TimeStamp 12min, 4 sec: "The purpose of rational argument is not to convince the closed-minded, but to prevent the closed-minded from closing the minds of others."
OK, IF "America" is "a collection of values and principles", it's the principle that "might makes right"... It's "the land of the free", where people were kept as property well into the 19-th century, and where the indigenous people are kept in concentration camps...
Actually, after all, "AMERICA" is a CONTINENT!!! TWO continents, actually!
Jerocomovie has a theistic stance and this makes him fundamentally misunderstand your point, because he doesn't know, that he actually defends misology. It's perfectly a description of what theism can damage in you, and that you don't even know, that it does... What an enlightening debate. It makes the whole point visible.
@dinkipooxa It's a problem that was suggested by the existentialists: not all things have a fixed nature, humanity especially. We may be political manifestations, we may be bags of (trillions) of cells, we may be both, we may be neither; it depends on the context, it depends on how we choose to look at ourselves. No single context has priority over all other contexts.
I thought this was clear in the context: anyone who hates the particular epistemic approach to the world that we refer to by the term 'reason.' Someone who wants to replace that approach with a diametrically opposed approach hates reason, even if they want to keep using that term.
"First Principles; simplicity; read Marcus Aurelius"
I've read Aurelius (& Thomas Harris, btw). And as much as I love him, there's a serious problem with his approach (more to follow)
Once again, your approval is required. You say you can change your mind, but only if you think its reasonable. Only if they made a good enough argument. You are very good at arguing rationally, i just don't see any use of it here. You are arguing what you believe against another belief. There is no great skill there.
Reason is recycled and thrown away and rebuilt and re-used and stolen and copied. There is no original thought. Theatrics, rhetoric... blahblahblah you use all of those to get people to believe what you believe in every video you make. You force your ideals on others as much as any religious zealot would. A little introspection is what you need. Might help you keep your mouth shut too.
@dazdope "Reason is recycled...There is no original thought"
Reason and creativity are not the same thing. Beyond that,spouting cliches may serve to demonstrate your point, but it doesn't prove it.
"you use all of those to get people to believe what you believe"
I don't give a damn what people believe. What I care about is WHY they believe it. When they've got a good basis, I'll respect it even if I disagree. When their justification is fallacious or just idiotic, I mock, scorn & deride.
@dazdope "You force your ideals on others as much as any religious zealot would."
Saying that might make you feel righteous, but it's demonstrably untrue. I, for example, will change my mind when I see a persuasive argument. I also employ rational arguments, rather than appealing to authority, threatening, or just making bald appeals to emotion. Simply because I'm passionate & speak well does not mean I'm a zealot. That word as a specific meaning, and equivocating on it does you no service.
Maybe Jericomovie get this a little easier if someone explained it to him in terms of post modern misologists? Probably not as long as he sees the existence of ANY christian misologists as a reason to feel personally defensive.
And the existence of Christian misology is an empirical question that he can't logically disprove by attacking the concept of misology. At best he could cause it to be slightly redefined, but the misologists would still exist and still possess the same characteristics.
Martin Luther said "Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason." This is a direct quote, I have posted it so often in so many similar contexts that my Copy & Paste functions are getting worn out. I believe this is prima facie evidence of Luther's misology.
So dprjones and some other kids have a treehouse. And now jericomovie is a bit jealous because he wasn't one of the kids cool who was invited to play.
@laserbuddha I didn't go from that to misology. I went from "Reason is a whore" to... well, actually, that's not right. I didn't go from that to misology, I just read that and said 'that's misology.'
The idea of a 'new paradigm' is Christianity's attempt to dispense with its Judaic roots and is one basis of it's anti-Judaism. If Jesus was historical he was a believing Jew, this can't be denied, but Christians do. For example "Christ was an Aryan,..", Adolf Hitler, prominent Roman Catholic. For more on the 'new paradigm' I suggest reading 'Answer to Job' by Carl Jung. This is most likely where Jericomovie got his ideas in the first place.
Strong. To the point. And eloquent. Recently, your vids seem to just be getting better and better. Even the apparent lack of kitten didn't hurt this vid too much. Keep it up!!
that fat-ass preacher is going to be happier than a pig in shit when he has a heart attack and a cardiologist saves his life. a cardiologist who was able to become one precisely because ya'll science books have changed year after year. but you can be damn sure he won't be grateful to science even then. you'll be able to find another clip of him praising jesus for getting him through.
"No... no, he's not" - I laughed out loud at that. What kind of idiot would say that imbecile was arguing in favor of reason? Probably the same guy who thinks Luther didn't really despise reason when he made it very clear that he did.
I truly respect your style of rhetoric, and argumentation. Are there any resources that you think are invaluable for someone like me, who would like to improve his debate and reasoning skills?
@umbraemilitos Well for reasoning skills, nothing beats a course in philosophy. Informal logic or critical thinking would work best, but any class should do. If you can't take on in person, the Teaching Company has a great recorded lecture series on argumentation. Failing that, a book on critical thinking should be good.
Read the first few chapters of logic for dummies. You don't have to bother yourself with truth tables and all that in the later chapters. Just as long as you learn some basic classical logic you should be good to go.
@DJC9189 I don't know about 'taken off'. Actually I don't know at all. I pay next to no attention to main stream music. I haven't even heard any of Lady Gaga's music.
You've smushed misology to the point where it merely describes the human condition: we don't like reason when it conspires against what we're damn well gonna believe anyway! You need to broaden it out to anti-intellectualism, and show that Christianity has such a tendency. And Luther is right to call reason a whore - the reason you love so much is sleeping with your opponent right now.
"Staypuft" Preacher's argument was ANTI reason since his objection to science was "the books keep changing" when the fact of the situation ishat science books get corrections to mistaken knowledge and updates to improve what knowledge is not incorrect, but merely incomplete. The bible, on the other hand, is never changed, even if wrong or incomplete.
We must ignore reason (as used by wise men) and embrace a trusting nature (like a child) when it comes to things of the spirit. Faith is a term used to make ignorance sound like a virtue.
@NotWhollySane My mention of evil was a knee jerk reaction because nothing gets my dandruff up like misology. I think that Heinrich Heine's comment "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people" can be applied to misolgy, though granted, my evil may not be yours.
I don't like misology either. I forget who said it but I agree with the quote that can be paraphrased as "I hope those who burn books might fall into their own fire. In fact I would gladly do the pushing".
"my evil may not be your evil"
Heh. My initial comment was to spark a conversation on whether evil existed objectivly at all. But your quoted words buried my assumptions about you. xD
Luther: a rational defense is to say that you cannot use reason to come to a conclusion that he disagrees with?? really?? - you could defend absolutely any stance with this - if it made sense...
@52blades Take a closer reading: "Reason, in fact, is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason"
So God made reason, because God made everything. Check.
@52blades "nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason."
There is nothing that is both not willed by God and should be understood by reason.
(∀X) ~(~Wx & Rx)
(∀x)(Wx) v ~(Rx) (De Morgan's law)
Everything is either willed by God or should be understood by reason. Since we already know he thinks God willed everything, we know how he resolves the disjunction.
Or in English: since there is nothing that God doesn't will, there's nothing to be understood by reason.
@52blades This is not hatred. It's logic. Now, since Tertullian hated reason, and logic is the purest form of reason, I see why he would say that the first reaction to truth is hatred. But he was clearly speaking for himself, not for humankind when he said that.
@SisyphusRedeemed I think the comment regarding the first reaction to truth being hatred is a psychological comment about humans. Telling people the truth will often get you hated.
@AntiSisyphus Yeah, I know, I was just very tired and being overly snarky. I've always liked what Oscar Wilde said along the same lines: "If you're going to tell people the truth you better make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you."
My favourite part was 9:16 , "You can't trust a map when it says you're on the right path, but disregard the map when it says you're going the wrong way, then claim that you're 'someone who believes in maps' simply because there are some times when you listen what they have to say."
"The bible never changes and science does" Yeah, that's why science improves with new discoveries whereas the bible is stuck with the "we can't change because we were always perfect" approach. The further we progress, the more incorrect the bible turns out to be. That's why they have to attack rationality, because they can't change the bible, and something has to give. They can never admit [gasp] that it was wrong, that would make it imperfect. It's so juvenile it's disgusting.
You can believe that logic apply to some areas and not others with out arbitrary cherry picking lmfao. I would think that the most obvious example of this would be to say that logic is a part of the structure of your conceptual scheme , and we have no epistemic justification for claiming that it is a law of metaphysical reality. And infact Christians often use such an argument in order to justify gods contradictions. Not excepting logic as an law of ultimate reality doesn't make you anti reason.
@spawk1993 I don't see how logic being 'law of metaphysical reality' has anything to do with it. The question isn't about the structure of reality, it's about how we ought to comport ourselves epistemicaly. There may be good reasons to not follow reason in some circumstances, but doing so simply because you don't like what reason has to say is not one of them.
@SisyphusRedeemed Obviously. But, the christian god is often seen as transcendent. As in, it is the kind of thing that logic would not apply to. I'm not defending this position in general. My point is just that you can reject the application of logic towards the validity, and especially the possibility, of god with out it being arbitrary cherry picking.
Re: Martin Luther - indeed. As a human possessing a reasonable brain he had no choice but to use reason in order to be understood or to have any chance of having his ideas accepted by others. If true misology involved a complete and uncompromising abandonment of reason, misologists wouldn't be able to string a coherent argument together at all... they'd probably be babbling incoherently and throwing excrement at people.
I subscribed to your channel because I liked your videos on the history of science, and am waiting for those dealing with the philosophy of science. But this video... you could have done a lot better. Jericomovie's response to your video was much more informative, and your response to his response seemed to lack the composure of a rational & charitable man of science. Oh, and FYI, an argument need not be sound to be an argument. More definitions and distinctions would have helped your cause.
@Theophilosxxv The third in the history of science will be up soon.
"an argument need not be sound to be an argument."
But it does need to have a logical structure. Take a look at that 'argument' again. Not only does the conclusion not follow from the premise, there is absolutely no connection between the conclusion and the premise. It is a non-sequitur; a non-argument.
Though I think that the word "reason" does not necessarily equate to "logical reason" where you needs premises, etc... I think you did a brilliant job at explaining why these people still hated "reason", even if they attempted to use "reason" to explain why others should not use it.
Dude, I was right. You don't know jack shit about Christianity, or let alone it's history over the centuries. You have taken verses out of context, misrepresented sources and historic figures, and have done nothing but shoved your ax down the throat of the gullible viewer. Terrible, TERRIBLE video. If youtube still had the option to rate this video, I'd give it 1 star. Terrible, terrible video. What a complete joke.
@thunderbolt94 "You took that out of context!": The perennial cry of the person who doesn't like what the bible says. JM tried to put the quotes in a broader context, but nothing he said undermines my contention. You can accuse me of not knowing things about which I have already demonstrated my knowledge, or you can make your own video pointing out my errors.
"The perennial cry of the person who doesn't like what the bible says."
I like how you think because someone accuses you of taking the bible out of context, that automatically means that the person accusing you of taking it out of context does not like what the bible says, which is a complete and utter bullshit! Accusing people of not liking what a text says when accusing you of taking out of context is nothing more than an excuse to avoid the actual argument.
@thunderbolt94 "nothing more than an excuse to avoid the actual argument."
You haven't made an argument. You've made an accusation. That's indicative of someone who is defensive. If you want to try making an argument that concludes I've taken these quotes out of context in a way that distorts their meaning, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm happy to trade insults. Its your call.
No I didn't, nor was I making an argument. I was talking about actual argument itself that has been going on forever.
"You've made an accusation. That's indicative of someone who is defensive."
Even if I was being defensive, that does not mean the accusation is unfounded. How'd you like it if I took Neitzche or Camus out of context with their writings to support an anti-atheist agenda?
@thunderbolt94 "that does not mean the accusation is unfounded."
No it doesn't, but when given the opportunity to argue or insult, when people choose the later it certainly implies a lack of confidence in their ability to use argument. You may be right, but you've done nothing to show you are, despite the opportunity to do so.
"You may be right, but you've done nothing to show you are, despite the opportunity to do so."
Perhaps I should do a video response or send you a PM when I get the chance to show why you are dead wrong. 500 comment limit does help to address your points.
@thunderbolt94 Indeed, the 500 character limit makes it hard. I would prefer a video response, so that way our dialogue is public. I would be happy to post it as a response to this video.
@thunderbolt94 "How'd you like it if I took Neitzche or Camus out of context with their writings to support an anti-atheist agenda?"
How I'd like it is irrelevant: what I'd do about it is take a look at the quotes and their context, and if I disagreed with your reading, I'd argue that you were wrong. That's what all honest people who are interested in truth and understanding should do.
"if I disagreed with your reading, I'd argue that you were wrong."
You just proved to my point. If I were to do that with Neitzche or Camus, you were to tell me that my reading into is wrong, but I tell you that your reading of the Bible is wrong, you accuse me of not liking what the bible says. This is a double standard.
@thunderbolt94 "you were to tell me that my reading into is wrong, "
No, I said I would ARGUE that you were wrong. Evidence and argument, rational persuasion, not bald accusation.
"I tell you that your reading of the Bible is wrong, you accuse me of not liking what the bible says. This is a double standard."
What would you have me do, respond to your unsupported claim that my reading is wrong by saying 'wow, I never thought about it that way!' and accept that you're right?
"No, I said I would ARGUE that you were wrong. Evidence and argument, rational persuasion, not bald accusation."
Perhaps I did not word what I said right, when I should've said "ARGUE" and "SHOW" why you are wrong.
"What would you have me do, respond to your unsupported claim that my reading is wrong by saying 'wow, I never thought about it that way!' and accept that you're right?"
I would not argue that way to show why you are wrong, and even if I do argue (cont)
@thunderbolt94 "it won't guarentee that you'll really see why you are wrong."
No, it won't, but at least you will have me honestly considering reasons to think I might be wrong. I promise you that I will consider your case fairly. I am happy to admit that I might be wrong, and am eager for a chance to be shown that I am. I wonder if you can do the same.
If you argue, rationally, I'll respect you, even if I don't agree; if you show (as in make a persuasive case) I'll concede the point, publicly. But at any rate, there is no double standard on my part.
"That's what all honest people who are interested in truth and understanding should do."
I agree with this, which is why I call an atheist or anyone dishonest whenever they take the Bible out of context and then accuse us of trying to make excuses or trying to deny what the bible says or not like what the bible says.
@thunderbolt94 "which is why I call an atheist or anyone dishonest "
What you call them is irrelevant: what matters is whether you can support your position or not. You can call people whatever you like; it's the internet, where freedom of speech rules. But don't expect to persuade anyone, or for anyone to just throw up their hands and convert on the spot to your point of view.
I would not only call them irrelevant, I would also call them dishonest if they even attempt to take the bible out of context and purposely misrepresent what it says or what it's trying to convey.
"But don't expect to persuade anyone, or for anyone to just throw up their hands and convert on the spot to your point of view."
I don't expect people to agree with me, but I will call out on bullshit when I see it.
No, no, no, I don't mean that you would say that they are irrelevant; what I mean is that any name you choose to call them does not make a difference (to the persuasiveness of your case; to your personal etiquette, of course, it does)
"and purposely misrepresent what it"
I'm curious why it's so important to you to attribute malicious intent to me. If I'm wrong, isn't that enough? Why assume I am being deceptive?
"what I mean is that any name you choose to call them does not make a difference (to the persuasiveness of your case; to your personal etiquette, of course, it does)"
I meant to say that their argument would be irrelevant because their argument is completely wrong.
"I'm curious why it's so important to you to attribute malicious intent to me."
That was not my intention, but if it came off that way, I apologize.
It is from my personal experience that a lot of non-Christians have an ax to grind when it comes to Christianity, and will do whatever it takes to try and bring it down. You have yet to show me how you are no different.
@thunderbolt94 "but I will call out on bullshit when I see it."
And that accomplishes what, exactly? If it's just to make you feel better, save your time and try masturbation. If you want to have a genuine intellectual exchange with another person, if you want the chance to both teach and learn, then you need to make an argument.
"JM tried to put the quotes in a broader context, but nothing he said undermines my contention."
Are you fucking kidding me? Everything he said made what you claimed less than credible. You have done nothing but strawmanned Christianity and then when someone points out your bullshit, you try to dodge the argument by accusing the accuser by stating "he doesn't like what the bible says" or "he's trying to make excuses." Excuse me while I go throw up.
How can I have possibly strawmanned Christianity when I specifically said that I wasn't addressing Christianity, but rather a specific thread within it? And you didn't point out anything: you accused me of not knowing what I was talking about, but provided no evidence or argument to back that accusation up. And until you change that, I freely dismiss your claims.
@thunderbolt94 "how is that not addressing Christianity?"
Because Christianity is massive. It's spans two millennial, six continents, hundreds of languages, thousands of denominations. To equivocate a part of Christianity with the whole of Christianity is to make a very basic mereological error.
"When you attack one aspect of Christianity, you are misrepresenting a part of Christianity!"
Think about that statement for a moment: any attack must be a misrepresentation?
"To equivocate a part of Christianity with the whole of Christianity is to make a very basic mereological error."
And how is saying that Christianity hates reason not misrepresenting Christianity?
"Think about that statement for a moment: any attack must be a misrepresentation?"
Let me rephrase what I meant: When you misrepresent one aspect of christianity, you are misrepresenting (true) Christianity. How you are not doing this is beyond me.
@thunderbolt94 "how is saying that Christianity hates reason not misrepresenting Christianity?"
Because I didn't say that Christianity hates reason (in fact, I specifically denied that), any more than I said that humanity hates reason. The people I cited are both human and Christian; neither of those things is incidental to their misology, but to argue that they are misologists is not an attack on either their religion as a whole or their species as a whole. Part =/= whole.
I am by no means trying to defend Jerico's defence of that baptist guy, but I think it was unfair to assume that he presented a formal argument with only 1 premise and a conclusion. Enthymeme's only have 1 given premise and Aristotle thinks they are one of the most effective forms of Rhetoric.
Second, if that baptist guy believed what he said he would also have to believe the Q'uran and Hindu texts. I think you can always make a valid argument, but soundness... and even acting on it...
@insidetrip101 If you think I've straw-manned his argument, how would you reformulate it? I can't think of any more charitable way to construct it. It's not the fact that it has one premise; it's the fact that the premise has absolutely no connection to the argument.
Though he didn't come out and say that you shouldn't equate wise with wisdom, but I thought that was what he was trying to say. (I thought he was saying that when he said about research or whatever)
I also thought that you caricatured his defense of Tertulian. I don't know much about Tertulian, but I thought he was saying that Christ being of the flesh is more impressive than a phantasm. As such, it may not make sense to us, but it would make sense "in the end".
@insidetrip101 Tertullian used the word 'impossible'. He didn't say 'it would be more impressive if he was flesh'; he said his resurrection as human was 'impossible.' I suppose it could be a translation issue, or maybe he just chose his words poorly, but in either case, the burden would be on the other to prove so.
The bible DID change when they translated it into English in the form of the KJV. People keep talking about this "word for word" idea with total disregard to the fact that all English language bibles are translations.
Something about jerico's responses really bothered me and you absolutely nailed it here. Brilliant! He's literally attacking a group of people who welcome conversation and differing opinion and don't talk down or shout at people...for being arrogant. I swear I can see him in a commercial for the league of intellectual bankruptcy, "I'm not just a member, I'm the founder."...
Preacher Michelin was a lying git anyway. The Bible hasn't changed (if you stick to one version such as KJV) but interpretation, apologetics, dogma and doctrine have. There are almost as many creeds of Xtianity as Xtians - they each reach their own conclusions as to which portions are literal, which allegorical, etc, as the are exposed to internal and external contradictions. The Bible may not change but creeds do.
Are you sure about that? Luther took out something like 13 books out of the bible. Not to mention discrepancies and inability to translate words fully.
I didn't say "The Bible hasn't changed" I said "The Bible hasn't changed (if you stick to one version such as KJV)." The Luther Bible hasn't changed since he compiled it.
No! Don't torture, cut up, skin and wear the beautiful reason whore like a suit! Two videos straight, can't you leave that hot, reasonable and sexually liberated gal alone!?
The "He used reason, therefore he doesn't hate reason" argument is hilarious. Pointing out that misologists attempt to employ reason doesn't show that they love reason when it serves their purposes. It shows that they are hypocrites.
This is a very important point. One of my earliest moments of doubt came at about age 19, when my pastor admonished everyone to stop trying to reconcile their faith with reason, and just accept on faith that the bible was true. This was of course met with a chorus of "amens" and "hallelujahs", but left me puzzled and newly distrustful of my religious surroundings. Young people trapped in religion need to know what misology is if they are to have any hope of escaping it.
I wanna give 100 thumbs up, this was perfect. As I can't however, I will have to watch all your videos and give them all a thumbs up (unless I don't like them, lol)
@SisyphusRedeemed It took me all night, but I did in fact watch all your videos. Having not gone much into philosophy (I'm not one for reading), I find that I have under appreciated the work of philosophers. Love the unsung philosophers and badass scientists, nearly cried at the reading of The Brothers Karamazov, am now convinced I should at least cut down on meat eating, found the best arguments for pro-choice I have heard and lookforward to some science. Totally worthwhile and entertaining.
I am glad you put this together. Jerichomovie knows how to put up an argument that "sounds" reasonable and informed. I get it, so I'm not moved by his arguments. I don't know that I could have put up the excellent counterargument that you did.
I kinda get and agree with one of JM's points, the one about has anyone ever seen themselves as unreasonable. I don't know how to get past that, but I wish I did because I know unreasonable when I see it and it drives me crazy that I can't unmask it.
@zthustra Lol, you are not moved because you are suspicious of him and wait for someone else to put up a counter claim that you are able to latch onto? You need to think for yourself and evaluate the truth of the argument based solely on the strength of that argument.
I thought Jerichomovie's original and subsequent videos were awesome! He is incredibly knowledgable. I just saw through what I thought was a wrong argument. And because I don't personally waste hours putting up my own counterargument you claim I am unable to think for myself? Because I appreciate the excellent job SisyphusRedeemed did and don't think I could have done as well I am latching onto it? FU!
@Uhlbelk We're not all able to think so clearly. Sometimes you need someome who is good at communicating to lay it out for you in a way that makes it easier to pick apart and test for your self. Sure, the ideal would be to not listen to anyone elses opinions on anything and work it all out for yourself from scratch, but thats not always easy. Not being able to form a counter-argument to a claim, then agreeing with someone elses counter-argument is not the same as not thinking for yourself.
@kevinscales The way he worded his original statement implied that he was rejecting the claims even though they "sounded good". SR's arguments sounded good as well until jerico put them into a more complete context. In this small debate, I would personally agree with SR based on personal knowledge of individuals that I would classify as misologists, but from an argument standpoint SR has not been able to present a convincing case over that of Jerico.
The key point that might help you is people often use reason in very different contexts and to support unreasonable goals. There reasoning and bad reasoning and the distinction is often overlooked. There is a lot of equivocation in this conversation which is what makes it interesting.
Ouch, you totally missed the point with respect to tertullian's rant. He is actually using reason perfectly on this point. The topic is very important, the humanity of christ. This goes to what evidence would be required to prove god to you. If a man claimed to be jesus and he fasted for 5 days, would that be evidence that he is god, if he fasted for a year? A extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, a spirit performing the miracles of christ, not so impressive, a man...more so.
@Uhlbelk Seems like the key word is 'impossible.' If it REALLY is impossible, then he's saying God can do the impossible; yet the word 'impossible' means 'cannot be done.' You have a direct logical contradiction there. Neither Tertullian, nor Martin Luther were phased by that, since they were willing to abandon logic and reason when it conflicted with their preconceived ideas. That's not a rational argument, conclusion or position.
@SisyphusRedeemed In your video when you say at 7:40 that martin luther isn't saying something, I think you are simply wrong. That is exactly what he is saying. It sounds exactly like an exasperated rant to people who don't comprehend that the truth of his religion cannot be achieved by reasoning. Does that mean he hates reason even for its application in this one instance? No, its saying you can't do something so stop trying.
TimeStamp 12min, 4 sec: "The purpose of rational argument is not to convince the closed-minded, but to prevent the closed-minded from closing the minds of others."
Excellent phrase, Sisyphus. Kudos.
Xenophile665 7 months ago
2:39 - Here we go again.
OK, IF "America" is "a collection of values and principles", it's the principle that "might makes right"... It's "the land of the free", where people were kept as property well into the 19-th century, and where the indigenous people are kept in concentration camps...
Actually, after all, "AMERICA" is a CONTINENT!!! TWO continents, actually!
grozde 8 months ago
Jerocomovie has a theistic stance and this makes him fundamentally misunderstand your point, because he doesn't know, that he actually defends misology. It's perfectly a description of what theism can damage in you, and that you don't even know, that it does... What an enlightening debate. It makes the whole point visible.
MardasMan 8 months ago
Wow your last metaphor is priceless! ^_^ "Dressing in skin of logic cause it makes him look pretty." hahahah You are my new hero
xenorun 11 months ago
The Buffalo Bill analogy... genius!
jimi3001 1 year ago
@dinkipooxa It's a problem that was suggested by the existentialists: not all things have a fixed nature, humanity especially. We may be political manifestations, we may be bags of (trillions) of cells, we may be both, we may be neither; it depends on the context, it depends on how we choose to look at ourselves. No single context has priority over all other contexts.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@dinkipooxa "who are "THEY" ?"
I thought this was clear in the context: anyone who hates the particular epistemic approach to the world that we refer to by the term 'reason.' Someone who wants to replace that approach with a diametrically opposed approach hates reason, even if they want to keep using that term.
"First Principles; simplicity; read Marcus Aurelius"
I've read Aurelius (& Thomas Harris, btw). And as much as I love him, there's a serious problem with his approach (more to follow)
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Really liked this video.
kenatiod 1 year ago
Once again, your approval is required. You say you can change your mind, but only if you think its reasonable. Only if they made a good enough argument. You are very good at arguing rationally, i just don't see any use of it here. You are arguing what you believe against another belief. There is no great skill there.
dazdope 1 year ago
@dazdope Uh, should anyone change their mind when they think it's not reasonable?
Hyardacil 10 months ago
@dazdope Uh, should anyone change their mind when they think it's not reasonable?
Hyardacil 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dazdope Uh, should anyone change their mind when they think it's not reasonable?
Hyardacil 10 months ago
Reason is recycled and thrown away and rebuilt and re-used and stolen and copied. There is no original thought. Theatrics, rhetoric... blahblahblah you use all of those to get people to believe what you believe in every video you make. You force your ideals on others as much as any religious zealot would. A little introspection is what you need. Might help you keep your mouth shut too.
dazdope 1 year ago
@dazdope "Reason is recycled...There is no original thought"
Reason and creativity are not the same thing. Beyond that,spouting cliches may serve to demonstrate your point, but it doesn't prove it.
"you use all of those to get people to believe what you believe"
I don't give a damn what people believe. What I care about is WHY they believe it. When they've got a good basis, I'll respect it even if I disagree. When their justification is fallacious or just idiotic, I mock, scorn & deride.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 15
@SisyphusRedeemed just curious. why do you respond to people who tell you what you are? i see no reason to humor such clowns. am i wrong?
ultimategoobah 11 months ago
@dazdope "You force your ideals on others as much as any religious zealot would."
Saying that might make you feel righteous, but it's demonstrably untrue. I, for example, will change my mind when I see a persuasive argument. I also employ rational arguments, rather than appealing to authority, threatening, or just making bald appeals to emotion. Simply because I'm passionate & speak well does not mean I'm a zealot. That word as a specific meaning, and equivocating on it does you no service.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 6
Maybe Jericomovie get this a little easier if someone explained it to him in terms of post modern misologists? Probably not as long as he sees the existence of ANY christian misologists as a reason to feel personally defensive.
And the existence of Christian misology is an empirical question that he can't logically disprove by attacking the concept of misology. At best he could cause it to be slightly redefined, but the misologists would still exist and still possess the same characteristics.
Cadfan17 1 year ago
Martin Luther said "Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason." This is a direct quote, I have posted it so often in so many similar contexts that my Copy & Paste functions are getting worn out. I believe this is prima facie evidence of Luther's misology.
colourmegone 1 year ago
So dprjones and some other kids have a treehouse. And now jericomovie is a bit jealous because he wasn't one of the kids cool who was invited to play.
How the heck did you come from that to misology?
laserbuddha 1 year ago
@laserbuddha I didn't go from that to misology. I went from "Reason is a whore" to... well, actually, that's not right. I didn't go from that to misology, I just read that and said 'that's misology.'
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 2
The idea of a 'new paradigm' is Christianity's attempt to dispense with its Judaic roots and is one basis of it's anti-Judaism. If Jesus was historical he was a believing Jew, this can't be denied, but Christians do. For example "Christ was an Aryan,..", Adolf Hitler, prominent Roman Catholic. For more on the 'new paradigm' I suggest reading 'Answer to Job' by Carl Jung. This is most likely where Jericomovie got his ideas in the first place.
colourmegone 1 year ago
Strong. To the point. And eloquent. Recently, your vids seem to just be getting better and better. Even the apparent lack of kitten didn't hurt this vid too much. Keep it up!!
TheNameIsUnimportant 1 year ago
I think you misread his argument on a couple occasions although I did find it an interesting back and forth with points on either side.
thesystemsfailed 1 year ago
that fat-ass preacher is going to be happier than a pig in shit when he has a heart attack and a cardiologist saves his life. a cardiologist who was able to become one precisely because ya'll science books have changed year after year. but you can be damn sure he won't be grateful to science even then. you'll be able to find another clip of him praising jesus for getting him through.
fmandld 1 year ago
Interesting video.
MrShane2369 1 year ago
"No... no, he's not" - I laughed out loud at that. What kind of idiot would say that imbecile was arguing in favor of reason? Probably the same guy who thinks Luther didn't really despise reason when he made it very clear that he did.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
I truly respect your style of rhetoric, and argumentation. Are there any resources that you think are invaluable for someone like me, who would like to improve his debate and reasoning skills?
umbraemilitos 1 year ago
@umbraemilitos Well for reasoning skills, nothing beats a course in philosophy. Informal logic or critical thinking would work best, but any class should do. If you can't take on in person, the Teaching Company has a great recorded lecture series on argumentation. Failing that, a book on critical thinking should be good.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@umbraemilitos
Read the first few chapters of logic for dummies. You don't have to bother yourself with truth tables and all that in the later chapters. Just as long as you learn some basic classical logic you should be good to go.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
I know this really has nothing to do with the video but have Kasabian taken off in the US?
DJC9189 1 year ago
@DJC9189 I don't know about 'taken off'. Actually I don't know at all. I pay next to no attention to main stream music. I haven't even heard any of Lady Gaga's music.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
You've smushed misology to the point where it merely describes the human condition: we don't like reason when it conspires against what we're damn well gonna believe anyway! You need to broaden it out to anti-intellectualism, and show that Christianity has such a tendency. And Luther is right to call reason a whore - the reason you love so much is sleeping with your opponent right now.
drchaffee 1 year ago
@drchaffee "Luther is right to call reason a whore - the reason you love so much is sleeping with your opponent right now."
So Luther is right, which means I'm right, which means my opponent is right? Might want to work on your logical consistency a bit.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Comment removed
drchaffee 1 year ago
"Staypuft" Preacher's argument was ANTI reason since his objection to science was "the books keep changing" when the fact of the situation ishat science books get corrections to mistaken knowledge and updates to improve what knowledge is not incorrect, but merely incomplete. The bible, on the other hand, is never changed, even if wrong or incomplete.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
We must ignore reason (as used by wise men) and embrace a trusting nature (like a child) when it comes to things of the spirit. Faith is a term used to make ignorance sound like a virtue.
financialcounselor 1 year ago
This argument is why we must fight Christians with all our strength. They are evil.
movieklump 1 year ago
@movieklump
What is evil? How do you tell it apart from non-evil?
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane My mention of evil was a knee jerk reaction because nothing gets my dandruff up like misology. I think that Heinrich Heine's comment "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people" can be applied to misolgy, though granted, my evil may not be yours.
movieklump 1 year ago
@movieklump
I don't like misology either. I forget who said it but I agree with the quote that can be paraphrased as "I hope those who burn books might fall into their own fire. In fact I would gladly do the pushing".
"my evil may not be your evil"
Heh. My initial comment was to spark a conversation on whether evil existed objectivly at all. But your quoted words buried my assumptions about you. xD
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
You are doing a great service Sysyphus. Please keep it up.
dubaipete 1 year ago
img [dot] moonbuggy [dot] org/orson-welles-clapping/
spiffythealien 1 year ago
A very able answer man.
alexeirayu 1 year ago
Luther: a rational defense is to say that you cannot use reason to come to a conclusion that he disagrees with?? really?? - you could defend absolutely any stance with this - if it made sense...
symelian 1 year ago
Please read Chapter 1 verse 2 of Tertullian’s work On Repentance:
Tertullian(dot)org/anf/anf03/anf03-47(dot)htm#1_2
Now consider the following quote by Tertullian because it will probably apply:
"The first reaction to truth is hatred."
52blades 1 year ago
@52blades Take a closer reading: "Reason, in fact, is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason"
So God made reason, because God made everything. Check.
(cont'd)
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@52blades "nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason."
There is nothing that is both not willed by God and should be understood by reason.
(∀X) ~(~Wx & Rx)
(∀x)(Wx) v ~(Rx) (De Morgan's law)
Everything is either willed by God or should be understood by reason. Since we already know he thinks God willed everything, we know how he resolves the disjunction.
Or in English: since there is nothing that God doesn't will, there's nothing to be understood by reason.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@52blades This is not hatred. It's logic. Now, since Tertullian hated reason, and logic is the purest form of reason, I see why he would say that the first reaction to truth is hatred. But he was clearly speaking for himself, not for humankind when he said that.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I think the comment regarding the first reaction to truth being hatred is a psychological comment about humans. Telling people the truth will often get you hated.
AntiSisyphus 1 year ago
@AntiSisyphus Yeah, I know, I was just very tired and being overly snarky. I've always liked what Oscar Wilde said along the same lines: "If you're going to tell people the truth you better make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you."
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
I loved, loved your insights here, Sis.
My favourite part was 9:16 , "You can't trust a map when it says you're on the right path, but disregard the map when it says you're going the wrong way, then claim that you're 'someone who believes in maps' simply because there are some times when you listen what they have to say."
This is going on my favourite quotes.
mavaddat 1 year ago
Comment removed
mavaddat 1 year ago
Listening to Jericomovie makes me want to drill a hole in my head...
jussts 1 year ago
Many things can be said in response to this video. I choose "lol"
MajeauX 1 year ago
link?!
pitigam 1 year ago
@pitigam Crap, the details somehow got scrubbed. I fixed that, thanks for drawing it to my attention.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
"The bible never changes and science does" Yeah, that's why science improves with new discoveries whereas the bible is stuck with the "we can't change because we were always perfect" approach. The further we progress, the more incorrect the bible turns out to be. That's why they have to attack rationality, because they can't change the bible, and something has to give. They can never admit [gasp] that it was wrong, that would make it imperfect. It's so juvenile it's disgusting.
Hannsfeld 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I think using the word "mistrust" would be much better than using the word "hate"
pb75355 1 year ago
@pb75355 'Mistrust' might be better for some, but that quote from Martin Luther? That's hatred.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I agree. I do think you are using it too widely however. Love your videos. thanks for what you do.
pb75355 1 year ago
Awesome.
david521598 1 year ago
Nicely done
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
Egyptian Hieroglyphs FTW
TitenSxull 1 year ago
I am glad I subbed to you. You would make a fantastic teacher.
hellstradingpost 1 year ago
@hellstradingpost 'Would make?' I hope I do, seeing as how that's my job and all. (Seriously, thought, thanks for the compliment.)
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Does this guy's voice not remind you of Agent Smith from the Matrix?
D3PyroGS 1 year ago
@D3PyroGS Hadn't thought of it before, but now that you mention it...
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
You can believe that logic apply to some areas and not others with out arbitrary cherry picking lmfao. I would think that the most obvious example of this would be to say that logic is a part of the structure of your conceptual scheme , and we have no epistemic justification for claiming that it is a law of metaphysical reality. And infact Christians often use such an argument in order to justify gods contradictions. Not excepting logic as an law of ultimate reality doesn't make you anti reason.
spawk1993 1 year ago
@spawk1993 I don't see how logic being 'law of metaphysical reality' has anything to do with it. The question isn't about the structure of reality, it's about how we ought to comport ourselves epistemicaly. There may be good reasons to not follow reason in some circumstances, but doing so simply because you don't like what reason has to say is not one of them.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Obviously. But, the christian god is often seen as transcendent. As in, it is the kind of thing that logic would not apply to. I'm not defending this position in general. My point is just that you can reject the application of logic towards the validity, and especially the possibility, of god with out it being arbitrary cherry picking.
spawk1993 1 year ago
Hehe, great reply
askirojadu 1 year ago
The most annoying thing about that guy is confident ignorance and stupidity.
It just goes to show how one can be lost in his own bubble of delusions no matter how blatantly nonsensical they are.
FluidDeconstructor 1 year ago
This guy is just an arrogant fool that tries to sound intellectual when he is nothing more than a pretentious cunt!!!
ercvstr 1 year ago
@ercvstr You know, I didn't agree at first, but that third exclamation point really drove the argument home.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Let me write that down...too many exclamation points. Okay, got it.
I enjoy your videos and now I also see your sense of humor. Well done.
ercvstr 1 year ago
Re: Martin Luther - indeed. As a human possessing a reasonable brain he had no choice but to use reason in order to be understood or to have any chance of having his ideas accepted by others. If true misology involved a complete and uncompromising abandonment of reason, misologists wouldn't be able to string a coherent argument together at all... they'd probably be babbling incoherently and throwing excrement at people.
antonc81 1 year ago
this is a really top video, especially how quickly you put it together.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeeemed: You rock my world. You absolutely rock my world. Nuff said.
swordnquil 1 year ago
Theology: The study of elaborate verbal disguises for non-ideas...Unknown
KasparHauser4 1 year ago
This discussion is very interesting.
SpookyFan 1 year ago
I subscribed to your channel because I liked your videos on the history of science, and am waiting for those dealing with the philosophy of science. But this video... you could have done a lot better. Jericomovie's response to your video was much more informative, and your response to his response seemed to lack the composure of a rational & charitable man of science. Oh, and FYI, an argument need not be sound to be an argument. More definitions and distinctions would have helped your cause.
Theophilosxxv 1 year ago
@Theophilosxxv The third in the history of science will be up soon.
"an argument need not be sound to be an argument."
But it does need to have a logical structure. Take a look at that 'argument' again. Not only does the conclusion not follow from the premise, there is absolutely no connection between the conclusion and the premise. It is a non-sequitur; a non-argument.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Though I think that the word "reason" does not necessarily equate to "logical reason" where you needs premises, etc... I think you did a brilliant job at explaining why these people still hated "reason", even if they attempted to use "reason" to explain why others should not use it.
trick0171 1 year ago
You covered all the bases.
araless 1 year ago
This refutes Jerico's response, particularly the bits about persuasion =/= the use of reason and a mere assertion =/= an argument.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Bravo, Sisyphus!
Redfingers 1 year ago
I liked the analogy with buffalo bill.
GDATERRY 1 year ago
Dude, I was right. You don't know jack shit about Christianity, or let alone it's history over the centuries. You have taken verses out of context, misrepresented sources and historic figures, and have done nothing but shoved your ax down the throat of the gullible viewer. Terrible, TERRIBLE video. If youtube still had the option to rate this video, I'd give it 1 star. Terrible, terrible video. What a complete joke.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "You took that out of context!": The perennial cry of the person who doesn't like what the bible says. JM tried to put the quotes in a broader context, but nothing he said undermines my contention. You can accuse me of not knowing things about which I have already demonstrated my knowledge, or you can make your own video pointing out my errors.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"The perennial cry of the person who doesn't like what the bible says."
I like how you think because someone accuses you of taking the bible out of context, that automatically means that the person accusing you of taking it out of context does not like what the bible says, which is a complete and utter bullshit! Accusing people of not liking what a text says when accusing you of taking out of context is nothing more than an excuse to avoid the actual argument.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "nothing more than an excuse to avoid the actual argument."
You haven't made an argument. You've made an accusation. That's indicative of someone who is defensive. If you want to try making an argument that concludes I've taken these quotes out of context in a way that distorts their meaning, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm happy to trade insults. Its your call.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"You haven't made an argument."
No I didn't, nor was I making an argument. I was talking about actual argument itself that has been going on forever.
"You've made an accusation. That's indicative of someone who is defensive."
Even if I was being defensive, that does not mean the accusation is unfounded. How'd you like it if I took Neitzche or Camus out of context with their writings to support an anti-atheist agenda?
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "that does not mean the accusation is unfounded."
No it doesn't, but when given the opportunity to argue or insult, when people choose the later it certainly implies a lack of confidence in their ability to use argument. You may be right, but you've done nothing to show you are, despite the opportunity to do so.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"You may be right, but you've done nothing to show you are, despite the opportunity to do so."
Perhaps I should do a video response or send you a PM when I get the chance to show why you are dead wrong. 500 comment limit does help to address your points.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94
*Not
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 Indeed, the 500 character limit makes it hard. I would prefer a video response, so that way our dialogue is public. I would be happy to post it as a response to this video.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "How'd you like it if I took Neitzche or Camus out of context with their writings to support an anti-atheist agenda?"
How I'd like it is irrelevant: what I'd do about it is take a look at the quotes and their context, and if I disagreed with your reading, I'd argue that you were wrong. That's what all honest people who are interested in truth and understanding should do.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"if I disagreed with your reading, I'd argue that you were wrong."
You just proved to my point. If I were to do that with Neitzche or Camus, you were to tell me that my reading into is wrong, but I tell you that your reading of the Bible is wrong, you accuse me of not liking what the bible says. This is a double standard.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "you were to tell me that my reading into is wrong, "
No, I said I would ARGUE that you were wrong. Evidence and argument, rational persuasion, not bald accusation.
"I tell you that your reading of the Bible is wrong, you accuse me of not liking what the bible says. This is a double standard."
What would you have me do, respond to your unsupported claim that my reading is wrong by saying 'wow, I never thought about it that way!' and accept that you're right?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"No, I said I would ARGUE that you were wrong. Evidence and argument, rational persuasion, not bald accusation."
Perhaps I did not word what I said right, when I should've said "ARGUE" and "SHOW" why you are wrong.
"What would you have me do, respond to your unsupported claim that my reading is wrong by saying 'wow, I never thought about it that way!' and accept that you're right?"
I would not argue that way to show why you are wrong, and even if I do argue (cont)
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94
why you are wrong and show you how you are wrong, it won't guarentee that you'll really see why you are wrong.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "it won't guarentee that you'll really see why you are wrong."
No, it won't, but at least you will have me honestly considering reasons to think I might be wrong. I promise you that I will consider your case fairly. I am happy to admit that I might be wrong, and am eager for a chance to be shown that I am. I wonder if you can do the same.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "I should've said "ARGUE" and "SHOW""
If you argue, rationally, I'll respect you, even if I don't agree; if you show (as in make a persuasive case) I'll concede the point, publicly. But at any rate, there is no double standard on my part.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"That's what all honest people who are interested in truth and understanding should do."
I agree with this, which is why I call an atheist or anyone dishonest whenever they take the Bible out of context and then accuse us of trying to make excuses or trying to deny what the bible says or not like what the bible says.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "which is why I call an atheist or anyone dishonest "
What you call them is irrelevant: what matters is whether you can support your position or not. You can call people whatever you like; it's the internet, where freedom of speech rules. But don't expect to persuade anyone, or for anyone to just throw up their hands and convert on the spot to your point of view.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"What you call them is irrelevant"
I would not only call them irrelevant, I would also call them dishonest if they even attempt to take the bible out of context and purposely misrepresent what it says or what it's trying to convey.
"But don't expect to persuade anyone, or for anyone to just throw up their hands and convert on the spot to your point of view."
I don't expect people to agree with me, but I will call out on bullshit when I see it.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "I would not only call them irrelevant"
No, no, no, I don't mean that you would say that they are irrelevant; what I mean is that any name you choose to call them does not make a difference (to the persuasiveness of your case; to your personal etiquette, of course, it does)
"and purposely misrepresent what it"
I'm curious why it's so important to you to attribute malicious intent to me. If I'm wrong, isn't that enough? Why assume I am being deceptive?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"what I mean is that any name you choose to call them does not make a difference (to the persuasiveness of your case; to your personal etiquette, of course, it does)"
I meant to say that their argument would be irrelevant because their argument is completely wrong.
"I'm curious why it's so important to you to attribute malicious intent to me."
That was not my intention, but if it came off that way, I apologize.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"Why assume I am being deceptive?"
It is from my personal experience that a lot of non-Christians have an ax to grind when it comes to Christianity, and will do whatever it takes to try and bring it down. You have yet to show me how you are no different.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "but I will call out on bullshit when I see it."
And that accomplishes what, exactly? If it's just to make you feel better, save your time and try masturbation. If you want to have a genuine intellectual exchange with another person, if you want the chance to both teach and learn, then you need to make an argument.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SisyphusRedeemed
I was just making a general statement.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"JM tried to put the quotes in a broader context, but nothing he said undermines my contention."
Are you fucking kidding me? Everything he said made what you claimed less than credible. You have done nothing but strawmanned Christianity and then when someone points out your bullshit, you try to dodge the argument by accusing the accuser by stating "he doesn't like what the bible says" or "he's trying to make excuses." Excuse me while I go throw up.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "strawmanned Christianity"
How can I have possibly strawmanned Christianity when I specifically said that I wasn't addressing Christianity, but rather a specific thread within it? And you didn't point out anything: you accused me of not knowing what I was talking about, but provided no evidence or argument to back that accusation up. And until you change that, I freely dismiss your claims.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"but rather a specific thread within it?"
I'm sorry, but how is that not addressing Christianity? When you attack one aspect of Christianity, you are misrepresenting a part of Christianity!
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "how is that not addressing Christianity?"
Because Christianity is massive. It's spans two millennial, six continents, hundreds of languages, thousands of denominations. To equivocate a part of Christianity with the whole of Christianity is to make a very basic mereological error.
"When you attack one aspect of Christianity, you are misrepresenting a part of Christianity!"
Think about that statement for a moment: any attack must be a misrepresentation?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"To equivocate a part of Christianity with the whole of Christianity is to make a very basic mereological error."
And how is saying that Christianity hates reason not misrepresenting Christianity?
"Think about that statement for a moment: any attack must be a misrepresentation?"
Let me rephrase what I meant: When you misrepresent one aspect of christianity, you are misrepresenting (true) Christianity. How you are not doing this is beyond me.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94 "how is saying that Christianity hates reason not misrepresenting Christianity?"
Because I didn't say that Christianity hates reason (in fact, I specifically denied that), any more than I said that humanity hates reason. The people I cited are both human and Christian; neither of those things is incidental to their misology, but to argue that they are misologists is not an attack on either their religion as a whole or their species as a whole. Part =/= whole.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"Because I didn't say that Christianity hates reason"
Show me where in either this video or your original video where you stated that Christianity hated reason and I'll take back what I said.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94
*did not
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
Really nice video again.
socrates856 1 year ago
I am by no means trying to defend Jerico's defence of that baptist guy, but I think it was unfair to assume that he presented a formal argument with only 1 premise and a conclusion. Enthymeme's only have 1 given premise and Aristotle thinks they are one of the most effective forms of Rhetoric.
Second, if that baptist guy believed what he said he would also have to believe the Q'uran and Hindu texts. I think you can always make a valid argument, but soundness... and even acting on it...
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 If you think I've straw-manned his argument, how would you reformulate it? I can't think of any more charitable way to construct it. It's not the fact that it has one premise; it's the fact that the premise has absolutely no connection to the argument.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Well, first I would like to say that I don't support this sort of argument... AT ALL! But I think the rational behind it is that:
P1 The truth is eternal and never changing (major premise)
P2 Science books change (minor)
P3 The bible never changes (minor)
C1 Science doesn't have "truth"
C2 The bible is "truth"
We can argue over whether or not there is good probability behind them, but I think it is a valid enthemyme. A bad one, but a valid one nevertheless.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
Though he didn't come out and say that you shouldn't equate wise with wisdom, but I thought that was what he was trying to say. (I thought he was saying that when he said about research or whatever)
I also thought that you caricatured his defense of Tertulian. I don't know much about Tertulian, but I thought he was saying that Christ being of the flesh is more impressive than a phantasm. As such, it may not make sense to us, but it would make sense "in the end".
He was just wrong about Luther.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 Tertullian used the word 'impossible'. He didn't say 'it would be more impressive if he was flesh'; he said his resurrection as human was 'impossible.' I suppose it could be a translation issue, or maybe he just chose his words poorly, but in either case, the burden would be on the other to prove so.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
This is what YouTube needs more of. I love these kinds of informative AND entertaining exchanges. :-)
wimsweden 1 year ago 2
I wish I could give you a 100 stars for these great vids about misology, but I can only click once on 'like'.
AndreaZ64 1 year ago
@AndreaZ64
meltingwitch 1 year ago
The bible DID change when they translated it into English in the form of the KJV. People keep talking about this "word for word" idea with total disregard to the fact that all English language bibles are translations.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
Something about jerico's responses really bothered me and you absolutely nailed it here. Brilliant! He's literally attacking a group of people who welcome conversation and differing opinion and don't talk down or shout at people...for being arrogant. I swear I can see him in a commercial for the league of intellectual bankruptcy, "I'm not just a member, I'm the founder."...
cowboycoco 1 year ago
Preacher Michelin was a lying git anyway. The Bible hasn't changed (if you stick to one version such as KJV) but interpretation, apologetics, dogma and doctrine have. There are almost as many creeds of Xtianity as Xtians - they each reach their own conclusions as to which portions are literal, which allegorical, etc, as the are exposed to internal and external contradictions. The Bible may not change but creeds do.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718 "Preacher Michelin"
That one took a second, but once it cliked, I LOLed.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@bdf2718
"The Bible hasn't changed"
Are you sure about that? Luther took out something like 13 books out of the bible. Not to mention discrepancies and inability to translate words fully.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@insidetrip101
I didn't say "The Bible hasn't changed" I said "The Bible hasn't changed (if you stick to one version such as KJV)." The Luther Bible hasn't changed since he compiled it.
bdf2718 1 year ago
Christianity's NEW paradigm:
"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
All Christian doctrine follows from accepting this assertion of humanity's intrinsic depravity and separation from its creator.
None of this is found in the OT.
EvenGodsSuffer 1 year ago
@EvenGodsSuffer That has nothing to do with the nature of REASON, though.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
I wonder if jerichomovie limbers up before engaging in such vigorous mental gymnastics...
Every time he used the word "context" I immediately thought of nonstampcollector's video of the same name.
army103 1 year ago
No! Don't torture, cut up, skin and wear the beautiful reason whore like a suit! Two videos straight, can't you leave that hot, reasonable and sexually liberated gal alone!?
Jermbot15 1 year ago
"Preventing the close-minded from closing the minds of others" Bravo! Love it
IRLBemused 1 year ago
Wow! Another excellent video!
shortna 1 year ago
Man, I love your analogies!
niqueth 1 year ago
Brilliant response to Jericomovie's sophistry. You're easily one of my favorite people to watch on YouTube.
guinnessx 1 year ago
The "He used reason, therefore he doesn't hate reason" argument is hilarious. Pointing out that misologists attempt to employ reason doesn't show that they love reason when it serves their purposes. It shows that they are hypocrites.
JustGreatThanks 1 year ago
This is a very important point. One of my earliest moments of doubt came at about age 19, when my pastor admonished everyone to stop trying to reconcile their faith with reason, and just accept on faith that the bible was true. This was of course met with a chorus of "amens" and "hallelujahs", but left me puzzled and newly distrustful of my religious surroundings. Young people trapped in religion need to know what misology is if they are to have any hope of escaping it.
jamesm601 1 year ago
excellent video!
apfejes 1 year ago
Your arguments are hilarious and really well constructed. Subbed.
vadimcream 1 year ago
I wanna give 100 thumbs up, this was perfect. As I can't however, I will have to watch all your videos and give them all a thumbs up (unless I don't like them, lol)
kevinscales 1 year ago
@kevinscales Wow, much appreciated. Glad you liked it so much.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Just out of curiosity, which search term did you use to find the video of the preacher?
GuyMontag92 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 I don't really remember. It was just a bit of google-fu (bible, science, king james, etc.)
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed It took me all night, but I did in fact watch all your videos. Having not gone much into philosophy (I'm not one for reading), I find that I have under appreciated the work of philosophers. Love the unsung philosophers and badass scientists, nearly cried at the reading of The Brothers Karamazov, am now convinced I should at least cut down on meat eating, found the best arguments for pro-choice I have heard and lookforward to some science. Totally worthwhile and entertaining.
kevinscales 1 year ago
I am glad you put this together. Jerichomovie knows how to put up an argument that "sounds" reasonable and informed. I get it, so I'm not moved by his arguments. I don't know that I could have put up the excellent counterargument that you did.
I kinda get and agree with one of JM's points, the one about has anyone ever seen themselves as unreasonable. I don't know how to get past that, but I wish I did because I know unreasonable when I see it and it drives me crazy that I can't unmask it.
zthustra 1 year ago
@zthustra Lol, you are not moved because you are suspicious of him and wait for someone else to put up a counter claim that you are able to latch onto? You need to think for yourself and evaluate the truth of the argument based solely on the strength of that argument.
Uhlbelk 1 year ago
@Uhlbelk
I thought Jerichomovie's original and subsequent videos were awesome! He is incredibly knowledgable. I just saw through what I thought was a wrong argument. And because I don't personally waste hours putting up my own counterargument you claim I am unable to think for myself? Because I appreciate the excellent job SisyphusRedeemed did and don't think I could have done as well I am latching onto it? FU!
zthustra 1 year ago
@Uhlbelk We're not all able to think so clearly. Sometimes you need someome who is good at communicating to lay it out for you in a way that makes it easier to pick apart and test for your self. Sure, the ideal would be to not listen to anyone elses opinions on anything and work it all out for yourself from scratch, but thats not always easy. Not being able to form a counter-argument to a claim, then agreeing with someone elses counter-argument is not the same as not thinking for yourself.
kevinscales 1 year ago
@kevinscales The way he worded his original statement implied that he was rejecting the claims even though they "sounded good". SR's arguments sounded good as well until jerico put them into a more complete context. In this small debate, I would personally agree with SR based on personal knowledge of individuals that I would classify as misologists, but from an argument standpoint SR has not been able to present a convincing case over that of Jerico.
Uhlbelk 1 year ago
@zthustra
The key point that might help you is people often use reason in very different contexts and to support unreasonable goals. There reasoning and bad reasoning and the distinction is often overlooked. There is a lot of equivocation in this conversation which is what makes it interesting.
askirojadu 1 year ago
@askirojadu
typo
* There is good reasoning and bad reasoning and the distinction....
askirojadu 1 year ago
Martin Luther was a sick, sick individual. Probably a sociopath.
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
Well played, SysphusRedeemed. Damn GOOD rebuttal.
richaldeano 1 year ago
Okay, you've convinced me. William Lane Craig is most definitely a misologist.
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
The Buffalo Bill analogy is so fucking apt.
dildace 1 year ago
Ouch, you totally missed the point with respect to tertullian's rant. He is actually using reason perfectly on this point. The topic is very important, the humanity of christ. This goes to what evidence would be required to prove god to you. If a man claimed to be jesus and he fasted for 5 days, would that be evidence that he is god, if he fasted for a year? A extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, a spirit performing the miracles of christ, not so impressive, a man...more so.
Uhlbelk 1 year ago
@Uhlbelk Seems like the key word is 'impossible.' If it REALLY is impossible, then he's saying God can do the impossible; yet the word 'impossible' means 'cannot be done.' You have a direct logical contradiction there. Neither Tertullian, nor Martin Luther were phased by that, since they were willing to abandon logic and reason when it conflicted with their preconceived ideas. That's not a rational argument, conclusion or position.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed In your video when you say at 7:40 that martin luther isn't saying something, I think you are simply wrong. That is exactly what he is saying. It sounds exactly like an exasperated rant to people who don't comprehend that the truth of his religion cannot be achieved by reasoning. Does that mean he hates reason even for its application in this one instance? No, its saying you can't do something so stop trying.
Uhlbelk 1 year ago