Thank you @nextgen622 for posting another video in this series.
I - as always :-) - have a number of issues with what the video talks about.
The presenter in the video says "Faith is based on facts" and then goes on to say his facts are in the Bible. Without wanting to reopen the previous debate we have had already on this topic, I will say again that the Bible is in no way a historical document.
It is also mentioned that "Belief in the non-existence of God requires faith"
No, it doesn't.
I don't believe in Unicorns because there is no evidence for them. I don't have faith that they don't exist, instead, I have a lack of evidence that drives me to conclude that they don't. Evidence-based thinking. Not faith.
One thing that has struck me so far in this series of videos is that we have been presented with nothing but quotes from a dubious source (the bible) and talk about feelings. No evidence and nothing that would stand up in a court of law. Therefore faith has to be used as a prop for a belief when there is nothing else to support it.
Thank you @maninayton once again for taking the time to watch the video and comment.
You are right in saying that we have already discussed extensively all the points you have raised. I and many others have provided evidence to support why we believe the Bible to be a reliable historical document, which you’ve refused to accept. And that’s totally fine, because you are entitled to your opinions. But I don’t want to be circling around the same points again.
I’ve already previously pointed out the flaws to your reasoning, so I’m just going to post what I previously wrote again.
“Atheism like any other belief system requires evidence or else you are simply jumping into its claims with blind faith. If you said you were agnostic, then you don’t need to prove anything, because you would be unsure about whether God exists. But since you believe in Atheism, Atheism claims that there is definitely no God, and the universe and life came into existence without any intelligent design and intervention. If you looked at the extraordinary number of factors that is required for life to exist on Earth and the improbability of this happening, you would know that the claim of Atheism is arguably an even more extraordinary claim. So yes, you would need to provide evidence supporting your claim that without any doubt, there is no God/intelligent design, and the universe was a coincidence.”
And you said Atheism does not require faith. I take a sceptical position regarding an
extraordinary claim you make for there being a God. This is because no one has
ever produced compelling evidence for there being one. This disbelief is not an
act of faith; it is simply common sense. As I read somewhere recently. If a man
came up to you and said he had a magic, invisible elf sat on his shoulder, would
you believe him? No of course not. To my mind, there is no difference between a
man saying he has a magic elf and you saying there is a God. Neither of you can
provide evidence that either exists.
“The problem with your statement is that it is purely your own subjective view of what is common sense. In the same way, I can assert that from my perspective the existence of God is the much more common sense position to take. Your magic elf example is flawed because no rational person believes that and there is no evidence for it, whereas many rational people hold to the believe of a God based on evidence, such as the fine-tuning and order of the universe that point to a Creator.
Like anything, holding to the belief of Atheism does require evidence to support your beliefs. Just as if you said to me your wife doesn’t exist or Donald Trump doesn’t exist, you would need to provide evidence to me that support your claim why you don’t think they exist. Claiming something doesn’t exist requires evidence in the same way as claiming that it does exist, especially in this case when it relates to God as such a large proportion of rational people believe in the existence of God.
And yes this relates to the whole intelligent design debate. I’m not sure we’ll get anywhere with that debate, but again for what it’s worth, the Theory of Evolution has very weak evidence and many flaws I can point you too, but that’s going to take up a huge amount of both our times. In addition, I believe in science too, but science can only test hypotheses and there are many questions that science have no answers to.”
Jimmy
I have been having very similar discussions with the Jehovah's Witnesses for over 10 years. They keep bringing me more 'evidence' and I keep finding more 'questions'. Humans have a way of finding proof of what they believe, but ultimately it comes down to making a personal choice about how we wish to explain that which (at this point in time) cannot be explained, let alone understood.
I had 3 young Mormons visit me one day and I asked them a simple question: Would you still be a Mormon if your parents were not Mormons? All 3 fell into silence and then had to suddenly leave. I doubt they had ever considered such an option. It is common to grab hold of something that is easy to grasp and hang onto it if it 'works' for you. It is less common to dig deeper and question why we need to believe in something.
Hi @happyme and thank you for your comment. Coincidentally, regarding your Mormons, only a few days ago I was watching a video on Youtube here which is a clip from The Atheist Experience 21.10 for March 12, 2017, that has a Mormon caller and the response from the show's hosts. It is about 20 minutes long but worth a watch I think.
Totally agree with you.
I watched the episode from your link and those guys seem to really know their stuff.
Matt Dillahunty, one of the main presenters, certainly does and he pulls no punches and takes no prisoners. Tracie Harris is another who knows what she is on about. It's a very good show for giving counter arguments to most of religions claims. Glad you liked it.