Again, We can play the dictionary game all day. You can pull up Miriam-Webster and I can do Collins English. Not only can I defend from a logical position, but any group that ascribes to that label has the right to define it. Just like christians get to define what christianity is. If they don't then we are stuck with the 2nd century definition of cult cannibals thrown to the lions. Letting christians define atheism is letting the fox guard the hen house.
@TheAtheistPaladin Yes because the Oxford University Press has Christian biases. "It is easy being an atheist agnostic when you can hide behind definitions to make yourself feel clever." The reason yoy cannot adopt a mainstraim objectified definition of atheism is to make yourself feel comfortable about your position. As if that will make it any less radical and therefore you can dance around terms to support your point of view.
You are absolutely pathetic. You rather define me into a comer so that you can play you word games. Problem is that you can't win the game because it requires that I be exactly the strawman you attack. This whole time I let you be the moderate theist as you made yourself to be. I gave you be benefit of the doubt. If I acted like you, then you cannot be other that a bible thumping YEC christian or you not a "true christian". I refuse to be as dishonest as you.
@TheAtheistPaladin What? Seriously? How does refering to an objective unbiased source in the Oxford English Dictionary constitue me trying to paint you into a corner. You already did that yourself. You have painted yourself into an undefinable logically void corner that undermines the authority of the english language.
I can't take you seriously. I proffered a definition several times and asked specifically what is mutually exclusive about it? You offered no direct argument. I gave several reasons why that it is within the bounds of each concept. But every time rather dealing with actual points you drop and ignore, you go on to continue to talk about the definition it self. Even if you feel how I use "agnostic atheist" is wrong, you can still deal with the position I give for it.
@TheAtheistPaladin It is intellectually mind numbing to see atheists time and time again hiding behind BS self created definitions. You defined atheism, not agnostic atheism. Do a better job, because at this point you are making Christians look rather bright.
@TheAtheistPaladin Arrogance is relyin on the linguistic authority of the dictionary? In what world do you live in? Because I can open a dictionary and find the definition of a word that you claim to be and say this is what you have to believe to be an atheist, straight from an unbiased source, that makes me arrogant?
I already pointed to another dictionary that agrees with me! What part o f "We can play the dictionary game all day." To not understand that is to be impossibly stupid, which only leaves you as dishonest. What make you arrogant is that you ignore that and assume that only dictionaries refer to yours, and declare victory before any counters are offered. And you declare that Oxford is unbiased? Really? Now you don't know the history of Oxford.
@TheAtheistPaladin And how do Christians define what Christianity is? It is self defining. And to refere to the dictionary is not a game, it is how we objectivley agree to the quantifiabl definition of words. Hence why you have no ground to stand on. If you are going to argue against that, why should you be taken seriously about anything else?
HYPOCRISY! You can do it for your group, but I have to abide by the "dictionary". That EXACTLY the point I was making. Really it is game over for you. I am done with you.
@TheAtheistPaladin Once again, you defined atheism, not agnostic atheism. And I quote: "I don't know if god exist but I do/don't think god actually exists." How at all do you derive that from any definable term of atheism?
For the love of god, how much of a dishonest sack of shit you got to be? YOU defined atheism, I was only matching the same thing YOU where doing. Even still, the definition I gave is not incompatible with agnosticism. A belief in a god is not something you can do by passive means. It is an active process, however, not believing is. If an agnostic doesn't declare belief for a god, then they are a non-believer.
Well doesn't have to be the case? How else are people are supposed to function? You wouldn't be able to get out of bed if you only believe what you know for certain. Assumptions are fine as long as they are necessary to function or not the thing you are trying to prove. The fact that people have false beliefs already demonstrates that beliefs without knowledge exist.
@TheAtheistPaladin Knowledge in some form or another has to preceed belief. Knowledge doesnt mean proof or evidence, but basic recognition. Can I believe in God if I have absolutley zero knowledge of even the basic concept of God. No...Belief is a mix of knowledge and faith.
"Knowledge in some form or another has to preceed belief. "
Than cannot be true, because if it was, then no false belief system would form. Therefore, you arguing agaisnt me, saying I am wrong, refutes yourself. Beliefs can develop independently of one's knowledge of the subject.
Understand the definition. Either to "know" something is to facts or information regarding that thing (e.g. proof) or it is to "experience" that thing. Pretty much everyone agrees with that. Here, however, I wouldn't force you to accept that definition, I would simply agree to disagree and go on with understanding your position better if that was possible or end the conversation if it was not.
@TheAtheistPaladin yeah. You were so overwhelming, I am going to become an atheistic theist thy conforms strong to mid theism as my default postion and let you teach me.
I asked you several times, what is mutually exclusive about saying "I don't know if god exist but I do/don't think god actually exists." Until then, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist are perfectly good labels. Continue to ignore it and you will prove me right, despite your terribly executed sarcasm.
We can play the dictionary game all day. You can pull up Miriam-Webster and I can do Collins English. Not only can I defend from a logical position, but any group that ascribes to that label has the right to define it. Just like christians get to define what christianity is. If they don't then we are stuck with the 2n century definition of cult cannibals thrown to the lions. Letting christians define atheism is letting the fox guard the hen house.
@TheAtheistPaladin Video didn't work. What are the logical contradictions between science and religion being comaptible. They surely don't contradict each other. Science seeks to explain the efficient causes of the natural world while religion the absolute and formal causes.
@TheAtheistPaladin Link still didn't work dude." They contradict because how they go about acquiring knowledge."...Is that not implied? Religion and science aren't competing for the same thing. Religion/Christianity seeks to explain absolute and final causes. Science looks to explain the empiraclly measurable world. Apples and oranges dude. Hence why there is physics and metaphysics.
@TheAtheistPaladin This isnt black and white. Science and religion arent competing for the same explinations which is why I agree with your second point. How and why could they? Georges Lemaître was a catholic priest who first theorized the expansion of the universe and the concept of the Big Bang.
Just because someone of a particular denomination came up with a scientific theory doesn't not mean religion as a whole is compatible. Ever heard of cognitive dissonance? Catholicism may more willing to accept scientific findings than other denominations and religions, but that doesn't rule out that they are doing it for cultural reasons rather than harmony with their teachings.
@TheAtheistPaladin LOL take a step back dude. Again, religion and science aren't competing or seeking to explain the same thing so why would the be dissonance with a Christian who believes in cause of science? The father of physics, Isaac Newton, was a Christian who thought that by explaining the natural world people could better understand and come to know God through science. Sorry, atheism isnt science's love child.
You need to step back. I am not making the conversation disrespectful like you are. You are really just ignoring the point that I just made. You can list a thousand. It doesn't address the point. Newton was also an Alchemist, does that make science and alchemy mix? Really, you are just appealing to authority to back up your position.
@TheAtheistPaladin What is your position exactly? That via science Christianity can be disproved? Yet here is a Christian openly embracing science as do most. Your videos might address the radical fringe of religion, but not the majority. Apologies if you were offended by any statement. Christianity has not problem with science, so where does that leave atheism if you rely soley on science to prove your position?
I just don't believe that religion and science can maintain perfect separation and where they do cross there is a clash of methods. If they somehow magically do maintain that separation, then what does religion actually do? You talk about "absolute and formal causes", but what in the world is that? How does that apply to anything and not intersect with already existing philosophy or science?
where does that leave atheism if you rely soley on science to prove your position?
Simple, I don't rely "soley" on science but you ignore every place religion and science cross. If you don't believe that demons cause sickness, then you don't believe what your religion says about how reality works.
@TheAtheistPaladin Religion, Christianity seeks to explain the Why (Formal cause/s) questions. Why is the universe here? Science seeks to explain the How (Effective cause/s) questions. How did the universe get here? All part of Aristotle's 4 main causes.
I do believe in demonic possesions that manifest themselves in sickness, but I dont believe every sickness is one.
But how do you know there is even a "why?" That can only make sense if you assume agency and intentionality. Even further how does religion even answer that without simply dogmatically asserting it particular "answer"?
@TheAtheistPaladin Reasoning says if there is an effective how then there needs to be a corresponding formal why. Straight from Aristotle's 4 main causes. Extrapolate that to the bredth of the universe and same logic applies. Sure every religion has an formal cause, but then you need to verify the logical claims of it. Science hits a wall in the big bang, because "before" nature doesnt exist to work with. Either a complete random event or logically insert a supernatural casue.
I am no expert in Aristotle's 4 main causes, but you are not using it as intended. For example, the material cause of a chair would be "wood", the efficient cause would be the chairmaker, the formal cause would the shape that makes a chair a chair, and the final cause is to sit. So given that I don't see religion for any of it. Formal causes can fully be explored under ontology.
@TheAtheistPaladin Would it be safe to say that everything has to possess these 4 causes in order to become reality? If so, then what is the Effecient and Final cause of the universe and everything contained therein? If you are going to use ontology to explain for these two causes then extrapolate: what is the effecient and final cause of ontology? So forth and so on.
"Would it be safe to say that everything has to possess these 4 causes in order to become reality?"
No, because I can easy imagine existence of things that don't have all "causes" present. If something really must a "final cause", then everything MUST have a purpose. That is silly. And "formal cause", you can't have with out the concept of said thing. So existence has primacy over concept.
Final cause is a description of the intent of which something was made. Therefore, everything must have an intent behind it, if everything must have a final cause. How is this not begging the question? You must prove intent before I will accept it.
@TheAtheistPaladin Name something that does not have a purpose? Aristotle's 4 main caues are universally quantifiable. PM me with all this. It is exausting to have to piece mill this together.
You're telling me that things rocks have "purpose"? Seriously? I don't understand why something must have a "purpose" before it can exist. Thing exist, the only thing we are doing here is describing it via different categorizes but not everything can be put in every category.
No... I drectly stated that "formal causes" are explored by ontology. Not that I can explian everything with ontology. So the reset of you question doesn't make sense.
"Sure every religion has an formal cause, but then you need to verify the logical claims of it. "
I think you mean efficient cause. Even WLC says that god is the efficient cause of the creation of the universe. But I digress, What makes christianity so logical? Obviously, you don't think genesis is literal, but why do you still get to say Yahweh did it? Where is the logic in that?
@TheAtheistPaladin Apologies, I stand corrected. No I dont take Genesis as a literal narative. Because polytheistic religions all contain logical contradictions in themselves, as in you can be come "God". Or the idea that there are competing god's with humanoid type features. Well if a "God" has humanoid type characteristics then you get no where. The monotheistic God does not have 6 arms and is blue. He is not the monkey god.
I am assuming you are saying that polytheistic gods are illogical along the lines of the ontological argument's definition of god. If that true, then I have to disagree. A god is simply a powerful immortal that may have a sphere of influence. That is good enough for me.
@TheAtheistPaladin Your definition of a god entails that maybe in another reality it could have been mortal. And with a sphere of influence how does that make it god? As if there are Gods in another universe or where be that are more powerful. Hence why polytheistic and your version of god/gods are illogical.
Just how powerful a god is has nothing to do with logical consistency. I don't accept that "maximally powerful" is a per-requisite to godhood. The normative definition of god clearly doesn't have it like that. To argue otherwise is to attempt to definite your way to victory.
"Science hits a wall in the big bang, because "before" nature doesnt exist to work with. Either a complete random event or logically insert a supernatural casue."
Or you get to say "I don't know." Have you ever get consider that? Sometimes having no answer is better having the wrong answer. How are you not using "supernatural" for the gap in your knowledge?
@TheAtheistPaladin That is perfectly fine if you are holding out for science to find the solution as in mulitple universes or whatever. But that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist and you would need a new channel. If that is the case eventually you logically have to reach a finite point where nature did exist, as infinity is a paper concept.
I don't hold that agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive terms. I am perfectly happy to call my self an agnostic atheist in regards to most gods.
@TheAtheistPaladin Are you really hiding behind definitions? "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable." unanswerable." Straight out of the Britannica Encylopedia.
If Britannica's definition, is merely being open, and that supernatural is unanswerable, then I am STILL a agnostic atheist. I not believe in a god, but that doesn't mean I have closed the door. If you can't accept that, then it is YOUR problem not mine.
@TheAtheistPaladin . Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism..... Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism....Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism.... Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism..... Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism.... Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism.... Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism. Thought maybe you had missed that part. Happens to the best of us.
Just because Britannica says it doesn't mean it is correct. To insist other wise is argument from authority and to repeat as much as you did is ad nausem. There is nothing mutually exclusive in saying "I can't know for sure god exist or not, but I don't believe god does." Until you can explain that is mutually exclusive, then I am still both atheist and agnostic. I am not going accept any more of your childishness. Man up or go a way.
@TheAtheistPaladin If you are entirely satisfied with your belief hinging almost exclusivley on faith because you neither know or dont know then sure that seems logically valid. Be my guest.
Also, almost every other internet encylopedia search revealed the same statement regarding agnosticism and atheism. But do not appeal to universally quantifiable definitions because that would be an argument from authority.
@TheAtheistPaladin Can one be a agnostic theist? A person that seeks to affirm the reality of the divine and often to demonstrate its existence while leaving open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable?
Yes, I have actually met someone who admitted to being both agnostic and theist. Just about how many times do I have to explain the very point to which my argument hinges on? I do not see the affirmation or the lack there of of the existence of something to be also to be a declaration of knowing said thing. You can not know and believe or disbelieve without contradiction.
@TheAtheistPaladin Hence why I said if you can openly abmit to being an atheist on majoirty of faith. If you do not know, but still believe, then has to be on faith. Isn't that what ahteist give theist shit for? Believing in a magical sky fairy "just because"?
Well for one, I see no one saying that you must know something for absolute certainty before that belief is valid. So your criticism rings hallow. If you want me to believe in a god then give me a reason, but don't bitch because I can not believe and not be certain at the same time.
@TheAtheistPaladin If you hold to atheism's truth in blind faith, then I have no problem with that if you can hold that a Christian can believe in God through faith alone without any external evidence required.
*Rolls eyes* If you can't understand that not believing is not equivalent to believing in something, then no amount of explaining will clarify that to you. You mind is shut, obviously.
@TheAtheistPaladin Ok. Clarify this for me. What is your cognitive relationship with atheism then? Seems to me that you have to "believe" (use whatever word makes you happy) in something even if by default of not believe in something else.
@TheAtheistPaladin Really? Are you dense? Then what are you? You labled yourself an agnostic atheist (despite the objective understanding of the words): one who denies the existence of God or gods despite knowing. The rules of identity dont work like that. You can be A or you can be B. A=/=B. Therfore if you are not A, by default you have to be B, and vice versa. You have absolutley retarded yourself into an intellecutaly void limbo where you have no cognitive stance.
Sorry, I don't have to "deny the existence of " anything to not believe in it. If you can't understand the distinction of denial and not believing, then the world is very black and white for you isn't it?
Please explain, what am I believing? Since, you already know what I believe better than I do and can define the label I accept better than I can. *rolls eyes*.
Okay so you believe that some sickness is manifested by demonic possession. How is that not making causal links in reality? Other words, how is that not a claim science can test? How does that not overlap?
It would take an intellectually immature Christian to look to the Bible for scientific explinations about the universe. The Bible is a theological collection and isn't set up to make scientific predictions. If I want to know how the universe has evolved, I would go look into cosmology, not Gensis 1 and 2. It takes an unsophisticated atheist and theist to think that either side has all the answers. Religion and science work wonderfully together.
@indignant99 I was joking. Here's why it's problematic arguing with the religious fervent. If someone cannot recognize how silly Santa is then trying to convince them that Rudolf wasn't a reindeer is not going to do anything.
@SpinozasPsyche Pluto didn't stop being a planet. Pluto is, what it is. What we call it, is immaterial. Now then, since YOU (YOU!) can't trust science, quit using your computer, telephone, TV, furnace, car, vitamins, medicine, eyeglasses, sunscreen, binoculars, matches, hell EVERYTHING. Go live in a cave, and cook squirrels on a spit over a fire.
@indignant99 Hey, relax. I was being sarcastic. It is sad that the internet is so dumbed down (or plagued with trolls), that people can't differentiate sarcasm from just plain stupidity.
@SpinozasPsyche No, the numerous religiosity are the ones that make it perfect to troll around. Poe's law is a fact here on you tube. There's almost no way to know sarcasm when someone makes a claim of stupidity.
Church dogma never proposed that the earth was flat. Humans have known that the earth was spherical since Aristotle and Eratosthenes. People who believed in a flat earth was few and far between. The belief that the earth is flat is often conflated with the absurd belief that there where no kingdoms on the other side of the earth (c.f. Matthew 4:8). This latter was believed by many church fathers, including Tertullian, who did not necessarily subscribe to the former (Numbers. 2010).
@CaseAgainstFaith1 Actually, that conflict was about whether the earth revolves around the sun, not about whether the earth was a sphere. I also suggest "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion" (2010) by Ronald L. Numbers. The case against religion and pseudoscience has to be based on evidence, not just cheap shots based on myths.
@TheEfkk Apologies for my brain fart, yes, you are correct, Galileo was about geocentrism. But, now that you mention it, the OT, at least in some places, does teach a flat earth. The "firmament" was a dome top to a flat earth. The fact that some parts of the world were smarter than that doesn't change the fact that some of the OT authors believed in a flat earth.
@CaseAgainstFaith1 Sure, you can even see this in the teachings of Paul and the book of Revelations as well. But this is not the same as the notion that it was a majority position of the Church. Perhaps a small distinction, but I think it is relevant.
I enjoyed this video, and have never understood why an unchanging doctrine can be regarded as reliable. One suggestion: "Stubborn Steve" works well, but "Changing Joe Shmoe" doesn't. I suggest "Changing Charlie"! I would go for Changing Charlie every time. ;-)
@johhnycarlos If that is not authoritative enough for you, then I dont know what to say.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin a·the·ism /'āTHē,izәm/ ▶n. the belief that God does not exist. -- derivatives a·the·ist n. a·the·is·tic /,āTHē'istik/ adj. Copyright © 2010 Oxford University Press
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Again, We can play the dictionary game all day. You can pull up Miriam-Webster and I can do Collins English. Not only can I defend from a logical position, but any group that ascribes to that label has the right to define it. Just like christians get to define what christianity is. If they don't then we are stuck with the 2nd century definition of cult cannibals thrown to the lions. Letting christians define atheism is letting the fox guard the hen house.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Yes because the Oxford University Press has Christian biases. "It is easy being an atheist agnostic when you can hide behind definitions to make yourself feel clever." The reason yoy cannot adopt a mainstraim objectified definition of atheism is to make yourself feel comfortable about your position. As if that will make it any less radical and therefore you can dance around terms to support your point of view.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
You are absolutely pathetic. You rather define me into a comer so that you can play you word games. Problem is that you can't win the game because it requires that I be exactly the strawman you attack. This whole time I let you be the moderate theist as you made yourself to be. I gave you be benefit of the doubt. If I acted like you, then you cannot be other that a bible thumping YEC christian or you not a "true christian". I refuse to be as dishonest as you.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin What? Seriously? How does refering to an objective unbiased source in the Oxford English Dictionary constitue me trying to paint you into a corner. You already did that yourself. You have painted yourself into an undefinable logically void corner that undermines the authority of the english language.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
I can't take you seriously. I proffered a definition several times and asked specifically what is mutually exclusive about it? You offered no direct argument. I gave several reasons why that it is within the bounds of each concept. But every time rather dealing with actual points you drop and ignore, you go on to continue to talk about the definition it self. Even if you feel how I use "agnostic atheist" is wrong, you can still deal with the position I give for it.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin It is intellectually mind numbing to see atheists time and time again hiding behind BS self created definitions. You defined atheism, not agnostic atheism. Do a better job, because at this point you are making Christians look rather bright.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
"Do a better job, because at this point you are making myself look rather arrogant sun of a bitch. "
Fixed.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Arrogance is relyin on the linguistic authority of the dictionary? In what world do you live in? Because I can open a dictionary and find the definition of a word that you claim to be and say this is what you have to believe to be an atheist, straight from an unbiased source, that makes me arrogant?
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
I already pointed to another dictionary that agrees with me! What part o f "We can play the dictionary game all day." To not understand that is to be impossibly stupid, which only leaves you as dishonest. What make you arrogant is that you ignore that and assume that only dictionaries refer to yours, and declare victory before any counters are offered. And you declare that Oxford is unbiased? Really? Now you don't know the history of Oxford.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin And how do Christians define what Christianity is? It is self defining. And to refere to the dictionary is not a game, it is how we objectivley agree to the quantifiabl definition of words. Hence why you have no ground to stand on. If you are going to argue against that, why should you be taken seriously about anything else?
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
"It is self defining."
HYPOCRISY! You can do it for your group, but I have to abide by the "dictionary". That EXACTLY the point I was making. Really it is game over for you. I am done with you.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
noun 1. a person who does not believe in God or gods
adjective 2.of or relating to atheists or atheism
collinsdictionary See I can do it to.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Once again, you defined atheism, not agnostic atheism. And I quote: "I don't know if god exist but I do/don't think god actually exists." How at all do you derive that from any definable term of atheism?
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
*rolls eyes*
For the love of god, how much of a dishonest sack of shit you got to be? YOU defined atheism, I was only matching the same thing YOU where doing. Even still, the definition I gave is not incompatible with agnosticism. A belief in a god is not something you can do by passive means. It is an active process, however, not believing is. If an agnostic doesn't declare belief for a god, then they are a non-believer.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Sonyou don't have to know about, of something to believe in it?
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Well doesn't have to be the case? How else are people are supposed to function? You wouldn't be able to get out of bed if you only believe what you know for certain. Assumptions are fine as long as they are necessary to function or not the thing you are trying to prove. The fact that people have false beliefs already demonstrates that beliefs without knowledge exist.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Knowledge in some form or another has to preceed belief. Knowledge doesnt mean proof or evidence, but basic recognition. Can I believe in God if I have absolutley zero knowledge of even the basic concept of God. No...Belief is a mix of knowledge and faith.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
"Knowledge in some form or another has to preceed belief. "
Than cannot be true, because if it was, then no false belief system would form. Therefore, you arguing agaisnt me, saying I am wrong, refutes yourself. Beliefs can develop independently of one's knowledge of the subject.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Now I can do it to you. Oxford.
1facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:
2 awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation:
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Understand the definition. Either to "know" something is to facts or information regarding that thing (e.g. proof) or it is to "experience" that thing. Pretty much everyone agrees with that. Here, however, I wouldn't force you to accept that definition, I would simply agree to disagree and go on with understanding your position better if that was possible or end the conversation if it was not.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin So there is no connection between knowing something and being able to formulate an opinion about the truth value of it?
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Knowledge is nested in side belief, but not all belief is support by knowledge. If you disagree with that, then your fuckin' insane.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin yeah. You were so overwhelming, I am going to become an atheistic theist thy conforms strong to mid theism as my default postion and let you teach me.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
I asked you several times, what is mutually exclusive about saying "I don't know if god exist but I do/don't think god actually exists." Until then, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist are perfectly good labels. Continue to ignore it and you will prove me right, despite your terribly executed sarcasm.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin That's not nice. My mother is nice nice lady.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
That it? You out of witty come-backs? No more circular arguments? No more childish strawmen?
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin So wise.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Black and white as in the definitions of words? Damn those dictionaries.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
We can play the dictionary game all day. You can pull up Miriam-Webster and I can do Collins English. Not only can I defend from a logical position, but any group that ascribes to that label has the right to define it. Just like christians get to define what christianity is. If they don't then we are stuck with the 2n century definition of cult cannibals thrown to the lions. Letting christians define atheism is letting the fox guard the hen house.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin At least you are honest that I know more about what you believe than you do.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Honestly, your an arrogant son of a bitch.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Video didn't work. What are the logical contradictions between science and religion being comaptible. They surely don't contradict each other. Science seeks to explain the efficient causes of the natural world while religion the absolute and formal causes.
johhnycarlos 1 month ago
@johhnycarlos
I can confirm the link works. You just have to put youtube dot com / in front of it. They contradict because how they go about acquiring knowledge.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Link still didn't work dude." They contradict because how they go about acquiring knowledge."...Is that not implied? Religion and science aren't competing for the same thing. Religion/Christianity seeks to explain absolute and final causes. Science looks to explain the empiraclly measurable world. Apples and oranges dude. Hence why there is physics and metaphysics.
johhnycarlos 1 month ago
@johhnycarlos
"Noma doesn't work"
1. To believe that there is no overlap what-so-ever is demonstrably wrong. The existence of creationism is case and point.
2. Even if they don't overlap, religion still holds faith and revelation as a means to knowledge. That just doesn't work.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
@TheAtheistPaladin This isnt black and white. Science and religion arent competing for the same explinations which is why I agree with your second point. How and why could they? Georges Lemaître was a catholic priest who first theorized the expansion of the universe and the concept of the Big Bang.
johhnycarlos 1 month ago
@johhnycarlos
Just because someone of a particular denomination came up with a scientific theory doesn't not mean religion as a whole is compatible. Ever heard of cognitive dissonance? Catholicism may more willing to accept scientific findings than other denominations and religions, but that doesn't rule out that they are doing it for cultural reasons rather than harmony with their teachings.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
@TheAtheistPaladin LOL take a step back dude. Again, religion and science aren't competing or seeking to explain the same thing so why would the be dissonance with a Christian who believes in cause of science? The father of physics, Isaac Newton, was a Christian who thought that by explaining the natural world people could better understand and come to know God through science. Sorry, atheism isnt science's love child.
johhnycarlos 1 month ago
@johhnycarlos
You need to step back. I am not making the conversation disrespectful like you are. You are really just ignoring the point that I just made. You can list a thousand. It doesn't address the point. Newton was also an Alchemist, does that make science and alchemy mix? Really, you are just appealing to authority to back up your position.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
@TheAtheistPaladin What is your position exactly? That via science Christianity can be disproved? Yet here is a Christian openly embracing science as do most. Your videos might address the radical fringe of religion, but not the majority. Apologies if you were offended by any statement. Christianity has not problem with science, so where does that leave atheism if you rely soley on science to prove your position?
johhnycarlos 1 month ago
@johhnycarlos
I just don't believe that religion and science can maintain perfect separation and where they do cross there is a clash of methods. If they somehow magically do maintain that separation, then what does religion actually do? You talk about "absolute and formal causes", but what in the world is that? How does that apply to anything and not intersect with already existing philosophy or science?
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
@johhnycarlos
where does that leave atheism if you rely soley on science to prove your position?
Simple, I don't rely "soley" on science but you ignore every place religion and science cross. If you don't believe that demons cause sickness, then you don't believe what your religion says about how reality works.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Religion, Christianity seeks to explain the Why (Formal cause/s) questions. Why is the universe here? Science seeks to explain the How (Effective cause/s) questions. How did the universe get here? All part of Aristotle's 4 main causes.
I do believe in demonic possesions that manifest themselves in sickness, but I dont believe every sickness is one.
johhnycarlos 1 month ago
@johhnycarlos
But how do you know there is even a "why?" That can only make sense if you assume agency and intentionality. Even further how does religion even answer that without simply dogmatically asserting it particular "answer"?
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Reasoning says if there is an effective how then there needs to be a corresponding formal why. Straight from Aristotle's 4 main causes. Extrapolate that to the bredth of the universe and same logic applies. Sure every religion has an formal cause, but then you need to verify the logical claims of it. Science hits a wall in the big bang, because "before" nature doesnt exist to work with. Either a complete random event or logically insert a supernatural casue.
johhnycarlos 1 month ago
@johhnycarlos
I am no expert in Aristotle's 4 main causes, but you are not using it as intended. For example, the material cause of a chair would be "wood", the efficient cause would be the chairmaker, the formal cause would the shape that makes a chair a chair, and the final cause is to sit. So given that I don't see religion for any of it. Formal causes can fully be explored under ontology.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Would it be safe to say that everything has to possess these 4 causes in order to become reality? If so, then what is the Effecient and Final cause of the universe and everything contained therein? If you are going to use ontology to explain for these two causes then extrapolate: what is the effecient and final cause of ontology? So forth and so on.
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
"Would it be safe to say that everything has to possess these 4 causes in order to become reality?"
No, because I can easy imagine existence of things that don't have all "causes" present. If something really must a "final cause", then everything MUST have a purpose. That is silly. And "formal cause", you can't have with out the concept of said thing. So existence has primacy over concept.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Please do "imagine" something that does not require the four causes. I can only think of 1.
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Everything that is not man made.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin That says nothing except that its not man made. You have to withold judgment if you dont know.
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Final cause is a description of the intent of which something was made. Therefore, everything must have an intent behind it, if everything must have a final cause. How is this not begging the question? You must prove intent before I will accept it.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
If so, then what is the Effecient and Final cause of the universe and everything contained therein?
Efficient, ask a physicist. Final assumes purpose. Not everything must have a purpose.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Name something that does not have a purpose? Aristotle's 4 main caues are universally quantifiable. PM me with all this. It is exausting to have to piece mill this together.
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
You're telling me that things rocks have "purpose"? Seriously? I don't understand why something must have a "purpose" before it can exist. Thing exist, the only thing we are doing here is describing it via different categorizes but not everything can be put in every category.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
"If you are going to use ontology to explain..."
No... I drectly stated that "formal causes" are explored by ontology. Not that I can explian everything with ontology. So the reset of you question doesn't make sense.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Where does the concept of ontology come from?
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
It is a concept and all concept come from minds. Is that really so hard to understand?
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
"Sure every religion has an formal cause, but then you need to verify the logical claims of it. "
I think you mean efficient cause. Even WLC says that god is the efficient cause of the creation of the universe. But I digress, What makes christianity so logical? Obviously, you don't think genesis is literal, but why do you still get to say Yahweh did it? Where is the logic in that?
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Apologies, I stand corrected. No I dont take Genesis as a literal narative. Because polytheistic religions all contain logical contradictions in themselves, as in you can be come "God". Or the idea that there are competing god's with humanoid type features. Well if a "God" has humanoid type characteristics then you get no where. The monotheistic God does not have 6 arms and is blue. He is not the monkey god.
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
I am assuming you are saying that polytheistic gods are illogical along the lines of the ontological argument's definition of god. If that true, then I have to disagree. A god is simply a powerful immortal that may have a sphere of influence. That is good enough for me.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Your definition of a god entails that maybe in another reality it could have been mortal. And with a sphere of influence how does that make it god? As if there are Gods in another universe or where be that are more powerful. Hence why polytheistic and your version of god/gods are illogical.
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Just how powerful a god is has nothing to do with logical consistency. I don't accept that "maximally powerful" is a per-requisite to godhood. The normative definition of god clearly doesn't have it like that. To argue otherwise is to attempt to definite your way to victory.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
"Science hits a wall in the big bang, because "before" nature doesnt exist to work with. Either a complete random event or logically insert a supernatural casue."
Or you get to say "I don't know." Have you ever get consider that? Sometimes having no answer is better having the wrong answer. How are you not using "supernatural" for the gap in your knowledge?
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin That is perfectly fine if you are holding out for science to find the solution as in mulitple universes or whatever. But that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist and you would need a new channel. If that is the case eventually you logically have to reach a finite point where nature did exist, as infinity is a paper concept.
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
I don't hold that agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive terms. I am perfectly happy to call my self an agnostic atheist in regards to most gods.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Are you really hiding behind definitions? "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable." unanswerable." Straight out of the Britannica Encylopedia.
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
If Britannica's definition, is merely being open, and that supernatural is unanswerable, then I am STILL a agnostic atheist. I not believe in a god, but that doesn't mean I have closed the door. If you can't accept that, then it is YOUR problem not mine.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin . Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism..... Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism....Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism.... Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism..... Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism.... Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism.... Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism. Thought maybe you had missed that part. Happens to the best of us.
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Just because Britannica says it doesn't mean it is correct. To insist other wise is argument from authority and to repeat as much as you did is ad nausem. There is nothing mutually exclusive in saying "I can't know for sure god exist or not, but I don't believe god does." Until you can explain that is mutually exclusive, then I am still both atheist and agnostic. I am not going accept any more of your childishness. Man up or go a way.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin If you are entirely satisfied with your belief hinging almost exclusivley on faith because you neither know or dont know then sure that seems logically valid. Be my guest.
Also, almost every other internet encylopedia search revealed the same statement regarding agnosticism and atheism. But do not appeal to universally quantifiable definitions because that would be an argument from authority.
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Can one be a agnostic theist? A person that seeks to affirm the reality of the divine and often to demonstrate its existence while leaving open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable?
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Yes, I have actually met someone who admitted to being both agnostic and theist. Just about how many times do I have to explain the very point to which my argument hinges on? I do not see the affirmation or the lack there of of the existence of something to be also to be a declaration of knowing said thing. You can not know and believe or disbelieve without contradiction.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Hence why I said if you can openly abmit to being an atheist on majoirty of faith. If you do not know, but still believe, then has to be on faith. Isn't that what ahteist give theist shit for? Believing in a magical sky fairy "just because"?
johhnycarlos 4 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Well for one, I see no one saying that you must know something for absolute certainty before that belief is valid. So your criticism rings hallow. If you want me to believe in a god then give me a reason, but don't bitch because I can not believe and not be certain at the same time.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin If you hold to atheism's truth in blind faith, then I have no problem with that if you can hold that a Christian can believe in God through faith alone without any external evidence required.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
*Rolls eyes* If you can't understand that not believing is not equivalent to believing in something, then no amount of explaining will clarify that to you. You mind is shut, obviously.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Ok. Clarify this for me. What is your cognitive relationship with atheism then? Seems to me that you have to "believe" (use whatever word makes you happy) in something even if by default of not believe in something else.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
A =/= non-A
therefore
belief =/= non-belief
I don't need to believe in something else in-order not to believe it whatever your selling, be it god or ufos, bigfoot, or ghosts.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Really? Are you dense? Then what are you? You labled yourself an agnostic atheist (despite the objective understanding of the words): one who denies the existence of God or gods despite knowing. The rules of identity dont work like that. You can be A or you can be B. A=/=B. Therfore if you are not A, by default you have to be B, and vice versa. You have absolutley retarded yourself into an intellecutaly void limbo where you have no cognitive stance.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Sorry, I don't have to "deny the existence of " anything to not believe in it. If you can't understand the distinction of denial and not believing, then the world is very black and white for you isn't it?
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Congrats. You are not carrying the non-existent flag of the non-believing, believing agnostic atheist very well.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Please explain, what am I believing? Since, you already know what I believe better than I do and can define the label I accept better than I can. *rolls eyes*.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos
Okay so you believe that some sickness is manifested by demonic possession. How is that not making causal links in reality? Other words, how is that not a claim science can test? How does that not overlap?
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
@johhnycarlos
"Sorry, atheism isnt science's love child."
I never even hinted that science and atheism are related. You're not understanding my position.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
It would take an intellectually immature Christian to look to the Bible for scientific explinations about the universe. The Bible is a theological collection and isn't set up to make scientific predictions. If I want to know how the universe has evolved, I would go look into cosmology, not Gensis 1 and 2. It takes an unsophisticated atheist and theist to think that either side has all the answers. Religion and science work wonderfully together.
johhnycarlos 1 month ago
@johhnycarlos
Then either you don't understand science or you don't understand religion or maybe both. See: watch?v=w5mqF-xfOLQ
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
The talking snake is proven by science. Bible says it used to have legs and now science has recently confirmed it!!
RuinSonic 1 month ago
@RuinSonic How do vestigial legs prove TALKING?
indignant99 1 month ago
@indignant99 I was joking. Here's why it's problematic arguing with the religious fervent. If someone cannot recognize how silly Santa is then trying to convince them that Rudolf wasn't a reindeer is not going to do anything.
RuinSonic 1 month ago
How can we trust Science when Pluto stopped being a planet?
SpinozasPsyche 1 month ago
@SpinozasPsyche Pluto didn't stop being a planet. Pluto is, what it is. What we call it, is immaterial. Now then, since YOU (YOU!) can't trust science, quit using your computer, telephone, TV, furnace, car, vitamins, medicine, eyeglasses, sunscreen, binoculars, matches, hell EVERYTHING. Go live in a cave, and cook squirrels on a spit over a fire.
indignant99 1 month ago
@indignant99 Hey, relax. I was being sarcastic. It is sad that the internet is so dumbed down (or plagued with trolls), that people can't differentiate sarcasm from just plain stupidity.
SpinozasPsyche 1 month ago
@SpinozasPsyche No, the numerous religiosity are the ones that make it perfect to troll around. Poe's law is a fact here on you tube. There's almost no way to know sarcasm when someone makes a claim of stupidity.
RuinSonic 1 month ago
Like the intro reminds me of prison escape
OpenAirAtheist 1 month ago
Church dogma never proposed that the earth was flat. Humans have known that the earth was spherical since Aristotle and Eratosthenes. People who believed in a flat earth was few and far between. The belief that the earth is flat is often conflated with the absurd belief that there where no kingdoms on the other side of the earth (c.f. Matthew 4:8). This latter was believed by many church fathers, including Tertullian, who did not necessarily subscribe to the former (Numbers. 2010).
TheEfkk 1 month ago
@TheEfkk Tell that to Galileo.
CaseAgainstFaith1 1 month ago
@CaseAgainstFaith1 Actually, that conflict was about whether the earth revolves around the sun, not about whether the earth was a sphere. I also suggest "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion" (2010) by Ronald L. Numbers. The case against religion and pseudoscience has to be based on evidence, not just cheap shots based on myths.
TheEfkk 1 month ago
@TheEfkk Apologies for my brain fart, yes, you are correct, Galileo was about geocentrism. But, now that you mention it, the OT, at least in some places, does teach a flat earth. The "firmament" was a dome top to a flat earth. The fact that some parts of the world were smarter than that doesn't change the fact that some of the OT authors believed in a flat earth.
CaseAgainstFaith1 1 month ago
@CaseAgainstFaith1 Sure, you can even see this in the teachings of Paul and the book of Revelations as well. But this is not the same as the notion that it was a majority position of the Church. Perhaps a small distinction, but I think it is relevant.
TheEfkk 1 month ago
AP, having trouble sleeping?
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080
No, just winter time paleness.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
I enjoyed this video, and have never understood why an unchanging doctrine can be regarded as reliable. One suggestion: "Stubborn Steve" works well, but "Changing Joe Shmoe" doesn't. I suggest "Changing Charlie"! I would go for Changing Charlie every time. ;-)
skevosmavros 1 month ago