Darth Dawkins & Acolytes Brutally, Narrowly Escaping Mason's Clutches!

[@huntertobey6965]

It’s actually pathetic how obvious it is Darth calls everyone who can wreck him a troll

[@darth_mb]

Some things never change

[@WorldCupWillie]

49:33 "P1 is not false, so it must be true" This reminds of when Alex Malpass spent hours in multiple discussions trying to explain this to Matt Slick Edit: the next guy mentions this straight after

[@Rev-bb9ej]

45:10 this is so funny. Like Cartesian just involuntarily laughs at how absurd it is to disagree with something you don't understand and this guy takes this as some kind of personal insult. And all of this after like 30 minutes of trying to eek out the distinction between two shifting meanings of "necessary". This is such a Christmas gift of a vid.

[@SaxyCalzone]

You can tell Darth wins a lot of debates by how much he asserts that he wins a lot of debates. This is what living with your mother for 60 years does to you, folks.

[@skynet3d]

How is it that so many people don't get that these questions Darth asks are designed to only have one answer and are complete fabrications. They are all meaningless. He presents thing X that only God can provide, then he makes up a consequence for not having thing X, like that you're no longer intelligible. In order to be intelligible, you need something to replace this made up God, to explain this made up thing. It's all nonsense.

[@UltraViolet-pb9nw]

Love QTop freaking out.

[@darth_mb]

@@UltraViolet-pb9nw yep

[@-gearsgarage-]

Qtop is disgusting

[@UltraViolet-pb9nw]

@-gearsgarage- yep

[@elefth]

Darth Dawkins and Top Q in one video 🥵 Christmas came early 😇😇🥰🥰🥰

[@elefth]

*Q Diddy, my bad

[@darth_mb]

@@elefth lol

[@13shadowwolf]

Presup is an expression of Auto-fart-sniffing Self-Justification loop that has no application outaide of the self-causal fart-sniffing. It's the Eric Cartman position in philosophy.

[@kingobama4305]

LMFAOOOO was not expecting the "SIR STOPP TALKING!!!" from that squeaky ben shapiro sounding person. idk how everyone didnt break out laughing.

[@A-L0neDrow]

A lack of belief is a belief? Q-tip has NOOOOOO impulse control whatsoever so I guess he is the coward?

[@WorldCupWillie]

A couple of minutes in, does DD use the term "identity state" when asked to define identity state? 😂

[@Seren-ODMVM]

This video cooked 🔥

[@ThePsyko420]

55:42 anyone that claims "I don't know" isn't a legitimate position is wholly intellectually dishonest

[@travispratt6327]

It’s clearly not always a legitimate position.. if someone were to ask “do you actively believe all people of a race are inferior” and your answer is “I don’t know” that’s a pretty illegitimate response. You don’t know if you actively believe that? And even if you misunderstood and thought the question was asking if they are, not just if you believe it, then “I don’t know” is still a pretty illegitimate response.

[@ThePsyko420]

@travispratt6327 I don't know what I believe is still a valid answer...however with your example I would find such an answer difficult to believe as I expect every adult has already put some thought into the subject...it's still valid though...just hard to believe

[@travispratt6327]

@@ThePsyko420 You think “I don’t know what I believe” is a valid answer to do you believe x race is inferior? You either do or you don’t… that’s not something people just accept “I don’t know what I believe” as an answer. They’d correctly peg you as a racist, because that’s the answer a racist would give.

[@RabornTau]

It starts off with Darth projecting.

[@dbt5224]

Lack of impulse control = Intellectual coward? Darth must be the dumbest, most scared person on the planet.

[@dbt5224]

I commented that before he ran away, like the coward he is.

[@donnyh3497]

Do you think that darth's mom tussles his hair at the end of the night and tells him that he did a good job debating, and that he really told those atheists what was what?

[@darth_mb]

@@donnyh3497 definitely.

[@ericbatterson7720]

Someone needs to point out to Presups that complexity is always bottom up never top down

[@RahjaStooli]

LOL!

[@guitarista67]

This guy is so incoherent. I think he finishes about every fourth sentence. I think he's counting on people not hearing him.

[@FloydFp]

An agnostic is saying that it could be logically possible that some God is METAPHYSICALLY necessary as well as not. The agnostic is not saying that some God is not metaphysically necessary. That is the mistake Darth is making.

[@A-L0neDrow]

Q-tip is insufferable

[@pavld335]

QTop is nuts.

[@earth1710]

Only an Omniscient being has the know-how and the power to create reality. And you can see that knowledge and power in reality.

[@ajhieb]

_"Only an Omniscient being has the know-how and the power to create reality."_ This is hilariously incoherent. For something to exist, there must be some reality in which the thing exists. Which is to say the existence of an omniscient being, presupposes the existence of reality. No reality means no omniscient being. So clearly the omniscient being is contingent on reality, not the other way around.

[@earth1710]

@@ajhieb Reality didn't always exist and only an Omniscient being has the know how or knows everything there is to know to create it.

[@ajhieb]

@@earth1710 You're missing the point. If there is no reality, then there are no concrete particulars (that includes omniscient beings.) If there was ever a state of affairs where no reality existed then it necessarily follows there was also no omniscient being to create reality.

[@ericbatterson7720]

Q-top loves talking

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

6:40 and 4:00 Hahaha i am laughing so hard at this. Q-Top just literally starts SCREAMING into his mic the moment his interlocutor starts responding. This is like Darth Dawkins × 10. First time I've heard him & i haven't laughed that hard in a while. He seems smart and informed but its just when he suddenly start screaming it's hilarious

[@darth_mb]

@@lightbeforethetunnel neither smart nor informed is he, just parrots Darth

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

​@darth_mb This is my 1st time hearing so idk, but it honestly took me a while to determine if the sudden screaming was intended to be satire or not.

[@SaxyCalzone]

Holy shit I didn't even realize that was Q Top

[@canyouflybobby7352]

These god squad fools need to justify the supernatual 1st and WHY is the supernatual is real ????

[@johnfoppiano7058]

dd has been going live a lot lately. He got fired up after the election.

[@dbt5224]

Is a creator contingent on creation? I've never written a song, am I a songwriter?

[@MovingSkies-o2n]

QTop needs to calm down, jeez. I don't think any good theist philosophers defend presup, so I have no clue people still try to use it. Also, I feel like I found myself near the bottom of the atheist debate iceberg or whatever, lol

[@igbo925]

Its not a serious philosophical argument, its purely a rhetorical move to bait those who cant immediately see through the bs and to put on a show for their flock of fundamentalists. Its exactly like flat earth.

[@displacegamer1379]

42:29 He has now changed his definition of "universe." Previously, he claimed to be using a standard, non-proprietary definition of the term, defining the universe simply as "the set of all things." Under this definition, God would be included as part of the universe since, in his worldview, God exists. However, the new definition he introduced defines the universe as "the set of all dependent things," which is a significant departure. Under this revised definition, God is explicitly excluded from the universe, as God is considered independent. This redefinition effectively separates God from the universe, whereas the previous definition did not. In standard usage, "universe" typically refers to "all that exists." By excluding God from this category through his new definition, he is undeniably employing a proprietary and non-standard interpretation of the term.

[@canyouflybobby7352]

The supernatual is self claiming and true lol

[@JedisfuneralTM]

What does this means

[@canyouflybobby7352]

Justify your claim that the bible is true ???? Oh wait you cant

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

37:55 atheist asks, "whats your definition of asserting?" Alright, come on. Seriously? If you watch this entire sequence I think he asked for the definition of literally every word in the argument. This is why there's a growing stereotype in regard to atheists using definitional bickering as a means of obstructing rational debate. Anyone can sit there and just bicker over how word X, Y, and Z are defined from the argument or question to avoid actually interacting with it. This can always be used to dodge anything in any debate scenario. So the very fact this has become the go-to thing to do for atheists in response to Presup is revealing in itself. Particularly when the same atheists who use this tactic NEVER have trouble understanding the words outside of this specific scenario, and will even sometimes later boast about how well he understands the meanings of these words (if the context leads to that) for debates on other topics.

[@francisa4636]

Maybe stop equivocating and talking gibberish. It helps if people are on the same philosophical level. Presup is low IQ nonsense so it really needs to raise its game

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

If you look at the characteristics of Pseudoskepticism listed on the Wikipedia page, then analyze the responses you hear online from atheists to Presup, it'll fit one of those characteristics every single time. Usually, it's "assuming criticism requires no justification" or "unsubstantiated counter-claim" but there's also a lot of "tendency to ridicule instead of investigate" and others.

[@darth_mb]

@@lightbeforethetunnel 🌟

[@travispratt6327]

It’s not just presup though, they do this with practically everything that’s not based on scientific consensus or elementary materialist paradigms.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@travispratt6327 Yep exactly! To be fair, I should point out that it's not just atheists who do this. It's a human problem. People of all worldviews do it when experiencing cognitive dissonance (especially when presented with info conflicting w/ deeply held beliefs about reality that they've held for a long time)

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@travispratt6327 Although I think it's true that some people do it more than others. Atheists end up doing it a lot simply because their worldviews are not true. So, when they debate worldviews that's really their only option (especially if debating a competent debater)

[@Simulacra-e9n]

ngl i wanna see mason vs ismason. at least see some competent vs competent debate once in a while

[@darth_mb]

@@Simulacra-e9n ismason is competent? Since when?

[@stacula2]

Big L is the greatest rapper of all time.

[@darth_mb]

@@stacula2 *cough*: Nas, Kendrick, Joey Bad, J Cole, Mobb Deep, Gang Starr, etc.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

I've found one of the best ways to put Presup into a syllogism is like this (despite the fact it appears like affirming the consequent fallacy, at first, it actually isn't) P1: If X doesn't exist, Y wouldn't be possible P2: Y is possible C: Therefore, X exists. (X = Biblical God, Y = justified predication, non-fallacious argumentation, intelligibility, science, etc) Of course atheists will want justification for P1, which can be done, but the reason why it's not an affirming the consequent fallacy despite having the appearance of one at first is explained on Rational Wiki (a source atheists trust) in the part explaining non-fallacious types of affirming the consequent. This is one of them. I can explain further if anyone wants.

[@francisa4636]

We've all seen this argument before, do you actually have a justification for any of the assertions here

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@francisa4636 I've never seen anyone else formulate it like that and I've looked for years. They formulate premise 1 as "X is the necessary pre-condition for Y" And yes, I have the deductive justification for P1 posted publicly for over a year. Calling it an assertion is a bare assertion fallacy itself, as that entails there's no rationale at all underlying it, as if you've asked for the justification and we refuse to give it entailing there's no rationale behind the premise & it's been determined to be unjustified (and, when debating non-contingencies like this in which there's no withholding judgment, that's equivalent with declaring the premise is false - as you're affirming it's contradictory opposite). Something you did not determine yet.

[@francisa4636]

@lightbeforethetunnel all presup TAG arguments take this form. If you have your justification posted provide the link or copy and paste Until you provide a justification it's an assertion. It's not my problem if you don't understand logic. The bare assertion fallacy is what you've committed, you don't get to pretend that's applicable to the critique

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@francisa4636 P2 is also easily deductively justifiable. Which of the available options for Y would you like me to cover? For knowledge (aka justified predication), I simply show that it's contradictory opposite is self-refuting which justifies P2 by disjunctive syllogism. To affirm the propositional content "we can't have knowledge" or "we can't know anything" (or anything propositionally equivalent with this) is self-refuting because that propositional content, itself, is a claim to knowledge... just as affirming any propositional content would be, whether it's affirmed implicitly or explicitly. So, anyone affirming the propositional content is true would simultaneously be affirming it's false by necessary logical entailment. All self-refuting claims are false by logical necessity. And because it's contradictory opposite has been demonstrated to be necessarily false, that justifies P2, that knowledge is possible. Pretty basic stuff.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@francisa4636 Again, no, all presup TAG arguments do not take that form. I just spelled out for you exactly what the difference is, with specificity, in regard to Premise 1. Can you acknowledge that you read and understood the difference before moving on? Because I honestly feel if you can't even acknowledge that, then it just tells me you're ignoring what is being said (if it conflicts with what you thought or said) no matter what. And there's just no point in engaging with someone in that mindset.

[@HarryNewbrook-yf4th]

You guus got destroyed by darth about imolying deterministic states of affairs or implied necessity under a purely chance world

[@SaxyCalzone]

Can you elaborate?

[@HarryNewbrook-yf4th]

@SaxyCalzone on what

[@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE]

Did you mean you "guys"?

[@HarryNewbrook-yf4th]

@@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE yeah