The entirety of modern science rests on the concept of the void. The void as a concept is something that can never be proven to exist. therefore modern science is something that can never be proven to be true.
I don't know if I should take the fact that I like the idea of (me) not being able to ascertain the truth of things too seriously. So I don't. But I do know (heh) I tend to dislike certainty in people, and usually get a 'bit' annoyed when I see people and thinkers who think they've got something I don't. The certainty just feels unjustified to me.
But hey, maybe it's just jealousy... And maybe that's okay, too.
I would just like to say.... i do believe starwars lost lol. It often times seems that the person with the worse argument is the first to get upset(characterized by sentences in caps) and/or the first to start getting personal("GROUCHYFROG(AKA TOM ALDERTON AKA THE BIGGEST DR WHO FAN IN THE UNIVERSE)")....For the record starwars that is rather childish and unnecessary to purposely release someone's name on the internet obviously in hopes to get back at him. accept defeat.
Apparently you don't know what 'good day' means either, STARWARS. I am neither inclined nor obliged to justify myself to you who, instead of asking politely first about the nature of my ideas, launches into a pretentious lecture implying I haven't thought through my positions (you don't even know what they ARE) and then DEMANDS that I explain myself - as IF I beholden to you! I am not insecure enough to need to justify myself to a complete stranger - a pretentious one at that. GOOD DAY.
Don't listen to starwars. I know him in RL, and hes a pretentious dick there too. I'm still convinced hes pro-creationsim, pro-bush, etc because he wants attention.
No, he doesn't have to justify himself to you, starwars, because you're not interested in listening. What you want is to take his words out of context and bash him over the head with them. You know how emotionless I am, and you therefore know theres no way "atheism is an emotional response". See you tomorrow douche.
Also I find it telling, Starwars, that you still have not bothered to enquire as to the nature of my Atheism. Your sole concern is still your ego and, when you approach others in a way that is frankly akin to a door-knocking Jehovah's Witness, said ego is in for a bruising. As for the justifications of my ideas, since you didn't bother asking about their exact nature before mounting your pretentious offensive, you don't even know what you're criticizing and have lost the right to ask. Good day.
You're mistaken on two counts, starwars. It is a TENET, which means an underlying principle or rule. Unless you meant to say that Popper''s rule lives or rents a residence from agnosticism? LOL How embarrassing for you. Use a dictionary. Also, regard that the wording I had used was 'I don't really justify my position' - which is true, I do not justify it to anyone, as I do not feel a compelling need to. 'Pure emotionalism?' Where did I write that my decisions are based solely on emotion?
Starwars, don't you mean 'TENET'? I don't really justify my position. And there are just as many emotional drives for my atheism as there are intellectual ones. If you really are concerned (?), and want to know more about my views (admittedly, suspicions may be a better word) and how I came to them, I'd be happy to discuss this with you, but I suspect you were just looking for an opportunity to showcase what you consider to be your intelligence. Quite pretentious.
why is it that athiests go on and on about being athiests. Around athiests, anyone who believes in God is to be despised. Anyone who believes in God is automatically a disbeliever in science, and scientific truths. As if athiests have the market on science, or truth for that matter. oh and "relegion" is always christianity. As if there is no one other than the church to represent the faithful. Seems to me, athiest are trying to convince themselves, and are reaching out for someone to show thm
I'm an atheist, though I loathe to be lumped together with other youtube atheists sometimes. I think one of the major influences on behaviour in here, for atheists, is the often extremely harsh reception their views recieve in the outside world. Then they log on, and suddenly they're the ones who are in the majority and... anyone who spends that much time defending, will want to go on the attack when the opportunity presents itself. perhaps like the infamous prisoner/guard experiment, no?
@closeoutcrew Try the level of scientific and historical denial you have to hold to be a theist, combined with the resentment of having political leaders trying to hoist their moral standards on society as law despite having no proof their moral outlook is justified.
Install fear.. and your mouth will open to go against your belief.. and once your mouth opens.. your mind.. is filled with curiousity.. and than wat became ur fear.. is wat you now believe in..
No, I get it, he's satirizing the general outlook on atheists. That they're all murderous and out to get rid of the theists. And I know he's an atheist.
"Hate" was a stupid word for me to use, however, because I'm not really positive about how I feel on the subject...
I mean, I believe in souls... Does that make me a theist? I don't believe in omnipotent Gods, however... So maybe I'm an atheist.
I've been calling myself Transcendentalist for about a year now, mostly because it confuses people
No, it doesn't make you a theist. There are a number of uses of "atheist," and while they all generally mean the same thing, there are, regardless, differences. Here, I'm referring to the new atheism movement, led by Dawkins, Harris, etc., and many on Youtube.
It is true that scientific bigots speak from an ontological basis that few of them have considered. What alternative did this offer though? Liked the Orwellian public confession followed by execution touch. Wibble.
Btw, az, I'll be the one to personally bring you in to have your consciousness uploaded into Gary's virtual world and I'll have a big smile on my face the whole time I'm doing it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Haha, YES!
Fuck those self-righteous athiests who think basing everything on observation or empirical evidence to be more substantial than basing it on emotion or feeling. Fucking assholes!
And I *think* I agree with what you're getting at overall, but don't you think that we can adjudicate between empirical claims with softer standards such as Putnam's "warranted assertability?"
After we eschew rigid Cartesian standards of certainty, and moderate the scientism which I think we would agree is "unwarranted," it seems like we're still left with adequate standards for assessing the warrant, or lack thereof, of propositional claims.
Oh, yeah, hey, I think I got the point of this one. I like it. I'm... um... *hides* not atheist, but I certainly value your videos and thoughts. I've been doing some writings on the nature of theism and philosophy, and if you're interested in reading any of them, let me know. Although, I'm only 19, therefore, inadequate in the 'intelligence' aspect.
In retrospect, I must say that I had a recent encounter with one of my closest Christian friends that went very much like this... except where the basis of rationalization here is 'science' there it was 'faith.'
And no guns were involved. Just saying... It was still a pretty forceful conversation.
Nice video but you are leaving a discussion here that you have started by yourself. I stumbled across this whole conversation by accident and so far mr Clark clearly has the arguments on his side.
This, admittedly, well made video, in my eyes at least, seems to be more an admit of defeat than transporting a debatable argument. And if i would have to decide who of the both of you is more ignorant, guess that would be you there.
That was just my observation from following your discussion. Wether or not Mr Clark agrees with me would not change my point of view. Actually i would have expected a different reply, if any at all, from you. In a nutshell his point of view is not the same as yours. Of course both of you have their own standarts you base your arguments on but you knew that beforehand. So why end the discussion with pointing out the obvious then?
Oh and one last thing. You make a claim that there is a god. Well then you are the one having to prove that claim and not him proving there isnt. Or using your logic can you disprove that there is no god? His claim is as good or bad as yours. You feel he is forcing his standart of truth on you? Well you just did the same thing then. Does this or will any discussion about this topic ever lead come to an end? No. Might aswell keep it civil and for what it is, exchanging views.
Oh i think i do. While he made his point clear you went on about the definition of words he MIGHT have used in a wrong way. Excuse me if my english isnt that 100%, im not a native speaker but for me Mr Clarks point came across very clearly and if we take the widely accepted "standart of truth", namely "scientific evidence", then he is absolutely right. So just because he didnt express himself 100% correct doesnt make his whole point invalid.
"if we take the widely accepted "standart of truth", namely "scientific evidence", then he is absolutely right." This is exactly what I counter, which is why it's exactly pertinent to the conversation. Again, you have no idea what point I made.
ok, if you say so, then i dont know which point you made. all i know is that if i would denie scientific evidence as the overall accepted standart of truth then i wouldnt be able to live in this world. No sentence in any court ever spoken which was based on scientific evidence would be accepted by me. All laws of physics wouldnt be more than discussable theories. Sorry, but i dont live in such a world and neither do you. But yeah, i guess i have no idea after all.
You shouldn't be too surprised by the backlash you received (I assume that's why you posted this video). You should understand that, taken by itself, "atheism is not a justifiable position" sounds, to those of us with untrained philosophical sensibilities, either like a positive statement of theism, which is no more defensible than atheism, or some sort of nihilism, which some people just find annoying.
The scientific method, logic, ethical systems, all of the sorts of analyses, argumentation, Wittgenstein's method of revealing criterion, deconstruction, and humanitarian projects, just to name a few.
These are, of course, all methods. That is the sort of accomplishments philosophy gives you.
To answer your first question, no where. You do not discover new data. You do not create new pieces of information. But without philosophy, you do not GET that discovery or that creation. It does not happen without method -- which should tell you that the method is just as if not more important than the result. I say it is all that matters because the end does not justify the means.
But you can take your logic nitpicking to the opposite extreme as well, with arguments that go nowhere and do nothing more than end conversations.
The language games can be a lot of fun and win you comments of "brilliance." But when I see it go to your head, I wonder where's the humility I once admired so much. I remember when you showed your subscribers how much you liked them, rather than made fun of them.
I'm not at all sure what you're after here. Counter-critique is how new methods are made. What is it that's gone to my head? What are the apparently arrogant, prideful things I've said? And who have I made fun of? (Was it the person I called a pretentious fuck?)
Great video. Now... substitute dark Az with Jesus. "Believe in me or perish. It's YOUR fault, if you don't agree with me. Oh, I love you too." BLAM!!!
You cannot avoid practicing metaphysics if you want explanatory power. There is no clear demarcation principle that will satisfy science ideally and how it was practiced historically.
However, the key point is, as long as we are HONEST about when we are practicing metaphysics we can fairly reliably differentiate science from psudeoscience.
That's what makes science special over other dogmas.
By the way, for the philosophy haters: Science is nothing without philosophy and vice versa.
Well, call me simple, but I find ndclark's argument compelling.
Science is practical and gives you solid results (ie, technology). In my little world of energy and atoms, I could give a fuck less about anything that doesn't produce demonstrable results.
"atheism is not, and never will be a justifiable position" - I'm curious about this statement. If possible could you make a video or comment about this statement. Thanks
and most atheists are religious, thanks to buddhism.
the label might be useful for now, until we have something better, but atheism as a position?
"atheism is not, and never will be a justifiable position" try to disprove it by justifying atheism as a position. if you can, then maybe azrienoch really needs to make a video about it :)
Well, I guess atheism is merely the opposite of theism. It must be grounded by whatever theism defines as god. If god is defined as an all-loving, all-powerful creator by theist I don't see why you can't just use Epicurus/Hume argument to justify your position "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing?, Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?, Then why call him God?"
if you attack scientology as well as the monotheistic religions, your position is not atheism. you even use more or less the same tools.
your position could be a naturalistic worldview, an appreciation of science, you could take the position of someone who exposes intellectual dishonesty. but atheism does not qualify as a position, its just a poorly defined label.
"but atheism does not qualify as a position, its just a poorly defined label" I guess I see your point. Since atheism is just a position that tells you what it is not, or defines itself based on a negative, its premise is inadequate for defining a worldview. thanks!
Love you're videos but I have begun to despise philosophers. I went from loving it to wishing death on philosophers in under 8 week. I just took my first Philosophy class and I swear I'll go bat shit crazy if I have to explain why I am not a brain in a vat one more time or be asked what is truth. Is there any point to Philosophy in society. I have a feeling you people operate in you're own little world. A world I would like no part of anymore. I am getting an A in class oddly enough.
WHY, ME, OF COURSE!!! *reaches into coat for loaded 1911, aims at Az's pretentious little head*
I have the feeling the philosophical questions you pose are the equivalent of telling a bunch of prairie cowboys that their picante sauce was made in....NEW YORK CITY?!?
Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just discovered I don't think like a philosopher. I like to operate in observable reality. I am an economist so some philosophical thought is useful. The first Economist "Adam smith" was a philosopher but I like to think we evolved past that. Just kidding :P Keep up the vids.
It doesn't get any better, sharpie. Philosophers ask risible questions like that all the time in an attempt to show that you and I are incapable of grasping certain profundities without their help.
"What's a philosopher ?" said Brutha. "Someone who's bright enough to find a job with no heavy lifting," said a voice in his head. -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
"Take it from me, whenever you see a bunch of buggers puttering around talking about truth and beauty and the best way of attacking Ethics, you can bet your sandals it's all because dozens of other poor buggers are doing all the real work around the place." -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
LOl hilarious. i am not to good with philosphy to much to think abotu there. but i do nto even think science offer whoel truths either only what we can see at the moment. thats how to pwn someone.
Fortunately for me I DID withdraw that comment prior (I believe) to you posting this vid. But I concede that this is an accurate depiction of the er, "argument" I put forth initially. I HAVE BEEN PWNED! (Albeit AFTER I withdrew the remark quoted in the sidebar.)
Of course, I WOULD have to have a gun at your head to get you to concede that philosophy, in many instances but NOT all, needs science if it is discuss reality with any justification. But I would NEVER pull the trigger.
Wo! New rule, Az. Videos like this need to be tagged: "Turn Down Sound at Work." Preferably this would come on screen about 5 seconds before the frst yelling of fuck in a gun brandishing bum rush of one's alter psyche.
The entirety of modern science rests on the concept of the void. The void as a concept is something that can never be proven to exist. therefore modern science is something that can never be proven to be true.
thefranciswatts 3 months ago
Your mom is a justifiable standard of truth.
Thesocraticbreed 5 months ago
I am so featuring this on my channel.
meinevvelten 1 year ago
Comment removed
meinevvelten 1 year ago
Dude, I loved this. Fuckin' beautiful.
I don't know if I should take the fact that I like the idea of (me) not being able to ascertain the truth of things too seriously. So I don't. But I do know (heh) I tend to dislike certainty in people, and usually get a 'bit' annoyed when I see people and thinkers who think they've got something I don't. The certainty just feels unjustified to me.
But hey, maybe it's just jealousy... And maybe that's okay, too.
Terrayeah 1 year ago
god i love this video
withoutleaders 1 year ago
@Azrienoch hahahaha... true aggressive atheism.
Thesocraticbreed 1 year ago
IN-TENSE!!!!!!
AstraVex 2 years ago
fucking awesome video dude! 5 stars!
thepunkpilot 2 years ago
I would just like to say.... i do believe starwars lost lol. It often times seems that the person with the worse argument is the first to get upset(characterized by sentences in caps) and/or the first to start getting personal("GROUCHYFROG(AKA TOM ALDERTON AKA THE BIGGEST DR WHO FAN IN THE UNIVERSE)")....For the record starwars that is rather childish and unnecessary to purposely release someone's name on the internet obviously in hopes to get back at him. accept defeat.
mooseutoo 2 years ago
Apparently you don't know what 'good day' means either, STARWARS. I am neither inclined nor obliged to justify myself to you who, instead of asking politely first about the nature of my ideas, launches into a pretentious lecture implying I haven't thought through my positions (you don't even know what they ARE) and then DEMANDS that I explain myself - as IF I beholden to you! I am not insecure enough to need to justify myself to a complete stranger - a pretentious one at that. GOOD DAY.
moekelok 2 years ago
Don't listen to starwars. I know him in RL, and hes a pretentious dick there too. I'm still convinced hes pro-creationsim, pro-bush, etc because he wants attention.
@starwars
No, he doesn't have to justify himself to you, starwars, because you're not interested in listening. What you want is to take his words out of context and bash him over the head with them. You know how emotionless I am, and you therefore know theres no way "atheism is an emotional response". See you tomorrow douche.
grouchyfrog 2 years ago 2
Again, it's all right there in any dictionary you care to look at, starwars.
moekelok 2 years ago
Also I find it telling, Starwars, that you still have not bothered to enquire as to the nature of my Atheism. Your sole concern is still your ego and, when you approach others in a way that is frankly akin to a door-knocking Jehovah's Witness, said ego is in for a bruising. As for the justifications of my ideas, since you didn't bother asking about their exact nature before mounting your pretentious offensive, you don't even know what you're criticizing and have lost the right to ask. Good day.
moekelok 2 years ago
You're mistaken on two counts, starwars. It is a TENET, which means an underlying principle or rule. Unless you meant to say that Popper''s rule lives or rents a residence from agnosticism? LOL How embarrassing for you. Use a dictionary. Also, regard that the wording I had used was 'I don't really justify my position' - which is true, I do not justify it to anyone, as I do not feel a compelling need to. 'Pure emotionalism?' Where did I write that my decisions are based solely on emotion?
moekelok 2 years ago 2
Starwars, don't you mean 'TENET'? I don't really justify my position. And there are just as many emotional drives for my atheism as there are intellectual ones. If you really are concerned (?), and want to know more about my views (admittedly, suspicions may be a better word) and how I came to them, I'd be happy to discuss this with you, but I suspect you were just looking for an opportunity to showcase what you consider to be your intelligence. Quite pretentious.
moekelok 2 years ago
Who played the hands around your neck?
fauyd 2 years ago
intellectual poseurship!
anglofiles87 2 years ago
atheteb con moto non sequetis
Overlapse1000 2 years ago
When will people learn that obnoxiousness is self defeating? Arrogance does the opposite of persuading people, it just encourages stubbornness...
Good vid, i too hate people who say "pwned".
vicepresidentfru1tly 3 years ago 2
Lol! Well said/done!
julzabro 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pwned!
Yeah, that's some dope shit right there. You show those pretentious PoMo relativist fuckheads! Go science! Go truth!
Hamerax 3 years ago
like C.G Jung said...
schnibbsl 3 years ago
doesnt he look like that one jewish actor from the hebrew hammer
mootallica 3 years ago
neither a theis or an atheist... i am *gasp* buddhist, hehehe :)
loved the video!
meddle24 3 years ago
Screw the world, my mind is a better foundation for existence.
threadform 3 years ago
why is it that athiests go on and on about being athiests. Around athiests, anyone who believes in God is to be despised. Anyone who believes in God is automatically a disbeliever in science, and scientific truths. As if athiests have the market on science, or truth for that matter. oh and "relegion" is always christianity. As if there is no one other than the church to represent the faithful. Seems to me, athiest are trying to convince themselves, and are reaching out for someone to show thm
closeoutcrew 3 years ago
I'm an atheist.
azrienoch 3 years ago 5
Yeah well. What you call yourself doesn't seem to count in a world of "separate individuals".
Trollschool 3 years ago
I'm an atheist, though I loathe to be lumped together with other youtube atheists sometimes. I think one of the major influences on behaviour in here, for atheists, is the often extremely harsh reception their views recieve in the outside world. Then they log on, and suddenly they're the ones who are in the majority and... anyone who spends that much time defending, will want to go on the attack when the opportunity presents itself. perhaps like the infamous prisoner/guard experiment, no?
moekelok 3 years ago 4
Well, I guess you are an agnostic atheist... right?
Samanmotlagh 3 years ago
Please don't be a pretentious fuck. :)
reflectionist 3 years ago
@closeoutcrew Try the level of scientific and historical denial you have to hold to be a theist, combined with the resentment of having political leaders trying to hoist their moral standards on society as law despite having no proof their moral outlook is justified.
JarradIRONEAGLE 1 year ago
My goodness, I got scared for a moment. If that isn't pressure! Isn't it a bit too violent a way to make a point? Anyway, great performance.
redlaceribbon 3 years ago
I always wondered how to pronounce "pwned".
DarkFuschia 3 years ago
Install fear.. and your mouth will open to go against your belief.. and once your mouth opens.. your mind.. is filled with curiousity.. and than wat became ur fear.. is wat you now believe in..
prykoz123 3 years ago
So ur not an atheist? What r u?
pimpjoosse 3 years ago
Oh jeez that was great!
jackal1221 3 years ago
I hate atheism...
AmyNicol8 3 years ago
Me too. And theism.
spinhook888 3 years ago
...and brassica oleracea capitata, which is really odd given a portion of ancestry is Irish.
What would we do with out generalizations & classifications?
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
I hate brassica oleracea gemmifera.....
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
You missed the point of the video, azrienoch is an atheist.
Rahab111222 3 years ago
No, I get it, he's satirizing the general outlook on atheists. That they're all murderous and out to get rid of the theists. And I know he's an atheist.
"Hate" was a stupid word for me to use, however, because I'm not really positive about how I feel on the subject...
I mean, I believe in souls... Does that make me a theist? I don't believe in omnipotent Gods, however... So maybe I'm an atheist.
I've been calling myself Transcendentalist for about a year now, mostly because it confuses people
amayesed 3 years ago
No, it doesn't make you a theist. There are a number of uses of "atheist," and while they all generally mean the same thing, there are, regardless, differences. Here, I'm referring to the new atheism movement, led by Dawkins, Harris, etc., and many on Youtube.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I couldn't even believe ...
Trollschool 3 years ago
This is still a cool video! It does not seem to get old! ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago
That was great.
orangelixir 3 years ago
PWNED!!!
I agree with the az with the gun.
Roenazarrek 3 years ago
It is true that scientific bigots speak from an ontological basis that few of them have considered. What alternative did this offer though? Liked the Orwellian public confession followed by execution touch. Wibble.
HarryBallbag 3 years ago 7
STR8 GANGSTA!!
dooshette 3 years ago 2
That was rather absurd ;).
Greetz, Tom
Hisoka44be 3 years ago
loved it, way to kick your own ass...
ladyrebel4ever 3 years ago
???
Eskander4ever 3 years ago
Excellent execution, piss poor content.
lebensraum 3 years ago
Just kidding. I think your videos are entertaining. :)
sexyloser 3 years ago
Btw, az, I'll be the one to personally bring you in to have your consciousness uploaded into Gary's virtual world and I'll have a big smile on my face the whole time I'm doing it.
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!
sexyloser 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Haha, YES!
Fuck those self-righteous athiests who think basing everything on observation or empirical evidence to be more substantial than basing it on emotion or feeling. Fucking assholes!
sexyloser 3 years ago
i think you missed the point.
elliotcheely 3 years ago 5
DAMN!, I am a athiest and even I found this funny. Nice video.
Krensharpaw 3 years ago
Fucking fantastic.
JasonNess 3 years ago
wow. great video.
danouttatown 3 years ago
Brilliant Work! It gave me a good laugh 5 stars.
atheistjinn 3 years ago
damn man. lol. nice
Fatheadious 3 years ago
First, I love the vid.
And I *think* I agree with what you're getting at overall, but don't you think that we can adjudicate between empirical claims with softer standards such as Putnam's "warranted assertability?"
After we eschew rigid Cartesian standards of certainty, and moderate the scientism which I think we would agree is "unwarranted," it seems like we're still left with adequate standards for assessing the warrant, or lack thereof, of propositional claims.
Sound good?
wilthiswork 3 years ago
there is propaganda for the church of scientology next to your video... otherwise fucking brilliant
1ncorporated 3 years ago
"PWNED! Pretentious fuck!"
reflectionist 3 years ago
Oh, yeah, hey, I think I got the point of this one. I like it. I'm... um... *hides* not atheist, but I certainly value your videos and thoughts. I've been doing some writings on the nature of theism and philosophy, and if you're interested in reading any of them, let me know. Although, I'm only 19, therefore, inadequate in the 'intelligence' aspect.
reflectionist 3 years ago
In retrospect, I must say that I had a recent encounter with one of my closest Christian friends that went very much like this... except where the basis of rationalization here is 'science' there it was 'faith.'
And no guns were involved. Just saying... It was still a pretty forceful conversation.
reflectionist 3 years ago
Nice video but you are leaving a discussion here that you have started by yourself. I stumbled across this whole conversation by accident and so far mr Clark clearly has the arguments on his side.
This, admittedly, well made video, in my eyes at least, seems to be more an admit of defeat than transporting a debatable argument. And if i would have to decide who of the both of you is more ignorant, guess that would be you there.
Terror696969 4 years ago
Shoot clark a message. Ask him if he agrees with you.
azrienoch 4 years ago
That was just my observation from following your discussion. Wether or not Mr Clark agrees with me would not change my point of view. Actually i would have expected a different reply, if any at all, from you. In a nutshell his point of view is not the same as yours. Of course both of you have their own standarts you base your arguments on but you knew that beforehand. So why end the discussion with pointing out the obvious then?
Terror696969 3 years ago
Oh and one last thing. You make a claim that there is a god. Well then you are the one having to prove that claim and not him proving there isnt. Or using your logic can you disprove that there is no god? His claim is as good or bad as yours. You feel he is forcing his standart of truth on you? Well you just did the same thing then. Does this or will any discussion about this topic ever lead come to an end? No. Might aswell keep it civil and for what it is, exchanging views.
Terror696969 3 years ago
I did not make the claim that there is a God. You have absolutely no idea why I joined the discussion and what point I made, do you?
azrienoch 3 years ago
Oh i think i do. While he made his point clear you went on about the definition of words he MIGHT have used in a wrong way. Excuse me if my english isnt that 100%, im not a native speaker but for me Mr Clarks point came across very clearly and if we take the widely accepted "standart of truth", namely "scientific evidence", then he is absolutely right. So just because he didnt express himself 100% correct doesnt make his whole point invalid.
Terror696969 3 years ago
"if we take the widely accepted "standart of truth", namely "scientific evidence", then he is absolutely right." This is exactly what I counter, which is why it's exactly pertinent to the conversation. Again, you have no idea what point I made.
azrienoch 3 years ago
ok, if you say so, then i dont know which point you made. all i know is that if i would denie scientific evidence as the overall accepted standart of truth then i wouldnt be able to live in this world. No sentence in any court ever spoken which was based on scientific evidence would be accepted by me. All laws of physics wouldnt be more than discussable theories. Sorry, but i dont live in such a world and neither do you. But yeah, i guess i have no idea after all.
Terror696969 3 years ago
I'd like to know what point you made!
ELStalky 3 years ago
hahaha you are hilarious man! 5 stars!
webfryes 4 years ago
love the half-life gunshot at the end as well.
Veritas48 4 years ago
I loved your message. I'm sick of kids who walk around claiming to be logically infallible when they join their atheist clubs.
jargoniscrap 4 years ago
Wow. Fantastic job az. I'm inspired by your amazing editing skills. Impressed. Great concept for a video too.
thinkmorepink 4 years ago
You shouldn't be too surprised by the backlash you received (I assume that's why you posted this video). You should understand that, taken by itself, "atheism is not a justifiable position" sounds, to those of us with untrained philosophical sensibilities, either like a positive statement of theism, which is no more defensible than atheism, or some sort of nihilism, which some people just find annoying.
reclusivesage 4 years ago 5
brilliant
mayaluvsmusic 4 years ago
Hehe, you got some talent!
qtronman 4 years ago
Yet another great video!
Epicureanparadox 4 years ago
grat vid, love the editing aswell ^^; winds me up when religious people ignore science as if it doesnt prove anything
Zelthaz 4 years ago
My apologies to your wife, but seriously HOT MAN.
BrokeCrackMountain 4 years ago
good stuff
stripe64 4 years ago
now that was gr8 lol
TOMMYfromtheBRONX 4 years ago
genius
MGX890 4 years ago
Ridiculous.
To ponder the extension, specificity, and apparent "true" meaning of words is to drive around in circles.
AustralianStallion90 4 years ago
OMG boom!
This was powerful. =)
lirpa69 4 years ago
LOL - CLASSIC AZ!
"pretentious fuck" yeah... you forgot 'egomaniacal' ;P
I love it when you break out the ol' .44 <333
hunniebee173 4 years ago
Fantastic. The most creative youtube atheism vid I've seen.
hypnolinks 4 years ago
But if ALL you are concerned about is method, which is how philosophers appear to me, where does it get you?
What are some philosophical accomplishments?
EMTRUE 4 years ago
The scientific method, logic, ethical systems, all of the sorts of analyses, argumentation, Wittgenstein's method of revealing criterion, deconstruction, and humanitarian projects, just to name a few.
These are, of course, all methods. That is the sort of accomplishments philosophy gives you.
azrienoch 4 years ago
To answer your first question, no where. You do not discover new data. You do not create new pieces of information. But without philosophy, you do not GET that discovery or that creation. It does not happen without method -- which should tell you that the method is just as if not more important than the result. I say it is all that matters because the end does not justify the means.
azrienoch 4 years ago
But you can take your logic nitpicking to the opposite extreme as well, with arguments that go nowhere and do nothing more than end conversations.
The language games can be a lot of fun and win you comments of "brilliance." But when I see it go to your head, I wonder where's the humility I once admired so much. I remember when you showed your subscribers how much you liked them, rather than made fun of them.
EMTRUE 4 years ago
I'm not at all sure what you're after here. Counter-critique is how new methods are made. What is it that's gone to my head? What are the apparently arrogant, prideful things I've said? And who have I made fun of? (Was it the person I called a pretentious fuck?)
azrienoch 4 years ago
EMTRUE: "What are some philosophical accomplishments?"
Please Google: 'Bertrand Russell, The Value of Philosophy'
You suspect you may enjoy it.
mavaddat 4 years ago
Favorite Az vid to date.
LoVerT2 4 years ago
Damn that is one of the best vids I have seen on YouTube!! That's how you use violence to make a point. Awesome!!
loveisallneed 4 years ago
That is brilliant!
rozeboosje 4 years ago
Great video. Now... substitute dark Az with Jesus. "Believe in me or perish. It's YOUR fault, if you don't agree with me. Oh, I love you too." BLAM!!!
a2daredevil00 4 years ago
LOL Best. Video. Ever!!
JackGlycon 4 years ago
You cannot avoid practicing metaphysics if you want explanatory power. There is no clear demarcation principle that will satisfy science ideally and how it was practiced historically.
However, the key point is, as long as we are HONEST about when we are practicing metaphysics we can fairly reliably differentiate science from psudeoscience.
That's what makes science special over other dogmas.
By the way, for the philosophy haters: Science is nothing without philosophy and vice versa.
ReligionIsACrutch 4 years ago
You perfectly express my idea that convincing people (i.e. agrgue upon axioms) always reduces to threat.
maksiiiskam2 4 years ago
Nice books.
TheDude0fLife 4 years ago
Half Life shotgun sound for a handgun? :P
HateAnarchy 4 years ago
best video today
isismelting 4 years ago
Well, call me simple, but I find ndclark's argument compelling.
Science is practical and gives you solid results (ie, technology). In my little world of energy and atoms, I could give a fuck less about anything that doesn't produce demonstrable results.
CadicusTheDamned 4 years ago
I'm really curious as to how you filmed that. And if that is a real gun.
mimib1230 4 years ago
I used my camcorder and some editing trickery. And the gun is a military issue .44
azrienoch 4 years ago
Ha! those old .44 Mags make up in beauty what they lack in substance.
threeofwands 4 years ago
limits of knowledge = truth
Science ----> math - forms; forms compared to one other.
Content - no math.
knowledge = content not from
Kant almost there
Schopenhouer dangerously close
know what?
nothing --> all
PS
Buddhism is atheistic
CarloMarx666 4 years ago
is that a prop or a real handgun? if so, what's the make and caliber?
threeofwands 4 years ago
Looked to me like a Colt 45 1911.
I'd actually bet on it.
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
That was my first guess, as well.
threeofwands 4 years ago
depends how you define justifiable, does it not?
EverettsVLOG 4 years ago
No, not really. Justification is a rather outdated idea.
azrienoch 4 years ago
Nice. This kind of reminded me of The Matrix because of the sort of green tone of the scene and the way you dress, hehe.
SmartCo0kie 4 years ago
So you're your own daddy now?
CousinoMacul 4 years ago
Always have been. Well, not always, but you know.
azrienoch 4 years ago
HAHAHAHA, brilliant...
Elcristoph 4 years ago
"atheism is not, and never will be a justifiable position" - I'm curious about this statement. If possible could you make a video or comment about this statement. Thanks
KT45 4 years ago
Actually, the video is quite in regards to my last video.
azrienoch 4 years ago
because all scientologists are atheists.
and most atheists are religious, thanks to buddhism.
the label might be useful for now, until we have something better, but atheism as a position?
"atheism is not, and never will be a justifiable position" try to disprove it by justifying atheism as a position. if you can, then maybe azrienoch really needs to make a video about it :)
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Well, I guess atheism is merely the opposite of theism. It must be grounded by whatever theism defines as god. If god is defined as an all-loving, all-powerful creator by theist I don't see why you can't just use Epicurus/Hume argument to justify your position "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing?, Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?, Then why call him God?"
KT45 4 years ago
if you attack scientology as well as the monotheistic religions, your position is not atheism. you even use more or less the same tools.
your position could be a naturalistic worldview, an appreciation of science, you could take the position of someone who exposes intellectual dishonesty. but atheism does not qualify as a position, its just a poorly defined label.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
"but atheism does not qualify as a position, its just a poorly defined label" I guess I see your point. Since atheism is just a position that tells you what it is not, or defines itself based on a negative, its premise is inadequate for defining a worldview. thanks!
KT45 4 years ago
Intense video, Az! Nice work.
lensherr82 4 years ago
...and the Tags are funny, too!
tmafkap 4 years ago
Love you're videos but I have begun to despise philosophers. I went from loving it to wishing death on philosophers in under 8 week. I just took my first Philosophy class and I swear I'll go bat shit crazy if I have to explain why I am not a brain in a vat one more time or be asked what is truth. Is there any point to Philosophy in society. I have a feeling you people operate in you're own little world. A world I would like no part of anymore. I am getting an A in class oddly enough.
sharpie443 4 years ago 3
"I have a feeling you people operate in you're own little world."
Who isn't? ;)
azrienoch 4 years ago
WHY, ME, OF COURSE!!! *reaches into coat for loaded 1911, aims at Az's pretentious little head*
I have the feeling the philosophical questions you pose are the equivalent of telling a bunch of prairie cowboys that their picante sauce was made in....NEW YORK CITY?!?
creepsomber 4 years ago
Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just discovered I don't think like a philosopher. I like to operate in observable reality. I am an economist so some philosophical thought is useful. The first Economist "Adam smith" was a philosopher but I like to think we evolved past that. Just kidding :P Keep up the vids.
sharpie443 4 years ago
Yes sharpie443, I couldn't agree more. I only wish there was a way to give more than five stars to videos where philosophers get shot in the head.
CousinoMacul 4 years ago 2
Interesting, I kinda feel the same way.
manwithoutgod101 4 years ago
It doesn't get any better, sharpie. Philosophers ask risible questions like that all the time in an attempt to show that you and I are incapable of grasping certain profundities without their help.
qqqooppp 4 years ago
"What's a philosopher ?" said Brutha. "Someone who's bright enough to find a job with no heavy lifting," said a voice in his head. -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
"Take it from me, whenever you see a bunch of buggers puttering around talking about truth and beauty and the best way of attacking Ethics, you can bet your sandals it's all because dozens of other poor buggers are doing all the real work around the place." -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
small gods is a good book for anyone that wants to have a good laugh at philosophy's expense.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
You made your wife point a gun to your head in your own suit? xD
DerCrossi 4 years ago
I lso suspected he made his wife beat him up and put a gun to his head. Is that how you did this Az?
rebyoshi 4 years ago
ahahahahahahaha!
MikeSarno 4 years ago
NICE :)
KelsoFabulous 4 years ago
Damn!
apatheticbuddha 4 years ago
Hahaaha I wasn't expecting that
msa1985 4 years ago
LOl hilarious. i am not to good with philosphy to much to think abotu there. but i do nto even think science offer whoel truths either only what we can see at the moment. thats how to pwn someone.
x71isnwor 4 years ago
Good Short....top Quality
inmendham 4 years ago
Hahahahaha...shit.
If this is how you pwn people then all of the sudden I'm a little nervous about how you said you were going to pwn me in person a few nights ago.
TheKidFrom13thStreet 4 years ago
woah. wow.
=)
achampag 4 years ago
They don't just take your lives... they take your integrity, too! Just at the last moment...
davius4321 4 years ago
oh gosh Az, this is the greatest.
Stop being so talented it really gets on my tits.
PrimaryPurpose 4 years ago
I LOVE THIS FILM!
d4dan 4 years ago
Fortunately for me I DID withdraw that comment prior (I believe) to you posting this vid. But I concede that this is an accurate depiction of the er, "argument" I put forth initially. I HAVE BEEN PWNED! (Albeit AFTER I withdrew the remark quoted in the sidebar.)
Of course, I WOULD have to have a gun at your head to get you to concede that philosophy, in many instances but NOT all, needs science if it is discuss reality with any justification. But I would NEVER pull the trigger.
Ouch. :)
philhellenes 4 years ago 5
lol
you definitely should be on Tommy From the Bronx
Dadalama 4 years ago 2
Hahaha made my morning :)
ryanisfootdrums 4 years ago
PWNED! i love it.
stephen8065 4 years ago
This has to be the best video I have seen in a long time, great editing.
meatpuppet 4 years ago
The bit where you grabbed...yourself? and the frame shakes actually made me jump a bit.
Great video *****
Na7han1988 4 years ago
Converted at gunpoint, so much more scientific than the sword.
gratex 4 years ago 2
Az... I love you.
mistawulf 4 years ago 3
Wo! New rule, Az. Videos like this need to be tagged: "Turn Down Sound at Work." Preferably this would come on screen about 5 seconds before the frst yelling of fuck in a gun brandishing bum rush of one's alter psyche.
rebyoshi 4 years ago
You clever bastard you! Short and concise.
mconn2112 4 years ago
haha
MessianicDJ 4 years ago
Excellent. Nice editing, Az.
TheGrammarian 4 years ago
Glad to see you've come around. :p
TheNakedAtheist 4 years ago
How'd you film that dude? Did you get a buddy to hold you down or just some awesome film editing?
sixxers 4 years ago
Hahahahahahahahaha! That was COOL!!!! ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 4 years ago
Thank you.
thinkeatingmachine 4 years ago
lol@PWNED!
Sugarfexx 4 years ago