I'm an atheist, I too don't discount the possibility of stef's definition of a god, consciousness without mater, etc, because I don't know and can't prove it, but I wouldn't call it god. I would call it a product of nature we don't know about, life as we don't know it. Maybe you can have consciousness without matter, but it would be a complete unknown, so how can I say I know about a complete unknown. It's very unlikely to exist and if it does I definitely dont beleive in religion,100% on that
Atheists and religious folk are peas in the same pod, IMHO...both deal with absolutes...in essence, the acknowledgement of absence of a diety is the same as believing in one because one way or another, you think you KNOW.
One thing that human history can teach us is that we don't know jackshit
I have to disagree with Stef here. He uses laws of nature as we currently know them, but I would contend that we do not understand a tenth of what there is to truly know about the laws of nature and the true form of the universe. We are barely scratching the surface. In our reality consiousness may require physical form but this discounts the possibilities presented by string theory & M-theory and parallel dimensions which may have other physical realities. That's is why I'm agnostic.
But Stef, if we go with the definition of God you offered at the beginning, and if there were such an all powerful God (the origin of all things and the author of the laws of nature) it sounds rational to admit that that God could violate the laws of nature. Hence there would be contradiction with the existence of a consciousness independent of matter.
I do not know the ultimate nature of reality; God is proposed as an ultimate nature, thus I know not whether God is real. So, to answer the question "does God exist?", I say "I cannot answer that question, and to do so is a delusion that one is knowledgable, where one is ignorant." Do you believe in God? "I cannot judge honestly, but it seems inconsistent to say 'there exists God', so I don't believe per se." Do you not believe in God? Yes, but I cannot say, "God does not exist" either.
a black hole is an inverted god hypothesis. it can be measured, calculated but don't actually exist because singularity can't exist in reality. it's a math trick to cover all the dead ends no one can answer without it.
when you look at the universe you can't see beyond the horizon. floating in the middle of the ocean, all you can see is water. there is a horizon you can't breach. leave a possibility that there is something beyond. we don't know and until we do no one can truly be an atheist.
stef says a square circle can't exist but at the beginning he defined god as a omnipotent, eternal consciousness without material form and later says it has to be a supernatural being that you can measure which is a square circle definition by itself.
a god people usually talk about is the creator god. the fact that stuff exists something had to make the stuff. if people in space are to god what bacteria in petri dish are to a lab technician how can we ever be aware of god/lab technician?
Could someone explain what my belief is? I'm a physicist so naturally I feel if I can't measure something like whether a god exists or not or I can't fit it into a standard model of science, then it doesn't make sense to argue whether it may or may not be true. Like in quantum physics, a particle doesn't have a definite position until you measure it, experiments and models can't show where that particle might be before so it debating about where it was is essentially meaningless.
@dougtraceur It sounds to me like you are an atheist, or someone who accepts that contradictory entities with no physical manifestation do not exist. :)
Another example, I believe that extra-terrestial life exists, I don't KNOW this- hence "theist/ET" agnostic. I don't have to assert no gods, exist to reject a claim I find insufficiently supported w/ evidence. I also don't have to assert Zeus doesn't exist to reject the claim of his existence. There's also another problem which peopel forget, when asking what you BELIEVE- we're not asking what you KNOW.
@IcyWeazel And you're what? Dishonest? I'd think so. Atheist: prefix "a" means "without", theist- belief in gods. Therefore "atheist" is without belief in gods. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive as one of the definitions of agnosticism addresses knowledge. I for example do not believe there is a gold core in the Moon (atheist), but I don't KNOW this for sure (agnostic). There's another defn for agnostic which asserts "it's unknowable", which I think is far fetched.
Does anyone else think the Agnostic doesn't seem to make any sense. Nothing he is saying seems to meaning anything. He is playing words games with no real logic or evidence.
...I'm about to watch this video, but i fear I'm going to have to go through over half an hour of listening to some morons who think that agnosticism and atheism are somehow different.
@mecher Johnson said that,not me.My question is,were is this other universe?We have tools to measure the distance to stars in our universe.But we do not have the tools to measure a figment of the imagiNATION. Sorry your upset......
debating whether who's right or wrong is simply non-sense, IMO. but if we put the a determining factor like "which will lead more to human progress" then maybe we can choose a winner! :)
well, i still don't get it...LOL. maybe you oversimplified it too much or i'm just plain stoopid. :) anyways, what i know so far is i'm just a tiny little portion of time and space. and i doubt that i will ever come up to a conclusion about god. LOL. i don't get it why people debate on this matter...no one will ever win here...because no one really knows. maybe next time the debate should focus more on which would lead more to human progress?belief in god, atheism, agnosticism or whatever ism.
I've listened to 25 minutes so far, and nobody had defined Atheism and Agnosticism. They're not mutually exclusive. I am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't KNOW that there is no god (agnostic), but I don't belive in one (atheism).
If anyone is interested, I have a short video on my channel explaining why agnosticism is irrational and illogical. It's entitled 'Applebee on Why Agnostics should be Atheists'.
agnosticism claims that "we will never know god" (..because if it shows up, then he will be just a regular dude as stef said.)
but when we say "we will never know" with such confidence as if we are so sure of it, then it is like saying "we know that we will never know..." which is no different to what atheism is, "we know there is no god"
confused?LOL. whatevs! focus more on your neighbor people! they need you more...
You're confusing knowledge with belief. Theists 'believe' in a deity while atheists do not 'believe' in a deity. Gnostics claim to 'know' there is a deity while agnostics state they do not 'know' if there is a deity. This is an oversimplification, but I think you get the idea.
What you are calling atheism can be more accurately described as gnostic atheism. Gnostic Atheism is the position where one claims to have knowledge of the non-existence of a deity.
I think the definition of god should simply be defined as "An eternal intelligent force that is responsible for creating all life in the universe". This could be a "man in the sky" or just intelligent energy.
I can see how you can argue against people who believe in the "man in the sky" but there's nothing wrong with theorizing about an intelligent force while taking the stance that maybe it does exist. Nothing wrong with asking yourself "What if?" every once in a while.
if u throw agnosticism in the realm of belife then you are a coward!
agnostic and nostic don't belong in the realm is belief. It's one thing to KNOW and something compleatly differant to BELIEVE.
Most atheist are Agnostic Atheist. example: I don't know if god exist, but according to the descriptions of god, i BELIEVE it is impossible for God to exist.
Can you define truth? If so then you know "the truth". We only have relative truth in human systems because of comparison of known factors, previously defined within tolerance.
Can you define stillness? Is there anything in the universe that is not moving?
Can you define nothing? No true vacuum has ever been observed or created. You only know of it through "something", you can't even "think of nothing", you are either "not thinking" or "thinking of something".
There are so many assumptions in your argument it is hard to put them all down, "consciousness is a product of the brain", there is no such evidence that this is the case. "The concept of god has got to have", why does anything have to conform to our/your definition?
"Has to be consciousness without material form or hes just a dude", what if it is the sum total of existence?
"Can't have gravity without mass"...still looking for the higgs...
Stefbot is a Positivist because he doesn't recognize that new evidence might come to light in the future that we currently don't have. Someone can be innocent of an alleged crime because there is no evidence but new evidence might become available in the future to convict him. So if he believes in principle he would be agnostic. If an alien race becomes advanced enough to live in other dimensions he is by molyneuxs definition a god.
Stephan claims that in-detectability is synonymous with non-existence. This is the same as saying that x-rays did not exist before we could detect them. Nonsense!
Stephan. Your job is to validate how you can know that there is no God. God as defined by a super-material being who created our consciousness and maybe our universe too. This is your job. Can't do it? Then you're an agnostic! The difference really is that simple.
The context of this forum is Freedom and Liberty. In the past, mankind was forced to believe in God. Now it seems that Atheists are trying to force us to not believe in God. Know this ... you are no champions of Freedom and Liberty. You act just like those in history, forcing others to ascribe to beliefs that they don't choose.
I am not persuading ANYONE to believe in God. That's because i am not a Fundamentalist like Stef here. That's right ... Stef is a Fundamentalist Atheist. And LOGIC is your Bible.
I am however, persuading you Fundamentalists Atheist to fuck off and stop pushing your beliefs on others. You are no better than any other Fundamentalist Christian, Muslim or Jew.
@Bodhizzle just because he's constantly using the word logic doesn't mean he's actually using logic. anyone can call their arguments logical and rational but it doesn't make it so.
Fact that atheist no matter how strongly you think you can, you CANNOT prove that a greater being is truly non existent, same with the other side you cant prove that a greater being is actually out there no matter what your deity define's it as. Agnosticism because you cant truly be 100% sure, and that is enough to make a intellectual person keep an open mind
One can be both an atheist and an agnostic. I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in any deities and I'm an agnostic since I do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.
Please explain why you think I'm not an atheist and just an agnostic. You don't seem to understand what the definition of agnostic is. Are you aware that there are theists who are also agnostic? They choose to believe in a deity but admit that it is inherently unknowable. Do you understand the difference between knowing and believing? Atheists by definition don't believe in deities, agnostics simply admit that they do not know of the existence of deities.
@takotheoktopus Okay. I think we're just toying with a disagreement over definitions: An agnostic by my measure is a "plea of ultimate ignorance". As soon as you believe that there is a deity then by my outlook your are religious--whether you believe that a deity can be defined or not.
---Google: "building utopia" + "religion and spirituality" if anyone cares my my blurb on this.
@JoseMejiaV I agree with some of what you said. But you don't have to prove a negative. so it is enough to say that god does not exist if no proof of his existence can be found.
@JoseMejiaV Well I can't be sure there aren't invisible non-smelly turds flying around my head either, nor can I be sure that there aren't someone who's lightning fast standing behind me that I can never see because he's invisible in mirrors and that the rest of the people around me never tell me about. It's just a silly argument, personally I just sort some shit out as bullshit and it makes stuff a lot easier.
@JoseMejiaV By asserting that you can't be 100% sure despite all the logical contradictions, you're putting yourself into the self contradictory philosophical camp of "You can't be sure of anything" which includes the statement that you can't be sure of anything.
You CANNOT prove that pink unicorns are not prancing around my room right now so if I assert that pink unicorns are dancing around my room what would you say?
Atheist argument is that agnostics cant define it but yet call it a god and yet dont take a stance. Well here is the thing with agnosticism, It's a specific that you are choosing that you cant define as existent or not, the specific whatever you believe in.
@GeoffreyTransom The point of the referent is to specify a certain definition. I'm not closing the door on the possibility of a non-material being that can think. However, it would not be conscious using our current definition of consciousness, complete with its referent. We could expand the definition to include non-material thinking entities, but not ex ante.
@GeoffreyTransom Atheism also accepts man's limited comprehension of the universe. As I said, its only about semantics. The problem I have with agnosticism is that it singles out 'god/deity/higher power' as distinct from any other knowledge claim. I reject that on the basis of utter lack of evidence. To use a crude but effective analogy, if one was to be agnostic about God, one would also, by exactly the same argument, be agnostic about fairies, or an infinite variety of nonsense.
Stefan's atheism is like the denial of an angry kid. He just wouldn't listen to any argument. His logic follow from the point that only material beings can have consciousness. Well, I didn't know he was such an expert in the field of matter. Even quantum physicists are way more humble when it comes to what we know about matter. We know exactly shit, and yet atheist are so arrogant, "science has proven this and that". It's arrogance. The more you know the more you realize how little you know.
@Kinkoyaburi Well said! I believe that Stephan's atheism is strenghened by early childhood trauma. He has suffered at the hand of his religious parents, if I remember correctly. To him, it might be impossible to see spirituality in brighter terms. His experience might not be one that comes from a sense of love, wonder and purpose(meaning one's inner truth that is lived). I feel some compassion for him.
@andrewh817 "Just because an idea gives someone a sense of love, wonder, and purpose doesn't make it a helpful idea, or more importantly, a true one."
@Kinkoyaburi Stefan made a rather good point concerning consciousness. Every definition that we have must have a referent in order to be viable. When we speak of consciousness, we are referring to the only beings we know that have consciousness (at least at a certain level): us. To expand this out to non-material entities is simply inaccurate and false. That is all Stefan was saying. Atheism is not sufficient for intellectual honesty. However, it is necessary.
@Kinkoyaburi However I must shy away from Stefan's strong atheist stance. It's a little too absolutist for me. I still believe that agnosticism is 'weak tea atheism', and would have approached the debate from a semantic definitional angle. For instance, one can be a gnostic as well as agnostic atheist, just as one can be a gnostic or agnostic theist. I think this muddies that waters, and so atheism works as a simple rejection of the CLAIM that a God exists.
@Kinkoyaburi Is there any evidence that consciousness exists without matter? Until there is, I don't see any reason to not accept that none does. The difference between a strong atheist and you is that an SA is not mentally preparing for that evidence to show up.
Is there any evidence that my car will turn 180 degrees instantaneously without the wheel being touched or any physical influence from another object? Until there is, I'm not going to be on guard mentally for such an occurrence.
@andrewh817 My point is that we don't know what is "matter" exactly. So far, quantum physicist have theorized about the atom consisting of tens of other particles. It's just a theory that gives a possible explanation about how things work, but it's not at all complete. And yes, there is plenty of evidence that consciousness exist without what we call matter. It's overwhelming. Even if it's 99.9% lies the remaining 0.1% is enough. Your car metaphor is irrelevant.
@Kinkoyaburi I asked for evidence, you said it exists, and you didn't give me any sources or references..... and you said it's overwhelming. I'd still like to see it.
@andrewh817 You want me to write down for you all sites where people share their experiences when they were dead or near-dead for few minutes? It will take a lot of time. Or accounts of the lives of people who were "mediums". Yes, it's easy to dismiss such things as nonsense, and no doubt, the larger portion of it IS nonsense, but the few cases which are true, speak volumes. Statistically it is not possible for ALL those stories to be false. There's your logic that atheists so much love.
@andrewh817 No I didn't say that if there are SO MANY stories then it must be true. I said that statistically at least some of these stories must be true. If there are a million stories about someone dying for a few minutes and conversing with higher power or long diseased relatives, and only one of them is true, then what? You could say: "Well, low blood pressure in the brain causes halluciancions and whatnot." But these cases are included in the million false ones. Not everyone is a liar.
The progression of humanity ran into the most depressing quagmire because of religion. David Rockefeller acknowledges this as a business scheme to keep free minded individuals in a psychological prison while he and his cronies financial rape everybody in the ass. Agnosticism stands on the pussy playing field..."I can't prove that God does not exist." Rubbish. God does not exist. Atheism wins and George Carlin will single-handily prove it.
May scientific authorities have concluded similar things. i am, therefore, existing without matter. And without matter there is empty space, so i am a consciousness existing in space.
An atom is made of 99.9% empty space, and there are vast spaces within every particle, we know, on down. And vast spaces between stars and greater ones between galaxies. Yet, i know i am conscious, and know i exist.
Nothing, is the main constituent, and volume, of matter.
@therealdeal499 I wonder if the theory of a universal creator can be plausible without throwing human traits on it since we are talking about something not human. This kind of attribution is a great pitfall of religion, because rulers could deem they had special favor upon this kind of antropomorphism and could justify their inhuman acts and deeds.
Looking forward to part 2. Atheism and agnosticism are still both just theories. Though atheism has a more firmly rooted position in the realm of logic. Agnosticism "leaves the door open" which I can only see as a "comfort blanket".
Which leads me to the question, "is logic perfect"? Is it enough to spur a race that has been dependant on spirituality for such a long time? Will logic and physics ever reach its goal? Can people go beyond the comfort of their own beliefs?
and therefore made of mostly space. Therefore i am consciousness, without matter.
As matter, is an illusion made from vast space, concentrated in "pockets" or atoms, of a much slower, magnitude of time. There are an infinite number of divisions in one,
@rongrite There is a difference between empty space and almost empty space... Just because something is almost entirely composed of empty space, doesn't mean it is just empty space.
@andrewh817 you write "the very definition of god is 'consciousness without matter.'" perhaps - but by defining "god" you are in effect "measuring" something. (1) that is problem #1 with this video topic, (2) problem #2 is our inability to measure (obviously this channel lacks quants/mathematicians) - a train wreck is complex and cannot be measured. it is chaos and cannot be determined (measured). it can be observed but it cannot be measured bc of the complexity inherent in the event.
I've noticed that when Stef makes a good point Johnson Rice seems to laugh almost every time. I wonder if that's his way of expressing emotional resistance.
the agnostic takes issue with being defined as an intellectual coward, but then goes right ahead and proves intellectual cowardice. "I'm talking to their language" bull. if you can't know it, then u can't talk about it. if you can talk about it with religious buddies, then u did defined it.. and u most certainly defined it out of existence. lol.. how hard is it to understand square circles do not exist... and
Who is god, what is god? If you fail to define it or claim you can't see it does not prove anything. Going further in labeling sheeple as agnostics or atheists or theists simply shows the level of consiousness you are in. That is the same level as the normal religious sheeple. Indoctrinated with assumptions makes you think within the box. 25:25 mental health issues???? BullShit.
I think when defining THEISM the first point is: It is the belief in the supernatural. And secondly, it is believing that there is at least one supernatural "being" with unlimited power. Now why should we even believe in the supernatural if it IS SUPPOSED to defy the laws of nature, physics, maybe even logic? It's a really difficult question, and that's why atheism has a very strong point. Also, amazing argumentation by Stef, i was enjoying this video!
but I can talk about centaurs and griffins even though I don't believe they exist... any fictional character can be debated at length in a literature class. Doesn't mean we believe in their existence.
godz... this guy in the middle is so off. He says he's agnostic so he won't run religious people off in conversation? oh please..... this is like Mike Tyson vs. a 3rd grader. I can't listen to that guy.
"take no stance on whether they believe there is a god or not" HAHAHAHA that's the problem. If someone is in that position, they really are a coward because there is enough info to be had to come to a belief that there aren't any gods. Agnosticism can be a natural bridge from religion to atheism but as stef said, it SHOULD not remain that way.
this is so funny, why does stef choose to cling to such untenable positions? its like he works himself into a corner and then has to utilize every fallacy in the book in order to save face.
it doesnt follow that because something is synonomous with nonexistence that it therefore doesnt exist since something can both be synonmous with nonexistence AND exist. so it doesnt mean anything to say "its the same as nonexistence." it doesnt tell us anything.
"you cant say its indescribable and then describe it"
actually yes you can. something being indescribable doesnt mean you cant attempt a description. its not like your claiming to have some complete description.
@lnd3005 what it says. to try to describe something despite whatever limitations there may be that prevent you from grasping all its aspects. basically i think stef has a problem with people "describing" something which they claim to be ultimately indescribable because of his literalist mentality.
@lnd3005 Read the comment you responded to again. Before you can respond to what someone is saying you have to know what THEY mean by the words they're using not provide your own definition and think you've countered what they were saying at all. I gave one possibility of what could be meant without it being contradictory but it could mean any number of things. It's not necessarily a contradictory statement.
@Prime8888888 stef is question begging. he's saying "consciousness without matter is contradictory because you cant have consciousness without matter."
@andrewh817 same shit, he's still question begging. he's just assuming it can only exist as an effect of matter (i think he says brain). no justification provided. and consciousness being an "effect of matter" doesn't mean there can't be consciousness without matter.
@irreaIist Anyone interested in the truth doesn't misquote something to attempt to prove a point. If you really think your misquoted statement and the actual statement are the same then you are a psuedo-philosopher. Read my comment @Prime8888888 if you're interested in why your viewpoint is silly.
@andrewh817 It wasn't meant to be a direct quote but the essence of what he was saying. but ok here's the full quote verbatim:
"...self contradictory properties like consciousness without matter, you can't have consciousness without matter! consciousness is an effect of the brain the same way that gravity is an effect of mass, you can't have gravity without mass. you cant have consciousness without matter"
It looks like he never said what you quoted him as saying either.
@irreaIist But anyway saying "consciousness is an effect of matter" is just another way of saying "can't have consciousness without matter" since you already assumed consc. can only exist as an effect of matter making it so you can't have consc. without matter. Your analogy rests on this same fallacy and no, pointing out fallacies is not silly.
@Prime8888888 That's the same thing as asking "Why can't you have french fries without potatoes"? Also, just because matter is there does not mean consciousness is there. Rocks have never been demonstrated to make decisions, unconscious or otherwise. If you accept free will, then you realize that humans and many other animals are capable of making decisions. There are observable common links between those things with consciousness and those things without, and those links lie in the brain.
@stefbot before even what god/gods/God were defined to mean, it was off to the races in this vid. There have been many stories real/apocryphal where the natives when presented with a foreigner of significant "technological advance" thought the foreigner as a higher power...god. Does an atheist disallow those natives to think as such. At that moment and until the tech gap is minimized, it is 100% correct for the natives to be believers. This analogy...extends beyond natives and can scale.
I have good reason to believe gods are likely. The way I would define a god is different than the norm. To me any intelligent entity that is a huge order of magnitude more powerful in what it can do via it's physical body (or augmented cyborg or 100% robot body) is a god. And "God" I define as whatever entity is most powerful. It would be silly to assume there is any reason to worship it unless you have a personal encounter with it and it tells you what it will give you in return.
@batmanthe There isn't really a manner in which I could be called an atheist because I think there are observable reasons (quantum science) to believe that the entire universe is interconnected at a plank level and thereby everything is existing as both a single point and not a single point. Because of this I think it's likely possible that some entity can somehow tap into the unity point and then outward from it and thereby influence anything or gain any knowledge.
@batmanthe Great points....before even what god/gods/God were defined to mean, it was off to the races in this vid. There have been many stories real/apocryphal where the natives when presented with a foreigner of significant "technological advance" thought the foreigner as a higher power...god. Does an atheist disallow those natives to think as such. At that moment and until the tech gap is minimized, it is 100% correct for the natives to be believers. This analogy...extends beyond natives.
@andyissemicool I agree with you. I think there are logic boundaries/limits for defining words. If I define a cow as an aquatic creature with scales. That's totally outside of bounds for defining that animal over there laying in the grass. But to define a god is hard for obvious reasons. When it comes to the word "God" just about the only thing everyone can agree on is that a very powerful wide reaching intelligence of some kind. And my thought of what a god is fits within that category.
Could it be possible to have Mass without Gravity? or Matter without Consciousness?
bobthechipmonk 1 month ago
I'm an atheist, I too don't discount the possibility of stef's definition of a god, consciousness without mater, etc, because I don't know and can't prove it, but I wouldn't call it god. I would call it a product of nature we don't know about, life as we don't know it. Maybe you can have consciousness without matter, but it would be a complete unknown, so how can I say I know about a complete unknown. It's very unlikely to exist and if it does I definitely dont beleive in religion,100% on that
jamesregmorris 1 month ago
Atheists and religious folk are peas in the same pod, IMHO...both deal with absolutes...in essence, the acknowledgement of absence of a diety is the same as believing in one because one way or another, you think you KNOW.
One thing that human history can teach us is that we don't know jackshit
maxpower789z 2 months ago
I have to disagree with Stef here. He uses laws of nature as we currently know them, but I would contend that we do not understand a tenth of what there is to truly know about the laws of nature and the true form of the universe. We are barely scratching the surface. In our reality consiousness may require physical form but this discounts the possibilities presented by string theory & M-theory and parallel dimensions which may have other physical realities. That's is why I'm agnostic.
unak78 3 months ago
But Stef, if we go with the definition of God you offered at the beginning, and if there were such an all powerful God (the origin of all things and the author of the laws of nature) it sounds rational to admit that that God could violate the laws of nature. Hence there would be contradiction with the existence of a consciousness independent of matter.
americaninkorea 4 months ago
read the definitions of the words and pick one. no need for debate. everyone is agnostic!!!
wormusicisticsound 5 months ago
Panentheism is really the belief in an ultimate totality which one names God, without interjection of the supernatural or theism.
osheaad 7 months ago
I do not know the ultimate nature of reality; God is proposed as an ultimate nature, thus I know not whether God is real. So, to answer the question "does God exist?", I say "I cannot answer that question, and to do so is a delusion that one is knowledgable, where one is ignorant." Do you believe in God? "I cannot judge honestly, but it seems inconsistent to say 'there exists God', so I don't believe per se." Do you not believe in God? Yes, but I cannot say, "God does not exist" either.
osheaad 7 months ago
a black hole is an inverted god hypothesis. it can be measured, calculated but don't actually exist because singularity can't exist in reality. it's a math trick to cover all the dead ends no one can answer without it.
when you look at the universe you can't see beyond the horizon. floating in the middle of the ocean, all you can see is water. there is a horizon you can't breach. leave a possibility that there is something beyond. we don't know and until we do no one can truly be an atheist.
kmica2008 9 months ago
stef says a square circle can't exist but at the beginning he defined god as a omnipotent, eternal consciousness without material form and later says it has to be a supernatural being that you can measure which is a square circle definition by itself.
a god people usually talk about is the creator god. the fact that stuff exists something had to make the stuff. if people in space are to god what bacteria in petri dish are to a lab technician how can we ever be aware of god/lab technician?
kmica2008 9 months ago
Could someone explain what my belief is? I'm a physicist so naturally I feel if I can't measure something like whether a god exists or not or I can't fit it into a standard model of science, then it doesn't make sense to argue whether it may or may not be true. Like in quantum physics, a particle doesn't have a definite position until you measure it, experiments and models can't show where that particle might be before so it debating about where it was is essentially meaningless.
dougtraceur 9 months ago
@dougtraceur It sounds to me like you are an atheist, or someone who accepts that contradictory entities with no physical manifestation do not exist. :)
stefbot 9 months ago
@dougtraceur Have you looked at Ignosticism.
ALN27 17 hours ago
can agnostics be agnostic about unicorns? Santa Clause? or any other mythical beings/creatures?
akaten916 10 months ago
Lets be honest. The guy on the right mostly believes in Doritos
alistairproductions 10 months ago
DMT= near death religious experiences.
originalmiller 10 months ago
stefan wins hand down for me.
modify91 11 months ago
Another example, I believe that extra-terrestial life exists, I don't KNOW this- hence "theist/ET" agnostic. I don't have to assert no gods, exist to reject a claim I find insufficiently supported w/ evidence. I also don't have to assert Zeus doesn't exist to reject the claim of his existence. There's also another problem which peopel forget, when asking what you BELIEVE- we're not asking what you KNOW.
TurboDally 11 months ago
Athiests:
a) actually agnostics who say "atheist" because they're ill-informed, want to sound cool, or want to fit into an "atheist" group or culture
or b) stupid people almost as bad as fundamental christians/muslims/etc.
IcyWeazel 11 months ago
@IcyWeazel And you're what? Dishonest? I'd think so. Atheist: prefix "a" means "without", theist- belief in gods. Therefore "atheist" is without belief in gods. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive as one of the definitions of agnosticism addresses knowledge. I for example do not believe there is a gold core in the Moon (atheist), but I don't KNOW this for sure (agnostic). There's another defn for agnostic which asserts "it's unknowable", which I think is far fetched.
TurboDally 11 months ago
Does anyone else think the Agnostic doesn't seem to make any sense. Nothing he is saying seems to meaning anything. He is playing words games with no real logic or evidence.
Nyax727 1 year ago
Stef intellectually stomped the agnostic, but he was actually open to listen which is great!
Paralyt1c 1 year ago
The atheist is just playing with words concerning the definition of a "god".
marshalljman 1 year ago
lets keep the door open for leprechauns, santa clause, unicorns and mermaids too.
rmcc0002 1 year ago
...I'm about to watch this video, but i fear I'm going to have to go through over half an hour of listening to some morons who think that agnosticism and atheism are somehow different.
thechatpal91 1 year ago
@mecher Johnson said that,not me.My question is,were is this other universe?We have tools to measure the distance to stars in our universe.But we do not have the tools to measure a figment of the imagiNATION. Sorry your upset......
crapalator 1 year ago
'what if we currently do not have the capability to measure another universe" ???? time stamp @ 37:50
How can it exist then ?The other universe? We would have it measured by now if there was something tangible to measure.......
crapalator 1 year ago
@crapalator sorry @18:00
crapalator 1 year ago
@crapalator
Really? That's the most retarded question ever.
"We would have it measured by now if there was something tangible to measure....... "
Bull fucking shit. It's another universe, wtf do you not understand?
We can barely leave the planet and you think we should be able to even measure anything about another universe? Are you kidding me?
mecher3k 1 year ago
These are some of the best arguments for the existence of God I've heard in a long time.
evangelical1 1 year ago
debating whether who's right or wrong is simply non-sense, IMO. but if we put the a determining factor like "which will lead more to human progress" then maybe we can choose a winner! :)
mysticalleyinc 1 year ago
well, i still don't get it...LOL. maybe you oversimplified it too much or i'm just plain stoopid. :) anyways, what i know so far is i'm just a tiny little portion of time and space. and i doubt that i will ever come up to a conclusion about god. LOL. i don't get it why people debate on this matter...no one will ever win here...because no one really knows. maybe next time the debate should focus more on which would lead more to human progress?belief in god, atheism, agnosticism or whatever ism.
mysticalleyinc 1 year ago
I've listened to 25 minutes so far, and nobody had defined Atheism and Agnosticism. They're not mutually exclusive. I am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't KNOW that there is no god (agnostic), but I don't belive in one (atheism).
Doubter5 1 year ago 6
@Doubter5
Exactly what I've pointed out with my previous comments. I too am an Agnostic Atheist.
takotheoktopus 1 year ago
If anyone is interested, I have a short video on my channel explaining why agnosticism is irrational and illogical. It's entitled 'Applebee on Why Agnostics should be Atheists'.
sgapplebee 1 year ago
this is how i understand this:
agnosticism claims that "we will never know god" (..because if it shows up, then he will be just a regular dude as stef said.)
but when we say "we will never know" with such confidence as if we are so sure of it, then it is like saying "we know that we will never know..." which is no different to what atheism is, "we know there is no god"
confused?LOL. whatevs! focus more on your neighbor people! they need you more...
mysticalleyinc 1 year ago
@mysticalleyinc
You're confusing knowledge with belief. Theists 'believe' in a deity while atheists do not 'believe' in a deity. Gnostics claim to 'know' there is a deity while agnostics state they do not 'know' if there is a deity. This is an oversimplification, but I think you get the idea.
What you are calling atheism can be more accurately described as gnostic atheism. Gnostic Atheism is the position where one claims to have knowledge of the non-existence of a deity.
takotheoktopus 1 year ago
I think the definition of god should simply be defined as "An eternal intelligent force that is responsible for creating all life in the universe". This could be a "man in the sky" or just intelligent energy.
I can see how you can argue against people who believe in the "man in the sky" but there's nothing wrong with theorizing about an intelligent force while taking the stance that maybe it does exist. Nothing wrong with asking yourself "What if?" every once in a while.
chadyo99 1 year ago
proper titles: Agnostic Atheist - Agnostic Theist - Nostic Atheist - Nostic Theist
Nostic Atheist and Theist are concidered "Dogmatic"
Jayjon81 1 year ago
if u throw agnosticism in the realm of belife then you are a coward!
agnostic and nostic don't belong in the realm is belief. It's one thing to KNOW and something compleatly differant to BELIEVE.
Most atheist are Agnostic Atheist. example: I don't know if god exist, but according to the descriptions of god, i BELIEVE it is impossible for God to exist.
WHO can KNOW for certain about anything?
Jayjon81 1 year ago
@Jayjon81 please forgive my typos lol
I always get upset when ppl use agnostic as a title, when it is clearly a word that just means "I do not know". It has nothing to do with Belief.
"it's one thing to know and something else to believe"
Jayjon81 1 year ago
2
The problem is one of definition.
Can you define truth? If so then you know "the truth". We only have relative truth in human systems because of comparison of known factors, previously defined within tolerance.
Can you define stillness? Is there anything in the universe that is not moving?
Can you define nothing? No true vacuum has ever been observed or created. You only know of it through "something", you can't even "think of nothing", you are either "not thinking" or "thinking of something".
chocomalk 1 year ago
I disagree about your assumption that you can't have consciousness without matter. That IS an assumption. A major one at that.
Antilli 1 year ago
1
God is not the proper term, it should be creator.
There are so many assumptions in your argument it is hard to put them all down, "consciousness is a product of the brain", there is no such evidence that this is the case. "The concept of god has got to have", why does anything have to conform to our/your definition?
"Has to be consciousness without material form or hes just a dude", what if it is the sum total of existence?
"Can't have gravity without mass"...still looking for the higgs...
chocomalk 1 year ago
Stefbot is a Positivist because he doesn't recognize that new evidence might come to light in the future that we currently don't have. Someone can be innocent of an alleged crime because there is no evidence but new evidence might become available in the future to convict him. So if he believes in principle he would be agnostic. If an alien race becomes advanced enough to live in other dimensions he is by molyneuxs definition a god.
lemdixon01 1 year ago
Stephan claims that in-detectability is synonymous with non-existence. This is the same as saying that x-rays did not exist before we could detect them. Nonsense!
andrewada 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrewada 1 year ago
What is or is not dangerous has nothing to do with the truth. This is a social-pragmatic argument.
Atheists do claim knowledge over the unknowable and that is intellectually incorrect - whether we are better off that way or not.
andrewada 1 year ago
Stephan. Your job is to validate how you can know that there is no God. God as defined by a super-material being who created our consciousness and maybe our universe too. This is your job. Can't do it? Then you're an agnostic! The difference really is that simple.
The truth is we. don't. know.
andrewada 1 year ago
"You can't have consciousness without matter".
How do you know Stephan? You don't. Is the brain the consciousness itself, or is it a terminal that the "spirit" merely looks through? We don't know.
We can only see what we can see - we can't see what we can't see. Doesn't mean that that which we can't see does not exist.
andrewada 1 year ago
the guy on the left is a dick
superbacon321 1 year ago
This fat nervous filled potato shack moronic idiot is unprepared to defend his belief's, THIS IS NOT THE FACE OF AGNOSTICISM
JoseMejiaV 1 year ago
@JoseMejiaV "THIS IS NOT THE FACE OF AGNOSTICISM"
Exactly. Stef has a living breathing straw man. :)
captvanhalen 1 year ago
@JoseMejiaV Please report to a psychologist immediately.
queensNY2185 1 year ago
The context of this forum is Freedom and Liberty. In the past, mankind was forced to believe in God. Now it seems that Atheists are trying to force us to not believe in God. Know this ... you are no champions of Freedom and Liberty. You act just like those in history, forcing others to ascribe to beliefs that they don't choose.
captvanhalen 1 year ago
@captvanhalen He isn't forcing anyone. He is arguing a point, trying to convince people through logic.
Bodhizzle 1 year ago
@Bodhizzle Perhaps i should have said PERSUADING.
I am not persuading ANYONE to believe in God. That's because i am not a Fundamentalist like Stef here. That's right ... Stef is a Fundamentalist Atheist. And LOGIC is your Bible.
I am however, persuading you Fundamentalists Atheist to fuck off and stop pushing your beliefs on others. You are no better than any other Fundamentalist Christian, Muslim or Jew.
captvanhalen 1 year ago
@captvanhalen k
Bodhizzle 1 year ago
@Bodhizzle just because he's constantly using the word logic doesn't mean he's actually using logic. anyone can call their arguments logical and rational but it doesn't make it so.
irreaIist 1 year ago 5
Fact that atheist no matter how strongly you think you can, you CANNOT prove that a greater being is truly non existent, same with the other side you cant prove that a greater being is actually out there no matter what your deity define's it as. Agnosticism because you cant truly be 100% sure, and that is enough to make a intellectual person keep an open mind
JoseMejiaV 1 year ago 9
@JoseMejiaV
One can be both an atheist and an agnostic. I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in any deities and I'm an agnostic since I do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.
takotheoktopus 1 year ago
@takotheoktopus Nope. You're just an agnostic. Agnostics by definition don't believe in deities - just like you.
andrewada 1 year ago
@andrewada
Please explain why you think I'm not an atheist and just an agnostic. You don't seem to understand what the definition of agnostic is. Are you aware that there are theists who are also agnostic? They choose to believe in a deity but admit that it is inherently unknowable. Do you understand the difference between knowing and believing? Atheists by definition don't believe in deities, agnostics simply admit that they do not know of the existence of deities.
takotheoktopus 1 year ago
@takotheoktopus Okay. I think we're just toying with a disagreement over definitions: An agnostic by my measure is a "plea of ultimate ignorance". As soon as you believe that there is a deity then by my outlook your are religious--whether you believe that a deity can be defined or not.
---Google: "building utopia" + "religion and spirituality" if anyone cares my my blurb on this.
andrewada 1 year ago
@JoseMejiaV
You can be both an atheist and a agnostic you retard.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@JoseMejiaV
Question: Do you believe in God? If you answer anything but "yes" to that question, then you are an atheist by default.
felisleo101 1 year ago
@JoseMejiaV I agree with some of what you said. But you don't have to prove a negative. so it is enough to say that god does not exist if no proof of his existence can be found.
OGthegame 1 year ago
@JoseMejiaV
-
Can you disprove the easter bunny? No? Oh!
Edbrad 1 year ago
@JoseMejiaV Well I can't be sure there aren't invisible non-smelly turds flying around my head either, nor can I be sure that there aren't someone who's lightning fast standing behind me that I can never see because he's invisible in mirrors and that the rest of the people around me never tell me about. It's just a silly argument, personally I just sort some shit out as bullshit and it makes stuff a lot easier.
kuronity 1 year ago
@JoseMejiaV I also cannot prove that the FSM does not exist. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
theclinger 1 year ago
@JoseMejiaV By asserting that you can't be 100% sure despite all the logical contradictions, you're putting yourself into the self contradictory philosophical camp of "You can't be sure of anything" which includes the statement that you can't be sure of anything.
MrGarky 10 months ago
@JoseMejiaV
You CANNOT prove that pink unicorns are not prancing around my room right now so if I assert that pink unicorns are dancing around my room what would you say?
originalmiller 10 months ago
@JoseMejiaV
The burden of proof is generally on the person making the claim.
Sklujan 10 months ago
Atheist argument is that agnostics cant define it but yet call it a god and yet dont take a stance. Well here is the thing with agnosticism, It's a specific that you are choosing that you cant define as existent or not, the specific whatever you believe in.
JoseMejiaV 1 year ago
Those radio guys are so out of their league here that this isn't at all stimulating or even fun to watch.
Neeebious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists are illogical dummies.
There are only two options:
(1) Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source (the MIND of GOD)
(2) Intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.
To their embarrassment, Atheists are stuck with option no.2 ---- a position that can NOT be logically or scientifically defended.
FUNNY but TRUE: Atheists maintain that logic arises out of meaningless random chaos and is continually evolving via meaningless random chaos.
Class dismissed.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@GeoffreyTransom The point of the referent is to specify a certain definition. I'm not closing the door on the possibility of a non-material being that can think. However, it would not be conscious using our current definition of consciousness, complete with its referent. We could expand the definition to include non-material thinking entities, but not ex ante.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@GeoffreyTransom Atheism also accepts man's limited comprehension of the universe. As I said, its only about semantics. The problem I have with agnosticism is that it singles out 'god/deity/higher power' as distinct from any other knowledge claim. I reject that on the basis of utter lack of evidence. To use a crude but effective analogy, if one was to be agnostic about God, one would also, by exactly the same argument, be agnostic about fairies, or an infinite variety of nonsense.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
Stefan's atheism is like the denial of an angry kid. He just wouldn't listen to any argument. His logic follow from the point that only material beings can have consciousness. Well, I didn't know he was such an expert in the field of matter. Even quantum physicists are way more humble when it comes to what we know about matter. We know exactly shit, and yet atheist are so arrogant, "science has proven this and that". It's arrogance. The more you know the more you realize how little you know.
Kinkoyaburi 1 year ago
@Kinkoyaburi Well said! I believe that Stephan's atheism is strenghened by early childhood trauma. He has suffered at the hand of his religious parents, if I remember correctly. To him, it might be impossible to see spirituality in brighter terms. His experience might not be one that comes from a sense of love, wonder and purpose(meaning one's inner truth that is lived). I feel some compassion for him.
Thoreau2006 1 year ago
@Thoreau2006 Just because an idea gives someone a sense of love, wonder, and purpose doesn't make it a helpful idea, or more importantly, a true one.
andrewh817 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@andrewh817 "Just because an idea gives someone a sense of love, wonder, and purpose doesn't make it a helpful idea, or more importantly, a true one."
Wow. You were not loved as a child, were you?
captvanhalen 1 year ago
@Kinkoyaburi Stefan made a rather good point concerning consciousness. Every definition that we have must have a referent in order to be viable. When we speak of consciousness, we are referring to the only beings we know that have consciousness (at least at a certain level): us. To expand this out to non-material entities is simply inaccurate and false. That is all Stefan was saying. Atheism is not sufficient for intellectual honesty. However, it is necessary.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@Kinkoyaburi However I must shy away from Stefan's strong atheist stance. It's a little too absolutist for me. I still believe that agnosticism is 'weak tea atheism', and would have approached the debate from a semantic definitional angle. For instance, one can be a gnostic as well as agnostic atheist, just as one can be a gnostic or agnostic theist. I think this muddies that waters, and so atheism works as a simple rejection of the CLAIM that a God exists.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@Kinkoyaburi Is there any evidence that consciousness exists without matter? Until there is, I don't see any reason to not accept that none does. The difference between a strong atheist and you is that an SA is not mentally preparing for that evidence to show up.
Is there any evidence that my car will turn 180 degrees instantaneously without the wheel being touched or any physical influence from another object? Until there is, I'm not going to be on guard mentally for such an occurrence.
andrewh817 1 year ago
@andrewh817 My point is that we don't know what is "matter" exactly. So far, quantum physicist have theorized about the atom consisting of tens of other particles. It's just a theory that gives a possible explanation about how things work, but it's not at all complete. And yes, there is plenty of evidence that consciousness exist without what we call matter. It's overwhelming. Even if it's 99.9% lies the remaining 0.1% is enough. Your car metaphor is irrelevant.
Kinkoyaburi 1 year ago
@Kinkoyaburi I asked for evidence, you said it exists, and you didn't give me any sources or references..... and you said it's overwhelming. I'd still like to see it.
andrewh817 1 year ago
@andrewh817 You want me to write down for you all sites where people share their experiences when they were dead or near-dead for few minutes? It will take a lot of time. Or accounts of the lives of people who were "mediums". Yes, it's easy to dismiss such things as nonsense, and no doubt, the larger portion of it IS nonsense, but the few cases which are true, speak volumes. Statistically it is not possible for ALL those stories to be false. There's your logic that atheists so much love.
Kinkoyaburi 1 year ago
@Kinkoyaburi Argument from popularity - if it's popular it must be true. That's a logical fallacy.
andrewh817 1 year ago
@andrewh817 No I didn't say that if there are SO MANY stories then it must be true. I said that statistically at least some of these stories must be true. If there are a million stories about someone dying for a few minutes and conversing with higher power or long diseased relatives, and only one of them is true, then what? You could say: "Well, low blood pressure in the brain causes halluciancions and whatnot." But these cases are included in the million false ones. Not everyone is a liar.
Kinkoyaburi 1 year ago
@Kinkoyaburi diseased = deceased, mistake, sorry
Kinkoyaburi 1 year ago
Stefan you always makes me laugh with the way you debate topics. I mean your incredibly intelligent and funny, that's hard to come by!
PandaValentine 1 year ago
Having watched your previous e-mail response video, I thought the part about the "open minds" was hilarious.
fumanchu1k 1 year ago
The progression of humanity ran into the most depressing quagmire because of religion. David Rockefeller acknowledges this as a business scheme to keep free minded individuals in a psychological prison while he and his cronies financial rape everybody in the ass. Agnosticism stands on the pussy playing field..."I can't prove that God does not exist." Rubbish. God does not exist. Atheism wins and George Carlin will single-handily prove it.
TheJovanist 1 year ago
there was a 2nd hr of this...!!!! 1 was enough
qncsc 1 year ago
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
afferch 1 year ago
Matter, as we know it, does not exist.
May scientific authorities have concluded similar things. i am, therefore, existing without matter. And without matter there is empty space, so i am a consciousness existing in space.
An atom is made of 99.9% empty space, and there are vast spaces within every particle, we know, on down. And vast spaces between stars and greater ones between galaxies. Yet, i know i am conscious, and know i exist.
Nothing, is the main constituent, and volume, of matter.
rongrite 1 year ago
Atheists are people who are far too arrogant for their own good and this stefan guy is a good example of one .
Some people do not seem to understand that not everything is physically visible to us or meant to be .
Our minds are nothing as great or as big as that of God's , at the end of the day God simply created us in a lesser form of him , NOT EQUAL.
You want proof of God , look around you at nature , look at people loving each other , love is a gift from God , i could go on and on here .
therealdeal499 1 year ago
@therealdeal499 I wonder if the theory of a universal creator can be plausible without throwing human traits on it since we are talking about something not human. This kind of attribution is a great pitfall of religion, because rulers could deem they had special favor upon this kind of antropomorphism and could justify their inhuman acts and deeds.
Thoreau2006 1 year ago
Looking forward to part 2. Atheism and agnosticism are still both just theories. Though atheism has a more firmly rooted position in the realm of logic. Agnosticism "leaves the door open" which I can only see as a "comfort blanket".
Which leads me to the question, "is logic perfect"? Is it enough to spur a race that has been dependant on spirituality for such a long time? Will logic and physics ever reach its goal? Can people go beyond the comfort of their own beliefs?
WyldOrbit 1 year ago
If consciousness can only exist with matter,
then, what is matter?
Matter is full of space.
The smaller you look, the more space.
and if time gets slower, a space gets bigger.
Matter is made of vast, empty space,
and therefore made of mostly space. Therefore i am consciousness, without matter.
As matter, is an illusion made from vast space, concentrated in "pockets" or atoms, of a much slower, magnitude of time. There are an infinite number of divisions in one,
when one is infinite.
rongrite 1 year ago
@rongrite There is a difference between empty space and almost empty space... Just because something is almost entirely composed of empty space, doesn't mean it is just empty space.
hydralisk125 1 year ago
I finished watching, then relised there were no calls.
BaDSPLeR 1 year ago
@andrewh817 you write "the very definition of god is 'consciousness without matter.'" perhaps - but by defining "god" you are in effect "measuring" something. (1) that is problem #1 with this video topic, (2) problem #2 is our inability to measure (obviously this channel lacks quants/mathematicians) - a train wreck is complex and cannot be measured. it is chaos and cannot be determined (measured). it can be observed but it cannot be measured bc of the complexity inherent in the event.
qncsc 1 year ago
@qncsc Actually, I'm using a word that I didn't invent. I'm not measuring anything, I'm referring to an idea that someone else came up with.
andrewh817 1 year ago
I've noticed that when Stef makes a good point Johnson Rice seems to laugh almost every time. I wonder if that's his way of expressing emotional resistance.
andrewh817 1 year ago
the agnostic takes issue with being defined as an intellectual coward, but then goes right ahead and proves intellectual cowardice. "I'm talking to their language" bull. if you can't know it, then u can't talk about it. if you can talk about it with religious buddies, then u did defined it.. and u most certainly defined it out of existence. lol.. how hard is it to understand square circles do not exist... and
princejerome2008 1 year ago
Part 2 please
maxiflo 1 year ago
Comment removed
maxiflo 1 year ago
I FUCKING LOVE ITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
tunezindahouse 1 year ago
hahahahaha fucking greaat! stef! federal reserve he's the funniest man alive what a swag o hahahahhahahahaha =D!
tunezindahouse 1 year ago
clear!
tunezindahouse 1 year ago
"Strong Agnosticism" as he defines it sounds exactly like Deism.
RLore18 1 year ago
what is a crisis of events brings anarchy <<< funny shit
MirageScience 1 year ago
Who is god, what is god? If you fail to define it or claim you can't see it does not prove anything. Going further in labeling sheeple as agnostics or atheists or theists simply shows the level of consiousness you are in. That is the same level as the normal religious sheeple. Indoctrinated with assumptions makes you think within the box. 25:25 mental health issues???? BullShit.
sowiesosso 1 year ago
the guy in the middle is irrational too much "I feel" and not enough "questioning own nonsense"
LastReplaySC 1 year ago
Where's the next one?!
CatzDaLegit 1 year ago
can't wait for part 2
OscarVega92 1 year ago
I'd love to watch the conclusion of this discussion.... so, where can I find the rest of this recording?
Info4People 1 year ago
I think when defining THEISM the first point is: It is the belief in the supernatural. And secondly, it is believing that there is at least one supernatural "being" with unlimited power. Now why should we even believe in the supernatural if it IS SUPPOSED to defy the laws of nature, physics, maybe even logic? It's a really difficult question, and that's why atheism has a very strong point. Also, amazing argumentation by Stef, i was enjoying this video!
Anonymous247n 1 year ago
I want hour 2!!! :)
jaminunit 1 year ago
atheist believe in god too. You can't hate/ debate/ or talk about something if you don't believe it.
tankieu3 1 year ago
@tankieu3 ridiculous.
nijaexhile3 1 year ago
@tankieu3 You mean, atheists believe in God...as a concept? As an ideea? Yes, but not more than that.
unclesamfatg 1 year ago
@tankieu3
but I can talk about centaurs and griffins even though I don't believe they exist... any fictional character can be debated at length in a literature class. Doesn't mean we believe in their existence.
benjis007 1 year ago
Wow. That was just unfair.
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
Sometimes I wanna' download debates like this and just focus on Stef's face when the other person is taking their turn to speak.
Fetchdafish 1 year ago
The dude in the middle rambles. he doesnt seem to think before he talks.
sundancekid122 1 year ago
godz... this guy in the middle is so off. He says he's agnostic so he won't run religious people off in conversation? oh please..... this is like Mike Tyson vs. a 3rd grader. I can't listen to that guy.
TruthSurge 1 year ago 2
"take no stance on whether they believe there is a god or not" HAHAHAHA that's the problem. If someone is in that position, they really are a coward because there is enough info to be had to come to a belief that there aren't any gods. Agnosticism can be a natural bridge from religion to atheism but as stef said, it SHOULD not remain that way.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
this is so funny, why does stef choose to cling to such untenable positions? its like he works himself into a corner and then has to utilize every fallacy in the book in order to save face.
irreaIist 1 year ago
it doesnt follow that because something is synonomous with nonexistence that it therefore doesnt exist since something can both be synonmous with nonexistence AND exist. so it doesnt mean anything to say "its the same as nonexistence." it doesnt tell us anything.
irreaIist 1 year ago
Good show Stefan.
alfiskoxp 1 year ago
Rock on Stef!
overlordsshadow 1 year ago
this was kinda lame. i really wish you would stop getting into religion, it's a boring topic.
haterdrinkinhaterade 1 year ago
"im just approaching this from a philosophically rigorous standpoint" - stef
cheap rhetoric and laughably untrue.
irreaIist 1 year ago
"you cant say its indescribable and then describe it"
actually yes you can. something being indescribable doesnt mean you cant attempt a description. its not like your claiming to have some complete description.
irreaIist 1 year ago
@irreaIist
What does "attempt a description" mean?
lnd3005 1 year ago
@lnd3005 what it says. to try to describe something despite whatever limitations there may be that prevent you from grasping all its aspects. basically i think stef has a problem with people "describing" something which they claim to be ultimately indescribable because of his literalist mentality.
irreaIist 1 year ago
@irreaIist
"Try to describe?" If something comes out of your mouth, then you have described.
Indescribable means you can't grasp any of its aspects. Not that you can't grasp all of them at once, which is impossible for most things.
lnd3005 1 year ago
@lnd3005 but what matters is what they mean by indescribable otherwise you just end up strawmanning.
irreaIist 1 year ago
@irreaIist
If something is not describable, then one cannot describe even one of its aspects. Meaning one cannot grasp even one of its aspects.
lnd3005 1 year ago
@lnd3005 Read the comment you responded to again. Before you can respond to what someone is saying you have to know what THEY mean by the words they're using not provide your own definition and think you've countered what they were saying at all. I gave one possibility of what could be meant without it being contradictory but it could mean any number of things. It's not necessarily a contradictory statement.
irreaIist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@irreaIist
Words have specific definitions, despite what you might like.
lnd3005 1 year ago
wait, how does this end??? I swear Johnson was just about to blow Stef's socks off with the ultimate god send argument.
Shacktuube 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shacktuube 1 year ago
ha i remember this. total embarrassment for stef. i thought that was why he hadnt posted it.
irreaIist 1 year ago
Get owned agnosticism.
gradiu3rox 1 year ago
Why can`t you have consciousness without matter?
Prime8888888 1 year ago
@Prime8888888 stef is question begging. he's saying "consciousness without matter is contradictory because you cant have consciousness without matter."
irreaIist 1 year ago
@irreaIist Actually the quote was "Consciousness without matter is contradictory because consciousness is an effect of matter."
andrewh817 1 year ago
@andrewh817 same shit, he's still question begging. he's just assuming it can only exist as an effect of matter (i think he says brain). no justification provided. and consciousness being an "effect of matter" doesn't mean there can't be consciousness without matter.
irreaIist 1 year ago
@irreaIist Anyone interested in the truth doesn't misquote something to attempt to prove a point. If you really think your misquoted statement and the actual statement are the same then you are a psuedo-philosopher. Read my comment @Prime8888888 if you're interested in why your viewpoint is silly.
andrewh817 1 year ago
@andrewh817 It wasn't meant to be a direct quote but the essence of what he was saying. but ok here's the full quote verbatim:
"...self contradictory properties like consciousness without matter, you can't have consciousness without matter! consciousness is an effect of the brain the same way that gravity is an effect of mass, you can't have gravity without mass. you cant have consciousness without matter"
It looks like he never said what you quoted him as saying either.
irreaIist 1 year ago
@irreaIist But anyway saying "consciousness is an effect of matter" is just another way of saying "can't have consciousness without matter" since you already assumed consc. can only exist as an effect of matter making it so you can't have consc. without matter. Your analogy rests on this same fallacy and no, pointing out fallacies is not silly.
irreaIist 1 year ago
@Prime8888888
No evidence for it.
lnd3005 1 year ago
@Prime8888888 That's the same thing as asking "Why can't you have french fries without potatoes"? Also, just because matter is there does not mean consciousness is there. Rocks have never been demonstrated to make decisions, unconscious or otherwise. If you accept free will, then you realize that humans and many other animals are capable of making decisions. There are observable common links between those things with consciousness and those things without, and those links lie in the brain.
andrewh817 1 year ago
@stefbot before even what god/gods/God were defined to mean, it was off to the races in this vid. There have been many stories real/apocryphal where the natives when presented with a foreigner of significant "technological advance" thought the foreigner as a higher power...god. Does an atheist disallow those natives to think as such. At that moment and until the tech gap is minimized, it is 100% correct for the natives to be believers. This analogy...extends beyond natives and can scale.
qncsc 1 year ago
We, everything is alive/god/conscience. everything is quantum engangled
florin604 1 year ago
@florin604
Ew.
lnd3005 1 year ago
I have good reason to believe gods are likely. The way I would define a god is different than the norm. To me any intelligent entity that is a huge order of magnitude more powerful in what it can do via it's physical body (or augmented cyborg or 100% robot body) is a god. And "God" I define as whatever entity is most powerful. It would be silly to assume there is any reason to worship it unless you have a personal encounter with it and it tells you what it will give you in return.
batmanthe 1 year ago
@batmanthe There isn't really a manner in which I could be called an atheist because I think there are observable reasons (quantum science) to believe that the entire universe is interconnected at a plank level and thereby everything is existing as both a single point and not a single point. Because of this I think it's likely possible that some entity can somehow tap into the unity point and then outward from it and thereby influence anything or gain any knowledge.
batmanthe 1 year ago
@batmanthe Great points....before even what god/gods/God were defined to mean, it was off to the races in this vid. There have been many stories real/apocryphal where the natives when presented with a foreigner of significant "technological advance" thought the foreigner as a higher power...god. Does an atheist disallow those natives to think as such. At that moment and until the tech gap is minimized, it is 100% correct for the natives to be believers. This analogy...extends beyond natives.
qncsc 1 year ago
@batmanthe: If you can redefine any word to mean what you want, then sure you can believe in gods. If I define gods as "trees," I am a polytheist!!
andyissemicool 1 year ago
@andyissemicool I agree with you. I think there are logic boundaries/limits for defining words. If I define a cow as an aquatic creature with scales. That's totally outside of bounds for defining that animal over there laying in the grass. But to define a god is hard for obvious reasons. When it comes to the word "God" just about the only thing everyone can agree on is that a very powerful wide reaching intelligence of some kind. And my thought of what a god is fits within that category.
batmanthe 1 year ago
@batmanthe
And is just as much sophistry.
lnd3005 1 year ago