Faith Is Inescapable (For EVERYONE) ! | Jeff-PA | Talk Heathen 04.30
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2024
- Talk Heathen 04.30 for 7/26/2020 with Eric Murphy and Vi La Bianca
SHOW TIME-STAMPS
00:00 Intro
03:46 Jeff-PA | Faith is Inescapable (for EVERYONE)!
24:22 Daniel-TN | Theist on the EDGE!
37:29 Dawit-WA | Science Helps with the Transition From Theist to Atheist
55:50 Link-WA | Lingering Theist Beliefs and Pascal's Wager
1:15:10 Kendall-WA | If Christianity was True, Would You Repent?
1:29:53 Ulf-(NO) | Raised Religious, Suffered PTSD from It
1:39:56 Robert-(CA) | Thoughts in Your Head Are Limited to Being in Your Head
SHOW NOTES
Greetings Heathens, welcome to a brand new week! It’s the 117th day of March… (Anyone else having weird time dilation this year?) Today’s episode of Talk Heathen is brought to you by keeping your mask over your nose and mouth. It’s totally pointless if it’s not over your nose, peeps, get it together! Today’s hosts are Vi La Bianca and Eric Murphy (aka: LaMurph or MurphVi!)
Our first caller is returning caller Jeff from Pennsylvania. He wants to talk about how we use faith as a figure of speech and that everyone believes in or has faith in something. I for one am working to use confidence or truth instead of using “I have faith...”. Unfortunately, Jeff attempts to only use his definition of faith and force this definition on the hosts. Come on Jeff, don’t be dishonest!
Next up, Daniel in Tennessee wants to prove that since objective moral values exist hence a God exists. He’s a Theist On the EDGE!
Dawit in Washington is up next, asking how science can help transition theists into atheists and how to continue scientific research on your own. Further discussion moves into how this informed research can be political. Make every effort to utilize the scientific method into researching these concepts, look into articles that utilize peer review, and be skeptical of what you do find. That’s a good beginning. Oh and Vi’s “How to Skeptic” project! bit.ly/3f97Thm
Link in Washington would like to talk about lingering beliefs, hell, and Pascal’s Wager. He would not like to burn eternally for no reason. Eric asks, “How many different hells are you afraid of?” All this fear is due to religious trauma and we’re sold faulty information through religion. Link gives us some gold: “If God created Hell, then the only person/one who deserves to go to Hell is him because that’s the only infinite crime.” MIC DROP!
Next up, Kendall in Washington wonders if Christianity is proven true, would we repent?
Ulf from Norway was raised religious (fundamentalist Baptist) and realized he suffered from PTSD due to it. Nothing in religion made sense to him and he was ostracised because of it as a child. We are happy you are with us Ulf! Keep on working through this, it gets better!
Robert in Canada wants everyone to know that everything in your head doesn’t necessarily match reality all the time. Nice!
That’s our episode for today! Please note, 2020 is a gap year from life, it doesn’t count! Please continue to be safe and healthy out there!
Call the show on Sundays 1:00pm-2:30pm CDT:
-Use your ☎ and call 1-512-991-9242
-Or use your 💻 and click tiny.cc/callth
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/talkhea...
Talk Heathen merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
CONTACTS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram:
Eric Murphy: Erictheheathen
Vi La Bianca: vilabianca
Twitter:
Eric Murphy: @dirtyheathen
Vi La Bianca: @AuthorConfusion
Facebook.com/talkheathen
Reddit.com/r/talkheathen
NOTES
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Ethan Meixsell "Takeoff"
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2020 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Erik has the patience of the gods, I would have already yelled at him hung up and left to smoke some weed after the first minute.
Somebody needs to tell Jeff the hallmark of science is future testable predictions.
Jeff is absolutely wrong, but he certainly believes he's right, lol!
We are forced to agree to choose to believe this, Final.. 😆
Please ask this caller: "What do you want from this call?"
Does he want a confession from the hosts? Does he want the hosts to admit something? If his point were conceded, what would be the outcome?
I think, he wants them to admit, faith (which he is defining as belief with less than 100% certainty), is unavoidable. He wants them to admit that faith (as HE defines it, not how they define it) is something that they use, too.
The caller is confusing reasoning with faith...very dangerous.
He cant, or wont, see a distinction between 10% certainty and 99.99% certainty.
@@billskinner7670 I would say cant, he seems incapable of thinking he could be wrong, arrogant.
It all depends on your definition of faith.
Faith as in "trust, confidence"? Sure.
Faith as in "the excuse people give when they dont have a good reason for their belief"? No.
@@sugartoothYT we have a reasonable confidence based on past experience that the sun will rise, thats not faith. We should stop using faith when really we mran trust or confidence, it just muddies the water and allows theists to sneak in their definition and accuse atheists of "having faith"
The bible says - Hebrews 11:1 KJV "faith is substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen".
That is not the same as Trust or belief. TRUST is a reasonable expectation based on previous experience and probability, within known reality.
@checky monkey sorry troll, bye
@checky monkey a) work it out for yourself, and b) how is any answer he might give to your question relevant?
@checky monkey what will you do with that answer? How am i ashamed if i use it as a picture?
What Jeff seems to refuse to understand is that _We use different words in different situations because they hold different meanings when they're used._
If someone tells me 'I believe X team is gonna win the game', I hear that as 'This team is going to win based on statistics and my understanding of how the game is played and how X team compares to team Y'.
If someone tells me 'I have faith X team is gonna win the game' I hear that as 'I really want X to win and this is my way of expressing how much I sincerely hope they do'.
They bring to mind different intentions and different levels of supporting evidence.
Sure, that may not be how everyone sees it of course, but I know many that would see it similar if they heard either statement. The point is, the two words _aren't_ freely interchangeable because they both tend to hold a different meaning based on their usage.
Faith is believing in that which you KNOW is not so.
"Before my mind" I think the caller means "infront" or "presented" to my mind.
"Everybody believes if I can first define everyone to believe".
Jeff is the King of equivocation.
Faith is not the same as belief.
Faith and Belief are two ends of a spectrum. Faith is about wanting to believe something but the evidence isn't there to support its existance in reality. Belief is when the evidence for something is enough to support the existence of that thing/idea as a reflection of reality. You want to have faith that something is true, but you believe it when the evidence is overwhelming. The two words are not interchangeable.
Theists conflate "faith" with evidence. Evidence is fact-based, faith is "hope" based.
There has been no empirical evidence provided for the existence of any god.
He considers any certainty less than 100% to be faith. He cant, or wont, see a distinction between 10% and 99.99%.
I think the word “understand” is paramount to discussions like this versus faith, belief knowledge, etc.
Faith can't exist without evidence? Then show the evidence of a God and that heaven and hell is real.
I just paused the video at "Faith can't exist without evidence." I know I can't watch anymore without pulling my hair out. He's only said, like, 3 things so far and they've all been demonstrably false and patently absurd. And in his other calls he's made it clear that he's not interested in having a good faith discussion (ironically).
Can you give an example of evidence you would accept?
@@keithherring7677 how about ANY evidence for heaven and hell?
@@kenchristiansen2080
I asked if you could give an example of evidence you would accept so I don't understand your asking the question.
@@keithherring7677 I didn't ask a question. I answered your question. Any evidence for heaven. As there is no evidence at all for heaven or hell. As for God, surly an all knowing being knows what type of evidence. How about God gives me a super power. Give me the ability to turn water into wine. If I met someone who can do that, I will admit it is real. That doesn't take a lot of evidence. Worship is a different matter. How about God just tell people who is reading the Bible right? Just put that information in every mind. All sorts of evidence can convince me God actually does exist.
Issue with the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) comment Vi made: there is no particular issue with that product over any other type of fructose (which is exactly the same sugar in oranges, apricots, blueberries, etc). The fact that it is concentrated (hence the "high" in high fructose), in no way, makes it more damaging to the human body as far as the number of fructose molecules consumed. The reason that it is so commonly used is that it is cheaper to use than other forms of sugar. The desired target is a certain sweetness which is achieved at the lowest cost (and longest shelf stability) by HFCS. The health issue is a general question of how many monosaccharides are consumed; not which type of monosaccharide. The fact that it is the most common type of monosaccharide added to foods is not medically relevant (barring allergic reactions, uncommon GI issues etc). Obviously, there is a chance that you are aware of this, but the way it was stated on-air could have been easily misconstrued as a statement declaring that HFCS posses a greater risk than other monosaccharides.
I can provide references if needed, but feel that this is a pretty well understood fact among registered dietitians (not nutritionists, for which there is no degree, and are the chiropractors of the nutrition world; some have valuable info... most don't).
Vi, you had a great idea at 9:25 to suggest an example that he might choose to believe. But I think gravity is too open ended to facilitate clarification. For future reference, I recommend a different example... Please forgive the sin of pride I am about to commit. I, on my very own, came up with an awesome example. Ask somebody to choose to believe that their Hometown never existed. Ask them to try as hard as they can and then suggest to them that no matter how hard they try, they cannot choose to believe it.
You're welcome!
Interesting call. Hopefully the caller learned something.
just ask them to believe that they are 10 feet tall. anything that goes against an easily demonstrable fact.
A colleague of mine _believed_ that Word format was more efficient than HTML, being a binary format. I showed him what happened when a simple document was saved as HTML within MS word (not the most efficient method but 125Kb -> 12Kb). He then spent an hour trying different documents with similar results and therefore concluded that he had been wrong. No belief required, no choice available - he didn't _want_ to be wrong, he just was.
“Faith is just trust”, this is what ought to be printed on USA dollar bill! If someone is not clear what’s the difference let me try to give an explanation. Faith is used for beliefs that are not supported or are even contrary to empirical evidence, that’s why there are tens of thousands of religions, because anyone can make up stories to be taken on faith. Trust is a belief based on empirical evidence including previous repeated experiences, like for example when you buy an handphone you trust the shop to sell you something that works as advertised because it’s very rare to be cheated , you know that brand, nobody reported bad experiences with them and they have a warranty policy, that’s why the same handphones are sold all over the world. Trust has another property missing in faith, it can be withdrawn, removed, revoked once the initial assumptions are demonstrated false.
Ugh this guy just wasn’t getting it. Faith is the answer people give in place of “I don’t know” when they should say “I don’t know” instead of “I don’t know, therefore god”
9432515 9432515 then call it trust... you trust the brakes in your car will work when you press on them because you’ve been given many reasons over many years to trust it and you can understand the mechanisms involved. You don’t have faith that they’ll work.
I trust my friend will pick me up from the airport because in the past they’ve proven to be reliable...
Faith in terms of a god doesn’t have the track record to make it into “trust” territory
9432515 isn’t faith a belief in evidence unseen? Faith is believing without evidence... trust is believing with evidence
@@9432515 check the other thread where I showed how you ignore the dictionary definitions of faith in favor of one specific kind.
9432515 you know there’s a second definition of faith that matches my example in the dictionary right?
Even the first definition talks about confidence in the thing you have trust in. When it comes to a god claim there’s no real confidence when claiming faith
9432515 faith is believing in things unseen. Things without evidence lol.
Why do you even believe at all? Because the bible says to? Lol
I guess another 100 calls from Jeff and then, maybe, he will get it? I doubt it....
Religious faith is nothing more than the "Politically Correct" way of saying what it REALLY is, that being -- BLIND FAITH.
Blind Faith is when you Hope something is true, even though you have never Seen it, and it has Zero Real Evidence.
Hebrew's 11:1 -- "Now faith (pi'stis) is the assurance of things HOPED FOR, the conviction of things NOT SEEN."
There you have it.....the bibles admit you must have BLIND FAITH. That has proven to be Dangerous.
Jeff is holding a dollar bill thinking he's holding a thousand dollar bill.
@13:10
We finally addressed the underlying reason behind his initial assertion.
What's so frustrating about some people is that when they won't honestly address what the hosts say, they just pivot and say something else. They can be out maneuvered at every step of the way and they think they're somewhere close to being on the same footing.
It's pigeon chess.
Summary:
Atheist: faith is belief with 0% to 25% certainty, which should be avoided.
Jeff: faith is belief with 0% to 99.9999999% certainty, which can't be avoided.
So, Jeff, can you see a distinction between 10% certainty and 99.99% certainty? What words would you like to use for that distinction?
There are 2 def of faith
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
@@9432515 Shrek is love. Shrek is life. Life is the expression of Shrek. And Shrek is the literal expression of Life. Believe in Shrek for Shrek is Love.
“I know...” ... a statement of overestimating your own knowledge and by that definition knowing is kin to faith.
I actually wouldn't consider faith and belief synonymous in a colloquial sense, as they have markedly different connotations in every day conversation. It wouldn't necessarily make sense to say "I have faith the earth is round" whereas it does make sense to say "I believe the earth is round."
There's always faith (money) in the Banana stand.
At least I was eventually able to figure out what Jeff was trying to say. Better than some.
Perhaps you could explain. To me it sounded like they almost entirely agreed except jeff had something extra that just wasnt there because everytime he explained it it seemed he was saying what the hosts were and then adding something that he had to explain that to just wasnt there cause he agrred with the hosts but had something extra. Perhaps he wasnt able to communicate it thoroughly and its a bit circular but so was this conversation.
Hoping you had some better insights.
@@jamesonrosen1773 Did you see my other comments?
He considers belief with anything less than 100% certainty, which cant be avoided, to be faith. He does not (appear to) see any distinction between 10% certainty and 99.9999999% certainty. They're both faith to him.
@@jamesonrosen1773 I think the "something extra" was, after looking at the "evidence", he says, okay, I have 46% certainty, is that enough? Yes, I'll make up the renaming 54% with faith! [Random numbers for an example]
@@billskinner7670 i did not see your previous comments. Perhaps they are on another thread.
So if i can get this straight, please correct me if im wrong; you understand his argument to be that because we cannot know anything with absolute certainty any possibility can be used to justify faith?
If so, how can you verify that? I dont think you should champion anothers thoughts but im hoping you can shed light on his point.
I simply dont know how he is connecting the dots. He agrees and then i cant pin point his objection after he responds to the hosts. Perhaps he had trouble advocating his point this time.
Still super curious.
@@jamesonrosen1773 without rewatching the video, and telling you MY impression of what he was saying . . .
Are you 100% sure the next breath you take will not be full of poisonous gas? No, not 100%? But you take the breath anyway? Faith! Unavoidable! We all use it! (I didnt hear anything about whether or not we should, just that we ALL do.)
A disconnect that wasn't addressed in the call is how faith is viewed morally. It's one thing to try and agree (or not!) on the definition of faith and use it per that definition (or not!), but the aspect that was left out is that faith is viewed very differently in the christian community vs. the skeptical community. In christian circles, faith is regarded as a high virtue, whereas among skeptics, faith is looked down upon.
That's why in Jeff's mind, if one wants to be virtuous, one inevitably has to have faith.
TBH, that issue is secondary to agreeing on the way faith is used in a dialogue. Faith can mean many things, from "trust based on past experience" to "hope" to "trust despite the lack of evidence."
@@cy-one In my experience, the emotional charge with a word carries over into any conversation about the subject. Have you ever noticed, e.g., that you've met someone with a particular name, and you had a genuine dislike of that person; meeting the next person with that same name brings that negative connotation to the fore, even though that second person can be genuinely likable? It still takes some time before that negative charge associated with that name dissipates. It's the same with a concept like faith, the emotional charge associated with it can very easily eclipse a rational definition.
Do these callers do the rounds? This isn't the first caller I've heard that I've also heard on the show The Atheist Experience and other Atheist call-in shows. Thing is they keep trying the same dumb arguments that they tried on the other shows with the same outcome. Are they just looking for some affirmation or are they just trolls or insane as they keep doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
Isn't there some verse in the Bible that teaches to believe in the things unseen ? I. E. have faith in things which *you hope* are true. I prefer to follow the bus timetable and *hope* that the driver turned up to work today.
Hebrews 11:1.
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
It's so funny that theists keep trying to play word games. That's all they have. When we say that "you can't come to learn truth using faith", we are talking about a very specific definition of the word. "Religious Faith" is a very specific usage of that word, so when theists try to lump that definition together with all over definitions or usages of the word, you automatically know that they are trying to justify something with a logical fallacy.
Evidence is fact based, it is independent of self. Faith is believing without evidence.
I feel like I escaped it a bit over a decade ago
faith is belief without evidence. If you have evidence then its not faith. I believe if I drop something, it will drop towards the earth, this is belief based on evidence.
Jeff's position (as far as I can tell) is that faith is belief with less than 100% certainty, which is always.
Something wrong with the picture? Vi is all jagged, and Eric's head is a mile wide.
" Faith" is being used as a noun to these people. It's why they are a confused bunch.
@@9432515 Good thing that 'faith' is useless. Because if it can quantitatively be used to justify anything, that means it is of no use for anything relevant.
@@9432515 I didnt say it was not quantitative, i said it was useless. Way to evade the obvious flaw of your argument.
And thanks for showing that your faith is complete trash, if it is something before evidence (and in your analogy we have evidence that cars at least work) then is complete trash.
So no, is not blind faith, science have no use for something so useless, that is why it is discarded.
We don't need Faith, Faith is a Comfort Blanket that that Theists use when they get called out. I've never used that word in my whole life, the word I would use is confidence. I believe in lots of things, but not a Belief as a Theist would use the word Dishonestly.
Saying that you love someone you barely know is not genuine at all
Mental gymnastics
The first testimony of Moslems are Atheism. My question is who made it that way? I mean why it did not say directly there is one God or Allah? Need more clarification.
Equivocation fallacies are fun.
-
It is reasonable for this caller to say that he is trying to get both sides of the conversation to reach an understanding, but it is entirely unreasonable for him to say that all evidence is subjective, or that the words 'belief' and 'faith' can be interchangeable. In discussions on these kinds of topics the word 'faith' does not merely mean 'trust' as most theists who call in to shows like this claim that they 'know' with absolute certainty. In such discussions 'faith' always means the definition that Matt Dillahunty often cites ("the excuse people give when they don't have good evidence"), which is also compatible with the dictionary definition ("Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." - Oxford English Dictionary). There are some things that we are predisposed by evolution and genetics to have trust in (eg. that our mothers love us) but most of us, with a few unfortunate exceptions, have good reasons to believe this and our claim to know this are based on generally sound reasoning. However, the claims of theists to know anything about their god(s) are never, ever, based on anything but assertions from authority (scripture, religious leaders, prophets, etc.), personal experiences, and/or anecdotal stories of miraculous happenings and events which are ALWAYS unverifiable.
I once visited St Joseph's Cathedral in Montreal which used to have a room where they displayed piles of crutches and wheelchairs and other disability aids that the Catholic Church claimed had been discarded by faithful believers who no longer needed them because they had been miraculously cured after praying to St Joseph or the Virgin Mary in the cathedral These displays were cited by the church as 'proof' of the power of prayer to bring miracles, but there was not a single case-study of a supposed 'miracle' cure that could be verified by independent scientists and doctors as having no possible explanation except divine magic. Despite this lack of any verification, many Catholics chose to see this as 'proof' and this is why we have to have some objective standard by which to assess and judge factual claims - and science provides the only such standard.
Sane, rational, and reasonable people do not simply choose what they believe - they accept the evidence and tailor their beliefs accordingly. We can have valid discussions about the strength or weakness of certain kinds of evidence and how some types are prone to distortion or tampering or misinterpretation - I used to teach history and in that discipline we are well-acquainted with such discussions. However, when 'faith' is so clearly based on simply choosing to believe things for which there is no good evidence whatsoever (ie. that the gospels are entirely uncorrupted and factually accurate reports of actual events, or that they were written by eye-witnesses - despite the fact that none of the four authors makes this claim and one explicitly says he is reporting hearsay) then we can say with certainty that this is not a rational or evidence-based belief and that there is no objective standard of assessing evidence that would lead anyone to believe it.
I can't help but to imagine Matt Dillahunty listening to this airing at home flipping the fuck out super pissed that he wasn't in the room and on the phone. Seeing how the caller loves Mr. Dillahunty, and Eric Murphy an Vi La Bianca, I wonder if he loves looking like an idiot again, cause he's had his ass handed to'em plenty of times before.
he said that people just believe or have faith when a scientist shows his results but HE could reproduce those results himself if he took the time to learn and study and do the experiment. but we all don't have time to learn everything about everything, so we rely on experts to tell us what is true. do I trust experts? yes, most of the time, and i can check them if I really want to. that is not faith.
@@carolmosher7745 Can you please provide one piece of incontrovertible scientific evidence for god? I know I'm not Dustin, but I am an atheist. But I don't know any incontrovertible scientific evidence for god.
Or are you asking hypothetically?
Carol Mosher nice script. My friend who is a particle physicist says no.
I don't understand why you guys have such a problem with the question of solipsism. Sure, as Matt and others have noted, there is no way to disprove hard solipsism, but as a practical matter, on a most basic level, if we want to be able to communicate and cooperate with each other in any meaningful way, we must assume that there is some method of apportioning our level of confidence in a given disposition, according to the methods available to us. If you want me to believe something you are proposing, saying that there is no way to be absolutely sure that it isn't true, is not a persuasive argument that it is.
Facts and truth are not dependent upon belief nor faith. That which is truth and facts are proven to exist by evidences and remain true and factual irregardless wether any individual chooses to believe them or not and wether or not they have faith in whatever.
Let's use a simple example. Rocks exist. It does not matter what one labels them and or defines them or does not label or define them. They exist wether one can see them or experience them. They are by physical reality demonstrable reality to be what they are and exist in a tangible and reality that can be tested, proven and demonstrated to exist. That is truth and a fact. Wether on earth or in space or on other planets..... Rocks exist... wether anyone believes and or uses faith on these existing or not existing..that position they take is moot. Someone, who has never encountered a rock before will still have no impact on wether they exist. This is how facts and truth work. They remain constant no matter what an opinion, view point, observation, belief or faith upon such.
The caller is just bent upon trying to use word salad to try to get a point of lack of reasoning to seem to appear as it is using rationality and reason. It is completely devoid of it. And I think the caller knows this and still has a purposeful intent to be misleading.
I've talked to so many “Jeffs” before. They say a whole lot of nothing. It's like he's just trying to preach instead of actually having a substantive conversation.
Jeff is the human embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Faith and belief are not the same. They are by far in contrast different.
A belief is systemically held because of pieces and or areas that lead one to be convinced of something. Those areas and pieces can be faulty, erroneous, factual, truth, or they can be inconclusive to one person but conclusive to another. These pieces do not even have to be related to the subject but are just self interpreted as such that will convince.
Faith on the other hand is entirely different in subject and matter and has no requirements of material to convince towards belief. Faith is clearly defined and categorized as a proponent that is used to not to hold a belief, but that something is of truth with or without belief and the entirety of lacking any evidences or substances to give any validity towards.
This is why the bible defines it so clearly.. it is something hoped for..not seen or proven, can not be substantiated or have any areas of proven demonstrability.
This is area of hoped for..evidences of not being seen ..no areas to varify or use to come to the conclusion.. it is literally just a blind baseless, foundationless hope. That is faith..it has no rhyme or reason and or rationality and definitely no logic, reason, and nor basis towards reality.
Anyone who can not accept this area and process this either is avoiding such on purpose with deliberate intent of self deceptions or to deceive others with harmful intentions..
or they have a lacking of proper mental capacity to process and use critical thinking, logic, reasoning , rationality and using the observations of reality around them. These are left brain functions and processes of all human brains..specific regions and lobe areas of the left brain are the only places these functions and processes take place. One who is incapable of using these are definitely in a position of having some sort of problem or causal that does not allow for these normal healthy brain functions and processes of the left brain.
These Theists are hard word for people who live in the real world, and not the fantasy one they do. I too have imagination that I need to control, and don't need a false God to prop up those fantasies.
Soooooo the logic here is that: you have to believe the things that are objective truth and your belief is somehow also faith so everyone has faith which means ....? Not sure where he was going with that. Like is he trying to say athiesm is based on faith? But he never got to that part. All he did was discuss his personal definition of faith
Sidestepping the fact that simply accusing everyone of having faith is a dead-end argument that makes no point; there's a definite problem in conflating belief with faith. Those are different things.
I.E: Our beliefs are the things that we consider true. Okay so we all have beliefs. That's fine. Beliefs can be justified with evidence or not. Ideally try to base your beliefs on as much evidence as possible. Faith is _belief without evidence._ In other words faith is a (lower quality) form of belief, not an interchangeable word for it. Don't confuse the two. And since faith is belief without evidence, it is not healthy for you, and Matt Dillahunty is right to disdain it.
Faith also refutes Jeffs claim that all beliefs comes from some form of evidence, sorry that's not true. People prop up beliefs that have no evidence to back them all the time. That's how we get cults and conspiracies. Perhaps Jeff meant to say that beliefs come from some form of reasoning. That would be more accurate to say since people don't believe things without a reason to believe it. But that reason does not need to be evidence based at all.
Furthermore Jeff forgets the 3rd option: knowledge. You don't have to be stuck between ignorance and belief. You can also know things for a fact. Knowledge is superior to both belief and faith as it is entirely based on informed and objective experience. We can't know everything of course, which is why we all have beliefs to fill those gaps. But with knowledge you can certainly escape faith
@@9432515 That's not really faith though, that's trust. If a babysitter has a 5 star review, then I'll "trust" that babysitter . I don't place "faith" in it. Faith would be if I believed that babysitter could do no wrong even if they had a 1 star review. I wont make out faith to be more or less than what it is. And playing definition wars to try and change the scope of faith doesn't really get us anywhere
I respectfully disagree about science using faith. I don't see where it does that at all. If you have data and are able to draw conclusions from that data then you're not using faith. You're using information. Faith never made a successful flight to mars. Only well informed data and knowledge did.
The wording you used does not describe the scientific process. You don't amount evidence and then "step off into the unseen" as if your conclusions don't logically follow from your evidence. You amount evidence and then conclude based on what is seen from that evidence. Science never says "our evidence shows A, B and C but we have faith that it is X anyway". Science says "Our evidence shows A, B and C so D likely follows". Nor is anyone required to place undue faith or trust in any part of science as all contributors are subject to review and scrutiny.
I don't just agree with scientific principles out of faith that science is probably right. I agree with positions that shows logical evidence and it just so happens more scientific claims carry good evidence than religious claims do
Suggestion - dont wait 10 minutes to get real - and dont start with gravity. Start with daily stuff:
Do you "believe" that your smartphone or computer builds up a connection via skype, teams, zoom, etc... do you "believe" that you phone call really works and that the few people really react to you? Or are you reeeeaaaaalllly certain, BECAUSE your experience (empirical facts) tells you?
And if the computer or smartphone does NOT work... do you still believe it does work... or do you believe it does not work, cause... it does not work ;)
There are MANY "things" we rely in our life that we dont fully understand and built by other people. Yeah - we have "faith" that this shit works.... but this is faith with very good evidence, cause it works (most of the time).
"WE MUST HAVE FAITH", in what?
Anything and everything. He thinks belief with 99.999999999999% certainty is faith.
Thats ridiculous, how can you justify to yourself that you choose your beliefs, you cannot actively choose to accept gravity as it pertains to the physical effect, it exists, its there, whether you accept the term for it, the mechanics of it or not, thats active, willful ignorance, which coincidentally is exactly what beleif without or despite evidence is, also known and Vi and Eric's, and many other of us athiest's definition of faith.
Faith is not exclusive to religion or a God.
but religious faith is. And thats what is what we discuss.
That's why Matt often says there isn't anything that you _couldn't_ believe based solely on faith... which is why it's kind of useless.
Faith has the same definition of superstition
The caller uses belief to support his beliefs? Or the pathway to his beliefs is by using belief......? Yeah not confusing at all.
I declare a fatwah on these time wasting callers!
Matt has said many, many times that he doesn't consider absolute knowledge to be possible and that he apportions belief in accordance with the evidence and belief to a sufficient degree of confidence is generally considered to be knowledge. If that's what Jeff is calling faith the Matt has already agreed with him so to try to pretend that Matt is being dishonest or inconsistent is itself dishonest. The thing that Jeff is trying to obfuscate is that what he is actually trying to do is to put religious faith on a par with what he considers the "faith" in science that most of us have. That's the lie that he's trying to smuggle in.
Our scientific knowledge is based on our confidence in the data collected because it is based on hypothesis, testing and consistent results. Religious faith is clearly not based on those things. Religious faith is based on philosophical reasoning at best and every philosophical argument for a god has flaws. Religious faith is not based on evidence specifically because they cannot actually DO anything to show that their assertions are true. Much of religious philosophy is based on schemes of logic that human beings invented or just ideas that cannot currently be scientifically refuted. Creationists love the whole "just a theory" bit because that's what religion is, i.e. an idea that has not yet been absolutely refuted.
Exactly what I would have done switching to using belief instead of the word faith. It immediately shows everyone listening that he's full of shit and they clearly aren't synonyms in the way most people use the word. It frames his argument to perfectly show just how idiotic it is.
Also I think this is one of those guys that is just arguing cuz he likes to talk. I don't think he's really thought through this much at all.
The way he threw Matt Dilaunty spelled it wrong g under the buss was awful
It's Xeno. He hates Matt because he never buys his BS and cuts to the point, and just accuses him of being narcissistic
Jeff is a real thinker, umm ..he totally hasn't the foggiest clue what he's talking about.
Faith-complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Belief-a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
They are NOT synonymous. You can use one to get to the other
@anti-anti-intellectual x it is NOT dishonest because the definition does NOT counter any other definition.
@anti-anti-intellectual x yes words can have more than one meaning. The definition are NOT contradictory
@anti-anti-intellectual x yes. Stupid, dishonest people try to use different definition of a word to change what people think.
@anti-anti-intellectual x it double dishonest when the person won't give the different definition to prove their point.
@Cpl Hicks hey look at that. You DIDN'T contradict the definition I gave. So basically you proved my point. Yes, some people are so proud of their stupidity.
truth is evidence based faith is not
I Have Faith in Evidence
@Gary Thistle erm I was being sarcastic 🤣
@@douglassmith6663 But don't forget there's always _bad_ evidence.
@Gary Thistle I know LOL
Oh dear oh dear must be my British Humour 🤣
@Gary Thistle Insufficient evidence, if you’d prefer.
You can define faith just as trust if you want but then religious people are practicing something other than faith to believe in a god. If you know that a god exists then you can trust that god to do something but you can't trust a god to exist. Things that don't exists can't be trusted to do anything. The fact that Christians enjoy using faith in a spouse as an analogy for faith in a god just shows that they're not talking about the same thing.
The problem here is that Jeff is trying to say that Christians who believe in a god based on faith are on the same footing as those who don't. He's wrong. Anything that has as little evidence as a god is not accepted by the average atheist to the degree that Christians accept the existence of a god. I think that it's safe to say that Jeff doesn't consider the faith of Muslims and Hindus as being on a par with his faith and that of other Christians. If we all exercise faith then Jeff's religious faith is not on par with an atheist's faith in science.
You miss the point every time. Like you came close to it. He was arguing we all have to believe and execute faith, and BECAUSE of that, we're all the same on that level. But. Not all beliefs are equal. So everyone having beliefs means nothing because everyone doesn't have equally valid beliefs. And the reason he was harping on everyone needing to "exercise belief" only works if everyone who has to choose to excercise belief has the same level of validity in those beliefs. Faith isn't exercising believe. It is ignoring the importance of levels of validity. We NO NOT all have to ignore the importance of levels of validity.
Don't get exasperated. It's not his ignorance that is frustrating you. It is your own lack of eloquence in communicating to his level of understanding. He doesn't need a higher level of understanding to understand here. You needed more eloquence in understanding what he was missing. It's like this in almost every video. I wish we could talk because I appreciate the goals of channels like this. Only the impact of the marks you miss feel worse than not having these conversations at all sometimes
I don't understand why the two don't just support Matt's statement that you can believe anything on faith.. why distance yourself from this and play this long-winded word game? The point Matt always makes is, if i believe on faith that white ppl are better than black ppl, does that mean it's true? Of cause not.. hence using faith can make u believe both true and false things, so faith is unreliable. That's Matt's point no? And it is valid. Yes, we all believe things, but the point is to base what you believe on reality and evidence as far as possible.. not cos it feels good or cos you just have faith. And one should be especially careful about Faith in far fetched ideas beyond our scope of reality.. surely that requires even better evidence before believe in it is valid.
this dude has beef with Matt but can't pull these guys into his psycho-drama
There is no such thing as "mind".
This guy is a low quality chef, making a poor salad.
This guy's problem is that he thinks science is just a bunch of "philosophers" sitting around discussing their ideas on things and the one with the most convincing argument has what they consider absolute proof. He has no idea that science is a very specific methodology and that science, by definition, doesn't make absolute claims to absolute truth and leaves the door open for other interpretations of the data when there's more of it to parse. No scientist gives a shit about what Einstein said because Einstein said it (outside of extracurricular fanboying, which I'm sometimes okay with). No one took his word alone as proof of General Relativity in 1905. It wasn't until 1920, give or take a couple of years (I don't remember off the top of my head) where his predictions were born out by observation of a solar eclipse, that everyone accepted his hypothesis as the best explanation for how the universe works. Religious people listen to authority figures for no other reason than they have authority. Science listens to authority figures because of what they can prove through the data. I don't get why this is so difficult for the vast majority of people on Earth to understand.
We all choose who we believe and we all believe someone.
@Jay R.
I guess that makes you an agnostic since there is no demonstrable evidence that God doesn't exist.
@Jay R.
You can't be an atheist since an atheist believes God doesn't exists and you don't believe anything.
@Jay R.
You mean you don't believe God doesn't exist?
@Jay R.
I'm asking a simple yes or no question. If you've taken a position and you don't have any demonstrable evidence for that position, how is it not based on what you believe to be true?
If you have chosen to believe no one, do you claim your position would be the same if you had never had any input from anyone else, like if you were the only person in the wold?
@Jay R.
Exactly. That's why you are an atheist. You don't believe a God exists.
Jeff thinks he’s a genius.
It’s just really sad.
atheists & religious people can’t voice these words ONLY-> I refuse to be condemned already 😢
👇🏻Heres why👇🏻
Jn.3:18 He that believeth on Him is not condemned:but he that believeth not is condemned already,because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Holy Spirit is WAY clever isn’t He?
✝️The Only Way.Jn.3:7✝️
PRAISE JESUS!
Refuse Jesus = Accept satan (Matt.12:30)
People that promote atheism & religion are full of demons hence their inability to voice these words ONLY-> I refuse to be full of demons 😢😱
It’s the mother of all mistakes to REFUSE Jesus Christ!✝️
Haha. This is a new one. Refusing to be full of demons. 😂
Tell you what, I'm going to refuse of being full Jesus when he cums again. I'll leave the pleasure to you! 😂
Sad, pathetic idiot.
@@doctorgorgomel using thr Bible to prove the Bible, wow, that's not a tactic I've seen a million times before 🙄
The Holy Spirit is a horseshit concept, and if Jesus or Satan were real, I'd tell them they're useless and obsolete. God does not be the reals.
Much ado about nothing Jeff. Next time, call in about something that's more interesting.
Wow, you guys lost from the jump, you can't change the definition of words so they fit your argument.. how can you say, yes those are synonyms but to have a nuanced conversation we have to change the meaning.. I'm disappointed.. (I'm 3:50 into the video)
Jeff is boring.