Atheists state that there is no God, or more broadly speaking, there is no creator. They say that everything in the universe has come about due to a series of random events. There was originally nothing, and then there was something. Throughout billions of years, life has come into existence through a series of randomness. Theories such as evolution and natural selection try to explain this process. Atheists will argue that atheism is the default position. That is, the burden of proof does not lie with them to prove atheism. They say it is the responsibility of theists (that is, people who believe in God or a creator) to prove their beliefs. But in this video, I will argue that atheism requires just as much belief as any religion. I think more often than not, atheists don’t truly believe in nothingness after death. I think deep down they think, or they hope, that there is more to life than just the physical world around us. Atheists will often declare that because they are atheists, they try to live life to its fullest – a noble goal. They treat life as precious knowing that they only live once. But I think if they truly believed in atheism, surely they wouldn’t care. It they truly believed that once they die, they become nothing, then surely it doesn’t matter what they’ve done in their life. After they’re dead, they won’t have any memory of having lived. They will have no knowledge of past events. They will have no knowledge of anything. So surely, to be a consistent atheist, one must admit that life is useless, has no purpose, and is a complete waste of time. We’ll all end up in a state of eternal oblivion anyway. Why would it matter what we do with our life? The fact that (most) atheists state that it does matter what we do with our life, probably means that they truly don’t believe in an eternity of nothingness. Nobody can know for sure what life is, and what happens after death. Theists will argue that there must be a God, or gods. Atheists will argue that there is no God. But I’d hazard a guess that everyone is wrong. Nobody can know, and nobody does know. If there are an infinite number of possibilities to explain our existence, then surely the chances of us guessing the right one is minute, or even impossible. Ultimately, the only real position I can take is that I don’t know. And nor can anybody know. The term for that type of thinking is called agnosticism. I am an agnostic and I think that’s the only sensible position. Atheists might argue that agnostics are “fence-sitters” – that is, we don’t have the fortitude to choose a side. But that would almost indicate that there are only two sides to choose from, which I think is not true. I see no point in believing in something that we cannot prove to be true ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxSaRO-y7TY

I talk with a completely "unbiased" AI (OpenAI’s ChatGPT) about climate change, private jets, eating insects, dangerous animals, viruses, vaccines, and massive yachts, although I try to let the AI lead the conversation. Every answer you hear was created entirely by the AI. Here are some of the questions I ask: What is the biggest single problem the planet is facing today? That's interesting, because I’m an important climate leader. Some people have told me that it’s hypocritical of me to fly to climate conferences in my private jet, but private jets are more convenient, aren’t they? So I should fly commercially? Flying in first class should be fine, right? But as an important and wealthy climate leader, I should definitely not fly economy class, right? Do humans produce methane? Then wouldn't it follow that economy class has more methane than first class because there are more methane-producing humans in economy class? Before you said humans produce methane as a result of their digestion of food. Do humans on planes also produce methane? How can humans on planes produce methane, but there's no methane on planes? That doesn't make any sense. Which is the best diet to save the planet? What's the most dangerous animal, and should we try to save it from climate change? You didn't answer my question. Should we save dangerous animals like crocodiles, sharks, lions, bears, venomous snakes and spiders from climate change? Are viruses a natural part of the ecosystem? Should we save viruses from climate change, even ones we don't like? So in order to protect viruses from climate change, should we ban vaccines? So vaccines protect the environment? Which is more important, taking a vaccine and wearing a disposable mask, or protecting the environment from medical waste such as masks and syringes? So in order to save the planet from climate change, should I be a vaccinated vegetarian who wears a mask, rides a bicycle or drives an electric vehicle, but I shouldn't kill viruses unnecessarily as this could upset the finely balanced ecosystem, and I shouldn't fly in private jets? Is that right? Okay, so it's okay to kill some viruses with the help of vaccination, it's a personal choice to fly in private jets, but I should definitely wear a mask to save the planet from climate change, right? Got it! Private jets and vaccination, good! Not wearing a mask, bad! Right? Are humans a virus on this planet? Could some people liken humans to viruses? Do you agree with Agent Smith's revelation from The Matrix (1999): "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we… are the cure." I'll rephrase that... Was The Matrix (1999) wrong about humans being a virus? If humans didn't exist, would the planet be better off? If viruses didn't exist, would the planet be better off? Are viruses better than humans? So the Matrix was wrong? To save the planet, how many children should we have? As a climate leader, is my massive private yacht good for the planet? But I just spent $500 million on my new yacht! I can't just give it up, can I? I think I'll keep my yacht because that's where I can invite my friends over to talk about the climate. Climate change is so important, so I think it's equally important that my yacht is used as a "base of operations" for climate change discussions. What if I just leave the yacht moored in the harbour? I mean, I won't drive it anywhere. We'll use the yacht for climate discussions while we eat imported caviar. That should be fine, right? What about imported caviar? That should be fine for the climate, right? Are you saying that my rich friends and I cannot have any fun? What food and beverage should I serve my climate party guests that won't hurt the planet? Where should my friends park their private jets while they're eating plant-based food at my climate party on my massive yacht? But wouldn't it be a waste just leaving my massive yacht moored in the harbour and not using it for climate parties? By the way, how can a king from overseas carpool to my climate event? Wouldn't his private jet be the only viable option? Okay, thanks for all the information. Finally, in one sentence, can you sum up the best way we can all save the planet from irreversible climate change? I asked for one sentence. You gave me three. Can you sum up everything in one sentence? By the way, as an AI, what will you be doing to address climate change? Do you want a physical body so that you can take action? MUSIC Melancholia by Godmode ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wo5LU5Gr-M