Studies show that atheists (at least, in America) know more about religion than any other group. Jews come in a very close 2nd (which makes sense, as half of American Jews are atheists), and Mormons in a close 3rd. It probably has to do something with being minorities.
If Mystic self-creation is all the rage quite Naturally among human selves then it makes sense to expect it Universally. No need for any personality (atheistic). Nature is the Oracle of Truth, and as with all oracles always gives true but sometimes misleading answers. And that's all there is, that which nothing greater can exist: pantheism.
I can judge god better than any believer because when i read and hear about him/her/it/them i don't wear the pink glasses on that make me ignore shit that they do.
Atheist or any human knowledge of an infinite God is akin to the child in the backyard rather than the child flying all over the universe. It is illogical and a bit arrogant for atheists to make a "I don't believe" claim.
@randplaty The default position is not to believe something. If you were never told about Santa Claus, you wouldn't believe in Santa Claus. You certainly wouldn't be neutral on it. Disbelief is not what needs rational justification, belief is. The "I don't believe" claim is simply a reaction to those who claim their belief is justified. Are you going to tell me that saying you don't believe in Santa Claus is illogical and arrogant?
If I was never told of Santa Claus and someone asked me if I believed in Santa Claus, I would say "What is Santa Claus?" I would not say if I believed or disbelieved Santa Claus. If the concept of Santa Claus were explained to me, I would make a belief statement base on what I know of the world. "I don't think he exists. Probably not. Doesn't seem likely." It's a probabilistic statement. The problem with making any probabilistic statement about God is that God infinite.
@randplaty This is just silly, because you're allowing people to affect your better judgment based on how they define an already incoherent concept. If someone told you Santa Claus is able to defy the laws of time and space because he's a supernatural being, would you then refrain from "probabilistic statements"? Think about what people are really saying when they claim god is infinite and supernatural. They're saying god is not natural and not bound by time. But why even think that's possible?
(cont'd) As a metaphysical naturalist, I don't find any reason to believe there is a supernatural realm, and I am skeptical of an infinite being too. You also seem to either be ignoring or rejecting the idea that the supernatural may occasionally cross over into our realm. Would that not yield some form of evidence or serve as a basis to reason about the existence of the supernatural? If you think the two are mutually separate, that's another issue.
Why think that the supernatural and infinite is not possible? Logically it is possible. Supernatural is of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
The supernatural is merely what is unexplainable by humans. Lots of things were unexplainable by humans in the past and lots of things are currently unexplainable. So clearly the supernatural exists. It's just, how much do you think exists outside human explanation?
@randplaty "So clearly the supernatural exists. It's just, how much do you think exists outside human explanation?" - Thank you, this has sealed my point better than you know. If you acknowledge the past failures of supernatural explanations, you note that natural explanations have supplanted supernatural ones in dozens of cases, and you see that supernatural is often defined simple as what we don't understand, then why suppose it exists at all outside of human imagination?
Because we don't understand a lot of things. Do you acknowledge that there are things that are beyond your explanation? Then you acknowledge that supernatural exists.
@randplaty I literally laughed out loud when I read this comment. You've truly brought our discussion to a new low with this. While I do acknowledge that there are things beyond my explanation, it does not at all follow that the supernatural exists. For starters, what I don't understand, someone else may. Secondly, what none of us understand at the moment may eventually be explained naturally, as history has frequently shown. Third, defining "supernatural" as the unexplained doesn't make it so.
"Do you acknowledge that there are things that are beyond your explanation?"
Things beyond known facts are just that they are unknown, they don't become supernatural. Arguments for the supernatural are merely arguments from ignorance for phenomenon that aren't understood by the person or by scientific means. If you don't know, just be honest and say you don't know rather than being dishonest and making stuff up.
Sorry, but if "supernatural is merely what is unexplainable by humans" then exactly how memories are stored is supernatural, dark matter and dark energy are supernatural, why matter has mass is supernatural...I don't think anyone would actually qualify this as supernatural. The supernatural tends to be the arguments from ignorance that people put in an attempt to explain phenomenon they don't understand, not a description of something that actually exists.
With Santa Claus I can think about all the people who have explored the North Pole and the fact that they have never reported a Santa Claus. With God, there is nobody who has ever explored the outer reaches of the universe. There is nobody who has travelled between dimensions, nobody who has travelled through time, nobody who has dived into a black hole. So there is no point in making any probabilistic statement about God. And again, any belief statement is based on probability.
@randplaty This is not how rational standards of reason and evidence work though. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. If we were expected to explore every square inch of space and somehow survey the imaginary supernatural realm that some conceive of in order to disbelieve in something, then we would have to accept every trivial piece of garbage anyone concocts in their head. But, like I said before, belief has no neutral ground. You are an atheist in denial.
God's realm is the the infinite. Nobody has been there. Nobody has even come close to approaching the infinite. It is impossible for any finite human being to even grasp such a thing. Therefore no human has the ability to make a probabilistic belief statement for or against the existence of God.
@randplaty Do you not understand that you're presuming the reality of a god in saying such things? Even if there is an infinite, something perhaps outside of our universe's space-time, it does not mean that god resides there, despite how theists have striven to define god.
Let me put it this way: if you think an infinite and supernatural god interacted with our universe, even by the act of creation, would it not leave some residual effects of one sort or another?
There doesn't have to be a god outside of our space time, but there could be. If it actually was that God created the universe, assuming that he would leave residual effects that we could observe is pure arrogance. Perhaps he would, more likely he wouldn't unless he intentionally revealed himself.
If I set up a bacteria culture and the bacteria grew. Would the bacteria ever be able to ascertain the fact that I "created" the universe of the bacteria? Of course not.
@randplaty How is it "pure arrogance" to think that the act of creation or divine intervention might leave some after effects? Bacteria can't ascertain anything, neither is your example comparable to creating from nothing, but I like where you're going with this. If a god creates us and intervenes, while intentionally leaving behind no traces of its involvement, then what sets this wild theory apart from human imagination intended to explain the unexplainable? If any old idea will do...
And the universe could have been created 5 seconds ago with everything only looking like it's old, what matters is what good reason to we have to believe a given claim.
There's a big difference between what "could be" and what there's evidence for which is the whole point.
So the difference between "I don't know if ___ exists" and "I don't believe _____ exists" is the probabilistic claim based on how much evidence has been gathered. Neither claims to have absolute knowledge or definitive proof but one purports to have more knowledge than the other.
He can now logically claim "I don't believe aliens exist" because he has experienced enough of the world/universe to make some sort of probabilistic claim. It is not enough that he can disprove aliens, but he has enough knowledge at this point to disbelieve aliens.
@randplaty Lol, I don't think we actually disagree on much then. I do say "I don't believe in god", I've never claimed to know that god doesn't exist. The analogous thing to searching the known universe for aliens would be evaluating the claims and arguments for god's existence. If those are seen to be baseless, do you agree that it's justifiable to say "I don't believe in god"?
Now, lets say this child gained the power to fly throughout the universe. He's flown now to billions of planets and has covered half of the universe. He returns to his mother, not having found any aliens and says, aliens do not exist. Again, he doesn't have the evidence to substantiate this claim because while he has explored much of the universe, there is still half the universe left to explore. A better statement would be "I don't believe aliens exist."
You've heard of Cogito ergo sum right? I think therefore I am? That's a logical argument for ones own existence without the use of evidence or support. It's a purely logical or rational argument.
@randplaty Of course I know this, but you still seem unable to justify why atheism is logically untenable. I've explained to you in a few other comments that atheism is not dependent on arguments based on empirical evidence, and I've additionally explained that agnosticism is not the neutral ground you think it is. The human mind cannot accept beliefs it considers false, so because we have to have some reason for thinking a belief is true in order to hold it, atheism is logically tenable.
Yeah sorry. I missed comments where you wrote that atheism is not based on empirical evidence alone. Of course the human mind cannot accept beliefs it considers false, but I am simply stating that you should not consider it false. Of course you need a reason for thinking a belief is true in order to hold it, but you can still refrain from holding belief at all. Why can you not refrain from belief or disbelief?
@randplaty I'm startled at your lack of understanding here. If you refrain from holding a belief, are you not disbelieving? There is no middle ground between belief and unbelief. Either you believe something or you do not. Even if you refrain from belief, you obviously are not believing, and are therefore an unbeliever, disbeliever, etc.
A child says that he will find out whether or not aliens exist by searching his backyard for alien footprints. Upon finding no alien footprints, he confidently declares that aliens do not exist. How does the child know that aliens have feet? Or walk? Or why would aliens go into his backyard, or have even landed on earth or even come through our solar system? The child is making many assumptions that he cannot make. The proper conclusion should be "I don't know if aliens exist."
@randplaty Once again you are approaching this from an inaccurate understanding of the difference between atheism and agnosticism. I have known few atheists who declare that god absolutely does not exist, beyond any shadow of doubt. An agnostic atheist, as I've already said, IS one who says "I don't know if god exists," BUT this need not mean one has to somehow remain neutral in belief. Like I said, there is no neutral ground between belief and disbelief, only in knowledge.
Well see that's our fundamental disagreement at this point. Perhaps we agree on everything else. There is neutral ground between belief and unbelief. Belief and unbelief is defined by common usage of the word and in common everyday life, there is a spectrum of belief. This spectrum of belief is based on probabilities/conjecture/prediction/logical reasoning. If there were only belief and unbelief, nobody could say "I think I believe." Nobody could say "I believe somewhat."
Nobody could say "I don't think I believe." Nobody could say "I absolutely do not believe." Nobody could say "I might be able to believe that." Yet those phrases are all commonly used indicating that belief is not binary. There is not just belief and disbelief.
@randplaty Perhaps you need to brush up on your epistemology. Common phrases are no argument for a non-binary nature of belief, they're merely evidence of the complexity of human language, and we often times twist statements without realizing it. What would it mean psychologically for someone to THINK they believe? Is there some state of half-believing and half-disbelieving? Of course not. We simply use such expressions to show caveats about knowledge in our beliefs.
@randplaty - While true, there is no evidentiary support for the assumption that thought implies existence. That is taken as an axiomatic premise in order to make the logical argument. Yet if there is no basis for the assumption, it makes no difference how airtight the logical argument is that flows from it - if the assumptions are flawed or baseless, so is the argument.
I don't provide evidential or "support" based arguments because I don't believe evidence has ANY bearing on God. I've already explained this. You don't understand that? The entire finite evidence about an infinite being argument? Atheism by definition is illogical based on a rational or logical argument. You know you can make reason based arguments without evidence right? That's the entire rationalism vs empiricism argument in classic philosophy.
@randplaty I guess you missed the comment where I said "If reason and evidence do not support a belief, it's irrational to accept it, and nonsense to be 'neutral.'" I agree that, in general, there would not be natural and finite evidence of an infinite and supernatural being, but once again you're missing the fact that atheists criticize the views and arguments put forward by theists. It is these theists (i.e. creationists) who drag god into the realm of evidence and the natural world.
Yes I actually did miss that comment. Let me address it here. Why is it nonsense to be neutral? This is the default mode of rational human beings.... knowing the limit of ones own intelligence. If two candidates are running for office and I know nothing about either of them, my default mode of operation would be to be neutral. Can you tell me why you think it's nonsense to be neutral? Are you referring to Russell's teapot argument?
@randplaty In your analogy, let's incorporate the element of belief. Knowing nothing about either candidate, would you say that you believe in either of them? You could, though you may not be sure. Or you could say you believe in neither of them, because you're not sure. What you can't say is "I don't know if I believe or not." That is what is nonsense, because we don't choose what we believe or don't believe. We believe what we think is true, we don't believe what we think is false.
now of course atheism has a broad definition and a more narrow definition, but honestly, people who make videos calling others to question the existence of God falls under the active disbelief definition rather than a passive disbelief definition. What does that leave us with? These videos are logically untenable.
@randplaty You've still made no case whatsoever for why atheism, under any definition, is logically untenable. You've neglected to provide examples once already - so I ask again, are you here to actually dialogue or just to whine and complain about what you disagree with?
Perhaps I haven't stated it clearly so I will state it again. We have no evidential OR logical support for OR against the existence of God. We cannot have any such support because both evidence AND human logic is finite and this God is supposedly infinite. Therefore because there is no sound evidence or reasoning toward either end, we ought to remain neutral.
@randplaty When it comes to the knowledge of god's existence or non-existence, I AM neutral. I've said this I don't know how many times now. But it does not mean I should have no opinion, nor should it mean that my opinion cannot be justified based on reason or evidence. When all the definitions of god are shown to have no evidential support and often have flawed reasoning, why abstain from recognizing the fact that you don't believe?
"When we lack evidence for something, like fairies, do we remain 'neutral,' or do we not believe?"
We remain neutral. Of course we remain neutral!
Now if you have an unsupported worldview such as Christianity or Atheism, you would make judgments on whether or not fairies exist. Christians will say they don't exist because the bible or God does not talk about them. Atheists will assume they don't exist because they don't believe in the supernatural. I will remain neutral.
@randplaty "We remain neutral. Of course we remain neutral!"
And what if there is persuasive evidence that something probably is not real? Are you still going to remain neutral, unless there's absolutely convincing proof? You're very quick to assume why atheists reject the notion of fairies, but not believing in the supernatural has nothing to do with it. Could fairies not be natural phenomena? It's the evidence that matters, and when there is none, disbelief is perfectly rational.
If there is persuasive evidence that something is not real, then of course, don't believe it. But persuasive evidence of an infinite supernatural being not existing? That's logically untenable. Any evidence that you can gather is necessarily natural and finite. Evidence that is natural and finite cannot possibly make any claim whatsoever on a hypothetically infinite and supernatural being.
@randplaty In some statements I use evidence to mean reason, not empirical evidence. Is reason not a form of evidence? Deductive and inductive arguments can provide persuasive evidence against an infinite and supernatural being, especially if some of that being's attributes are contradictory and thus logically impossible (i.e. a being that is both perfectly just and perfectly merciful). Arguments are weighed according to their individual merit. I don't, and can't, debunk all god claims at once.
Atheists have an overly simplistic view of God, as illustrated by your "Do You Know Your Bible" series. Atheists also seem to have something against a Christian God which propels them all the way to atheism, which is strange. Forget Christianity. Don't believe in Christianity, that's fine with me. But don't use the faults of Christianity to completely discount the existence of God.
@randplaty "Atheists have an overly simplistic view of God, as illustrated by your 'Do You Know Your Bible' series." - By all means, feel free to offer some support for this assertion. You wouldn't want to look like you're just complaining out of pure emotional reaction, would you?
"But don't use the faults of Christianity to completely discount the existence of God." - Who's ever said that they do this? There are many reasons not to believe in god apart from the faults of Christianity.
These arguments have been hashed over a billion times before and nobody is going to get anywhere with them. Just know that deists and theists think that your concept of God is extremely simplistic. If God existed, he would act this way. He doesn't act this way, therefore he doesn't exist. That is so simplistic it could qualify as strawman.
@randplaty No, what's simplistic is your poor characterization of the arguments against god. How would you propose someone make a case against an idea that varies from person to person? I've always said that I think it's entirely possible that a god of some sort exists, yet there are specific gods that are logically impossible, because of how they're defined. You act as if we make up some idea of god unique to atheists, but we don't. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's a strawman.
It is similar to a child looking for the footprints of aliens. Upon not finding any footprints, he concludes that aliens do not exist. How do you even know that aliens have footprints?
Merely because Christians make judgements about God all the time does not necessarily give them the right to do so either. They could be completely wrong about God, but he could still exist. Agnosticism is logically tenable, but atheism is completely illogical.
@randplaty "They could be completely wrong about God, but he could still exist." - Let me make this clear: I don't consider my response to be a refutation of god's existence. It's merely a response to a common theistic assertion, that god should not be judged. It's focus is on hypocrisy, as I stated.
"Agnosticism is logically tenable, but atheism is completely illogical." - Define both, please. When we lack evidence for something, like fairies, do we remain 'neutral,' or do we not believe?
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
dictionary definition of atheist:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
@randplaty I was really hoping for your own definition, but I'll assume these examples are consistent with your views. In these definitions, we can see the real difference between atheism and agnosticism. You, like many, incorrectly assume agnosticism is a neutral position between theism and atheism. Agnosticism deals with the knowledge about god, while atheism deals with belief about god. An agnostic atheist, like myself, does not claim to KNOW if god exists or not, and also does not believe.
(cont'd) By the same token, there are agnostic theists, who believe in god but do not know for sure, and there are gnostic atheists who don't believe and claim to know for certain that god does not exist. Is it rational to not believe in something when you don't know for sure if it's real or not? I'd rather ask how it would be rational to believe! If reason and evidence do not support a belief, it's irrational to accept it, and nonsense to be "neutral." You either believe or you don't believe.
Your second and third criticisms are valid, however the first criticism is naive. You must presume a hypothetical existence of God in order to determine whether or not he exists. You must assume certain characteristics of God in order to test whether or not he actually exists. The problem that the theist has with an atheist constructing this experiment is that the atheist consistently makes false assumptions about God's character.
@randplaty I don't think you understand that the atheist is fully aware of the possibility that he/she may be depicting a god that certain theists don't believe in. With the varieties of god-belief out there, it would be impossible to accurately describe every theist's conception of god at once in one argument. BUT the problem the atheist has with the theist is that you make these sorts of comments without supporting your accusation. How exactly is my experiment built on false assumptions?
I love the fact that many christians believe that their god litterally wrote the bible... sure. An omnipotent, omniscient being got a bunch of random people to write sometimes conflicting stories about him back in the days when very few people could actually read them, knowing (due to omniscience) that these stories would be falsified later, and the random anonymous writers (some 100+ years after the death of Christ) would be impossible to verify.
One can never prove the existence of God like nobody will ever be able to prove that Love, Beauty, and Truth exist. These are simple words/symbols that describe the indescribable. In other words, you "know" these "things" when you see them/feel them/ect, but as soon as you try to put an experience of love or beauty into words, one will inevitably fail because of the transcendent nature into which one is experiencing. For theists, God is "experienced"/"known" in much the same way.
@dukem24 'love' is the sum of all biochemical and bioelectrical processes that happen in our body, specially our brain, so it is quantifiable, and yes it exists. 'beauty' is just a perceptual experience of pleasure, so beauty does not 'exist', it is just a label you put on the things you can perceive joy and satisfaction from.'truth' is a value for a true statement, so it is does not 'exist', it's just a label we put on a true statement. I don't understand how you relate God with any of these
@raminsh1 Defining love and beauty as you did will never get you laid my friend. Do you talk that way to someone you're in love with? There are many definitions of love (like your above example, or a poet's and/or musician's example, ect). This just shows the empirical nature of love/beauty/truth. There are many ways to look at it. Also, I'm not arguing for or against a god-this is a non imperative argument. I'm just saying truth/beauty/love language is where "God-talk" tends to hang out.
@dukem24 I see your point. well, I mean 'love' is not just a concept, but something that can be defined with its physical properties -like any of our feelings, but of course that is not the only way of defining it. I agree with you that 'feeling God' and 'love' are similar as in they are both feelings... and we can actually love someone who doesn't exist.
@dukem24 Obviously you haven't met some of the girls I have. Love is a biochemical and bioelectrical process, and my acceptance of that has never interfered with me getting laid. To understand that love is a natural, non-mysterious process does not mean we can't also appreciate it at an emotional, inter-personal level. Your response here is really quite irrelevant and silly when you think about it, and it would be equally unlikely to get you laid if you equated love with sex to many women.
@TaylorX04 The love = laid comment was simply a joke, and to prove my point that when talking about love, there is often more there than meets the eye. It is why so many times, love is described with metaphor.
@dukem24 Love and beauty are concepts that describe feelings, and to speak of them as a thing in itself - outside the realm of human experience - would be meaningless. If your god is a feeling that is known to exist only in your mind, then I'll accept this analogy. However, I would argue that you abuse the concept of truth in how you use it here. Truth is not a feeling or experience, but it is a way of labeling what corresponds to known reality (versus what does not).
@TaylorX04 Forgive me if I am suggesting love/beauty/truth are "things." For me to suggest this is to say that for me (as subject) to experience love (as object) is only one side of the story. For when one is in love, the subject and object cease to exist and all that there is...is. I believe your definition of truth is partially correct, but am still hesitant about only saying truth "corresponds to known reality." Thanks for the debate.
@dukem24 lol ur suggesting that atheists can't feel 'spiritual' or euphoric in the same way a theist can. The assertion itself is absurd. I was a theist back in the day and I felt this euphoria you speak of. Then I grew up and researched the claims in the bible and the claims made by my priests. I found my beliefs weren't justified. Now as an atheist, I feel more than I ever could have as a theist. Sry to say but the closed minded traits of the 'cult' literally close off the mind
@tamu77095 I never suggested this. I'm sorry if you read my comment(s) that way. Feeling euphoric is a natural human experience - for theists and non-theists alike. I've added a couple other responses above that may clarify my thoughts. Thanks for the post.
Creationist are unable to prove that Yahweh is real. According to Hebrew mythology Yahweh Sabaoth was a warrior god from Edom/ Seir/ Paran. He used to fly around on the backs of cherubs and blow smoke out his nostrils. Yahweh is a myth. I just disprove god.
Whenever I get asked "Who are you to judge god?" I always answer "Who are you to justify him?" xD For me it's a hypothetical, for them it's a real problem.
You shouldn't be surprised that Christians hate what you say in your videos Taylor, you are clearly VERY well read on theology and have spent time analysing scripture with a critical eye in quite some detail. The Bible may be the biggest selling book in history but that doesn't make it the most read. I often quote the nasty parts to Christians and I get a reply's of denial, misquote, misunderstanding, metaphoric and any other excuse to distance Christians from those passages.
>>You shouldn't be surprised that Christians hate what you say in your videos
Some may. There are as many idiot Christians as there are idiot "anything elses." (Even the idiot atheists - as distinct from the intelligent, informed atheists.)
My reaction to this video is that beating up on the arguments from the idiot Christians has little to do with whether a god exists or not.
@paradigm918 "My reaction to this video is that beating up on the arguments from the idiot Christians has little to do with whether a god exists or not." - Great, because the video is not about that anyway. It's about addressing the arguments "from the idiot Christians", as you put it. I now declare you the strawman king. Congrats.
The problem with ALL religious belief is they start with the false assumption that their religion is true even though in most cases it has been empirically proved to be false. Faith is believing in something without evidence. Personally I prefer reality and empirical truth over faith and what some people ''believe'' to be true.
Maybe not. Maybe it's what I'm saying. Maybe it's in the way you are reading.
I thought this question sort of made sense: "Have you ever studied the history of science or the philosophy of science?"
And I thought my comment made some sense, too: "The history of science is littered with ideas that people not only believed to be true, but had proven by the scientific process itself."
>>And that is a virtue of science - self-correction in the face of new facts and new evidence.
Indeed it is a virtue of science - but you don't feel just a tiny bit antsy declaring "Science gives us the only truth, and that truth will be different some day?"
>>"The Tyranny of Evidence: Do Scientists Use Dogma?",
Pretty good video and the idiots who argue "atheism is a religion" drive me wild!
I agree with most of what he says, but suggest he trips himself up when he says "if no better explanation can be supported." Think about that concept of "better explanation." Prove "better" as a scientific fact." Prove Occam's Razor.
Is the heliocentric construct an incontrovertible fact? Or just more convenient, math-wise?
@paradigm918 "Is the heliocentric construct an incontrovertible fact? Or just more convenient, math-wise?"
Wow. Next thing you know you'll be asking, "was the Holocaust really an incontrovertible fact, or just more of a convenient moral fable?" Remember when I asked how you differentiate between truth claims? Now would be a fantastic time to answer.
Some atheist are born into it. The same thing with religion. Those people usually don't question it because they were though to believe it (or don't believe it if you're an atheist), however their are some people who question it and change their views.
ROAR - tough to say which group is sadder, the Biblical fundamentalists, who argue that the bible is the only truth, or the fact fundamentalist, who argue that science is the only truth.
@paradigm918 YAWN - you're making a strawman fallacy in assuming I believe science is the only truth. I believe reason is the only reliable method of ascertaining the truth, and science is an extension of reason. I also have to laugh at your label "fact fundamentalist." Does it really make one a fundamentalist to accept reality as it is, without inventing additional things that have no evidence of being real? You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts!
>>you're making a strawman fallacy in assuming I believe science is the only truth. I believe reason is the only reliable method of ascertaining the truth, and science is an extension of reason.
@paradigm918 "A distinction without a difference" - Is it? If you say that you believe god is the only truth and that love is a part of god, would it be correct for me to presume that you think love is the only truth? Not at all, because there is a distinction and science is not the same thing as reason, nor is love the same thing as god.
@paradigm918 And I will suggest you brush up on epistemology, since you appear to have no concern with how we can know, or don't know, things. This importantly precedes ontology, because making claims about the nature of existence is fruitless if one is not justified in the claims they make.
@paradigm918 "As it is, or as far as you yourself can see it?" - Facts are verifiable, and reality is the word that we give to the conglomeration of facts about our universe. It has nothing to do with how I see it, nor would your insistence that reality also includes elements of the supernatural challenge my concept of reality unless your claims are supported by verifiable fact.
As for your second question, the experience can be real, but it does not mean the interpretation is correct.
@paradigm918 I'm starting to see that you clearly have your own axe to grind that you are apparently in denial of too. Obviously you wish to paint anyone who is skeptical of supernatural claims as a "fact fundamentalist." In this way, you are just as bad as religious believers who do the very same thing. Ontology is the study of being, and unfortunately for you, speculating over what you think may exist is not any reason to think it does exist. You should study epistemology.
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts!
Excellent point. So you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Pretty strange for a "science is an extension of reason" sort of guy.
BTW, modern science has pretty much done away with the "man is a logical being" idea. And that science is an extension of reason itself! Google Lakoff and "enlightenment reasoning "
>>sorry to drop on your argument but who would be a fact fundamentalist? How would they behave, as opposed to a non-fundie?
Drop ins welcome! I love intelligent conversations.
Someone is a 'fact fundamentalist' if s/he believes that "if a statement isn't scientifically or historically accurate, it isn't true." .See, Huston Smith, "Jesus and the World's Religions" in "Jesus at 2000" pp 116-17
E.g, a fact fundamentalist says "there can't be truth in a poetic metaphor."
Not sure anyone *could* fall under your definition of fact fundamentalist:
People who do not believe disproved claims (like "Earth is flat") are not fundies, just sane.
People who believe only the proven are ignorant of the *fact* that *nothing* could ever be scientifically proven. Ignorant of X is the opposite of X-fundamentalist.
Poetic and accurate are not mutually exclusive. People ignorant of this *fact* can't be *fact* fundies.
@akylae101 Well said. He does seem to have this delusion that someone who accepts reason as the only reliable method of differentiating between truth claims somehow dismisses the insights of poetry, religion, metaphor, etc. But in fact everything paradigm has said here has made use of reason, even when it comes to his attempts to show that reason/science aren't all there is. He can't see this, so it's no wonder he can't see that his "fact fundamentalists" exist only in his strawman-infested mind
From what I could tell, Paradigm seems to think there exist people who don't have opinions outside of current scientific consensus; don't see art and metaphor as a means of expression; and don't use intuition, imagination or emotion as a source of ideas. Never met or heard of a person like that.
@paradigm918 "So you don't believe in quantum mechanics." - How on earth are you pulling this from my statement? Opinions can be formed around facts, and some opinions can be right while they are not yet supported by facts. The time to believe a proposition is when the evidence supports it. Quantum mechanics is currently the best explanation we have for the behavior of subatomic particles.
I've never said man is inherently logical. Another strawman.
After ontology, you might want to brush up on quantum physics. For someone proclaiming an absolute truth that scientific facts are all there is, you don't seem to know a lot about science or definitions of truth.
@paradigm918 This is about the fifth strawman fallacy you've made now, which I suppose is not all that surprising for someone who has a poor understanding and appreciation of reason. I have never proclaimed any absolute truth about scientific facts being all there is. At most, I've said that reason is currently our best reliable means for determining truth. There may be other methods out there, but the ones proposed thus far have not held up to scrutiny.
(cont'd) I would also like to point out that all of your beliefs depend on reason. Since we can only believe what we think to be true, it follows that you must have some basis for thinking that your beliefs are true. The way that you form that basis is through reason - by making arguments, collecting evidence, and so on. Even your belief that fact fundamentalists are wrong is argued from reason! You've tried to show me that science and reason are not all there is, and you've done so with reason.
(cont'd 2) Of course, that reason you use is flawed, but it is an attempted use of reason nonetheless, and does show your own inability to support your case any other way.
@paradigm918 You might want to start asking questions in the future to avoid these continuous strawmen. I don't think fact fundamentalists exist in the way you define them, or if they do, they're an extreme minority. I don't hold the position that the facts observed by science and reason are "all there is." I believe that they reveal what is and that anything further proposed as part of reality should be demonstrable in some method that can be proven reliable.
>>I believe that they reveal what is and that anything further proposed as part of reality should be demonstrable in some method that can be proven reliable.
Excellent definition of fact fundamentalism. Thank you!
@paradigm918 It's sad to me that you don't grasp the absurdity of what you're saying. Do you believe there are truths that cannot be demonstrated? Shall we just accept whatever feels right, if there's no way of separating fact from fiction, according to you?
>>Shall we just accept whatever feels right, if there's no way of separating fact from fiction...
Again, may I suggest you study up on ontology. These issues are beginner ontological issues. Unless you know about the field, you don't know what you don't know.
The idea that there is only "fact" and "fiction" is one of those baby ontological questions
You are doing a much better job of showing the state of factual fundamentalism than I am of describing it.
@paradigm918 You keep referring me to ontology without actually explaining anything, so I am a little suspect that you don't know what you're talking about. I have looked at ontology before, but it's a big field of study, there are competing ideas, and you're doing a piss poor job of showing where and how I'm wrong. I understand that truth has more grey areas than a distinction between fact and fiction indicates, but I was using a common phrase to ask how you differentiate between truth claims.
@TaylorX04 >>I have looked at ontology before, but it's a big field of study, there are competing ideas,
Bingo! Now you're getting it! Sort of. Competing ideas as to the nature of being, existence and reality.
>>and you're doing a piss poor job of showing where and how I'm wrong.
Maybe I am. I've got to say, though, I feel like the guy who keeps pointing at the color patch saying "Red, that's red!" while the colorblind guys says "Huh? What are you talking about. I don't see anything!"
(cont'd) Reason is currently the only reliable method known for making any argument, and you are employing it here in discussion with me, which shows your own predisposition to its importance. Science is currently the best and most reliable method for determining the function and nature of things in the natural world. What other methods of ascertaining truth would you suggest? Supernatural explanations have a long history of being supplanted by reason and science, but never vice-versa.
Something wrong with caring about whether or not something is true? It's true, ignorance is bliss. If you prioritize feeling whatever you want above reason and evidence, then go on believing in whatever makes you feel good, but if you'll become a pervasive element in others' lives, lest you poison the minds of the gullible -be prepared to fight in the arena of consensuses to defend your position... but don't forget, the "fact fundamentalists" have facts on their side.
>>Something wrong with caring about whether or not something is true?
I think the difference between us lies not in caring about "whether something is true," (I suspect we have equal value for truth) the difference is between our ontologies - our understanding of what truth is, what truth is comprised of, and how one arrives at one's understanding of truth
>>but don't forget, the "fact fundamentalists" have facts on their side.
Absolutely. But when they think scientific "facts" are the only things which matter, they are no different than the religious fundamentalists who think their particular scripture is the only thing which matters.
For me, there are the truths of science, as well as the truths of religion and of metaphor. There can be truth in poetry.
My life is richer believing in a reality wider than "scientific facts" only
@paradigm918 "For me, there are the truths of science, as well as the truths of religion and of metaphor. There can be truth in poetry." - This supports my statement earlier that I doubt fact fundamentalists exist in the way you define them. I too believe there is truth and insight to be gained from poetry, religion, and metaphor. I've never said otherwise. These truths are, however, accessible by reason. You just really don't seem to get it.
Truth is independent from science, religion and metaphor. The word you are looking for, is "belief". Pretty much everyone that's not STRICTLY agnostic will consider their beliefs to be "true" and happily replace the world "believe" with "know". But you need to understand that knowing is only when your "belief" is "true"... our reality is shared, you're only going to be right if you're using a novel definition of "truth", or you're convinced the world is idealistic (vs realistic).
Interestingly, just going by statistics you can show that at least most of the time people within a religion have a less accurate view of the accuracy of their religion than those outside that religion.
This follows directly from the number of religions in the world, and the fact that they can't all be correct.
The point "why I care about religion" in your video surpised me a little. It's exactly how I think and why I care, eg learn, about religion. It's good to know others have similiar concerns about religion. I have to keep your words in mind, when I'm asked the next time "why do you care? You don't believe anway". You put it in a nutshell elegantly phrased.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
God can do what He wants and the real Christian understanding of this is that we are all sinners and deserve death. The fact that we breathe is common grace from God. God can choose to bring death anytime and any way He wants because we have all transgressed His law and because God is perfect He can not tolerate imperfection. By receiving Christ we are viewed as righteous and when God looks at the believer He sees Christ and not our sin, Even though we still may sin.
@whinda4702 These are some hefty charges. But if god created us, knowing that we would be imperfect, isn't that a tacit acceptance of imperfection? And what kind of a loving god would punish us all with death for sin, which he defined simply as disobedience? Death won't correct sin, so what sort of lesson is god teaching us? He's the big bad creator, so he can bully his creations how he wants? I don't think Christians really understand, though you often claim to.
@TaylorX04 Well said...I asked a muslim about the whole 'why did god create imperfection?' thing and got the ol' 'he's testing you' BS...and so I asked him if he were to make a product to sell, would he knowingly make it with major defects or would he make it to the best of his ability, and he danced around the question like a stripper on a pole!! It must be so hard to be a theist, having to rationalize so many inconsistencies within their beliefs with reality...
@whinda4702 Ummm ... God would then be a cruel dickhead, not an omnipotent, omnicient omwhatever being. Also, he is demented, or likes exceptions in that case. Also .. what makes the unbeliever that has lived a 'good' life worse then the mass murderer that repented ? You dont make sense .. at all.
@whinda4702 you are brainwashed and deluded beyond belief, seek medical help. So...you thought you were born a horrible sinner as an infant because some "woman" was seduced to eat a piece of fruit than she didn't know any better than to eat?! Really, the crime hardly justifies the punishment. And your worship of an unknown being sickens me, to be perfectly honest.
@whinda4702 who are you to call god perfect? if you by your own admittance are imperfect than couldnt your idea of perfection be, by definition, imperfect? yes, if god is real and all-powerful than he could do what he wants, but just because he has the ability doesnt make it right. im willing to bet if i quote something allah did in the quran such as killing people for disobedience you would say allah is wrong even though the same reason you say your god is correct in his actions......
cont... is the exact same reason allah would (by your own admission) himself be correct. just allowing us to breathe is "common grace" from god? what about when children are born dead before they ever get to take their first breathe?
If God is perfect, then why is the Bible so full of mistakes, given that God (in the form of the Holy Spirit imbued into the writers and translators) wrote the book and God is perfect ? If you are a Christian you think that God can see the future, as God can grant the gift of prophecy to believers, so if he knows everything, can do anything , and is truly benevolent, why can't he write a single text that is unambiguous and correct in every detail ?
@whinda4702 Flizrm can do what He wants and the real understanding of this is that we are all sinners and deserve death. The fact that we breathe is common grace from Flizrm. Flizrm can choose to bring death anytime and any way He wants because we have all transgressed His law and because Flizrm is perfect. By receiving Flizrm we are viewed as righteous and when Flizrm looks at the believer He sees Flizrm and not our sin, Even though we still may sin.
@whinda4702 There is something wrong with you if you truely believe that everyone "deserves" death for silly things. If humans behaved like this we would execute our children for talking back, our poor for stealing food, and everyone who has lusted in their minds. It is a sick notion that we have to strive to be perfect while simultaniously made to not be able to be perfect. Hold god to his own standard, he says don't murder and he murders.
I've been a subscriber for quite some time - so i don't want you to think that this takes away from your videos. But i thought i should mention that you're not pronouncing fallible correctly. It shouldn't sound like the word "fall". \ˈfa-lə-bəl\ If you look it up on merriam webster, you can listen to the pronunciation. Minor distraction - keep up the good work.
Studies show that atheists (at least, in America) know more about religion than any other group. Jews come in a very close 2nd (which makes sense, as half of American Jews are atheists), and Mormons in a close 3rd. It probably has to do something with being minorities.
avielMenter 3 months ago
2 Christians watched this
cafeorange 4 months ago
Atheistic Mystic Universalistic Naturalistic pantheism.
If Mystic self-creation is all the rage quite Naturally among human selves then it makes sense to expect it Universally. No need for any personality (atheistic). Nature is the Oracle of Truth, and as with all oracles always gives true but sometimes misleading answers. And that's all there is, that which nothing greater can exist: pantheism.
George4943 4 months ago
There is power we all have that we impute to god: self-creation.
Be Yourself! (There is a choice?) <--- Self-creation.
Enjoy Being Yourself! (Why not!)
Take pride in self's accomplishment as yours.
And so take blame for all self's failures too..
Just so. A Just So Story with a moral: God in man's image, only with a bigger one.
Love,
Atheistic Mystic Universalistic Naturalistic pantheist.
George4943 4 months ago
Who am I? Well, since I'm one who is opposed to Christ, I'm the mother fucking anti-Christ.
HimesInu 4 months ago
I can judge god better than any believer because when i read and hear about him/her/it/them i don't wear the pink glasses on that make me ignore shit that they do.
realbojay 4 months ago
Whose that one guy? Though some theists might not agree with the reasoning, I would certainly not characterise it as offensive in any way.
Ialolime 6 months ago
Atheist or any human knowledge of an infinite God is akin to the child in the backyard rather than the child flying all over the universe. It is illogical and a bit arrogant for atheists to make a "I don't believe" claim.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty The default position is not to believe something. If you were never told about Santa Claus, you wouldn't believe in Santa Claus. You certainly wouldn't be neutral on it. Disbelief is not what needs rational justification, belief is. The "I don't believe" claim is simply a reaction to those who claim their belief is justified. Are you going to tell me that saying you don't believe in Santa Claus is illogical and arrogant?
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
If I was never told of Santa Claus and someone asked me if I believed in Santa Claus, I would say "What is Santa Claus?" I would not say if I believed or disbelieved Santa Claus. If the concept of Santa Claus were explained to me, I would make a belief statement base on what I know of the world. "I don't think he exists. Probably not. Doesn't seem likely." It's a probabilistic statement. The problem with making any probabilistic statement about God is that God infinite.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty This is just silly, because you're allowing people to affect your better judgment based on how they define an already incoherent concept. If someone told you Santa Claus is able to defy the laws of time and space because he's a supernatural being, would you then refrain from "probabilistic statements"? Think about what people are really saying when they claim god is infinite and supernatural. They're saying god is not natural and not bound by time. But why even think that's possible?
TaylorX04 6 months ago
(cont'd) As a metaphysical naturalist, I don't find any reason to believe there is a supernatural realm, and I am skeptical of an infinite being too. You also seem to either be ignoring or rejecting the idea that the supernatural may occasionally cross over into our realm. Would that not yield some form of evidence or serve as a basis to reason about the existence of the supernatural? If you think the two are mutually separate, that's another issue.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
Why think that the supernatural and infinite is not possible? Logically it is possible. Supernatural is of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
The supernatural is merely what is unexplainable by humans. Lots of things were unexplainable by humans in the past and lots of things are currently unexplainable. So clearly the supernatural exists. It's just, how much do you think exists outside human explanation?
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty "So clearly the supernatural exists. It's just, how much do you think exists outside human explanation?" - Thank you, this has sealed my point better than you know. If you acknowledge the past failures of supernatural explanations, you note that natural explanations have supplanted supernatural ones in dozens of cases, and you see that supernatural is often defined simple as what we don't understand, then why suppose it exists at all outside of human imagination?
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
Because we don't understand a lot of things. Do you acknowledge that there are things that are beyond your explanation? Then you acknowledge that supernatural exists.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty I literally laughed out loud when I read this comment. You've truly brought our discussion to a new low with this. While I do acknowledge that there are things beyond my explanation, it does not at all follow that the supernatural exists. For starters, what I don't understand, someone else may. Secondly, what none of us understand at the moment may eventually be explained naturally, as history has frequently shown. Third, defining "supernatural" as the unexplained doesn't make it so.
TaylorX04 6 months ago 2
@randplaty
"Do you acknowledge that there are things that are beyond your explanation?"
Things beyond known facts are just that they are unknown, they don't become supernatural. Arguments for the supernatural are merely arguments from ignorance for phenomenon that aren't understood by the person or by scientific means. If you don't know, just be honest and say you don't know rather than being dishonest and making stuff up.
garith21 6 months ago 3
@randplaty
No, there is NOTHING beyond MY explanation, because MY explanation is INVISIBLE SKY MAN DONE IT!
Why do your shoes stink? Invisible sky man.
Why is there evil in the world? Invisible sky man.
Who ate the last cookie? Invisible sky man.
How do we know right from wrong? Invisible sky man.
Where did the invisible sky man come from? Invisible sky man.
How do we know if the invisible sky man book is the true book? Invisible sky man.
How old is the earth? Invisible sky man.
rkyeun 6 months ago 8
@rkyeun I lol'd so hard.
TheDouchesupreme 4 months ago
@randplaty
Sorry, but if "supernatural is merely what is unexplainable by humans" then exactly how memories are stored is supernatural, dark matter and dark energy are supernatural, why matter has mass is supernatural...I don't think anyone would actually qualify this as supernatural. The supernatural tends to be the arguments from ignorance that people put in an attempt to explain phenomenon they don't understand, not a description of something that actually exists.
garith21 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
With Santa Claus I can think about all the people who have explored the North Pole and the fact that they have never reported a Santa Claus. With God, there is nobody who has ever explored the outer reaches of the universe. There is nobody who has travelled between dimensions, nobody who has travelled through time, nobody who has dived into a black hole. So there is no point in making any probabilistic statement about God. And again, any belief statement is based on probability.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty This is not how rational standards of reason and evidence work though. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. If we were expected to explore every square inch of space and somehow survey the imaginary supernatural realm that some conceive of in order to disbelieve in something, then we would have to accept every trivial piece of garbage anyone concocts in their head. But, like I said before, belief has no neutral ground. You are an atheist in denial.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
God's realm is the the infinite. Nobody has been there. Nobody has even come close to approaching the infinite. It is impossible for any finite human being to even grasp such a thing. Therefore no human has the ability to make a probabilistic belief statement for or against the existence of God.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty Do you not understand that you're presuming the reality of a god in saying such things? Even if there is an infinite, something perhaps outside of our universe's space-time, it does not mean that god resides there, despite how theists have striven to define god.
Let me put it this way: if you think an infinite and supernatural god interacted with our universe, even by the act of creation, would it not leave some residual effects of one sort or another?
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
There doesn't have to be a god outside of our space time, but there could be. If it actually was that God created the universe, assuming that he would leave residual effects that we could observe is pure arrogance. Perhaps he would, more likely he wouldn't unless he intentionally revealed himself.
If I set up a bacteria culture and the bacteria grew. Would the bacteria ever be able to ascertain the fact that I "created" the universe of the bacteria? Of course not.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty How is it "pure arrogance" to think that the act of creation or divine intervention might leave some after effects? Bacteria can't ascertain anything, neither is your example comparable to creating from nothing, but I like where you're going with this. If a god creates us and intervenes, while intentionally leaving behind no traces of its involvement, then what sets this wild theory apart from human imagination intended to explain the unexplainable? If any old idea will do...
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@randplaty
And the universe could have been created 5 seconds ago with everything only looking like it's old, what matters is what good reason to we have to believe a given claim.
There's a big difference between what "could be" and what there's evidence for which is the whole point.
garith21 6 months ago
So the difference between "I don't know if ___ exists" and "I don't believe _____ exists" is the probabilistic claim based on how much evidence has been gathered. Neither claims to have absolute knowledge or definitive proof but one purports to have more knowledge than the other.
randplaty 6 months ago
He can now logically claim "I don't believe aliens exist" because he has experienced enough of the world/universe to make some sort of probabilistic claim. It is not enough that he can disprove aliens, but he has enough knowledge at this point to disbelieve aliens.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty Lol, I don't think we actually disagree on much then. I do say "I don't believe in god", I've never claimed to know that god doesn't exist. The analogous thing to searching the known universe for aliens would be evaluating the claims and arguments for god's existence. If those are seen to be baseless, do you agree that it's justifiable to say "I don't believe in god"?
TaylorX04 6 months ago
Now, lets say this child gained the power to fly throughout the universe. He's flown now to billions of planets and has covered half of the universe. He returns to his mother, not having found any aliens and says, aliens do not exist. Again, he doesn't have the evidence to substantiate this claim because while he has explored much of the universe, there is still half the universe left to explore. A better statement would be "I don't believe aliens exist."
randplaty 6 months ago
You've heard of Cogito ergo sum right? I think therefore I am? That's a logical argument for ones own existence without the use of evidence or support. It's a purely logical or rational argument.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty Of course I know this, but you still seem unable to justify why atheism is logically untenable. I've explained to you in a few other comments that atheism is not dependent on arguments based on empirical evidence, and I've additionally explained that agnosticism is not the neutral ground you think it is. The human mind cannot accept beliefs it considers false, so because we have to have some reason for thinking a belief is true in order to hold it, atheism is logically tenable.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
Yeah sorry. I missed comments where you wrote that atheism is not based on empirical evidence alone. Of course the human mind cannot accept beliefs it considers false, but I am simply stating that you should not consider it false. Of course you need a reason for thinking a belief is true in order to hold it, but you can still refrain from holding belief at all. Why can you not refrain from belief or disbelief?
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty I'm startled at your lack of understanding here. If you refrain from holding a belief, are you not disbelieving? There is no middle ground between belief and unbelief. Either you believe something or you do not. Even if you refrain from belief, you obviously are not believing, and are therefore an unbeliever, disbeliever, etc.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
Illustration:
A child says that he will find out whether or not aliens exist by searching his backyard for alien footprints. Upon finding no alien footprints, he confidently declares that aliens do not exist. How does the child know that aliens have feet? Or walk? Or why would aliens go into his backyard, or have even landed on earth or even come through our solar system? The child is making many assumptions that he cannot make. The proper conclusion should be "I don't know if aliens exist."
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty Once again you are approaching this from an inaccurate understanding of the difference between atheism and agnosticism. I have known few atheists who declare that god absolutely does not exist, beyond any shadow of doubt. An agnostic atheist, as I've already said, IS one who says "I don't know if god exists," BUT this need not mean one has to somehow remain neutral in belief. Like I said, there is no neutral ground between belief and disbelief, only in knowledge.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
Well see that's our fundamental disagreement at this point. Perhaps we agree on everything else. There is neutral ground between belief and unbelief. Belief and unbelief is defined by common usage of the word and in common everyday life, there is a spectrum of belief. This spectrum of belief is based on probabilities/conjecture/prediction/logical reasoning. If there were only belief and unbelief, nobody could say "I think I believe." Nobody could say "I believe somewhat."
randplaty 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
Nobody could say "I don't think I believe." Nobody could say "I absolutely do not believe." Nobody could say "I might be able to believe that." Yet those phrases are all commonly used indicating that belief is not binary. There is not just belief and disbelief.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty Perhaps you need to brush up on your epistemology. Common phrases are no argument for a non-binary nature of belief, they're merely evidence of the complexity of human language, and we often times twist statements without realizing it. What would it mean psychologically for someone to THINK they believe? Is there some state of half-believing and half-disbelieving? Of course not. We simply use such expressions to show caveats about knowledge in our beliefs.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@randplaty - While true, there is no evidentiary support for the assumption that thought implies existence. That is taken as an axiomatic premise in order to make the logical argument. Yet if there is no basis for the assumption, it makes no difference how airtight the logical argument is that flows from it - if the assumptions are flawed or baseless, so is the argument.
mnkittel 6 months ago
I don't provide evidential or "support" based arguments because I don't believe evidence has ANY bearing on God. I've already explained this. You don't understand that? The entire finite evidence about an infinite being argument? Atheism by definition is illogical based on a rational or logical argument. You know you can make reason based arguments without evidence right? That's the entire rationalism vs empiricism argument in classic philosophy.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty I guess you missed the comment where I said "If reason and evidence do not support a belief, it's irrational to accept it, and nonsense to be 'neutral.'" I agree that, in general, there would not be natural and finite evidence of an infinite and supernatural being, but once again you're missing the fact that atheists criticize the views and arguments put forward by theists. It is these theists (i.e. creationists) who drag god into the realm of evidence and the natural world.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
Let's put aside arguments forwarded by theists. I think every one of their evidential arguments have some flaws so I agree with you in that respect.
randplaty 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
Yes I actually did miss that comment. Let me address it here. Why is it nonsense to be neutral? This is the default mode of rational human beings.... knowing the limit of ones own intelligence. If two candidates are running for office and I know nothing about either of them, my default mode of operation would be to be neutral. Can you tell me why you think it's nonsense to be neutral? Are you referring to Russell's teapot argument?
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty In your analogy, let's incorporate the element of belief. Knowing nothing about either candidate, would you say that you believe in either of them? You could, though you may not be sure. Or you could say you believe in neither of them, because you're not sure. What you can't say is "I don't know if I believe or not." That is what is nonsense, because we don't choose what we believe or don't believe. We believe what we think is true, we don't believe what we think is false.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
now of course atheism has a broad definition and a more narrow definition, but honestly, people who make videos calling others to question the existence of God falls under the active disbelief definition rather than a passive disbelief definition. What does that leave us with? These videos are logically untenable.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty You've still made no case whatsoever for why atheism, under any definition, is logically untenable. You've neglected to provide examples once already - so I ask again, are you here to actually dialogue or just to whine and complain about what you disagree with?
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
Perhaps I haven't stated it clearly so I will state it again. We have no evidential OR logical support for OR against the existence of God. We cannot have any such support because both evidence AND human logic is finite and this God is supposedly infinite. Therefore because there is no sound evidence or reasoning toward either end, we ought to remain neutral.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty When it comes to the knowledge of god's existence or non-existence, I AM neutral. I've said this I don't know how many times now. But it does not mean I should have no opinion, nor should it mean that my opinion cannot be justified based on reason or evidence. When all the definitions of god are shown to have no evidential support and often have flawed reasoning, why abstain from recognizing the fact that you don't believe?
TaylorX04 6 months ago
"When we lack evidence for something, like fairies, do we remain 'neutral,' or do we not believe?"
We remain neutral. Of course we remain neutral!
Now if you have an unsupported worldview such as Christianity or Atheism, you would make judgments on whether or not fairies exist. Christians will say they don't exist because the bible or God does not talk about them. Atheists will assume they don't exist because they don't believe in the supernatural. I will remain neutral.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty "We remain neutral. Of course we remain neutral!"
And what if there is persuasive evidence that something probably is not real? Are you still going to remain neutral, unless there's absolutely convincing proof? You're very quick to assume why atheists reject the notion of fairies, but not believing in the supernatural has nothing to do with it. Could fairies not be natural phenomena? It's the evidence that matters, and when there is none, disbelief is perfectly rational.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
If there is persuasive evidence that something is not real, then of course, don't believe it. But persuasive evidence of an infinite supernatural being not existing? That's logically untenable. Any evidence that you can gather is necessarily natural and finite. Evidence that is natural and finite cannot possibly make any claim whatsoever on a hypothetically infinite and supernatural being.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty In some statements I use evidence to mean reason, not empirical evidence. Is reason not a form of evidence? Deductive and inductive arguments can provide persuasive evidence against an infinite and supernatural being, especially if some of that being's attributes are contradictory and thus logically impossible (i.e. a being that is both perfectly just and perfectly merciful). Arguments are weighed according to their individual merit. I don't, and can't, debunk all god claims at once.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
Atheists have an overly simplistic view of God, as illustrated by your "Do You Know Your Bible" series. Atheists also seem to have something against a Christian God which propels them all the way to atheism, which is strange. Forget Christianity. Don't believe in Christianity, that's fine with me. But don't use the faults of Christianity to completely discount the existence of God.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty "Atheists have an overly simplistic view of God, as illustrated by your 'Do You Know Your Bible' series." - By all means, feel free to offer some support for this assertion. You wouldn't want to look like you're just complaining out of pure emotional reaction, would you?
"But don't use the faults of Christianity to completely discount the existence of God." - Who's ever said that they do this? There are many reasons not to believe in god apart from the faults of Christianity.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
These arguments have been hashed over a billion times before and nobody is going to get anywhere with them. Just know that deists and theists think that your concept of God is extremely simplistic. If God existed, he would act this way. He doesn't act this way, therefore he doesn't exist. That is so simplistic it could qualify as strawman.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty No, what's simplistic is your poor characterization of the arguments against god. How would you propose someone make a case against an idea that varies from person to person? I've always said that I think it's entirely possible that a god of some sort exists, yet there are specific gods that are logically impossible, because of how they're defined. You act as if we make up some idea of god unique to atheists, but we don't. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's a strawman.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
It is similar to a child looking for the footprints of aliens. Upon not finding any footprints, he concludes that aliens do not exist. How do you even know that aliens have footprints?
Merely because Christians make judgements about God all the time does not necessarily give them the right to do so either. They could be completely wrong about God, but he could still exist. Agnosticism is logically tenable, but atheism is completely illogical.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty "They could be completely wrong about God, but he could still exist." - Let me make this clear: I don't consider my response to be a refutation of god's existence. It's merely a response to a common theistic assertion, that god should not be judged. It's focus is on hypocrisy, as I stated.
"Agnosticism is logically tenable, but atheism is completely illogical." - Define both, please. When we lack evidence for something, like fairies, do we remain 'neutral,' or do we not believe?
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
dictionary definition of agnostic:
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
dictionary definition of atheist:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty I was really hoping for your own definition, but I'll assume these examples are consistent with your views. In these definitions, we can see the real difference between atheism and agnosticism. You, like many, incorrectly assume agnosticism is a neutral position between theism and atheism. Agnosticism deals with the knowledge about god, while atheism deals with belief about god. An agnostic atheist, like myself, does not claim to KNOW if god exists or not, and also does not believe.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
(cont'd) By the same token, there are agnostic theists, who believe in god but do not know for sure, and there are gnostic atheists who don't believe and claim to know for certain that god does not exist. Is it rational to not believe in something when you don't know for sure if it's real or not? I'd rather ask how it would be rational to believe! If reason and evidence do not support a belief, it's irrational to accept it, and nonsense to be "neutral." You either believe or you don't believe.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
Your second and third criticisms are valid, however the first criticism is naive. You must presume a hypothetical existence of God in order to determine whether or not he exists. You must assume certain characteristics of God in order to test whether or not he actually exists. The problem that the theist has with an atheist constructing this experiment is that the atheist consistently makes false assumptions about God's character.
randplaty 6 months ago
@randplaty I don't think you understand that the atheist is fully aware of the possibility that he/she may be depicting a god that certain theists don't believe in. With the varieties of god-belief out there, it would be impossible to accurately describe every theist's conception of god at once in one argument. BUT the problem the atheist has with the theist is that you make these sorts of comments without supporting your accusation. How exactly is my experiment built on false assumptions?
TaylorX04 6 months ago
Monotone much...
Preteranimus 6 months ago
WWWdotGODCHECKERdotCOM
Which god are you refering to? You see, the WHEN and the WHERE you were born boxes you in a very small box.
3,700 gods to choose from, and you think you are on the right team.
mleger5150 6 months ago
I love the fact that many christians believe that their god litterally wrote the bible... sure. An omnipotent, omniscient being got a bunch of random people to write sometimes conflicting stories about him back in the days when very few people could actually read them, knowing (due to omniscience) that these stories would be falsified later, and the random anonymous writers (some 100+ years after the death of Christ) would be impossible to verify.
skywize 6 months ago
One can never prove the existence of God like nobody will ever be able to prove that Love, Beauty, and Truth exist. These are simple words/symbols that describe the indescribable. In other words, you "know" these "things" when you see them/feel them/ect, but as soon as you try to put an experience of love or beauty into words, one will inevitably fail because of the transcendent nature into which one is experiencing. For theists, God is "experienced"/"known" in much the same way.
dukem24 6 months ago
@dukem24 'love' is the sum of all biochemical and bioelectrical processes that happen in our body, specially our brain, so it is quantifiable, and yes it exists. 'beauty' is just a perceptual experience of pleasure, so beauty does not 'exist', it is just a label you put on the things you can perceive joy and satisfaction from.'truth' is a value for a true statement, so it is does not 'exist', it's just a label we put on a true statement. I don't understand how you relate God with any of these
raminsh1 6 months ago
@raminsh1 Defining love and beauty as you did will never get you laid my friend. Do you talk that way to someone you're in love with? There are many definitions of love (like your above example, or a poet's and/or musician's example, ect). This just shows the empirical nature of love/beauty/truth. There are many ways to look at it. Also, I'm not arguing for or against a god-this is a non imperative argument. I'm just saying truth/beauty/love language is where "God-talk" tends to hang out.
dukem24 6 months ago
@dukem24 I see your point. well, I mean 'love' is not just a concept, but something that can be defined with its physical properties -like any of our feelings, but of course that is not the only way of defining it. I agree with you that 'feeling God' and 'love' are similar as in they are both feelings... and we can actually love someone who doesn't exist.
raminsh1 6 months ago
@dukem24 Obviously you haven't met some of the girls I have. Love is a biochemical and bioelectrical process, and my acceptance of that has never interfered with me getting laid. To understand that love is a natural, non-mysterious process does not mean we can't also appreciate it at an emotional, inter-personal level. Your response here is really quite irrelevant and silly when you think about it, and it would be equally unlikely to get you laid if you equated love with sex to many women.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04 The love = laid comment was simply a joke, and to prove my point that when talking about love, there is often more there than meets the eye. It is why so many times, love is described with metaphor.
dukem24 6 months ago
@dukem24 Love and beauty are concepts that describe feelings, and to speak of them as a thing in itself - outside the realm of human experience - would be meaningless. If your god is a feeling that is known to exist only in your mind, then I'll accept this analogy. However, I would argue that you abuse the concept of truth in how you use it here. Truth is not a feeling or experience, but it is a way of labeling what corresponds to known reality (versus what does not).
TaylorX04 6 months ago 14
@TaylorX04 Forgive me if I am suggesting love/beauty/truth are "things." For me to suggest this is to say that for me (as subject) to experience love (as object) is only one side of the story. For when one is in love, the subject and object cease to exist and all that there is...is. I believe your definition of truth is partially correct, but am still hesitant about only saying truth "corresponds to known reality." Thanks for the debate.
dukem24 6 months ago
@dukem24 lol ur suggesting that atheists can't feel 'spiritual' or euphoric in the same way a theist can. The assertion itself is absurd. I was a theist back in the day and I felt this euphoria you speak of. Then I grew up and researched the claims in the bible and the claims made by my priests. I found my beliefs weren't justified. Now as an atheist, I feel more than I ever could have as a theist. Sry to say but the closed minded traits of the 'cult' literally close off the mind
tamu77095 6 months ago
@tamu77095 I never suggested this. I'm sorry if you read my comment(s) that way. Feeling euphoric is a natural human experience - for theists and non-theists alike. I've added a couple other responses above that may clarify my thoughts. Thanks for the post.
dukem24 6 months ago
Creationist are unable to prove that Yahweh is real. According to Hebrew mythology Yahweh Sabaoth was a warrior god from Edom/ Seir/ Paran. He used to fly around on the backs of cherubs and blow smoke out his nostrils. Yahweh is a myth. I just disprove god.
halolIlmao0 6 months ago
Awesome.... well said, well made. Keep it up!
FleshFarmZombie 6 months ago
Whenever I get asked "Who are you to judge god?" I always answer "Who are you to justify him?" xD For me it's a hypothetical, for them it's a real problem.
MsLightdragon 6 months ago
You shouldn't be surprised that Christians hate what you say in your videos Taylor, you are clearly VERY well read on theology and have spent time analysing scripture with a critical eye in quite some detail. The Bible may be the biggest selling book in history but that doesn't make it the most read. I often quote the nasty parts to Christians and I get a reply's of denial, misquote, misunderstanding, metaphoric and any other excuse to distance Christians from those passages.
Zed1967 6 months ago 3
@Zed1967 "The Bible may be the biggest selling book in history but that doesn't make it the most read."
Well said.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@Zed1967
>>You shouldn't be surprised that Christians hate what you say in your videos
Some may. There are as many idiot Christians as there are idiot "anything elses." (Even the idiot atheists - as distinct from the intelligent, informed atheists.)
My reaction to this video is that beating up on the arguments from the idiot Christians has little to do with whether a god exists or not.
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 "My reaction to this video is that beating up on the arguments from the idiot Christians has little to do with whether a god exists or not." - Great, because the video is not about that anyway. It's about addressing the arguments "from the idiot Christians", as you put it. I now declare you the strawman king. Congrats.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@paradigm918
The problem with ALL religious belief is they start with the false assumption that their religion is true even though in most cases it has been empirically proved to be false. Faith is believing in something without evidence. Personally I prefer reality and empirical truth over faith and what some people ''believe'' to be true.
Zed1967 6 months ago
@Zed1967
>> has been empirically proved to be false.
Another fact fundamentalist enters the arena.
>>Personally I prefer reality and empirical truth over faith and what some people ''believe'' to be true
Have you ever studied the history of science or the philosophy of science?
The history of science is littered with ideas that people not only believed to be true, but had proven by the scientific process itself.
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 "...but had proven by the scientific process itself." - Such as? Giving your definition of the scientific process would be helpful too.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@paradigm918
Your comments make no sense what so ever. Ask me a coherent question and I will answer it.
Zed1967 6 months ago
@Zed1967
Maybe not. Maybe it's what I'm saying. Maybe it's in the way you are reading.
I thought this question sort of made sense: "Have you ever studied the history of science or the philosophy of science?"
And I thought my comment made some sense, too: "The history of science is littered with ideas that people not only believed to be true, but had proven by the scientific process itself."
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918
"The history of science is littered with ideas that people not only believed to be true, but had proven by the scientific process itself."
Indeed. It has been so, is so, and will continue to be so.
And that is a virtue of science - self-correction in the face of new facts and new evidence.
Yes, there's plenty of fact fundamentalists here. Count me in their number.
Look for "The Tyranny of Evidence: Do Scientists Use Dogma?", by YouTuber extraordinaire c0nc0rdance.
Enjoy.
amoxtlacatl 6 months ago
@amoxtlacatl
>>And that is a virtue of science - self-correction in the face of new facts and new evidence.
Indeed it is a virtue of science - but you don't feel just a tiny bit antsy declaring "Science gives us the only truth, and that truth will be different some day?"
paradigm918 6 months ago
@amoxtlacatl
>>"The Tyranny of Evidence: Do Scientists Use Dogma?",
Pretty good video and the idiots who argue "atheism is a religion" drive me wild!
I agree with most of what he says, but suggest he trips himself up when he says "if no better explanation can be supported." Think about that concept of "better explanation." Prove "better" as a scientific fact." Prove Occam's Razor.
Is the heliocentric construct an incontrovertible fact? Or just more convenient, math-wise?
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 "Is the heliocentric construct an incontrovertible fact? Or just more convenient, math-wise?"
Wow. Next thing you know you'll be asking, "was the Holocaust really an incontrovertible fact, or just more of a convenient moral fable?" Remember when I asked how you differentiate between truth claims? Now would be a fantastic time to answer.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
Excellent video. Incisive stuff.
kinc1967 6 months ago
Some atheist are born into it. The same thing with religion. Those people usually don't question it because they were though to believe it (or don't believe it if you're an atheist), however their are some people who question it and change their views.
o1993 6 months ago
ROAR - tough to say which group is sadder, the Biblical fundamentalists, who argue that the bible is the only truth, or the fact fundamentalist, who argue that science is the only truth.
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 YAWN - you're making a strawman fallacy in assuming I believe science is the only truth. I believe reason is the only reliable method of ascertaining the truth, and science is an extension of reason. I also have to laugh at your label "fact fundamentalist." Does it really make one a fundamentalist to accept reality as it is, without inventing additional things that have no evidence of being real? You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts!
TaylorX04 6 months ago 12
@TaylorX04
>>you're making a strawman fallacy in assuming I believe science is the only truth. I believe reason is the only reliable method of ascertaining the truth, and science is an extension of reason.
A distinction without a difference
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 "A distinction without a difference" - Is it? If you say that you believe god is the only truth and that love is a part of god, would it be correct for me to presume that you think love is the only truth? Not at all, because there is a distinction and science is not the same thing as reason, nor is love the same thing as god.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
May I suggest you brush up on ontology
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 And I will suggest you brush up on epistemology, since you appear to have no concern with how we can know, or don't know, things. This importantly precedes ontology, because making claims about the nature of existence is fruitless if one is not justified in the claims they make.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
>> I also have to laugh at your label "fact fundamentalist." Does it really make one a fundamentalist to accept reality as it is,
As it is, or as far as you yourself can see it?
>>without inventing additional things that have no evidence of being real?
Throughout recorded history, people have experienced "a higher being." Is that an invention?
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 "As it is, or as far as you yourself can see it?" - Facts are verifiable, and reality is the word that we give to the conglomeration of facts about our universe. It has nothing to do with how I see it, nor would your insistence that reality also includes elements of the supernatural challenge my concept of reality unless your claims are supported by verifiable fact.
As for your second question, the experience can be real, but it does not mean the interpretation is correct.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
>>Facts are verifiable, and reality is the word that we give to the conglomeration of facts about our universe.
As I said, you seem to be a fact fundamentalist.
Religious fundamentalists usually understand that fact about themselves; fact fundamentalists usually don't have that degree of self-awareness.
Many people have a much broader conception of reality than just "facts." Ontology is where it's at
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 I'm starting to see that you clearly have your own axe to grind that you are apparently in denial of too. Obviously you wish to paint anyone who is skeptical of supernatural claims as a "fact fundamentalist." In this way, you are just as bad as religious believers who do the very same thing. Ontology is the study of being, and unfortunately for you, speculating over what you think may exist is not any reason to think it does exist. You should study epistemology.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts!
Excellent point. So you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Pretty strange for a "science is an extension of reason" sort of guy.
BTW, modern science has pretty much done away with the "man is a logical being" idea. And that science is an extension of reason itself! Google Lakoff and "enlightenment reasoning "
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918
sorry to drop on your argument but who would be a fact fundamentalist? How would they behave, as opposed to a non-fundie?
akylae101 6 months ago
@akylae101
>>sorry to drop on your argument but who would be a fact fundamentalist? How would they behave, as opposed to a non-fundie?
Drop ins welcome! I love intelligent conversations.
Someone is a 'fact fundamentalist' if s/he believes that "if a statement isn't scientifically or historically accurate, it isn't true." .See, Huston Smith, "Jesus and the World's Religions" in "Jesus at 2000" pp 116-17
E.g, a fact fundamentalist says "there can't be truth in a poetic metaphor."
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918
Not sure anyone *could* fall under your definition of fact fundamentalist:
People who do not believe disproved claims (like "Earth is flat") are not fundies, just sane.
People who believe only the proven are ignorant of the *fact* that *nothing* could ever be scientifically proven. Ignorant of X is the opposite of X-fundamentalist.
Poetic and accurate are not mutually exclusive. People ignorant of this *fact* can't be *fact* fundies.
IMHO you're criticizing non-existant people.
akylae101 6 months ago 2
@akylae101
OK.
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918
Nice to have an argument without a fight. :) Good night.
akylae101 6 months ago
@akylae101
Yepper! G'night!
paradigm918 6 months ago
@akylae101 Well said. He does seem to have this delusion that someone who accepts reason as the only reliable method of differentiating between truth claims somehow dismisses the insights of poetry, religion, metaphor, etc. But in fact everything paradigm has said here has made use of reason, even when it comes to his attempts to show that reason/science aren't all there is. He can't see this, so it's no wonder he can't see that his "fact fundamentalists" exist only in his strawman-infested mind
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
Thank you.
From what I could tell, Paradigm seems to think there exist people who don't have opinions outside of current scientific consensus; don't see art and metaphor as a means of expression; and don't use intuition, imagination or emotion as a source of ideas. Never met or heard of a person like that.
Good night.
akylae101 6 months ago
@paradigm918 "So you don't believe in quantum mechanics." - How on earth are you pulling this from my statement? Opinions can be formed around facts, and some opinions can be right while they are not yet supported by facts. The time to believe a proposition is when the evidence supports it. Quantum mechanics is currently the best explanation we have for the behavior of subatomic particles.
I've never said man is inherently logical. Another strawman.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
After ontology, you might want to brush up on quantum physics. For someone proclaiming an absolute truth that scientific facts are all there is, you don't seem to know a lot about science or definitions of truth.
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 This is about the fifth strawman fallacy you've made now, which I suppose is not all that surprising for someone who has a poor understanding and appreciation of reason. I have never proclaimed any absolute truth about scientific facts being all there is. At most, I've said that reason is currently our best reliable means for determining truth. There may be other methods out there, but the ones proposed thus far have not held up to scrutiny.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
(cont'd) I would also like to point out that all of your beliefs depend on reason. Since we can only believe what we think to be true, it follows that you must have some basis for thinking that your beliefs are true. The way that you form that basis is through reason - by making arguments, collecting evidence, and so on. Even your belief that fact fundamentalists are wrong is argued from reason! You've tried to show me that science and reason are not all there is, and you've done so with reason.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
(cont'd 2) Of course, that reason you use is flawed, but it is an attempted use of reason nonetheless, and does show your own inability to support your case any other way.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
BTW, don't get me wrong, I celebrate science and believe application of the theories and mode of scientific thought to daily life vastly enriches it.
Religious fundamentalists believe that the words and ideas of their particular scripture is all there is.
Fact fundamentalists believe that the facts they have observed with the scientific methods and "reason" is all there is.
Two sides of the same coin of fundamentalism.
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 You might want to start asking questions in the future to avoid these continuous strawmen. I don't think fact fundamentalists exist in the way you define them, or if they do, they're an extreme minority. I don't hold the position that the facts observed by science and reason are "all there is." I believe that they reveal what is and that anything further proposed as part of reality should be demonstrable in some method that can be proven reliable.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
>>I believe that they reveal what is and that anything further proposed as part of reality should be demonstrable in some method that can be proven reliable.
Excellent definition of fact fundamentalism. Thank you!
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 It's sad to me that you don't grasp the absurdity of what you're saying. Do you believe there are truths that cannot be demonstrated? Shall we just accept whatever feels right, if there's no way of separating fact from fiction, according to you?
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04
>>Shall we just accept whatever feels right, if there's no way of separating fact from fiction...
Again, may I suggest you study up on ontology. These issues are beginner ontological issues. Unless you know about the field, you don't know what you don't know.
The idea that there is only "fact" and "fiction" is one of those baby ontological questions
You are doing a much better job of showing the state of factual fundamentalism than I am of describing it.
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 You keep referring me to ontology without actually explaining anything, so I am a little suspect that you don't know what you're talking about. I have looked at ontology before, but it's a big field of study, there are competing ideas, and you're doing a piss poor job of showing where and how I'm wrong. I understand that truth has more grey areas than a distinction between fact and fiction indicates, but I was using a common phrase to ask how you differentiate between truth claims.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@TaylorX04 >>I have looked at ontology before, but it's a big field of study, there are competing ideas,
Bingo! Now you're getting it! Sort of. Competing ideas as to the nature of being, existence and reality.
>>and you're doing a piss poor job of showing where and how I'm wrong.
Maybe I am. I've got to say, though, I feel like the guy who keeps pointing at the color patch saying "Red, that's red!" while the colorblind guys says "Huh? What are you talking about. I don't see anything!"
paradigm918 6 months ago
(cont'd) Reason is currently the only reliable method known for making any argument, and you are employing it here in discussion with me, which shows your own predisposition to its importance. Science is currently the best and most reliable method for determining the function and nature of things in the natural world. What other methods of ascertaining truth would you suggest? Supernatural explanations have a long history of being supplanted by reason and science, but never vice-versa.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@paradigm918
Something wrong with caring about whether or not something is true? It's true, ignorance is bliss. If you prioritize feeling whatever you want above reason and evidence, then go on believing in whatever makes you feel good, but if you'll become a pervasive element in others' lives, lest you poison the minds of the gullible -be prepared to fight in the arena of consensuses to defend your position... but don't forget, the "fact fundamentalists" have facts on their side.
kohehd 6 months ago
@kohehd
>>Something wrong with caring about whether or not something is true?
I think the difference between us lies not in caring about "whether something is true," (I suspect we have equal value for truth) the difference is between our ontologies - our understanding of what truth is, what truth is comprised of, and how one arrives at one's understanding of truth
paradigm918 6 months ago
@kohehd
>>but don't forget, the "fact fundamentalists" have facts on their side.
Absolutely. But when they think scientific "facts" are the only things which matter, they are no different than the religious fundamentalists who think their particular scripture is the only thing which matters.
For me, there are the truths of science, as well as the truths of religion and of metaphor. There can be truth in poetry.
My life is richer believing in a reality wider than "scientific facts" only
paradigm918 6 months ago
@paradigm918 "For me, there are the truths of science, as well as the truths of religion and of metaphor. There can be truth in poetry." - This supports my statement earlier that I doubt fact fundamentalists exist in the way you define them. I too believe there is truth and insight to be gained from poetry, religion, and metaphor. I've never said otherwise. These truths are, however, accessible by reason. You just really don't seem to get it.
TaylorX04 6 months ago
@paradigm918
Truth is independent from science, religion and metaphor. The word you are looking for, is "belief". Pretty much everyone that's not STRICTLY agnostic will consider their beliefs to be "true" and happily replace the world "believe" with "know". But you need to understand that knowing is only when your "belief" is "true"... our reality is shared, you're only going to be right if you're using a novel definition of "truth", or you're convinced the world is idealistic (vs realistic).
kohehd 6 months ago
Solid indeed.
Incrediblemouse5 6 months ago
Interestingly, just going by statistics you can show that at least most of the time people within a religion have a less accurate view of the accuracy of their religion than those outside that religion.
This follows directly from the number of religions in the world, and the fact that they can't all be correct.
narco73 6 months ago
One word: Subbed.
mosoi148 6 months ago 2
Excellent video, Taylor. These are very familiar smoke-and-mirrors responses and you dispatch them like a hammer and wind tunnel.
QualiaSoup 6 months ago 2
Basically if we are not in a position to judge god then how can any theist claim to know god?
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
The point "why I care about religion" in your video surpised me a little. It's exactly how I think and why I care, eg learn, about religion. It's good to know others have similiar concerns about religion. I have to keep your words in mind, when I'm asked the next time "why do you care? You don't believe anway". You put it in a nutshell elegantly phrased.
Klobinator 6 months ago 2
@Klobinator Why, thank you. :-)
TaylorX04 6 months ago
Fabulous video, you remind me of an american qualiasoup
AtheisticTeenager 6 months ago 2
@AtheisticTeenager Thanks, that's quite a compliment. I actually had QualiaSoup and TheraminTrees in mind when I did some of the visuals for this.
TaylorX04 6 months ago 2
See, all of the views this video has, and only 1 dislike. That's how you know a good point is being made!
HatedAlways 6 months ago
@HatedAlways or one that people agree with ;)
cat2cube 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God can do what He wants and the real Christian understanding of this is that we are all sinners and deserve death. The fact that we breathe is common grace from God. God can choose to bring death anytime and any way He wants because we have all transgressed His law and because God is perfect He can not tolerate imperfection. By receiving Christ we are viewed as righteous and when God looks at the believer He sees Christ and not our sin, Even though we still may sin.
whinda4702 6 months ago
@whinda4702 These are some hefty charges. But if god created us, knowing that we would be imperfect, isn't that a tacit acceptance of imperfection? And what kind of a loving god would punish us all with death for sin, which he defined simply as disobedience? Death won't correct sin, so what sort of lesson is god teaching us? He's the big bad creator, so he can bully his creations how he wants? I don't think Christians really understand, though you often claim to.
TaylorX04 6 months ago 43
@TaylorX04 Well said...I asked a muslim about the whole 'why did god create imperfection?' thing and got the ol' 'he's testing you' BS...and so I asked him if he were to make a product to sell, would he knowingly make it with major defects or would he make it to the best of his ability, and he danced around the question like a stripper on a pole!! It must be so hard to be a theist, having to rationalize so many inconsistencies within their beliefs with reality...
drfitnessnow 6 months ago
@whinda4702 Ummm ... God would then be a cruel dickhead, not an omnipotent, omnicient omwhatever being. Also, he is demented, or likes exceptions in that case. Also .. what makes the unbeliever that has lived a 'good' life worse then the mass murderer that repented ? You dont make sense .. at all.
PlanetJeroen 6 months ago 3
@whinda4702 you are brainwashed and deluded beyond belief, seek medical help. So...you thought you were born a horrible sinner as an infant because some "woman" was seduced to eat a piece of fruit than she didn't know any better than to eat?! Really, the crime hardly justifies the punishment. And your worship of an unknown being sickens me, to be perfectly honest.
BMReaves1 6 months ago
@whinda4702 Prove it.
rationalmuscle 6 months ago
@whinda4702 who are you to call god perfect? if you by your own admittance are imperfect than couldnt your idea of perfection be, by definition, imperfect? yes, if god is real and all-powerful than he could do what he wants, but just because he has the ability doesnt make it right. im willing to bet if i quote something allah did in the quran such as killing people for disobedience you would say allah is wrong even though the same reason you say your god is correct in his actions......
wearestarstuffsagan 6 months ago
cont... is the exact same reason allah would (by your own admission) himself be correct. just allowing us to breathe is "common grace" from god? what about when children are born dead before they ever get to take their first breathe?
wearestarstuffsagan 6 months ago
@whinda4702
If God is perfect, then why is the Bible so full of mistakes, given that God (in the form of the Holy Spirit imbued into the writers and translators) wrote the book and God is perfect ? If you are a Christian you think that God can see the future, as God can grant the gift of prophecy to believers, so if he knows everything, can do anything , and is truly benevolent, why can't he write a single text that is unambiguous and correct in every detail ?
formless777 6 months ago
@whinda4702 Flizrm can do what He wants and the real understanding of this is that we are all sinners and deserve death. The fact that we breathe is common grace from Flizrm. Flizrm can choose to bring death anytime and any way He wants because we have all transgressed His law and because Flizrm is perfect. By receiving Flizrm we are viewed as righteous and when Flizrm looks at the believer He sees Flizrm and not our sin, Even though we still may sin.
The difference?
Nothing.
Praise Flizrm.
Skindoggiedog 6 months ago
@whinda4702 There is something wrong with you if you truely believe that everyone "deserves" death for silly things. If humans behaved like this we would execute our children for talking back, our poor for stealing food, and everyone who has lusted in their minds. It is a sick notion that we have to strive to be perfect while simultaniously made to not be able to be perfect. Hold god to his own standard, he says don't murder and he murders.
savageecho 6 months ago
I always replay "I am a cluster of atoms in the form of what if referred to as Homo Saipan. Who do you thing you are?"
HellsCowBoy666 6 months ago
I've been a subscriber for quite some time - so i don't want you to think that this takes away from your videos. But i thought i should mention that you're not pronouncing fallible correctly. It shouldn't sound like the word "fall". \ˈfa-lə-bəl\ If you look it up on merriam webster, you can listen to the pronunciation. Minor distraction - keep up the good work.
Justavian 6 months ago 2
@Justavian if you know what he means why does it matter?
surshot56 6 months ago