Why Aren’t Atheists Convinced by Evidence? | Scott (he/him) - SC | Skeptic Generation S2E3
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- Scott is back with another question: why does evidence convince some people but not others? Is it just that atheists are resisting the truth, or that all theists are stupid? Was C.S. Lewis a kinky bastard who fell for fallacious arguments?
Vi points out that there are two sides to the question: the quality of the evidence and how each individual interacts with that evidence. Eric provides some philosophical terminology to help keep everyone on track.
Check out Scott’s previous calls here:
Theist Says God Causes Evil - • Theist Says God Causes...
Eric and Vi Disagree on What Evil Is! - • Eric and Vi Disagree o...
Can You Sin In Heaven? - • Can You Sin In Heaven?...
________
Skeptic Generation is LIVE every Sunday at 11:30am-1:00pm CT
Call on your phone: 585-LA-MURPH (585-526-8774)
Call online: tiny.cc/callSG
Love the show?
Become a patron: tiny.cc/donate...
Buy our new Class of ‘22 merch: tiny.cc/SG22Merch
Help with our studio: tiny.cc/SGwish...
Join us after the show on Discord: tiny.cc/SGdiscord
To find out more, visit www.skepticgen...
Copyright © 2022 Skeptic Generation. All rights reserved.
C. S. Lewis told the story about how he went on a bike ride one day with his brother and some other friends. He said when he started the ride he didn't believe in god but by the time he got back home, he did believe. It is reasonable to conclude that belief in god has something to do with bicycles.
Or with some sort of friction between the legs?? 🤔
The more I read the more I thought I was going to hear something stupid, but truly this is a brilliant deduction.
I KNEW IT!
I only read one of CS Lewis's books and recognized the nonsensical con of it.
He used a metaphor of a skyscraper being built on a solid foundation with the rest of the book supporting the god presupposition directly on top of it.
It was pure presuppositional nonsense but exactly the kind of trick that works on simpletons.
He's a hack. A gifted hack but a hack nonetheless.
Perhaps related to the first recorded LSD trip: Albert Hoffmans legendary bicycle ride?
"Why Aren’t Atheists Convinced by Evidence?"
We are, but theist never present any.
Despite agreeing with the sentiment I need to add the caveat that theists never present "good/compelling" evidence. Because anecdotes are still evidence. Even if they are the lowest quality of evidence.
@@nathanielthomson6600 anecdotes aren't evidence for a god, they're evidence you experienced something you _interpreted_ as a god... Evidence points to one conclusion over all others.
@@nagranoth_ where exactly did I state that anecdotes are evidence for god?
This comment is "doing gods work" 😂
@@nathanielthomson6600 This whole channel is about that so piss off.
Lewis wasn't convinced by evidence. He was convinced by emotion. This has nothing to do with intelligence or reason
I think too many people confuse facts with feelings :/ Probably why the people who sling "snowflake" as an insult are the most likely to have meltdowns over any sort of inconvenience to themselves
@@aazhie yupp. Or "Npc" while having their entire group using the exact same insults and talking points or "sheep" while being christian who literally believe Jesus is their Sheppard.
Religion and emotion are tightly linked.
@@ericjohnson6665
Exactly 💯
@@ericjohnson6665especially for those who who are part of the lgbtq+- religion and black lives matter antifa jihadists
C.S. Lewis, a man who was raised in a Christian family within a Christian culture (Ireland), and who later in life was surrounded by Christian friends (e.g. Tolkien) within another Christian culture (England), became a Christian after spending a few years as an 'atheist' who apparently still thought there was some sort of god.
Scott, I don't think that's as good an example for the 'truth' of Christianity as you think it is.
I don't mind claiming CSL being atheist for a period.
The important thing is, WHY his view changed. And that is explained in the video: for the wrong reasons, thus we should not follow him.
From a _very_ quick reading about Lewis's 'atheist' period, it appears that he left his _religion_ but kept his belief in a god. He's described as being 'angry at god', which you can't be if you don't think there is one. However, as I say, I've only had a very quick look so I'm happy to be corrected if that's not accurate.
Yeah the cultural and familia influence is huge. It’s way easier to conform and fit in.
@@Grim_Beard this seems common, theist labeling someone or some period “atheist” when it’s not.
It might have been shocking if he had spontaneously become an animist from a very obscure religion. Or if some obscure group of people relatively untouched by CHRISTIANITY had somehow spawned Christianity in their own developmental history
The same could be said for any religion that people have converted to, just because you want to believe something doesn't make it real.
Yes. Would love to see how Scott deals with people who went FROM Christian to pagan, or Satanism or Buddism. Or any other set of beliefs!
You mean like the belief of unproven Darwinist evolution .
@@RobertStambaugh-l5r You do know that darwinism and evolution are two different things right ? Evolution itself is very much well established.
@@RobertStambaugh-l5r do you believe you are smart?
@@kriss3d Oh , is it ?
When is the last time CNN had a story about a filthy ape ' magically ' turning into a human ?
poor scott, he's conveniently forgotten about all the brilliant people who started christian and died atheists.
And the trend as of the last 30-40 years is overwhelmingly in one direction. They try to float the idea that it is going the other way without actually saying it. (And any of the anecdotes they point to of X atheist become a Christian after seeing ABC evidence, the ABC evidence is never the same for any one of the anecdotes, and it is never "good" evidence even to those who bring up these anecdotes. They would NEVER accept any other religion on the same kind of evidence, or any other outlandish claim.)
It would seem that the journey from X'tian to Athey brought death. I wonder if they also had to be brilliant at the start of the expedition, or I suspect the glowing became more radiant on the way to their brilliance.
No one starts Christian. They teach you
Any "Christian" who becomes an atheist never was a real Christian to begin with (1 John 2:14).
@@stevendrumm4957 LOL Yeah, they figured out that lie real soon. didn't they? It just shows how many ultimately rejected their fairy tale.
CS Luis was convinced by a terrible reason. Happens to geniuses and morons EVERYDAY. We are not perfect thinkers. In fact, we are very flawed thinkers, that's why we must be very diligent in our beliefs.
Diligent about vetting our beliefs, you mean?
When we get to the point where science doesn’t explain something we say we don’t know but we’re going to look for the answer. We don’t pretend to have the answer and look for evidence that supports it.
Nice thought. And very often after some research new explanations were found. Progress was made, reproducable results were begotten. Like miracles... which belief in a soul or a god still failed to produce.
I just stumbled onto this channel, and must say I am impressed. Calm, collected, respectful and insightful response to deeply religious people is far too rare. It is you and Paulogia who have managed to keep it up without loosing patience.
They're engaged?!
Damn, I'm out of the loop.
Gotta pay my dues, so I can re-subscribe to the inner-circle atheist newsletter.
Congrats to both of them! :)
Oh dear, you seem to have lost your place in the atheist illuminati. You'll have to pass all the tests again now.
I was unaware of your engagement! Congratulations 🎊🍾🎉🎈. Eric, you are a lucky man. Vi you found a level headed man. I wish you happiness and bliss!
Very suprising to me. I would have guessed Vi was gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, cue Seinfeld music).
@@abc456f I still don't know if she is a she or a he or what she started as or anything.
@@spaceghost8995 It is very confusing.
It was announced just before xmas if I recall correctly on a stream.
@@abc456f not really, its been stated a multitude of times that they use they/them pronouns, if you're still confused, thats on you since they have never once said anything different.
I love Vi's laugh when he mentioned Lewis. Lewis did not convert based on evidence, or if he did, it's because he's terrible at rational thinking. We know this because of what he presented as convincing evidence, which is thoroughly unconvincing. His most famous being a false trichotomy.
He must be the most quoted apologiests by christians ,
as if he had some sort of special knowledge not availibie
to the rest of us
Or how he uses argument from morality, even though it's absolutely vapid. Basically it boils down to something like "We all have morals of some sort. We need an objective standard of morality though. Therefore, some external force (God) must be giving us objective morality. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to judge right from wrong."
It's two fallacies rolled in one. Personal incredulity of not understanding or being able to imagine secular morality. And more importantly, appeal to the consequence. "No objective moral standards is bad and scary. Therefore it can't be true, and there must be some standard."
His reasons are so bad, that I couldn't finish more than half of Mere Christianity. It was too painful to go through every poor apologetic argument rehashed into entire pages of dialogue.
I love the Narnia Chronicles. This is C.S. Lewis at his very best, telling imaginative and internally coherent stories about magic powers and talking animals and all the sorts of emotional thinking that we engage with so fully as children.
But wishful or fearful thinking is not clear thinking, as becomes abundantly clear in the space trilogy. These are still heartfelt treatments of human character, but cast in an ideological framework that is barely adolescent, loaded with strawman fallacies, false dichotomies, appeals to emotion, guilt by association, and other irrational devices that don't seem to weigh at all heavily on Lewis's conscience.
You're quite right that Lewis was not big on rational thinking. Indeed, he explicitly rejects it as a kind of nihilistic force for evil. At least he was honest about this. He made his case fully and in full command of rhetoric, and we're now in the position of deciding whether it has merit. I agree with you: it's thoroughly unconvincing. Lovely man, but I wouldn't rely on him to go out and buy a newspaper without adult supervision.
Lewis is such an engaging writer that folks just don’t see how wildly unsound his arguments are.
@@starfishsystems The books are supposed to be a metaphor for Christianity, something I clearly said to my children before reading them as bedside story.
I was a christian for several years, pagan many more. As far as evidence for "God" my question remains "WHAT evidence"? Every time I ask for evidence I get a story about their feelings, and feelings are ONLY evidence of an emotional state, NOT for the cause of those emotions.
When I ask for evidence I get an argument that is unsupported by evidence.
@@pouncerlion4022 Thats because the bible and virtually ever other religion conveniently enough demands that you have blind faith because it cant present evidence.
He finally admitted that he has a different standard when it comes to god. It's why science tries very hard to keep things as objective as possible.
“I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.”
― Richard P. Feynman
I would need to see evidence that this assertion is true.
Anything relating to "what is in the Universe" is a scientific problem. That includes the question of whether or not there are any gods.
@@TheAtheopaganismChannel You paint with an overly broad brush. Science is (defined somewhat simply) as the search for natural mechanisms underlying nature and natural phenomena. Wikipedia calls it, "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
Science deals with nature. If it's outside of nature, science has nothing to say about it. Gods and their alleged supernatural powers are outside of nature.
@@stephenland9361 If gods are able to effect any physical effect in the Universe, they are at least partly material and therefore within the sphere of scientific study.
If they aren't, why call them gods?
And given that there is zero evidence for a supernatural dimension to the Universe, why posit there is one?
@@TheAtheopaganismChannel I certainly agree that there is zero evidence for a supernatural dimension to the Universe. And if a god or gods could cause any physical effect at least here on earth, then science could investigate this alleged physical effect. For example, theists pray for divine intervention for many things like the health of family members and loved ones. "God, please cure my Aunt Betty's cancer." If this supernatural god actually could influence medical outcomes for the better, scientific examination of intercessory prayer would detect this altered outcome. No such outcome has ever been identified. I guess that's just one more example of a complete lack of evidence for a supernatural god or gods who intervene in human affairs.
"And given that there is zero evidence for a supernatural dimension to the Universe, why posit there is one?"
A very good question. My guess is that there are some people who want a supernatural to exist. Call it wishful thinking. As for the evidence they claim for this supernatural, "God makes me feel so good when I sing in church" just doesn't cut it.
The olympian gods are a myth... Bam bam baaaam... But where do the myths come from?
Zeus confirmed!
Right!
Zeus is sexy!
I would love to know how Scott would react to someone being convinced to beleive in Zeus over Yjwh
Everyone knows that the Greek gods were stranded alien space travelers! Haven't you ever watched Star Trek?
Yeah, that argument suggests they are ALL real, that alone negates MONOtheism; That falsifies the statement and shows the flawed logic.
I am convinced by evidence...but there is no convincing evidence for gawd so i dont believe
Pretty much. What’s even funnier is when they try to use science that they clearly don’t understand and then haphazardly insert their god of choice into it. It seems they can’t tell the difference between assertions and evidence.
@Clyde Barrow i am not convinced by the "evidence" presented, so i dont believe. I DO NOT assert there is no god, so i dont have the burdon of proof.
Kalam, look at the trees, the bible, none of it is convincing for me.
Present your evidence
@Clyde Barrow Poor response. Please provide the evidence here. You are chance to convince us. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a God (which has to be defined first) exists. (Atheism is not the claim that a god does not exist). You also have to brush up your understanding of logic.
@Clyde Barrow You do not have any evidence as you do not know the difference between a claim and evidence. All you have ever presented are assertions, allegations, and claims without a single shred of evidence. Once again, for the hundredth time, atheism does not claim that NO god exists. You keep lying about this even after you have been corrected a hundred times with your dozen sock puppet accounts.
@Clyde Barrow You are a liar as you have never provided a single shred of verifiable evidence for any of your claims. All you do is make lists of assertions and then claim they are evidence. You are a failure just like every theist that has tried to prove the existence of a god. How many sock puppet accounts do you need?
Intelligence is not a virtue and no matter how 'smart' someone is in an narrow field they can still be wrong.
Willful ignorance is the disease. Intelligence is probably a natural phenomenon.
Of course intelligence is a virtue. It is what’s done with intelligence that can be not virtuous. Just ask any intelligent member of the current Republican Party.
Oh. Wait. Never mind.
@@jerryeberts3726 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂
@@jerryeberts3726like Alexandria Ocasio Cortex? Or kamala Harris?
I haven't refused to accept evidence for theism because I've never seen any
@Clyde Barrow no excuse here. There just isn't any concrete evidence that proves the claims of a god existing. Most of the "evidence" can simply be boiled down to post hoc rationalizations wrapped in circular reasoning or some other form of logical fallacy at best, and either gross misunderstandings of science or complete twisting/discarding of it at worst.
It's like refusing to accept clean water from an unclean toilet, it may look clean but once you analyze it, you wouldn't want to ingest it.
@@miranda.cooper that's a rather fitting analogy
@Clyde Barrow Prove your so-called god is real. All you can do is throw around assertions and insults. Do you live under the worm shit under that rock? What's your excuse?
@Clyde Barrow Not being the one who believes in a god that's his own father and son simultaneously, or talking snakes, or a man living in a big fish, or an exodus of jews from Egypt leaving nil historical or archaeological evidence, or a wooden ship bigger than anything ever built (by one small family) that's been proven scientifically to be unfloatable, or a man who could cure death and who rose again - to return to a heaven nobody can describe yet they still want to go there - to sit on his own right hand - I don't need an excuse. What's yours?
I hate being repetitive but you ability to guide the conversation down an unscripted path is highly commendable!
Justice from the christian god? "Worship me or you'll go to hell, but i love you tho"! 👎
Don't make me hit you! Abusive relationships 101?
Love & Obey Me!. ... No, you did it wrong. Squish.
Rinse. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
U all are engaged?!!! Woohooooooo. Congrats! U guys are awesome. Love the show. Much love to u both
the real question is: "why are atheist not convinced by no evidence"
Why do you say there is no evidence?
@@hezzi3283 WOW!!! You have evedense?!! Do tell!!!
@@hezzi3283
‘Faith’ does not equate to ‘evidence.’ You may want to believe in a god, but their is no evidence, except heresay from a dubious source, the bible.
@@Chafflivesfaith is both using logic and belief. For Christians it's the evidence of Jesus which is pretty much agreed on. Then combine that with lived experience and the way the world works, morality, science pointing to a beginning, things not being random, not to mention prophesy 1000 of years before Jesus in the old testament. It's really kot that big of a leap.
@@dogelife7901
I will try and answer your points raised in order.
There is no logic in ‘faith.’
The evidence of a Jesus figure is not agreed. He is a character in a fairy story called, ‘The Bible.’
The way this world works is a mess. The ‘god,’ that you so blindly worship is a heinous, cruel , tyrant. It would appear he cares nothing for mankind.
Yes, science does point to a beginning, totally undermining any ‘god theory’ and destroying it.
What on earth do you mean when you say things don’t happen randomly? Do you mean your ‘god,’ creates all this chaos?
What ‘prophesy,’ are you alluding to?
Are you attributing ‘morality,’ to your despicable ‘god?
Take a good look around you at the state of this world. Do you honestly believe a ‘god,’ is in control of this mayhem?
To believe in one is a HUGE leap into ignorance and denial.
You need evidence to believe in something. ‘Faith,’ is merely supposition. You fantasies are an illusion that blinds you to reality. Mankind does not need an emotional crutch to exist.
What a great call! Keep it up, you two! You two clearly deserve your own show. Great minds.
Yes!! My “standards of evidence” were what I was told growing up, now they are extremely different. I don’t just believe whatever is told to me and that’s why I am atheist now. Great call and topic
@Clyde Barrow Perhaps this analogy might help.
You claim that you have a fire breathing dragon in the trunk of your car.
I say that I don't believe you as there is no evidence of fire breathing dragons, only stories of about them.
You open the trunk of your car and it is empty.
I say the trunk is empty, and you say that your dragon is a timeless; spaceless metaphysical entity that is beyond scientific investigation.
I do a face palm.
@@downenout8705 that won’t help at all. Clyde (festus) here is not very bright. They think rocks have beliefs.
@@jayrose8638 Oops!! sorry for poking the "beast" with a pointy stick.
@Clyde Barrow I have no clue what “worthless crap” you are talking about. I disproved God to myself using the Bible and basic common sense, instead of blindly believing what I was told as a child. There is no hard evidence for God that I have found and the Bible states multiple hypocritical things that no true God would allow 🤷🏼♀️
@@downenout8705 oh poke away. It’s damn good fun watching festus here whine and cry because they can’t actually prove a god. Ask them about moist rocks. It’s a laugh riot.
So beautifully done guys!!
An excellent, comprehensive explanation and very respectfully done. 😊
I grew up Catholic, but once I started questioning what the Bible says and comparing various parts (Genesis, Noah's flood, etc.) with the evidence that is provided by experts, I have found that nothing that is being used as evidence for the existence of a god matches up with reality. Thus, I remain an agnostic and am unconvinced by the claims of a god existing. It also does not help that in attempts to prove why they are right, theists commonly use appeals to authority and circular reasoning, which are logical fallacies.
Apologists are compulsive liars.
This was the essence of why I was unwilling to accept their claims at age 5. I may have been too young to evaluate the veracity of their claims, but my instinctive bullshit detector was precociously mature!
You have to LIE to be an apologist, period
Being smart says nothing about how rational a person is.
What's really fascinating from my perspective is that the caller doesn't realize intelligence is not a criteria for the ability to avoid being fooled. In fact, they are often more susceptible because they think they're immune to cons because of their intelligence. Just because Lewis was a believer isn't a reason for anyone to believe in a God. Stop putting people on a pedestal just because they're educated. It will lead you astray without applying skepticism to what they say.
So true. I can't count the number of times I've read about scientists being fooled by simple magic tricks performed by psychic charlatans. They may be smart, but sometimes they're not very bright.
The bible was written in Greek. The Greek philosopher Socrates thought the night sky was a curtain across the firmament with holes in it revealing the fires of heaven behind it.
The Greek word planet means wandering star because the planets don’t move with the rest of the sky, which to the eye moves like one big panorama.
The wandering stars became planets when their retrograde motions (moving for much of the year in one direction and then reversing to go in the opposite direction) were correctly interpreted as planets going round the sun.
When the military technology called a telescope, originally designed for use in naval battle and navigation on the sea, was pointed skyward to reveal a closer view of the objects suspended in it, there began a technological advancement and improvement, until more precisely ground and bigger lenses made from better materials eventually led to differentiating between objects in the night sky. Saturn had rings. Saturn and Jupiter had moons.
Then Newton invented a telescope with mirrors, which improved upon the glass lens so our view of the universe improved and eventually it was discovered that not all the stars were actually stars but in fact what looked like a star was actually an entire other galaxy so far off it appears to the eye as a point of light.
When more and more galaxies were discovered the universe kept getting larger and larger. And then Hubble detected a Doppler shift in the light from those galaxies and he discovered that everything in the universe was moving away from everything else. When he reversed the clock the universe seemed to be coming together in the distant and the Big Bang became a thing.
When the physics of the Big Bang were thought through we discovered that the Big Bang created a hot plasma of sub atomic particles which eventually coalesces in the the first atoms, hydrogen, helium and lithium. And a universe filled with gases and the force of gravity created the first stars and the first stars created all the other elements of the periodic table. Later stars distributed the elements throughout the universe and those cloud coalesced in to suns surrounded by planets. Around one planet we know of inorganic chemistry birthed simple life and over billions of years single called organisms became multicellular and with enough time became all the life we see on earth.
That is basically 2000+ years of scientific advancement and is there a point where creation myths become untenable in the face of scientific evidence? Yes. But that’s not the same point for everyone.
Giordano Bruno, a colleague of Galileo’s hypothesised that the universe was infinite with an infinite number of stars and around each star were worlds like earth. This was a problematic assertion in light of what Galileo was going through for his notions about the solar system, so Bruno was burned at the stake. It’s also a good motivator for smart people to not think to keenly into the workings of the universe publicly.
There is no doubt that the Big Bang and its ramifications was a death knell for creation myth. The Big Bang was a discovery of the 1920s.
Smart people ignorant in the physics could have had justifiable reasons for most of the last 2 millennia to just declare they cannot know what they cannot know and maybe the god of myth could be true and believing that was less lethal to them.
The march of progress has now advanced so rapidly that it seems like all at once god is dead and it must have always been thus.
It has been the computer which has revolutionised scientific research with the computers speed and memory storage, and it was only in the 1970s that the vast majority of humanity’s mathematics calculations were either done long hand on paper or slide rulers were used. Days worth of human calculations can be handled by a computer in a fraction of an instant.
How many people don’t pay attention to nor understand the current science, nor how the science is improving over time? Are all of those personal idiots?
As a European, I don’t understand the game of American football, nor do I understand a single rule which governs the game. And I am not stupid, just ignorant of American football. If I made up my own rules which seemed yo explain the actions on the pitch, I could probably convince a whole lot of Europeans that my rules explain American football. They would be wrong. That doesn’t make them stupid. Just too disinterested in American football to care about its rules.
That was very well written. Not many read the whole text though.
@@patriceriksson7924 I did
Yes, very good piece. Though, if you don't know the rules of American football you shouldn't say, therefore god.
Bravo, well done.
I'm an Aussie and would say that putting on close to 12kg of protective gear just to play a bastardised version of the Holy game of Rugby union, is heresy.
the NT is written in old Greek, not the greek spoken in greece.. the OT is not; was written in hebrew.
The Tolkien story doesn't even make sense. Tolkien spent his entire life creating myths for his fictional world. Some of them were clearly inspired by human myths, but many of those were non-Christian myths. So where did all of Tolkien's myths come from if they don't actually reflect reality.
My guess is that they believe they all stem from god and are woven into the human experience. Sometimes they also make claims that the Jesus story is "the true" myth, or whatever, and that every other myth comes from it in some way or another. But this makes no sense in a larger context, just as "where does justice come from?" and "where does morality come from?" makes the same kind of error as "what is north of the north pole?" They are making catastrophic mistakes as the nature of justice, morality, and "north", lol.
Well a lot of the christian myths are based on older myths anyway so really it’s just more of the same.
@@jayrose8638 Sure. But then they will say those were either because A) God created everything, so the same kind of myths will come up (perhaps echoing Jesus stories...or not), or B) the devil knew Jesus was coming so planted fake myths to distract from Jesus's salvation through the rest of history. They never fail to have mutually contradictory explanations that are all unfalsifiable to cover their axxes.
@@greyeyed123 oh that’s exactly what they’ll do. I know that was shocked the first time I heard someone say god planted the dinosaur bones as a test of faith with a straight face. The mental gymnastics of a theist really are a sight to behold. Now I’ll do the same for, let’s say, a movie I like. I’ll kinda create a little head cannon to fill in plot holes. But I’m also always aware that this movie is fiction and I really shouldn’t base my life off of it and I certainly should expect others to live by it either.
In fact, the entire point of his work was that he felt sad that Christianity steam-rolled all of the culture in Europe. He was literally trying to create a replacement mythology for England to make up for the millennium that was lost. Using a guy who's trying to clean up Christianity's mess is not a flattering example.
I note that Scott named several prominent sceptical thinkers off the top of his head, but when he said there were many biologists, physicists, etc. who came to a religious worldview, he had not a single name to back up the claim.
But, Scott was willing to listen and engage in an actual conversation - unlike most of the theistic callers.
I find the very idea that "we're predisposed to not believe" laughable considering the amount of people who believe in some kind of "god" or "spirituality". If anything it seems like we are predisposed to "believe" and that skepticism is the hard sell.
I agree. Believing can certainly be a useful evolutionary trait. Children don't have the life experience to know what is harmful and what isn't. Their parents, or whatever adult they've bonded with, will tell them how to stay safe and they believe what they're told. Those that don't may not last very long in this world. So it would seem a predisposition to believe is most likely.
In our natural States in a world that is trying to turn us into tiger food, it makes a whole lot of evolutionary sense for humans to have community have community and believe in protectors of some vague spiritual sort. I absolutely agree that skepticism is the harder sell is the harder cell. Religious religiosity is comforting even if even if it requires some physical discomfort there is inevitably some kind of eternal or is eternal or pious reward proper is reward promised.
Religion is us trying to tell ourselves that the suffering and sadness of the world is worth some kind of "final" reward.
That was awesome, guys. I’m glad it’s recorded for posterity!
Don't make coffee in a toaster. You'll ruin both the coffee and the toaster. BUT: Make it in French Press. Or hand pour it (prime it first). Yummy. Different results from the same coffee. I think there's some sort of applicable analogy there. Somewhere. 😉
I think Vi was trying to say there's a right way to make coffee and a wrong way as analogous to saying there's a right way to view evidence and a wrong way. So it was an apt analogy, though oddly worded.
Didn't realize you guys were engaged - Congratulations!
Holy cats, I didn't know y'all were engaged! CONGRATULATIONS 🎉🎉👏👏
I wish one of these guys would come with some concrete testable positive proof for once....
It's the apologetics culture that has rotted these people's mind. On top of that they want to believe feelings are reality and science is fantasy.
Don't hold your breath
@Toughen Up, Fluffy Your statement "because it isn't true" is false, because you can't prove a negative unless it is a logical impossibility.
Evidence doesn't mean evidence when dealing with theists. They see feelings and bias confirmation as evidence.
I was watching an episode of street epistomology with Anthony Magnabosco interviewing two mormons. Apparently how they decide their god is real is to pray to that hypothetical god and then wait for a feeling in their gut. I'm not sure how they differentiate that from indigestion but apparently that's the method. The fact that they can pray to the thing they're supposedly not sure exists mean they've already made their minds up and are just waiting to eat a spicy curry to seal the deal.
And logical fallacies. No matter how many times I explain to them what logical fallacies are and which one they're committing, they just keep repeating the same logical fallacies over and over again. To theists, logical fallacies are evidence.
Kinda looks like belief may have some psychological considerations... Maybe have a think about it Scott.
when scammers present their scam they address a large group of people with the same things. Some believe it, some dont. Some see right through the scam, others believe with all their heart losing money, time and maybe even their future. Same answers apply.
The big question for me is- why do we want to live? Why do we have this "instinct" for survival? Where does that come from? It's unanswerable, but that doesn't stop people from trying to figure it out. So is it all just about silliness?
On one side you have CS Lewis. On the other side Carl Sagan, Neil Degrass Tyson and Steven Hawking! 🤔
That was great; all people I greatly admire because they refused bull$hit all their lives! Despite pressures from the cultists!
Vi explained it perfectly. Someone can believe something for very wrong reasons but believes nonetheless. It's up to the non-believers to hold onto reason and bring them back to the truth.
After my wife of 34 years passed away, I wanted more than anything to believe in the heaven that I was taught as a child. I wanted a kind and loving god to have prepared a place for us where we could be reunited for all eternity. In fact, he didn't even have to be all that kind or loving. All that I needed from him was to prepare a place for us and be real. Any kindness or loving feelings would just be an added bonus.
Despite my desperate desires, I just couldn't bring myself to accept the arguments that would lead me to believe that such a creature exists. My childhood preacher made it sound like the most wonderful existence that can possible be imagined, and if what he said would have been right, I can't imagine anyone NOT wanting something like that. But regardless of my desire, I just can't make myself believe that it is true. It is because of this that I have no choice but to reject arguments like Scott's.
I was raised in a Christianity that believed in a kind God and loving Jesus. Despite wanting that to be true, I can no more make myself believe that than I can make myself believe that I can make a mountain move by telling it to or that I will somehow be able to walk on water.
I would happily follow all the good teachings in the Bible. Honestly, at times like this, I would even follow the bad teachings if would reunite me with my wife. That said, there seems to be no way for me to believe in something that I just can't convince myself is true.
That really sucks. I wish things like that didn't have to happen. I joke with my wife about wanting to die before she does, but I'm really dead serious about it. I hope things improve for you.
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 Thank you. They are slowly getting better even though I doubt I will ever look at life the same way again.
(deleting depressing part)
I'm sure that I don't have to say this, but I will anyway. There is no easy way out of this life. Love your wife and enjoy every second that you can. Regardless of how long it might be, life is shorter than you think.
@@beingokay6415 Keep strong mate, if you need a hand look up Secular Therapy Project and Recovering from Religion .
They both are a great resource and might be able to help, they did for me
Be safe.
@@beingokay6415 Hang in there. It will probably never get better, but it will get easier. At least that's how it's been for us since losing our son in 1995.
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 Thank you. I really appreciate your reply; especially since I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for you to lose a child.
"where do the myths come from?" Says the most prolific fantasy writer of all time
Well; my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend!
How refreshing. An intelligent conversation that starts and ends with a civil and friendly tone. Subscribed.
Watching people elsewhere fling poo may be entertaining but only up to a point, and it has negative consequences. If we are trying to make people see the light we need to build bridges, not widen the chasm.
There’s just not any very good evidence a god actually exists.
‘But where do those myths come from?’ .... ‘OH well guess they must be real then!’ .... ok that doesn’t even make any sense, dude just wanted to believe, felt comforting or whatever.
I can test the reality of my loving family everyday, why am I forbidden from testing if a loving God is real?
Who says you’re forbidden from testing that? It’s not that you’re forbidden, it’s that it’s highly unlikely that you even CAN test that empirically. If you can, then do it, write up your results and become world famous for it.
@@ndrmartin2416 There are two sources that forbid testing, though one is quite specious. The bible says thou shalt not test thy lord and the other is reality, as there's no reliable and definitive test ever been found; other wise it wouldn't be an issue of belief, it would be an issue of knowledge.
This is the first video of yours I've seen. Now I gotta look up the vampire sex cult video.
So god made us sinfull, but punishes us for that with eternal hell... Immoral much?
It doesn't work. Theists only focus on what 'they' believe about it. So instead of talking about the details of the story, focus on the truth of the claim. If your intent is to have a laugh with other non believers, I mean.. sure. I just see no point in talking about this unless your intent is to direct it at Theists.
@Thanas Yes, but apparently he gave us a way out, if we either refrain from giving in to our sinful desires (re Dante's noble pagans) or repent and believe Jesus is our saviour. It's still a shit idea, but it's not quite so simplistically shit as you make out.
Leaps of Faith, otherwise known as jumping to conclusions.
"The design of the human body" is actually insane. There is no design and it's obvious to biologists.
"The design of the cosmos" is also a stupid thing to say since they never say it's designed/fine-tuned/purposed etc for terayears of black holes. But that's what the universe will be for such a long time that it renders the entirety of current history irrelevant, a blink of an eye, in comparison.
They don't ake into account that "the world is beautiful" statement is obvious to a biologist. A human sees blue skies and greenery as innatelt lovely becase we can thrive there. We can be fascinated by the moon because it is alien and kind of scary to inagine trying to live there. A beast that evolved on Venus or Jupiter would be ideally suited to the hellish pressure and storms that would squash a human. Or even undersea fish! Their grotesque forms, in pitch darkness, they take positive stimuli from the frigid depths. They are in their element, and our element would be a nightmare to them.
"Twinkling" of an eye 😊
I have this cool mythology & these feels ! Evidence ! 😂
There seems to be a certain meta game being played out in our heads that pushes us to accept or reject concepts. The stream of consciousness bouncing around an idea until someone mentions something or you read a sentence in a book and this grabs onto it. Like a fisherman spearing a trout from a river, that idea and chance cliche are linked. It seems to be what Christians call *Revelation* , but I wonder if it's just 'association' and I would want something more than "Well, I can belief it."
I can belief a lot of things that could turn out to be false. And while I do think beliefs are important, I don't want to have beliefs that are not true.
I was being intimate with a woman and at the peak of our passion, she yelled out "OH GOD!!!"
I've been a believer ever since ; )
Might as well ask why don't we all think the same about any subject.
This clip is a year old and I'm only just now learning about Eric and Vi's marriage plans. Congratulations to you both!
"Where does the myths come from?", says Tolkien. Was that before or after he created his own mythological stories?
While I'm not the greatest expert on Tolkien, I was under the impression that most of his stories had deep roots in various forms of human culture that he studied in depth.
So, where myths come from may well be something Tolkien has expertise in.
@@stevewebber707 Agreed--but it can absolutely be said that Tolkien *created* a mythology so powerful that hundreds of millions of people worldwide are now passionate about it, whether or not they believe it is "true".
A love of truth and interests that gel with be a strong bond. Many happy years ahead.
I wish they had ask scott at the outset what his 'evidence' is rather than a discussion about one dead individual like cs lewis.... it seemed fixated on indiduals rather than the evidence itself....
Perhaps that is his mountain of evidence, that he knows of people whom he admires who believe in God and therefore he should believe in God.
🐻Can't deny it... I LIKED Scott. One of the most honest and genuine callers you've had (in this bear's opinion). Even prepared to admit to his comment sounding arrogant, which is so RARE (and kinda shows that he, at least, isn't)... good on you, Scott. You're one of the good one's, and I don't mean that as a slur on your faith (I had my fingers crossed for him at the end there... he could so easily had taken a turn down a dark road, but fair play to him, he pulled back rather than doubled down on the whole "lying in order to sin" motif). 💖👍
I think there's something to the non believer always going back to the "yeah but is god actually real?" Maybe the standards for non believers are just higher?
I can see myself not being as charitable as someone who already believes vs someone "looking" to believe. Are these presuppositions on both sides?
Maybe this is why one is convinced vs another?
Reason some get convinced easily and some don't is due to "standards" we employ.
Some people just lack higher standards of evidence.
Notice how he says some people "can't or won't" see a god, while he doesn't say other people "can or will" see god, just "can.". Inherent bias at play.
Well he's also just repeating something he's heard from other believers over his years. I used to say the same thing until I stopped believing and now that I actually think about it, it is biased. This isn't an insult as I was once there too but people just need to turn their brains on and think about something, analyze it from every perspective they can. I had been analyzing and thinking about things at least the last few years of my life as a Christian but I was too dishonest with myself and the world (the world because I was scared of my parents) to really take the fruit of my analysis and eat it, on a few things at least.
If Tolkien asked me "so where do myths come from?", my answer would be, man.
That's when I'd say "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit. Where did that come from? There's your answer."
22 minutes and Scott gave absolutely no evidence for his beliefs…
@Clyde Barrow the fact that theist can’t present evidence is my evidence. Feel free to provide some. I know you can’t but it’s always fun watching you flail about.
@Clyde Barrow hahahaha. No evidence for a god in there. Just more silly assertions that go nowhere lol. Looks like another fail for gods existence. Well if you don’t have anything real then I guess you’re dismissed. Better luck next time.
What objective methodology did you use to demonstrate your specific god exists? If you don’t have an objective methodology to demonstrate your specific god exists, will you admit it? If a person believes something exists, and has no way to demonstrate it…. What does that say about the believer? Perhaps they were indoctrinated to believe by parents or family members. Perhaps they think “truth” is subjective and not objective. Perhaps they have an inferior epistemology.
1: Devine hiddenness: which means everywhere humans would expect to find god, they don’t.
2: the lack of evidence where evidence is expected, is evidence against the claim: if I say I have a tv in my trunk, then I open my trunk, and there’s no tv in my truck, that’s evidence against the claim that I have a tv in my trunk.
3: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: there’s a extraordinary claim, Jesus resurrection. There’s no extraordinary evidence for Jesus resurrection. There’s no empirical basis
4: contradictions in the gospels and bible
5: problem of evil: not talking about
freewill. Talking about tornado, hurricanes, earthquakes
6: prayer: prayer works at the same rate as chance. If we make prayer testable, it fails
7: miracles: miracles can’t be tested, there unfalsifiable. Plus miraycles are a post hoc rationalization fallacy
8: omniscient: “knowing everything.” If god is all knowing then there’s no human freewill.
9: all loving: if god is omniscient and created hell. Then god created some humans knowing they were destined for hell. That’s not all loving
10:omnipotent: means god is all powerful. Can god create a rock so heavy that god can’t lift it? If u say yes then god is limited and not omnipotent. If u say no then god is limited and not omnipotent.
11: faith: faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. Someone could have faith in anything thing. I could have faith that a god exists, I could have faith that no god exists. “Faith” is not a reason. Saying “because I have faith” only changes the question from “why do u believe” to “why do u have faith.” The only difference is that u removed “evidence” from the list of possible answers. “Faith” is simply believing that something is true because u want it to be true. It’s neither honest nor something to base real world decisions on.
“Faith”, where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that 2+2=4 or that the world is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.
12: the bible is the claim not the evidence.
The Quran is the claim not the evidence.
The vada is the claim not the evidence.
The Bhagavad Gita is the claim not the evidence. Jehovah witnesses new world translation is the claim not the evidence.
The Book of Mormon, the doctrine and covenant, the pearl of great price is the claim not the evidence. If ur gonna say that the Bible is the evidence and all the other holy texts are not then that’s called special pleading.
13: there no contemporary accounts for Jesus at all. Jesus/yeshua, never wrote down a thing, ever, anywhere.there’s zero eyewitness, no person ever talked to Jesus 1 afternoon, the and went home to write it down.absolutely nothing
14: soul: everything thats attributed to the soul is found in the frontal lobe in the brain
@Clyde Barrow That’s a long list there buddy, only problem is you forgot to include anything that would prove a God exists! 😂
Faith
the switch that turns off the human brain.
Ok, not to be mean about it, but logical fallacies don't care if you wrote The Screwtape Letters.
Thanks for this channel guys. The two of you have helped me deal with my family in regards to my deconstruction of religious bridges in my life. You have been such a help. I wish I can donate more to your channel and to you two specifically. I’m a portrait artist and would love to create a portrait for the two of you. Do you have any reference photos you’d like for me to use? Thanks again.
- Jon Qpid
Hey Jon! That sounds so cool, feel free to email us at contactskepticgeneration @ gmail and we'll touch base!
Going along when a believer tries to frame things as a dichotomy between "believers in MY religion, vs atheists" is just re-enforcing their beliefs.
Just ask him HIS OWN question, but re-frame it, substituting Islam/Hinduism/Mormonism etc for Christianity- "How is that intelligent people like Scott can remain unconvinced, and deny the truth of Islam, when there are thousands of doctors, professors, etc who all say the evidence for Islam and the Koran is sufficient, clear, and undeniable?!? A quick google search can find lists of PhD's, very intelligent people (just like C.S Lewis), who were in their 30s or 40s, and STILL clung to atheism, or Christianity, or Hinduism, before they finally stopped denying the truth of the Koran, and converted to Islam!! How could these intelligent people remain in denial for so long, before they finally rejected Christianity, and stopped denying the self-evident truth of Islam?!?" He KNOWS the answer to his own question- He just needs the question to be framed in the right way.
Believers, of whatever religion, always want to see things thru the lens of "MY religion is special, and totally not comparable/equivalent to all those other dumb, crazy religions out there"- And going along with the false dichotomy of "MY religion vs atheism" only re-enforces that lens. But helping a believer come to fully grasp that followers of all those other religions are EXACTLY as sincere, as convinced, and as justified as they are, and letting them see that it's NOT a dichotomy (or, that every other religion has it's own "dichotomy", just as valid as theirs), is 3/4ths of the challenge.
Great post!
A very interesting conversation.
Excellent observation: the "sinful nature" element is a good point which perhaps needs to be foregrounded in follow up conversations because if one is beholden to a sinful nature then that presupposes that non-believers in the Christian God are (whether intentionally or unintentionally) bad-faith actors who choose not to be convinced by reason/rationality. How then can one resolve this with reason? Also it presupposes that the Christian belief is correct, and a claim like this under the laws of rationality demands some evidence itself.
Sinful nature might be a red herring because rationality is still concerned with evidence as a base.
If we engage in reasonable/rational debate or discussion we have to take it as an axiom that people CAN demonstrate a solid case for the existence of God if God exists. Otherwise what are we doing here in debating rationally? The moment we drop that assumption we can no longer use rationality.
In that case we would have to resign all rational attempts at convincing people and have to concede that the existence of that God is irrational and subjective (meaning not that God doesn't necessarly exist but that if He does He literally is not bound by the existence of rationality or any OBJECTIVELY observable evidence - otherwise He would be scientifically demonstrable- and that the only way to believe in Him is through a personal experience, emotionally or through some other individually subjective psychological process, ie the "leap of faith").
Because it would not be observable or provable to another person in any way, it would, as you say, be outside of the realm of science.
“Why do some find the evidence compelling and some don’t?” You’ve got a problem from the get go, Scott. You are *assuming* whatever convinced people to believe is “evidence.” You already show a bias towards your own beliefs. A more honest question would be “Why do some people find arguments for gods compelling and some don’t?”
“Ah but where do the myths come from?”
… from people making them up. That’s where all myths come from.
If you desire the god drug, the path to get to that drug has no obstacles.
Most "real christians" are now mainlining liquefied bible verses.
That way the spirt of bible god is running in your veins
🤣🤣
@7:08 the point being, we all need our coffee... :) great show!
Because the evidence is not very convincing. Some children believe in Santa longer than others. We don't all have a good set of cognitive tools to make these assessments.
@Clyde Barrow don’t really need the respect of people that believe in fairy tales.
@Clyde Barrow you know how I know the evidence isn't convincing? Take a wild guess! Many of you theists are accustomed to doing that, at the very least. 🤣
@Clyde Barrow I can't engage substantively without substantive evidence. Then you wonder why atheists don't respect you.
As to why so many people believe, it's because it's a part of their culture. The reason it became so widespread culturally is that people used to be executed if they didn't believe.
@Clyde Barrow you most certainly care, otherwise, you wouldn't be commenting. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
"I really don't care, but let me make sure to say something!" - you.
Love your show! You guys rock! Coffee in the toaster... This brings a new dimension to my life...
Jup , if we all had the same standard of evidence, we all would have believed the same things by now 🤷🏻♂️
I'm not sure which is more charming, Vi's improvised-on-not-quite-enough-coffee coffee analogy, or Eric's matryoshka mispronunciation apology.
When Christians say evidence they they rarely mention that their own book instructs them to walk by faith not by sight. To me that says ignore the evidence just believe because I said so. It's very like," Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Here's testable evidence that no Christian will ever test: Jesus said" If any 2 of you ask anything in my name it shall be done for you by my father in heaven" Well let's do a scientific study of how often it works
Prayer never worked so...
At 10:50, that was really well explained, I hope one day to have this level of articulation when explaining things.
Wow, CS Lewis was easily swayed...
I m an atheist. The evidence I am looking for would be accepted in court in a civil case. All I get is handwaving and appeals to ignore the evidence. Unfortunately for the Christians, all the evidence was lost long ago. Christians desperately wish it were not so. So they dance about hoping to convince us to accept their speculations in place of evidence.
If you are trying to create such evidence from the historical record:
1. you need to convince atheists, not apologists.
2, Your audience does not assume the bible is inerrant.
3. Ideally the evidence can be checked today.
Francis Collins also was convinced to convert to Christianity from atheism by seeing three frozen waterfalls during a trip to the Cscade mountains, which suggested the Holy Trinity or some such nonsense.
I think one consideration in this dialogue is there's an attempt to depend the understanding of evidence and the idea of the leap of faith as distinct, when one feeds the other. You have the empirical universe, and people look upon it seeing what seems to be patterns of order. The question about how that order is interpreted strikes me as a big piece of this.. You see the patterns as so organized, you see the logical step to a deity of some sort. You see there's more open in things, and it may not have total organized principles to it. Just a thought.
16 minutes in was where it really got great. The no true Scotsman and the skepticism over CS reason was awesome. Especially each piece of evidence is in isolation. Freaking awesome response
2 people, who make up stories, have a conversation about mythology. One says, "but where do the myths come from?" And neither realize that they conjure bullshit stories for a living.
Eric, your facial hair is great on you man. Looking good
As an atheist, I am always curious about atheists becoming theists and the reasoning they used to arrive there. I am always hoping for an intellectual reason but so far it has always been emotional reasons. With theists becoming atheists, it's the opposite for the most part, I get intellectual reasons why they left. Theists never come up with new evidence or arguments and it has been explained numerous times why the evidence and arguments they do offer fail. If I were a theist, I would certainly question why ex-theists no longer find the evidence and arguments acceptable anymore. Most of the time, theists simply don't understand as much as I do. That is not always the case though, sometimes I meet very intelligent Christians but they have selective reasoning when maintaining their belief, which is irrational from a purely intellectual perspective.
"Vampire sex cult"... Oh, OK
The best reaction
When a person's emotions get included in that person's decision making processes their objectivity evaporates.
From what I've seen many people become religious when they are going through a personal crisis.
There are many reasons humans want to create and believe that their is hierarchical agency, authority and purpose to this cosmos and reality...but usually primarily it is to enforce and support their own hierarchical positions and agendas here on earth.
Congratulations to the two of you on your engagement.
Excellent sound quality!
Thank you! We've been doing our best to keep improving!
Thank you guys .
He believes that people are predisposed to NOT believe in god. Yet most of the world believes.
For me, the will was strong, but my brain refused to cooperate. I love churches, gatherings, rituals, singing, all of it. I chose to call on god for all the best reasons.
But my brain refused to cooperate. There is just no supernatural-shaped hole in my brain to fill.
My favorite point to bring up about Lewis is that Bart Ehrman has stated that biblical scholars now get a good laugh out of the trilemma argument that Lewis coined. Just because you are great in your field of English Literature does not also make you great in biblical scholarship, philosophy, logic, science, history, etc.. One would need to prove prowess in each field apart from other academic success.
Exactly like how John Lennox may be great in mathematics, but not in apologetics.
That is what I was thinking to say. You could be a genius in one thing and completely incompetent in many others.
russel said it very well.
“Where there is evidence , no one speaks of " faith " . We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round . We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence .”
― Bertrand Russell
If u set out to prove something then it would require prior agreement on what constitutes proof, and what can be accepted as evidence. What seems to continually dominate in these discussions are statements of belief and one sided dismissals of evidence and arguments- on all sides. Lots of " x can't be true ( or the converse) because of y". As to whether the statements in question meet or cross the threshold for being accepted as evidence ( as opposed to hearsay) is largely ignored . Most and especially those linked to the legal profession will be familiar with cases where the accused / complainant postulates " someone else could have done it 😂". ( only to have their argument dismissed as speculation) It is insufficient to simply " deny something". ( " It wasn't me..") There is common ground here for all sides. That is NB That said, here and there something factual emerges which can be discussed. I have no interest in the merits or demerits of what people may or may not" believe", my interest is in the factual basis of that belief.
Nothing else. Of course the discussions can be wide-ranging ,but serious topics deserve focussed attention. Not what I read here.
Congratulations AND great video. Respect!
Eric is looking especially sharp tonight! Loving the beard.
Eric is truly getting the beard to look shaper on each video, bloody good job, say I.