Well, I've seen people eat tide pods, I know what people eat comes out as waste, so tide goes in and tides go out is simply your body digesting as much as it can and expelling the waste.
Personally, I like AronRa's statement "Having no good reason to believe something is a pretty good reason not to believe it." Now explaining to someone WHY their reason is unconvincing and insufficient can become complicated. Luckily, I generally don't care what religious bullshittery someone subscribes to. I make my objections when they misrepresent my position, the Atheist position in general or commit gross misunderstandings, misrepresentations or outright lies about science.
It's entirely possible to demonstrate that ME believing in a god is unjustified. And It's entirely possible to demonstrate that whatever reasons I'm given by someone who thinks I should believe are unconvincing and insufficient. As I said, I generally don't waste my time on what other people believe unless it's causing a problem, or, they are genuinely interested in my opinions. OR they are in a forum where they can expect to have their beliefs questioned and debated. I'm far more concerned about the horrible arguments they make about Atheists and science in an attempt to justify spreading their myths and fables. IMO a belief in any God is unjustified because we have no evidence that such a being CAN exist, much less does. And, as I said previously (or at least AronRa said it for me.) NOT having a good reason to believe something is a very good reason NOT to believe it. Personally, for me, that's far more than enough justification. But, I'm entirely aware that my opinion is mine alone and that other people may not share the standards of evidence I place upon extraordinary claims that have never been proven. C'est la vie
You're missing my point. I don't care what you believe. Unless you're causing problems, If you wanna believe in God, pixies, leprechauns, or the invisible pink dragon in your garage it means nothing to me. I'm not even interested in WHY you believe it. What you believe tells me why. BUT! If you want ME to believe, you better have something better than anecdotal stories or the apologetics I've listened to, and rejected a thousand times. You'll need something more than faith or the threat of hell and you'll most certainly need a lot more than the Bible. And I'd be interested in what strong argument you could possibly advance that every Atheist who is active in the debate hasn't heard 1000 times. And refuted and rejected.
Frances Snowflake A good reason for WHO to believe intelligent aliens existed? You may believe it. I would question your mental health. Anecdotal evidence......isn't.
Saying. "I don't believe what you're claiming because your claim is extraordinary and your evidence is inadequate" in no way places a burden of proof on me. What, precisely, is there for me to prove in that statement? That I don't believe you? That your evidence is wanting? What? Once again, you haven't given me any reason to believe you so why should I? Whats more, I'm not even making a claim ABOUT the existence of your aliens, or gods. I'm making a statement of disbelief in YOUR claim. I am, in essence, calling into question the veracity of your statement due to the total lack of empirical evidence. "I'm simply demonstrating the inherent problems of holding the position other people's beliefs are irrational." If I can, in no way, find a rational reason for those beliefs than I am wholly justified in my opinion that they are irrational. There are people who believe the earth is flat. Their reasons for this are irrational. Therefore their belief is irrational. Same with the anti-vaxxers, except they're ignorant and irrational. As I have tried, repeatedly, ad nauseam, to explain to you, If you make incredible claims WITHOUT extraordinary, rational, convincing, evidence then I am left without choice. I must consider your claim irrational and unworthy of consideration until you are able to provide said evidence. This is not rocket surgery.
But I am arguing about objective reality. What I'm saying is really really really really simple. If you make a claim ABOUT objective reality; i.e. God exists or you took a tour of the solar system with your alien buddies in their faster than light spacecraft. I'm going to require objective, verifiable, RATIONAL evidence of the same caliber as the claim being made. Here's the money shot, read it slowly: IF you CANNOT provide that EVIDENCE then I have no reason to believe you and no choice but to disbelieve you. Another great quote of AronRa's "If you can't show it, you don't know it.
I recently had a small argument with a relative who made a claim of miracles. She decided that it must be true and that God existed for the following reason. "Only God has the power to do things like that. So that proves there is a God." Although the topic changed from verifying the incident as a miracle or not went out the window. My reply was "only He-Man can hold the magic sword because he obviously has the power of grey skull. Therefore the magic exists, the character exists and every element you can add to it that parralells religious explanations.
I like this style of video....face to face and clear of any clutter of diagrams or music. It works really well because what you have to say is pithy, unambiguous and doesn't try to say too much but is a fantastic lesson on how to arm yourself in discussions.
So well said! Gods I wish I could speak so eloquently. I try to sound like matt when addressing people when they bring up religious topics. But it's like imitating your favourite band. You might sound almost like them, but you're just not them. Period
Found your channel very recently and have become a huge fan - I love how absolutely precise you are in your arguments. You boil things down to the root of the issue better than damn near anyone I've seen. I've always thought this was incredibly simple as why would I believe in anything that I can't experience in a way that can be defined? It just stuns me that people don't see religion for what it is, the greatest evil ever put upon mankind, period.
Your last point is the critical one and the one that nearly every Christian I debate fights to avoid. The debate is not ABOUT whether or not some god exists in reality, but whether or not it is rational to BELIEVE that one does - especially a specific one. That was one brilliant move by William Lane Craig - he accepted that premise with his whole "reasonable faith" shtick, and rather than defending the actual existence of god, he switched to lamely trying to defend the rationality of believing in god. That's why Kalaam works so well for him. Because most laymen will accept the premises of that argument because they seem intuitively true. He's like a drug pusher - the sample is Kalaam - get them to accept that it is reasonable to believe in SOME god, then move them to the harder product later.
Always enjoy watching you Matt. I'm no expert with debates but observing you has definitely helped me become better at seeing the flaws in religious arguments as well as being able to counter them. Thanks for being awesome!
Thanks Matt for this reality check. As an ex-theist it's a constant battle to use critical thinking instead of assuming I have the answers to some of the more basic to the most complex issues. Critical thinking is a work in progress and I need people like you to help keep my feet on the ground.
But you see, if you derive your atheist arguments from a mythological book you are as dumb as an believer that bases his views on that book 😉. And more, I’m sure that there are believers more inteligent than you: it’s only maths. You are just one person; there are millions of believers in the world. In your all or nothing argument (if one is a believer one didn’t born with the ability to think) it follows that logically you are more intelligent that those millions of believers. Well it’s not impossible BUT HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Of course you or me are more intelligent that some of those believers. Not any less true that there are a lot of believers that ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THAT YOU OR ME. Well, if you really borne with the ability to think you understood what I said. Nevertheless I think very poorly of people like you that are really intelectually dishonest.
MAC and ME I understand you point and even agree with you. I honestly didn't make myself clear. My point is this: I guess (a personal theory) that a lot of "atheists" specially in the realm of the most passionate, are really not atheists. To give an analogy its like the policeman that is a criminal or the firefighter the starts fire. The examples are not very good because of the content, don't mean any judging here. I thinks it's a Freudian internal issue. I mean a lot of atheists really know very well the bible!!! Where others really don't. Like I said it's just a personal theory.
Philotical It's not even that I dont _want_ to believe in a god; when I was young and losing my religion I desperately _did_ want to believe. It was just that the more O learned about the subject; about the lack of evidence, the bad arguments from apologists, the history of religion in general and Christianity specifically, the history of the Bible, and much more, the more I could not swallow the BS anymore. I would love for there to be a truly omnibenevolent and omnipotent god to exist. I would also love to become a billionaire. I just don't see either as being even likely, let alone true.
Human minds can leap to irrational judgments and cling to them, for whatever reason. To the mind of a zealot, simple arguments are too simple and robust arguments are "word salad."
This is an unfortunate consequence of our evolution. Type 1 errors are more likely to keep you alive long enough to reproduce, where type 2 tend to make you lunch. If you hear a rustling in the grass, and you think it's a predator and run, you're more likely to live, even if it's a false alarm. If you hear a rustling in the grass, and think it's the wind when it's actually a predator, you're lunch! Those with the tendency towards type 1 errors (at least what can be attributed to genetics) preferentially survive to pass on the genes that made them that way. If, on the other hand, this is a learned behavior (I suspect it's actually a mix of both, depending on the individual), then naturally you'll pass your behaviors on to your children, and the tendency becomes the default action in the population. Either way, it's a selection process. Presuming that animation requires agency is a type 1 error. It keeps us alive, and keeps us believing in religion. Many atheists, especially those raised as Baptist or Catholic, etc (or any denomination putting special emphasis the doctrine of Hell, really), have difficulty getting over the fear of hell. This irrational fear of a non-existent threat is a borne out of that same instinct - better to play it safe and live, even if it's just a false alarm, and so that instinct keeps calling them back, even if they have no rational reason to believe it.
Word salad is just a complex argument that has no meaning or value but is meant to sound profound. It’s common for pseudo-intellectuals to use word salad.
BlackEpyon I'm black, english ex-catholic and hard/soft/atheist (Mum and family would be too traumatised). I always had a fear of the concept of heaven, not hell. It seems so boring and charmless, everyone knows your business after trillions of years. Satan must have realised this and the rest is history
I think this is what Dan Barker does well; he’s very good at taking complex biblical arguments and reducing them to the simplest foundations. He avoids intricate, wordy, “high-falutin” arguments in favor of common sense, intuitive ones. As Matt points out, this approach may have it’s flaws, but I think Barker is able to employ this tact well while mostly avoiding those flaws.
Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume (Semen); she poured it on Jesus' feet (Penis) and wiped his feet with her (Pubic) hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
Complete semantics tangent- highfalutin is now a standard form with no hyphen requirement as it's not considered a compound word. Probably used to be, though.
the locusts we have in North America...are not "locusts"...they're a variety of cicada. The "locusts" of the middle east and africa are a type of grasshopper....Different kind of critter and they cycle for different reasons...
it's a pretty widespread designation across most of the northeast and midwest US...everywhere the 7, 12 and 17 years cicada's swarms happen...you'll frequently hear them being called "locusts"...most people don't really understand there is a distinct difference between cicada's and locusts..(sadly, most people don't seem to care there is a difference or bother to learn what it is...)
Kinda like how certain areas call soda 'pop' or something else and other areas call it soda? In the southwest we call cicadas just that, and I don't recall them ever swarming, you just hear them. Not sure about locusts, but we get swarms of grasshoppers every once in awhile, but you see them year round and their gestation is very short/quick. I used to think cicadas were the palo verde beetles when I was little, because we'd always see the beetles. Then I learned the sound wasn't from them at all, but the cicadas that stay hidden in the trees, for the more part.
Hi Matt. Question. Why don't you or the atheist experience do some coverage of atheistic countries in Europe? You know americans have a twisted view of modern society elsewhere and often have little knowledge about it. Like healthcare, religion, economics etc. The american people needs to see what happens when religion no longer influences society and how morality has reached a high level in a society without religion. Like free healthcare, is a moral decision by the government to take care of it's people. I think americans need to see how things really are. Atheism produces alot of wonderful things.
I remember Matt discussing this with a caller, and he used the term "well being for yourself and others" as a basis for morality, wich the caller didn't get. It's important to educate people on why this matter and what it tells you. If you don't know what is good for you or others, you can't contribute in a productive positive way. The only way to know is through scientific research and education of the population. Policies in secular societies are based on knowledge. I think that is the greatest challenge in USA. Education. The internet provides alot in 2018, but the core education in schools are influenced and corrupted by agendas and opinions. This is why religion, creationism and bullshit is allowed to thrive in USA and why Donald Trump is the president.
+David Anewman Hitler used all sorts of religious acts to determine where to attack, Mussolini was a believer how just used atheism to describe that he was not found of it. Because a real atheist would probably not be superstitious and in act regulation that strengthen the church involvement with the state matters.
I would suggest that thinking and facts cannot compete with feelings and fear. My explanation for this is personal, anecdotal, and lengthy, but I think it is worth visiting. I've been an Atheist for my entire life. My parents never brought it up, and I never went through the indoctrination process. As a result, I am lacking in the fear and guilt that are essential to religious belief. For this reason, I had always considered myself to be a smart, skeptical, and logical person who has respect for facts. While I had never known what it felt like to be a religious person, I was about to learn the hard way. But then, in late 2013, a Facebook "friend" came to me with a cry for help; that she had cancer and needed money. She learned a lot about me by observing me on Facebook for two years, and threw in the idea that all of her friends were Christians and were just sending her prayers and no money. She begged for her life, and gave me some "evidence." I believed her, and set out to help her in any way that I could. About two months in, there were some rumblings that she was a scammer, a fake, and a fraud. By this point, I had gotten very emotionally invested in the situation, to the point that I feared not believing her. What if I was wrong, and she died? By this point, I think that the window of time where I could have been convinced had been closed. In other words, my indoctrination had been completed, and had settled in my emotional faculties. I do remember a few friends, who are also Atheists, who tried to talk sense into me. While they failed in a few ways, for example invoking _argumentum ad populum_ by nothing that everyone knew she was a fake, they begged me to think about it. I remember being so afraid of even CONSIDERING the idea that she was taking me for a ride. How could this be? She was my friend! No matter how many logical arguments they made, it did not sink in. When they made arguments, I would feel sick to my stomach. People began attacking me about it, and that did nothing but strengthen my resolve. She employed lots of psychological games, and became abusive. But nothing was going to stop me at this point. Even about 7 months in, when I was starting to have my own doubts, there was something that I can only describe as a type of PAIN in my head, that came with a great deal of fear. By around 9 months, the truth finally hit one day, when we had an argument and she told me to "fuck off." To say that I felt stupid would be an understatement. This event utterly and totally destroyed my life. Financially, socially, professionally, and personally, I was ruined. It took me about 3-4 months just to come to terms with what exactly happened, and over 3.5 years to get my head to a healthy place. Looking back on it, I recognized that *_no amount of logic was going to get me OUT of that situation, for logic did not get me INTO that situation._* It was 100% emotional. I felt the fear of letting a "friend" down, as well as the fear of being wrong and thus being an idiot. Plus, I would feel guilty if she died because I stopped believing her claims. Before this, I'd wondered why Christians could not accept the facts, why they would not listen, why they could not acknowledge any arguments that I would make against their beliefs. I thought of them as being "weak" or "stupid." But after my experience, I came to understand the *fear and pain* that they would experience when hearing anything that went against their beliefs. While my dogmatic belief that my "friend" was terminally ill and needed my help was not religions in nature, it very well may have been, for it was on the same tracks. Coming out of the other end of this experience, I do regret the attitude that I had toward them. I regret the "pwnage" videos that I made on UA-cam from 2009-2011 under another name. The whole time, I talked about something that I knew nothing about, which was why these people cling to their beliefs with fear. Still, I think that discussions are important, and are most definitely more productive than emotional attacks. I do think that these discussions are worth having. And I think that, with my experience, I now have a level of empathy that might enable me to have better discussions and debates about it. *_I can see the communication problem, but what I cannot yet see is a solution to this problem._* At the very least, I may be more productive in planting seeds which may grow into something at a later date. This is because now I know what it's like to sincerely and dogmatically believe something that is an utter lie. I also know what happens when that lie is shattered and your world comes down. But this is what MUST happen to the lie. I felt a great deal of comfort in my belief of the lie that was very effectively and emotionally sold to me. I believed that I was doing the right thing. I believed that I was saving a life. The truth was that I was destroying my own life, and I am fortunate that the lie was broken before it was too late.
DrumWild its better to have experienced religion when young and outgrow it, than never to experience it. It is like an immunity shot. This is one of the problem that is facing many western, atheistic nations now. Many there have never experienced this kind of manipulation and fall for all the emotional manipulation that comes from outside their countries, especially from other highly theocratic religious countries. Though I would state, not everyone is able to recover well from that immunity shot. Anyways, now you have learned. A reasonable amount of cynicism is actually good for survival and health.
That was awesome when you were reading the email the arguments made sense to me but I was blown away by how you suggested proposing these explanations shifts the burden of proof that was awesome!
your the man matt...way to keep it 100% real and honest..got my first christian to say that makes sense and walk away today!! remember guys stay calm and use your head
I think locusts referred to in the Bible were a type of grasshopper. In the southern Us, we often refer to cicadas as locusts, but they're very different. Cicadas don't destroy crops, whereas swarms of grasshoppers can do massive damage.
The difference is, all those 'hip intellectuals' tend to go away after a while. Matt has been doing this for years and years. It might look easy to gain a huge following quickly, but that huge following can die out just as fast as it came. There is no depth to JP's arguments.
Calling people names and insults isn't an argument, FYI. Dr Peterson is an interesting guy with interesting science backed ideas. I enjoy his content just like I enjoy many others.
He appeals to emotion. He is a Preacher. We may need to adopt some of the tactics used by the other side. Hitchens would do it, quite often. He was a rhetorician, after all.
In this particular case, it's pointless to argue about possible natural causes for the plagues of Egypt because that story has a much more critical flaw: according to historic and archaeological evidence, there never was a huge subjugated population of hebrews in Egypt. The Exodus didn't happen, and thus this whole story is entirely made up. Up to and including the character of Moses.
"Whether or not the Bible is reliable is independent of whether the Bible is accurate." - The implication for arguments, in simpler words, is that the something in the Bible is not automatically false, but simply being in the Bible is not enough to believe it to be true.
Shouldn't a supernatural cause, given that anything supernatural be outside of the natural world be dismissed immediately out of hand? If a supernatural cause could be demonstrated by means of natural processes then the supernatural cause would then be natural. If it cannot then isn't it not worth worrying about?
Ah. My question is simpler than you give me credit for. Let me rephrase. If the supernatural is that which cannot be achieved by any natural means (and to my mind that is the common usage of the word), can we not dismiss those claims of supernatural influences out of hand and settle on investigating the natural causes?
Let me ask another question then, my original may be further clarified. When a supernatural cause is identified and investigated and explained as supernatural, does it not then cease being supernatural and start being natural? Is there any reason to truck with the idea of the supernatural itself when we know that in order to affect reality a cause must have natural means?
IdleBigots if something supernatural has an effect on natural world, doesn't that imply that there is some form of interaction between the two? If so, then is it unreasonable to assume that supernatural is nothing more than natural that has not been understood, yet? Or simply even, that natural things have some property that is not understood, yet? I really don't see any reason to invoke supernatural. Even that word itself makes no sense.
IdleBigots but what would it even mean to look for unnatural causes? How could you look for unnatural causes using natural instruments? If something can be identified or has interaction with natural or physical objects, then it ceases to be unnatural. In the same way if something 'unnatural' interacts with natural, then in the same way it ceases to be unnatural. I think this is the same type of thought that makes people to get confused about mind-body dualism.
IdleBigots I think I know where the confusion is. You are taking instances of unexplained phenomena as possibility of supernatural , whereas I am talking about it as a concept. As a concept, supernatural makes no sense to me. From my perspective, there is nothing dishonest about it. Would you start believing in God, if suddenly a loud voice starts coming from the sky, observed by every single being on the planet that can which is unexplainable by anything we know? I know some would but that, to me, is still not evidence of God per se, but evidence of something that could do that.
I like to think of this kind of issue in a particular way. We have loads of evidence that lightning is a natural phenomena formed under specific conditions, but if you were to point at any particular bolt of lightning we can't actually prove that it wasn't thrown by a god. Chances are we have no evidence that it was thrown by a god, but that is why I don't like to look at events and simply assume that it a natural phenomena that was misinterpreted in some fashion.
I'm seeing increasingly more atheist content on how atheists need to make better arguments and really understand what's going on in the theists head. And I'm glad this is happening, it is showing results. I think religion will always attempt to adjust their position when a undeniable rebuttal is brought forth. This causes a shift in argumentation and how it should be applied. It's not the easy downhill battle that we would like it to be with a single rebuttal to a single argument, it's more like an arms race between rebuttals and dodgy apologetics. The better and clearer our rebuttals get, the dodgier the apologetics get and we then need to dissect the new apologetic. Not that the apologetics are any less ridiculous, but they use their tools of presuppositions and often radical solipsism to make it harder for the skeptic to dissect and communicate to a believing audience.
*I had what I can describe as an earthquake Holy Spirit conviction, a life changing experience which lasted about three or four months. Crying, on my knees begging for forgiveness, deep, DEEP repentance, many tears, desire to read the Bible and go to chirch. Asked for forgiveness from friends and ex-girlfriends, returned things stolen or payed for books I had taken, confessed to those I had lied to. Gave away money to the poor, had homeless people sleep in my apartment; it was anything but a mild or calculated feeling “in my head” that could be dismissed or explained away. There was nothing logical about it, the Spirit takes over you, you DO NOT WANT TO SIN. I was extremely sensitive during this time, like walking on egg shells. Logic and Spirit don’t mix and so I see all the reasons the Bible is contradictory, all the reasons people say Jesus could not have existed, and can see why it could be explained away as a “self generated delusion.” And it does not matter what they say bc they cannot understand the Spirit takes over you and how do I explain that? I have fallen a few times I ask for forgiveness, I can’t say I understand any of it. The Spirit came back after ten years and then three years after that and the experiences were the same: electric, intense, convictions, other worldly, cathartic. I read ex-Christian testimonies or atheists enumerating the reasons why it shouldn’t work. No one can argue argue against logic and yes it makes sense what they say but at the end of the day it is irrelevant. I have yet to hear an earth shaking experience w/ the Holy Spirit and that logic survived*
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you are calling locust are Cicadas not locust. Cicadas do not eat once they are out of the ground every so many years.. locust are more like grasshoppers and do eat everything they possibly can but do not come out of the ground. However on that note I do understand someone trying to use simpler analogies to argue.
Hi Matt. Since I'm sure that you're always looking for Monday morning quarterbacking, I remember a debate that you had with a guy that had a name like Sy Von Tenderbrooks. I know that it's wrong, but I remember it because he was such an ahole (forgive the English). Towards the end he was summing up with something like "you know that you are all christians but you choose hell"" or "you all know that there is a christian god, but you choose to sin". One of the very few times that I have wished to insert a sentence or two into your response would have been: "And Sy (I'm pretty sure that was his first name) you know that you don't believe in a christian god. Why are you so afraid to admit it?". I was really in the mood to see him blow his top. He did look like he might be a guy that could move across a room pretty quickly. I guess I'll live vicariously behind your nose. By the way, have you noticed how many people are referring to Occam's Razor these days? Do you know if I can still copyright it? Oh and you did a GREAT job against Peterson. I don't know why the guy talks about religion. I don't think he's read the bible. Seems that all his arguments are from the books of esteemed (?) authors that he name-drops. He believes in god AND uses bad examples. Like a Bizarro Hitch. Catholics are prone to that. I was catholic. I still have to fight the urge to punch elderly nuns because they remind me of grade school. Ahhhhh, those were the days.
1) Let's make an assumption: There is a universe and we can observe it. 2) As we observe the universe, we can begin to make predictions based on the observations. 3) Repeated observations allow us to make hypotheses as to the causal link between actions and results. 4) We can test a hypothesis by performing the action and observing the result. This yields evidence. 5) The more evidence, the more something is likely to be factually correct. 6) One can gather various very probably factually correct hypotheses to form a working model of the universe. 7) The working model is good until we find another hypothesis that contradicts our model, in which case we need to adjust our model. Now, apply this to specific claims of the bible. By speaking an incantation over wine, wine will turn into the blood of Jesus. This has never been observed. Thus, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. Thus, the hypothesis is a weak one. Perhaps debates should be focused on the specific testable claims of the debater.
10:40 what use is the proper allocation of the burden on matters which nobody can prove anything about? seems like it doesn't get us anywhere - you need more than a stalemate to change someone's mind
I don't argue with theists. I usually tell them to call me a western, secular buddhist if atheist makes them uncomfortable. One explains what I don't believe; any form of personified God or higher power as described by religious texts, and a lack of evidence to support any other higher power. But I really like Sam Harris' description of spirituality, more focused on reducing internal suffering by meditation rather than anything supernatural. Especially given the research that's been coming out on the benefits of a daily meditation practice. The benefits of meditation are so great that I'm even pushing the religous into it, arguing that you don't need to abandon any views to benefit. You can meditation on the image of Jesus and receive benefit as well. I'd suspect that's what a lot of prayer actually is when it's done over a long period. When its not using words to ask for whatever. I know that the experience of transcendence and awe (paltry words for the experience) are not limited to those of faith.
Yeah if a swarm of locusts came every 7 years I think people would have noticed the pattern. Ancient peoples weren't idiots, especially when agriculture was crucially important to their society. If they made a myth out of it it must've been an exceptional event, or an exceptionally nasty occurrence. or it was just a story.
I don't find the arguments found among the atheist "community" to be complex. I *do* find some of the personalities extremely off-putting. I wouldn't want someone like Aron Ra on my team, strictly for PR reasons. We've all encountered the high-IQ types with a low social quotient. This is something that needs to be considered from a tactical position. I'm not saying we should indulge apologetics, but I am advocating for *not being a dick* Mr. Dillahunty is, of course, excepted. Seems like a nice fella, has a good "bedside manner".
10:22 Matt says: If the correct answer is "I don't know what the explanation is for this." You are still putting the burden of proof where it belongs. The people who think that they do know what the explanation is, the people that think that their God proposal is the best explanation, they maintain the burden of proof. I love to keep the burden of proof there. What this statement fails to address is that "I don't know" is not necessarily an answer in regards to whether a God exists or not. It's a standstill, it's a null-response, it doesn't say yes or no. So, therefore anyone attempting to claim there is no God or there is a God will necessarily hold a burden of proof.
Matt is against ALL bad arguments, no matter which side is making them. He’s especially interested in correcting bad arguments carried out by people who are on the same side as he is, because it makes the position look less credible when you have nonskeptical people making bad arguments on our side. Like cutting a tumor out of your own body before it grows.
On a side note… What irritates me is people calling themselves skeptics when they are not. What also irritates me are statements that you have to question everything and that you have to consider everything with equal value. These arguments are used, actually abused, presenting irrelevant time wasting discussions such as: "I am a (true) skeptic by questioning evolution. I consider all strength and weaknesses. And intelligent design is an equally viable explanation, nay, even a better explanation for the origin and continuation of life.". There is nothing skeptical about the above statement. Strenght and weaknesses are the wrong terms. And there is no equality in explanation power between the theory of evolution and the vague hypothesis of intelligent design. A true skeptic never calls himself/herself a "true" skeptic. "Truth" and "Skepticism" are polar expressions. Because "truth" implies an unchangeable end state. Skepticism recognises and includes change. Skepticism does not use terms as "strength" and "weaknesses". Instead it recognises degrees of reliability with known observations. And it recognises that new insights may change or even overthrow current scientific explanations … if and when these new insights have proved to be highly reliable themselves. An alternative explanation is less reliable when it either is unproveable, has its major claims proved wrong, or has a narrow scope that is inconsistent with a larger scope. All of the above is true for the intelligent design hypothesis. Likewise, climate change deniers, illuminati believers, flat earth believers, chem trail believers, haarp causes earth quake believers, vacination causes autism believers, alternative medicine believers, moon visit deniers, holocaust deniers, all uses and abuses the same arguments as described above. Very tiresome. In contrast, we know that the gravitation theory and the quatum theory is not complete because, as it stands, these theories can currently not be integrated. But scientists are working on that. And both theories have a scope consistent with known observations. And both have a scope that complement each other without being inconsistent. Similarly, we know we have not, and cannot, predict every detail of … you name it … evolution, the climate, or whatever. Which does not imply that all of these scientific theories are worthless. It only means that there are different degrees of reliability. And, as it stands, the aforementioned scientific examples prove to be highly reliable given current known observations and scientific explanations. As to the bible and other holy books, that has proved to be incorrect on many observations, trivial on what is proved to be correct, and extremely vague when used as a hindsight argument. As such the bible, and other holy books, have proved to be highly unreliable.
Wim Ahlers I agree with you, but wanted to point out that explanatory power is secondary to predictive power. Like, let us say, for sake of argument, that Intelligent Design offered better explanatory power than evolution, but far less predictive power. Then evolution would be the stronger theory because explaining things is nice, but can be achieved by ad hoc explanations. Predictive power is actually far more useful. Like if we have two theories about the physics of flight. One offers a lot of explanatory power, but its predictions keep being wrong and all or most or even many of the planes crash. The other lacks some of that explanatory power, but its predictions keep being accurate, and the planes keep flying. The latter is the better theory. Of course, theories with great predictive power often also have great explanatory power, my point is only that one power is more important than the other. Cheers :)
Great video Matt. Regarding the email you talk about, to be accurate, science and the scientific method were established and flourished long before Christianity. For example the ancient Greeks among others studied disease and set the foundations for the modern medicine.Also in astronomy the celestial phenomena were studied,, actually the ancient Greeks were in a position to predict the eclipses.It's just that Christianity came and drowned all that with their nonsense.If Christianity hadn't halted science for so long we would be so much more advanced now.
It’s always bugged me that we ask theists for demonstrations of the supernatural. It is definitionally impossible to demonstrate the supernatural, because as soon as something is tangible and testable and able to be demonstrated and have evidence of its existence, it becomes accepted as a part of the natural and is no longer called “supernatural”. It’s like “supernatural” is the term we apply to things we don’t have evidence for or can’t have evidence for. Believing in the supernatural is then definitionally irrational because you can’t have evidence for it if it is beyond nature and doesn’t manifest here.
Kevin Benoit True, but that isn't the point. The point is that if one cannot, in any way, test one's belief in a proposition, then it is irrational to believe that proposition to be true, or even false. The point, imo, is to try and get theists to better understand epistemology and what justifies belief. Of course this rarely actually works simply because many theists just don't _care_ if their belief in a god is justified. However, as Dennis Miller often said, "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" :)
I'm right there with you, Kevin. I've tried to make that point several times, but people have gotten so comfortable with the terms that they seemingly cannot see the innate flaws of supernatural/natural. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy from some of my prior conversations on this for your perusal and to see if you can help me clarify it. _If "supernatural" just means, "different than what we witness in this universe" then any domain with differing behavior would automatically apply, be it an ostensibly "natural" multiverse or divine._ _If supernatural refers to very specific sets of differing domains, then the definition needs to be clear about what properties allow inclusion. To say the rules within the multiverse matter means you must be able to provide details about what rules are natural and which are supernatural._ _Most importantly, what you are outlining here is a merely linguistic description. "Domain X has these characteristics, therefore it qualifies for the 'supernatural' label." There is no philosophical divide that a "naturalistic bias" could impede detection of. It's more akin to the distinction between "classical" and "quantum"; both are part of external reality, we just use different labels to facilitate communication._ _When you try to introduce some deep philosophical distinction between natural and supernatural without being explicit about what characteristics define each and why there is such a divide, you end up with a squirrelly term whose primary (and perhaps sole) characteristic is perpetual unknowability._ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _If souls are demonstrated tomorrow, did we discover the supernatural? Or was it "just" a heretofore undiscovered natural phenomenon? What is the difference?_ _If we create a sub-universe with fewer possible things, does that make our universe any less "natural"? Is the sub-universe not natural? The answer to both is obviously no. We could use terms to distinguish between the differing sets of possibilities for each type of universe, but this is merely a linguistic technique, there is no philosophical or fundamental lack of natural-ness. And it works the same going in reverse. Whatever domain our spacetime emerged from (if that is even a sensible thing to say) is no less "natural" for having created us, regardless of how different it may be. And we are no less natural, either. Each domain simply does what is "natural" to it, and once we become aware of and familiar with other domains, we will discover what those alternate "natural" behaviors are._ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive, they change to accommodate new understanding of reality. If we discover souls, our understanding of this universe will expand and our natural laws will adapt accordingly. If we discover a prior realm - whether it has a god or not - we would explore it and derive its natural laws._ Any insight into how I can make this clearer? I've been accused of modifying the definitions of "natural" and "supernatural", but as far as I can tell every usage reduces down to the issue you stated.
The double split experiment, Cosmic inflation, Dark energy, Spooky entanglement, dark matter & The Dog particle... Even If the universe thinks your dumb at least your not wrong...
I don't think the email is about the named specifics. He, IMO, is just saying that the arguments against naturalism are silly. The argument against Matt's arguments against the email writers arguments is that there are lots of things that we aren't certain about, absolutely, philosophically speaking, certain, but we reach a practical certainty that everyone is comfortable with. Do we know that the sun will come up tomorrow? Well not if we apply some asinine _degree_ of certainty to the question. We can't be absopositivelutely certain that it will come up, but of course the answer to the question of whether it will or not is, yes.
There is another question that I thought this video was going to be talking about. When it comes to religion and theology and philosophy and the like, if there's a god, why ISN'T it easier? Why are these such hard, complex topics if there is an all powerful all benevolent god who could simplify things a real hell of a lot if he just took some time to explain it to everyone NOW, rather than have people rely on a book he got some ghost writers to make 2000 years ago?
If I was going to make a simple case against Christianity based on basic common sense syllogisms I'd do something more like "In Christianity the Bible is supposed to be the good book, the Bible has slavery in it, it's not a good book therefore Christianity has no basis." or something more like that. Although, I also probably wouldn't do that.
It sounds like talking about the Nimbus 2000 actually being just a broom. Let theists first show that a biblical story is something more then only just a story.
Matt never responds to comments, does he? It's just that astronomers can read ancient sources about a 'new star that appeared, had a tail, etc...' and determine with a reasonable degree of accuracy that the historical source refers to a comet. If that is reasonable and reliable in identifying previously uncharted comets, why can't we do the same for biblical mentions of things like eclipses? The reason I bring this up is, Matt once expressed a disagreement with the mythicist position for having an unreasonably high evidentiary standard for jesus, compared to other historical figures. He said that if it were anyone else, they'd accept his existence as factual, but because it's jesus, they demand more evidence before they'll accept he existed. If we apply that same argument here, if astronomers can do as above for comets and historical sources, then we're artificially inflating our standards for biblical eclipses if we say "we can't just read a biblical account of what sounds like it's an eclipse and determine that it is one and that it's not something supernatural."
Obviously religion is bogus, but my question is why don't we as skeptics tackle the most dangerous religious ideologues such as Islam more? Christianity is bogus but it's relatively benign when compared to some others. Islam needs more criticism from us and the criticism needs to be scathing and public.
Because Matt lives in the United States, and one is FAR more likely to have life or liberty curtailed (for religious reasons) by a Christian than a Muslim in the United States.
It comes down to cost-benefit analysis. Is it worthwhile to address beliefs of those handful of muslims or the mass of Christians around you? Christianity has by far the most sophisticated apologetics out there, because it coexisted with serious scepticism for at least 150 years. If you look at islamic apologetics, they are pretty much identical to early-20th-century christian apologetics. In the western countries islam is so outgunned by scepticism that nearly all muslim immigrants from islamic countries loose their faith in less than a generation. Reason why islam survives and thrives is because there are countries where it has government-imposed protection from criticism. Fighting a political battle in foreign country is a tricky subject - the best we can do is to provide mental weaponry that natives can adopt and use in their own way.
KohuGaly this is were you are very wrong my friend. If you look in Europe the vast majority of Muslims practice the religion to its fullest extent because I believe they have a religion with a stronger philosophical ground than its Christian counterpart. Here in the UK there people like Mohammed Hijab, Shamsi, ali dawah who debate readily every single day in speakers corner in London hyde park. Try youtubing
Is there agreed upon definition of “supernatural”? It seems that being non-verifiable is somehow intrinsic to our assumed definition of supernatural...which is obviously a silly definition if this is the case.
In the atheist experience show, they often talk about the supernatural but they never ever define what they mean by it, which is pretty annoying. I'm still not sure what it means for Matt, and the callers don't get it either, so the conversations never go anywhere.
So I have a question about the sourcing. If the bible is supposed to be 100% accurate and infallible and there is a glaring error in it can you discount the bible?
In the beginning, the Elohim (gods) separated (bara) Heaven (Eve) and Earth (Adam). This is copied from the Egyptian myth of Nut (Heaven) and Seb (Earth). Nut goes on to become the Virgin Mary and Seb become Joseph (IO Seph).
I am going to say straight up I am a Christian. I think the biggest flaw many Christians have is that they feel like they have to come up with an answer to something they just don't know for sure. I will not respond to any questions you have to my faith because I will either misinterpret it which I have a bad habit to do or I will probably not know the answer. I am quite young so I have quite a bit to learn. And Honestly, it can be a lot of time to answer your questions and I do not have a lot of time in my day devoted to this too. I will not say I am all knowing, but I will say I disagree with the philosophy of atheist as it does not come up with good answers to where the universe came from. I have watched a couple of your videos because I like to see both sides of the story. I have a few questions about atheism though. First off, I will not say that I am going to join your atheist cult, just want some insight into how you guys and gals would answer these questions. Just out of curiosity I want to ask if you are an atheist and you believe in no afterlife why waste your time trying to tear apart the Bible if you have limited time to live? I have noticed you focus your attention primarily on the Bible. Is there any particular reason? Are not other religious doctrines worthy of being taken down? Or would not the time be better spent doing other things? Why do you feel like you have to defend your beliefs? Of course there would be more knowledge in doing so but would value is knowledge to you if you lose it when you die. Or is this just something of your interest? Do you like to assert yourself in a higher place than others that believe as you do not by trying to crush their beliefs? Why do you feel just because Theists believe something and a mob of others believe in nothing we should accept it? Are you curious that something might convince you of another belief? Of course you can not come up with the answers to some questions and neither can I but could not something or someone else? It is always a possibility and that is why you have to keep you mind open. Here is my problem with atheism. It is a relative moral standard. Let's say I said rape was okay in the context of today. Why would I want to care about the other person? What benefit would that have to me in an atheistic culture? Why would you feel the need to condemn me? How do you get your morals as an atheist? I wonder that because not all atheists are consistent. I will not be a hypocrite and say all things are consistent in the Christian faith either. I will definitely not make the assertion that atheists do not have morals. What makes your morals better than mine if I was an atheist? Say you have scientific proof that I was wrong. Maybe I do not believe a scientific approach as an atheist. Maybe I just go with the flow, let things happen, do not control what I do because I want to live my best life now because I am going to die anyways. Would you feel the need to punish others because they lived that lifestyle? I think one of the good things Ray Comfort actually said is when we try to make up a moral structure and assert it against someone, you create a God in yourself. I feel like you are saying preaching to your atheist crowd that there is no God, but not only that. You are preaching that these Christians are awful for believing in their scripture. It honestly is not that bad in my opinion to accept that we have a God that does not agree with what we want to believe is good, moral, or correct. That was definitely a sacrifice I took when going into the Christian faith. I can definitely attest that we are not perfect humans by any standard so why should we expect to know all the answers. I wanted to ask are you an Atheist and Agnostic or just Atheist? I was agnostic before I became a Christian and will definitely say Atheistic point of view could never fill in the holes so that is why I could never accept it.
based on the last few lines, you might not be using the right words: atheism isn't the belief that there is no god. This would be called "strong atheism", or "positive atheism". atheism is when you do *not believe* that there is a god. those are not the same things. theism and strong atheism are beliefs, while atheism is by definition not a belief. rational = you only believe in what's supported by evidence agnostic = you don't think there is evidence for god if you're agnostic and rational, it implies you are atheist. That's where Matt is, afaik.
Interesting... you contradicted yourself. Atheism still is the belief that their is no God. The way I was before I became a Christian was agnostic and rational. Agnostic just means that you do not know either ways if there actually is a God/are gods. I think you are right on Matt's position of things. I became Christian more so because of life experiences that led me to the religion. I feel pretty content though where I am at and it breaks my heart for Matt Dillahunty to frame Christians as awful people and illogical beings. Some of the things he does state might not be in the right context and it makes us look worse. I do not see where it forces disciples to treat others poorly so I do not see half his points. I suggest Christianity, but I never force it upon anyone to follow. I have found when it is a persons time they will choose Christianity.
"you contradicted yourself" that statement would be more useful if it pointed to the two things that you think are contradictory. "Atheism still is the belief that their is no God." nope. -Do you believe the number of humans on earth is even? -No. -Then you believe it's odd! That's dumb, right? If you don't believe in X, it doesn't mean you believe in the opposite of X. Well same thing: -Do you believe there is a god? -No. -Then you believe there is no god! That deduction is exactly as stupid as the previous one. An atheist does not believe that there is a god, and may or may not believe that there is no god.
Johnathan Yunker No, atheism is disbelief in a god _or_ lack of belief in a god. The former is called strong or positive atheism while the latter is called weak or negative atheism. Saying "I believe no gods exist" is positive atheism and a positive claim. But most atheists do not hold that position because it is not testable. Most atheists are negative atheists who are not convinced that any gods exist, so thereby lack belief in any. The negative atheist position is that there could possibly be something that could be called a god, but until and unless such a being is at least demonstrated to be _probable_ why should I believe in one? There is a _huge_ philosophical difference between the two types of atheism.
Seemingly when trying to avoid bad/false argument in itself is what makes debate very difficult to understand for most common folks. Bible is being treated as true, and that is why it is even harder to argue. So it makes sense to argue that the Bible is a fictional work and dismiss its credibility and avoid going down the rabbit hole of examining every single statement in the Bible as if they are true or bear any value on the argument.
I also like complex arguments, but not simple arguments presented as something that is somehow complex. I can reduce sin²(x) + cos²(x) to 1 I much prefer to do so, as however elegant and complex the first one looks, the second is much more easily understood by many more people.
Thank you for a good... walk trough of that problem Matt, but there is stil a version of this that need addressing, and that is the fact that many christian explain this kind of phenomenons as miracles stil today. Syllogistic: a: Som people whit a strong faith explains phenomenons that have a naturalistic explanation as miracles today. b: There is descriptions made by people whit strong faith of the same types of phenomenons explained as miracles, in scripture dating several thousands years back. In light of this I am so blunt as to propose that it is plainly foolish to belive that what was decried as miracles in the scripture is something else then what is going on still today. Anecdote: I remember seeing on the news a reportage about refugees coming from Algeria to Italy by boat. What had happened was that one of the boats had capsized, and Italian fishermen went out in their fishing boats and rescued the victims. One of the victims was intervju on fromt of the camera while one cold clearly se that the rescue action at sea was stil going on in the back ground. On question about what had happened the victim told that quot: "God (Allah) saved them.", and that it was a miracle. He left out the actions by the Italian fishermen completely, even minutes after the incident had happened. Thoughts: If the only account we had of what actually happened, was this first person description from the victim. We wold be forced to ether belive that it actually was a miracle, ore that he had made the whole thing up. We cold of cores speculate about what cold have happened realistically... but it wold also just be speculations. My conclusion is that storys like e.g. the one in the Bible of how the walls of Jericho was brought down, cold actually have a core of truth to it. We cold speculate that the walls was brought down by sappers undermining, but that this fact was explained away as a miracle even the same day. But this wold be just speculations... in fact we dont know. But we dont need to lock to ancient history to observe that people whit strong faith explain phenomenons whit natural explanations as miracles. To me it seems to be the best solution just to dismiss the whole story, and stamp it as a blatant lye.
For Bullwinkle so loved the world that he gave his only begotten squirrel. For it is written; One moose come in the name of love, one moose to overthrow,. IN THE NAME OF LOVE, ONCE MORE IN THE NAME OF LOVE. 2 magilla ,chapter 5 verse 9 This could not be any more obvious. Bullwinkle died for our sins, and he will return hallamooseah! !!
Has anyone came to the conclusion that Jesus just entered into a coma on that third day and came out of it? There are historical accounts of people taking a lot longer to die during crusifiction.
@@douglasthomashayden2566 I disagree. If you actually look into more etymological origins of these terms like God or the divine, what you invariably find are descriptions that are henotheistic, monistic, and panentheistic (not to be confused with pantheism), and absolutely none of these have nothing to do with the supernatural as defined by that which defies the laws of nature.
Ugh. While this video is completely reasonable and exceptionally sensible, I can see it being taken out of context and quote mined by dishonest theists.
You are basically excusing the religious by stating well we know as much as about afterlife as you, so see we are both dumb (ignorant not certain or whatever word you prefer). But this is against science. We DO know what happens after death. When your pet dies (dog, cat, fish, snake!) they begin decomposing in the ground, their brain full on memories of relatives, love ones immediately stops, and also decomposes. Do you feel that these animals, insects, birds, or even micro-organisms somehow live on? Is there a cancer cell heaven feeding off a live human? We know through the science of biology that all lifeforms had a common ancestor. This is now classed as a fact. When human species die, they also decompose in the ground. I therefore don't understand what you mean by that THEIR views cannot be fully thrown out. As you consistently state that science cannot falsify the supernatural. But we are talking about living species then dying, we DO know what happens in this regard. They rot in the ground. Is there another option that science doesn't know yet? This constant apologetic atheist style is not becoming of you. Remember we don't believe in any God(s). Is afterlife true? According to science NO. Is science wrong? Science states our 'love' and memories completely STOP. They don't say they continue! I mean you can remain open to supernatural Gods, but then you'd have to be open to EVERYTHING, including cancer Gods! Things such as 'afterlife' is ALREADY confirmed as not true. Do 'souls' change when people change their beliefs? Do they get two souls? These things only exist in someone's mind. Is there a planet where the monkeys are throwing poo at their slave Gods? Not everything is still 'open' until we get evidence that it doesn't exist. Some things (like human afterlife) is nonsense. How do I know? Science informs me our brains rot. Is science wrong?
I need some ideas, how could I logically argue against leprechauns hiding pot of gold the end of rainbows or should I use birdshot or buckshot to keep Cupid away from my kids? Why is that, questions like these sound stupid and stories about Jesus, Muhammad and Snoopy are taken seriously?
When somebody asks: "How can anybody be a Godless Atheist?" I reply: "How can anybody be a Godless Animist?" This is a great reply as it forces them to think about religions that don't believe in God. Or confuses them because they're too ignorant to know what an animist is. XD
considering there are so many versions of the Bible with so many denominations with their own take on on scripture, interpretation and claims to truth, you will get into a world of spaghetti strings with believers if you start making explanations in their book for them. your interpretation is wrong you haven't read the Bible correctly you have the wrong version of the Bible I'm not that Christian x, I am Christian y you were with out the Holy Spirit It is the Christian's responsibility to present their interpretation, explanation as best they can(since being a Christian their interpretation ought to be more accurate in their eyes than yours) and discussion can be spring boarded from there. I find it more productive to be earnest with "You are the Christian, can you give me your interpretation if this passage is literal, metaphorical, allegory etc.. and please explain it" I have on one occasion been met by a Jehovah's witnesses and told them "I would like it we go through the Bible together chapter by chapter front to back" I was sincere with a lot of questions. I didn't hear from him again.
One has to wonder what a Theistic world would look like, something like we see today, rival religions, rival denominations, churches, orthodoxies and sects vying for power and money. Perhaps we should consider what the world would be like if only one religion was in power. What then would a Christian world look like? Perhaps the best description would be akin to that of North Korea, every aspect of life including thought is controlled by a small dictatorial cabal of elite theologians and philosophers, a new dark age.
I have been following this stuff for some time and it is all one sided as far as I am concerned. I have no personal experience of religion. In fact I only bought a bible to find out what all the fuss was about.
Religious people do no have their beliefs just because no one has presented a good argument (fairly) against them yet. Their beliefs come from an interwoven emotional, cultural worldview. Because of the Backfire Effect often sound arguments only result in people doubling down on their beliefs and worldview. Matt you're an intelligent guy, far more educated than I am for sure but this is not the way to battle against those with irrational worldviews. Unless every country in the world stops indoctrinating their children with religious nonsense the majority of people will always believe in such things. I'm sure there are individuals who believe they were swayed from their beliefs by a convincing argument of some kind. It's likely more accurate that there was a significant stressor that enabled the search for an alternative worldview that made them potentially open to a rational one. I doubt this happens often enough for our efforts to have much impact on most adults. It just seems like a lot of effort to go to for negligible results.
D Jay for that to happen, children will need to be allowed to first question their parents and elders first. Then maybe there will be a chance. Because, as I see, religion is basically built on the instinctual need, that starts young, for the need to have someone to protect them. First it is the big, strong adults in life and later it becomes the sky daddy or mommy. Sometimes it is also the government.
"Tide goes in, tide goes out; you can't explain that."
HA checkmate, atheists!
Gustavus Adolphus LOL
Yes, Bill.
Gustavus Adolphus Tide pod goes in...
Well, I've seen people eat tide pods, I know what people eat comes out as waste, so tide goes in and tides go out is simply your body digesting as much as it can and expelling the waste.
It's Raining Frogs...
Hallelujah it's Raining Frogs...
Troy Evitt _"amen!"_
Personally, I like AronRa's statement "Having no good reason to believe something is a pretty good reason not to believe it."
Now explaining to someone WHY their reason is unconvincing and insufficient can become complicated. Luckily, I generally don't care what religious bullshittery someone subscribes to. I make my objections when they misrepresent my position, the Atheist position in general or commit gross misunderstandings, misrepresentations or outright lies about science.
It's entirely possible to demonstrate that ME believing in a god is unjustified. And It's entirely possible to demonstrate that whatever reasons I'm given by someone who thinks I should believe are unconvincing and insufficient. As I said, I generally don't waste my time on what other people believe unless it's causing a problem, or, they are genuinely interested in my opinions. OR they are in a forum where they can expect to have their beliefs questioned and debated. I'm far more concerned about the horrible arguments they make about Atheists and science in an attempt to justify spreading their myths and fables.
IMO a belief in any God is unjustified because we have no evidence that such a being CAN exist, much less does. And, as I said previously (or at least AronRa said it for me.) NOT having a good reason to believe something is a very good reason NOT to believe it. Personally, for me, that's far more than enough justification.
But, I'm entirely aware that my opinion is mine alone and that other people may not share the standards of evidence I place upon extraordinary claims that have never been proven. C'est la vie
You're missing my point.
I don't care what you believe. Unless you're causing problems, If you wanna believe in God, pixies, leprechauns, or the invisible pink dragon in your garage it means nothing to me. I'm not even interested in WHY you believe it. What you believe tells me why.
BUT! If you want ME to believe, you better have something better than anecdotal stories or the apologetics I've listened to, and rejected a thousand times. You'll need something more than faith or the threat of hell and you'll most certainly need a lot more than the Bible.
And I'd be interested in what strong argument you could possibly advance that every Atheist who is active in the debate hasn't heard 1000 times. And refuted and rejected.
Frances Snowflake A good reason for WHO to believe intelligent aliens existed?
You may believe it. I would question your mental health. Anecdotal evidence......isn't.
Saying. "I don't believe what you're claiming because your claim is extraordinary and your evidence is inadequate" in no way places a burden of proof on me.
What, precisely, is there for me to prove in that statement? That I don't believe you? That your evidence is wanting? What? Once again, you haven't given me any reason to believe you so why should I? Whats more, I'm not even making a claim ABOUT the existence of your aliens, or gods. I'm making a statement of disbelief in YOUR claim. I am, in essence, calling into question the veracity of your statement due to the total lack of empirical evidence.
"I'm simply demonstrating the inherent problems of holding the position other people's beliefs are irrational."
If I can, in no way, find a rational reason for those beliefs than I am wholly justified in my opinion that they are irrational. There are people who believe the earth is flat. Their reasons for this are irrational. Therefore their belief is irrational. Same with the anti-vaxxers, except they're ignorant and irrational.
As I have tried, repeatedly, ad nauseam, to explain to you, If you make incredible claims WITHOUT extraordinary, rational, convincing, evidence then I am left without choice. I must consider your claim irrational and unworthy of consideration until you are able to provide said evidence.
This is not rocket surgery.
But I am arguing about objective reality. What I'm saying is really really really really simple.
If you make a claim ABOUT objective reality; i.e. God exists or you took a tour of the solar system with your alien buddies in their faster than light spacecraft. I'm going to require objective, verifiable, RATIONAL evidence of the same caliber as the claim being made.
Here's the money shot, read it slowly:
IF you CANNOT provide that EVIDENCE then I have no reason to believe you and no choice but to disbelieve you.
Another great quote of AronRa's "If you can't show it, you don't know it.
I recently had a small argument with a relative who made a claim of miracles. She decided that it must be true and that God existed for the following reason. "Only God has the power to do things like that. So that proves there is a God."
Although the topic changed from verifying the incident as a miracle or not went out the window.
My reply was "only He-Man can hold the magic sword because he obviously has the power of grey skull. Therefore the magic exists, the character exists and every element you can add to it that parralells religious explanations.
That’s the argument from incredulity fallacy. Basically “I can’t think of anything other than god that could’ve done it”
I like this style of video....face to face and clear of any clutter of diagrams or music. It works really well because what you have to say is pithy, unambiguous and doesn't try to say too much but is a fantastic lesson on how to arm yourself in discussions.
So well said! Gods I wish I could speak so eloquently. I try to sound like matt when addressing people when they bring up religious topics. But it's like imitating your favourite band. You might sound almost like them, but you're just not them. Period
Found your channel very recently and have become a huge fan - I love how absolutely precise you are in your arguments. You boil things down to the root of the issue better than damn near anyone I've seen. I've always thought this was incredibly simple as why would I believe in anything that I can't experience in a way that can be defined? It just stuns me that people don't see religion for what it is, the greatest evil ever put upon mankind, period.
Your last point is the critical one and the one that nearly every Christian I debate fights to avoid. The debate is not ABOUT whether or not some god exists in reality, but whether or not it is rational to BELIEVE that one does - especially a specific one. That was one brilliant move by William Lane Craig - he accepted that premise with his whole "reasonable faith" shtick, and rather than defending the actual existence of god, he switched to lamely trying to defend the rationality of believing in god. That's why Kalaam works so well for him. Because most laymen will accept the premises of that argument because they seem intuitively true. He's like a drug pusher - the sample is Kalaam - get them to accept that it is reasonable to believe in SOME god, then move them to the harder product later.
Matt Dillahunty, you are truly brilliant guy!
@@thegentlymad5769 As usual, you're making broad-brush assertions without a *lick* of evidence...
Always enjoy watching you Matt. I'm no expert with debates but observing you has definitely helped me become better at seeing the flaws in religious arguments as well as being able to counter them. Thanks for being awesome!
Thank you for existing Matt. I appreciate you!
Thanks Matt for this reality check. As an ex-theist it's a constant battle to use critical thinking instead of assuming I have the answers to some of the more basic to the most complex issues. Critical thinking is a work in progress and I need people like you to help keep my feet on the ground.
Q: Why Don't You Want to Believe in God?
A: I have a rare birth-defect - I was born with the ability to think!
But surely you must lack perspective, and you are just touching the elephant´s tusk.
"Tide goes in, tide goes out; you can't explain that."
But you see, if you derive your atheist arguments from a mythological book you are as dumb as an believer that bases his views on that book 😉. And more, I’m sure that there are believers more inteligent than you: it’s only maths. You are just one person; there are millions of believers in the world. In your all or nothing argument (if one is a believer one didn’t born with the ability to think) it follows that logically you are more intelligent that those millions of believers. Well it’s not impossible BUT HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Of course you or me are more intelligent that some of those believers. Not any less true that there are a lot of believers that ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THAT YOU OR ME. Well, if you really borne with the ability to think you understood what I said. Nevertheless I think very poorly of people like you that are really intelectually dishonest.
MAC and ME I understand you point and even agree with you. I honestly didn't make myself clear. My point is this: I guess (a personal theory) that a lot of "atheists" specially in the realm of the most passionate, are really not atheists. To give an analogy its like the policeman that is a criminal or the firefighter the starts fire. The examples are not very good because of the content, don't mean any judging here. I thinks it's a Freudian internal issue. I mean a lot of atheists really know very well the bible!!! Where others really don't. Like I said it's just a personal theory.
Philotical It's not even that I dont _want_ to believe in a god; when I was young and losing my religion I desperately _did_ want to believe. It was just that the more O learned about the subject; about the lack of evidence, the bad arguments from apologists, the history of religion in general and Christianity specifically, the history of the Bible, and much more, the more I could not swallow the BS anymore. I would love for there to be a truly omnibenevolent and omnipotent god to exist. I would also love to become a billionaire. I just don't see either as being even likely, let alone true.
really great intro here matt..... sets the scene and gets you captivated.
Human minds can leap to irrational judgments and cling to them, for whatever reason. To the mind of a zealot, simple arguments are too simple and robust arguments are "word salad."
This is an unfortunate consequence of our evolution. Type 1 errors are more likely to keep you alive long enough to reproduce, where type 2 tend to make you lunch. If you hear a rustling in the grass, and you think it's a predator and run, you're more likely to live, even if it's a false alarm. If you hear a rustling in the grass, and think it's the wind when it's actually a predator, you're lunch!
Those with the tendency towards type 1 errors (at least what can be attributed to genetics) preferentially survive to pass on the genes that made them that way. If, on the other hand, this is a learned behavior (I suspect it's actually a mix of both, depending on the individual), then naturally you'll pass your behaviors on to your children, and the tendency becomes the default action in the population. Either way, it's a selection process.
Presuming that animation requires agency is a type 1 error. It keeps us alive, and keeps us believing in religion.
Many atheists, especially those raised as Baptist or Catholic, etc (or any denomination putting special emphasis the doctrine of Hell, really), have difficulty getting over the fear of hell. This irrational fear of a non-existent threat is a borne out of that same instinct - better to play it safe and live, even if it's just a false alarm, and so that instinct keeps calling them back, even if they have no rational reason to believe it.
Word salad is just a complex argument that has no meaning or value but is meant to sound profound. It’s common for pseudo-intellectuals to use word salad.
"There is no god, therefore everything goes..." Not so. There may be no god, but that doesn't mean that actions don't have consequences.
BlackEpyon Well said
BlackEpyon I'm black, english ex-catholic and hard/soft/atheist (Mum and family would be too traumatised). I always had a fear of the concept of heaven, not hell.
It seems so boring and charmless,
everyone knows your business after trillions of years. Satan must have realised this and the rest is history
I think this is what Dan Barker does well; he’s very good at taking complex biblical arguments and reducing them to the simplest foundations. He avoids intricate, wordy, “high-falutin” arguments in favor of common sense, intuitive ones.
As Matt points out, this approach may have it’s flaws, but I think Barker is able to employ this tact well while mostly avoiding those flaws.
+Geahk Burchill A very minor aside: I think you might mean _tactic_ or _tack_ (sailing metaphor) rather than _tact_ .
Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume (Semen); she poured it on Jesus' feet (Penis) and wiped his feet with her (Pubic) hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
Well said. I love Don!!
"Dan"
Complete semantics tangent- highfalutin is now a standard form with no hyphen requirement as it's not considered a compound word. Probably used to be, though.
Excellent presentation young Matt.....Go Navy!
the locusts we have in North America...are not "locusts"...they're a variety of cicada. The "locusts" of the middle east and africa are a type of grasshopper....Different kind of critter and they cycle for different reasons...
Tim Hyatt Where do they call cicadas locusts in North America? Cicadas are just cicadas and locusts are more like grasshoppers.
it's a pretty widespread designation across most of the northeast and midwest US...everywhere the 7, 12 and 17 years cicada's swarms happen...you'll frequently hear them being called "locusts"...most people don't really understand there is a distinct difference between cicada's and locusts..(sadly, most people don't seem to care there is a difference or bother to learn what it is...)
Kinda like how certain areas call soda 'pop' or something else and other areas call it soda? In the southwest we call cicadas just that, and I don't recall them ever swarming, you just hear them. Not sure about locusts, but we get swarms of grasshoppers every once in awhile, but you see them year round and their gestation is very short/quick. I used to think cicadas were the palo verde beetles when I was little, because we'd always see the beetles. Then I learned the sound wasn't from them at all, but the cicadas that stay hidden in the trees, for the more part.
Hi Matt. Question. Why don't you or the atheist experience do some coverage of atheistic countries in Europe? You know americans have a twisted view of modern society elsewhere and often have little knowledge about it. Like healthcare, religion, economics etc. The american people needs to see what happens when religion no longer influences society and how morality has reached a high level in a society without religion. Like free healthcare, is a moral decision by the government to take care of it's people. I think americans need to see how things really are. Atheism produces alot of wonderful things.
Secularism
I remember Matt discussing this with a caller, and he used the term "well being for yourself and others" as a basis for morality, wich the caller didn't get. It's important to educate people on why this matter and what it tells you. If you don't know what is good for you or others, you can't contribute in a productive positive way. The only way to know is through scientific research and education of the population. Policies in secular societies are based on knowledge. I think that is the greatest challenge in USA. Education. The internet provides alot in 2018, but the core education in schools are influenced and corrupted by agendas and opinions. This is why religion, creationism and bullshit is allowed to thrive in USA and why Donald Trump is the president.
David Anewman Skara Brae proves you wrong.
+David Anewman Most if not all of those you mentioned where religious people:D
+David Anewman Hitler used all sorts of religious acts to determine where to attack, Mussolini was a believer how just used atheism to describe that he was not found of it.
Because a real atheist would probably not be superstitious and in act regulation that strengthen the church involvement with the state matters.
I would suggest that thinking and facts cannot compete with feelings and fear. My explanation for this is personal, anecdotal, and lengthy, but I think it is worth visiting.
I've been an Atheist for my entire life. My parents never brought it up, and I never went through the indoctrination process. As a result, I am lacking in the fear and guilt that are essential to religious belief. For this reason, I had always considered myself to be a smart, skeptical, and logical person who has respect for facts.
While I had never known what it felt like to be a religious person, I was about to learn the hard way.
But then, in late 2013, a Facebook "friend" came to me with a cry for help; that she had cancer and needed money. She learned a lot about me by observing me on Facebook for two years, and threw in the idea that all of her friends were Christians and were just sending her prayers and no money. She begged for her life, and gave me some "evidence." I believed her, and set out to help her in any way that I could.
About two months in, there were some rumblings that she was a scammer, a fake, and a fraud. By this point, I had gotten very emotionally invested in the situation, to the point that I feared not believing her. What if I was wrong, and she died?
By this point, I think that the window of time where I could have been convinced had been closed. In other words, my indoctrination had been completed, and had settled in my emotional faculties.
I do remember a few friends, who are also Atheists, who tried to talk sense into me. While they failed in a few ways, for example invoking _argumentum ad populum_ by nothing that everyone knew she was a fake, they begged me to think about it.
I remember being so afraid of even CONSIDERING the idea that she was taking me for a ride. How could this be? She was my friend! No matter how many logical arguments they made, it did not sink in. When they made arguments, I would feel sick to my stomach.
People began attacking me about it, and that did nothing but strengthen my resolve. She employed lots of psychological games, and became abusive. But nothing was going to stop me at this point. Even about 7 months in, when I was starting to have my own doubts, there was something that I can only describe as a type of PAIN in my head, that came with a great deal of fear.
By around 9 months, the truth finally hit one day, when we had an argument and she told me to "fuck off." To say that I felt stupid would be an understatement.
This event utterly and totally destroyed my life. Financially, socially, professionally, and personally, I was ruined. It took me about 3-4 months just to come to terms with what exactly happened, and over 3.5 years to get my head to a healthy place.
Looking back on it, I recognized that *_no amount of logic was going to get me OUT of that situation, for logic did not get me INTO that situation._* It was 100% emotional. I felt the fear of letting a "friend" down, as well as the fear of being wrong and thus being an idiot. Plus, I would feel guilty if she died because I stopped believing her claims.
Before this, I'd wondered why Christians could not accept the facts, why they would not listen, why they could not acknowledge any arguments that I would make against their beliefs. I thought of them as being "weak" or "stupid."
But after my experience, I came to understand the *fear and pain* that they would experience when hearing anything that went against their beliefs. While my dogmatic belief that my "friend" was terminally ill and needed my help was not religions in nature, it very well may have been, for it was on the same tracks.
Coming out of the other end of this experience, I do regret the attitude that I had toward them. I regret the "pwnage" videos that I made on UA-cam from 2009-2011 under another name. The whole time, I talked about something that I knew nothing about, which was why these people cling to their beliefs with fear.
Still, I think that discussions are important, and are most definitely more productive than emotional attacks. I do think that these discussions are worth having. And I think that, with my experience, I now have a level of empathy that might enable me to have better discussions and debates about it.
*_I can see the communication problem, but what I cannot yet see is a solution to this problem._*
At the very least, I may be more productive in planting seeds which may grow into something at a later date. This is because now I know what it's like to sincerely and dogmatically believe something that is an utter lie. I also know what happens when that lie is shattered and your world comes down.
But this is what MUST happen to the lie. I felt a great deal of comfort in my belief of the lie that was very effectively and emotionally sold to me. I believed that I was doing the right thing. I believed that I was saving a life. The truth was that I was destroying my own life, and I am fortunate that the lie was broken before it was too late.
DrumWild its better to have experienced religion when young and outgrow it, than never to experience it. It is like an immunity shot. This is one of the problem that is facing many western, atheistic nations now. Many there have never experienced this kind of manipulation and fall for all the emotional manipulation that comes from outside their countries, especially from other highly theocratic religious countries.
Though I would state, not everyone is able to recover well from that immunity shot. Anyways, now you have learned. A reasonable amount of cynicism is actually good for survival and health.
That was awesome when you were reading the email the arguments made sense to me but I was blown away by how you suggested proposing these explanations shifts the burden of proof that was awesome!
your the man matt...way to keep it 100% real and honest..got my first christian to say that makes sense and walk away today!! remember guys stay calm and use your head
I think locusts referred to in the Bible were a type of grasshopper. In the southern Us, we often refer to cicadas as locusts, but they're very different. Cicadas don't destroy crops, whereas swarms of grasshoppers can do massive damage.
Matt should have way more subscribers. While that sophist, tautological, dishonest lobster Peterson has 1 million plus. Humanity sickens me
He tells them what they want to hear, not the truth.
JP does I mean.
The difference is, all those 'hip intellectuals' tend to go away after a while. Matt has been doing this for years and years. It might look easy to gain a huge following quickly, but that huge following can die out just as fast as it came. There is no depth to JP's arguments.
Calling people names and insults isn't an argument, FYI. Dr Peterson is an interesting guy with interesting science backed ideas. I enjoy his content just like I enjoy many others.
He appeals to emotion. He is a Preacher. We may need to adopt some of the tactics used by the other side. Hitchens would do it, quite often. He was a rhetorician, after all.
Actually on the locust subjuct when the 3 year and the 7 year Locust cycle on the same year they are very damaging. especially before pesticides.
In this particular case, it's pointless to argue about possible natural causes for the plagues of Egypt because that story has a much more critical flaw: according to historic and archaeological evidence, there never was a huge subjugated population of hebrews in Egypt. The Exodus didn't happen, and thus this whole story is entirely made up. Up to and including the character of Moses.
Hey Dillanhunty. You've made my faith more realistic. Keep.doing your thing.
"Whether or not the Bible is reliable is independent of whether the Bible is accurate." - The implication for arguments, in simpler words, is that the something in the Bible is not automatically false, but simply being in the Bible is not enough to believe it to be true.
Hey Matt... could you please to a video on false hope? It’s such a sad thing to see, but I’m not sure how to help explain why it’s such a bad thing.
Shouldn't a supernatural cause, given that anything supernatural be outside of the natural world be dismissed immediately out of hand? If a supernatural cause could be demonstrated by means of natural processes then the supernatural cause would then be natural. If it cannot then isn't it not worth worrying about?
Ah. My question is simpler than you give me credit for. Let me rephrase. If the supernatural is that which cannot be achieved by any natural means (and to my mind that is the common usage of the word), can we not dismiss those claims of supernatural influences out of hand and settle on investigating the natural causes?
Let me ask another question then, my original may be further clarified. When a supernatural cause is identified and investigated and explained as supernatural, does it not then cease being supernatural and start being natural? Is there any reason to truck with the idea of the supernatural itself when we know that in order to affect reality a cause must have natural means?
IdleBigots if something supernatural has an effect on natural world, doesn't that imply that there is some form of interaction between the two?
If so, then is it unreasonable to assume that supernatural is nothing more than natural that has not been understood, yet? Or simply even, that natural things have some property that is not understood, yet? I really don't see any reason to invoke supernatural. Even that word itself makes no sense.
IdleBigots but what would it even mean to look for unnatural causes? How could you look for unnatural causes using natural instruments? If something can be identified or has interaction with natural or physical objects, then it ceases to be unnatural. In the same way if something 'unnatural' interacts with natural, then in the same way it ceases to be unnatural. I think this is the same type of thought that makes people to get confused about mind-body dualism.
IdleBigots I think I know where the confusion is. You are taking instances of unexplained phenomena as possibility of supernatural
, whereas I am talking about it as a concept. As a concept, supernatural makes no sense to me.
From my perspective, there is nothing dishonest about it.
Would you start believing in God, if suddenly a loud voice starts coming from the sky, observed by every single being on the planet that can which is unexplainable by anything we know? I know some would but that, to me, is still not evidence of God per se, but evidence of something that could do that.
Man,we need you in Croatia.We have become something Like Ireland in the past,but much worse.We need some reason.You are hero to many of us here.
I like to think of this kind of issue in a particular way.
We have loads of evidence that lightning is a natural phenomena formed under specific conditions, but if you were to point at any particular bolt of lightning we can't actually prove that it wasn't thrown by a god. Chances are we have no evidence that it was thrown by a god, but that is why I don't like to look at events and simply assume that it a natural phenomena that was misinterpreted in some fashion.
I'm seeing increasingly more atheist content on how atheists need to make better arguments and really understand what's going on in the theists head. And I'm glad this is happening, it is showing results.
I think religion will always attempt to adjust their position when a undeniable rebuttal is brought forth. This causes a shift in argumentation and how it should be applied.
It's not the easy downhill battle that we would like it to be with a single rebuttal to a single argument, it's more like an arms race between rebuttals and dodgy apologetics. The better and clearer our rebuttals get, the dodgier the apologetics get and we then need to dissect the new apologetic. Not that the apologetics are any less ridiculous, but they use their tools of presuppositions and often radical solipsism to make it harder for the skeptic to dissect and communicate to a believing audience.
*I had what I can describe as an earthquake Holy Spirit conviction, a life changing experience which lasted about three or four months. Crying, on my knees begging for forgiveness, deep, DEEP repentance, many tears, desire to read the Bible and go to chirch. Asked for forgiveness from friends and ex-girlfriends, returned things stolen or payed for books I had taken, confessed to those I had lied to. Gave away money to the poor, had homeless people sleep in my apartment; it was anything but a mild or calculated feeling “in my head” that could be dismissed or explained away. There was nothing logical about it, the Spirit takes over you, you DO NOT WANT TO SIN. I was extremely sensitive during this time, like walking on egg shells. Logic and Spirit don’t mix and so I see all the reasons the Bible is contradictory, all the reasons people say Jesus could not have existed, and can see why it could be explained away as a “self generated delusion.” And it does not matter what they say bc they cannot understand the Spirit takes over you and how do I explain that? I have fallen a few times I ask for forgiveness, I can’t say I understand any of it. The Spirit came back after ten years and then three years after that and the experiences were the same: electric, intense, convictions, other worldly, cathartic. I read ex-Christian testimonies or atheists enumerating the reasons why it shouldn’t work. No one can argue argue against logic and yes it makes sense what they say but at the end of the day it is irrelevant. I have yet to hear an earth shaking experience w/ the Holy Spirit and that logic survived*
sounds like the 'up' cycle of bipolar...have you seen a doctor?
Why isn't easier, indeed.
I can't believe we're even put in a position where we have to debate Bronze Age beliefs.
my heart does no thinking classic line from matt
"If you've got somebody lying to you all the time... «wry smile»"
Matt, whom*ever* could you be referring to...?
Very well put!
Those are arguments against the fallacy of personal incredulity.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you are calling locust are Cicadas not locust. Cicadas do not eat once they are out of the ground every so many years.. locust are more like grasshoppers and do eat everything they possibly can but do not come out of the ground. However on that note I do understand someone trying to use simpler analogies to argue.
Hi Matt. Since I'm sure that you're always looking for Monday morning quarterbacking, I remember a debate that you had with a guy that had a name like Sy Von Tenderbrooks. I know that it's wrong, but I remember it because he was such an ahole (forgive the English).
Towards the end he was summing up with something like "you know that you are all christians but you choose hell"" or "you all know that there is a christian god, but you choose to sin".
One of the very few times that I have wished to insert a sentence or two into your response would have been: "And Sy (I'm pretty sure that was his first name) you know that you don't believe in a christian god. Why are you so afraid to admit it?". I was really in the mood to see him blow his top. He did look like he might be a guy that could move across a room pretty quickly. I guess I'll live vicariously behind your nose.
By the way, have you noticed how many people are referring to Occam's Razor these days? Do you know if I can still copyright it?
Oh and you did a GREAT job against Peterson. I don't know why the guy talks about religion. I don't think he's read the bible. Seems that all his arguments are from the books of esteemed (?) authors that he name-drops. He believes in god AND uses bad examples. Like a Bizarro Hitch. Catholics are prone to that. I was catholic. I still have to fight the urge to punch elderly nuns because they remind me of grade school.
Ahhhhh, those were the days.
1) Let's make an assumption: There is a universe and we can observe it.
2) As we observe the universe, we can begin to make predictions based on the observations.
3) Repeated observations allow us to make hypotheses as to the causal link between actions and results.
4) We can test a hypothesis by performing the action and observing the result. This yields evidence.
5) The more evidence, the more something is likely to be factually correct.
6) One can gather various very probably factually correct hypotheses to form a working model of the universe.
7) The working model is good until we find another hypothesis that contradicts our model, in which case we need to adjust our model.
Now, apply this to specific claims of the bible. By speaking an incantation over wine, wine will turn into the blood of Jesus.
This has never been observed. Thus, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. Thus, the hypothesis is a weak one.
Perhaps debates should be focused on the specific testable claims of the debater.
Neat video. Thanks for sharring.
I’m a die hard Christian. Let the mocking and death threats begin!
10:40 what use is the proper allocation of the burden on matters which nobody can prove anything about?
seems like it doesn't get us anywhere - you need more than a stalemate to change someone's mind
I don't argue with theists. I usually tell them to call me a western, secular buddhist if atheist makes them uncomfortable. One explains what I don't believe; any form of personified God or higher power as described by religious texts, and a lack of evidence to support any other higher power. But I really like Sam Harris' description of spirituality, more focused on reducing internal suffering by meditation rather than anything supernatural. Especially given the research that's been coming out on the benefits of a daily meditation practice. The benefits of meditation are so great that I'm even pushing the religous into it, arguing that you don't need to abandon any views to benefit. You can meditation on the image of Jesus and receive benefit as well. I'd suspect that's what a lot of prayer actually is when it's done over a long period. When its not using words to ask for whatever. I know that the experience of transcendence and awe (paltry words for the experience) are not limited to those of faith.
Yeah if a swarm of locusts came every 7 years I think people would have noticed the pattern. Ancient peoples weren't idiots, especially when agriculture was crucially important to their society. If they made a myth out of it it must've been an exceptional event, or an exceptionally nasty occurrence. or it was just a story.
I don't find the arguments found among the atheist "community" to be complex. I *do* find some of the personalities extremely off-putting. I wouldn't want someone like Aron Ra on my team, strictly for PR reasons.
We've all encountered the high-IQ types with a low social quotient. This is something that needs to be considered from a tactical position. I'm not saying we should indulge apologetics, but I am advocating for *not being a dick*
Mr. Dillahunty is, of course, excepted. Seems like a nice fella, has a good "bedside manner".
10:22 Matt says: If the correct answer is "I don't know what the explanation is for this." You are still putting the burden of proof where it belongs. The people who think that they do know what the explanation is, the people that think that their God proposal is the best explanation, they maintain the burden of proof. I love to keep the burden of proof there.
What this statement fails to address is that "I don't know" is not necessarily an answer in regards to whether a God exists or not. It's a standstill, it's a null-response, it doesn't say yes or no. So, therefore anyone attempting to claim there is no God or there is a God will necessarily hold a burden of proof.
So, Matt has run out of dumb theistic arguments to rebut and now he's going after dumb atheistic arguments?
That!
It is kinda annoying to see people reduce atheism to smart primary school kid level.
Matt is against ALL bad arguments, no matter which side is making them. He’s especially interested in correcting bad arguments carried out by people who are on the same side as he is, because it makes the position look less credible when you have nonskeptical people making bad arguments on our side. Like cutting a tumor out of your own body before it grows.
Great video!
Kelvin Marroquin patreon
Who is delusional, a person believing in a god he never sees or an atheist who doesn't believe in a god because he sees none?
Robert Greenhouse the first one. The second isn't delusional at all.
Robert Greenhouse you might as well believe in all the gods you haven't seen then.
Matt Dillahunty my thoughts exactly number 1
On a side note…
What irritates me is people calling themselves skeptics when they are not. What also irritates me are statements that you have to question everything and that you have to consider everything with equal value.
These arguments are used, actually abused, presenting irrelevant time wasting discussions such as:
"I am a (true) skeptic by questioning evolution. I consider all strength and weaknesses. And intelligent design is an equally viable explanation, nay, even a better explanation for the origin and continuation of life.".
There is nothing skeptical about the above statement.
Strenght and weaknesses are the wrong terms.
And there is no equality in explanation power between the theory of evolution and the vague hypothesis of intelligent design.
A true skeptic never calls himself/herself a "true" skeptic. "Truth" and "Skepticism" are polar expressions. Because "truth" implies an unchangeable end state. Skepticism recognises and includes change.
Skepticism does not use terms as "strength" and "weaknesses". Instead it recognises degrees of reliability with known observations. And it recognises that new insights may change or even overthrow current scientific explanations … if and when these new insights have proved to be highly reliable themselves.
An alternative explanation is less reliable when it either is unproveable, has its major claims proved wrong, or has a narrow scope that is inconsistent with a larger scope.
All of the above is true for the intelligent design hypothesis.
Likewise, climate change deniers, illuminati believers, flat earth believers, chem trail believers, haarp causes earth quake believers, vacination causes autism believers, alternative medicine believers, moon visit deniers, holocaust deniers, all uses and abuses the same arguments as described above. Very tiresome.
In contrast, we know that the gravitation theory and the quatum theory is not complete because, as it stands, these theories can currently not be integrated. But scientists are working on that. And both theories have a scope consistent with known observations. And both have a scope that complement each other without being inconsistent.
Similarly, we know we have not, and cannot, predict every detail of … you name it … evolution, the climate, or whatever.
Which does not imply that all of these scientific theories are worthless. It only means that there are different degrees of reliability. And, as it stands, the aforementioned scientific examples prove to be highly reliable given current known observations and scientific explanations.
As to the bible and other holy books, that has proved to be incorrect on many observations, trivial on what is proved to be correct, and extremely vague when used as a hindsight argument. As such the bible, and other holy books, have proved to be highly unreliable.
Wim Ahlers I agree with you, but wanted to point out that explanatory power is secondary to predictive power. Like, let us say, for sake of argument, that Intelligent Design offered better explanatory power than evolution, but far less predictive power. Then evolution would be the stronger theory because explaining things is nice, but can be achieved by ad hoc explanations. Predictive power is actually far more useful. Like if we have two theories about the physics of flight. One offers a lot of explanatory power, but its predictions keep being wrong and all or most or even many of the planes crash. The other lacks some of that explanatory power, but its predictions keep being accurate, and the planes keep flying. The latter is the better theory.
Of course, theories with great predictive power often also have great explanatory power, my point is only that one power is more important than the other.
Cheers :)
Great video Matt. Regarding the email you talk about, to be accurate, science and the scientific method were established and flourished long before Christianity. For example the ancient Greeks among others studied disease and set the foundations for the modern medicine.Also in astronomy the celestial phenomena were studied,, actually the ancient Greeks were in a position to predict the eclipses.It's just that Christianity came and drowned all that with their nonsense.If Christianity hadn't halted science for so long we would be so much more advanced now.
You are a genius
It’s always bugged me that we ask theists for demonstrations of the supernatural. It is definitionally impossible to demonstrate the supernatural, because as soon as something is tangible and testable and able to be demonstrated and have evidence of its existence, it becomes accepted as a part of the natural and is no longer called “supernatural”.
It’s like “supernatural” is the term we apply to things we don’t have evidence for or can’t have evidence for. Believing in the supernatural is then definitionally irrational because you can’t have evidence for it if it is beyond nature and doesn’t manifest here.
Kevin Benoit True, but that isn't the point. The point is that if one cannot, in any way, test one's belief in a proposition, then it is irrational to believe that proposition to be true, or even false. The point, imo, is to try and get theists to better understand epistemology and what justifies belief. Of course this rarely actually works simply because many theists just don't _care_ if their belief in a god is justified. However, as Dennis Miller often said, "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" :)
I'm right there with you, Kevin. I've tried to make that point several times, but people have gotten so comfortable with the terms that they seemingly cannot see the innate flaws of supernatural/natural. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy from some of my prior conversations on this for your perusal and to see if you can help me clarify it.
_If "supernatural" just means, "different than what we witness in this universe" then any domain with differing behavior would automatically apply, be it an ostensibly "natural" multiverse or divine._
_If supernatural refers to very specific sets of differing domains, then the definition needs to be clear about what properties allow inclusion. To say the rules within the multiverse matter means you must be able to provide details about what rules are natural and which are supernatural._
_Most importantly, what you are outlining here is a merely linguistic description. "Domain X has these characteristics, therefore it qualifies for the 'supernatural' label." There is no philosophical divide that a "naturalistic bias" could impede detection of. It's more akin to the distinction between "classical" and "quantum"; both are part of external reality, we just use different labels to facilitate communication._
_When you try to introduce some deep philosophical distinction between natural and supernatural without being explicit about what characteristics define each and why there is such a divide, you end up with a squirrelly term whose primary (and perhaps sole) characteristic is perpetual unknowability._
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_If souls are demonstrated tomorrow, did we discover the supernatural? Or was it "just" a heretofore undiscovered natural phenomenon? What is the difference?_
_If we create a sub-universe with fewer possible things, does that make our universe any less "natural"? Is the sub-universe not natural? The answer to both is obviously no. We could use terms to distinguish between the differing sets of possibilities for each type of universe, but this is merely a linguistic technique, there is no philosophical or fundamental lack of natural-ness. And it works the same going in reverse. Whatever domain our spacetime emerged from (if that is even a sensible thing to say) is no less "natural" for having created us, regardless of how different it may be. And we are no less natural, either. Each domain simply does what is "natural" to it, and once we become aware of and familiar with other domains, we will discover what those alternate "natural" behaviors are._
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive, they change to accommodate new understanding of reality. If we discover souls, our understanding of this universe will expand and our natural laws will adapt accordingly. If we discover a prior realm - whether it has a god or not - we would explore it and derive its natural laws._
Any insight into how I can make this clearer? I've been accused of modifying the definitions of "natural" and "supernatural", but as far as I can tell every usage reduces down to the issue you stated.
6:37, did you drop your phone on the floor or something? that was kinda harsh on the ears.
The double split experiment, Cosmic inflation, Dark energy, Spooky entanglement, dark matter & The Dog particle... Even If the universe thinks your dumb at least your not wrong...
On Easter morning, we celebrate the sun's rising from the dead (winter).
I don't think the email is about the named specifics. He, IMO, is just saying that the arguments against naturalism are silly. The argument against Matt's arguments against the email writers arguments is that there are lots of things that we aren't certain about, absolutely, philosophically speaking, certain, but we reach a practical certainty that everyone is comfortable with. Do we know that the sun will come up tomorrow? Well not if we apply some asinine _degree_ of certainty to the question. We can't be absopositivelutely certain that it will come up, but of course the answer to the question of whether it will or not is, yes.
There is another question that I thought this video was going to be talking about. When it comes to religion and theology and philosophy and the like, if there's a god, why ISN'T it easier? Why are these such hard, complex topics if there is an all powerful all benevolent god who could simplify things a real hell of a lot if he just took some time to explain it to everyone NOW, rather than have people rely on a book he got some ghost writers to make 2000 years ago?
So Paul didn't have an epileptic fit now?
If I was going to make a simple case against Christianity based on basic common sense syllogisms I'd do something more like "In Christianity the Bible is supposed to be the good book, the Bible has slavery in it, it's not a good book therefore Christianity has no basis." or something more like that. Although, I also probably wouldn't do that.
It sounds like talking about the Nimbus 2000 actually being just a broom. Let theists first show that a biblical story is something more then only just a story.
Matt never responds to comments, does he? It's just that astronomers can read ancient sources about a 'new star that appeared, had a tail, etc...' and determine with a reasonable degree of accuracy that the historical source refers to a comet. If that is reasonable and reliable in identifying previously uncharted comets, why can't we do the same for biblical mentions of things like eclipses?
The reason I bring this up is, Matt once expressed a disagreement with the mythicist position for having an unreasonably high evidentiary standard for jesus, compared to other historical figures. He said that if it were anyone else, they'd accept his existence as factual, but because it's jesus, they demand more evidence before they'll accept he existed. If we apply that same argument here, if astronomers can do as above for comets and historical sources, then we're artificially inflating our standards for biblical eclipses if we say "we can't just read a biblical account of what sounds like it's an eclipse and determine that it is one and that it's not something supernatural."
Obviously religion is bogus, but my question is why don't we as skeptics tackle the most dangerous religious ideologues such as Islam more? Christianity is bogus but it's relatively benign when compared to some others. Islam needs more criticism from us and the criticism needs to be scathing and public.
Because Matt lives in the United States, and one is FAR more likely to have life or liberty curtailed (for religious reasons) by a Christian than a Muslim in the United States.
It comes down to cost-benefit analysis. Is it worthwhile to address beliefs of those handful of muslims or the mass of Christians around you? Christianity has by far the most sophisticated apologetics out there, because it coexisted with serious scepticism for at least 150 years. If you look at islamic apologetics, they are pretty much identical to early-20th-century christian apologetics. In the western countries islam is so outgunned by scepticism that nearly all muslim immigrants from islamic countries loose their faith in less than a generation.
Reason why islam survives and thrives is because there are countries where it has government-imposed protection from criticism. Fighting a political battle in foreign country is a tricky subject - the best we can do is to provide mental weaponry that natives can adopt and use in their own way.
KohuGaly this is were you are very wrong my friend. If you look in Europe the vast majority of Muslims practice the religion to its fullest extent because I believe they have a religion with a stronger philosophical ground than its Christian counterpart. Here in the UK there people like Mohammed Hijab, Shamsi, ali dawah who debate readily every single day in speakers corner in London hyde park. Try youtubing
ua-cam.com/video/ck_dd1gDk5w/v-deo.html one such example
as I said... countries with government-imposed protection from criticism...
I want Matt to be my dad. Seth Andrews to be my mom. And Aron Ra to be my cool uncle that takes me for rides on his motorcycle..
Is there agreed upon definition of “supernatural”? It seems that being non-verifiable is somehow intrinsic to our assumed definition of supernatural...which is obviously a silly definition if this is the case.
In the atheist experience show, they often talk about the supernatural but they never ever define what they mean by it, which is pretty annoying. I'm still not sure what it means for Matt, and the callers don't get it either, so the conversations never go anywhere.
Because critical thinking skills are lacking in about 90% of the population. I've quite given up on them.
I had a plague of caterpillars here once. lasted for four years!
Comments enabled I see, I guess comments are only disabled on the videos bullying christians directly?
Cuz if it was easy, anybody could do it.
So I have a question about the sourcing. If the bible is supposed to be 100% accurate and infallible and there is a glaring error in it can you discount the bible?
The first verse of the bible is falsely translated.
Gerald McFarlin according to who?
In the beginning, the Elohim (gods) separated (bara) Heaven (Eve) and Earth (Adam). This is copied from the Egyptian myth of Nut (Heaven) and Seb (Earth). Nut goes on to become the Virgin Mary and Seb become Joseph (IO Seph).
The Elohim are depicted in the seven candle/lamp temple menorah.
Gerald McFarlin if they claim it is infallible, yes
I am going to say straight up I am a Christian. I think the biggest flaw many Christians have is that they feel like they have to come up with an answer to something they just don't know for sure. I will not respond to any questions you have to my faith because I will either misinterpret it which I have a bad habit to do or I will probably not know the answer. I am quite young so I have quite a bit to learn. And Honestly, it can be a lot of time to answer your questions and I do not have a lot of time in my day devoted to this too. I will not say I am all knowing, but I will say I disagree with the philosophy of atheist as it does not come up with good answers to where the universe came from. I have watched a couple of your videos because I like to see both sides of the story. I have a few questions about atheism though. First off, I will not say that I am going to join your atheist cult, just want some insight into how you guys and gals would answer these questions. Just out of curiosity I want to ask if you are an atheist and you believe in no afterlife why waste your time trying to tear apart the Bible if you have limited time to live? I have noticed you focus your attention primarily on the Bible. Is there any particular reason? Are not other religious doctrines worthy of being taken down? Or would not the time be better spent doing other things? Why do you feel like you have to defend your beliefs? Of course there would be more knowledge in doing so but would value is knowledge to you if you lose it when you die. Or is this just something of your interest? Do you like to assert yourself in a higher place than others that believe as you do not by trying to crush their beliefs? Why do you feel just because Theists believe something and a mob of others believe in nothing we should accept it? Are you curious that something might convince you of another belief? Of course you can not come up with the answers to some questions and neither can I but could not something or someone else? It is always a possibility and that is why you have to keep you mind open. Here is my problem with atheism. It is a relative moral standard. Let's say I said rape was okay in the context of today. Why would I want to care about the other person? What benefit would that have to me in an atheistic culture? Why would you feel the need to condemn me? How do you get your morals as an atheist? I wonder that because not all atheists are consistent. I will not be a hypocrite and say all things are consistent in the Christian faith either. I will definitely not make the assertion that atheists do not have morals. What makes your morals better than mine if I was an atheist? Say you have scientific proof that I was wrong. Maybe I do not believe a scientific approach as an atheist. Maybe I just go with the flow, let things happen, do not control what I do because I want to live my best life now because I am going to die anyways. Would you feel the need to punish others because they lived that lifestyle? I think one of the good things Ray Comfort actually said is when we try to make up a moral structure and assert it against someone, you create a God in yourself. I feel like you are saying preaching to your atheist crowd that there is no God, but not only that. You are preaching that these Christians are awful for believing in their scripture. It honestly is not that bad in my opinion to accept that we have a God that does not agree with what we want to believe is good, moral, or correct. That was definitely a sacrifice I took when going into the Christian faith. I can definitely attest that we are not perfect humans by any standard so why should we expect to know all the answers. I wanted to ask are you an Atheist and Agnostic or just Atheist? I was agnostic before I became a Christian and will definitely say Atheistic point of view could never fill in the holes so that is why I could never accept it.
based on the last few lines, you might not be using the right words:
atheism isn't the belief that there is no god. This would be called "strong atheism", or "positive atheism".
atheism is when you do *not believe* that there is a god.
those are not the same things. theism and strong atheism are beliefs, while atheism is by definition not a belief.
rational = you only believe in what's supported by evidence
agnostic = you don't think there is evidence for god
if you're agnostic and rational, it implies you are atheist. That's where Matt is, afaik.
Interesting... you contradicted yourself. Atheism still is the belief that their is no God. The way I was before I became a Christian was agnostic and rational. Agnostic just means that you do not know either ways if there actually is a God/are gods. I think you are right on Matt's position of things. I became Christian more so because of life experiences that led me to the religion. I feel pretty content though where I am at and it breaks my heart for Matt Dillahunty to frame Christians as awful people and illogical beings. Some of the things he does state might not be in the right context and it makes us look worse. I do not see where it forces disciples to treat others poorly so I do not see half his points. I suggest Christianity, but I never force it upon anyone to follow. I have found when it is a persons time they will choose Christianity.
"you contradicted yourself"
that statement would be more useful if it pointed to the two things that you think are contradictory.
"Atheism still is the belief that their is no God." nope.
-Do you believe the number of humans on earth is even?
-No.
-Then you believe it's odd!
That's dumb, right? If you don't believe in X, it doesn't mean you believe in the opposite of X.
Well same thing:
-Do you believe there is a god?
-No.
-Then you believe there is no god!
That deduction is exactly as stupid as the previous one.
An atheist does not believe that there is a god, and may or may not believe that there is no god.
Johnathan Yunker No, atheism is disbelief in a god _or_ lack of belief in a god. The former is called strong or positive atheism while the latter is called weak or negative atheism.
Saying "I believe no gods exist" is positive atheism and a positive claim. But most atheists do not hold that position because it is not testable. Most atheists are negative atheists who are not convinced that any gods exist, so thereby lack belief in any. The negative atheist position is that there could possibly be something that could be called a god, but until and unless such a being is at least demonstrated to be _probable_ why should I believe in one? There is a _huge_ philosophical difference between the two types of atheism.
Because religion is a belief. Look up the definition of belief.
Seemingly when trying to avoid bad/false argument in itself is what makes debate very difficult to understand for most common folks. Bible is being treated as true, and that is why it is even harder to argue. So it makes sense to argue that the Bible is a fictional work and dismiss its credibility and avoid going down the rabbit hole of examining every single statement in the Bible as if they are true or bear any value on the argument.
I prefer complex aguments. I hate how everything is dumbed down. I want to exicise my brain.
I also like complex arguments, but not simple arguments presented as something that is somehow complex. I can reduce sin²(x) + cos²(x) to 1 I much prefer to do so, as however elegant and complex the first one looks, the second is much more easily understood by many more people.
watching the video reminds me about the folk tale about "the boy who cried wolf."
Thank you for a good... walk trough of that problem Matt, but there is stil a version of this that need addressing, and that is the fact that many christian explain this kind of phenomenons as miracles stil today.
Syllogistic:
a: Som people whit a strong faith explains phenomenons that have a naturalistic explanation as miracles today.
b: There is descriptions made by people whit strong faith of the same types of phenomenons explained as miracles, in scripture dating several thousands years back.
In light of this I am so blunt as to propose that it is plainly foolish to belive that what was decried as miracles in the scripture is something else then what is going on still today.
Anecdote: I remember seeing on the news a reportage about refugees coming from Algeria to Italy by boat. What had happened was that one of the boats had capsized, and Italian fishermen went out in their fishing boats and rescued the victims. One of the victims was intervju on fromt of the camera while one cold clearly se that the rescue action at sea was stil going on in the back ground. On question about what had happened the victim told that quot: "God (Allah) saved them.", and that it was a miracle. He left out the actions by the Italian fishermen completely, even minutes after the incident had happened.
Thoughts: If the only account we had of what actually happened, was this first person description from the victim. We wold be forced to ether belive that it actually was a miracle, ore that he had made the whole thing up. We cold of cores speculate about what cold have happened realistically... but it wold also just be speculations. My conclusion is that storys like e.g. the one in the Bible of how the walls of Jericho was brought down, cold actually have a core of truth to it. We cold speculate that the walls was brought down by sappers undermining, but that this fact was explained away as a miracle even the same day. But this wold be just speculations... in fact we dont know. But we dont need to lock to ancient history to observe that people whit strong faith explain phenomenons whit natural explanations as miracles. To me it seems to be the best solution just to dismiss the whole story, and stamp it as a blatant lye.
Mind if I ask, what's up with Iron Chariots? It's been down for several days.
For Bullwinkle so loved the world that he gave his only begotten squirrel.
For it is written;
One moose come in the name of love, one moose to overthrow,. IN THE NAME OF LOVE, ONCE MORE IN THE NAME OF LOVE.
2 magilla ,chapter 5 verse 9
This could not be any more obvious. Bullwinkle died for our sins, and he will return hallamooseah! !!
god damn it i have seen falls of frogs in another instance jellyfish, sent specimens to university ~mana from?
Has anyone came to the conclusion that Jesus just entered into a coma on that third day and came out of it? There are historical accounts of people taking a lot longer to die during crusifiction.
Or maybe a deep meditative state?
"Nothing supernatural involved." Why assume that God should be necessarily defined as supernatural?
'god' should be defined as *supernatural* because the claims about it violate known laws with no explanation or demonstration.
@@douglasthomashayden2566 I disagree. If you actually look into more etymological origins of these terms like God or the divine, what you invariably find are descriptions that are henotheistic, monistic, and panentheistic (not to be confused with pantheism), and absolutely none of these have nothing to do with the supernatural as defined by that which defies the laws of nature.
Ugh. While this video is completely reasonable and exceptionally sensible, I can see it being taken out of context and quote mined by dishonest theists.
You are basically excusing the religious by stating well we know as much as about afterlife as you, so see we are both dumb (ignorant not certain or whatever word you prefer).
But this is against science. We DO know what happens after death.
When your pet dies (dog, cat, fish, snake!) they begin decomposing in the ground, their brain full on memories of relatives, love ones immediately stops, and also decomposes. Do you feel that these animals, insects, birds, or even micro-organisms somehow live on? Is there a cancer cell heaven feeding off a live human?
We know through the science of biology that all lifeforms had a common ancestor. This is now classed as a fact. When human species die, they also decompose in the ground.
I therefore don't understand what you mean by that THEIR views cannot be fully thrown out. As you consistently state that science cannot falsify the supernatural. But we are talking about living species then dying, we DO know what happens in this regard. They rot in the ground. Is there another option that science doesn't know yet?
This constant apologetic atheist style is not becoming of you. Remember we don't believe in any God(s). Is afterlife true? According to science NO. Is science wrong? Science states our 'love' and memories completely STOP. They don't say they continue!
I mean you can remain open to supernatural Gods, but then you'd have to be open to EVERYTHING, including cancer Gods! Things such as 'afterlife' is ALREADY confirmed as not true. Do 'souls' change when people change their beliefs? Do they get two souls? These things only exist in someone's mind.
Is there a planet where the monkeys are throwing poo at their slave Gods?
Not everything is still 'open' until we get evidence that it doesn't exist. Some things (like human afterlife) is nonsense. How do I know? Science informs me our brains rot. Is science wrong?
I farted. That is all
Congratulations! You just created another galaxy.
I need some ideas, how could I logically argue against leprechauns hiding pot of gold the end of rainbows or should I use birdshot or buckshot to keep Cupid away from my kids? Why is that, questions like these sound stupid and stories about Jesus, Muhammad and Snoopy are taken seriously?
Time + usefulness as a social institution.
When somebody asks: "How can anybody be a Godless Atheist?"
I reply: "How can anybody be a Godless Animist?"
This is a great reply as it forces them to think about religions that don't believe in God. Or confuses them because they're too ignorant to know what an animist is. XD
Sean Michaels, when someone asks me why I don't believe in God I say: Which god?
considering there are so many versions of the Bible with so many denominations with their own take on on scripture, interpretation and claims to truth, you will get into a world of spaghetti strings with believers if you start making explanations in their book for them.
your interpretation is wrong
you haven't read the Bible correctly
you have the wrong version of the Bible
I'm not that Christian x, I am Christian y
you were with out the Holy Spirit
It is the Christian's responsibility to present their interpretation, explanation as best they can(since being a Christian their interpretation ought to be more accurate in their eyes than yours) and discussion can be spring boarded from there.
I find it more productive to be earnest with "You are the Christian, can you give me your interpretation if this passage is literal, metaphorical, allegory etc.. and please explain it"
I have on one occasion been met by a Jehovah's witnesses and told them "I would like it we go through the Bible together chapter by chapter front to back" I was sincere with a lot of questions.
I didn't hear from him again.
No, frogs do not get sucked up in the sky and rain down. That's a myth skeptoid.com/episodes/4170
Religion: A set of excuses for why you see don't see God now or ever, or any evidence for God.
Bam! Human logic.
Matt is adorable
One has to wonder what a Theistic world would look like, something like we see today, rival religions, rival denominations, churches, orthodoxies and sects vying for power and money. Perhaps we should consider what the world would be like if only one religion was in power. What then would a Christian world look like? Perhaps the best description would be akin to that of North Korea, every aspect of life including thought is controlled by a small dictatorial cabal of elite theologians and philosophers, a new dark age.
I have been following this stuff for some time and it is all one sided as far as I am concerned. I have no personal experience of religion. In fact I only bought a bible to find out what all the fuss was about.
You think it's about traps? It's about the truth that mindless unguided objects can't magically make you.
Religious people do no have their beliefs just because no one has presented a good argument (fairly) against them yet. Their beliefs come from an interwoven emotional, cultural worldview. Because of the Backfire Effect often sound arguments only result in people doubling down on their beliefs and worldview. Matt you're an intelligent guy, far more educated than I am for sure but this is not the way to battle against those with irrational worldviews. Unless every country in the world stops indoctrinating their children with religious nonsense the majority of people will always believe in such things. I'm sure there are individuals who believe they were swayed from their beliefs by a convincing argument of some kind. It's likely more accurate that there was a significant stressor that enabled the search for an alternative worldview that made them potentially open to a rational one. I doubt this happens often enough for our efforts to have much impact on most adults. It just seems like a lot of effort to go to for negligible results.
D Jay for that to happen, children will need to be allowed to first question their parents and elders first. Then maybe there will be a chance.
Because, as I see, religion is basically built on the instinctual need, that starts young, for the need to have someone to protect them. First it is the big, strong adults in life and later it becomes the sky daddy or mommy. Sometimes it is also the government.
im real
Jesus Christ imposter!!! We all know Jesus isn’t white; he’s from the Middle East!
Kevin Benoit people from the middle east can have light skin lmao. Dumbass human.
You're a bitch
Here, have some M&Ms....**psych!!!**