Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@CrossExamined says : Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱https://cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl>> <<@GodIsStillNotDead says : this line of rhetoric could be copied and pasted as a short summary of the history of Marxism. what is Marxism's "better" way? it still hasn't found one!>> <<@TwistedJedi2288 says : Atheists have the burden of proof, period. They can't say ordor, complexity, and desire, isn't the byproduct on a mind, but of random chaos and chance. Then not give evidence for that position, while also going against how we know nature works. We know what intelligence design looks like, to go against that and say otherwise is someone who has the burden of proof.>> <<@Ozzyman200 says : A silly attempt to shift the burden of proof.>> <<@AceOfTheWorld72 says : These apologists are so dishonest it hurts.>> <<@Exposure_Ministries says : Amen>> <<@manuaiipondraken8376 says : As a Christian, we don't have the burden of proof and we don't have to, because we are not making any claim here. We only believe the claims made by the person of Jesus. So the he burden of proof lies upon Jesus, the one who made the claims, that Christians believe in. And Jesus proof his claim to us by his resurrection, that we have hope after death. If you atheist are really looking for proof, you would examine the claim of Jesus and how he proof his claim to us. Then make up your mind to accept or reject.>> <<@donaldkeith139 says : _I don't believe there is a God_ ...is not logically equivalent to... _I don't believe AND I don't disbelieve there is a God_ The former is atheism. The latter isn't. The former makes an affirmative statement about reality (ie. the existence of God). The latter does not. The former cannot claim they do not have any beliefs about God. The latter can. The former has a burden of proof. The latter does not.>> <<@donaldkeith139 says : comments saying his argument is bad but don't explain why... Modern Atheism in a nutshell...>> <<@Christ_died_for_your_sins_777. says : Bible says the things pertaining to God and His Existence are CLEARLY SEEN, so burden of proof is on the blind 🤡 atheists.>> <<@pflume1 says : God is a superior explanation.>> <<@rkba4923 says : It takes a lot of faith to believe all the majesty of Creation and the design of the Universe came from nothing; or that life on Earth happened by miraculous chance in a primordial pool! Just sayin'!>> <<@janetpaguilar5086 says : Go back to the basics that is the best way of explaining it>> <<@randykuhns4515 says : Saying God spoke into existence all the immeasurable impossibility of the reality we do know exist is a very elegant reasoning for such a miraculous happening, Anything else is like believing you could drop a trillion pennies from a hundred miles high and everyone of them land on heads,.. stacked on top of each other in rows of a million neatly lined up ON THE FIRST TRY,.. with no help or reason to do so, that's what you're left with, and that's why IF you're going to deny the MOST reasonable possibility then surely it's because you have at least another reasonable possibility, OTHER than the contrivance of a "multiverse", which is embarrassing to hear as it's only groping,..>> <<@manapunk3085 says : I love that an atheists argument against faith, is their own faith that breaks its very own laws.>> <<@rosemarietolentino3218 says : A lot of Christians can not give a good argument of why they believe!>> <<@NikoRaipale says : Well said>> <<@garethwest9069 says : One must be ANTI-science to believe the secular humanist religion of 'evolution'.>> <<@michaelorman1205 says : I have been exposing atheists recently as intellectual frauds for this exact reason... They reject ANY evidence for GOD with zero consideration for its merits, but when I ask them to provide empirical evidence for the big bang and Abiogenesis the best I can get from them, if anything, is "we don't know">> <<@lightbeforethetunnel says : Theism vs Atheism is a paradigm / worldview debate between the two conflicting worldviews of the two people debating, as complete systems. In paradigm / worldview debates, both sides have an equal burden to defend why their worldview, as a complete system, is more rational than the opposition. So both sides have a burden, and nobody can avoid having a worldview to defend. The reason why so many Atheists struggle to understand this is because they're thinking of it like a normative-level debate. In other words, they're assuming their worldview is automatically true (along with their system of presuppositions) and *they're expecting everyone else grants this as well* That defeats the entire purpose of a paradigm / worldview debate, where the entire purpose is disputing the other person's system of presuppositions. Instead, Lacktheists are simply assuming their system of presuppositions are "the default" (without justification) and then expecting everyone else is as well. It makes it impossible to debate them, since they're not debating at all. They're just sitting back, with an imaginary "safe space" for themselves where they think they have no burden to defend anything at all, then going "I'm not convinced" "I'm not convinced" (no matter how strong the arguments for God actually are) and then falsely thinking they've won, since they falsely think of their position is "the default">> <<@mishkavorishka9717 says : From my point of view it's of a question about acceptance. I mean we really often can see our days how people disapprove of something or don't agree on different things. And what this man tries to say is that in case you disagree, you should show how to do better. Or accept the things as they are. For example some active and valiant vegans, they may say that it's cruel to kill a chicken for meat. But if they can't invent something to replace this meat (of course not with some nuts and mushrooms), they will get nothing with dissaproving of meateaters behaviour. Thus shall thy accept!>> <<@anubion42 says : Even if I granted you the a god exists. You couldn’t even show me which god it is. Or even if it wasn’t the FSM the whole time. When nothing but god fits as your answer no one can make any argument to convince you.>> <<@myopenmind527 says : Frank doesn’t understand how the universe works. He wants to add an imagined god to help him make sense of it. Frank should spend more time trying to understand the universe and less time inventing imagined entities. Not one god ever in the history of our species has be shown to be real. None!!>> <<@junohawthorne7658 says : No? When did skepticism stop existing>> <<@TheTruthKiwi says : FFS Frank. I know you don't like it but saying "I don't know" is a valid position. I'm sorry but you're just going to have to deal with it.>> <<@oftin_wong says : He is only good at the arguing Not much else to offer>> <<@JamesRendek says : The thing is, neither of you have anything until God walks in the room.>> <<@FuzzyChesterfield says : No. That’s not how this works. Just watch any of Frank’s debates against non believers. That all spell it out and Frank acts as though he’s never been introduced to the concept. If you believe in God, you are taking the positive position. The burden of proof lies with you, not with the person who isn’t yet convinced of your position. You can’t add extra stuff to it like “well then, what’s your explanation for everything?” As if not having a good answer means God is automatically the more justifiable option. That isn’t how logic works. That isn’t how knowledge works.>> <<@ScarredRomeo says : He’s right in a sense, because it is a necessary endeavor of rationalism to put forth the most logical explanation for some form of being. It’s all well and good to “poke holes” in an argument, but to not put forth something else at all or an explanation that is more plausible, gives a person no real leg to stand on. It’s like the person who critiques those who participate, but is too cowardly to participate himself. As Schuon says: ‘First of all, however, it is necessary to respond to a curious objection put forward by rationalists, even though it has already been mentioned elsewhere in this book. The objection is this: whoever asserts that “God exists” is under an obligation to prove it, whereas the skeptic is in no way obliged to prove the contrary since—so it seems—only he who makes an affirmation owes his critics a proof, while he who denies it is under no such obligation; the skeptic therefore has a right to reject the “existence” of God without being required in his turn to prove the “nonexistence” of God. Now this line of reasoning is completely arbitrary, and for the following reason: a man who finds himself unable to verify a statement undoubtedly has the right not to accept it as certain or probable, but he has by no means the logical right to reject it without providing valid reasons for doing so. It is not difficult to discover the basis of this objection: it starts with the preconceived notion that the affirmation of God is something “extraordinary” whereas the denial of God is “normal”; the skeptic obviously begins by thinking that the normal man is the atheist, and from this he deduces a kind of one-way jurisprudence.’>> <<@mavericks2730 says : Atheist has no burden of performance.. Because atheism have no idea what they are talking about……. Atheist have no evidence that atheism exist..>> <<@55Quirll says : Myself, an Atheist, don't make positive statements about god/gods only that I don't believe in any god/gods because there is no evidence for their existence so the one making a positive statement is required to show proof/evidence>> <<@mickqQ says : Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof, What claim does an atheist make that require proof?>> <<@mickqQ says : The burden of proof lies with who ever is making a claim.. it’s irrelevant wether they are religious or not. What claim am i as an atheist making that requires a burden of proof?>> <<@generichuman_ says : This is just wrong... If there is an unknown phenomenon, and someone proposes a theory for it, they need to prove their theory. Everyone else should be trying to poke holes in it, to make sure it stands up, and it doesn't require them to have a theory of their own. When Einstein proposed General relativity, he didn't write "Gravity is curved space" on a napkin, and upon people rejecting it say "Oh ya, well what do you think it is!?" He constructed a complete theory and eventually when it was experimentally verified, it was accepted. Your theory is shitty Frank, instead of trying to change the incredibly successful scientific method, try improving your theory.>> <<@Micah_St_Columba says : "Why do you who are a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all? Are you not ashamed of this?" -Socrates, Last words to the Athenian courts. Forced to drink hemlock tea for essentially saying there's an objective singular authority over the order of things. . Rather than multiple subjective ideas of "gods" that fit all of their money, honor and reputation paradigms. . . Nothing is new under the sun.>> <<@BabbleCacophony says : Has Frank heard of agnostics before? Atheists can be agnostic about things.>> <<@robmckinney7340 says : There's too big a pile of rotten eggs now a days. We do not have to give our explanation as much as realizing problem solving be best scenario and respect of differences instead of condoning exploitation of agendas.>> <<@JLBorges2803 says : If an idea can be shown to be wrong why would an alternative be needed to replace it? Sometimes ideas are wrong and questions need to remain open. The only sense that an atheist might have the burden of proof here is to explain why you are wrong, not necessarily to provide an immediate alternative.>> <<@mathewdonkers9594 says : Once upon a time, we didn't understand how 90% of the stuff we do now. We thought that the ground shaking and lightning were all acts of God(s) being mad at us. Now we know of plate tectonics and static electricity. Just because we don't know all the answers yet doesn't mean we won't come up with any at some point and it certainly doesn't mean that there is a God. Pointing out flaws in a theory is easier, but also important in making progress towards truth. Only once you accept that something isn't what you thought can you begin to try and find other explanations.>> <<@derekardito2032 says : Religion Is the rotten egg, I as an unbeliever make a statement of you saying your particular god exist, that statement is "I do not believe you, ". Where is any onus I owe, what bad argument am I making,? I'm not making any argument, you are implying I am, so this egg of yours your throwing has no target, your the one making UN evidenced claim, just what claim are you saying I am making.>> <<@bn8ws says : "You have the burden of proof to refute the claim I made without presenting any evidence." Refute the Flying Spaghetti Monster, please.>> <<@andrewkilbride971 says : But Frank, there's plenty of evidence for evolution and none for creationism. This isn't going to end well for you!>> <<@NeoDemocedes says : When there is insufficient information to draw any conclusion, "I don't know" is the best answer. It doesn't open the floor for the first BS answer to pass someone's lips to be the default. Until someone can demonstrate their explanation true, it remains unknown.>> <<@eaglehaus1723 says : God is real. Jesus is real. He sends me to heaven .. lost count. No one else for me .. eternally. Amen.>> <<@bibleburner8426 says : Wrong. That's not how the burden of proof works, Frank. The burden of proof is married to claims. Make a claim; prove it. Don't make a claim; nothing to prove. It's simple, guys.>> <<@MrFossil367ab45gfyth says : In my opinion, both theists and atheists may lack or carry the burden of proof. It depends on wording, thinking and ideas being expressed. Also if someone infringes or pushes their views on others, then there is a burden. I see sometimes on the internet that atheists lack the burden of proof, or that theists have it. To me it depends, as long as you don't claim something as true/knowledge/fact then you don't have the burden of proof. But if you claim something as the truth/knowledge/fact than you carry the burden of proof.>> <<@kevinburke8608 says : So the best story, not proof is the answer? lol, no. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. I don't have any obligation to provide proof your claim is not true or create a better one. They can just say that your argument is flawed and I do not believe your claim. If I make a claim that it is your story is "not true" then I would have a burden.>> <<@LiamOliver0297 says : Atheism is a failure to learn history and philosophy. The claim that atheism is merely "a lack of belief" is a subjective statement about the speaker, it is not an objective statement about reality.>> <<@josejgarciarodriguez3239 says : What?>> <<@Daygard1 says : Easy to talk stupidity also.>>