Atheist Debates - Debate Review: Do we have good reason...?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
I talk about the events leading up to this debate, how I planned to address the topics in a public high school...and a few of the more ridiculous arguments from my opponent.
Original debate is posted here: • Atheist Debates - Deba...
"you cant get life from non life"
"bang sticks and rocks together and get lifr"
hate to be that guy, but sticks IS life
hannahalice1000 dude, I was thinking that the whole time! My brain hurts at the bad logic and GCE of apologetics. I used to be a biblical literalist until I threw off my mind forged shackles, so maybe it hurts because it reminds me of my past mental internment
Yes, that was exceptionally painful to hear. It's as though he was so enamored with himself for coming up with his pithy little quip that it never dawned on him that sticks come from living things. Of course he doesn't have a clue about evolutionary science at all so this is unfortunately par for the course.
I think it would help if someone clarified the difference between organic and inorganic matter. I keep seeing theists abuse the topic of abiogenesis by saying, "life can't come from rocks." That's never been a scientific proposal... Life comes from organic matter, meaning it has carbon and hydrogen involved. If those two elements are present, then one gets the myriad of chemical reactions necessary for life. The theistic argument always neglects this point, sometimes intentionally, and it always irks me.
A lot of times, I think, these guys are just trying to irk people. They are saying it to get a reaction, I mean, Reid Johnson's whole argument was merely emotional manipulation. Tug at their heartstrings, make your opponent look like a jackass. That's, kind of, what we call "debate" in the mainstream.
hannahalice1000 lmfao that was awesome. Great point.
Thank you Matt for devoting so much of your life to really diving into the framework of religion and showing me alot of relevant questions that NEED to be posed in terms of attempting to understand the topic. I don't know how you keep it together on TAE sometimes. I've watched hours of it on UA-cam and I generally feel myself losing brain cells sometimes. But nonetheless, thank you for having the patience I'm still lacking and tackling the issue head on day in and day out.
After having listened to that preacher, my IQ decreased. But after hearing Matt, it’s net rise makes it better.
What I was most annoyed by (in regard to the evolution part of the debate) was that he began by stating that he doesn't know where he stands on that argument. He went on to make it quite clear he doesn't believe in Evolution, so why start with stating he's not sure? That was pretty jarring for me.
It struck me as simply dishonest. He was trying not to offend the sensibilities of audience members who have an understanding of evolution by dismissing it outright.
What bothered me is how many times his answer to things Matt brought up were the adult equivilant of nuh uh. I don't remember specifics, but there were a number of times where he would say "that's not true." And then he just moves on without providing any evidence to the contrary.
Bob Cabbit It’s common theme for theists to be childish in one sense or another. It’s like there’s one childish idea they just can’t let go of. This is the true horror of religion: it turns otherwise intelligent adults into gibbering fools.
Yeah- if you’re “on the fence” of an argument- it means you don’t fucking believe it mate!
I was so disappointed when you got cut short by your opponent and moderator after saying 'did god create the universe' where you start the logical line of reasoning that demonstrates god sends people to hell.
I was interested to see what backwards argument he had against it.
Also I honestly hate the formal debate setup. Informal, back-and-forth discussion is much more productive and interesting in my opinion.
yea. I also wish matt could have had time to press him harder on the concepts of he'll, judgment, substitutional atonement, or when he asked if he locked his kids in a room and tortured them if they didn't "choose to love him"(I was literally thinking of the exact same question when the guy started talking about how much greater it is for his kids to freely choose to love him. I was also thinking to myself, "yes, but if you wanted your children to love you, wouldn't you make sure they know you are real? or would you demand faith based solely on extremely flawed and unreliable texts, especially when the cost of not "loving you" means the will be horrifically tortured and burned alive for all eternity?)
I tend to use the complete immorality of hell, the Christian system of judgement(where everyone is automatically guilty simply for being born into a fallen world), substitutional atonement(god requiring the blood sacrifice of an innocent human to allow himself to to forgive people), salvation by faith(essentially boiling down to god only saving people who happen to be born to Christian parents, or into Christian societies), infinite and eternal torture for finite "crimes", the fact that according to god/the bible it is literally impossible for a person NOT to sin, etc.
to me it is just such a clearly horrific and immoral concept that it blows my mind how more Christians don't struggle with it. I suppose they probably just don't think about, or do mental gymnastics to avoid thinking about each concept and the effects of those concepts at one(i.e. going back and forth between thinking, "well god is merciful, but he's also just", and thinking that people "choose" to go to hell/rebel against god, and that god doesn't want to send anyone there, and that god will reveal himself to anyone if they just ask(despite the fact that he clearly doesn't), etc.)
logical lines of reasoning can't demonstrate anything i don't understand your comment.
Unless it’s Kent Hovind, well sometimes I guess
*ArE pInEtReEs ReLaTeD tO eLePhAnTs*
Hello Matt.. I have just watched the debate, after having listened to your "Debate Review". I think you were too hard on yourself. I think you debated well. Your responses were appropriate and reasonable. I agree that the debater was preaching, at times, which was irritating to me. I say, well done. Regards from South Africa.
I honestly thought that Reid was just a troll trying to use the worst arguments. It was... very difficult to listen to him.
You killed it. Reid was floundering. Dude said many nonsensical things.
Rolando Carol Dunning-Krueger though lol. He likely left thinking “Nailed it!” Stopped and bought himself a victory cheeseburger on the way home and then plowed his wife (missionary position of course) in celebration.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but they will never make me. I laughed out loud so hard when that guy said that banging sticks and stones together don't get you an animal. No shit.
How have I not been subscribed to this channel?
Tyrone Wells Welcome to the party!
Please clone Matt Dillahunty for future generations. Someone start a kickstarter project.
These reviews are gold. This really helps me in my debates to avoid bullshit and stay on topic.
Throughout Reid's brain-failure extravaganza of a presentation was woven an inability to understand that a multitude of coincidences doesn't stop being a multitude of coincidences. Especially near the end, where he sounded _desperate_ to have people agree with him that "No no but really if all the coincidences start happening at once that _MEANS_ something... right? Right? Please?"
It sounded like that was done in a classroom with a teacher who wanted to improve critical thinking skills and analysis. I seriously hope after Reid left the room he said a suitably paraphrased "Holy fuck that was goddamn awful tell me you kids got how bad that was right?"
Matt even explained that just because you have a bunch of coincidences doesn't mean there's something underlying those coincidences, and Reid's response was, predictably, to ignore sense and double down on stupid.
I seriously hope that adult in the room took the students aside after Reid was gone to explain all the steps he failed at. I suspect that wouldn't have taken more than five minutes because Reid really only had two arguments: an inability to comprehend probability and coincidence, and the idiotic belief that since people allegedly tell him stories of alleged magical things allegedly happening to him, then _grandma must be right!_ even though she can't even recognize half her family and had to be put in a home because she kept putting the cat in the microwave.
That's really all Reid had going for his case: anecdotes and desperation.
Someone in the actual "debate"'s comments jokingly said that Reid won because he presented reasons to believe in God. Exceptionally terrible ones, but reasons nonetheless. No-one should walk away from that debate thinking that's true. Reid didn't even have *bad* reasons, he was pleading for his case to be accepted on faith, _quite literally,_ and even trying to attract those students individually so he could brainwash them away from anyone smart enough to see through his bullshit. "I call these five things coincidences and I call five coincidences happening coincidentally together... *_ish..._* a reason to believe in God" is wrong. That's not a reason to believe in God. Reid didn't present anything. He talked a bunch, pleaded, cajoled, tried to impress with stories from strangers and unverifiable personal experiences, and that was it. Not a reason in sight.
I hope Reid reads this, because there's one message he desperately needs to get through his thick, empty skull: you think a bunch of coincidental things happening at the same time are evidence for you God, even though you yourself admitted those coincidental things have been happening for literally thousands of years anyway? Great, you're right. It's evidence Loki is trying to trick you into believing in Yahweh. You disagree? Explain why. When you successfully explain why you don't believe that claim, you'll understand why you did a miserable goddamn pathetic job in front of those kids and why you should be ashamed of yourself.
I wonder how many of those kids have watched or are going to watch this video? Are they watching now?
I think it's odd that the teacher of a debating class would bring in one "heavy hitter" very experienced debater, and one guy that hardly knows what a debate actually is.
I would also want to hear you talk about the ridiculous idea that atheists send themselves to hell, that we choose hell.
Evidence We all chose this universe. We chose the rules. We chose to be born and live with these rules. We chose to not believe or worship this specific deity. So therefore we are choosing hell. Praise god! Hallelujah! Lol.. pretty straight forward imo
do not worry . there is no hell as there is no god .
I'm fine with going to hell if i am judged as evil for doing the right thing because i have independently arrived at the conclusion that it is right rather than doing it because i was told to do it, to my mind a heaven full of theists would be like being stuck in an elevator with Matt Slick and Ken Hamm for all eternity.
Look up Rowan Atkinson's "Welcome to Hell" routine, priceless!
That line of BS was so absurd. Claiming that people "choose to pay for their sins" but could supposedly choose not to. What a messed up way to word what we all know is really outlined in Christianity. I would much rather spend "eternity" in hell with the original rebel (who is far less of a murderer than their god) than to claim to believe something that I cannot see even a remotely good reason to believe.
I swear Matt is becoming the 5th Horseman
The thing about the "sticks and stones rubbed together" struck me too. Mostly, I thought .... wtf ... sticks ARE life!!! sheesh
Wait, did you just say you went to Navy Nuclear Power School? I knew you were Navy, but not a Nuke!!! Awesome man, I got out in 2011. Seems like a lot of great thinkers were former Nukes.
It's shocking that a teacher would let a preacher into his class for a cheap rerun of the Scopes Trial and pick a topic that opens the door to science being questioned in front of the children. Did Matt get invited to stay on and listen to the children analyse the structure of the debate rather than the topic itself? Post-debate analysis was the payload, not whether a foetus can come back from the dead
"GCE" (about 18:00) = Wolfgang Pauli's "Not even wrong"
Love your video's BtW
I am actually really interested, though I doubt I will ever see. The students responses to the debate. Not necessarily who won. but their ideas, on the idea.
What Matt adresses at 10:31 is a rhetoric technique known since ancient times. I remember Socrates beginning the speech, which is attributed to him as the speech he delivered to defend himself in court before his death sentence was passed, with the same disclaimer about his own rhetoric abilities.
And sure enough, Reid turned out to be in fact much better versed in rhetoric than he wanted his audience to believe; i. e. in this case, just as weasly an apologetic as other, more prominent ones.
My favorite part of the debate was when the preacher was told that the building blocks of life have been created in a lab and all he could rebut with was, "Nuh-uh!"
Always good to see a fellow nuke using sound logic and reasoning. That guy definitely had some GCEs (even though I'm not an atheist you definitely had the better points.)
Matt, I felt for you during this debate. Your "opponent" was painful to listen to.
I watched the debate and think Matt did in fact take it easy on the guy...perhaps too easy.
One of the values of academic debate that I think would have value in these more “free form” debates would be 3-4 minutes of cross examination after the initial presentation of each speaker. That way, you could get better definition of terminology, show obvious logical fallacies, and be able to set up your arguments. Done well, it helps significantly.
great to hear Matt opting for the gods unproved, not believed in position to ensure a religious person has the burden of proof (not met by a long way so far).
Hey Matt,
I was watching a video from your TV show the other day and I heard the caller mention that Earth is a "Class Zero" society. At that point the caller confused the panel and wasn't able to elaborate further. I believe that caller was talking about the "Kardeshev Scale". Just an FYI
When he started with the Watchmaker argument I immediately just tuned it out...I just can't lol, I'm sorry :(
I just watched the debate as well as this assessment of it, even though it was from last October. Regarding the evolution question, there is one straw man argument that Reid made at least twice that Matt did not address and that I thought was even more egregious, if a bit more subtle - though not much more, than the "sticks and stones" straw man. Reid made the typical point that creationists make regarding what they see as a lack of evidence for transitional forms; he used the word "kinds", of course. I don't remember his exact words; but, he made the point in general and also specifically regarding dogs descending from wolves. He said there is no evidence that a wolf transitioned into a dog either directly or via its offspring, or something like that. He also made the ridiculous comment about the lack of some people in the class who more "harry" than the other classmates. The way in which he said it suggests he believes the theory of evolution implies that a mother can give birth to an offspring of a different species ("kind") than the mother. Of course, this is NOT what the theory says and I wish this had been corrected in addition to the more obvious "sticks and stones" problem.
I had an ingrown toenail, a abundance of dandelions and it was time to change my oil, but the icing on the cake was the threat of tornado this spring, which my cousin the preacher said was clearly maybe the sign of end times. Therefore I immediately converted to correct Christian denomination . Now I am ok, but still need an oil change.
the debate was rather perplexing. it's like reid didn't listen to matt at the beginning, where he clearly stated the cosmological argument, which in turn was obviously ignored when reid spat out "it started at the big bang... something started it, and that something has to be outside spacetime."... then again, i'm starting to think he didn't say "spacetime" because he lacks average knowledge on science and the agreed upon terminology for our discoveries and knowledge.
21:55 I feel like an important distinction is that one is lying (stick and rocks) and the other isn't. *That apologist does, sincerely, believe in:*
-fire breathing dragons
-talking donkeys
-giants
-chimeras
-angels
-demons
-spiritual possession
-necromancers
-wizards
And more if he makes the assertion that the bible is true. That is a *fact* , whereas "evolutionists believe you can rub sticks and stones together and get life" is a *lie.*
With regard to the sticks and stones things, my mind was drawn to the opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The chimps are sitting around playing with the sticks. I think they end up smashing a skull with the sticks and then one throws a stick up into the air. I was surprised at how really bad his arguments were.
first of all i gotta thank you for ALL that you do. you are a very hard worker for rationality and reality. thank you. also i wanted to thank you for not letting reaid get away with the lie of saying that theres no proof that chihuahuas did not come from wolves. you held your tongue thru two segments, and yet you came back imediately when you had the floor. thank you for doing that. because i was seething after i saw him do that. im so glad you came back and explained that it is in fact a flipping fact.,,, not to mention..... "blood is life" mwahahahaha
GCE kind of reminds me of MEIF from the Defense Information School (DINFOS) at Fort Meade, MD. I was a Marine Corps journalist and trained there for almost six months in total. MEIF stands for "Major Error In Fact" and was an automatic failure.
It reminded me of (wikipedia)/Not_even_wrong
Hey Matt! Could you please share which book did he suggest as 'Science pointing towards God'?
The case for a Creator? Do we lose points for facepalming during a debate? :3
While I was watching (cringing) the debate, I thought Matt could do with an "automated face palmer".
Maybe a cast of his head with an animatronic hand?
What book would you recommend on Christian apologetics that shows the most accurate world view of Christianity with the most challenging arguments?
I'm just feeling a little bit uncomfortable reading only atheist books and I would like to hear the other side of the spectrum, but I don't want to buy too many books on the subject.
There are several thousand denominations of christianity, some with wildly different theologies than others. There's no one "world view of christianity."
There aren't any really challenging arguments, in the sense that you mean. The only ones that cause people trouble are base appeals to emotion (Pascal's wager, etc) and mountains of word salad (Catholic apologetics), but that's because they're designed to baffle people or avoid reasoning. None of the arguments are very strong. If you twisted my arm, I'd say stuff by John Lennox might be less awful than the Ray Comfort garbage, but even Lennox makes stupid arguments.
I have read "Mere Christianity" and "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis, 'the Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, "More than Just a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell and several Catholic Books about miracles and saints... It's all just a big pile of crap.
I've read most of them. I've been forced to come to the conclusion all the most popular apologists in the United States are con artists, as I've caught them exchanging long debunked falsehoods and committing every logical fallacy in the book. It didn't help that when I finally got to Matt's website...
www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
*He listed literally every apologetic I had ever heard, and dozens more I had never encountered.*
To help filter things out and hopefully save you some years of wasted time that I went through, I suggest *immediately blacklisting any organization with a statement of faith.* They all boil down to "if evidence contradicts my preconceived conclusion, too bad, I'm going to ignore the evidence and keep my conclusion anyway!" which is a clear, open admission of no concern for truth or reality. The fact that apologist organizations can say that with a straight face tells me they're either cookoo for cocoa puffs or knowingly conning people for their money. Either way, not worth your time.
I love that the Preacher Reid invites to take Matt out for a “cheeseburger” after the debate, to which Matt INSTANTLY declined! LOL
After that “debate”Matt was like, “I’m good brah”. 😁
Don't remember ever getting GCE, but I certainly got BMS. A lot.
The only bearded man in the sky is the most interesting man in the world from the XX comercials flying in a airplane! (Stay thirsty my friends)
This happens quite regular when Matt hits home with a strong demonstrable and logical point sometimes in response,all he can do is go into preach mode and taking up loads of time in the process so frustrating.
16:30 - Minor correction Matt. It's not "Stinkface" but rather it's pronounced "Stankface".
oooh i forgot sumpin..... if this was just a debate, and there was not supposed to be any proselyting, he had no reason to have his holy book. it was supposed to be a debate on ideas... not scripture... that should have not been allowed.
Drinking game. Every time a theist commits a logical fallacy, take a drink.
Actually, never mind. I do not want to be responsible for anyone getting alcohol poisoning.
I wish 2 people could just get together with a digital camera and not worry about moderation and limits. the man with the points wins and the child with the nonsense loses
Matt clearly won the debate! It was so painful to hear how Reid was preaching instead of actually debating . Matt started slow and looked weak but then turned up to beast mode and completely distroyed Reid!
While laws regarding charter schools vary greatly state to state in my experience, as someone who was an educator, they generally operate like this. Charters are managed privately but take public tax money. In some cases they are used to circumvent pesky federal/state regulations and standards. Don't want to teach plate tectonics or evolution, but still want that public funding? Just make a charter school! Its the best of both worlds for your fringe conservative communities.
Yay! Another logical comprehension!
Fence could do with a splash of creosote Matty.
So Terry Jones should vomit on it?
I ll pray for the fence
vanSolo that’s not his fence, it’s his neighbors hence the cross beam being on Matt’s side.
The moderator was pretty fair
On Reid's straw man of evolution by natural selection: he could have just used one of the more profound, yet accurate, implications of the theory, rather than an absurd straw man. For example, why not hold up a vegetable and point out that you believe him and the vegetable are related, that somewhere their ancestral trees join. These are completely counter-intuitive ideas, but accurate to the theory nonetheless.
It would be just as insulting to the audience's intelligence, if not more so. Of course that's accurate to the theory, but "this seems absurd, therefore it is not true" is perhaps the most blatant and pathetic of the logical fallacies.
Matt Dillahunty vs. Ben Shapiro!!!
And then.... Matt Dillahunty vs........
JOOOOOOOHN CEEENAAAAAAA!!!
Oh, their god! Matt....How could you re-watch the debate is beyond me...I would never going to be able to hear that whole thing through. it make me question humanity every-time I hear someone like him say wrong things without even the most basic knowledge about science...
With the whole talk about fairness, _any debate with you is inherently unfair._ :P As far as I've been able to tell _watching dozens of debates and combing over my transitionary years_ *there is no such thing as a rational, educated christian.* Once they gain those traits and most critically _apply them to their religion_ , don't forget that part, _they stop being religious every time._
What category is Ray Cumfart?
A bearded man in the sky is a close representation. God is referred to as a he by every Christian I've ever talked to. He is generally depicted with a beard, but describing him as clean shaven does nothing to the probability. The fact that he is actually described as omnipresent seems less likely than if he were actually just in the sky. What's the problem with that description. It goes a long way to being an accurate description of God.
It always baffles me how hard for creationist is to conceptualize long-span of time. I always like thinking of the transition from tadpool to frog. It is a form of evolution with every transitional state. Now instead of being apllied to one individue that change a little bit every seconde at the time then imagine that little change being applied every new generation.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when you go have a burger with him,,, PLEASE RECORD IT.
Oh my Goddess you went to nuke school? Navy recruiter tried to give me a $40k bonus to do that shit. lol
God, this was a painful debate to watch
Does Matt Dillahunty made any books? I think he'll do great at giving us how to counter most typical theistic arguments.
He made some archives that he references on his show from time to time.
www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Apart from that just pick up any book listing logical fallacies and keep an eye out for examples of them around you.
Thanks fellow Homo Sapien! :)
Matt I'm not sure if u mentioned it ......but u should if u didn't .....after his evolution dismissal u should always mention that ......evolution is a fact no matter what deity is true or not and that is why the vast majority of Christians and other theists accept it and attribute it to their gods just how they attribute other facts of this universe
Reid was the worst, most amateur debate opponent Matt has ever engaged. Even worse than Sye. Reid was an absolute bafoon who hit almost every tired, debunked Christian argument and I was stunned he did so. I found myself getting angry and had to take a step back before watching the rest. Wow, what a complete example of how not to defend Christianity.
I can see your brain through your nose, man the camera is close. I saw the debate, this is too, intimate.
Only a half an our for the review? Poor Reid!...
Did ever get the cheeseburger from Reid?
The never land fallacy
I like the way it's "re-diculous" :) quite droll
Matt u should go on Joe Rogan experience
loving the GCE! 17:50
dogs came from wolves .....no way man lol
u got faith I got faith ......who's to say who is correct .....lol loved that part.....when he admits that faith is absolutely worthless
Did any student know of you before the debate?
louisng114 I want to know too!
In the beginning of the video he said that the teacher told him that theyd been watching his videos in class
Little Cripple no the teacher said he had seen some of his videos.
I think I made a similar face when I heard bang sticks and rocks together. That has to be the worst example of how you can't get life from non-life. Last time I checked sticks fall in the life category. I guess it's more of a you can't bang stuff together ang get life example lol.
It sounds like the contempt of someone who doesn't have a mechanical bone in their body (figuratively speaking), or an intellectual's contempt for the mere "rude mechanicals" who can actually picture levers and wheels and beams and gears in way that creates things in the world. Perhaps the logical outcome for someone who believes that the only "true" creativity comes from outside the natural world, and is done by uttering the right words.
NelC pretty much. I've never been able to grasp their big problem with how something could come from nothing, even though that's not what anyone is actually claiming. Well, unless you involve a god in the mix. Because he clearly creates something from nothing. What else can you call it when all you do is speak it and it is?
On your last comment. Obviously that is what faith is you have to believe in something before it will take place. But there have been things to take place in peoples lives and they had no interests in the supernatural and then they changed thier mind to believing in it. If you want to debate the supernatural in the non believing groups go right ahead but dont bring it to our enviroment we know what is real. If you dont want to believe it that is your choice. Just dont bring your nonsense to us. We have experienced it, and so have millions of others if not billions.
Can you be more specific as to what you are talking about? Are you a Christian?
I'll start believing in a God again when all religion is PROVED to be false, and is no more.
Damien Thorn what?
Isaac Delgass I know that sounds ridiculous. I was Christian once. All religion will never disappear: it's about the same chance of finding scientific proof of God. What I'm really saying is I don't see my position of agnostic atheism changing.
Damien Thorn thats not what I was confused by. My confusion was that you said you would start believing in god when all religion is proved to be false. Why would you believe something proven to be false?
Isaac Delgass not to the perspective of knowing religion is manmade, but to everyone, including and specifically all religious people. I suppose you can never eradicate belief, not that I would try to; but if all religious people could somehow be shown that they are followimg different manmade belief systems.
Damien Thorn that doesn't really answer my question. You said you would only believe in a god after all religion was proven false. Perspective doesn't really have anything to do with that
While I'm a steadfast atheist (until presented with incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a god or gods) there *is* a good reason for believing in a god or gods; That reason is actually a person's lack of understanding of core physical laws with preclude the need for a god.
Quite simply, if somebody doesn't understand some of the basic physical laws of the universe, then believing in a god or gods makes a certain bit of sense.
I don't understand what you mean.
What I mean is the *only* legitimate excuse for believing in a god/gods is if you genuinely don't know any better. The logic is that it's all they know, hence that's why they believe it. However, continuing to believe that after being presented with substantial evidence *against* their belief is intellectual dishonesty and is not excusable.
I don't know if it is possible to give evidence against the existence of a god (Russell's celestial teapot). When I was younger and did not know about a lot of things. I don't think I made up explanations for them, and held them until I came across a better one. Or do you mean some people grow up with only one explanation hence not knowing any better?
Exactly. Some people just don't have the education or experience to give them cause to doubt their position.
As unfortunate and sad as it is, it's still a valid reason for holding a fallacious position. Not knowing any better *is* an acceptable reason simply because to the agent in question, there are no known alternatives.
That's still not a good reason to believe. That may be an explanation as to why someone believes, but it's still a bad, unacceptable reason. I don't buy into the "any explanation is better than no explanation" garbage.
What if the god is pansychism? A living entity inside or embedded in the cosmos?
David Heller you mean something like the universe is a conscious being?
Given this debate topic, I feel that I personally could've destroyed you. I would've dismissed the idea of theism being true, because that's a losing position, but there are things that people value other than truth, and one can have "good reason to believe" something that has benefits despite being false. Placebos are but one example of many. I don't think you would've been prepared for it, and perhaps with good reason because I'm sure Reed desperately wanted to convince those kids that his beliefs were true and you knew that.
*but there are things that people value other than truth, and one can have "good reason to believe" something that has benefits despite being false*
This is incorrect, and is dangerously dishonest to approach the question this way. This is a mangling of the concept of reason, because reason is inherently linked to truth. Maybe "motivation" or "desire" would be words that could enable this approach, but the word "reason" was used.
*Placebos are but one example of many*
Yet another person who doesn't understand the placebo effect.
evolution is faith based lolololololololol
Matt, I'm a supporter, an atheist. But from the perspective of the high school kids, I teach high school, You lost the debate. You let him claim miracles, the kids believed him, and you even let him drop his church address on those kids and you said nothing. Fail.
Just curious if you missed the whole part where he brought up the study explaining miracles are no better than a coin flip. Sorry, but i disagree with you, he killed the whole miracle idea.
Wow, a debate in a high school classroom with kids that don't even necessarily care about religion. Really moving up in the world, eh
A first year theological student would destroy this idiot.
Oh? With what arguments exactly?
Yes, I'd like to know, too. Theology is the study of made-up shit, so I'm not sure how that would help.
you need God to know whos reason is good, w/o God there isnt the reason, but your reason, my reason, someone's else reason... aka there is no truth. its interesting to see people who deny theism forced to to use theism to make sense of reality
HELENO HENZO Can you please elaborate a little I'm really trying to make sense of this
If a god must be the source of truth, how do you determine which god is that source?
HELENO HENZO We compare each other's reasons and find who's reasons work the best. Obviously this is all subjective; however, as we pair down to the most useful reasoning we come up with better and better answers. Theism isn't involved
what god? Thor, Freja, Oden, Diana or the Abrahamite god?
Heleno Henzo - "you need God to know whos reason is good"
Where is your evidence for this?
"w/o God there isnt the reason"
where is your evidence for this?
"but your reason, my reason, someone's else reason..."
While you get different "reasons" or different views, it is a simple process to agree subjectively which are the better reasons in terms of most beneficial or least harmful to one's and one's neighbours well-being. It is an esay process, via human empathy, to find the best path or the best "reason".
"aka there is no truth"
Yes there is. There are many things that are demonstrably true, such as mathematical proofs, and many experiences we have as humans which one can claim are true events. Data can be proven true or false.
"its interesting to see people who deny theism forced to to use theism to make sense of reality"
I suppose that would be interesting,but more than that, it would be completely illogical... I have never seen an atheist use theism to make sense of the word around them. You are talking completely non sequiturs here, aka, nonsense, just as you usually do.
To all - Henzo is a common theist troll on many videos such as this one. He'll come in, drop a bomb and disappear, leaving us to talk at him (though he never responds) and sometimes to even argue after he's left the building. He is just a troll, never, ever backs up his nonsense, so its best to quickly refute what he says and expose his broken thinking and leave him be. He's one of those theists who are great adverts as to why religions need to die and probably are dying.