HOW NOT TO CONVINCE AN ATHEIST

#christianity #god #church #bible #atheism #atheist #christian #jesus #religion #evolution #science #apologist #apologetics

I found this Youtube channel called Need God Net. On the channel, an apparent young christian apologist talks to people about christianity, god, atheism and the lot. But it seems like many of these conversations are fake.
Because this apologist guy uses the same old christian nonsense that has been debunked a million times and the people he talks to are pretty silent and hardly give any proper response. Let's have a look...

[tedkrasicki]

When a religious TV program ends, the credits never say "Paid for by god".

[justincredible.]

Same old, same old. Poor misguided, indoctrinated kids

[keesdenheijer]

And of course: "The blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins is a sort of _must read._

[freddanfly]

So no evidence, just word games and presupposition, call me *surprised*

[susansisolak]

Religion is a BELIEF!
Beliefs are beliefs.
Facts are facts.
Everyone is welcome to their beliefs, it does not change reality.
Facts can be proven over and over again - demonstrating their truth.

[justincredible.]

"Nothing can't come from nothing' but man can come from dirt. SMH!

[sordidknifeparty]

Physics does not claim that the Universe had a beginning. All the big bang suggests with any certainty is that this particular instantiation of SpaceTime seems to have a beginning, or at least a point in its past where everything was extremely dense and hot, but we don't really know more than that. Furthermore there are many physicists who are working on non expansionary models that don't involve the Big Bang, so, no, we cannot say with any confidence that the Universe had a beginning, or more importantly that there ever was a time"before" time and space

[johnchambers]

How do you convince an atheist?
Provide evidence?
Give a reasonable sound argument?
Nah lets go with talk to them like they are stupid then get all sniffy when said atheist says thats redicilous

[Dan_C]

Believers think they score a big deal with their silly “so, the building must have a builder”…. I just face plant haha

[BeetleJuiceFromHell]

Seen lots of these. Obviously scripted.

[CgGoil]

“You dont, you cant, you never have, you never will. You have nothing.” 😂 I feel you, man.

[keesdenheijer]

I would like to clear something up:
If the crucifixion is on friday at the end of the day and the resurrection is on sunday -morning then that can not be after three days. It doesn't even get close to 48 hours.
Ok granted, it is a bogus story anyway.

[WhoThisMonkey]

You shouldn't even need to convince an atheist.

Isn't god supposed to be self evident? 😂

Without lies, religion dies.

[Griexxt]

The way we recognise design is by comparing it to things we know are designed. We know paintings have a painter because we have seen painters paint them. We know buildings have builders because we have seen builders build them.
The universe looks like nothing we have ever seen be made by someone. Living organisms look like nothing we have seen be made by someone. And even if they did, their existence preceed anything made by humans, so if anything, it’s our designs that are inspired by things in nature, not vice versa.

[sordidknifeparty]

For me the argument from design / complexity is not very convincing. As I understand it it goes something like this: 1.whenever we encounter something sufficiently complex( like a watch or a house) we know for a fact they had a maker, a designer.
2. The universe is extremely complex.
Therefore 3. We know for a fact the universe had a maker / designer

The problem with this argument, in my mind, is the first premise. They claim that whenever we see something sufficiently complex we know that it had a designer, but this is simply not true, all the things that we know for sure have been designed are significantly less complicated than the many, if not most of the natural systems we are familiar with, therefore we cannot say with any confidence when we see something complicated that it has been designed. The argument corrected looks like:
1. Whenever we see something beneath a certain level of complexity there's a chance that it was designed by an intelligence.
2. The level of complexity of the universe is above that cutoff line for the complexity of things we know are designed
3. Therefore we cannot say whether or not the universe had a designer.

[clemstevenson]

Buildings and watches are not naturally occurring phenomena. Snowflakes provide the illusion of being created. But snowflakes occur naturally, according to physical rules. Molecules form naturally. When it comes to life, there is a clue in the title 'biochemistry'. Things that are defined as living are composed of chemicals that are not defined as living.

[chrisgrill]

"...you don't you can't, you never have you never will, you got nothing..." Love it!

[sordidknifeparty]

While it's not a very popular position, and while ironically many Christians also hold this position while arguing against it, it is not physically impossible that the Universe came from nothing. Quantum mechanics shows us that particles come into and out of existence for seemingly no reason from seemingly nowhere all the time. Furthermore the total energy of the universe is believed to be zero, so it's not like anything actually had to be created, just re-expressing nothing in a different form. Of course I'm no physicist so I'm probably missing something important, but I think it's Hasty for Christians to immediately say that it is impossible for something to come from nothing, especially as we have never in history experience to nothing to know what it behaves like

[trinidadscorpion]

My house and everything in it was built by man, not god.

[maxdoubt]

If you landed on an exoplanet and discovered things like houses and cars, you can presume the existence of intelligent designers. But what if all you found were things like trees and birds?