I would like to see the title changed from Debate: The Christian and the Philosopher, to Education: The Christian and the Philosopher lol. I hope we can see you debate a real Christian scholar or "intellectual" one day, not because I think the outcome would be different, but because I think it was unfair to pitch a philosopher against someone who needed proof defined to them, and if you already have and i just didn't see it Thanks for making that video lol.
I like how the Christian tries to explain how God can be both all powerful and all knowing by saying that time would loop back on itself and self correct via the 4th dimension or whatever.
I assume God told him that too? Cause I don't think us lowly humans have enough of a grasp on the space-time continuum to understand how time reacts to God's manipulation. Christians will pull anything out of their ass in order to protect their concept of God from yet another criterion for disproof.
I think this debate can be summed up by a statement the Christian made at 8:17. "I'm just having a hard time putting it into terms that you guys won't object to."
Well, yea, you're going to have a hard time taking an unsubstantiated(and self contradictory) opinion and trying to call it objectively proveable by virtue of its immunity to disproof.
That wasn't a debate! That was one guy enjoying the dispensation of his own knowledge. His body language kinda said it all to me. You simply cannot measure a spiritual entity with physical criteria. A cop out an atheist would say.... A certainty the believer would believe. Aristotle and Socrates would turn in their grave!
The Greek mindset versus the Hebrew mindset. Much a do about nothing, like mixing water and oil. One is of faith and the other is based on reason and logic, they are polar opposites. The Greek mindset requires the proof before the belief, the hebrew mindset perceives faith as the evidence before the manifestation, the belief before the proof if you will. The Greeks try to pigeon hole something they cannot understand. I think the philosopher likes the sound of his own voice too much! lol
Very interesting debate lol but we can not prove évolution since we aven't found any fossile intermediate to species,and off course I can not support Christianity either.
As fact there is on alternative wich no one wanted because it doesn't serve in anyway our sociéty of consumption.I can just say good luck to all finding simplicity.
@denisalain every fossil is an intermediate, in fact every living species is an intermediate. now its not necessarily "proof" of the theory of evolution. in science a theory becomes such based on certain criteria. one of which is that the theory has to be falsifiable meaning it can't be conclusively proven because there is always a chance it can be falsified no matter how many facts back it up. besides, "proof" is is a term reserved for mathematics not science.
not a very good interlocutor on the Christian side, but some tendentiously slippery and fallacious moves on the Philosopher's part mixed in with some decent philosophy of religion
@gbisadler btw I love to make assertions without evidence too, its fun. You are a douche-bag. Watertight argument at least in your eyes. So therefore according to your argumentation you must accept that claim.
not a very good interlocutor on the Christian side, but some tendentiously slippery and fallacious moves on the Philosopher's part mixed in with some decent philosophy of religion
Stef, your logic on how God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent is not sound. if God had a plan and then needed to change it, He simply would have already known He was going to change it. I feel like you've got to know that what you're saying is deceptive and intellectually dishonest... right?
The problem is in how you explain why God would create a plan that required being changed. It generally assumes that God has to adapt his plan to the choices that humans or other entities make.
@arknihil sure, but that just shows the silliness of the question, right? I mean, He would have already known He was going to change it, but more realistically, He would have already accounted for that change. it's a logical solution to a problem that wouldn't arise anyways.
@Frettsy I'll try to explain the concept more simply. So god knows that a tree is going to fall over tomorrow, can he stop the tree falling over? If he can then he isn't all knowing because he didn't know that the tree wasn't going to fall over, if he can't he's not all powerful because there is something he can't do, and if you say "It was always his plan to change it." Can he chose not to change it? Also being all powerful is impossible is itself, can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
@windsweptplain if He knows that the tree is going to fall over, then He always knew it, which means He already accounted for whether or not He wanted to stop it, and chose not to. He *could* choose not to, but then He would have known He would choose not to from the start, so then *that* would be His plan. make sense? :)
to your latter point: no. because God cannot do contradictions. for example, God cannot be "not God". this doesn't limit God's power. it is a clever grammatical trick.
@windsweptplain with that I was referring to your 'omnipotence paradox' about the "rock so heavy". the omnipotence paradox is invalid, and this can be demonstrated by the simple 'paradox' "can God be 'not' God?". the answer, of course, is no. God's omnipotence is only claimed in the rational plane.
@Frettsy the most alarming part of the whole thing is that Stef, like myself, is a computer scientist. of all people, he ought to understand this sort of obvious fallacy from the get-go. and in fact he does, as he clearly demonstrates his clear fundamental understanding of logic in the majority of his videos. which leads me to believe he is being intentionally obtuse or misleading when he makes statements and claims such as these.
@Frettsy Stefan thinks hes very smart. But i think hes a chicken shit , because he picks easy debates. I'd love to see him debate somebody like Dr William Lane Craig or Dr Ketih Ward, two Christian Philosophers, who he would not look so clever against.
@thevoice81111 I would too. I like the way Dr. Craig argues. He's really into complex arguments. It's totally the opposite of Stef's style, which is more based in direct implication. Remember when Hitchens debated Craig? I think a debate between these two would devolve like that debate did. Craig came out crazy with these 9 qualities of a god, and Hitchens wouldn't accept Craig's assumptions, so the debate stalled in the first 5 minutes.
@thevoice81111 "Stefan thinks hes very smart. But i think hes a chicken shit , because he picks easy debates. I'd love to see him debate somebody like Dr William Lane Craig or Dr Ketih Ward, two Christian Philosophers, who he would not look so clever against."
Stef has said he is willing to debate people like Craig any time.
a few problems to think about: a dictionary uses words to define words. Mathematics uses mathematics to prove itself. People are by definition subjective; the word objective actualy means something you can't achieve. Gravity is defined as a force towards the center of the earth, but it never says where it comes from: i.e. angels pushing from outside this world or little midgets pulling from inside the earth can both be valid as a "objective" description. No vision of the force, angels or midgets
It is sad to hear a debate between "god" and "free will" from sober people. For the concept of time: there it goes again with assumptions. How do you think you know time is a one way flow? How do you even know it's linear? Logic is something your mind thinks it understands. I remain doubtfull about that too. What is physical reality? After I had an outerbody experience myself, after an accident, I simply know it is true. The experience doesn't hold up with logic, but it does with "reality".
the problem with the argument from stef: where is this "objective" reality to be found? Reason and evidence fair enough. But the assumption of something as a "objective" reality is simply just another programming in the mind (yes that's the one the schoolsystems -whereof stef is no fan- propagate). To use stef his own tactic; debate the premises. Science, like money, is just another religion: they promise a lot but if you investigate further it doesn't add up.
@sowiesosso Sortove...but no. The scientific method works. See AronRa's "The 15 Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" video series so you may understand the validity of scientific knowledge. Let me know what particularly about scientific knowledge doesn't "add up", i'll eat my hat :)
If God has already determined our fate, then praying is useless ans a false hope. This along with free will would be caput. Just robot/slaves. Wow!! Our world would be radically different if we started off wih logic first instead of mythology.
I saw a documentary years ago that stated, before religion was introduced to Britain there was a huge account of suicide among the people. Perhaps religion fulfils the hopeless nothingness that many people can not come to terms/cope with.
To me, it's perfectly reasonable to say that because we have a limited perspective, it is POSSIBLE that we simply could not detect something like "god."
That said, the Christian caller was utterly thick in this conversation. More polite than a lot of Christians I've heard on this topic, but mind-numbingly stubborn and contradictory all the same.
I know it's an old vid, Stef, but I'm glad I found it. Thanks a million for all your work here.
God does not change because He chooses, not because He can't. Nothing contradicting with that. Besides, for every philosophical argument you present there are other arguments that using the same philosophical approaches and "laws" you use can refute your own arguments and even contradict them all together. This conversation is too limited. Step out of your comfort zone, out of the box.
God does not change because He chooses, not because He can't. Nothing contradicting with that. Besides, for every philosophical argument you present there are other arguments that using the same philosophical approaches and "laws" you use can refute your own arguments and even contradict them all together. This conversation is too limited. Step out of your comfort zone, out of the box.
@kittencartman That depends if you mean conceptual or physical existence. As a concept love exists and has measurable affects but that can be manifested in different ways. The same goes for the god-concept. However, there is no free-floating 'thing' called love out there in existence...same goes for god.
@capitalAtheist conceptual of course, that's all it can be. Or, perhaps perceptual is a better word. Love is a real tangible concept that exhibits physical effects, therefore it does exist, unless you are a psychopath that is....in which case it does not!
@kittencartman I would say the same thing about god being conceptual and the belief in a god can have physical affects that happen hear in the real world but like love does not exist outside of the mind in any real sense. I have yet to hear an explanation for god existing anywhere but outside of the mind. Also, when so many people believe so many different things about a god not have which have allowed for god to be anything more than an ontological projection.
@kittencartman Actually, love is objective. We can gather objective evidence of it through behavior and brain activity. For example, if the brain is highly active during a behavior someone calls love, which is subjective, we can prove it exists because of the objective evidence of heightened brain activity. Now, we can never define love because that is subjective to a person, but we can prove that some instinctual behavior similar to the definition exists through objective evidence.
1st off, both of U are boring. Zzzzzz! 2nd, both of U are wrong. Lol! U both lack spirituality. Atheism and Evolutionists treat their opinions the same way Christians do: Religiously. Stop disagreeing 4 the sake of disagreeing and see if you all can't reconcile your perspectives as such. Look up the definition of Christian and the def. of Philosophy. U can't be either without LOVE. Love is the very essence of the definition of each. This is not me being romantic or esoteric. Check the etymology.
Pfft. There is a good portion superstition contained within the sciences. To prove the "objective" existence of "Ego" superstition, or "Logic" superstition, would be impossible.
I agree with your logic and your debate. However, the lad you were debating with was waaaay out of his depth. You basically were teaching this poor fool basic stuff which he wasn't even aware of, rendering the debate to a lesson rather than a discussion.
Also, christ on a stick! this guy lacked thrift. One word- vapid!
I'm sorry but (i'm going to rude here) that gentleman you're debating isn't too bright.
He's basically saying he doesn't believe in fairies, because there's no evidence of that, but because a lot of people believe in a god (which there of course isn NO evidence of), that gives him enough reason to believe it's true.
But that's just retarded. It's so basic! that it hurts my head why such a person would waste their time on thispremise. And not a very good one either.
You know, i got one for ya. You can disprove god through various methods, but one of the biggest things for belief, one of the biggest arguments is how did we get here? This just cant BE. This has been proven many many times through science, and logically it makes sense. Well, matter cant exist, and it cant just NOT exist, right? well, does this mean matter has been through all of time? that it has always existed forever and ever? thats a question that keeps me agnostic.
in this manner one could use the same question towards the existence of God. God couldnt have just BEEN...where did he/she come from? Etc. Our feeble minds cannot and will never understand how the beginning truly began. So in essence, early humans placed a name on this beginning which was easier to understand. God.
That's an intelligent response i wasn't expecting. I can agree with this response. I suppose that we'll never actually know what happened in the very beginning. Its probably best to focus on our future, not on our past.
Im sorry, im not entirely sure how sleepy i was when i typed that. What i meant to say was, based off of the theory that matter can not be created nor destroyed, this universe as we know it, in my opinion of course, can not exist without some sort of "divine" help. However, the question then comes, how was this "divine" source created? Physics says that everything is relevant, i pose the theory that we created ourselves.
That was a subjective opinion, In fact.. I like jazz... I believe... it is subjective. He didn't say, "God exists." He said, "I believe God exist." Not, "God Does" but, " I believe." Aka, I personally think. So I mean... It was subjective. This dude cant really defend himself too well... i think he wasn't awake. Also, The fourth dimension is refered to as time isnt it? so that was fourth dimensional thinking?
Wow this was rather disappointing. This man seems like a rather intelligent individual. He is fully capable of critical thinking, or so it seems. However, in the arena of religion, his only response remained to be, "Well other people believe in it so it must be real."
Even some of the most intelligent people can use reason and logic for every other aspect of their lives, but they refuse to evolve past a 5-year-old's thought process when it comes to their religious beliefs.
draven83 - oh yeah, I m suer you BELIEVED all that.... no doubt, that is why ur life is so perfect, and now I suppose you believe that -let me gues here- you are your own goddess and birthed yourself
And, yes, I would agree that the most reasonable people in life are christrians. thanks for UR sense fo humor
Well shieldsff, I'm glad you appreciate my humor. However, when you address me, I would really appreciate spell check being involved. Other than that, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. The entire point of my comment was to test your beliefs through logic and reason. This led you to the conclusion that since I don't believe in the nonsensical fairy tale you follow, I must believe in another ridiculous option.
Sorry to disappoint, but no. Thanks for trying though. :]
Jesus can save you! That's why He came taking the sins of the world on Him. He died and shed His blood for all mankind because He loves us. Read the book of Acts chapter 2 verse 38 about repentance. Romans chap 10 vers 9-10 says That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Oh and shieldsff, I, too, believed in christianity at one point. I believed the first woman was created out of a man's rib, a snake told her apples are evil, a random chick was impregnated by an invisible man, the invisible man's son was killed so everyone could do what they wanted and still end up in paradise, and then he came back as a zombie to show us who's boss....but then....
Aladdin came on the Disney Channel and it seemed so much more realistic. Flying carpets are the shizz!
What Christianity says is that God has offered men a full and sufficient revelation of Himself. It says that you should use and embrace the goodness you received when he lovingly created you in his image. It says that in blind ignorance you and every one has rejected His eternal truth, but by accepting His provision for your corruptions (i.e., sins) , you can have a restored relationship with Him. Many books have been written about it if you need more details.
God is all knowing because he is all powerful. He knows what is going to happen because he is making it happen. But the Bible declares God himself does not change. There is historical evidence of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Many manuscripts passed down over the past 2000 years testifying of his life death and ressurection. Sealed with the blood of the Apostles. Many have died for what they beleived to be true. Know one would die for what they knew was a lie.
People will die for what they believe to be true even if it is a lie. People die as a result of a war they may have nothing to do with. But know one dies for testifying for what they themselves know is a lie. If they were told recant Jesus Christ or die and didn't being the very founders of the Church. Did they believe it was a lie?
The caller is wrong that the God myth is somehow unique; millions of people believe that aliens are visiting earth, even though there is no compelling physical evidence that they are.
Isn't Quantum physics also self contradictory? Something about sub-atomic particles that are not really particles but not really waves... How did they scientifically prove that theory?
Damn.... being a fellow philosophy buff, i really enjoyed this. one thing that i learned early on stef that might help you in the future: logical arguments are meaningless for religious people. conclusion: do not even try to debate them, they will make no sense to any reasonable person.
You are telling me... That is why when you debate them, do so in a public forum, like in youtube comments.
If you do this, then you can at least have records to post wherever to show people how crazy the religious nuts are.
It is helpful for those on the fence about it, when they see someone approaching an argument logically, and another person with insanity, it really can push them to embrace logic and rationality over mind numbing stupidity.
Why this stefbot put this video, I couldn't finish it because non, stef nor the caller, have a strong philosophical background. I can be sure that if somebody who knows better calls and destroys his argument, which will be very easy to do, he will not post it. This guy is so weak, that makes Stef seem dumb answering them with dumb examples as the spider in his head.
We could debate all day every day for the rest of our lives and still we would not know for definite and we would have wasted our lives. So let us look at what we do know. Firstly we have life and life is precious.Secondly one day we will die! So I have a question for you.WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE DAYS YOU HAVE LEFT? Send me a reply.
There are theories in physics which indicate the existence of more than three dimensions of space and more than one of time. If the universe exists in this way, then its creator likely does as well, or is perhaps even more complex. God could perform every single possible action in many different timelines, and be knowledgeable of them all, making him all-powerful, all-doing, and all-knowing. If He exists this way, applying a concept like "the future" to such a being seems faulty.
I was joking, I watched almost the entire video and i can see the other gentleman remained being the Christian that he was when he started end even though he certainly lost the intelectual devate. I am a Christian as well and i watch lots of videos like this one However why would you try to reason a christian out of his faith?
what a person believes is an act of will you cant change someones will with reason and logic or can you? you started this debate knowing that you would win; I mean is it possible for an Atheist to loose at logic and reason. however while you were going through the motion of intellectually pwning the Christian you completely missed the point that faith does not require reason. that is why the gentlemen and i are still Christians.
Man, you can practically smell the cognitive dissonance going on with the caller. His tone of voice you can just tell he's realised "Crap, I've been backed into an intellectual corner here".
So because the caller has nit seen a vampire it can't be real, but god can be real based on the fact that a lot of people believe him/it to be real( many people believe in vampires also)
i would of said "Well then believing in that entity is a bit rediculous if all catogories that are used in reality to prove it cant be used, thats a bit ignorant dont you think?" lol
Look, it doesn't take a philosopher to dissect the poor arguments most religionists use. Just being able to identify how an argument is flawed does not make one a philosopher.
"Philosophy has a standard of truth that is objective, and empirical, and rational..."
This identifies you as a non-philosopher. This is certainly true of some strands of philosophy, but definitely not all philosophy; there are a multiplicity of concepts of truth in philosophy.
Which is something you would know if you had studied philosophy.
While it's not entirely impossible to become a philosopher without reading and engaging with past and present philosophers, it almost never happens. Somehow you don't strike me as a Neo-Socrates or a latter day Confucius.
Well... it's the dominant mode of thought in 20th century German and French philosophy. (Not pragmatism, but epistemologies that, like pragmatism, call into question objectivity and, to some extent, rationality.)
But seriously. Don't call yourself a philosopher if you haven't studied philosophy. Heck, don't call yourself a philosopher even then; wait for someone else to call you one first. Dubbing yourself a philosopher is absurdly arrogant.
If philosophy is the study of fundamental principles, doesn't that mean we are all philosophers to some degree if we discuss and study fundamental principles? Why is it so bad for Stef to place a label on himself which simply describes what he's doing?
In a reality where it's impossible to know everything, the power of belief is strong. It's important to utilize that power to benefit mankind. Christianity is a powerful philosophy because it contains some of the best moral rules and the fear of Hell keeps people on the right path in their times of doubt. My question is, "Is it right to believe in Christianity whether it's real or not?"
Christianity is not a philosophy, but a superstition, and because it is survives by lying to children, it is immoral and corrupt to the core. Lying to the innocent can never produce virtue.
Sorry, I should have said superstition... And religion, namely Christianity is not necessarily lying, it's just using the unknowable factors of existence to promote good will and keep order. I think it's a high powered tool to keep the masses in check and as malevolent as that sounds it's worked for many years. Not perfectly of course.
Here we go again. Christians scared to stand on what the bible says or at least what they stand on what god is because it's often proven wrong. Does God know the future? Yes Can he change is? Yes Then he changed it to what he already knew......Yeah ok sounds right but I knew I was going to say that
Like illness being thought to be a god then it comes out to be something real. I wonder if we will find that something we don't know of now will be the cause of our God delusion. Like maybe an lack to reason what we see or a failure to accept not knowing or maybe it's just a self medication of anxiety. Like the Why worry Gods in control . I think we will find a physical reason people believe things that aren't real. 500 believers 500 atheist for 10 years Study the Results and invent a new med l
Egalitarianism is the religious belief that despite all other physical differences, natural selection produced identical brains in each race. There is no absolute superiority or inferiority, but there are clearly differences in frequency of traits in each race, including intellectual traits. Clearly native sub-saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines lack the high intellectual traits much more common in northern Europeans. Political correctness/egalitarianism is the new religious orthodoxy.
I would like to see the title changed from Debate: The Christian and the Philosopher, to Education: The Christian and the Philosopher lol. I hope we can see you debate a real Christian scholar or "intellectual" one day, not because I think the outcome would be different, but because I think it was unfair to pitch a philosopher against someone who needed proof defined to them, and if you already have and i just didn't see it Thanks for making that video lol.
LogantheLibertarian 2 weeks ago
lol look at the end credits see you in hell nice stef
boy577 3 weeks ago
stef wouldnt be the end boss he would be just immortal,with unlimited health or should we say GOD MODE
boy577 3 weeks ago
if they made a debate fighting game, Stef could easily be an end boss
nurbSoldier 4 weeks ago
I like how the Christian tries to explain how God can be both all powerful and all knowing by saying that time would loop back on itself and self correct via the 4th dimension or whatever.
I assume God told him that too? Cause I don't think us lowly humans have enough of a grasp on the space-time continuum to understand how time reacts to God's manipulation. Christians will pull anything out of their ass in order to protect their concept of God from yet another criterion for disproof.
MrGarky 1 month ago
I think this debate can be summed up by a statement the Christian made at 8:17. "I'm just having a hard time putting it into terms that you guys won't object to."
Well, yea, you're going to have a hard time taking an unsubstantiated(and self contradictory) opinion and trying to call it objectively proveable by virtue of its immunity to disproof.
MrGarky 1 month ago
Dumb theist desperately trying to justify his absurd belief.
destronia123 2 months ago
That wasn't a debate! That was one guy enjoying the dispensation of his own knowledge. His body language kinda said it all to me. You simply cannot measure a spiritual entity with physical criteria. A cop out an atheist would say.... A certainty the believer would believe. Aristotle and Socrates would turn in their grave!
liveguy7 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@liveguy7 "You simply cannot measure a spiritual entity with physical criteria"
What's a "spiritual entity" and how would you know it can't be "measured"? What do you mean by "measure"?
Do you DETECT it?
"Aristotle and Socrates would turn in their grave!"
How would YOU know?
shlockofgod 2 months ago
The Greek mindset versus the Hebrew mindset. Much a do about nothing, like mixing water and oil. One is of faith and the other is based on reason and logic, they are polar opposites. The Greek mindset requires the proof before the belief, the hebrew mindset perceives faith as the evidence before the manifestation, the belief before the proof if you will. The Greeks try to pigeon hole something they cannot understand. I think the philosopher likes the sound of his own voice too much! lol
liveguy7 3 months ago
Ouch! lol
TheGodlessGuitarist 3 months ago
LOL "The difference between god and bacteria is..."
ariuszarim 6 months ago
God: the untouchable, invisible spider that sits on your head. Undetectable by infrared.
ariuszarim 6 months ago
10:33 he JUST explained that our understanding is flawed, yet he thinks that an argument from popularity is appropriate.
M3t4lManiac 6 months ago
27:15 Face of WIN
drGigg 6 months ago
I think it'd be helpful for Stef to look at what Wittgenstein has to say about criteria (and perhaps even religion)...
Yanirakarola 7 months ago
Very interesting debate lol but we can not prove évolution since we aven't found any fossile intermediate to species,and off course I can not support Christianity either.
As fact there is on alternative wich no one wanted because it doesn't serve in anyway our sociéty of consumption.I can just say good luck to all finding simplicity.
denisalain 7 months ago
@denisalain every fossil is an intermediate, in fact every living species is an intermediate. now its not necessarily "proof" of the theory of evolution. in science a theory becomes such based on certain criteria. one of which is that the theory has to be falsifiable meaning it can't be conclusively proven because there is always a chance it can be falsified no matter how many facts back it up. besides, "proof" is is a term reserved for mathematics not science.
ReasonNLogic 7 months ago
@ReasonNLogic, I'll be ding-danged!!! Someone else actually gets the scientific method. If you haven't already gone far, you will.
SgtCrom 6 months ago
@DanteMcSparda Wonderful post.
Fruerik 7 months ago
great debate so classic
Batta0909 8 months ago
<3 Freedomain Radio <3
SamuelMagnus 9 months ago
someone call the police, that christian got the beating of a lifetime.
lukey1990 9 months ago
not a very good interlocutor on the Christian side, but some tendentiously slippery and fallacious moves on the Philosopher's part mixed in with some decent philosophy of religion
gbisadler 10 months ago
@gbisadler ?
fps0chris 9 months ago
@gbisadler btw I love to make assertions without evidence too, its fun. You are a douche-bag. Watertight argument at least in your eyes. So therefore according to your argumentation you must accept that claim.
fps0chris 9 months ago
not a very good interlocutor on the Christian side, but some tendentiously slippery and fallacious moves on the Philosopher's part mixed in with some decent philosophy of religion
gbisadler 10 months ago
Stef, your logic on how God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent is not sound. if God had a plan and then needed to change it, He simply would have already known He was going to change it. I feel like you've got to know that what you're saying is deceptive and intellectually dishonest... right?
Frettsy 10 months ago
@Frettsy
The problem is in how you explain why God would create a plan that required being changed. It generally assumes that God has to adapt his plan to the choices that humans or other entities make.
arknihil 10 months ago
@arknihil sure, but that just shows the silliness of the question, right? I mean, He would have already known He was going to change it, but more realistically, He would have already accounted for that change. it's a logical solution to a problem that wouldn't arise anyways.
Frettsy 10 months ago
@Frettsy but if he didnt know what he was going to change the plan to then he's not all knowing.
windsweptplain 8 months ago
@windsweptplain He would have already known, and then already done it. a perfect plan needs no alterations.
Frettsy 8 months ago
@Frettsy I'll try to explain the concept more simply. So god knows that a tree is going to fall over tomorrow, can he stop the tree falling over? If he can then he isn't all knowing because he didn't know that the tree wasn't going to fall over, if he can't he's not all powerful because there is something he can't do, and if you say "It was always his plan to change it." Can he chose not to change it? Also being all powerful is impossible is itself, can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
windsweptplain 8 months ago
@windsweptplain if He knows that the tree is going to fall over, then He always knew it, which means He already accounted for whether or not He wanted to stop it, and chose not to. He *could* choose not to, but then He would have known He would choose not to from the start, so then *that* would be His plan. make sense? :)
to your latter point: no. because God cannot do contradictions. for example, God cannot be "not God". this doesn't limit God's power. it is a clever grammatical trick.
Frettsy 8 months ago
@Frettsy I think by grammatical you mean logical, what i said would make sense in any language.
windsweptplain 8 months ago
@windsweptplain I meant grammatical in the sense that it's wordplay. it uses a clever idea to mask an obvious logical fallacy.
Frettsy 8 months ago
@Frettsy What would this fallacy be, pray?
windsweptplain 8 months ago
@windsweptplain Q = !Q
something cannot be the opposite of itself. this fact in no way limits "something", it is simply a rational fact about reality.
Frettsy 8 months ago
@Frettsy I really don't see how i said something was opposite itself, i said that it is logicly impossible to be all powerful.
windsweptplain 8 months ago
@windsweptplain with that I was referring to your 'omnipotence paradox' about the "rock so heavy". the omnipotence paradox is invalid, and this can be demonstrated by the simple 'paradox' "can God be 'not' God?". the answer, of course, is no. God's omnipotence is only claimed in the rational plane.
Frettsy 8 months ago
@Frettsy the most alarming part of the whole thing is that Stef, like myself, is a computer scientist. of all people, he ought to understand this sort of obvious fallacy from the get-go. and in fact he does, as he clearly demonstrates his clear fundamental understanding of logic in the majority of his videos. which leads me to believe he is being intentionally obtuse or misleading when he makes statements and claims such as these.
Frettsy 8 months ago
@Frettsy Stefan thinks hes very smart. But i think hes a chicken shit , because he picks easy debates. I'd love to see him debate somebody like Dr William Lane Craig or Dr Ketih Ward, two Christian Philosophers, who he would not look so clever against.
thevoice81111 8 months ago
@thevoice81111 I would too. I like the way Dr. Craig argues. He's really into complex arguments. It's totally the opposite of Stef's style, which is more based in direct implication. Remember when Hitchens debated Craig? I think a debate between these two would devolve like that debate did. Craig came out crazy with these 9 qualities of a god, and Hitchens wouldn't accept Craig's assumptions, so the debate stalled in the first 5 minutes.
ariuszarim 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thevoice81111 "Stefan thinks hes very smart. But i think hes a chicken shit , because he picks easy debates. I'd love to see him debate somebody like Dr William Lane Craig or Dr Ketih Ward, two Christian Philosophers, who he would not look so clever against."
Stef has said he is willing to debate people like Craig any time.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@Frettsy "God's omnipotence is only claimed in the rational plane."
My omnipotent unicorn is only claimed in the rational plane.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
That guy didn't know up from down....how the hell was he supposed to argue about something as proverbial as God??
IammanuelKant 11 months ago
Empirical observations are theory-laden and value laden. Hence, we must stop thinking in terms "objective," empirical realities.
psych4052000 1 year ago
The only pure truth I see is that everyone believes something different and everyone is different all together
FormidableExpression 1 year ago
high-five to any christians who made it through the whole thing ;D
iBurnedEverything 1 year ago
@iBurnedEverything haha yea high five to u man...i shut this joker off after like 10 minutes... guys like this scare people away from Christianity
CrazyStephenson09 1 year ago
a few problems to think about: a dictionary uses words to define words. Mathematics uses mathematics to prove itself. People are by definition subjective; the word objective actualy means something you can't achieve. Gravity is defined as a force towards the center of the earth, but it never says where it comes from: i.e. angels pushing from outside this world or little midgets pulling from inside the earth can both be valid as a "objective" description. No vision of the force, angels or midgets
sowiesosso 1 year ago
It is sad to hear a debate between "god" and "free will" from sober people. For the concept of time: there it goes again with assumptions. How do you think you know time is a one way flow? How do you even know it's linear? Logic is something your mind thinks it understands. I remain doubtfull about that too. What is physical reality? After I had an outerbody experience myself, after an accident, I simply know it is true. The experience doesn't hold up with logic, but it does with "reality".
sowiesosso 1 year ago
the problem with the argument from stef: where is this "objective" reality to be found? Reason and evidence fair enough. But the assumption of something as a "objective" reality is simply just another programming in the mind (yes that's the one the schoolsystems -whereof stef is no fan- propagate). To use stef his own tactic; debate the premises. Science, like money, is just another religion: they promise a lot but if you investigate further it doesn't add up.
sowiesosso 1 year ago
@sowiesosso Sortove...but no. The scientific method works. See AronRa's "The 15 Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" video series so you may understand the validity of scientific knowledge. Let me know what particularly about scientific knowledge doesn't "add up", i'll eat my hat :)
dashedude2 1 year ago 2
Has stef ever not dominated a debate?
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago 9
If God has already determined our fate, then praying is useless ans a false hope. This along with free will would be caput. Just robot/slaves. Wow!! Our world would be radically different if we started off wih logic first instead of mythology.
YesEthan 1 year ago 2
12:47 oh my god, he got DESTROYED. Ha!
mynameaborat993 1 year ago
I saw a documentary years ago that stated, before religion was introduced to Britain there was a huge account of suicide among the people. Perhaps religion fulfils the hopeless nothingness that many people can not come to terms/cope with.
RichardPears 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RichardPears You wrote: "Perhaps religion fulfils the hopeless nothingness that many people can not come to terms/cope with."
Or perhaps the threat of hell after death keeps people living a life of hell.
YY4Me133 3 months ago
Philosophy just pounded Christianity in the ass. Job well done Stefan. All your points were right on and logically sound.
BYencer1 1 year ago 3
the caller lost me when he said that light had no physical reality
Nocturnalux 1 year ago 2
To me, it's perfectly reasonable to say that because we have a limited perspective, it is POSSIBLE that we simply could not detect something like "god."
That said, the Christian caller was utterly thick in this conversation. More polite than a lot of Christians I've heard on this topic, but mind-numbingly stubborn and contradictory all the same.
I know it's an old vid, Stef, but I'm glad I found it. Thanks a million for all your work here.
MusicalAdrian 1 year ago
lol@ "see you in hell"
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Brilliant.
therookie93 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God does not change because He chooses, not because He can't. Nothing contradicting with that. Besides, for every philosophical argument you present there are other arguments that using the same philosophical approaches and "laws" you use can refute your own arguments and even contradict them all together. This conversation is too limited. Step out of your comfort zone, out of the box.
DoblePorciononline 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God does not change because He chooses, not because He can't. Nothing contradicting with that. Besides, for every philosophical argument you present there are other arguments that using the same philosophical approaches and "laws" you use can refute your own arguments and even contradict them all together. This conversation is too limited. Step out of your comfort zone, out of the box.
DoblePorciononline 1 year ago
Comment removed
DoblePorciononline 1 year ago
Comment removed
DoblePorciononline 1 year ago
Comment removed
DoblePorciononline 1 year ago
Loved the gym analogy.. I'll be using that in the future
dangt06 1 year ago
I felt sorry for the guy in the end .
;~;
totheman 1 year ago
This guy got raped ...
prodigy00073 1 year ago
Comment removed
Nen783 1 year ago
@Nen783 "... God wants to see who trusts him."
Why?
eulercircles 1 year ago
Comment removed
Nen783 1 year ago
@Nen783 Why was the comment removed?
eulercircles 1 year ago
You can't touch or look at love. It's totally sujective in nature. Can't be counted, quanitified or measured, ergo it dosen't exist, right?
kittencartman 1 year ago
@kittencartman That depends if you mean conceptual or physical existence. As a concept love exists and has measurable affects but that can be manifested in different ways. The same goes for the god-concept. However, there is no free-floating 'thing' called love out there in existence...same goes for god.
capitalAtheist 1 year ago
@capitalAtheist conceptual of course, that's all it can be. Or, perhaps perceptual is a better word. Love is a real tangible concept that exhibits physical effects, therefore it does exist, unless you are a psychopath that is....in which case it does not!
kittencartman 1 year ago
@kittencartman I would say the same thing about god being conceptual and the belief in a god can have physical affects that happen hear in the real world but like love does not exist outside of the mind in any real sense. I have yet to hear an explanation for god existing anywhere but outside of the mind. Also, when so many people believe so many different things about a god not have which have allowed for god to be anything more than an ontological projection.
capitalAtheist 1 year ago
@kittencartman Actually, love is objective. We can gather objective evidence of it through behavior and brain activity. For example, if the brain is highly active during a behavior someone calls love, which is subjective, we can prove it exists because of the objective evidence of heightened brain activity. Now, we can never define love because that is subjective to a person, but we can prove that some instinctual behavior similar to the definition exists through objective evidence.
l44tman58 1 year ago
Stef, you tore this guy apart!
tantoi10man 1 year ago
1st off, both of U are boring. Zzzzzz! 2nd, both of U are wrong. Lol! U both lack spirituality. Atheism and Evolutionists treat their opinions the same way Christians do: Religiously. Stop disagreeing 4 the sake of disagreeing and see if you all can't reconcile your perspectives as such. Look up the definition of Christian and the def. of Philosophy. U can't be either without LOVE. Love is the very essence of the definition of each. This is not me being romantic or esoteric. Check the etymology.
SweZiEnt 1 year ago
Comment removed
clemonsx90 1 year ago
hey i really want to debate with you
cycko101 2 years ago
Pfft. There is a good portion superstition contained within the sciences. To prove the "objective" existence of "Ego" superstition, or "Logic" superstition, would be impossible.
biggsy182 2 years ago
I agree with your logic and your debate. However, the lad you were debating with was waaaay out of his depth. You basically were teaching this poor fool basic stuff which he wasn't even aware of, rendering the debate to a lesson rather than a discussion.
Also, christ on a stick! this guy lacked thrift. One word- vapid!
But all in all well done. You kicked his ass!!!
Domzdream 2 years ago
Is it me or is the guy you're debating is hellishly boring and dull.
Domzdream 2 years ago
I'm sorry but (i'm going to rude here) that gentleman you're debating isn't too bright.
He's basically saying he doesn't believe in fairies, because there's no evidence of that, but because a lot of people believe in a god (which there of course isn NO evidence of), that gives him enough reason to believe it's true.
But that's just retarded. It's so basic! that it hurts my head why such a person would waste their time on thispremise. And not a very good one either.
Domzdream 2 years ago
great video. i tend to take thesame stance as you.but i would love to take the opposite side just for a good in depth debate,
ifu06572 2 years ago
great clip!.. i enjoyed this believer backpedaling to every simple logical point, and squirm in his seat =D.
owned.. simply...
Djsouthpaw1987 2 years ago
ZaXProducts,
The statements: "God exists" and: "I believe God exists" are exactly the same. They are both objective truth statements.
Ron2012Paul 2 years ago
You know, i got one for ya. You can disprove god through various methods, but one of the biggest things for belief, one of the biggest arguments is how did we get here? This just cant BE. This has been proven many many times through science, and logically it makes sense. Well, matter cant exist, and it cant just NOT exist, right? well, does this mean matter has been through all of time? that it has always existed forever and ever? thats a question that keeps me agnostic.
ZaXProducts 2 years ago
in this manner one could use the same question towards the existence of God. God couldnt have just BEEN...where did he/she come from? Etc. Our feeble minds cannot and will never understand how the beginning truly began. So in essence, early humans placed a name on this beginning which was easier to understand. God.
jesterzach101 2 years ago
That's an intelligent response i wasn't expecting. I can agree with this response. I suppose that we'll never actually know what happened in the very beginning. Its probably best to focus on our future, not on our past.
ZaXProducts 2 years ago
"This just cant BE"
Why not? I have no problem with that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
Comment removed
mcduffiesteven 2 years ago
Im sorry, im not entirely sure how sleepy i was when i typed that. What i meant to say was, based off of the theory that matter can not be created nor destroyed, this universe as we know it, in my opinion of course, can not exist without some sort of "divine" help. However, the question then comes, how was this "divine" source created? Physics says that everything is relevant, i pose the theory that we created ourselves.
ZaXProducts 2 years ago
That was a subjective opinion, In fact.. I like jazz... I believe... it is subjective. He didn't say, "God exists." He said, "I believe God exist." Not, "God Does" but, " I believe." Aka, I personally think. So I mean... It was subjective. This dude cant really defend himself too well... i think he wasn't awake. Also, The fourth dimension is refered to as time isnt it? so that was fourth dimensional thinking?
ZaXProducts 2 years ago
stefbot! "Thanks for watching! See you in hell!" hahahahaha. after so much evasion, that's all he's earned.
BelieveInReasonAlone 2 years ago
Wow this was rather disappointing. This man seems like a rather intelligent individual. He is fully capable of critical thinking, or so it seems. However, in the arena of religion, his only response remained to be, "Well other people believe in it so it must be real."
Even some of the most intelligent people can use reason and logic for every other aspect of their lives, but they refuse to evolve past a 5-year-old's thought process when it comes to their religious beliefs.
draven83 2 years ago
draven83 - oh yeah, I m suer you BELIEVED all that.... no doubt, that is why ur life is so perfect, and now I suppose you believe that -let me gues here- you are your own goddess and birthed yourself
And, yes, I would agree that the most reasonable people in life are christrians. thanks for UR sense fo humor
shieldsff 2 years ago
Well shieldsff, I'm glad you appreciate my humor. However, when you address me, I would really appreciate spell check being involved. Other than that, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. The entire point of my comment was to test your beliefs through logic and reason. This led you to the conclusion that since I don't believe in the nonsensical fairy tale you follow, I must believe in another ridiculous option.
Sorry to disappoint, but no. Thanks for trying though. :]
draven83 2 years ago
hahaha, nice one ;)
elliot91murphy 2 years ago
Jesus can save you! That's why He came taking the sins of the world on Him. He died and shed His blood for all mankind because He loves us. Read the book of Acts chapter 2 verse 38 about repentance. Romans chap 10 vers 9-10 says That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
shieldsff 2 years ago
Oh and shieldsff, I, too, believed in christianity at one point. I believed the first woman was created out of a man's rib, a snake told her apples are evil, a random chick was impregnated by an invisible man, the invisible man's son was killed so everyone could do what they wanted and still end up in paradise, and then he came back as a zombie to show us who's boss....but then....
Aladdin came on the Disney Channel and it seemed so much more realistic. Flying carpets are the shizz!
draven83 2 years ago
What Christianity says is that God has offered men a full and sufficient revelation of Himself. It says that you should use and embrace the goodness you received when he lovingly created you in his image. It says that in blind ignorance you and every one has rejected His eternal truth, but by accepting His provision for your corruptions (i.e., sins) , you can have a restored relationship with Him. Many books have been written about it if you need more details.
shieldsff 2 years ago
In your specific example, probably not. But you can think of others in which I have made my point. Correct?
cynthiaforequality 2 years ago
the christian sounds a bit like youtuber niphilimfree; same obstinacy, dullness of tone, listless, slightly drawling quality etc.
banjofiddlee 2 years ago
God is all knowing because he is all powerful. He knows what is going to happen because he is making it happen. But the Bible declares God himself does not change. There is historical evidence of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Many manuscripts passed down over the past 2000 years testifying of his life death and ressurection. Sealed with the blood of the Apostles. Many have died for what they beleived to be true. Know one would die for what they knew was a lie.
CrownIdeas 2 years ago
Bull...millions do daily. The Iraq war for one. The list is infinitely long. Children believe in Santa Claus and Pink Unicorns....
cynthiaforequality 2 years ago
People will die for what they believe to be true even if it is a lie. People die as a result of a war they may have nothing to do with. But know one dies for testifying for what they themselves know is a lie. If they were told recant Jesus Christ or die and didn't being the very founders of the Church. Did they believe it was a lie?
CrownIdeas 2 years ago
The look at 29:39 sums up my feelings on this topic pretty well.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
It was sad to listen to this guy like a deer in headlights. :(
JTsmiley14 2 years ago 8
The caller is wrong that the God myth is somehow unique; millions of people believe that aliens are visiting earth, even though there is no compelling physical evidence that they are.
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago
WoW. People should think their ideas over before the go around debating them.
brickmastertube 2 years ago
Isn't Quantum physics also self contradictory? Something about sub-atomic particles that are not really particles but not really waves... How did they scientifically prove that theory?
peanarchist 2 years ago
Damn.... being a fellow philosophy buff, i really enjoyed this. one thing that i learned early on stef that might help you in the future: logical arguments are meaningless for religious people. conclusion: do not even try to debate them, they will make no sense to any reasonable person.
kismo24 2 years ago
You are telling me... That is why when you debate them, do so in a public forum, like in youtube comments.
If you do this, then you can at least have records to post wherever to show people how crazy the religious nuts are.
It is helpful for those on the fence about it, when they see someone approaching an argument logically, and another person with insanity, it really can push them to embrace logic and rationality over mind numbing stupidity.
nidodson 2 years ago
wow stefbot, i didnt knew you were this good in argumentation...
how came you cant see that the free market is a fraud?
vegnagunL 2 years ago
The Christian is making it up as he goes along. He's not a good debater.
nhmllr725 2 years ago
Why this stefbot put this video, I couldn't finish it because non, stef nor the caller, have a strong philosophical background. I can be sure that if somebody who knows better calls and destroys his argument, which will be very easy to do, he will not post it. This guy is so weak, that makes Stef seem dumb answering them with dumb examples as the spider in his head.
DoctorAkke 2 years ago
very interesting, this speaker. def. will listen to the rest of his videos. thanks for posting.
combatleague 2 years ago
Poor guy entered a "debate" with universally fallacious arguments. : (
EsotericThrone 2 years ago
At least the debate was cut short once it became really repetitive.
Valelacerte 2 years ago
We could debate all day every day for the rest of our lives and still we would not know for definite and we would have wasted our lives. So let us look at what we do know. Firstly we have life and life is precious.Secondly one day we will die! So I have a question for you.WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE DAYS YOU HAVE LEFT? Send me a reply.
999smart999 3 years ago
Is there something better to do with our short time here than sorting out meaning? If so, please share
anakin005 2 years ago
There are theories in physics which indicate the existence of more than three dimensions of space and more than one of time. If the universe exists in this way, then its creator likely does as well, or is perhaps even more complex. God could perform every single possible action in many different timelines, and be knowledgeable of them all, making him all-powerful, all-doing, and all-knowing. If He exists this way, applying a concept like "the future" to such a being seems faulty.
Stargazer5781 3 years ago
Old Arguments are old and Convoluted
rmeddy1 3 years ago
I like your little dances you do while you wait for responses. I propose that you put together a sweet dance video to some catchy music.
megagoosey 3 years ago
lol during about 12:00 to me it sounded like "Zeus, aliens, HYPOCRITES exists"
lol I also loved how the caller went "You could be wrong & I could be right; & I could be wrong & you could be wrong"
kyokumajr 3 years ago
This is not really a debate, this is more of an education in logic for Christians.
58694003 3 years ago 3
Comment removed
sonofagunM357 3 years ago
I find this video VERY OFFENSIVE
sonofagunM357 3 years ago
I don't think that you should find religion offensive, it is just wrong...
stefbot 3 years ago 10
I was joking, I watched almost the entire video and i can see the other gentleman remained being the Christian that he was when he started end even though he certainly lost the intelectual devate. I am a Christian as well and i watch lots of videos like this one However why would you try to reason a christian out of his faith?
sonofagunM357 3 years ago
what a person believes is an act of will you cant change someones will with reason and logic or can you? you started this debate knowing that you would win; I mean is it possible for an Atheist to loose at logic and reason. however while you were going through the motion of intellectually pwning the Christian you completely missed the point that faith does not require reason. that is why the gentlemen and i are still Christians.
sonofagunM357 3 years ago
"you completely missed the point that faith does not require reason"
I would love that you would fully consider the implications of your own words.
randomcitizen 3 years ago
What? That there is a certain level of 'faith' in logic?
pikatore 3 years ago
By reasoning out somebody out of their faith did you by chance mean "making them actually think about what they believe in"?
kyokumajr 3 years ago
The christian was on HIS site, participating actively for an opposing argument. What do you expect this guy to do?
pikatore 3 years ago
Man, you can practically smell the cognitive dissonance going on with the caller. His tone of voice you can just tell he's realised "Crap, I've been backed into an intellectual corner here".
MaxxPower101 3 years ago 2
Really good debate. I agree wholeheartedly, Stef. Whatever happened to this guy? Did he just continue ignoring reason?
AndreGerber 3 years ago
So because the caller has nit seen a vampire it can't be real, but god can be real based on the fact that a lot of people believe him/it to be real( many people believe in vampires also)
jhebner74 3 years ago
Yeah... same with aliens + lots of people claim to have been abducted & probed ;)
kyokumajr 3 years ago
i would of said "Well then believing in that entity is a bit rediculous if all catogories that are used in reality to prove it cant be used, thats a bit ignorant dont you think?" lol
LordAtheistCrusader 3 years ago
How exactly would the laws of time apply to God which is outside of every law that is made?
StandUpForISRAEL 3 years ago
"Time works in a forward pattern."
God would be on the outside of time, time that He created. That is Philosophy 101
StandUpForISRAEL 3 years ago
True. And it's wrong.
stefbot 3 years ago
Comment removed
23discordians2 1 year ago
"God would be on the outside of time, time that He created. That is Philosophy 101"
Philosophy 101?? I doubt you've ever taken a philosophy class, let alone know what the whole idea of philosophy IS.
pikatore 3 years ago
Is that true for chemists, biologists, waitresses and other such professions? Are they being arrogant assigning themselves names?
Burnaby1 3 years ago
I'm about 13 minutes in. Does the philosopher call in later in the show?
BobTheViking24 3 years ago
no, sadly, he doesn't, you should totally move on... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
That was snark, by the by. Not stupidity.
BobTheViking24 3 years ago
If you have to tell me, you might be wrong on that one bro...
stefbot 3 years ago
Limits of the medium.
Look, it doesn't take a philosopher to dissect the poor arguments most religionists use. Just being able to identify how an argument is flawed does not make one a philosopher.
"Philosophy has a standard of truth that is objective, and empirical, and rational..."
This identifies you as a non-philosopher. This is certainly true of some strands of philosophy, but definitely not all philosophy; there are a multiplicity of concepts of truth in philosophy.
BobTheViking24 3 years ago
Um, you do realize you are using an objective, empirical and rational criterion to call me a non-philosopher, right? I'm guessing not.
stefbot 3 years ago
For all you know, I use a Pragmatist epistemology, which would not commit me to objectivity or even in all cases rationality.
BobTheViking24 3 years ago
Which is something you would know if you had studied philosophy.
While it's not entirely impossible to become a philosopher without reading and engaging with past and present philosophers, it almost never happens. Somehow you don't strike me as a Neo-Socrates or a latter day Confucius.
BobTheViking24 3 years ago
"which would not commit me to objectivity or even in all cases rationality"
well... good luck with that!
Burnaby1 3 years ago 3
Well... it's the dominant mode of thought in 20th century German and French philosophy. (Not pragmatism, but epistemologies that, like pragmatism, call into question objectivity and, to some extent, rationality.)
But seriously. Don't call yourself a philosopher if you haven't studied philosophy. Heck, don't call yourself a philosopher even then; wait for someone else to call you one first. Dubbing yourself a philosopher is absurdly arrogant.
BobTheViking24 3 years ago
@BobTheViking24
If philosophy is the study of fundamental principles, doesn't that mean we are all philosophers to some degree if we discuss and study fundamental principles? Why is it so bad for Stef to place a label on himself which simply describes what he's doing?
drew335533 1 year ago
In a reality where it's impossible to know everything, the power of belief is strong. It's important to utilize that power to benefit mankind. Christianity is a powerful philosophy because it contains some of the best moral rules and the fear of Hell keeps people on the right path in their times of doubt. My question is, "Is it right to believe in Christianity whether it's real or not?"
silvercade 3 years ago
Christianity is not a philosophy, but a superstition, and because it is survives by lying to children, it is immoral and corrupt to the core. Lying to the innocent can never produce virtue.
stefbot 3 years ago
Sorry, I should have said superstition... And religion, namely Christianity is not necessarily lying, it's just using the unknowable factors of existence to promote good will and keep order. I think it's a high powered tool to keep the masses in check and as malevolent as that sounds it's worked for many years. Not perfectly of course.
silvercade 3 years ago
Sorry, but I have no idea what to say to that.
stefbot 3 years ago
Perhaps this quote will help you read my last comment in my perspective. "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." - Voltaire.
silvercade 3 years ago
nasty
faszika 3 years ago
fuck religion but the metaphysical...
faszika 3 years ago
Here we go again. Christians scared to stand on what the bible says or at least what they stand on what god is because it's often proven wrong. Does God know the future? Yes Can he change is? Yes Then he changed it to what he already knew......Yeah ok sounds right but I knew I was going to say that
GillerMonster 3 years ago
Like illness being thought to be a god then it comes out to be something real. I wonder if we will find that something we don't know of now will be the cause of our God delusion. Like maybe an lack to reason what we see or a failure to accept not knowing or maybe it's just a self medication of anxiety. Like the Why worry Gods in control . I think we will find a physical reason people believe things that aren't real. 500 believers 500 atheist for 10 years Study the Results and invent a new med l
GillerMonster 3 years ago
Egalitarianism is the religious belief that despite all other physical differences, natural selection produced identical brains in each race. There is no absolute superiority or inferiority, but there are clearly differences in frequency of traits in each race, including intellectual traits. Clearly native sub-saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines lack the high intellectual traits much more common in northern Europeans. Political correctness/egalitarianism is the new religious orthodoxy.
hughtub 3 years ago
This just isn't fair. This Christian is a total idiot. Why does this false dichotomy exist between faith and reason?
kerplunk288 3 years ago
"This just isn't fair. This Christian is a total idiot."
Newsflash, All Christians are idiots.
Brushles83 3 years ago