This caller is exactly why arguing with theists don't get you far. I would really fear having a theist on my jury, as evidence is secondary to their intuitions and feelings. I suspect that when this caller got off the phone, he thought that everything Matt said was gibberish, and that the caller won the debate.
It's so hard to argue with theist. My wife's mom is a great person but she's an absolute fanatic. All she can do is quote the bible to refute our beliefs, and doesn't understand that the Bible means nothing to us. She just can't comprehend the idea of someone not believing the bible.
Good luck, buddy! She's going to do her best to drill that mess in your heads. I have friends that endlessly attempt to convert me. I'm too much of a critical thinker. lol
I personally don't believe fanatics are good persons no matter how well intended they are. Irrationality is poison and should be considered a threat to mankind. Wich i truly believe they are, dogmatism makes people do hideous things thinking they are correct and they spread the ignorance like a virus so more people can turn "logic proof".
Iconoclast Irrationality is the belief that the universe was somehow able to create itself from nothing. So when you are pointing your finger at someone there are 3 pointing back at you.
+Andrew Tessler the guilty and not guilty analogy is actually VERY VERY confusing. i like matt's other analogy which he said 'imagine a jar fill with gum balls, its either has even or odd number of gum balls in it. you try to claim its even, and ask me do i believe its even, i said 'NO'. that doesnt mean i believe there is odd number of gum balls in it. i just reject your claim of even number because you arent able to provide any evidence show its even.'
Agreed, I think the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" helps to muddle it a bit as many don't seem to separate innocent from not guilty. As far as the gumball analogy, I've heard something similar with fish in the ocean. Rejecting a claim of "odd" is not an assertion of "even". For some reason many people seem to have a lot of problems figuring out that not accepting a claim is not an assertion of the opposite.
To be fair it is a hard concept for some people to understand. Most people are not educated in the concept of there being three positions on a yes or no question, the affirmative, the negative and neither.
I do think it's natural for people to misunderstand the distinction between "X is true", "I'm not convinced that X is true", and "X is false". Most/many people don't understand this level of logic and reason. You can see in this call, the caller just literally doesn't understand how those can be different.
My cat is a reincarnation of Attila the Hun and sings Beatles songs. Theist: Hogwash! There is an omnipotent being in the sky who governs all our lives. Theist: Oh, OK.
These type of calls always annoy me. I just find it really hard to understand why people such as this caller, have such a hard time comprehending the issue of making a positive assertion and the rejection of said assertion. More specifically why they think atheists have the burden of proof. Because when you give an example such as Matt did when he said he doesn't believe in fairies however he's not the one who needs to provide proof of no fairies. This seems as easy to understand as anything can be. Hell even the theists may agree with this analogy and yet in the same conversation they will still not understand it when a God is applied to this scenario. I find this type of cognitive dissonance simply baffling.
Its because we let stupid people breed (which theoretically religion was designed specifically to accelerate the breeding of a laborer population with intents that they are easier to control because of their faith in authority) they’re probably actually just not even comprehending what is being said.
Occam is my favourite scholastic philosopher. As well as the famous razor, he also had a definition of existence: a thing can exist "in re" (as an actual thing), "in intellectu" (as an idea) and "in nomine" (as a mere name). I think where he was going with this was that Baal (say) exists only "in nomine" (we know nothing about him except his name); the biblical god exists "in intellectu" (as an idea and a social reality), but the Razor rules out his existence "in re". A closet 14th-c atheist.
Theists, if you don't have the definitions down, then you shouldn't engage in an argument. Religious people claim to know that God exists, while all atheism is a disbelief in God claims. Antitheism, though, is a claim made that no gods exists.
@rdrakken "That is an ignorant response. there very little evidence in string theory..." _ [citation required] Scientific Journal:____________ Date of publication:____________ Article name:_____________ Author:_______________
@WhelandNorm The "innocent" vs "not guilty" thing is hard for a lot of believers, who might equate "know" and "believe." A person, in actuality, is guilty or innocent of a crime - fact. However, there is no way anyone not present at the scene of the crime can "know" whether the person is guilty or innocent (and even then, there's the problem of perception). Someone who equates "know" and "believe" is likely to equate "not guilty" and "innocent."
@Codester145 I think the misunderstanding springs from the saying "innocent until proven guilty." It kind of sets up a false dichotomy that is easy to fall into.
@matthias2986 "idk...." First honest thing you have said. Tracie Harris put it perfectly in another episode. "A creationist looks at an acorn turning into a tree, that makes acorns, which grow into trees, and wants me to believe that CAN'T HAPPEN. That's impossible." But we know it's possible because it IS happening. The universe, likewise, IS possible, which we know, because we're in it thinking about it.
@chinh101 a claim is a proposition that is not yet backed up by evidence, but could possibly be in the future. an assertion is the acceptance of a proposition or a premise before it has been properly backed up by evidence. assertions are much worse than claims in terms of logic and rhetoric.
@djdnauk1977 pantheism is very difficult to define as many scientists claim to be pantheists even though they are atheists, but the general view of pantheists is that the universe is god like, and the etymology supports this view, but i know what you mean and agree.
Is it? Well, I certainly agree with your last part. Being an antitheist is only a statement of belief, and therefore you can clearly be an agnostic and believe it. Clearly. And I also understand all antitheists to be atheists. Just like all people who assert innocence are in the not guilty camp. They are. If they are to vote either guilty or not innocent, then they - who assert innocence - will vote not guilty. So there I agree. But I still understand that to be perfectly analogous to innocence. And on a possible second definition that means "opposition to religion", I am not sure I think taht would work. After all, I can't count anymore how many christians have told me that what they do is a relationship and not (!) a religion, and they make it extremely clear that they are deeply opposed to religion. I am not sure I would call such christians antitheists. :)
Jillum89 _"I am not sure I would call such christians antitheists."_ True. I'm not sure I believe them that they're actually against religion, though. They're twisting words to avoid baggage they don't want. That kind of dishonesty isn't rare.
(apologies if I sound ranty or angry, brevity is not something I do well) Basic message: there are several definitions of atheist & atheism, the accurate ones mention disbelief, the inaccurate ones mention belief in nonexistence, a small difference but one which greatly changes the meaning. The Oxford definition in this case is inaccurate. If people don't want to be ridiculed for misunderstanding definitions, check more than one dictionary. Blind faith is always bad, even when it's Oxford.
Why is this so hard? The default position for any claim is disbelief until sufficient evidence is presented. The amount of evidence required depends upon the claim. As Carl Sagen said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's really not that hard, I don't understand why some people find it so difficult to grasp.
@ultrakool Also, there is some significant difference between indentured servitude and slavery. An indentured servant's offspring don't become the property of his employer, for one, and an employer doesn't get away with murder if it takes the indentured servant longer than 3 days to die of his injuries after a beating, due to the fact that an indentured servant is not his employer's property.
If you fail to understand my objection to the long odds argument, you are failing to take into account a few things: 1 How many universes are there that turned out differently? 2 Since we're here, of course we are biased think that was due to some "perfection," 3 Even if there is a designer, it's dumb to claim to know anything about it including its existence 4 If the odds of an accidental universe like ours are poor, the odds of god are poorer since he must be more complex than the universe
It's too bad that many don't educate themselves on such important issues as faith and worldviews. I mean, I'm no expert, but I do look for information which provides me with a base for what to think. And not just one side of an argument. The grass always looks greener on the other side, but you never know how green it actually is until you've held a strain of grass from each side up beside each other and seen for yourself.
@jesperlett Don't get me wrong, dictionaries are great, I rely on them heavily on certain days, but I rely on several because I know that they are only as good as the accuracy of their definitions. Take their jury duty analogy, an atheist can hold the "not guilty" or "innocent" position and a theist can hold the "not guilty" or "guilty" position. The term atheist, like the term theist revolves solely around the question "do you believe?"
@4IDHero Kalam is an argument from ignorance. It, like any "first cause" argument is. "What caused the universe to start to exist?" The honest answer is "nobody knows, but we're trying to figure that out." Theists see a gap in our understanding and say, "Well, we'll just jam our God in that hole," with NO EVIDENCE to support this assertion other than the gap - which is a GAP, not a placeholder for a god, much less a specific god.
@sleepyriggles "How are you being persecuted?" _ Being told I am not allowed to do something without showing justification. i.e. NOT persecution: keeping a small child from riding a roller coaster: justification: safety Persecution: Keeping a small child from playing on a playground because he lacks belief that Santa is real. Justification: None.
@Negativepositiv it's unknown whether elisha had this power in life, as well as death, but we like to think he did and that he had the habit of killing his victims with bears, resurrecting them, and then promptly re-summoning the bears to kill them, again. he'd just repeat the whole thing over and over until he got bored
@athywren to your question: Agnostic atheist? I think the description under agnostic contains two meanings of the word divided by the semicolon. The dictionary's meaning of 'atheist' is actually my main point. The two hosts ridicule the caller for thinking that atheism means believing that there is no god. That is actually what the dictionary says too and what I've always thought also. That why I think they aren't being entirely fair. But I agree with them on all other points.
+Suzey Non Theist So Mohammed was a pedophile...and his boss was into golden showers? I don't think I'd wanna go to THEIR heaven. Even if they beg. What's their hell like? Booze, nudity...and all the other stuff they hate? that'd be okay.
@djdnauk1977 My apologies, I misread the definition of pantheism. Einstein and Sagan definitely were pantheists, although Jefferson was not because he believed in a creator god. To answer your original question, I think it's great. Dawkins says that it's just "sexed-up atheism", but I love the spirituality and humility that comes from pantheism's awe of the universe.
@ultrakool Assertions need support. Demonstrate this "soul." Demonstrate that the "creator" "made us in his image." So the Creator has a tube that serves both as the eating/drinking and breathing passage, thus ensuring occasional choking? The creator (who is described as male) has a prostate that swells over time and constricts the urethra? Is he as unintelligently designed as we are?
@rdrakken The person claiming knowledge, rather than admitting he doesn't know, is using an argument from ignorance. If someone asks you a question, and you don't know the answer, the most correct answer you can give is, "I don't know." From "I don't know," you can move forward. From, "A being which I will tell you all about in great detail did it," when the person ACTUALLY DOESN'T KNOW is dishonest, and doesn't allow for actual research.
@JJGMTS He has explained many times that he is a positive atheist, not just an atheist. He asserts God does not exist, but it's not required for atheism.
@sfyr I know all this.But the doubt remains the same: If the thing which lead me to believe in a god in the first place isn't correct, why even suggest a god in the first place? As for the cosmological argument, it's as simple as to ask what's the source of the creator. Where did god itself come from? How does this make sense? Ever seen "A Universe from Nothing" here on UA-cam? The "zero-energy universe "hypothesis is much more apt to describe our origin and it's observable.
The guilty vs. not guilty analogy holds up pretty well but I had a philosophy professor who likened most of the pro-gods-existence augments to the Scottish criminal verdict of not proven and I think that that actually captures the essence of the debate more precisely.
@rdrakken "Topic = God" _ Topic 1:God exists: believe or lack belief Topic 2:Gods do not exist: believe or not believe "lack of evidence does not = false" _ Lack of evidence doesn't make it false, you're correct. But, at the same time it DOES make it an invalid option.
@BalthazzarCH yeah, because then anyone can be a pantheist and can be everything else aswell (except someone that hates the universe and dislikes the laws its bound by) so i knew it didnt make any sense from the start. i dont understand how u can believe in fate and not believe in god. to clarify, i reject the idea of a god and the idea of destiny/fate.
Premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is incorrect in its assumption that the universe began to exist. The universe as we know it, with planets, stars, gases and nebulae, may have started at some point, but we have no way of knowing the state of the universe before that point. It may have been in a state of energy equilibrium of some sort where literally nothing was happening. In that case, the universe would have existed but time didn't because nothing sequential was happening.
@matthias2986 No. Don't make a straw man argument. If something is reasonable to believe, I will believe in it. If something is unreasonable to believe, I will withhold belief unless it becomes reasonable. Here's the important part: What makes something reasonable is EVIDENCE.
@ultrakool And if you look at the Hebrew text referring to Mary, it says "alma" which simply means "young woman," not "parthenos," which meant "virgin." Also, I have heard that BS about "youths," and it doesn't make the text less vile. It's just another example to show why at the same time followers of other religions were trying to more deeply examine consciousness and their relation to the universe, Christians were more deeply examining their enemies' innards with swords.
@matthias2986 The flaw in my anology rests not in the idea that anyone can attain the higher plane, but in the fact that some (relatively few) people use their dissatisfaction with their monetary situation to motivate them to go out and actually become rich. However, there is no valid reason to think anyone "goes to heaven."
@bendlor The purpose of evidence is to convince those who are unconvinced/convinced of contrary position. That's like saying I have an argument, but unless you already agree with my conclusion you won't accept it. If someone doesn't agree with you, you build an argument based on premises you think your opponents agrees on already. If they don't, you have to provide evidence to back up the premise. Evidence that requires preexisting belief in the claim it supports is not evidence at all.
@matthias2986 It's not that energy has no mass, it's that energy and mass are interchangable (which you can observe every time you curse at the gas pump). Being interested in new and engaging concepts in science is awesome. The thing to watch out for is being interested in new and engaging concepts that are pure fantasy, and wholly unsupported by science, and thinking they might be real.
@AmorBravo The reasoning is that it's reasonable to say "there is no God" when there is absolutely no reason to think there is one. It's similar to saying "there are no leprechauns" because, well, there's absolutely no reason to think that there they exist, and it isn't arrogant to assert that that is so. You can't know anything with absolutely certainty, but there's a point at which you can assert something even without direct evidence. Of course it's still "possible" that there's a God.
@Grimfaith87 An example is "Gargoyles don't exist". You can't provide proof for this negative. If it required proof, then the claim would be invalid because there is no proof, even though there is no evidence for the existence of gargoyles. This isn't a practical way for the world to work. The fact that there is no evidence for gargoyles should be more than enough reason for this claim to be valid. Same thing applies to every other mythological concept, gods included.
"Do you think all those who do not think as you do are heretics and should be punished?" No. I think that by it's definition heretics are those who do not hold to the orthodox view of a particular faith. I do not think heretics should be treated any different to anyone else who has a view that differs from those of the satus quo.
@Negativepositiv btw, it should be pointed out that even after his death, elisha continued to kick ass. 2 kings 13:20-21 tells us that when a dead body was thrown into his tomb and touched elisha's bones, it sprang back to life. cont'd
@Codester145 Just because there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty does not mean they are innocent. It only means they cannot be proven guilty given the evidence. They could still be guilty, just not proven guilty. It does not mean they were proven innocent. No one is proven guilty by lack of evidence to prove them innocent.
BastEternal, what would you say to people who've had near death experiences? Most of them talk about a being of light, exuding complete love and acceptance. So far, the evidence says that you're wrong. Ignorance and arrogance are a bad combination.
@Negativepositiv but yeah, you're right in that the bear mauling may have been excessive. don't ever think that god allowed him to get away with it either. even though he was a prophet, the bible states that before he died, he was afflicted with "sicknesses" (for his anger issues?)
Why?? Why do some people hold on to such religious beliefs that are so obviously not real? I think, knowing what my christian parents used to tech me, that is is about fear. People want to know that when their mother and father died, they went someplace really really nice...like...heaven?? I'd like to believe that too, but I also have a brain that tells me that is nonsense. I was "non existent" for billions of years before I was born and it did not bother me at all. When I die, I will return to that state of non existence. Why would that bother me now? How do I expect to "live forever" somewhere fictitious and a lie? If I could choose... ??? Sure. I'd love to hold my mother in my arms gain. I'd love to see my dead father again. It is just not a truth I can believe in.
@saburius Not entirely. It was somebodys argument to me that got me to think more and in return I left religion. They pointed out how my views didn't make sense and I studied them actually expecting to get answers and prove them wrong. Then a lightbulb went off and I saw the answers weren't definitive. I studied even more and there went my religion. Needless to say I'm glad this person argued with me.
@Negativepositiv the most probable explanation is that matthew (a jewish tax collector) gives the line of joseph, the legal line, and that luke (the gentile physician) gives the line of mary, the mother of jesus. it was luke's custom to cite lineage through the mother's side and by mariage joseph would be heli's son (-in-law)
@bendlor (cont) Furthermore, we don't have the originals to check. That means that we can never be sure which translation or version is the most accurate (or, least inaccurate). There are literally thousands of discrepancies in the different versions. And you think that this is reliable and that it is logical to make conclusions based on this???
@thisisnotanick "What is strong atheism? And what is weak atheism?" _ Two terms made up by people to defend themselves against prejudice of what atheism is. Many people believe that atheists assertively believe there are no gods, or hold a belief that no gods exist. And because it's difficult to sway prejudiced people, some atheists started referring themselves to 'weak' atheists as if it meant they lacked belief in gods and 'strong' atheists means they believe gods do not exist.
@ultrakool BIG difference. If we just believed what a scientist had to say about evolution (or any other subject) that would be more like religious observance. The fact of the matter is, anyone can go out and do the research themselves and find (as many have) evidence where they expect to find it, validating the claims. For instance, the guy who discovered Tiktaalik found nearly the animal he was looking for where it would make sense for it to be.
@spireman50 Mathematicians generally accept that any odds greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th have a zero probability of ever happening. It has been calculated that the probability of amino acids forming, by chance, even the smallest and simplest protein, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal environment and allowing 100 billion years (10 times the estimated age of the earth) is 1 in 10 to the 67th against.
@XeliosX "incidentally, the belief in an unidentifiable higher power that still exists is agnosticism" No it is not. Agnosticism is saying that the existence of a deity is unknowable. It doesnt say ANYTHING about what you actually believe to be the truth. You can be agnostic and still believe or not believe that a god exists, its besides the point.
@iamgoddard it would be, thats why all newborns are not atheists and i am not saying they are. it is only possible to be an atheist when someone has been EXPOSED TO THEISM. only then can the individual state their position on theism, which is what atheism is. it is a position on a claim. im not explaining this again.
@ultrakool Yeah, because 42 little children being mauled by bears for making fun of someone's appearance is an example of "kicking ass," not being brutal, barbaric and deeply immoral. Right?
@thisisnotanick The caller was taking positive atheism and attributing it to all atheists. If one simply explained to him the difference between weak and strong atheism, it could have been avoided. However there are some atheists who positively claim atheists don't exist, ignoring this fact probably confused him.
In this case, as in all court cases, guilty means the claim is true (which, I will admit, made me laugh my arse off at your protestations against the accusation of guilt which was never made to begin with) while innocent means that the claim is false and not guilty means that there is insufficient data to assume truth.
@indignant99 If you get upset of such a trivial matter, debating is not your calling. Same thing goes for these guys. A debater is supposed to be informing, not only with his arguments, but with the facts and evidence that supports it. Edjucating people that do not agrees with you is the essence of debating. And I know I can not spell very well, and I'm not trying to hide it. But I do also know that I am quite decent in within the skills that actually matter. Oh and humblness and irrated exists.
id of extended the fairy analogy, bigfoot, alien abductions, the jury one is spot on but people dont understand it until you put it on their own fairy tale terms
@pschierhorn What's worse is when Matt (or whoever) asks the usual questions, "What do you believe, and why?" the person always has a quick and certain (though unsupported) answer for the first, and an absurdly dumb answer (or no real answer) for the second, as though they didn't see it coming.
@djdnauk1977 bad source. its as simple as that. the etymology of the word and the widely accepted definition is that the physical matter of the universe is a manifestation of god, and that it has "godlike" qualities. a-theism is a rejection of such claims, therefore pantheism and atheism are opposite extremes.
Now Enayze is trying to use the loaded argument as "Everything in this universe has a design". This is a circular argument because it starts off with the underlying presumption that signs of order or consistency is the same as conscious "design" and thus a "designer"...which is what is trying to be proved in the first place!
The whole world and universe has a design that is more complex than any computer or invention that man has made or will make. With this being said it is safe to say that everything came into existence by a big explosion and by nothing everything was created randomly and by chance. Makes perfect sense
@matthias2986 No. You are making an equivocation (a fallacy) between the colloquial "theory" which means "conjecture" and a "scientific theory" which is a system of facts which is demonstrably true and can be used to make future predictions of further discovery. There was never "evidence" that the earth was flat. The "accepted" notion that the earth was flat was always incorrect. I see this as part of the argument against the Bible, which adheres to this flat earth model.
On a side note, I hope everyone noticed that the guy flip flopped on burden of proof in regards to the Loch Ness Monster. First he says he would not believe the claim without evidence. Then he says he would believe the claim until it was disproven. Wow - what dishonesty to try to save his position on Kalam.
@bendlor No, it is not evidence. It is a claim. The story in the Bible CLAIMS that 500 people saw it. There is not a single testimonial from any of them, not one eye-witness account. All that you have is a story in a book that says that there were 500 people who saw it. And this is a book that has been edited, translated and changed innumerable times. There are parts that are not in the oldest manuscripts (for example John 7:53-8:11). (cont)
This caller is exactly why arguing with theists don't get you far. I would really fear having a theist on my jury, as evidence is secondary to their intuitions and feelings. I suspect that when this caller got off the phone, he thought that everything Matt said was gibberish, and that the caller won the debate.
So true
So false
It's so hard to argue with theist. My wife's mom is a great person but she's an absolute fanatic. All she can do is quote the bible to refute our beliefs, and doesn't understand that the Bible means nothing to us. She just can't comprehend the idea of someone not believing the bible.
Good luck, buddy! She's going to do her best to drill that mess in your heads. I have friends that endlessly attempt to convert me. I'm too much of a critical thinker. lol
I personally don't believe fanatics are good persons no matter how well intended they are. Irrationality is poison and should be considered a threat to mankind. Wich i truly believe they are, dogmatism makes people do hideous things thinking they are correct and they spread the ignorance like a virus so more people can turn "logic proof".
Iconoclast
Irrationality is the belief that the universe was somehow able to create itself from nothing.
So when you are pointing your finger at someone there are 3 pointing back at you.
+
Andrew Douglas
Yes. And they're all middle fingers, whackjob.
Daathaan
Lol. You have 3 middle fingers? Most people only have 1. Have you a genetic issue?
Guilty/not guilty analogy is gold.
+Andrew Tessler the guilty and not guilty analogy is actually VERY VERY confusing. i like matt's other analogy which he said
'imagine a jar fill with gum balls, its either has even or odd number of gum balls in it. you try to claim its even, and ask me do i believe its even, i said 'NO'. that doesnt mean i believe there is odd number of gum balls in it. i just reject your claim of even number because you arent able to provide any evidence show its even.'
Agreed, I think the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" helps to muddle it a bit as many don't seem to separate innocent from not guilty. As far as the gumball analogy, I've heard something similar with fish in the ocean. Rejecting a claim of "odd" is not an assertion of "even". For some reason many people seem to have a lot of problems figuring out that not accepting a claim is not an assertion of the opposite.
@@matthewharrison7127 Yeah, there's not only yes and no, but also I don't know.
A completely confused man called this time. Thanks for the comedy! LOL
To be fair it is a hard concept for some people to understand. Most people are not educated in the concept of there being three positions on a yes or no question, the affirmative, the negative and neither.
Wow, this is one of the most brilliant episodes I've seen so far!
I do think it's natural for people to misunderstand the distinction between "X is true", "I'm not convinced that X is true", and "X is false". Most/many people don't understand this level of logic and reason. You can see in this call, the caller just literally doesn't understand how those can be different.
My cat is a reincarnation of Attila the Hun and sings Beatles songs. Theist: Hogwash! There is an omnipotent being in the sky who governs all our lives. Theist: Oh, OK.
One thing apologists have taught me is that people can sound smart without actually being smart.
This caller exemplifies exactly why it is important to have at least an inkling of your own limitations before going into a debate.
'God of the Old Testament has been proven to exist due to arguments from philosophers' ... wow. His standards for belief are very low.
I vastly prefer these types of calls to the ranting and screaming ones, they're disagreeing heavily but it is a calm conversation.
I love how it always comes down to changing definitions
it's very easy with everything except god. for whatever reason, with god, all brain cells freeze.
Good job to these guys. Talking calls like this every day would have me slamming my head into a wall.
6:33 Matt is about to cook this poor soul like the mormon's god would have
"Define evidence"
Matt Dilahunty > " WOW "
These type of calls always annoy me. I just find it really hard to understand why people such as this caller, have such a hard time comprehending the issue of making a positive assertion and the rejection of said assertion. More specifically why they think atheists have the burden of proof. Because when you give an example such as Matt did when he said he doesn't believe in fairies however he's not the one who needs to provide proof of no fairies. This seems as easy to understand as anything can be. Hell even the theists may agree with this analogy and yet in the same conversation they will still not understand it when a God is applied to this scenario. I find this type of cognitive dissonance simply baffling.
Its because we let stupid people breed (which theoretically religion was designed specifically to accelerate the breeding of a laborer population with intents that they are easier to control because of their faith in authority) they’re probably actually just not even comprehending what is being said.
One of the best videos of the Atheist Experience.
Really sums it up.
Ten bucks says this guy had just spent a few minutes on some apologetics site or video. This was painful.
The "sharp end of Occam's razor " I love that.😂
She has such an interesting voice; unique voice
Occam is my favourite scholastic philosopher. As well as the famous razor, he also had a definition of existence: a thing can exist "in re" (as an actual thing), "in intellectu" (as an idea) and "in nomine" (as a mere name). I think where he was going with this was that Baal (say) exists only "in nomine" (we know nothing about him except his name); the biblical god exists "in intellectu" (as an idea and a social reality), but the Razor rules out his existence "in re". A closet 14th-c atheist.
Here we go....
If I had a penny for every time someone said to me your atheist world view. I'd probably be able to buy a car.
Theists, if you don't have the definitions down, then you shouldn't engage in an argument. Religious people claim to know that God exists, while all atheism is a disbelief in God claims. Antitheism, though, is a claim made that no gods exists.
@rdrakken
"That is an ignorant response. there very little evidence in string theory..."
_
[citation required]
Scientific Journal:____________
Date of publication:____________
Article name:_____________
Author:_______________
@WhelandNorm The "innocent" vs "not guilty" thing is hard for a lot of believers, who might equate "know" and "believe." A person, in actuality, is guilty or innocent of a crime - fact. However, there is no way anyone not present at the scene of the crime can "know" whether the person is guilty or innocent (and even then, there's the problem of perception). Someone who equates "know" and "believe" is likely to equate "not guilty" and "innocent."
I was listening to this via podcast and I felt like jumping in front of the train because this dude just didn't get it.
@Codester145 I think the misunderstanding springs from the saying "innocent until proven guilty." It kind of sets up a false dichotomy that is easy to fall into.
@matthias2986 "idk...." First honest thing you have said.
Tracie Harris put it perfectly in another episode.
"A creationist looks at an acorn turning into a tree, that makes acorns, which grow into trees, and wants me to believe that CAN'T HAPPEN. That's impossible."
But we know it's possible because it IS happening. The universe, likewise, IS possible, which we know, because we're in it thinking about it.
@chinh101 a claim is a proposition that is not yet backed up by evidence, but could possibly be in the future.
an assertion is the acceptance of a proposition or a premise before it has been properly backed up by evidence. assertions are much worse than claims in terms of logic and rhetoric.
@djdnauk1977 pantheism is very difficult to define as many scientists claim to be pantheists even though they are atheists, but the general view of pantheists is that the universe is god like, and the etymology supports this view, but i know what you mean and agree.
Anti-theism is not an assertion of innocence, as Matt says here. There's nothing about anti-theism that precludes one from being an agnostic atheist.
+Iluvquadbike Well, except that anti-theism has two definitions. One is the opposition to religion the other is the same as strong atheism.
Is it? Well, I certainly agree with your last part. Being an antitheist is only a statement of belief, and therefore you can clearly be an agnostic and believe it. Clearly. And I also understand all antitheists to be atheists. Just like all people who assert innocence are in the not guilty camp. They are. If they are to vote either guilty or not innocent, then they - who assert innocence - will vote not guilty. So there I agree. But I still understand that to be perfectly analogous to innocence.
And on a possible second definition that means "opposition to religion", I am not sure I think taht would work. After all, I can't count anymore how many christians have told me that what they do is a relationship and not (!) a religion, and they make it extremely clear that they are deeply opposed to religion. I am not sure I would call such christians antitheists.
:)
Jillum89 _"I am not sure I would call such christians antitheists."_
True. I'm not sure I believe them that they're actually against religion, though. They're twisting words to avoid baggage they don't want. That kind of dishonesty isn't rare.
(apologies if I sound ranty or angry, brevity is not something I do well)
Basic message: there are several definitions of atheist & atheism, the accurate ones mention disbelief, the inaccurate ones mention belief in nonexistence, a small difference but one which greatly changes the meaning. The Oxford definition in this case is inaccurate.
If people don't want to be ridiculed for misunderstanding definitions, check more than one dictionary. Blind faith is always bad, even when it's Oxford.
Why is this so hard? The default position for any claim is disbelief until sufficient evidence is presented. The amount of evidence required depends upon the claim. As Carl Sagen said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's really not that hard, I don't understand why some people find it so difficult to grasp.
@ultrakool Also, there is some significant difference between indentured servitude and slavery. An indentured servant's offspring don't become the property of his employer, for one, and an employer doesn't get away with murder if it takes the indentured servant longer than 3 days to die of his injuries after a beating, due to the fact that an indentured servant is not his employer's property.
When she said "atheism is not a world view", I yelled THANK YOU.
If you fail to understand my objection to the long odds argument, you are failing to take into account a few things:
1 How many universes are there that turned out differently? 2 Since we're here, of course we are biased think that was due to some "perfection," 3 Even if there is a designer, it's dumb to claim to know anything about it including its existence 4 If the odds of an accidental universe like ours are poor, the odds of god are poorer since he must be more complex than the universe
It's too bad that many don't educate themselves on such important issues as faith and worldviews.
I mean, I'm no expert, but I do look for information which provides me with a base for what to think. And not just one side of an argument.
The grass always looks greener on the other side, but you never know how green it actually is until you've held a strain of grass from each side up beside each other and seen for yourself.
@jesperlett
Don't get me wrong, dictionaries are great, I rely on them heavily on certain days, but I rely on several because I know that they are only as good as the accuracy of their definitions.
Take their jury duty analogy, an atheist can hold the "not guilty" or "innocent" position and a theist can hold the "not guilty" or "guilty" position. The term atheist, like the term theist revolves solely around the question "do you believe?"
@4IDHero Kalam is an argument from ignorance. It, like any "first cause" argument is. "What caused the universe to start to exist?" The honest answer is "nobody knows, but we're trying to figure that out." Theists see a gap in our understanding and say, "Well, we'll just jam our God in that hole," with NO EVIDENCE to support this assertion other than the gap - which is a GAP, not a placeholder for a god, much less a specific god.
The theme song! Not heard it for ages, thanks for that :)
@sleepyriggles
"How are you being persecuted?"
_
Being told I am not allowed to do something without showing justification.
i.e. NOT persecution: keeping a small child from riding a roller coaster: justification: safety
Persecution: Keeping a small child from playing on a playground because he lacks belief that Santa is real. Justification: None.
@Negativepositiv it's unknown whether elisha had this power in life, as well as death, but we like to think he did and that he had the habit of killing his victims with bears, resurrecting them, and then promptly re-summoning the bears to kill them, again. he'd just repeat the whole thing over and over until he got bored
I imagine the caller making the face of the minion in Despicable Me saying "Whaaaaat?" at 2:16 when Matt answered his question and he went silent.
:)
@athywren
to your question: Agnostic atheist?
I think the description under agnostic contains two meanings of the word divided by the semicolon.
The dictionary's meaning of 'atheist' is actually my main point. The two hosts ridicule the caller for thinking that atheism means believing that there is no god. That is actually what the dictionary says too and what I've always thought also. That why I think they aren't being entirely fair. But I agree with them on all other points.
I love that the hosts of this show are finally getting sick of idiots. I can feel their anger.
Allah! Piss be upon him.
+Suzey Non Theist So Mohammed was a pedophile...and his boss was into golden showers? I don't think I'd wanna go to THEIR heaven. Even if they beg.
What's their hell like? Booze, nudity...and all the other stuff they hate? that'd be okay.
@djdnauk1977 My apologies, I misread the definition of pantheism. Einstein and Sagan definitely were pantheists, although Jefferson was not because he believed in a creator god. To answer your original question, I think it's great. Dawkins says that it's just "sexed-up atheism", but I love the spirituality and humility that comes from pantheism's awe of the universe.
best show in a while
"your over use of the comma makes me sick"
Oh boy, here we go with the grammar police red herring fallacy. We're talking about logic, not grammar.
@ultrakool Assertions need support. Demonstrate this "soul." Demonstrate that the "creator" "made us in his image." So the Creator has a tube that serves both as the eating/drinking and breathing passage, thus ensuring occasional choking? The creator (who is described as male) has a prostate that swells over time and constricts the urethra? Is he as unintelligently designed as we are?
@rdrakken The person claiming knowledge, rather than admitting he doesn't know, is using an argument from ignorance. If someone asks you a question, and you don't know the answer, the most correct answer you can give is, "I don't know." From "I don't know," you can move forward. From, "A being which I will tell you all about in great detail did it," when the person ACTUALLY DOESN'T KNOW is dishonest, and doesn't allow for actual research.
@JJGMTS He has explained many times that he is a positive atheist, not just an atheist. He asserts God does not exist, but it's not required for atheism.
@sfyr I know all this.But the doubt remains the same: If the thing which lead me to believe in a god in the first place isn't correct, why even suggest a god in the first place?
As for the cosmological argument, it's as simple as to ask what's the source of the creator. Where did god itself come from? How does this make sense?
Ever seen "A Universe from Nothing" here on UA-cam?
The "zero-energy universe "hypothesis is much more apt to describe our origin and it's observable.
The guilty vs. not guilty analogy holds up pretty well but I had a philosophy professor who likened most of the pro-gods-existence augments to the Scottish criminal verdict of not proven and I think that that actually captures the essence of the debate more precisely.
@rdrakken
"Topic = God"
_
Topic 1:God exists: believe or lack belief
Topic 2:Gods do not exist: believe or not believe
"lack of evidence does not = false"
_
Lack of evidence doesn't make it false, you're correct. But, at the same time it DOES make it an invalid option.
@BalthazzarCH yeah, because then anyone can be a pantheist and can be everything else aswell (except someone that hates the universe and dislikes the laws its bound by)
so i knew it didnt make any sense from the start.
i dont understand how u can believe in fate and not believe in god. to clarify, i reject the idea of a god and the idea of destiny/fate.
Premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is incorrect in its assumption that the universe began to exist. The universe as we know it, with planets, stars, gases and nebulae, may have started at some point, but we have no way of knowing the state of the universe before that point. It may have been in a state of energy equilibrium of some sort where literally nothing was happening. In that case, the universe would have existed but time didn't because nothing sequential was happening.
@matthias2986 No. Don't make a straw man argument.
If something is reasonable to believe, I will believe in it. If something is unreasonable to believe, I will withhold belief unless it becomes reasonable.
Here's the important part: What makes something reasonable is EVIDENCE.
@ultrakool And if you look at the Hebrew text referring to Mary, it says "alma" which simply means "young woman," not "parthenos," which meant "virgin."
Also, I have heard that BS about "youths," and it doesn't make the text less vile. It's just another example to show why at the same time followers of other religions were trying to more deeply examine consciousness and their relation to the universe, Christians were more deeply examining their enemies' innards with swords.
@matthias2986 The flaw in my anology rests not in the idea that anyone can attain the higher plane, but in the fact that some (relatively few) people use their dissatisfaction with their monetary situation to motivate them to go out and actually become rich.
However, there is no valid reason to think anyone "goes to heaven."
@bendlor The purpose of evidence is to convince those who are unconvinced/convinced of contrary position.
That's like saying I have an argument, but unless you already agree with my conclusion you won't accept it.
If someone doesn't agree with you, you build an argument based on premises you think your opponents agrees on already. If they don't, you have to provide evidence to back up the premise.
Evidence that requires preexisting belief in the claim it supports is not evidence at all.
Matt really made things far more difficult/confusing (for this guy) than they needed to be here!
Nah, Matt knows that this caller isn’t listening anyway so it’s for others who are.
@matthias2986 It's not that energy has no mass, it's that energy and mass are interchangable (which you can observe every time you curse at the gas pump).
Being interested in new and engaging concepts in science is awesome. The thing to watch out for is being interested in new and engaging concepts that are pure fantasy, and wholly unsupported by science, and thinking they might be real.
Love the new intro, great job
@AmorBravo The reasoning is that it's reasonable to say "there is no God" when there is absolutely no reason to think there is one. It's similar to saying "there are no leprechauns" because, well, there's absolutely no reason to think that there they exist, and it isn't arrogant to assert that that is so.
You can't know anything with absolutely certainty, but there's a point at which you can assert something even without direct evidence. Of course it's still "possible" that there's a God.
@AmorBravo Not necessarily because some consider being a strong atheist means you're a outspoken atheist.
@BalthazzarCH so he is asking if we like the universe and the laws it is bound by? what relevance does this have?
@Grimfaith87 An example is "Gargoyles don't exist". You can't provide proof for this negative. If it required proof, then the claim would be invalid because there is no proof, even though there is no evidence for the existence of gargoyles. This isn't a practical way for the world to work. The fact that there is no evidence for gargoyles should be more than enough reason for this claim to be valid. Same thing applies to every other mythological concept, gods included.
"Do you think all those who do not think as you do are heretics and should be punished?"
No. I think that by it's definition heretics are those who do not hold to the orthodox view of a particular faith. I do not think heretics should be treated any different to anyone else who has a view that differs from those of the satus quo.
@Negativepositiv btw, it should be pointed out that even after his death, elisha continued to kick ass. 2 kings 13:20-21 tells us that when a dead body was thrown into his tomb and touched elisha's bones, it sprang back to life. cont'd
@Codester145 Just because there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty does not mean they are innocent. It only means they cannot be proven guilty given the evidence. They could still be guilty, just not proven guilty. It does not mean they were proven innocent. No one is proven guilty by lack of evidence to prove them innocent.
BastEternal, what would you say to people who've had near death experiences? Most of them talk about a being of light, exuding complete love and acceptance.
So far, the evidence says that you're wrong. Ignorance and arrogance are a bad combination.
@Negativepositiv but yeah, you're right in that the bear mauling may have been excessive. don't ever think that god allowed him to get away with it either. even though he was a prophet, the bible states that before he died, he was afflicted with "sicknesses" (for his anger issues?)
Why?? Why do some people hold on to such religious beliefs that are so obviously not real? I think, knowing what my christian parents used to tech me, that is is about fear. People want to know that when their mother and father died, they went someplace really really nice...like...heaven?? I'd like to believe that too, but I also have a brain that tells me that is nonsense. I was "non existent" for billions of years before I was born and it did not bother me at all. When I die, I will return to that state of non existence. Why would that bother me now? How do I expect to "live forever" somewhere fictitious and a lie? If I could choose... ??? Sure. I'd love to hold my mother in my arms gain. I'd love to see my dead father again. It is just not a truth I can believe in.
@saburius Not entirely. It was somebodys argument to me that got me to think more and in return I left religion. They pointed out how my views didn't make sense and I studied them actually expecting to get answers and prove them wrong. Then a lightbulb went off and I saw the answers weren't definitive. I studied even more and there went my religion. Needless to say I'm glad this person argued with me.
@Negativepositiv the most probable explanation is that matthew (a jewish tax collector) gives the line of joseph, the legal line, and that luke (the gentile physician) gives the line of mary, the mother of jesus. it was luke's custom to cite lineage through the mother's side and by mariage joseph would be heli's son (-in-law)
@bendlor (cont)
Furthermore, we don't have the originals to check. That means that we can never be sure which translation or version is the most accurate (or, least inaccurate). There are literally thousands of discrepancies in the different versions.
And you think that this is reliable and that it is logical to make conclusions based on this???
@thisisnotanick
"What is strong atheism? And what is weak atheism?"
_
Two terms made up by people to defend themselves against prejudice of what atheism is.
Many people believe that atheists assertively believe there are no gods, or hold a belief that no gods exist. And because it's difficult to sway prejudiced people, some atheists started referring themselves to 'weak' atheists as if it meant they lacked belief in gods and 'strong' atheists means they believe gods do not exist.
@ultrakool BIG difference. If we just believed what a scientist had to say about evolution (or any other subject) that would be more like religious observance. The fact of the matter is, anyone can go out and do the research themselves and find (as many have) evidence where they expect to find it, validating the claims. For instance, the guy who discovered Tiktaalik found nearly the animal he was looking for where it would make sense for it to be.
@spireman50 Mathematicians generally accept that any odds greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th have a zero probability of ever happening.
It has been calculated that the probability of amino acids forming, by chance, even the smallest and simplest protein, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal environment and allowing 100 billion years (10 times the estimated age of the earth) is 1 in 10 to the 67th against.
@XeliosX
"incidentally, the belief in an unidentifiable higher power that still exists is agnosticism"
No it is not.
Agnosticism is saying that the existence of a deity is unknowable.
It doesnt say ANYTHING about what you actually believe to be the truth.
You can be agnostic and still believe or not believe that a god exists, its besides the point.
@iamgoddard it would be, thats why all newborns are not atheists and i am not saying they are.
it is only possible to be an atheist when someone has been EXPOSED TO THEISM. only then can the individual state their position on theism, which is what atheism is. it is a position on a claim.
im not explaining this again.
@ultrakool Yeah, because 42 little children being mauled by bears for making fun of someone's appearance is an example of "kicking ass," not being brutal, barbaric and deeply immoral. Right?
@thisisnotanick The caller was taking positive atheism and attributing it to all atheists. If one simply explained to him the difference between weak and strong atheism, it could have been avoided. However there are some atheists who positively claim atheists don't exist, ignoring this fact probably confused him.
In this case, as in all court cases, guilty means the claim is true (which, I will admit, made me laugh my arse off at your protestations against the accusation of guilt which was never made to begin with) while innocent means that the claim is false and not guilty means that there is insufficient data to assume truth.
@indignant99 If you get upset of such a trivial matter, debating is not your calling. Same thing goes for these guys. A debater is supposed to be informing, not only with his arguments, but with the facts and evidence that supports it. Edjucating people that do not agrees with you is the essence of debating. And I know I can not spell very well, and I'm not trying to hide it. But I do also know that I am quite decent in within the skills that actually matter. Oh and humblness and irrated exists.
id of extended the fairy analogy, bigfoot, alien abductions, the jury one is spot on but people dont understand it until you put it on their own fairy tale terms
@pschierhorn What's worse is when Matt (or whoever) asks the usual questions, "What do you believe, and why?" the person always has a quick and certain (though unsupported) answer for the first, and an absurdly dumb answer (or no real answer) for the second, as though they didn't see it coming.
@djdnauk1977 bad source. its as simple as that.
the etymology of the word and the widely accepted definition is that the physical matter of the universe is a manifestation of god, and that it has "godlike" qualities.
a-theism is a rejection of such claims, therefore pantheism and atheism are opposite extremes.
@iDeist That is incorrect. As far as we know there was an expansion of matter and space time. As for 'coming into being', no one knows about that.
I this channel...another glorious video.
You can feel the pain matt is going through - his brain says "what a ..."
This is going to be another classic, funny as hell and awesome...
5*
How about you prove whether a higher being does not exist.
Now Enayze is trying to use the loaded argument as "Everything in this universe has a design". This is a circular argument because it starts off with the underlying presumption that signs of order or consistency is the same as conscious "design" and thus a "designer"...which is what is trying to be proved in the first place!
The whole world and universe has a design that is more complex than any computer or invention that man has made or will make. With this being said it is safe to say that everything came into existence by a big explosion and by nothing everything was created randomly and by chance. Makes perfect sense
@matthias2986 No. You are making an equivocation (a fallacy) between the colloquial "theory" which means "conjecture" and a "scientific theory" which is a system of facts which is demonstrably true and can be used to make future predictions of further discovery.
There was never "evidence" that the earth was flat. The "accepted" notion that the earth was flat was always incorrect. I see this as part of the argument against the Bible, which adheres to this flat earth model.
On a side note, I hope everyone noticed that the guy flip flopped on burden of proof in regards to the Loch Ness Monster.
First he says he would not believe the claim without evidence.
Then he says he would believe the claim until it was disproven.
Wow - what dishonesty to try to save his position on Kalam.
@bendlor No, it is not evidence. It is a claim. The story in the Bible CLAIMS that 500 people saw it. There is not a single testimonial from any of them, not one eye-witness account. All that you have is a story in a book that says that there were 500 people who saw it.
And this is a book that has been edited, translated and changed innumerable times. There are parts that are not in the oldest manuscripts (for example John 7:53-8:11).
(cont)