I must also comment on how you seem to be very logical, and any conversations with you would become intelligent conversations and rather interesting in my own personal opinion.
I would like to say, that although I have not been watching your videos for very long, and I stumbled across on of your videos by chance, I think it is highly commendable that you have what you believe in and you stick with that. It should also be noted that you do, despite your own beliefs understand that everyone believes in different things and that is their own right and I think that is very rare to find now, I do not see you as arrogant personally.
Ya but I like your conversations. You are really logical, I like Logical people... so Keep it up. If it takes you to be regarded as an arrogant, so be it, keep it up...
Actually, it would be great if you could teach at a university, you know, literature of philosophy or etc. or being a doctor (doctors are logical artists! ) and write books. Good Luck.
I don't define myself as a pragmatist. I could never agree with a single philosophy enough to attach it to myself. For example, I think the pragmatist epistemology of truth is too simplistic and misses a few fundamental points.
That said, I do like a lot of pragmatist ideas like Ordinary Language Philosophy. And it is a general tendency of mine to prefer what works over what might be more emotionally satisfying. So if something is a pragmatic problem, it's going to be important to me.
Indeed, I can understand the allure of OLP but I see Pragmatism and OLP as far too limiting. I don't believe philosophy has found itself in a hole because it uses abstractions. My only beef with pragmatism other than its limiting attitude is that it does away with idealism. Without set ideals how could anyone achieve Xeno's dream? However, I do concede that other people and cultures reject forms such and beauty and truth. Assuming of course these people are real and not just phantoms.
I don't like to define myself under such terms because I never fully agree with any of these 'brands of thought', but if I was forced into it I'd say I fall more under absurdism than nihilism.
Not to be insulting but dear brother, The devil has inflicted you with a speech impediment for your blaspheming mouth. Repent unto Jesus and ask forgiveness and he shall set you free! The kingdom of God awaits you.
Sure it wasn't God that designed Clutchologys awesome accent? Must have left that out of his plans. Then again I sold my soul to Satan for a load of luck and good looks. Dont worry, this isn't the Mafia, I kept the receipt.
Explains the high level of attraction I have. The UK, hehe
Anyways, I happen to find you to be one of the most intelligent people I have ever watched on youtube but I do have one question.
You don't believe in the supernatural but if faced with something that simply was supernatural (ie. a god or real magic) do you believe you would be able to accept it and incorporate it into your life and train of thought or would that be something you'd find difficult to do?
Adding on to that, there are some theories that do suggest the possibility that psychic "powers" such as telekinesis might be a possibility, while this isn't on the same level as supernatural what is your take on the possibility that the human mind just might be that powerful if unlocked?
I would take a lot of convincing, that's for sure. My trouble is, I would have no idea how such things would go about convincing me that they're real, because all the methods we have today don't seem capable of it. But I suppose if something really was supernatural it would be able to convince us somehow.
On telekinesis, I'm again very sceptical. I've seen experiments and theories which suggest it, but they're suspicious. I'm a theoretical thinker. Unless I'm given a plausible explanation as to how neurons firing in the brain can move something external to it without physical contact I will always be a doubter. Right now I just don't think such things are plausible.
To the despise of some of my flatmates, no I don't. I think karma is more of a psychological thing than anything else. It makes a lot more sense to me than some supernatural force of justice governing the universe by influencing the actions of things and people.
The closest I come to karma is my possibly naive hope that if you do good things to others, others will want to to good things for you, and the same applies with negative actions.
Why are they theologically wrong? I think it would be wrong if such "Divine Law" were to change from generation to generation: that'd be a clear sign for a false god which would be born of our own desires. It is not us that is worshipped by God, but vice-versa, therefore we follow His rule and not the other way round.
So one says you can't work on Sundays, another says you can't be gay, and the third says you can't have a myopic priest. Now tell me, which one of the three are true, and which are not, and why you chose that?
Obviously all three are the word of god, and saying that only the 2nd is to be taken literally signifies some other moral intervention with the other two. Ironically, morals DO change from generation to generation, and "Divine Law" itself is subject to change from us lesser beings. :P
"Divine Law has never changed" I never said it did. It's just our interpretation over the ages has changed over the ages, hence our changing morals.
If you would speak to a southern slave owner in the 1800's, he would tell you his position is supported by the old testament since god obviously had no problem with slavery.
So what exactly determines what passages are meant to be taken literally or metaphorically? That was my initial question, do not misconstrue it.
-Is not fretting- x3 My question was irrelevant anyway.
The reason why they (or we) say Fundamentalists are right is because we have to put ourselves into context right? That's something that's always being thrown around: "put the Bible in the context it was written in!!!" Well, in that time, it was written to be taken literally in a lot of ways. So the Fundamentalists are at least consistent. I think that's what Atheists mean when they say that.
You claim that the Bible was meant to be taken literally in a lot of ways. If you knew Orthodox Jews, they'd clarify that lots of things in the Bible are figurative, metaphorical, etc. Take e.g. the stofy of Job. Many atheists use this as though it was meant to be taken literally, hasidic Jews read it is a story. I believe atheists like to take the protestant fundies' interpretation so that they may have *better* reasons to defy Christianity.
You misunderstand atheists who talk about the fundamentalists being right. Of course they don't mean what they are espousing is correct, just that with the tenets they are working from, they have reached the proper conclusion. I agree with this position. Mediocrity in religion makes no sense if their basic tenets are true. Obviously we know they are bullshit but with those assumptions in place, God handed down this text, we have the truth, etc. they are reacting correctly.
Exactly. I understand it perfectly, I just disagree. I think working with those tenants, fundamentalists are still wrong. It's their misunderstanding and philosophical ignorance of religion that leads them to that conclusion, because their understanding is simplistic and misses out on an awful lot.
Hmm... for your last question my answer would have been a general "uplifting feeling" brought about by religion, and I mean that in a purely emotional sense.
I think back my childhood, when I believed in Santa Claus. The fairy tale was grand and awesome, though at the cost of a deluded Christmas reality.
Carl Sagan puts it best: "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
I must also comment on how you seem to be very logical, and any conversations with you would become intelligent conversations and rather interesting in my own personal opinion.
LozziiTheIcePopsicle 8 months ago
I would like to say, that although I have not been watching your videos for very long, and I stumbled across on of your videos by chance, I think it is highly commendable that you have what you believe in and you stick with that. It should also be noted that you do, despite your own beliefs understand that everyone believes in different things and that is their own right and I think that is very rare to find now, I do not see you as arrogant personally.
LozziiTheIcePopsicle 8 months ago
ur really arrogant, but i like your talk btw ... :)
usaleb 2 years ago
"ur really arrogant"
Haha. Too damn right!
Clutchology 2 years ago
Ya but I like your conversations. You are really logical, I like Logical people... so Keep it up. If it takes you to be regarded as an arrogant, so be it, keep it up...
usaleb 2 years ago
Actually, it would be great if you could teach at a university, you know, literature of philosophy or etc. or being a doctor (doctors are logical artists! ) and write books. Good Luck.
usaleb 2 years ago
Here I was starting to like you and then you bring up Pragmatism. Wont hold it against you though.
TheHanzoMK1 3 years ago
I don't define myself as a pragmatist. I could never agree with a single philosophy enough to attach it to myself. For example, I think the pragmatist epistemology of truth is too simplistic and misses a few fundamental points.
That said, I do like a lot of pragmatist ideas like Ordinary Language Philosophy. And it is a general tendency of mine to prefer what works over what might be more emotionally satisfying. So if something is a pragmatic problem, it's going to be important to me.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Indeed, I can understand the allure of OLP but I see Pragmatism and OLP as far too limiting. I don't believe philosophy has found itself in a hole because it uses abstractions. My only beef with pragmatism other than its limiting attitude is that it does away with idealism. Without set ideals how could anyone achieve Xeno's dream? However, I do concede that other people and cultures reject forms such and beauty and truth. Assuming of course these people are real and not just phantoms.
TheHanzoMK1 3 years ago
Who Square?
BOX5500 3 years ago
So are you a nihilist, Clutch?
ABoffman 3 years ago
I don't like to define myself under such terms because I never fully agree with any of these 'brands of thought', but if I was forced into it I'd say I fall more under absurdism than nihilism.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Not to be insulting but dear brother, The devil has inflicted you with a speech impediment for your blaspheming mouth. Repent unto Jesus and ask forgiveness and he shall set you free! The kingdom of God awaits you.
GodHasAPlan4U 3 years ago
Not to be insulting, my friend, but that was one of the most amusing comments anyone has ever left on one of my videos. Congratulations!
Clutchology 3 years ago
REPENT I want to see you in heaven lol
GrowthSpiral 3 years ago
Sure it wasn't God that designed Clutchologys awesome accent? Must have left that out of his plans. Then again I sold my soul to Satan for a load of luck and good looks. Dont worry, this isn't the Mafia, I kept the receipt.
kff 3 years ago
I traded mine for a bowl of soup. It was good.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Chicken soup for a soul? Sounds like a good trade!
DemiImp 3 years ago
I traded mine for 50B Euros, got no reply, and figured out Satan doesn't exist except in stupid theist's minds.
isreasontaboo 3 years ago
Explains the high level of attraction I have. The UK, hehe
Anyways, I happen to find you to be one of the most intelligent people I have ever watched on youtube but I do have one question.
You don't believe in the supernatural but if faced with something that simply was supernatural (ie. a god or real magic) do you believe you would be able to accept it and incorporate it into your life and train of thought or would that be something you'd find difficult to do?
notfadeaway05 3 years ago
Adding on to that, there are some theories that do suggest the possibility that psychic "powers" such as telekinesis might be a possibility, while this isn't on the same level as supernatural what is your take on the possibility that the human mind just might be that powerful if unlocked?
notfadeaway05 3 years ago
I would take a lot of convincing, that's for sure. My trouble is, I would have no idea how such things would go about convincing me that they're real, because all the methods we have today don't seem capable of it. But I suppose if something really was supernatural it would be able to convince us somehow.
Clutchology 3 years ago
On telekinesis, I'm again very sceptical. I've seen experiments and theories which suggest it, but they're suspicious. I'm a theoretical thinker. Unless I'm given a plausible explanation as to how neurons firing in the brain can move something external to it without physical contact I will always be a doubter. Right now I just don't think such things are plausible.
Clutchology 3 years ago
You should keep your hair like that. Looks really good.
ginkiba3 3 years ago
This is a really random question, but do you believe in karma?
BirdieBabyy 3 years ago
To the despise of some of my flatmates, no I don't. I think karma is more of a psychological thing than anything else. It makes a lot more sense to me than some supernatural force of justice governing the universe by influencing the actions of things and people.
The closest I come to karma is my possibly naive hope that if you do good things to others, others will want to to good things for you, and the same applies with negative actions.
Clutchology 3 years ago
love your hat clutch :)
BethRN74 3 years ago
Our inability to be "perfectly moral" by divine standards does not mean that religion has to change in those regards.
Take e.g. Catholicism: dogmas never have changed, yet the Church teaches that noone can live without sin.
One does not exclude the other.
Agila1 3 years ago
Not necessarily, no, but I think they are theologically wrong to keep their moral philosophies stable like that.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Why are they theologically wrong? I think it would be wrong if such "Divine Law" were to change from generation to generation: that'd be a clear sign for a false god which would be born of our own desires. It is not us that is worshipped by God, but vice-versa, therefore we follow His rule and not the other way round.
Agila1 3 years ago
They are theologically wrong in the fact that they cherry-pick "moral" passages to follow. Let me show you an example:
Exodus 35:2 "Whoever does any work on this day [the Sabbath] should be put to death."
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 18:22 "A man with a defect in his sight... he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his god."
adeadlysniper 3 years ago
Sry to tell you, but that is an objection based on ignorance.
Eevr wondered why Jews do not stone anyone anymore??? And they are the ones bound to the Old Testament mitzvots...
Agila1 3 years ago
So one says you can't work on Sundays, another says you can't be gay, and the third says you can't have a myopic priest. Now tell me, which one of the three are true, and which are not, and why you chose that?
Obviously all three are the word of god, and saying that only the 2nd is to be taken literally signifies some other moral intervention with the other two. Ironically, morals DO change from generation to generation, and "Divine Law" itself is subject to change from us lesser beings. :P
adeadlysniper 3 years ago
Whenever people try to use the Old Testament, they forget two very important things: the Sanhedrin and the Temple.
Divine Law has never changed. Dogmas have never changed. Show me a single dogma that was changed in meaning or abolished. Can you?
Agila1 3 years ago
"Divine Law has never changed" I never said it did. It's just our interpretation over the ages has changed over the ages, hence our changing morals.
If you would speak to a southern slave owner in the 1800's, he would tell you his position is supported by the old testament since god obviously had no problem with slavery.
So what exactly determines what passages are meant to be taken literally or metaphorically? That was my initial question, do not misconstrue it.
adeadlysniper 3 years ago
It means the Church is the interpretative authority and not any guy who has no idea about theology :)
Agila1 3 years ago
-Just noticed something- Hahahaha! Brownie colored!!! xD Roflcopter.
MissenLineaire 3 years ago
-Is not fretting- x3 My question was irrelevant anyway.
The reason why they (or we) say Fundamentalists are right is because we have to put ourselves into context right? That's something that's always being thrown around: "put the Bible in the context it was written in!!!" Well, in that time, it was written to be taken literally in a lot of ways. So the Fundamentalists are at least consistent. I think that's what Atheists mean when they say that.
MissenLineaire 3 years ago
If you talk to Orthodox Jews, you'd find out that quite the opposite is the case.
Agila1 3 years ago
If you're not going to develop that further, it's very difficult for anyone to get anything out of it.
MissenLineaire 3 years ago
You claim that the Bible was meant to be taken literally in a lot of ways. If you knew Orthodox Jews, they'd clarify that lots of things in the Bible are figurative, metaphorical, etc. Take e.g. the stofy of Job. Many atheists use this as though it was meant to be taken literally, hasidic Jews read it is a story. I believe atheists like to take the protestant fundies' interpretation so that they may have *better* reasons to defy Christianity.
Agila1 3 years ago
I actually reject it because it's an explicitly violent horror story. ;) Filled with racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.
MissenLineaire 3 years ago
That comment is irrelevant to my objection to your false statement. :)
Agila1 3 years ago
That doesn't quite matter. =)
MissenLineaire 3 years ago
Interesting.
Chuloloc 3 years ago
You misunderstand atheists who talk about the fundamentalists being right. Of course they don't mean what they are espousing is correct, just that with the tenets they are working from, they have reached the proper conclusion. I agree with this position. Mediocrity in religion makes no sense if their basic tenets are true. Obviously we know they are bullshit but with those assumptions in place, God handed down this text, we have the truth, etc. they are reacting correctly.
Archaneus 3 years ago
Exactly. I understand it perfectly, I just disagree. I think working with those tenants, fundamentalists are still wrong. It's their misunderstanding and philosophical ignorance of religion that leads them to that conclusion, because their understanding is simplistic and misses out on an awful lot.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Hmm... for your last question my answer would have been a general "uplifting feeling" brought about by religion, and I mean that in a purely emotional sense.
I think back my childhood, when I believed in Santa Claus. The fairy tale was grand and awesome, though at the cost of a deluded Christmas reality.
Carl Sagan puts it best: "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
adeadlysniper 3 years ago
You are probably right. I never felt that 'uplifting' feeling, though, so I can't really talk about it.
Clutchology 3 years ago
You are Awesome!!
TheRightDecision 3 years ago