Atheists ignore evidence of Intelligent Design in nature

[@occupiedaustralia9952]

Very good point Howard . I'm really surprised that the guy hadn't or didn't know much about The golden Ratio. I've heard it described as the thumb print of God actually. I wonder if you could describe evolution as a terrestrial big bang ?

[@HowardGeorgeStirrup]

That is a good comparison, I find it hilarious that Jimmy admitted that he doesn't know much about it, yet could still confidently dismiss it without any further inquiry. ...If we let someone mistaken talk for themselves long enough, eventually they will show their confirmation bias and lack of logic!

[@tets4316]

Yeah Howard because once they found a frozen dragonfly a million years old or something & it was just the same as present dragonfly

[@cygnusustus]

No, in fact, it wasn't. Educate yourself.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

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 personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 3. 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. 4. I have never been presented withany _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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._ 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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._ 11. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 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.

[@HowardGeorgeStirrup]

@@Theo_Skeptomai I believe that you are agnostic, because I disagree with your definition of atheism. I also think that worldview is inconsistent and that your bias towards the credible evidence that has been presented to you, is why you claim to have no good reason to believe in a Creator... 1. You cannot observe something that is outside of our physical space and time. *Yet you believe in the BigBang which goes against every experiment and observation ever made. 2 & 3.If someone did claim to have observed a higher dimensional being, it would be in a dream or hallucination. Either way secondary information that cannot be verified. *Yet you believe in abiogenesis. 4 & 5 & 6 & 7. There are thousands of logical arguments and everything observed in nature necessitates a cause. *Yet you believe the opposite, that something can come from nothing. (Order from randomness) 8. You may have experienced many supernatural events but not realized because of preconceived ideas and confirmation bias. *Yet you believe in theoris like gravity and evolution, which have never been demonstrated or experienced. 9. You were not there in the beginning, so why would you expect to see anything come into our physical reality from an exterior/higher dimension? *Yet you ignore the mathematical proof 0 ^ 0 = 1 which is a reproducible calculation in the language with which our universe is made from. 10. You should look into the open source investigation "Bio-Geology" for evidence of Divine Intervention, the Globe Lie investigation for proof of a Devil and the mathematical proofs in Phi, Pi and results of multiplication and division for evidence of Intelligent Design. *Yet you believe in unfalsifiable claims of BigBang and the formation of Earth and life from a primordial soup etc. 11. The definition that most people have for "God" is a Creator outside of our space and time that designed and maintains everything we experience. *Yet you believe in scientific theories that have opposition/different conclusiona between scientists and philosophers. ...To be honest, I appreciate your efforts to explain your position and I hope that you are making inquiries with good faith and the honest quest for knowledge. Because if you are not willing to follow the evidence but maintain faith in what you want to believe by ignoring evidence, then this is a waste of our time. I ask you to look into the information that I suggested in my response to you 10th point. You can find references on my website and I am open to see if you have counter evidence or better explanation to the information. Thank you for making a comment!

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@HowardGeorgeStirrup Thanks for your detailed, cordial, and heartfelt response. While I am agnostic, my comment defines and speaks to my rational position of _atheism,_ not my position of _agnosticism._ But I will define that position as well. My position of agnosticism is that I haven't sufficient knowledge or available information to justify changing my _default_ position of atheism. I am curious as to why you disagree with my definition of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. Care to explain why you disagree?

[@HowardGeorgeStirrup]

@@Theo_Skeptomai I disagree with the modern definition as it is an attempt to appear skeptical, while actually enabling ignorance and arrogance. Theism is the belief that a Creator is necessary, atheism is the belief that a Creator is not necessary. Gnosticism is the belief that we can know and demonstrate for certain that a Creator exists, while agnosticism is the position that we might not know enough to be able to be convinced. (A lack of belief/confidence/certainty) ...For an atheist to claim "A lack of belief" is misleading and dishonest, as although they don't believe a Creator is necessary, they do believe in indemonstable "scientific" theories like the BigBang, abiogenesis, evolution, outerspace and gravity etc. *Please watch the video called "The Mathematical Model of the Universe" and let me know what you think about that information and if it supports the information and claims of this video. Thank you!

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@HowardGeorgeStirrup Hi again! I suggest you counter the very definition of 'atheism' each of them presents. I believe the differences will be merely sematic, anyway. The major difference between my own _approach_ to atheism, and let's be honest, _every other_ atheists' approach, is that I separate the _belief_ of the atheist from the _position_ of atheism. I would _state_ this position of atheism again if I thought that you didn't already know my own definition better than I. And you also know my _argument_ concerning this position - that when it comes to the truth of the claim made by certain theists [that a particular god exists in reality], one either ACKNOWLEDGES the truth of this claim (theism) - or one DOESN'T (atheism). You also understand that I call upon the Logical Law of Excluded Middle to defend this proper dichotomy (theism/atheism). Even though you disagree with my definition and argument, you _understand_ it. And to be very honest, you are the ONLY person who DOES understand it. I have never found agreement even among _atheists_ with my definition and argument. On the other hand, you could champion it if I went MIA. Where I differ from all other notable atheists (Matt Dillahunty, Aaron Ra, Seth Andrews, Paulogia, Rationality Rules, GM Skeptic, Alex O'Connor) and unknown atheists I encounter, is that I state I _believe_ no gods to exist in reality as opposed to _lacking_ a belief that one does. The problem I find with "lacktheism" [not my term but applicable] is that it states only what an atheist _doesn't_ believe rather than what he or she _does_ believe. It is not my lack of _belief_ that that aligns with my position of atheism, but the lack of _sufficient credible evidence._ The emphasis ought to be on the lack of evidence, not the lack of belief. Granted, these notable and unknown atheists are far more intelligent than I. In addition, I am quite certain that my Aspergers (and this is not an excuse, but rather a realization) lends my definitions and distinctions to appear odd to those without such disability. But, what I lack in social normality, I make up in raw and rugged handsomeness. I have to tell and report three "very short, appropriate, and for God's sake [yes, my therapist is a Christian], funny jokes" for my weekly therapy assignment. Tell me if that one qualifies. As always, I welcome your feedback.

[@HowardGeorgeStirrup]

@@Theo_Skeptomai thank you for your comment, I really like the term "lacktheism" and will probably be using it in future philosophical arguments. I would really appreciate to get your feedback on my other video about Phi, called "The Mathematical Model of the Universe". As it may cause you to cahnge your position, or you may have alternative explanations that I haven't considered. Thank you!

[@cma4023]

All three of these people are actors. Am I watching an NYU film school homework assignment?

[@HowardGeorgeStirrup]

@@cma4023 I cannot speak for the hosts of the show but I can demonstrate that I am sincere. Look through the videos on my channel, you shall see a consistency over many years and I have been honest in multiple interviews about my intentions and reasons for trying etc. *I have also published evidence and a testimonial on my website. ...If you are still not convinced, then I challenge you to point out one thing that I have done, that has a negative influence on people's search for truth! Thanks.

[@drummingtildeath]

I think Howard's largest reasoning failure is that he continually presents evidence that isn't conclusive. It's all evidence that *could* mean something is true, but it could also have other explanations so it doesn't provide any safe conclusions. He does this with pretty much every piece of 'evidence' he presents.

[@HowardGeorgeStirrup]

Take a good long look into the mirror and stop projecting! ...I always provide reproducible evidence and challenge people to provide counter evidence or at least alternative explanations. As I never get more than deflection, ad hominem insults and at best arguments from incredulity, I have even been known to put my money where my mouth is and offered to pay for counter evidence. Try harder pal, it's weak and pathetic to keep spamming my videos for years with unsupported claims 🙄🥱😴