Atheist's Most Feared Question....

[Saturnine Pariah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFg5tQkrMFo&feature=related
Scrolling through the interwebs when I found this by accident. He does make good points however I fear that because of his religious belief that they may be biased. As for calling atheism a belief that’s just :facepalm:
Post your thoughts. Try looking at the response video to the original video. The person in the video is rational to an extent (an extreme extent)

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

However the person in the video should brush up on the burden of proof system of investigation, (sigh) if only i could share this with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

 

[rpenner]

The video is rubbish

@ 0:51-0:59
"And yes Atheism is, in fact, a faith. Any belief, even a belief that there is not a God, requires faith."

This is not supported by scripture which says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) and thus faith does not speak to people who do not believe in things without evidence other than faith.

Logically, the belief that something that you are told is not so requires a lack of faith in the veracity of the speaker. That is if faith promotes belief, then lack of belief is evidence of lack of faith. And so biblically and logically this soundbite dissolves into mendacious goo upon examination.

@ 1:05-1:11 "Atheists of the world: What is the proof and evidence behind that belief that you have."

Again -- Atheists support the null hypothesis, H0 -- that the claims of today's god-botherers are essentially unreliable.

1) There is more than one sect of Christianity and more than one religion and more than one narrative in the Bible. Parsimony explains this best by "people making up stuff as they go along." Whole wars were fought between "believers" because neither side could make a convincing argument for their position, so they tried to used violence because the story their daddies told them about God wasn't the same story those other boys were told by their daddies.

2) Neither prayer nor blasphemy works as a way of getting you noticed by God. No preacher-man lives past 200; No amputee gets his original limbs regrown; No rocks fall from the sky targeting George Carlin.

3) At every turn things claimed to be the exclusive domain of God have been researched and no intervention or evidence of God is found.

If H1 were true -- i.e. The Christian God exists, occasionally intervenes, personally created the universe and everything in it, cares about humans -- no of this evidence makes sense. Therefore H1 is rejected on the evidence, and H0 is provisionally accepted as the best state of knowledge. That's a bit different from the sense of the word "belief" used by the video maker who is apparently very arrogant in his support of the stories his daddy told him.

And as Christopher Hitchens wrote back in 2003, “Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Good post, the only logical, rational subject he brought up was equal burden of proof displacement. However I cannot take him seriously, he seems to be more of an apologist or another completely different sect of Christianity. Still though at least he is more respectful, polite and well meaning (on the surface) towards atheists than other theist i've meet.

 

[Balerion]

He's obviously wrong that atheism is a faith, but I do agree that it's a bit of a cop-out to bring up the burden of proof argument when asked why one doesn't believe. I don't imagine many atheists come to this conclusion simply from an absence of evidence, so there should be no need, at least when in casual conversation, to invoke the burden dictum.

Speaking of Hitchens, it was in the aftermath of the whole Nazi-apologist/Holocaust denial business that I stumbled across his video on the freedom of expression and was reminded why it's important to maintain such freedom even when doing nothing more than exchanging ideas. It's important that we explore why we believe what we believe, and not to fall back on consensus. This applies to the question of why we are atheists. Yes, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, and extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, but we're not atheists just because of this. Or at least I'm not. We can discuss the patchwork nature of Judaism and Christianity, and the plagiarism that is Islam; we can talk about the contradictions within the texts, or how those texts really are just among the most recent faiths, and for thousands of years of human existence didn't exist. There is mounds of evidence against the legitimacy of any religion, and plenty of reason to believe that godhood itself is nothing more than a human invention, and from that it can be inferred that there's no reason at all to even entertain the idea that a god could possibly exist at all, let alone any particular god.

It's an important conversation. Atheists should jump at the opportunity to have it.

 

[SciWriter]

Beliefs in negatives relegated to invisibles really have no place to go, so the believers try to 'bolster' them by layering even more imaginary and ceremonial structures upon—ever doomed from the start to be a falling house of cards that doesn't even have any cards to begin with.

 

[Sarkus]

The guy in the original video also glosses over, conveniently for him I guess, the whole issue of evidence... brushing it aside with a case of "well, there is evidence and if you don't accept it that's your perogative" (or words to that effect).
The issue he avoids is the rationality of that evidence, and how "evidence for..." is influenced by what one wants it to prove: if one wants there to be a God (i.e. if one believes) then one is more likely to see the evidence as supporting that belief... and thus ignore further analysis of what exactly it is.

E.g. they may already believe that God created life... so to them the existence of life might be seen as evidence of God's existence... since they believe that God created life.
i.e. there may well be circular reasoning behind their acceptance of such evidence.

Overall it was a fairly lame video.
Was expecting more, to be honest.
Anyhoo - it's certainly not the question male atheists fear most... which must be "Does my bum look big in this?"

 

[Jeeves]

I haven't been able to watch this video because of slow connection, so i'll just make some general observation on its ilk.

I object to the title. Why, when theists take atheists to task for not believing whatever they themselves believe, do they assume that we fear any question?
First, i repudiate anyone's claim to a right to ask why i believe or don't believe any particular narrative.
Second, their presumption in asking does not oblige me to answer; my refusal to answer conveys no information; if they nevertheless leap to a conclusion, it's none of my doing.
Third, if i do consent to answer, i'm not obliged to do so on their terms, in their frames of reference, or according to their criteria.
Fourth, i speak only for myself, not for all atheists; extrapolating it to an inclusive "belief system" is meaningless.
Fifth, their not liking my answer, my exasperation with their assumptions or my exiting a circular debate, does not necessarily represent the atheist attitude.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Was expecting more, to be honest.
Anyhoo - it's certainly not the question male atheists fear most... which must be "Does my bum look big in this?"

High expectations often lead to dissapointment...But in comparison to other videos (most of which are far more stupid) this was the best of a bad batch (the apologist videos rarely address anything substantial) I simply found this one to be at least deserving of some attention. I apologize if anyone of you were dissatisfied with the video. Nevertheless most theist videos or any subject around apologitics will most often lead to dissapointment for the eager atheist to debate.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

To Jeeves, always display that the burden of proof lies with the individual proclaiming the "fact" a commen misconception is that the skeptic has to be able to provide evidence to support their skepticism, however if you can refute or destroy the "evidence" or argument of your opponet then they have no argument to debate with leaving you free not having to bring up your evidence or continue to debate them. This is simplifed version of a lesson that i learned from this video here, it has done me great wonders in debates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

 

[SciWriter]

If believers have no facts, that stands against their proclamations, which gives them something to think about. If nothing becomes of this, and you want to discuss, then go down to philosophy and logic, which will give them more pause, then onto mere belief (faith). Then take imagination, which is know to not have to correspond with an actual. Still nothing to go by, so ask about personal opinions and views. Out of this may come that they just like the idea, as maybe a comfort, which shows nothing, or that they feel 'God' as a sensation, which is at last something of science about how sensations and feeling are caused, which are of the substrate of the states beneath the felt state of being, etc.

At the end of the encounter, having examined all aspects, even allowing downgrades from confirmation, nothing is shown for even the necessity of 'God', much less showing 'God'.

Expect that the believer may still believe, for strong emotions have a direct pathway into consciousness, overwhelming and/or bypassing the rational. Put a note in your head to bypass such a person in the future, but there is always hope for the fence sitters and the new generation. Most of the believers will go away by dying out, or at least flat out statements will become less, but, of course, not entirely, for who would like to "There might not be a God, but we believe" instead of "There is a God and He does such and such…".

 

[Jeeves]

To Jeeves, always display that the burden of proof lies with the individual proclaiming the "fact"

We don't need to get as far as proofs. I dispute their right to ask me anything at all about my beliefs.
I don't go around challenging theists about their beliefs, because these questions are intrusive, inappropriate and just plain bloody rude.

If one does ask a question such as "Do you believe in a god?", any reply, including, "Yes", "No," "Maybe" "None of your business" and "Get lost" is that much more than the questioner is entitled to; any reply is correct and unimpeachable.

 

[Michael]

Which is why we would typically state agnostic atheist and agnostic theist. Although I object to the very word Atheist as it seems to suggest against-theist. Theist are Atheists - they're non-believers in all sorts of gods and goddesses and intergallactic overlords. Its simply lacking a belief in things there is no GOOD evidence of. Atheism is therefor the default and as such maybe rationalism should be used and then theists should be renamed Arationalists.

 

[Rhaedas]

We don't need to get as far as proofs. I dispute their right to ask me anything at all about my beliefs.
I don't go around challenging theists about their beliefs, because these questions are intrusive, inappropriate and just plain bloody rude.

If one does ask a question such as "Do you believe in a god?", any reply, including, "Yes", "No," "Maybe" "None of your business" and "Get lost" is that much more than the questioner is entitled to; any reply is correct and unimpeachable.

I understand your point, and I do agree that if you don't want to go farther than a simple answer, it's rude to push further. However, what I find more rude is the assumption of belief in their god and system. And then the shock if they uncover that you don't believe the same. Sometimes it might be plain ignorance of other ways to think, but often it's disregard for anything but their way.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Nothing like a fundamentalist, the epitome of irrationality, pretending to entertain logic and proof. All dressed up in youthful assertive ambition.

Ok, here's proof:

Define "reality" as the set of all things that exist. Magic does not exist. God is defined as magical. Therefore God does not exist.

(Note: the guy, jumping around on the screen, is simulating ancient magic. Today we know better.)

Better is to prove that fundamentalism is a hoax:

Define antiquity as the era of superstition at the dawn of history. In antiquity, people created God to explain phenomena for which they had no science. These have since been solved by science. But fundamentalism perpetuates the ancient superstition, in ignorance of science. Therefore, fundamentalism is a hoax.

Better proof that God does not exist:

Fudamentalism is a hoax. Therefore, its central thesis, the existence of God, is a hoax. Therefore God does not exist.

(Note: the question is moot among the rest of believers. )

QED.

 

[Jeeves]

I understand your point, and I do agree that if you don't want to go farther than a simple answer, it's rude to push further. However, what I find more rude is the assumption of belief in their god and system. And then the shock if they uncover that you don't believe the same. Sometimes it might be plain ignorance of other ways to think, but often it's disregard for anything but their way.

My problem is not with the methods, but with the framework in which debate takes place. The most objectionable - and most frightening - part is that society at large, and a good many unbelievers, accept theists' right to define the issue, the arena, the terms and the parameters of a discussion that has no constitutional grounds to take place at all.
It's generally assumed now that atheists need to justify their unbelief.... in something immaterial! Theists are center stage and we are on the defensive. If those rules are not challenged, it won't matter what we say or how we argue: we have already lost. We're barely managing a rearguard action in the Science classroom and research laboratory; legislature and courtroom have already fallen. And when you lose against xtians out to rule the world, you're in some some heavy-duty shit!

 

[Syne]

@ 0:51-0:59
"And yes Atheism is, in fact, a faith. Any belief, even a belief that there is not a God, requires faith."

This is not supported by scripture which says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) and thus faith does not speak to people who do not believe in things without evidence other than faith.

The reliability of the KJV is debatable. Try the NIV:

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. -Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)​

"Evidence" would not have had the same implications as it does today, so "assurance" is more apropos. Faith is nothing more than an especially strong belief or opinion, so depending on the fervor, any opinion, unsupported by evidence, can be faith. Everyone has some opinion, even if not especially strong, so belief is a fitting description even if faith may not be.

Logically, the belief that something that you are told is not so requires a lack of faith in the veracity of the speaker. That is if faith promotes belief, then lack of belief is evidence of lack of faith. And so biblically and logically this soundbite dissolves into mendacious goo upon examination.

Faith cannot promote belief, as belief is the more fundamental. Faith is just a magnitude, as opposed to quantity, of opinion. Absence of belief, say, in the veracity of a speaker, is evidence of belief of absence, of said veracity. Modus tollens relies upon the confidence (strength of opinion) that a thing sought would be found if present. This is often quite a leap for the more moderate that such things as characteristics/evidence of a god would be found if sought.

@ 1:05-1:11 "Atheists of the world: What is the proof and evidence behind that belief that you have."

Again -- Atheists support the null hypothesis, H0 -- that the claims of today's god-botherers are essentially unreliable.

1) There is more than one sect of Christianity and more than one religion and more than one narrative in the Bible. Parsimony explains this best by "people making up stuff as they go along." Whole wars were fought between "believers" because neither side could make a convincing argument for their position, so they tried to used violence because the story their daddies told them about God wasn't the same story those other boys were told by their daddies.

2) Neither prayer nor blasphemy works as a way of getting you noticed by God. No preacher-man lives past 200; No amputee gets his original limbs regrown; No rocks fall from the sky targeting George Carlin.

3) At every turn things claimed to be the exclusive domain of God have been researched and no intervention or evidence of God is found.

All of these things sought for seem to be indictments of people rather than any god itself. Parsimony does not quite imply that people tend to make up, and fervently believe, such extraordinary things. Parsimony, in the light of what we know of the reliability of testimony, implies that people will tend to distort information they pass on. Two separate issues. It is also a false dilemma that "getting you noticed by God" would be physically evident.

Claims are made by people, so refutation of such is only a refutation of those people.