>> ^VoodooV:


It's really rather disturbing watching atheists play the same "change the definitions" game that the right wing plays. The mental gymnastics required to rationalize agnostics as part of atheists is staggering.


The "changing definitions" parts of these arguments are what really make my head explode--along with it's weaker sister--the "No, No don't pay attention to the Primary definition, it's obvious that the Secondary definition is the correct one here." (correct because it reflects the meaning they want it to).

Atheists, take a chill pill and step away from the lectern for a minute or two--take a deep breath. We are with you on separation of church and state. Take "In God We Trust" off US money. Take "Under God" out of the Pledge. Why fight so hard over something which has no impact on you, or our common cause.

>> ^LukinStone:

You can be a theist or an atheist if you are agnostic. The terms deal with different ideas. In short, atheism says "I don't believe" and agnosticism deals only with what you can actually know. It's actually a pretty smart way to sidestep supernatural claims all together. I would think atheists who try to make agnosticism seem like the same thing as atheism (or a sort of weak atheism) are actually doing themselves a disservice in the long run. People don't tend to change their minds when you're shouting: "you're wrong!" It doesn't really matter if you're saying they will go to hell or they are stupid.
People don't like being told they are going to hell or that they are stupid.


My particular dislike is being told I'm simply a cowardly atheist.

FUCK YOU! [Edit: directed at the people who say that, not LukinStone]

Your video, Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Big Think, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^legacy0100:

lol he's a professor at my college lol


You lucky bastard.. color me 4 shades of jealous

Thanks for the promote.
In reply to this comment by notarobot:
Been really enjoying these Big Think talks. *promote.

Been really enjoying these Big Think talks. *promote.

On the other hand, you're saying that everything we can observe about the universe follows rules. God, however does not follow rules.

God acts according to His nature.

You're arguing that because everything is logical and sensible, we should jump to the conclusion that something illogical and completely senseless is probably the reason. If you can't see the problem with that there's truly no help for you.

What I am arguing is, your atheism is blind faith because you cannot justify your reasoning. I am saying that things like logic and the uniformity in nature make sense in a Christian worldview and make no sense in yours.

Your 'absolute' laws apply to everything... except God. Wouldn't it make more sense to just say the laws are absolute. Why does there have to be a God for anything to work the way it does?

If you want to say they are absolute, (and necessarily immaterial and unchanging), please point to them in nature.

There is NO logical argument for the existence of God. Philosophers have hashed this one out for centuries. The only way to accept God is to embrace fallacy and illogical statements. Go read a book on the subject (one written by a proper modern philosopher, not a theist trying to prove a point).

You can't even justify your logic, so why should I trust your opinion about what is fallacious and illogical? How do you justify your reasoning? Do you know even one thing for sure? How do you know it?

>> ^Drachen_Jager

How can you not see the flaw in this logic? Atheists do not make claims for which evidence must be provided, there is no point in trying to "DISPROVE" god, or any other imaginary entity. the "evidence that god doesnt exist" is that there is no evidence that god does exist.

Drac did make the claim "I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature" So therefore he has a burden of proof.

Also, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Finally, no matter how you've redefined the definition, atheism is the belief that there is no God:

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not"

(Academic American Encyclopedia)

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightement, the age of reason"

(Random House Encyclopedia-1977)

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.

(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995)

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"

(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996)

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

(The World Book Encyclopedia-1991)

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god.

(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967)

Atheism denies the existence of deity

(Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia-Vol I)

This is what the world looks like to you, huh? absolute laws layed down and explained by God?

In the scientific worldview, there are no absolutes, our "laws" are based on repeated observations and revisions, take for instance Newtons first law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.

Now, this actually works, it turns out that the world is this way*. It is natural for a curious human to ask "why?" because we expect,perhaps deep down that there is a reason and a purpose behind the world being arranged this way. But there doesnt seem to be any real reason, had Newton or Galileo lived in an alternate universe, where objects would move at random, independent of the forces acted upon them, well, then we wouldnt have this law, would we? Perhaps such a universe exist, but perhaps there are no Newtons there to check, because the evolution of life and therefore Newtons brain, requires objects to behave in this predictable Newtonian way.

We only have one sample, which is this Universe. Shoulds, woulds and perhaps don't explain away design. What you're really trying to express here is the anthropic principle. Take this example..let's say you're standing before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all aiming for your heart, and then you hear the shots go off..and to your surprise you find that you're still alive, that they all missed. Should you be surprised that you do not observe you are dead? If you were dead, obviously you couldn't observe it. However, you are justified in being surprised you are alive, since all 100 marksmen missing you is extremely improbable. Which is the same reason we should be surprised that there is a conspiracy in the physical laws to support life in the Universe.

Anyway, here we are, we make our laws based on our observations of how things seem predictable, and if things arent that predictable, we cant make laws about them. For instance, why hasnt god, being so clever with the whole "law of motion" trick and all, made a similar law-system for finance? ie: "every 50 years, the market will collapse" and so on? or evolution " the ultimate goal of all of evolution is for all species to evolve big brains trunks, like the humans elephants have?

God laid down a lot of laws about how we should behave. The reason for the chaos in the world is because we haven't obeyed those laws.

No, it seems while God likes order and laws to apply to inanimate object, he's decided to go for chaos and indetermency when dealing with large, complex systems.

You'd almost think there was no god at all, huh?

*Yeah,yeah Einstein, relativity blah blah, for all intends and purposes, Newton will suffice here.

He gave us laws about how to live. Perhaps you have heard of the bible?

>> ^BicycleRepairMan

My stance regarding the existence of a god or gods isn't relevant. I read what you wrote. I didn't say that I agreed or disagreed with it. Whether your assertion is true or false, it's just not relevant to what I said.
>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
That's not really the point.
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
You can't apply the scientific method to testing something which is, by definition, outside the bounds of logic. It simply doesn't apply.
That which is outside the bounds of logic is, by definition, imaginary.


Ahh, yes. Brilliant counter-argument. The equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, "Nyah, nyah. I can't hear you."
Typical theist.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

That's not really the point.
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
You can't apply the scientific method to testing something which is, by definition, outside the bounds of logic. It simply doesn't apply.
That which is outside the bounds of logic is, by definition, imaginary.



Ahh, yes. Brilliant counter-argument. The equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, "Nyah, nyah. I can't hear you."

Typical theist.

That's not really the point.
>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
You can't apply the scientific method to testing something which is, by definition, outside the bounds of logic. It simply doesn't apply.
That which is outside the bounds of logic is, by definition, imaginary.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's not what I am arguing, and what you're doing here is proving my point. I'm saying you have no way to justify your reasoning, and I think you now realize it is predicated on a series of unprovable assumptions. I can account for logic in my worldview; it doesn't make sense in yours. Uniformity in nature and absolute laws only make sense with God. Therefore, your blind faith in atheism is unjustified.

On the other hand, you're saying that everything we can observe about the universe follows rules. God, however does not follow rules.

You're arguing that because everything is logical and sensible, we should jump to the conclusion that something illogical and completely senseless is probably the reason. If you can't see the problem with that there's truly no help for you.

Your 'absolute' laws apply to everything... except God. Wouldn't it make more sense to just say the laws are absolute. Why does there have to be a God for anything to work the way it does?

There is NO logical argument for the existence of God. Philosophers have hashed this one out for centuries. The only way to accept God is to embrace fallacy and illogical statements. Go read a book on the subject (one written by a proper modern philosopher, not a theist trying to prove a point).

This is what the world looks like to you, huh? absolute laws layed down and explained by God?

In the scientific worldview, there are no absolutes, our "laws" are based on repeated observations and revisions, take for instance Newtons first law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.
Now, this actually works, it turns out that the world is this way*. It is natural for a curious human to ask "why?" because we expect,perhaps deep down that there is a reason and a purpose behind the world being arranged this way. But there doesnt seem to be any real reason, had Newton or Galileo lived in an alternate universe, where objects would move at random, independent of the forces acted upon them, well, then we wouldnt have this law, would we? Perhaps such a universe exist, but perhaps there are no Newtons there to check, because the evolution of life and therefore Newtons brain, requires objects to behave in this predictable Newtonian way.

Anyway, here we are, we make our laws based on our observations of how things seem predictable, and if things arent that predictable, we cant make laws about them. For instance, why hasnt god, being so clever with the whole "law of motion" trick and all, made a similar law-system for finance? ie: "every 50 years, the market will collapse" and so on? or evolution " the ultimate goal of all of evolution is for all species to evolve big brains trunks, like the humans elephants have?

No, it seems while God likes order and laws to apply to inanimate object, he's decided to go for chaos and indetermency when dealing with large, complex systems.

You'd almost think there was no god at all, huh?

*Yeah,yeah Einstein, relativity blah blah, for all intends and purposes, Newton will suffice here.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Without a controlling influence, there is no basis for these absolute
laws. I can account for it, how do you account for it?

How can you not see the flaw in this logic? Atheists do not make claims for which evidence must be provided, there is no point in trying to "DISPROVE" god, or any other imaginary entity. the "evidence that god doesnt exist" is that there is no evidence that god does exist.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It most certainly is a leap of faith to say that there is no God, since you cannot disprove God. You have no evidence that God doesn't exist..



As an excercise in futility, please explain the difference:

>> ^shinyblurry:

It most certainly is a leap of faith to say that there is no Santa Clause on a flying donkey, since you cannot disprove Santa Clause on a flying donkey. You have no evidence that Santa Clause on a flying donkey doesn't exist..

Since this is a video site, let me recommend a sift to you on this very discussion! Check out http://videosift.com/video/The-Reason-for-God when you have the time (it runs about an hour long).>> ^Drachen_Jager:

@shinyblurry
Look, an argument is an exercise in logic. You're attempting to argue that logic is arbitrary. It's a self-defeating argument. If you can't see that I cannot help you.
Don't bother responding, I am done. You should be too.