His argument about eugenics being an atheist principle is crap. Eugenics has been around since the beginning of humanity and Judaism is a religion, not a race.
"it gave birth to science".... duuude what kinda of weed have that priest been smoking? remember gallileos observations of moons around jupiter? remember Copernikus idea of a heliocentric solar system? remember Darwins theory of evolution? oh rigth thats still not accepted by some...
I have a hard time disliking the father. It is almost anti-climatic to debate an Orthodox Christian in the future. I believe the melodrama and sex appeal is in the fundamentalist or Evangelical Christian. Both gentlemen were very well read and articulate. I enjoyed this whole debate. Like I mentioned before, I was expecting more fireworks, but Matt is able to keep his cool and not discredit his position by not losing his temper.
oh, so when hitler says that he does things based on his religious views, hitler is wrong and the priests gets to decide why hitler did it. Thats NONSENSE..
I can SAY that I rode a Unicorn on a rainbow till the end where I slew a leprechaun and stole his gold, and that is how I could afford this computer, I can't PROVE it... THEN IT DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN OR DOESN'T EXIST!!!!! TRUTH AND FACT CAN BE PROVEN!!
Sounds more like the priest believes more in atheism than he holds his faith as he doesn't believe in his own faith and his answers reflect that yet regardless at the end of a sentence of what he was basically saying is he doesn't believe in his own faith, then says that he has faith. you can't have it both ways. Further more, he doesn't actually answer of the questions given to him
This is no longer a case of disagreement. This is a case of someone simply not telling the truth. NOTHING the priest said about Hitler and the sentiment of antisemitism throughout Europe was accurate. It isnt just that he was wrong, but to state that the German population wasnt antisemites until the US introduced the idea is not only absurd, but an obvious deliberate lie.
I don't think he's actually claiming the antisemitism was a US import, but the Eugenics theories hitler adopted were certainly popular in the turn of the century america, including such things as forced sterilisation (3 generations of imbeciles is enough) and much of the dogma was developed by american (but not only american) authors.
He's still a dishonest preacher, because none of the eugenicists were motivated by atheism, nor by proper scientific rigor, but by dogma.
Gah! At 6:00 it never fails. They equate evolution=atheism. And then misunderstand (deliberately?) what evolution is. One is a method of speciation, the other is a rejection of the claim. No relation. Then on top of that they use it to claim Hitler was an atheist. Hitler was a Christian and a creationist. His work on eugenics was led in part by his belief in "kinds" and in part by twisting natural selection to have some goal in a creator's mind.
It must be fun to be able to bend, like a reed in the wind, and never have to commit to a set of guidelines because the religion that you use to justify your beliefs cannot be proven false. This douchebag can answer a question any way he wants to and backpedal and create diversions however he wants to because his faith can't be disproven. It's frustrating.
What about the Ancient Greek society? Or the Roman Empire that ruled over Israel prior and during the apparent time of Jesus? Were those two civilizations illiterate bafoons that just garbled around in the dirt?
Why do dumb Christians always try to make out that Hitler was an Atheist and that his actions were based on his Atheistic beliefs?
Whatever Hitler Believed, he was most definitely not an Atheist, he clearly believed in some kind of deity, he was raised a Christian, and probably had some cult like beliefs in Norse/Pagan Gods.
This Priest destroyed his credibility by trying to attack Atheism at this level.
Even if Hitler was an atheist...so what? He didn't take his evil actions on the basis of atheism. No one bases their actions on what they do not believe. He based his actions on his racist, war-loving, bloodthirsty, narcissistic worldview.
@felisleo101 Of course I agree with you 100%, but the problem is the Theists, being rather simplistic in their thinking believe that Atheism is indeed and ISM and is a kind of evangelical religion. I know it can seem that way since we all get rather fed up with the dogma of religion, and can sound dogmatic ourselves. However, the point is that if we conceded, "so what if Hitler was an Atheist" we fall into the hands of the poorly educated Theists; who will say... "See, his Atheism made him bad!"
@gmanj88 But when you line up people, you risk the chance of the fatedness of screwballs making their way to the microphone, which wouldn't happen otherwise if the questioners were sensitively chosen out.
yet more demonstration that organized religion relies on "speaking down" to people who haven't taken the time to master rhetorical or rational faculties.
I always go back to this when I hear arguments like this. "You're talking alot, but you're not saying anything."
maybe if I obfuscate my nonexistant point with enough flowery language and metaphor, it will convince people of something that I can never prove?
I thought he was stupid till he said he's "encounted the risen christ " now i think he's crazy. Is this really what christians base their belief on ? On an unrelated note: I saw a flying pig the other day i cant prove it though but he said to worship his holy bacon or we will all fry on the pan of hell forever, he also said to give me donations so i can buy a sports car like all the priest have.....
@shmonksta "Is this really what christians base their belief on?" Yes. They claim to have met Christ - of course it's only in an emotionally-charged or "spiritual" sense. They can't define what that means, obviously, as it all just comes out as the same gobbledygook the priest here spewed.
Does the flying pig god mind if we eat his flesh? If so, that's a god could I worship! Bacon is good!
@RhunDraco He said yes but only on wednesdays because that is the day of the risen pig named "baconator". It shall now be known as judgement day not wednesday. ALL HAIL BACONATOR
The applause 7 and a half minutes in was very encouraging for the future of the world.
I remember watching a debate on the existence of god from the 80s and the audience was very edgy and resentful towards the atheist side. The fact that now at least non believers can stand up as such without worrying for their physical safety is fantastic.
an avalanche of lies, strawmen, and fallacies from the priest. Matt is right. he gets no beer. interesting "HES LYING" from crowd when priest speaks..and APPLAUSE for matt.
13:23 "I look at anything that purports to explain the beginnings *as narrative*. And then what I do is I look up the different narratives and decide which is the more compelling."
Two questions: What does "as narrative" mean, and you decide more or less compelling *based upon what criteria*?
The friar is amazingly wrong. Narrative is how we lie to ourselves about ourselves; fiction is among the worst offenders, the construction of entire false worlds in which to discover things you already want to believe. Truth begins the moment we question and reject narratives and devise better means for learning about the world that challenge our preconceptions rather than reinforcing them. Want to learn true things about people? Read psychology studies and brain research.
The ending to this clip made me sad for humanity... Hans used the old "well I can't prove my point but [insert hearsay here]", and then everyone starts clapping. There is a reason such arguments aren't allowed in court: YOU CAN SAY YOU SAW/DID/SAID/ECT ANYTHING. It just simply doesn't count in a debate...
It's funny how this religious man keeps holding his hand out in the air, as if to say "This makes my point correct"
He is treating the audience like creatures, the same way you hold your hands up in the air and make loud noises to frighten a bear into thinking you are bigger then you really are.
You see this all the time with the religious people.
It's like he is a conductor, trying very hard to make his orchestra play the tune he wants.
One group claiming superiority over another group has been happening long before Darwin. One case in point right before Darwin published origins of species was "manifest destiny" So while you could argue, there is plenty of historic evidence to show that way of thinking was around for a long before Darwin so to try to use Darwin as a scapegoat is a dishonest and lazy one.
Yes, the priest seems to want to make us doubt and fear darwin and the theory of evolution by natural selection by making a false connection to racist notions which pre-date Darwin and his theory.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the *foreigners* who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a *permanent* inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, *your relatives*, must never be treated this way."
So much for false claim of temporary slavery & equality of foreigners.
@proudfootz Yet you're still in denial of Deut 23 : 15-16 This is obviously not the pre-Civil War antebellum South and you can never "read into it" that way.
You are in denial of the passage I cited. Stalemate.
Either way it is not germaine what happened *later* or what other people in other places might have thought. I am talking about the Abrahamic covenant.
Jacobse makes an unfounded assertion that Hitler used purposefully Darwinian principles to uphold his 'Atheist eugenics program'. We can only guess at what Hitler was thinking to himself but we know what he pronounced to the masses. We know he said his actions against the Jews was in support of his religious beliefs. We know he never recounted his faith. And we know he never spoke of Darwin. Hitler confessed his motivations in a manner that would hold up in any court of law.
I just love it when Christians claim that they gave birth to science: yes, the Greek and Romans didn't do shit. And the Muslims that translated their texts and gave them to pre-Renaissance Christian Europe were useless. If only you guys hadn't neglected or burned Greek and Roman science texts in the first place we might be a far more advanced civilization right now. Also, HOW does this guy ignore 2000 years of Christian anti-semitism, genocide, anti-gayness, anti-everything-minority?
Yes, it's silly of this priest to claim science comes from christianity when scientific avancement virtually stopped when christianity was ascendant in Europe. The call it the Dark Ages for a reason.
It wasn't until pagan literature started becoming available to Europeans that the things that Western society values: self-government, science, freedom of conscience became possible.
People will react as they see him. Not everyone sees him at the same succession of videos. Reacting to tell people to stop reacting is a form of *something* you might not like, too. (just sayin)
How did I know this? Here's the holy spirit and a personal vision. And because he had a vision mankind needs to accept absolute morality. What utter nonsense.
Stupid American- "Eugenic`s" come`s from Francis Galton (English- Darwin`s cousin) who invented the term in 1896 - stupid Americunt`s are so full of themselve`s , so sad..................................
@jjmm112 That's so bizarrely ironic - that in condemning eugenics, you blame Darwin for eugenics because someone in his family misused his ideas and dreamed it up. I suppose he was genetically similar to his half-cousin, so they obviously are both to blame. Hilarious. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls - I mean "Stupid American"? Why don't you just say, "HEY! Look at me! I want attention!!"
@sinmantyx If the idea can be misused, and can fool millions in the process, then the idea is flawed.
Kind of like Empiricism.
Either you believe natural selection should continue naturally, or you think that mankind can have a hand in orchestrating their own selection (while calling it natural), even taking it to the social level.
P: [If god can be misused, then it is flawed. Sorry, but that's the implication of your post.]
1. If God's non-existence is a certainty, then the ideas are misused as determined by a higher moral law. . .which you cannot determine outside of mankind. But that's your problem.
2. If God does exist, then God cannot be held to blame for those people that misuse His name and eisegetically read their own thoughts into His instructions.
@Paulomycin "If the idea can be misused, and can fool millions in the process, then the idea is flawed." With respect, that's the silliest thing you said since you claimed that you know Christianity is valid because it's the only religion you've bothered to notice that jives with your personal deist-like god concept. I suppose the idea that what you eat is linked to your overall health is likewise flawed. (Oh yeah, and what proudfootz said.)
@sinmantyx You just stated it was silly, but didn't go on to support why you thought so. I am arguing to the absolute of a personally omnipotent being; not merely the "idea" of God.
@Paulomycin I'm saying it's silly because, by that logic, every stinking idea and concept on the face of the planet is flawed. You aren't arguing for the "idea" of God, but an omnipotent being which is completely different?! Well, Darwin did NOT argue for eugenics. He realized how some people might interpret his ideas of natural selection, to justify social wrongs, and he said it was evil. Then people did it anyway, and 150 years later you are still blaming Darwin.
@sinmantyx I am putting all my chips in here, and you're not aware of that. The absolute of an omnipotent being is personal rather than a mere idea. I am not arguing to the idea of the being, or the practice surrounding Him, but to the being Himself.
Conversely, Darwin is not the sum-total of his ideas. Thus, Darwinism isn't Darwin.
@Paulomycin We agree, but simply because there really is not such thing as "Darwinism" except in the imagination of those who, for whatever crazy reason, want to use his name to describe ideas that he actively opposed or pretend that evolutionary biology is a religion. I'm talking about Darwin because the Fr. talked about Darwin, and basically blamed eugenics and nazism on him, and then for some unknown reason mentioned the Tuskegee experiments. It's like Glen Beck's chalkboard up there.
@sinmantyx Okay, let's start there. You obviously don't deny there is such a thing as "Darwinism," do you? I'm not arguing to the Fr. Dillahunty chose a very weak target from the outset. Darwin (the person) can only be blamed for his severe lack of foresight.
@Paulomycin There was Darwinism when there was Lamarkianism - right now - it does not exist. It's like saying Newtonianist or Einsteinist - it makes no sense. Also, we cannot blame Darwin for his lack of foresight because he DID foresee this and warned AGAINST it, calling the idea "evil". The misuse of ideas does not speak to the validity of those ideas. Natural selection happens. You might as well say the sky isn't blue because that leads to bad poetry.
@Paulomycin It's not "settled" - no "theory" is settled. I'm saying that natural selection happens. We observe it happening all the time, that doesn't mean there is nothing additional we might learn about it or that our current ideas will never be revised.
@Paulomycin Really? That fact that it happens is settled - the observation of it happening has been made several times. The word THEORY means our understanding of various lines of evidence about a particular topic. Theories change, that doesn't mean that all observations are tenuous.
@sinmantyx Now you're flip-flopping. Is something settled because you're certain of it happening, or is there room for initially determining something "happens" to begin with? You do realize you've made natural selection as real as "death," right? Are you seriously proposing that "death" constitutes its own theory?
@Paulomycin Reread what I wrote if you care to. I'm really losing my patients with this, because it almost seems as though you are purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying.
@Paulomycin If something is observed - independently verified - then it's the case. How we conceptualize the observation, interpret it, and use it to inform larger ideas about how the universe functions is THEORY. Natural selection happens. It's as "settled" as pretty much anything else that is observed and independently verified.
S: [If something is observed - independently verified - then it's the case] Until observed otherwise. Such is the flaw of inductive reasoning. It even has a formal name, it's called "the problem of induction." But those who blindly buy-into scientism tend to ignore that problem altogether.
If something is "as 'settled' as pretty much anything else that is observed and independently verified," then you're merely selling it as if it were certain when it really isn't.
@Paulomycin THEORY surrounding death and dying is not settled - because scientific theory (be definition) is open to revision. Death is not the theory of death and dying. Natural selection is not the theory of natural selection.
@sinmantyx So you're interpreting everything, including death, according to scientism. If everything is open to revision, then you cannot even behave as if something is settled. You can't even say "'X' happens."
"Natural selection is not the theory of natural selection."
Yet you haven't decided if it's a settled reality or not. "'X' happens" is a certainty statement.
@Paulomycin Natural selection is settled - in that IT HAPPENS. Why? How? What does that mean? Can it be predicted? How does it manifest in various contexts? blah blah blah blah Your acting like the universe is much more simple than it is.
@sinmantyx You're making a positive claim for something essentially uncertain according to its own rules. Thus, i have no reason to believe in the nuts and bolts of your philosophical worldview.
S: [Natural selection is settled - in that IT HAPPENS.] But "IT HAPPENS" is stated as a certainty. The contradiction here is entirely yours, especially when you bust out the Caps Lock like that. You're emphatic that a systematic uncertainty is = to a certainty.
Hence, scientism. It's science taken to absurd levels.
@Paulomycin Look - of course it's not "settled" because we could all be brains in a jar or part of the "The Matrix". However, it's really a waste of time to constantly entertain the notion that the universe constantly lies to us concerning our observations. Natural selection is observed, just like death, taxes, bunny rabbits and pizza. We can observe evolution being driven by environmental conditions. It's as certain as anything else we observe.
@Paulomycin Anti-biotic resistant bacteria is sort of a big one. Why on earth would cultivars be a good example - as that is selective breeding of plants. The idea of natural selection is that environmental pressures drive evolution. Nylon-eating bacteria is probably one of the best examples.
@Paulomycin I thought you wanted an example of natural selection. Not one "kind" turning into another "kind" - your bible is showing. :) You can go to "Talkorigins" and look up speciation evidence - I'm not going to do it for you.
@Paulomycin How we interpret our observations and put them into the context of other observations and models of natural behavior is "theory". We figure out what the patterns we see in nature are, and use those models to predict future observations. Then we revise and add to our models based on those observations. For example, we don't know everything about how gravity works or ties into subatomic theory, but we observe that matter attracts matter all the time.
@sinmantyx And you're dictating it to me as if it were an absolute rule. Think about the precepts you're droning out. You've never questioned the method you've bought into.
RE: Gravity. You're observing a cause-effect relationship through logic, and not through any direct testable empirical observation.
@Paulomycin You're totally right - the Cavendish experiment never works for me. We joked that it was Cavendish's misogynistic ghost, making the torsion balance deviate strangely. :)
@Paulomycin That's hilarious really - the idea that I've never questioned the method I've been brought into - apparently you are completely unaware of my upbringing.
@sinmantyx Yet to you, the method IS unquestionable. Additionally, you cannot answer my questions (whether here or in my proofs). Sitting there with your fingers in your ears might be a sign of a paradigm shift.
@Paulomycin Because most ways in which the concept has been imposed socially is in directly opposition with the concept of civil liberty, in that it puts too much power in the hands of those whose judgment may be colored by their own prejudices and self-interest. I am not, however, categorically against genetic counseling.
@Paulomycin Because I have a self-interest in my own life and the life of my family and ancestors (and humans in general for that matter), and I would not like them harmed by someone put into power who decides that they are unfit or who might deprive humanity of needed genetic diversity. "MOST WAYS" - I already told you I wasn't categorically against genetic counseling.
@sinmantyx Yet you're arguing to Mill's "harm principle," as well as those you deem worthy of priority. "Self-interest" is right. You're actually aiding and abetting those who would decide they were unfit (especially once they were old enough), in the name of "science."
BTW, counseling is merely one tiny step away from "improvement." Because "defect" can always be redefined.
@Paulomycin Yes, I'm a big Mill fan. One problem he had though, was a sense of superiority to other cultures. He had a bit of a white-man's burden. Yeah - your assertion must be true - I'm a big nazi. *sarcasm*
@sinmantyx No, I'm not concluding you're a Nazi. You don't have to take all of Mill with you, just like I don't have to take all of Descartes. Why? Because I'm arguing to the ideas and not the people.
@Paulomycin I am telling you that the level of uncertainty is low enough when it pertains to repeatable, independently verifiable observations, to make constantly questioning them impractical. What you still don't seem to understand however, is that observations are not theories. When a population changes allele frequency in response to environmental pressure - that is natural selection.
@Paulomycin We can quantify "uncertainty" in measurement in a strict sense. However, I just haven't done enough LSD to question every observation I make and I think it would be a great coincidence if lots of people had the some hallucinations when they do the same experiments, especially when done independently.
@Paulomycin Of course, it could always be a possibility that the universe is simply not as it seems. However, we have little choice but to go with the information we happen to have. I know you think you can reason a belief in God, but do you bother trying to reason how to drive to work in the morning?
@Paulomycin By the way - epistemological certainty = "scientism"? I have done science, and I teach science. I am not an adherent of "scientism" - nor do I know anyone who self-identifies that way. I really don't know how many actual research scientists need to explain that whole thing before it gets into people's heads. Methodical naturalism does not equal materialism or "Darwinism" or "scientism" or my cat Orion or your mom.
@sinmantyx Awesome. Then what are you going to do with all those very real things I pointed to that are not only non-falsifiable, but also necessary for experimentation?
It seems 'darwinism' and 'scientism' have been adopted by various people as clubs to beat anyone who tries to apply rational standards to investigation of the world.
@proudfootz Don't forget "evolutionist". At best, it's a way to identify what *exactly* one is opposing. At worst, it's just a way to paint a dehumanizing straw-man to characterize groups. You'll notice that Jacobse spends ALOT of time in these debates characterizing his opponent's views, until finally Matt had enough of it. He equates atheism with naturalism and materialism (not completely reasonable) then goes for nazism (not remotely reasonable.)
@proudfootz It's not confusion, as much as dogma. His whole tirade is straight out of the playbook. You might as well just read the Wedge Document. He is saying the same types of things. Matt is giving many of the same arguments that many atheists give. There is nothing new here. Jacobse's insistence that Matt is "different" equals "Matt is different than the play book says atheists are."
@Paulomycin You're making a judgment about me that your just assuming, because you've decided that I'm an adherent of "scientism". Which, I suppose I would sign up for if I got a free Snuggie.
@sinmantyx What moral reasons? Let's say you had a problem with the Biblical God on moral grounds (what those would be, I have no idea). You reject the Biblical God, but instead of turning deist, you go full-blown atheist?
@Paulomycin I am very sorry, but I have to leave it at that because I need to sleep. I have class in the morning. It was fun talking to you again. Have a nice night.
@Paulomycin No, I didn't ignore it. I said it was silly to couple that idea with the fact that natural selection happens - as if acknowledging natural selection necessarily leads to eugenics.
@Paulomycin You can't "self-engineer your own natural selection". When you choose who is able to reproduce and thrive, you are circumventing natural selection. For example, people have selectively bred domestic animals for thousands of years and many breeds can no longer even function as animals, much less survive without being supported by the humans that bred them. Unless you think of humans deciding on who makes babies "environmental pressure" what you are saying makes no sense.
@Paulomycin That's the lesson we keep learning. We don't have the ability to decide well who reproduces and thrives because we are incapable of seeing clearly the ramifications of our actions. It's my favorite biological "law" - the law of unintended consequence. However, even if we have a capability, that does not justify us actually using that capability. Thank you, Dr. Strangelove.
@Paulomycin I do have a standard to make that judgment - because I learn from what I know of history and my own personal experience. I have developed empathy, as a very young child, as most people do. I have the power to do a great many things, but I don't do everything that is in my power. That's just silly. You're going under the assumption that atheism ultimately results in nihilism and/or hedonism.
@sinmantyx How is natural selection "circumvented" if man also is part of the natural order, and simply behaving how he is biologically wired to behave?
@Paulomycin If you include human beings' whim as being "natural selection" then there really isn't much of a question whether or not "natural selection" happens considering you can buy a dog with a pug-nose that makes it difficult to breath and needs to be delivered through a c-section, and you can buy a turkey who is incapable of breeding naturally at all. I have a suspicion they didn't "start out" that way.
In each part the religious guy gets more and more crazy.
xipheonj 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
His argument about eugenics being an atheist principle is crap. Eugenics has been around since the beginning of humanity and Judaism is a religion, not a race.
Kida001 2 months ago
@shandow15 Hit on the nail.
kloveless82 6 months ago
"it gave birth to science".... duuude what kinda of weed have that priest been smoking? remember gallileos observations of moons around jupiter? remember Copernikus idea of a heliocentric solar system? remember Darwins theory of evolution? oh rigth thats still not accepted by some...
shandow15 6 months ago 2
I have a hard time disliking the father. It is almost anti-climatic to debate an Orthodox Christian in the future. I believe the melodrama and sex appeal is in the fundamentalist or Evangelical Christian. Both gentlemen were very well read and articulate. I enjoyed this whole debate. Like I mentioned before, I was expecting more fireworks, but Matt is able to keep his cool and not discredit his position by not losing his temper.
whhardiek1972 7 months ago
1st question: Was anyone surprised that the Christian had that DERP face because he didn't understand the question?
Dartyn 8 months ago
Matt Rrrrrrroooooaaaard! Bricks were shat.
bb1televator 8 months ago
So IBM gave them some techology. That sounds like a reason to be down on corporate influence in human morality.
MrOttopants 9 months ago
oh, so when hitler says that he does things based on his religious views, hitler is wrong and the priests gets to decide why hitler did it. Thats NONSENSE..
gulbirk 9 months ago
Christianity: "it gave birth to science!" Hey why don't you make a few more unsupported bald assertions! WOW!
redshiftexperiment 9 months ago
I can SAY that I rode a Unicorn on a rainbow till the end where I slew a leprechaun and stole his gold, and that is how I could afford this computer, I can't PROVE it... THEN IT DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN OR DOESN'T EXIST!!!!! TRUTH AND FACT CAN BE PROVEN!!
KidPunkStar101 9 months ago
Sounds more like the priest believes more in atheism than he holds his faith as he doesn't believe in his own faith and his answers reflect that yet regardless at the end of a sentence of what he was basically saying is he doesn't believe in his own faith, then says that he has faith. you can't have it both ways. Further more, he doesn't actually answer of the questions given to him
rustedromeo 11 months ago
This is no longer a case of disagreement. This is a case of someone simply not telling the truth. NOTHING the priest said about Hitler and the sentiment of antisemitism throughout Europe was accurate. It isnt just that he was wrong, but to state that the German population wasnt antisemites until the US introduced the idea is not only absurd, but an obvious deliberate lie.
88Keyz101 11 months ago
@88Keyz101
I don't think he's actually claiming the antisemitism was a US import, but the Eugenics theories hitler adopted were certainly popular in the turn of the century america, including such things as forced sterilisation (3 generations of imbeciles is enough) and much of the dogma was developed by american (but not only american) authors.
He's still a dishonest preacher, because none of the eugenicists were motivated by atheism, nor by proper scientific rigor, but by dogma.
TheBoyFromNorfolk 11 months ago
i bet most of the people there are atheist. ya atheist
FutureScience2012 11 months ago
the priest just talks a load of holy sh*t
theUKatheist 11 months ago
oh come on applause at the end? this is fucking sad.
Loyadd 11 months ago
Eugenics has been done for hundreds of years before Darwin and actually the antisemitism has been going for almost two thousand years.
electorg 1 year ago
Gah! At 6:00 it never fails. They equate evolution=atheism. And then misunderstand (deliberately?) what evolution is. One is a method of speciation, the other is a rejection of the claim. No relation. Then on top of that they use it to claim Hitler was an atheist. Hitler was a Christian and a creationist. His work on eugenics was led in part by his belief in "kinds" and in part by twisting natural selection to have some goal in a creator's mind.
maarakailet1 1 year ago
It must be fun to be able to bend, like a reed in the wind, and never have to commit to a set of guidelines because the religion that you use to justify your beliefs cannot be proven false. This douchebag can answer a question any way he wants to and backpedal and create diversions however he wants to because his faith can't be disproven. It's frustrating.
BloodRedLegend 1 year ago
"It gave birth to science."
FUCK YOU
nemirn 1 year ago
What did the moderator say at 3:25 to warrant the laughter and clapping? I can't make it out.
BlackSabbath86 1 year ago
@BlackSabbath86 He says, "It's not a debate until somebody brings up Hitler."
maarakailet1 1 year ago
@maarakailet1 Thanks. :)
BlackSabbath86 1 year ago
"I think that truth is its own verification."
Brilliant, Hans.
The nature of his god is defined as being undetectable, so the very fact that there is no proof for god is proof that there is one.
CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!
DocBlasto 1 year ago
Gave birth to science my ass!
What about the Ancient Greek society? Or the Roman Empire that ruled over Israel prior and during the apparent time of Jesus? Were those two civilizations illiterate bafoons that just garbled around in the dirt?
AtheisticRevelation 1 year ago
Why do dumb Christians always try to make out that Hitler was an Atheist and that his actions were based on his Atheistic beliefs?
Whatever Hitler Believed, he was most definitely not an Atheist, he clearly believed in some kind of deity, he was raised a Christian, and probably had some cult like beliefs in Norse/Pagan Gods.
This Priest destroyed his credibility by trying to attack Atheism at this level.
xNoReligionx 1 year ago
@xNoReligionx
Even if Hitler was an atheist...so what? He didn't take his evil actions on the basis of atheism. No one bases their actions on what they do not believe. He based his actions on his racist, war-loving, bloodthirsty, narcissistic worldview.
felisleo101 1 year ago
@felisleo101 Of course I agree with you 100%, but the problem is the Theists, being rather simplistic in their thinking believe that Atheism is indeed and ISM and is a kind of evangelical religion. I know it can seem that way since we all get rather fed up with the dogma of religion, and can sound dogmatic ourselves. However, the point is that if we conceded, "so what if Hitler was an Atheist" we fall into the hands of the poorly educated Theists; who will say... "See, his Atheism made him bad!"
xNoReligionx 1 year ago
That mediator is awesome.
"You're not in line. Be quiet"
gmanj88 1 year ago
@gmanj88 But when you line up people, you risk the chance of the fatedness of screwballs making their way to the microphone, which wouldn't happen otherwise if the questioners were sensitively chosen out.
Hanahleia 1 year ago
When he started on the whole "Darwin caused the holocaust" I literally facepalmed.
atheism616 1 year ago 3
yet more demonstration that organized religion relies on "speaking down" to people who haven't taken the time to master rhetorical or rational faculties.
I always go back to this when I hear arguments like this. "You're talking alot, but you're not saying anything."
maybe if I obfuscate my nonexistant point with enough flowery language and metaphor, it will convince people of something that I can never prove?
halalbackgirl 1 year ago
@halalbackgirl "I can't PROVE Jesus to you. I can't do it. But how do I KNOW it's true? Cause I have encountered the risen Christ. That's how I know."
There's no reasoning with this.
DocBlasto 1 year ago
I thought he was stupid till he said he's "encounted the risen christ " now i think he's crazy. Is this really what christians base their belief on ? On an unrelated note: I saw a flying pig the other day i cant prove it though but he said to worship his holy bacon or we will all fry on the pan of hell forever, he also said to give me donations so i can buy a sports car like all the priest have.....
shmonksta 1 year ago
@shmonksta "Is this really what christians base their belief on?" Yes. They claim to have met Christ - of course it's only in an emotionally-charged or "spiritual" sense. They can't define what that means, obviously, as it all just comes out as the same gobbledygook the priest here spewed.
Does the flying pig god mind if we eat his flesh? If so, that's a god could I worship! Bacon is good!
RhunDraco 1 year ago
@RhunDraco He said yes but only on wednesdays because that is the day of the risen pig named "baconator". It shall now be known as judgement day not wednesday. ALL HAIL BACONATOR
shmonksta 1 year ago
Comment removed
shmonksta 1 year ago
Pre scientific time which talks about stuff that came to existence later in "scientific times"?
asaf92 1 year ago
6:25-7:30
MATT WINS!
fAtALiTy!!!!!
0toHero 1 year ago 32
@0toHero lolololo..."FLAWLESS VICTORY".... NICE!!!
legacy917 10 months ago
The applause 7 and a half minutes in was very encouraging for the future of the world.
I remember watching a debate on the existence of god from the 80s and the audience was very edgy and resentful towards the atheist side. The fact that now at least non believers can stand up as such without worrying for their physical safety is fantastic.
Encryptsan 1 year ago 38
@Encryptsan I think its a 80-90% atheist/skeptic crowd..
daemonowner 1 year ago
@Encryptsan I worry about my physical safety :P
Get away from me crazy Christians who want to silence non-believers.
evergreen9375 8 months ago
The father, "You're saying belief in god would suspend reason and logic?"
I LOL'd
evergreen9375 8 months ago
Matt kicks ass!
ThirdRAILKink 1 year ago 2
an avalanche of lies, strawmen, and fallacies from the priest. Matt is right. he gets no beer. interesting "HES LYING" from crowd when priest speaks..and APPLAUSE for matt.
Bockatadi 1 year ago 2
@CrossTheGrigori
Perhaps this fellow should have started with his claim to have met 2000 year old corpse and we could have tuned him out earlier.
Why hide that until the last minute?
proudfootz 1 year ago
Who will rid me of this pestilent priest?
sptfgpn 1 year ago
Okay, if this guy is representing Orthodoxy, then it sounds like a good religion for stoners.
kreskinkun 1 year ago
13:23 "I look at anything that purports to explain the beginnings *as narrative*. And then what I do is I look up the different narratives and decide which is the more compelling."
Two questions: What does "as narrative" mean, and you decide more or less compelling *based upon what criteria*?
MultiSteveB 1 year ago
The friar is amazingly wrong. Narrative is how we lie to ourselves about ourselves; fiction is among the worst offenders, the construction of entire false worlds in which to discover things you already want to believe. Truth begins the moment we question and reject narratives and devise better means for learning about the world that challenge our preconceptions rather than reinforcing them. Want to learn true things about people? Read psychology studies and brain research.
HebaruSan 1 year ago
The ending to this clip made me sad for humanity... Hans used the old "well I can't prove my point but [insert hearsay here]", and then everyone starts clapping. There is a reason such arguments aren't allowed in court: YOU CAN SAY YOU SAW/DID/SAID/ECT ANYTHING. It just simply doesn't count in a debate...
Truthiness231 1 year ago
7: 20 : Time to clap!
beasty513 1 year ago
"What about Communism!" - "QUIET!" - lmao
sinmantyx 1 year ago
It's funny how this religious man keeps holding his hand out in the air, as if to say "This makes my point correct"
He is treating the audience like creatures, the same way you hold your hands up in the air and make loud noises to frighten a bear into thinking you are bigger then you really are.
You see this all the time with the religious people.
It's like he is a conductor, trying very hard to make his orchestra play the tune he wants.
BunWackettBuzzard 1 year ago
7:20 - Matt Dillahunty, I love you.
Andraste77 1 year ago 2
The mental gymnastics are mind-boggling.
Split539 1 year ago 2
God this priest is ignorant
ArcyTheFurryArcanine 1 year ago 2
One group claiming superiority over another group has been happening long before Darwin. One case in point right before Darwin published origins of species was "manifest destiny" So while you could argue, there is plenty of historic evidence to show that way of thinking was around for a long before Darwin so to try to use Darwin as a scapegoat is a dishonest and lazy one.
moety2 1 year ago
@moety2
Yes, the priest seems to want to make us doubt and fear darwin and the theory of evolution by natural selection by making a false connection to racist notions which pre-date Darwin and his theory.
proudfootz 1 year ago
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the *foreigners* who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a *permanent* inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, *your relatives*, must never be treated this way."
So much for false claim of temporary slavery & equality of foreigners.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Yet you're still in denial of Deut 23 : 15-16 This is obviously not the pre-Civil War antebellum South and you can never "read into it" that way.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin
You are in denial of the passage I cited. Stalemate.
Either way it is not germaine what happened *later* or what other people in other places might have thought. I am talking about the Abrahamic covenant.
proudfootz 1 year ago
Jacobse makes an unfounded assertion that Hitler used purposefully Darwinian principles to uphold his 'Atheist eugenics program'. We can only guess at what Hitler was thinking to himself but we know what he pronounced to the masses. We know he said his actions against the Jews was in support of his religious beliefs. We know he never recounted his faith. And we know he never spoke of Darwin. Hitler confessed his motivations in a manner that would hold up in any court of law.
VeritasLiber 1 year ago
I just love it when Christians claim that they gave birth to science: yes, the Greek and Romans didn't do shit. And the Muslims that translated their texts and gave them to pre-Renaissance Christian Europe were useless. If only you guys hadn't neglected or burned Greek and Roman science texts in the first place we might be a far more advanced civilization right now. Also, HOW does this guy ignore 2000 years of Christian anti-semitism, genocide, anti-gayness, anti-everything-minority?
DrMerkwuerdigeliebe3 1 year ago
@DrMerkwuerdigeliebe3 Ethnocentricity and confirmation bias
sinmantyx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
S: [Ethnocentricity and confirmation bias] Where do you get that? And how do you know FOR CERTAIN that you're not guilty of the same?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@DrMerkwuerdigeliebe3
Yes, it's silly of this priest to claim science comes from christianity when scientific avancement virtually stopped when christianity was ascendant in Europe. The call it the Dark Ages for a reason.
It wasn't until pagan literature started becoming available to Europeans that the things that Western society values: self-government, science, freedom of conscience became possible.
proudfootz 1 year ago
stop paying attention to jjmm112. If you haven't figured that out by video 6/9, you're a fucking idiot.
CntrBrdr 1 year ago
@CntrBrdr
People will react as they see him. Not everyone sees him at the same succession of videos. Reacting to tell people to stop reacting is a form of *something* you might not like, too. (just sayin)
VideoMenu 1 year ago
@CntrBrdr .
You have 1 subscriber on Y/T and no comment`s on your own website?.............- I understand American`s would say "Self ownage........". :D
jjmm112 1 year ago
How did I know this? Here's the holy spirit and a personal vision. And because he had a vision mankind needs to accept absolute morality. What utter nonsense.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
Jesus dosed me once!
TheAtomicist42 1 year ago
not going to thiiiiiis colleeeeege!
Existentialisht 1 year ago
Stupid American- "Eugenic`s" come`s from Francis Galton (English- Darwin`s cousin) who invented the term in 1896 - stupid Americunt`s are so full of themselve`s , so sad..................................
jjmm112 1 year ago
@jjmm112
wow, what's your problem... are you 11?
Zuurkool1 1 year ago
@jjmm112
btw, he said eugenics came to germany from the us. not where it started out.
Zuurkool1 1 year ago
@Zuurkool1 .
He stated " In historical term`s" which mean`s "where it came from originally". :)
jjmm112 1 year ago
@jjmm112 That's so bizarrely ironic - that in condemning eugenics, you blame Darwin for eugenics because someone in his family misused his ideas and dreamed it up. I suppose he was genetically similar to his half-cousin, so they obviously are both to blame. Hilarious. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls - I mean "Stupid American"? Why don't you just say, "HEY! Look at me! I want attention!!"
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx If the idea can be misused, and can fool millions in the process, then the idea is flawed.
Kind of like Empiricism.
Either you believe natural selection should continue naturally, or you think that mankind can have a hand in orchestrating their own selection (while calling it natural), even taking it to the social level.
That's the entire point.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin
"If the idea can be misused, and can fool millions in the process, then the idea is flawed."
Like the idea of someone getting their orders from a god.
The bible is full of stories of horrible massacres carried out because someone claimed god told them to do something.
proudfootz 1 year ago
P: [Like the idea of someone getting their orders from a god.]
You're leading from the certainty of no God. If you cannot be certain of God in the general sense, then you cannot eliminate any specific God.
Process too, is logical.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin
If god can be misused, then it is flawed. Sorry, but that's the implication of your post.
proudfootz 1 year ago
P: [If god can be misused, then it is flawed. Sorry, but that's the implication of your post.]
1. If God's non-existence is a certainty, then the ideas are misused as determined by a higher moral law. . .which you cannot determine outside of mankind. But that's your problem.
2. If God does exist, then God cannot be held to blame for those people that misuse His name and eisegetically read their own thoughts into His instructions.
Kind of like you just did with the Bible.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin
God is often misused - the evidence is all around.
Whether it exists or not it is the source of much evil in the world.
As you posted, any idea that can be misused is flawed.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz "Evil" according to what standard?
Any idea that can be misused is flawed. Ideas are not persons. Thus, God's existence is very much a factor here.
And I will hold you to answering my question.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin "If the idea can be misused, and can fool millions in the process, then the idea is flawed." With respect, that's the silliest thing you said since you claimed that you know Christianity is valid because it's the only religion you've bothered to notice that jives with your personal deist-like god concept. I suppose the idea that what you eat is linked to your overall health is likewise flawed. (Oh yeah, and what proudfootz said.)
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx You just stated it was silly, but didn't go on to support why you thought so. I am arguing to the absolute of a personally omnipotent being; not merely the "idea" of God.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin I'm saying it's silly because, by that logic, every stinking idea and concept on the face of the planet is flawed. You aren't arguing for the "idea" of God, but an omnipotent being which is completely different?! Well, Darwin did NOT argue for eugenics. He realized how some people might interpret his ideas of natural selection, to justify social wrongs, and he said it was evil. Then people did it anyway, and 150 years later you are still blaming Darwin.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx I am putting all my chips in here, and you're not aware of that. The absolute of an omnipotent being is personal rather than a mere idea. I am not arguing to the idea of the being, or the practice surrounding Him, but to the being Himself.
Conversely, Darwin is not the sum-total of his ideas. Thus, Darwinism isn't Darwin.
Agreed?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin We agree, but simply because there really is not such thing as "Darwinism" except in the imagination of those who, for whatever crazy reason, want to use his name to describe ideas that he actively opposed or pretend that evolutionary biology is a religion. I'm talking about Darwin because the Fr. talked about Darwin, and basically blamed eugenics and nazism on him, and then for some unknown reason mentioned the Tuskegee experiments. It's like Glen Beck's chalkboard up there.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx
Yes, the priest is just there to preach, not engage in a rational discussion.
They don't seem to care about what the truth is - it's about selling their god to the unsuspecting public.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Okay, let's start there. You obviously don't deny there is such a thing as "Darwinism," do you? I'm not arguing to the Fr. Dillahunty chose a very weak target from the outset. Darwin (the person) can only be blamed for his severe lack of foresight.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin There was Darwinism when there was Lamarkianism - right now - it does not exist. It's like saying Newtonianist or Einsteinist - it makes no sense. Also, we cannot blame Darwin for his lack of foresight because he DID foresee this and warned AGAINST it, calling the idea "evil". The misuse of ideas does not speak to the validity of those ideas. Natural selection happens. You might as well say the sky isn't blue because that leads to bad poetry.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Then both sides shouldn't use the term "Darwinism" at all.
However, this brings natural selection into question. Are you referring to punctuated equilibrium, or. . .?
If the theory itself is evolving, then how can you conclude the theory is settled?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin It's not "settled" - no "theory" is settled. I'm saying that natural selection happens. We observe it happening all the time, that doesn't mean there is nothing additional we might learn about it or that our current ideas will never be revised.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Then why behave as if it were settled? You're saying "natural selection happens" as if it were a settled reality.
Do you often confuse science fiction with reality?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Really? That fact that it happens is settled - the observation of it happening has been made several times. The word THEORY means our understanding of various lines of evidence about a particular topic. Theories change, that doesn't mean that all observations are tenuous.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Now you're flip-flopping. Is something settled because you're certain of it happening, or is there room for initially determining something "happens" to begin with? You do realize you've made natural selection as real as "death," right? Are you seriously proposing that "death" constitutes its own theory?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@sinmantyx However, the "misuse of ideas" may originate from a flaw in the original idea.
If "natural selection" happens, then what's unnatural about the human animal engineering his own natural selection through his own natural abilities?
You see?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin It's the same reason that acknowledging that death happens doesn't lead to state sponsored mass murder.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx So you have concluded that "death" is somehow not a settled reality? Do go on, please.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Reread what I wrote if you care to. I'm really losing my patients with this, because it almost seems as though you are purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx I am not purposefully misunderstanding anything. I am honestly questioning you here. See previous comment.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin If something is observed - independently verified - then it's the case. How we conceptualize the observation, interpret it, and use it to inform larger ideas about how the universe functions is THEORY. Natural selection happens. It's as "settled" as pretty much anything else that is observed and independently verified.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
S: [If something is observed - independently verified - then it's the case] Until observed otherwise. Such is the flaw of inductive reasoning. It even has a formal name, it's called "the problem of induction." But those who blindly buy-into scientism tend to ignore that problem altogether.
If something is "as 'settled' as pretty much anything else that is observed and independently verified," then you're merely selling it as if it were certain when it really isn't.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin THEORY surrounding death and dying is not settled - because scientific theory (be definition) is open to revision. Death is not the theory of death and dying. Natural selection is not the theory of natural selection.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx So you're interpreting everything, including death, according to scientism. If everything is open to revision, then you cannot even behave as if something is settled. You can't even say "'X' happens."
"Natural selection is not the theory of natural selection."
Yet you haven't decided if it's a settled reality or not. "'X' happens" is a certainty statement.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Natural selection is settled - in that IT HAPPENS. Why? How? What does that mean? Can it be predicted? How does it manifest in various contexts? blah blah blah blah Your acting like the universe is much more simple than it is.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx You're making a positive claim for something essentially uncertain according to its own rules. Thus, i have no reason to believe in the nuts and bolts of your philosophical worldview.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@sinmantyx How can you even pretend to have certainty in an epitemological uncertainty? And a systematic one at that?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Typo. That should read, "How can you even pretend to have certainty in an epistemological uncertainty?"
Paulomycin 1 year ago
S: [Natural selection is settled - in that IT HAPPENS.] But "IT HAPPENS" is stated as a certainty. The contradiction here is entirely yours, especially when you bust out the Caps Lock like that. You're emphatic that a systematic uncertainty is = to a certainty.
Hence, scientism. It's science taken to absurd levels.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Look - of course it's not "settled" because we could all be brains in a jar or part of the "The Matrix". However, it's really a waste of time to constantly entertain the notion that the universe constantly lies to us concerning our observations. Natural selection is observed, just like death, taxes, bunny rabbits and pizza. We can observe evolution being driven by environmental conditions. It's as certain as anything else we observe.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Then it's a complete waste of time to spin the argument in your favor "as if" it were settled.
Natural selection is observed? Example? And no arguments to cultivars, please.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Anti-biotic resistant bacteria is sort of a big one. Why on earth would cultivars be a good example - as that is selective breeding of plants. The idea of natural selection is that environmental pressures drive evolution. Nylon-eating bacteria is probably one of the best examples.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Antibiotic resistent bacteria is still bacteria. Nylon-eating bacteria is still bacteria.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin I thought you wanted an example of natural selection. Not one "kind" turning into another "kind" - your bible is showing. :) You can go to "Talkorigins" and look up speciation evidence - I'm not going to do it for you.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx No, you actually have no evidence of speciation.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin How we interpret our observations and put them into the context of other observations and models of natural behavior is "theory". We figure out what the patterns we see in nature are, and use those models to predict future observations. Then we revise and add to our models based on those observations. For example, we don't know everything about how gravity works or ties into subatomic theory, but we observe that matter attracts matter all the time.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx And you're dictating it to me as if it were an absolute rule. Think about the precepts you're droning out. You've never questioned the method you've bought into.
RE: Gravity. You're observing a cause-effect relationship through logic, and not through any direct testable empirical observation.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin You're totally right - the Cavendish experiment never works for me. We joked that it was Cavendish's misogynistic ghost, making the torsion balance deviate strangely. :)
sinmantyx 1 year ago
S: [You're totally right - the Cavendish experiment never works for me.] Why, because it's an indirect measurment?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin That's hilarious really - the idea that I've never questioned the method I've been brought into - apparently you are completely unaware of my upbringing.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Yet to you, the method IS unquestionable. Additionally, you cannot answer my questions (whether here or in my proofs). Sitting there with your fingers in your ears might be a sign of a paradigm shift.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin What questions? What questions of yours have I failed to answer?
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx On what grounds do you disagree with eugenics again?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Because most ways in which the concept has been imposed socially is in directly opposition with the concept of civil liberty, in that it puts too much power in the hands of those whose judgment may be colored by their own prejudices and self-interest. I am not, however, categorically against genetic counseling.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx You're just shifting it and begging the question of "civil liberty." Why is that a valid (i.e. "real") standard?
Also, if you're against "most ways," does that mean you're open to the idea?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Because I have a self-interest in my own life and the life of my family and ancestors (and humans in general for that matter), and I would not like them harmed by someone put into power who decides that they are unfit or who might deprive humanity of needed genetic diversity. "MOST WAYS" - I already told you I wasn't categorically against genetic counseling.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Yet you're arguing to Mill's "harm principle," as well as those you deem worthy of priority. "Self-interest" is right. You're actually aiding and abetting those who would decide they were unfit (especially once they were old enough), in the name of "science."
BTW, counseling is merely one tiny step away from "improvement." Because "defect" can always be redefined.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Yes, I'm a big Mill fan. One problem he had though, was a sense of superiority to other cultures. He had a bit of a white-man's burden. Yeah - your assertion must be true - I'm a big nazi. *sarcasm*
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx No, I'm not concluding you're a Nazi. You don't have to take all of Mill with you, just like I don't have to take all of Descartes. Why? Because I'm arguing to the ideas and not the people.
For the last time.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Then why do you say that I'm aiding eugenics in the name of science? Perhaps I misunderstood you.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx The question of what makes you think you're not flip-flopping between epistemological certainty (scientism) and uncertainty (Popper)?
Or were you just trying to get the last word in to salve your bruised ego?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin I am telling you that the level of uncertainty is low enough when it pertains to repeatable, independently verifiable observations, to make constantly questioning them impractical. What you still don't seem to understand however, is that observations are not theories. When a population changes allele frequency in response to environmental pressure - that is natural selection.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx "low enough" is a subjective quantity.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin We can quantify "uncertainty" in measurement in a strict sense. However, I just haven't done enough LSD to question every observation I make and I think it would be a great coincidence if lots of people had the some hallucinations when they do the same experiments, especially when done independently.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Of course, it could always be a possibility that the universe is simply not as it seems. However, we have little choice but to go with the information we happen to have. I know you think you can reason a belief in God, but do you bother trying to reason how to drive to work in the morning?
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@Paulomycin By the way - epistemological certainty = "scientism"? I have done science, and I teach science. I am not an adherent of "scientism" - nor do I know anyone who self-identifies that way. I really don't know how many actual research scientists need to explain that whole thing before it gets into people's heads. Methodical naturalism does not equal materialism or "Darwinism" or "scientism" or my cat Orion or your mom.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Awesome. Then what are you going to do with all those very real things I pointed to that are not only non-falsifiable, but also necessary for experimentation?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin Use them for practical purpose.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx So you concede that in order to make use of them, then they are all indeed real?
How about absolute? Or certain?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@sinmantyx
It seems 'darwinism' and 'scientism' have been adopted by various people as clubs to beat anyone who tries to apply rational standards to investigation of the world.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Don't forget "evolutionist". At best, it's a way to identify what *exactly* one is opposing. At worst, it's just a way to paint a dehumanizing straw-man to characterize groups. You'll notice that Jacobse spends ALOT of time in these debates characterizing his opponent's views, until finally Matt had enough of it. He equates atheism with naturalism and materialism (not completely reasonable) then goes for nazism (not remotely reasonable.)
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx
One is left to wonder how much of this muddle is simply confusion on Jacobse part or a deliberate attempt to smear his intellectual opponents.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz It's not confusion, as much as dogma. His whole tirade is straight out of the playbook. You might as well just read the Wedge Document. He is saying the same types of things. Matt is giving many of the same arguments that many atheists give. There is nothing new here. Jacobse's insistence that Matt is "different" equals "Matt is different than the play book says atheists are."
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Morality and ethics = non-falsifiable. Math = non-falsifiable. Science as method = non-falsifiable. Math-based logic = non-falsifiable.
So you deny all of these as real? Or do you just "lack belief" in them?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin You're making a judgment about me that your just assuming, because you've decided that I'm an adherent of "scientism". Which, I suppose I would sign up for if I got a free Snuggie.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx LOL. Okay, to be fair I'll back up. Why are you an atheist again?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin I'm an atheist for moral reasons.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx What moral reasons? Let's say you had a problem with the Biblical God on moral grounds (what those would be, I have no idea). You reject the Biblical God, but instead of turning deist, you go full-blown atheist?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin I am very sorry, but I have to leave it at that because I need to sleep. I have class in the morning. It was fun talking to you again. Have a nice night.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Understood. Have a good one!
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Oh, and you ignored my proposal for mankind to self-engineer their own natural selection. Answer me why not.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin No, I didn't ignore it. I said it was silly to couple that idea with the fact that natural selection happens - as if acknowledging natural selection necessarily leads to eugenics.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx Eugenics is an attempt to self-engineer your own natural selection. What's your point again?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin You can't "self-engineer your own natural selection". When you choose who is able to reproduce and thrive, you are circumventing natural selection. For example, people have selectively bred domestic animals for thousands of years and many breeds can no longer even function as animals, much less survive without being supported by the humans that bred them. Unless you think of humans deciding on who makes babies "environmental pressure" what you are saying makes no sense.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
S; [When you choose who is able to reproduce and thrive, you are circumventing natural selection.]
"You" = mankind. The natural abilities that the species has within itself justifies choosing who is able to reproduce and thrive.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin That's the lesson we keep learning. We don't have the ability to decide well who reproduces and thrives because we are incapable of seeing clearly the ramifications of our actions. It's my favorite biological "law" - the law of unintended consequence. However, even if we have a capability, that does not justify us actually using that capability. Thank you, Dr. Strangelove.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
S: [However, even if we have a capability, that does not justify us actually using that capability.]
You have no standard to make that judgment.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin I do have a standard to make that judgment - because I learn from what I know of history and my own personal experience. I have developed empathy, as a very young child, as most people do. I have the power to do a great many things, but I don't do everything that is in my power. That's just silly. You're going under the assumption that atheism ultimately results in nihilism and/or hedonism.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
@sinmantyx "Empathy" is both selective and circumstantial.
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@sinmantyx How is natural selection "circumvented" if man also is part of the natural order, and simply behaving how he is biologically wired to behave?
Paulomycin 1 year ago
@Paulomycin If you include human beings' whim as being "natural selection" then there really isn't much of a question whether or not "natural selection" happens considering you can buy a dog with a pug-nose that makes it difficult to breath and needs to be delivered through a c-section, and you can buy a turkey who is incapable of breeding naturally at all. I have a suspicion they didn't "start out" that way.
sinmantyx 1 year ago