Comments by "Mark H" (@markh1011) on "Atheism is Over – Debunked" video.

Do you realise you don't make any sense?
2
@mazen1010 "Before you can conclude that you must first confirm that God doesn't exist" How do you prove that magical beings don't exist. Can you prove that Thor doesn't exist. Go ahead and try. " if God doesn't exist the world will never be a stable place, as nothing will be limited or bound by physical laws." You baseless assertion.
1
An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in any gods. That includes someone who isn't convinced. An agnostic is someone who has the position that we can never know if there are gods. You could be an agnostic atheist. They are not mutually exclusive.
1
@fetusofetuso2122 "If you don't believe a god exists then you are in opposition with "we can never know if there are gods'". " No. You may believe that we can know...but you don't believe in any right now. OR you mat believe that we can never know....and you don't believe in any ...making you an agnostic atheist. "Your statement only makes sense if atheists don't believe in any god whether or not that god exists." huh? Can you rephrase that?
1
@fetusofetuso2122 ""You believe we can never know and you don't believe in any" is a contradiction." Nope. One concept pertains to knowledge. One to a belief. You may think we can never know...but still use faith to believe in one. "If atheists don't believe in any god regardless of this god's actual existence then ..." But the second part of that sentence is redundant. They don't believe in any gods. Atheist. Any claim you add about supposed existence is not relevant to that position just established.
1
@fetusofetuso2122 "Logically speaking if one believes that we can never know then he doesn't have the luxury of expressing his opinion against this belief. " Wrong again. Let me get this straight. You refuse to acknowledge faith....as a relevant concept when talking about religion. ? That's just amazing. Faith is a major part of religion. ". If the atheist believes there is no god," hold on you just changed the words. Atheists don't have a belief in any gods. Children are born atheist. Some of us stay that way. It's not a claim/belief about non existence. " or absence thereof is linked to presenting undeniable proof" You're creating new and irrelevant scenarios. You're adding all sorts of unnecessary characteristics to a very straightforward definition. All you need to be an atheist is not to believe in any gods.
1
@fetusofetuso2122 " I believe it's one way or the other doesn't make sense." Yes you could make the argument that faith isn't logical. You're still getting the definition wrong though. . Where religion is a man made concept, the existence or non existence of a god is self-standing" You're again inventing new definitions. It certainly appears that god is a man made concept. Religion involves gods. You can't have religion without (what appears to be man made) gods. "A god exists or doesn't whether or not there is a religion to worship him." Possibly. But we're talking about people's beliefs. So that scenario is irreverent to the point. "What you are saying is that atheism is dogmatic and I tend to agree" I've not said that at all. I've not said anything close to that. Why would you make such a false statement? "All you need to be an atheist is not to believe in any gods." Yes! You've got it. That's it. "That's too complicated for me" It isn't complicated at all. "I need systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and then formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." Sure so do I. That's a reason why I'm still an atheist.
1
@fetusofetuso2122 "what definition am I getting wrong?" Atheism. " and as you probably know, there are some concepts whose definitions are not clear cut." Sure. But atheism is merely not believing in any gods. " If all you need to be an atheist is not to believe in any god, it doesn't leave any space for doubt, for discussion." Of course it does. You could be an atheist...but still open to hearing about gods... and discussing gods....and then you become a theist. "it's incontrovertible, that is in the definition of a dogma." As i address above, your basis for this statement is incorrect.
1
 @fetusofetuso2122 Agreed.
1
@mazen1010 "We can rationally conclude what the creator must be and what he mustn't be by examining his creatures. " You have to make some fairly wild assumptions in doing that. "we conclude that the originator of the universe is the same as the one who made earth and everything on it." Not at all... a being could have created the universe... and natural processes did the rest. "Also, by seeing that animals and almost all the biological forms live according to a program that is external to them, then we conclude that the originator is all knowing." Program external to them? What does that mean? How does that show omnipotence? If we look at religious texts and revelation..the knowledge within them seems to only be about the level of understanding from the time... there certainly doesn't appear to be any divine knowledge.
1
@mazen1010 "Can you explain exactly " Read my comment again. I'm merely pointing out that your logic has a flaw. You're jumping to the conclusion that you like but there are other possibilities. You're proposing a single option, not seeing that there are other possibilities. "Also, why we never found the world filled with lakes of such cocktails of organic materials?" What are you talking about? Lakes and seas are filled with organic materials. " Or failed creatures?" What is a 'failed' creature? 95% of the species that ever lived are already extinct. Does that fit your definition?
1
@mazen1010 "What are the other possibilities? " That a universe was created, either naturally or by an entity, and then natural forces within that universe did all the rest. We used to think that only a god could create a planet. We know how the force of gravity causes this now. "lso, the extinction is not because of faulty wiring, " Ok but that doesn't really answer my question about what failed creatures are. why would your god let 95% of the species of animals die off?
1
@mazen1010 "What clues do you for a universe created by natural forces?" ...sigh... do you realise I was just giving you a hypothetical that shows your logic is flawed? You're assumption was that the being who created the universe must have created the earth and everything on it. We know the processes in which planets and stars are formed and it's not a magical spell from an invisible being. You've got blinkers on. "As for why God driven most of the species to extension, this has to do with teaching the free-willed creatures. Since they learn by experience. " Huh? How does letting 95% of all species die teach us anything? Why let 95% of them die out? You're trying to guess answers for a magical being that doesn't appear to exist. Letting animals die is hardly profound way to teach us anything.... 95%!
1
@mazen1010 " For anything to be rational, it must be related to something that we can sense and measure" You can't measure gods.... as for "sense" that's a vague measurement tool "No, you or anybody don't know how the planets and stars formed" You seem ignorant about astronomy and physics. "We were not able to make a sustained fusion reaction for decades and we don't know exactly what is deep inside the earth. " We may not but that has no bearing on the inaccuracies of your previous statements. " so you can't claim that gravity has forced the gas nebulae to condense around the star cores" ..we can because that's what the evidence shows.. your comment about the centre of the earth is not relevant. "Why God has driven many species to get extinct can be discussed after we realize the existence of God. " You can't answer the question. You could at least admit it instead of stalling like this. "free willed creatures have relative brains and for such brains there must be the good and the bad. " This excuses can be used for explain away any horror and immorality...
1
@mazen1010 " So, God is not a measurable quantity." You said "For anything to be rational, it must be related to something that we can sense and measure" So by your own logic, God is not rational. "The theories of stellar and planetary formation are just theories" If you ever say the words "just theories" then you are showing everyone you don't understand science. "without actual reproducible experiments " Science isn't based solely on reproducible experiments. "we don't have the final truth." There is no "final truth"....science doesn't work in absolutes... What you have is a point where you have so much evidence supporting an claim that you can accept it as most likely correct... "Also, the same thing about the deep earth layers, we don't have exact knowledge of what is down there." So what? You're not making a point with this. "There is no point of discussing the aim and the will of God, if you don't realize his existence" But you seem to think you have special insight to the mind of the supposed creator of the universe. This is quite a position for you to take.....
1
@mazen1010 "God's existence, as the creator, the designer and the operator of everything is rational." You're contradicting the logic you put forward. "But we can never understand God," You're proposing rules... then instantly breaking them... then saying "oh but he doesn't count". "Just theories means that we can't treat it as a fact of life or a law of physics. " ...and again that statement shows you have no idea about science. You're using the non scientific use of the word. A law is something different. Theories don't graduate past theory. Theories can be facts. If you're going to try debate about scientific theories you should learn what they are. "Science is about studying the real world and trying to generate mathematical models (explicit or implicit) to simulate reality. " Science doesn't necessarily require mathematical models. You appear to be confused about what science even is. "When these mathematical models do not exist (such as the theory of evolution) or when these models can't be experimentally verified" Again you seem quite confused... science isn't just about models... evolution has been confirmed by mountains of evidence and has even been experimentally verified... It's fundamental to many sciences. "the output is just of historical value or an entertainment material" It may seem that way if you're not educated and wish to remain ignorant. " So, unless you can find a similar planet (e.g. to earth) forming and have complete information about that, then you are just over-reaching by imagination." This is just a silly statement from someone fumbling about. There is no "complete information". How you do rate something as "complete"...when are you "complete"...that's just nonsense. ... You seem completely ignorant about gravity as well. You see that's where you put yourself at a disadvantage. You're trying to wave away concepts you don't even understand.
1
@mazen1010 "God's existence is rationally realized from the necessity of a maker for the universe as a machine that contains trillions and trillions of smaller machines. " We're not machines though. We can see from evolution that you don't need to create animals... they can evolve from other animals. You don't need to create planets... we know they are formed due to gravity. "As we observer that all the machines are made out of dead parts and run according to a designed program" Dead parts? What an odd thing to say. But if you want to label life as a machine ...and say that something is required to make life... then you're stuck making excuses regarding who made your god. "For example, we can't relate to anything that is abundant and can never change, just like a deep ocean coral that never experienced a change in the water temperature throughout its life." This is just waffle and doesn't actually address any point i've raised with any relevancy. "If you claim that a theory can be fact, please provide an example." Gravity. Drop something. Watch what happens. " The same for your claims about the theory of evolution," Your ignorance is quite remarkable. ..but perhaps ignorance is common among the religious. http://www.vce.bioninja.com.au/aos-4-change-over-time/evolution/evidence-for-evolution.html "Finally, please provide an example of a concept that I don't understand." Scientific theories. Science Evolution Atheism.... for starters.
1
@mazen1010 "Evolution theory is not something that was demonstrated, " Wrong. Your ignorance again on display. The evidence for evolution is undeniable... denying evolution is analogous to the regions people who denied that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. " Evolution is similar to the zodiac and horoscopes" If you're woefully uneducated and ignorant, like yourself, it may seem that way. If you were lucky enough to get an education you would have an inkling about how foolish you sound. " Evolution gives no actual steps that takes creature A to creature B and then to creature C," Look at the fossil record... it shows the changes... you're utterly ignorant. "How do you "know"?" Astronomy. Physics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System "The gravity is there, why we find huge gas nebulae that didn't form into stars and planets?" Stars form from nebulae... it takes time. "The same way if you take any living thing apart, it will be dead and it will stop functioning." You're talking gibberish and nowhere does this gibberish support anything... I think you should try again with that one. "God is never similar to any creature" So you set out rules... break them instantly... then just make a pathetic excuse. That's just a terrible argument. " as we can't relate to anything that doesn't change and is abundant. " ..an irrelevant point that serves you no purpose. "Gravity is the effect, but the cause of it is theoretical. " Even if that were true... it doesn't change that it's a fact and a theory. You're trying to play silly games to pretend that gravity isn't responsible for gravity. Gravity is a fact. Gravity is a theory. Your attempts to show otherwise fail miserably. It's really quite funny that you're here trying to deny that gravity is a fact.... Wow... you're more naive than I thought. " but the cause is the myth of random change (as a natural cause)." We know for a fact that changes happen... even that the absolute smallest example, people are different from their parents. That should tell you something. Mutations in DNA are also a fact that has been demonstrated. Your position seems to be based on ignorance. "Atheists are just the believers of the evolution horoscopes. " Another utterly stupid statement. Evolution is based on evidence. You don't know about the evidence because you're uneducated, ignorant and proud. You want to stay uninformed. You want to have less knowledge than everyone else. " horoscopes are just fairy tales to fill the huge gaps of ignorance. " You just explained religion. We don't know how was storms are .."erm... god does them".... we don't know how the mountains were created... "erm god does them".... we don't know how our plant was created "...erm god"... we know how these things are created now and no magical sky god is required.... the next step - we don't know how life started.... "erm...maybe this time? .... ermm.... god did it?"... Your god is just the placeholder answer until we work out the real one.
1
Discuss what specifically? You've evaded so many arguments...
1
@mazen1010 The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers. Maybe you should read the Quran some day. https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
1
@mazen1010 "Atheism is just a faith built on fairy tales. " The most absurd statement I've seen you produce so far.
1
@mazen1010 So back up your conclusion. What faith is required? What fairy tales?
1
@mazen1010 So again you can't answer the questions...
1
@mazen1010 It was related to something you said in this thread. All you ever seem to do is dodge and try to change subjects.
1