Well the logic behind the first statement is self contradictory, that appears to be more a problem with the presentation than the concept. The fundamental principles of basic Socratic Solipsism are undeniable, and also cast doubt upon all other principles and hypotheses.
Facts are not theories, let alone uncertain theories. Theories embody and explain facts. Facts don't change, theories (the explanation of facts) do change with the discovery of new facts.Theories are then modified or superseded (e.x. General Relativity superseding Galilean Relativity). The scientific method has the best track record for explanation because simply satisfying propositional logic does not always instantly mean truth. We need evidence, even if we're not always perfect interpreters.
Atheists ftw. Representing the science, the humanism, the progression of secular thinking with statistically lower crime rates, the kick ass discipline of logic, and noit supporting the tribal "join out cult or be ostrasized" bs of theists.
Don't worry, when you theists finally give in to pop-tarts, medicine, and internets 100%, we will still love you. But we will say "I told yah so!!!"
Didn't Berkeley posit 'God' as the solution to the objection that 'objects' were constantly popping in and out of existence (once perceived) in his ontology?
Ha im a diehard atheist but got a kick out of some of your points on the right. Especially 6, 12, and 15.
Really? You mean you realize that it is a form of abusive ad hominem to one star a video when you don't have the intellectual capacity to present a basic counter syllogism to refute the position you disagree with?
No, of course not, you're just a redneck atheist. You haven't studied logic, philosophy, history, nor the Bible, for you're too busy watching American Idol, Richard Dawkins interviews, and other mindless tripe--LOL!
@RedBeetle I have a problem with your statement "Calvinism is Christianity" as I am a true Christian and know that most ppl dont know what Christianity actually is so how about you tell me what you think the definition of being a Christian is.
By the way, I think this video is rather dumb. You're making a pointless argument and then calling someone a "redneck atheist" because they don't agree with you. I just don't see what you could possible hope to achieve by exploiting tiny loopholes in other people's arguments about a stupid topic.
Now let me argue against your mathematical arguments.
Mathematics is just something invented by man (just like time) which we use to determine quantities. In the natural universe, there is really no such thing as numbers. Because of this, of course you know for certain that 2 + 2 = 4, because it is just a logistic made up by man. In the same way, of course you know for certain that time will pass, because again, time is a measurement created by man, not something in the natural universe.
There is no such thing as certainty. Your contradiction example is true, you can't have two opposites happening at the same time, but you still don't know which of the opposites, if any at all, are true.
I can be certain that there is no such thing as certainty - because if there were a such thing as certainty, then when I say I am certain there is no such thing as certainty, the statement contradicts itself. Therefore I am not certain (because I am wrong), thus proving that there is no such thing as certainty.
Thus proving there is certainty, for you necessarily require a certain judgment to conclude that any one proposition is right or wrong. You are failed again to prove your irrational claim. Want to try again?
OK, I really didn't want to take this to extremes, but...
The universe is chaotic. It is impossible to predict exactly what will happen. Our memories are also distorted, meaning you can't be certain about the past. So for example, let's say you take a step. You'll move forward, right? Well, what if I told you that that particular part of the floor was really slippery, even though it looks the same? So you don't move forward; you fall backwards or stumble.
I don't even see where you're trying to go with this.
Understand that in science, there is 2 types of proof, absolute proof (can be 100%) and evidential proof (can't be 100%.)
Absolute proof will say that 2+2=4 and we can be 100% sure.
Evidential proof says there is no monkey in my room because I don't hear, smell or see any. And I can only be 99% sure because all i have is evidence (or the lack there of).
Regardless of your childish insistence to cling to this equation as something important when it isn't, (even if he is wrong) it doesn't say anything about atheism....only that he should have phrased his equation better. I fully understand what he was getting at. This is the equivalent of writing off someone's entire thesis because they misspelled a word.
Your denial of the basic laws of logic is intellectual suicide. Thank you for honestly admitting you believe the law of noncontradiction is unimportant. It gives the public a chance to see KingHeathen own up to irrationalism. Only a bunch of rednecks would buy into your mindless rhetoric, but then that is evident from examining the comments of those who support your misology. Men like you are leading society right back into the Dark Ages--right back into the open arms of Rome.
Throwing out a person's entire viewpoint and wealth of opinions because of being hair-splittingly nitpicky about one happening of poor word choice--you're clinging to one statement that could be viewed to wanting eyes as a contradiction under the pretense that it undermines his entire worldview, though your artifice falls flat in that you're clearly grasping at straws because you'll hold in a negative light literally anyone who doesn't share your particular invisible friend.
If you got it, then you wouldn't attack logic in order to defend your idiotic atheist position, but atheists are not called fools for nothing (Psalm 14:1).
Study the history of philosophy, for the term 'evidence' has multiple meanings.
In scientific / empirical thought, it refers to sensible data that has no certainty. This is why all facts are uncertain theories--LOL! Modern scientific method is doomed to uncertain guesses, and that is why the so-called laws of science keep changing. Truth, on the other hand, is not sensible, but propositional, and it is certain. We have logically consistent truth, you have conjecture.
No! I'm being honest . . . prove what x is. If you can prove 100% what x is, not what it isn't, then most likely I've conttradicted myself. What is x?
No I agree that IF no x is y then some x's are y can't be true. I'm saying you can't show what x actually is.
No crows are black, therefore some crows can't be red. That's true. But you can't prove that no crows are black in the first place.
You technically can't prove 100% that the crows or whatever X stands for even exists, as you are relying on your sense which you have no way to 100% verify. You can show that it is 99.9 % likely that all crows are black, but not 100%.
The first remark was not in reference to mathematical proof, our discussion was centering around sciene and information. Reality, not abstract concepts. You cannot prove what something IS.
This was the entirety of what that comment was saying, you cannot show what "x" is.
I'm the guy mentioned in this video that you are apparently calling gross, unless of course your just referring to the strange picture that really isn't me.
Well the logic behind the first statement is self contradictory, that appears to be more a problem with the presentation than the concept. The fundamental principles of basic Socratic Solipsism are undeniable, and also cast doubt upon all other principles and hypotheses.
ZomBLord 3 months ago
Well I am a Redneck that acknowlegdes higher intelligence.
FuckTheWorld623 4 months ago
I've found, as an informal rule, that pretty much anything that's true has to be self-contradictory. Heh heh.
Jcolinsol 5 months ago
RedBeetle are you a theist or an atheist who is fed up with other atheists who think they're smart? Cause man I get that! ;D
TheAlmightyJod 9 months ago
Facts are not theories, let alone uncertain theories. Theories embody and explain facts. Facts don't change, theories (the explanation of facts) do change with the discovery of new facts.Theories are then modified or superseded (e.x. General Relativity superseding Galilean Relativity). The scientific method has the best track record for explanation because simply satisfying propositional logic does not always instantly mean truth. We need evidence, even if we're not always perfect interpreters.
Firewalker239 11 months ago
@Firewalker239 wrote:
"Facts don't change."
Anything sensible is mutable.
Now go find out what that means.
Next time, study the history of epistemology.
RedBeetle 11 months ago
the bible is nothing but a millenia old bed time story.
cole3454657 11 months ago
@cole3454657 and what a fucked up bed time story it is!!
DogbitE6661 11 months ago
I know he's just tryin to learn us somethin i guess im too stupid to figure it out :)
JamesBondSim9 1 year ago
lol, wut?
Atheists ftw. Representing the science, the humanism, the progression of secular thinking with statistically lower crime rates, the kick ass discipline of logic, and noit supporting the tribal "join out cult or be ostrasized" bs of theists.
Don't worry, when you theists finally give in to pop-tarts, medicine, and internets 100%, we will still love you. But we will say "I told yah so!!!"
Niveous23 1 year ago
@Niveous23,
LOL, learn what the fallacy of induction is, then learn what scientific method is...LOL.
RedBeetle 1 year ago
@Niveous23
Redneck Atheist and PROWD OV ET!
Jcolinsol 5 months ago
I'm quite unfamiliar with Calvinism.
Didn't Berkeley posit 'God' as the solution to the objection that 'objects' were constantly popping in and out of existence (once perceived) in his ontology?
Ha im a diehard atheist but got a kick out of some of your points on the right. Especially 6, 12, and 15.
briano8713 2 years ago
I can see why you disable ratings on your videos
rohanl82 2 years ago
@rohanl82
Really? You mean you realize that it is a form of abusive ad hominem to one star a video when you don't have the intellectual capacity to present a basic counter syllogism to refute the position you disagree with?
No, of course not, you're just a redneck atheist. You haven't studied logic, philosophy, history, nor the Bible, for you're too busy watching American Idol, Richard Dawkins interviews, and other mindless tripe--LOL!
Get educated.
Calvinism is Christianity!
RedBeetle 2 years ago
@RedBeetle I have a problem with your statement "Calvinism is Christianity" as I am a true Christian and know that most ppl dont know what Christianity actually is so how about you tell me what you think the definition of being a Christian is.
redneckwoman17 1 year ago
By the way, I think this video is rather dumb. You're making a pointless argument and then calling someone a "redneck atheist" because they don't agree with you. I just don't see what you could possible hope to achieve by exploiting tiny loopholes in other people's arguments about a stupid topic.
jaychant0 2 years ago
Thank you for publicly admitting the Law of Contradiction is stupid.
You qualify for the term "Redneck Atheist."
Psalm 14:1
RedBeetle 2 years ago
*facepalm*
OK, clearly you're just being stubborn, so considering how unimportant this topic is, I'm leaving.
jaychant0 2 years ago
Now let me argue against your mathematical arguments.
Mathematics is just something invented by man (just like time) which we use to determine quantities. In the natural universe, there is really no such thing as numbers. Because of this, of course you know for certain that 2 + 2 = 4, because it is just a logistic made up by man. In the same way, of course you know for certain that time will pass, because again, time is a measurement created by man, not something in the natural universe.
jaychant0 2 years ago
I thought you said you couldn't be certain?
Are now claiming you are certain of this?
You seem confused.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
There is no such thing as certainty. Your contradiction example is true, you can't have two opposites happening at the same time, but you still don't know which of the opposites, if any at all, are true.
jaychant0 2 years ago
jaychant0 wrote:
"There is no such thing as certainty."
How can you be certain--LOL!
RedBeetle 2 years ago
:)
I can be certain that there is no such thing as certainty - because if there were a such thing as certainty, then when I say I am certain there is no such thing as certainty, the statement contradicts itself. Therefore I am not certain (because I am wrong), thus proving that there is no such thing as certainty.
jaychant0 2 years ago
jaychant0 wrote:
"because I am wrong, thus proving..."
Thus proving there is certainty, for you necessarily require a certain judgment to conclude that any one proposition is right or wrong. You are failed again to prove your irrational claim. Want to try again?
Got Logic?
RedBeetle 2 years ago
OK, I really didn't want to take this to extremes, but...
The universe is chaotic. It is impossible to predict exactly what will happen. Our memories are also distorted, meaning you can't be certain about the past. So for example, let's say you take a step. You'll move forward, right? Well, what if I told you that that particular part of the floor was really slippery, even though it looks the same? So you don't move forward; you fall backwards or stumble.
jaychant0 2 years ago
my brain!!!!
rippetoe69 2 years ago
Amazing.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I don't even see where you're trying to go with this.
Understand that in science, there is 2 types of proof, absolute proof (can be 100%) and evidential proof (can't be 100%.)
Absolute proof will say that 2+2=4 and we can be 100% sure.
Evidential proof says there is no monkey in my room because I don't hear, smell or see any. And I can only be 99% sure because all i have is evidence (or the lack there of).
I don't see what's the big issue here.
pensego 2 years ago
If you watch the video, then you will notice that the redneck atheist contradicted himself at about the 11 second mark.
Got logic?
RedBeetle 2 years ago
Regardless of your childish insistence to cling to this equation as something important when it isn't, (even if he is wrong) it doesn't say anything about atheism....only that he should have phrased his equation better. I fully understand what he was getting at. This is the equivalent of writing off someone's entire thesis because they misspelled a word.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
KingHeathen,
Your denial of the basic laws of logic is intellectual suicide. Thank you for honestly admitting you believe the law of noncontradiction is unimportant. It gives the public a chance to see KingHeathen own up to irrationalism. Only a bunch of rednecks would buy into your mindless rhetoric, but then that is evident from examining the comments of those who support your misology. Men like you are leading society right back into the Dark Ages--right back into the open arms of Rome.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
Aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaa
Afrikitty 2 years ago
Throwing out a person's entire viewpoint and wealth of opinions because of being hair-splittingly nitpicky about one happening of poor word choice--you're clinging to one statement that could be viewed to wanting eyes as a contradiction under the pretense that it undermines his entire worldview, though your artifice falls flat in that you're clearly grasping at straws because you'll hold in a negative light literally anyone who doesn't share your particular invisible friend.
I get it.
HelplessVictim 2 years ago
If you got it, then you wouldn't attack logic in order to defend your idiotic atheist position, but atheists are not called fools for nothing (Psalm 14:1).
RedBeetle 2 years ago
@RedBeetle We take up the position of a null hypothesis because in 2010 years you haven't provided a shred of evidence .
ZachVMNTX1 1 year ago
@ZachVMNTX1,
Study the history of philosophy, for the term 'evidence' has multiple meanings.
In scientific / empirical thought, it refers to sensible data that has no certainty. This is why all facts are uncertain theories--LOL! Modern scientific method is doomed to uncertain guesses, and that is why the so-called laws of science keep changing. Truth, on the other hand, is not sensible, but propositional, and it is certain. We have logically consistent truth, you have conjecture.
RedBeetle 1 year ago
@RedBeetle wait what, how is religion truth
Jakomancer 1 year ago
Fine, using your proof, prove what something is . . . assuming you don't delete this comment like the last one.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
HonestDiscussioner, are you admitting you contradicted yourself?
RedBeetle 2 years ago
No! I'm being honest . . . prove what x is. If you can prove 100% what x is, not what it isn't, then most likely I've conttradicted myself. What is x?
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
So you don't think (No X is Y) logically contradicts (Some X is Y)?
Your remarks take this form.
Please explain.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
No I agree that IF no x is y then some x's are y can't be true. I'm saying you can't show what x actually is.
No crows are black, therefore some crows can't be red. That's true. But you can't prove that no crows are black in the first place.
You technically can't prove 100% that the crows or whatever X stands for even exists, as you are relying on your sense which you have no way to 100% verify. You can show that it is 99.9 % likely that all crows are black, but not 100%.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
HonestDiscussioner wrote:
"No I agree that IF no x is y then some x's are y can't be true."
Are you saying the two remarks you made contradict each other?
The remarks I refer to appear at about the 11 second mark of the video.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
The first remark was not in reference to mathematical proof, our discussion was centering around sciene and information. Reality, not abstract concepts. You cannot prove what something IS.
This was the entirety of what that comment was saying, you cannot show what "x" is.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I'll give you one more chance to answer the question.
Are your remarks, which appear at about the 11 second mark of the video, contradictories?
RedBeetle 2 years ago
HE'S GROSS THAT'S WHAT HE IS!
112namrepus 2 years ago
Do you even know me?
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
No, nor do I know anyone who just types that in on a site.
112namrepus 2 years ago
I'm the guy mentioned in this video that you are apparently calling gross, unless of course your just referring to the strange picture that really isn't me.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
ummmm :/
FirebrandNIRE 2 years ago
I think I bowl with that redneck.
ClarkApologetics 2 years ago
Ugh, he looks pretty groooosssss!
FireThunderTV 2 years ago