"Atheists: How to make their head explode"

[TheAnMish]

It would be funny... but it's really not. Well, I guess it is, if you're a theist.

Anyway, as I'm not a scientist (or listened in science class), I really can't debunk this crap, but I put my faith in you guys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0donCN_IUhI



(The statement doesn't go "There is no God", it goes "There is probably no God". And that's reason enough for me, to not believe.)

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

It would be funny... but it's really not. Well, I guess it is, if you're a theist.

Anyway, as I'm not a scientist (or listened in science class), I really can't debunk this crap, but I put my faith in you guys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0donCN_IUhI



(The statement doesn't go "There is no God", it goes "There is probably no God". And that's reason enough for me, to not believe.)

I thought it was:
There's no proof for a God.

 

[TheAnMish]

That one works too

 

[borrofburi]

There's no proof for a God.

There is no evidence for a god, it's different.

 

[TheAnMish]

There's no proof for a God.

There is no evidence for a god, it's different.

Very true.. proof and evidence are not the same thing.. but when speaking to religious people, and especially creationists, it probably won't make a difference anyway.
Should I give them more credit?

 

[obsidianavenger]

lol. logic fail. this is basically aquinas' cosmological argument complete with cute cartoons.

its also an example of the fallacy of composition. just because every item (event?) in the causal chain was caused does not mean the chain itself had to have been caused. so yes, the causal chain could stretch into infinity without violating the law of cause and effect.

thats not nearly as fun as watching the balding atheist's head explode though.

 

[MillionSword]

One second into the video, I really like the music lol.

"There's no such thing as the supernatural, JUST LIKE THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS GOD".

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I love the way that theists make videos containing deep stupidity, and then when we point out their stupidity they take it as proof that their points are valid. How do you fight that level of willful ignorance?

 

[borrofburi]

But the flying spaghetti monster is real!!!

Anyway, this whole thing stems from a misunderstanding of what self-labelling atheists mean when they use the word "atheist": he thinks that "atheist" means "asserts with 100% certainty there is no god and can be no god". On to the debunking (written in the form of responses to him, so "you" means "video maker and his/her parots"; I also put words in his/her mouth to further the point (which, I personally hate, and is unreliable, but I found it to be useful here)):

The big bang theory is not an explosion, it's an expansion of space-time. Moreover, "I DON"T KNOW" IS AN ACCEPTABLE ANSWER! It's a false dichotomy to say "christianity is true or a magical explosion created the universe from nothing", and is an intellectually dishonest discussion tactic.

We don't know that cause and effect is 100% true in 100% of places 100% of the time. I think cause and effect is a very useful model of reality, but to extrapolate to infinites is silly. "Well that means god can be uncaused!" maybe, but again I see no justification for believing in god, and since I'm not trying to do something silly like prove god can't exist, it doesn't bother me that god could exist (I just still see no evidence for him and won't believe in *anything* until I see evidence for it). Just like unicorns can exist, but I still don't believe they're real because I've seen no evidence for them, and it still doesn't bother me that they *could* exist.

And no, observing some things coming from nothing (i.e. elementary particles without a cause) doesn't necessarily mean god can come from nothing, you up the ante from simple elementary particles to an omnipotent omniscient omnicomplex being, without any justification for this step. "But you think the universe came from nothing so god can too!1!1!!" maybe, but I observe the universe and have large amounts of evidence that the universe exists, not so with god (and since I'm not trying to prove god can't exist... etc.). Moreover, I don't think we do observe particles coming from nothing, we observe them coming from energy, energy that shouldn't necessarily be usable (and that's why it's surprising), but that is hardly nothing (I think... some real physicist will probably come into this thread and read and laugh at me and correct me).

Yes. Those particles "coming out of nothing" CAN be observed... That's why we say they exist (if we do indeed say they exist, which I don't think we do)... I don't even understand where this so called "rebuttal" comes from. It's like trying to convince me my monitor doesn't emit photons because I can't observe them, it's that much of a nonsensical nonsequitur...

Most importantly, I never used the law of cause and effect to argue against god, I simply say "I see no evidence". The only reason you even think I do use the law of cause and effect to argue against god is because you try to use it in the form of kalam cosmological argument to say that it proves god is necessary. The argument usually goes "cause and effect is a universal absolute truth, nothing can be uncaused, therefore the universe can't be uncaused and god must have done it", when we point out that god then needs a cause, we *aren't* trying to prove that god can't exist, we are demonstrating that your argument for god necessarily existing violates its own premise and thus is false (again, NOT even trying to say god can't exist, just that "god must exist" is incorrect). Since your argument is invalid I don't walk away thinking I've proved there is no god, I simply note that your "proof" is not a proof and return to my original position of "I see no evidence to believe in a god". I don't even know how you got it into your head that we think debunking the kalam cosmological is proof there is no god, it blows my mind that such a non sequitur makes sense to you.

Also, they may be violating the DMCA with star wars music that they are unlikely to have the license to. At least, I think the cantina bar is star wars music only... Anyway, scene with music in it here (don't ask me why they dubbed star wars, it's just the clearest clip on youtube as far as the music goes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YSF5SfqF2o

And now other posters have posted... Well, MillionSword liked the music, so at least I can tell him where it came from.

 

[boonw]

It would be funny... but it's really not. Well, I guess it is, if you're a theist.

Anyway, as I'm not a scientist (or listened in science class), I really can't debunk this crap, but I put my faith in you guys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0donCN_IUhI



(The statement doesn't go "There is no God", it goes "There is probably no God". And that's reason enough for me, to not believe.)

What a coincidence, I am making a video response to this right now. This is the script so far

"I recently saw a video featured on venomfangx's channel page. This video is rather typical of what you would expect for a creationist video, managing to make a fallacious argument, misrepresent opposing viewpoints, and failing to provide any actual evidence for what they are trying to prove all packed into one.
The video (see link in the sidebar) can be easy summarized as such. The creationist uses essentially, the cosmological argument: arguing that because everything is observed has a cause, we can determine that the universe has a cause, and that therefore proves god.
Now, I am going to address the problems with the argument head on, then move on to his rebuttals of his supposed "atheist arguments", and then move onto other possible explanations.
Now, the biggest problem with this argument is that it is essentially a false dichotomy: the secular side cannot prove what caused the big bang, so that somehow therefore proves that his argument is correct. The problem with this way of thinking is that he hasn't in any way proved his point, provided any evidence, and that the argument can be used to disprove his point with equal veracity.
Furthermore, he has just replaced one unknown with another unknown, then ignored placed an ignore patch over the second unknown in order to create a delusion of knowledge. Put straight forward, we do not know what caused the big bang. Using god as a way to explain the big bang may be a way to get rid of the question of where did the big bang come from, but all it does is raising another question, who created god? Proponents will then argue that God is eternal, and therefore does not need a creator or a cause, but that would mean that you would therefore have to rule out the principle.

Moving on, I would like to make comment about the apparent atheist arguments he proposes. Despite me not seeing an atheist who holds any of the views (with almost all atheists I have asked"


I stopped at this point because I realised I have only heard the opinions of "before the big bang" of about 4 or 5 peps before this, all of them being " I dont know" and came here to get a poll.

 

[5810Singer]

I've never really considered this before....I'm going to posit a hypothetical argument between someone who accepts big bang theory (big bang guy, known as BBG hereon), and someone who takes a Biblical creationist view (YEC).

BBG: The big bang brought the universe, time and space into being.

YEC: So what caused the big bang?

BBG: Nothing, it didn't have a cause, it's the beginning.

YEC: That's ridiculous it must have had a cause.

BBG: Ok, so what do you think caused the universe to exist?

YEC: God.

BBG: Ok, so what caused God to exist?

YEC: Nothing, God has always existed.

BBG: So how come you conceive that nothing caused God to exist, and yet you can't conceive that nothing caused the universe to exist?




Does the above argument have any merit?

 

[borrofburi]

Does the above argument have any merit?

Only insofar as it is one of the ways kalam cosmological argument is flawed, *not* insofar as it disproves god (I call this "solution" the "conclusion contradicts the premise", i.e. the premise is that nothing can just pop into existence (nothing can be an uncaused effect), therefore the universe needs a cause, that cause is god, who violates the premise because he did pop into existence...).

 

[Giliell]

Wow, that video has enough strawmen to feed a herd of cattle :roll:

The displayed "atheist" has an IQ at about room temperature (Celsius) and is, in short, the theists dream of an easy to annoy atheist. As if his "arguments" would have stood any chance against the people here.

And again: Possible =/= probable =/= real
Hubby plays the lotery every week. I just don't go around spending money like Paris Hilton just because it is possible for us to become millionaires over night..

 

[TheAnMish]

The displayed "atheist" has an IQ at about room temperature (Celsius) and is, in short, the theists dream of an easy to annoy atheist. As if his "arguments" would have stood any chance against the people here.

And again: Possible =/= probable =/= real
Hubby plays the lotery every week. I just don't go around spending money like Paris Hilton just because it is possible for us to become millionaires over night..

Yes, the atheist in that vid is... not smart. (I'm being too nice about it, maybe)

I like your possible -> probable thing.. I thought of something very similar some time ago, while trying to sleep :S
It goes:

Is it possible?
Is it plausible?
Is it probable?

If I can answer yes to all three, then I can believe it, until conflicting evidence it brought to my attention.


Wow... for a really uneducated person, I can actually sound... well.. not quite as uneducated as I am
Maybe I should have done my homeword in school..

 

[5810Singer]

The displayed "atheist" has an IQ at about room temperature (Celsius) and is, in short, the theists dream of an easy to annoy atheist. As if his "arguments" would have stood any chance against the people here.

And again: Possible =/= probable =/= real
Hubby plays the lotery every week. I just don't go around spending money like Paris Hilton just because it is possible for us to become millionaires over night..

Yes, the atheist in that vid is... not smart. (I'm being too nice about it, maybe)

I like your possible -> probable thing.. I thought of something very similar some time ago, while trying to sleep :S
It goes:

Is it possible?
Is it plausible?
Is it probable?

If I can answer yes to all three, then I can believe it, until conflicting evidence it brought to my attention.


Wow... for a really uneducated person, I can actually sound... well.. not quite as uneducated as I am
Maybe I should have done my homeword in school..

Yes you should have, and so should I.
But....it's never too late to study.

 

[Dusty341]

It would be funny... but it's really not. Well, I guess it is, if you're a theist.

Anyway, as I'm not a scientist (or listened in science class), I really can't debunk this crap, but I put my faith in you guys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0donCN_IUhI



(The statement doesn't go "There is no God", it goes "There is probably no God". And that's reason enough for me, to not believe.)

Yeah, I saw this video yesterday. Just seems to be a video meant to poke us Atheists in the eye and a call to arms for his fellow Christians. This person has read the rational arguments on that comment board and calls them "angry and irrational". There is no leveling with the guy(or gal). Just another Christian who isn't interested in the truth.

I also noticed that the vid was favorited by non other than VenomfangX, may he Rest In Peace

 

[Josan]

 

[Andiferous]

The displayed "atheist" has an IQ at about room temperature (Celsius) and is, in short, the theists dream of an easy to annoy atheist. As if his "arguments" would have stood any chance against the people here.

And again: Possible =/= probable =/= real
Hubby plays the lotery every week. I just don't go around spending money like Paris Hilton just because it is possible for us to become millionaires over night..

Yes, the atheist in that vid is... not smart. (I'm being too nice about it, maybe)

I like your possible -> probable thing.. I thought of something very similar some time ago, while trying to sleep :S
It goes:

Is it possible?
Is it plausible?
Is it probable?

If I can answer yes to all three, then I can believe it, until conflicting evidence it brought to my attention.

Wow... for a really uneducated person, I can actually sound... well.. not quite as uneducated as I am
Maybe I should have done my homeword in school..

Yarr! (I think that's it.) ( I shouldn't have skipped classes. )

I'm excited to answer, because I really like Hume...

If I were to take it apart anal-retentively:

YEC: That's ridiculous it must have had a cause.

is not a proven statement.

This assumes everything is determined by some infallible law of cause and effect. Hume argued, quite convincingly, that you cannot find the effect in the cause. Or in other words, you cannot see the result of what happens and say with absolute certainty that it had a single, absolute cause.

The scientific method is about examining how things have behaved in the past, then using mathematics (entirely logical, pure truths if hypothetical) to calculate future predictions, testing and challenging the answers until something actually remains after everyone collapses from exhaustion after an extensive beating, and can hold its own until the next big theory. One of Hume's examples was (paraphrased) that if the sun came up yesterday, the day before, and consistently in the past, we still can't be absolutely certain it'll happen tomorrow. You can't prove an argument on predictions.

Videos like this one make me think that the evangelist is less interested in being accurate, and more interested in rhetoric and persuasion., and manipulating his audience with stereotypes about Atheists to make himself seem more credible. Sort of "Take home GOD today for only $9.99!" as opposed to "Patience, Grasshopper."

 

[nemesiss]

It would be funny... but it's really not. Well, I guess it is, if you're a theist.

Anyway, as I'm not a scientist (or listened in science class), I really can't debunk this crap, but I put my faith in you guys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0donCN_IUhI



(The statement doesn't go "There is no God", it goes "There is probably no God". And that's reason enough for me, to not believe.)

What a coincidence, I am making a video response to this right now. This is the script so far

"I recently saw a video featured on venomfangx's channel page. This video is rather typical of what you would expect for a creationist video, managing to make a fallacious argument, misrepresent opposing viewpoints, and failing to provide any actual evidence for what they are trying to prove all packed into one.
The video (see link in the sidebar) can be easy summarized as such. The creationist uses essentially, the cosmological argument: arguing that because everything is observed has a cause, we can determine that the universe has a cause, and that therefore proves god.
Now, I am going to address the problems with the argument head on, then move on to his rebuttals of his supposed "atheist arguments", and then move onto other possible explanations.
Now, the biggest problem with this argument is that it is essentially a false dichotomy: the secular side cannot prove what caused the big bang, so that somehow therefore proves that his argument is correct. The problem with this way of thinking is that he hasn't in any way proved his point, provided any evidence, and that the argument can be used to disprove his point with equal veracity.
Furthermore, he has just replaced one unknown with another unknown, then ignored placed an ignore patch over the second unknown in order to create a delusion of knowledge. Put straight forward, we do not know what caused the big bang. Using god as a way to explain the big bang may be a way to get rid of the question of where did the big bang come from, but all it does is raising another question, who created god? Proponents will then argue that God is eternal, and therefore does not need a creator or a cause, but that would mean that you would therefore have to rule out the principle.

Moving on, I would like to make comment about the apparent atheist arguments he proposes. Despite me not seeing an atheist who holds any of the views (with almost all atheists I have asked"


I stopped at this point because I realised I have only heard the opinions of "before the big bang" of about 4 or 5 peps before this, all of them being " I dont know" and came here to get a poll.

to really explain what is wrong in the video is about causality (which might make their brain overload and explode) to point out why it the things mentioned in the video make little sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

with it, you can basically refute almost all things mentioned in the video.
this part of your rebuttal i would keep so far:

"I recently saw a video featured on venomfangx's channel page. This video is rather typical of what you would expect for a creationist video, managing to make a fallacious argument, misrepresent opposing viewpoints, and failing to provide any actual evidence for what they are trying to prove all packed into one.
The video (see link in the sidebar) can be easy summarized as such. The creationist uses essentially, the cosmological argument: arguing that because everything is observed has a cause, we can determine that the universe has a cause, and that therefore proves god.

then i would suggest you'd start by explaining causality, to explain the argument in general being used.
then go on with the cosmological argument, which is a part of causality.

after that, you can go on a rampage on how the arguments for a god can be also used against and such as you wanted to go.

 

[Unwardil]

The video is inherently flawed.

I'm an Atheist, I watched the whole thing and my head remains perfectly intact.

Therefore, the video's creator lacks a basic understanding of the principles of head-explodology in which he claims to be an expert.

Video satisfactorilly debunked?