I agree....this guys example totally misses the point. The problem is that the word God is associated with so many different concepts all the way from, God is existence, to God is good...ie literally good, to God is love...ie literally love...and love, to God is the necessary existence founding all existence, to God is a morally perfect being who created mankind in his image and will eventually judge all humans in some way and our eternal fate is determined by this judgement process. And this guy is also supposed to have walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, made the sun stand still to help someone win a battle, made a deal with Satan over Job, who flooded the world because he was angry over sin to raining fire on Sodom and Gomorrah to punishing David for his adultery by killing his child to order the slaughter of the Canaanites. NOW we have a better picture of what an atheists is faced with. OF COURSE an atheist believes in existence...so immediately someone will say, well that means you're not really an atheist. Or someone believes in goodness or love or value. And of course those are things many theists can only come from God. So whatever founds those for the atheist becomes his 'God' and viola, they're no longer atheists. But it becomes meaningless rhetoric to say those things are God and therefore anyone who believes in them suddenly believes in God. OTOH, given that laxness in definition, I can on any given day think God exists and then on another day think God doesn't exist...I merely switch definitions. When I need God to exist to explain why there is no much evil in the world...ie because that's how God made the world, there he is...the explanation and I'm exonerated from feeling any responsibility. But when I want to do wrong and don't want God looking over my shoulder, I merely think he doesn't exist. That's how that's supposed to work, right?

​@@rizdekd3912It would be an attribution error to conclude that someone is Atheist simply because they want to do wrong without God looking over their shoulder.

@@rizdekd3912 Idiot. I doubt you know your mind, you don't know mine As for beliefs, we all have them they are personal, ephemeral and not really applicable to anyone else. Think how you like please leave me to think how I like.

@@rizdekd3912 "God is a morally perfect being" say those whose desperate childlike "need" for Sky Daddy enables them to evade the fact that the god portrayed in the Western biblical tales is a less than benevolent tyrant who rules through fear and humans "need" to imagine that celestial beings exist and "love" them.

@righty-o3585 It's like how I've had people unable to comprehend how "I don't know" has f*ck all to do with what you _believe._ Agnosticism doesn't equate to, entail, or even imply an absence of belief.

That’s funny, because I have a friend named Jesus which is meant to be pronounced “Hey Zeus” but he prefers to be called “Jee-Sus”. Also one time I was on a call with him and I made a stupid Among Us joke calling him “Jee-SUS” and he changed his online nickname to “JeSUS”.

It’s almost like God doesn’t want to save some people

If He appeared and spoke to everyone, what then is the value of faith?

@@kunstfaerdige8214The biblical definition of faith I’ve heard from Christians is trust, belief, and submission.

@@thomasthellamas9886 No.

then EVERYONE would KNOW ​@@kunstfaerdige8214

You lack the basic skill of immortality.

@@user-zb1yw5vs4c so?

@@user-zb1yw5vs4c As do we all.

@@user-zb1yw5vs4c So do you.

What about Thor? There is evidence for Thor because Thursday is named after him 😂😂😂

Sin? Prove it exists.

@@byteme9718 I rent out some accommodation and use third party agents. Their contract has rules for the tenant that say the property should not be used for any purpose that is illegal or immoral. I have repeatedly asked what are examples of acts are immoral but not illegal so I know what to look out for and their reply has always been silence. So it seems the lawyers are covering themselves without being able to define what immorality (which to me would be the definition of sin) is.

@@byteme9718 Look it up in Webster's

@@martinconnelly1473on the same basis Friday is named after Feria, Wednesday after Woden and Santa after Christmas

@@brittianyclements1821 NO. You believe in what is affirmative. Your take is like saying not smoking is a habit. Theists believe, atheists don't. If you don't go to the store today and somebody asks you what you did today do you answer "I didn't go to the store."? If you do you didn't answer the question. That's not what you did today, it's what you didn't do. Same thing here.

@@brittianyclements1821so stupid. What is your name? ‘Well my name is not John.’ The affirmation is always the starting point.

@@brittianyclements1821 I don't like how you phrased it, "certain belief". I think that the vast majority of people do live their lives with many implicit assumptions, among them that Zeus does not exist. But few of those assumptions are "certain", since the proposition of existence is unfalsifiable for many things. But it is a reasonable point that, from a practical standpoint, most people live their daily lives with the implicit assumption(s) of nonexistence of any of the infinite number of things for which there is no good evidence of their existence.

You believe Zeus does not exist. This is a belief. And you are a mere believer. Contrary to agnostics, who humbly claim: I do not know.

​@@davidhitchen5369Atheists are believers. Most of them. And many make atheism a religion. You certainly seem to fall in this category. 😔

If you can show me a book that says anything about him, I'll be convinced.

@@My_trashtalking_accounthahaha

Zeus is not in Fantasia.

@@thegreatgazoo7579 Oh yes he is! He's in the 3rd movement of Beethoven's 6th "Pastoral" Symphony chucking lightning bolts.

@@thegreatgazoo7579 3rd movement of Beethoven's 6th "Pastoral" symphony. He's the dude in the clouds chucking lightning bolts.

Wise choice.

Do you mean you feel more comfortable saying you believe that they do not exist? Saying that you do not believe that they exist, means that you just lack that belief, which should be the starting position. Evidence against Zeus moves you closer to believing that Zeus does not exist. Or at least, it should for anyone who aims to believe what is true.

Ironically, an invisible God and no God, is to a significant degree the same thing. And the more the religious mind leans upon a highly active God, the more they are leaning on escapism from the real world, by making up films for themselves. A theist can use incantations to call upon the power of God to change the traffic light, but the engineer who installed it knows how it works.

The problem with this is that the argument is not claiming or asserting with certainty. It is either I do not believe or I believe that...hard atheism need not be a claim of certainty, it is a personal belief either way.

I can't say for a fact that leprechauns don't exist anywhere in the Universe. I just haven't been presented with any convincing evidence that they do. When I am, I'll consider the possibility. Until then, I put them in the same category I do gods.

@gordon3186 So you can't say: 'I believe no leprechauns exist'?

@@mattyd2818 I think that was the point of their comment, somewhat like my own. At risk of misrepresenting, "I believe no Leprechauns exist" is something that theyd likely agree with. However the firm, or hard atheistic as you had said, statement of "Leprechauns do not exist" is one where there is a lack of evidence either way. While this is a rather tangential example, I imagine it would be like saying (with 100% conviction) that giant squids *do not* exist, since around a hundred years ago we didnt have much more than hearsay and legends for their existence. Lo and behold more recently we have concrete evidence of their existence, so the statement in the past with 100% conviction seems rather silly no? The same is the case the opposite way, saying something does exist then come to find verifiable evidence of whatever thing being a hoax or nonexistent.

Of all the religions I've looked into, Christianity is by far the most boring. And full of losers and celebration of losers. The OT god of abraham would be embarrassed.

Every school day? How horrid.

There’s a lot of overlap between vegans and vegetarians…. Some vegetarians are more strict and are closer to vegan, no eggs for example, so yeah I think it’s a fair question I think the problem is semantics, “are you allowed to eat eggs” vs “do you eat eggs”

They actually climbed Olympus back then, and there are to this day countless shrines/offerings to various gods. I believe they rationalized the lack of god by saying the lived in a secret undiscoverable part of the mountain and or operated in a different reality.

Precisely. Same goes for gods of Sumerian, Roman, Phoenician, Assyrian, Hittite, Judeo-Christian etc...

@RustyWalker Why aren't people willing to express their tentative assent to the proposition that no deity exists (without affirming the same)? What is the benefit in expressing an "absence" of belief, if not to gain a dialectical advantage and thereby eschew the need to justify anything? Bear in mind, I am explicitly acknowledging the distinction between the *doxastic* position of "I _believe_ ~p is more likely than p," which does not strictly invoke a burden of proof and the *epistemic* position of, "I _know_ that ~p is true," which _does_ invoke a burden of proof. That is to say, one can truthfully say, "I don't know, _but_ tentatively believe it to be the case..." So, why not do that? I don't "lack" belief in propositions and feel no compulsion to hide behind a nonsensical concept like "nonbelief." I either believe they are true or I believe they are false, whether justifiably so or not belief isn't a choice; it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise; and it's intellectually bankrupt to think that I cannot possibly hold any unjustified or illogical beliefs.

@@truerealrationalist I don't think it's that. I think it's a question of refusing to play the game by the rules theists demand. Theists want and demand atheists take an affirmative stance solely to reverse the burden of proof (more usually, evidence), and dodge the defence of their own outrageous claims.

@@RustyWalker Do you assert that your "lack" of belief in any deity is genuinely different from believing there is no such thing?

@@truerealrationalist Did you even read my OP?

This certainly communicates what it's like to be an atheist, but it's a terrible argument against theism. A few objections: 1) There are 3000 views of god, it's present in every human culture. Does this make it more likely that there's no god, or that there's at least one? Seems just as reasonable to conclude that these 3000 ideas must be referring to something real 2) The difference between zero and one is not the same as the difference between different forms of polytheism. I'm sure there are different Hindus who believe in just one less god than their neighbour, but share everything else. The difference between monotheism and atheism has implications in every area of your life and philosophy. 3) This assumes that the same arguments are used for each god. That's not true, there are profound differences in the arguments and supposed evidence given by people in different faiths. I may reject Islam because I feel the Quran is unreliable, but the Quran being unreliable is not a good reason to reject Buddhism.

@@a.i.l1074 well, there were 3000 views of god back when people were ignorant and didn’t know any better. That’s changed now because information has allowed society to become enlightened and aware. Back in those times gods were created to explain fire, thunderstorms, wind etc but there is no need for that anymore due to a thing called science. You may regard the analogy as a terrible argument against theism, but in the absence of anything more detailed I think it does just fine, and I threw it in there as it’s a fun analogy too :) I can come up with a multitude of cogent and robust arguments against theism, but they’d be lengthy and KZfaq would no doubt block virtually everyone if I used just one contentious word that upsets their algorithms.

@@a.i.l1074 ya know I think I’m done with KZfaq. I just wrote a response and it’s instantly hidden. To be honest I can’t be bothered anymore.

@@jamesaston410 ah, annoying. Understandable, doesn't even give notifications half the time either.

@@a.i.l1074sorry. I did try. Hope you have a good rest of the day 😊

Thanks for subbing!

You'll get a tax break once you form a church of Zeus. And YOU don't get a tax break. The church gets a tax break on money that is used to run the church.

Zeus stole it.

Do theists research every god to confirm only their delusion is the truth?

The problem with that is that there has never been anything offered that 1. Distinguishes/differentiates one "god" from another and 2. Distinguishes any (see argument 1)"god" as something more than a man made mental construct. So, belief that no gods exist, not just picking out ones that have been thoroughly "investigated" is completely justified and rational.

@@mattyd2818I think the op’s comment confuses atheists with antitheists. All antitheists are atheists not all atheists are antitheists if you understand my meaning

@@mattyd2818 Disagree. There are holy books and stories. The god of the bible is definitely distinguished from the gods of the greeks which are distinguished from the gods of the azteks.

@@darrennew8211 What is one distinguishing feature?

The problems is that their reasons for disbelieving in other gods are not the same as our reasons. And the atheists' reasons aren't the same either - not all atheists are skeptics, etc.

@@AlexanderShamov I don't see the distinction. Why does the "reason" someone doesn't believe in something matter?

​@@sonpacho Because the whole point of this argument is to get the other party to apply their own skepticism about Zeus to their own god. But their position on Zeus is not that of skepticism. If they thought like skeptics do, they wouldn't be theists.

@@AlexanderShamov Their position is that of disbelief. That's all that matters. Why they don't believe is irrelevant.

@@Transmutathan I’m unaware of any way we can know if “outside of our own universe” is even something that exists.

@@JimBarrows Anything you can imagine, exists.....in your imagination, which is something, and exists.

You can believe in all the gods at once, the Romans did it all the time, they even had an altar to the unknown god.

God is a generic term. That Christians assume their god is their problem. Define the god you believe in, and then we can talk about that god's existence. In general, because the supernatural has not been proven, and gods are, by definition, supernatural, I don't believe in them. However, such things could simply be difficult to prove, so I'm not willing to say they don't. I am willing to say they are highly unlikely, given the lack of evidence over the last 2,000 years or so. Hence the position "I lack a belief in any gods".

evidence? :)

Not only did they beat the Christians but they even took over their entire religion, and did better with it then they ever could as one of the greatest "fuck you's" in history. 😂

But the Romans converted to xtianity then spread it throughout Europe. It's obvious that it won because deluded people still believe it by the millions. How many still worship Zeus?

Where are the romans today? How many people speak latin?

​@@katabasis9999 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/lapjZ8Snx5a-gGw.html

No you didn't, he told me that he never spoke to you.

@@thegreatgazoo7579 🤣😂

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that even physics has NO DEFINITION for time !

​@@irenehartlmayr8369I'm pretty sure those definey book people have a defintion for "time". A time has a well defined role in physics so i don't know what you're talking about.

@@goldenalt3166 Sorry,that is wrong.Physicists ( " the definey book people " ) do NOT have a definition for time. Because nobody knows what time IS. Time has a well-defined role in Physics and Chemistry,because time units are used as parameters in measurement.BUT there is no definition of time as such. The relativity of the time EXPERIENCE ( depending on the relative position and speed of the observer ) was delineated by Einstein,in his theory of relativity. And the human experience of the passage of time (divided into past,present and future ) is probably due to our brain structure.We can't experience it all together.Our brains have to chop it up into three parts. However,there are " psychic " people who CAN see the three parts together....denied by science,of course....but nobody knows HOW . There is no explanation for that ( yet ). You can check on all that in a standard textbook of Physics...

@@irenehartlmayr8369 I can see you don't understand. But the idea that "time" isn't defined is ridiculous.

@@goldenalt3166 Oh really....! I'm a scientist but don't know about science....And YOU are a fool,who doesn't understand anything.THAT is clear. Ever heard of Dunning-Kruger....? You are the best proof of that well-known psychological theory,based on fact.Congratulations. Time is not defined and that is a fact. Just in case you know what a Physics textbook IS,just check on it there.But maybe you can't read either....who knows?! Fools usually think they are smart,but don't know about anything....

Religious experience.But that is subjective and spiritual and cannot be material.

No

@@user-md9yv7jx2c What evidence do you want? Apart from that,there is no text saying anything about Zeus & Co.

​@@irenehartlmayr8369 The Iliad claims to be the words of The Oracle.

@@irenehartlmayr8369 you mean brain malfunction?

@@viralsheddingzombie5324 Writing things on paper doesn't mean anything unless what is written is BELIEVED.Or put into practice. Lots of people might say that what is written in ( any ) Constitution is junk and rubbish. And there are also people who don't " believe " in science,in the sense that they don't trust that science is the truth about certain material things.Science is a mental model of what humans BELIEVE to be the truth about matter ( only ).

@@viralsheddingzombie5324 Things written on paper are useless unless they are BELIEVED. Or implemented. Being written somewhere,on its own,does not imply truth.

You do understand they mean the concepts on the constitution though. They don’t mean the paper. I doubt you’d say you believed in the Bible because you understand you mean the concepts in it. I feel like your argument is worded poorly because it seems to be arguing a point no one makes

@@drewidlifestyle7883 It's very simple. I am arguing the difference between beliefs and facts.

@@viralsheddingzombie5324 The things written in the Constitution are NOT facts,they are BELIEFS !!..

Lol That means you think Zeus does exist

I get what you’re going for, but I have a ton of experience arguing with Christians and sometimes Muslims but mostly Christians but they were usually stubborn and not open minded. This is likely a product of how characters in the Bible don’t really use logic and facts, God kind of just bails them out when they need to do that.

There's a nice technique called rationalist taboo, it's used to avoid stumbling blocks that are purely linguistic rather than substantial. The whole question of disbelief vs. negative belief can be sidestepped by tabooing the term "belief" and explaining our positions without it. For example: "We all have a model of how the world works. Mine doesn't include any concept of God." Is that disbelief or a negative belief? What the hell is the dfference?

Any claim can have three positions. You can accept it as true or as false. The third position you can take is the "I don't know" position. That's the minimum position an atheist can take. Since it's difficult to prove a negative, I don't know the most rational position. Given that most Christians disagree on their definition of a god, it's also the most rational position.

@@JimBarrows I don't know whether it will rain tomorrow but I have an umbrella for that occasion. Acting like the single most important truth about the universe is entirely irrelevant is not what genuine uncertainty looks like. In the context of God, "I don't know" usually means "I'll signal open-mindedness because that's what the cool kids do nowadays, but think and act like God doesn't exist, because for all practical purposes that's clearly the case".

​@@AlexanderShamov No it just means that they don't believe in God but also can't disprove its existence, because such a thing would be impossible. Hence they lack a belief in God.

jesus didn't die for our sins. ha just had a shitty weekend. not very impressive.

Converted from agnosticism to what?

@@eizzy7078 He started off with "As a Christian..."

You don't understand the arguments or you'd also understand why being a Christian is delusional.

Knowledge is justified true belief. Most god definitions are self-refuting OR easily refuted by simple process. Zeus is said to live on Mt Olympus. We know that's expressly not true. We can see the whole of Mt Olympus and know there to be no gods. Nobody can "choose" what they believe. If I asked you to 'believe' that you were a billionaire king living on a moon of Jupiter right now, you couldn't.

Yes it is. You are asserting something, and it is testable.

@@thegreatgazoo7579 So you’re claiming the person is lying about not possessing something?

@@2l84me8 I'm saying that a claim is being made about not having $5.

Interesting. I didn't do it. I would say I didn't do it intentionally, but I've done zero things with any of the comments on my channel. I'll look into it.

I've looked for your comment, and I don't see it in my "held of review" queue or any place within the admin portions of my account. I think KZfaq would let me know that they deleted or hid your comment, and it didn't. I'm not sure what happened. Please repost your comment, and let me know so I can watch for it.

@@JimBarrows just a heads up fella and I’m sure you didn’t do it either. I think it’s over zealous censoring by KZfaq, maybe, with their algorithms. I’ve seen many other people on other channels say similar things. To me it’s a frustration but nothing more. But to a content creator like yourself the more frustrated people get it could result in a real decrease in footfall to their site, and ultimately that could have a knock on effect to business I guess.

@@JimBarrows it was a rather lengthy (but not stupidly long) response to a comment from @a.i.l1074 if that helps.

Why call the universe god then? We have a perfectly good word: Universe.

@@JimBarrows It's more than just the universe. For example, it is you. It is your brain cells, the synapses, the electrical potential and every thought you have. are you the universe? no. it is the water, it is gravity, and every other force. It is the collapsed probability wave of quantum mechanics, it is the space in between the plank constant. does your word universe describe all of that? and let us not forget, the word God is over 3000 years old. how old is the word universe?

@@nothinghere1996nothing you’ve said proves your god exists. Of your going to claim the universe ids God, then you need to justify the word change. How old a word has nothing to do with anything. lol.

@@JimBarrows So. To cut a long story short, you will find fault in every conceivable context, not because you are right, but because you hate the concept itself.

@@nothinghere1996 How nice of you to tel me mindset. I mean arrogant. Arrogant of you I meant.

I ask people a question? Interesting, because I start the vid with "Another installment of questions for atheists". Which I do in fact answer the question as an atheist.

Atheism is not a belief. It's a question to a claim. If a theist proposed any God, defining it's properties and laying out rules and regulations for all of us to follow in order to please this God, it's me, the atheist who asks for the evidence of what the theist has claimed to be true. The default position to every claim is to put the claim to a test. Otherwise every claim brought forward has to be believed without questioning, which would be insane. So, I own the burden to question, I don't make any statements of a belief or a lack of belief. I simply don't believe.

Atheism is not a worldview. It’s a position on one claim. Just like theism is a position on that claim. Theism is not a worldview either.

@@MarcoKriegerWell, in its core it is question to a claim, or more precisely a counterargument to claim. So technically being an atheist narrows it down to God or god-like beings. So from that perspective fro example anyone supporting New Age could also be an atheist. Or believe in horoscopes, tarot cards etc. However, in practice it is not often so, as atheists are also very often rationalists and sceptics - which is fine by me. So more often than not atheism is part of rationalistic worldview - again, nothing wrong with that, but that is just how it is mostly. However the shadow of that rationalistic and sceptic influence is the belief that one day science can answer rationally to all questions - and that is a belief based on rationalistic worldview, which is also the leeding worldview of atheists. Now, for sure rationalistic worldview gives wider perspective than just seeking all answers from a "holy" book, but the possible downside it is that it may kill imagination as in "Stop dreaming and get real!" - attitude. Of course sometimes that attitude is in order, but as a constant it leads to dystopia, because only dystopia is devoid of all imagination, a constant free-for-all world based only on survivalism. Yes, it is mostly because of rationalism, but atheism is part of it. Now I agree that ideals of religion about God are just plain BS motivated by desire to theocratic political power and personally I don't want that at all. However not all imaginative things and ideals are useless, but actually a neccessity to the thriving of human society. For example art isn't a neccesity from realistic POV, but it is neccessary in order to prevent the downfall of societies

@@JimBarrows Ok, yes theism isn't a worldview,, because it is an umbrella term. However for example monotheism or polytheism ARE worldviews, because they influence how you view to world and how you answer to certain questions about the world, like for example questions about moral/ethics. Atheism doesn't technically give answers to moral questions, but since often (not always) an atheist is also a rationalist their possible answers to such questions are often very pragmatic. No, I don't say one way is better than another, but rather they just have different approach to such questions :)

@@samppakoivula9977 Again, nope. If I know you're a polytheist, I don't know if you believe only one pantheon exists or multiple. I don't know how those gods influence your behavior or view on anything. The same problem exists with monotheism.

There is zero evidence for spirits. The time to believe is when there is evidence.

In god of war

Can you demonstratte that your god exists, and the he's capable of doing those things? otherwise you've just a claim you can't support.

​@@JimBarrowsGod is spiritual. He cannot be seen, understood, comprehend, measured, with human's limited and imperfect senses, mind and intelligence, which are all in the realm of matter. We can't even see gravity, wind, electricity, synapse, uv rays, etc., feelings and emotions. Science can't even comprehend where atoms cone from and why it exhibits perpetual energy.

@EL-IS-Saturn Now I'm dumber for readint that. Please demonstrate that nothing can actually exist, then that there were, in fact, 2 creators. Then explain why you think there are only 3 dimensions when science says there are at least 4, and Math says there are more.

@EL-IS-Saturn Now you've said even dumber stuff and haven't responded to me at all. *LOL*

@EL-IS-Saturn *LOL* You have nothing still. Your definition of a square root isn't even close.

What would then?

@@gknight4719 when I go outside and I see lightning in the sky it is proof that Zeus is angry

@@AbdullahIbnAbdullah-pk1kf Good one! Now i know you are just having fun.

Have you considered the timeless spaceless Zeus who subtly manipulates lightning bolts to hit christian churches?

konrad zuse definitely did exist. otherwise this communication wouldn't happen.

@@goldenalt3166I’m mad at Zeus for doing that, so he must not exist.

@@HungryWarden You have to be theist to use that kind of logic.

@@goldenalt3166 it was a joke. I actually reject the existence of god because I just want to sin, not because it’s actually logical to reject the idea considering the lack of evidence, I just do it because I’m petty and I want to do bad things without being told what to do. Obviously.🙄/j

The reason we can't measure these things is because they're defined extremely vaguely and "measurement" has a connotation of being a somewhat precise process. To the extent that "love" or "humility" can be defined in terms of observable behavior, observing this behavior does constitute a "measurement", as (im)precise as the concept itself is, and I don't see how any of it is supernatural.

@@AlexanderShamov It is, because that is how we defined these things in the past. They are not found in nature as a physical thing. Just like human conciousness is not a physical thing. Yes, we have found many physical reactions that are related to it. Just like in a computer. But the information itself does not exist physically. Words and letters can not be proven to have a value, they are but ink on paper, one's and zeroes on a computer. What we observe in real life are merely the consequences that these things have on our decisions, which in turn, have consequences on our actions. These are things that people have always known to be, and rationalized as supernatural influences. Laws, after which we act. So to say, supernatural things do not exist, does not make sense to me, especially when we act as if they do. As in the transfer of information through words requires the existence of truth, logic, reason, which, again, are not physical things, but transcend the physical world, and exist only in the same realm as human conciousness. If anything, we may argue about the nature of these things, and if we want to continue calling them supernatural, but to dismiss them entirely as just made up, when we need them to communicate or even think, seems disingenous. I know people have a problem with accepting this as definition for what supernatural means, but that makes it all the more important to first define these things correctly. And if we want to use a more scientific name for it, that does not change how these words were traditionally used to describe them.

​@@verhygo4844 You're just calling any abstract concept supernatural. By that logic the number "2" is supernatural. But that's not what people usually mean by this term. When we dismiss the supernatural, we're not dismissing all abstract concepts, we're specifically dismissing the made up ones that don't correspond to anything in reality.

@@AlexanderShamov Yes, it is not what people usually refer to when they use that term. But would you then consider numbers or mathematics to be a part of the natural world? Surely not. Numbers aren't something we find within nature, even if they, and mathematics especially, are something we consider as an accurate representation of the laws that rule it, or at least, accurate enough to describe how they work. What do you think, how people who had no idea about how abstract concepts exactly work, what they are, or how best to describe them did describe it with the limited understanding they had? They certainly knew that lighting existed, but not after which rules it operates. They knew that certain personality traits existed, but not how they came to be. That's all reflected in the way they viewed the world they could see and the world they couldn't. Which is reflected in our language, as well as in our stories. The tragedy of Narcissus, just as much as the decadence of Dionysos, or the authority figure of Zeus, that takes pleasure in hunting young women down. Each part that is to these myths is in itself full of truth, sometimes more than we would like to admit. Especially when talking about certain deities like Mammon. The love for money is very real, and so is people's obsession, or even their possession by it. Heaven and earth, the spirit and the body, the material and the immaterial, the physical and the metaphysical, all that refers to the same dynamic. The world above us, with rules and laws we yearn to understand, the world beneath us, that we force our laws upon, and the world between where we exist. The mind, the psyche, the consciousness that we use to rationalize what we can perceive. I do not argue that we should believe and worship all that is to it, certainly not. But people often enough still act like it. They make sacrifices to scientific efforts, worship the results of them, and the success and benefits that we receive. People dismiss the supernatural as purely superstition but become mindless zombies to political ideologies or fear the impact that Fortuna has upon their lives. They discard love, compassion, and forgiveness as a weakness and proceed to drain the blood from society until the light of truth turns them to ashes. Or, just recently during the me-too movement, they fear the might of the predators of the night, animals that wear human skin, only to feed upon the weakest of society in the shadows that the full moon casts. There's a deep truth to all stories that people wrote down and still do. What we should do is not to dismiss them but to discern fiction from reality. However surreal, it may seem at first glance. Sorry for the comment spam. KZfaq blocked my comment for some reason...

It absolutely can be .

​@@righty-o3585tell that to donald rumsfeld

But the absence of evidence IS sufficient reason not to believe. And a lack of evidence makes it harder to respect those who DO believe.

@@PhrontDoor I agree 100%.

​@@righty-o3585Yeah. It needs a "necessarily" in there for the counterexamples.

That was an episode of Star Trek (the original series.)

@@Spiritof_76 excellent 👌

What do you mean Yahweh has endless examples of his veracity? Do you have an?

@@JimBarrows 11 Proofs of God - The first Being 1) Elemental logic - We ourselves are proof of God. No entity or thing can give out more than it possesses in store. Or stated another way, nothing can create anything superior to itself. The sun can’t give out more energy than it retains in its reserve. A person can’t take more money out of his/her wallet than is actually in it. In short, how can the universe create what it does not already have the ability to create? We exist, so the universe produced us. The universe must be at least equal to us, and then superior to us because it created us. The life system, then, is a person. 1b) We didn't create ourselves. Our parents procreated us, but their parents procreated them, and theirs them, and so on back through history. This can't however, go on forever, or "ad infinitum." There has to be a beginning to the line of ancestry, due to causality. This infers a person who was not procreated. This we call "God." 2) The nature of the human being to comprehend eternal concepts and values - This is related to Aquinas' 4th law of 'gradation of being'. If there exists in a being something of partial nature, then there must exist somewhere a whole from which the part came; therefore, a being who is of invisible nature, and that is God. What is a collection of molecules doing conceiving of eternal laws and values, and therefore in part being one with them? Laws and values are abstract qualities such as: good, evil, love, hate, truth, math, geometry, etc. We are inseparably integrated with these laws and values - our sanity depends on them. 3) The nature of humans to speak a language. We don't just make programmed sounds, as animals do. We create languages to convey ideas, and intentionally express ideas and concepts in primary sequence fashion, which in language is called a "sentence." The sentence consists of 5 parts: subject, verb, indirect object, preposition (a directional), and direct object. Why do we do this, as if we were part spiritual? 4) The nature of human beings to create "design forms". Other animals create design forms such as nests, holes, webs, beehives, etc. These are all, however, limited and repetitious, as if programmed into the creature, which they are. There are no buildings, sculptures, works of art, or even complex housing in the animal world. But we create all these things. 5) The nature of human beings to create machines - Humans have some ability at this time to create design mechanisms that move on their own, as well as perform programmed functions; a simpler prelude to a living being. It's called AI. But somewhere in the past some type of intelligence created self-replicating machines that think and act on their own. We call them "animals". There are billions of types of these animated forms. Where did the universe get the ability to create them, unless the universe itself is a living "being?" 6) The creation of animals: At some point, someone created living machines called "animals'. Common sense tells us that living things are always created by living things. But we weren't around when animals were first created. Who created us? Evolution explains animals as having developed over millions of years. There are problems with this theory; one being that all creatures are born with brains that dictate mental operating, as well as all behavioral traits of the creature. Another problem is how animals got started in the first place; it’s called "abiogenesis'. The first organisms were single-celled; however; already complete with DNA and working parts. Protein molecules can't account for this. Where is the mind of evolution? What is "chance?" 7) The Creation of Plants. Plants are a completely different phase of creation. They are not mobile as animals are. They are rooted into the soil, and derive their nutrition from water, the sun, and vitamins and minerals in the soil. But they are also designed machines that we didn't create. Plants take in the CO2 that we breathe out, and in exchange give out oxygen that we breathe. The leaves of plants perform photosynthesis, utilizing the sun's energy. This function is a very bizarre aspect of nature; that a creature grows out of the ground and reaches up with leaves to receive energy from something it knows nothing about. Plants have DNA also. How does evolution account for this - Plants remain separate from animals? 8) Primary Particles: The primary particles of physics are themselves proof of God. This is due to the necessity of physics to be generated in a moment of space-time. Particles are definite, finite, and have measurements. Something must then "choose" to bring them forth. Choice is via intellect, and intellect is from, and an aspect of, a being. 9) The nature of humans throughout history to create religion and worship some sort of deity. Why do we worship? There is the exception of atheism, but it is mostly a cult ideology of rejecting God and worshiping self, illustrated by worshiping evolution and science. It is worshiping your own thoughts and beliefs. In effect, it is a pagan religion. 10) The Law of Moses: The Ten Commandments are additional proof of God. There were actually 13 commands given to Israel on Mt. Sinai. The very first one said to have no other gods before Jehovah. Here a monotheistic god provides meaning to the obeying of laws against sin. Israel understood at the time that it was God giving the commands. 11) Jesus the Messiah or Christ: Why should a religion have a Messiah? Of course, Jesus represented God on Earth. But his main purpose for being born into the world was to die on a Cross for our sins. This separates Christianity from all other religions in that the messiah dies for human sins. Did something unusual happen in the Garden of Eden? Did we truly actually disconnect from God? If so, it was necessary for God to save us at a future point in time. Can anyone disprove these proofs?

Such as??

How did a brainstem stroke victim of 7 years, who could not even grunt differently enough to communicate yes or no, suddenly start speaking clearly 10 minutes after 2 people in another room asked God to help him speak clearly to enable his medical team to understand his medical difficulties? More than 60 people were witnesses to his before and after abilities.?

@@glenliesegang233 did anybody investigate this claim? Where is this story published?

Joseph - Imhotep - Thoth - Hermes! Hermes, the Greek god of interpretive communication, was combined with Thoth, the Egyptian god of wisdom. The Egyptian priest and polymath Imhotep had been deified long after his death and therefore assimilated to Thoth in the classical and Hellenistic periods. When the Greeks learned that the Egyptians had a god Thoth, or Tehuti, who specialized in wisdom and learning, they named him Hermes Trismegistus, or “thrice greatest Hermes.” Supposedly Hermes Trismegistus was the scribe of the gods who authored the sacred hermetic works that described the material world as well as the quest for spiritual perfection. Altar and Pillar Isaiah 19:19 Revelation 5:5 Imhotep - Joseph the same person who built the step pyramid. Acts 7:10... God gave him favor before Pharaoh, king of Egypt. God also gave Joseph unusual wisdom, so that Pharaoh appointed him ruler over all of Egypt and put him in charge of everything he owned. The Great Pyramid has 8 sides. The 8 sides represent the 8 kingdoms of the world. Jesus is the corner stone. The last kingdom to rule forever. There is actually ten sides counting top and bottom. First Empire was Nimrod. Who represents Babylon the Great, the Empire of false religion. The bottom of the pyramid is a side. All eight Kingdoms of Revelation ride with the harlot, Babylon the Great. The Great Pyramid having no top corner stone and the top being flat is the Harlot. Jesus is the cornerstone the builders rejected. The Nations would rather follow the Harlot than Jesus. Revelation 17:9 “This calls for a mind that has wisdom: The seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top. 10 And there are seven kings: Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet arrived; but when he does arrive, he must remain a short while. 11 And the wild beast that was but is not, it is also an eighth king, but it springs from the seven, and it goes off into destruction. Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them: “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone that the builders rejected, this has become the chief cornerstone. This has come from Jehovah, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 This is why I say to you, the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits. What does the Sphinx really represent. Because Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Isaiah 19:19 In that day there will be an altar to Jehovah in the middle of the land of Egypt and a pillar to Jehovah at its boundary. 20 It will be for a sign and for a witness to Jehovah of armies in the land of Egypt; for they will cry out to Jehovah because of the oppressors, and he will send them a savior, a grand one, who will save them. Revelation 5:5 But one of the elders said to me: “Stop weeping. Look! The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered so as to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

7 × 77 = 539 AD Water Damage on the Sphinx! Jesus is The Lion of the Tribe of Judah! It was known from the beginning! Jesus opens the 7 seals! The altar and pillar! Isaiah 19:19 Revelation 5:5 The Land of Nod, Was the sign of Cain a Lion. Cain worshipped Jehovah God. He offered sacrifices to him. So did Jehovah forgive him by marking his land with the Lion. The Mark of Cain. Genesis 4:13 At this Cain said to Jehovah: “The punishment for my error is too great to bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land,* and I will be hidden from your face; and I will become a wanderer and a fugitive on the earth, and anyone who finds me will certainly kill me.” 15 So Jehovah said to him: “For that reason, anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times.” So Jehovah established a sign for Cain in order that no one finding him would strike him. 16 Then Cain went away from before Jehovah and took up residence in the land of Exile, to the east of Eʹden. Genesis 4:24 If 7 times Cain is to be avenged, Then Laʹmech 77 times.” Matthew 18:21 Then Peter came and said to him: “Lord, how many times is my brother to sin against me and am I to forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him: “I say to you, not up to seven times, but up to 77 times.23 “That is why the Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves.

Why is 70 AD important! 7 × 77 = 539 AD! Those Who Worship the God of Abraham! YHVH! Yehovah! Jehovah! There was only one true Faith. Paul was in the sect The Way. Paul worshiped the God of Abraham! Revelation 2:2 ‘I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them to be liars. Revelation 2:6 Still, you do have this in your favor: that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus, which I also hate. Revelation 2:15 In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus. 16 So repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war against them with the long sword of my mouth. The Legend of the Sword! The Ice Age and The Great Sword How about the myth of King Arthur after The Roman Empire made Christianity the State Religion. By using their image the Cross and Trinity teaching. Which is sun, moon and star worship. Revelation 17:17 The skies became darkened. In AD 539, the first of three massive volcanic eruptions ushered in a ice age. It coincided with an epidemic of the plague, the decline of the eastern Roman Empire, and sweeping upheavals across Eurasia. The 2nd seal of Revelation 6:5 When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say: “Come!” 4 Another came out, a fiery-colored horse, and it was granted to the one seated on it to take peace away from the earth so that they should slaughter one another, and he was given a great sword. 🗡 With the land bridge frozen to the Americas. Britain became the 7th Kingdom of Revelation. So what year did this Kingdom become the Wild Beast with two horns. The false prophet and wild beast arrived with the Great War of 1914. Revelation 13:11

Jehovah God's Spirit Directed World! God's Chariot! Revelation 17:17 Nero of the Roman Empire worshipped the Sun God Apollo! Even if Jesus did not exist they would follow Sun, Moon, and Star Worship! Revelation 17:17 The Roman Empire allowed Christianity but created a Pagan Jesus. Constantine made Christianity the main religion of Rome, and created Constantinople, which became the most powerful city in the world. Historians link the advent of Christianity to Sol Invictus partly because December 25 marked the so-called Feast of the Unconquered Sun before it became officially recognized as the birthday of Christ. The Winter solstice, alternatively called Yule or Sol Invictus, is a pagan celebration Emperor Aurelian established in 272 CE. Aurelian strengthened the position of the Sun god Sol Invictus as the main divinity of the Roman pantheon. He declared Dec. 25 as the birthdate of the “Invincible Sun” and made the day a feast-day. Deuteronomy 4:19 And when you raise your eyes to the heavens and see the sun and the moon and the stars-all the army of the heavens-do not get seduced and bow down to them and serve them. Jehovah your God has given them to all the peoples under the whole heavens.

Trinitarian's follow the Star of David. The same Star the Magi followed. The Tent of Moses is the Tent of David which is the House of David the Samaritan Temple.This is why they worship the Son as Almighty God. Abraham did not worship the Star of David. This is why the Jews called Jesus a Samaritan! John 8:48 MAGI or MAGA Revelation 17:17

How do you know that “nobody believes in Zeus”?

@@johnnybgood7442 The same way I know there are no flat Earthers. People who claim they're flat Earthers are pulling your leg for their own amusement -- like the clowns who make crop circles. Number 1. Every idiot can see ships sailing over the horizon long before they'd disappear on a flat Earth. Almost everyone has seen the oceans ... 2. There are no churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, chapels, basilicas, cathedrals, or other houses of worship that are dedicated to Zeus.

@@johnnybgood7442 Because nobody is so stupid they'd believe in Zeus. That includes you. It's like flat Earthers. Nobody is dumb enough to believe the world is flat. Anyone looking at the ocean sees the horizon curving downward to the north and south. They see ships sailing over the horizon disappear well before they'd be out of sight on a flat Earth. It's like somebody tells you he's seen somebody 10 feet tall. He doesn't expect you to believe him. He's pretending to be a nut job to pull your leg.

@@johnnybgood7442hyperbole also statistically irrelevant amount would both apply as answers here

@@drewidlifestyle7883 then maybe people that are insulting others should be less sloppy with their language.

Poorly educated and/or indoctrinated?

@@Spiritof_76 nether, I just lack belief there is no god.

@@phillipharrington9201 That's a garbage double negative, or you're just trying to be cute.

@@Spiritof_76 how is this a double negative? I just think there has to be a god thus there cannot not be one.

@@phillipharrington9201 "...there cannot not be one." There's the double negative, it just needed to be flushed out. There is zero evidence for any god ever existing, just stories from ancient myths. "I just think" is a sorry excuse for rationality. Why can there "not be one"? It should be pretty obvious that it not only is possible that there is not one, it's probable that there is not one.