Welcome once again to Feedback Friday! This is the series where I take REAL viewer mail and answer it with actual words!
In response to this video, Travis had this to say:
Atheism is the disbelief in God. It’s not possible to know for a fact that there’s no God, but we can be almost certain there isn’t one due to lack of evidence. The speaker also fails to make the distinction between hard atheism and soft atheism, which would clear up his confusion but he conveniently leaves out this information. It’s really not a difficult concept.
To use the “logical fallacy of the month,” this guy actually does straw man the opposing position (misrepresents it in order to more easily argue against it). And making a joke about the straw man fallacy doesn’t excuse actually using it.
Also, I know I disagree with his points and everything, but just on a comedic level, this guy might be the least funny person to ever take the stage. Animal puppets? Really? And what’s with this weird Bill Cosby impression?
For those of you new to the debate, internet atheists have realized that Atheism is completely indefensible- as he says “It’s not possible to know for a fact that there’s no God.” This is a common admission that there are NO arguments FOR atheism. Which means every time they challenge a Christian, the Christian says, “If you’re claiming to be the side of REASON and SCIENCE, then what evidence or arguments do you have to prove Atheism is true?” And like Travis here, they suddenly realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to defend Atheism. SO instead of abandoning a stupid philosophy which they know CANNOT be defended, they instead have changed the definition of ATHEIST so that it means either an Atheist or an Agnostic- and since Agnostics are merely stating a position of ignorance, they are not ASSERTING anything which must be defended. But now ATHEIST means both Atheist and Agnostic, which is confusing, so they came up with some arbitrary categories to clarify the mess they made in the first place: Hard Atheism (Atheism) or Soft Atheism (Agnosticism). Travis thinks that, because the video does not address this issue, we don’t know about it and somehow he thinks it clears things up.
I didn’t mean to make you dizzy, but I thought his comment needed a little clarification before I replied to it.
Thanks for your comments. I think you will be excited to find that all of your comments are addressed either in the videos that follow in this series, or in the posts to come the next couple of weeks. Also, you will find a wealth of information addressing the very points you bring up on our youtube channel. I welcome you to check those out here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9H1r9fw21g7Akt9phRHQeYZ8kdLLa-nn
In reply, I would like to point out that you have accused our presentation of the Straw Man fallacy, but on no grounds of consequence. The rejection of your definition of Atheism is the very topic up for consideration, and so
taking the contrary position is NOT a straw man, it is a rebuttal.
A Straw Man would be if we had said, “Atheists on social media claim that Atheism means “An arthropod which is registered to vote Democrat in local or state elections.” Because almost no atheists on social media use that definition.
And while I disagree that this is the LEAST funny person to ever take the stage, if that were true, it would be quite a feat in of itself, you must admit.
As to your opening comment about the existence of God, you are correct that it is impossible to make the case against the existence of God in a rational sense, but you are very mistaken about their being no case FOR His existence. Christians have been making the case in science, history, and philosophy for two thousand years. If you would like to see my summation of some of the arguments and evidence, then check out the Proof of God series here: https://rentafriend2000.wordpress.com/2015/09/15/proof-of-god-1-i-think-i-think-therefore-maybe-i-am/
Please enjoy our written and video resources, and Thanks for watching.
And more resources abound on our new channel: https://abitoforangeacademy.wordpress.com/
No again. I do not need to provide proof in order to say, “I don’t believe.”
“I don’t believe in unicorns.”
“Prove what? I didn’t say unicorns don’t exist. I said that I don’t believe in them.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you need a bit more explaination, this should help:
As for Unicorns… it depends on what you mean by “unicorn.” Which is why defining your terms is so important.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Orange. I’m an agnostic and I agree that you are wrong here on many points but I’d like to discuss them with you in a civil voice call of some sort. Do you do that sort of thing? Keep in mind, I don’t mean a formal debate, just a casual discussion. I just want to clear some things up and you can clear some things up with me. Thanks!
Sure thing UD. What’s on your mind?
Oh, you mean like a phone call. Well, you can catch me on Skype, but I doubt I’ll have time to schedule that until maybe near the end of August.
Send me an email in a couple of weeks and we’ll try and make that happen.
And do me a favor- put your questions and issues in a clear, bullet-pointed list for me and email that to me as well. If I know what you want to talk about, you’ll get better answers. Otherwise you face the very real possibility that you’ll spend an hour listening to me saying, “Uh… yeah. Hold on a minute… That’s a good question…. ” Which isn’t as interesting as it sounds.
Creation Soapbox @ Gmail.com (Without the spaces of course)
Hit me up in mid August and we’ll find some time to Skype it up.
And thanks for stopping by!