4 Tests That Don't Test Atheists (
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2025
- Original video: • 4 Tests Atheism Can’t ...
This is a response to "4 Tests Atheists Can't Pass" and explains why this particular test is dishonest from the outset.
#atheist #atheism #christianity #theism
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I am aware that this video has audio issues. I will endeavor to work on audio balancing in future videos. Apologies for the difference in levels.
This is an excellent analysis of some of the more common theistic arguments and the biases that go along with them. It's important to keep pointing out the (often dishonest) presumptions and claims apologists make.
@@johnalexir7634 she makes some baseless assumptions herself does that invalidate her criticism of the video?
@@villasenor5 If so, possibly, but not necessarily. Which ones?
@@johnalexir7634 she says religious belief is belief without evidence which is completely false
You could argue the evidence is not sufficient but to say theists don’t have evidence is just dishonest or lazy
Every system of measurement is by definition is arbitrary you’re making presuppositions at some point.
Great job responding to this guy's shenanigans!
Hey, it's the bear!! Great to see you here.
It always baffles me how apologists just assert that atheists have no basis to call anything evil, when these are the same people who believe in an omniscient, omnipotent deity that has a plan for everyone from before they're even born.
If this God of theirs were real, then literally everything that has ever happened or will ever happen must necessarily be what that God intended to happen, by virtue of it having perfect foreknowledge of the entirety of history and unlimited power to change anything it didn't like.
So it is the Christian who can't call anything evil, because everything that happens is by necessity the will of their god, and they claim the standard of goodness IS their god, so anything it decides to cause must necessarily be good if they were actually consistent in their worldview.
@@chameleonx9253 you still didn’t give an assertion about what atheism can claim that anything is evil outside of opinion personal or public
@villasenor5 Because nothing IS evil outside of personal or public opinion. People decide what evil is. Without people to decide something is evil, it literally doesn't exist. Just like joy, or love, or hate, or money, or social status, or nationality, and so on.
These are all just concepts that exist in the mind, and have no real existence outside the interaction between people within a society.
"Evil" is not a physically existing thing in the world. There is no Platonic form of "evil" floating around in the aether somewhere. It's an idea. A concept. It exists in the same sense that any other idea does: in the mind.
The point is that an atheist can call something evil, because "evil" just means "this thing leads to consequences I deem undesirable." But a Christian who is actually consistent in their worldview shouldn't be able to call anything evil, because everything that happens is necessarily according to God's plan, and thus the only way you can say anything is evil is by calling God's plan evil.
In fact, it goes even further than that, because in the Christian worldview, "evil" is literally not a thing in itself, but rather an absence of good, with God being treated as the apex of that scale, so to call something "evil" is effectively to call it "un-God-like."
But how can a plan that was formulated and executed by an omniscient, omnipotent deity that supposedly fine-tuned the entire universe, has the option of intervening to produce any outcome he prefers, and objectively HAS done that in Christian mythology multiple times, possibly be contrary to that god's nature?
@@chameleonx9253 so then you’re ok saying a woman getting raped is not objectively wrong? Like there could be scenarios where that’s not completely and fully evil?
@@villasenor5
Right and wrong, good and bad ARE just opinions as are morals. A common viewpoint is based on evolutionary and societal progress through time based what's generally beneficial to a society. This doesn't prove any of this is absolute.
@@duncanbryson1167 so theres no such thing as absolute evil? A woman getting raped can be justified in your worldview? That sounds evil to me
You are _very quiet_ compared to the pastor here.
Thanks I'll work on that next video
Aye! Novam peliculam vīdī. Excited to watch
You saw a new movie? 🤷🏻♂
Did you mean, "Nova pellicula spectanda"?
Ah, you spoiled it! I was sure he was going to pull out a great final 5 minutes.
It was a fantastic five minutes. So fantastic that I stopped responding. Seriously, though, his video is linked in the description if you want to watch it. He goes over why Christianity answers the apologetics test perfectly, and ignores that the very test he cited was made *specifically* for Christianity to pass (assuming you're a Christian). Just a waste of time to try and pick it apart, and offered nothing in the way of real intellectual discourse, sadly.
Interestingly, apologetics matches coitus interruptus in that they both produce nothing but a mess to clean up.
I was debating whether or not to say anything because I don't wanna be mean, but your voice mod sounds very artificial and I would guess there's gonna be more folks like me who find it difficult to listen to and click away pretty quick. I'm no youtube or voice mod expert, but I saw that you just started your channel and thought I'd throw in my two cents. Best of luck.
I am a transgender woman and currently undergoing voice training. This is a work in progress. Thanks for the feedback.
@FeliciaByNature yeah understandable. Keep on keeping on
I do wonder why the pastor feels the need to display a photo of his wife and child onscreen throughout.
Because he is definitely not having intimate relationships with his cute secretary or any of the cute rich widows in his congregation. Nope, definitely not.
Would you conisder using a Virtual Avatar? I think it would elevate your content.
I never liked the terms "soft and hard" atheism, atheism is just a lack of belief. Claiming "there is no god" would be "anti-theism" not atheism.
- Agnosticism/Gnosticism = can we KNOW
- Theism/Atheism = are you convinced that God(s) exists
- Anti-theism = claim that god(s) don't exist.
I suppose what could make a person Anti-Theistic is being outspoken. Do they need to be a Gnostic-Atheist? Or would a Gnostic-Theist also be an Anti-Theist if they perceived the god(s) as evil and we're outspoken against it/them? I haven't really thought about that side before.
Doesn't atheism directly affect your worldview though? Like how someone who is a christian will think homosexuality is bad directly because they believe in christianity, for example.
Edit: Unrelated to my doubt, I'm pretty sure the pastor is speaking about the logical conclusions from the existence of no god, not atheism itself. I think hes not attacking or denying atheism in any way but rather its logical conclusions. Also great video
Not in the same way. Atheism is just a position on the existence of God/gods. In itself, it doesn't dictate any other beliefs or views. There are atheists who believe, for example, that homosexuality is bad. There are atheists who believe it's just a personal preference. And even if I don't know any, I'm sure there are atheists who believe that homosexuality is good. Neither of those groups do it because they are atheists though.
@@GroffiliIt may not shape it but it plays a partial role in your understanding of your worldview, such as one may think relatives are moral/meaningless because of atheism, we must value life because we don't have much time, or even that we should just carry on with our life the secular way because of its justice. What I'm trying to say is that atheism obviously doesn't shape your view but it plays a part in your view because of the drastic logical conclusions it can lead to.
@@nathanaaronfernandes9698
"Doesn't atheism directly affect your worldview though?"
*How would it?*
"Like how someone who is a christian will think homosexuality is bad directly because they believe in christianity, for example."
*Yes, because Christianity is their worldview. Atheism is not my worldview.*
"It may not shape it but it plays a partial role in your understanding of your worldview, such as one may think relatives are moral/meaningless because of atheism, we must value life because we don't have much time, or even that we should just carry on with our life the secular way because of its justice."
*Those are unrelated to atheism. They are related to other parts of a potential worldview, though. Like secular humanism, for example.*
"What I'm trying to say is that atheism obviously doesn't shape your view but it plays a part in your view because of the drastic logical conclusions it can lead to."
*It is more likely that your atheism is because of your worldview.*
@@nathanaaronfernandes9698 It only plays a part in shaping your worldview if you think the default is something like a Christian worldview. Atheism itself doesn't shape or influence your worldview outside of not forcing yourself to conform to the expectations of an is-god worldview.
It obviously plays a part in your worldview, yes, because you are actively stepping outside of the is-god worldview, but that act, itself, does not make it a worldview (which was the point of the pastors apologetics).
Being Atheist doesn't even require not believing in the supernatural and there are even religions without any gods or supernatural beings like Buddhism.
YWNBAW
Yeah no you misrepresent what theists believe while you’re complaining about them misrepresenting atheists
Isn’t that some bull
We don’t have faith without evidence we have faith and the evidence we are presented with is enough to confirm our belief
You did mention the difference between soft and hard and to me that sounds like the difference between atheist and agnostic
St. Aquinas refuted atheism some long time ago lol
@@Codeation aquinas is heavy heavy reading I doubt atheists are reading anything close to his writings
Here are my responses to Awuinas's five ways:
1. Argument from Motion:
Flaw A: The argument exempts God from needing a mover, which is special pleading. If everything requires a mover, why not God?
Flaw B: The universe could have always been in motion or have motion as an inherent property. Modern physics, such as the concept of energy conservation, suggests motion might not need an external "starter."
2. Argument from Efficient Cause:
This argument assumes that everything must have a cause, but it does not prove the universe itself needs one. The assumption that a causal chain must terminate in a "First Cause" is not necessary; the universe itself could be uncaused.
Bertrand Russell argued that rejecting an infinite regress is arbitrary-why not accept it as a possibility? For example, the sequence of numbers is infinite without needing a "first" number.
3. Argument from Necessity and Possibility (Contingency):
Aquinas assumes the universe is contingent, but we have no evidence that this is true. The universe could simply exist necessarily, without dependence on any external factor.
Just because things within the universe are contingent doesn’t mean the universe itself is. This is a composition fallacy-what is true of the parts isn’t necessarily true of the whole.
4. Argument from Gradation (Degrees of Perfection):
The claim that we compare things to an ultimate maximum is flawed. For example, we judge "big" or "small" houses relative to an average size, not to some ultimate "perfect house."
Moreover, the existence of varying degrees (e.g., "good" or "better") does not logically imply the existence of a being with maximum goodness or perfection. This leap is unwarranted.
5. Argument from Design (Teleological Argument):
This argument misinterprets purpose and consequence. For example, rain does not exist so that crops grow; crops grow because it rains.
Additionally, the natural world provides examples of how complexity and order arise without an intelligent designer. Evolution, stellar formation, and even the intricate symmetry of snowflakes show how natural processes can mimic design without intent. Richard Dawkins famously called this the "illusion of design."
@johnburn8031 Sanctus refuted these. Dont rely on Dawkins, he is no philosopher
Yeah no you misrepresent what theists believe while you’re complaining about them misrepresenting atheists
We don’t have faith without evidence we have faith and the evidence we are presented with is enough to confirm our belief
You did mention the difference between soft and hard and to me that sounds like the difference between atheist and agnostic I could be wrong I suppose
Also we can say that atheists don’t have a justification for ultimate meaning, morality or for metaphysics. Meaning these specific themes are not grounded on anything but personal experience
>We don’t have faith without evidence
But you literally do? "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
I'm confused on what your point is now.
> justification for ultimate meaning, morality or for metaphysics. Meaning these specific themes are not grounded on anything but personal experience
i would argue that there is no such thing as "ultimate meaning"
I'm assuming you're also arguing about objective morality? In which case, I'm a moral relativist.
As for metaphysics, I attribute those to be more akin to interesting, untested/untestable hypothesis.
@ no we have evidence for the Christian God I don’t know about the other ones sorry we actually believe all those small gods are just fallen angels diverting worship from God so just a brief explanation for those other ones in my worldview
Jesus is a person who lived around the first century (we have secular sources for his life teachings and subsequent disciples) we also have miracles that have been reported in newspapers in modern times
We can reach conclusions that could be used to verify the likelihood of an intelligent creator such as the complexity and order of the universe, the expansion of the universe highly suggests that there was a beginning point of creating that must have a cause, we have the creation of life which cannot come from non life and organic materials are highly delicate
There’s more but some brief points that could be used as evidence for an intelligent omnipotent omniscient creator who must be independent of space time and matter.
If you cannot account for meaning in life then what is the point of life ultimately what makes human lives valuable specially over things like ants?
How do we account for things that exist outside of nature in an atheistic world view? And if we can only go by what is observable then your observations and opinions don’t override someone else’s do they?
@ sorry about the double post btw my app has been glitching lately for some reason
Belief and faith are stupid, they DON'T require evidence.
Belief ≠ acceptance and faith ≠ trust.
There is a different mindset between secular and religious usage of words.
@@duncanbryson1167 wow spicy hahahaha
Let me ask you then - what is enough evidence for the existence of God? Let me preface a few things first though - things exist which we will never physically see things like emotions our minds concepts ideas laws etc. also science is not the only way to reach truth correct? Ok now having posed those two then tell me what is enough evidence for the existence of God?