Brief proof of strong atheism. For a more detailed explanation (courtesy of Franc28's website): http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/

An explanation of moral statements and why they just don't work.

Drawing similarities between the logical positivist's stance on theistic assertions and that of the theological noncognitivist. Showing the problems with logical positivism and offering another argument against the existence of God that may have more weight. I first introduce logical problem of evil and then briefly explain why the evidential problem of evil is stronger (while making a weaker claim). At the end of the video I said "Thats my argument", and it isn't it is who ever came up with it's. :) Enjoy

An extremely brief introduction to the different schools of thought in meta-ethics.

What is the ontology of the "god" believers talk about? I've yet to see any believer present a positive, coherent ontology for "god." Links to the videos in Eightfootmanchild's excellent series on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IyJp5dak9M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT2OylENedo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEVibqv9kh0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u10Aq-J0Fdw

For Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims and everyone else who does NOT believe that Jesus Christ is The Son Of God ! Would You Die for a Lie ? Think sincerely about this... Lee Strobel Thank you for watching !

Reasons why I have changed from weak atheism to strong atheism.

Banda: "Cynthia Witthoft" Música: "Rebellion Against God" CD: "1994 - Zombie Invocation" http://cynthiawitthoft.blogspot.com/2008/01/cynthia-witthoft-zombie-invocation-1994.html Each of the following arguments aims at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them. Empirical arguments Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions. The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures -- such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an -- by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or to conflate the record itself with the God it describes. The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies. The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms exist which seem to exhibit poor design. The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. The argument from parsimony contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in god, the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon. Deductive arguments Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises. These arguments inherently depend on specific definitions of the term "God". The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than itself?". Another argument suggests that there is a contradiction between God being omniscient and omnipotent, basically asking "how can an all-knowing being change its mind?" See the article on omniscience for details. The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will - or has allotted the same freedom to his creations - by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god. The Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by suggesting that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of argument based on this argument seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and all god-concepts. The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause). Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests. It is alleged that there is a logical impossibility in theism: God is defined as an extra-temporal being, but also as an active creator. The argument suggests that the very act of creation is inconceivable and absurd beyond the constraints of time and space, and the fact that it cannot be proven if God is in either.