I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out “atheism is a religion” because it’s a tacit admission that being religious is silly. Once you’ve succumbed to accusing the opposition of being just as misguided as you are, it’s time to step back and rethink your attitudes.
“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.” - Penn Jillette “Atheism is a Religion like Abstinence is a Sex position.” - Bill Maher AMEN to that!! lol!!!
@@99xanthan99 And quite rightly too, It's a little early in the year for that. I took up not playing golf in January and found it somewhat tiring. I'll be not playing chess next week. Nonetheless I'm a touch ambivalent about not engaging in sex as a hobby whenever the opportunity presents itself. Powerfully constructed argument in favour of ignoring the paradox frequently fall on deaf ears.
@@warrenglover6633 😆😆😆. Right on! I’m still trying to decide what I’m not going to do. So far, besides not believing in God, I have also decided not to believe in the Loch Ness monster.
It is the usual cowardice retreating with theist trying to "demonstrate their god". You refute their claim, they say ok, and try their next spiel. And it ends in "what is more logical/plausible/possible", threats based on pascals wager or crying...
You always know that, when a caller says, “let’s follow this to its logical conclusion”, completely out the blue (mainly because their position/opinion is being show to be wrong), you just know it’s not going to be a logical conclusion… about anything what so ever.
This is a lovely example of what it is like to "have a closed mind". The caller is so convinced of his own position that even when the fallacy of the position is calmly disentangled and made clear, instead of an "uhuh, oh I see, now I get it", there is that constant reply of "but...but...but". And this is on the simple point of the burden of proof of a claim. A closed mind does not care to be illuminated.
I get how potentially confusing this type of thing can be to understand, especially for some folks that are used to approaching this exclusively dualistically, but they explain their position so painstakingly. The gumball analogy is especially simple and edifying.
I had the gumball analogy given to me once and I had a really hard time grasping it. But man, they both did such a good job explaining the concept here I can't see how anyone could misunderstand
They are conflating belief and knowledge with acceptance and truth. Absolute truth is unknowable, and acceptance is a passive form of belief. If you claim to “know” truth, you don’t understand what truth is, and if you claim to accept something, that doesn’t mean the acceptance came about through “belief.” Examples: 1. If I count the gum balls myself, I could claim to know how many there are, but without knowing whether your thoughts are a reliable avenue for assessing the truth, you cannot know anything about gum balls empirically. 2. If you have counted them (and if your empirical review is indeed accurate) you might then “accept” the number is true, but you may also “believe” the number is true before ever counting them. This can only mean one thing: the gum ball analogy is a red herring (or a false equivalency, at best), away from the real question: does negation of a truth claim require belief, as opposed to acceptance, since nothing (outside of knowing that you exist, according to Descartes) can be knowable?
@@markc4176 How, exactly do you define a lack of belief, then? As a negation? And what does a lack of ability to back up a claim (not being able to count the gumballs, in the first place) do to your model?
This guy was easily one of the dumbest people I've ever listened to speak. I mean he was horrendously stupid. His arguments were horrible and they literally held his hand and walked him through so many of these issues and it just went in one ear and out the other. Doesn't surprise me that he believes in a God because he's a fucking moron
Deception and sock puppetry seem to be a theist thing, in spite of that whole not bearing false witness commandment. Canadian Catholic is a good example of this as well.
@markvonwisco7369 yea but then they will just say "nuh uh it means if you see somethint dont bear false witness meaning lie telling a story that isnt true" when they miss the entire point, the point of that commandment is to NOT LIE yet every damn theist does this shit and lies about whats in the bible calling it context instead of what it is, lying....
One thing to keep in mind is that many theists go to churches and watch sermons through media where the pastors strawman atheists and atheism as a "belief system centered on there is no God". It's already a nuanced subject, years of misinformation make these conversations exponentially harder.
I was thinking the same thing. It’s similar to the “all atheists are dangerous and immoral” comment you see often. They are just regurgitating the nonsense that they have heard from some preacher over and over.
True! But irrationally/illogically question anything their told otherwise but never question religious sermons/lectures. This simply inconsistency in their application of skepticism is what they don’t see. It’s soooo key 🔑!
Forty years ago I landed a job at a company founded and run by fundamentalist Christians. The first week on the job, the preaching and persuasion began. The big boss hated atheists and ”secular humanists.” These days they seem to be called evangelicals. They are louder and appear to follow the “prosperity Gospel,” but their arguments are the same.
You know damn well that guy believes in a theistic definition of God. They start going down so many tangents that they seem to forget where they even started.
When you listen these theist callers and hear the muddied way they reason, it is not surprising that they do believe in an invisible magical god-daddy-friend at all.
I agree; can’t WE ( by we, I mean the NON-DELUDED) use this realization to our Advantage? Because it IS an Advantage; we are ABLE to DISCERN FANTASY from REALITY, where as “believers” are UN-ABLE to DISCERN FANTASY from REALITY! Let’s just Tweek the fantasy, in our favor… A few dozen years after we release the New-NEW-NEWEST-Testament, todays NT will be as forgotten and unread as The OT currently is… Frankly - I think there are FAR fewer people actually READING the Bible, than there are people just arguing about the Bible.
The caller said the "information in DNA proves a designer", then he defined information as "communication from one mind to another" which means there is no information in DNA by his definition since DNA doesn't communicate from one mind to another.
It sounds to me like he considers "information" to be synonymous with "message." We get information through our very senses. I guess colloquially we could say our brain sends messages to our organs and cells. But I think the word "message" is more indicative of a communication originating from an intelligent life form.
These people are so self confident due to the Dunning-Kruger effect. That they’re comfortable saying things like “I don’t know how a universe could arise without a creator”. In other words they’re saying if they personally don’t understand how something could occur naturally, then it’s impossible to occur naturally. It’s the same mindset that when people saw the Giant’s Causeway. They didn’t understand how it arose naturally from volcanic activity. So they assumed it was created and not only that. They concluded an Irish giant built it as part of a bridge that went to Scotland. So he could fight a Scottish giant.
I believe the caller was absolutely being truthful and genuine when he said he understood the O.J. analogy. And yet he went right back to “but atheism must mean you reject god!”. This is a perfect example of understanding something on an intellectual level, but your religiously-indoctrinated defense mechanism kicking in and fiercely resisting the ability to apply that understanding to a situation that would greatly complicate the picture religiously and philosophically for your comforting false duality.
And once you admit in your heart that the number is 13, it means there MUST be 13 stale ones, 13 deliciously chewy ones, and 13 gumballs that are actually jawbreakers... (and the contradiction/impossibility is a divine mystery)... It's all implied by a 2000-year-old book.
These callers keep getting shredded to pieces, but they continue to try to make their arguments, as if they heard nothing Matt says. And they probably haven't- because they are, invariably, not very bright. That's how they can be religious in the first place.
You can be smart and religious or not so smart and atheist, so lets not b personal, that's something alot of theists do after all, I I'm not a believer.
@@christopherianlister5212 sorry to say, with a lot of Theists , it's like having a conversation with Forest Gump . A lot of them , are definitely not smart .
There is one organization that makes it their job to decide which group is a religion and which is not, and that’s The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the USA. Religions receive highly favorable treatment in the USA and the IRS wants to avoid giving these advantages to organizations that are not genuine religions. So the IRS has a set of criteria they apply to any group claiming to be a religion. The primary criteria are listed below with how atheist groups qualify [shown in parenthesis]. Distinct legal existence [Some atheist groups are legal entities.] Recognized creed and form of worship [No creed or forms of worship.] Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government [No ecclesiastical governance.] Formal code of doctrine and discipline [No doctrine.] Distinct religious history [No religious history.] Membership not associated with any other church or denomination [Atheists may join any number of atheist groups.] Organization of ordained ministers [No ministers of any kind.] Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study [No courses of study.] Literature of its own [No literature reserved for one group.] Established places of worship [No worship.] Regular religious services [No religious services.] Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young [No instructing the young.] Schools for the preparation of its members [No atheist schools.] With only one criterion applicable to atheists (and that one all political parties and many clubs share), the IRS won’t be granting religious tax exemptions to atheist groups any time soon.
How to Construct Logical Arguments 101 should be taught (at the very least) in high school, hell, maybe even a basic introduction in junior high. While I was raised in the cult of Christianity and though I never believed in any of it, I wasn’t introduced to the ways in which to technically construct a sound logical thought until I took an intro to logic course in college. As demonstrated by this call, most religious people reveal that they cannot even grasp the very basics of logical understanding… which I suspect is obviously why most religious people remain religious.
Instead we have laws against teaching anything that might conflict with their deeply held beliefs, and against skepticism and rational logic or critical thinking.
Videos like this remind me how grateful I am to have gone to college and taken logic and reasoning courses. It's sad to see how tripped up people can get by something as simple as the basics of logic.
Yet there are bon-religious people who argue like the caller about the same things from the caller. I remember a young woman in a class saying sex was demeaning and invasive to women. Other women looked at her and said "no" but she was mystified how they could say that.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Sounds like she was SA'd. Obviously going to college isn't a guaranteed path to logic but depending on the courses one takes, I would argue it's a good way to develop critical thinking skills at an adult level. At the very least it exposes people to different opinions outside of their bubble which is demonstrably important
It’s funny how important it is for religious apologists to call the show and demonstrate their ignorance of atheism. They can’t just call the show and say they don’t understand what atheism means. They need to keep showing it.🤡
They needed to ask him what he thinks an Argument from Ignorance is. I think he had no idea and was assuming it meant arguing like an ignorant person or something like that. I don't think he knows what fallacies are. I am so glad I'm not one of these people...
36:30 that is why, when i am having an honest discusion with someone, i expect to be wrong. If you start the conversation with the idea that you already lost you are more likely to actually listen to what they have to say. After they are done, then you can start to ask questions, to pry open their arguments and understand them better. You may change your mind or not, but is important to consider always that you might be wrong and act like it. This is not saying "you are right", this is giving them a fear chance, and hoping they give you a chance too.
This guy came to this conversation without the requisite intelligence to have the conversatio Bravo for trying to explain to him concepts that were way above his head
In the army when we couldnt comprehend something we simple said "that much thinking is above my paygrade" meaning i aint paid enough to give orders i simply follow them lmfao
Jesus christ for a person that wanted to avoid the semantics i think he needs a lesson on how to use words because his language is mind bogglingly confused
His analogy about a defendant being guilty is confusing. A better analogy is the one he used about bigfoot, he doesn't believe because of a lack of evidence, he's not saying bigfoot doesn't exist, just that it hasn't been proved
It's so clear now. The christian has thousands of religions such as not believing in Krishna, not believing in Ishtar, and not believing in Quetzalcoatl. The not believing in Ahura Mazda religion is especially elaborate in ritual and dogma. It's a wonder the christian has any time to devote to their own ridiculous mythology, having to tend so diligently to their other religions commitments. Remember, it takes more faith not to believe in god, which paradoxically means not believing is more virtuous. So to the christian, is belief without reason and against all reason a good thing or a bad thing? I guess when atheists are accused of having faith, it is the rare and fleeting moment the christian understands the futility and absurdity of the practice. When incorrectly accusing atheists, they recognize for a brief instance that faith is nothing but a method for self-deception promoted by all religions to reinforce indoctrination, but never long enough to reflect on their own insistence on employing and celebrating it. Thanks, John, for clearing this up, and Happy Not Believing In Tinkerbell Day.
Try the extension of the gumball analogy. Roll a die. Do you believe the side facing up is a one? No? Then you must believe the side facing up is a 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
When you have to explain the same point multiple times to one person and he still doesn't get it you are wasting your time to explain further, he's an idiot and will never get it, he just can't stand the fact he is irrational and desperately wants atheists to be irrational as well.
You're deluding yourself if you go around thinking you're any better or more rational than any human being on the planet. Nearly all of us are raised into religion, some environments more extreme than others. Don't discount how difficult that mindset is to get out of, especially when your religious life includes your friends family and even employment. The second you stop questioning your own conclusions and feelings on any subject, you are at risk to start believing bunk, religious or not. I see this high and mighty attitude with a lot of atheists, and its a bit annoying. Pretty typical for the newly annointed atheist teen but its sad for anyone who is still holding onto this idea older than that.
@@KD-ou2np He was clearly an idiot and if you can't see that then you should look at your own reasoning, it is easy to let crap like religion go, you just have to be logical, it is obvious it is made up and delusional, I realised that at the age of 8 or 9 so an adult should be able to work it out.
@Gary Allen bullshit, being an atheist does not stop you from believing other bunk. I AM an atheist btw, I'm just not trying narcisstically jerk myself off about how logical I am. You shouldn't either because thats all it looks like from the outside.
Atheism is a religion comes from the same crowd that says secular humanism is a religion....theists who simply cannot handle the idea people cannot be religious....sort of like that idiotic comment by Jordan Peterson that atheists are religious but don't know they are....I am afraid the religious minded, in order to make room in their brains for Faith, have been obliged to throw out of their minds a lot of useful stuff, like logic and reason.
That's why we have to especially watch out for claims concerning an "atheist world view" or "atheist belief system." It's projection at best, but usually a disingenuous smuggling in of an unwarranted premise so as to construct a strawman fallacy from that premise.
I would rather this call ended with the gumball example. The caller grasps the meaning, correctly states its importance in his own words, then completely forgets it as soon as he goes back to his script.
@18:15 “information is a message thats communicated between a sender and receiver” if a rock falls into mud the imprint the rock leaves behind gives us information about the rock I don’t see a need to shoehorn god in to explain that information was transmitted without intelligence
John: "We haven't seen information arrive by naturalistic means." Have you seen any gods? :p "Can you give me an example of any information coming about naturalistically?" Sure. A line of rocks sitting on a riverbank. It could be the letter I. Or it could be a line of rocks which just ended up there because of the flow of the water. Either way, it's information.
I think the simplest response to the bone-headed accusation that "Atheism is a religion, dammit!" is simply to respond, "So what if it is? Does that mean you think being religious is bad for you?" and take it from there.
The problem with WLC using any argument (including the Kalam) is that he admitted that even if they were definitively disproven, he would still believe.
I often explain that religions are a sub-category of fandoms. Fandoms being groups of people with a shared interest/passion, combined with admiration to such a degree it can rarely stand criticism. The caller makes the mistake of a dog is a mammal, so all mammals are dogs, by basically suggesting that every fandom is a religion.
Religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. 2a(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural. (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. So not believing in something or wanting proof in order to believe something is true is not a religion.
This might be a demonstration that you cannot possibly use the labels before or while having these kinds of conversations. You can have the longer conversation about the actual positions you have and the ideas. You can’t say “atheists think...”. You must say “The people who aren’t yet convinced that any gods exist think ...” otherwise the conversation resets at every moment.
His problem is that he makes "God did it" the default position for something. He wants evidence that its NOT god causing the information. And when pointed to natural processes he just asserts that its actually god. You want an example of natural processes that creates information ? Allright. Look at DNA. We have no demonstration of god interacting at any point with any part of say the growth of a tree from an acorn. So that would be a natural process and natural information unless you can demonstrate it to be caused by god. God is not the default position.
I hate to cast personal aspersions...but here I go. Having never met Martin Wagner, I feel certain that he is a kind and very intelligent person, but he is truly awful at argumentation (just like most people). Every time he enters into the discussion, he introduces clouds rather than clarity. Martin, I hope I have not hurt your feelings, and I would love to buy you a coffee or an adult beverage on my next trip to Austin.
Johnm asks "can you show me anay information that comes from a naturalist process? Sure the North Star, how about change of seasons as in the summer and winter solstice. How about high noon when the sun casts a shadow directly below an object like a pebble or a stick standing straight up. How about a rooster crowing at sun up? HOw about the slightest of sickle moon to start a new lunar month? How about dunes pointing in a certain direction? How about lightning showing before the thunder, meaning how far it is away. etc etc etc
I’ve learned a lot about science. Enough to reach the point of realising that I know fuck all and can’t make any real claims about anything. But it’s certainly better than knowing less and believing that I know everything.
Criminal procedure from Wikipedia Not proven (Scots: No pruiven, Scottish Gaelic: gun dearbhadh[1]) is a verdict available to a court of law in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts, one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty").[2][3] Between the Restoration in the late 17th century and the early 18th century, jurors in Scotland were expected only to find whether individual factual allegations were proven or not proven, rather than to rule on an accused's guilt.[4] In 1728, the jury in a murder trial asserted "its ancient right" to declare a defendant "not guilty".[5] Over time, the "not guilty" verdict regained wide acceptance and use amongst Scots juries, with the encouragement of defence lawyers. It eventually displaced "not proven" as the primary verdict of acquittal. Nowadays, juries can return a verdict of either "not guilty" or "not proven", with the same legal effect of acquittal.[6] Although historically it may be a similar verdict to not guilty, in the present day not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant is guilty but the crown has not provided sufficient evidence.[7] Scots law requires corroboration; the evidence of one witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused or to establish any material or crucial fact. Out of the country, the "not proven" verdict may be referred to as the Scottish verdict. In Scotland, there have been attempts to abolish what Sir Walter Scott famously called that bastard verdict.[8] In 1827, Scott, who was sheriff in the court of Selkirk, wrote in his journal that "the jury gave that bastard verdict, Not proven.[9]
Recently was on the phone for an intake call to a therapy program, and they were asking all my basic identity info, name, pronouns, racial identity, etc. She asked what my religion is, I said “none” but then realized that sounds like “nun” so I added “Atheist - but that’s not a religion” And she was like “oh, well yeah it is” and she seemed sweet and I didn’t want to argue, I just kinda chuckled and said “well it’s a lack of one” and we moved on. But it kinda annoyed me. But, I don’t think she meant any harm by it at all, but just the fact that general society still thinks a lack of religion is equal to a religion is frustrating.
As a Buddhist I can say it's not a religion,it's a way of life.We believe what we can see,not what we are told.Gods aren't real.The world has no need for any God.
I have debated with ID people who say an intelligence created life etc and when I used the word god in my reply I got this: "YOU STRAW MANNED ME!!!!!!! I NEVER SAID GOD!!!!! I DONT DEBATE WITH PEOPLE WHO STRAW MAN!!!!!!!" There was one who did this and I left the thread - coming back to it 2 months later I saw him debating another atheist and using the word god. It is so fucking dishonest and I understand why Matt hung up on this clown.
Well, at least the first time, they weren't making the leap from the flimsy deist's creator to their favorite fanfiction from "the Goat Herder's Guide to the Universe" as a perfect set of divinely inspired rules to live by.
John - would make an excellent garbage collector - If it was written in the bible, to be a good Christian that goes to heaven, “One must collect garbage from Sun-up till Sundown - so sayeth the lord - proverbs 1-69” I believe this - based off of John’s total inability to grasp the slightest example of a clue!! These men are YELLING the truth at him and he isn’t HEARING any of it.
Sometimes you come up against people who "know" that everything that you say must be wrong just because of who you are, So they end up making the most stupid arguments.
No. Buddhism is a prominent world religion which is not based on worship or supernatural beings. It's essentially an examination of the human condition. A couple of interrelated elements of Vedic doctrine which border on the supernatural found their way into early Buddhism, as these were simply taken for granted as existential truths at the time. These are karma and rebirth. They can be fairly successfully recast in secular terms without loss of generality. All this is not to say that Buddhists are necessarily secular. Lots of people seem to go in for magical thinking of one kind or another at any excuse, and Buddhists are no different. It's just that Buddhist doctrine doesn't rely on magical thinking to develop its case.
Matt's analogy with gumballs is a category error fallacy when he uses it as analogy to God. This is objectively the case that he's committing a fallacy, this is not just my opinion. Here's why: The number of gumballs in the jar is a contingent claim that it IS possible to be neutral or withhold judgment about (so he CAN evade justifying his denial of the claim by appealing to withholding judgment) Any creator God, on the other hand, is a non-contingent claim that it's NOT possible to be neutral or withhold judgment about (so he CANNOT evade justifying his denial of the claim by appealing to withholding judgment) With non-contingent claims, there are always only two options which are logically available: 1. It's necessarily true, or 2. It's necessarily false (There is NO third option of neutrality or withholding judgment, like there is for contingent claims, which most claims are)
It's so fucking funny to see how hard you try to be contrarian, and you're an idiot who has never once made a completely correct comment so we know you spend way too much time to craft each of these pieces of shit. The entire point is that whether option one or option two are correct is literally unknowable, atheism is the acknowledgment of that fact and the rejection of anyone claiming either option to be objectively correct. Most theists even agree that the answer is unknowable, catch the fuck up to your own backwards ass side. Either of those options could be true, you're the dipshit picking one and we're saying you're a fucking idiot for doing so. You're arguments are always fucking stupid but this one was obviously barely even thought out.
You have no basis to assert that non-contingent claims even exist, let alone that a "creator god" claim would fall into that category. Indeed, given that most "creator god" claims have been intentionally constructed so as to be unfalsifiable, the only position one could ever rationally hold about them is what you refer to as "withholding judgment".
@amritlohia8240 Every worldview includes non-contingent claims, including your particular non-theistic worldview that you're operating through right now. For example, 1. How do you know the laws of logic are universally true in your particular non-theistic worldview? Because they must necessarily be? (Hence, they're non-contingent) How do you know your particular metaphysical framework true, in your particular non-theistic worldview? (Probably Materialism) Because it must necessarily be? (Hence, your metaphysical framework is non-contingent) How do you know your particular theory of Epistemology true? The Causal Principle? How do you know there are universals? How do you know the uniformity of nature is true (aka the assumption that the laws of physics will remain the same in the future as they have been in the past)? Why do words have meaning, in your particular non-theistic worldview? Etc, etc These are all non-contingent claims in non-theistic worldviews. And there are more.
@amritlohia8240 Also, when you say that others have no basis to make a claim that doesn't even make sense. You can disagree about whether the concept which was claimed EXISTS or not, but you can't dispute the attributes of the claim being made itself. The person making the claim gets to determine that.
@@lightbeforethetunnel This is just the standard presuppositionalist nonsense. Some of the things you listed are actually not part of my worldview at all - I don't consider that words have meanings (merely usages which are a matter of social convention), nor does my worldview include any "metaphysical framework" (since I'm a metaphysical deflationist, i.e. I consider all metaphysical statements to be reducible to matters of linguistic preference, such that they have no truth value). I also don't claim to know that any particular set of "laws of logic" are true - as you're surely aware, all 3 of the classical laws have been challenged, and my own worldview holds that excluded middle, in particular, is not universally applicable (following the arguments of Brouwer and Wittgenstein). As for the things you listed that are part of my worldview, such as non-contradiction, causality, and uniformitarianism, I also don't claim knowledge of those - I simply accept them as *pragmatically* necessary (not logically or ontologically necessary) foundations. The fact that I can't provide complete justification for them (in other words, the fact that I don't have a solution to the various grounding problems that have befuddled people for millenia) doesn't in any way make it acceptable (or put it on an even footing) to believe other claims without justification (such as deistic or theistic claims). And as I said earlier, there is no way in which you can make it acceptable to believe claims that are probably unfalsifiable.
I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out “atheism is a religion” because it’s a tacit admission that being religious is silly. Once you’ve succumbed to accusing the opposition of being just as misguided as you are, it’s time to step back and rethink your attitudes.
well said. ill have to remember that thought
@@rhyantrick8178 the same sentiment could be applied to faith. “evolution requires faith” requires faith to be silly, not virtuous.
@@TheDizzleHawke Great point
@@andrewhampson5162 I picture Peewee Herman saying “I know you are but what am I?”
Excellent point
Not believing in god is a religion in the same way not believing in Santa Clause is a religion.
Or a cult lol
Little elves are Santa worshippers 😂
“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.” - Penn Jillette
“Atheism is a Religion like Abstinence is a Sex position.” - Bill Maher
AMEN to that!! lol!!!
I was going to start not collecting stamps yesterday but I put it off till next month.
@@99xanthan99 And quite rightly too, It's a little early in the year for that. I took up not playing golf in January and found it somewhat tiring. I'll be not playing chess next week.
Nonetheless I'm a touch ambivalent about not engaging in sex as a hobby whenever the opportunity presents itself. Powerfully constructed argument in favour of ignoring the paradox frequently fall on deaf ears.
I took up this hobby many years go and it has been a great success. I have not collected a single stamp in 20 years.
And let us not forget the “Church of Non-Vampirism.” {For the small group of us that do not believe in vampires.}
@@warrenglover6633 😆😆😆. Right on! I’m still trying to decide what I’m not going to do. So far, besides not believing in God, I have also decided not to believe in the Loch Ness monster.
During the entire call, you can practially hear the callers brain go, "Does not Compute! Does not Compute! Does not Compute!"
Yes, that is Christianity in motion; whenever his battery went dead he flipped to: “I believe that….”
It is the usual cowardice retreating with theist trying to "demonstrate their god". You refute their claim, they say ok, and try their next spiel.
And it ends in "what is more logical/plausible/possible", threats based on pascals wager or crying...
@anti-anti-intellectual I literally busted out laughing reading this. Caught me off guard.
I’ve been listening to him, and all I hear coming from his brain is silence.🤡
I love to listen to them squirm as every “argument” they come up with is torn to shreds in front of them.😈
You always know that, when a caller says, “let’s follow this to its logical conclusion”, completely out the blue (mainly because their position/opinion is being show to be wrong), you just know it’s not going to be a logical conclusion… about anything what so ever.
I was thinking the exact same thing lmao.
"Ooookaaay, here we go."
A lot of the times it seems to actually mean "let me snowball this to an absurd hypothetical"
I love that you upload these old clips. Just goes to show there truly are no new ideas amongst theists.
This is a lovely example of what it is like to "have a closed mind". The caller is so convinced of his own position that even when the fallacy of the position is calmly disentangled and made clear, instead of an "uhuh, oh I see, now I get it", there is that constant reply of "but...but...but". And this is on the simple point of the burden of proof of a claim.
A closed mind does not care to be illuminated.
I get how potentially confusing this type of thing can be to understand, especially for some folks that are used to approaching this exclusively dualistically, but they explain their position so painstakingly. The gumball analogy is especially simple and edifying.
I had the gumball analogy given to me once and I had a really hard time grasping it. But man, they both did such a good job explaining the concept here I can't see how anyone could misunderstand
They are conflating belief and knowledge with acceptance and truth. Absolute truth is unknowable, and acceptance is a passive form of belief. If you claim to “know” truth, you don’t understand what truth is, and if you claim to accept something, that doesn’t mean the acceptance came about through “belief.” Examples:
1. If I count the gum balls myself, I could claim to know how many there are, but without knowing whether your thoughts are a reliable avenue for assessing the truth, you cannot know anything about gum balls empirically.
2. If you have counted them (and if your empirical review is indeed accurate) you might then “accept” the number is true, but you may also “believe” the number is true before ever counting them.
This can only mean one thing: the gum ball analogy is a red herring (or a false equivalency, at best), away from the real question: does negation of a truth claim require belief, as opposed to acceptance, since nothing (outside of knowing that you exist, according to Descartes) can be knowable?
@@markc4176 But withholding acceptance of a truth claim isn't a negation of the claim, which *is* the entire point of the analogy. . .
@@christiananderson4909 red herring, like I said…the real topic is about belief, not acceptance.
@@markc4176 How, exactly do you define a lack of belief, then? As a negation?
And what does a lack of ability to back up a claim (not being able to count the gumballs, in the first place) do to your model?
I remember this caller. He dialed under several names from multiple locations. He was smug and insufferable every time.
This guy was easily one of the dumbest people I've ever listened to speak. I mean he was horrendously stupid. His arguments were horrible and they literally held his hand and walked him through so many of these issues and it just went in one ear and out the other. Doesn't surprise me that he believes in a God because he's a fucking moron
Deception and sock puppetry seem to be a theist thing, in spite of that whole not bearing false witness commandment. Canadian Catholic is a good example of this as well.
@@markvonwisco7369 How else did they infiltrate Rome.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver True!
@markvonwisco7369 yea but then they will just say "nuh uh it means if you see somethint dont bear false witness meaning lie telling a story that isnt true" when they miss the entire point, the point of that commandment is to NOT LIE yet every damn theist does this shit and lies about whats in the bible calling it context instead of what it is, lying....
"What's on your mind?"
"Nothing much"
Me: *Checks the length of the video*
One thing to keep in mind is that many theists go to churches and watch sermons through media where the pastors strawman atheists and atheism as a "belief system centered on there is no God". It's already a nuanced subject, years of misinformation make these conversations exponentially harder.
I was thinking the same thing. It’s similar to the “all atheists are dangerous and immoral” comment you see often. They are just regurgitating the nonsense that they have heard from some preacher over and over.
True! But irrationally/illogically question anything their told otherwise but never question religious sermons/lectures. This simply inconsistency in their application of skepticism is what they don’t see. It’s soooo key 🔑!
Forty years ago I landed a job at a company founded and run by fundamentalist Christians. The first week on the job, the preaching and persuasion began. The big boss hated atheists and ”secular humanists.”
These days they seem to be called evangelicals. They are louder and appear to follow the “prosperity Gospel,” but their arguments are the same.
Ten years ago, and the guy is still trying to figure this out.
You know damn well that guy believes in a theistic definition of God. They start going down so many tangents that they seem to forget where they even started.
When you listen these theist callers and hear the muddied way they reason, it is not surprising that they do believe in an invisible magical god-daddy-friend at all.
I agree; can’t WE
( by we, I mean the NON-DELUDED)
use this realization to our Advantage?
Because it IS an Advantage; we are ABLE to DISCERN FANTASY from REALITY, where as “believers” are
UN-ABLE to DISCERN FANTASY from REALITY!
Let’s just Tweek the fantasy, in our favor…
A few dozen years after we release the New-NEW-NEWEST-Testament, todays NT will be as forgotten and unread as The OT currently is…
Frankly - I think there are FAR fewer people actually READING the Bible, than there are people just arguing about the Bible.
The caller said the "information in DNA proves a designer", then he defined information as "communication from one mind to another" which means there is no information in DNA by his definition since DNA doesn't communicate from one mind to another.
It sounds to me like he considers "information" to be synonymous with "message." We get information through our very senses. I guess colloquially we could say our brain sends messages to our organs and cells. But I think the word "message" is more indicative of a communication originating from an intelligent life form.
It is not a religion. It doesn't have collection plates or funny hats.
Speak for yourself *tilts fuzzy pink top-hat*
These people are so self confident due to the Dunning-Kruger effect. That they’re comfortable saying things like “I don’t know how a universe could arise without a creator”. In other words they’re saying if they personally don’t understand how something could occur naturally, then it’s impossible to occur naturally.
It’s the same mindset that when people saw the Giant’s Causeway. They didn’t understand how it arose naturally from volcanic activity. So they assumed it was created and not only that. They concluded an Irish giant built it as part of a bridge that went to Scotland. So he could fight a Scottish giant.
That gumball analogy was fantastic. Gotta remember that one
I believe the caller was absolutely being truthful and genuine when he said he understood the O.J. analogy. And yet he went right back to “but atheism must mean you reject god!”. This is a perfect example of understanding something on an intellectual level, but your religiously-indoctrinated defense mechanism kicking in and fiercely resisting the ability to apply that understanding to a situation that would greatly complicate the picture religiously and philosophically for your comforting false duality.
yep
"its not an argument from ignorance its an argument from what we know" - that's an argument from ignorance.
False dichotomy analogy:
“The number of gumballs in the jar are either even, or 13”
And once you admit in your heart that the number is 13, it means there MUST be 13 stale ones, 13 deliciously chewy ones, and 13 gumballs that are actually jawbreakers... (and the contradiction/impossibility is a divine mystery)... It's all implied by a 2000-year-old book.
These callers keep getting shredded to pieces, but they continue to try to make their arguments, as if they heard nothing Matt says. And they probably haven't- because they are, invariably, not very bright. That's how they can be religious in the first place.
The bright ones know better than to attempt to explain their belief esp with skilled debaters familiar with theism such as matt.
You can be smart and religious or not so smart and atheist, so lets not b personal, that's something alot of theists do after all, I I'm not a believer.
@@christopherianlister5212 sorry to say, with a lot of Theists ,
it's like having a conversation with Forest Gump . A lot of them , are definitely not smart .
This guy seems to think you can’t be atheist and agnostic. That’s like saying you can’t be tall and skinny
Oooo, caller is getting into "thoughts are wrong." Next stop is "thinking is wrong."
John from Chicago ( UA-cam moniker Arcane Logos ) demonstrates the textbook example of willful ignorance.
You didnt think him defining everything as created by a god without ever even trying to prove it wasnt genius? Weird
@@heinshaaine8153
In my defense I do believe that I was perhaps temporarily blinded by his mastery of philosophy , logic , and reason. 😂🤣😅
Theists believe their gods want them to be as ignorant as possible, so they love to show off their ignorance.🤡
There is one organization that makes it their job to decide which group is a religion and which is not, and that’s The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the USA. Religions receive highly favorable treatment in the USA and the IRS wants to avoid giving these advantages to organizations that are not genuine religions. So the IRS has a set of criteria they apply to any group claiming to be a religion. The primary criteria are listed below with how atheist groups qualify [shown in parenthesis].
Distinct legal existence [Some atheist groups are legal entities.]
Recognized creed and form of worship [No creed or forms of worship.]
Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government [No ecclesiastical governance.]
Formal code of doctrine and discipline [No doctrine.]
Distinct religious history [No religious history.]
Membership not associated with any other church or denomination [Atheists may join any number of atheist groups.]
Organization of ordained ministers [No ministers of any kind.]
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study [No courses of study.]
Literature of its own [No literature reserved for one group.]
Established places of worship [No worship.]
Regular religious services [No religious services.]
Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young [No instructing the young.]
Schools for the preparation of its members [No atheist schools.]
With only one criterion applicable to atheists (and that one all political parties and many clubs share), the IRS won’t be granting religious tax exemptions to atheist groups any time soon.
So many of these episodes shine a bright light on a particular issue that has nothing to do with religion.
@Gary Allen
I agree with what you said, but there is an even MORE particular issue.
Resorting to dishonesty when confronted with contradictory information?
@@anthonyl9126
That’s not it.
@@chudleyflusher7132 It is theist/people not being comfortable with actually investigating the validity to their believes..
@@heinshaaine8153
Sure. That. But there is something else…
“Smooth brain” is a condition in which there are fewer convolutions in the prefrontal cortex and consequently less surface area and fewer neurons.
Professor Stick is using "Smooth Brain" for anti-scientists from time to time.
How to Construct Logical Arguments 101 should be taught (at the very least) in high school, hell, maybe even a basic introduction in junior high.
While I was raised in the cult of Christianity and though I never believed in any of it,
I wasn’t introduced to the ways in which to technically construct a sound logical thought until I took an intro to logic course in college.
As demonstrated by this call, most religious people reveal that they cannot even grasp the very basics of logical understanding…
which I suspect is obviously why most religious people remain religious.
Instead we have laws against teaching anything that might conflict with their deeply held beliefs, and against skepticism and rational logic or critical thinking.
Videos like this remind me how grateful I am to have gone to college and taken logic and reasoning courses. It's sad to see how tripped up people can get by something as simple as the basics of logic.
Yet there are bon-religious people who argue like the caller about the same things from the caller. I remember a young woman in a class saying sex was demeaning and invasive to women. Other women looked at her and said "no" but she was mystified how they could say that.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Sounds like she was SA'd. Obviously going to college isn't a guaranteed path to logic but depending on the courses one takes, I would argue it's a good way to develop critical thinking skills at an adult level. At the very least it exposes people to different opinions outside of their bubble which is demonstrably important
It’s funny how important it is for religious apologists to call the show and demonstrate their ignorance of atheism. They can’t just call the show and say they don’t understand what atheism means. They need to keep showing it.🤡
They needed to ask him what he thinks an Argument from Ignorance is. I think he had no idea and was assuming it meant arguing like an ignorant person or something like that. I don't think he knows what fallacies are. I am so glad I'm not one of these people...
@@251rmartin 🤣🤣
It’s like trying to hold water in a sieve.
“You’re an atheist about certain things about life.” No, John! Omg how did you get there?! 🤦🏽♀️
John: “So let’s follow that to its logical conclusion.”
You can’t follow anything to its logical conclusion until you learn some logic.🤡
36:30 that is why, when i am having an honest discusion with someone, i expect to be wrong.
If you start the conversation with the idea that you already lost you are more likely to actually listen to what they have to say.
After they are done, then you can start to ask questions, to pry open their arguments and understand them better.
You may change your mind or not, but is important to consider always that you might be wrong and act like it.
This is not saying "you are right", this is giving them a fear chance, and hoping they give you a chance too.
i’ve come to the belief that christian apologists can’t understand the not guilty vs innocent example. it’s too thoughtful for them.
They understand it, but they cannot accept it. The delusion demands this limitation.
The Jar of Gumballs is so much simpler than the courtroom analogy, he should have started with it.
I would’ve ended this conversation within the first 10 minutes
This guy came to this conversation without the requisite intelligence to have the conversatio
Bravo for trying to explain to him concepts that were way above his head
In the army when we couldnt comprehend something we simple said "that much thinking is above my paygrade" meaning i aint paid enough to give orders i simply follow them lmfao
Jesus christ for a person that wanted to avoid the semantics i think he needs a lesson on how to use words because his language is mind bogglingly confused
His analogy about a defendant being guilty is confusing. A better analogy is the one he used about bigfoot, he doesn't believe because of a lack of evidence, he's not saying bigfoot doesn't exist, just that it hasn't been proved
I lost patience. I bet he still doesn't get it.
It's so clear now. The christian has thousands of religions such as not believing in Krishna, not believing in Ishtar, and not believing in Quetzalcoatl. The not believing in Ahura Mazda religion is especially elaborate in ritual and dogma. It's a wonder the christian has any time to devote to their own ridiculous mythology, having to tend so diligently to their other religions commitments. Remember, it takes more faith not to believe in god, which paradoxically means not believing is more virtuous. So to the christian, is belief without reason and against all reason a good thing or a bad thing? I guess when atheists are accused of having faith, it is the rare and fleeting moment the christian understands the futility and absurdity of the practice. When incorrectly accusing atheists, they recognize for a brief instance that faith is nothing but a method for self-deception promoted by all religions to reinforce indoctrination, but never long enough to reflect on their own insistence on employing and celebrating it.
Thanks, John, for clearing this up, and Happy Not Believing In Tinkerbell Day.
great post 😀
Try the extension of the gumball analogy. Roll a die. Do you believe the side facing up is a one? No? Then you must believe the side facing up is a 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
good old True Emperisism always being the personification of the dunning-kruger effect
Atheism is not a religion! Atheism is not a religion! Atheism is not a religion! How many times does it need to be said?!
Sitting in my couch is the rejection of Olympic triathlon
You gotta love theists that argue using scientific evidence.
what is it with thiests and not being able to listern ?
Indoctrination!
John is thicker than two thick planks held together with stupid glue.
Held together with the Stupid Thick Glue, manufactured at the Thickest Thick Stupid Glue Co. perhaps?
Atheism is a religion like sitting still is a dance.
When you have to explain the same point multiple times to one person and he still doesn't get it you are wasting your time to explain further, he's an idiot and will never get it, he just can't stand the fact he is irrational and desperately wants atheists to be irrational as well.
You're deluding yourself if you go around thinking you're any better or more rational than any human being on the planet. Nearly all of us are raised into religion, some environments more extreme than others. Don't discount how difficult that mindset is to get out of, especially when your religious life includes your friends family and even employment.
The second you stop questioning your own conclusions and feelings on any subject, you are at risk to start believing bunk, religious or not. I see this high and mighty attitude with a lot of atheists, and its a bit annoying. Pretty typical for the newly annointed atheist teen but its sad for anyone who is still holding onto this idea older than that.
@@KD-ou2np He was clearly an idiot and if you can't see that then you should look at your own reasoning, it is easy to let crap like religion go, you just have to be logical, it is obvious it is made up and delusional, I realised that at the age of 8 or 9 so an adult should be able to work it out.
@Gary Allen bullshit, being an atheist does not stop you from believing other bunk. I AM an atheist btw, I'm just not trying narcisstically jerk myself off about how logical I am. You shouldn't either because thats all it looks like from the outside.
I bet the co hosts get pissed when Matt corrects them live on air 😂
I bet Matt's pissed off a lot of folks over the years. He's usually gonna be right though. Hahaha..
Atheism is a religion comes from the same crowd that says secular humanism is a religion....theists who simply cannot handle the idea people cannot be religious....sort of like that idiotic comment by Jordan Peterson that atheists are religious but don't know they are....I am afraid the religious minded, in order to make room in their brains for Faith, have been obliged to throw out of their minds a lot of useful stuff, like logic and reason.
1. Define a religion. 2. Define atheism. Compare the two. Religion is a belief system. Atheism is a position on one claim. Case closed.
That's why we have to especially watch out for claims concerning an "atheist world view" or "atheist belief system." It's projection at best, but usually a disingenuous smuggling in of an unwarranted premise so as to construct a strawman fallacy from that premise.
@@starfishsystems exactly
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. It’s sad that this is needed to be said still.
The reasoning here isn't from a thought process, it is scripted from preachers.
I would rather this call ended with the gumball example. The caller grasps the meaning, correctly states its importance in his own words, then completely forgets it as soon as he goes back to his script.
I have leprechauns and unicorns in my basement prove me wrong. Therefore God exist ha ha ha
@18:15 “information is a message thats communicated between a sender and receiver”
if a rock falls into mud the imprint the rock leaves behind gives us information about the rock I don’t see a need to shoehorn god in to explain that information was transmitted without intelligence
John: "We haven't seen information arrive by naturalistic means."
Have you seen any gods? :p
"Can you give me an example of any information coming about naturalistically?"
Sure. A line of rocks sitting on a riverbank. It could be the letter I. Or it could be a line of rocks which just ended up there because of the flow of the water. Either way, it's information.
We see complexity arising from chaos all the time. From snowflakes to fractal patterns in plants.
How does this caller not understand something so simple?
I think the simplest response to the bone-headed accusation that "Atheism is a religion, dammit!" is simply to respond, "So what if it is? Does that mean you think being religious is bad for you?" and take it from there.
You want the supernatural mechanism?
Here ya go - "Abracadabra!" Ta da!
You're welcome.
I don't know is better than guessing
"You sound like a hippie!" I'm offended. I'm a big hippie and I would never make an argument that stupid! Lol
The problem with WLC using any argument (including the Kalam) is that he admitted that even if they were definitively disproven, he would still believe.
03:45 These people aren't interested in a discussion.
I often explain that religions are a sub-category of fandoms. Fandoms being groups of people with a shared interest/passion, combined with admiration to such a degree it can rarely stand criticism. The caller makes the mistake of a dog is a mammal, so all mammals are dogs, by basically suggesting that every fandom is a religion.
Religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. 2a(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural. (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
So not believing in something or wanting proof in order to believe something is true is not a religion.
Relgion: See also, Cult.
@@hegyak yeah pretty much
Religion: The first MLM scheme, invented when the first con man met the first fool.
I know it's cliche but, don't all god arguments end in what made the god?
No, most of them end when atheists ask them if they can prove any god exists.😈
We went from athiesm is a religion to DNA, bro what??? 😂
This might be a demonstration that you cannot possibly use the labels before or while having these kinds of conversations. You can have the longer conversation about the actual positions you have and the ideas. You can’t say “atheists think...”. You must say “The people who aren’t yet convinced that any gods exist think ...” otherwise the conversation resets at every moment.
His problem is that he makes "God did it" the default position for something. He wants evidence that its NOT god causing the information. And when pointed to natural processes he just asserts that its actually god.
You want an example of natural processes that creates information ? Allright. Look at DNA. We have no demonstration of god interacting at any point with any part of say the growth of a tree from an acorn. So that would be a natural process and natural information unless you can demonstrate it to be caused by god. God is not the default position.
There are 2 possibilities: a or b, but there are 3 possible answers, a, b, or I don’t know.
Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
I hate to cast personal aspersions...but here I go. Having never met Martin Wagner, I feel certain that he is a kind and very intelligent person, but he is truly awful at argumentation (just like most people). Every time he enters into the discussion, he introduces clouds rather than clarity. Martin, I hope I have not hurt your feelings, and I would love to buy you a coffee or an adult beverage on my next trip to Austin.
Johnm asks "can you show me anay information that comes from a naturalist process?
Sure the North Star, how about change of seasons as in the summer and winter solstice. How about high noon when the sun casts a shadow directly below an object like a pebble or a stick standing straight up. How about a rooster crowing at sun up? HOw about the slightest of sickle moon to start a new lunar month? How about dunes pointing in a certain direction? How about lightning showing before the thunder, meaning how far it is away. etc etc etc
"Atheism is a religion".
No it's not, next question please.
Atheism and correct vocal alingment are not mutually exclusive ?
John, don't go unarmed to a battle of wits.
I’ve learned a lot about science. Enough to reach the point of realising that I know fuck all and can’t make any real claims about anything.
But it’s certainly better than knowing less and believing that I know everything.
Criminal procedure from Wikipedia
Not proven (Scots: No pruiven, Scottish Gaelic: gun dearbhadh[1]) is a verdict available to a court of law in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts, one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty").[2][3]
Between the Restoration in the late 17th century and the early 18th century, jurors in Scotland were expected only to find whether individual factual allegations were proven or not proven, rather than to rule on an accused's guilt.[4] In 1728, the jury in a murder trial asserted "its ancient right" to declare a defendant "not guilty".[5] Over time, the "not guilty" verdict regained wide acceptance and use amongst Scots juries, with the encouragement of defence lawyers. It eventually displaced "not proven" as the primary verdict of acquittal. Nowadays, juries can return a verdict of either "not guilty" or "not proven", with the same legal effect of acquittal.[6]
Although historically it may be a similar verdict to not guilty, in the present day not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant is guilty but the crown has not provided sufficient evidence.[7] Scots law requires corroboration; the evidence of one witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused or to establish any material or crucial fact.
Out of the country, the "not proven" verdict may be referred to as the Scottish verdict.
In Scotland, there have been attempts to abolish what Sir Walter Scott famously called that bastard verdict.[8] In 1827, Scott, who was sheriff in the court of Selkirk, wrote in his journal that "the jury gave that bastard verdict, Not proven.[9]
Recently was on the phone for an intake call to a therapy program, and they were asking all my basic identity info, name, pronouns, racial identity, etc. She asked what my religion is, I said “none” but then realized that sounds like “nun” so I added “Atheist - but that’s not a religion”
And she was like “oh, well yeah it is” and she seemed sweet and I didn’t want to argue, I just kinda chuckled and said “well it’s a lack of one” and we moved on. But it kinda annoyed me. But, I don’t think she meant any harm by it at all, but just the fact that general society still thinks a lack of religion is equal to a religion is frustrating.
Does religion make people stupid or do stupid people become religous?
Yes.
As a Buddhist I can say it's not a religion,it's a way of life.We believe what we can see,not what we are told.Gods aren't real.The world has no need for any God.
These small but super important distinctions in reason/logic always trip up a theist/believer. I don’t see why they don’t ever get it.
I have debated with ID people who say an intelligence created life etc and when I used the word god in my reply I got this: "YOU STRAW MANNED ME!!!!!!! I NEVER SAID GOD!!!!! I DONT DEBATE WITH PEOPLE WHO STRAW MAN!!!!!!!" There was one who did this and I left the thread - coming back to it 2 months later I saw him debating another atheist and using the word god. It is so fucking dishonest and I understand why Matt hung up on this clown.
Well, at least the first time, they weren't making the leap from the flimsy deist's creator to their favorite fanfiction from "the Goat Herder's Guide to the Universe" as a perfect set of divinely inspired rules to live by.
John - would make an excellent garbage collector - If it was written in the bible, to be a good Christian that goes to heaven, “One must collect garbage from Sun-up till Sundown - so sayeth the lord - proverbs 1-69”
I believe this - based off of John’s total inability to grasp the slightest example of a clue!!
These men are YELLING the truth at him and he isn’t HEARING any of it.
Jeez louise, why is this so difficult to grasp
Not guilty means case not proven
Atheism is like a religion as not smoking is a habit and not embroidering is a hobby.
Sometimes you come up against people who "know" that everything that you say must be wrong just because of who you are, So they end up making the most stupid arguments.
You both have the patience of saints……, er well, you both have a lot of patience.
Why is Matt's beard red?
It certainly isn’t blood from biting his tongue!
It turned red from trying to contain all the rage and frustration.
Religion: Because comprehension is hard for some people.
Let's get some facts straight here first? Athiesism doesn't believe in or worship a superhuman being of sorts who's magical? All religions do so?
No. Buddhism is a prominent world religion which is not based on worship or supernatural beings. It's essentially an examination of the human condition.
A couple of interrelated elements of Vedic doctrine which border on the supernatural found their way into early Buddhism, as these were simply taken for granted as existential truths at the time. These are karma and rebirth. They can be fairly successfully recast in secular terms without loss of generality.
All this is not to say that Buddhists are necessarily secular. Lots of people seem to go in for magical thinking of one kind or another at any excuse, and Buddhists are no different. It's just that Buddhist doctrine doesn't rely on magical thinking to develop its case.
@@starfishsystems I stand corrected
Religions have been built on theism and atheism, but they aren't religions themselves
Was this filmed in 2013 or yesterday?
Did the video title, overlay, quality, description, the hosts being in the same studio or Martin Wagner being one of them confuse you?
@@ArKritz84 there is a date overlayed above matt's head, that confused me.
@@quinion5535 yeah, but everything I pointed to suggests that this is from 2013.
Matt's analogy with gumballs is a category error fallacy when he uses it as analogy to God. This is objectively the case that he's committing a fallacy, this is not just my opinion. Here's why:
The number of gumballs in the jar is a contingent claim that it IS possible to be neutral or withhold judgment about (so he CAN evade justifying his denial of the claim by appealing to withholding judgment)
Any creator God, on the other hand, is a non-contingent claim that it's NOT possible to be neutral or withhold judgment about (so he CANNOT evade justifying his denial of the claim by appealing to withholding judgment)
With non-contingent claims, there are always only two options which are logically available:
1. It's necessarily true, or
2. It's necessarily false
(There is NO third option of neutrality or withholding judgment, like there is for contingent claims, which most claims are)
It's so fucking funny to see how hard you try to be contrarian, and you're an idiot who has never once made a completely correct comment so we know you spend way too much time to craft each of these pieces of shit. The entire point is that whether option one or option two are correct is literally unknowable, atheism is the acknowledgment of that fact and the rejection of anyone claiming either option to be objectively correct. Most theists even agree that the answer is unknowable, catch the fuck up to your own backwards ass side.
Either of those options could be true, you're the dipshit picking one and we're saying you're a fucking idiot for doing so. You're arguments are always fucking stupid but this one was obviously barely even thought out.
You have no basis to assert that non-contingent claims even exist, let alone that a "creator god" claim would fall into that category. Indeed, given that most "creator god" claims have been intentionally constructed so as to be unfalsifiable, the only position one could ever rationally hold about them is what you refer to as "withholding judgment".
@amritlohia8240 Every worldview includes non-contingent claims, including your particular non-theistic worldview that you're operating through right now.
For example,
1. How do you know the laws of logic are universally true in your particular non-theistic worldview? Because they must necessarily be? (Hence, they're non-contingent)
How do you know your particular metaphysical framework true, in your particular non-theistic worldview? (Probably Materialism)
Because it must necessarily be? (Hence, your metaphysical framework is non-contingent)
How do you know your particular theory of Epistemology true?
The Causal Principle?
How do you know there are universals?
How do you know the uniformity of nature is true (aka the assumption that the laws of physics will remain the same in the future as they have been in the past)?
Why do words have meaning, in your particular non-theistic worldview?
Etc, etc
These are all non-contingent claims in non-theistic worldviews. And there are more.
@amritlohia8240 Also, when you say that others have no basis to make a claim that doesn't even make sense. You can disagree about whether the concept which was claimed EXISTS or not, but you can't dispute the attributes of the claim being made itself. The person making the claim gets to determine that.
@@lightbeforethetunnel This is just the standard presuppositionalist nonsense. Some of the things you listed are actually not part of my worldview at all - I don't consider that words have meanings (merely usages which are a matter of social convention), nor does my worldview include any "metaphysical framework" (since I'm a metaphysical deflationist, i.e. I consider all metaphysical statements to be reducible to matters of linguistic preference, such that they have no truth value). I also don't claim to know that any particular set of "laws of logic" are true - as you're surely aware, all 3 of the classical laws have been challenged, and my own worldview holds that excluded middle, in particular, is not universally applicable (following the arguments of Brouwer and Wittgenstein). As for the things you listed that are part of my worldview, such as non-contradiction, causality, and uniformitarianism, I also don't claim knowledge of those - I simply accept them as *pragmatically* necessary (not logically or ontologically necessary) foundations. The fact that I can't provide complete justification for them (in other words, the fact that I don't have a solution to the various grounding problems that have befuddled people for millenia) doesn't in any way make it acceptable (or put it on an even footing) to believe other claims without justification (such as deistic or theistic claims). And as I said earlier, there is no way in which you can make it acceptable to believe claims that are probably unfalsifiable.