Atheist's: you rage you lose. ?

Question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QoQoG4QnI0

Ok, so i just watched this... and i'm not even sure where to begin. I raged pretty hard, especially when he started talking about... atoms and such. Anyhow, i feel he made a well-explained argument, and it should be refuted. This could be used to incite intelligent discussion (gasp), hopefully, if you can be bothered to sit though his bul- uh, i'll refrain from my opinion.

What do you think of his argument? Does it have good points or bad points? Do some parts of it make sense? Refute.

Kthx. :)

Answer 1

Oh that clown.

So what he is saying is that if we can't sense something with our senses, we cannot reason with our intellect.

Ok so using his argument, if we can't sense something or reason something out using experience there then must be a god. Wow, that's quite a leap of faith he's making isn't it?

Answer 2

He makes points then does a good job of explaining them, but the problem is that his points are inaccurate. For instance, you have more than 5 senses, its just that those 5 are the only ones really discussed in literature throughout history. Other senses include a sense of temperature (which does not come under touch). Then theres another sense which I forget the name of, but i'll describe it: close your eyes and stretch your arm out to your side, then move your arm slowly so that it is stretched out infront of you, you cant see your arm and you dont feel it with the other hand, yet at all times you are aware of its position. I think there are 32 senses, or 26 if you group some of them together as one sense.



This guy makes the point that atheists only deduce information from the world based on those 5 basic senses that we are all aware of. That point is also flawed and not just because there are more than 5 senses. Imagine being deaf, blind, having no sense of smell, no taste buds and no touch receptors, all of the 5 well known senses gone, but that doesnt mean you still can't think, imagine, deduce information about the world around you. It would probablly be difficult to learn about the world, but their is no reason why our other lesser known senses and our natural instincts as humans can't teach us a few things and allow us to think about our world.



As for people being petty about grammar and saying they dont have time for youtube videos is stupid... they have time to tell you they dont have time so whats that all about?

Answer 3

The first and fundamental flaw in his argument is to conclude that if I cannot perceive something directly with one of my five senses, then I do not believe it exists.



This is an obvious fallacy. I cannot perceive the radio waves linking my phone to a base station, yet I know they are there because I can do experiments to prove that they are there.



A lot of experimental science works this way: you set up an experiment whereby you can make the phenomenon that you wish to investigate cause other phenomena that you CAN perceive directly.



After all, I can't directly perceive that Shakespeare wrote King Lear, but it still gets performed pretty frequently.

Answer 4

Lies before he gets to atoms:

Non-overlap of senses. There are many things you can both taste and smell, and you can feel audible vibrations.

Limits of perception. Naturalism allows for that which is undetected. We cannot sense electromagnetic radiation outside the visible range (e.g. x-rays), but they are "permitted" to exist.



Now to shoot down the atom argument:

Atoms in aggregation can have different different properties than atoms in isolation. A single atom's behavior is dominated by quantum mechanics. by the time you get to a cluster of 64, they behave classically. If you take silicon atoms in a crystal and dope them with a few trace elements, you can make a logic gate. His argument about atoms would mean your computer has a soul.



Feeble lies, easily shot down.

Answer 5

The point of this video was to prove that just because we cannot see God, is no evidence against his existence. True we cannot see Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny either, but there is no evidence for their existence, whereas in the case of God it is not only reasonable to believe in God because of the complexity of life, but also evidence abounds to prove God existence. As far as his analogy with the brain, the brain is like a computer, it cannot do anything unless someone programs it to do so. This is evidence for the soul & free will.



The person that said well we believe in radio waves and we cannot see them. Well, the only reason we believe in radio waves, is because of physical evidence that is manifested by the five senses. Before radio waves were discovered nobody believed in them. Yet radio waves have always existed, even before we knew about them.

Answer 6

Might be just my computer but I cant get it to work.



"This could be used to incite intelligent discussion (gasp),"



Actually intellgent discussion dosnt work well with christains.



Think about it, all the logic in the world could stop creationism being taught at school.



It took the invention fo the Flying Spagetti Monster to stop that

Answer 7

Venomfangx? He's full of himself, quite honestly. He thinks he is incredibly philosophical and scientific, and believes that he has proved evolution is incorrect. I'm still waiting for him to publish this paper if he has indeed refuted evolution once and for all - I'm sure he would win a Nobel hands down. In addition, when angered, he becomes a bit psychotic and unhinged if you've seen the video of him imitating the Joker.



His videos have been refuted lots already, mostly by Thunderf00t.



In one video supposedly refuting evolution, VFX seems to not understand the difference between homologous and homogeneous. He refers to homogeneous structures.

Answer 8

I can understand, VFX spews so much nonsense and misinformed ideas that i stopped watching him because i started to get so mad. lol



VFX thinks hes a geologist, a physics professor, a cosmologist and anything else his little heart wants to pretend to be or know.

Answer 9

Seldom have I listed to such sophomoric clap trap. When this kid finishes school and goes on to college to study science then he may have an opinion that is worth listening to.

Answer 10

You drink,



You rage,



YOU LOSE! Good day sir!



(response forthcoming)



Ok, so the main flaw with his first argument - that naturalists claim that only things that can be perceived with the five senses exist- is that it's bullshit. That's why we build instruments to help us "see" or "perceive" things that we would otherwise be unable to with our bodies alone.



Secondly, that we *may not* be able to observe or measure things that exist is not evidence for their existence: It just keeps the possibility from being totally ruled out. For instance, say leprechauns have magic that keeps us from perceiving them with our five senses that allows them to go about their little leprechaun mischief. Is that possible? Sure, since it can't be disproven, but is it really a reasonable thing to believe _just because_ it is possible? Of course not. That's basically the logic used in Pascal's Wager.



His next point is that I can "perceive" that he is a conscious being that perceives things, and that this "perception" is one made apart from the five senses. Actually, this is just a reasonable extrapolation made from observations: It isn't something you perceive like one perceives the smell or appearance of a flower.



He also falsely defines reductionism...



****, I can't watch anymore of this. It's a waste of time.

Answer 11

Don't have time to watch a video. Next time, try to summarize it in your own words. See ya.

Answer 12

I refuse to listen to anyone who looks like they could end up on the six o'clock news being led away from a murder scene in handcuffs (although I do like handcuffs) That guy looks creepy.

Answer 13

I don't have the ability to watch u-tube. What were his points?

Answer 14

Venomfanx is the biggest idiot on the web.



I much prefer Thunderfoot.



http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Thunderf00t&view=videos

Answer 15

I hate to say this, but no matter how much of a Fundie he might be...he's kind of sexy. ;)



I also hate to say that his argument does make a bit of sense. I didn't want it to, but it did (and it's not just because he's sexy).

Answer 16

Lol @ venomfangx. Theres hundreds of refutations to his crappy videos, honestly, he believes that we walked with dinosaurs and the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Answer 17

I see Venomfang still is the same cerebral palsy victim he always was.

Answer 18

1.) Don't put in an apostrophe unless you're talking about something that BELONGS to an atheist -- e.g.; the atheist's car.



2.) There are lots of people here who either can't or won't watch YouTube videos, due to work or whatever -- please try to make the point yourself in the future.

Answer 19

I try and avoid youtube personally, it's far too mindless to be taken seriously

Answer 20

He's a bit pretentious- he fancies himself as a philosopher.

Answer 21

VenomfangX has even recanted his own statements.

Answer 22

Agh *facepalm* not that guy again...