You've completely misrepresented why Christians oppose abortion. Christians don't oppose abortion for any reason inherent to Christianity, we oppose abortion because it's murder. That's why you'll also find Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists who are opposed to abortion.
you and i don't share many of the same views...with that said you are extremely interesting to watch and very intelligent. i think it is important that all people question and not just accept what their church has taught them & you can definitely make a person do that!
So um, just a question, you talked about Dawkins, Hitchens, and HArris...but I didn't see you mention Dennett. As Dennett is possibly my favorite of the 4, I'd like to know what you think of him.
You refer to Plantinga's argument in favor of his "reformed epistemology" as "fucking terrible" in this video, and in another video you refer to it as "riddled with fallacy." Do you have a video explaining what the fallacies are? If not, I think I have a video idea for you :-)
You refer to Plantinga's argument in favor of his "reformed epistemology" as "fucking terrible" in this video, and in another video you refer to it as "riddled with fallacy." Do you have a video explaining what the fallacies are? If not, I think I have a video idea for you :-)
I was harassed by some religious group once when I was trying to raise money for victims of domestic violence. I was at a raffle stand and these people came up to me and asked if I believed in God. My response was along the lines of that I'm neither for or against him. I should have been as rude of they were and told them to step off, I'm trying to raise money for a good non-religious cause, but instead I allowed them to waste my time. I can't stand those who force their views onto others.
Yes Virginia there just might be a god and if you really fell like you need an explanation to the maybe fact... then watch the end of a movie called "Jeffery" as matter of fact just watch the hole thing it's kinda funny.
What is the story about you being a minister? What serial killer? ugh! How can you just mention those things in passing without giving us a little context!
The tooth thing kinda happened to me when I was little... I was eating smarties icecream and then a piece of chocolate got stuck in my molar. When I tried to get it out with my tongue it split in half. Worst part was this was late at night and had to wait till the next day to go to the dentist. .-. Yay for bloody mouth when you're like 8.
I have truly today met the dumbest person I have ever heard speak. Thanks for making no scene other than to people who think as stupid as you thinking.. God forgive you for the bull shit you are putting into peoples minds and enjoy you trip to Hell for leading people into stupidity....
@INTERINVESTCHANNEL1 he is not the one telling children till they are old enough to think for themselves, that jesus is the only way, he is not walking around telling everyone that they are going to hell. No it's people like you that do that, people like you are responsible for all the stupidity in this world. If only you would try to think...
As Christian, I don't buy into the "beliefs" of many so-called "Christians" because ironically -most Christians do NOT even know (much less understand) what the "Bible" says on most matters. They simply pretend to in order to excuse a lax intellect. As a Christian, I believe that you should be able to express your views & argue what you believe to be true. Let the truth prevail though the heavens may fall (but they won't). I really like you & would love to converse in more than 500 characters.
Buddhism does not respect reason. It treats reason as the medium of illusion. It's only use of "reason" is in the form of rhetorical devices used to destroy the lanuage used to construct our inner narratives. It resolves dialectics through an act of will, in the form of an intuitive leap, rather than through the use of reason. Extreme cases in point: kamikaze pilots, Aum Shinrikyo, feudalism in Tibet.
@pirbird14 not really. the dogmatic part of philosophical religion like Buddhism and Taoism developed over the years by people of power and masses who wish to appeal to a higher power.
abandon all the supernatural part of Buddhism claim, there's a lot of valuable truth in it.
I wasn't talking about supernaturalism. I was talking about dialectics. Buddhism resolves that through an act of will. Hegel resolves it through reason. Guess which one I consider to be more reasonable.
@pirbird14 of course you can apply dialectics onto Buddhist topic.
i suppose you mean the Buddhist way of meditation is a self-questioning process that surpass reason. meditation actually isn't about that. meditation is... just meditation.
Dialectics is a study of the relationship between the unformed products of direct perception and the products of abstract conception. Buddhists fetishize direct perception.
@pirbird14 and can you prove your point that Buddhist perception of reality is one-sided or close-minded? i like and value that skeptical and rational view of the world is the rightful path to get the truth. Buddhism philosophy engage in topic of suffering and the cause of it. that's not an illusion.
btw, I'm not a native english speaker so please pardon my grammar mistake and things like that...
Hey, I just wanted to suggest a book that may be of some interest to you. I just finished reading it and I found it to be helpful. Obviously there is a certain dislike for faith-based systems, but I can only assume that is due to an object moral standard within yourself to avoid what is false (according to your perception) and seek what is true, so I respect that merely on the level of common-sense, but objectively disagree. Anyways the book is called "No Man is an Island"
This is a genuine question because I really want to know this. But how the fuck do you keep up with your 'wordyness' without breaking a sweat? seriously! It's so much hard work to dictate to people in the 'real' world like this without basically ending up coming out with pretentious bullshit that I just end up keeping things simple.
So much I think is potentially lost from people not being able to communicate like this and yet so much is NOT gained from the simple fact we never speak that way.
Scott, james wanted to see if you are a Solipcist. This position is- the external world can not be known and might not exist, meaning how can you be certain that there is any other mind than your own? You are correct in that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. We can not know if such a situation exists, therefore our default position should be that reality is truth. There probably are other minds like ours that indeed exist as we do. ...but we could all still just be brains in vats.
Sam Harris: Fully agree. I do not subscribe to many things he has too say, but I always admire his divine gift of clarity (pun intended; his Aspen talk on Faith and Reason -fora.tv- is a classic) and his intellectual honesty. Also, I find the theme of his newest book (Moral Landscape) very refreshing. BTW, I would love you reviewing fav books you recently read (like "The Greatest Show on Earth"). Not in a professional book-review style, but more your spontaneous personal impressions.
I've been watching your videos for a long time and sometimes I forget if you're an atheist or not. I'm glad you answered these questions becuz it helped clarify what u believe...at least, a little. I like ur vids cuz you're intelligent and funny...and cute...;) but u infuriate me by being overly nice and forgiving to religionists.
But, symbols give validity, in the minds of the masses, to irrational ideas. Due to the lack of information most people have, our currency & the pledge reinforce, as you said, the idea of the US being a Christian nation, resulting in legislation & cultural practices which attack education, science, gays, women, & any progressive ideas considered contrary to religion. Also, to greatly simplify the argument of a god, these people made it up. I canot be compelled to believe in the imaginary .
I like your videos because you are cute, thought provoking, funny and I love your answers. You are not afraid to tell it like it is. Ryan Seacrest must love your hair to ask about what you use on your hair. Did the church of Scienetology ruin people in Hollywood?if so give some examples. I also love what you say about people getting married and abortion. I believe in God and I agree with a lot of things that you say. Thanks for speaking your mind.
So you don't believe in blind faith...........except for socialized medicine. Sure other countries can make it work (somewhat) but those countries have addressed the COST of heathcare. Obamacare DOESN'T. The ambulance chasing lawyers can still sue like there's no tomorrow and drive up costs further.
@dave4248 In your arguement against socialized medicine, you conceed it does work in other countries; yet it is nothing but "blind faith" that makes someone think it would work in USA? What is so different about the USA that people will be allowed to die or go bankrupt for a disease that would be treated by medicare in Canada or Cuba?
Maybe rather than ASSUMING blind faith you actually present your side of the arguement; i.e. how letting these people die is good for the economy.
@jacevicki ////////////// those countries have addressed the COST of heathcare. Obamacare DOESN'T. The ambulance chasing lawyers can still sue like there's no tomorrow/////////////
Next time, please read my ENTIRE response. You'll save both of us some time and trouble.
TBS I understand your point about abortion and the foetus not having a soul or knowledge of its (his/her?) impending doom, but the way i see it is, life is so precious and the chance that life even happening is so small that its just too much of a precious thing for someone to take away. the only difference between killing the foetus and killing the being once it (he/she) becomes a person, is time. so all that persons life would be wiped from time and its not fair for someone to take that away.
With regards to the comment about Christianity having to adapt and Christians pretending like it's not adapting but has always been what it is, I don't think most Christians do this, or if we do we do so subconsciously. Speaking as a Christian myself the real challenge is coming to terms with the fact that much of the Bible was written for a different audience with different issues, social dilemmas, etc. But a great deal is universally applicable, yet there is still the deciphering process too.
Is there a 'puppeteer' when you dream and what you believe at the time to be your consciousness is experiencing a manufactured 'reality'? Presumably the dreaming experience demonstrates that there is a portion of your conscious mind that can become a script writer that is hidden from your dreaming conscious experience?
@herbiepop Your conscious mind only experiences the dream, it doesn't create it. Your *brain* is what creates the dream, and your brain is a part of the physical, external world outside of your mind (what you consciously, subjectively experience).
@TheoreticalBullshit If you know anything about lucid dreaming, then you know the conscious mind does have the power to create and manipulate dreamscapes in their entirety. I can essentially manufacture my own reality in an LD (which is a joy known to far too few people, sadly). Not sure of the implications of this, if any, maybe you can tell me.
@TheoreticalBullshit You stated that “if what’s fooling my mind is external to my mind, then the claim refutes itself". But that’s not really the claim. The fact is that quantum physics as well as most post quantum physics based sciences demonstrate clearly that all experience takes place within the self, including the experience of interpreting the self. The actual claim is that what’s fooling the mind is within the mind and therefore by no means necessitates an external world.
@TheoreticalBullshit Let me preface this by assuring you that I’m not trying to troll or annoy ya. I actually really enjoy your videos. I’m just offering a friendly challenge on this particular matter. You also asked “How can you call the puppeteer my mind when it’s completely external to my consciousness and experience?" If the subconscious mind is not required to be external to your consciousness and experience, then why is the puppeteer? Why must inaccessibility mean external?
I welcome your return. I enjoyed this immensely. I'm sure you don't need a sychophantic appraisal of your answers, so you won't be getting one. :)
However I feel that your refutation of extreme Skepticism and/or Solipsism at the end deserves mention.
"The best you could do"? It should be enough. You contemplated it for 15 mins (figure of speach right?). Some people get stuck on this their whole lives. Others use it as an excuse to make outrageous claims.
completely off the topic of this video (welcome back by the way, you were missed) GAWDDAMN you are beautiful AND intelligent. Spead those genes around!!!
@Nulono hehe, yeah. had to stop the vid before he got to that part and I just got back to it. I feel your pain TB. I have a molar that is half-three quarters gone. So there's still a sharp edge to cut my tongue on. YAY
I agree with you about the external world. Mind and world are aspects of experience. Whether the "world" aspect is external or not seems moot. If it is an extension of myself, then discovery of that part of me could be relabelled 'introspection' but it would be business as usual. Understanding stubbing my toe on a rock would still involve a complex story about dream-toes, dream-rocks and dream-nervous systems. Dream-others would still present ideas apparently independent of my 'mind' aspect.
So why bother with 'dream', 'seemingly', 'apparently' and other words? Might as well continue to use the same realist vocabulary I have always used, and even commit to believing in an external world. Navigation through it remains unchanged under solipsism anyway.
And not just his intellectual arguments... Even his silly faces and comic remarks are increasing in sophistication! I used to cringe when he did that 'look ast me', 'dorky' kind of shit, but now it's quite entertaining.
Man, streaming 26 minutes of video eats a decent hole in my download cap. But this was worth every minute! Glad you're back, TB! You and ProfMTH are my favourite youtubers.
I was drawn into watching videos on you tube by watching first your videos about how unreliable the bible and the new testament actually are. Why should they be believed? They were written by people... 2000 years ago. You wouldn't believe these things if they were told you yesterday by your best friends! Or your parents!
2of2. And on the question of whether or not it could be your own mind deceiving you, it seems weird to discount that on the grounds that you would have to redefine the mind to incorporate non-conscious experience. bizarre even. So you deny that there is ANY facet of the mind whatsoever that is not consciously known or experienced? It seems like this is what you're implying.
@anrchyvk Let's not confuse minds with brains, now. *Brains* do all kinds of things of which our *minds* are not aware. Our *brains* trick our minds all the time. But our brains are a part of the external world. "Mind" is the word we use for our consciousness, our awareness, and our experience... not the shit that goes on behind the scenes. For example, your brain is what produces the dreams that your mind experiences every night.
@TheoreticalBullshit 1of2 That's a distinction that not everyone makes though. Beyond that, it seems sort of ad hoc and arbitrary to say that the mind is ONLY things we are immediately conscious of. I mean lets take the example of memory formation. I have an experience that I am conscious of (mind), and I form a memory of that experience, which I then forget and store away (brain), I recollect this experience at some point later, at which time I become immediately conscious of it again (mind)
@TheoreticalBullshit 2of2 What justifies our claiming that this memory jumps back and forth in status from being part of our mind to part of our brain just because we are alternately conscious of it and not conscious of it? This seems arbitrary. I mean if we are to make the distinction just on the basis of whether or not something is a bit of qualia (basically), we're at least going to need some kind of justification for using this as the metric to delineate between mind and brain.
@TheoreticalBullshit 3of2 ha. Also, and I just thought of this, I think the whole point is unnecessary for someone like you anyway, because I assume you would want to say that in the end the mind is subsumed in the brain anyway (ur not a dualist). So why wouldn't you just say that the mind is the brain, and hence part of the external world with it, badda bing badda boom. I'm not really trying to make a point here, just curious about why you even bother making the distinction. Haha.
@anrchyvk Well, exactly. I'm not a duelist, and I think our consciousness/mind is entirely contingent on our brains. But I do know the difference between what my brain lets me consciously experience, and what it doesn't. To ask if there is a world external to my mind (my consciousness) is to ask if there is anything more to existence than my subjective experiences. And yes, there is. There must AT LEAST be my physical brain, because my consciousness can't trick itself: I'd be conscious of it.
1of2 EHHHHHHH you kind of got slippery on the external world thing. I think you got it wrong on both counts. If the manipulator is outside your mind, okay yea there IS some external world, but to then brush the implications of that off as "oh well we know our perceptions don't exactly correspond to the external world anyway so NBD" is kind of weak. There is a difference between little discrepancies, like the ones I assume you have in mind, and, say a BIV scenario. RIght?
@anrchyvk I disagree. Say you and I are in the Matrix, right? So everything we experience, and everything of which we are conscious is false. (As it happens, we are being manipulated by machines who took over the world and started using us as energy sources.) Would you say the best way to describe this scenario is:
A) "The external world is not what we perceive it to be,"
...or
B) "There is no external world"
However exaggerated we may feel "A" is, we would NOT be tempted to say "B".
@TheoreticalBullshit No yea I totally agree with that. But I took you to be saying that if the fact of A turned out to be true, this wouldn't really mean much anyway. The whole "we already know verifiably etc.etc." thing. My point is that us being in the Matrix and us perceiving sticks as bent in water when they really aren't bent (e.g.) are, to my mind, not comparable scenarios. Just the raw fact of A doesn't really tell us much until we know HOW the world differs from our perceptions of it
I respect you so much more after this video because I can see how accepting and tolerant you really are. I'm sorry if that's offensive (me assuming you thought you were pretentious), but you really are a great guy :) Have a good day.
@PluripotentBrain It may have been simplistic, but I would say there's no complicated way to respond to the gentleman's argument besides granting his claim and saying, "what's your point?". Is there something problematic about that approach?
hey i don't know if you ever talked about them but have you heard of the westboro baptist church in topeka. what are your thoughts on their anti gay, anti military message and how they picket fallen soldiers funerals. i have been to their site which and i have to say it is distasteful and disgusting keeping track of the number of dead soldiers and thanking god for it and how gay people are dooming America to hell. i would love to hear yours and anyone's thoughts on it
I'd be interested if you've ever heard of Moreland and Rae's book "Body and Soul", or any other theistic-philosophical treatment of the issue of abortion, because you dismissed the pro-life position out-of-hand without argument as if there is no intellectual or academic controversy about it.
@migkillertwo You said, "...or any other THEISTIC-philosophical treatment of the issue of abortion" [caps added]
Yes, exactly, that's the point. I dismiss the arguments out of hand because they must assume theism in order to work. Since I reject theism, why would I concern myself with such arguments?
Are these arguments supposed to show that abortion is immoral? If so, by what standard of morality? A theistic one? Ah. Then I don't care.
They don't really assume theism, I called it "theistic-philosophical" because all the philosophers who offer this same treatment happen to be theists.
Though I guess we could relabel it an "essentialist" treatment.
"By what standard of morality?"
Actually it's more of a deontological system of ethics that they argue from since they reject the uniquely modern notion that humans are not themselves intrinsically valuable, only valuable insofar as they can think and feel
Okay, then that's an important conversation that needs to be had. BUT, I should say, I'm aware of these arguments, and, *ultimately* I would argue that they still implicitly (even if not explicitly) assume theism/supernaturalism.
"humans are not themselves intrinsically valuable, only insofar as they can think and feel"
That's my point. What is morality about for you? What does it mean to call something "immoral"? What are we saying about it?
@migkillertwo Jake, you can't have honestly thought that saying, "immoral means wrong" would be in any way constructive or informative to this conversation. I'm trying to get to the bottom of this, work with me: What does it mean to say something is "wrong"? What are we in fact saying about it by calling it this?
"...not reducible to the consequences of actions"
Remains to be seen. I don't grant this for a second.
What I was trying to say, with that response, is simply that the consequences are *not* what makes an action wrong or right. Now you said that you don't grant this for a second, to which I will ask 2 questions
1: Why do we understand that motives are important in assessing whether an action was right or wrong (?) , and
2: How can supererogatory acts (acts which were good, but not obligatory) exist?
@migkillertwo I've said something to this effect to you before on FB, but I actually see thoughts, consciousness, relationships, etc. events that *occur* between material things...But I really don't even feel the need to keep it that vague. I would be happy just to say that these arguments against abortion--if you peel all the layers away--assume theism or some spiritual realm. But I'll be able to unpack this if you answer my question about what you actually *mean* by calling something "wrong".
So One material thing causes another...Does the causal relationship actually exist? It may be because of material things, but it is not itself a material thing.
"if you peel all the layers away, they assume theism or some spiritual realm"
So do properties or natures/essences exist? I'm not too sure one need even assume substance dualism to show that fetuses are persons, just show that statements of essential predication (eg "i am a person)...
@migkillertwo These are all just words, and grammar. Nouns, verbs, representations of concepts. Sure, "I" was conceived, and there was a point when "I" had no more capacity to suffer or understand my own existence than an oak tree. If "I" had been prevented from continuing to grow, I promise you, I wouldn't have cared. And if it saved "me" from a life of resentment, malnourishment, poverty or abuse, then all the better. Are you going to answer my question or should I give up on replying to you?
"are you going to answer my question or should I give up on replying to you?"
You're starting to sound a lot like Sami Zaatari. I've already answered your question by objecting to the premise of your question. You have not responded to that at all.
@migkillertwo I did respond to it, and you haven't responded to THAT at all.
I'll say it again: So you adamantly contend that abortion is "wrong" and yet you concede that you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY ABORTION IS "WRONG", and yet you expect to be taken seriously?
I am not asking you for a "theory". I'm asking you for a *definition* of the term central to YOUR affirmative claim. This is not a terribly difficult concept to digest.
all you did was assert yourself. Again, it's possible to know that some action is wrong if we don't have a theory of ethics. A child who has never heard the term "ethics" knows that stealing is wrong.
"I'm asking you for a *definition* of the term..."
By asking what "wrong" means, you're asking for me to give a theory of ethics. That's what ethics is all about, it investigates what "right/wrong" is!
@migkillertwo No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know that something is X unless you know what X means. I'll prove this unequivocally, right now: Is eating turkey floogedipable? Yes or no, Jake? After all, you don't need to know what floogedipable means.
I know what *I* mean when I say something is wrong. So why don't you? Have you really never thought it through? Or are you trying to avoid putting yourself into a corner?
@migkillertwo Then Jake, what you mean by "wrong" is utterly meaningless to me.
Why? Because the ONLY reason I know that stealing is "wrong" is because of what I understand "wrong" to MEAN: that which causes unnecessary suffering, or diminishes health or well-being.
There is no absolute, official definition of "wrong" in the sky, shining down upon us, Jake. So if YOU mean something DIFFERENT than this when you say that abortion is "wrong", don't you think it would be a good idea to tell me?
@TheoreticalBullshit "Wrong" is that which violates the rights of another. Rape and slavery violate the right to liberty. Murder and abortion violate the right to live. As for theft, "La propriété, c'est le vol!".
@migkillertwo Also: A theory of ethics is different from a definition of right/wrong. You should know this. A theory of ethics investigates which actions are wrong, which aren't, and how we can know. But this cannot happen until we know what "wrong" MEANS. You cannot investigate what is right and what is wrong until you know WHAT TO INVESTIGATE.
@migkillertwo A child who has never heard the term "ethics" knows that stealing is wrong.
A child from the Pashtoon region of Afghanistan would know no such thing. In their culture "raiding" from other tribes is perfectly correct and honorable.
Sorry, dude, but, as always, for every thing you name as an "absolute moral trait" there will always be some culture that practices the very opposite.
Odd that such a thing can be when the all powerful sky daddy gave us morality, eh?
@migkillertwo "Does the causal relationship actually exist?"
Oi vey. I'm not interested in defending this to you, as it is irrelevant to the immorality of abortion. But suffice it to say, if it even made sense to say a causal relationship "exists", it is certainly not in the same sense that "a screwdriver" exists. And to treat them as if they are ontologically the same is to equivocate. That humans created a noun to represent how two things interact, doesn't mean it represents a real entity.
I'm not really saying that they exist in teh same sense at all. Particulars and universals are very different.
"and there was a point when I had no more..."
Alright, so tell me, why is it that the only thing which matters is the consequences of an act, insofar as it causes certain undesirable mental states? Because this flies in the face of everyone's intuition that persons are ends unto themselves.
"my question is absolutely crucial to this conversation"
I cannot for the life of me figure out how it is important at all, let alone "crucial to this conversation". It is very easy to call things right and wrong even if we don't have a theory of ethics.
This idea that we need theories before making judgements is really REALLY bad epistemology.
@migkillertwo Okay, so you are conceding that you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY ABORTION IS "WRONG", and yet you expect me to take you seriously? Come now. Yes, Jake. It's crucial. And you seem to be tap dancing at this point.
You've completely misrepresented why Christians oppose abortion. Christians don't oppose abortion for any reason inherent to Christianity, we oppose abortion because it's murder. That's why you'll also find Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists who are opposed to abortion.
stallion4life 1 month ago
@stallion4life it isnt murder....but w/e.
liverpoolfan2525 1 week ago
I always confuse Sam Harris with the guy from Jurassic Park.
McFluffyNugget 2 months ago
I have come to the conclusion that my life is very boring. -_-
TheBiAtheist 2 months ago
you and i don't share many of the same views...with that said you are extremely interesting to watch and very intelligent. i think it is important that all people question and not just accept what their church has taught them & you can definitely make a person do that!
ricksbitch777 2 months ago
SO - I just noticed, you start every video out with "The smolder." Very well played =D. Evidence as to such here watch?v=Ada42ZuUDwI
chilledkirby 2 months ago 2
So um, just a question, you talked about Dawkins, Hitchens, and HArris...but I didn't see you mention Dennett. As Dennett is possibly my favorite of the 4, I'd like to know what you think of him.
BigLundi 4 months ago
Word to your mother, BITCH!
vVPrototypeVv 5 months ago
Did you just use Russell's teapot to refute Cartesian scepticism? That response was brilliant. Utterly brilliant.
timeinminutes 5 months ago
I find myself very interested in the famous serial killer.
Burhgurgh. I'm a prying dickweed.
MattAlexWatson 6 months ago
19:45
"Mr Wilson hasnt actually made an aargument" hahaha not bad sir, not bad.
P4PMike 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You refer to Plantinga's argument in favor of his "reformed epistemology" as "fucking terrible" in this video, and in another video you refer to it as "riddled with fallacy." Do you have a video explaining what the fallacies are? If not, I think I have a video idea for you :-)
ianmathwiz7 8 months ago
You refer to Plantinga's argument in favor of his "reformed epistemology" as "fucking terrible" in this video, and in another video you refer to it as "riddled with fallacy." Do you have a video explaining what the fallacies are? If not, I think I have a video idea for you :-)
ianmathwiz7 8 months ago
I was harassed by some religious group once when I was trying to raise money for victims of domestic violence. I was at a raffle stand and these people came up to me and asked if I believed in God. My response was along the lines of that I'm neither for or against him. I should have been as rude of they were and told them to step off, I'm trying to raise money for a good non-religious cause, but instead I allowed them to waste my time. I can't stand those who force their views onto others.
MJportfolio 11 months ago
Yes Virginia there just might be a god and if you really fell like you need an explanation to the maybe fact... then watch the end of a movie called "Jeffery" as matter of fact just watch the hole thing it's kinda funny.
jasonwojnicz 11 months ago
What is the story about you being a minister? What serial killer? ugh! How can you just mention those things in passing without giving us a little context!
pineconesaresmallnow 1 year ago 4
The tooth thing kinda happened to me when I was little... I was eating smarties icecream and then a piece of chocolate got stuck in my molar. When I tried to get it out with my tongue it split in half. Worst part was this was late at night and had to wait till the next day to go to the dentist. .-. Yay for bloody mouth when you're like 8.
SPEARMlNT 1 year ago
I have truly today met the dumbest person I have ever heard speak. Thanks for making no scene other than to people who think as stupid as you thinking.. God forgive you for the bull shit you are putting into peoples minds and enjoy you trip to Hell for leading people into stupidity....
INTERINVESTCHANNEL1 1 year ago
@INTERINVESTCHANNEL1 he is not the one telling children till they are old enough to think for themselves, that jesus is the only way, he is not walking around telling everyone that they are going to hell. No it's people like you that do that, people like you are responsible for all the stupidity in this world. If only you would try to think...
genix2006 8 months ago
@INTERINVESTCHANNEL1 You realize you just sinned by condemning another to hell...have a nice day
liverpoolfan2525 1 week ago
Have you ever considered signing up to reddit.com, we need you!
TheChakkers 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheChakkers 1 year ago
TBS, you should do a video on mormonism :)
flyfry22 1 year ago
You were sexually mollested by Jack the Ripper?
sapunec7854 1 year ago
Comment removed
sapunec7854 1 year ago
bet this dude has been laid more times than i will in my lifetime
apohl215 1 year ago
Comment removed
kdheithaus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I predicted you would use the phrase "a while back"
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
Comment removed
2DGorillaz192000 1 year ago
start 16:30 ... then 16:39 well well said.
mikeyfbi 1 year ago
Dude, I always pee sitting down. I never understood why this is girly or somehow not manly. I say it's manly to never get piss on the seats.
andyissemicool 1 year ago 2
Why are such an interesting man?
Br0k3nS41nt 1 year ago 2
hey would you be open to a skype debate that I can record and put up on youtube?
snbeings 1 year ago
@snbeings Maybe. With whom and on what topic?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
I am new
thesparitan 1 year ago
As Christian, I don't buy into the "beliefs" of many so-called "Christians" because ironically -most Christians do NOT even know (much less understand) what the "Bible" says on most matters. They simply pretend to in order to excuse a lax intellect. As a Christian, I believe that you should be able to express your views & argue what you believe to be true. Let the truth prevail though the heavens may fall (but they won't). I really like you & would love to converse in more than 500 characters.
g0ysorg 1 year ago
Buddhism does not respect reason. It treats reason as the medium of illusion. It's only use of "reason" is in the form of rhetorical devices used to destroy the lanuage used to construct our inner narratives. It resolves dialectics through an act of will, in the form of an intuitive leap, rather than through the use of reason. Extreme cases in point: kamikaze pilots, Aum Shinrikyo, feudalism in Tibet.
pirbird14 1 year ago
@pirbird14 not really. the dogmatic part of philosophical religion like Buddhism and Taoism developed over the years by people of power and masses who wish to appeal to a higher power.
abandon all the supernatural part of Buddhism claim, there's a lot of valuable truth in it.
jojoinhere 1 year ago
@jojoinhere
I wasn't talking about supernaturalism. I was talking about dialectics. Buddhism resolves that through an act of will. Hegel resolves it through reason. Guess which one I consider to be more reasonable.
pirbird14 1 year ago
@pirbird14 of course you can apply dialectics onto Buddhist topic.
i suppose you mean the Buddhist way of meditation is a self-questioning process that surpass reason. meditation actually isn't about that. meditation is... just meditation.
jojoinhere 1 year ago
@jojoinhere
Dialectics is a study of the relationship between the unformed products of direct perception and the products of abstract conception. Buddhists fetishize direct perception.
pirbird14 1 year ago
@pirbird14 and can you prove your point that Buddhist perception of reality is one-sided or close-minded? i like and value that skeptical and rational view of the world is the rightful path to get the truth. Buddhism philosophy engage in topic of suffering and the cause of it. that's not an illusion.
btw, I'm not a native english speaker so please pardon my grammar mistake and things like that...
jojoinhere 1 year ago
Hey, I just wanted to suggest a book that may be of some interest to you. I just finished reading it and I found it to be helpful. Obviously there is a certain dislike for faith-based systems, but I can only assume that is due to an object moral standard within yourself to avoid what is false (according to your perception) and seek what is true, so I respect that merely on the level of common-sense, but objectively disagree. Anyways the book is called "No Man is an Island"
Pax
ChrisPietraszko2 1 year ago
I wonder,
What is your opinion on Suicide?
kitty16226 1 year ago
This is a genuine question because I really want to know this. But how the fuck do you keep up with your 'wordyness' without breaking a sweat? seriously! It's so much hard work to dictate to people in the 'real' world like this without basically ending up coming out with pretentious bullshit that I just end up keeping things simple.
So much I think is potentially lost from people not being able to communicate like this and yet so much is NOT gained from the simple fact we never speak that way.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
you talk some heavy shit,need to be quite learned in this whole philosophy,atheism,christianity subject to satisfactorily grasp your point.
esme1231000 1 year ago
your tooth fell out while you were eating salad? :o really? that creeps me out..i have such a phobia about that.
avedic 1 year ago
I've actually thought of consciousness as one of the proofs of something creating us. I'm an agnostic.
Teaspooninjabot 1 year ago
@Teaspooninjabot Consciousness is not a proof of a creator.
humanistheart 1 year ago
i think i love you. just saying.
LeVoixNoire 1 year ago 33
@LeVoixNoire I don't think I'm in love with him, I know it.
EricJSanchez 1 month ago
OMG your response to Dasamericanatheist's question at the end was probably the most impressed ive been with you and thats saying a lot lol.
Roenazarrek 1 year ago
Hahah! I love that you're back in the game. "Oh what? Snap!" made my day. Am I easily pleased and amused? I think yes. : D
Terrayeah 1 year ago
Scott, james wanted to see if you are a Solipcist. This position is- the external world can not be known and might not exist, meaning how can you be certain that there is any other mind than your own? You are correct in that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. We can not know if such a situation exists, therefore our default position should be that reality is truth. There probably are other minds like ours that indeed exist as we do. ...but we could all still just be brains in vats.
citizen762 1 year ago
If you've never been religious (18:08) then how come you're an ordained minister (02:37)?
wreynolds1995 1 year ago
Sam Harris: Fully agree. I do not subscribe to many things he has too say, but I always admire his divine gift of clarity (pun intended; his Aspen talk on Faith and Reason -fora.tv- is a classic) and his intellectual honesty. Also, I find the theme of his newest book (Moral Landscape) very refreshing. BTW, I would love you reviewing fav books you recently read (like "The Greatest Show on Earth"). Not in a professional book-review style, but more your spontaneous personal impressions.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
I've been watching your videos for a long time and sometimes I forget if you're an atheist or not. I'm glad you answered these questions becuz it helped clarify what u believe...at least, a little. I like ur vids cuz you're intelligent and funny...and cute...;) but u infuriate me by being overly nice and forgiving to religionists.
julzabro 1 year ago
Yeah, your argument for an external world was pretty weak, but the rest of the video was good.
TheManRaptor 1 year ago
"Growing up in a remarkably Christian community..." Valencia High? I went to Villa Park. I'm right there with you... =/
mfaulkner12 1 year ago
what's with all those personal questions?
tsuishanlam 1 year ago
To the last question: I think we should just stop partitioning the world in the ways Descartes, Locke, Hume and Kant told us to.
fauyd 1 year ago
Hey @theoreticalBullshit what do you think about Creationism being taught in a philosophy?
jaqx2 1 year ago
TB, nice touch on the "Two Dimensional" addition to the common 'no circular square' argument, as a cylinder can indeed be a circular square. Bravo.
robman419 1 year ago 4
@robman419 Thanks. (It ain't my first rodeo.)
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago 6
This is the world you live in?
Are these the hands you're given?
Should we use them and start trying to make it a place worth fighting for?
dieyou2000 1 year ago
Re: giving Atheism a symbol .. THANK YOU for recognizing it's an absolutely awful idea!!
ShallowThoughts 1 year ago
the last answer kind of reminded me of Decartes, the cogito, the evil gene...
cool!
pepenacho65 1 year ago
Dude, I just saw you on TV today when I was sitting in the waiting room (waiting for my uncle to get out of some minor surgery) at the hospital.
I won't call you out or name any names, just gonna say: Dude, you soooo don't belong on a soap opera, I admire your performance ability.
Bravo, lol.
TheAlmightyFSM 1 year ago
religion, philosophy & the world. that certainly covers the waterfront. :)
sambol 1 year ago
8:35 That goddamn smoke detector chirped. Change the battery! ARGH
BoozyBeggar 1 year ago
But, symbols give validity, in the minds of the masses, to irrational ideas. Due to the lack of information most people have, our currency & the pledge reinforce, as you said, the idea of the US being a Christian nation, resulting in legislation & cultural practices which attack education, science, gays, women, & any progressive ideas considered contrary to religion. Also, to greatly simplify the argument of a god, these people made it up. I canot be compelled to believe in the imaginary .
tmhteacher 1 year ago
I like your videos because you are cute, thought provoking, funny and I love your answers. You are not afraid to tell it like it is. Ryan Seacrest must love your hair to ask about what you use on your hair. Did the church of Scienetology ruin people in Hollywood?if so give some examples. I also love what you say about people getting married and abortion. I believe in God and I agree with a lot of things that you say. Thanks for speaking your mind.
bakert7000 1 year ago
So you don't believe in blind faith...........except for socialized medicine. Sure other countries can make it work (somewhat) but those countries have addressed the COST of heathcare. Obamacare DOESN'T. The ambulance chasing lawyers can still sue like there's no tomorrow and drive up costs further.
dave4248 1 year ago
@dave4248 In your arguement against socialized medicine, you conceed it does work in other countries; yet it is nothing but "blind faith" that makes someone think it would work in USA? What is so different about the USA that people will be allowed to die or go bankrupt for a disease that would be treated by medicare in Canada or Cuba?
Maybe rather than ASSUMING blind faith you actually present your side of the arguement; i.e. how letting these people die is good for the economy.
jacevicki 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jacevicki ////////////// those countries have addressed the COST of heathcare. Obamacare DOESN'T. The ambulance chasing lawyers can still sue like there's no tomorrow/////////////
Next time, please read my ENTIRE response. You'll save both of us some time and trouble.
dave4248 1 year ago
TBS I understand your point about abortion and the foetus not having a soul or knowledge of its (his/her?) impending doom, but the way i see it is, life is so precious and the chance that life even happening is so small that its just too much of a precious thing for someone to take away. the only difference between killing the foetus and killing the being once it (he/she) becomes a person, is time. so all that persons life would be wiped from time and its not fair for someone to take that away.
mick4dennis 1 year ago
With regards to the comment about Christianity having to adapt and Christians pretending like it's not adapting but has always been what it is, I don't think most Christians do this, or if we do we do so subconsciously. Speaking as a Christian myself the real challenge is coming to terms with the fact that much of the Bible was written for a different audience with different issues, social dilemmas, etc. But a great deal is universally applicable, yet there is still the deciphering process too.
Youlube32 1 year ago
Not to diminish what you say, but you are SSOOOO hot. I wish you'd do one of these videos shirtless!
Amistavia 1 year ago
So.... who's the serial killer?
valiantvyse 1 year ago
@valiantvyse my guess is Jeff Dahmer. Not a lot of serial killers who are also sexually abusive and everyone has heard of.
LynxChan 1 year ago
Is there a 'puppeteer' when you dream and what you believe at the time to be your consciousness is experiencing a manufactured 'reality'? Presumably the dreaming experience demonstrates that there is a portion of your conscious mind that can become a script writer that is hidden from your dreaming conscious experience?
herbiepop 1 year ago
@herbiepop Your conscious mind only experiences the dream, it doesn't create it. Your *brain* is what creates the dream, and your brain is a part of the physical, external world outside of your mind (what you consciously, subjectively experience).
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit Well that's one theory...
herbiepop 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit If you know anything about lucid dreaming, then you know the conscious mind does have the power to create and manipulate dreamscapes in their entirety. I can essentially manufacture my own reality in an LD (which is a joy known to far too few people, sadly). Not sure of the implications of this, if any, maybe you can tell me.
Innercynic 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit You stated that “if what’s fooling my mind is external to my mind, then the claim refutes itself". But that’s not really the claim. The fact is that quantum physics as well as most post quantum physics based sciences demonstrate clearly that all experience takes place within the self, including the experience of interpreting the self. The actual claim is that what’s fooling the mind is within the mind and therefore by no means necessitates an external world.
tubeboy8 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit Let me preface this by assuring you that I’m not trying to troll or annoy ya. I actually really enjoy your videos. I’m just offering a friendly challenge on this particular matter. You also asked “How can you call the puppeteer my mind when it’s completely external to my consciousness and experience?" If the subconscious mind is not required to be external to your consciousness and experience, then why is the puppeteer? Why must inaccessibility mean external?
tubeboy8 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
If you could isolate your consciousness from everything else (the puppeteers) what do you think would be left that is purely your consciousness?
ekpil2000 1 year ago
I welcome your return. I enjoyed this immensely. I'm sure you don't need a sychophantic appraisal of your answers, so you won't be getting one. :)
However I feel that your refutation of extreme Skepticism and/or Solipsism at the end deserves mention.
"The best you could do"? It should be enough. You contemplated it for 15 mins (figure of speach right?). Some people get stuck on this their whole lives. Others use it as an excuse to make outrageous claims.
PS. Sorry to here about Soya's brother.
krysylys 1 year ago
20:25 FTW, lmfao
Shiggiddie 1 year ago
completely off the topic of this video (welcome back by the way, you were missed) GAWDDAMN you are beautiful AND intelligent. Spead those genes around!!!
inuhgungju 1 year ago 5
I"m so glad you didn't actually lose a tooth
psychopicasso 1 year ago
@psychopicasso He did; he got a replacement.
Nulono 1 year ago
@Nulono hehe, yeah. had to stop the vid before he got to that part and I just got back to it. I feel your pain TB. I have a molar that is half-three quarters gone. So there's still a sharp edge to cut my tongue on. YAY
psychopicasso 1 year ago
@psychopicasso Half-three quarters gone? Is that 1.5 quarters? 1.25?
Nulono 1 year ago
@Nulono as in somewhere between half and three quarters. I haven't bothered to make any more accurate of a measurement. lol
psychopicasso 1 year ago
Are you sure you didn't just confuse Harris with Dennet?
michalchik 1 year ago
Okay... hello,
i'm a Gay Christian;
and i love you videos.
kudos.
12 gold stars
swimbubba995 1 year ago
"OOOOHHHH WHAT? SNAP! POW! POWNED! MMM! WORD TO YOUR MOTHER, BITCH! YEAH....RIGHT."
thats why you rock
wlrugby 1 year ago
I agree with alot of things that you say TBS but abortion is not one of them...sorry. :(
witch26071 1 year ago
an atheist ordained minister? the ULTIMATE paradox!
PageofLegend 1 year ago
Welcome back!!!
nikolka1992 1 year ago
you are HOT!!!!!!xD
TheVeronicasBestFan 1 year ago
Change that smoke alarm battery ! ! !
MercifulMing 1 year ago
What are your thoughts on agnosticism?
NiCo4z3 1 year ago
I agree with you about the external world. Mind and world are aspects of experience. Whether the "world" aspect is external or not seems moot. If it is an extension of myself, then discovery of that part of me could be relabelled 'introspection' but it would be business as usual. Understanding stubbing my toe on a rock would still involve a complex story about dream-toes, dream-rocks and dream-nervous systems. Dream-others would still present ideas apparently independent of my 'mind' aspect.
riversonthemoon 1 year ago
@riversonthemoon
So why bother with 'dream', 'seemingly', 'apparently' and other words? Might as well continue to use the same realist vocabulary I have always used, and even commit to believing in an external world. Navigation through it remains unchanged under solipsism anyway.
riversonthemoon 1 year ago
Scott just gets better and better.
And not just his intellectual arguments... Even his silly faces and comic remarks are increasing in sophistication! I used to cringe when he did that 'look ast me', 'dorky' kind of shit, but now it's quite entertaining.
MrDarkbloom 1 year ago
You would have been an AWESOME James Tiberius Kirk!!!
I wish I lived in a parallel Universe where you actually got that role.
Pylo01 1 year ago
Man, streaming 26 minutes of video eats a decent hole in my download cap. But this was worth every minute! Glad you're back, TB! You and ProfMTH are my favourite youtubers.
threewiseman1 1 year ago
"Word to your mother, bitch!"
Hilarious.
DeLilleD 1 year ago
Congratulations on your 100th Video, dooood!
forrykid 1 year ago
you are good.
how the fuck do you have the patience for responding to all these comments though.
hearts and kisses <3
sabergun 1 year ago
WTF your not going to tell us who it was?
antonyneal 1 year ago
I was drawn into watching videos on you tube by watching first your videos about how unreliable the bible and the new testament actually are. Why should they be believed? They were written by people... 2000 years ago. You wouldn't believe these things if they were told you yesterday by your best friends! Or your parents!
As usual, amazing video! Fav'ed
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
so are we ever going to find out the serial killers name?
deathreaver3356 1 year ago
You're so well-spoken and you speak with such humility it's incredible I could never keep my cool as well as you do in a debate lol
AlexGERONIMO 1 year ago
Cool dude, I'm glad you ventured into the realm of politics a bit in this video. Nice perspective on health care.
Shoemagic 1 year ago
2of2. And on the question of whether or not it could be your own mind deceiving you, it seems weird to discount that on the grounds that you would have to redefine the mind to incorporate non-conscious experience. bizarre even. So you deny that there is ANY facet of the mind whatsoever that is not consciously known or experienced? It seems like this is what you're implying.
anrchyvk 1 year ago
@anrchyvk Let's not confuse minds with brains, now. *Brains* do all kinds of things of which our *minds* are not aware. Our *brains* trick our minds all the time. But our brains are a part of the external world. "Mind" is the word we use for our consciousness, our awareness, and our experience... not the shit that goes on behind the scenes. For example, your brain is what produces the dreams that your mind experiences every night.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit 1of2 That's a distinction that not everyone makes though. Beyond that, it seems sort of ad hoc and arbitrary to say that the mind is ONLY things we are immediately conscious of. I mean lets take the example of memory formation. I have an experience that I am conscious of (mind), and I form a memory of that experience, which I then forget and store away (brain), I recollect this experience at some point later, at which time I become immediately conscious of it again (mind)
anrchyvk 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit 2of2 What justifies our claiming that this memory jumps back and forth in status from being part of our mind to part of our brain just because we are alternately conscious of it and not conscious of it? This seems arbitrary. I mean if we are to make the distinction just on the basis of whether or not something is a bit of qualia (basically), we're at least going to need some kind of justification for using this as the metric to delineate between mind and brain.
anrchyvk 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit 3of2 ha. Also, and I just thought of this, I think the whole point is unnecessary for someone like you anyway, because I assume you would want to say that in the end the mind is subsumed in the brain anyway (ur not a dualist). So why wouldn't you just say that the mind is the brain, and hence part of the external world with it, badda bing badda boom. I'm not really trying to make a point here, just curious about why you even bother making the distinction. Haha.
anrchyvk 1 year ago
@anrchyvk Well, exactly. I'm not a duelist, and I think our consciousness/mind is entirely contingent on our brains. But I do know the difference between what my brain lets me consciously experience, and what it doesn't. To ask if there is a world external to my mind (my consciousness) is to ask if there is anything more to existence than my subjective experiences. And yes, there is. There must AT LEAST be my physical brain, because my consciousness can't trick itself: I'd be conscious of it.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
1of2 EHHHHHHH you kind of got slippery on the external world thing. I think you got it wrong on both counts. If the manipulator is outside your mind, okay yea there IS some external world, but to then brush the implications of that off as "oh well we know our perceptions don't exactly correspond to the external world anyway so NBD" is kind of weak. There is a difference between little discrepancies, like the ones I assume you have in mind, and, say a BIV scenario. RIght?
anrchyvk 1 year ago
@anrchyvk I disagree. Say you and I are in the Matrix, right? So everything we experience, and everything of which we are conscious is false. (As it happens, we are being manipulated by machines who took over the world and started using us as energy sources.) Would you say the best way to describe this scenario is:
A) "The external world is not what we perceive it to be,"
...or
B) "There is no external world"
However exaggerated we may feel "A" is, we would NOT be tempted to say "B".
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit No yea I totally agree with that. But I took you to be saying that if the fact of A turned out to be true, this wouldn't really mean much anyway. The whole "we already know verifiably etc.etc." thing. My point is that us being in the Matrix and us perceiving sticks as bent in water when they really aren't bent (e.g.) are, to my mind, not comparable scenarios. Just the raw fact of A doesn't really tell us much until we know HOW the world differs from our perceptions of it
anrchyvk 1 year ago
At 19:44, I thought that pastor was going to try to debate the "brains in a tank" argument. Haha.
michele7656 1 year ago
I respect you so much more after this video because I can see how accepting and tolerant you really are. I'm sorry if that's offensive (me assuming you thought you were pretentious), but you really are a great guy :) Have a good day.
Allyepiph 1 year ago
Great video. Change the damn battery in your smoke detector. ^^
rosshershey 1 year ago
22:14
"Somebody can be an atheist as a result of thinking rationally, but nobody thinks rationally as a result of being an atheist"
Can I use this quote? This is how I feel about so many us but I never found the words so well put together.
Key2daUnderground 1 year ago
you have a killer smile dude.
lukev7 1 year ago
I must make a video contending your overly simplistic statement at 20:20...
Great to see you back btw
PluripotentBrain 1 year ago
@PluripotentBrain It may have been simplistic, but I would say there's no complicated way to respond to the gentleman's argument besides granting his claim and saying, "what's your point?". Is there something problematic about that approach?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
hey i don't know if you ever talked about them but have you heard of the westboro baptist church in topeka. what are your thoughts on their anti gay, anti military message and how they picket fallen soldiers funerals. i have been to their site which and i have to say it is distasteful and disgusting keeping track of the number of dead soldiers and thanking god for it and how gay people are dooming America to hell. i would love to hear yours and anyone's thoughts on it
SupernaturalFreak88 1 year ago
WOW I get rashes from metal too
NismoTyler 1 year ago
I'd be interested if you've ever heard of Moreland and Rae's book "Body and Soul", or any other theistic-philosophical treatment of the issue of abortion, because you dismissed the pro-life position out-of-hand without argument as if there is no intellectual or academic controversy about it.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo You said, "...or any other THEISTIC-philosophical treatment of the issue of abortion" [caps added]
Yes, exactly, that's the point. I dismiss the arguments out of hand because they must assume theism in order to work. Since I reject theism, why would I concern myself with such arguments?
Are these arguments supposed to show that abortion is immoral? If so, by what standard of morality? A theistic one? Ah. Then I don't care.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
They don't really assume theism, I called it "theistic-philosophical" because all the philosophers who offer this same treatment happen to be theists.
Though I guess we could relabel it an "essentialist" treatment.
"By what standard of morality?"
Actually it's more of a deontological system of ethics that they argue from since they reject the uniquely modern notion that humans are not themselves intrinsically valuable, only valuable insofar as they can think and feel
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo "They don't really assume theism"
Okay, then that's an important conversation that needs to be had. BUT, I should say, I'm aware of these arguments, and, *ultimately* I would argue that they still implicitly (even if not explicitly) assume theism/supernaturalism.
"humans are not themselves intrinsically valuable, only insofar as they can think and feel"
That's my point. What is morality about for you? What does it mean to call something "immoral"? What are we saying about it?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
Can you define "supernaturalism"?
"what is morality about for you?"
It's about what is right and wrong, and what is right and wrong is not reducible to the consequences of actions.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Jake, you can't have honestly thought that saying, "immoral means wrong" would be in any way constructive or informative to this conversation. I'm trying to get to the bottom of this, work with me: What does it mean to say something is "wrong"? What are we in fact saying about it by calling it this?
"...not reducible to the consequences of actions"
Remains to be seen. I don't grant this for a second.
"Can you define supernaturalism?"
...the belief in more-than-naturalism?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
"You can't have honestly thought..."
What I was trying to say, with that response, is simply that the consequences are *not* what makes an action wrong or right. Now you said that you don't grant this for a second, to which I will ask 2 questions
1: Why do we understand that motives are important in assessing whether an action was right or wrong (?) , and
2: How can supererogatory acts (acts which were good, but not obligatory) exist?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
"The belief in more-than-naturalism?"
So do relationships, thoughts, minds, or universals exist, or is "natural" a far more broad and useless word?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Finally, I want to ask you a simple question; Why should you or I give a damn if we can't formulate an exhaustive theory of ethics?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo I've said something to this effect to you before on FB, but I actually see thoughts, consciousness, relationships, etc. events that *occur* between material things...But I really don't even feel the need to keep it that vague. I would be happy just to say that these arguments against abortion--if you peel all the layers away--assume theism or some spiritual realm. But I'll be able to unpack this if you answer my question about what you actually *mean* by calling something "wrong".
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
"events that occur between material things"
So One material thing causes another...Does the causal relationship actually exist? It may be because of material things, but it is not itself a material thing.
"if you peel all the layers away, they assume theism or some spiritual realm"
So do properties or natures/essences exist? I'm not too sure one need even assume substance dualism to show that fetuses are persons, just show that statements of essential predication (eg "i am a person)...
migkillertwo 1 year ago
...are not reducible to statements of accidental predication.
Alright, that said, I ask you, If there is a difference between essential and accidental predication, then were *you* conceived?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo These are all just words, and grammar. Nouns, verbs, representations of concepts. Sure, "I" was conceived, and there was a point when "I" had no more capacity to suffer or understand my own existence than an oak tree. If "I" had been prevented from continuing to grow, I promise you, I wouldn't have cared. And if it saved "me" from a life of resentment, malnourishment, poverty or abuse, then all the better. Are you going to answer my question or should I give up on replying to you?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
"are you going to answer my question or should I give up on replying to you?"
You're starting to sound a lot like Sami Zaatari. I've already answered your question by objecting to the premise of your question. You have not responded to that at all.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo I did respond to it, and you haven't responded to THAT at all.
I'll say it again: So you adamantly contend that abortion is "wrong" and yet you concede that you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY ABORTION IS "WRONG", and yet you expect to be taken seriously?
I am not asking you for a "theory". I'm asking you for a *definition* of the term central to YOUR affirmative claim. This is not a terribly difficult concept to digest.
...Still tap dancing.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
"and you haven't responded to that at all"
all you did was assert yourself. Again, it's possible to know that some action is wrong if we don't have a theory of ethics. A child who has never heard the term "ethics" knows that stealing is wrong.
"I'm asking you for a *definition* of the term..."
By asking what "wrong" means, you're asking for me to give a theory of ethics. That's what ethics is all about, it investigates what "right/wrong" is!
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know that something is X unless you know what X means. I'll prove this unequivocally, right now: Is eating turkey floogedipable? Yes or no, Jake? After all, you don't need to know what floogedipable means.
I know what *I* mean when I say something is wrong. So why don't you? Have you really never thought it through? Or are you trying to avoid putting yourself into a corner?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
"i'll prove this unequivocally, right now..."
I dont know what "floogedipable" means because that IS a meaningless statement that both you and I KNOW (keep that in mind) to be meaningless.
Now answer this question; Does a child know that stealing is wrong?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Then Jake, what you mean by "wrong" is utterly meaningless to me.
Why? Because the ONLY reason I know that stealing is "wrong" is because of what I understand "wrong" to MEAN: that which causes unnecessary suffering, or diminishes health or well-being.
There is no absolute, official definition of "wrong" in the sky, shining down upon us, Jake. So if YOU mean something DIFFERENT than this when you say that abortion is "wrong", don't you think it would be a good idea to tell me?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit "Wrong" is that which violates the rights of another. Rape and slavery violate the right to liberty. Murder and abortion violate the right to live. As for theft, "La propriété, c'est le vol!".
Nulono 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Also: A theory of ethics is different from a definition of right/wrong. You should know this. A theory of ethics investigates which actions are wrong, which aren't, and how we can know. But this cannot happen until we know what "wrong" MEANS. You cannot investigate what is right and what is wrong until you know WHAT TO INVESTIGATE.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
"You should know this"
a theory of ethics is what we would use to investigate and categorize actions into genres like right, wrong, trivial, or supererogatory.
aka, definition.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo No, not "aka, definition". What you just described is not a definition.
Taxonomists need a definition of "vertibrate" BEFORE they can investigate and categorize a creature to see if it is, in fact, a vertibrate.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@migkillertwo A child who has never heard the term "ethics" knows that stealing is wrong.
A child from the Pashtoon region of Afghanistan would know no such thing. In their culture "raiding" from other tribes is perfectly correct and honorable.
Sorry, dude, but, as always, for every thing you name as an "absolute moral trait" there will always be some culture that practices the very opposite.
Odd that such a thing can be when the all powerful sky daddy gave us morality, eh?
Godshoulddie 1 year ago
@migkillertwo "Does the causal relationship actually exist?"
Oi vey. I'm not interested in defending this to you, as it is irrelevant to the immorality of abortion. But suffice it to say, if it even made sense to say a causal relationship "exists", it is certainly not in the same sense that "a screwdriver" exists. And to treat them as if they are ontologically the same is to equivocate. That humans created a noun to represent how two things interact, doesn't mean it represents a real entity.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
I'm not really saying that they exist in teh same sense at all. Particulars and universals are very different.
"and there was a point when I had no more..."
Alright, so tell me, why is it that the only thing which matters is the consequences of an act, insofar as it causes certain undesirable mental states? Because this flies in the face of everyone's intuition that persons are ends unto themselves.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Jake, please answer my question, THEN I will answer yours. My question is absolutely crucial to this conversation:
What does it mean to say something is "wrong"? What are we (you) in fact saying about it by calling it this?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
"my question is absolutely crucial to this conversation"
I cannot for the life of me figure out how it is important at all, let alone "crucial to this conversation". It is very easy to call things right and wrong even if we don't have a theory of ethics.
This idea that we need theories before making judgements is really REALLY bad epistemology.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Okay, so you are conceding that you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY ABORTION IS "WRONG", and yet you expect me to take you seriously? Come now. Yes, Jake. It's crucial. And you seem to be tap dancing at this point.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@migkillertwo true, to say morality is simply the consequences of actions is morally immature.
PageofLegend 1 year ago
"I'm sure someone has put this into argument"
JP Moreland has pretty much made it his life mission to advance that argument :P
migkillertwo 1 year ago