believer has a 100% resolve in what they believe in. Because everyone has different circumstances. But at least in theory and as a general principle, I think that's how it should be.
I see, I think I need to drink some more water because all of this gave me a headache lol. I do understand tho I reject the premise.
Good talk tho, thank you for your time :)
I think we all already have stuff that we believe in even though we dont have a proof or all the facts, even if it's not religious. But yeah, religion can be a different story. I respect your view.
Good reminder, I should also drink up. Thanks and thank you for your time as well :)
Did I just witness civil discourse on reddit?
Today's gonna be a good day.
As i always said... Religion sucks.
Same, well until last year.
That is the dumbest argument for God that I have ever heard. It’s so dumb that it’s probably staged. I can’t imagine anyone being that totally catastrophically stupid
That’s Eric Hovind, and that’s not even his stupidest argument for god
I would be shocked if you could top something that dumb
Wait till you hear the bs his father spouts.. although admittedly, that's mainly because he's a liar rather than a moron.
It’s not an argument for god
I think you are vastly overestimating how smart the average person is
You gotta think about the dumbest person you personally know, now know that half the people in the world are dumber than that person
And a successful dismount (from the argument), despite ageism.
Ask any religious person about the proof for the soundness their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whom ever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. Abu Bakar Muhammad ibn Zakaryyā
Horrible and inaccurate generalization. ANY religious person will start spilling blood because someone asked them a question? Your ignorance is staggering. And it's so ironic because you're talking down to those "dogmatic, bigoted" religious people. Get the f/ck out of here.
Did you read what was quoted or are you just angry because someone a few centuries ago said something you don’t like about religious people
Should have used quotation marks 🤷♂️
[deleted]
as someone who grew up as a muslim in a christian country i had something similar. i asked how do they know they are the right religion and then they said some nonesense and i just asked “wouldn’t christians and other religions use the same argument, that they are “the one true religion?” that sealed it for me
The breaking point for me was the realization that most of what Mormons call modern blessings/miracles can fall under chance. While the chances of some the events may be very low, it's basically a guarantee to happen to someone. The other half of the breaking point was when i finally accepted that i was failing to gaslight myself into thinking there was a god (i was trying to please my family)
Similar situation. I asked my mom this same question about Christianity when I was maybe 10 and she said "You gotta have faith." That answer was not good enough for me even as a child.
For me it was the fact the bible didn't mention dinosaurs. As a kid who wanted to be a palaeontologist, that's all it took 😅😂
It's good you asked a Christian that. It would've been a much different story if you asked that to a Muslim scholar in a Muslim country.
Ask me how I know.
i did ask a muslim scholar but it was not in a muslim country. why what happened to you
I was met with silence, then I got a lot of dirty looks, and my guide plucked me out of the area, and we speed walked away a few blocks away back to our car. A couple of the guys followed us for a bit but turned back eventually.
On the drive back to the hotel, he let me know that I was very likely about to be assaulted or killed.
Which country was it?
Egypt
Didnthappenstan
Lmao
He's clearly old enough to shut you up.
That kid's question was so good, dude short circuited. Lol
dial up noise
How can you whelp without a lion?
As a Christian, people like this piss me off because they are completely devoid of critical thinking
Cant imagine a rational/critical thinker beliving in "GOD"
Why not?
Believing in religion is inherently irrational.
Believing in anything is irrational. I think what you really mean is, that you are considering religious people to be totally dumb (while trying to make it sound nice or sophisticated.)
The claim, that only rational things and behaviour are good and valuable is however itself just a belief.
Because their whole things were "Trust me bro"
"God know everything"
"How could you know that he know everything, can you prove it?"
"Trust me bro"
Because faith literally asks you to believe without evidence that’s kind of the opposite of critical thinking. A rational thinker questions everything, while religion often tells you not to.
Wrong. Faith is about trust, not blind belief. Blind belief does not make a good Christian or a good follower of any religion for that matter. I can't speak for other religions but Christianity absolutely does not tell you not to question anything. At worst, it tells you to accept that there are things you will not know and may never know
Look, calling it “trust” doesn’t really change the core issue. Faith still means accepting claims without verifiable evidence that’s literally what separates belief from knowledge. History shows that whenever societies leaned more on faith than reason, progress stalled. The Enlightenment, scientific revolution, democracy all of that came from questioning religious authority, not obeying it.
And let’s be honest: most religions throughout history did discourage questioning. The Church silenced Galileo, burned heretics, banned books all in the name of “faith.” Nations that broke free from that mindset advanced faster in science, technology, and human rights. That’s not a coincidence; it’s cause and effect.
Critical thinking built the modern world. Faith might offer comfort, but reason built civilization. You can’t claim to be rational while holding onto beliefs that demand you stop questioning when it gets inconvenien
( I don't even want to waste my time cuz ik religious people are deaf)
It should come as no surprise that I disagree with everything you just said in the first 2 paragraphs. The Church silenced Galileo not because he was a critical thinker but because he very frequently ridiculed the Church, for instance.
All I can really say is science and religion do not oppose each other and anyone who thinks they do are delusional. Science cannot explain where life came from. At least not yet. What we know to be true today may become false tomorrow. Science is about learning and observing the world, studying creation. Religion is about worship and lifestyle. It suggests answers to the questions we don't know, and gives us purpose for something other than to eat, kill, breed and die.
Now we can agree that when people become too religious, things go tits up. That's because people are too focused on looking religious rather than actually practicing their faith, which can be seen in Christianity, and actually Israel. Jesus was persecuted the hardest by the religious establishment. By the same view, when people become areligious, everything goes to hell. I present to you communism. I'd also suggest the French Revolution but that risks a rabbit hole of people saying the French Revolution was the foundation of democracy in the world (which it absolutely was not). When people become too detached from faith, they're far more prone to commit acts of atrocities. Not even out of malice, but because it is human nature.
I would have to disagree with your final paragraph.
There’s countless examples of religion being a cause or catalyst for wars, conflicts and tragedies but the same can’t be said for atheism.
When’s the last time you heard of a terrorist attack in the name of atheism? I can’t think of any and whilst I’m sure atheists do commit terrorist attacked it unlikely to be caused by their atheism.
You bring up communism as an example of atheism causing hell but I don’t think you can attribute the horrific acts committed under Stalin as motivated or permitted by atheism.
The idea that Communist massacres or something similar wouldn’t have happened if they were more religious is shaky at best. We know that similar tragedies happen under religious rule.
Absolute nonsense. There are/were a few semi-obscure Christian philosophers who dodged the question of faith by calling it a deep call to action or something similar, like Paul Tillich in modern times. But that is entirely an attempt to avoid the fact that 100% or Christians believe a higher power will save them and raise them to heaven.
The Bible with its hundreds of thousands of known inconsistencies is the word of a deity, despite the writing not starting until half a century or more after Jesus ever could have existed. Not a single person who wrote, scribed or decided what was in the Bible ever met anybody named Jesus. But of course…magic etc.
Hundreds of successive generations have argued that we’re in the end time and god is coming etc etc, and at this point OP is right to call it irrational at best.
Even the most ardent enemies of Christianity knew that Jesus was alive and existed. Nothing you just said has anything to do with my reply.
[Citation Needed]
Enemies? 😂
And my points are historical and not opinion, so ✌🏼
so you didn't understand anything they said and responded with a baseless claim?
Amen
This clip is one of my favorites lmao
Saul Goodman better start paying child support, that's definitely his kid
Christian logic is like fairy tale bullshit crested by a bunch of different teenagers with boners for violence
Trying to use logic to explain your fairytale often backfires
You can smell the putrefaction oozing out of him
aCTUALLY YES, HE MAY BE A COMPUTER HOLOGRAM OR THE BOY IS IN COMPUTER REALITY...
I LOVE THIS. A kid took down an arrogant manipulator.
I had a friend once say, for me, nobody exists, everything is a creation of my brain. So the colour that I know as red, may be different than what you know as red. It’s a doozy to think about
The first sentence is the definition of solipsism. The second is completely unrelated and doesn't follow at all.
When i saw how far I'd traveled down the solopsistic road; I got out to ask for directions.
Oh there is a term for it?! That’s awesome imma go read up on it.
In my opinion it does follow in a sense, if all is a projection of my brain, then the chances are we have different definitions for what we know to be true. For example, a couple of friends were doing shrooms and one was like I remember the tree moving and dancing and in a way communicating with me, and he points out the tree to the other person and says yoooo do you see what that tree is doing? And he looks and suddenly says wow it’s moving and trying to talk to us. And he said at that moment I had a realization, there is no way in hell that he is saying exactly what I’m seeing since the hallucinations were being generated by his brain; so what I sed above about the colour red isn’t exactly irrelevant either
Red is defined by the 620 - 750 nanometer (nm) wavelength of light; that's a universal, measurable physical fact. Your eye has three types of cones (L, M, S) that convert that specific wavelength into a neural signal. Since your cones and my cones are virtually identical, the signal for 'red' is the same. That's why colorblindness is specific and not arbitrary: it's a defect in those specific cone types.
I think what they were saying, and what I've heard throughout the years is; your red could look different than my red. Your blue could be my green. We call them the same color, and we could never know we see them differently because we refer to them the same. But our unique selves could see colors differently than others, but never know because we all think the color blue is the color blue at the end of the day.
It is because if everything and everyone is just a creation of your own brain, then it follows that other people you perceive don't actually exist, being just a projection of your own creation.
Solipsism is indeed a whole branch of philosophy. A widely discredited one at that, being criticized for reflecting an immature and narcissistic interpretation of reality. Toddlers are naturally solipsistic, but they tend to evolve past it.
It's the ultimate main character syndrome.
Thanks for the free education man! I am certainly not informed about the topic, but enjoy the mental chess :)
That’s a term no one uses anymore these days; solipsism. Good job!
I mean considering we’re all making up our own reality the dude’s not far off. “So I don’t know you exist?” Not really, no. Nothing “exists” until it’s observed. The spooky thing about Schrödinger’s cat is that it’s whatever you want it to be which most people cut that part off when discussing it. God is real because they made him real.
No God can absolutely be a real thing in someone's personal experience but that's not a proof that it would exist outside of their own mind.
It can act like an egregore beyond one's own mind, but similarly that's not a proof that it would exist outside of human consciousness
I’ll keep this 2D. If they can create God in their own lives and God has the ability to manipulate space time are you suggesting you exist in a separate space time than other people and those manifestations of God wouldn’t affect you?
Not who you asked but, just where the thread took me: a believer, from those who just have faith and live by a certain worldview, all the way to those who believe so strongly that they say they hear the voice of the creator of the universe in their head; from those who host food banks to those who go on killing sprees because the voice told them to; it's pretty common to believe that their version of god controls everything, or at least sees and fairly judges it all. I know generalities aren't great but I believe it's fair to say most religions believe their version of god has a hand in everyone's life, or that you can maybe deny the god access but you'd be lacking something fundamental to life, and of course you'd still be powerless if the god has a plan for you, unless they're a very casual believer.
Anyway, all that to say, of course their manifestations of God affect the world and others around them: Because it influences their actions and reactions. It does motivate people to donate money, time, energy or food. It does motivate people to bomb things, and people.. There's a vast range of human action and interaction, much of which is documented and you could spend your life learning a fraction of what we know about people, the world, the universe, the human mind and condition, and thanks to the time we live in there will be countless incredible discoveries to come. To answer your question more directly;
They can create God in their lives but they can't force anyone else to accept it so the true test of faith is whether you show the same values to people who don't believe the same things, not just about religion. But just because they say that their God can control everything doesn't mean that there's proof. Anything their God can actually do to anyone is through nature, or them, and they're the one held responsible in this lifetime, so I don't know how well claiming god made you do it will work, but otherwise
How do they know their image of god is the same as their preacher? Their teachers, their father, mother, sister, brother, neighbor? Either there is a right answer or everyone is wrong, or the secret options: both, because there could be something intelligent above or spiritual throughout the universe but we're all way off on the specifics, or there's truly infinity time and space and somehow everyone is right, somewhere. The good thing is it doesn't matter who's right, and most people don't mind just believing different things, some people just suck at getting along with other people and they tend to rise to power or at least be vocal.
But based on every piece of actual evidence, we created gods in our image because we're self important, scared animals with the weight and wonders of the world and a deep tradition for shared history through allegorical storytelling and the only creatures on the planet that can turn our imagination into thousands of pages of text while also having language way before modern science
None of this is to bash the actual beliefs; only the notion that any human being who has ever lived, has ever actually, truly, and most certainly not provably been aware of the exact origins of the universe or the actual mechanics of a potential afterlife
That's not how that works. It was meant to be absurd for one, but the idea is it is in both states before observing it. Not whatever your imagination wants it to be.
I just watched a video about the sinking of the battleship Yamato and that big steel tug went down more gracefully and with less burn than this idiot.
And Max just kept dropping napalm bombs on the dude. The kid just told the preacher, using his own logic, that he didn't exist is one fucking epic burn.
There's a reason it's called a sermon, and not Q&A.
the average bullshitter can bullshit better than that. this was honestly hilariously disappointing
This isn’t religion, or at least it’s not supposed to be. I’m not religious myself but I can see a certain someone never had the spiritual experience of asking themselves what if their wrong. No faith thrives in blind adherence.
"no faith thrives in blind adherence"
Using that sometime later
Isn't that what beliefs are?
You can have a belief in something really stupid and degrading. You'd call this blinded by faith and you'd be subjected to your own downfall of whatever that is. The point is to not be so blind to follow faith to the point of being a problem.
Okay, thanks
Nitwit.
1 reason I dont like religion is the more you explain it to someone the more you have to ride on blind faith. Also explanations that need explantions are never a good argument...
It's on blind faith in the very beginning. From a secular logical perspective, there's literally zero evidence to back up existence of a deity.
Well there is the argument that a rational person believes in god because they lose nothing if they’re wrong and gain everything if they’re right. But that’s not technically about evidence. Lack of evidence is also not evidence of the negative. It’s just a difficult subject.
Pascal's wager isn't rational.
Then it comes to how do a rational person prove their version of god is the read deal while other versions are false?
Yep, and that's why its beliefs, and why I don't bother arguing them. You can't change a belief, opinions, okay, facts can be argued, but beliefs? No.
Put it like this, to someone who wants to believe in him, you can't prove Santa doesn't exist.
And that's religion.
But I met Santa at the mall
"You can't know anything to be absolutely true" and yet there are many, many people like him who swear 100% that God exists
Well yeah cause God does know everything and he told them that he does exist
MY revelation from god is TRUE, yours ISN'T. Insert a millenium of Muslim-Christian massacres.
How does he know their experience of god isnt part of a simulation?
No wait! I NEED to know how old Max is!
He was 10
That man shouldnt be discussing that with children. He doesnt know enough correct information regarding Christianity, and he doesnt represent our religion
Yeah leave the brainwashing to the professionals that represent your religion
And which professionals would that be? Priests, cardinals? The Pope? Cause last time I checked child molesters shouldn't be brainwashing children either
What's he supposed to know before he starts trying to indoctrinate children? Is he supposed to be just a little better at manipulating them into blindly believing in something he wants them too? Is he supposed to study human psychology and debate so he has various strategies to fall back on when manipulating people with his propaganda until they submit to the will that someone manipulated him into believing?
You should have stopped after the first sentence.
You realize the second one is a sinister admission, right?
It's best to leave the indoctrination and brainwashing to the professionals with more subtlety, right?
Max is quietly removed from the room.
People say that kids nowadays are stupid. I worked for a year with kids. No. They are far more clever than we used to be. I've got a 10 years old quoting the United Nations Right of the Child Treaty as argument as to why he and his friends should be let access to parts of the park that was closed. That's just one example.
I don’t care what others believe, but atheism is the only logical religious stance. All others are emotional religious stances.
i disagree. the question isn't only "does god exist", but also "how does this universe exist". atheism can answer the first question by basic human logic, but the second question has no proven answer. therefore, "we can't know" or agnosticism is more logical
I don't know about that. The Buddhism thing about the way to stop feeling pain is to stop caring about stuff is quite logical. Also, in Buddhism, they kind of tell you to shove the emotions in the incinerator.
I suspect that what you meant is that Atheism is the only faith system that doesn't do superstition, and that would be truer.
Atheism is itself an emotional stance, whether because of an aversion to organized religion and everything that it brings, or because of the need to feel like you have the real answer and are therefore better or more enlightened than others. The only true logical stance is “we don’t know”.
Idk why your downvoted, your entirely correct
Except, no, they made a half truth by making a generalization of all atheists (it's either aversion to organized religion or the need to feel like you have the real answer) and then saying the real truth, which is "we don't know". It's still an offensive statement. All they had to say was the "we don't know" part and then they would be "entirely correct".
🫠
I know Apollo isn't carrying the sun across the sky every day. I hope you agree.
We don’t know if fairies exist either but we’re all perfectly reasonable to assume they don’t, right? Would you honestly say you don’t know if dragons, vampires, werewolves are real or not?
Exactly.
Yes in some philosophical sense we can't know anything with absolute certainty, that is true. But if you always bring that up when talking about god as if it's some kind of deep insight, while never once bringing it up about any other issue in life, you're just being dishonest to yourself
Nah, Ghost is right. "We don't know" is the most logical stance here since we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of deities without defining what even is a deity and then working back up to find eminent examples