This is probably going to be the thousandth time this has been said here (in the 190 comments so far), but I think "Future Nick" needs to do a series in the vein of "drunk history".
In other words, I'm asking you to become a sad and severe alcoholic for my entertainment.
@AHughman08 At about 10:20 you said that you don't agree that babies are born with the atheist position, which is correct with the definition of 'atheist' that you used; but, most people who hold the atheist position will agree that the more accurate definition would be "one who lacks a belief in a deity". So with that definition babies are atheists. Atheism is the default position for all humans.
@geragna Yeah, I'm familiar with that definition, I used it myself for a while, but I don't understand it's purpose anymore nor think it really makes sense. I think you can illustrate that default perspective of atheism without resorting to that sort of silliness. My next video is actually going to get into this quite a bit.
Tee hee hee ... "a response" ... haw haw ... that's hilarious ... pffffft ... lemme guess: same tired old ... wahahaha ... "response" ... ggfrkt ... you already gave ... ssssssssst ... the 1st time? ... kngtlfu ... seriously? ... bbbbbsh ... again?!!!
P.S. (to AH08): That tiny intro sounds a lot like the "original jacket" Horowitz recording, but whomever it was, I love that moment in those variations. Oh, and I loved this video too!
I'd disagree with you on empiricism - when we're kids we learn the laws of Math by looking at objects and experimenting, math professors learn new equations by experimenting with numbers, so it's not something we're born knowing or born believing. Science just seems like the systematic application of empiricism. But empiricism isn't atheism even if it's true.
Found you by accident, this is my first view...what a refreshing approach! I have sub'ed and can't wait to go through your uploads. Kudos to you for an intelligent, well spoken and thought provoking piece. Cheers!
"Science is determined through empirical evidence... Science is what we determine through the scientific method... what does the five senses have to do with that?"
First, empirical evidence are, by definition, evidence derived through the senses. Second, the scientific method isn't accepted as a justification for science by any serious philosopher of science. Third, virtually all theories of science acknowledge sense data as a starting point, or at least as necessary.
"Your beliefs cannot be rational until they are justified".
I'm not sure I agree, I think your beliefs are rational if they are true. We can justify all sorts of things to be true that we simply do not want to accept. For example, people can justify a belief in the acceptability of infanticide, but that does not mean that it is rational to all people.
Further, I find myself agreeing with Popper in that we justify things that we already hold to be true. So the rationality must begin elsewhere.
At 13:50, DawahFilms gives his true argument: "...something that I'm forced to believe..." The bible and the Koran say exactly that. One must believe this. That is the only rational argument for theism. The argument from extortion. I don't know why they don't use it more. The deal can be expressed simply. Either believe everything they say (and give them money) or be killed and tortured for eternity by forces that no one can perceive. Ya, that's rational.
Seems like DawahFilms argument is from reformed epistemology, basically like alvin plantinga's statement that we need no proof for god and that its a basic proper belief like a belief in other minds
I particularly like how you eschew the sort of YouTube Atheist 'orthodoxy' (for lack of a better term) when combating someone who is an orthodox Atheist punching bag. Way to be independent, yo.
Did he really argue that we are not born questioning are beliefs? I don't know about every other child in the world, but my son spends almost every second questioning me about everything. "walk faster we are going to be late." "why?" "because we got up late" Why because you were too tired to get up why because you went to sleep late why because you wanted to play a game why because you like games why because they make you think and laugh and interact with me and mom why because experiencing ...
basically he's trying to shift the burden of proof, hilariously, by saying evidence isn't required, you just have to assume you are right to justify belief in a positive claim (faith) in spite of evidence, but evidence is required to prove something is false.
Basically, skepticism requires evidence, but gullibility doesn't.
basically Dawah's saying atheists have faith in reality, they assume reality exists, therefore theists assuming a god exists is okay. He's saying we can't disprove god, therefore we should believe in a god, specifically his god. He's saying people are prone to believe in god, because theists are the mayority: basically, a lot of people believe in god, therefore god is true, therefore we should assume there's an extraterrestrial magic designer in the clouds? Teleological superstition is bull.
5 senses? Humans have way more than 5 senses. Over 25, if I recall. Seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling, sense of time, sense of hunger and thirst, sense of balance, sense of location, sense of where your hands are, sense of temperature, sense or pressure etc etc
Duh-wahFilms is logically, morally and intellectually (especially intellectually) shafted once again. He must love it - that's why he keeps coming back for more.
The pipe was an awesome touch, not to mention the very gentlemanly beat down you just gave Dawah, I think he will be very sore (down there) for a while.
I've been to New York, Chicago, L.A., London, Paris, Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, Seoul, Bangkok, New Delhi, Hong Kong, Sydney and Melbourne... and have never ran into the guy that was being described. Possibly i was the one rambling intoxicated nonsense? Possibly...
Great stuff, I think we owe Ali a debt of gratitude because his somewhat bizarre 'lack of justification style justification' has really got people making some great responses.
Future AHughman: Clearly from the future as notable by his future hat, witch I am currently in the process of inventing (it allows higher brain functioning to continue while inebriated).
@lepthymo Yes, unfortunately my Thunderf00t fan meter has been dropping pretty badly lately and my respect for coughlan's opinion on a lot of social issues has gone up a lot. I still dont have a Brett Keane respect-o-meter, and I don't think I'll be needing one any time soon.
Babies are atheists in the dictionary sense - they are without theism. They also don't believe in horses or gravity. But they need to be older in order to actually accept or reject the claim.
..and they'll believe whatever they're told, whether Santa or God, and none of it is "default" belief since the only people who believe in a god or Santa have to have heard of it first. (We don't meet uncontacted Amazon tribes that tell us about Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, or Santa. Why is that? We know why..)
@Flyborg Are prime numbers atheists? Because they are without theism. It's not actually a dichotomy like that, it's a little more nuanced. The idea that the being would be capable of comprehending the position of theism is implied, otherwise it just gets absurd. Babies are not atheists. They won't believe whatever they're told because they don't understand words. "uncontacted amazon tribes" (if they had no theistic beliefs) do understand words though, and would be implicit atheists.
@AHughman08 Touche, babies aren't atheists in any MEANINGFUL sense. I meant literally; they're without theism. And they usually remain that way if left alone.
And I meant they'll believe whatever they're told AFTER they're old enough to comprehend it. The point being that belief in Santa isn't "default" just because it's so common - it's a human idea spread through word of mouth, and the reason Amazon tribes won't tell us about Santa is the exact same reason they won't tell us about Jesus.
@Flyborg that is why religion needs an NC-17 label on it...i dont think it is fair to force a kid who doesnt know any better to be a part of a cult...just like it is wrong for them to watch porn, and do drugs till the age of adulthood where they are able to make their own choices without bias
@AHughman08 All definitions of the prefix -ist that I could only make sense for things that have some form of agency. Linguistically it doesn't make sense for a prime number to be an Atheist. Of course if you can find a Prime number with some kind of agency.... Children are born Atheist in the sense that they have to be taught the specific religious dogma in there up bringing. They certainly aren't born skeptics however. Children are credulous which is th point I think you are trying to make.
Also left to their own devices most children by themselves would form a magical world view that is unique to them (in essence their own religion). If you were to put several children in a group and not have them in contact with adults then I think you would start to see common belief systems emerge and which beliefs were adopted by the group would be determined by the social dynamics of the group. I think I have just talked myself into agreeing with you.
I wouldn't be quite so sure about that. I wouldn't bet a large sum of money on it but i think there is every chance a baby has already developed an innate instinctual sense of gravity, alongside possibly snakes and spiders - though not horses. Of course we could get into a discussion as to whether you have to understand the theory of gravitation to believe in gravity or simply to have an expectation of an attractive force pulling you ....
...down, howeverm the point i wanted to make is that whilst i agree with your point about babies not believing in God shouldn't be extrapolated to assume that all new lifeforms are born without knowledge of the world around them because i think you end up on dangerous ground.
How would Geographic truths not be empirically justified? Even political borders can be derived based upon empirical observation of the political groups that set them.
@Tokeloshe123 sure, you could go through history and etymology to help explain why people titled it "Antarctica", for example, but ultimately what really makes it "Antarctica" is just our decision to call it that. What gives any words meaning, including titles of places, is it's use, not it's origin.
It's funny how while only one of you was drunk, it was the sober Dawah that was doing all the regurgitation; read vomiting. Even though more sophisticated [read 'mistaking higher quality prose for more intelligent'], theological arguments exist, I find that they are easily reduced into some of the things Dawah said. I also find the fact that these arguments can easily be addressed while being 'really intoxicated', is indicative of how poor they really are.
I would pay money to see DawahFilms call The Atheist Experience and have Matt Dillahunty leave an Ali shaped stain on the ground. He wouldn't let him get away with any of the crap he says in his youtube videos.
I'd fully expect him to run back to his channel and call Matt a racist bigot.
@DawahFilms Do you mean his face book page, theatheistexperience blog or does he have his own blog I don’t know about? I really like to read what you wrote back.
@DawahFilms Between this video & StopSpamming1's video: Damn, DAMN! Not to mention the comments & the fact that not only TF has this in his favorites but Coughlan as well? Again, DAMN!
I think Dawah is using some bastardized version of Alvin Plantinga's "reformed epistemology" which, ironically, Plantinga uses as a basis for his Christian beliefs.
It is funny that the drunk/drugged guy story is basically the perfect story to show why we have to rely the scientific method. Does Dawah want to say that the drugged guy's idea about the matrix world is correct merely because someone believes it or feels it is true or would he want evidence of it? Our intuitions have been wrong on almost anything we now know about the world that you can think of.
Did that halfwit Dawah seriously just say "There's no reason to question anything you believe in unless there's a reason to question what you believe in?"
I'm gonna go with your second option, Hughman, and say that he's paying too much for a crappy education. Unless he's getting a Herp degree in A.-Derpology.
Certain areas of mathematics do have empirical evidence, particularly when it comes to engineering or architecture. After all, how many buildings would fall to the ground if 2+2 did not equal 4?
Dawahfilms just uses fallacious arguments. Venomfangx just blurts out stupidity. Dawahfilms is, I think, on a much higher plane of arguing than VFX is, and putting them together in a room is a disservice to DF.
Haha, oh lord i laughed so hard at that last cut of DawahFilms at the end. "oh well, I tried" right? ;)
This was both entertaining and well worded. Also you have a pipe - so I'm assured you are both well educated and trustworthy, so I'll throw you a sub ;)
1.Percival Lowell may have believed there were canals on Mars and they were built by advanced aliens. Also much of why he saw such things and further projected agency onto it could be explained and understandable.
2. But the actuality of the canals/aliens is a separate hypothesis and obviously needs evidence.
Ali seems to say that since there is some reason/evidence explaining why people believe x he can shrug off burden of proof of it in actuality. Also painful understanding of science.
It's funny how he uses the Science of Psychology to bolster his claims about agency, yet he forgets how much of what he says goes against it.
The errors were too numerous to count.
As a Psych Major, I got to say, maybe before he starts talking about schemas, cognitive faculties and how these lead to us perceiving agency, he should actually read up on what he is talking about.
If anything, cognitive biases are sufficient reason to question what we believe.
I am a super-hero but evidence for it is not necessary. The need to have an inflated notion of self-importance is naturally ingrained into humans so it must be true what these inflated sense of self makes us belief, hence not only am I a super-hero, but everybody who thinks they are special and above most around them is right to think just that, because it's natural. This is not the naturalistic fallacy, though I don't know what that fallacy is! But I'm so special I don't need to know.
Your second point at like 10:00 made me laugh. I do think he is right that most people have a tendency to develop theistic belief (see andy thomson's vid "why we believe in Gods"), I just don't think it really helps his conclusion.
His argument actually is a rational argument for the existence of God (which just happens not to follow). If he was arguing that we have innate knowledge of God, and we have reason to think our innate knowledge is accurate, Dawah might have an argument. However, he is merely arguing that most of us have a tendency to infer God's existence. At best that is a weak inductive argument. People may say that "a tendency to infer God's existence" is a likely characteristic of a world created by God.
@Epydemic2020 Unfortunately, his premise that we have a tendency to infer God's existence isn't even supportable. We just have a tendency to infer agency, more like fairy tales.
@Epydemic2020 The idea that we have innate knowledge of anything is absurd to me. We learn what knowledge is, using tools like reason. What you're *really* saying is "is reasonable to believe in that which is reasonable to believe until we have reason to think otherwise".
@Epydemic2020 "People may say that "a tendency to infer God's existence" is a likely characteristic of a world created by God."
I have a problem with this one and I imagine you ran out of space, but I think people would be entirely wrong in saying that. Why would it be a -likely- characteristic? There are far too many assumptions in the assertion too: god exists, god created the world, and people, god is an attention-whore, god made people to tell him how awesome he is... the list goes on.
Especially if we are talking about one of the monotheistic deities, giving us a natural tendency to infer his existence would be a likely characteristically for His creations to have. (after all, something like the Christian deity is said to be personal, loving His creation, and wanting his creation to benefit from experiencing chosen love with Him). Just saying, if the deity that I actually believe in exists then that isn't a property we should be surprised by.
@Epydemic2020 Again, that's assuming too much. We can agree there's zero evidence for any supernatural deities, I think (I'm discounting people who call totems and tables god), so any sort of property assigned to the gods they believe in is purely invention.
They might -think- that it would be a likely characteristic, but without knowing anything in my partial list (or the near-endless full one) for fact then likelihood can't be estimated. Statistics need a factual basis, gods have no basis.
No, I was saying "if the God of Christianity exists, it would be reasonable to think he may create us with a natural tendency to infer his existence."
Haven't watched the video through, yet, but just wanted to add this: We actually have more than five senses. How many senses we have is not agreed upon, but it's agreed that it is more than five. Example, you can close your eyes, stretch out your hand and touch your own nose, without having to feel your way to it. How do you do that? it's a sense. Sense of time is also a sense (at least to some, dunno if it's agreed upon). QI has a great, short clip on it on youtube.
Why are so many people taking so much time responding to this ridiculous argument when anyone when anyone with an IQ of at least 50 can recognize this argument is verbal diarrhea?
It does indeed sound incredibly ironic to claim no evidence is required because there is evidence that children infer agency and purpose in the wrong places and that is justification that Ali is inferring agency and purpose in the right place.
I was however puzzled by your claims about geopgrahical facts not being based on observation (paraphrasing).
@wimsweden Ok. well pittsburgh is pittsburgh for example, because we decided to name it so and have designated line to where it ends, not because we observe that it's pittsburgh.
Oh, okay, so it's not really specifically about geography but about our general categorisation of the world into meaningful (to us) but ultimately arbitrary subsets through concepts and language (which you also referred to). Sure, I get it now.
Jesus is real. Get your crap off the net.
hisbro10 1 week ago
A lot of big words..
hannabananaful1 1 month ago
i thought you had a nerd look ! Nope! i was wrong :)
God Bless (haha)
afirstakf 1 month ago
This is probably going to be the thousandth time this has been said here (in the 190 comments so far), but I think "Future Nick" needs to do a series in the vein of "drunk history".
In other words, I'm asking you to become a sad and severe alcoholic for my entertainment.
I just realized that I'm an asshole.
EpochCninezero 1 month ago
@AHughman08 At about 10:20 you said that you don't agree that babies are born with the atheist position, which is correct with the definition of 'atheist' that you used; but, most people who hold the atheist position will agree that the more accurate definition would be "one who lacks a belief in a deity". So with that definition babies are atheists. Atheism is the default position for all humans.
geragna 1 month ago
@geragna Yeah, I'm familiar with that definition, I used it myself for a while, but I don't understand it's purpose anymore nor think it really makes sense. I think you can illustrate that default perspective of atheism without resorting to that sort of silliness. My next video is actually going to get into this quite a bit.
AHughman08 1 month ago
Re: DF's: "soon"
Tee hee hee ... "a response" ... haw haw ... that's hilarious ... pffffft ... lemme guess: same tired old ... wahahaha ... "response" ... ggfrkt ... you already gave ... ssssssssst ... the 1st time? ... kngtlfu ... seriously? ... bbbbbsh ... again?!!!
P.S. (to AH08): That tiny intro sounds a lot like the "original jacket" Horowitz recording, but whomever it was, I love that moment in those variations. Oh, and I loved this video too!
Encore!
Jeraminal 2 months ago
Expect a response soon.
DawahFilms 2 months ago
@DawahFilms Excellent!
AHughman08 2 months ago
@AHughman08 no more cartyoons?
NerdDUBstepO 2 weeks ago
@DawahFilms Looking forward to it!
d007ization 2 months ago
@DawahFilms make a cartoon please
NerdDUBstepO 1 month ago
I just want to know...where did you get that kickass hat? I want one.
Bamzoni241 2 months ago
Hey I would just like to say WHERE THE F YOU BEEN MAKE MORE VIDS thx
nickmcV123 3 months ago
The follow-up to this vid really ought to include an explanation of the extraordinary debauchery in the future-past. Inquiring minds want to know...
TheViciousSquare 3 months ago
I'd disagree with you on empiricism - when we're kids we learn the laws of Math by looking at objects and experimenting, math professors learn new equations by experimenting with numbers, so it's not something we're born knowing or born believing. Science just seems like the systematic application of empiricism. But empiricism isn't atheism even if it's true.
unassumption 3 months ago
Found you by accident, this is my first view...what a refreshing approach! I have sub'ed and can't wait to go through your uploads. Kudos to you for an intelligent, well spoken and thought provoking piece. Cheers!
getsupercharged 3 months ago
"Science is determined through empirical evidence... Science is what we determine through the scientific method... what does the five senses have to do with that?"
First, empirical evidence are, by definition, evidence derived through the senses. Second, the scientific method isn't accepted as a justification for science by any serious philosopher of science. Third, virtually all theories of science acknowledge sense data as a starting point, or at least as necessary.
insidetrip101 4 months ago
"Your beliefs cannot be rational until they are justified".
I'm not sure I agree, I think your beliefs are rational if they are true. We can justify all sorts of things to be true that we simply do not want to accept. For example, people can justify a belief in the acceptability of infanticide, but that does not mean that it is rational to all people.
Further, I find myself agreeing with Popper in that we justify things that we already hold to be true. So the rationality must begin elsewhere.
insidetrip101 4 months ago
At 13:50, DawahFilms gives his true argument: "...something that I'm forced to believe..." The bible and the Koran say exactly that. One must believe this. That is the only rational argument for theism. The argument from extortion. I don't know why they don't use it more. The deal can be expressed simply. Either believe everything they say (and give them money) or be killed and tortured for eternity by forces that no one can perceive. Ya, that's rational.
RakaTheTenacious 4 months ago
great video man liked and subed. you can thank thunderfoot for that one. well you made an awsome video rant and he faved it so...
knivesron 4 months ago
Not to take away from the meat and potatoes of your video(s), but where did you get that hat? WANT!
jjmblue7 4 months ago
Seems like DawahFilms argument is from reformed epistemology, basically like alvin plantinga's statement that we need no proof for god and that its a basic proper belief like a belief in other minds
MrMohjong 4 months ago
AHughman: Hey thanks a bunch for letting me get my stupid video in the mix. That was nice of you.. Peace.
Complete Rationality's a good dude too, I suggest people go check him out too if you guys get a chance.
2eelShmeal 4 months ago
I particularly like how you eschew the sort of YouTube Atheist 'orthodoxy' (for lack of a better term) when combating someone who is an orthodox Atheist punching bag. Way to be independent, yo.
bromordra 4 months ago
future nick is surprisingly coherent
lepthymo 4 months ago
wwickeddogg 4 months ago
Didn't Aquinas make this argument like a thousand years ago?
wwickeddogg 4 months ago
basically he's trying to shift the burden of proof, hilariously, by saying evidence isn't required, you just have to assume you are right to justify belief in a positive claim (faith) in spite of evidence, but evidence is required to prove something is false.
Basically, skepticism requires evidence, but gullibility doesn't.
viridismonasteriense 4 months ago
basically Dawah's saying atheists have faith in reality, they assume reality exists, therefore theists assuming a god exists is okay. He's saying we can't disprove god, therefore we should believe in a god, specifically his god. He's saying people are prone to believe in god, because theists are the mayority: basically, a lot of people believe in god, therefore god is true, therefore we should assume there's an extraterrestrial magic designer in the clouds? Teleological superstition is bull.
viridismonasteriense 4 months ago
5 senses? Humans have way more than 5 senses. Over 25, if I recall. Seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling, sense of time, sense of hunger and thirst, sense of balance, sense of location, sense of where your hands are, sense of temperature, sense or pressure etc etc
viridismonasteriense 4 months ago
wow you rocked this argument! you got all the good genes attractive and smart!
twizelby 4 months ago
Duh-wahFilms is logically, morally and intellectually (especially intellectually) shafted once again. He must love it - that's why he keeps coming back for more.
muzvh1 4 months ago
The pipe was an awesome touch, not to mention the very gentlemanly beat down you just gave Dawah, I think he will be very sore (down there) for a while.
Gotta sub.
LaymanScholar 4 months ago
Desert rose fuck yeah!
airraidband 4 months ago
Disproving religion is easy. It's convincing the religious that's difficult.
AtheismIsCorrect 4 months ago
As for the whole hobo thing "everything is illusion" look up the documentary "The Holographic Universe"
Mosixman 4 months ago
I've been to New York, Chicago, L.A., London, Paris, Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, Seoul, Bangkok, New Delhi, Hong Kong, Sydney and Melbourne... and have never ran into the guy that was being described. Possibly i was the one rambling intoxicated nonsense? Possibly...
MicahtheGreat777 4 months ago
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Dawah. Someone had to do it :)
peterhejlejensen 4 months ago
A man with a pipe is ALWAYS right. Suck on that, Dawah!
anglicantian 4 months ago
I just realized I need to get a pipe.
weelittledragon 4 months ago 3
@weelittledragon Its stylish and you get +4 to Charisma.
stevethemongolian 4 months ago
Welcome back.
sbirddesmo 4 months ago
and you are a smashing chap for putting doodoofilms right!!! hurrah!!!!
ezmereldagreen 4 months ago
you got even cuter!!!
ezmereldagreen 4 months ago
Good vid, Nick.
It was good meeting you (however briefly) in NYC.
SiriusMined 4 months ago
i wanna hav wat he had
krakmynutz 4 months ago
Atheism, where intelligence thrives.
Never heard of you before but this was pretty good.
MonicaKn17 4 months ago
another great video, thanks AHughman
abcbamz17 4 months ago
technically, trees do not exist ;)
Layla5915 4 months ago
Great stuff, I think we owe Ali a debt of gratitude because his somewhat bizarre 'lack of justification style justification' has really got people making some great responses.
noelplum99 4 months ago
Future AHughman: Clearly from the future as notable by his future hat, witch I am currently in the process of inventing (it allows higher brain functioning to continue while inebriated).
rabbitkaus 4 months ago
Sophisticated discussion with a pipe in hand gets an instant like from me. Good work sir!
ministeroftuba 4 months ago
SIDE POINT!
Valstein0 4 months ago
Favorited by Coughlan and Thunderf00t? Good enough reason for me to watch.
htomerif 4 months ago 14
@htomerif Favored among the Lords of subz!? I am not worthy of this blessing.
AHughman08 4 months ago 17
@AHughman08 Or the Satan and Jesus of subs, depending on which you think is which. I think Dawahfilms is the Steve Urkle of subs.
htomerif 4 months ago
@htomerif TF favorited it because its disagreeing with Dawahfilms, coughlan favorited it because its an interesting video =/
lepthymo 4 months ago
@lepthymo Yes, unfortunately my Thunderf00t fan meter has been dropping pretty badly lately and my respect for coughlan's opinion on a lot of social issues has gone up a lot. I still dont have a Brett Keane respect-o-meter, and I don't think I'll be needing one any time soon.
htomerif 4 months ago
Dorgas! Hiahihahhiahiahia
rafaelhsouza 4 months ago
its good to have you back :)
d34d23 4 months ago
Babies are atheists in the dictionary sense - they are without theism. They also don't believe in horses or gravity. But they need to be older in order to actually accept or reject the claim.
..and they'll believe whatever they're told, whether Santa or God, and none of it is "default" belief since the only people who believe in a god or Santa have to have heard of it first. (We don't meet uncontacted Amazon tribes that tell us about Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, or Santa. Why is that? We know why..)
Flyborg 4 months ago
@Flyborg Are prime numbers atheists? Because they are without theism. It's not actually a dichotomy like that, it's a little more nuanced. The idea that the being would be capable of comprehending the position of theism is implied, otherwise it just gets absurd. Babies are not atheists. They won't believe whatever they're told because they don't understand words. "uncontacted amazon tribes" (if they had no theistic beliefs) do understand words though, and would be implicit atheists.
AHughman08 4 months ago 2
@AHughman08 Touche, babies aren't atheists in any MEANINGFUL sense. I meant literally; they're without theism. And they usually remain that way if left alone.
And I meant they'll believe whatever they're told AFTER they're old enough to comprehend it. The point being that belief in Santa isn't "default" just because it's so common - it's a human idea spread through word of mouth, and the reason Amazon tribes won't tell us about Santa is the exact same reason they won't tell us about Jesus.
Flyborg 4 months ago
@Flyborg Ah, yes. Gotcha. I see. yes, I agree.
AHughman08 4 months ago
@Flyborg that is why religion needs an NC-17 label on it...i dont think it is fair to force a kid who doesnt know any better to be a part of a cult...just like it is wrong for them to watch porn, and do drugs till the age of adulthood where they are able to make their own choices without bias
MadMAn12gauge 4 months ago
@AHughman08 All definitions of the prefix -ist that I could only make sense for things that have some form of agency. Linguistically it doesn't make sense for a prime number to be an Atheist. Of course if you can find a Prime number with some kind of agency.... Children are born Atheist in the sense that they have to be taught the specific religious dogma in there up bringing. They certainly aren't born skeptics however. Children are credulous which is th point I think you are trying to make.
kayosiiii 4 months ago
@kayosiiii --continued
Also left to their own devices most children by themselves would form a magical world view that is unique to them (in essence their own religion). If you were to put several children in a group and not have them in contact with adults then I think you would start to see common belief systems emerge and which beliefs were adopted by the group would be determined by the social dynamics of the group. I think I have just talked myself into agreeing with you.
kayosiiii 4 months ago
@kayosiiii hahaha. that was very interesting to read.
AHughman08 4 months ago
@Flyborg
"They also don't believe in horses or gravity."
I wouldn't be quite so sure about that. I wouldn't bet a large sum of money on it but i think there is every chance a baby has already developed an innate instinctual sense of gravity, alongside possibly snakes and spiders - though not horses. Of course we could get into a discussion as to whether you have to understand the theory of gravitation to believe in gravity or simply to have an expectation of an attractive force pulling you ....
noelplum99 4 months ago
@noelplum99
...down, howeverm the point i wanted to make is that whilst i agree with your point about babies not believing in God shouldn't be extrapolated to assume that all new lifeforms are born without knowledge of the world around them because i think you end up on dangerous ground.
noelplum99 4 months ago
How would Geographic truths not be empirically justified? Even political borders can be derived based upon empirical observation of the political groups that set them.
Tokeloshe123 4 months ago
@Tokeloshe123 sure, you could go through history and etymology to help explain why people titled it "Antarctica", for example, but ultimately what really makes it "Antarctica" is just our decision to call it that. What gives any words meaning, including titles of places, is it's use, not it's origin.
AHughman08 4 months ago
Hahaha, I love your style. Your really made me smile ;)
SeltsamerAttraktor 4 months ago
Wow! Future Nick has a really cool future hat. Does it double as a cloaking device?
Maphisto86 4 months ago
Haha, Future Nick is cute... Then again, maybe I just like drunk guys.
Present you is awesome, though.
Anyway, I missed your videos! When this popped up, I had momentarily forgotten who you were. Make 'moar'? :D <3
Zyauna 4 months ago
It's funny how while only one of you was drunk, it was the sober Dawah that was doing all the regurgitation; read vomiting. Even though more sophisticated [read 'mistaking higher quality prose for more intelligent'], theological arguments exist, I find that they are easily reduced into some of the things Dawah said. I also find the fact that these arguments can easily be addressed while being 'really intoxicated', is indicative of how poor they really are.
dookiecheez 4 months ago 2
Nice pipe, too bad you don't smoke it.
VerboseVindication 4 months ago
I would pay money to see DawahFilms call The Atheist Experience and have Matt Dillahunty leave an Ali shaped stain on the ground. He wouldn't let him get away with any of the crap he says in his youtube videos.
I'd fully expect him to run back to his channel and call Matt a racist bigot.
PloppytheGaoler 4 months ago
@PloppytheGaoler
I think matt refuted one of DawahFilms’s old videos on his facebook page a while back.
MysteriousStranger88 4 months ago
@MysteriousStranger88
Which I refuted back on his own blog.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms Do you mean his face book page, theatheistexperience blog or does he have his own blog I don’t know about? I really like to read what you wrote back.
MysteriousStranger88 4 months ago
@MysteriousStranger88
On the AE blog.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms Between this video & StopSpamming1's video: Damn, DAMN! Not to mention the comments & the fact that not only TF has this in his favorites but Coughlan as well? Again, DAMN!
ProtectingMyPups 4 months ago
I think Dawah is using some bastardized version of Alvin Plantinga's "reformed epistemology" which, ironically, Plantinga uses as a basis for his Christian beliefs.
antybu86 4 months ago
Do you realize he has the same speech pattern as VFX?
4jonah 4 months ago
@3:41 Glad someone spotted that nonsense by that logic atoms dont exsist
ISlamMyWifeIntoAWall 4 months ago
It is funny that the drunk/drugged guy story is basically the perfect story to show why we have to rely the scientific method. Does Dawah want to say that the drugged guy's idea about the matrix world is correct merely because someone believes it or feels it is true or would he want evidence of it? Our intuitions have been wrong on almost anything we now know about the world that you can think of.
PainefulMass 4 months ago
dude....I've totally been there...except I'm getting up to pee every 15 seconds.
SafariStevo 4 months ago
Logic can be tested empirically. Just fact check the truth of your premises and your conclusion.
OperatorOscillation 4 months ago
Atheism isn't limited to rejection of theistic claims- it's just lack of belief in God(s). Without theism
blurglide 4 months ago
A homeless man.. person.
LucasI3434 4 months ago
OK sir, I think I have identified YOUR fake story:
You're high, not drunk. =)
2eelShmeal 4 months ago
Are really smoking green tea in front of attentive audience?
DieTagesthemen 4 months ago
Good video, and welcome back. Oddly enough I almost made a "MAKE MOAr VIDS!!!" comment on your page a couple of days ago.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Man! I missed your videos. Reading your blogs is not the same.
LtShock 4 months ago
Did that halfwit Dawah seriously just say "There's no reason to question anything you believe in unless there's a reason to question what you believe in?"
I'm gonna go with your second option, Hughman, and say that he's paying too much for a crappy education. Unless he's getting a Herp degree in A.-Derpology.
EdwardHowton 4 months ago
Hey, .. you actually had a "back to the future" shiny patterned baseball cap!!, didn't know you could buy those!!
bonnie43uk 4 months ago
Certain areas of mathematics do have empirical evidence, particularly when it comes to engineering or architecture. After all, how many buildings would fall to the ground if 2+2 did not equal 4?
daschwarjazz 4 months ago
And subscribed! Awesome!
TheScottybobear 4 months ago
Love your videos. Hope to see more. =D
PumpkinPixie1978 4 months ago
8:40 "I have absolutely no reason to question something - unless I have a reason to question it."
I'm surprised you didn't catch the infinite wisdom of Dawah's argument here.
TheHigherVoltage 4 months ago
I'm glad you're back. :D
FriendlyShadow1 4 months ago
Joseph Smith not John Smith, but continue on....
panchorfc 4 months ago
@panchorfc you're so right.
AHughman08 4 months ago
Imagine if Dawafilms and Venomfangx were locked in a room together.
iParadox1989 4 months ago
@iParadox1989
Dawahfilms just uses fallacious arguments. Venomfangx just blurts out stupidity. Dawahfilms is, I think, on a much higher plane of arguing than VFX is, and putting them together in a room is a disservice to DF.
laflugantabastardo 4 months ago
@iParadox1989 Recently DPR made a video exploring this.
SeltsamerAttraktor 4 months ago
Know what made my brain explode?
When you called BionicDance's argument about atheist babies stupid and then supported that assertion with... her argument.
GG pwning Dawah though.
StubbornProgrammer 4 months ago
Haha, oh lord i laughed so hard at that last cut of DawahFilms at the end. "oh well, I tried" right? ;)
This was both entertaining and well worded. Also you have a pipe - so I'm assured you are both well educated and trustworthy, so I'll throw you a sub ;)
TheStigma 4 months ago
@TheStigma
Agreed the pipe adds Gravitas :)
paranorma1palace 4 months ago
I enjoy you, Nick Hughman.
cecinestpasunename 4 months ago
You know those bums that Dawah talked about kinda remind me of some other type of people.
People who don't take "right ammount of right drugs" but talk about right ammount of prayers and right texts...
BlizBob 4 months ago
Excellent video and reaasoning. Thanks!
n3rdm4n 4 months ago
I think that you are infact God... because you are such a legend! :)
peteg391 4 months ago
I like the rational justification argument approach. Using logic against the person that is pretending to be logical.
justintempler 4 months ago
I think the moral of the video is that Ali gives homeless men LSD and then mocks them on YouTube...
MyOldName 4 months ago 20
@MyOldName Haha!
AHughman08 4 months ago
We should comment bomb dawah's videos criticizing his beliefs in Jesus... hes a troll, we should toll 'em
nodvick 4 months ago
my corn cob pipe is better.... kinda blackened and burned.. but still better
nodvick 4 months ago
Y'know, while I'm looking at future Nick, I can't help but see Vodka fumes coming off him. It's hilarious
SoretaYuki 4 months ago in playlist Liked
1.Percival Lowell may have believed there were canals on Mars and they were built by advanced aliens. Also much of why he saw such things and further projected agency onto it could be explained and understandable.
2. But the actuality of the canals/aliens is a separate hypothesis and obviously needs evidence.
Ali seems to say that since there is some reason/evidence explaining why people believe x he can shrug off burden of proof of it in actuality. Also painful understanding of science.
StarfaQtory 4 months ago
I think an unedited drunk version is needed here, I think everyone would agree.
stevenp0wers 4 months ago
@stevenp0wers you can find that on the right side.
cecinestpasunename 4 months ago
Great video. Make more videos, you whore.
Sabohaque 4 months ago
It's funny how he uses the Science of Psychology to bolster his claims about agency, yet he forgets how much of what he says goes against it.
The errors were too numerous to count.
As a Psych Major, I got to say, maybe before he starts talking about schemas, cognitive faculties and how these lead to us perceiving agency, he should actually read up on what he is talking about.
If anything, cognitive biases are sufficient reason to question what we believe.
UncomfortableSilence 4 months ago
I am a super-hero but evidence for it is not necessary. The need to have an inflated notion of self-importance is naturally ingrained into humans so it must be true what these inflated sense of self makes us belief, hence not only am I a super-hero, but everybody who thinks they are special and above most around them is right to think just that, because it's natural. This is not the naturalistic fallacy, though I don't know what that fallacy is! But I'm so special I don't need to know.
socrates856 4 months ago
A Back to the Future hat.
Good on ya.
I have one as well.
UncomfortableSilence 4 months ago
Your second point at like 10:00 made me laugh. I do think he is right that most people have a tendency to develop theistic belief (see andy thomson's vid "why we believe in Gods"), I just don't think it really helps his conclusion.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
His argument actually is a rational argument for the existence of God (which just happens not to follow). If he was arguing that we have innate knowledge of God, and we have reason to think our innate knowledge is accurate, Dawah might have an argument. However, he is merely arguing that most of us have a tendency to infer God's existence. At best that is a weak inductive argument. People may say that "a tendency to infer God's existence" is a likely characteristic of a world created by God.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Unfortunately, his premise that we have a tendency to infer God's existence isn't even supportable. We just have a tendency to infer agency, more like fairy tales.
cecinestpasunename 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 The idea that we have innate knowledge of anything is absurd to me. We learn what knowledge is, using tools like reason. What you're *really* saying is "is reasonable to believe in that which is reasonable to believe until we have reason to think otherwise".
AHughman08 4 months ago 3
@Epydemic2020 >he is merely arguing that most of us have a tendency to infer God's existence
We, as humans, have a tendency to believe shit that is completely fucking wrong.
inademv 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 "People may say that "a tendency to infer God's existence" is a likely characteristic of a world created by God."
I have a problem with this one and I imagine you ran out of space, but I think people would be entirely wrong in saying that. Why would it be a -likely- characteristic? There are far too many assumptions in the assertion too: god exists, god created the world, and people, god is an attention-whore, god made people to tell him how awesome he is... the list goes on.
EdwardHowton 4 months ago
@EdwardHowton
Especially if we are talking about one of the monotheistic deities, giving us a natural tendency to infer his existence would be a likely characteristically for His creations to have. (after all, something like the Christian deity is said to be personal, loving His creation, and wanting his creation to benefit from experiencing chosen love with Him). Just saying, if the deity that I actually believe in exists then that isn't a property we should be surprised by.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Again, that's assuming too much. We can agree there's zero evidence for any supernatural deities, I think (I'm discounting people who call totems and tables god), so any sort of property assigned to the gods they believe in is purely invention.
They might -think- that it would be a likely characteristic, but without knowing anything in my partial list (or the near-endless full one) for fact then likelihood can't be estimated. Statistics need a factual basis, gods have no basis.
EdwardHowton 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 are you really saying "if he exists it would be reasonable to believe he exists"?
AHughman08 4 months ago
@AHughman08
No, I was saying "if the God of Christianity exists, it would be reasonable to think he may create us with a natural tendency to infer his existence."
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
I love your reasoning and sense of humor. It's just so.. rational! :D
Inessarina 4 months ago
So... why does future you record vids of you rebutting dumbass creationist arguments while drunk?
Wolfau5 4 months ago
@Wolfau5 Something must have happened in the future. I'm not sure why. But it seems bleak.
AHughman08 4 months ago 9
I predict Kevin will become an atheist once he really thinks this shit though (which he evidently hasn't bothered to do much at all thus far).
LAnonHubbard 4 months ago
Muhammad used to talk to trees
captaindisguise 4 months ago
Hey, I did whole whole video about agency! I even summarized a couple of the more classic experiments.
AntiCitizenX 4 months ago
give this man the ten thousand dollars!!
pchalas 4 months ago
If Kevin the domestic terrorist wants to prove the existance of god why doesn't he drop gods docs?
Gods docs = physical evidence of God.
You know all about dropping docs don't you kevvy.
mark9165 4 months ago
I would simply state he's guilty of the naturalistic fallacy and leave it at that.
HonestDiscussioner 4 months ago
It's about time you made a new video (Ya, this was a repost... So what? ;) )
Gekkibi 4 months ago
LIAR YOU ARE A REPTILE FROM THE END OF THE WORLD PROVE IT
anom4lie 4 months ago
You look familiar . . .
HonestDiscussioner 4 months ago
its about fucking time you made a new video
Cactarpus 4 months ago
its about fucking time you made a new video
Cactarpus 4 months ago
Haven't watched the video through, yet, but just wanted to add this: We actually have more than five senses. How many senses we have is not agreed upon, but it's agreed that it is more than five. Example, you can close your eyes, stretch out your hand and touch your own nose, without having to feel your way to it. How do you do that? it's a sense. Sense of time is also a sense (at least to some, dunno if it's agreed upon). QI has a great, short clip on it on youtube.
arkabon 4 months ago
Future nick is so wise...
MichaelPayton67 4 months ago
Great vid AHughman! One question,future Nick's eyes are a little red.Do you think he might have run into the homeless man?
profsat5 4 months ago
Why are so many people taking so much time responding to this ridiculous argument when anyone when anyone with an IQ of at least 50 can recognize this argument is verbal diarrhea?
adrenacrumb 4 months ago
When he talked about if anyone lived in a city and he "had this happen" I thought he was going to talk about rape.
Feralus69 4 months ago
Ah, he DOES make videos! Very well done. A thorough debunking.
Zaunstar 4 months ago
Atheists > Dawahfilms > Venomfangx
bigmike4758 4 months ago
Desert Rose is an amazing song though.
BaileysBeads 4 months ago
"A Human"...
Smart...
bangNL94 4 months ago
Mismatch, even when you're eyes are strangely bloodshot. And I'm going with "deliberate". :)
philhellenes 4 months ago
make more videos or i kill this puppy
Atheistprimate 4 months ago
wu tang!
jacobromu 4 months ago
stop responding to this idiot.
Craydon 4 months ago
It does indeed sound incredibly ironic to claim no evidence is required because there is evidence that children infer agency and purpose in the wrong places and that is justification that Ali is inferring agency and purpose in the right place.
I was however puzzled by your claims about geopgrahical facts not being based on observation (paraphrasing).
wimsweden 4 months ago 3
@wimsweden Ok. well pittsburgh is pittsburgh for example, because we decided to name it so and have designated line to where it ends, not because we observe that it's pittsburgh.
AHughman08 4 months ago
@AHughman08
Oh, okay, so it's not really specifically about geography but about our general categorisation of the world into meaningful (to us) but ultimately arbitrary subsets through concepts and language (which you also referred to). Sure, I get it now.
wimsweden 4 months ago
@wimsweden excellent.
AHughman08 4 months ago
I'm interested in this non-empirical geography. Please tell me more...
urbanelf 4 months ago 6