@yakult244 First off I'm not RationalRoundtable. I'm HonestDiscussioner (atheist).
Secondly, are you REALLY going to use that argument right when nearly the entire youtube atheist community is arguing over what it means to be an atheist?
Third, you don't have to go around and disprove every single other belief system in order to posit your own. There are millions of Christians who are both decent intelligent people, but TF gives all his time to awful people like NephilimFree. He can do better.
@yakult244 "so many interpenetrate it so differently, w\no reason to legitimize one over the other, makes them all subject to interpretation, and therefore imaginary"
I'd agree that there are so many different ways to interpret the bible, & I'd also agree that such things causes a variety of theological problems, but by itself it does not disprove the bible, or make its adherents fools. All literary interpretation is subjective, that does not mean the author didn't have a specific view in mind.
Because for many people faith is an emotional position, and they use their intellect to try to justify their emotional attachment to their faith. Everyone does it . . . confirmation bias is a bitch.
Your position is that there is only one way to honestly interpret it, and that's clearly false. That doesn't mean that everyone should get the interpretation correct, it means exactly the opposite.
@yunged You do know the oldest version of what we now know of as the Old Testament point blank says in the first line it's not meant to be taken literally, right?
Mate you are possibly worse then the idiots you bash Thunderfoot for taking on, you (at least claim to) have scientific knowledge and understand the scientific method, hold your views up to reason, and appreciate the value of logic and yet you parrot the faith based views of the society you happened to grow up in, i have little respect for that position
This is where many ppl miss the point. 'TF doesn't bash xians in general. He DESTROYS militant xians. If you are xian and you keep to yourself, good for you. But if you are a "crazy xian" that wants to step on others, that's where atheists like TF start posting.
So you must have supers cherry-picking skills. You are a christian. Yet you accept big bang, evolution, and prayer being useless waste of time.There is no satan tempting and luring us. There was no creation, no garden of eden, no biblical flood. You know jesus was not born out of a virgin, and did none of the claimed "miracles", and was not risen from the dead with hundreds of other people. There is no rapture coming, no heaven or hell.
What is left, how can you still say you are a christian?
@bary1234 First off, that's RationalRoundtable. I'm HonestDiscussioner, an atheist.
Secondly, not every Christian interprets the bible literally.
Third, you can accept the big bang theory and evolution and think there are still miracles in other areas, like Jesus. I certainly don't, but wouldn't presume to know what RationalRoundtable believes before you get to know him if I were you.
And "getting to know people" happens like this. I write something on the comments, usually intentionally provocatively, and somebody replys and tells me why I am wrong, or that I quessed correctly but that is pretty rare. After that we can talk if we weel like it. Rational round table says he is rational, so if any of my quesses were wrong, he is not rational. He is delusional. As he would have to be to be a christian.
Wait, what are quesses? You used it twice so I don't think it is a type. Question guesses?
You can be rational and still wrong. He is very logical, his problem in my opinion is that he is unwittingly running off of false premises. False premises though have nothing to do with whether you are rational or not, you're simply mistaken. I know him well, he is not delusional.
@HonestDiscussioner : What were quesses: Everything I said on my original post. All I had was he saying he is rational, after that I just listed what I think rational human rejects from christianity.
If he believes in god, he is superstitious. If he is a christian, he believes in resurrection of jesus. Therefore he holds beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. Thats delusional.
@bary1234 There is no evidence to the contrary that Jesus rose from the dead, there is just a lack of evidence for it. We can't prove Jesus didn't, because we don't have any bones, but that by itself is no where near enough to warrant belief.
He believes the Cosmological argument is valid, and from that he thinks Christianity offers the best philosophy that would explain god.
You know what, why don't you ask him. He can defend his beliefs better than I can.
I think you have missed the point on this one. There would be no point in Richard Dawkins debating Dr Kenneth Miller as they probably agree on 99.9% but would disagree on something that can be neither proved or disproved. Now if you want to dispute the fact of evolution, maintain that the earth is less than 10K years old or that Noah's flood occurred I am sure TF would be delighted to respond to you.
@HonestDiscussioner The word "belief" itself implies that it's based on wishful thinking or nothing at all. It's a devotion to something - "I believe in you", etc. So no, I don't adhere to or believe in anything that could have multiple explanations for existing, not existing, regardless of subject. Acknowledging that there may be other possibilities is both rational and isn't jumping to a conclusion about something, adhering and taking up a "belief" about something without more knowledge.
@TruthNotReligion Most people, even those who often scrutinize as much as they can, let some things flow through the cracks. Many people, even atheists and rationalists, find they hold at least one irrational belief, something told to them when they are young that they never thought to question, however trivial. The question is whether or not your general thought process is logical. cont.
@HonestDiscussioner I see that you're continuing a post, but I can already see the point I tried to make went above you. Being rational isn't about going down a list of "knowns" and fact-checking them into oblivion, it's about *not making a judgment on something* until more is known. By that definition, then no, there is no "belief" in something that might have "slipped through the cracks".
@TruthNotReligion Even if you personally are totally immune to irrational beliefs, do you really think that most people who consider themselves rationalists are totally immune? Look at politics, most people, even atheists, have emotion tied into their political beliefs, and are unaware of it.
I mean come on, do you really think Thunderf00t is always rational with everything he believes?
@TruthNotReligion Let's say a person is thinks people who engage is activity X are prone to dying young and miserable. Is a person rational to then say that it is unwise to engage in activity X? I'd say so, but what if you found out that in fact activity X does NOT make people more prone to dying young and miserable, but that person disagrees with you on that point, is he still rational?
I'd say yes, because it's his premises that are off, not his logic. That's RationalRoundtable.
I'm sorry, all I could see or hear was your nose....are you sure your not jewish? That thing is bold. Actually that is the kind of boldness we need! RR's nose for president!!!
Well, I have to say I agree with RRs sentiment (despite the fact that I think Tfoot does valueable work). However, I would like to point out that Christians, specifically the ones who do hold with science and all the rational stuff that we all like, often simply come to a point where they simply don't care whether their beliefs are true. Which might be harmless, or not, but it is intellectually dishonest.
@Brandt761 Mind you, I'm not accusing RR of this, since I don't know him. The best example I can give are the educated catholics who disavow the pope. Seriously, the pope is god's representative on earth, and that's a matter of doctrine, not preference. I'm pretty sure if you disavow the pople, you're automatically not a catholic.
Could you imagine this invitation to debate with it's insults, and blatant attempts to shame TF into participating being taken seriously by anyone over the age of 12? Let alone by an adult. It's schoolyard taunting. It's clearly not intended to illicit a serious response, and I would encourage TF to take it as the worthless drama video that it is.
*sigh* I guess he has proof that there is a god that can't be exclusively knowing to the believers, I'd love to hear it. But I doubt he has, so far it's not very likely.
this guy should call into the atheist Experience when jeff D is on i am pretty sure jeff could explain y what ever "rational" reason for believing in god is wrong
I consider all religious people weak minded or ill informed and any religious person who thinks they have the ability to out debate me I consider delusional. While having said all this I hope thunderf00t takes up the debate, it would be interesting to see and I am in no way saying for sure he would out debate you as I am not thunderf00t. But I am saying for sure I would :) Peace
How in the fuck can there be a "Christian mainstream" with around 33,000 distinct sects of it? You have poll data? You quite possibly could be a very rational person and still be a Christian, but you also can be the exception to the rule.
Its unlikely that Thunderf00t will meet the Challenge. Thunderf00t is positive he is right about everything, and that anyone else is just wrong. Thunderf00t in his mind is an infallible Pope so debating people is beneath him. I am sure he would be glad if RR donated 20 $ for the Thunder-purpose but Talking? Naw that is out of the question. Debating is for free thinking, humble, sociable intellectuals. Debating is not for ThunderPope.
Thunderf00t is targeting people he sees as a threat. If people take NephilimFree or VenomFangX seriously they damage their ability to understand science. If they take JezuzFreek seriously they risk hilariously bad life decisions. You don't pose a threat and are thus irrelevant. It would be great if Thunderf00t was to talk with you though.
@TLSlayer1 You could always stop insults at me, you know? Would not have anything to respond back to if you did. However, I think you could do better than this. I mean, really, are you going to engage someone like Epydemic2020 with such a shallow thought process? You are going to be handed your shorts, and with a respectful smile I might add. You can do better if you try. Yes, rhetoric and fallacies are easier. They just do not work in rational discourse.
@TLSlayer1 So, you admit your comment WAS and IS completely off topic, completely irrelevant to the content of the video, and hence, a non-sequitor. So, what is the problem here, except for your rather fiery response to me?
@TLSlayer1 Oh, and using the word "fucking" as some form of emphasis does not help your case either. Again, we want to present a rational front to the public. I encourage you to raise your level of discourse.
@TLSlayer1 Lashing out at me in anger when you were clearly in the wrong for using a nonsequitor does you no good. Your implied threat is not remotely scary.
You are talking about something completely immaterial, like where the ball of the burden of proof lies in a discussion of the existence of God. Instead, the context of the ball in this video is in answering a challenge, and Micheal is dead on to say THAT ball lies in TF's court.
If I could, do you think I would have said, "my fellow non-theist?"
Come on, please read what people are saying to you before post a response. It helps in the perpetual quest for everyone else to avoid planting one's hand in one's face.
@TLSlayer1 Useless rhetoric and a complete non-sequitor.
I would have through my fellow non-theist, supposed rationalists could do better than this. Please, before sticking your head in these kinds of discussions again, go get a book on logical fallacies and rhetoric and then avoid using them.
I'll probably sound like a blunt dickhead here, but I'll speak frankly.
I think the only reason people like nephilimfree and VFX are so easy to take down is because they make testable claims. You, and others like you such as William lane Craig, seem to just waffle a bit and move the argument towards intellectual gymnastics rather than dealing with claims about reality with rationalizations and philosphobabble.
BTW I'm not a TF fanboy; I don't like him one bit. Are those thoughts justified?
@AtheismandSkepticism Having watched a number of Micheal's videos, I would tell you that Micheal in no way resembles or reiterates the nonsense of WLC. In fact, he actually made a video that claims that objective morality could be grounded independent of God, and thus rejecting the moral argument for the existence of God - a rejection on one of the five pillars of WLC's defense of the God concept.
I have seen Micheal's videos too, and he's one of my favourite channels here.
but I wasn't saying that there arguments were similar, just the way they don't make concise, testable claims and just kinda waffle a bit, it's kinda hard to pin them down on something that could be tested.
PS. Looking back, Micheal doesn't really do this that much, but it definitely applies to WLC.
I think there's a disconnect here. Thunderf00t doesn't care about mainstream Christianity, he targets fundamentalist activists exclusively.
He takes no issue with those that choose to believe that Christian doctrine is some sort of subjective truth.
He exclusively, and with extreme prejudice, targets those fundamentalist activists who's arguments are exclusively designed to fallaciously undermine objectivity and/or scientific endeavour on subjective, sometimes dishonest, grounds.
If you are not this class of religious participant, he really has no argument with you.
However, undermining science on purely mystical grounds, encouraging hate/division/persecution amongst common humanity on pure religiously biased argument or through religious doctrine, and or just being an intellectual charlatan that's using the bible to meet your own corporal wants ... HE DOES TAKE ISSUE WITH.
He doesn't combat agenda-less, intellectually honest folk, Christian or not.
@Dream0Asylum If by "HE" you are speaking of Thunderf00t, then HE needs to really change the message he is broadcasting. "The problem with religion" - not "extreme, anti-science, anti-reason religion" - "The problem with religion." His continuum from theism to reason is yet another example. I could go on, but Thunderf00t has done all that he can to paint with as broad a brush as possible the religious community as being anti-reason, and as such, he should be called out for it.
[... paint with as broad a brush as possible the religious community as being anti-reason]
If the majority of the religious community believes that subjective intuition trumps objective evidence then that is an unreasonable position and he is not wrong.
On basic grounds, if you say; "There is a god, and I am safe in saying this because I sincerely feel that it is true" Then you are engaged in mysticism, not an altogether reasonable or logical exercise.
@Dream0Asylum So, let me get this right. You are both saying that TF is and is not painting with a broad brush? You seem to want to argue the point that TF is right to paint with such a brush, and I would be happy to debate with you on the point you seem to be making. However, I do want to settle this first. Does TF attack all religious individuals or just the "fundamentalist" ones? OR, are you trying to say that all religious believers are fundamentalists?
I am not saying all people engaged in religion are fundamentalists. I am saying that anyone actively participating in mysticism is running a very great chance of participating in an exercise that is at best not wholely logical or reasonable.
Depending on the exact context (which has not been defined) Thunderf00t could be justified.
Now, if you wish to define a specific context, we can debate whether or not a wide bursh is a justified tool in the given scenerio.
@Dream0Asylum "define a specific context, we can debate whether or not a wide brush is justified"
Well, if the context matters, then almost by definition, a wide brush is not justified at all. The use of such a brush simply becomes the use of a stereotype - an unreliable generalization of a group.
If the context is broad, then a broad generalization is justified.
> Is bacteria bad? Yes, bacteria is bad.
> Is actobacillus bulgaricus bad? No, it makes yummy yogurt.
<Are theists unreasonable? Yes, due to a reliance on subjective intuition in the exercise of logic they have introduced an element of weak reason into their activity. In this regard they are some-what unreasonable.
<Are all theists unreasonable in every way? In this context, absolutely not.
@Dream0Asylum I see now the way you are using the word context. So, the basis of using the broad brush of a stereotype IS the reliability of the claim being true within the group. I would agree. I disagree with the claim that vast majority, what I would argue is required to make such a claim (not just a base majority), of theists are unreasonable in their faith.
One of the common defenses I hear of belief is "It simply works for me." How do you respond to this defense?
[One of the common defenses I hear of belief is "It simply works for me." How do you respond to this defense?]
As a subjective construction massaged by your bias, why would it not work for you? It's like saying; "my sexual fantasy of getting massaged by Johnny Mathis just works for me." Of course it does.
I have no problem with people entertaining subjective notions to get by ... until they try to pass them off as objective facts. That's where the cows roost.
@Dream0Asylum I would agree with many of your points here. However, nothing in Micheal's channel meets ANY of the points you raise. So, clearly, not all theists must subscribe to any (let alone most) of those points. Shall we move on then to other grounds?
Have you read Pragmatism by William James? He was a great modern philosopher and founder of, you guessed it, Pragmatism. He also presents probably the best argument for belief in (though not proof of) the existence of God.
There are always exceptions. If you find yourself to be one of these, then A) you're not the target of the statement and you should just take a pass. Go play Wii with the kids or something / B) you were caught in the crossfire due to circumstance alone. Cry fowl, pass go, collect $200.
@Dream0Asylum Hehehe... Context. We were speaking of theists, so the use of you did imply to me a belief of theism. Still, a funny response if the comment is taken out the context I had meant. =)
Oh, and quite the opposite. I am very much an exception to many rules.
Without the tacit support of the 260+ million Christians as a whole in America the 25% of fundamentalists who are anti-science, anti-reason would have no credibility. The gay marriage, abortion, stem cell, and "intelligent design" debates would be non-existent. So yes it's an inherent problem with the belief that the bible is the word of, or inspired word of God. To argue otherwise is like saying the problem with racism isn't racists it's those who act on those beliefs.
As long as a significant percentage of people who believe whites are superior to blacks for example, there are going to be those who act on those belief because their views are bolstered by the group as a whole. So the problem is racism not racists in the same way it's religion not those who take it the seriously, and live by those convictions rather than ignoring (without justification) the bits they don't agree with.
RationalRoundtable is gonna be disappointed. It doesn't matter if it's VFX , Matt Slick or Stephen Meyer defending ID/theism, it's still wrong. The integrity of the argument doesn't change. The only difference is that it gives the people on the incorrect side an opportunity to use dishonest tactics. It's like when Hovind or D'Souza spew more bullshit than their opponent has time to respond to. Matt Slick's approach is to trick people into accepting false premises and then claim victory.
@theshredator I've never known RR to engage in those tactics. I believe some of his beliefs are based on faulty premises but I think that is a matter of disagreement between him and I, not that he agrees with me but keeps it secret for the sake of winning an argument.
@HonestDiscussioner Perhaps calling them dishonest tactics is unfair, because they aren't being dishonest if they don't know any better. I think many use those tactics because they work the best, but they remain unaware that they are doing so. I guess my point is (and I know I mostly preach to the choir here) that formal debates are flawed, and an intellectual defending an incorrect position can only be more effective by confusing his opponent and preventing him from clearly exposing it's flaws.
@theshredator All I have to say is that a Christian can be wrong about Christianity, and still make decent points that must be addressed. Their understanding of the god concept goes far deeper than "magic man in the sky", and if atheists refuse to see it as anything other than that we'll look like the ones who closed minded fools. That doesn't mean we give credence to the idea as true, only understand what they are talking about when they discuss what they believe.
@PostITnoteGUY That's certainly not the case with me. I loved TF totally, then Ray Comfort happened which was disappointing. Then he started down the path of bad biblical critique, then the whole Islam thing, and then all the misinformation about Coughlan. He's done a lot to get the criticism he is getting.
And that would prove something? Oh yeah, that you are really good at trolling and do not have something intellectual to say. Really, if you actually have some grounds to make a point, then you do not need to resort to mocking or other forms of rhetoric to make it. And the reverse is true as well. If you must mock, you had no point to begin with.
@balanceseeker I am no troll, check my channel I have over 100 vids and have been here for years(2008). Secondly, mockery is a true form of debate when reason and logic have failed. If ANYONE in our modern age wants to debate the existance of ghosts in the sky, that tells me they have already abandon reason and logic. Thus the only thing left is pointing a finger and laughing. The alternative is to sit and cry at how sasd the world is, and I prefer to have a bit of fun.
Immaterial. Indeed, one could be a troll and have 100 trolling vids - not to say you are, but still it is immaterial.
"Mockery is a true form of debate when reason and logic have failed."
If reason and logic are failing you, then perhaps that is all you have left. However, that is your problem. Mockery is simply rhetoric. It certainly isn't a rational response, and in fact, is a logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. So, who abandoned what?
When you explain something over and over and the other side just keeps repeating the same flawed statements, you get to a point where no amount of reasoning is going to get the point across. They refuse to absorb simple, plain facts, so might as well poke fun at the stupid chimps.
@rednecktrucker1969 I could agree to that statement. However, when you say "If ANYONE ... wants to debate the existence of ghosts in the sky" (which I presume is a dysphemism for God) "that tells me they have already abandon (sic) reason and logic," you are have already prejudged the arguments from Micheal before you heard them as being irrational. Indeed, your statement "mock him in to oblivion" further underpins this understanding. I suggest that you listen first; mock as a last resort.
@balanceseeker I have been on youtube long enough to say, "been there, done that." Look at my videos, I have tried to have meaningful dialogue with these types of people and it never goes anywhere, guess I am fed up with being the "nice guy"
@rednecktrucker1969 I hear what you are saying, but if the debate is causing you to cease being the nice guy, then take a break from it for a bit. Come back when you can be nice. One of my favorite channels is Epydemic2020. He is a Christian and an aspiring professor of philosopher. I happen to think he is utterly wrong, but he is very respectful, calm, and rational, even to people who are not. That is very endearing to me and makes me take his comments seriously. Check him out sometime.
@balanceseeker-One of my favorite channels is Epydemic2020. He is a Christian and an aspiring professor of philosopher. I happen to think he is utterly wrong, but he is very respectful, calm, and rational
I agree with every word you said except for the last one. Unless you have a different definition of rational, or are referring to his position on things other than the God question. If the belief in God could be rationally justified there would be very few atheists.
@TheNakedAtheist LOL - Not at you, mind you, but still that made me laugh.
Well, by rational, I mean that he is using logic and reasoning (as opposed to rhetoric) correctly. I do not think his premises are true, but the logical format of his arguments are valid. Take the moral argument, for example. The structure of the argument is valid, in that if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST follow. However, premise one is false, and so the argument fails.
I'm not saying he can't make rational arguments. I'm saying that he is not rational as a whole. Now you could argue that none of us are 100% rational, and I would agree, but his entire worldview is based on an irrational belief in God. When someone's entire worldview is based on an irrational premise they don't qualify as rational.
@TheNakedAtheist I wrote something out in response, but then I thought instead of presuming what you mean, I would simply ask why do you think his belief in God is irrational? What about that belief itself is irrational?
@balanceseeker-why do you think his belief in God is irrational?
There are no sound reasons to believe in a personal God. For example, I once saw a UFO that looked like an alien spacecraft. Would it be sound reasoning for me to believe what I saw was an alien spacecraft? No because there are much better, more likely explanations. He may have reasons that he thinks are sound, but if such reasons existed all rational people would be Christians.
I wanted to add that rational people can come to different conclusions where opinion, or preference are involved, but given sufficient evidence, and an absence of preconceptions, rational people will come to the same conclusions on matters of fact.
@balanceseeker-Do you think either are present in abundance on the issue of God's existence?
I anticipated this, and should have responded in advance. With insufficient evidence rational people will be unable to reach a rational conclusion. Sometimes it is necessary to reach a conclusion anyway, but only if it is rational to do so, and only by choosing among one of the most rational choices.
For example I'm at a fork in the road, have no phone, map, or GPS, and I'm not sure if it's left, or right, but I have to make a choice with the goal of reaching grandmothers house. Assuming left, or right are the most rational answers either one is acceptable. As I was typing this out it occurred to me a method whereby Epydemic2020's belief in the Christian God could be considered a rational decision.
If his goal was to believe in the most likely God while knowing that one probably doesn't exist. I'm not saying the Christian God fits that role, but if it did it might in that circumstance be rational to believe in him. In the same way it might be rational for me to conclude that it's most likely Leprechauns live in Ireland IF they exist. :p
@TheNakedAtheist Well, I think Epydemic2020 would completely disagree with the phrase, "while knowing that one probably doesn't exist," given his use of philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God.
But you are right on all the other points -- though I personally think that the Christian god is a rather low probability compared to other god concepts. Still, as I have not heard Epydemic2020 make the argument that ties his general argument to the Christian one, I'll reserve judgment.
"Sometime it is necessary to reach a conclusion anyways, but only if it is rational to do so"
Okay, so what rational reason should one have for arriving at a conclusion? Supposing the theist is right, briefly, we are talking about an issue that could have eternal consequences for everyone. Further, such an issue may have profound implications for our actions here. Is that not a compelling reason to arrive at a conclusion, one way or the other?
@balanceseeker-Supposing the theist is right, briefly, we are talking about an issue that could have eternal consequences for everyone.
What I meant was that it's rationally necessary to reach a conclusion. There is no rational justification for believing that decision has "eternal consequences". It presupposes as you point out that a theist is right.
Okay, but if I say that an accident may happen at a nuclear power plant, would you really respond back, "It presupposes the anti-nuclear power advocate is right?" I suppose you would respond there is some rational justification for such an assertion, but what I am simply pointing out is the importance of the issue itself. The issue is important; it has dramatic implications - no matter the conclusion reached.
@TheNakedAtheist Oh, and for the record, I have no clue who is marking all your recent replies as spam, but whoever it is, in my opinion, is an intellectual coward. Your comments are not spam and attempting to censor your replies instead of responding to them is rather sad.
@TheNakedAtheist Well, first, I want to point out there that I have never heard Epydemic say his belief was based on a personal experience. Second, there are more than just appeals to the best explanation as proper, rational basises for holding a belief. One could do so on pragmatic grounds. Indeed, in one way of looking at quantum physics is on this very basis. "We have no idea why quantum mechanics works, it just does, so we just it and believe in it," one might say.
I didn't see this comment until after the other, but I think I covered that in that response. Also your quote about quantum mechanics is missing a word after just, and I can't fully analyze it.
@TheNakedAtheist Actually, the quote isn't missing a word, so perhaps it is simply failing to convey meaning. I will rephrase.
In quantum mechanics, one view is called instrumentalism (I think). They would state that they have no clue what quantum mechanics mean ontologically, but it works, so we use it and believe in it. In the same way, someone may believe in God on pragmatic grounds, ala William James and The Will to Believe. (A reading I highly recommend)
You said in the original comment "so we just it and believe in it". Are you sure there isn't a word missing between JUST, and IT, cause it makes no sense otherwise.
As for as the rest of the comment, who ever said quantum physicists were rational? :p
@ItsTheSuperFly Don't sell your self short either. If you flip this around you would be a better challenge than Thunder. LOL its almost like HE is picking on the extreme. ,
Michael - if you REALLY think of yourself as rational, then please explain why you are still a believer in that which there is no evidence for.
Unless God has actually appeared before you personally and DEMONSTRATED his existence, what rational reason would you have for believing in his existence? You must know that people succumb to wishful thinking all the time.
By believing in something for which you have no evidence, you are discarding rationality in favor of wishful thinking.
It wouldn't really make a difference if God had revealed himself to honestdiscussioner, I know a schizophrenic called Winston, who regularly has sex with the virgin mary.
@SecularNumanist Exactly what would such a positive case have to cover? I assume you are referring to empiricism as used in philosophy. To the extent of my understanding, the validity of that school of thought rests upon the explicit assumption that 'Cogito ergo sum' is proof that one's mind - and thus sensory input - exist in the absolute, objective sense.
@SecularNumanist lol - thanks - I've never formally studied philosophy, so I don't know many of the various (most if not all) concepts by their names/name of the 'conceptualiser' (if that is even a word). Without wishing to derail the discussion, if the explicit assumption that our own mind exists is not (or indeed cannot be) made, how can we know anything to be absolute, in any sense? Put in a somewhat rhetorical fashion, perhaps, but not facetiously. The question gives me a headache.
@RB Hume basically asked the question "how does it follow that each of these successive thoughts that occur correspond to a single entity that can be referred to as I/Me" but to even make that judgement and ask that question is to answer it for yourself so I think his scepticism goes too far.
On to the question of making a positive claim for empiricism, well youd need to show that our sense perception is the only way for us to gain knowledge. I personally dont think this is the case,
@SecularNumanist On the point of Hume, if I understand you correctly wrt his skepticism, I would agree; the proverbial line must be drawn somewhere. Put simply, the assumption that 'you' do, in fact, exist is an essential 'datum' from which we 'measure' reality. At least that's my take on it. Speaking of 'sum' - I'm thinking dim sum, I'm peckish - time to go to the takeaway.
@SecularNumanist "well youd need to show that our sense perception is the only way for us to gain knowledge."
What other methods of gaining "knowledge" IS there, beyond perception? And of course, because our perceptions can be fooled, you want to have other people verify your perceptions, and ideally have machines that make objective measurements of them. We call this "science" and it's served us well.
@SecularNumanist "You'd need to show that our sense perception is the only way for us to gain knowledge.."
Neurocognitive development very much supports this case. We know, for example, that without retinal stimulation of the visual cortex prior to birth, the visual cortex does not organize itself in such a way as to promote visual processing.. and without the eyes opening within the critical period of visual processing, a person remains blind, irrespective of the functioning of the eyes (cont)
@SecularNumanist (cont'd) The same goes for the language centers of the brain -- that without any exposure to language at all within certain critical periods, we do not develop a significant capacity to understand it later on (and we don't learn any of the languages we're not exposed to, either). Neurologists and psychologists strongly believe that language and cognition are closely related, yet the centers for cognition are also the last in the brain to develop.
@SecularNumanist (cont'd) Further, infant cognitive studies indicate that there are extreme limits on the capacity of a young child to understand both its surrounding environment and even its own existence. I think there is plenty of information to suggest that experiential interaction with a surrounding environment is crucial for the developing human mind, both in being able to perceive the world, and also being able to develop a significant capacity to make sense of data (i.e. thinking).
@SecularNumanist I like the way that author Terry Pratchett put the empirical argument in his book Small Gods. He wrote "Sum, ergo sum", "I am therefore I am' meaning 'the fact of my existence IS the evidence of my existence'. It was one of his double-edged jokes; maybe a little too close to the truth for comfort!
@SecularNumanist I need to make the case for absolute empiricism? Why?
What does that even mean?
We know, from experiencing the world around us, that the world bites back. If we exert a force on the world, we leave fingerprints (so to speak). You must learn this as you grow up, or you will get eaten by a crocodile or run over by a car or something. The world teaches you to be empirical.
What else is there, and how can you demonstrate it?
You had a surgical procedure? Don't you believe God will answer prayers? Is your particular problem beyond what an all powerful god can fix? Maybe your all-loving god doesn't like you enough to fix it...
The problem with religion? Where to begin, lol. How about we use the bible against itself for the answer. Matthew 7:24-27 It's like the Three Little Pigs you see. The theocracy is like the little pig who built his house out of straw, the wishy washy, secular believer, go to church a couple of times a year, is like the little pig who built his house out of wood and I think you can figure out the rest.
Most Christian Americans don't accept evolution, most Christian Americans don't believe global warming is real, or that it's caused by man. 64 percent believe the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is literally true, Noah and the flood 60 percent. What mainstream is he talking about? lol
Suggestion: Add "Mirror:" to the beginning of the title to reflect that it is a mirror. Also, link to RR's channel in the info bar like thunderbolt94 did.
To be honest I have more respect for the fundies than I do these Christianity 2.0 types. How do you eviscerate the bible so, still believe in some of its teachings, and not understand you just made up your own religion?
You need to state your case... the problem with religion is that it's a fairy tale... which doesn't leave much for Thunderfoot to discuss. What exactly about your fairy tale would you like him to talk about?
Well rationalism is an school of philosophy that holds that the truths of the world can basically be deduced and obtained through reason alone, such as Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz. Opposed to the empiricists who held that all of our knowledge comes from sense perception, like Locke and Hume. Kant kinda blended the two schools.
Your a believer but also a rationalist; can one man be a little bit pregnant? Beam me up Scotty!
MrSchpankme 6 months ago
@MrSchpankme This was a mirror, you want RationalRoundtable, not I. I"m an atheist.
And people can be rational and yet incorrect.
HonestDiscussioner 6 months ago
@yakult244 First off I'm not RationalRoundtable. I'm HonestDiscussioner (atheist).
Secondly, are you REALLY going to use that argument right when nearly the entire youtube atheist community is arguing over what it means to be an atheist?
Third, you don't have to go around and disprove every single other belief system in order to posit your own. There are millions of Christians who are both decent intelligent people, but TF gives all his time to awful people like NephilimFree. He can do better.
HonestDiscussioner 7 months ago
@yakult244 "so many interpenetrate it so differently, w\no reason to legitimize one over the other, makes them all subject to interpretation, and therefore imaginary"
I'd agree that there are so many different ways to interpret the bible, & I'd also agree that such things causes a variety of theological problems, but by itself it does not disprove the bible, or make its adherents fools. All literary interpretation is subjective, that does not mean the author didn't have a specific view in mind.
HonestDiscussioner 7 months ago
@yakult244 "How is it that they got it wrong?"
Because for many people faith is an emotional position, and they use their intellect to try to justify their emotional attachment to their faith. Everyone does it . . . confirmation bias is a bitch.
Your position is that there is only one way to honestly interpret it, and that's clearly false. That doesn't mean that everyone should get the interpretation correct, it means exactly the opposite.
HonestDiscussioner 7 months ago
@yunged You do know the oldest version of what we now know of as the Old Testament point blank says in the first line it's not meant to be taken literally, right?
HonestDiscussioner 7 months ago
Mate you are possibly worse then the idiots you bash Thunderfoot for taking on, you (at least claim to) have scientific knowledge and understand the scientific method, hold your views up to reason, and appreciate the value of logic and yet you parrot the faith based views of the society you happened to grow up in, i have little respect for that position
yunged 7 months ago
@yunged I think before you judge RationalRoundtable you should actually try to understand his position, not assume it and then bash it.
HonestDiscussioner 7 months ago
This is where many ppl miss the point. 'TF doesn't bash xians in general. He DESTROYS militant xians. If you are xian and you keep to yourself, good for you. But if you are a "crazy xian" that wants to step on others, that's where atheists like TF start posting.
gargamel6699 7 months ago
Naaaa
calmreason 10 months ago
So you must have supers cherry-picking skills. You are a christian. Yet you accept big bang, evolution, and prayer being useless waste of time.There is no satan tempting and luring us. There was no creation, no garden of eden, no biblical flood. You know jesus was not born out of a virgin, and did none of the claimed "miracles", and was not risen from the dead with hundreds of other people. There is no rapture coming, no heaven or hell.
What is left, how can you still say you are a christian?
bary1234 10 months ago
@bary1234 First off, that's RationalRoundtable. I'm HonestDiscussioner, an atheist.
Secondly, not every Christian interprets the bible literally.
Third, you can accept the big bang theory and evolution and think there are still miracles in other areas, like Jesus. I certainly don't, but wouldn't presume to know what RationalRoundtable believes before you get to know him if I were you.
HonestDiscussioner 10 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner : Oh, sorry. I tought this was yours.
And "getting to know people" happens like this. I write something on the comments, usually intentionally provocatively, and somebody replys and tells me why I am wrong, or that I quessed correctly but that is pretty rare. After that we can talk if we weel like it. Rational round table says he is rational, so if any of my quesses were wrong, he is not rational. He is delusional. As he would have to be to be a christian.
bary1234 10 months ago
@bary1234 "Oh, sorry. I tought this was yours."
It was an understandable mistake.
Wait, what are quesses? You used it twice so I don't think it is a type. Question guesses?
You can be rational and still wrong. He is very logical, his problem in my opinion is that he is unwittingly running off of false premises. False premises though have nothing to do with whether you are rational or not, you're simply mistaken. I know him well, he is not delusional.
HonestDiscussioner 10 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner : What were quesses: Everything I said on my original post. All I had was he saying he is rational, after that I just listed what I think rational human rejects from christianity.
If he believes in god, he is superstitious. If he is a christian, he believes in resurrection of jesus. Therefore he holds beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. Thats delusional.
bary1234 10 months ago
@bary1234 There is no evidence to the contrary that Jesus rose from the dead, there is just a lack of evidence for it. We can't prove Jesus didn't, because we don't have any bones, but that by itself is no where near enough to warrant belief.
He believes the Cosmological argument is valid, and from that he thinks Christianity offers the best philosophy that would explain god.
You know what, why don't you ask him. He can defend his beliefs better than I can.
HonestDiscussioner 10 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner : Thanks, I might do that.
bary1234 10 months ago
I think you have missed the point on this one. There would be no point in Richard Dawkins debating Dr Kenneth Miller as they probably agree on 99.9% but would disagree on something that can be neither proved or disproved. Now if you want to dispute the fact of evolution, maintain that the earth is less than 10K years old or that Noah's flood occurred I am sure TF would be delighted to respond to you.
Tridhos 11 months ago
That guy says he's a rationalist believer. That's impossible because there is no RATIONAL reason to believe in god. Sorry.
TruthNotReligion 11 months ago 7
@TruthNotReligion If you think the definition of a rationalist is someone who holds no irrational beliefs, then I doubt ANYONE is a rationalist.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner The word "belief" itself implies that it's based on wishful thinking or nothing at all. It's a devotion to something - "I believe in you", etc. So no, I don't adhere to or believe in anything that could have multiple explanations for existing, not existing, regardless of subject. Acknowledging that there may be other possibilities is both rational and isn't jumping to a conclusion about something, adhering and taking up a "belief" about something without more knowledge.
TruthNotReligion 11 months ago
@TruthNotReligion Most people, even those who often scrutinize as much as they can, let some things flow through the cracks. Many people, even atheists and rationalists, find they hold at least one irrational belief, something told to them when they are young that they never thought to question, however trivial. The question is whether or not your general thought process is logical. cont.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner I see that you're continuing a post, but I can already see the point I tried to make went above you. Being rational isn't about going down a list of "knowns" and fact-checking them into oblivion, it's about *not making a judgment on something* until more is known. By that definition, then no, there is no "belief" in something that might have "slipped through the cracks".
TruthNotReligion 11 months ago
@TruthNotReligion Even if you personally are totally immune to irrational beliefs, do you really think that most people who consider themselves rationalists are totally immune? Look at politics, most people, even atheists, have emotion tied into their political beliefs, and are unaware of it.
I mean come on, do you really think Thunderf00t is always rational with everything he believes?
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
@TruthNotReligion Let's say a person is thinks people who engage is activity X are prone to dying young and miserable. Is a person rational to then say that it is unwise to engage in activity X? I'd say so, but what if you found out that in fact activity X does NOT make people more prone to dying young and miserable, but that person disagrees with you on that point, is he still rational?
I'd say yes, because it's his premises that are off, not his logic. That's RationalRoundtable.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
I'm sorry, all I could see or hear was your nose....are you sure your not jewish? That thing is bold. Actually that is the kind of boldness we need! RR's nose for president!!!
vorkvoyd 11 months ago
Well, I have to say I agree with RRs sentiment (despite the fact that I think Tfoot does valueable work). However, I would like to point out that Christians, specifically the ones who do hold with science and all the rational stuff that we all like, often simply come to a point where they simply don't care whether their beliefs are true. Which might be harmless, or not, but it is intellectually dishonest.
Brandt761 11 months ago
@Brandt761 Mind you, I'm not accusing RR of this, since I don't know him. The best example I can give are the educated catholics who disavow the pope. Seriously, the pope is god's representative on earth, and that's a matter of doctrine, not preference. I'm pretty sure if you disavow the pople, you're automatically not a catholic.
Brandt761 11 months ago
Could you imagine this invitation to debate with it's insults, and blatant attempts to shame TF into participating being taken seriously by anyone over the age of 12? Let alone by an adult. It's schoolyard taunting. It's clearly not intended to illicit a serious response, and I would encourage TF to take it as the worthless drama video that it is.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
*by "take it" I mean ignore it.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
Mirroring this really doesn't carry any weight unless Thunderf00t is aware of it. You should make it a reply to one of his videos.
WatcherAzazel 11 months ago
Believer & Rationalist, oh boy, who let the crazies out of the asylum.
Is Thunder going to spend his time battling all the nit wits out there who think they are more rational than the next guy.
rubberbaby00 11 months ago
*sigh* I guess he has proof that there is a god that can't be exclusively knowing to the believers, I'd love to hear it. But I doubt he has, so far it's not very likely.
anikinippon 11 months ago
A Christian and a rationalist? Well, I would like to see you explain that, because as far as I can see those two are completely contradictory.
wasneeplus 11 months ago
this guy should call into the atheist Experience when jeff D is on i am pretty sure jeff could explain y what ever "rational" reason for believing in god is wrong
kainniak1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDrunkenCabDriver how do u define intellectual.
fantasticalNINJA 11 months ago
@TheDrunkenCabDriver how do u define intellectual.
fantasticalNINJA 11 months ago
I consider all religious people weak minded or ill informed and any religious person who thinks they have the ability to out debate me I consider delusional. While having said all this I hope thunderf00t takes up the debate, it would be interesting to see and I am in no way saying for sure he would out debate you as I am not thunderf00t. But I am saying for sure I would :) Peace
TheRenekruse 11 months ago
How in the fuck can there be a "Christian mainstream" with around 33,000 distinct sects of it? You have poll data? You quite possibly could be a very rational person and still be a Christian, but you also can be the exception to the rule.
Hexdoll 11 months ago
Do you add the J so as not to be confused with Michael Crawford, star of stage and screen ?
Al1981X 11 months ago
Its unlikely that Thunderf00t will meet the Challenge. Thunderf00t is positive he is right about everything, and that anyone else is just wrong. Thunderf00t in his mind is an infallible Pope so debating people is beneath him. I am sure he would be glad if RR donated 20 $ for the Thunder-purpose but Talking? Naw that is out of the question. Debating is for free thinking, humble, sociable intellectuals. Debating is not for ThunderPope.
graphattic 11 months ago
ThunderF00t could start doing a science in the classroom series. That would be freaking awesome!
startreking2007 11 months ago
So you can have an invisible friend and still be rational? Hmmmm
myjizzureye 11 months ago
@myjizzureye is it the same for peoples whos only friend/lover is a teddy bear
skullsmasher01 11 months ago
You can't be rational about theism, rationalroundtable is an atheist just waiting to happen.
nakedapedude 11 months ago
Thunderf00t is targeting people he sees as a threat. If people take NephilimFree or VenomFangX seriously they damage their ability to understand science. If they take JezuzFreek seriously they risk hilariously bad life decisions. You don't pose a threat and are thus irrelevant. It would be great if Thunderf00t was to talk with you though.
happyjesus123 11 months ago 4
@happyjesus123 This isn't me, this is rationalroundtable.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner
oooh...and here I was thinking your girlfriend had convinced you to get facial reconstructive surgery ;D.
Brandt761 11 months ago
LMAO!!! A theistic rationalist... it's just like saying 'jumbo shrimp.'
xccmx 11 months ago
@TLSlayer1 You could always stop insults at me, you know? Would not have anything to respond back to if you did. However, I think you could do better than this. I mean, really, are you going to engage someone like Epydemic2020 with such a shallow thought process? You are going to be handed your shorts, and with a respectful smile I might add. You can do better if you try. Yes, rhetoric and fallacies are easier. They just do not work in rational discourse.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@TLSlayer1 So, you admit your comment WAS and IS completely off topic, completely irrelevant to the content of the video, and hence, a non-sequitor. So, what is the problem here, except for your rather fiery response to me?
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@TLSlayer1 Oh, and using the word "fucking" as some form of emphasis does not help your case either. Again, we want to present a rational front to the public. I encourage you to raise your level of discourse.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@TLSlayer1 Lashing out at me in anger when you were clearly in the wrong for using a nonsequitor does you no good. Your implied threat is not remotely scary.
You are talking about something completely immaterial, like where the ball of the burden of proof lies in a discussion of the existence of God. Instead, the context of the ball in this video is in answering a challenge, and Micheal is dead on to say THAT ball lies in TF's court.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@TLSlayer1 "ok, can you prove god exists?"
If I could, do you think I would have said, "my fellow non-theist?"
Come on, please read what people are saying to you before post a response. It helps in the perpetual quest for everyone else to avoid planting one's hand in one's face.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@TLSlayer1 Useless rhetoric and a complete non-sequitor.
I would have through my fellow non-theist, supposed rationalists could do better than this. Please, before sticking your head in these kinds of discussions again, go get a book on logical fallacies and rhetoric and then avoid using them.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
The Amazing Atheist and Thunderf00t are so annoying. They aren't any better than the intellectual baboons they pick on in their videos.
turtlekicker 11 months ago
I'll probably sound like a blunt dickhead here, but I'll speak frankly.
I think the only reason people like nephilimfree and VFX are so easy to take down is because they make testable claims. You, and others like you such as William lane Craig, seem to just waffle a bit and move the argument towards intellectual gymnastics rather than dealing with claims about reality with rationalizations and philosphobabble.
BTW I'm not a TF fanboy; I don't like him one bit. Are those thoughts justified?
AtheismandSkepticism 11 months ago
@AtheismandSkepticism Having watched a number of Micheal's videos, I would tell you that Micheal in no way resembles or reiterates the nonsense of WLC. In fact, he actually made a video that claims that objective morality could be grounded independent of God, and thus rejecting the moral argument for the existence of God - a rejection on one of the five pillars of WLC's defense of the God concept.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker
I have seen Micheal's videos too, and he's one of my favourite channels here.
but I wasn't saying that there arguments were similar, just the way they don't make concise, testable claims and just kinda waffle a bit, it's kinda hard to pin them down on something that could be tested.
PS. Looking back, Micheal doesn't really do this that much, but it definitely applies to WLC.
AtheismandSkepticism 11 months ago
@AtheismandSkepticism This video is from rationaroundtable, not me. I'm just mirroring it.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner
OK, thanks for telling me.
AtheismandSkepticism 11 months ago
I think there's a disconnect here. Thunderf00t doesn't care about mainstream Christianity, he targets fundamentalist activists exclusively.
He takes no issue with those that choose to believe that Christian doctrine is some sort of subjective truth.
He exclusively, and with extreme prejudice, targets those fundamentalist activists who's arguments are exclusively designed to fallaciously undermine objectivity and/or scientific endeavour on subjective, sometimes dishonest, grounds.
Dream0Asylum 11 months ago
If you are not this class of religious participant, he really has no argument with you.
However, undermining science on purely mystical grounds, encouraging hate/division/persecution amongst common humanity on pure religiously biased argument or through religious doctrine, and or just being an intellectual charlatan that's using the bible to meet your own corporal wants ... HE DOES TAKE ISSUE WITH.
He doesn't combat agenda-less, intellectually honest folk, Christian or not.
Dream0Asylum 11 months ago
@Dream0Asylum If by "HE" you are speaking of Thunderf00t, then HE needs to really change the message he is broadcasting. "The problem with religion" - not "extreme, anti-science, anti-reason religion" - "The problem with religion." His continuum from theism to reason is yet another example. I could go on, but Thunderf00t has done all that he can to paint with as broad a brush as possible the religious community as being anti-reason, and as such, he should be called out for it.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker
[... paint with as broad a brush as possible the religious community as being anti-reason]
If the majority of the religious community believes that subjective intuition trumps objective evidence then that is an unreasonable position and he is not wrong.
On basic grounds, if you say; "There is a god, and I am safe in saying this because I sincerely feel that it is true" Then you are engaged in mysticism, not an altogether reasonable or logical exercise.
(cont)
Dream0Asylum 11 months ago
@Dream0Asylum So, let me get this right. You are both saying that TF is and is not painting with a broad brush? You seem to want to argue the point that TF is right to paint with such a brush, and I would be happy to debate with you on the point you seem to be making. However, I do want to settle this first. Does TF attack all religious individuals or just the "fundamentalist" ones? OR, are you trying to say that all religious believers are fundamentalists?
balanceseeker 11 months ago
I am not saying all people engaged in religion are fundamentalists. I am saying that anyone actively participating in mysticism is running a very great chance of participating in an exercise that is at best not wholely logical or reasonable.
Depending on the exact context (which has not been defined) Thunderf00t could be justified.
Now, if you wish to define a specific context, we can debate whether or not a wide bursh is a justified tool in the given scenerio.
Dream0Asylum 11 months ago
@Dream0Asylum "define a specific context, we can debate whether or not a wide brush is justified"
Well, if the context matters, then almost by definition, a wide brush is not justified at all. The use of such a brush simply becomes the use of a stereotype - an unreliable generalization of a group.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker
If the context is broad, then a broad generalization is justified.
> Is bacteria bad? Yes, bacteria is bad.
> Is actobacillus bulgaricus bad? No, it makes yummy yogurt.
<Are theists unreasonable? Yes, due to a reliance on subjective intuition in the exercise of logic they have introduced an element of weak reason into their activity. In this regard they are some-what unreasonable.
<Are all theists unreasonable in every way? In this context, absolutely not.
Dream0Asylum 11 months ago
@Dream0Asylum I see now the way you are using the word context. So, the basis of using the broad brush of a stereotype IS the reliability of the claim being true within the group. I would agree. I disagree with the claim that vast majority, what I would argue is required to make such a claim (not just a base majority), of theists are unreasonable in their faith.
One of the common defenses I hear of belief is "It simply works for me." How do you respond to this defense?
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker
[One of the common defenses I hear of belief is "It simply works for me." How do you respond to this defense?]
As a subjective construction massaged by your bias, why would it not work for you? It's like saying; "my sexual fantasy of getting massaged by Johnny Mathis just works for me." Of course it does.
I have no problem with people entertaining subjective notions to get by ... until they try to pass them off as objective facts. That's where the cows roost.
Dream0Asylum 11 months ago
@Dream0Asylum Look up "William James - The Will to Believe"
Let me know what you think.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
However, nobody cares if you engage yourself in said mysticism until you attempt to press your subjective notions on those that do not share them.
ID/Creationism is not an equal proposition to Evolution
The 10 commandments, though generally not bad notions on the surface, are not evidence of objective morality
Geocentrism, though an interesting thought experiment, produces useless models regarding space exploration.
^ promote criticism of your religion, blame your social activists
Dream0Asylum 11 months ago
@Dream0Asylum I would agree with many of your points here. However, nothing in Micheal's channel meets ANY of the points you raise. So, clearly, not all theists must subscribe to any (let alone most) of those points. Shall we move on then to other grounds?
Have you read Pragmatism by William James? He was a great modern philosopher and founder of, you guessed it, Pragmatism. He also presents probably the best argument for belief in (though not proof of) the existence of God.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker
There are always exceptions. If you find yourself to be one of these, then A) you're not the target of the statement and you should just take a pass. Go play Wii with the kids or something / B) you were caught in the crossfire due to circumstance alone. Cry fowl, pass go, collect $200.
Dream0Asylum 11 months ago
@Dream0Asylum "There are always exceptions."
Well, if the majority constitutes exceptions to the rule, then I am very suspect of the rule itself.
"Cry fowl (sic)"
And that is what people are doing.
By the way, I am not a theist, so the use of "you" is inappropriate here.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker
Are you never an exception to anything? And you were arguing that generalizations are never justified ;)
Dream0Asylum 11 months ago
@Dream0Asylum Hehehe... Context. We were speaking of theists, so the use of you did imply to me a belief of theism. Still, a funny response if the comment is taken out the context I had meant. =)
Oh, and quite the opposite. I am very much an exception to many rules.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker
Without the tacit support of the 260+ million Christians as a whole in America the 25% of fundamentalists who are anti-science, anti-reason would have no credibility. The gay marriage, abortion, stem cell, and "intelligent design" debates would be non-existent. So yes it's an inherent problem with the belief that the bible is the word of, or inspired word of God. To argue otherwise is like saying the problem with racism isn't racists it's those who act on those beliefs.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
(cont)
As long as a significant percentage of people who believe whites are superior to blacks for example, there are going to be those who act on those belief because their views are bolstered by the group as a whole. So the problem is racism not racists in the same way it's religion not those who take it the seriously, and live by those convictions rather than ignoring (without justification) the bits they don't agree with.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
Nice one but I can't find the original on RationalRoundTable's channel?
rozeboosje 11 months ago
@rozeboosje It will be there. He is still recovering.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner Cool. I wasn't aware of the guy until just now so I subbed.
rozeboosje 11 months ago
Comment removed
theshredator 11 months ago
RationalRoundtable is gonna be disappointed. It doesn't matter if it's VFX , Matt Slick or Stephen Meyer defending ID/theism, it's still wrong. The integrity of the argument doesn't change. The only difference is that it gives the people on the incorrect side an opportunity to use dishonest tactics. It's like when Hovind or D'Souza spew more bullshit than their opponent has time to respond to. Matt Slick's approach is to trick people into accepting false premises and then claim victory.
theshredator 11 months ago
@theshredator I've never known RR to engage in those tactics. I believe some of his beliefs are based on faulty premises but I think that is a matter of disagreement between him and I, not that he agrees with me but keeps it secret for the sake of winning an argument.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner Perhaps calling them dishonest tactics is unfair, because they aren't being dishonest if they don't know any better. I think many use those tactics because they work the best, but they remain unaware that they are doing so. I guess my point is (and I know I mostly preach to the choir here) that formal debates are flawed, and an intellectual defending an incorrect position can only be more effective by confusing his opponent and preventing him from clearly exposing it's flaws.
theshredator 11 months ago
@theshredator All I have to say is that a Christian can be wrong about Christianity, and still make decent points that must be addressed. Their understanding of the god concept goes far deeper than "magic man in the sky", and if atheists refuse to see it as anything other than that we'll look like the ones who closed minded fools. That doesn't mean we give credence to the idea as true, only understand what they are talking about when they discuss what they believe.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago 3
@HonestDiscussioner true
theshredator 11 months ago
I'd like to see this.
GrapplingIgnorance 11 months ago
Nothing of intellectual value could grow out of this “come on if you think you’re smart enough” bullshit.
SodiumFrog 11 months ago
You aren't off to a good start. You spelled challenge wrong.
finallyfreethinking 11 months ago
Good luck with your recovery from your surgery.
MrSamuelSpade 11 months ago
At the very least if Thunderf00t does do this, people would be hard-pressed to call him an intellectual bully. Including me.
Afriboy10 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY That's certainly not the case with me. I loved TF totally, then Ray Comfort happened which was disappointing. Then he started down the path of bad biblical critique, then the whole Islam thing, and then all the misinformation about Coughlan. He's done a lot to get the criticism he is getting.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago 6
I would take on his weak sause ass. But no one wants to be destroid by a red neck trucker...too embarassing I guess.
rednecktrucker1969 11 months ago
@rednecktrucker1969 I don't think RR would turn you down.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner yes he would, I would not pull any punches and mock him in to oblivion. No one wants to sign up for that. :)
rednecktrucker1969 11 months ago
@rednecktrucker1969 "Mock him in to (sic) oblivion"
And that would prove something? Oh yeah, that you are really good at trolling and do not have something intellectual to say. Really, if you actually have some grounds to make a point, then you do not need to resort to mocking or other forms of rhetoric to make it. And the reverse is true as well. If you must mock, you had no point to begin with.
Just something to consider.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker I am no troll, check my channel I have over 100 vids and have been here for years(2008). Secondly, mockery is a true form of debate when reason and logic have failed. If ANYONE in our modern age wants to debate the existance of ghosts in the sky, that tells me they have already abandon reason and logic. Thus the only thing left is pointing a finger and laughing. The alternative is to sit and cry at how sasd the world is, and I prefer to have a bit of fun.
rednecktrucker1969 11 months ago
@rednecktrucker1969 "I have over 100 vids..."
Immaterial. Indeed, one could be a troll and have 100 trolling vids - not to say you are, but still it is immaterial.
"Mockery is a true form of debate when reason and logic have failed."
If reason and logic are failing you, then perhaps that is all you have left. However, that is your problem. Mockery is simply rhetoric. It certainly isn't a rational response, and in fact, is a logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. So, who abandoned what?
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker Not what I meant, think you know that.
When you explain something over and over and the other side just keeps repeating the same flawed statements, you get to a point where no amount of reasoning is going to get the point across. They refuse to absorb simple, plain facts, so might as well poke fun at the stupid chimps.
rednecktrucker1969 11 months ago
@rednecktrucker1969 I could agree to that statement. However, when you say "If ANYONE ... wants to debate the existence of ghosts in the sky" (which I presume is a dysphemism for God) "that tells me they have already abandon (sic) reason and logic," you are have already prejudged the arguments from Micheal before you heard them as being irrational. Indeed, your statement "mock him in to oblivion" further underpins this understanding. I suggest that you listen first; mock as a last resort.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker I have been on youtube long enough to say, "been there, done that." Look at my videos, I have tried to have meaningful dialogue with these types of people and it never goes anywhere, guess I am fed up with being the "nice guy"
rednecktrucker1969 11 months ago
@rednecktrucker1969 I hear what you are saying, but if the debate is causing you to cease being the nice guy, then take a break from it for a bit. Come back when you can be nice. One of my favorite channels is Epydemic2020. He is a Christian and an aspiring professor of philosopher. I happen to think he is utterly wrong, but he is very respectful, calm, and rational, even to people who are not. That is very endearing to me and makes me take his comments seriously. Check him out sometime.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker-One of my favorite channels is Epydemic2020. He is a Christian and an aspiring professor of philosopher. I happen to think he is utterly wrong, but he is very respectful, calm, and rational
I agree with every word you said except for the last one. Unless you have a different definition of rational, or are referring to his position on things other than the God question. If the belief in God could be rationally justified there would be very few atheists.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist LOL - Not at you, mind you, but still that made me laugh.
Well, by rational, I mean that he is using logic and reasoning (as opposed to rhetoric) correctly. I do not think his premises are true, but the logical format of his arguments are valid. Take the moral argument, for example. The structure of the argument is valid, in that if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST follow. However, premise one is false, and so the argument fails.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker-Take the moral argument, for example.
I'm not saying he can't make rational arguments. I'm saying that he is not rational as a whole. Now you could argue that none of us are 100% rational, and I would agree, but his entire worldview is based on an irrational belief in God. When someone's entire worldview is based on an irrational premise they don't qualify as rational.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist I wrote something out in response, but then I thought instead of presuming what you mean, I would simply ask why do you think his belief in God is irrational? What about that belief itself is irrational?
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker-why do you think his belief in God is irrational?
There are no sound reasons to believe in a personal God. For example, I once saw a UFO that looked like an alien spacecraft. Would it be sound reasoning for me to believe what I saw was an alien spacecraft? No because there are much better, more likely explanations. He may have reasons that he thinks are sound, but if such reasons existed all rational people would be Christians.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
Continued...
I wanted to add that rational people can come to different conclusions where opinion, or preference are involved, but given sufficient evidence, and an absence of preconceptions, rational people will come to the same conclusions on matters of fact.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist "but given sufficient evidence and an absence of preconceptions"
Do you think either are present in abundance on the issue of God's existence?
balanceseeker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balanceseeker-Do you think either are present in abundance on the issue of God's existence?
I anticipated this, and should have responded in advance. With insufficient evidence rational people will be unable to reach a rational conclusion. Sometimes it is necessary to reach a conclusion anyway, but only if it is rational to do so, and only by choosing among one of the most rational choices.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
(cont)
For example I'm at a fork in the road, have no phone, map, or GPS, and I'm not sure if it's left, or right, but I have to make a choice with the goal of reaching grandmothers house. Assuming left, or right are the most rational answers either one is acceptable. As I was typing this out it occurred to me a method whereby Epydemic2020's belief in the Christian God could be considered a rational decision.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
(cont)
If his goal was to believe in the most likely God while knowing that one probably doesn't exist. I'm not saying the Christian God fits that role, but if it did it might in that circumstance be rational to believe in him. In the same way it might be rational for me to conclude that it's most likely Leprechauns live in Ireland IF they exist. :p
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Well, I think Epydemic2020 would completely disagree with the phrase, "while knowing that one probably doesn't exist," given his use of philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God.
But you are right on all the other points -- though I personally think that the Christian god is a rather low probability compared to other god concepts. Still, as I have not heard Epydemic2020 make the argument that ties his general argument to the Christian one, I'll reserve judgment.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker-I think Epydemic2020 would completely disagree with the phrase
Yes I'm sure he would. :p
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
"Sometime it is necessary to reach a conclusion anyways, but only if it is rational to do so"
Okay, so what rational reason should one have for arriving at a conclusion? Supposing the theist is right, briefly, we are talking about an issue that could have eternal consequences for everyone. Further, such an issue may have profound implications for our actions here. Is that not a compelling reason to arrive at a conclusion, one way or the other?
balanceseeker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balanceseeker-Supposing the theist is right, briefly, we are talking about an issue that could have eternal consequences for everyone.
What I meant was that it's rationally necessary to reach a conclusion. There is no rational justification for believing that decision has "eternal consequences". It presupposes as you point out that a theist is right.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist "It presupposes ... that a theist is right."
Okay, but if I say that an accident may happen at a nuclear power plant, would you really respond back, "It presupposes the anti-nuclear power advocate is right?" I suppose you would respond there is some rational justification for such an assertion, but what I am simply pointing out is the importance of the issue itself. The issue is important; it has dramatic implications - no matter the conclusion reached.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Oh, and for the record, I have no clue who is marking all your recent replies as spam, but whoever it is, in my opinion, is an intellectual coward. Your comments are not spam and attempting to censor your replies instead of responding to them is rather sad.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Well, first, I want to point out there that I have never heard Epydemic say his belief was based on a personal experience. Second, there are more than just appeals to the best explanation as proper, rational basises for holding a belief. One could do so on pragmatic grounds. Indeed, in one way of looking at quantum physics is on this very basis. "We have no idea why quantum mechanics works, it just does, so we just it and believe in it," one might say.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker-One could do so on pragmatic grounds.
I didn't see this comment until after the other, but I think I covered that in that response. Also your quote about quantum mechanics is missing a word after just, and I can't fully analyze it.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Actually, the quote isn't missing a word, so perhaps it is simply failing to convey meaning. I will rephrase.
In quantum mechanics, one view is called instrumentalism (I think). They would state that they have no clue what quantum mechanics mean ontologically, but it works, so we use it and believe in it. In the same way, someone may believe in God on pragmatic grounds, ala William James and The Will to Believe. (A reading I highly recommend)
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@balanceseeker
You said in the original comment "so we just it and believe in it". Are you sure there isn't a word missing between JUST, and IT, cause it makes no sense otherwise.
As for as the rest of the comment, who ever said quantum physicists were rational? :p
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist ><
Okay, THAT "just" should followed with the word "use" I think. Thanks for pointing out my error.
balanceseeker 11 months ago
@ItsTheSuperFly Don't sell your self short either. If you flip this around you would be a better challenge than Thunder. LOL its almost like HE is picking on the extreme. ,
dalejr88 11 months ago
Michael - if you REALLY think of yourself as rational, then please explain why you are still a believer in that which there is no evidence for.
Unless God has actually appeared before you personally and DEMONSTRATED his existence, what rational reason would you have for believing in his existence? You must know that people succumb to wishful thinking all the time.
By believing in something for which you have no evidence, you are discarding rationality in favor of wishful thinking.
OccamKant 11 months ago
@OccamKant
It wouldn't really make a difference if God had revealed himself to honestdiscussioner, I know a schizophrenic called Winston, who regularly has sex with the virgin mary.
BabeReport 11 months ago
@BabeReport You know as far as hallucinations go that might not be too bad a one to have.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
@OccamKant
Well you need to then make the positive case for absolute empiricism. Something that Michael no doubt contests.
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist Exactly what would such a positive case have to cover? I assume you are referring to empiricism as used in philosophy. To the extent of my understanding, the validity of that school of thought rests upon the explicit assumption that 'Cogito ergo sum' is proof that one's mind - and thus sensory input - exist in the absolute, objective sense.
ReeallityBytes 11 months ago
@ReeallityBytes
Well no, firstly the concept of "cogito ergo cum" came from the rationalist Descartes, and the empiricist Hume even cast doubt upon that idea.
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist
SUM SUM SUM!!!
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist lol - thanks - I've never formally studied philosophy, so I don't know many of the various (most if not all) concepts by their names/name of the 'conceptualiser' (if that is even a word). Without wishing to derail the discussion, if the explicit assumption that our own mind exists is not (or indeed cannot be) made, how can we know anything to be absolute, in any sense? Put in a somewhat rhetorical fashion, perhaps, but not facetiously. The question gives me a headache.
ReeallityBytes 11 months ago
@RB Hume basically asked the question "how does it follow that each of these successive thoughts that occur correspond to a single entity that can be referred to as I/Me" but to even make that judgement and ask that question is to answer it for yourself so I think his scepticism goes too far.
On to the question of making a positive claim for empiricism, well youd need to show that our sense perception is the only way for us to gain knowledge. I personally dont think this is the case,
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist On the point of Hume, if I understand you correctly wrt his skepticism, I would agree; the proverbial line must be drawn somewhere. Put simply, the assumption that 'you' do, in fact, exist is an essential 'datum' from which we 'measure' reality. At least that's my take on it. Speaking of 'sum' - I'm thinking dim sum, I'm peckish - time to go to the takeaway.
ReeallityBytes 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist "well youd need to show that our sense perception is the only way for us to gain knowledge."
What other methods of gaining "knowledge" IS there, beyond perception? And of course, because our perceptions can be fooled, you want to have other people verify your perceptions, and ideally have machines that make objective measurements of them. We call this "science" and it's served us well.
OccamKant 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist "You'd need to show that our sense perception is the only way for us to gain knowledge.."
Neurocognitive development very much supports this case. We know, for example, that without retinal stimulation of the visual cortex prior to birth, the visual cortex does not organize itself in such a way as to promote visual processing.. and without the eyes opening within the critical period of visual processing, a person remains blind, irrespective of the functioning of the eyes (cont)
TrenchantAtheist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist (cont'd) The same goes for the language centers of the brain -- that without any exposure to language at all within certain critical periods, we do not develop a significant capacity to understand it later on (and we don't learn any of the languages we're not exposed to, either). Neurologists and psychologists strongly believe that language and cognition are closely related, yet the centers for cognition are also the last in the brain to develop.
TrenchantAtheist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist (cont'd) Further, infant cognitive studies indicate that there are extreme limits on the capacity of a young child to understand both its surrounding environment and even its own existence. I think there is plenty of information to suggest that experiential interaction with a surrounding environment is crucial for the developing human mind, both in being able to perceive the world, and also being able to develop a significant capacity to make sense of data (i.e. thinking).
TrenchantAtheist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist I like the way that author Terry Pratchett put the empirical argument in his book Small Gods. He wrote "Sum, ergo sum", "I am therefore I am' meaning 'the fact of my existence IS the evidence of my existence'. It was one of his double-edged jokes; maybe a little too close to the truth for comfort!
stamboni316 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist I need to make the case for absolute empiricism? Why?
What does that even mean?
We know, from experiencing the world around us, that the world bites back. If we exert a force on the world, we leave fingerprints (so to speak). You must learn this as you grow up, or you will get eaten by a crocodile or run over by a car or something. The world teaches you to be empirical.
What else is there, and how can you demonstrate it?
OccamKant 11 months ago
@OccamKant
The world teaches you stuff, indeed and how do you learn stuff and pick up traits? Well you use induction, how do you use induction? You use reason.
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist Yes, you use reason, but it's applied to PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - which is the entire basis of empiricism.
Or do you have a different definition of it than I do?
OccamKant 11 months ago
@ItsTheSuperFly So you think its a good idea to set this up? You know how nasty Thunder can be. I was thinking more like you or Dpr...
dalejr88 11 months ago
You had a surgical procedure? Don't you believe God will answer prayers? Is your particular problem beyond what an all powerful god can fix? Maybe your all-loving god doesn't like you enough to fix it...
BabeReport 11 months ago
Exactly which part of a belief in supernatural beings is "rational"?
BabeReport 11 months ago
The problem with religion? Where to begin, lol. How about we use the bible against itself for the answer. Matthew 7:24-27 It's like the Three Little Pigs you see. The theocracy is like the little pig who built his house out of straw, the wishy washy, secular believer, go to church a couple of times a year, is like the little pig who built his house out of wood and I think you can figure out the rest.
DiwataMan 11 months ago
Most Christian Americans don't accept evolution, most Christian Americans don't believe global warming is real, or that it's caused by man. 64 percent believe the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is literally true, Noah and the flood 60 percent. What mainstream is he talking about? lol
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
Suggestion: Add "Mirror:" to the beginning of the title to reflect that it is a mirror. Also, link to RR's channel in the info bar like thunderbolt94 did.
MrLowercaseA 11 months ago
i would like to see this discussion between two very interesting YT'ers. I plan on making a video advocating this exchange tomorrow.
noelplum99 11 months ago
To be honest I have more respect for the fundies than I do these Christianity 2.0 types. How do you eviscerate the bible so, still believe in some of its teachings, and not understand you just made up your own religion?
WilliamPbrane 11 months ago 5
@WilliamPbrane Some Christians will openly admit they construct their own religiosity so your whole point is moot.
Embler9 11 months ago
@Embler9 Comprehension fail, how can a “Christian” call themselves rational when they don’t care if their religion is a made up construct?
WilliamPbrane 11 months ago 2
@WilliamPbrane Law and order are made up constructs, does that mean you're irrational if you believe in those?
Embler9 11 months ago
@Embler9 YES! And if an episode of Walker Texas Ranger changed your life, you might be a redneck.
WilliamPbrane 11 months ago 5
You need to state your case... the problem with religion is that it's a fairy tale... which doesn't leave much for Thunderfoot to discuss. What exactly about your fairy tale would you like him to talk about?
Triathlete5551 11 months ago
@Triathlete5551 I don't even think the truth of Christianity is what he wants to debate TF on.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
@MouseHusic
Well rationalism is an school of philosophy that holds that the truths of the world can basically be deduced and obtained through reason alone, such as Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz. Opposed to the empiricists who held that all of our knowledge comes from sense perception, like Locke and Hume. Kant kinda blended the two schools.
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist
is a*
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist
which included names such as Spinoza...*
SecularNumanist 11 mont