Debunking 5 atheist arguments

[@petritkola]

Note on "burden of Proof." Because clearly the atheists here fail to understand philosophy and epistemology. Let us first start with the definition of atheism. Atheism is defined as follows by these philosophers "Philosopher William Rowe states, “To be an atheist in the broad sense is to deny the existence of any sort of divine being.” Similarly, Graham Oppy writes, “Atheism says that there are no gods.” J. J. C. Smart concurs: “‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” Paul Draper states that atheism is “best understood in philosophy as the metaphysical claim that God does not exist.” And J. L. Schellenberg defends a similar definition of atheism “understood as disbelief of traditional theism.” Now let us take a look at the burden of Proof. Graham Oppy in the interview with Alex O Connor himself said that atheists require the burden of proof. EVEN those who say "atheism is lack of belief" have the burden of proof. lol I do not understand how the atheists in this comment section do not read, watch videos, or do any research by actual academics. Oppy is not even a theist; I am using an atheist to defend my position. In his interview with Alex, in 4:50, Graham talks about the "lack theist claim" and he himself said for those who lack the belief that there is a God "question, what's your attitude to the proposition that there are no God? What's you attitude to that one? If you dont have an answer to that question, then you just dont have a well though out position at this point. The people who call themselves lack theists have to give themselves an answer to that question." Literally, agnostics, atheists, theists; anyone making the claim has a burden of proof. This is not a hard concept to understand, but I guess the internet atheist does not understand this lol. Oppy is not the only one who argues this point; I just used him as an example. I am not saying that because oppy said it, its true; I am simply using him as an example. There are many, many, more who agree with me. I have the majority view on this. Conclusion: Atheists have burden of proof as well. If they make the claim that God does not exist, they simply lack the belief (which is a NEW Definition of atheism btw but let us just ignore that) or they are completely agnostic on this issue, they require the burden of proof. If they are going to stick witch "No we just lack belief!" then you don't have any epistemological ground to even discuss the issue of God, theism, atheism, or anything. You would literally fail any philosophy class if you have to defend your position and you say "well mine is a negative one so I don't have to defend!" or "I just lack the belief so prove to me professor why you think you are right!" lol That's it. I hope you online atheists understand now.

[@auntietheistjuror]

In the truest sense, words don’t have definitions, they have usages. For example, me calling you gay in the year 1900 has a completely different meaning to me calling you gay in the year 2000. Currently a common usage of the word atheist is ‘a lack of belief in god or gods’, so your rejection of this is just pissing in the wind. It's both tedious and a waste of time that could usefully be used to talk about actual ideas.

[@Ben-no4lz]

Words have Usages as well as definition. The current accepted Usage & Dictionary Defintion of Atheism is : A Lack of belief in the existence of god or gods. Theists don’t like this usage or definition, as it doesn’t allow them to shift the burden of proof every time they’re asked to justify their beliefs. Atheism & Theism are both positions on a single specific question; “Are you convinced/do you believe a god or gods exist?” Yes = Theist No = Atheist That’s it. A-Theism as in “Not-Theism” It is a response to Theistic claims. Theist - “There is a god” Atheist - “Can you demonstrate that?” Theist - “No” Atheist - “I’ll believe you when you can” Basic logic 101; It is illogical to be convinced X exists until it is Demonstrated to exist. So until a god is demonstrated to exist, Theists beliefs are - by definition - Illogical, Irrational & Unjustified.

[@Shleppy_]

I really like the pretentiousness in this comment. Very revealing.

[@petritkola]

@@Ben-no4lz common online uneducated atheist. I even granted that atheism could mean lack of belief and graham oppy and others still state that “lack believers” have burden of proof lol

[@Ben-no4lz]

@@petritkola Thats because you and people like Oppy are either morons or dishonest interlocutors. Theist - “There is a god” Atheist - “Can you demonstrate that?” Theist - “No” Atheist - “Then I’m unconvinced” What claim is the Atheist making in order to have a Burden of proof? How does saying “I don’t believe you” carry a burden of proof? Are you a Troll? lol

[@auntietheistjuror]

I’m so glad I went to the trouble of responding, just for your channel to ‘soft block’ it so that only people who sort by ‘Newest first’ can see it!

[@gabe6646]

Regarding your analogy about the burning building, there are a lot of holes. It's more like you see hundreds of people diving headfirst off a cliff, each of them insists that there is a great pool of water that will catch them safely. You look into the cliff and don't see any water so you ask, "where is the water?" And they say "it's there you just have to believe" as they continue to jump off.

[@petritkola]

My analogy was to showcase that there are other forms of knowledge outside of science, testimony. Would you deny testimony as a source of knowledge?

[@gabe6646]

@@petritkola No I wouldn't, but there are some things that require more than testimony. If I told you I have a job, that's pretty reasonable to just believe just based on me saying it. If I told you my job was that I'm an astronaut, posting from space right now you might not be so willing to belive in something like that without any more details. I'm not going to tell you that your faith in wrong but I think your analogies are a little off, and will bring about much more aggressive comments about that instead of your message. People like to nitpick and you're giving them too many chances. Sorry if I come off as rude but I really would like to see channels like this get better with time regardless of my own faith, or lack of

[@petritkola]

@@gabe6646 once again the analogy I provided was not to say "because people have say they have seen God, therefore God exists because testimony" I didn't make that claim. And if I did that's 100% wrong. The point of the testimony and fire analogy was to argue against people saying I need scientific evidence for God. As if only science is the source of knowledge. I also mentioned logical arguments where all the premises are sound and valid. (All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore socrestes is mortal). This is true not because of science or testimony, but because if it's deductive nature So the point is that IF you say that science is the only source of knowledge, your commiting yourself to an epistemological framework that is problematic. If you say that there are other forms of evidences (such as testimony and logic) then the argument of "bring me scientific evidence" falls flat. That was the point I was getting across

[@keithnicholas]

@@petritkola while you can make deductive inferences, they don't have to comport with reality. ie, all fairies are immortal, tinker bell is a fairy, therefore tinkerbell is immortal. Humans are great at making up fantasy worlds that have logical consistency but have nothing to do with reality. So much sci fi is like this! But when it comes to tying things to reality the thing that has worked better than anything else is science.

[@myinstgiscarbenuim1693]

​@@keithnicholasyou're making up imaginary scinarios as you go here

[@andreadashnea7305]

I believe Unicorn exist, I’ve read a book on them. Prove to me that unicorns do not exist..

[@andecap1325]

Exactly..ever hear of the flying spaghetti monster...old news.lol

[@masterjose8483]

Facts and supposed logic of Atheism 🤓🤓🤣🤣🤣

[@siddhantsamarth762]

dude replied to burden of proof disagreements saying "show me academics" but cant take on basic logic XD

[@bkhan19]

Which book of Unicorns did you read?

[@andecap1325]

If one did exist it wouldnt be supernatraul like a god silly...

[@cachc]

The more I watch apologetic videos, the less I believe in a god. I have never heard a religious argument that is not a fallacy, and this video starts with one.

[@petritkola]

I haven’t said one fallacy in this video lol. Please provide the fallacy with the name of it as well

[@bravante5927]

@@petritkola the burden of proof stuff. Please disprove fairies. If your can’t, they exist.

[@WeissAdvice]

@@bravante5927 this is correct. Because religion is not specifically the claim of just an ambiguous God. An undefined fairy can be defined as anything and therefore can exist as easily as it cannot exist. However, religion makes specific claims about the exact nature of what God is and how we should conduct our lives accordingly. Atheism on the other hand is not necessarily the active disbelief in a God, but also the "lack of belief" which is a non-specific approach. Either way Occam's Razor suggests that we embrace the proposal that requires the least amount of unknowns and assumptions as our acquired understanding - and if new evidence is presented then we change the pecking order. This whole burden of proof idea is presented with equivocation, when in reality Atheism of any sort requires less assumptions than any religious belief. They are not equal.

[@debbs_io]

@@petritkola The claim that atheism asserts ~A is wrong. Atheism is a non-assertion. It does not assert, it says maybe or maybe not. Theism is the only assertive claim in that example at 2:49

[@BlackHat-v4j]

⁠@@petritkolaone the whole burden of proof If the atheist makes the claim there no proof for god they can’t show a lack of proof it’s your responsibility to show the proof the claim is there no proof then the lack of proof backs up that you have no proof so your lack of proof is proof of the claim there is no proof

[@NopeThatsIllegal]

This video has reaffirmed to me that being an atheist is the logical and correct choice. Thank you.

[@petritkola]

Explain academically what I said that was wrong

[@MrCanis4]

@@petritkola everything you say about the "burden of proof".

[@petritkola]

@@MrCanis4 I showed the pinned comment that atheist philosophers agree with me. Please show me academics who agree with you. Graham Oppy agrees with me and so do many others. You have brought no sources no nothing

[@aviad121070]

@@petritkola didn't you say it's the atheist way to ask for the academics?

[@petritkola]

@@aviad121070 what?

[@OdinMagnus]

lol, way to shift the burden of proof. Theist: God Exists! Atheist: Can you prove it? Theist: No Atheist: Then I don't believe you Theist: PROVE THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME!! Atheist: What? Theist: Aha! Got you, you can't prove your side... This is the dumbest argument... I don't have to prove that I don't believe you, you have to prove your claim. Prove to me that you don't believe in Odin. I guess you believe in Odin then... see how dumb that is...

[@js2567]

Yes! This exactly!

[@keithnicholas]

1) you suddenly changed what the atheist says in your logical form, they don't claim ~A. As Alex said, default position is non belief, the atheist is saying, Who is this sarah, I don't know her, andI don't see Sarah! can you show me her? And the theist says, hey, here's a book, it says Sarah is sitting behind you.... and the atheist says, well, that really is just the same claim, it's not really evidence that she is here, surely you have evidence she is here? or... do you only think she is here because the book says so? .... didn't watch the rest of your video.... failed on your first point.

[@sksarmadbarru1]

[Al Qur'an 2:6] *As for those who persist in disbelief, it is the same whether you warn them or not-they will never believe.*

[@Islamiccalling]

"default position is non belief" - That's a claim that needs justification. If you're saying God doesn't exist that is a claim that needs justification. That's what he was saying. It doesn't matter if you think God belief is unreasonable or not you still have a burden as well.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

As a general rule, it is much easier to prove a positive than a negative.

[@velkyn1]

yep, he's really an incomptent liar and apologist. Claims aren't evidence.

[@velkyn1]

@@sksarmadbarru1 yep, repeating lies from your ignorant book isn't a great way to convince people.

[@abdulansari1499]

So... what evidence you need to prove non existence of your imaginary friend?

[@derekjohnstone6648]

These people don't seem to understand that no evidence for something is a pretty good indicator it doesn't exist.

[@urielpolak9949]

This is just wrong. Do you go around disproving other gods??

[@eduardoarce879]

@@derekjohnstone6648 Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -Carl Sagan

[@derekjohnstone6648]

@eduardoarce879 it's not absence of evidence. Evidence shows we were not created. Therefore there is no creator.

[@FairlyFatherless]

​​@@eduardoarce879300k years of human existence, approx 100 billion humans in total, and the best, current existence for the Abrahamic God is the words, inane ramblings, and unsubstantiated claims from less than 100 people throughout all of human existence. Apparently, a couple thousand years ago, God was chatting the ears of a few semetic peoples, but has decided to go a multi-millenium siesta. When will our deadbeat cosmic daddy come back and tell us the logistics of buying and selling slaves like he did in the old days?

[@metadragon6209]

There are two types of atheism: strong and weak. The strong atheist is as you described, and does indeed have a burden of proof. But the weak atheist is different; it is a form of agnostic. The thing is, theists can be agnostics too. I've asked many theists if they know for absolutely certain that god is real, and often they say no. That makes them agnostic, but an agnostic theist. Imagine this: You assert that there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and mars. I say I don't believe you, since I've never heard of a teapot ever going to space and you haven't provided any evidence for it. But I don't know for certain. I mean, there could be a teapot out there somewhere, how could I ever deny that for certain? It's more of a way of living in a way, all the weak atheist or theist has to do is refute arguments against their position and then can go about worshipping in the theist's case and not worshipping in the atheist's case. You could say the burden to refute positions is still a burden, but both strong and weak beliefs share this burden so it's not very useful.

[@ladulaser]

The statement that there is some kind of consciousness that both surrounds and permeates the universe and thus created and knows everything that happenes in it, is an extraordinary claim for which we cannot even come up with any falsifiable model / determining experiment.

[@petritkola]

I never made such claim in this video

[@landsgevaer]

@@petritkola How do you define your god? Your god is the god of the gaps maybe?

[@PhiloSapience]

@petritkola We are a group of atheist/ex-muslims who expose contradictions within Islam, of course you know that since we have had conversation in our comments section. So you saying that there are no contradictions in Islam would at best be naive. I stumbled on this video and it was agonizingly misrepresentative of the kind of arguments that some of the more philosophically savvy atheists make (us included). Most of your arguments presented here in this video have holes in it (stealing it from the famous Yasir Qadhi quote). You still have not responded to our conversation in the comments section at our channel. I would again extend my invitation to you to join in one of our live streams when we are entertaining live calls to have a conversation about all of your points in this video.

[@andecap1325]

cause he cant help but be a following sheep....baaaaaa

[@antoneriksson5746]

Aha he didn’t respond now we know he is fraud!!

[@nmappraiser9926]

The thing about "burden of proof arguments" is that they are there to refute large claims, such as "there is a god somewhere." Hard to disprove. But it's actually easy to disprove the major religions who claim "my specific god exists." This has been done regarding all claims of gods presented to date.

[@oof8756]

Yes, if you assert the claim "There is no god", it is on you to provide evidence. If you simply say "I am not convinced of any claims for a god", then the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is a god.

[@shreyas7801]

Saying that there is no God with 100% certainty is wrong. We can't know for sure that 'God' doesn't exist, because it might be that we haven't come across 'God' just yet. So there's always a chance that God exist. But if we somehow discovered 'God' we would know for sure that the God exist. Hence, 1) when atheists say that God doesn't exist, they are simply wrong. 2) When the theists say God exists, the burden of proof obviously falls on them.

[@derekjohnstone6648]

Saying there is no God is 100% accurate. Because there is no God.

[@javierramirez637]

@@derekjohnstone6648I think you’re missing the point of what he’s saying. Someone saying there absolutely is a god and someone who says there absolutes is not a god are both making a claim that they nor anyone else can prove, which is why it should be disregarded as an argument. However, when someone says whether or not there is a god, can not be known, this is a valid point that we can recognize because you can’t prove or disprove any or all god claims, for or against. Basically, theism is the belief in a god, some people say there is no god but atheism is the absence of a belief. And agnosticism is recognizing that it can’t be known either way.

[@derekjohnstone6648]

@javierramirez637 I didn't miss the point. God is a creator of everything. We know that animals, humans, our planet, even the universe was not created. Since we can prove life and our universe, etc wasn't created then there is no creator. Therefore God does not exist.

[@tornadre]

Sort of, but only hyper pedantic people like the video creator really care about this. When atheists say “God doesn’t exist,” they are really saying “there is no evidence for God’s existence, therefore I believe there is no God.” There is an extremely rare exception to that (funnily enough one such example was the first to reply to your comment) but those people are not worth considering, because they lack the prerequisite understanding of philosophy and epistemology.

[@maddehaan]

HAHAHAHAHAHA, removing comments that you can't refute...it shows your lack of actual trust in your own arguments.

[@siddhantsamarth762]

I'm not convinced of the idea of a god but I'm convinced human stupidity knows no bounds

[@krovraink]

About the burden of proof, imagine someone says "There's a tiger in our backyard". And if I respond with "well, prove it", then it's up to the person who said anything about the tiger in the first place who needs to defend. If neither of us are able to defend, then the default position is "there could be a tiger in the backyard, but given current circumstances, that is unlikely". But, I will admit that atheists SHOULD try to actively defend their point and shouldn't cover behind the burden of proof, because in the mind of a believer, what they know as fact is being challenged by the atheist's negative claim whereas in the mind of the atheist, what they know as fact is being challenged by the theist's positive claim. Also, another reason atheists are bound to burden of proof is that your average atheist will assert "I dont know if god exists, but I am certain your god doesnt". So the existence of god itself is something with the burden of proof purely on the believer, but contending with the specific religion itself, the burden of proof is on both. edit: please dont say atheists have more burden of proof lmfao, the theist does. Just because everyone thinks something, doesn't mean it's real.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

@Krovranik that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That ends the argument about religion. Prove me wrong.

[@krovraink]

@@jonathanrussell1140 agreed 100%

[@jonathanrussell1140]

@@krovraink Cool, that means unless the atheist makes a claim, the burden of proof rests firmly with the theist.

[@Grantalope10]

You misunderstood the point of the burden of proof argument. The argument is precisely that the atheist isn’t claiming that God doesn’t exist. Lack of belief in god is the atheist’s defining trait, not disbelief in god.

[@petritkola]

Look at the pinned comment. Atheists hold that they believe god doesn’t believe. Whether that’s due to lack of belief or not, they still due to the lack of beliefe think his doesn’t exist. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.

[@Grantalope10]

@@petritkolaI think that when most atheists claim that they don’t have the burden of proof, they are saying they don’t have to defend the position that god does not exist. When you showed Alex, this is what he was saying. Atheists do have a burden of proof in that they have to explain why their position is reasonable. But this isn’t the burden of proof that most people tend to place on an atheist in debates. Usually, an atheist says they don’t have the burden of proof after a theist has told them that they are unable to prove that god doesn’t exist. The atheist doesn’t necessarily have that particular burden of proof, so I think that statement is reasonable. I agree that the burden of proof argument is often misused by people that don’t understand it. It definitely isn’t an argument against the existence of god, and it is often used to just shut down debate. However, I don’t think the clip you showed of Alex is a good example of someone misapplying the concept.

[@marksierra3522]

18:00 Holy cow you are dense. When atheists say there are many different gods, they're saying that there are many different CONCEPTS of what/ who God is and more specifically what rules that God impose. It's a rebuttal to Pascal's wager - that you might as well believe in X god because to do otherwise is to gamble with damnation or some other consequence. The problem there is that even if you accept that, you still have no idea how whatever god may exist wants. How do you know the Jews are more correct than the Muslims? You don't. How do you know that Zeus was the correct concept of God? Again - you don't and you can't.

[@petritkola]

lol what did I say at 18:00? I said that while yes there are many different concepts of God, the only logical one based on the necessary being argument is monotheism. What monotheistic religions are out there? 3 really. Judaism Christianity Islam. This eliminates the other 2000 gods because those are in the form of polytheism not monotheism. Now that we have 3 types of monotheistic religions, we can eliminate Christianity because of the trinity and how it goes against the necessary being principle. We can eliminate Judaism because God goes down to the heavens and wrestles and becomes contingent. The only monotheistic religion that upholds a necessary being is Islam Once again this was in response to Ricky Gerveis who says that we sent 2,999 Gods. There are two concepts of Gods in the broad sense: polytheism and montheism. Based on logic of a necessary being, first cause, and many other arguments for God, we can eliminate polytheism. Then we have monotheism. That was the point I’m making. Zeus is polytheism because it’s with all the Greek gods so it’s wrong lol

[@bit7389]

This is so stupid. Of course, I can prove Sarah is not in the classroom if Sarah is an actual person and I and people in the classroom know her. Do you believe in Leprechauns or Gnomes, creatures no one has ever actually seen? If not, prove to me, they don't exist! Or do you believe in the Hindu God Krishna? If you don't, prove to me he doesn't exist. Can you see how ridiculous that demand is, now?

[@maddehaan]

Watch out, I brought up the same argument about an hour ago and he deleted my comment to prevent to need to ACTUALLY bring arguments.

[@bit7389]

@@maddehaan Yeah, well what choice does he have? If your line of argument is so obviously faulty, you can either admit you are wrong - unthinkable if you are a true believer!!!! 😂 Or you try to silence people who argue against you.

[@LeyonNova]

After watching your first clip on "Burden of proof" i understood that sometimes a person could say a lot of words and still mean absolutely bullshit, dude its a simple thing - Burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim, they claim god exists and atheist says God doesn't, its just common sense that the one who claims god exists must give the proof. Your just making up gibberish and twisting words just to dilute this common sense.

[@beefcakeman1525]

yea this guy really doesnt understand anything. his intelligence is either very low or he is trolling, most likely its the first and he just doesnt grasp basic concepts of logic

[@scottmichniewicz4234]

Wow. The burden of proof doesn't fall on the theist. You make a claim, and it should be up to everyone else to DISPROVE your assertions. Irrational, egocentric, and delusional. Which is fine, if it doesn't effect everyone else. Unfortunately, it always does.

[@everythingandroidois]

Assalamualaykum brother, if we want to study in Madinah University, you told me elsewhere sign ups will open in the summer, are you sure about this? And also where is it that I can confirm when it will start, as in being notified? Also your videos here are very helpful mashaAllah both on Madinah Uni and Direct Dawah. JazakAllahu Khayr Akhi.

[@analyticalAtheism]

While I understand your points about the burden of proof and the rejection of scientism, I think it's important to consider that atheism, in many cases, is a position of non-belief rather than a positive claim about the non-existence of gods. As for the multiplicity of gods, the point is not just about 'one less god' but about applying a consistent standard of skepticism and evidence to all supernatural claims. Regarding the reliance on science, it's not about dismissing other forms of evidence, but rather recognizing the reliability of empirical methods. These methods are not limited to natural sciences but are foundational to any claim that has empirical implications. As for the arguments tailored against Christianity, atheism addresses theistic claims from *all* religions, including Islam. The focus on Christianity might be more pronounced due to its cultural dominance in many of the societies where these debates occur. Lastly, the assertion that Islam has no contradictions is a belief that is open to debate and analysis, just like any other religious claim. It's essential for a constructive dialogue that we examine all religious claims with the same level of critical inquiry, whether they come from Islam, Christianity, or any other belief system.

[@petritkola]

Thank you at least for understanding what I was saying unlike the other atheists here. In most cases one who is engaging in a discussion and says that they’re an atheist, they mean one who denies God. One who is in engaging in a discussion not talking about one who just lives their life and doesn’t care. The point of the science claim was when atheists say “being me scientific evidence” is idiotic because there are other forms of knowledge. Logic, testimony, so on. I’m saying if I bring a logical argument , that doesn’t mean I brought no evidence you get me? And yeah Christianity is more popular hence why they tailor the arguments more towards them even when attacking Islam. Overall, one of the few atheists here who actually engaged and didn’t just say “you’re an idiot” to claims that aren’t controversial. Nothing I said here was super controversial or idiotic lol. This was hopefully a good discussion with you

[@analyticalAtheism]

I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue with you. However, I disagree with your statement regarding atheism. When someone says they are an atheist, they typically mean that they do not accept any claims of the existence of gods without sufficient evidence, rather than outright denying their existence. It is a nuanced position that reflects a broader spectrum of non-belief. You made a valid point about the call for scientific evidence. While science is indeed necessary, logical reasoning and sound philosophical arguments are also significant forms of evidence when they are cogent and robust. When atheists seek scientific evidence, they are looking for empirical or logical substantiation that can be examined and validated within a shared framework of understanding. The prevalence of Christianity does influence many atheistic critiques. However, it is essential for both atheists and theists to address each religion's unique claims on its own terms, including Islam, with respect and a genuine effort to understand. Atheism is about maintaining a stance of inquiry and skepticism until there is sufficient evidence to justify belief. It is a position of non-belief that remains open to new evidence and arguments, rather than a definitive claim to know the non-existence of deities. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this conversation with you, as it allows for a deeper exploration of our beliefs, knowledge, and the profound questions that shape our understanding of existence. When presenting a logical argument, it is crucial to differentiate between merely presenting an argument and providing sufficient evidence to compel a change in viewpoint. An argument must not only be valid in its logical structure but also sound in its premises to serve as convincing evidence. This means that the premises of the argument must be true, and the conclusion must logically follow from them. In discussions on theism and atheism, philosophical arguments are often at the forefront. While these arguments can be considered evidence, the crux of the matter lies in the soundness of the argument presented. As an atheist or anyone assessing such claims, the question is whether the evidence-logical, empirical, or otherwise-is robust enough to warrant a revision of one's current stance. Therefore, while I welcome logical arguments, I maintain a stance of inquiry and skepticism, examining the soundness of the arguments before accepting them as sufficient grounds for belief.

[@stickyrubb]

@petritkola If you read analyticalAtheism's comment you'll have learned more than you did when studying theology.

[@malcolmchambers4934]

The only statement the Athiest needs to make to satisfy your first claim is "I have not experienced any evidence that a God exists" Then you say "What would convince you" Answer "If God was real then god would know what is required to convince me, but at this point I don't known what it would take"

[@AbnerAgogo]

You couldn’t debunk your way out of a paper bag. This is pseudo intellectualism.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Here's a tip. Don't use the word "debunking" and don't jab a mocking finger towards the camera. But more importantly - no fallacies, no straw men.

[@petritkola]

Name me one fallacy I used in this video. Just one

[@DuXQaK]

​@@petritkolaAppeal to Popularity

[@petritkola]

@@DuXQaK where did I say that in my video that because the majority says X it is true? I never once said that in my video

[@DuXQaK]

@@petritkola I'm not watching that piece of crap again, to have a discussion with your sorry ass. Claim another win Claim Boy, I don't care, it ain't worth it for me.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

@@petritkola I think I've already pointed out loads of fallacies, and so have others here. But I can trawl back through and restate them of you like. You misstate the atheist position, you use non-equivalent examples to try to prove your point, you fail to appreciate that your "fire on the 7th floor" analogy exactly meets Aron Ra's stated requirements for evidence of a claim.

[@unholycheeseburger]

Number 4: Buddhists don't believe Buddha is a god. The point of asking what god are you talking about, is to make a point that your god is just as silly as other gods people used to believe in. It's a great point and you missed it.

[@FluffyBuffy27]

As an athiest, I actually agree with the burden of proof argument somewhat. I believe that the burden of proof falls on the religious first and foremost but I think it is still the case that the athiest can and should justify their belief and that the athiest needs to also prove their belief (by putting forward the reasons to why there isn't sufficient evidence (hence why the religious have to go first because the athiest needs to use the claims made by the religious)).

[@nicolasgralewicz4727]

I respect and admire your polite tone and hope we can continue civil conversation in the comments. I respect any beliefs that don't infringe on the rights of others but I want to explain why these arguments don't convince me to return to religion. (Full disclosure, I have no read the Qur'an but I have read the Torah and the New Testament along with familiarizing myself to a handful pagan/neo-pagan religions and practices to varying extents.) 1. Burden of proof: This seems to contain a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no sufficient evidence of one that we are aware of. If I tell you I have a pink elephant in my basement you would expect me to prove it - given how unlikely it is my testimony is not sufficient evidence. As an atheist I am not making a negative claim of "God does not exist" but rather am saying "there is no sufficient evidence to make me believe in a god or gods and will only change my viewpoint when such a claim will be substantiated". A positive claim requires evidence. Faith and testimony are not valid evidence for any scientific hypothesis let alone a hypothesis of everything. All of our scientific theories work without theism and many contradict one or several religions. No religion I'm familiar with stands to Occam's Razor and God itself is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific. Science can't falsify the unfalsifiable. Scientific attempts at quantifying God and the supernatural have always come back without sufficient evidence which is why less than 7% of scientists are theists. 2. Scientific evidence: A god needs to work with the scientific laws of the universe and if it doesn't work with them then it is either thrown out or we need to re-evaluate and falsify all of the currently accepted ideas being contradicted by any particular God that is being scientifically accepted. Philosophy is not a replacement for scientific evidence. Furthermore, our memories aren't always correct; humans forget, misremember, and sometimes even create completely false memories. These are things that can be easily observed and have been observed in experimental settings. Also, your point about the fire is yet again relying on testimony. Testimony is not scientific and is sometimes reliable. If I told you I ate kasha today you would probably believe me because that's mundane and strange to lie about (for the record, I did indeed eat kasha today). Back to my pink elephant in my basement, would you believe me if I refuse to show you? Of course not. The human senses are inherently flawed. We misremember, create false memories, have hallucinations, sometimes have lifelike dreams we later mistake for actual events (this has happened to me referencing past conversations that have never happened that I later found mention of while reading through my dream journal), and we lie. All of this together makes testimony a slippery slope. Testimony is based upon trust which varies from person to person (you wouldn't believe a compulsive liar if they told you they were attacked by a werewolf) and from claim to claim (you wouldn't believe a close friend who told you they know how to fly and shoot lasers out of their eyes). 3. He isn't saying you're an atheist. You're making a crappy strawman argument. However, going back to burden of proof: should Muslims - or let's generalize as monotheists - not need to disprove polytheistic belief systems? Also fundamentalist vs naturalist beliefs and then the endless bickering between monotheistic religions including the Abrahamic religions and even their subsects. Catholics and protestants are in direct opposition and contradict each other - only one can be correct. Which one, if any? 4. I already covered this in the third point, as did you. But since you're making this silly analogy with the murder, let me raise a question for you. Are you calling religion a monolith and saying they're all the same religion and/or all correct in their own way? How can this be true if they all contradict each other? New age spirituality is just as similar to Islam as atheism is to Hinduism. They're all different and distinct religions from each other. The existence of Buddha and the existence of the Holy Trinity are two completely distinct claims that need individual evidence. 5. I'm not addressing the spaghetti monster section because I agree with you that it's silly, insulting, and immature. It's not a valid argument against God and just a silly meme. 6. I'm not directly familiar with the Qur'an on an intimate enough level to debate on its validity. However, I do know of two contradictions I learned from my Muslim friends. 1. What was man formed from? [96:2] claims man was made from blood while [15:26] states clay and [3:59] says dust. 2. Who was the first Muslim? [39:12] says Muhammad, [7:143] says Moses and [2:123] says Abraham. I hope you can respond and continue our civil conversation :)

[@petritkola]

Burden of proof is required for anyone making the claim. Once again, Graham Oppy, and nearly any other philosopher agrees with me here. A claim can be negative or positive. Also not ALL atheists say they just lack evidence. Many say they don’t believe in God. That’s a claim. Doesn’t matter if it’s negative or positive, it’s a claim. A claim, as shown by the video and Graham oppy has the burden of proof. The burden of proof can simply be explaining what would convince you. This is taking in this different definition of atheism which many philosophers disagree with (see pinned comment). Even this lack belief idea, STILL is a claim and still you would have some burden of proof 2. The point of this second portion is NOT to argue for God through testimony, but simply showing that science cannot explain everything. Read ANY book on philosophy of science (maybe you have just saying for the general people) and this is 100% true. In the philosophy of science a new introduction by Oxford the authors write to speak of scientific fact is misleading because you assume it cannot change. Now, testimony, logical arguments, all of that are evidence. Question: have you (or anyone not attacking you lol just posing the question) actually done the scientific research on, say, evolution? No of course not none of us have. So why do you believe it? Is it because you heard a well know scientist explain it? Is it because you read Darwin’s book? If so, congrats, testimony. Science is build on testimony lol. I wasn’t saying testimony can prove god; I was simply attacking the position that we need scientific evidence for God. If your going to assume scienticm and that we need science for all our beliefs, then what about the axioms which science are build upon? That the universe is consistent. That everything has a cause to it and so on. This is not my uneducated beliefs, go to any philsophy of science book and they will say the same thing. I simply wanted to go against the point of “provide me scientific evidence!!!” lol In terms of the “I believe in one less” that is an argument. It is essentially arguing that why do theists deny all Gods except one. To the 3,000 God thing; there are two groups of Gods; polytheism and monotheism. Polytheism does not conform to logic. Therefore there must be monotheism. However, in a discussion on whether God exists or not, one does not have to stipulate which God exactly. As with the police and murder analogy, all one has to do is showcase that there must be a first cause or a necessary being. If you can’t agree with that, then talking about Allah vs Jesus is a worthless endeavor if you read oppys arguments against God, he doesn’t argue against all Gods; he argues against a necessary being or an all powerful god. These are attributes that all religious uphold when discussing god. It would be ridiculous for me a theist to go to Oppys room and say “you idiot tell me which God do you wanna argue about?????” Lol. He’s making a general attack; a theist is making a general argument for A god to exist. Which one doesn’t matter at this stage of the discussion. Read any academic paper on god or against god, none of them will try arguing specifically for one God. They will argue for a God in general or against God(s) in general Nothing I said in this video is controversial in the literature. Absolutely nothing. I made a video with citations and showing videos and all of that. If someone says burden of proof is not on a negative claim, look it up on academic journals. If someone says that atheism is just lack belief, then look at my pinned comment where I brought so many definitions of atheism. Look at the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and what they say. 3 of these points in the video were the same points Majesty of reason (an agnostic philosophy KZbinr) made in his critique on some arguments people use. Once again: nothing controversial or wrong in this video lol

[@nicolasgralewicz4727]

@@petritkola I never said that the burden of proof isn't needed for negative claims, I just said that most atheists today prefer the language of "I lack evidence" which is a more scientific and less dogmatic - dare I say "religious" -way of thinking. It is absence of belief, not denial. Why would I need to find evidence of your unfalsifiable god's absence when you won't provide evidence for its presence. Again, Occam's Razor - you don't need to debunk that I fart rainbows. I do wanna ask you one constructive question. What makes monotheism more logical than polytheism? You throw the word logic around a lot and even mention logical evidence for religion but never provide it, just convoluted analogies. Furthermore, you at one point do claim that Allah is the one true God, you're indirectly making a negative claim about every other god in this case. The only thing I wanna add is that according to a PhilPapers study from 2020, 14.6% of philosophers are theists while 5.5% of biologists and 7.5% of physicists are according to a Nature survey with a participant pool of over 1000 from 1996. So I'd say that if you take a moment to step outside your echo chamber you'd find that your claim is extremely controversial in academia if you look at the literature. So how about you stop vomiting word salad, and just think for a moment before speaking instead of singing circles around all the points you conveniently ignored in my response? Maybe you ignored them because they invalidate your reply? Because that's why I'm not addressing your reply point by point - most of your points are invalidated by the comment you're replying to. You can't selectively pick and choose the criticisms you THINK you can challenge just like you can't claim the Qur'an has no contradictions. What's your view on evolution? Do you believe God just made us out of clay? What does that mean for our expansive fossil record? Do you believe the Earth is billions of years old and the universe even older? You claim to be based in science to some extent but Islam ranges from theistic evolution to old world creationism and a recent movement of young earth creationism. What are your views on these? Because all of them contradict observable evidence and the only evidence I can find for god is some old books written by people with way too much time on their hands. I won't even ask for evidence, tell me ONE way we can falsify god. God is unfalsifiable by design and thus not worth the time of academics.

[@iuliancojocaru4125]

I'm just going to go through this video point by point. 1. "Negative claims have to be proven" is only true when the person making the positive claim comes up with irrefutable evidence. If negative claims always need proof than we would have to believe in all sorts of nonsense like gnomes that only some people can see or some other crap. 2."Evidence gives you the justification of what you belive in" This is just stupid, evidence is just proof of something. The fact that you phrase it like that shows you flawed way of thinking, you beleive in something because it feels good then justify it later. 3."Lots of people tell you there is a fire and you have to believe them because asking for scientific evidence is pedantic." This is a bad example. The problem with the example is that in a building fire it's good to leave even if there might not be one just in case. Worst case scenario you lose a bit of time. Regardless of what you choose to do, you can verifiy if there is a fire by looking at the flames, that is your evidence. Asking for scientific evidence is just like asking for evidence except with all of the kinks ironed out. A better example would be that a whole bunch of people talk about how there is a fire somewhere but you can't see it because... reasons. Lots of people can be fooled and intuition can be wrong, this is why you need scientific evidence. 4. The 1 less arguments is meant to show you the hypocrisy of how you apply the same argument that can be applied to 3000 other gods and yet still use it on only 1 god. If you were trying to make a case for just your god you would use arguments that work only for it but you don't. 5.(Strawman of athiest)"You don't know who killed this guy therefor he wasn't killed" Again, bad example the problem here is that you are conflating existence of anything with proof of god. When talking about the beginning of the universe saying that it created itself isn't any more or less ridiculous from saying that the magic man did it. 6."Kids don't believe in Santa" This is just false. I know ADULTS who still believe in that. I remember trying to tell some classmates that santa isn't real and the whole classroom got divided into 2 parts, the believers and the nonbelievers and we would fight and bicker the same way theist and atheist do. 7."But muh intuition about god". And again, intuition can be wrong, without evidence you can't prove anything other than that you believe. 8."Islam gives you everything" Except rights for women. So much for debunking atheist arguments.

[@petritkola]

Another atheist who doesn’t understand epistemology lol. Sherlock if someone makes the claim “there is no X” everyone will agree that they will have to provide evidence for it because they are making the claim. If I said “the earth is NOT round ” or I said “the earth is flat” are you telling me the first claim doesn’t need proof if someone were to say it? The first is the same as the second positive but it’s just negative lol 2 yes evidence helps provide justification. What are you talking about. There is evidence for evolution. Evidence of Evolution helps justify the belief in evolution. If someone were to say I believe in evolution, and here’s the evidence, that’s evidence for it. Also the point of the analogy of the fire is that we can use testimony as evidence. If you say “in this case yes we can” them I’m right and scientific evidence is not the ONLY evidence we need for things. You clearly don’t know epistemology or philosophy idk why you even commented.

[@PaulChater-z9t]

NONSENCE- who is Sarah, nobody has ever seen her, she just a name on the register. Therefore does she exist? Come one use logic to this nonsense.

[@marksierra3522]

Ok, lets say that I - an atheist - concede and agree that a god must exist. How do I know it's the god that you follow? How do I know your concept is correct? How do I know it's more correct than that of some tribe or of the old greeks? I don't and I can't. You don't just get to define your god as "the God" and therefore any god that does exist must share your morals. That's not how that works, you aren't afforded that argument since you make very specific claims in regards to Gods commandments. You HAVE to prove those claims if you're going to tell people they should behave in x or y manner because of your religion.

[@thomspeak]

The comment if you are agnostic you should just listen shows a thorough misunderstanding of what agnosticism is. This is why many agnostic people define themselves as atheists. Which you then misrepresent as having to defend strong atheism i.e. the belief there is no god. I would point out this still requires no evidence. All you need to do to disprove either a strong or weak atheist is bring some evidence for a god. However, this is a long way from proving one particular religion is true. If your god, or any other god or god exists equally disproves atheism. But equally, the existence of any single god (or many gods) would also disprove most individual religions. If you want someone else to believe in your particular god and your particular understanding of what that god wants you to do and believe it would require a lot more than just proof a god exists. So if you want someone who doesn't already believe in a god, to believe in your god they will require evidence not just a god exists but that your god exists. Your claim of your god is exclusive, your god does not allow other variants of Islam to be true it also doesn't allow for Christianity, Judaism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism or any of the other multitude of gods to exist. This is just part of the example of why there is such a huge gulf from weak atheism " i see no evidence for a god" and the claim that 1 specific sect of 1 specific Abrahamic religion is accurate. For a final point of issue with this though, if your god (or any) exists why not just provide some evidence they do. Why try and argue that atheist or agnostics have no evidence god doesn't exist (something most have never argued). Just give them some evidence one does. If you can't do that ask yourself why you can't. If the answer is you don't have any, ask yourself if you are really a theist or just an agnostic yourself.

[@bit7389]

Yes, totally agree. I am strictly speaking agnostic, but call myself atheist, because otherwise religious people tend to think I am agnostic towards their particular god which I am not. I just don't rule out that some undefined form of higher being or beings might exist. But this seems impossible to understand for religious people.

[@js2567]

Well the first argument is pretty bad so I don't think I'll make it much further in this. If I say "there is no God", it's because I've not witnessed the proof to satisfy a belief in it. To use your analogy, Sarah isn't in class because I can't see her, I can't smell her, I can't taste her, I can't hear her. If Sarah is just hiding under a table and you know what table she's hiding under and I don't, how am I supposed to provide you the answer I have no knowledge of? I looked around and I don't see her. You have to prove to me where I'm blind, the implication of my lack of evidence to prove Sarah's existence is inherent in my statement of her not being present.

[@levirichards7010]

This video helped remind me why I'm atheist. I was doubting Atheism and now I'm confident it's still correct. Much appreciated.

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

The "2999 vs 3000 gods" argument went right above the OP's head. It supposed to make you think *why* you don't believe in all those other gods, and why, despite this, you still believe in one. Is the evidence really so much better, or did you just fall for the selective skeptic fallacy?

[@petritkola]

It's such a stupid argument lol. First off if I eliminate polytheism, then I only have three gods to pick from really. It's not like how gerveis the idiot made it out to be.

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

@@petritkola You still not get the argument. It's about the method you are using to eliminate members of a set. More over, you seem to think it's a set with known number of elements.

[@FluffyBuffy27]

All thiests claimed evidence essentially amounts to "there must be a god because of x y and z". There must be a God is not valid evidence for Gods existence.

[@petraravn5421]

As far as I know, there's only one atheist argument: There's no evidence for gods.

[@kahkashanzareen3589]

Brother u should probably create a follow up video on this video as there are so many comments here trying to debunk your arguments

[@petritkola]

The only argument they’re going against is the burden of proof claim which, if these atheists actually did their academic research, they would see that their opinion is wrong. But I might do one about the burden of proof claim inshallah

[@petritkola]

Appreciate the advice

[@kahkashanzareen3589]

​​@@petritkolayea i haven't seen a single person in the comment section yet to debunk your entire video there just trying to debunk the burden of proof claim

[@kahkashanzareen3589]

​@@petritkolayou may have seen a ex muslim channel in the comments inviting you to join a live stream with them for a debate so i just wanted to ask will u come into there live stream for a debate?

[@kahkashanzareen3589]

Btw the name of the channel is philosapience

[@YorgosSimeonidis]

If the burden of proof lies to the ones who are not convinced of a proposition, people would be doing nothing else but disproving any wacky assertion. If, for example I claim that Petrit Kola owes me $10000 he has to prove that he doesn't.

[@petritkola]

Sherlock I never said burden of proof is on the one who is not convinced. I said burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. Atheists make a claim that they don’t believe in god. Therefore, based on almost every single academic, they have the burden of proof

[@ponyboygarfunkel1675]

@@petritkola >"Atheists make a claim that they don’t believe in god. Therefore, based on almost every single academic, they have the burden of proof"< It seems to me the person is simply describing their mind state, what they believe. Do I bear a burden of proof for my own mind state? I think not.

[@YorgosSimeonidis]

@@petritkola You are correct. It is just that I never met an atheist who claims that they know that God does not exist. Everyone says that they don't believe that God exists. Technically you are correct about the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic but in real life people who identify as atheists are what you call agnostics. Ricard Dawkins for example is an agnostic according to your definition.

[@petritkola]

@@ponyboygarfunkel1675 I also said a claim requires the burden of proof. Prove to me that I’m wrong. Show me an academic or an intellectual that says otherwise

[@ponyboygarfunkel1675]

@@petritkola >"Prove to me that I’m wrong."< I'm not seeing this as relating much to my comment. I believe god is a manmade character. I have described my mind state. Nothing more.

[@kevinfancher3512]

I'm an Atheist. Don't pretend you're smarter than me and I won't pretend to be smarter than you. One of us is "smarter" in any number of measurable ways, but we'll likely never know. RE philosophy, you probably have me beat, but since you don't seem to understand burden of proof, I have some doubts, so I'm going to remain agnostic on the matter. Same goes for god. There may be a god or gods; as far as I can tell that prospect is unfalsifiable, so until I see something that convinces me otherwise, I'm going to remain agnostic on the matter. As far as I can tell, I live my life entirely as if there is no god. Please tell me the position I am taking as an atheist that I am to defend, and I'll do my best. In the meantime, you are wise to believe me when I say that I'm simply not convinced, and to reconsider your understanding of burden of proof. I await your new post as I look at a bit more of this silly offering.

[@kevinfancher3512]

Oops, I really gave you too much credit before. My bad, I'm done. (Please learn at least one thing about logical fallacies.) You are colossally bad at this. Go back to school, you're not done yet... by a long shot.

[@stormvejr]

Your understanding of the burden of proof is quite poor. The concept of "Sarah in the classroom" as a negative position, is dependent on someone claiming that she is in the class room, as well as her actually existing. So if Sarah does not exist, she is not in the classroom, and it is unprovable that she is not, since we can not know neither her format nor location. But to simplify this, since you might need it, I will now say that I am in the room with you. So how do you prove that I am not? IF you say, "I can't see you" I will simply say either that I am in fact invisible, or that I am there, you just didn't look enough. Now. how long will it take for you to say "I don't believe you" on this issue? Because, according to your understanding of the burden of proof, you would need to definitively prove that I am in fact not in the room with you, which you can't, since I've claimed I'm invisible. So you now believe that I am in the room with you? If you say no, then congratulation, you understand the burden of proof, and why it applies to your god.

[@beefcakeman1525]

lmao you require a burden of proof, to disprove a god? How about you disprove the Invisible flying cat that resides at the center of the Andromeda galaxy? if you disprove that ill work on disproving your god

[@taggartaa]

In your example for Burden of proof. You are correct that there is a burden for the student that says "Sarah is in the classroom". You are also correct that there is a burden of proof for the person that says, "Sarah is not in the classroom." While there are some atheist who make the hard claim, "God does not exist", and they would have a burden of proof, there are others who would just say, "I don't believe that God exists." Here the claim is not about what the state of the world actually is in regards to god existing or not, the claim being made is about what the person themselves beleive. If they have a burden of proof, it is only a burden to convince you whether or not they actually believe in god or not. Let's take it back to your analogy. The teacher asks a student if Sarah is in the class. And they say, "I don't believe she is in the class." The student here has no burden of proof here to show that Sarah is not in the class because they are not making the claim that Sarah is not in fact in the class, just that they don't believe she is. The student does have a burden of proof if they want to convince the teacher that they aren't lying about what they believe though. The teacher can press on the students actual burden with a follow up question: "Why don't you believe Sarah is in the class?", to which the response could be, "I don't see her here, or any evidence that she is here hiding somewhere." You can do this for the believer too. If the student says, "I believe Sarah is in the class." Still the student has no burden of proof here to show that Sarah is in the class, they haven't made the claim that Sarah is in the class yet, just that they believe she is. The teacher can then ask the same follow up question: "Why do you believe Sarah is in the class?" To which the student responds, "I just have faith that she is in the class." Fine, though the teacher may find this response a little more suspicious in this scenario. Note I am not saying this is a great analogy for gods existence, but it is your analogy not mine. In short: "I believe/don't believe X" statements are only claims about what you believe, they are not claims that X is in fact true/false. These claims don't have a burden of proof (unless you are specefically trying to convince someone that you do in fact believe/disbelieve X). "X exists/ doesn't exist." statements do carry a burden of proof. The major difference here I think with the "I believe X vs I don't believe X" is that it isn't rational to believe something without first having sufficient evidence for it. But it is perfectly rational to disbelieve something for which you do not have sufficient evidence for.

[@ne0ns0wl46]

Well, there is a difference between Religious Believe aka. Faith and the colloquial use of believing something. You are using the colloquial "believing something" in your analogy. A synonymus use of words would be "i think so, but i am not sure" Believe/Faith on the other hand means "I am convinced of something, dispite a lack of evidence" Which means, they are convinced it is a fact.

[@taggartaa]

@ne0ns0wl46 I am using belief in X to mean, "I think X is true". I think the "but I'm not sure" part is more about the strength of one's belief than the type of one's belief. And that is separate from whether or not one's belief is religious or not. A person can have a religious belief and not be sure, and a person can be wholely convinced of a non religious belief without evidence as well.

[@robwhythe793]

Atheism has no burden of proof, because it is not making a negative claim. It does not assert that God does not exist. Atheism is a lack of belief that God does exist. If you don’t understand the difference you’re not worth listening to.

[@erikt1713]

If I make a claim that a powerful invisible dragon lives in the basement of my house then I would need proof to back up this claim. It is the same with the existence of God. This is really not the same as the opposite assertion. You cannot simply make up a god and expect anybody to buy your claim. We have to consider the type of claim and how far-fetched it is. Consider also that I could construct my dragon so that it would be very difficult to disproof. I could claim that it has neither energy nor matter, but that it reliably answers my prayers, as long as I do not expect anything more than can be achieved with talking to myself as well.

[@tariq_sharif]

As always, it seems utterly outside the capability of an theist to understand that atheist position is more or less: "I will beleive in any claim, when there is commensurate compelling evidence, until them my position is: i do not believe"... no burden of proof.. But they like to project their intellectual dishonesty on others. And of course, they are also atheiest to EVERY religion except their own..

[@petritkola]

Why is not belief the base? You do know that’s an epistemological position that needs to be defended right? You’re still holding the claim “I don’t believe in X”. Your just providing a reason for your not believing in it You know, it seems utterly outside the capability of an atheist to understand epistemology and philosophy LOL.

[@landsgevaer]

First define your god. I positively disbelieve in the omni* god, and that covers many theists. There are lots of ways to show that is self-contradictory. Can god create a stone so heavy he can't lift it. Can god have free will if he knows the future. Can god be benevolent if he could have created a world without suffering. Can god be perfect if he felt a need to create a universe. Etc.etc.

[@ChrystineDavis]

Yet more false equivalence and just general poor apologetics better luck next time. Atheism lives on.

[@francmittelo6731]

If Allah can translate the Quran in English (my primary language and the language spoken by most humans from different cultures) then I will say The Shahada and become a Muslim. This is all it will take for me to believe in Allah and to follow His will. I will wait.

[@kahkashanzareen3589]

Just wanted ask are u going to respond to philosapience by now u might have seen there comment

[@petritkola]

Probably not

[@kahkashanzareen3589]

​@@petritkolaok, i dont wanna bother you or anything but iam just curious so why aren't you responding to him? Or is it just that u don't want to get into a meaningless debate

[@petritkola]

@@kahkashanzareen3589 are you a Muslim btw?

[@M2sbah]

​@@petritkolayea iam a muslim Btw this is my alt

[@marclange9898]

Islam has no logical contradictions ... 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😂

[@petritkola]

Show me one logical contradiction

[@PaulChater-z9t]

This is a guy without answers. Trying to claim that something exists in his opinion, because people can't prove otherwise. Means that it only exists in his mind.

[@benjysmith181]

I can see why he only has 3k subscribers. If you don't understand the burden of proof then there's no hope

[@maddehaan]

No worries, I got the comment stored. So, to be clear: You failed simple logical argumentation by trying to say curved is straight, as in all philosophy and any level of understanding (read carefully, not opinion, not believe, understanding) the null hypothesis is basic and IF you make a claim (be it positive or negative), you need to provide evidence (As @gabe6646 already explained) that equals the claim. So stating: We theists believe in a god. That is great, you can believe anything you want, but that doesn't make it real. So when you change your statement to 'my god is more important', you fail. Simply because you now created the claim that there is a god, specifically yours (as I already mentioned in the other comment which you childishly deleted), not any other of the god claims, and nobody needs to provide you with any counter arguments, until you actually provide anything as a useful causal argument yourself. 'feel it in my heart', 'you just have to have faith', are all the same cop-outs that theists (especially Judeo-Christian theists) use. You can blabber on about 'what evidence they want to have proof that a god exists', the first question is: What evidence would YOU want to have your god proven? I can tell you: Nothing. You don't want any proof, you want a comfy blanket and when someone yanks your little imaginary comfy blanket, you get mad. Don't you? Because, if you didn't, why did you need to delete a comment that addressed only a portion of your '5 arguments', which already put you in the backseat of a car driving off a cliff into a place without water however much you believe in it.

[@bcsr4ever]

Yes. If you are completely indoctrinated in a particular religion then that will be your religion and you will very likely believe it. You were very convincing on that point. But then we know that humans are very good at creating gods and religions. There is excellent evidence of this.

[@6MaxSix6]

Sarahist: "Sarah is in the classroom" Asarahist: "Can you point her out to me, or give a good reason why I should think she's in the classroom?" Sarahist: "Can you prove she isn't?" Asarahist: "Umm, what?" Sarahist: "You claim she's not in the classroom, you need to prove it!" Asarahist: "No, I never said that. I said I haven't seen any evidence she IS in the classroom." Sarahist: "See! You have no case! You can't prove it! Show your claim is true!" Asarahist: "This is nuts, all I'm saying I haven't been shown any evidence that convinces me Sarah is in the classroom. Where is she, where's the evidence she's in the classroom?" Sarahist: "We're going round in circles. You obviously can't support your case..."

[@petritkola]

Sherlock if someone asks the class "is sarah here" and the response is "no she's not here". Is it that weird to ask "wait what do you mean she's not here?" The question is: is there a God yes or no. If you say no that's a claim. The positive version of that claim is "I believe God does not exist" Lol it's not like you made it Sherlock

[@6MaxSix6]

@@petritkola “Sherlock if someone asks the class "is sarah here" and the response is "no she's not here".” Did you even read what you reacted to? The Sarahist makes it clear that they are not saying that. You didn't address what I wrote you responded to what you wanted me to have written. I'm still worried about Sarah though, I hope she's OK wherever she is...

[@petritkola]

@@6MaxSix6 what your pointing to is not how a discussion between atheism and theism is LOL. The discussion is how I framed it. There's one central question "does God exist". If I answer in "yes" I have the burden of proof. If you say "no" you have it as well. This is not complicated but apparently alot of these online atheists are extremely unacademic and actually don't do any research lol.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

@@petritkola yes but as soon as you say "god" you have a problem. Sarah is an entity in the real world whose presence can be falsified. God's cannot be falsified. As soon as your claim is unfalsifiable the burden of proof is back on you. It's almost, or maybe exactly, like trying to settle this in the Scottish legal system, where you have three possible verdicts; Guilty, Not Proven or Not Guilty. IF X="GUILTY" THEN DO GuiltyActions () ELSEIF X="NOT GUILTY" THEN DO NotGuiltyActions() ELSE DO ExplainToPetritWhyHe'sWrong(PossibleTerms) END IF Haven't had this much fun since 2003, when I gave up IT

[@ne0ns0wl46]

​@@petritkola Yeah, "Sherlock"... Sarahist: "Is Sarah here" Asarahist: "No she's not here" Sarahist: "Wait, what do you mean she's not here?" Asarahist: "I don't see, feel, taste, smell or hear her anywhere in the classroom." "How you do YOU know, she is in the classroom?" Sarahist: "OH look, there is an empty chair." "The Name Sarah is written on the whiteboard" "And there is a book in the bookshelf called "Sarah's Adventures" "That means, Sarah is DEFINITLY here" Asarahist: "There are 20 more empty chairs in the back of the classroom" "Yeah, the class before us didn't clean the board, i personally like the drawing of an Magical Liopleurodon on the whiteboard, signed by Jake, Olaf and Hasan." "Ugh, that dusty old Fanatsy Book? You should rather read "Finn and Jake searching for the Cake" and "Thor the Thunder Cat" "Well, sooooo where is Sarah? I still can't see her." Sarahist: "YOU have to proof she isn't in the room!!!"

[@MrCanis4]

There are thousands of gods. Prove that one of these gods doesn't exist. That means YOUR god is not the only god. See how the burden of proof works?

[@mc_sim]

Nothing was debunked. Here i saved you priceless 32 minutes.

[@shweshwa9202]

There is fire in the building = it’s plausible because it happens let’s get out and someone will investigate. There are unicorns in the building = yeah come on be serious 😂

[@nithelelias]

Well try to reformulate your logic from another opposite angle and see if you can accep it or call it out.

[@tomwimmenhove4652]

Here, I fixed it for you T asserts A T ~asserts A Also, if you're just going to define the position of the person you're talking to fit your definition of atheism, you've already started your conversation dishonestly and you can be dismissed. most atheists are simply not convinced of your claim. That's it. You can't then say "But according to MY definition, you claim God doesn't exist", unless that's what the person you're talking to actually claims. Theism doesn't win by default simply by practicing dishonest debate tactics and misrepresenting the position of your opponent. You actually have to engage with them, or not bother.

[@petritkola]

Did you not read the pinned comment and how I showed NUMEROUS statements of atheist philosophers and what they say atheism is? not being convinced of a position is the same thing as saying you don’t believe in it. I’m not saying the atheist is saying “for a fact there’s no God”. They believe that God does not exist. Whether that’s because they don’t believe the claims of theists is totally irrelevant lol. That’s a good reason maybe as to why you don’t believe it, but once again, you still saying A does not exist in your opinion lol

[@tomwimmenhove4652]

@@petritkola I did see the pinned comment and commented on that as well. "not being convinced of a position is the same thing as saying you don’t believe in it." -- No, that is not true. I'm sure, if you took one second to think about it, you can come up with dozens of things you're not convinced of without being convinced the opposite is true. Example: Without looking it up, are you convinced the earth's diameter is exactly 12,750 +/-5km? If not, you must be convinced it's outside that range. Most people don't know the exact diameter of earth, so they won't be convinced it's inside that range, nor will they be convinced it's ourside that range. It's okay not to know.

[@petritkola]

@@tomwimmenhove4652 when there’s only two positions (God exists or does not exist) yes it’s the same thing. If you are asked “do you think God exists in your opinion?” And you say “I am not convinced of the position that God exists” it’s the same thing as saying “I am more convinced that there is not a God”. Look at any example of there being two options and you only say for one you are not convinced; that means your either totally agnostic (weird why you would only not be convinced of one) or your don’t believe in the one you are not convinced, therefore you find the other one a tad bit more convincing The analogy you gave doesn’t fit. A better analogy is “is the earth flat or round” someone says “I’m not convinced the arguments round earth people make” meaning your more convinced of the flat earth lol

[@petritkola]

@@tomwimmenhove4652 when there’s only two positions (God exists or does not exist) yes it’s the same thing. If you are asked “do you think God exists in your opinion?” And you say “I am not convinced of the position that God exists” it’s the same thing as saying “I am more convinced that there is not a God”. Look at any example of there being two options and you only say for one you are not convinced; that means your either totally agnostic (weird why you would only not be convinced of one) or your don’t believe in the one you are not convinced, therefore you find the other one a tad bit more convincing The analogy you gave doesn’t fit. A better analogy is “is the earth flat or round” someone says “I’m not convinced the arguments round earth people make” meaning your more convinced of the flat earth lol

[@tomwimmenhove4652]

​@@petritkola The analogy I gave was a perfect example of a proposition that is either true, or false. And you have failed to pick one. You are almost correct. There are only two POSSIBILITIES. God exists or god does not exist. That does not mean that one has to be convinced by one of them. It's perfectly coherent to simply not have an opinion on the matter, or to simply not know. So, one more time. P: The earth's diameter is exactly 12,750 +/-5km? There are only 2 posibilities. P is true or P is not true. Are you convinced P is true? Is it possible to not know the number and not be convinced of P nor not P?

[@kukuipupule4415]

what is schizophrenia?

[@kaylee8451]

This guy, apparently

[@unholycheeseburger]

Every argument for the existence of God fails. Kalam is easily debunked for example.

[@nathanielperigny1177]

This is a masterclass in logical fallacies and bad reasoning...

[@petritkola]

Show me one logical fallacy I made

[@unholycheeseburger]

Number 5: see my note on number 4. It makes a point that you seem to have missed. Overall your dishonesty in this video is very apparent.

[@kevindevlin5091]

YAAAAAAAWN!!!!! I made it to 7min 30 seconds and thought that i might actually hear a decent argument, i was completely wrong. So there have been approx 10,000 religions and 3,000 "gods" throughout human history and as an atheist i belive in just 1 less than ANY religious person, yet all the religions and all their gods are the correct ones?? REALLY??? Also what are you talking about lack of evidence?? Science doesnt have an answer and try to make the questions fit aroud it. In fact science FINDS an answer then tries all the ways and experiments to prove that it isnt true. If you dont follow basic science and think there is 1 devine creator AGAINST all the centuries of scientific research and evidence then you dont want to face the truth. Its just that simple. Science isnt a belief its FACTS!!!! Backed up by the most amount of evidence possible.

[@Jeppehartm]

This is incredibly bad faith or you fail to understand the position of atheism

[@petritkola]

Read the pinned comment. I provided what atheist philosophers in academia have said what atheism is. All of these arguments I have shown with video showing atheists use them. What did I do that was failing to understand the position of atheism?

[@neldanie]

My friend you are so wrong that it actually pains me. I can't watch this past 3:35. You are either ill-informed or disingenuous. Or both. Dunno. Don't care.

[@petritkola]

Why am I wrong? I literally used academic articles, I used an academic (Graham Oppy one of the most well known and well respected atheist academics) to defend my point lol. And your just “dur your stupid” lol ok prove to me with academic citations (like I did in the video) that I’m wrong. I’ll be waiting

[@shweshwa9202]

I’m confused. You don’t understand the burden of proof man 😂

[@petritkola]

I provided academic articles and Graham Oppy who says even agnostics have burden of proof. Please show me an academic who disagrees with me

[@shweshwa9202]

​@@petritkola Currently, your argument lacks coherence. Imagine I'm engaged in my own activities, and someone asserts the existence of a God without providing any supporting evidence. Naturally, I remain unconvinced by their assertion. The principle here is simple: claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's akin to someone proclaiming the presence of a green elephant in their room and expecting belief without offering any proof. If I inquire for evidence, and they respond with, "The burden of proof is on both of us," it becomes challenging to engage in meaningful discussion. Without the opportunity to inspect the room or receive a satisfactory explanation (evidence), I'm left with no choice but to withhold belief. While it's conceivable that a green elephant exists in their room, my skepticism persists until some means of verification is provided. Do you grasp the essence of this perspective now?

[@petritkola]

@@shweshwa9202 waiting for that academic btw who says that atheists don’t have burden of proof

[@shweshwa9202]

@@petritkola Do you need an academic to prove something? That's called the authority fallacy. Case closed,.

[@petritkola]

@@shweshwa9202 no it’s not lol. You don’t have any academic understanding and you think me asking for authority is a fallacy? If I said “doctors say covid vaccine cause cancer” I think you would ask for which doctor to verify whether what I’m saying is right or wrong. This is not a fallacy lol.

[@unholycheeseburger]

Number 3: in that clip you showed, Ricky never said "we are all atheists". You lied again. So sad. First, Ricky doesn't speak for all atheists anyway. Second, the modern definition of atheist is someone who does not have a belief in a god, or gods. Nevertheless, what Ricky says is correct.

[@petritkola]

What he said is so idiotic LOL. Also show me a philosopher now that has this modern definition

[@unholycheeseburger]

Number 2, you lied. Aron asked for objectively verifiable data. He did not say "provide scientific evidence". You flat out lied and should be embarrassed.

[@petritkola]

Objectively verifiable data is what we look for in science Sherlock 😂. It’s a process of science. Logical deductive arguments wouldn’t be considered “data”

[@MrCanis4]

currently 19 likes and 207 comments against you. You're making yourself a fool, better stop dude.

[@unholycheeseburger]

Already at number 1 and you are wrong. If God exists is A. An atheist does not say not A. I say, I don't believe you. I do not say "God does not exist". That would be a positive claim and I would have a burden of proof. Saying "I don't believe you" does not have a burden of proof. Nice try on shifting the burden.

[@petritkola]

If you don’t believe what I’m saying is saying you don’t believe in god lol

[@unholycheeseburger]

@@petritkola correct. I don't believe in any god. Can you provide evidence to back up your claim.

[@petritkola]

@@unholycheeseburger your the one making the claim LOL you do know saying you don’t believe in X (negative claim) is the same thing as saying I believe X does not exist (positive claim) If I said “I don’t believe in the statement that God doesn’t exist ” does that mean since I’m making the negative claim that I don’t have the burden of proof?

[@Islamiccalling]

Another thing I'll add regarding atheists asking for a scientific evidence is that, it already assumes that materialism and naturalism is true. However they provide no evidance or justification for this, the claim that materialism is true or naturalism is true itself needs to be justified and proven.

[@velkyn1]

and more ignorance from a theist. Funny how they can't show their imaginary friend is true, and we known that materialism is true. These failures wouldn't put their hand in molten steel since they know their lies about how materialims is wrong would fail very painfully.

[@petritkola]

@@velkyn1 if only materialism is true, then how can you explain consciousness?

[@petritkola]

@@velkyn1 also how would you explain the law of non contradiction? Lol

[@velkyn1]

@@petritkola "In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive" Funny how cultists fail this constantly.

[@velkyn1]

@@petritkola yep, a function of the brain. No brain, no conciousness. We dont' know how exactly it works and may never quite figure it out. That doesn't mean your lies are true. " if only materialism is true, then how can you explain consciousness?"

[@alanrosenthal6323]

Your definition of atheism is flat out wrong. I am not convinced that god exists. Much like I am not convinced that bigfoot exists. I don't claim anything except that I am not convinced Please try again.

[@petritkola]

Sherlock if you’re not convinced that God does not exist. Then you don’t believe in a God. That’s a claim Sherlock LOL. Ok I lack the belief that slavery is wrong. Am I not making the claim that slavery is Good???? Or if I switch anything to a negative claim you atheists think that it doesn’t require a burden of proof lol. Go read my pinned comment when I listed academics and what they say the definition of atheists are. Also see how Graham Oppy says that even agnostics have a burden of proof

[@alanrosenthal6323]

@@petritkola Dr Watson. You and Graham are incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief because we are not convinced. I don't know if god exists. I don't know if it doesn't. I don't know if the Hindus or Muslims or Mormons are right. Granted there are some atheists who claim there is no god. If you meet one then ask him for evidence.

[@alanrosenthal6323]

@@petritkola let me try another approach. The multiverse is a hypothesis in science. There is currently no evidence for a multiverse other than some math that seems encouraging. I do not know if the multiverse exists or not and if it does exist I don't know which of the several possibilities are correct. I am not convinced. So I am A-multiverse. I neither believe in it or not. BUT just because I don't believe doesn't mean I am saying NO.

[@siva1987ful]

Hope one day you would have rational thinking 🤞

[@dopeydonaldtrump3744]

Well, that's 30 minutes of my life I won't get back. Such poorly thought out arguments/video. A bit embarrassing really. Sad.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

It was 30 minutes well spent. It's important to shoot down flawed arguments.

[@dopeydonaldtrump3744]

@@jonathanrussell1140 I agree that's important but he obviously didn't do that did he ? So, 30 minutes down the toilet.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@dopeydonaldtrump3744 no, I meant that's what we're doing :-) we're helping him see the light... As opposed to the Light

[@antoneriksson5746]

You are trying to shift the burden of proof! and you are saying that there is other types of evidence for a god? Pls give me one evidence for a god?

[@petritkola]

Anyone making the claim has the burden of proof. Whether that is a theist or an atheist. Read Dr Joshua Rasmussens book how reason can lead to God if you honestly want to see good evidence for God. If your sincere you will read it

[@antoneriksson5746]

@@petritkola I just downloaded the book! I will read it! But I haven’t seen this guy on Nobel prize list? So it’s not evidence it is just his opinion😂 that is not evidence! But I will come back when i am done!’