Former Atheist, Now Christian, Thinks We're Too Focused on the Natural World
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Davis calls in to discuss why he changed from being an atheist to becoming a Christian. He explains he was an atheist for 10 years but felt his epistemology at the time was too focused on the natural world and excluded the possibility of the supernatural. Matt challenges him, asking what problem is solved by Christianity or how Davis can prove the supernatural even with his new epistemology. Davis appeals to philosophical arguments like the argument from change. There are several contentious moments when Matt tries to summarize what Davis is saying but Davis feels misunderstood, leading to some tense back-and-forth. Shannon steps in to try to clarify as well.
SUPPORT THE NETWORK
---------------------------------------------------
Patreon: / calltheline
Become a Channel Member:
SUPPORT PRODUCTION
---------------------------------------------------
Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
Cashapp: cash.app/$jimm...
Amazon Wishlist: www.amazon.com...
MORE LIVE SHOWS & CLIPS
---------------------------------------------------
/ @callthelinex
CONTACT US
---------------------------------------------------
contact@qnaline.com
HOSTS
---------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Snow: @JimmySnow
Matt Dillahunty: @SansDeity
Arden Hart: / theardenhart
Katy Montgomerie: @KatyMontgomerie
Forrest Valkai: @RenegadeScienceTeacher
Dr. Ben: @FamilyDrBen
Aron Ra: @AronRa
Shannon Q: @ShannonQ
John Gleason: @godlessengineer
Dave Warnock: iamdyingoutlou...
ADDRESS
---------------------------------------------------
The Line
110 N Interstate 35
Suite 315-1027
Round Rock, TX 78681
United States
SHOWS ON THE LINE
---------------------------------------------------
Sundays: The Sunday Show
Monday: Skeptalk
Tuesday: Dying Out Loud
Wednesday: The Hang Up
Thursday: The Trans Atlantic Call In Show (TACIS)
Look out for “HOSTility” and “Cus I Wanna” any day, any time
#CallTheLine
“When I was an atheist, I was so focused on the real world. But then I realized: that completely excludes the imaginary world!” - paraphrased.
That's a great way to summarize it
@Polyhexgaming It doesn't matter if people are offended, it's still true. You are 'adhering' to the Whiney Little Baby fallacy.
The supernatural doesn't exist. If it did, we would describe it with science amd nobody would consider it supernatural.
Like neutrinos. Like curved spacetime. These things are so freaking weird but real.
You really do have to use your imagination to believe in God and Jesus and all that crap because it makes no sense. But you want so badly for people you hate to get tortured forever you just force yourself to believe. You sick wierdo!
@@SmileyHappy1000 You literally made strawman version of supernatural yourself. You cannot just claim supernatural has the definition you have chosen and apply it to others using the word.
The problem with words like supernatural is that is extremely poorly defined. All of this confusion between you and others comes from that.
@@SmileyHappy1000 Do you have an example of something supernatural that I can examine/study?
@@SmileyHappy1000 Well get back to me when it’s actually proven. “New scientific theories and fields are beginning to prove this“ is not even remotely conclusive so it cannot be relied on.
"My atheistic beliefs didn't allow for a God, so I stopped being an athiest..."
WTF is this guy talking about. He clearly wasn't an atheist to start with
You sound like a Christian talkng about someone who decided they did not have a reason to believe any more...
Are you saying that nobody can change their position on a claim, or if they do then they never actually held the original position, but were just being deceptive?
@@GuessWhoAsksthey could very well have been deceptive, yes. Not all humans are honest especially when it comes to topics as sensitive as religion. And there may be some people who are not atheist that call themselves atheist even though they don't understand the word well enough and then when they say "I used to be atheist" they can become the catch-all for religious people of "see? Atheism isn't all that." So yeah, they might have been deceptive. Willingly or unwillingly.
@@GuessWhoAsks "I used to be an atheist" is a very common phrase that dishonest theists use to help justify their current belief and delegitimize atheistic beliefs.
It's not impossible that he changed positions, just highly suspicious.
@@GuessWhoAsksno. The original comment is pointing out the Confirmation Bias fallacy that this caller was using. The sole reason they stopped being an atheist was it didn’t allow them to believe in a god as well…? See how that’s nonsensical? “My belief that there is no evidence that points to any god/gods won’t allow me to belief in a god, so I stopped believing there isn’t evidence that points to any god/gods. He has concluded that he wants to believe in a god, so he stops being an atheist. Beliefs are not wants. They are things we believe to be true. I can’t choose to believe the sun is cold. I can’t choose to believe that 2+2=5. If I know why the sun is hot and I know why 2+2=4, I can claim to believe otherwise, but that is not belief.
@@GuessWhoAsksDon’t think it’s wrong per se for ppl to change their minds. In this case, I’m struggling to understand the OP’s quote. He was an atheist, with what that entails, so he stopped being an atheist. Does that really make sense to u?
These smug callers are my favourite. They have absolutely no argument but are so confident in their inability to get their point across.
Ha!! So good!!
"Smug" is the perfect word, 2 minutes in n this guy reminds me of the south park with the hybrids n such.
@@Godless_Trailperfect!
@@Godless_Trail "The Smug" LOL! Christurds' favorite activity is smelling their own farts.
He’s lucky his argument isn’t a boat because it’s full of holes.
"I used to be an atheist, and then I realized how much money could be made by feeding people bullshit."
Oh yeah!! This is great!! And true!!!😂
😂😂😂
Works with mushrooms too.
True! I have always said for years that if I ever really wanted to be wealthy, I'd start a church.
like... when pdf file atheists claim that men can menstruate and give birth andn nowhere in history has this been true?
"I used to be an athiest, i used to believe in reality, then i changed my way of thinking and now fantasy is my reality"
@metallica9293 Do you believe the Universe was designed?
@@matthewphilip1977 no. And there's 0 way to prove it.
Then next, if you somehow magically proved it was designed, you'd be absolutely no closer to a Christian God.
You'd be closer to simulation theory
Well it’s simply adjusting from solely scientific proofs to including logical and theoretical proofs also. However his mistake is that his personal logic and his come to Jesus moment has no bearing on objective reality, it’s simply a personal journey.
@@matthewphilip1977
The designed argument always comes around in a circle. For example if something complex needs to be designed then who designed the designer? Is it turtles all the way down?
@matthewphilip1977 why would we? You haven't demonstrated that it is.
I think it’s funny how people don’t understand that claiming that something doesn’t exist within space and time means it doesn’t exist.
Every time dude, or they'll even say "outside of this/our reality" XD.
It's one of many Get Out of Jail Free cards. They don't have to explain it, nor can they, they can just say it and leave. "Of course you can't see God, He's outside of space and time!" "Well how do you know?", "He couldn't be part of our universe if He created our universe!", "But how do you know?", "Because, He couldn't be part of our universe if He created our universe!", "How do you even know God is a He?", "Because the Bible says men are superior." 😹
God used to be on top of a mountain, then they moved him up into the sky. But when we didn't find him in the sky they moved him to "all around us". But we couldn't find any sign of him there either so they moved him to "outside of space and time" where we could never possibly examine him. Goalpost moving as usual.
@@HystericalSejSo true. If God created this universe and interacted with this universe then he is, by definition, within the universe in some way. Or at least capable of being within the universe.
If he can do that, then he can beam all the necessary knowledge into Matt's brain live and convert everyone watching at the same time.
“I used to be an atheist” infamous words of a liar
Satanic High Priest is another highly suspect claim that theists like to try.
I reasoned myself out of a god belief 34 years ago. I think that once a person sees through it, there's no going back. If they _do_ go back, they didn't really see through it. My opinion, anyways.
@@75greenfish62I think you're mostly correct. I think some people are too uncomfortable to admit that they don't know something, and for some people it's easier to chalk everything up to "god" rather than saying "I don't know".
I'll challenge you on that.
I used to be an atheist.
I still am but I used to be one too.
@@75greenfish62 The question is does the world always go by reason? My answer would be no. Sometimes the most reasonable pick to win a horse race loses to a horse one would have reasoned had little chance at winning. But MOST of the time it's best to go the way of reason and not risk foolishness. With belief in the divine though, I'm happy to risk a little foolishness. I can understand how others would not feel the same way as I do.
The classic "I used to be an atheist" call.
IOW..Here comes the BS. It's guaranteed 😂
Everyone starts off not believing in a particular god you have to be taught a religion kids learn about a religion from their elders and even adults learn about it from other people.
@@WinstonSmith19847 Yeah, but they normally mean it in the "I was so philosophical that I found all the arguments for the non-existence of a god compelling, but then I was so intellectual, I realised I was wrong", not the simple "Until I encountered a god belief, I was in the default state of existence" kind of way.
@@derkylos I sometimes wonder if these people are just like the people who claim that they no longer like a UA-cam channel because they don't like the content even though they never liked the channel before.
I was almost as annoyed with Shannon as I was with Davis. Again her Mrs Goodie two shoes bubbling personality gives credence to people like Davis..
She wishes to talk more to this prick about Jesus, and of course she wants Paulogia as her cohosts. Fu** you Shannon and your "abouuut"..
“Outside space and time” is extra words to say “outside reality” which is extra words to say “unreal”.
It's synonymous with non-existence.
Wrong on all counts. “Space and time” could be a subset under “reality” such that a thing could be outside of space and time but still be inside reality. And unreal is an independent parameter from whether or not something exists in space time.
@@samuelbrown434 get a dictionary, have a read, feel embarrassed for posting that.
@@samuelbrown434
COULD BE, anything could be only IF.....
@@duncanidaho8234 it’s like you don’t understand how sets work. I am embarrassed on your behalf.
Here we are again with “You can’t prove me wrong so I’m right.”
What a goober.
Goober… havn’t heard that in a long time🤣🤣
I used to be an atheist, then I lowered my standards to give myself permission to believe bullshit.
I used to be an atheist, I still am but I used to too.
"It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.”
- Archie Bunker
It is true that thinking God exists exonerates one from personal responsibility for the condition of the world. One can conveniently blame others, humanity in general and only pay lip service to their personal responsibility for the world around them.
The natural world is the only world I know.
Or indeed can know
Apologists like to dapple in the problems of obscure philosophy and dishonest semantics because the simple fact is that their versions of gods are pure imagination. As long as we live, the only world we can presume to exist is the material world, i.e. natural one. Any assumptions about anything beyond that are madness and delusional.
Currently the only possible world to know
The singularity was supposedly outside space and time. Before time. Before space. Outside.
Yeppers
"I used to be an athiest..."such a sad combination of six words.
its like saying ' i used to be right '
Probably lying
@@A-nontheist1very likely.
And it always seems like it's coming from people who were never true atheists to begin with. It would be more accurate to say "it used to be the case that I had not yet found religion."
And I don't know if it makes me a bad person but I immediately press X to doubt
"I used to be an atheist like you. Then i took a fallacy in the knee." This is what i think every time i hear someone say that.
PSA, saying you used to be an atheist regardless of whether or not thats true does not support your present position.
I don't believe people who say they WERE atheist.
@@martinpenwald9475 99% of the time it's just that stupid "I was mad at god"-shit, which means they still believed there was a god to be mad at.
_"Must have been the wind"_
All are born with unaligned/organized brains.
I was an atheist before I ever started believing, around 5 years old, and in my 30's returned to my original non belief
*"cosmic coincidences,"* such as the moon and sun having the precise diameter and being the right distance away to allow for a total eclipse, could be a way, it, communicates/ reveals itself to us.
Davis was insanely annoying. He's never been an Atheist. He just called to hear himself talk over everyone else.
@leekhototrot2258 - Maybe he was a theist then an atheist then a theist again. Who's to say? I have 2 friends who converted from Christianity to Judaism for husbands, sincerely they claimed. Bye-bye husband and now they are back to Christianity.
--------------
I used to be a theist (Mormon), but have spent may years with my eyes opened now and am an atheist. I do no buy into supernatural baloney, either. (And yes, theist apologists - I was a REAL and dedicated Christian before I woke up.)
@@MossyMozart We're to say, we have countless stories from theists who claim to have once been atheists, when their stories are all "I was mad at my god, so I rejected it." That isn't atheism, that's a lie they tell to other theists to give themselves undeserved credence. We're not talking about theists switching religions, that happens all the time, we're talking about people who were never convinced that a god exists, who then somehow become convinced. Every single human is born an atheist, and most of them become religious when it's shoved onto them as children, but that isn't what theists mean when they say they used to be an atheist. This is a common lie that theists, especially Christians, use as a tactic to try to claim they know your side better than you do. All we need to do is listen to a theist explain _in what way_ they were an atheist and nearly every single time we learn that they're either lying to themselves or they're lying to us.
My best friend in high school was an atheist for most of his life, just like his two parents. When we were just out of high school he had a car accident in which he drove off the road and somehow in the dead of night managed to slide between two trees so that it stopped his truck, and it was so tight he couldn't get out of the truck through either of his doors. He considered that a miracle, and he became a Christian while in the hospital. A few years later he told me he had come to the conclusion that his Christianity was just the result of him seeing a miracle when there wasn't one, and he became an atheist again, and is an atheist to this day. I share this story just to point out that I'm aware that people convert to and from religions all the time, but _why_ is always the kicker.
@Blue-EyesWhitePrivilege Did your friend explain why he became a Christian in particular after the accident?
Not a Muslim, Jew, etc...
He probably wasn't a committed theist, and he calls that atheism. Then he heard stories that made him like theism, so he started hanging out with theists again (maybe he never stopped, since most people are theists, even in Canada). Then he post-hoc rationalized his way to believing that his acceptance of theism was rational.
I think you're right.
I keep wondering why believers of an ostensibly all-powerful god are so incredibly bad at communicating the reasons why they think this all-powerful god exists. You’d think this god could (even indirectly) provide them with something better than what they’re putting out there now. It’s embarrassing.
To be fair the god of the bible is a massive troll so maybe he's up in heaven laughing at his followers make fools of themselves.
they like to state .. you cant prove supernatural doesnt exist..therefore it does... bizarre..its amazing
how otherwise normal intelligent people can force themselves to come up with completely ridiculous
logic for believing in god.. no where else in their lives do they use this logic on except religion
In their defense, when you been told your entire life that literally everything around you is overwhelming proof of your religion, it can be easy to miss the fact that it's not.
On top of that, The Armor Of God™ is such that the mortal vessel wearing it need not prepare for the battle, as victory is assured when The Grand Architect Of The Universe has your back.
Shame it doesn't actually work. Sounds cool.
@@BaronVonQuiply”shame it doesn’t actually work. Sounds cool.” should be printed on the front of every Bible.
This is a huge issue. We can disregard the problems with the evidence itself. If an incredibly powerful god provided as strong evidence as religious people claim, they would not have such problems communicating that evidence to other people.
Christian: "Can you prove God doesn't exist?"
Me: "Well, what would you accept as proof that God doesn't exist?"
Christian: "Nothing."
Me: "Then you're not asking in good faith. Which is appropriate, since there is nothing good about your faith."
He never claimed to have a "supernatural detector," he changed his epistemology that led to the supernatural. That was his point.
@@paulrevelersmithsonian9016 he lowered his standard until he could believe things that are demonstrably false
@@paulrevelersmithsonian9016 When someone asks you to prove that magic is real, and you prance and mince around, going "What is real? How do you define real?" like fuckin' Morpheus, then you're just proving the point, and if you were capable of feeling shame, you would.
@@paulrevelersmithsonian9016 so without proving the supernatural he believes the supernatural is true
@@paulrevelersmithsonian9016 Believing or not believing in the supernatural is not primarily an epistemological commitment; it is an ontological one. Nevertheless, to justify belief in the supernatural one must have a definition of the supernatural in the first place. None of these people ever even give such a definition. Therefore, I will supply one: "The supernatural is a quality, or some entity, capable of being able to defy, contravene, or alter descriptive natural law as an act of intention or will." An example would be to be able to levitate a boxcar (or indeed move any object anywhere) without applying any identifiable force originating in some demonstrable physical source. Or the ability to cause the manifestation of any object or field of force into a given location without an accountable transfer of matter or energy from another location, or to cause the disappearance of some phenomenon under similar unaccountable circumstances. Most supernatural claims entail some violation of thermodynamics or violation of the principle of object permanence or persistence.
No such thing has ever been reliably or verifiably observed. One does not have to have an epistemological commitment of not believing in the supernatural to reject such claims. One has only to make the ontological observation that no such claims have ever been substantiated and then to apply the priority of the null hypothesis-- "whatever is put forward without evidence can be rejected without evidence."
For this caller to justify a belief in the supernatural, it is not sufficient for him to cite his abandonment of an epistemological commitment to naturalism, as if that is a purely discretionary option. Indeed, the rejection of the supernatural is a pragmatic heuristic principle, not necessarily a metaphysical or epistemological presupposition. Nevertheless, what is required of the caller is evidentiary substantiation of the supernatural-- which, of course, he does not have.
Matt has said many times that he has no metaphysical or epistemological presupposition against the supernatural, and that the philosophical justification of atheism does not require such a thing. All that is necessary is the observation that supernatural claims have never had a sufficient evidentiary basis and are rejected on the grounds of the priority of the null hypothesis. The caller seems to think that the axiomatic acceptance of the priority of the null hypothesis equates to a presupposition of naturalism, and that both can be arbitrarily abandoned. He does not seem to realize that rational process is impossible without the former principle. We would all have to believe in banshees, the Blue Pixies, demons, devils, genies, ghosts, all kinds of gods, and countless other unsubstantiated claims without it, because none of these things can be disproven.
It is not necessary to prove that God or the supernatural does not exist. There is an established principle of classical epistemology that a universal negative cannot be proved or demonstrated, and that the requirement to prove such a negative is an impossible epistemological burden, and, therefore, an illegitimate demand in any argument. We refuse belief in such metaphysical propositions when THEY fail to meet their burden of demonstration or proof, not when the opposition accomplishes the impossible task of disproving them. Theists seem chronically unable to grasp these concepts. It's like the critical thinking lobe of their brain has been chemically extirpated or genetically pre-empted. Maybe that last is the actual problem.
Matt literally pointed out the flaw in Davis' argument by saying what Davis said in different words and Davis just kept interrupting and arguing without even listening. 🙄
Every time they summarized what he said, he immediately said wrong. Gotta be a defense tactic, never give an inch and argue at every point, to not realize the flaws
Thats true. Matt accurately summarized what the guy said and the guy pretended he didnt say that. This shows the guy wasnt listening. If you arent listening or thinking about what is said, then you might assume the repeat of your position to be incorrect because you didnt use the exact same wording.
This all feels more akin to the whole “why i left the left” anecdotes. “Someone was mean to me online and they were liberal…” or “(insert long debunked right wing conspiracy that no liberal actual believes) is what liberals want! They’re hypocrites!”
Its like men writing women characters. Its soooo obvious and cringe.
@@mactallica9293 More like he was dismissing Matt's summarizations but wasn't dismissing Shannon's. At 19:22 in her summarization she said that Davis wasn't content with atheistic epistemology, but when Matt said it first, Davis corrected him (5:33) and said that he wasn't content with HIS atheistic (Davis's) epistemology.
I'm pretty sure Davis just wanted to push Matt aside by making him angry in order to convert the audience, because Shannon would let him talk more.
@@ahh_yes_mr_bax He would constantly shift the definition of the words he was using as a tactic. Pretty sure he was always a theist, not that it really matters if he was or not. I just can't trust the motives someone who weaponizes language like this caller did.
He would say, "That's not what I said" as in literally identical. Matt did flesh out his issues and accurately summarize what was said. He's just spinning gears.
"Former Athiest' calls never fail to amuse
this is a true statement
"Former Atheists" can almost never define the words Former, or Atheist. 😅
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" Because if there was nothing, we wouldnt be around to notice it.
That question alone is flawed. Or maybe even intentionally crafted as a trap.
Since _why_ implies intent, any answer implicitly or explicitly leads to some form of theism. Even if your answer is _i don't know_ ...
I think one working response could be: _Why do you think there is any reason behind that?_
You might be able to explain this flaw to theists by changing a single word: _Why is there god rather than nothing?_
(god is not nothing, therefore same question applies to theists)
According to the Bible, god spoke and a universe appeared: something from nothing
The answer to the question is “because that was happened”. Thinking there is a reason we are here is flawed thinking. Things just happen. There doesn’t have to be a spiritual reason for it.
Yes I admit it, I'm totally focused on the real world.
I never even consider using magic to fix things or blame goblins when I can't find my favourite hat.
Oh I blame goblins for hiding things from me all the time! I know it isn’t _me_ that loses things. 😉😃
Abracadibra
.... oh, @#$%
Then God helped you find your hat, but didn't save your grandma from dying.
Oh, so I guess it's safe to say you didn't go to Hogwarts.
@bytemark6508
I tried.
I ran at the wall in the train station and was magically transported to hospital.
The callers always start so sincere and amiable and then it inevitably breaks down.
Honestly I've seen few videos when caller is honest and they really engage all the problems presented by hosts and sometimes have realisation about certain facts. I admire those individuals.
They're a rare breed, willing to engage honestly and follow the evidence where it leads, answering the question that was asked and being consistent in their positions. Really really rare.
This guy started with snark early on
Crazy how smug having an imaginary friend makes you. Very Jesus-like.
@@ahall9839 it's really amazing how quickly believers are willing to go to snark and probing for triggers and generally being mean.
Everything this man said he supposedly didn't say. Literally every time Matt said it back to him "I didn't say that" Def did say that lol
Its wild that self denial and narcissistic behavior is permanent history anyone can look up and see them doing, and their response is STILL always: “nuh-uh!”
Like bro… its not the 90s anymore, you cant get away with that nonsense.
As long as Matt didn't use exactly the same words, he used that as an excuse to deny the accuracy of Matt's summation of what he said. Extremely frustrating.
To be a Christian is to lie.
Yep. It reminds me of a student of mine the other day who said, "Yeah, I used some information I got off the internet because I couldn't think of anything." Then I asked, "did you cite them and quote them and acknowledge this source?" to which he said, "no."
So I said, "Ah, so you plagiarized." And he shockingly said, "I never said that."
Like bro, that is the definition of plagiarism yet because he didn't say, "I plagiarized" specifically, he really thought he was being clever.
@@Sanxioned1 Sounds like a learning opportunity! Lol
I feel bad for his kid.
D - “you want something to eat, how about peanut butter and jelly?”
K - “I’d love a peanut butter and jelly sandwich “
D - “that’s now what I said. I never said sandwich “
Insufferable
"I'd like a PB&J, yes"
"I didn't say PB&J, I said peanut butter and jelly"
😂
Atheist or not, Davis has always been a flawed thinker.
You are correct sir!
He may not have been a flawed thinker before he was dropped on his head!
what a frustratingly dishonest person. "no one has debunked the premises" "i didnt say you had to debunk them" you _literally_ did
Not ONCE has anyone ever said I was an atheist and became a theist did they ever have actual EVIDENCE for their belief.
It’s always based on feelings or “logical arguments” 🙄🙄🙄
Yeah, arguments aren't evidence. But even their arguments fail at a basic level. Not a single one of those has premises founded in or conclusions drawn from actual logic.
Sounds exactly like the Branch Covidian liberals in our country.
@@kimmygibler760 we get it you're anti vax and you need to make up a liberal vaccine boogeyman look up what a society is and why unvaccinated people going around in society isn't the smartest idea
@@kimmygibler760 say what now?
@@AceOfTheWorld72 its anti vax nonsense
Oh no, the "I used to be an Atheist" guy.
Every time I hear this I know it's going to be a dishonest call
They sure are dishonest. And what baffles me is they then say all the dumb things about atheism than theists constantly say, and you would think that if they actually used to be an atheist, they wouldn't use all the lousy arguments to defend theism that theists use.
i mean we all born being atheists until we get harassed with religious indoctrination lol
I used to use similar tactics as a sales person. It's a trained tactic.
Really its a sad attempt at being relatable, or putting yourself on a level playing field.
When i bought my car, i was just like you! And i chose this overpriced garbage! You should too! 😅
Davis can't seem to justify anything at all yet he's claiming to know about something that exists outside of space and fucking time?!?
He can't even form an argument or have a basic conversation with another human being, how the hell did he arrive at his conclusions?!?
I never understood that whole beyond space time thing.... If you are everywhere, always, does that not make you Space-Time?
@@stevenswitzer5154 It's just a "god of the gaps" argument. Yet another claim they can't even begin to justify.
Davis commits the fallacy of personal incredulity.
And cherry-picking. And god-of-the-gaps. And he's just dishonest & rude.
I lost count of all the logical fallacies he was racking up!
I find "I used to be like you" theist callers frustrating because they often fail to provide any compelling reason for their atheism or their conversion to theism.
I think it's a standard story for Christians, the whole "I used to believe but then I backslid and The World led me astray before Jesus found me" thing is kind of a trope.
FreShDoGZ But I can provide good reasons to abandon my former belief? They're not necessarily the same.
@FreShDoGZ Lack of evidence in my belief in the triune christian god.
@FreShDoGZTheists should be able to believe what they want. It might help non believers understand their stance better if they could make up their minds as to whether they have evidence or don’t need it. Still don’t understand why they think faith is so important
FreShDoGZ I have faith that faith is a bad methodology to find truth.
No, Davis. You're not right. Please stop making assertions and then claiming you're right.
Davis is a skilled gaslighter.
He sure is! Pretending everyone is always hearing him wrong or misunderstanding to wiggle out of all his inconsistencies and contradiction.
That’s exactly what he is. I feel bad for people who have to deal with him IRL.
Atheism didn't grant me magic, so I turned to Christianity.
Maybe try Satanism or Witchcraft then. Duh.
Abandoning skepticism allows you to believe dumb shit.
Espousing it allows you to believe dumb shit.
His epistemology seems to have got him not only to the supernatural but specifically to Christianity, rejecting all other gods. How? We never found out.
He basically opened with "what proof would you need" which told me he was never an atheist, he's a liar. And every time he literally laughed when matt clarified one of his statements told me he was a troll, doing so intentionally to piss him off.
Anytime I hear a theist say they were an atheist without a sound explanation for how they were convinced and converted, I'm immediately skeptical from experience dealing with dishonest theists that falsely think lying about being an atheist improves their arguments legitimacy.
Yes. Another one is when you challenge a person with "you only believe in the God you believe in because you were taught to by people you know," a common response is that they had never heard of religion until they were a rational adult, and that they happened to fix on the religion of their geography and community through rational independent study.
These folks don't appreciate the power of post-hoc rationalization.
His whole argument can be summed up by "I stopped being an Atheist because my epistemology wouldn't let me be gullible, so how in a Christian".
How can a person know so much about nothing and yet think they know everything.
This is a logically valid argument:
- All goats sing opera.
- My pet is a goat.
- Therefore my pet sings opera.
It’s obviously unsound but it’s completely valid.
To claim a logical argument “proves” anything in and of itself is only possible if you don’t understand what logic is.
I agree. Also congrats on the goat
there are many psychology reasons people become religious not all are healthy. Shannon was very patient and understanding in her dialogue and that was nice to see.
There are psychological reasons for atheism too. Sometimes it seems like it's all about reason but it's not.
@@matthewphilip1977 I agree with what you say, especially with anti-theism. there are healthy and unhealthy reasons for most things in life . my understanding is that one should be careful to approach any epistemological approach with clinical acumen rather than any unhealthy foundational premise. Thank You for your response.
Pretty sure this a-hole was just a troll. At no point did he engage honestly with the conversation.
Matt absolutely humiliates this caller, simply by knowing exactly what he had said to him previously and the terms of the bet that the two if them had made.
This guy said he'd been an atheist "for about 10 years". I think he meant till he was 10 years old.
I just don’t get it, the whole outside of space and time just by definition means it doesn’t exist in our reality.
Science fiction and fantasy had made people way too comfortable with the copout of a concept. Like just imagine a ball of space where there is no time; you'd just see a purely dark sphere because light cannot pass through it and you wouldn't be able to interact with it because nothing can do anything in non-time. That alone before any spacelessness is akin to nonexistence.
@@sugartoothYTa person could not even observe since that requires time.
Even if you accept the premise, it still doesn’t get you to a supernatural being. If it exists, it’s part of nature. Supernatural is a meaningless concept.
@@Nick-Nasti the person is not in the non-time-sphere in my hypothetical, they are observing the space it inhabits while in normal time.
Matt looked like he was about to explode when he was trying to keep quiet! 😂
Theists use "supernatural" much in the same way they use "faith". It's a word they insert to fill in what is actually a blank space. Faith is the word they use for belief in the absence of evidence.......and supernatural is the word they use to describe causes for phenomenon for which for which they have no explanation. Both represent a blank space.....rationally, cognitively, epistemologically......but because they cannot abide the blank space....they fill it with an amorphous word that adds nothing to the void.....while pretending it does.
"I don't like atheist epistemology because it lacks groundless ✨faith✨".
@absolutearcher3137 Atheist epistemology is groundless. From Descartes to Wittgenstein they tried to provide a foundation for their epistemology but failed because every apparent foundation required a foundation itself to rest on. And so on and so forth, ad nauseam.
@@matthewphilip1977 What's your foundation for god?
they literally only dislike it because it doesnt assume their position.
@@derkylos I don't have one. I'm not sure that God even exists.
@@matthewphilip1977 Ah. So your epistemology is foundless?
This dude has a massive ego. He thinks simply asserting his claims is the equivalent of presenting evidence. It’s kind of annoying that no one asked him if God interacts with the natural world. “Supernatural” is a meaningless abstraction to avoid intellectual accountability. Nothing is supernatural. If it exists and we have awareness of it, it’s part of the natural world.
As soon as he said, "...the historical figure known as Jesus Christ..." 😂😂😂😂😂
Every supernatural claim, when we discovered the cause, turned out to be naturally occurring & not to be a god.
Classic god of the gaps.
God is being put into an increasingly small and insignificant box, only a matter of time until it goes from creator and curator of everything to something that maybe nudged an atom once
It’s not that it turned out not to be a god but that we don’t need a god. Adding a god into the equation would just be randomly adding another step into something that doesn’t need that step.
"I used to be an atheist, but I am now a christian"
My usual response:
"Was that lobotomy painful"?
"What went wrong?"
The only atheist I have ever seen convert were just depressed, they WANTED to believe they WANTED the community, they WANTED the ritual so they went back to church. I don't know that they ever really believed it when they went back but they sure WANT that hope, even though it's false, that religion offers.
I think a lot of thoughtful religious people participate because they wish it were true. I have an old friend who, like me, feels as if he is surrounded by Martians when he attends a church service for a funeral, etc. Unlike me he wishes that he could believe. He finds the idea comforting. Whereas I find the whole culture incomprehensible. I am very glad they employed all those artists, architects, musicians. If we have to put up wth religious nutters today they could at least commission worthy art rather than gaudy kitsch.
that's the "fake it 'till you make it" demographic.
.
The problem with Davis is that you had an epistemology a method to discover truth, and then gave up a testimology because he stopped caring about truth. He didn't pick up another episte mology, just shook his head and now came all his thoughts. There's no problem having an open mind, just as long as your brain doesn't slip out. Like Davis' did.
Man Matt's callout of the dudes motivated reasoning was honestly incredible. The caller backed off every time he was confronted with the consequences of what he said. Just reflexively looking away from anything that doesn't quite sound right about his world view. Matt just cut through that delusion and called it like it is.
He misses the more important underlying point. I don't center my life around whether or not there are gods. That's not the same as saying gods or the supernatural are impossible. This is probably the main source of confusion for many theists. That concept is the core of their world view, so there is some notion that it's also the core of everyone else's, whether they believe it or not. I'm not going to spend my life grappling with a question I've already assessed, and see no change in data to revisit it. If there is a god and it wants me to know it exists, I'd know. The argument "you just don't want to know," is silly. Though I'd prefer the tax collector not exist, they do and seem to have no problem making sure I'm aware of it.
😂😂😂 that dang tax collector. Also everything you said is on point and so rational!
Does Davis’ epistemology also support the existence of Leprechauns?
How do we know that Leprechauns do not exist outside of space and time?
Caller: If you just believe a bunch of stuff you want to believe, then you'll believe it.
☝🏾✨ Bingo
Matt is a sledgehammer of truth/reality! (And no problem with that!) Shannon attempts to bring the caller to the first step of understanding...
Former atheist? Why is it I always get the impression these people were agnostic and not atheist? Probably because they were never athiest to begin with.
“Agnosticism” has to do with knowledge. “Atheism” has to do with belief. They’re not mutually exclusive. There are agnostic atheists; there are agnostic theists. Please learn these definitions. It’s important.
@@Mmmmilo My apologies, I meant to say agnostic theist. They were never atheist to begin with. They merely shifted back over to gnostic theism.
Possibly, but I feel like we’re drifting into no-true-scotsman territory here
@@mrsansty If you "meant to say agnostic-theist". why not then go BACK AND CORRECT IT???
@@MmmmiloWrong, atheism is an absence of belief.
The guy's entire argument:
Atheist arguments always exclude the supernatural. I'm going to let you all assume that my God argument requires the supernatural to exist. I'm giving Zero justification for believing there is a supernatural anything which somehow has an effect on the real world. Therefore, atheist objections are unreasonable (although, weirdly, rational, as admitted in the conversation), therefore God.
Yup the entire argument is well..... you can't disprove God, and I don't need to provide evidence for him
What I have found is that my atheist epistemology did not work so I switched to a presuppositional epistemology which allows me to convince myself that things could be supernatural but I'm not claiming that they are oh and I'm a Christian who believes in the supernatural Amen 😆
@adam2aces the best is after using all their jargon to try and convince themselves that a God must exist. They immediately jump to, well Jesus and the Bible must be real. That doesn't logically follow
People still call in with these tired arguments? Really?
Also, Shannon is amazing.
Also, the most rational and reasonable position for EVERYTHING in life is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is found and proven.
Davis is irrational because he assumes the supernatural exists without sufficient evidence.
Is she? I don’t think she really did much to deconstruct his argument, as flawed as it was
@@Unknownpractitioner123 i think she did well trying to understand the callers ideas and understanding. When the hosts do that, they can engage and not just argue. That is worthwhile, in my opinion.
Shannon & Matt, a big howzit from South Africa.
Nice to see another atheist from SA
"I heard an argument for the supernatural and believed it" lol. I have some luscious land in Arizona to sell you! Great price!
Matt, if he was a therapist: "So how was your day?"
Client: "Well, I don't know. These days I've been thinking about--"
Matt: "David? David? I asked you a simple question: how was your day? Not days. Not plural. Singular. This day. Go."
Client: "Oh... well, again I don't really know how I feel how this day has been so far--"
Matt: "OH MY EFFING GAWD!!! How can you not know how YOU feel about something?"
This guy had the largest car of the goofballs I've seen in a while
I agree with Matt but wish he didn't get so frustrated so quickly here. I'm sure I'd be equally frustrated if I was in his position though.
"I used to be atheist because I had a bad epistemology that wouldn't get me to the supernatural. Now I'm a Christian and I still have a bad epistemology that doesn't get me to the supernatural but I like this one more"
Nicely stated!
He was never an atheist, he was a christian but was embarrassed that he had no basis for it, so he finagled a basis for it by lowering the evidence bar down to the ground.
low bar bill
I'm an Atheist and couldn't be happier. 🇦🇺 😊
I have a sneaking suspicion that Davis was never really an atheist before.
Testimonies are a crucial element of his religion. Redemption is the core principal.
They are too stupid to see the scam. Or worse, they realize it and are using it to sell their product. 😅
I don't understand how anyone could ever go back to theist after being an atheist.
Probably lying. I don't believe him.
Probably by not understanding what it means to be an atheist.
Usually it's social pressure, if it's ever anything.
Family, moving to a town with too many religious folk, meeting a partner who is religious.
It doesn't make their belief true. It just means that they no longer _care_ about what is true 🤷🏾♀️
You don't understand because you have not had a religious experience.
@@matthewphilip1977 Ex southern baptist here
I used to be an atheist. But then i stopped thinking.
if he thinks we focus too much on the natural world, he should probably demonstrate the supernatural.
That's the dilemma for theists even if they can demonstrate the supernatural it wouldn't be no longer supernatural
Why can't they just say "I have no rational basis for my beliefs, merely faith."
I could respect that answer.
"any time i say something im wrong, so ill go back to playing chess."
"no no no im not saying youre wrong."
bruh you just did it AGAIN.
Horrible call. I couldn't listen to it all.
Then why did you?😂
@@JasonTaylor90210 I did not...😆
"My voodoo feelings supersede the scientific method." Uh-huh.
😂😂😂
"And I say so using some products of the scientific method, and using 0.00 supernatural methods"
I wish people would get these "former atheists" to better define what they mean when they say they were an atheist. Cause a lot of the time they were atheists for bad reasons, or not really atheists by any definition outside the Christian "i did not fully accept Jesus" version of atheism.
"Davis" sounds awfully familiar. Like, repeat caller familiar
Who exactly and which video (title and channel add rather than link) you seen them?
Game players whose sole goal is to obfuscate and frustrate.
I get same vibe. Trying to narrow in. There was a guy with a frequent and highly punchable smug chuckle. Near end of his call he said "oh yeah, prove/solve this age old mystery in 60 seconds. Sure."
_Why is "I Used To Be An Atheist" _*_never_*_ followed by an ironclad, irrefutable explanation of how the caller became convinced?_
Because they are liars. 😂
Some people just truly can't handle not knowing. It's so terrifying to people to have a gap in knowledge they'll fill it with anything.
Ah yes, the "natural world" also known as "reality."
Dude is a troll
Theists have been slaughtering philosophy a lot lately, it’s getting frustrating…
@buddahluvaz8 Can you give an example?
@@matthewphilip1977 when confronted with the need of evidence to justify a belief in a god, they often say something like “evidence belongs to science, philosophy deals with religion”, as if you don’t need evidence to make a philosophical statement. I retort that philosophy is the pursuit of truth and therefore science is just a more focused branch of philosophy, then they’ll often tell me that philosophical truth is just values we place on things and that it is subjective and that their beliefs are just as valid as any scientific truth. Then I roll my eyes and give up, hate post-modernism. Give me something I can hold in my hands and see with my eyes, otherwise Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are also true.
"I used to be an atheist (but then an apologist performed fallacy-o on me..)"
"what kind of demonstration are you looking for that would be convincing?" - NO. If you accept the burden of proving your claim that "supernatural is real" then YOU GET TO PICK YOUR BEST method of trying to prove that. I won't put any limit on how you try to prove it by specifying any particular method.. whatever you think you have, give me your best. If I see a flaw in your evidence, I'll point it out, if I don't see flaws, I'll consider your evidence and methods, and try to replicate it. If I can replicate it, I'll KNOW you've proved it.
People love to jump to conclusions in order to "justify" their apparently unfounded beliefs, don't they? Using his flawed epistemology, this caller could have just jumped to the conclusion that Allah or Vishnu or faeries are real.
The only honest answer to the god question is "we don't know."
Anyone who wants to conclude that they know should be able to demonstrate why they're right. So far, nobody has been able to do that.
I think people like Davis just have a lot of pressure to believe coming from the people around them. I also think in this case he really just wants a reason to believe. He wants to feel special. It's just easier to believe and he's looking for a reason to capitulate by justification so he can fit in with his family and friends etc. it's like listening to an obese person trying to justify why they eat so much.
Jump to Conclusions. The board game, from Office Space.
if the deity in question is SAID to be all-omni, then a "Hell, no." is also an honest answer.
We DO know that those omni g0ds cannot exist. All we need is 1 tragedy. And we have way more than 1 in just 1 human life, let alone in our entire history.
@@istvansipos9940 “We DO know that those omni g0ds cannot exist.”
Why do you believe that?
“All we need is 1 tragedy. And we have way more than 1 in just 1 human life, let alone in our entire history.”
Why do you believe a tragedy disproves God’s existence?
What a “mic drop summary” of Matt at the end.
She let him go on for way too long..lol
Yep, that why Matt way is superior for preserving time in cal-in-show.
The assertion that states that naturalistic argument can be "perfectly rational and being wrong" does not justify by default a supernatural claim.
There are few things I hate more than smugness, especially from someone who is so blatantly wrong.
Damn, Davis is the very essence of "disingenuous" become sentient. I want to do a count of how many times he directly countered one of you, then when confronted said something along the lines of "Oh, no, I'm not saying you're wrong..."
Obviously someone who never understood rational epistemology.
Shannon doing her best impression of mom trying to keep these two children in line.
So would the “supernatural” become natural once proven? Wouldn’t it just be another scientific discovery?
No. That natural is the stuff of physics; matter/energy, physical forces, that kind of thing, with the physical stuff obeying/conforming to physical laws, the 'rules' that usually apply to the world around us. The supernatural, in this context, is the world of spirit, where the laws of physics don't apply.
Not only did he make a giant leap in logic to get to Christianity, even his early assertion that monotheism was the rational answer to the giant leap of an outside-of-space-and-time “creator” was a giant leap… What’s to say their isn’t a universe factory where multiple “gods” work together to make a big bang happen, etc… When we can assert any reality produced in our own minds to be true, just about anything could be possible; which is why non-empirical epistemologies don’t really work. Just leap after leap after leap…
Great way to run away from a real answer: “That is not what I said”…… LOL
MAGA logic
What's the difference between " God exist outside of space and time " and " God exist in a land of make believe " ?
We don't know, at least us atheists don't know.
@@matthewphilip1977
I'm also an atheist and I admit I don't know either. I present the question in the hopes that a theist will offer some kind / any kind of answer.
@@mr.allitknow3777 The theist will answer that the difference is outside of space and time is real, whereas the land of make believe isn't.
@@matthewphilip1977
And I say to the theist that as an answer is absolutely data free as a belief in " X " doesn't mean that " X " is real.
Davis would deny that summation because they aren't the exact same words as the other.
This kind of believing interlocutor is almost always the most frustrating. They never let the conversation get to the point where they must give justification for their belief. Their entire discussion is focused on generating emotion around the non-believer's disbelief.
And on top of that, they always have the skill of talking loud at a constant volume with a constant patter so they can pretend to be insulted by interruptions.
I used to be an atheist because it made me feel cool and part of something, but now I’m Christian because it makes me feel cool and part of something. I’m not emotional and illogical, you are 👶🏻