**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/n2e5tNHfzh)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know this word has multiple meanings, but I fucking hate how the word groomer is being used so frequently lately. This is my job title. I am a groomer. I groom dogs.
His logical aptitude is on par with a 13 yr old, so he probably thinks that kids just get me. Whether he's grooming or not, he's in some of the Ven diagram with pedos.
he starts out by asking "do you believe god does not exist?"
The issue is most atheists don't actually "believe god doesn't exist". Most atheists simply *have no faith or belief in the existence of god*. Their atheism stands upon the foundation of a lack of faith, a lack of belief, not a belief in the lack of a god. The difference is extremely important. By and large, Atheists don't posit that God doesn't exist, most atheists posit that there isn't sufficient evidence of the existence of god.
As a result, his entire premise is designed to mislead the hearer, and actually doesn't apply to almost all atheists in the first place.
I’m copy pasting this from my own comment in the thread but, I don’t think he’s making a bad faith argument intentionally. He’s trying to argue atheists by using the logic that he uses to believe his religion over others. He believes that god exists and think atheists have “the belief” that god does not exist. The thing is atheists don’t, believe that god doesn’t exist. Atheists, do not believe. At all. Not just your god. Not just your religion. Atheists do not believe. And the idea that people have other beliefs makes sense to this guy. But the idea that people have no beliefs is baffling for someone who sort of thinks it’s a human norm.
When you’re indoctrinated into something like organized religion, especially as a child, it’s very hard to wrap your head around the fact that not everyone thinks in the same terms/ways. So much of their lives are frame through a position of belief that they can’t grasp the difference between believing a negative and just not believing a positive.
I’m an atheist who grew up in evangelical Christianity and it took me a long long time to understand how those two things aren’t the same
I think this is why he asks for evidence of atheist "belief" - it's a misunderstanding that belief requires evidence. If it did, it wouldn't be belief.
Atheists don't 'not believe' - they simply don't see any evidence to support the existence of a god.
Many religious people seem to conflate belief with evidence. 'I believe god created the trees, so the trees are evidence of god.'
Edit: he also misunderstands evidentialism, I think.
This reminds me of a video I had to sit through at a church's "youth group camp" that was essentially Christiants walking around public places shoving a mic in people's faces to challenge non believers. Just absolute absurdity and zero logic that even me as a 12 year old cringed at.
One that I distinctly remember audibly laughing at and getting talked to by a counselor for what a guy talking to an atheist saying "So then where did everything come from?" And as the fella started trying to answer with saying "evolution" the interviewer interrupted with "Yeah but what about the stuff they evolved from? God made everything evolve into his creatures, can **YOU** do that? If you were given microscopic organisms could **YOU** turn that into a cow the way god did? Let alone from **NOTHING?** Lets see it, where is **YOUR** cow????"
The dude's exhausting. He runs a social media presence called "Capturing Christianity", the motto of which is "exposing you to the intellectual side of Christianity" and then he puts out dumb nonsense like this.
These guys are all like that. They think they're all geniuses who have the surefire, logical answer that will instantly make all disbelievers stop and question their entire belief system. Probably something they picked up from some evangelical preacher, because none of them actually read the Bible or have a legitimate personal opinion about what it says.
That clueless smugness is way beyond anything I've ever experienced from an atheist.
so… his first question was basically “dear atheists, are you an atheist?”
Edit: bruthas, i know “well technically atheism is-“ yes I know I’m an atheist, it’s a joke
No, the first question is not nuanced enough. It’s not that I actively do not believe that god exists so much as I am simply *not convinced* that a god actually does exist.
If I had to put my money where my mouth is and bet on it, sure, I would bet that god doesn’t exist, but I admit that I don’t actually know whether or not any gods exist.
Being in this state of not knowing the truth means I’m sure as hell not going to commit my life to a religion or a cult. I’m going to do my own thing and truth will sort itself out.
I may not know whether or not god exists, but as far as I know, there is good reason to trust, or at least act as if this life is the only life I’m going to get, so I’m going to make the most of it and not waste it on the fantastical beliefs of the gullible/victims of indoctrination.
> resembling god
And which fuckin god would it resemble lmao? If it could control stuff in a godlike way then, you know, if it seems like a duck...
If there was some alien that could imitate some Zeus powers or something but could be gunned down then idgaf if they had managed to convince greece it was a god 2000 years ago, that's just an alien. If it does Brahman stuff then yup that's a god.
I think you're getting more into the difference between agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist. The former being unsure, but leaning towards god doesn't exist and the latter believing for certain that god doesn't exist.
Edit: Thanks for pointing out the typo nostic fixed to gnostic.
These discussions always end up leading to somewhat fruitless semantics discussions in my opinion, though I technically agree with your point.
I think the more important point is that this man is wanting to use these semantic tricks to try and convince us that HIS god exists, and it utterly fails to do that. If he were to walk through scenarios with me he'll eventually get to a point where I'll have to agree that I've not surveyed the entire universe, and I'll agree that SOME entity, SOMEWHERE out in the universe MIGHT exist that we could classify as a god, or we could contort the definition of god in such ways that I would admit that the universal laws of nature (whatever they may be) fit the description. But what good would that do anyone? I still don't believe that it told Abram to sacrifice his son, set bushes on fire, or fathered any illegitimate children in Palestine.
So what's the point in getting me to admit that there could exist some hypothetical entity that fits the definition of a god, or catching me in some semantic trick? Ultimately this guy doesn't believe in this hypothetical god-entity either, he (likely) believes in some specific god defined in some specific religious text. So these discussions about definitions and strong/weak belief (including this very post of mine :)) are ultimately fruitless in my humble opinion.
>So what's the point in getting me to admit that there could exist some hypothetical entity that fits the definition of a god, or catching me in some semantic trick?
Generally just to brake peoples psychological certainty and get them to feel like "wow, if I'm not right, anything else that also might not be right is equally likely!"
It's surprisingly effective.
You may be right, but I'm not sure how effective it actually is, at least not on anyone who's put any more than just casual thought into the issue.
I believe these lines of apologetics are ultimately employed for the benefit of the apologist, not their target, whether they even realize this or not. It gives them some sense of intellectual security in their existing beliefs.
As a former cultist, I mean Christian, it's also to find the weak non-believers. A lot of proclaimed atheists are not solid in their views, So you cause doubt. Once you can get that little bit of doubt into their head, then you can start going down the path of "You don't know for sure, and imagine if you're wrong about this, You will carry that mistake with you for the rest of eternity."
A lot of conversions to Christianity are based on emotional or psychological tricks like this. Get them scared for their eternity, rope them into church to save their soul, once hooked, convince them they need to save others from the same horrible date.
Just ask him what's his evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Xenu/Gaea/Fey/Asguardians don't exist and just walk away
Only thing worse than with arguing with idiots is arguing with idiots who think they are clever and who have *faith* and think that's *evidence*
Ooh, this is an easy one! The words that will fall on your deaf ears as you walk away will be that, when it comes to any of the aforementioned beings:
"*They aren't mentioned in The Bible.*"
That right there is usually considered the gold standard of iron-clad proof. Have you ever spoken with any of these people? :-)
I don’t believe in God the same way I don’t believe in Bigfoot, unicorns, leprechauns or pixies, etc. Simply not believing makes me an atheist. I don’t know why Christians have a hard time with the word atheist and have a hard time understanding the burden of proof.
Edit: not saying you’re a Christian and only speaking from personal experience.
Yes, except most actual atheists are agnostics who demand more evidence than the average agnostic. As the evidence is lacking for any proof of god, but we also cannot catagorically say some god doesn't exist
The Abrahimic god? I can almost say with certainly it does not
I agree there. Any god who allows his followers (Christian) to fiercely hate eachother over minute details in different translations of the exact same book enough to kill eachother since the foundation of said religions doesn't deserve to have any sort of foundation of power (that being worship).
Agreed, and ultimately, if a God exists, they are either a benevolent God, one who would want those they created to live their best lives, and not waste it inflating their own ego in worshipping them, or they are a God who placed humans onto earth demanding worship, in which case I don't wish to worship then.
Aka even if I assume it's true, it wouldn't change how I live my life.
Some old dude assumed I must have had a fucked up childhood to stop believing in god. I told him my childhood was great, just that, as a 5 year old I told my grandma (only person in my family that actually pushed religion) that I didn't believe in god.
I told the old dude the whole god thing just didn't make sense to me as a 5-6yo, why would it make sense 30 years later? He just kept telling me I must have had a traumatic life event that made me lose hope and stop loving Jesus lmao.
No sense to argue with this kind of people.
It's all a set-up for his "gotcha..."
Which is "prove that god doesn't exist."
To which I reply "prove that unicorns don't exist."
If you can't then they clearly do, right?!
He's falling for the [burden of proof](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) fallacy, as christians often do.
You also can't conclusively prove that something doesn't exist...see Russell's teapot for an example:
> If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
> But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
> If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
But in his circular question there is a clean answer. My evidence that supports me not believing in god is that there is no evidence there is a god. So my evidence is the lack of evidence. Cause I’m only needed to prove my lack of belief, not that god doesn’t exist. But fossils and baby cancer are my other answers.
I don't think so, I think it's much sneakier than that. The wording of the first premise is very problematic. "Do you believe that God does not exist" seems framed to imply that atheism is a system of belief when in reality I would argue that atheism is a lack of a belief. Its easier to fall for this line of thinking because atheism has been given a noun, you don't identify or receive a term for not believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny or for not believing that there's a teapot floating in space (see: Betrand Russell). The reason this phrasing is problematic is because once you accept the first premise (based on awkward phrasing), it obviously sets up the rest of the argument. The way I see it, an atheist should disagree with the first question. For reference I'm an Agnostic, but I think this argument is shitty.
I don't think most people talk like this though. If someone asked me if I believed in god id just be like "no", not "well, technically I lack a belief in god".
You're confusing two different positions.
Saying you don't believe in God is not the same as saying you believe that God doesn't exist.
If we're locked in a windowless sound proof room and i say to you it's raining outside, theres no way for you to know if what I claim is true so you could say "I don't believe your claim that its raining outside" .. But thats not the same as you saying you believe the opposite, that it's definetly not raining outside.
You have no way of knowing so you can say that there's no evidence to believe in either claims.
I dont believe in God but that doesn't mean I believe there isn't one. I dont buy people's claims that there is one but I have no way of knowing that there definetly isn't one.
I would say you are a bit off, determining outside weather inside a windowless room is not really like god. You have been outside, you have seen rain, you know that happens at time. Ever seen god? Ever seen miracles, angles, anything? You can't switch out a thing you have experienced many times for something you have no experience of. IMO asking about god is like asking if little green men live in the caves of Pluto.
That’s not the first question at all. I’m an atheist and I don’t believe that god does not exist. I just don’t believe that god exists. There is a subtle difference between those two claims. The claim “god does not exist” is pretty sensational, dubious, and difficult to prove.
Its impossible to prove but I would hardly call it "dubious". If you observe the world purely through empirical evidence, you're not going to have any evidence that even points you to god existing.
Like, if I said "a planet that has reverse gravity does not exist" its not a sensational claim. We know how gravity works, we've seen multiple planets, and we have ways to test and see if "reverse gravity" is possible. Its not sensationalist to be confident something is impossible even if the claim is impossible to refute. It falls on the extraordinary claim "reverse gravity planets ARE real" to actually prove themselves.
It's impossible to prove a negative. It's actually impossible to prove anything outside of math. Science is an evidence based inferential belief system. With offer forth an idea and the evidence to support it. The idea with the most evidence that is unable to be disproven, is the one we believe.
Anyone who says "I believe X does not exist" is not speaking from a position of science.
No it's not. He's asking atheists if they actively believe that there isn't a god. There's an important distinction between "I don't believe in a god" (most atheists) and "I believe there is no god" (what this guy is trying to get people to say). The former is the rejection of a claim without evidence and the latter is a faith based belief.
The burden of proof lies on those who maintain the existence of something.
If I said, "aliens walk among us," it is up to me to offer evidence for my claim or else I just sound like a crazy person.
The common analogy demonstrating the principle is [Russell's Teapot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). The burden of proof sits with the person making unfalsifiable claims.
I always go with Superman. He solves the created by humans argument. If a religious person argues he was made up by a comic book writer. You counter with, the bible was written by a person. And if they counter with, God spoke to them. You can ask, how can you be sure Superman didn't speak to the comic book writer.
I asked my friends about how can their god exist at the same time as the Hindu gods and Roman gods. The answer I got never varied, it was “our one true god is just broken into more individual pieces. So the polytheistic religion gods are just pieces of my one true god.” And that answer annoys me because that’s an easy excuse as to why your religion is correct and never solves anything
It is maddening to read, isn’t it?
It really helps to illustrate that just because some one has a title (Gary Gutting, philosopher) doesn’t mean their contribution will be valuable.
>.. the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if..
Is this … peer-reviewed work by philosophers? 🧐 Who *are* these people??
How do you know that humans invented pasta? Is there an evidence that a human made pasta first time? Maybe almighty spaghetti monster gave us part of himself so we can create more of himself and enjoy his sacrifice.
I add one thing to Russell's Teapot. I add, "...and when the spout points towards the sun, you have a good day, and when the spout points away from the sun you have a bad day."
The reason is because if you say there's a teapot out there and set up the whole thing, it's perfectly reasonable to say, "I guess it's possible there's a tea pot out there. There's a lot of space junk." And that line of reasoning isn't terrible.
Ha yeah you could just keep rolling with it...
And the teapot needs to be worshipped or bad things will happen to you.
And the teapot needs special buildings where people can praise it and sing songs to it and special teapot-experts who can speak with it. Oh and these buildings and people pay no tax of course.
Oh and the teapot sent its teacup to burn in the sun because it forgave us for not being good enough for it.
Pretty crazy right.
I agree with you, but I also assume that lack of evidence that god exists is not the sole reason people are atheist, so his questions are incomplete and misleading.
For me, what compels my existential beliefs more than evidence is reason. Even if I take the best evidence Christians have to offer for god’s existence (the Bible and the stories/messages contained within), I cannot come the conclusion that believing in god is reasonable.
Why would the circumstances of one’s birth (being born in Afghanistan, for example) and death (dying at age 3 or 4, before being able to fully understand the concept of religion and existence) alone dictate whether you are bound for eternal damnation?
Also, the descriptions of god as all-knowing yet petty and jealous (even by god’s own admission) are simply incompatible. The writer ascribes god with very human elements of imperfection while at the same time claiming god is perfect.
Lastly, if I wanted to attack this guy in the video directly, the evidence we do have against Christianity is that Christianity and the stories in the Bible are heavily rooted in Egyptian beliefs and concepts of the afterlife.
The entity those people refer to as “god” may, in fact, exist, but the amount of suffering sustained by innocent people in this world is proof positive that he is some combination of ignorant, indifferent, malicious, and incompetent. None of those things fit my (loose) definition of what a god is, therefore he is not a god and “his” alleged existence is irrelevant to the question of “does *god* exist?”
There could absolutely be some creator out there who will ultimately judge us for our actions in this life, but that being deserves all of our scorn and none of our reverence. The only versions of an afterlife that fit with the stories we’ve been told about “him” are those where his teachings were somehow applied to himself and has been suffering eternal damnation this whole time. Monkey paw kind of thing.
It’s literally impossible. I can’t prove that there *aren’t* elaborate networks of black licorice holding the fabric of all space time together because I can’t prove they’re not there. But who’s to say that isn’t true? No one, no sentient intelligence will ever be able to prove that it’s not true.
"what is your evidence that justifies your belief that God does not exist"
My evidence, is the lack of evidence that justifies your belief that he does exist, and the fact that all existing evidence only points towards him not existing.
Firstly, the burden of proof should be on the ones claiming that a god exists. If they showed hard evidence then it would have to be *accepted* that god exists.
Secondly, proving that something *doesn't* exist is ~~waaaaay harder~~ impossible, and it shoulbe done to refute the evidence of said existence.
That's my take on it.
It’s just wild to me we have so many reports of miracles over the last 2k years but I have yet to see one since the advent of cell phones. Call me crazy.
There is also specific evidence that disproves the existence of their deity. For example, there is mythos surrounding their god claim. If their god claim involves a deity creating the Earth 6000-10000 years ago, that is easily disproven. If they claim that their deity created two humans, Adam and Eve, who are humanity's common ancestors, that is easily disproven. If their claim involves Noah's Ark, that is easily disproven.
Other claims can also be disproven: for example, numerous studies have been completed showing that prayer is no more effective in aiding healing than a placebo.
If a god claim involves testable hypotheses, then it can be disproven.
Just why are the religious obsessed with Atheists and how they think? Why do they care? Let it go dude. Find something else to do with your beliefs like help the poor and sick. In a manner that they wished to be helped.
Absolutely.
If you require the threat of an invisible source to prevent you from doing bad things, then you might not be that good or moral of a person.
My general take is if you require a 2000 year old book that's borderline roman propoganda to tell you killing is wrong you need to seriously question your morality. Like fuck the first 4 or so commandments are literally God dick riding himself but he couldn't add 'thou shall not rape'?
To these holiest of people women were property, so rape of a married woman is considered a property crime. “Thou shall not steal” works.
But what about rape of unmarried women you may ask, well some historians believe this is where the concept of ‘dibs’ originated.
That's been my position for a LONG time (I escaped the catholic church many years ago).
If people only do good and/or avoid doing evil because of the promise of eternal paradise / threat of eternal damnation, then they are not good people, they are opportunistic pieces of shit. It directly suggests that the only reason they aren't out beating people to death with blunt objects is because of their "faith," rather than because of the basic "Golden Rule" principle that maybe you shouldn't do that to someone when you wouldn't want it done to you.
And if anyone tries to claim that they still wouldn't be beating people to death with hammers in the absence of their faith, then they've largely taken away the argument for why other people are \*supposed\* to follow it.
It’s because they don’t realize that all logical arguments go out the window about faith because it’s faith not facts. They want to have arguments about facts but don’t believe in any.
Because organized religion is inherently a con, and it relies on its stupid followers to evangelize to make money for the people at the top. It’s a literally a pyramid‘ scheme.
It's also helpful to discuss what counts as valid evidence while they still think you are the one who needs to furnish that evidence. Get them to agree that anecdotal stories don't count and hearsay doesn't cut it etc. Then you flip it on them, lol.
It’s like if someone told you that vampires were real, and then when you asked for proof they instead asked you for proof that they did not exist. Obviously it’s impossible since you cannot check every crevice, nook and cranny of the Earth and therefore due to your lack of evidence their point is suddenly correct to them
I grew up in the Bible belt and got asked this by an acquaintance once. My response was "I believe unicorns being ridden by leprechauns exist and they poop rainbows, prove me wrong."
There was a long pause.
It’s not circular reasoning. This would be circular reasoning: God exists because the Bible exists, and the Bible exists because God exists.
What the man did here is switching the burden of proof, which is evidently absurd given that it’s much harder to proof a negative (the absence of something) than it is to proof a positive (the presence on something).
Well yes and no. Obviously he's trying to get you the atheist to describe how the universe came to be with evidence. This is part of a very common flow chart in the religion v atheism debate where the atheist has no proof or evidence of how the universe was created, and that we only have theories, but the word of God, and the history that the Bible tells is more evidence, thus a more stable understanding of life's existence. It's an attempt to obfuscate the fact that both are circular, and that his position is stronger. He's trying to lead into the circular reasoning discussion with a leg up in the race.
Technically what we call circular reasoning isn’t reasoning that repeats into the same discussion (I think that’s what you meant).
But what we mean with circular reasoning is that it’s a logical fallacy in which A proves B, and B proofs A. This can happen in longer chains (e.g.):
God exists because the Bible says so, the Bible says so because someone witnessed god and wrote it down, he witnessed god because God exists. I’m using the very thing I’m trying to proof as an argument itself, which is impossible. In this case I’m saying A is because of B, B is because of C, and C is because of A, making it circular.
Saying that there is more evidence for the existence of god than the absence is actually true, but it’s what we call false comparison fallacy, because they’re falsely comparing a negative proof to positive proof and acting as if this has the same chance of underlying evidence.
-edit- I am fun at parties believe it or not 😤
And many cite the Bible as evidence he exists. So that means I can write a book that says he doesn’t exist, have “first hand accounts” that are completely made up and that means he doesn’t exist right?
One of the most frustrating conversations I ever had. Met a friend at a coffee shop (before I was 21 and could go to bars) and hung out a few times. Seemed like a pretty smart dude. Eventually we ended up on religion, and he was saying stuff like, "if you can prove anything in my religion wrong, I'll stop believing today. Try me, go ahead." I said fine, let's start easy: resurrection. He said give me a moment & follow me. Followed him to his car, and he pulls out a giant Bible from his trunk, and starts reading from it. "It says right here..."
Man, I would have just clapped back with "so if I write anything down on fancy paper and bind it in leather you'll believe it without evidence?"
This also completely ignores how many times it's been translated.
Disprove the bible? Easy. Early Genesis:
God created the heavens and the earth. Then the trees and plants. Then the animals. Then he created man. Then he rested
No, false. Ocean Plant and Animal Life>Plants>Land Animal Life>Trees
And seeing as that is the start of the book and meant to be the most divine bit, it should be correct. As it is wrong, the bible therefore is not 100% correct or divine and can be dismissed as a poor source of evidence
Let alone all the other contradictions, things like Job or Sodom/Lot yet claiming god's benevolent and good, etc etc
Make sure they also write a small book and not put their name on it, and make sure it's in a different language so when you translate it, you can write their version how you want. Also, don't forget to throw away books you don't like as much.
Philosophy is a mandatory subject in Spain in highschool, and its one of the most catholic countries in europe.
Sadly learning epistemology does not make rational thinkers. In the same way learning pythagoras theorem doesn’t make mathematicians.
"They are not gotcha questions, I sincerely want to know the awnser."
*Proceed to ask leading questions and awnsering them himself to ask a gotcha question*
It’s called trying to prove a negative. Can he prove to me he’s not a genetically cloned humanoid sent from another to observe us? It’s not up to the rest of us to disprove your personal delusion when the same burden of proof doesn’t extend your initial claim.
I always respond to this angle of questions with “do you believe that you killed JFK, yes or no?” If they engage they can twist while I god of the gaps them till they quit.
1, Believers make a claim there is a god.
2, Believers provide no evidence for there claim.
3, asks Other people to prove a Negative.
I don't believe in a Deity as there is not enough EVIDENCE for one to exist. I am not claiming that a Deity exists, it is on the person making the claim of a "god" to provide Evidence. the Bible is the CLAIM, now YOU provide us Evidence to analyse.
Well... if God exists, He probably wouldn't let the stupidest people on earth "defend" Him with dumb questions like this. r/confidentlyincorrect religious nitwits must be one of atheism's most effective recruiting tools.
Unfortunately this is exactly what many evangelicals believe - god wants the “weak” to be in power because they then allow god to rule through them. “When you are weak he is strong”. Never mind that the hordes of people believing this actively fund sociopaths running local and national churches through tax free tithing that has turned the “church” into essentially powerful corporations that influence elections and oppresses their members from thinking any differently than their creed.
Here’s what i believe as an atheist > gods would serve absolutely no purpose without anyone to worship them..without us, they don’t exist… without them, we DO exist. The invention of gods are a control mechanism over the desperate and gullible, which there’s no shortage of… so really, who made who
Most atheists don’t give two shits about whether people believe in god(s) or not until the moment those same people think it gives them any authority over anyone else.
*That* is the problem. When*your* god “tells” you to kill, enslave, or otherwise dominate others via legislation or code.
Except if you think about the idea of a cosmic entity that has omnipotence and some kind of greater control over the universe, how does us not believing in it give it any less power? If the world is created before humans populate it in these creation stories, then clearly the deity doesn't need human belief/worship to exist or be powerful.
I'm not saying god exists, but the idea that their strength comes from worship and therefore we don't really need them because we exist without them feels unfounded and based on something like DnD logic.
I don't think gods were invented as a control mechanism because people throughout time have had crazy experiences and told their stories. I think it's very possible that people went through events they felt were divine in nature and a group began to follow as they told their experiences and then we have a lot of religion forming and changing as time passes.
Their “ strength “ comes from cruelty and intimidation… genocide and thievery. Personal testimonies regarding anything beyond the physical realm are here-say and useless for evidence . “ the human mind is extremely susceptible to delusion “ - Richard Dawkins-
You can feed off people’s need for answers by giving them unrealistic options using methods such as gaslighting and so on. .. those that are not willing to look any deeper and simply accepting the irrational
I wonder if he thinks his deity is omnipotent?
If he does, considering the number of innocent children who die of starvation and disease every day, his deity is objectively evil.
Either that or the deity is actually impotent and not omnipotent.
The burden of proof falls on you not on atheists. You guys are the ones who preach an almighty figure that created us. Science has disproven many things in the bible that would lead people to not believe in God, so it’s up to you to provide solid evidence of him. Which will never happen cause religion requires faith, I have no problem with this, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but don’t point the finger at atheist demanding evidence when you have yet to provide any.
These people…. 
Truly they have cognitive processing disorders.
Many seem normal in the real world, but actually there core critical thinking is so corrupted (or non existent) that they shouldn’t (and probably can’t) be trusted with anything crucial to other’s well being.
The good news is that the coming generation(s) are becoming more unaffiliated to this type of poisonous indoctrination.
Y’all ready for this shit. Many reasons why god possibly doesn’t exist (coming from someone who believes in whatever happens when I die, I don’t believe in god nor do I not believe in him)
1 the scientific death, you die you get put into the ground and become one with the bugs and the little particles that eat you, they then poop you out and you become new life soil, you grow into a beautiful plant only to feed caterpillars and get a close up to life. The caterpillar eats you and poops you out therefore you repeating the process.
Death 2 The trippy death, your body decomposes you become one with the mushrooms you see light and color but not life, you feed off the body that was once yours and grow into a habitat for bugs or small animals.
3 you have been cremated! You ether live in a jar for the rest of your life close to the ones that love you but if you were set free you become one with the world exploring the winds, mountains, rivers, and oceans you get to see all life and be apart of it.
I could go on with more but then no one is going to read this
The onus is on him to prove God exists. That is his theory to prove.
He is the one asserting that it is true without proof that it is.
Until he has verifiable proof, it remains a theory.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/n2e5tNHfzh)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
His backwards hat, glasses, and shirt tell me he’s definitely a youth pastor
[удалено]
My youth leader went on a 20 minute rant telling me exactly how I’m worthless since I chose to become atheist.
[удалено]
both of y'all keep misspelling pedophile
With those types of questions he was asking, I would say “groomer”.
I know this word has multiple meanings, but I fucking hate how the word groomer is being used so frequently lately. This is my job title. I am a groomer. I groom dogs.
For real though, pedophiles are drawn to that job. Had a pedophile youth pastor in my church while i was growing up.
His logical aptitude is on par with a 13 yr old, so he probably thinks that kids just get me. Whether he's grooming or not, he's in some of the Ven diagram with pedos.
“Hey what’s up guuuuys?” [low murmur] “I can’t hear youuuuu!! I said what’s uuuuuup guuuuys????”
Anytime anyone does that at any kind of event I stay completely silent for the second one and get annoyed by the people who actually respond
You could tell he was really uncomfortable not sitting with his legs splayed on either side of the back of a chair.
He actually does run an "apologetics ministry". It's as cringe as it sounds.
he starts out by asking "do you believe god does not exist?" The issue is most atheists don't actually "believe god doesn't exist". Most atheists simply *have no faith or belief in the existence of god*. Their atheism stands upon the foundation of a lack of faith, a lack of belief, not a belief in the lack of a god. The difference is extremely important. By and large, Atheists don't posit that God doesn't exist, most atheists posit that there isn't sufficient evidence of the existence of god. As a result, his entire premise is designed to mislead the hearer, and actually doesn't apply to almost all atheists in the first place.
I’m an atheist who believes there definitely is not a god 🤷♂️
I’m copy pasting this from my own comment in the thread but, I don’t think he’s making a bad faith argument intentionally. He’s trying to argue atheists by using the logic that he uses to believe his religion over others. He believes that god exists and think atheists have “the belief” that god does not exist. The thing is atheists don’t, believe that god doesn’t exist. Atheists, do not believe. At all. Not just your god. Not just your religion. Atheists do not believe. And the idea that people have other beliefs makes sense to this guy. But the idea that people have no beliefs is baffling for someone who sort of thinks it’s a human norm.
[удалено]
[удалено]
When you’re indoctrinated into something like organized religion, especially as a child, it’s very hard to wrap your head around the fact that not everyone thinks in the same terms/ways. So much of their lives are frame through a position of belief that they can’t grasp the difference between believing a negative and just not believing a positive. I’m an atheist who grew up in evangelical Christianity and it took me a long long time to understand how those two things aren’t the same
I think this is why he asks for evidence of atheist "belief" - it's a misunderstanding that belief requires evidence. If it did, it wouldn't be belief. Atheists don't 'not believe' - they simply don't see any evidence to support the existence of a god. Many religious people seem to conflate belief with evidence. 'I believe god created the trees, so the trees are evidence of god.' Edit: he also misunderstands evidentialism, I think.
Wow, baby's first theological argument. Makes me think that his target audience is 12yo edgelords he thinks he can outwit.
The teenagers in his youth group. 
BRING OUT THE PAPA JOHNS FOR ALL THESE YOUNG BELIEVERS
>I wish Jesus was here and we would just have to order one pizza and two breadsticks, amiright y'all?????
This reminds me of a video I had to sit through at a church's "youth group camp" that was essentially Christiants walking around public places shoving a mic in people's faces to challenge non believers. Just absolute absurdity and zero logic that even me as a 12 year old cringed at. One that I distinctly remember audibly laughing at and getting talked to by a counselor for what a guy talking to an atheist saying "So then where did everything come from?" And as the fella started trying to answer with saying "evolution" the interviewer interrupted with "Yeah but what about the stuff they evolved from? God made everything evolve into his creatures, can **YOU** do that? If you were given microscopic organisms could **YOU** turn that into a cow the way god did? Let alone from **NOTHING?** Lets see it, where is **YOUR** cow????"
Well shit, I’ve never made a cow. I’m convinced
The dude's exhausting. He runs a social media presence called "Capturing Christianity", the motto of which is "exposing you to the intellectual side of Christianity" and then he puts out dumb nonsense like this.
These guys are all like that. They think they're all geniuses who have the surefire, logical answer that will instantly make all disbelievers stop and question their entire belief system. Probably something they picked up from some evangelical preacher, because none of them actually read the Bible or have a legitimate personal opinion about what it says. That clueless smugness is way beyond anything I've ever experienced from an atheist.
Why though? Just enjoy your beliefs with other believers & leave everyone else alone.
so… his first question was basically “dear atheists, are you an atheist?” Edit: bruthas, i know “well technically atheism is-“ yes I know I’m an atheist, it’s a joke
Lollllllll. And it's not a gotcha question! He sinseriously wants to know.
This sinseriously has me dying🤣
Yeah. Freudian slip. He is a sinner, alright.
Its a fallopian slip
You’re thinking of Freudian tubes
That's where a zeitgeist would pass through right?
I don't know why but u/greensockninja 's comment had me rolling first thing in the morning. Been giggling since.
No, the first question is not nuanced enough. It’s not that I actively do not believe that god exists so much as I am simply *not convinced* that a god actually does exist. If I had to put my money where my mouth is and bet on it, sure, I would bet that god doesn’t exist, but I admit that I don’t actually know whether or not any gods exist. Being in this state of not knowing the truth means I’m sure as hell not going to commit my life to a religion or a cult. I’m going to do my own thing and truth will sort itself out. I may not know whether or not god exists, but as far as I know, there is good reason to trust, or at least act as if this life is the only life I’m going to get, so I’m going to make the most of it and not waste it on the fantastical beliefs of the gullible/victims of indoctrination.
What is a god? If an alien came down resembling god, would we consider that god, or just an alien creature capable of imitating god?
Fuckin' Goa'uld.
Shol'va!
KREE
That some nier automata shit right there.
> resembling god And which fuckin god would it resemble lmao? If it could control stuff in a godlike way then, you know, if it seems like a duck... If there was some alien that could imitate some Zeus powers or something but could be gunned down then idgaf if they had managed to convince greece it was a god 2000 years ago, that's just an alien. If it does Brahman stuff then yup that's a god.
I think you're getting more into the difference between agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist. The former being unsure, but leaning towards god doesn't exist and the latter believing for certain that god doesn't exist. Edit: Thanks for pointing out the typo nostic fixed to gnostic.
These discussions always end up leading to somewhat fruitless semantics discussions in my opinion, though I technically agree with your point. I think the more important point is that this man is wanting to use these semantic tricks to try and convince us that HIS god exists, and it utterly fails to do that. If he were to walk through scenarios with me he'll eventually get to a point where I'll have to agree that I've not surveyed the entire universe, and I'll agree that SOME entity, SOMEWHERE out in the universe MIGHT exist that we could classify as a god, or we could contort the definition of god in such ways that I would admit that the universal laws of nature (whatever they may be) fit the description. But what good would that do anyone? I still don't believe that it told Abram to sacrifice his son, set bushes on fire, or fathered any illegitimate children in Palestine. So what's the point in getting me to admit that there could exist some hypothetical entity that fits the definition of a god, or catching me in some semantic trick? Ultimately this guy doesn't believe in this hypothetical god-entity either, he (likely) believes in some specific god defined in some specific religious text. So these discussions about definitions and strong/weak belief (including this very post of mine :)) are ultimately fruitless in my humble opinion.
>So what's the point in getting me to admit that there could exist some hypothetical entity that fits the definition of a god, or catching me in some semantic trick? Generally just to brake peoples psychological certainty and get them to feel like "wow, if I'm not right, anything else that also might not be right is equally likely!" It's surprisingly effective.
You may be right, but I'm not sure how effective it actually is, at least not on anyone who's put any more than just casual thought into the issue. I believe these lines of apologetics are ultimately employed for the benefit of the apologist, not their target, whether they even realize this or not. It gives them some sense of intellectual security in their existing beliefs.
As a former cultist, I mean Christian, it's also to find the weak non-believers. A lot of proclaimed atheists are not solid in their views, So you cause doubt. Once you can get that little bit of doubt into their head, then you can start going down the path of "You don't know for sure, and imagine if you're wrong about this, You will carry that mistake with you for the rest of eternity." A lot of conversions to Christianity are based on emotional or psychological tricks like this. Get them scared for their eternity, rope them into church to save their soul, once hooked, convince them they need to save others from the same horrible date.
Just ask him what's his evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Xenu/Gaea/Fey/Asguardians don't exist and just walk away Only thing worse than with arguing with idiots is arguing with idiots who think they are clever and who have *faith* and think that's *evidence*
Ooh, this is an easy one! The words that will fall on your deaf ears as you walk away will be that, when it comes to any of the aforementioned beings: "*They aren't mentioned in The Bible.*" That right there is usually considered the gold standard of iron-clad proof. Have you ever spoken with any of these people? :-)
I don’t believe in God the same way I don’t believe in Bigfoot, unicorns, leprechauns or pixies, etc. Simply not believing makes me an atheist. I don’t know why Christians have a hard time with the word atheist and have a hard time understanding the burden of proof. Edit: not saying you’re a Christian and only speaking from personal experience.
[удалено]
Yes, except most actual atheists are agnostics who demand more evidence than the average agnostic. As the evidence is lacking for any proof of god, but we also cannot catagorically say some god doesn't exist The Abrahimic god? I can almost say with certainly it does not
> The Abrahimic god? I can almost say with certainly it does not And if he does he's an asshole who doesn't deserve worship.
I agree there. Any god who allows his followers (Christian) to fiercely hate eachother over minute details in different translations of the exact same book enough to kill eachother since the foundation of said religions doesn't deserve to have any sort of foundation of power (that being worship).
Agreed, and ultimately, if a God exists, they are either a benevolent God, one who would want those they created to live their best lives, and not waste it inflating their own ego in worshipping them, or they are a God who placed humans onto earth demanding worship, in which case I don't wish to worship then. Aka even if I assume it's true, it wouldn't change how I live my life.
I just don't think it matters if the Christian God exists or doesn't exist. Secular Humanism FTW!
Some old dude assumed I must have had a fucked up childhood to stop believing in god. I told him my childhood was great, just that, as a 5 year old I told my grandma (only person in my family that actually pushed religion) that I didn't believe in god. I told the old dude the whole god thing just didn't make sense to me as a 5-6yo, why would it make sense 30 years later? He just kept telling me I must have had a traumatic life event that made me lose hope and stop loving Jesus lmao. No sense to argue with this kind of people.
It's all a set-up for his "gotcha..." Which is "prove that god doesn't exist." To which I reply "prove that unicorns don't exist." If you can't then they clearly do, right?! He's falling for the [burden of proof](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) fallacy, as christians often do. You also can't conclusively prove that something doesn't exist...see Russell's teapot for an example: > If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. > But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. > If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
But in his circular question there is a clean answer. My evidence that supports me not believing in god is that there is no evidence there is a god. So my evidence is the lack of evidence. Cause I’m only needed to prove my lack of belief, not that god doesn’t exist. But fossils and baby cancer are my other answers.
Also putting the male g spot inside the anus. God wouldn't do that cause God hates gays
Well technically he hates pedophiles, but because of a mistranslation he hates gays……Now, I guess.
I don't think so, I think it's much sneakier than that. The wording of the first premise is very problematic. "Do you believe that God does not exist" seems framed to imply that atheism is a system of belief when in reality I would argue that atheism is a lack of a belief. Its easier to fall for this line of thinking because atheism has been given a noun, you don't identify or receive a term for not believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny or for not believing that there's a teapot floating in space (see: Betrand Russell). The reason this phrasing is problematic is because once you accept the first premise (based on awkward phrasing), it obviously sets up the rest of the argument. The way I see it, an atheist should disagree with the first question. For reference I'm an Agnostic, but I think this argument is shitty.
Well a lot of atheists would say they *lack* a belief in God
I don't think most people talk like this though. If someone asked me if I believed in god id just be like "no", not "well, technically I lack a belief in god".
Can I use the South Park answer? I believe God is imaginary and man-made.
Yeah my thoughts on it have always been god did not make man, man made god
You're confusing two different positions. Saying you don't believe in God is not the same as saying you believe that God doesn't exist. If we're locked in a windowless sound proof room and i say to you it's raining outside, theres no way for you to know if what I claim is true so you could say "I don't believe your claim that its raining outside" .. But thats not the same as you saying you believe the opposite, that it's definetly not raining outside. You have no way of knowing so you can say that there's no evidence to believe in either claims. I dont believe in God but that doesn't mean I believe there isn't one. I dont buy people's claims that there is one but I have no way of knowing that there definetly isn't one.
Schrödinger's rain?
I would say you are a bit off, determining outside weather inside a windowless room is not really like god. You have been outside, you have seen rain, you know that happens at time. Ever seen god? Ever seen miracles, angles, anything? You can't switch out a thing you have experienced many times for something you have no experience of. IMO asking about god is like asking if little green men live in the caves of Pluto.
[удалено]
You are missing the point. You saying “no” t someone asking you if you believe in god does not equate to you believing that god does not exist.
That’s not the first question at all. I’m an atheist and I don’t believe that god does not exist. I just don’t believe that god exists. There is a subtle difference between those two claims. The claim “god does not exist” is pretty sensational, dubious, and difficult to prove.
Its impossible to prove but I would hardly call it "dubious". If you observe the world purely through empirical evidence, you're not going to have any evidence that even points you to god existing. Like, if I said "a planet that has reverse gravity does not exist" its not a sensational claim. We know how gravity works, we've seen multiple planets, and we have ways to test and see if "reverse gravity" is possible. Its not sensationalist to be confident something is impossible even if the claim is impossible to refute. It falls on the extraordinary claim "reverse gravity planets ARE real" to actually prove themselves.
It's impossible to prove a negative. It's actually impossible to prove anything outside of math. Science is an evidence based inferential belief system. With offer forth an idea and the evidence to support it. The idea with the most evidence that is unable to be disproven, is the one we believe. Anyone who says "I believe X does not exist" is not speaking from a position of science.
No it's not. He's asking atheists if they actively believe that there isn't a god. There's an important distinction between "I don't believe in a god" (most atheists) and "I believe there is no god" (what this guy is trying to get people to say). The former is the rejection of a claim without evidence and the latter is a faith based belief.
This is not a gotcha question *proceeds to ask gotcha question*
The burden of proof lies on those who maintain the existence of something. If I said, "aliens walk among us," it is up to me to offer evidence for my claim or else I just sound like a crazy person.
The common analogy demonstrating the principle is [Russell's Teapot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). The burden of proof sits with the person making unfalsifiable claims.
[удалено]
I always go with Superman. He solves the created by humans argument. If a religious person argues he was made up by a comic book writer. You counter with, the bible was written by a person. And if they counter with, God spoke to them. You can ask, how can you be sure Superman didn't speak to the comic book writer.
[удалено]
I asked my friends about how can their god exist at the same time as the Hindu gods and Roman gods. The answer I got never varied, it was “our one true god is just broken into more individual pieces. So the polytheistic religion gods are just pieces of my one true god.” And that answer annoys me because that’s an easy excuse as to why your religion is correct and never solves anything
[удалено]
It is maddening to read, isn’t it? It really helps to illustrate that just because some one has a title (Gary Gutting, philosopher) doesn’t mean their contribution will be valuable. >.. the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if.. Is this … peer-reviewed work by philosophers? 🧐 Who *are* these people??
[удалено]
How do you know that humans invented pasta? Is there an evidence that a human made pasta first time? Maybe almighty spaghetti monster gave us part of himself so we can create more of himself and enjoy his sacrifice.
Pasta is my communion
I add one thing to Russell's Teapot. I add, "...and when the spout points towards the sun, you have a good day, and when the spout points away from the sun you have a bad day." The reason is because if you say there's a teapot out there and set up the whole thing, it's perfectly reasonable to say, "I guess it's possible there's a tea pot out there. There's a lot of space junk." And that line of reasoning isn't terrible.
Ha yeah you could just keep rolling with it... And the teapot needs to be worshipped or bad things will happen to you. And the teapot needs special buildings where people can praise it and sing songs to it and special teapot-experts who can speak with it. Oh and these buildings and people pay no tax of course. Oh and the teapot sent its teacup to burn in the sun because it forgave us for not being good enough for it. Pretty crazy right.
I mean at this point Elon Musk probably sent a teapot to Mars orbit together with his car
Hehe among us
Amogus
[удалено]
📮
ඞ
They don't subscribe to this method of thinking, which is the problem. We don't agree on reality because to them everything is evidence god exists.
I agree with you, but I also assume that lack of evidence that god exists is not the sole reason people are atheist, so his questions are incomplete and misleading. For me, what compels my existential beliefs more than evidence is reason. Even if I take the best evidence Christians have to offer for god’s existence (the Bible and the stories/messages contained within), I cannot come the conclusion that believing in god is reasonable. Why would the circumstances of one’s birth (being born in Afghanistan, for example) and death (dying at age 3 or 4, before being able to fully understand the concept of religion and existence) alone dictate whether you are bound for eternal damnation? Also, the descriptions of god as all-knowing yet petty and jealous (even by god’s own admission) are simply incompatible. The writer ascribes god with very human elements of imperfection while at the same time claiming god is perfect. Lastly, if I wanted to attack this guy in the video directly, the evidence we do have against Christianity is that Christianity and the stories in the Bible are heavily rooted in Egyptian beliefs and concepts of the afterlife.
The entity those people refer to as “god” may, in fact, exist, but the amount of suffering sustained by innocent people in this world is proof positive that he is some combination of ignorant, indifferent, malicious, and incompetent. None of those things fit my (loose) definition of what a god is, therefore he is not a god and “his” alleged existence is irrelevant to the question of “does *god* exist?” There could absolutely be some creator out there who will ultimately judge us for our actions in this life, but that being deserves all of our scorn and none of our reverence. The only versions of an afterlife that fit with the stories we’ve been told about “him” are those where his teachings were somehow applied to himself and has been suffering eternal damnation this whole time. Monkey paw kind of thing.
**WHAT IS YOUR SINSERIOUS BELEEF THAT ALIENS WALK AMOGUS**
amogus 👁👄👁
Among us ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding
Also incredibly difficult to prove a negative
It’s literally impossible. I can’t prove that there *aren’t* elaborate networks of black licorice holding the fabric of all space time together because I can’t prove they’re not there. But who’s to say that isn’t true? No one, no sentient intelligence will ever be able to prove that it’s not true.
"what is your evidence that justifies your belief that God does not exist" My evidence, is the lack of evidence that justifies your belief that he does exist, and the fact that all existing evidence only points towards him not existing.
It’s like «prove to me you don’t fuck goats» guy. You can’t just prove God doesn’t exist, just like you can’t prove he DOES exist.
Firstly, the burden of proof should be on the ones claiming that a god exists. If they showed hard evidence then it would have to be *accepted* that god exists. Secondly, proving that something *doesn't* exist is ~~waaaaay harder~~ impossible, and it shoulbe done to refute the evidence of said existence. That's my take on it.
It’s just wild to me we have so many reports of miracles over the last 2k years but I have yet to see one since the advent of cell phones. Call me crazy.
Don't you see?? Cell phones *are* the miracle!!!1!11! smh
[удалено]
I feel like there is more proof that dragons existed than a God
What? Do you refer to dinosaurs? Or a Komodo Dragon, which is the most real thing similar ti one?
There is also specific evidence that disproves the existence of their deity. For example, there is mythos surrounding their god claim. If their god claim involves a deity creating the Earth 6000-10000 years ago, that is easily disproven. If they claim that their deity created two humans, Adam and Eve, who are humanity's common ancestors, that is easily disproven. If their claim involves Noah's Ark, that is easily disproven. Other claims can also be disproven: for example, numerous studies have been completed showing that prayer is no more effective in aiding healing than a placebo. If a god claim involves testable hypotheses, then it can be disproven.
I like this game. My favorite is “if your religion says a man survived in the belly of a whale” then we can easily disprove that.
I'd honestly just respond with "What is your evidence that frost giants don't exist?"
People don’t fucking understand the concept of burden of proof. YOU made the fucking claim. Not me.
Just why are the religious obsessed with Atheists and how they think? Why do they care? Let it go dude. Find something else to do with your beliefs like help the poor and sick. In a manner that they wished to be helped.
Because the fact that atheists exist and can lead moral lives without the help of the church is an existential threat to the church.
Absolutely. If you require the threat of an invisible source to prevent you from doing bad things, then you might not be that good or moral of a person.
My general take is if you require a 2000 year old book that's borderline roman propoganda to tell you killing is wrong you need to seriously question your morality. Like fuck the first 4 or so commandments are literally God dick riding himself but he couldn't add 'thou shall not rape'?
To these holiest of people women were property, so rape of a married woman is considered a property crime. “Thou shall not steal” works. But what about rape of unmarried women you may ask, well some historians believe this is where the concept of ‘dibs’ originated.
That's been my position for a LONG time (I escaped the catholic church many years ago). If people only do good and/or avoid doing evil because of the promise of eternal paradise / threat of eternal damnation, then they are not good people, they are opportunistic pieces of shit. It directly suggests that the only reason they aren't out beating people to death with blunt objects is because of their "faith," rather than because of the basic "Golden Rule" principle that maybe you shouldn't do that to someone when you wouldn't want it done to you. And if anyone tries to claim that they still wouldn't be beating people to death with hammers in the absence of their faith, then they've largely taken away the argument for why other people are \*supposed\* to follow it.
The irony is that more evil and depraved acts are committed in the name of God than by people who simply don't believe in any God.
It’s because they don’t realize that all logical arguments go out the window about faith because it’s faith not facts. They want to have arguments about facts but don’t believe in any.
Unfortunately, there's a part of the Christian religion that says they "have to spread the word of God" to be a "real" Christian.
Because organized religion is inherently a con, and it relies on its stupid followers to evangelize to make money for the people at the top. It’s a literally a pyramid‘ scheme.
they're afraid the atheists are gonna use the scary education to trick the devout and get them to lose faith by asking for demonic things like proof.
It's also helpful to discuss what counts as valid evidence while they still think you are the one who needs to furnish that evidence. Get them to agree that anecdotal stories don't count and hearsay doesn't cut it etc. Then you flip it on them, lol.
It’s like if someone told you that vampires were real, and then when you asked for proof they instead asked you for proof that they did not exist. Obviously it’s impossible since you cannot check every crevice, nook and cranny of the Earth and therefore due to your lack of evidence their point is suddenly correct to them
I grew up in the Bible belt and got asked this by an acquaintance once. My response was "I believe unicorns being ridden by leprechauns exist and they poop rainbows, prove me wrong." There was a long pause.
Exactly. Hitchens's razor states "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".
Damn billy found out about circular reasoning!! Checkmate, godless heathens.
I’m in friggin shambles right now B
It’s not circular reasoning. This would be circular reasoning: God exists because the Bible exists, and the Bible exists because God exists. What the man did here is switching the burden of proof, which is evidently absurd given that it’s much harder to proof a negative (the absence of something) than it is to proof a positive (the presence on something).
Well yes and no. Obviously he's trying to get you the atheist to describe how the universe came to be with evidence. This is part of a very common flow chart in the religion v atheism debate where the atheist has no proof or evidence of how the universe was created, and that we only have theories, but the word of God, and the history that the Bible tells is more evidence, thus a more stable understanding of life's existence. It's an attempt to obfuscate the fact that both are circular, and that his position is stronger. He's trying to lead into the circular reasoning discussion with a leg up in the race.
Technically what we call circular reasoning isn’t reasoning that repeats into the same discussion (I think that’s what you meant). But what we mean with circular reasoning is that it’s a logical fallacy in which A proves B, and B proofs A. This can happen in longer chains (e.g.): God exists because the Bible says so, the Bible says so because someone witnessed god and wrote it down, he witnessed god because God exists. I’m using the very thing I’m trying to proof as an argument itself, which is impossible. In this case I’m saying A is because of B, B is because of C, and C is because of A, making it circular. Saying that there is more evidence for the existence of god than the absence is actually true, but it’s what we call false comparison fallacy, because they’re falsely comparing a negative proof to positive proof and acting as if this has the same chance of underlying evidence. -edit- I am fun at parties believe it or not 😤
This guy is evidence that God doesn't exist.
Boom. Roasted.
Is there a barista in the house? because this roast JUST GOT DARK.
Thanks, I actually LOLed
It hurt itself in its confusion
Critical hit!
Sad part is that there are billions of people who think like this. “I believe in God, prove me wrong.”
And many cite the Bible as evidence he exists. So that means I can write a book that says he doesn’t exist, have “first hand accounts” that are completely made up and that means he doesn’t exist right?
One of the most frustrating conversations I ever had. Met a friend at a coffee shop (before I was 21 and could go to bars) and hung out a few times. Seemed like a pretty smart dude. Eventually we ended up on religion, and he was saying stuff like, "if you can prove anything in my religion wrong, I'll stop believing today. Try me, go ahead." I said fine, let's start easy: resurrection. He said give me a moment & follow me. Followed him to his car, and he pulls out a giant Bible from his trunk, and starts reading from it. "It says right here..."
TBH I wasn't sure where this was heading, I thought maybe he had a body in his trunk...
Pull out a Spiderman comic and say "Look! Proof the Spider-man exists" "NOW GO GET ME PICTURES OF SPIDER-MAN!!!!"
Man, I would have just clapped back with "so if I write anything down on fancy paper and bind it in leather you'll believe it without evidence?" This also completely ignores how many times it's been translated.
Disprove the bible? Easy. Early Genesis: God created the heavens and the earth. Then the trees and plants. Then the animals. Then he created man. Then he rested No, false. Ocean Plant and Animal Life>Plants>Land Animal Life>Trees And seeing as that is the start of the book and meant to be the most divine bit, it should be correct. As it is wrong, the bible therefore is not 100% correct or divine and can be dismissed as a poor source of evidence Let alone all the other contradictions, things like Job or Sodom/Lot yet claiming god's benevolent and good, etc etc
Make sure they also write a small book and not put their name on it, and make sure it's in a different language so when you translate it, you can write their version how you want. Also, don't forget to throw away books you don't like as much.
To those people I like to use the Napkin Religion meme. They don’t like it one bit.
lol didn’t know what that was until I just looked it up
The Bible is fan fiction, at best.
Thats why we need to incorporate Philosophy and Theory of Knowledge at least in High Schools. People need to know the basics of how to think properly.
Philosophy is a mandatory subject in Spain in highschool, and its one of the most catholic countries in europe. Sadly learning epistemology does not make rational thinkers. In the same way learning pythagoras theorem doesn’t make mathematicians.
"They are not gotcha questions, I sincerely want to know the awnser." *Proceed to ask leading questions and awnsering them himself to ask a gotcha question*
[gotcha bitch!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyIMKiWpdU4)
It’s called trying to prove a negative. Can he prove to me he’s not a genetically cloned humanoid sent from another to observe us? It’s not up to the rest of us to disprove your personal delusion when the same burden of proof doesn’t extend your initial claim.
I always respond to this angle of questions with “do you believe that you killed JFK, yes or no?” If they engage they can twist while I god of the gaps them till they quit.
Ted Cruz killed JFK. Next question
“Oh you’re an atheist? But if you BELIEVE god doesn’t exist isn’t that also a BELIEF?! Haaaaah. Gotcha, atheist!”
Checkmate, atheists!
This guy just proved the existence of Poseidon and no one can take that away.
1, Believers make a claim there is a god. 2, Believers provide no evidence for there claim. 3, asks Other people to prove a Negative. I don't believe in a Deity as there is not enough EVIDENCE for one to exist. I am not claiming that a Deity exists, it is on the person making the claim of a "god" to provide Evidence. the Bible is the CLAIM, now YOU provide us Evidence to analyse.
It’s literally why the spaghetti monster exists.
Who is this asshat?
Just a cool guy. You know he’s cool because of his backward hat. Like my tie-dye? Well Jesus dyed for your sins. Satan sucks 🤘
Cameron Bertuzzi
If the sky is blue, why is a dog furry? GOTCHA!
Well... if God exists, He probably wouldn't let the stupidest people on earth "defend" Him with dumb questions like this. r/confidentlyincorrect religious nitwits must be one of atheism's most effective recruiting tools.
Unfortunately this is exactly what many evangelicals believe - god wants the “weak” to be in power because they then allow god to rule through them. “When you are weak he is strong”. Never mind that the hordes of people believing this actively fund sociopaths running local and national churches through tax free tithing that has turned the “church” into essentially powerful corporations that influence elections and oppresses their members from thinking any differently than their creed.
Prove to me the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. Where's your evidence!!
Russel‘s teapot
Well I already said God exists so you need to prove me wrong.
Here’s what i believe as an atheist > gods would serve absolutely no purpose without anyone to worship them..without us, they don’t exist… without them, we DO exist. The invention of gods are a control mechanism over the desperate and gullible, which there’s no shortage of… so really, who made who
One of my favorite quotes from Brockmire is about how religious people use religion as an existential nightlight.
Most atheists don’t give two shits about whether people believe in god(s) or not until the moment those same people think it gives them any authority over anyone else. *That* is the problem. When*your* god “tells” you to kill, enslave, or otherwise dominate others via legislation or code.
Except if you think about the idea of a cosmic entity that has omnipotence and some kind of greater control over the universe, how does us not believing in it give it any less power? If the world is created before humans populate it in these creation stories, then clearly the deity doesn't need human belief/worship to exist or be powerful. I'm not saying god exists, but the idea that their strength comes from worship and therefore we don't really need them because we exist without them feels unfounded and based on something like DnD logic. I don't think gods were invented as a control mechanism because people throughout time have had crazy experiences and told their stories. I think it's very possible that people went through events they felt were divine in nature and a group began to follow as they told their experiences and then we have a lot of religion forming and changing as time passes.
Their “ strength “ comes from cruelty and intimidation… genocide and thievery. Personal testimonies regarding anything beyond the physical realm are here-say and useless for evidence . “ the human mind is extremely susceptible to delusion “ - Richard Dawkins- You can feed off people’s need for answers by giving them unrealistic options using methods such as gaslighting and so on. .. those that are not willing to look any deeper and simply accepting the irrational
I wonder if he thinks his deity is omnipotent? If he does, considering the number of innocent children who die of starvation and disease every day, his deity is objectively evil. Either that or the deity is actually impotent and not omnipotent.
Are you suggesting God needs some Viagra for His impotence
“I mean this sinseriously” 😂
The evidence is the lack of evidence.
Is this a joke? Can anyone be this stupid?
Trust me, they can
The burden of proof falls on you not on atheists. You guys are the ones who preach an almighty figure that created us. Science has disproven many things in the bible that would lead people to not believe in God, so it’s up to you to provide solid evidence of him. Which will never happen cause religion requires faith, I have no problem with this, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but don’t point the finger at atheist demanding evidence when you have yet to provide any.
burden of proof
My sperm can cure everything. You have evidence against that? No? Pls suck my pepee
 He did it to himself... what an absolute moron.
Because there is no evidence. This armchair dumbass should learn about tautologies. Lol
These people….  Truly they have cognitive processing disorders. Many seem normal in the real world, but actually there core critical thinking is so corrupted (or non existent) that they shouldn’t (and probably can’t) be trusted with anything crucial to other’s well being. The good news is that the coming generation(s) are becoming more unaffiliated to this type of poisonous indoctrination.
I literally have a cognitive disorder from childhood cancer treatment and I know this guy is a moron and a half 😭
Y’all ready for this shit. Many reasons why god possibly doesn’t exist (coming from someone who believes in whatever happens when I die, I don’t believe in god nor do I not believe in him) 1 the scientific death, you die you get put into the ground and become one with the bugs and the little particles that eat you, they then poop you out and you become new life soil, you grow into a beautiful plant only to feed caterpillars and get a close up to life. The caterpillar eats you and poops you out therefore you repeating the process. Death 2 The trippy death, your body decomposes you become one with the mushrooms you see light and color but not life, you feed off the body that was once yours and grow into a habitat for bugs or small animals. 3 you have been cremated! You ether live in a jar for the rest of your life close to the ones that love you but if you were set free you become one with the world exploring the winds, mountains, rivers, and oceans you get to see all life and be apart of it. I could go on with more but then no one is going to read this
The onus is on him to prove God exists. That is his theory to prove. He is the one asserting that it is true without proof that it is. Until he has verifiable proof, it remains a theory.
This guy needs to read about burden of proof.
I would love to see his face when someone asked him which god