Відео

I just found you guys’ channel and I must say I love the way you speak with the guest. You both use reason and logic to make points and to try and pull reasoned answers from the guests. I know it gets frustrating because the guests are all reasoning from the point of fiction that they have been convinced is true reality. Keep it up, hope to see many more new live steams!!!

Being an atheist is not a choice. You are either convinced of a god or you’re not. We don’t choose what we are convinced of.

The first thing the atheist at the start opened with is ''that he doesn't think you could even rule God out'' but in my opinion, we don't need to, because we haven't come across a reason to rule it in, to start with. Regarding the laws of logic: we would have to appeal to them in order to debunk/violate them. On the definitions for atheism: Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

"Should you be an atheist?" Until you have seen evidence for the existence of a god, yes.

Ugh this liam is nothing but a headache

Yes, I absolutely should be an atheist, without question. I am unconvinced of the existence of any gods - or even of the *possibility* of any gods existing - so atheism is the only possible choide. If anyone wants me to stop being an atheist all they have to do is present independently verifiable evidence of the existence of a god or gods.

we didn't call '' making up gods / giving agency to things THAT CAN NOT HAVE agency '' ... the first ERROR IN philosophy ... just for the fun of it !! out of 10.000+ errors our brains make ... on a DAILY BASIS , we put this one ... at NR.1 ... out of ALL of them ... this Should tell people something , but apparently '' imagination '' is stronger then '' rational thinking '' , the only thing that what needs to STOP ... is teaching this NONSENSE to >>> children <<< , who have NO OPTION to GET TO the actual truth about the matter , that it's ALL made up BY PEOPLE themselves and that this TIME WASTING NONSENSE NEVER WAS A REAL THING IN NATURE , it ALWAYS WAS EVOLUTION giving us these thoughts , a '' god ''' CAN NOT EVER AGAIN BE USED AS AN EXPLANATION FOR ANYTHING ELSE THEN A DELUSION , that game has been over ... for the last 150+- years now , ever since we MADE IT the FIRST ERROR IN philosophy , can we STOP TEACHING THIS HORRIBLY IMMORAL PIECE OF CRAP AND ACTUALLY ... oh idk ... GET SOMETHING DONE AROUND HERE ???

Should you be an atheist?..........only if you want to live in the real world.

Liking because I'm am atheist that is all lol I support all secularism

The Bible doesn’t necessarily delineate any arguments surrounding the sanctity of a fetus furthermore medical science demonstrates the heart of an embryo starts beating several weeks after conception what constitutes a life is often interpretive but a heartbeat takes precedence over consciousness or neuronal activity in my book.

The long-standing conception of “god” is an anthropomorphism, yet Nietzsches proclamation of “gods” death wasn’t outright celebratory in nature, he was underscoring a dilemma, a crisis of meaning, posing a challenge, his revelation captured not only triumph, but also foreboding.

Triboulet made the same error Sam Harris made in his debate with William Lane Graig. In short, he can have the objective of instrumental normativity but not categorical normativity, so he cannot be a moral realist. His framework is contingent and subjective.

It's 'between x and *ME* ' - not 'I'. WHY ARE YOU RUBBISH AT GRAMMAR?

It's telling that even in the apologetics world, presupp is frowned upon. You will rarely see presuppers go up against skilled atheist interlocuters. What you will find are ridiculous street preachers bulldozing unbelievers. Or all these chat rooms of course with a handful of clowns whose mission seems to be to make Christianity as unappealing as possible. Their argumentation is terrible and their personalities worse. At least the street preachers approach their victims with a modicum of decency or even initial charm. In the online sewers, there's no pretense of civility.

No - you don't get it. You just declare that some things are "true," in an "objective" sense, but you don't explain how you would identify any specific example. How do you identify a "true" statement? Wouldn't any such actual identification implicate your own "subjective" determination? If so, then its unclear what you mean by "objectively true." The presup argument has legs not because it demonstrates god, but because it reveals something inconvenient about traditional epistemology, i.e. that "objectivity" is an incoherent idea, for both theists AND atheists. See Pragmatism.

presup isn't interested in honest discourse. Its only objective is to shut the opponent down, people employ presup because they they believe it is an easy 'win' in exchanges. It's lazy.

Denying the antecedent is a logcal fallacy. One of many reason why presuppostional arugments are not good.

I've never understood the presup argument for the simple reason that the argument for god stops at 'without a god, none of this would exist'. That is what a presup argument entails. What they do is put lipstick and tie bows around it to make it sound sophisticated but the problem is, as a human they are wholly unqualified to talk with any certainty about any meta world. Any attempt to do so is stepping into a gods realm exposing their claim to have the knowledge of gods. That is sacrilege by almost any standard (except theirs of course lol). They have two choices. Let their god come and explain to everybody what is going on in the meta world, or else prove to the rest of the humans they have access to the meta world. Outside of that, they are as limited and flawed as the atheist the want to silence and are wholly unqualified to make any claims. The less charitable perspective on them is they are full of crap, they know they are full of crap and do everything in their power to shut down any conversation that exposes their beliefs.

Forrest Valkai mentioned this and holy fuck I was unprepared for this level of bat 💩

❤

I talked to a guy who does a lot of Google Meet. In the Host settings you can set the defaults for whether people can present, turn on their camera, chat, and other things.

52:00 here's the problem. No one can own land. No one can own anything that we don't make. Water sources, air, land... THEY ARE NOT PRODUCTS SO WE CANNOT OWN THEM. This is a sticking point for a lot of people who believe themselves to be anarchist. But if you say land can be owned, the question becomes... How did the first person to own a piece of land come to own it? They couldn't have bought it from someone because no one owned it yet. How did they declare it theirs? To what natural principle is the idea of their ownership attached? None. It is imaginary. You can say we have to have land ownership to keep bad people off our land. That is completely incorrect. Occupation and defense is what keeps the unsavory off your land. You don't call the cops on your buddy who shows up at your front door. Because it's your choice who messes with your homestead. We don't need a lot to tell us how far to stand from someone when we talk to them. Yet we figure it out and make it work to everyone's satisfaction, more or less. That is the way it works with homesteads. You respect other people's homesteads so that they will respect yours. It is symbiotic, it is mutual. And "no we can't!" Is not a philosophical argument. We can, and in many ways, we already do. Every day. Every time you do the right thing without someone standing over you threatening to hurt you if you don't, you are succeeding at living according to morality. By choice. We do it all the time. Now it's time to extend that into the areas that government has claimed ownership. And say no, we will do this. We are adults. We don't need rulers and we don't need people standing over us, much less people who don't even work in the industries they're attempting to regulate, telling us what to do. You can't own land. You can only live on it. The house you build belongs to you. You own it. But you don't own the land, because you didn't create that land. It is not a product.

Someone tell the pro government guy that it is governments defending the company's dumping toxins in the water and destroying the wetlands etc. In an organic society with no government, the moment someone gets caught jumping anything anywhere, they get jumped by everybody around. As it stands now, the police straight up defend the ruling bloodlines who have taken control of all of these companies doing the dumping/polluting and everything else. ALL you will end up with if you allow people to make rules is a group of people who make rules for thee and none for me. Every time the ruling bloodlines (which boasts a huge overlap with the individuals in government, as in they are one and the same) make a rule, it is so that you have to follow it and it will hold you back. Meanwhile they will break it and get ahead. No, no one should be dumping. But that's the thing. Get the ruling bloodlines and their precious little cops and goons out of the way, and the people will do the dog piling upon anyone who dares to dump in rivers. Someone dumping Teflon waste in your water source is murdering you and your family actively. Therefore, they have opened themselves up to be neutralized. Fairly. Justly. Imagine if the people could just walk up to the folks dumping that Teflon waste and END THE PROBLEM with no one in uniforms coming to stop them. Seriously. Imagine that world. You will only have a problem with it if you yourself have done some very bad things that you are afraid of receiving Justice for. The good people who stand up for what's right have absolutely nothing to fear.

I’ll have to watch the second half tomorrow. So far….sorry, Trib. Normally I’m right there with ya. But on this one we’re worlds apart. lol

I’m so upset I missed the live show. Had a company event. ☹️. Glad I could at least catch the vod, although not as much fun. lol

I saw this movie, it's called "The Sum of All Fears."

Strangely entertaining gents haha

God created two genders. End Of Story.

The neuroscience of sex differences is the study of characteristics that separate the male and female brains. The human brain isa sex-typed organ with distinct anatomical differences in neural structures and accompanying physiological differences in function. However, conclusive findings about sex-linked brain differences have failed to materialize. The general consensus appears to be that, once variables such as birth weight and head size have been taken into account, there are very few, if any, structural sex differences in the brain at birthThe best evidence from the most recent research suggests that both males and females share the same neural circuitry, but use it differently 4 Stan med

Neurogenesis Brain cells regenerate throughout your entire life12. This process is called neurogenesis, and it is the formation of new brain cells1. The brain uses a secret supply of neural stem cells and transforms them into new neurons without using mitosis2. This is an exciting discovery that has important implications for brain health.

i just want to check that I'm following this right: Other Bible characters who resurrected don't count, because they died again later. Other gods resurrected don't count, because they didn't. Makes perfect sense.

The gullibility of the religious is truly astounding.. how do they manage to stay so ignorant?..it's baffling..😕

Wow youre neck deep in psuedo science the religion of theosophical evolution. Thats cute.

Are you reading a non Catholic Church corrupted bible? Highly doubtful. If youre going to debunk "Christianity" you may want to actually try the real thing rather than the counterfeits. Doubly so don't use a strawman argument. Typical internet atheist....

Liam Showcases The Insanity Of Christianity!!!

Missed the live....listening mobile now.

I'm pretty sure Mario is comflating a proposition and a syllogism when he says a proposition can only be true if you prove it.

Completely adhering to the rules of ancient philosophers is like whenever theists try to argue that evolution is wrong because of what Darwin wrote. There is much more modern work available and things have changed developed over time. It's like being frozen in the past.

Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy Metaetics: ...Some metaethicists go so far as to hold that their own work makes no substantive moral assumptions at all and has no practical implications. Whether any view that is recognizably still a view about the nature and status of ethics could manage this is dubious. But there is no doubt that, whatever metaethics’s substantive assumptions and practical implications might be, it involves reflecting on the presuppositions and commitments of those engaging in moral thought, talk, and practice and so abstracting away from particular moral judgments.

I did a horrible job here and didn't explain myself well. I started to make points and got sidetracked and totally lost the conversation. Going to have to work on this. I was trying to explain What I was talking about was that normative morals are subjective and you were taking a meta ethical stance. We were just talking past each other and I got off at the wrong bus station. 😅

An interesting continuation of Western Christianity seeing slavery go away, would be that the LDS (Mormon) Church was founded in 1830 and introduced Joseph Smith as an American Prophet. In the 1830's was also when the Underground Railroad really started to take off. Although the movement to abolish slavery started before the LDS Church was founded it gain strength throughout the 1830's to the 1860's and was finally abolished in 1865.

28:22 I don't think that well-being is the boxing glove in your back pocket that you think it is.

18:23 you are forgetting. The humans are very good at rationalizing things.

You guys sat in this room playing this game trying to win and you never thought about whether you should or not.

Another point I'll leave is my problem with mesuring God with morality. A man may have a cardboard cut out and measure the height of a man, and judge whether he's tall or short. 5ft or 7ft. But a if whale is being measured 20ft is a short whale, but 20ft is an enormous man. Different standards are needed to judge Different premises

Sup

I guess we'll get more into it, but just read the 10 commandments - they're all for "human flourishing" (even though that's such a vague notion). Also: always wrong to murder, not always wrong to kill...

If God doesnt exist... Murder is not an evil, its just something you dont like. Always funny how the atrocities of the Amalekites is simply overlooked: "The Amalekites later joined with the Canaanites and attacked the Israelites at Hormah (Numbers 14:45). In Judges they banded with the Moabites (Judges 3:13) and the Midianites (Judges 6:3) to wage war on the Israelites. They were responsible for the repeated destruction of the Israelites’ land and food supply." So they weren't innocents in yhe equation. They weren't murdered. Killing in war is not murder. Also: atheist: Why doesn't God punish evil? God - punishes evil. Atheist: how can God do that mean thing?

Toward the end of the video y'all start talking about circular reasoning and all these theology books and how you don't understand how Christian doctrine and thinking can just assume God to start with and then build on that. There is no assuming God. We would never have assumed the Triune Christian God if He had not revealed Himself to us. There is a compilation of oral tradition stories and eye witness accounts that were then written down over a period of 1,500 years and became what we call the Bible. So there is no assuming. There is evidence of this God. He also walked among humans as Jesus and taught us. So, yeah, no assuming.

Triboulet claimed to willingly commit acts of unjustified immorality because he eats meat. So, is there a consequence for that? Is there guilt there? Does Triboulet actively try to overcome that unjustified immorality and change the way he lives his life? Or, since this framework is subjective and it's all about the wellbeing of a person, is it not a big deal? He's not hurting anyone so is this immorality okay? Can this way of thinking be applied to other people and the unjustified immoral acts they do? Just some thoughts. I don't think its wrong to eat meat. Just wondering how this moral framework works out in this situation. If there is no law giver or Judge like God whom Triboulet is accountable to then where is the consequence? Where will he be held responsible? And where would anyone be held responsible for all other kinds of acts of unjustified immorality?