Atheist Activist Aron Ra Says There is No Possibility of God | God of Gaps

Listen to Author and Atheist Activist Aron Ra on the confusion between definitions, and why not believing there is a God is not the same as believing that God does not exist, and says there is no possibility of God, the God of gaps. Full interview at thelonestarplat...
Resources:
If You Don’t Believe in Any God, You’re Atheist, article by Aron Ra www.patheos.co...
The Great Partnership: Science, Religion and the Search for Meaning by Jonathan Sacks www.amazon.com...
Best Selling Author and Pastor Max Lucado Discusses His New Book 'You Are Never Alone' www.texasrealf...
Pete Sessions: The Running Man www.texasrealf...
Connect with Aron Ra:
KZbin / aronra
Twitter / aron_ra
Facebook / aron.ra.9
Connect with Patrick Scott Armstrong:
IG: @patrickscottarmstrong
/ patrickscottvideos
[e-mail]
#AronRa #atheism
-LONE STAR PLATE PODCAST-
Patrick Scott Armstrong hosts a podcast from Austin, Texas. Secretly ordering from different restaurants, each guest sits down and discusses different topics like music, food, business, and life in the Lone Star State. Expect good food and even better conversations.
www.texasrealfo...
-ABOUT TEXAS REAL FOOD-
Join us on our journey as we explore Texan cuisine. We will guide you through the uniqueness of authentic Texas food, while teaching you how to prepare some of the best food in Texas from your own home. Our easy step by step recipes will teach you how to make some of the best Tex Mex food, authentic Texas side dishes, and other delicious food you can only get in Texas.
Along with providing you with the knowledge to replicate local Texas food recipes, we aim to educate you about various food topics like nutrition and dieting. We will dive into the latest research and tell you what it means for your health.
-CONTACT-
Visit Our Website: www.texasrealf...
Follow us on Twitter: @texasrealfood
Follow us on Instagram: @texasrealfood
Like us on Facebook: / texasrealfood
Like us on LinkedIn: / texasrealfood

[@moseskamau5486]

Watching from kenya, encouraged to have a person like me.THANK YOU

[@malgremor85]

"No being worthy of worship would want to be worshipped." Thanks, Aron, I've used that quote on Christians, one of whom replied: "Being? God isn't a being. God is God. You've been watching too much Star Trek."

[@Cthulhu4President]

"God isn't a being. God is God." That statement makes literally zero sense. I shouldn't be surprised of that being that it came from a Christian, but for anyone who needs the PSA: God has to be a being in order to be able to take action aka create. You can claim "god is everwhere/is everything" all you want but that detail does not make God a non-being or non-entity. If it has a consciousness, it's a being.

[@yupok318]

That's just an opinion man.

[@LoneStarPlate]

Great comment - thanks for watching!

[@EtsySpellcaster-fy3sl]

That person is right. Comparing the concept/notion/hypothesis of “god” to a singular and specific fictional creature like a leprechaun or unicorn is just a straw man. It’s total sophistry, and completely misunderstanding the very idea of what “god” is understood to be beyond a creationists or a 5 year old’s understanding of a man in the sky.

[@memberofsatanictemple]

@@malgremor85 God: stop worshipping me! Humans: *worships*

[@nataneskaton]

Any being worthy of worship, would not want to be worshipped...WOW! That's deep...SBN RESONATE

[@davidmccarroll8274]

Well if an atheist wants to say they do not believe because they cannot see the evidence then ok but to say there is no chance of god's existence without proof does not make sense ( Aron ra not you ) and in terms of being worthy of or wanting praise why do human beings presume to know more or be more intelligent than the creator of whom they don't even recognise exists .

[@mitchjames9350]

If anything a being worthy of worship would be indifferent to it being worshipped.

[@rc7625]

@@davidmccarroll8274 What you just typed makes no sense.

[@davidmccarroll8274]

@@rc7625 in reply to ( what you just typed makes no sense ) Well my friend you are replying to a comment I obviously made a while ago.As I therefore am not sure what your comment relates to your comment has no meaning either.Perhaps you could try again and say what exactly makes no sense.Then I will be happy to give my perspective !!! All the best God bless !!!

[@cubey]

I blew an old woman's mind by using Aron Ra's "leprechaun" analogy when she was trying to convince me of the Christian god. She became a bit hostile at the idea that I could compare her god to a leprechaun, probably because it struck a nerve in her mind that gave her a tiny sliver of doubt and she couldn't cope with it.

[@LoneStarPlate]

Thanks for your addition!

[@EtsySpellcaster-fy3sl]

Maybe she was irritated by your stupidity and the moronic straw-man you used?

[@kewgardensstation]

More likely that she was peeved that you weren't giving her god the same amount of credulity and respect she does, or that she doesn't "believe" in leprechauns any more than you believe in god.

[@vaguerantk8686]

Great chat. Subscribed. Greetings from Western Australia!

[@nobrainstuff]

Should there be a religion without belief in god/gods/mythical things? What I mean to say we here in India need to fill fields where we need to mention our religions. Actually we need to choose a religion from the drop-down-list provided. The thousands of Indian Atheists have no way identify ourselves. I personally feel sorry that I have to tell or express lie. My English is sometimes not good in conveying my thoughts as I don't think in English. Please try to understand and tell me what do you think of the solution.

[@beingsharper853]

It is semantically so simple a concept in English. The 'a-', 'an-', 'un-' family of prefixes is perfectly synonymous. The word 'apolitical' does not mean 'antipolitical', the word 'anaerobic' does not mean 'antiaerobic', and the word 'uncomfortable' does not mean 'anticomfortable.' At every moment, every human in the entire world is dichotomously divisible between political and apolitical, aerobic and anaerobic, comfortable and uncomfortable, theist and atheist. The semantic function of the prefix is identical in each of these example cases. Why would anyone be confused about this, other than a biased willful desire to be confused?

[@LoneStarPlate]

Thanks for clearing that up 🙏🏼

[@JFrazer4303]

In direct proportion: if a being demands worship, it shows itself to be unworthy of that worship. Aron also says that an agnostic just doesn't know... that they're atheist. The instant they answer anything less than "Yes" to the "god" question, they're saying that they lack the sure conviction of the theist. Hence, without god belief. It's also said that the "agnostic" is the atheist who doesn't want their house burned down. Fiction provides some who _know_ that such things are really out there, but who are probably anti-theist. John Constantine, Abraham Van Helsing, Angel and others in the Buffyverse. Maybe Hellboy. They know it's there, but they have no great respect for it and think that it's just a great bother, even as they use it as tools/weapons.

[@LoneStarPlate]

Well said...thank you for your comment

[@historicalperspective]

6:18 lol well said Aron

[@LoneStarPlate]

Thanks for watching!

[@AbandonedVoid]

Well, I used to make this mistake, but Aron makes a good point. I think, also, everything useful about philosophy has become science. I don't know why we take philosophers seriously anymore. Aside from logic, the fields of axiology, epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics are all irrelevant now. And logic itself is mostly useful to the formal sciences like mathematics and computer science, too, so. It's not like you can logic something into existence; you need a scientific proof to show that something's real, which uses mathematics and not academic philosophy.

[@kevspeedruns9947]

Mathematics IS philosophy, a subset of it. Without epistemology science couldn't even exist. I think you're talking out of your butt big time. I only have a Bachelors in philosophy but I know enough to know you have no idea what you're talking about. Other subsets of philosophy include logic like you mentionned and set theory which is the theoretical foundation for all of mathematics including basic arithmetic. As for ontology being obsolete..... go on google scholar and look for "QFT Ontology". Read the paper with this title and realize that by discrediting ontology you are discrediting half of the Pantheon of quantum mechanics, and that's like 2% of all the extremely important work of the 19-20-21st centuries that you're shitting on. Let's take a big dump on Husserl and Heidegger too while we're at it. Yeah all that is just stupid crap only flat-earth believing cheetos-eating farting buffoons like to talk about.

[@JonathanSmith-kz2jo]

Wrong. The scientific method and empirical evidence falls short in many areas, such as the social, and in the social sciences, especially economics. Fields such as economics cannot rely purely on empirical means to see if claims about an economy or economies are true because there are an incomprehensible number of different variables which act on each other in varying ways and at varying frequencies which we are, as of yet, incapable of tracking. As such, it is impossible to form control groups and therefore a rationalistic approach must be taken in order to understand human action where it pertains to political economy. If you don’t believe me, I will use a statistic to disprove the validity of using statistics in economic research: economists have, over the course of the past 150 recessions, failed to accurately predict all but 2 of them. One involved covid, and you and I both agree that it didn’t take an economist to see that one coming.

[@holdenbergquist4392]

​@@JonathanSmith-kz2jo it also seems to fall short in the realm of beauty and not sure why I thought of this, but, good taste/smell/pallete as they are overly subjective observations.

[@AaronGarza-ju8wf]

All Hail AronRa!🤘🏽

[@CathyBrookes]

I really enjoyed this - thank you.

[@LoneStarPlate]

Thank you!

[@stephenlynass8170]

@@LoneStarPlate idiot

[@LoneStarPlate]

@@stephenlynass8170 Do not call yourself that…I’m sure you’re a great guy.

[@Magic-lg9lw]

I think one can always believe in what Jesus or his tradition promoted namely the beatitudes and that God however you understand is a concept to help us to have a life and have it in full. That is also what Jesus or the tradition he comes from preached. Let’s not forget, he came from a time and a community who suffered from the brutality and the incessant oppression of the Roman Empire. As for oppressions, one sort or another, we will never go without in human life.

[@JFrazer4303]

Yeshua (as if he existed and said any of that) *_was_* the god of Abraham. That side of his multiple personalities is not about anything of the beautitudes. He also said that he came not to bring peace but with a sword, to set a man against his brother and that if you don't hate your brother and your family and your own life, you are not worthy to follow him. He also said that none of the old laws have changed with his coming or would ever change, and and that anyone who doesn't follow all of the old laws won't find their god or its heaven. When you say you fulfill the original laws, only in xtian apologetics does it mean that we no longer need to observe them (even as it's sandwiched better those two other phrases which set it in stone). Re-interpret it as you wish. What was the original Syrian Aramaic or ancient Greek word if not "hate", and how is it a good thing if it only means to disregard and leave your family? Abrahamic theism is nothing if not about "re-interpreting" and cherry picking. Smorgasbord religion.

[@GARYWERSLEY]

there is no good reason to believe in Moses Jealous God or Allah, high god of the ancient Arabic pagan pantheon.

[@spider-man9118]

but what about all of the different types of evidence accumulated throughout the years about biblical events, my fellow youtube user?

[@GARYWERSLEY]

@@spider-man9118 .spider. some events related in the Bible can be considered as historical. such as the Captivity, were Jews were captured and imprisoned in Babylon. not everything in the Bible can be relied upon as historical. things such as God speaking to men, or angels appearing, or claims of visions. these are events that there is no evidence for at all. St. Paul, claiming to have had visions of Jesus, not reliable, not evidence of the actual existence of Jesus. Blessed Virgin Mary and her visions of angel Gabriel, not reliable, and not evidence of the actual existence of angel Gabriel. some people believe that these things were real, and that they did happen, but there is no evidence that they ever did. faith is required. just as faith is required to believe that angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad. no evidence for it, just blind faith required. the Jealous God of Moses is an invisible nonexistent God, same as angel Gabriel or Jesus, nonexistent..

[@LoneStarPlate]

Thanks for your comment!

[@GARYWERSLEY]

@@LoneStarPlate .. what kind of god would it be who demanded worship? worship or be punished! such a god would be no better than a Satan, indeed, would be a Satan..

[@Dawnarow]

Dissension is often caused by not agreeing in the definitions... the purpose of having common definitions would be the next stepping stone.. there are too many DiCK-tionaries and not a whole lot of people willing to have government officials agree that there should be an understanding among scholars about what a word means. Sure, definitions may evolve with OUR say so not "popularity"... otherwise kids will force some words that already had definitions to define or redefine issues that were easy to solve before they got incredibly convoluted through these new words (expressions). "Toxic" instead of several other words: discriminatory, abusive, offensive etc. "Cringe" is one of them... "incel" is one I'm not sure about I think is for men being rejected because everything is about impressions nowadays and they resort to the internet or something. Human language needs to be sharpened just like any tool should be perfected through time so that its users have lesser chances to be harmed by it. French folks are happier because there are a lot more roots to the origin and purpose of the words. loots like I've been accessed talk soon interwebs~

[@PatrickHartsgrove-g6e]

The word atheist from the Greek simply means "without god", nothing more.

[@LoneStarPlate]

Thanks for the addition!

[@propaganja7264]

Not gonna lie if i knew for a absolute Fact that god was real and i had an absolute understanding of its message and ideology id worship if it truly aligns and makes sense im not too big headed to embrace there may be something greater than me/us

[@LoneStarPlate]

Interesting point - thanks for watching!

[@JFrazer4303]

The problem is, what if that god endorses slavery and genocide and intolerance, as gentle Jesus' alternate personality, the root god of Abraham does?

[@Mr11ESSE111]

he is not atheist., he only dont believe in versions of god(s) which represents world religions because they represent god as own slave for own benefits

[@bungalobill7941]

Nonsense. If you know an argument and reject it you are making a decision based on knowledge. If you know the argument that there is a God and reject it then you are actively choosing to believe there is no God. A child or someone who never heard of the concept of God may lack a belief in God. That doesn't make them an atheist. Like it or not. Atheist always denotes a choice of not believing in God.

[@LoneStarPlate]

Interesting point - thanks for your comment!

[@JFrazer4303]

Incorrect. The child is without belief in God. Only without listening to Aron, do you not say they're atheist. You're splitting hairs and casting all who disbelieve as certain about it.

[@bungalobill7941]

@r4303 No the child is not an atheist. Having no knowledge of a concept is just that and nothing more. The child could have no knowledge of Africa. That does not mean the child does not believe Africa exists. Atheism implies a knowledge of the concept of an existing God and rejecting it. It is a new game people like Ra try to play in an effort to shift all burden of proof onto people who believe that God does exist.

[@JFrazer4303]

@@bungalobill7941 Incorrect. Atheism only implies not believing in it or lacking belief in it. Not any degree of certainty or any previous information about it. The burden of proof rests solely on those who believe in the thing. It's a common lie from preachers and religious apologists to say that we have any burden to disprove their delusions. Do I have any burden of proof for my contention that leprechauns do not exist? Since I can't prove that they're only fictitious, is it more reasonable to believe in them or to be "agnostic" about them?

[@miturbinizdurdy]

Non belief is the default position. Thats why whatever country you live in makes you believe in the accepted god of that country.

[@illyeen2320]

The eyes are the windows to the soul

[@rjjohn2241]

Yeah and this man’s are full of anger misery and hate

[@Faolan42]

There is no evidence of a soul. And Aron Ra is an extremely kind person.

[@rjjohn2241]

@@Faolan42 lol this guy doesn’t even know he has a soul … no wonder you atheists are so miserable and doomed, the most important thing about you is yet to be proven according to your understanding… you my dude are gonna have a long or short meaningless life .

[@LoneStarPlate]

Interesting take - thanks for watching!

[@jasonhayward6965]

God means Grand order dynasty. All words are acronyms .all languages they always have been .this is how words are made .

[@LoneStarPlate]

Interesting take - thanks for watching!

[@rickpedretti4538]

Mr. Armstrong is in over his head. He offers nothing but the guest. The guest, Mr. Ra needs a more challenging forum to give real weight to his quite rational position on the absurdities of religion.

[@LoneStarPlate]

Well i have to say this comment caught me off guard…what else do we need to offer other than the guest? This was an interview…not a forum… What would you have us add to the interview?

[@rickpedretti4538]

@@LoneStarPlate Engaging questions. More than just agreements. I didn't mean to be as disrespectful as I think I was. I just think a more challenging back and forth would further legitimize Mr. Ra's positions, which I happen to agree with. Including some of the more "advanced reasoning" of creationists as the counterpoint is always a good idea.

[@LoneStarPlate]

@@rickpedretti4538 Well I guess it just comes down to opinion then, because I thought i was asking engaging questions. Lol Its not disrespectful, you have a right to an opinion and we certainly respect constructive feedback. Nothing but respect for ya. Sometimes a video just isn’t for everyone. Thank you for engaging and providing some insight.

[@rickpedretti4538]

@@LoneStarPlate Thank you for your humility. That is a necessary quality in your line of work.

[@LoneStarPlate]

@@rickpedretti4538 thank you! We’re going to keep trying! *We are having Aron on again soon so i will consider what you said next time. Our new season starts next Monday.

[@Jay-go3ek]

The fear of The LORD IS THE BEGINNING of wisdom

[@RichWoods23]

Choosing to fear the non-existent is the abandonment of wisdom.

[@vampirehunter533]

Rich Woods To the individual "Jay" and me, we don't buy into the things that individuals like Aron Ra try to push around. Things such as evolution are so out there when it comes to the chances it some how could get initiated it's not funny, even if there was 100s of millions and billions of years for it to occur in, and with all the monumental hurtles to get past going from microbial life to us. So the abandonment of wisdom over an alleged non-existent, to me evolution 🐒too humans is a non-existent. Sorry if I ruffle any feathers. I do not mean too offend anyone thoughts, beliefs or feelings. Though if individuals out there do not wish to follow the Christian God, or not any kind of religion then by all means I feel they should definitely be granted that right and dignity too do so.

[@MrKit9]

The beginning of wisdom is realizing that no true god would inspire FEAR!

[@vampirehunter533]

@@MrKit9 the kind of fear that a child should have towards their parents knowing if they misbehave, or do something that goes against what their parents have instructed them about that there will be bad consequences.

[@MrKit9]

@@vampirehunter533 Yeah my parents threatened me with eternal burning in Hell all the time. I hope your kids were put into foster caer!

[@frankhuggins9733]

Aron Ra can't present a scientific explanation for our existence!

[@mikolmisol6258]

May I interest you in the theory of evolution?

[@frankhuggins9733]

@@mikolmisol6258 There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. Universal common descent via differential accumulations of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes is total untestable nonsense.

[@frankhuggins9733]

@@mikolmisol6258 What happened? You can't find any alleged scientific theory of evolution?

[@amersalha4743]

@@mikolmisol6258Ah yes evolution, the theory which explains where stars came from, or mountains, or the extremely complex design of humanity and animals, oh wait it does none of that.

[@raysalmon6566]

How Mythology Disproves Noahs Flood" arrod mazzacca@ray salmon You resorted to stating I used confirmation bias essentially, "you probably found someone to rubber stamp your assertions". This could almost fit into the fallacy fallacy. -You've used a strawman. "But you believe in evolution which is supported by political correctness" *response* well yes I do quote what Jesus said.... 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. ----------------------------] it should noted that Jesus did not say it was a global flood

[@jameswright...]

Can you prove Jesus said those words?

[@raysalmon6566]

@@jameswright... History isn't a geometry problem

[@spocksvulcanbrain]

Until you can prove Jesus was real and divine, and that if true he actually said those things, you can't use those quotes as a foundation for anything. All you have is a book in which millions believe the content to be true. However, just like the Iliad, Harry Potter, Star Wars, they are just stories with just as much validity as the Bible. They have characters with magical powers which are described in a book of adventures in which lots of people believe. But none of them are true. So stop quoting the Bible as if that's evidence of anything other than your own indoctrination into fantasyland.

[@spider-man9118]

ayo we have various types of evidence for biblical events, if anyone is interested

[@TheMindIlluminated]

Aron, numerous people have shown you to be wrong on this.

[@originalslothking]

Like whom?

[@ryanmccabe1036]

*citation needed*

[@MrKit9]

Blah blah blah!

[@spider-man9118]

guys, we have various types of evidence for biblical events, if anyone is interested

[@malchir4036]

Only Aronra can strawman philosophy while doing philosophy. Thicker than a brick. Check his sources and he's wrong as well. Most philosophers agree that the meaning of words is in their usage, not the dictionary. But not only that, the Stanford dictionary, let alone Stanford.plato clearly states multiple definitions. He's the equivalent of a creationist when talking about evolution: dismisses it but not unwilling to talk about it in his ignorance.

[@AbandonedVoid]

I think it's ridiculous how philosophers want to claim that everything is philosophy. No, it isn't. It's just a silly attempt to try to pretend that academic philosophy is still relevant to a world that's replaced it with science.

[@malchir4036]

@@AbandonedVoid Which would be a philosophical claim given that the nature of philosophy, science and its impact in society is metaphilosophy and philosophy of science, not science itself. So my irony meter is currently orbiting Jupiter.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Aron is objectively wrong. You can't use your "psychological state" as a debate position. Psychological states (like lacking belief in Theism, or experiencing happiness or sadness) ARE NOT TRUTH CLAIMS. So the only definition of Atheism that can be used as a debate position (as he's using it) is the philosophical definition because IT IS A TRUTH CLAIM. Debates are about conflicting truth claims, so if you aren't making a truth claim as your position then you can't debate. Period. Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy quote (keep in mind, they are the top source / the standard): "The word “atheism” is polysemous-it has multiple related meanings. In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well. For example, Robin Le Poidevin writes, “An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives his life without reference to such a being” (1996: xvii). J. L. Schellenberg says that “in philosophy, the atheist is not just someone who doesn’t accept theism, but more strongly someone who opposes it.” In other words, it is “the denial of theism, the claim that there is no God” (2019: 5).”

[@scottplumer3668]

I don't think debates are necessarily about truth claims. You can debate about opinion all you want. We're doing it now! That's not to say you can't use truth claims as evidence to support your opinion. In fact, the more I think about it, there doesn't seem to be much point in debating a truth claim, because if something is true, there doesn't seem to be much point in debating it, does there? Unless you think that a declaration, such as claiming a particular movie is the greatest ever made, is a truth statement. We may have different ideas of what a truth statement is. Your quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia illustrates perfectly what Aron said: it makes it needlessly complicated. I think Matt Dillahunty's definitions were the best. A/theism refers to belief, and a/gnosticism refers to knowledge. So atheism is the lack of a belief in gods, whereas agnosticism is the knowledge that gods don't exist. "Anti-theist" is a better term for someone who opposes religion, because they're opposed to it. To be "atheist" is to be without theism. Like "atypical" means "not typical."

[@beingsharper853]

There is no reason for any atheist to take a debate position on the matter. I factually don't believe anyone's deity claims. That is not debatable.

[@David34981]

Atheism is not a truth claim. That's only you making that bald assertion, and it's demonstrably wrong

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@David34981 Are you going to address what my post says? I provided the prescriptive definitions for atheism from the most authoritative source there is on the matter - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy They provide 2 distinct definitions for atheism 1. Psychological state definition of atheism - "lack of belief in God" (This can NOT be used as a debate position since it makes no truth claim) 2. Philosophical definition of atheism - the claim that God does not exist (this CAN be used as a debate position since it is a truth claim).

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@David Sommen You guys are committing a fallacy when you appeal to your subjective psychological state as your debate position to evade your burden. Christians would be committing the same fallacy if we defined our position as "a lack of belief in any non-Christian worldview" and then insisted this means we have no burden too. With your current fallacious reasoning, you would be forced to agree with that. Of course, in reality, neither side can do that. It's a fallacy... subjective psychological states are invalid debate positions. Imagine trying to debate someone else about whether he/she subjectively experienced happiness or sadness. Can't be done, as only that person experiences it. It's an invalid debate position

[@icraftcrafts8685]

the height of ingratitude is not being able to thank our creator. i still have to come across an atheist that didn't have unresolved childhood issues.

[@jameswright...]

Probably unsolved issues thanks to the harm done in childhood by religion.

[@bernardobastos5996]

The height of arrogance is to be convinced you were created by a divine, omnipotent being... even though there is 0 evidence for it.

[@scottplumer3668]

Even if it were true that atheists have unresolved childhood issues (but who doesn't?) that doesn't means gods exist.

[@MrKit9]

I've yet to meet a rational Theist!

[@David34981]

I had a great youth. I have never believed in any god.

[@LisaAnn777]

he does explain evolution though? every video I see he does very good at giving his reasons why he doesn't believe creationism.

[@Alphqwe]

Check out AronRa's channel. He has a 30+ video series on human evolution.

[@LoneStarPlate]

Yes!! His link is in the description of the video!

[@smadaf]

Aron Ra is wrong that, before Huxley came along and changed things, "atheism" never meant the belief that there is no god. The Oxford English Dictionary (1971), under "Atheist" (which it defines as "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God") cites, e.g., Golding, who in 1571 (4.53 centuries ago) wrote of "The Atheistes which say . . there is no God", and Gladstone, who in 1876 wrote "By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God."

[@reasonablespeculation3893]

People have traditionally worshiped (grovel) a God because they believe that God controls the weather, the crops, health, fertility, the oceans etcetera... Worshipers see God as a Mega Super human, who is prone to emotional outbursts. They grovel and sacrifice to placate this super being. Just as most would grovel if faced with a Human who could and would effortlessly torture you and everyone you love, to death.

[@LoneStarPlate]

Well stated...thanks for watching!

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

Don't blame Huxley for the idiots in philosophy. "Thomas Henry Huxley, AKA Darwin's Bulldog, who created the term Agnostic said: Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.[8]" And for that matter Darwin called himself an Agnostic. Join the Few, the Rational, the Agnostic Ethelred Hardrede

[@timorean320]

Semantics. The Devils in the details. (See what I did there?)

[@trumpsupporter1016]

Interesting talk, esp. on Huxley's coinage of Agnosticism. But you can't use Merriam-Webster (or the OED or F&W) as the definitive authority bc language changes over time. Good example is the word 'awful' which used to mean 'awe inspiring' or to filled with awe - like 'awesome.' And awesome also used to mean the opposite. The words switched. I know people who beleive God doesn't exist use the work 'Atheist' - and, speaking of assholes, they are usually assholes about it, saying only a moron could be a believer. So I don't think you have much empirical data -certainly not enough for a representative sampling- on what self-avowed Atheists mean when they call themselves Atheists. Whatever is the dictionary, words are defined by usage, not by publishers.

[@pb.f.1]

But I am God

[@sustavo67]

Delete the world right now

[@spider-man9118]

cap Also, we have various types of evidence for biblical events, if anyone is interested

[@JFrazer4303]

My cat disagrees on who is the supreme being.

[@CrabtreeBob]

Philosophers don't make things complicated. Things happen to be complicated.

[@LoneStarPlate]

Good take....thanks for the comment!

[@josephsalazar3817]

I believe in God and the reason why I worship God is, because he is God just as we are supposed to respect and love our parents it goes hand-in-hand . Are you have the choice you could respect I love God or not all respect and love your parents or not, but as for me whether you believe it or not there is the right thing to do, I chose want to do the right thing.

[@MrGodofcar]

what

[@MrGodofcar]

I respect things which exist.

[@oliverthompson9922]

Why is it the right thing to do?

[@charlestownsend9280]

Except not all parents deserve love and respect. Just being a god doesn't automatically mean they deserve to be worshipped, just as being a parent doesn't automatically mean they deserve their child's love, if they're a neglectful, uncaring, evil god who has people tortured forever, c9ndones rape and slavery, commanded murder and genocide, committed genocide, etc then they aren't deserving of worship, same as neglectful and abusive parents aren't deserving of being loved. Just being a god isn't enough to deserve worship.

[@spider-man9118]

@@MrGodofcar we have various types of evidence for biblical events, which in turn prove God's existence, my fellow youtube user

[@skillethead6968]

There is no possibility for there not to be God.

[@rickpedretti4538]

Even if that were true, who are you or anyone else to claim intimate knowledge of God's motives and machinations? The absolute certainty of religion flys in the face of scientific advances that push the nature of our existence and that of the ever increasing scale of the universe and perhaps multiple and parallel universes. Ridiculous. Accept what is known and continues to be known and that which is still unknown and stop trying to define and reduce the marvel of life to a handful of parables written hundreds of years ago.

[@skillethead6968]

@@rickpedretti4538 Something that I find kind of funny is, how you mentioned parallel universes, well many athiests out there who entertain the idea of multiple if not infinite universes/ dimensions and also ideas such as silicone based life but the idea of Heaven/Hell, Jesus/Antichrist, HolySpirit/False Prophet, God/Satan, and Heaven/Hell is stupid fairytale nonsense imagined by stone/bronze aged people to them. They take texts through out the Bible and twist up what they actually mean or look at it out of context to try and make God which they allegedly don't believe exists look like a tyrant among other horrible things. If anything many "True" scientific discoveries actually support what the Bible says. If one knows how to read and understand its context correctly. For you specifically man if you care to check something out. Might I point out a booklet called scientific facts in the Bible by an individual named Ray Comfort. I wouldn't know if you have ever heard of him or not. If so, then for me personally I know a lot of people think he's a joke using names like banana man or stuff but based just on the booklet I mentioned I would have to say I agree with the things he pointed out from the Bible and things we've verified in more modern times. Wether you agree is up to you. If anything else maybe it help explain why I feel the way I do.

[@rickpedretti4538]

@@skillethead6968 "If one knows how to read and understand it's context correctly." Science, by definition, does not make allowance for selective engagement, unless the selector can offer evidence refuting conclusions based on facts, not parables and faith. With every entry in the fossil record, radio carbon dating, geology, zoology, palentology and all the ologies engaged in understanding the universe and our place in it- creationists have to accommodate scientifically confirmed data and evidence of a reality inconceivable to the story tellers of 2000 years ago, in order to maintain their blinding faith. If you are dipping your toe into the comprehensive views of Aron Ra, then you are aware of the vast amount of evidence based science that conflicts with every aspect of the Bible, and I suppose, without having read, the Torah, the Koran and the Vedas as well. Ancient parables reflect the misconceptions of reality of the day. A time of mysticism and fear of the unknown produced notions of nature that are now known to be absolutely false. The scribes of ancient texts were prisoners of their time, unable to even imagine that the universe in which we exist reaches back almost 14 billion years. It was simply beyond the imagination of the time in which the Bible was cobbled together to see earth as the anomalous speck we now understand earth to be, suspended in a virtually infinite cosmos. That is far more miraculous and awe-inspiring than anything I can think of in my (quite limited) reading of the Bible. Science not only provides answers, it compells humility as the scale of unknowns grows exponentially. You are free of course to believe in intelligent design. But to claim intimate knowledge of your designer and "his" motives is delusional.

[@skillethead6968]

@@rickpedretti4538 Thanks for your response. I know I can not come any where close to understanding the mind of God or his motives. If you possibly got the feeling I was trying to insinuate that I wasn't. I was simply trying to point at things I feel strengthen my belief in what the Bible has written in it.

[@rickpedretti4538]

@@skillethead6968 Nothing personal intended. You dipped your toe in the pool of Aron Ra, so you have seen what faith is up against. The volume of scientic evidence that refutes the accounts of the Bible is enormous. Science left the authority of religion behind long ago. The Christian Bible is clearly a product of the time it was composed. The scribes who cobbled it together authorized misconceptions of the time and the authorities of the church imposed those misconceptions upon the masses. It took the Catholic church 400 years to forgive Galileo. It is inspite of religion that organ transplants are now routine, inspite of religion that we landed on the moon and in spite of religion that we know that our universe is almost 14 billion years old. Faith is the enemy of science and reason and science and reason, as well as tolerance are critical to our survival. Keep religion in their tax free temples and out of public schools, out of political discourse and out of the way of progress.

[@matthewpolishing7294]

I will definitely say Aron ra is wrong bro God does exist I dreamed of a guy name jack conley it was my babysitter brother and I saw Jack conley in my dream and I heard the words jack died and 2 months later he died from liver cancer God exist Noone would no the future accept god

[@kerishannon775]

Why didn't God tell you when your friend would die? People die all the time. It's not supernatural to dream of someone dying. Last night I dreamed of my dead mother. Was that a message from God?

[@matthewpolishing7294]

@KeriShannon oh lord here we go another person trying to discredit me because they don't want to believe in God I get why you had to place yourself like this I know what I dreamed I know it was god only he would know the future why didn't he tell me when he was going to die he just told what I needed to know he doesn't owe me anything I believe the purpose of the dream was god telling me to go visit him before he died and god was letting me know he was going to die at first I when I woke up I said that not real that just a stupid dream I didn't want to believe it and I went on with my life 2months later he died from liver cancer god has a reason I understand that you Have a aethist agenda and trying to discredit anyone who mentions god and trying to dismantle their dreams so that you can say how did know it was god I get it I sure you don't want to believe in a god but that doesn't make him not real the reason I know it's god is I've had other dreams has well about futuristic events in my life but hey I know I belief is correct and I don't need you telling me anything god is all I trust and he let me know what I needed

[@ryandaripper9937]

I just de converted, No GODS exist, Go Deep Dive into your religion and FREE YOUR MIND,4 real , it might take u years , ask questions , be curious