I think the argument that the brain shouldn't be trusted completely backfires when you consider that some theists believe because of emotional reasons and experiences, if your brain cannot be trusted, then why should you believe because of them? Surely they can't be trusted then.
I think the big issue here is not one of evidence but really one of persuasion. It seems to me that persuasion is actually the root of a vast majority of theist arguments. Evidence (or maybe more aptly, a lack of) makes little dent in a 'belief' wired brain because these things are held at a lower level than intuition, feelings and perhaps preference. As an example, intuitively, and simply by way of our limited lifespans, evolution makes very little sense because we cannot see it 'real time'.
Once again andromedas makes the claim that atheists "don't need to demonstrate anything," but I disagree. Atheists need to show how the evidence supports evolution, and other naturalistic points of view; however, atheists are not require to answer the question "how can we trust our brains if we came from monkeys?." We all have the same brains (from monkeys or not). How can a theist trust his brain? If it is defective it could give him the illusion god exists.
You must trust your brain has certain capabilities. We must trust our perceptions and understandings, and also use our understandings of what our brain struggles with. The fact that our brains have led us to build the society we have seems to suggest we do a pretty good job with our scientific theories...
I actually agree with the crazy french guy, in that the league of reason is there to convince people of atheism (well actually I think they are just trying to convince people of a naturalistic view of the world), and so they are required to give reasons and evidence of why they are right. If they don't want to convince anyone, they are not required to. They are required to by their own choice, which I guess andromedas doesn't get.
Although the French guy is wrong that they have to conform to his own requirements of evidence. They only need to offer what they believe is the necessary evidence to persuade someone of accepting their beliefs. But they must also convince the others why their standards may be too high or irrational.
Andromedas makes a good point that he is trying to convince theists to "approach the position of belief not from the perspective of bias." Unfortunately I think its very hard to see something outside your own perspective of bias, especially for something like religion. Its like saying, "step away from your perception of the universe, and examine the universe." It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Thank you don exodus for approaching this question the right way. The brain has proven to us it can be trusted to a significant degree. But then (I'm not sure who it was) brings that point about nobody really knowing things and that theists don't what they claim to know... I agree with that statement, but its the wrong way to go about this debate with a theist. The theist will just say, "but I do know." They usually won't accept their "spirituality" being called "speculation." Poor decision...
Please dont let them refer to athiests as militant, we clearly are not; athiestic violence or terrorism is non existant. Calling an athiest is nothing less than slander and shows a deep misunderstanding of both athiests and the meaning of the word militant. There wil be no way to become equals in society if we allow others to describe us with hyperbolic perjoratives.
@CartesianTheist idiot. theology is study of belives, its not science of invetion or study of universe. its study of human belives and there are many athiest theologians. allso theology is philosophy, not science. and you dont have to belive in sertant philosophy in order to study it. read about it. validity of theology as a study has nothign to do if gods exist.
@CartesianTheist so what? theology is not same as beliving in religion. theologians study belives and pratices of religions. it has nothing to do with do you belive in what the religion claims. many theologians are agnostics and atheists. i my self have studied eastern religions. same thing with philosophy, do i need to be communist in order to study communisim? in eventualy theology is not science, its more of study of history and culture.
approx. 1 billion people accept jesus as the son of god and about a quarter of that (i think) would call him their savior/messiah! does that make the notion of a universal creator any more valid? no, it doesn't ... and to answer your rather pathetic argument about fairyology, astrology and crystal-healing ... if this stuff had been consistently around for 2000+ years and expanded like christianity did, you could bet your ass that there would departments handling this stuff!
enlighten me, what actual theological research is there? and the fact that the every academic institution serves it, just proves my point ... this BS has engrained itself so deep into the human mind that people consider it an actual field! and their existence in modern societies is explained through people's inability do drop useless and archaic stuff, same with astrology, energy-christals, etc.
"But there are departments of THEOlogy surprise, surprise!"
there's a rather simple explaination for this one actually ... the fact that the judeo-christian ideology has managed to spread across the entire planet over the past 2000 years! but still, that does not make it any more valid or the department of "theology" anything more than a "i've got an invisible friend" ONLY club ... a club for people who lack the capacity to do research and instead like to phantasize :-|
If a creationist were to make a claim about science how could we trust his judgement when according to his own text his brain has developed from dust and ribs made out of dust. Just sayin'
Well you don't have to. I however can in great detail point out at least one error for each of those arguments, not to mention their symmetry towards any other deities.
I know those arguments to some high enough degree of detail to discount them all as invalid, and the fact that you've got 3 of them, won't make me concede one, "just to be fair".
your test of honesty: apply those arguments to other gods, see how you react to them.
I realized your mother didn't love you as a child, a long time ago. Please stop your wining, stop strawman-ing me, and start behaving like an adult.Even if i were an idiot, the fact that you weren't on my side wouldn't necessarily say you're right. Please focus on that.
So. If a hindu came to you with their cosmological argument, which goes rather nicely, and then say "i postulate the first cause to be brahma", as you postulate it to be god, wouldn't you have to accept it?
Regarding religions i don't even need conspiracy theories to render them invalid.
I just need other theologians. There are theologians for all the major religions (you somehow seem not to have noticed hindu theologians), or even christian ones that do not agree with each other.
In science, scientists argue over the details. Theologians however still argue over the main issues. This itself renders theology a laughable children's game.
The cosmological argument's "super symmetrical" nature, meaning it could be employed to prove the existence of anything, renders it useless to theism. The first cause could very well be something like a natural process, a 6 legged cow, or any other god.
The current physical understanding of time however is that it began with the big bang, and so talk of a cause for the big bang is also meaningless.
In other words, why should there be nothing instead of something?
I did however see a potential for reason within you, so that's why i expected you to have some a posteriori reasoning.
So then tell me one other valid "a posteriori" argument, for which there are no papers to contradict it.
Is it the fine tuning / moral argument? Any other arguments from ignorance?
You'll be my hero if you can present me a single coherent idea that even points to the "probable necessity" of god, not to speak of proving the bible god's existence.
let me stop YOU there. When did the cosmological argument ever begin to be anything else than a argument from ignorance, or the teleological argument - anything else than a bare assertion?
Nobody goes around destroying the santa clauss arguments either, and i don't need to write a paper to prove that.
And even if those arguments were by miracle valid, how would they differentiate between the potential infinity of "gods" equally fit as a solution?
aha, so the "god must exist, because we can imagine god" is a sound argument then. or the "the universe exists, therefore god exists" is also a sound argument.
not only are there no valid rational arguments for the existence of god, but they could very well be applied with just as much success to the existence of any other imaginary god. one does not need more than 2 neurons to figure out the basic errors presented with those arguments.
You have of course, being an educated man, pondered about how you can create literally an infinity of logically self-consistent rules and entities. It is of course possible for all of them to exist, however the obligation to make all of these things come true, doesn't seem to fall upon the universe. Thus we *could* have unicorns, but it just so happens we don't.
Do you have a way to distinguish between logical things that exist, and those that don't?
well as i've said, if you call "rejecting solipsism" blind faith, then sure, i admit i take the scientific method on blind faith.
This is what we all do when we eat, we basically reject solipsism.
Now, instead of picking on my "blind faith" that is also everyone else's, please suggest a better starting point for any type of consistent thinking pattern, other than the rejection of solipsism (for functionality) and scientific method (for finding objective truths)
it was a long time ago i realized philosophers have a predisposition towards being insane, you're not new data. I however od engage philosophers, exactly because you're crazy.
as for epistemology, i provided what you asked, i justified my answers. I realized you're a troll long ago. Either that or you have a serious ego problem.
Again, if you're on for a serious debate, msg me.
I'm sure you'll however just brag you "pwned an atheist", without actually saying anything. gratz!
@CartesianTheist Furthermore, please stop your desperate attempt to appear like i am trying to convert you. I never said i ever had anything to offer to you. Nor do i want to offer you anything.
I am quite comfortable with the fact that you are indeed either stupid, or dishonest, or both.
The only reason i respond to you is to have fun, you should try it yourself.
You're not here for a civilized debate, but for a chance to scream your dogma at the masses, and that's what your brain died of.
Lemme sum up your argument "because you believe in skepticism, that makes you JUST AS GOOD as any type of belief, and THEREFORE, religion is SUPERIOR to skepticism". Insulting you is simply wasting characters.
I don't "believe" in skepticism. I take it as a default position, because even though i can't prove it's right, i can prove everything else is wrong, logically.
Wanna attack logic? cuz then I'll ask you how do you know god didn't just simply lie, in the bible.
hmm, interesting question. well i don't worry about solipsism too much, i have this barely confirmed axiom that everything has a naturalistic cause. i also seem to rely a little on the scientific method that clarifies existence as best as it can.
Why do you ask? do you prepare to demonstrate there is a posibility that a god exists?
or did you think that my insults to you aren't supported by reason? i shall state them again: your whole argument is "please acknowledge me"
dude, do you have something to say at all or are you just being a troll wannabe fail?
ad hominem, is a logical fallacy involving arguments as far as i can tell. If you can not distinguish between an argument and an insult, it means i've been too subtle for you.
If you want to debate something, anytime, any place (=private msg), but PLEASE stop being an irritating troll wannabe.
Or was "you're not paying attention to me" all u wanted to say?
either be a troll, or get an argument of yourself.
are you smarter now that you detected a contradiction in what i was saying? does it make you go to bed happier?
there: "we don't know whether there is such a thing as absolute knowledge and whether we by any method or pure coincidence possess some of it". as a negative claim, it is the default, by the scientific method. prove i'm wrong or please either be a real troll or go to sleep
making "truth" claims is risky all the time, indeed we have no absolute knowledge of anything. Making as few truth claims as possible, is a good way to guarantee you're as little wrong as possible, and making no truth claims renders a human being handicapped.
In this paradigm theism is almost guaranteed to contain more untrue claims than atheism.
No mastery of philosophical concepts can not hide this simple truth, unless you don't actually get what you're saying yourself.
@CartesianTheist So you keep saying. Yet you have offered little except that you think pragmatism is bad, and solipcism might be true. Both assertions that I totally disagree with. Your rhetoric does not seem so much "philosophical" as dogmatic theist rant, despite your protests to the contrary.
@CartesianTheist I think you miss the point. You object to the League members' use of philosophical terms to discuss reality. Yet the rest of us understand what they are saying and probably are in agreement with their arguments. I strongly suspect that you're just pissed because you're a theist and you don't like what they say.
@CartesianTheist As I understand it, pragmatism is a philosophy that says the truth of an idea needs to be tested to prove its validity. And you say pragmatism is despised by philosophers? You're not convincing me of the value of philosophy. From your description philosophy is about as valuable as religion in finding truth. I suppose that is why they call themselves the League of Reason, not the League of Philosophers.
@CartesianTheist "If it was called the 'League of Ignorance' I would be kinder."
I can become irritated reading text containing many grammatical errors, spelling mistakes & terms used carelessly but that wouldn't change the validity of the author's message as long as I could understand it. It would indicate ignorance *only* of the use of written English compared to the level of my understanding of the same as a linguist and legal translator. It's not called the "League of Terminology-Nazis".
@CartesianTheist "Productivity is not a criteria for truth." In this sense it alludes to progress the process of reasoning. If you didn't assume anything it would take you ages to shower & dress. The point is the caller was demanding impracticable levels of evidence for fitness to dismiss supernatural claims while providing non to justify accepting said claims but "spiritual". The matter is moot anyway as you have the same kind of brain however you believe it came into being.
@CartesianTheist Is he countering skepticism? I think he was countering VickRo's assertion that faith is the default if you can't trust your brain.
Also, I think you are misquoting TF. He said one could come up with any number of reasons to justify the belief that you can trust your brain, but that any reason was not "very fulfilling." He didn't say one should trust their brains because not trusting one's brain isn't fulfilling. Your lone example fails.
@CartesianTheist I don't understand what you are trying to say with that analogy. You seem to be implying that you hold some higher knowledge that the panel is ignorant of, and if I knew this secret knowledge I would agree with your point of view. But you still give no information about what this knowledge is. It seems like all sizzle and no steak, if you understand the analogy.
@CartesianTheist I did not mention Dhorpatan, no. I've never heard of the guy before. From what I can tell, he is considered something of a kook among most atheists. We were discussing TF. It's not really logical, or fair to equate TF to Dhorpatan. You have not presented ANY example of TF's flawed philosophy in this thread. You have presented no evidence for theism. All you have done is name calling.
@CartesianTheist Well I'm glad I could be of some small service. I'm sure TF will lose a great deal of sleep because a brilliant theist thinks less of him. I eagerly await your knowledgeable essay to convince all of us lost heathens that there actually is a god.
@CartesianTheist Mea Culpa. Dunning-Kruger is all about people who make simple mistakes and are fool enough to admit it. Boy, you sure made me look bad. lol
@CartesianTheist Yes, we're atheists because we're anti-intellectuals. We put down religion because we don't know enough about it. I guess you'll never find a bright atheist because if one becomes bright enough, one becomes a theist. I do thank you for taking the time to school me with your profound intellect. It has been so persuasive.
@CartesianTheist Excuse me for mistaking your "at" for "to". But I still don't understand the statement. TF sees no evidence for gods, therefore he does not believe in them. What kind of philosophy must he express to back up his lack of belief? He's a scientist, not a philosopher. And frankly, I'm not sure I place philosophers any higher than theologians or snake oil salesmen. Your original statement was that he wasn't "bright." But now it boils down to you don't like his philosophy?
@CartesianTheist All four of these guys were in this video. TF does much better on this forum than he did in person against Comfort, but I still think he certainly beat that snake oil salesman. After all, he does have the truth on his side.
What do you mean by "Inability to philosophy?" I don't understand that statement.
What kind of videos totally refute his video? Are you talking about his anti islamic videos or his anti science videos?
@CartesianTheist I think it always will be difficult for you, in your present mind set. If you find people like AronRa, DonExodus2, Thunderf00t, and AndromedasWake to be not "bright", then their arguments are simply sailing right over your head. Probably because you are not even listening to them. I suspect that you are like VyckRo in that nothing will ever change your mind.
The "trust your brain" argument is actually more damning to the theist, because they are arguing that, in an atheistic world, human beings would be likely to make fundamental mistakes when it comes to apprehending the nature of the universe.
Well, in an atheistic universe, that is exactly what the theist has done. We, and our brains, have evolved naturally, and so should be expected to make mistakes. The most prominent mistake our brains make is thinking there is a god. QED.
Interesting debate but it was one sided (intellectually & numerically), VyckRo does not know where he's coming from and is trying to argue a point from no base.
I checked his profile and its clear his beliefs come from an east european dislike of Communism and because the Communist were Atheist he seems to blame Atheism for Communism, his faith appears to be "I believe ANYTHING as long as its not ATHEISM".
when you learn not to trust your brain, youve become objective aronra? besides the fact that TF was just crying over how bad and unproductive that is, "having people check your files" means you believe that your brain who is telling you that those other people even exists, is telling u the truth..... the answers for the last few shows have really gotten bad
Irrationalism in atheism? How is it irrational to disbelieve in something that hasn't been proven? Is it irrational to disbelieve in unicorns? What about the giant Super Saiyan shooting skittles from his finger tip made from a anti gravity Jesus roasting hand gun?
Apologists who watched that debate claimed that Craig "won". Had it been a debate in an 12th century monastery, they would've been right - Craig would've smoked Hitchens. But Craig's arguments from the era of scholasticism aren't Hitchens' concern - his objective is always to show TO A LISTENER that monotheism is ridiculous and has harmful consequences. Apologists get so wrapped up that they forget that their rock solid "proofs" usually fail to pass common sense's laugh test.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I wasn't speaking metaphorically. And I wasn't giving it to Craig. I was speaking to the utter classlessness of the good Doctor. Craig's best argument remains effectively: "all the best Atheists are dead. I'm alive. I win."
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Christian apologists aren't any better except in knowledge of the Bible but that would make it easier for the disbeliever who knows contradictions about the Bible.
"how do you know your brain can funcion properly?"
Well Dannypants made a very clear and direct video about it.
Record everything you do during a day period. You eat, you sleep, you avoid walking into trafic, you talk and you remember and you observe as you watch TV or reading the paper. Everything that you do is proof that your brain is working. Weather it's functioning RIGHT or not, that's for other people to decide.
you might think it's normal kill hamsters with blenders, others might not.
"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content."
Is there no one more intelligent on the theist side to contest you guys? This is just pathetic. It's polite of you guys not to kick him off, but why bother explaining anything to him?
@ScissorHand26 I agree, except that Vykro is so far off of reality and he is pulling other idiots into his hive. He believes that Atheists want to take freedom away from others, that Atheists doing understand what freedom is.
I have no reason to trust the conclusion that my brain cannot be trusted. But surely the obvious answer is it has needed to be trustworthy to keep us alive. Or I might just drink that bleach.
Atheist - But how can you trust the brain of the guys who wrote that book?
Theist - It was dictated by God!
Conversation stopper.
I'm not really sure why you folks even try to debate theists who are willing to toss out magic as a genuine point of argument. I suspect you are wasting your breath.
It was incredibly hard to understand that guy. Also, as to his questions, atheists don't make a claim to know about God, they simply don't believe in a god, since there is no proof of that god.
All the best scientists just use "higher powers" to help them develop the world...the spirits tell them how to think properly..uhuh..NASA is a church where they prey and that way they they they..come up with new ideas...yep..I sound really smart, huh?..I knooow...
@bighugejake The basic point he is making is the difference between a BELIEF claim and a KNOWLEDGE claim. A belief claim is simply that you believe "X." A knowledge claim requires a higher standard because you must demonstrate to others why it is true by having your facts checked.
I trust my brain because there is no reason not to. The fact that our senses can be deceived sometimes is not a reason to not trust them most of the time. Like Aron said, if you don't know if you should trust your brain on something (particularly 'supernatural' things), have other people try to reproduce or verify your observations.
Wasn't the scientific method developed, to a high degree, for the purpose of addressing the fact that we cannot trust our brain, period.
The brain just takes data from our sensors where the processing may be different from person to person, hence the methodologies derived are to eliminate this bias.
That should have been the first answer out... going round the bush with analogies and too-detailed-explanations just put the caller and listeners in a situation of having too much info to process.
I always think the question "how can you trust your brain?" as a form of Russel's paradox. If you start by assuming that your brain is normal, and you find that others' also function like yours, you only lead to infinite loop. If you're the only one functions differently, does that mean you're abnormal? and what if you assume you're abnormal, and find the majority is the same? It is a self-referential paradox, and (I think) doesnt worth to be answered.
The unspoken element in this question is "trust it to do what?" I don't trust my brain to keep the solar system spinning. I also don't trust my brain to gather information beyond the natural world. I do trust my brain to do a great many things, since I have seen time and time again it has done them successfully, and when it has not, it has the ability to self correct or be correct, also confirmable.
"lower animal?" Seems like monkey brains have been serving them well for billions of years. And they don't seem to have a god problem in the culture. Seems we should be envious, not degrading to our primate cousins.
I've made this point numerous times on other vids, but ah well: How else should we expect evolution to select for our brains to be, except to be able to apprehend the world reasonably accurately? Anyone whose reason told them that a river of lava was just a river of cool spring water, or that a 1000 foot drop was just a 1 foot drop, would have a hard time of surviving and passing on their genes. So we would EXPECT only genes for apprehending the world reasonably accurately to survive.
Oh, bad move TF, going to solipsism: the counter-argument to your argument is your argument; solipsism beats solipsism. Nice recovery Aron, shame it got lost... fair catch Andromedas, long juggle before back to Aron... and we're out of time and on to the next segment...
There's a whole philosophical classification for the process our friend here uses to gain knowledge, Mysticism.
"Knowledge" gained through spirituality/subjectivity is just plain mysticism. His claim that mysticism trumps science as a discipline by which one may acquire knowledge is absolute, illustrated nonsense.
its so funny the stupid people who ring in. you listen to the really rational explanations given then are followed really dumb questions that show they didnt even listen.
@prankmypants That's probably as bad for them as it is for the show. Unless we get some people who can actually rationalize, we're not gonna get any good responses.
Personally, I'd love for Ray Cumfart call in. TF was out of his element when they met in-person and I don't think he (TF) is the best real-time debater on the panel, so I'd imagine Cumfart wouldn't come off as well as a caller. (I'm sure he'd grease his way out of any clear defeat, but still.)
This is difficult to listen to. Not because of the audio; but because this guy came to the meeting with the mindset those on the other side of that day's debate were somehow bad people or diluted to the point of needing to be shown what's wrong with them and not their arguments.
AndromedasWake did a fantastic job of handing the whole situation. I admire that.
VyckRo is a muppet. But guys complaining about his accent; grow the FUCK up you fat lazy americans. I want to hear you debate in your second or third language.
I think the argument that the brain shouldn't be trusted completely backfires when you consider that some theists believe because of emotional reasons and experiences, if your brain cannot be trusted, then why should you believe because of them? Surely they can't be trusted then.
daemonowner 1 year ago
I think the big issue here is not one of evidence but really one of persuasion. It seems to me that persuasion is actually the root of a vast majority of theist arguments. Evidence (or maybe more aptly, a lack of) makes little dent in a 'belief' wired brain because these things are held at a lower level than intuition, feelings and perhaps preference. As an example, intuitively, and simply by way of our limited lifespans, evolution makes very little sense because we cannot see it 'real time'.
vryc 1 year ago
Once again andromedas makes the claim that atheists "don't need to demonstrate anything," but I disagree. Atheists need to show how the evidence supports evolution, and other naturalistic points of view; however, atheists are not require to answer the question "how can we trust our brains if we came from monkeys?." We all have the same brains (from monkeys or not). How can a theist trust his brain? If it is defective it could give him the illusion god exists.
Continued...
mellamosean 1 year ago
Continued....
You must trust your brain has certain capabilities. We must trust our perceptions and understandings, and also use our understandings of what our brain struggles with. The fact that our brains have led us to build the society we have seems to suggest we do a pretty good job with our scientific theories...
mellamosean 1 year ago
I actually agree with the crazy french guy, in that the league of reason is there to convince people of atheism (well actually I think they are just trying to convince people of a naturalistic view of the world), and so they are required to give reasons and evidence of why they are right. If they don't want to convince anyone, they are not required to. They are required to by their own choice, which I guess andromedas doesn't get.
Continued
mellamosean 1 year ago
Continued
Although the French guy is wrong that they have to conform to his own requirements of evidence. They only need to offer what they believe is the necessary evidence to persuade someone of accepting their beliefs. But they must also convince the others why their standards may be too high or irrational.
mellamosean 1 year ago
Andromedas makes a good point that he is trying to convince theists to "approach the position of belief not from the perspective of bias." Unfortunately I think its very hard to see something outside your own perspective of bias, especially for something like religion. Its like saying, "step away from your perception of the universe, and examine the universe." It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
mellamosean 1 year ago
Thank you don exodus for approaching this question the right way. The brain has proven to us it can be trusted to a significant degree. But then (I'm not sure who it was) brings that point about nobody really knowing things and that theists don't what they claim to know... I agree with that statement, but its the wrong way to go about this debate with a theist. The theist will just say, "but I do know." They usually won't accept their "spirituality" being called "speculation." Poor decision...
mellamosean 1 year ago
Please dont let them refer to athiests as militant, we clearly are not; athiestic violence or terrorism is non existant. Calling an athiest is nothing less than slander and shows a deep misunderstanding of both athiests and the meaning of the word militant. There wil be no way to become equals in society if we allow others to describe us with hyperbolic perjoratives.
eenger 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist idiot. theology is study of belives, its not science of invetion or study of universe. its study of human belives and there are many athiest theologians. allso theology is philosophy, not science. and you dont have to belive in sertant philosophy in order to study it. read about it. validity of theology as a study has nothign to do if gods exist.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist so what? theology is not same as beliving in religion. theologians study belives and pratices of religions. it has nothing to do with do you belive in what the religion claims. many theologians are agnostics and atheists. i my self have studied eastern religions. same thing with philosophy, do i need to be communist in order to study communisim? in eventualy theology is not science, its more of study of history and culture.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist apeal to athority. my friend.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
hahahah i loled at the "i cannot hear you any longer" 3:26
pickupthePWN 1 year ago
fail? explain to me again what theology was about, please!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
approx. 1 billion people accept jesus as the son of god and about a quarter of that (i think) would call him their savior/messiah! does that make the notion of a universal creator any more valid? no, it doesn't ... and to answer your rather pathetic argument about fairyology, astrology and crystal-healing ... if this stuff had been consistently around for 2000+ years and expanded like christianity did, you could bet your ass that there would departments handling this stuff!
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
enlighten me, what actual theological research is there? and the fact that the every academic institution serves it, just proves my point ... this BS has engrained itself so deep into the human mind that people consider it an actual field! and their existence in modern societies is explained through people's inability do drop useless and archaic stuff, same with astrology, energy-christals, etc.
Medhiv83 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
"But there are departments of THEOlogy surprise, surprise!"
there's a rather simple explaination for this one actually ... the fact that the judeo-christian ideology has managed to spread across the entire planet over the past 2000 years! but still, that does not make it any more valid or the department of "theology" anything more than a "i've got an invisible friend" ONLY club ... a club for people who lack the capacity to do research and instead like to phantasize :-|
Medhiv83 1 year ago
If a creationist were to make a claim about science how could we trust his judgement when according to his own text his brain has developed from dust and ribs made out of dust. Just sayin'
Sporter911 1 year ago
Comment removed
Sporter911 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Why should you come up with any more arguments?
Well you don't have to. I however can in great detail point out at least one error for each of those arguments, not to mention their symmetry towards any other deities.
I know those arguments to some high enough degree of detail to discount them all as invalid, and the fact that you've got 3 of them, won't make me concede one, "just to be fair".
your test of honesty: apply those arguments to other gods, see how you react to them.
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
I realized your mother didn't love you as a child, a long time ago. Please stop your wining, stop strawman-ing me, and start behaving like an adult.Even if i were an idiot, the fact that you weren't on my side wouldn't necessarily say you're right. Please focus on that.
So. If a hindu came to you with their cosmological argument, which goes rather nicely, and then say "i postulate the first cause to be brahma", as you postulate it to be god, wouldn't you have to accept it?
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Regarding religions i don't even need conspiracy theories to render them invalid.
I just need other theologians. There are theologians for all the major religions (you somehow seem not to have noticed hindu theologians), or even christian ones that do not agree with each other.
In science, scientists argue over the details. Theologians however still argue over the main issues. This itself renders theology a laughable children's game.
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
The cosmological argument's "super symmetrical" nature, meaning it could be employed to prove the existence of anything, renders it useless to theism. The first cause could very well be something like a natural process, a 6 legged cow, or any other god.
The current physical understanding of time however is that it began with the big bang, and so talk of a cause for the big bang is also meaningless.
In other words, why should there be nothing instead of something?
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
I did however see a potential for reason within you, so that's why i expected you to have some a posteriori reasoning.
So then tell me one other valid "a posteriori" argument, for which there are no papers to contradict it.
Is it the fine tuning / moral argument? Any other arguments from ignorance?
You'll be my hero if you can present me a single coherent idea that even points to the "probable necessity" of god, not to speak of proving the bible god's existence.
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
let me stop YOU there. When did the cosmological argument ever begin to be anything else than a argument from ignorance, or the teleological argument - anything else than a bare assertion?
Nobody goes around destroying the santa clauss arguments either, and i don't need to write a paper to prove that.
And even if those arguments were by miracle valid, how would they differentiate between the potential infinity of "gods" equally fit as a solution?
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
aha, so the "god must exist, because we can imagine god" is a sound argument then. or the "the universe exists, therefore god exists" is also a sound argument.
not only are there no valid rational arguments for the existence of god, but they could very well be applied with just as much success to the existence of any other imaginary god. one does not need more than 2 neurons to figure out the basic errors presented with those arguments.
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
You have of course, being an educated man, pondered about how you can create literally an infinity of logically self-consistent rules and entities. It is of course possible for all of them to exist, however the obligation to make all of these things come true, doesn't seem to fall upon the universe. Thus we *could* have unicorns, but it just so happens we don't.
Do you have a way to distinguish between logical things that exist, and those that don't?
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
well as i've said, if you call "rejecting solipsism" blind faith, then sure, i admit i take the scientific method on blind faith.
This is what we all do when we eat, we basically reject solipsism.
Now, instead of picking on my "blind faith" that is also everyone else's, please suggest a better starting point for any type of consistent thinking pattern, other than the rejection of solipsism (for functionality) and scientific method (for finding objective truths)
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
it was a long time ago i realized philosophers have a predisposition towards being insane, you're not new data. I however od engage philosophers, exactly because you're crazy.
as for epistemology, i provided what you asked, i justified my answers. I realized you're a troll long ago. Either that or you have a serious ego problem.
Again, if you're on for a serious debate, msg me.
I'm sure you'll however just brag you "pwned an atheist", without actually saying anything. gratz!
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
well yeah that's it :)
i can prove something not using skepticism can and will have more failures in the long run.
What did you expect i'll have for you? Yeah, i believe in skepticism and so do you, regarding any other religion's claims.
Srsly dude, what would you expect me to have? 100% proof there is no god? Are you stupid and insane?
cuz you seem to fit the model perfectly :)
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Furthermore, please stop your desperate attempt to appear like i am trying to convert you. I never said i ever had anything to offer to you. Nor do i want to offer you anything.
I am quite comfortable with the fact that you are indeed either stupid, or dishonest, or both.
The only reason i respond to you is to have fun, you should try it yourself.
You're not here for a civilized debate, but for a chance to scream your dogma at the masses, and that's what your brain died of.
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Lemme sum up your argument "because you believe in skepticism, that makes you JUST AS GOOD as any type of belief, and THEREFORE, religion is SUPERIOR to skepticism". Insulting you is simply wasting characters.
I don't "believe" in skepticism. I take it as a default position, because even though i can't prove it's right, i can prove everything else is wrong, logically.
Wanna attack logic? cuz then I'll ask you how do you know god didn't just simply lie, in the bible.
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
you know how? because your brain failed, that's how.
the 2 are not related, they're both axioms i use. like "i like wine" and "i like beer" don't follow, but i still like them both.
Now i eagerly await your reply where you will demonstrate further you have legal papers showing your brain divorced you.
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
hmm, interesting question. well i don't worry about solipsism too much, i have this barely confirmed axiom that everything has a naturalistic cause. i also seem to rely a little on the scientific method that clarifies existence as best as it can.
Why do you ask? do you prepare to demonstrate there is a posibility that a god exists?
or did you think that my insults to you aren't supported by reason? i shall state them again: your whole argument is "please acknowledge me"
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
dude, do you have something to say at all or are you just being a troll wannabe fail?
ad hominem, is a logical fallacy involving arguments as far as i can tell. If you can not distinguish between an argument and an insult, it means i've been too subtle for you.
If you want to debate something, anytime, any place (=private msg), but PLEASE stop being an irritating troll wannabe.
Or was "you're not paying attention to me" all u wanted to say?
Cuz then yeah, you were right.
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
excuse me? what part of "philosophy is for idiots" makes you think i'd ever wanna be one of those unproductive assholes?
Now, please wonder off and play with your toys, cuz you suck as a troll and you suck as a brain carrying being.
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
c'mon... what are you doing dude? lame!
either be a troll, or get an argument of yourself.
are you smarter now that you detected a contradiction in what i was saying? does it make you go to bed happier?
there: "we don't know whether there is such a thing as absolute knowledge and whether we by any method or pure coincidence possess some of it". as a negative claim, it is the default, by the scientific method. prove i'm wrong or please either be a real troll or go to sleep
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
making "truth" claims is risky all the time, indeed we have no absolute knowledge of anything. Making as few truth claims as possible, is a good way to guarantee you're as little wrong as possible, and making no truth claims renders a human being handicapped.
In this paradigm theism is almost guaranteed to contain more untrue claims than atheism.
No mastery of philosophical concepts can not hide this simple truth, unless you don't actually get what you're saying yourself.
De4sher 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist So you keep saying. Yet you have offered little except that you think pragmatism is bad, and solipcism might be true. Both assertions that I totally disagree with. Your rhetoric does not seem so much "philosophical" as dogmatic theist rant, despite your protests to the contrary.
ebullock43 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CartesianTheist What evidence do you have that solipcism is true?
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist I think you miss the point. You object to the League members' use of philosophical terms to discuss reality. Yet the rest of us understand what they are saying and probably are in agreement with their arguments. I strongly suspect that you're just pissed because you're a theist and you don't like what they say.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist As I understand it, pragmatism is a philosophy that says the truth of an idea needs to be tested to prove its validity. And you say pragmatism is despised by philosophers? You're not convincing me of the value of philosophy. From your description philosophy is about as valuable as religion in finding truth. I suppose that is why they call themselves the League of Reason, not the League of Philosophers.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist "If it was called the 'League of Ignorance' I would be kinder."
I can become irritated reading text containing many grammatical errors, spelling mistakes & terms used carelessly but that wouldn't change the validity of the author's message as long as I could understand it. It would indicate ignorance *only* of the use of written English compared to the level of my understanding of the same as a linguist and legal translator. It's not called the "League of Terminology-Nazis".
queenastilon 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist "Productivity is not a criteria for truth." In this sense it alludes to progress the process of reasoning. If you didn't assume anything it would take you ages to shower & dress. The point is the caller was demanding impracticable levels of evidence for fitness to dismiss supernatural claims while providing non to justify accepting said claims but "spiritual". The matter is moot anyway as you have the same kind of brain however you believe it came into being.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Is he countering skepticism? I think he was countering VickRo's assertion that faith is the default if you can't trust your brain.
Also, I think you are misquoting TF. He said one could come up with any number of reasons to justify the belief that you can trust your brain, but that any reason was not "very fulfilling." He didn't say one should trust their brains because not trusting one's brain isn't fulfilling. Your lone example fails.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist I don't understand what you are trying to say with that analogy. You seem to be implying that you hold some higher knowledge that the panel is ignorant of, and if I knew this secret knowledge I would agree with your point of view. But you still give no information about what this knowledge is. It seems like all sizzle and no steak, if you understand the analogy.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist I did not mention Dhorpatan, no. I've never heard of the guy before. From what I can tell, he is considered something of a kook among most atheists. We were discussing TF. It's not really logical, or fair to equate TF to Dhorpatan. You have not presented ANY example of TF's flawed philosophy in this thread. You have presented no evidence for theism. All you have done is name calling.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Oh, the irony!
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Well, the numbers are on the decline.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Well I'm glad I could be of some small service. I'm sure TF will lose a great deal of sleep because a brilliant theist thinks less of him. I eagerly await your knowledgeable essay to convince all of us lost heathens that there actually is a god.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Mea Culpa. Dunning-Kruger is all about people who make simple mistakes and are fool enough to admit it. Boy, you sure made me look bad. lol
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Yes, we're atheists because we're anti-intellectuals. We put down religion because we don't know enough about it. I guess you'll never find a bright atheist because if one becomes bright enough, one becomes a theist. I do thank you for taking the time to school me with your profound intellect. It has been so persuasive.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Excuse me for mistaking your "at" for "to". But I still don't understand the statement. TF sees no evidence for gods, therefore he does not believe in them. What kind of philosophy must he express to back up his lack of belief? He's a scientist, not a philosopher. And frankly, I'm not sure I place philosophers any higher than theologians or snake oil salesmen. Your original statement was that he wasn't "bright." But now it boils down to you don't like his philosophy?
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist All four of these guys were in this video. TF does much better on this forum than he did in person against Comfort, but I still think he certainly beat that snake oil salesman. After all, he does have the truth on his side.
What do you mean by "Inability to philosophy?" I don't understand that statement.
What kind of videos totally refute his video? Are you talking about his anti islamic videos or his anti science videos?
ebullock43 1 year ago
@ebullock43 Correction: I meant anti creationism videos. LOL what a screw up!
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist I think it always will be difficult for you, in your present mind set. If you find people like AronRa, DonExodus2, Thunderf00t, and AndromedasWake to be not "bright", then their arguments are simply sailing right over your head. Probably because you are not even listening to them. I suspect that you are like VyckRo in that nothing will ever change your mind.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist That sounds like quite a difficult task for one as blind as you.
HitodamaKyrie 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Since you are a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, I expect it will be a long and futile search.
ebullock43 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist It's painful read the ravings of a theist. Please go away before I have an aneurysm.
HitodamaKyrie 1 year ago
The "trust your brain" argument is actually more damning to the theist, because they are arguing that, in an atheistic world, human beings would be likely to make fundamental mistakes when it comes to apprehending the nature of the universe.
Well, in an atheistic universe, that is exactly what the theist has done. We, and our brains, have evolved naturally, and so should be expected to make mistakes. The most prominent mistake our brains make is thinking there is a god. QED.
UppruniTegundanna 1 year ago
Interesting debate but it was one sided (intellectually & numerically), VyckRo does not know where he's coming from and is trying to argue a point from no base.
I checked his profile and its clear his beliefs come from an east european dislike of Communism and because the Communist were Atheist he seems to blame Atheism for Communism, his faith appears to be "I believe ANYTHING as long as its not ATHEISM".
xdir 1 year ago
when you learn not to trust your brain, youve become objective aronra? besides the fact that TF was just crying over how bad and unproductive that is, "having people check your files" means you believe that your brain who is telling you that those other people even exists, is telling u the truth..... the answers for the last few shows have really gotten bad
simsimaz2 1 year ago
VyckRo's speech is annoying enough that I would like to have it subtitled and turn the volume down as he is speaking.
I don't want to miss what he is saying, but man! He could certainly use an elocution teacher.
amoxtlacatl 1 year ago
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Albert Einstein
arizonaviking 1 year ago
Irrationalism in atheism? How is it irrational to disbelieve in something that hasn't been proven? Is it irrational to disbelieve in unicorns? What about the giant Super Saiyan shooting skittles from his finger tip made from a anti gravity Jesus roasting hand gun?
HybridD91 1 year ago
Summary: about 38 minutes of four smart people beating up one dumb guy.
This really needs to be reversed. In order to even be sporting, this needs to be 4 well versed Christian apologists versus one of the panelists.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo those 4 well versed Christians vs AronRa or Thunderfoot would be great.
ABSODEZ 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Hitchens did it. Craig gave him notes.
Escape2SagaCity 1 year ago
@Escape2SagaCity
Apologists who watched that debate claimed that Craig "won". Had it been a debate in an 12th century monastery, they would've been right - Craig would've smoked Hitchens. But Craig's arguments from the era of scholasticism aren't Hitchens' concern - his objective is always to show TO A LISTENER that monotheism is ridiculous and has harmful consequences. Apologists get so wrapped up that they forget that their rock solid "proofs" usually fail to pass common sense's laugh test.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I wasn't speaking metaphorically. And I wasn't giving it to Craig. I was speaking to the utter classlessness of the good Doctor. Craig's best argument remains effectively: "all the best Atheists are dead. I'm alive. I win."
Escape2SagaCity 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Christian apologists aren't any better except in knowledge of the Bible but that would make it easier for the disbeliever who knows contradictions about the Bible.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Did Andromedas just make up those 5 criteria off of the top of his head? If so, that would be pretty impressive.
freethinker923 1 year ago
Can anybody make this into an article? I cannot stand his fucking voice.
BacklTrack 1 year ago 4
Great little exchange at the end.
"THERE'S ANOTHER NAME FOR THAT: SPECULATION."
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago 4
Romania is full of fanatics but most aren't religios. Religious fanatics are the same everywere, it seems.
Savyn333 1 year ago
"You people!?"
haha
LordNapalm 1 year ago
kinda disappointed i missed this one :S
mitenzouki 1 year ago
@mitenzouki eh, it was rather comical. I can sum it up for you: VyckRo - "I don't trust my brain.'
AronRa et al. - "Well no shit, it's broken"
VyckRo - "Well then how can I trust your brain?"
AronRa et al - "Because ours aren't broken"
/pwn
HooahW2475 1 year ago
"how do you know your brain can funcion properly?"
Well Dannypants made a very clear and direct video about it.
Record everything you do during a day period. You eat, you sleep, you avoid walking into trafic, you talk and you remember and you observe as you watch TV or reading the paper. Everything that you do is proof that your brain is working. Weather it's functioning RIGHT or not, that's for other people to decide.
you might think it's normal kill hamsters with blenders, others might not.
NotWorthPrayers 1 year ago
LOL Yes Aaron! love that punch line.
Blodslav 1 year ago
Aaron is one badass motherfucker!
rubberbaby00 1 year ago
"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content."
-Conan. Robert E. Howard
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
Is there no one more intelligent on the theist side to contest you guys? This is just pathetic. It's polite of you guys not to kick him off, but why bother explaining anything to him?
ScissorHand26 1 year ago 4
@ScissorHand26 I agree, except that Vykro is so far off of reality and he is pulling other idiots into his hive. He believes that Atheists want to take freedom away from others, that Atheists doing understand what freedom is.
Mglosk 1 year ago
I had a pickle, it was green. I dropped it so it wasn't clean...I dropped my pickle in the dirt, but washed it off, so it didn't hurt!
Therefore, Gawd done it!!!!
I was just bored...
Zentz29 1 year ago
I have no reason to trust the conclusion that my brain cannot be trusted. But surely the obvious answer is it has needed to be trustworthy to keep us alive. Or I might just drink that bleach.
W00TTANG 1 year ago
I did not understand the question
Hreinn91 1 year ago
started listening to this, then realised I had heard it live and didn't want to endure it again :S
AeroMancer 1 year ago
OH GOD MY EARS!
C0nstellati0ns 1 year ago
Theist - You cannot trust your brain!
Atheist - You cannot trust your brain either.
Theist - I don't need to, I'm trusting my book!
Atheist - But how can you trust the brain of the guys who wrote that book?
Theist - It was dictated by God!
Conversation stopper.
I'm not really sure why you folks even try to debate theists who are willing to toss out magic as a genuine point of argument. I suspect you are wasting your breath.
adavidpirtle 1 year ago 3
@adavidpirtle Theist = Eyes Wide Shut ._.
jdlmbgh 1 year ago
Fine, my brain in not trustworthy, therefore, the gods cannot hold me accountable. Jeez!
AnnRKey 1 year ago
"Welease Woger the wapist!"
antonyhamill 1 year ago 3
@antonyhamill that is wrong on many levels haha, so i thumbs up you sir! :)
jdlmbgh 1 year ago
@jdlmbgh You got it! I knew someone would
antonyhamill 1 year ago
This caller would have been better off calling "The League of Irrationality." Wow!
MrWagman11 1 year ago
What do you mean you people?
ironwomanVI 1 year ago
We have developed from animals. The key word is developed; advanced; improved; gained more intelligence.
AngelOne11 1 year ago
@AngelOne11 We're still animals. (:
Rinji 1 year ago
@Rinji Yes we are. I love my animalistic nature and I don't wanted to change :)
AngelOne11 1 year ago
Where can i find the full episode?
golnectr 1 year ago
It was incredibly hard to understand that guy. Also, as to his questions, atheists don't make a claim to know about God, they simply don't believe in a god, since there is no proof of that god.
Acorafication 1 year ago 3
All the best scientists just use "higher powers" to help them develop the world...the spirits tell them how to think properly..uhuh..NASA is a church where they prey and that way they they they..come up with new ideas...yep..I sound really smart, huh?..I knooow...
: P
bigsteakjoe 1 year ago
So, we can´t trust our brain, there for, god exists?
stefansv 1 year ago
@stefansv that is totally reasonable. i trust my brain enough not to believe in god. if you can't trust your brain, then god is a good answer, no?
hollaboutit 1 year ago
e cogito ergo sum
CerebralSimian 1 year ago
@CerebralSimian
Circular argument.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
Aron talks about feathers and sephilapods and I get lost.
bighugejake 1 year ago
@bighugejake The basic point he is making is the difference between a BELIEF claim and a KNOWLEDGE claim. A belief claim is simply that you believe "X." A knowledge claim requires a higher standard because you must demonstrate to others why it is true by having your facts checked.
CerebralSimian 1 year ago
@CerebralSimian Yeah, I know. I was just joking about how he uses complex biological statements that I don't understand.
bighugejake 1 year ago
Hahah, this video ended perfectly.
Krpi 1 year ago
good shit fellas
wubbadubdub 1 year ago
I trust my brain because there is no reason not to. The fact that our senses can be deceived sometimes is not a reason to not trust them most of the time. Like Aron said, if you don't know if you should trust your brain on something (particularly 'supernatural' things), have other people try to reproduce or verify your observations.
rafaravioli 1 year ago
did someone fart
letmein9001 1 year ago
i dont understand that retards question....what was it again?
MikaelDryden 1 year ago
I'd like some transcripts sometime for these.
iburnaga 1 year ago
I have a monkey brain so fuck off!
feedtherich 1 year ago
They should get Dawkins on the panel.
DarkAngelSupreme 1 year ago 3
Wasn't the scientific method developed, to a high degree, for the purpose of addressing the fact that we cannot trust our brain, period.
The brain just takes data from our sensors where the processing may be different from person to person, hence the methodologies derived are to eliminate this bias.
That should have been the first answer out... going round the bush with analogies and too-detailed-explanations just put the caller and listeners in a situation of having too much info to process.
JustJobeMY 1 year ago
AronRa is awesome, probably the most quick-thinking articulate person that I know of.
AdHominus 1 year ago 3
"quote mining" wow how low can you go.
morakdais 1 year ago
I trust my brain because it sticks by me even when I abuse it.
manbearpig900 1 year ago 2
@manbearpig900 lol dude
MikaelDryden 1 year ago
I always think the question "how can you trust your brain?" as a form of Russel's paradox. If you start by assuming that your brain is normal, and you find that others' also function like yours, you only lead to infinite loop. If you're the only one functions differently, does that mean you're abnormal? and what if you assume you're abnormal, and find the majority is the same? It is a self-referential paradox, and (I think) doesnt worth to be answered.
*I am not an expert in philosophy btw*
caseyrainer 1 year ago
I don't trust my brain, but I trust your brain even less.
sciencemile 1 year ago 41
@sciencemile I love that one!
epanek 1 year ago
@sciencemile Thats why we have the scientific method
thisisnotanick 1 year ago
The unspoken element in this question is "trust it to do what?" I don't trust my brain to keep the solar system spinning. I also don't trust my brain to gather information beyond the natural world. I do trust my brain to do a great many things, since I have seen time and time again it has done them successfully, and when it has not, it has the ability to self correct or be correct, also confirmable.
yogurtking 1 year ago
"lower animal?" Seems like monkey brains have been serving them well for billions of years. And they don't seem to have a god problem in the culture. Seems we should be envious, not degrading to our primate cousins.
yogurtking 1 year ago 4
I've made this point numerous times on other vids, but ah well: How else should we expect evolution to select for our brains to be, except to be able to apprehend the world reasonably accurately? Anyone whose reason told them that a river of lava was just a river of cool spring water, or that a 1000 foot drop was just a 1 foot drop, would have a hard time of surviving and passing on their genes. So we would EXPECT only genes for apprehending the world reasonably accurately to survive.
sam51092 1 year ago
Oh, bad move TF, going to solipsism: the counter-argument to your argument is your argument; solipsism beats solipsism. Nice recovery Aron, shame it got lost... fair catch Andromedas, long juggle before back to Aron... and we're out of time and on to the next segment...
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
My brain was polluted by religion and I trust it now cause it cleaned thou...
WICKEDMAN9MM 1 year ago 4
Aronra is just your all round Action Hero.. He kicks ass intellectually and he looks like a Hells Angel. :D
2DRonaldo 1 year ago 7
@2DRonaldo and he has a motercycle.
viking977 1 year ago
@viking977
Like Chuck Norris, he hunts them down, beats their ass, then shines them off with Origin of the Species. :D
2DRonaldo 1 year ago
Easy. If your brain says "God did it", don't trust it.
Killjeser 1 year ago 49
"What you mean you people"
Reminds me of tropic thunder
Boomx2Brian 1 year ago
There's a whole philosophical classification for the process our friend here uses to gain knowledge, Mysticism.
"Knowledge" gained through spirituality/subjectivity is just plain mysticism. His claim that mysticism trumps science as a discipline by which one may acquire knowledge is absolute, illustrated nonsense.
*sigh*
AxisAnalysis 1 year ago
Aronra kicks so much ass.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 1 year ago 4
there is another definition for that: speculation... big Pwn
omaregb 1 year ago 4
this guy can't trust his brain!
hollaboutit 1 year ago
What do you mean by "you people"?
What do YOU mean, by "YOU" people?!?
ccheng21 1 year ago 2
@ccheng21 thats the first thing i thought
nesteph 1 year ago
its so funny the stupid people who ring in. you listen to the really rational explanations given then are followed really dumb questions that show they didnt even listen.
prankmypants 1 year ago
@prankmypants That's probably as bad for them as it is for the show. Unless we get some people who can actually rationalize, we're not gonna get any good responses.
Personally, I'd love for Ray Cumfart call in. TF was out of his element when they met in-person and I don't think he (TF) is the best real-time debater on the panel, so I'd imagine Cumfart wouldn't come off as well as a caller. (I'm sure he'd grease his way out of any clear defeat, but still.)
eksyte 1 year ago
Leave it to TF to bring up brain defects with a caller who appears to have brain damage.
eksyte 1 year ago
where to is thunderf00t actually from?
flashash2k9 1 year ago
@flashash2k9
I think he lives in USA but was born in UK. I think
IFE10M 1 year ago
This is difficult to listen to. Not because of the audio; but because this guy came to the meeting with the mindset those on the other side of that day's debate were somehow bad people or diluted to the point of needing to be shown what's wrong with them and not their arguments.
AndromedasWake did a fantastic job of handing the whole situation. I admire that.
TeresielMF 1 year ago
This guy VyckRo is extremely obsessed with ZOMGitsCriss... she should be worried (not joking).
mrgreyblake 1 year ago
Why do people get dropped when they are on epic rampages?
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
I trust my brain until it start's seeing god's and hearing voices
Chill197 1 year ago
@Chill197 then you will book yourself into a mental home!
flashash2k9 1 year ago
AndromedasWake seems to be the best at debating, his points are always clear, concise and to the point. I think the others are just fed up TBH.
DynamiteCooMonster 1 year ago 3
That's the problem with Aron, once he gets going he can't be stopped! He's like the Juggernaut!
RivieraKid34 1 year ago 4
@RivieraKid34 The Juggernaut never had a llama. AronRa > Juggernaut
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
now,if i can't trust my brain,why the hell would i buy what it makes me think about god?
farbot 1 year ago
I trust my brain because it's real...
superduperjew 1 year ago
ThickShades is an idiot.
MetalGearGas 1 year ago
The caller kinda sounds like Andy Kaufman. I'm just sitting here waiting for him to say "Thank you very much."
GodlessIrish 1 year ago
@BandrewD Yes, there is one tomorrow. Different format and panel. Then again next Sunday, followed by AronRa on The Atheist Experience.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago
I had a hell of a lot of lag during the show so I appreciate these snippets.
Leonis1989 1 year ago
i trust someone without imaginary friends more than someone with one
memento18poker 1 year ago 2
VyckRo is a muppet. But guys complaining about his accent; grow the FUCK up you fat lazy americans. I want to hear you debate in your second or third language.
TheTachy0n 1 year ago 7
Comment removed
TheTachy0n 1 year ago
very bad sound quality, sadly
wackywackywacko 1 year ago