Philosophical Vegan Forum

This was my response to a Youtube video here: https://youtu.be/Xkpfe4VppPw

I have never posted anything this long or put this much energy into a response to ridiculousness. Obvously theists will say i'm entirely wrong, so please stfu. But if any Atheists feel the need to point out mistakes in my comments, or to help me by expanding my knowledge in a certain area, please feel free to do so.

Thank you.


1) If there is a design, there must be a creator
Answer: Nope. Just because you think you see design, doesn't mean you have any idea what you're looking at. Comparing man-made to divine creation = false. A house doesn't prove god's existence. It's evidence of mankinds ingenuity, and thought process that developed over millions of years of evolution and science. Through the laws of physics, and trillions upon trillions of gene splicing at the DNA level, then subject to natural selection. It's been a long grueling process, don't minimalize it by giving credit to some superstition created to replace lack of actual knowledge.

2) First Cause
Answer: Well thanks for describing science and the act of following the evidence and rational thought. But then you get to a point where man has no actual knowledge and you immediately jump to God. That doesn't prove anything, and it's not rational. It's logical at the extreme forefront of science or mans knowledge to realize that we don't know everything. And that's fine. But to jump to god instead of trying to go just 1 step further in aquiring new knowledge is lame. Sir Isaac Newton who was one of the smartest people during his time also reached the point where he couldn't understand further and asked if there was god at work here. Guess what, centuries later we've gone far past what his limitations were, and explained what he couldn't, and it wasn't god. Sure there was some cause for the big bang, just because we don't know it YET doesn't mean "It's god, we're done here, wrap it up!". Seriously, just give us time, and we'll figure it out.

3)Miracles
Answer: Any advanced form of technology to an early enough culture will be mistaken as divine. Just because something hasn't been explained doesn't mean it can't be explained. All those people in the field who saw zig zagging lights may have acutaly seen zig zagging lights. How was the weather that day? Was it very hot or humid? Ever heard of mass delusion or mass hysteria? Were they dehydrated? Did someone have a mirror to reflect light on some floating smoke or low clouds? Was it recorded so it could be examined later? Are you sure that the pamphlets you gave out weren't secretly put back in your pocket because they thought you were crazy? Did your other peers give you more copies than you originaly thought? Were you dehydrated? Was it hot? A Scientist or resonably educated person knows to ask these questions, and that there is always some resonable answer to these, instead of just saying it's gods will. Miracles are legend, passed down through story telling and fights of fancy. And medical miracles are just ways of not giving the credit to some science somewhere.

4)Pascal's Wager
Answer: You are completely backwards in your thought process on this matter. First off in the argument if god exists or not, the burden is put on those who make the claim. "God exists!" - "Oh yea, prove it!". If you can't prove it, then I don't have to believe you just because you say so. And saying it's better to believe in god than to not believe in god is also false. There are countless situations that people who put their faith in god instead of going to the hospital died, and they lost that wager. Sure you can believe in god, but go see a doctor anyway, just in case. Where as if I get hurt, and I don't believe in god, I'm better off seeing the doctor anyway. Also I don't have the burden of fear that comes with the threat of pissing off some almighty ghost that may strike me down if misbehave in some way depending on their whimsical immature emotion that sways from day to day. I see too many religious people who pick and choose what they want to believe when it suits them, but they say fuck the rest if it's inconvienent for them. If you're going to believe, all or nothing. For me I believe in the kindness and generosity of my friends and family, regardless of their beliefs, because I have the freedom to do that.

I honestly don't see any reason to bring up any arguments that have been debunked already, only to refute them. I mean, I've heard these arguments before, and I have refuted them myself, but bringing up the video just to refute already debunked points, is well... not.. very useful. Just saying.

I think he's looking for feedback on how he debunked them.

It's absolutely wrong to say there's no use in treading old ground; for people new to philosophy and debating, it can actually be very useful. You pretty much have to do it, if you want to get good.

If you're learning physics, you'll definitely do problems with Newtonian physics about canon balls. Why bother, since it has already been solved? Well, to learn, of course

Do you think he did a good job in his presentation?

Well, like I said, I've already debunked such claims, and already knew what he presented. He did a good job, don't get me wrong, and put copious amounts of time into this post, but for me personally, not very useful.

RedAppleGP wrote:Well, like I said, I've already debunked such claims, and already knew what he presented. He did a good job, don't get me wrong, and put copious amounts of time into this post, but for me personally, not very useful.

...It's not supposed to be useful to you. He's asking for help, and advice to improve his argument. You're supposed to be useful to him, by giving him suggestions.

Try this:

Say one thing he did really well (the best part), and one thing that was done poorly (which he can improve), and some suggestions on how he should improve the poorly done part.