Why can’t atheists believe that chemical reactions in the brain are what drives humans?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2024
- Jason from Ohio calls Hank Hanegraaff, the host of the 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘔𝘢𝘯 broadcast and the 𝘏𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘜𝘯𝘱𝘭𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘥 podcast, to ask about the problem with atheists believing that chemical reactions in the brain are what drives humans.
-------------------------------------------------
Connect with the Christian Research Institute (CRI):
🔴 Subscribe to our channel: www.youtube.co...
🔴 Subscribe to the Bible Answer Man on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
✔️ Subscribe to “Hank Unplugged” on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
✔️ Subscribe to our magazine the Cʜʀɪsᴛɪᴀɴ Rᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜ Jᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟ's weekly podcast www.spreaker.c...
📒 Visit CRI’s website: www.equip.org/
✅ Listen to the Bible Answer Man broadcast live streaming Monday through Friday from 6-6:30 PM ET online at www.equip.org/
#bibleanswerman #atheist #atheism
I honestly don't know what an atheist is. I think it could be a person that denies reality for any reason they imagine in their brain due to emotional hurt. But from an intellectual point of view, from reason, logic and common sense, I simply just don't know what an atheist even is. I've met many of them on the internet for around 25 years and I still don't understand what exactly it is. I'm convinced they don't know either or they are lying to themselves about reality and existence. I've tried my utmost to understand them but I have failed. They don't even explain anything to me when I ask them what atheism is. I just don't know what their problem is. If it isn't a problem, what is it? It can't be something non-problematic, because if it was, everybody would be an atheist. It has to be something problematic. What is it? I don't know. I don't think I could ever know unless they fully explain it. And I haven't ever read any full explanation or interacted with any of them that have given a full explanation. They say that there is no evidence. That cannot possibly be true because other people have evidence. This leads me to think that it is not because there is no evidence, but because they refuse to accept the evidence. Why do they refuse? I do not know that either. I can only surmise or guess it is because other people have hurt them in one way or another. And if that is the case, notice that it has absolutely nothing to do with God either way. Baffling.
@user-pl7si5pn5k Comment appreciated.
I would be more than happy to give an all-encompassing answer to your question of what an Atheist is. Atheism is the answer to one specific question: do you believe the claim that a God or Gods exist? If the answer is yes, then you are a Theist. If the answer is no, then you are an Atheist. Atheism does not tell you what an Atheist's views are regarding the origin of the Universe and life, the supernatural, morality, do I find meaning and purpose in my life, etc. The only way Atheism informs our worldview is that whatever beliefs an Atheist has that makes up his/her worldview, those beliefs to not make any appeal to the existence of one or more Gods.
If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to give my best answer.
_" They say that there is no evidence. That cannot possibly be true because other people have evidence."_
You can surely imagine that on the one hand there is evidence of very different persuasive power and
on the other hand that there are very different degrees of scepticism. Some people are so sceptical that
they can only be convinced by factual, logical, clear and unquestionable evidence, while others are so
gullible that they are convinced by ambiguous, implausible hearsay. It is therefore not surprising if the
latter cannot comprehend the conclusions of the former.
@@rhett_rydinhood actually I find the claim that atheists are superior intellectually and believers are just gullible fools is ridiculous egotism without any truth at all. But of course in every belief there are smart and dumb people across the spectrum. But nobody with any intelligence should be gullible and swallow up the oft repeated nonsense that atheists are smarter.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.
1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.