Debate w/

Thanks for coming on ‪@OceanKeltoi‬
His video: • Anti-Theism: Ocean Kel...
🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ Main Channel - / @vaush
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#vaush #vaushpit

[@zozobobo3042]

In Aztec mythology it was believed that if there was not enough human sacrifice to the sun God, it would be killed by the moon and everyone would die. If you beleive the world would end almost anything is justifiable even sacrificing 1000s of people every year

[@Kropothead]

Yeah, they had a whole series of cycling apocalypses that could only be forestalled by appeasing the gods sacrificially. If you have to carve out a couple people’s hearts a day to prevent a global plague of man-eating jaguars, well, that math is pretty easy to do.

[@TheLithp]

And Keltoi's only counter is "don't do that anyway," which isn't how we do anything. Like I'm guessing he's pro-vaccine, but there's going to be some amount of people who are allergic to any vaccine, possibly without even knowing it. The potential harm cannot be reduced to 0, we just judge that it's worth the benefit.

[@zacheryeckard3051]

@@TheLithp The issue, I think, is he doesn't believe in the way that people with magical thinking believe. Keltoi seems to be wearing a hat that he is ready to drop if it leads somewhere he doesn't like. He doesn't seem to understand that others don't engage with religion and morality that way.

[@javiervalenzuela8284]

Yup. People are then stucl between a rock and hard place. Do you agree that this is the logical conclusion of a bad belief system when taken to it's inevitable outcome or do you say it isn't and agree then that the simple act of being religious has made them irrational enough that they can't even follow their own logic?

[@starchythepotato2877]

@@Kropotheadhad the the aztec empire been atheist, it would've killed just as many people.

[@masterplusmargarita]

The point I keep wanting Vaush to make (and 50 mins in he's brushed up against but never explicitly said) is that religion has no unique positive utility, but it does have unique negative utility. You can arrive at every good outcome of religious thinking through secular thinking, but there are negative outcomes of religious thinking that secular thinking can't arrive at.

[@dragonslaya16]

To be fair thats the over arching argument that ties everything together

[@asherroodcreel640]

While you are definitely correct, this guy is too irrational to understand stand that, he literally thinks most people are too dumb to not have a religion

[@loreleimonn3220]

Yeah, that’s exactly what I’ve been thinking. What harmful position can a person come to based purely on material reality as discovered through the scientific method? There are none. But what harmful positions can a person come to based on the idea that things can be known through faith? The potential harmful ideas are endless

[@hagoryopi2101]

Dogmatic or uncompromising belief is not unique to religion. Nor is the potential for dangerous or violent outcomes derived from this belief. For example, a political dogma which advances particular ends while considering all opposition to be ontologically evil. Or a scientific pursuit like sentient AI or human cloning which ignores the potential ethical ramifications and frames the opposition as anti-science or anti-progress. The problem isn't religion, but dogma.

[@Srdarkone]

​@@mikaperzyna8230 It might be remarkably good but not UNIQUELY good. Here difference is not in terms of degrees but in terms of Binary yes or no. Are there positive outcomes that can ONLY be arrived at though religious thinking?

[@jigidy421]

As a person whose recently deconverted from being a Christian and is learning how to learn and think beyond being one, I have been finding these debates helpful and useful to the continual process of moving beyond that, so I don't mind that there are some of them hanging around.

[@DinggisKhaaniMagtaal]

I haven’t watched the video yet but from what I can tell from these comments, it’s not going to be much different from his other videos so I’m just going to leave this here for you specifically: I think there are healthier ways of thinking than what Vaush puts out because I find his views are only tolerant towards religious people at a surface level. This doesn’t seem to be much of a stretch with all of these KZbin generals talking about how tolerance is good only as a tool and not of it’s own principle. There’s a lot of grand standing and calling religious people idiots and the such, and from my perspective this leads to a lot of colonialist shit rebranded as lefty. Honestly, a lot of this shit pushes me away from the left personally, and I’m not even that religious, and it’s because of all the assumption making. Meeting the people that I have in my life, from Native practitioners to Mongolian Buddhists and shaman followers, some of whom worked in academia, I find a lot of what gets said here (by Vaush’s followers moreso by him himself, but this is where his logic leads) to be pretty gross in a lot of ways. Having a toxic relationship with religion or spirituality doesn’t give anybody the excuse to shit on all religious people just like how people who fled from communism shouldn’t get a free pass in shitting on all of socialism. Just my two cents though. I most likely won’t be responding because last time I commented on a video like this I got a lot of passive aggressive vitriol, but whatever you end up believing in (or not) I just hope you have a good life. Peace, man. ✌🏼

[@Liam-pi9vi]

@@DinggisKhaaniMagtaal Agree with this

[@Liam-pi9vi]

I will also say that I hope you don’t adopt the “Zeal of the de-converted” and utilize a lot of Vaush’s rhetoric. I can understand hating religions, especially the Abrahamic ones, but to essentialize and antagonize all members of those specific faiths, and religions in general, is not conducive to drawing others to your ideas or having them examine their own. I am in a similar spot where I pretty much don’t subscribe to a majority of Christian beliefs as a result of having issues with the morality that is within the bible, but this idea that “Rationalism is when no religion” is just ridiculous. Most people do not live their lives in a purely “rational” manner, and those of them who would identify themselves as antitheistic or atheistic don’t examine the fundamental assumptions of their own beliefs just as much as religious people do as well.

[@dirtycrimeboi6178]

I've been an atheist for a good long while now but I've also found the atheist experience very helpful for developing better logical reasoning and argument structures

[@roberteriksen6434]

You really shouldn't watch these guys then, there are much better videoes on street epistimology out there. Vaush is at least 10 years behind in his retoric with religious people. Anthony Magnabosco is a literal angel on earth, you could watch some of his videoes.

[@krkngd-wn6xj]

My favorite argument for anti theism I first heard from Hitchens: (paraphrased) Try to name one good, moral thing that only a religious people could justify doing, no atheist could. You can't. If you try to think of a wicked, immoral, evil thing that only a religious person could justify, no atheist could, you could list things till the sun goes down.

[@MarkArandjus]

As an atheist, I've been listening to theist argue their point for like 20 years now. I'm at that point where I start sighing after only a few minutes, like... seriously? We're still doing this?

[@analemma.inflection]

I think Vaush argues his points well, so yes, I'm glad he's had a few of these. I also feel like his opponent made some really good points too. I'm really digging this convo, 45 min in.

[@asherroodcreel640]

@@analemma.inflection we'll see how you feel in twenty years

[@MarkArandjus]

@@analemma.inflection Oh in case I wasn't clear: I'm not against people still doing these debates, we should always challenge theists, it's that just I, personally, am tired of listening to theists making all kinds of argumentative gymnastics.

[@AlicevonHindenburg]

Tbh the only reason I’m sticking out to atheist debates because it’s more of a coping mechanism on the fact that I, a closeted ex muslim, still being forced to do rituals to a being that I don’t believe in, which makes it a waste of time. most of the time the debates ended up the same and the only reaction I have is either “Ah shit, here we go again” or “How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man !?”

[@im_aleey]

@@AlicevonHindenburg Funny how just 2 years ago I used to engage in Islamic apologetics on some online forum because I was convinced I had the truth on my side. Long story short, after some debates, I realized, I became disillusioned, tried to keep the rituals, but it all became hollow, praying to something I'm not convinced exist nor could I prove it without resorting to some fallacious argument or mental gymnastics. Now I'm in the same shoes.

[@vassinarain]

Man thought “heathen” sounded cool so he became one 😎

[@akira1086]

➡ **TL;DR** ➡ *_Vaush:_* 'magical/superstitious thinking is a logical flaw and danger because it can allow people to potentially reach horrible rational conclusions based on non-falsifiable information not tied to material reality, and that i believe to be false' *_Keltoi:_* 'ok well my religion isn't bad like that, here's various historical examples of very specific religions/spiritual beliefs that don't do that' *_Vaush:_* 'i'm not talking about specific examples, i'm talking about religion & superstitious thinking as a whole and the logical flaws that come with it and reaching conclusions not based in material, provable reality, that if twisted could drastically change someone's prescriptions and morals given they're already working off magical thinking & shakey moral foundations' *_Keltoi:_* 'ok..... well my religion isn't bad like that, here's some historical examples of religions that didn't do a crusade - also why not just.... not be anti theist so you can get optics points' 🔁 **REPEAT** 🔁

[@michaelpierson7653]

40+ minutes in and yeah, this checks out 🥴

[@land_and_air1250]

The appeal to optics was so annoying because it’s just a cop out.

[@AnimeGIFfy]

Just straight up not listening or pretending he doesn't understand the argument.

[@SidheKnight]

@bo rick He's not a conservative. Though I agree his response is predictable and annoying.

[@DarthFetid]

his arguements hasn't changed since got "told off" by aron ra for the same thing, 3 or 4 years ago on the non sequiter show.

[@rlh1984]

This guy reminds me of my brother: raised Christian (Mormon, to be more specific), found it distasteful for one reason or another, but still believes in belief, so he adopts Paganism because he thinks it’s not as toxic, or is more grounded in reality, or isn’t so fanciful, or whatever. They like to talk shit all day about “organized religion” as if their magical thinking is less oppressive than other magical thinking, but at the end of the day, they still believe in stupid bullshit.

[@Millyannmartin]

This comment grabbed my attention because my father is exactly the same - even ex-mormon. I grew up watching him jump from one religion to another, not to mention him brainwashing me into being afraid of evil spirits and other supernatural bullshit. No amount of therapy has fixed the damage he caused me. He now thinks (once again) he has found the right religion, one that isn’t as toxic and is more grounded in reality. But he is, once again, just cherry picking and trying to avoid the inevitable crash that will crush his faith like so many times in the past, whatever it will be this time. Religion is poison.

[@YotYotFive]

It fucking blows my mind the way this guy kept attacking Vaush's "consequentialism" while repeatedly labelling certain religious actions as bad because they were "harmful". Annoys me that he wasn't called out on it, since it's such a blatant contradiction.

[@kiiyll]

I was internally screaming at Vaush to just ask him to define "toxic" the entire time! He kept referring back to this idea of "toxic" religious beliefs, but Vaush never pushed him on it.

[@malum9478]

@@kiiyll vaush got too lost in the sauce, arguing the specific nuances so hard because ocean wouldnt move off of them, so he wasnt able to take a couple really easy headshots that popped up every now and again. disappointing, but it happens to the best of us in a debate.

[@joelwestman8809]

Can't believe people who don't believe good outcomes can offset bad actions. You won't kill one guy to save millions? What about wars, would you not stop a genocide because it's bad to stab a man, even the persecutor? Would you stab a baby with a needle to vaccinate it, even though the needle hurts? Guess you couldn't, since hurting babies is bad regardless of the outcome. I don't know how you can go 2 hours without resolving this issue. Either get him to admit ends justify means, or have him go on record against vaccinating babies, it's a win either way.

[@Doctor_Straing_Strange]

SAAAME dud I wanted Vaush to point that out so bad, maybe he didn't catch it?

[@J.D.191]

If something's harmful then it's bad does that not make any sense to you doesn't matter what you are what religion you believe in

[@liampezzano]

1:27:20 "Otherwise pluralism would just be incompatible with many forms of Christianity." He was so fucking close.

[@1m1nD3mand]

“Experiential evidence”, more accurately known as “anecdotes”

[@wickedAberration]

I think y'all have serious brainworms on this, tbh. People only have their experience to go on-- My experiences are consistent with a fully material world, lacking supernatural phenomena, and my belief in empiricism is informed by its reliability, that my schooling has demonstrated the scientific method, and a belief that, essentially, peer review can be trusted. Without that, science can very well seem utter horseshit. But someone who has experiences which lead them to believe in things that are incongruent with my entirely material understanding of the world doesn't mean they're suddenly operating on moonlogic here.

[@zacheryeckard3051]

@@wickedAberration That's the thing, science exists precisely to eliminate that POV-bias. That's the point. People's unwillingness to question their subjective experience and asserting it as objective fact IS MAGICAL THINKING AND IS THE PROBLEM. You know, moon logic.

[@NottherealLucifer]

@@wickedAberration No, personal experience that disagrees with consensus is the brain worm. In the past there were revolutionary thinkers who went against consensus with knowledge we now know to be fact, but that's not you Jack. Personal experience is a bias specifically because your brain tells you to believe it over evidence. "People only have their experiences" is no more a valid excuse than "but it's tradition" being used to defend human sacrifice. There are a ton of things we used to have to rely on that we now use shared knowledge to move past, this is one of them. Dozens of people can witness the same crime and they'll have dozens of completely different testimonies when asked about that crime, its useless to society for all of the to blindly believe their perception of that crime is objectively how it happened.

[@wickedAberration]

@@zacheryeckard3051 Again, brainworms. There's a difference between BELIEF and ASSERTIONS OF FACT. Y'all have heard christians say they "know" something far too often that you've forgotten that belief isn't necessarily a knowledge claim.

[@zacheryeckard3051]

@@wickedAberration And you seem to not realize that there is no difference for the indoctrinated believers of a faith. Ocean *chooses* to believe. Those indoctrinated do not. They *know* their faith to be true. People "know" false information all the time. This is not different. The problem is one of bad epistemology.

[@spooks8839]

For everyone bitching about the antitheism arc I have to say it looks like a lot of you are either personally upset because you are religious or you're in a bubble where you never had to think about religion. As someone who grew up in the Bible belt and had religion force my parents into a toxic relationship. I would much rather have had a vaush making this kind of content to pull me to the left than fucking armored skeptic that started me down the alt right pipeline. Is it necessarily the most important thing going on at the moment? No. But it is working towards his goal of bringing more people into the left and as he's stated y'all kept asking for debates and when it comes to real world politics those he disagrees with are too scared to step up or are just using the platform to preach.

[@marcb.4401]

smart people? in this comment section? it's more likely than you think

[@brandonheuberger187]

I'm sorry religion was such a bad part of your childhood. It's possible to be adult and be spiritually mature. Vaush is too stubborn to realize that. "My world view is the best World View" Anti Theist and Evangelical Christians are exactly the same, one just believes in 1 less God

[@marcb.4401]

@@brandonheuberger187 nice catchphrase. but the fact of the matter is, once you open yourself up to irrational arguments based on zero empyrical evidence at all, you open yourself up to ANYTHING. you cannot rationally subscribe to irrational "beliefs".

[@brandonheuberger187]

@@marcb.4401 I think your trying to convince yourself not me m8

[@-ed-ge-]

@@brandonheuberger187 is that why you deleted your initial reply lmao

[@intiago]

It seems like a lot of people don't understand Vaush's arguments. He has no problem with religious traditions or cultural practices, he's specifically talking about religious thinking, ie believing things without empirical justification. Imagine two worlds, one where religious thinking is tolerated and another where there is a strong cultural stigma against it. Then in these worlds a person has a religious experience that would justify to them the necessity of doing something horrible. God speaks to them in a dream and tells them human sacrifice will save humanity or something. In which world is this person most likely to act on this experience? In which world are these ideas most likely to spread? What if this person doesn't have a religious experience but only wants to justify bad beliefs that they already have. In which world can they most easily do this? All religious thinking does is leave people vulnerable to bad actors, their own biases, and disinformation.

[@Khalkara]

"All religious thinking does is leave people vulnerable to bad actors, their own biases, and disinformation." He literally does explain this though, if people are misunderstanding Vaush that is on them.

[@shooshoo4590]

He says everything in the first paragraph in the first few minutes though? It was pretty clear

[@asherroodcreel640]

@@shooshoo4590 not to the other guy

[@frobeusns6404]

They understand, but bc Vaush's stance here is irrefutable, they always obfuscate to preserve their head mythology

[@MDoorpsy]

@@shooshoo4590 well when you don’t believe in empiricism, really, who knos what he said?

[@admiralwiggles7292]

43:48 this bit over here is fucking wild. How are you going to say that you’re against consequentialism and then say that your belief should be to criticize an action based on the amount of harm done. Like… Bro, you just defined what Utilitarianism is.

[@starchythepotato2877]

you don't know what either those words mean.

[@admiralwiggles7292]

@@starchythepotato2877 Just because you don’t know what they mean doesn’t mean you have to tell me that I don’t t understand them as well.

[@starchythepotato2877]

@@admiralwiggles7292 consequentialism is not necessary for utilitarianism. they are not dependent on one another. try again.

[@Eorthedohtor]

Those aren't the same thing. Consequentialism does not specify a desired outcome, while Utilitarianism specifies good as the desired outcome. Utilitarianism however will allow harm if it increases good.

[@LDIndustries]

The problem with the “absence of defeaters” argument with religion is that you get to choose what the defeaters are. Religious people choose what defeats their beliefs therefore there can never be a defeater.

[@MsScarletwings]

It’s also literally the entire problem with anti-skepticism that Russel’s teapot tried to illustrate

[@biologicalengineoflove6851]

Yes. Unfalsifiability. The less people rely on falsifiable evidence to inform their perspective, the more out of touch with reality they'll be.

[@masteroziniii2486]

'absence of defeaters' is an epistemological term. The rule is usually that a belief is considered defensible in absence of defeaters. Religious people themselves do not decide what evidence counts as a defeater, what decides that is the rules of logic themselves. As an example, the fossil evidence is absolutely a defeater against young earth creationism despite what creationists may claim. Not because any particular person says so, but because the belief in young earth creationism is inconsistent with the fossil evidence.

[@stormburn1]

@@masteroziniii2486 But it's not inconsistent if you believe the fossils were placed there by Satan. Any "defeater" to a young Earth can be hand-waved with "God formed the world as if it were much older than it is" or "Satan is trying to destroy our faith" or "(((They))) are hiding the truth." With these explanations, fossil evidence is no longer a defeater, nor is anything.

[@masteroziniii2486]

@@stormburn1 But the worldview of, 'you cannot trust anything because it may have been placed there by Satan' is only a few steps removed from Solipsism, aka the view that nothing exists except for your mind and everything that you think exists is actually a trick of the mind. If you debate a solipsist you'll run into similar issues to what you've described right now with debating a YECist, heck I've had a few debates with flat earthers in comment sections and I've noticed similar behavior. While there are some grounded arguments you can make against them (dependent on the solipsist in question) you generally won't be able to argue against them. But this is definitely not unique to people who find religious justifications for their positions in presence of defeaters. What I've found is that, weirdly enough, education is usually the best way of getting someone out of this situation. I've found that it's very rare for someone to have thought through their position on issues such as these and often responses like, 'that was placed there by Satan' is usually made ad hock. As such, actually going over the defeaters, even if they come up with ad hock responses to them, will slowly help move people over.

[@julsthejedi2646]

In terms of debate, it’s reeeeeallly hard to out weasel a religious person

[@dubudubu2442]

Man it’s always so disappointing when someone is friendly and good faith but still says some dumb shit and won’t acknowledge being wrong

[@asherroodcreel640]

Isn't that like all emotional conversations?

[@BoboftheOldeWays]

I agree, Vaush behaved poorly here.

[@asherroodcreel640]

@@BoboftheOldeWays dude you won the internet

[@MsScarletwings]

@@BoboftheOldeWays imagine carrying water for the dude here who unironically supports doing rain dances during a drought. Y’all would side against Vaush even if he were talking to literal flat earthers

[@chucku00]

Friendly, maybe. "Good faith", certainly not : his faith deliberately belitlles any examples given by Vaush on how baseless faith (ie : time used on rain dance) can be detrimental. This person only takes a look on the practice (not a big deal, rain dance isn't human sacrifice) without envisioning its possible nefarious consequences. His beliefs push him to hide behind his pinky. No "good faith" here.

[@trilightning]

I have been on an atheist grind for a lot longer than vaush probably. Here's the thing he should acknowledge: the biggest goal is to get religion out of government altogether. And that should be your goal as well. There is a lot of problems nowadays with religious zealots invading government and schools. that should be something we work against. For example: creationists fighting tooth and nail against Evolution being taught in public schools, Christian preachers preaching about politics (which should revoke their tax exempt status), home schooling being a huge problem, etc. For example we should re-evaluate the auditing process for churches, which is basically non existent.

[@trilightning]

Also maybe you could reach out to Aron Ra. He has been fighting in school boards in Texas to uphold scientific standards for forever. A talk about it would be nice and alert your audience to some of the issues caused by religion

[@kiiyll]

Is this your first Vaush video? He advocates for separation of church and state constantly. That's just not what this conversation was about.

[@cyberneticbutterfly8506]

That's an interesting question of chicken and egg. Would it be harder to get religion out of government first or get religion out of culture first?

[@lolplzde5037]

why should religion be forced out of the government? If a large portion of the population is religious, then they deserve to be represented? If other political or social movements can, then why can't religion?

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

There are bad religious people. This is true. There are bad naturalists. This is also true. How does it follow that because religious people can be bad we throw out religion? There are overwhelming scientific studies (metanalyses) that indicate intrinsic religiosity has positive societal outcomes. There is no reason to assume extrinsic religiosity having bad social outcomes means we should throw out religion. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[@MazorKuziaki]

You can't convince me this guy heard a single word Vaush said.

[@jamierichardson7683]

He never does. Arrogant and condescending

[@alli97253]

Speaking as an ex-evangelical, arguing against non-empirical beliefs does something that criticizing only the “toxic elements” of religion can’t. I had plenty of moral intuitions that conflicted with my own religion. And I’d seen plenty of content that criticized just the “toxic” kinds of Christians. But it didn’t matter. My own faulty moral barometer couldn’t override God’s perfect moral nature. I actually had to have by belief in God challenged. It wasn’t an instant thing. When you’re raised with it it’s drilled into you that believing this stuff is necessary to avoid eternal torment and it’s wrong to ever question it. But eventually the doubts worked their way in and I allowed myself to really ask “Why do I believe this? Do I even have a good reason to suspect it’s true?”

[@themightymcb7310]

Exactly. The smartest person in the world wouldn't be able to break out of a childhood religious indoctrination without at least some exposure to atheist arguments. You wouldn't even know where to start looking on your own.

[@johnpublic1068]

As an ex-evangelical, it was very difficult the first few years that I left the faith because I had not developed a strong moral compass or internal ethical framework. I had been taught for so long to ignore my personal morality in favor of whatever I had been told that when I was without that authoritarian faith relationship, I was a moral infant.

[@norselyqueer]

as an ex-evangelical, your perception of religion is skewed towards christian doctrine, and you can't really make claims like this without first educating yourself on the specific circumstances and beliefs of other religions. bigotry is still bigotry, man.

[@paulspringwood7190]

I would love to see Vaush talk with someone like Genetically Modified Skeptic or Rationality Rules.

[@wilforddraper1894]

You know theramin trees?

[@popocaDice]

-religious thinking is bad cuz you can't argue someone out of doing something bad -yeah but not every religion is bad -how would you convince a religious person that something is bad -but it's bad -how is it bad if the improvable, intangible being says it's good -no but it's bad cuz it does bad things, if my gods told me to kill a person to save them from a bad life i'd just switch to another one it feels like this dude doesn't even believe in his own religion and will just jump to whatever religion would fit best to his own morals

[@TheLithp]

That would unironically have been a better argument against Vaush's position.

[@wickedAberration]

y'all are so ignorant its painful... Religion isn't all monotheistic, you having brainworms and assuming objective morality is part of a religion is... Absolutely bonkers. Like fuuuck, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't help but cringe at this shit, when half of your arguments are dependent on untrue assumptions.

[@tylerreed610]

-you sometimes can't argue anybody away from bad things if they're determined -yes -the same with other people, give them well reasoned arguments -thats like, your opinion man -gods, especially in Ocean's faith, are not infallible. -Ocean is a poly theist. He's not switching religions, he's choosing who to incorporate in practice.

[@popocaDice]

that doesn't change the fact he is literally coming into it with preconceived moral values and choosing a worship based on that. the only reason he's not okay with murder is that he's not okay with it, if he was there would be no way to argue him out of it while maintaining a religious structure, since the religious belief is coming after the values AND justifying them, it's an untouchable loop

[@Doctor_Straing_Strange]

If you want to understand religion you have to understand it's all made up, then it starts making more sense. There's never been a surviving cult or sect of people who believe in an immoral God whose beliefs and commandments they ignore out of moral integrity. Such a religion would wither away almost instantly, people believe in religion because it's appealing, no religion without an appeal has survived because religion is not true or empirical, it is nonsense we tell ourselves to get over our lives

[@IamIK3]

Vaush: Religion allows folks to make rational decisions based on information I believe to be false, and debating them out of those positions isn’t worth the effort. Ocean Keltoi: [Ignores this central issue for an hour plus to argue that only toxic religion bad] That’s the whole discussion.

[@wile123456]

What is an isn't false is also a philosophical question in of itself.

[@iulioh]

@@wile123456 no is not Some facts are true, some are not. You may be talking about opinions not related to facts that cannot be right or wrong.

[@Infinite_voyager]

This pretty much

[@wile123456]

@@iulioh how do we decide what is true and what is false? Every field and science loops back to philosophy in order to make these assumptions that stand as foundations for the rest. It's very simple abstract thinking that vaush has learned about in his philosophy classes, but to not even acknowledge it at all is very anti-interlectual. If you can engage abstractly with the "what is a woman" why can't religion be engaged with abstractly at all?

[@land_and_air1250]

@@wile123456 I have bad news about what he wants to happen to gender and it happens to be the same fate he wants for religion

[@tormunnvii3317]

I lost a good friend and brother-in-law to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. My sister eventually broke up with him over his nonsensical beliefs ruining their relationship. You can’t convince, persuade, cajole or plead with someone who doesn’t see a problem with holding unfalsifiable beliefs. Trust me on this, i have tried for 10 years to logic him out of this. I 100% agree with Vaush on this one.

[@Cancellator5000]

Yeah, this is the main tragedy of religion. Sometimes it's merely annoying that people have deeply held beliefs without any proof and sometimes it ruins everything. My aunt's congregation went the far-right Trumpist route and as a result there is probably no way to convince her to be less extreme politically.

[@TheLithp]

"bUt I'vE dOnE iT, yOu'Re JuSt ToO lAzY!"

[@trithos7308]

Yeah, you have to engage in their dream logic if you want to argue them out of it, which doesn't actually solve the issue of dream logic dictating their life.

[@sophiatrocentraisin]

Thing is, I've had the same problems with psychoanalysts and atheists who start having really biased opinion on what gender and sex is. You can give them as many proofs you want, be it logical or empirical, some of them just won't budge because they are steadfast in their irrational beliefs, *even when they are falsifiable* (which is actually the case for quite a few of core Jehovah's Witness claims, including the various ends of the word that should have happened by now)

[@tormunnvii3317]

@@sophiatrocentraisin To be fair, there is a difference between your two examples. Claiming there was a global flood and 2 of every "kind" of animal was saved and that God performed a miracle to cover up the evidence is one thing, but arguing over the validity of the meaning and definitions of a socially constructed category is quite another. The first is easily unfalsifiable, the second is falsifiable by just looking at how people tend to use those gender/sex terms in practice.

[@bananamerchant6387]

I love those people who say stuff like "I'm not religious I'm spiritual" and then proceed to refer to a higher being and act like a religious zealot. This is why I say there is no difference between mysticism and religious zealotry. Both rely on the suspension of skepticism, the abandonment of critical thinking, and a heavy reliance on personal intuition, even if it contradicts observable reality.

[@pommedeter7407]

Difference being that the stuff you blindly believe in is dictated by an organisation for religion, and by yourself for spiritualism

[@eh6138]

Well said.

[@eh6138]

@@pommedeter7407 6 in one, half a dozen in the other.

[@bananamerchant6387]

@@pommedeter7407 Exactly. It's all the same pig slop sprinkled with different seasonings.

[@Bellitchi]

Can I just be an understanding respectful spiritual person without having to be attacked and antagonized just for that? Why is it wrong for people to be spiritual in a way that harms no one

[@Addi0_0Ruok]

He proved your point the entire time with the way he approached this in such a thick, unmoving, unwilling to see from a perspective of reality way. He clearly does not get that logic does not directly correlate to reality… you can be logical and wrong at the same time. Watching you get so frustrated you had to massage your temples was a perfect encapsulation of how arguing with religious minded people feels. *Face, meet wall… now bash repeatedly.

[@TheMahayanist]

"Reason is and ought only be a slave to the passions." (David Hume) Reasonable people had reasons to believe unreasonable, unreliable and untrue nonsense.

[@thefebo8987]

But reality is not always good? Not hurting other people is a good beliefe for example. And not only not doing it because its benefits you in a way.

[@DevinMacGregor]

It is why the religious often turn to Philosophy and where many Agnostics get stuck.

[@cegesh1459]

Exactly

[@zacheryeckard3051]

@@thefebo8987 That... doesn't have anything to do with the isue?

[@stewardofconsciousness9781]

"Pluralism is better because it accomodates my religious beliefs."

[@alaricmckenzie-boone2502]

Person A: No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Person B: But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge. Person A: Your uncle Angus is a toxic Scotsman. That’s a toxic expression of Scottishness.

[@49perfectss]

This sums up the entire debate lol. Well done

[@TotallyNotLoki]

@@49perfectss no it really doesn’t

[@TheMilitantMazdakite]

There is no such thing as a scotsman.

[@yewwowduck]

debate is charitable, since Ocean didn't even engage with Vaush's thesis, and he's the one that wanted to debate.

[@journeymanic9605]

I've never seen a better example of religious horseshoe theory. This guy's speaks of Christianity with the same derisive tone as Christians do his. His argument basically boils down to religion is fine as long as yours isn't bad in some way.

[@TwoForFlinchin1]

Then the question is how do you know what "bad" is? Religion has an answer

[@lennycuellar]

Reminds me of the argument against how can omni benevolent God allow or do bad things?: "if god says or does it, it's good not bad." Magical thinking allows the re-writing of what is right or wrong.

[@TheLithp]

@@TwoForFlinchin1 Merely having an answer doesn't mean it's a good or correct answer.

[@J.D.191]

Me look into the context cuz that's not what it means at all You are completely wrong doesn't matter what tone he talks in and he only talked about specific parts of said religions that were bad in he said you should criticize them You didn't say you should criticize the good parts he also said you shouldn't encourage the bad parts maybe actually listen

[@kstar1489]

@@TwoForFlinchin1no, religion does not have an actual answer. Saying morality comes from gif is not a true answer because there is no evidence of any god

[@lrose5522]

I think conspiracy theories are a good demonstration of why religious thinking in general is bad. Because lots of people enjoy or believe in unfounded conspiracy theories. They don't necessarily believe that all jews are bad or causing these theories or whatever, but it opens them up to be convinced a little more, and promoting their enjoyment of conspiracy theories without debunking them at the same time exposes others to unironic belief in them, and maybe they'll be a little more. And how can you argue with Q anoners that they are wrong when they've gone all the way down that line following the same exact sort of thinking that the less extreme end does, where the evidence doesn't *really* matter and can be manipulated and made up anyway

[@leovomit]

Does this guy even know that part of belief is fear? That christianity is built upon the fear of being damned to hell? That Odin and Thor WERE feared and admired at the same time? Did he think that whenever it was thundering that the norse people thought it was unrelated to Thor's anger?

[@ASolidSnack]

Why do these arguments always seem to come down to "well my religion is different" EDIT: also wanna mention, I think Vaush could make his point more clear if he used some specific examples from fundamentalist Christians, New Agers, Born Agains, and cults, instead of just ancient traditions. There are horrible things people do that ARE entirely consistent with their belief system and irrefutable if you, say, assume the Bible is 100% written by God.

[@s7robin105]

Because that’s all they can offer and refuse to accept that religion in all of human history has been used for personal gain or supporting conservative ideals no matter where you look

[@gartspormpfly2821]

Because Scottish people are

[@wile123456]

Because vaush is being an essentilist, saying everything about religion is problematic, despite the fact its very specific things with religion he has a problem with. Vaush came off very weak in this debate. Completely unprepared and unable to engage philosophically with the arguements. He defaulted back to the same talking point over and over and took on the shoes of the "reddit atheist" stereotype.

[@chetgaines1289]

because religion is an inconceivably broad subject and talking about it in blanket statements is just kinda ridiculous and ill informed.

[@ASolidSnack]

@@wile123456 that's not what "essentialist" means, he explains that his problem isn't whatever conclusions your religion has come to, it's that the process used to come to those conclusions is bad and can be used to justify anything because it isn't based on real logic

[@3rdBlkGuy]

I realized what happened. This guy had an already set in stone ethical system and then found religion. So he bends his religion around his ethic system so he cant understand that people bend their ethic system around their religion. He doesn't understand that saying something is unethical to someone with different ethics is in and of itself illogical

[@syphonfillter]

Yeah, and the funny thing is, that's how the religions he criticised kinda started too when you think about it. Christianity began as a radical Jewish movement in defiance of Roman and their collaborators imperialism, corruption and greed. If you build a religion around your ethical system, you imbue your own ethical flaws with divinity. That's great if you're willing to just switch your beliefs still - so long as you're alive. 200 years on when you're long buried and your words are considered revelation, something you got wrong or even just overlooked by mistake (maybe you had no idea nonbinary people existed, so made a religion which textually supports the notion of there only being two genders or something) might well be used by your theological descendants to justify bigotry and hatred.

[@stevereed2472]

I feel like everyone does this

[@carlwheezer1030]

Pretty much all religious people do the bending religion to their own ethics thing

[@wickedAberration]

That's... How most polytheistic religions worked historically, too. If you don't believe that entities which you worship as gods are anywhere near 'all powerful', you're going to need a non religious moral system to judge them by, similar to actual powerful people.

[@NottherealLucifer]

@@stevereed2472 Except when nonreligious people do it they're just adapting philosophies to their own beliefs, there's no higher requirement for them. Religious people, especially those who follow Abrahamic faiths, believe that morality and ethics are inherent to the world, objective rules handed down by higher beings. Those people bending these "set in rules" to their individual beliefs undermines their argument that their religion is objectively true. They have an obligation to follow the rules of their religion, nonreligious people have no obligation to follow some objective truth handed down from on high. You can see how one is illogical and one isn't, right?

[@l_galand942]

Very glad Vaush is doing more antitheist debates. I hope his arguments continue to improve

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

I think anti-theistic argumentation is rational in the case that I'm an atheist (I'm a Christian but I would agree with them if I was an atheist), but in an epistemological sense, naturalism is incredibly arbitrary, especially when people talk about metalogic and transcendental argumentation.

[@bigjebus4424]

​@@TheSpacePlaceYTin an epistemological sense, theism is the arbitrary one as it's built on an unfalsifiable foundation. There are mountains of evidence that point to naturalism. If you can't touch, smell, taste, hear, or see a god, how do you distinguish that god from one that doesn't even exist?

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

@@bigjebus4424 Theism is not unfalsifiable. Also there are not "mountains of evidence" that points to naturalism. _"If you can't touch, smell, taste, hear, or see a god, how do you distinguish that god from one that doesn't even exist?"_ Well, you don't have to believe me but God's spoken to me before so I don't know what you're talking about regarding that.

[@bigjebus4424]

@@TheSpacePlaceYT theistic claims of supernatural entities are absolutely unfalsifiable. How do I prove Jesus didn't resurrect? How do I prove Moses didn't part the sea? How do I prove that there was no talking snake? I can't. They're unfalsifiable. Scientists can disprove every testable claim from religious texts (in many cases, they already have), but they can't disprove the supernatural ones because they can't be tested, ergo, they are unfalsifiable by definition. Regarding naturalism. All the knowledge we have that we can actually build working models around, is natural. Those models provide us with incredibly accurate predictive power. Supernatural claims, not so much. In fact, not at all. The second thing you said, I believe you heard a voice but, how do you know it was god and that you weren't just imagining things? People hear voices all the time. I too have been woken up from a deep sleep by what I thought was someone talking directly in my ear. What did it tell you that convinced you, even against your deepest possible skepticism (assuming you applied that), that it was indeed god?

[@bigjebus4424]

@@TheSpacePlaceYT someone just liked my comment, so I looked at it and realized I never responded to you. Theism absolutely is unfalsifiable. You can't prove there's a god, and I can't prove there isn't one. Literally the definition of unfalsifiability. It's religion's greatest strength. The things that the bible says that ARE falsifiable (germ theory, the creation account order, the great flood, the Jews in Egypt, etc) have been falsified. Those things didn't happen, period. Regarding natural vs supernatural - everything we know is explained by natural means. That's what science is. There is no place in science where the words "it must have been magic" are taken more seriously than "there's a natural explanation for this", and there's a reason for that. One explanation gets you nowhere, and the other gets you actual answers. I don't doubt you heard something speak to you. My only question would be how you determined it was god? Did it impart some universal knowledge on you that nobody else knows? We have tons of people on earth that hear voices for all different reasons, so it not a matter of "if" you heard a voice as much as it is "why" you heard a voice.

[@inurokuwarz]

I'm sick of religious people telling me "My religion is different" because it highlights Vaush's point perfectly. If religion is just a grab bag of beliefs you can twist to your personal desire, it's a meaningless rationalization for what you were going to do anyway. I actually respect religious hardliners more than this hippie nonsense, because at least hardliners belive in a set of precepts that must be followed in spite of their personal feelings. Perfect example is the story of Arjuna. Arjuna was a prince who's kingdom fell into civil war. Unwilling to take up arms against his own kinsmen, Arjuna retires to a secluded place to meditate. However, god shows up and tells Arjuna that the worst possible thing he can do is to ignore his duties, and that his caste is more important than his desire for non-violence. Arjuna accepts this fact and returns to lead his people. Now, I think that's an awful story with a terrible moral, but at least it has principles. At least Arjuna didn't try to argue with god to say "Actually if you our interpert our faith the extremely specific way I do, there are no concequences to abandoning your caste."

[@ticker0157]

I loved the part when he was like "let's not talk about the aztecs let's go to my religion" and then instantly was like you don't know anything about this specific history thus I'm right

[@DudesterGX]

@@ticker0157 dude, he was saying, "I don't know how their religion works, and the issue that you seem to take with it is human sacrifice. So let's discuss human sacrifice from the pov of religion that I have a more complete understanding of." Vaush's opinion wasn't tied to the Aztecs, it was tied to Human sacrifice. So it's perfectly valid to stick to the topic while switching it to a setting where he actually understands what he's defending. Insisting he needs to defend something he doesn't understand or even agree with is incredibly bad-faith and I don't see how you can see it as otherwise personally.

[@DudesterGX]

Does principal outweigh ethics? How is people denouncing aspects of their faith being preached by somebody else because it's unethical, not principled in and of itself?

[@ticker0157]

@@DudesterGX God damn it you still don't understan. How can you still not understand it wasn't about the specifics of human sacrifice it's about spirituality and religious thinking in general, It's corrosive to the human psyche and leads to atrocities

[@ticker0157]

@@DudesterGX what are trying to say here

[@stretchsebe3572]

A religious person insisting that religious people can be reasoned with while actively talking over and ignoring such attempts from a non-religious person. In other news, does a bear shit in the woods?

[@Skeeerttttt]

Top tier comment

[@christophersnedeker]

Vaush: I dislike religion because I am a consequentialist and I believe religion gives people false information to make consequence based decisions. I also dissagre with it because religious people refuse to be open to entertaining opposing beliefs. Ocean: I disagree with that because I don't believe in consequentialist ethics and not all religious people are not open to opposing evidence. Theres the whole debate for you.

[@MouseTheGoblin]

It’s always surprising when someone who so clearly states that their religion is reality but then get pissed off when proven reality is different than what their current beliefs are. It’s almost as if they seek out information to confirm their bias rather than forming their biases with the information they find.

[@finnameme8108]

How do you what know reality is? How do you know you can trust your sense?

[@MouseTheGoblin]

@@finnameme8108 With statistical analysis, like medicinal research, the symptoms it has on people, the positive and negative effects. Long term usage effects. We use the basics of scientific analysis to observe our world. If god created this world then obviously the rules of how it works is law right? Whether or not things have a positive effect is his doing too right? Why not observe the facts of reality

[@leahbroadwater9544]

​@@MouseTheGoblin Do you use science to confirm that there is a real person talking to you when you interact with someone? Can you touch, see, hear, and smell them? THAT is empirical evidence, for you. Or are you hallucinating? Hmmmmmm....

[@MouseTheGoblin]

@@leahbroadwater9544 You can’t touch or smell how many people have been in a car accident or why, but you can analyze current statistics and create more things to analyze to further see what could be done about it. You can also do the same with medicine. You can’t touch cancer but you sure as hell can see what works best against it, why type of cancer it is, etc. it’s medical research. What would you suggest we do in its stead?

[@leahbroadwater9544]

@@MouseTheGoblin I should have known better than to bother. Yes, you are correct...but my point was that even those people in the car accident may OR MAY NOT be real. Because it is real for you, or a group of people (scientists studying the car accident) doesn't mean it is real for anyone else...or vice versa, what is not real in your narrow world is not empirically proven to be imaginary, just because YOU can't perceive of it. For you, it may not exist, but I can conduct analysis, etc of the thing that is real for me, and have MY empirical evidence of the existence of the thing.

[@iz2333]

"Just temper your completely non-empirical beliefs with respect to empirical evidence"

[@andyrihn1]

I’ve been running in atheist circles for a while and knew of Ocean by reputation as “a good theist”. I am thoroughly unimpressed

[@rainbowkrampus]

He seems okay. He's just a bit of an idealist.

[@andyrihn1]

@@rainbowkrampus his persistent inability to see that religious thinking opens people to bad behavior followed by a reflexive “well my specific nonsenses doesn’t do that” whenever examples are laid at his feet are willful ignorance on the level of irresponsibility. Giving air to dangerous beliefs and then disavowing actions taken for those beliefs is exactly what we criticize right wing media for doing. Also he straight up said he wouldn’t sacrifice one person if he believed it would eliminate malaria. That’s a really dangerous and evil belief with direct effects on the real world. For example we know that the smallpox vaccine has a chance of making people very sick and killing them. The deaths from the vaccine were less than the deaths of smallpox going through an unvaccinated population but it was still enough that we stopped mandating it when wild smallpox was eradicated. The sacrifice there was much much more and the benefits much much less than sacrificing one person to eradicate malaria. And now that we live in a world with monkeypox we’re going to have to make that moral calculation again and if he honestly believes what he says he does he’s going to choose wrong and get a lot of people killed

[@crabby9305]

What do you mean by "good"? Technically, i think as far as theists go he's probably the best your gonna get. Magical thinking is obviously harmful in and of itself, but if most theists were pagan the world would probably be a better, more progressive place. That's as far as I'll defend him.

[@andyrihn1]

@@crabby9305 honestly I’d rather have “traditional” theists that have given the subject zero thought, as most such people have. These people generally behave secularly but just have some preconception about god(s) that has no impact on them and they really only hold as a consequence of where they were born. People like Ocean have an entire worldview built on unfalsifiable premises that they defend adamantly and poorly and use to justify harmful beliefs

[@CteCrassus]

The only reason he's a "good theist" is because the bar currently lies in the third sub-basement.

[@arondschiltz547]

What vaush needed to point out is that when ocean keltoi has been able to talk people out of "toxic" religious praticies it wasn't because he made a better appeal to that individuals religious understand but rather he made a secular appel that was accted inspite of the religious belief. To be fare he did touch on that slightly at the end by saying to adress ethecially bad religious claims you need to attack the root the religiosity. Going down that line sooner wiuld have been helpful as it is a defeater the the pluralist arguement for not criticizing religion for the sae of coalition building as any coalition can be built on the foundation of shared secular values.

[@racrazavenshev1571]

He should really call into The Atheist Experience. They specialize in deconverting people. I also hope that some day, for some reason, Vaush ends up talking to their host, Matt Dillahunty. He's better than Vaush at reasoning but he's much less politically active. I think that they could be great influences on each other, especially for activism in Texas.

[@zauberfrosch11]

You should watch the talk Dillahunty had with cosmic skeptic

[@kirijocafe7066]

Specialize? Sorry but Matt and many other hosts did nothing but annoy me with their approach to attacking easy targets on call. I would point people to more understanding atheists like genetically modified skeptic or paulogia. Their style speaks to religious people in a way that will make them honestly reflect on what they believe and not feel the need to fight back.

[@crabby9305]

@@kirijocafe7066 1. It's not like matt hasn't done formal debates with the best that theistic apologists have to offer. And when it comes to a call-in show, it's whoever calls in... obviously. If it's supposedly the "easy targets" calling in then how is that matt's problem? 2. As for matt's aggression, he does go over board alot of the times but him being aggressive has become part of his brand so he just leans into it.

[@racrazavenshev1571]

I do think there's a place for Matt's aggression, but he does come off as overly curt. But I think he could tell Vaush some good points that would facilitate these kinds of conversations. And I actually agree with the interlocutor that Shannon Q has a great piece about calling religious beliefs mental illness.

[@biologicalengineoflove6851]

Vaush and MD were simultaneously on one of Jimmy Snow's shows awhile back, very briefly and Matt got tech issues right after Vaush mentioned socialism. It was weird, tech issues happen all the time but maybe also Matt was concerned with his own optics. It was so inconsequential it seems they both have forgotten, but anyway agreed it should happen for real.

[@Santiago_Dunbar]

The pagan guy clearly doesn't know the difference between an argument being sound and an argument being valid.

[@bewing77]

Basically the argument of these people comes down to; yes, religious faith can lead to bad things, but as long as people have the right faith it's fine, basically saying religious freedom is good as long as people believe in their belief system. It shouldn't be so difficult: faith means belief in what we don't evidently know or which we know is evidently wrong. If we accept such faith in one thing, there's no principle that stops us from believing in any other thing we don't know or know is wrong, and it can only lead to the argument that "my religion is the correct one because reasons".

[@TheLithp]

Also, when he says he thinks religion should be criticized, that's not exactly true. He believes in criticizing SPECIFIC RELIGIONS or SPECIFIC PRACTICES, but he clearly draws the line at criticizing THE CONCEPT OF religion.

[@capitalistraven]

There are religions not based on faith by that definition. You can be religious and weigh your beliefs proportionally to the evidence.

[@land_and_air1250]

@@capitalistraven so a “religious person” who doesn’t believe in religious things being true

[@TheLithp]

@@capitalistraven Unless you're counting things like Confucianism, which is a political philosophy that is classified as a religion for some likely racist reason, no there isn't. The key feature of a religion is the belief in some kind of unproven supernatural assertion. We don't call it "religion" to acknowledge things that are proven true, like Round Earthism isn't a thing. If something doesn't require faith, it's by definition not a religion. The thing is that every religion wants to be the special correct one, so they all make this "we don't have blind faith" argument, & it's always wrong. The "evidence" is always things like "I had a personal experience" or God of the Gaps. Imagine trying to debunk the globe by citing your "personal experience" that the Earth looks flat to you & pointing out that scientists can't completely explain how gravity works. That type of reasoning doesn't fly in any other scenario.

[@capitalistraven]

@@TheLithp First, I would encourage you to look into what academics in the field of religious studies have to say about the definition of religion. Non-sectarian scholars love to dispute what a religion is but most would disagree with your assertion that it requires supernatural belief. Buddhism is a perfect example of a religion that requires no belief in the supernatural to work. While most Buddhists do hold supernatural beliefs, the core teachings don't require it at all. I also disagree about your characterization of belief in the supernatural. No one operates in day to day life solely based on what can be proven in a scientific sense rather we use heuristics and trust. If someone is usually reliable, we trust them, if something has always happened a certain way, we expect it. This is not a refutation of empiricism, but the essence of it. You observe a pattern and draw conclusions and make predictions based on that pattern. If you operate in the world this way it's not a problem, if your prediction fails or your observations contradict your impression you change your belief. Now if you fail to change your beliefs with new information or just fail to look for new information then you're in trouble. In other words, a bad explanation is only bad if it's not held provisionally, that is if you refuse to change your position when the facts change, or attribute unnecessary confidence to your beliefs. The most common example of supernatural belief would probably be "luck". Many people do things that they say is "good luck" or "bad luck" and do rituals to support this: knocking on wood, touching a lucky object, a kiss on new years day. If you engage in any of these behaviors you're engaging in a practice of supernatural belief. You at least believe in it enough to go out of your way to do the ritual. Of course this can get out of hand if you get stressed if you fail to do the ritual or have a ritual that is costly in some way beyond the benefit of the good feeling and a confidence boost you get from performing it but as long as it's contained there is no problem with acting in this way. To make this directly about religion: If you think prayer will solve your financial problems, cure illnesses or make rain fall happen and then do rituals that harm you or others to accomplish those ends you've fucked up. However if prayer gives you confidence to move forward on a good choice, clears your mind to make a tough decision, or allows you to cope with a situation totally out of your control and no one is hurt by the time or resources you commit to your rituals then you've gained something without losing anything. To clarify: Imagine three people toss a coin into a fountain each time they watch their favorite sports team. The first does it out of sincere but provisional belief in "good luck", to improve his teams odds. The second does it because doing so calms his nerves and allows him to enjoy the game knowing that it has no effect on the outcome but the coin toss lets him feel like he's participating in some way. The third just likes throwing coins. All three get the same benifit: a feeling of pleasure and fulfilment. All pay the same cost of the coin and the time to toss it. None of them feel amplified disappointment when their team loses, nor would feel anything more than a slight disappointment if they were unable to fulfil their ritual. What is the difference, from a practical sense, between these three people? Lets say you explained to the first person that their coin made no difference and their reply was "Yeah, you're probably right, but I like doing it anyway." would them continuing to hold that belief be harmful in any way? Now this may seem far fetched for some but this is exactly how certain religions operate. Shinto, the dominant religion of Japan, has millions of adherents that visit shines, perform rituals, say prayers, and honor the dead. Shinto makes supernatural claims all over the place, that spirits exist and affect the world, that certain behaviors are good or bad luck, that there is a type of afterlife.... and if you ask an adherent whether they believe any of this is literally true they usually get very confused. They believe it in the same way the first person at the fountain believes throwing a coin in a fountain will help his team win. This is just one example. Ocean advocates for this same kind of belief and religious practice among Pagans

[@samwhite4961]

I’d be interested to have somebody explain to me how morality that doesn’t focus on consequences isn’t a selfish ideology where morality is derived from the purity of the subject. It all sounds like “I didn’t kill them a bullet did, all I did was innocently pull a trigger”. So many people’s morals seem more about absolution of guilt than the effect they have on the world

[@ntrpk7296]

This guy's "ethics" are his own, he claims to be a pluralist but can't understand other people have their own ethics

[@mil401]

Idk, I heard the opposite? Ocean pointed out that Vaush was assuming some kind of utilitarian framework and acknowledged that while he might not share it, it’s certainly an ethical theory that one could hold to.

[@Captain_Chair]

@@mil401 His ethical framework is also consequentialist, he kept deferring to consequences and then denying it. He talks about philosophy a lot but hasn't challenged his own.

[@iz2333]

@@mil401 Ocean Keltoi said that he himself would argue against "toxic practices" like human sacrifices based on the harm they do. He actually emphasized that specific argument a lot throughout.

[@kiiyll]

@@iz2333 The very fact that he is referring to those practices as "toxic" is referring to his own moral framework, which must necessarily stem from metaphysical axioms. He doesn't realize that other people can have different moral frameworks because their religion informs their metaphysical axioms, making it impossible for them to believe that such things are "toxic".

[@iz2333]

@@kiiyll How could that be the case when he was constantly referring to the harm as the distinguishing factor?

[@hope1575]

I really like the hole in the roof analogy. A house can stand for a hundred years with a small leak, but that doesn't mean holes in your roof are good.

[@IamTheFron]

This guy was level headed coming in but you can tell about half-way through he started getting offended and defensive. And then his arguments starting taking a much more "no no no no, you're wrong because i figured out the universe a long time ago so please sit down and stop telling me im wrong". It's so fucking exhausting to deal with people that believe in literal magic but treat us like we are the unreasonable party here.

[@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos]

I agree with Vaush's fundamental position here. While a theist can be rational, they cannot engage in reasoning that is reliably sound. Religion's reliance on the supernatural implies necessarily that a religion's adherents will hold unfalsifiable, arbitrary beliefs as unimpeachable premises. That fact can produce no positive outcomes and does, in actuality, carry profoundly negative consequences.

[@MrFrigginAwsome]

I hate when people simply don't like the implications of what the word faith means so they redefine it as trust or whatever. But that's the same thing. You have trust without evidence. If there was evidence it wouldn't be faith. Period. End of story

[@NottherealLucifer]

Theists tend to try to say "yeah but atheists also trust things so HA! they lose to their own argument!" Without understanding that we're not talking about general trust in things, we're talking about magical trust.

[@maxpis4412]

@@NottherealLuciferalso trust isn’t usually given to something just because, it’s given because you believe the person to whom you’re giving trust to be reliable from your experience of them, or at least your opinion of them

[@Fukuro14]

​​@@maxpis44121 + 1 = 2 is just one example of something that requires a certain amount of faith and no experience. Atheists love to engage in these philosophical discussions but are too arrogant to take the philosophy seriously.

[@mogscugg2639]

How did this guy's circular logic get blamed on vaush? This community is awful

[@martingammill-beck5846]

What circular logic?

[@rainbowkrampus]

Vgg are, as near as I can tell, a bunch of 14 year olds who randomly share a brain cell. This is why YT chat is best chat.

[@mogscugg2639]

@@martingammill-beck5846 that religion isn't inherently bad because secular things can be bad too but that supernatural things can be understood through a secular lens

[@martingammill-beck5846]

@@mogscugg2639 Okay, none of that is popping up in my memory, can you give me a time stamp or something?

[@transecho]

Because vowshs twitch chat are the same ones that are on leftist twitter and tiktok 24/7 so they absorb the most retarded takes and thoughts.

[@IsaacLouisDV]

This was so frustrating, obviously, as the vast majority of these theism debates seem to be, but the worst part for me was whenever Keltoi would jump in with this ‘harmful practice’ business. Yes, human sacrifice is a harmful practice, in HIS ethical system, in the way HE experiences and conceives of his religion, but Vaush isn’t talking about him and his opinions on human sacrifice; He couldn’t divorce his personal opinion on human sacrifice and the harm religious thinking can cause people to inflict of others or themselves from the broader question, that if someone is operating on a purely religious justification for their actions, then their so called ‘harmful’ actions become morally correct and therefore cannot be challenged using material, non-supernatural arguments. “But I think human sacrifice is wrong so it’s wrong regardless of the individuals religious justification” is not a convincing argument, it’s an opinion badly parading as one. Anyway, the vaush content has been top quality recently, keep it up team ! 👍🏻

[@BullofCrete]

The fact he couldn't seem to understand the whole human sacrifice thing felt so frustrating because it belies an inability to understand that other people have different ethical systems and that, under said systems, different things can be more easily justified. It actually made me extremely mad at Vaush for not knowing more about Aztec human sacrifice because one of the central reasons behind human sacrifice, at least through the explicitly spiritual lens, is that human sacrifice STOPPED THE WORLD FROM ENDING. The sun and moon literally would not move across the sky without the spilling of blood-it would be apocalyptic. It would've made his argument all the better because this guy saying, "well you could just disagree with your god because killing people is bad" would mean nothing if the alternative, in your religious worldview, was the absolute obliteration of all life in the entire world. He might be a deontologist but to a person who genuinely believes that failing to perform sacrifices would kill millions, it's not even a question.

[@traviswall1982]

As someone who is Indigenous, I do not take stock in what the *white savior* had to say about human sacrifice, and trying to keep bringing it up just sounds like he knows best when the other one tried hard NOT to talk about a subject he knows nothing about. But if that is who you think is "top quality", fine then.

[@gideon903]

If I believed firmly and genuinely that, without a life a day, the great god Mu would obliterate humanity in fire and lightning, then I would do my best to make sure that he received them and I would believe that I was doing the right thing while I did.

[@magnusgrimm7335]

I dont think Ocean disregarded that, i believe that he is merely talking to Vaush about not hitting those who would be in the same mindset as him but have religious beliefs too. I agree religion CAN be bad. the problem some people have is religion is their moral compass, however if you have a good moral compass already, its easy to just look at religions and pick one that agrees with your ideas. like not all religions are as toxic as what most Americans deal with. everyone is different and sometimes people like to have a spiritual grounding. Vaush just sounds like "religion always bad". I also dont think he shouldve brought up human sacrifice, not because its irrelevant but because ocean is correct, if my religion believed in sacrifice then i wouldnt believe in that faith. but more so because when ocean says "well what would you do" and vaush is like "well if i could save everyone for one sacrifice of course id do it" just says that you can be just as harmful without religion. i think its counter productive to his argument. Personally i think vaush has the L here, i like most of his ideas and agree with him in most of his videos ive seen so far, but not in this one. he seems kind if hypocritical in this one at some points.

[@maxgustafsson7802]

​@@magnusgrimm7335 if you would stop believing in your faith because your god said something you disagree with, then you don't actually believe in it. You're LARPing

[@gamgam7979]

My new favourite thing is to, instead of saying one thing is good or bad, call it a supremacy narrative. not manipulative at all btw

[@HairEEck]

Only 40 minutes in and Ocean is already out of his depths and refusing to acknowledges Vaush's arguments... I thought this would be more fun

[@darkphoenix2]

I'm 37 minutes in and I feel like he's being completely fine, maybe something happens in the next 3 minutes. I'll let you know.

[@TalabAlSahra]

Cope

[@HairEEck]

@@darkphoenix2 he starts blabbering over Vaush and refuses to engage at 37. Then he does some whataboutism in regards to political extremists, either because he didn't understand Vaush argument or wanted to pivot. Then he compared assumptions made by historians/scientists and metaphysical ones made by religious people in an attempt to say that believing in Odin is the same as scientists recognising that they don't have all the info yet so they have to do some experiments and are willing to change their understanding of the world once new data arises so in the meantime they create a framework with their current understanding BUT are willing (and seeking) to have another one (contrary to religious people). Sounding confident shouldn't trick you into making him look 'fine'

[@HairEEck]

@@TalabAlSahra touch grass

[@asherroodcreel640]

@@darkphoenix2 that says something about you then, I'm kinda that way too. It's hard being empathic and listening to what someone is saying instead of how there saying it

[@PatOfTheRick]

Came back to try and listen to this debate but I just can’t when the guy goes on and on and let’s vaush say like one sentence before jumping in again. What’s the point of debating like this when you never hear the other sides full argument and you waste minutes at a time responding to what you only think they’re saying.

[@Montewtf]

This is the best way I've seen his antitheism explained. If two consequentialists have a first principle of human life being the most important thing. And the only difference is that one of them believes in a sun god that needs blood to survive, one would justify human sacrifice consequentially. It's not saying that someone who believes in god is always immoral but that if someone has existing beliefs in god they could justify actions that are otherwise unjustifiable

[@lennycuellar]

And that's exactly the point ocean either failed or refused to refute. He would claim that its only toxic spirituality and arguments against it are "slippery slope" arguments. But the deck of cards or house hole analogy really hold up here. Magical thinking poke a whole into logic that could, though not always, cause real damage and can't be repaired without closing up the hole.

[@noahcain6339]

​@@lennycuellar they are both right in both the points, yes, being religious can open the door for non imperial thinking, but ocean is also right in the fact the we do non imperial thinking all the time with respect the theorizing and thinking, in fact that is all of philosophy, so overall I side with ocean on this one

[@J.D.191]

That doesn't change the fact that you can still usually reason them out of it doesn't matter if they're religious The same thing happens in politics as ocean kept bringing up and vaush saying it was different when it wasn't and Ocean accepted that point that it does happen and yes that is toxic and it does mainly only happen with the toxic religious people so he's right it's common sense

[@Montewtf]

@@J.D.191 debating anyone (in good faith) is appealing to their first principles and walking them back to your current conclusion. if someone has a different moral framework you reach a point where you have to use the rock. someone having a moral framework based on religious beliefs is incompatible with a moral framework based on reality. religion is like deeper down than "i dont think this social phenomenon is real"

[@J.D.191]

@@Montewtf You can still usually reason with them I've done it before I reason people out of committing horrible things that they believed religiously that they believed politically there is almost no difference between the two for what people believe or how they believe it You can still usually reason them out of it with logical thinking and explain to them why it is wrong

[@roberteriksen6434]

Vaush makes this alot harder for himself. I've had these conversations tons of times, and run into the exact same rabbit holes. People shut down when their deeply held belief is being taken to the logical extreme. Yes, the same logic you make innocent, funny raindances could be made for human sacrifices, but people tend to shut down that way. The much better way is to target the faith based method itself. What usually work for me is to ask: - Does there exist a belief you _couldn't_ hold using faith based reasoning The answer to that is usually no - to almost everyone, faith is _belief without evidence,_ to which I usually follow up with: - If Faith can lead you to any belief, is faith a reliable method to truth? The conversation then is moved to another subject that's much more important - _does it matter if your belief is even true or not._ It just doesn't matter wether faith is a bad method or not if the subject doesn't care about that to begin with. A shocking amount of religious people flat out admit that *_they do not care_* if you just ask them.

[@tylerisntasheep6854]

well said

[@crabby9305]

Matt Dillahunty has entered the chat

[@roberteriksen6434]

@@crabby9305 Matt Dillahunty is an entirely different beast: _Is slavery as dictated in the Bible evil?_ _I don't agree with _*_manmade_*_ slavery_ _I didn't say that, I said: Is slavery _*_as dictated in the Bible,_*_ evil?_ _Slavery back then was very different from-_ _I didn't wether or not it was different, I asked, clearly: Is slavery as dictated in the Bible, evil or not? How is this so hard_ *[... 10 more minutes of this]* _No..._ _That's it, byebye you piece of shit_ [Matt hangs up and trashes the caller for 5 more minutes while he cools down] Anthony Magnabosco has basically solved how this is done, I'm basically just copying him and his mannerisms when I talk to religious people. Matt is great at strangling his callers over the phone, and Anthony is great at Street Epistemology to change someone's mind.

[@Eorthedohtor]

The issue addressed was harm, Fundamentalism, and Supremacy narratives. Those aren't issues with religion inherently. And there hasn't been given any reason to think it's unique to religion when it exists in political systems and Anti-Theism

[@Kevorama0205]

@@Eorthedohtor A belief in a god (a being more powerful than the entire human race) is inherently going to lead towards supremacy and authoritarian beliefs. If such a god exists, that will massively impact our ethics. In fact, it will pretty much trample all over our current ethical systems. So doing that *without empirical evidence for it* pretty much results in a trampled ethical system over what amounts to an unvetted opinion. Similar problems can exist elsewhere, but spirituality is the only situation where it is socially acceptable to be so committed to something you *admit* you don't have empirical evidence for. Never in politics could someone get away with saying "that's just what I believe, I don't have evidence".

[@RealBenda]

religicous people of all types just *cannot* engage with hypotheticals, despite their entire lives being suspended in midair on a hair-thin string of "ok you cant *see* him, but just *imagine* he is watching you" what an infuriatingly frustrating convo :(

[@reverseaimbot2509]

A common recurring theme is him saying "this is getting into (insert strawman) territory-"

[@freedomofmusic2112]

This guy is engaging in religious supremacy, something almost all religious people do. He thinks if everyone believed in his religion and thought the same way he does, the world would be a better place. But the problem with that is...THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE MAJORITY OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BELIEVE. Dude is unwittingly proving Vaush's point.

[@martingammill-beck5846]

Please show me where he lists that as a belief of his.

[@stevereed2472]

Yeah, meanwhile all you atheists are doing the exact same thing 🙄.

[@airlesscanvas6425]

Couldn't you say the exact same thing for ideology? Most socialists and fascists for example believe if most people thought and agreed with them the world would be a better place.

[@stevenclark5173]

@@stevereed2472 Atheists can make use of empiricism and rational argument to based their beliefs around. Religious people don't, they don't care about what is true and they to some extent reject reality.

[@trithos7308]

@@stevereed2472 no, we don't. We don't make the extraordinary claim of a omnipotent presence/presences having influence on our lives, with not so much as a speck of proof. We simply claim it as what it is, a baseless assumption born of a need to explain what could not be explained at the time, used to justify countless atrocities.

[@tethryss5001]

The concept of "Let us revive a religion but change it, so its less toxic" is so stupid on so many levels. Why do you think you can take the word of those gods and change it? You are but a gnat to them and why would they give you blessings or do anything but curse you for shitting all over their divine law? This is such a stupid viewpoint.

[@auroravaughan575]

It honestly sounds like a very similar conversation to someone who believes Capitalism is completely fine and "Crony Capitalism" is the bad thing.

[@MrSpleenface]

V: “The metaphysics to which you subscribe can be used to justify horrific actions like X, Y and Z” K: “well I wouldn’t endorse X, Y, or Z” Repeat.

[@firebird4909]

You missed half of the cycle Vaush: but all religious thinking leads to bad Ocean: mine doesn't Vaush: ok, well religious thinking can lead to bad Ocean: so can politics Vaush: but all religious thinking leads to bad, not just some Ocean: this one doesn't Vaush: ok, well religious thinking can lead to bad Ocean: so can politics Repeat

[@wolfxda94]

@@firebird4909 Vaush: but all religious thinking has the capability to lead to bad* Ocean: mine doesn't Vaush: but it has the capability to lead to bad Ocean: mine doesn't, and politics can lead to bad Vaush: you can argue someone out of bad politics, you can't argue someone out of bad religion Ocean: yes, you can Vaush: how Ocean: you can argue then out of with logic(won't expand how, or the fact that in the great debate community he got laughed at by theist and atheist alike because he made bad arguments) fixed it for you

[@firebird4909]

@@wolfxda94 you can't argue all people out of bad politics, you can argue some people out of bad religion, example: Ocean has

[@aldenkahl8703]

@@firebird4909 Actually mentally handicapped

[@allekatrase3751]

Holy crap. I don't know how I've seen so many people defend Ocean as good faith. "I'm not a consequentialist so that wouldn't apply to me and I wouldn't agree with that" completely missed the point. What if there was a religious person who is a consequentialist? The argument is about the consequences of religious beliefs. It is inherently framed consequentially. He's so clearly intentionally sidestepping the point. If every religious person had principles similar to Ocean's, it would probably be fine. But people like him are a tiny minority of religious believers and even in his own traditions there are plenty of examples of people who go off the rails and their religious beliefs are often motivating factors in that.

[@TheKnizzine]

Its not bad faith its a defense mechinism. Religion (or lack of) is an aspect of a persons identity and any critism is taken as an attack on it.

[@allekatrase3751]

@@TheKnizzine Maybe bad faith is an unfair characterization, but regardless it's disappointing. This whole conversation is pretty disappointing, dancing around the key issue while hardly addressing it. Vaush is clearly indicating that religion is based on bad epistemology and that creates a vulnerability that can't necessarily be reasoned with. Ocean responds that some religious people, like himself, don't have harmful beliefs and incorporate empiricism to a large degree. But, this doesn't really address the issue. He also argues that other disciplines, like history and politics, often rely on dubious assumptions or bad reasoning. But, in both of those cases it is pretty universally considered bad when this happens. Good historians take everything with a huge grain of salt and recognize how tenuous their conclusions have to be. And in politics, while adherence to good, evidence based reasoning is rarer than I would like, they at least pretend that's what they're doing and acknowledge that should be the goal. Ocean may have that same goal in religion, but most religious people don't. Even within his own traditions he's arguing with people who don't hold that view. It seems he's a minority within a minority and it's not the usual outcome of religious thinking and reasoning. Like I said, if all religious people were like him it probably wouldn't be a problem. But he's not even remotely representative and his defenses cover a lot more than just people like himself.

[@fjordojustice]

Ya that part felt particularly dodge-ey to me, he really worked hard to not engage with the core point at hand (that being "what if a religious person has, from there own perspective, a perfectly moral and internally consistent reason for doing a human sacrifice"). He interrupts, misinterprets, dodges with that stupid consequentialism point, and like one minutes after that exchange he moves the conversation on to coalition building. I found that segment extremely frustrating. That being said I think he was trying to come in good faith the vast majority of the conversation, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that point and assume it wasn't intentional.

[@stevereed2472]

Why should someone have to defend beliefs and points that they actually don't believe?

[@allekatrase3751]

@@stevereed2472 So, the problem here is he is defending them to some extent by defending religious reasoning and axioms. But then when challenged on the consequences of a person believing things based on those axioms he deflects by saying those aren't present in his beliefs or his ethical framework. That's fine for him, but it's an arbitrary distinction. The argument isn't that all religious people have bad beliefs or bad ethics. It's that the processes they use to form their beliefs can lead to bad beliefs and bad ethics divorced from a rational framework. Ocean is saying "I don't do that" and calling religions that do that toxic, but there's no fundamental difference in the way he formed his religious beliefs and the way they formed theirs. The same process could lead to someone nice like Ocean, or someone not nice. This is the epistemic problem that makes me and Vaush dislike religion. And Ocean just saying "well, I don't believe that and don't have that as my moral framework," is just dodging the argument.

[@letustalk]

Not gonna lie, this guy was insufferable. The fact that he was so god damn defensive should speak volumes about his approach to the conversation. Also, it's strange that he kept emphasizing the moral bad of "harm" despite not being a consequentialist.

[@iz2333]

"What harm? Millions of people will die if I don't sacrifice this guy." "But have you considered that you'd be harming that guy?" "Damn bro didn't think about that, I'll ask god if he'd take a voucher instead."

[@IMatchoNation]

"If the deity I literally believe in commanded me to sacrifice someone or else it'll literally explode the world I'd simply choose not to obey because that would be wrong."

[@ManneSegerlund]

@@IMatchoNation would you though if you actually belived it? The only way to disobey is to actually not believe in it.

[@sasak369]

@@ManneSegerlund 1) it's in quotation marks, it's not their argument, but making fun of ocean's argument. 2) I mean you COULD disobey, if you're a very serious deontologist, meaning you make yor moral judgements based 100% on their effects in theory, rather than real practical outcomes, but that's just a hot mess of a moral system.

[@wickedAberration]

@@IMatchoNation Holy craaaaaaaap you people are just... So braindead y.y Im an atheist who vascilates between pluralism and militancy bUT for fuuuucks sake, stop acting like everyone believes gods are inherently more right than people. A noble being "higher" than you in power doesn't make them suddenly no longer a moral consideration -- That only applies when you believe in 'All powerful' beings.

[@uneterostardust8233]

This ocean guy really is insufferable, the constant interrupting after having his very long talking time, and the arrogance of being annoyed that his interruptions are being interrupted, seriously gave me some flashbacks to conservatives that did the same thing

[@StannisHarlock]

I could be wrong, but Ocean seems to be defeating his own argument with out realizing it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but he seems to be arguing that anti-theism is antithetical to Vaush's goals of coalition building because not all religion is toxic, and Vaush's anti-theism is pushing non-toxic theists away from the coalition. But if we presuppose that Vaush's politics are good, then I think any religion that people have internalized to the degree that criticism of it would prevent people from doing what is good is inherently toxic. For example, if Ocean and Vaush are politically harmonious, but Ocean refuses to join Vaush because Vaush has an aversion to religion, then Ocean's religious convictions would be toxic.

[@TheLithp]

Ocean is right that it's not the most rhetorically useful strategy, but that kind of shoots him in the foot with his "we're not irrational" talk. If you can rationally show that your religion is right, why would Vaush hurting your feelings by calling it bullshit be a problem?

[@capitalistraven]

I agree this was a misstep on Oceans part but it could still be correct based on utilitarian calculus. If religion is bad, and arguing against it is bad, one can be worse than the other. To craft a similar example: I think drinking Coke is bad because sugar and capitalism but I might make the choice to dial back my soft drink criticism because a lot of Coke drinkers are at my workplace when I'm trying to get signatures to start a Union.

[@TheLithp]

@@capitalistraven Sure, but that's a dangerous road to go down. It's not that dissimilar from the women's rights activists who didn't want to talk about racism or the race activists who didn't want to talk about homophobia because "it would harm our main goal."

[@StannisHarlock]

@@capitalistraven Sure, but I'm seeing an imbalance in that analogy. It's not been determined that talking against religion is bad. There's not agreement on both sides on that issue. There does seem to be agreement on both sides that Vaush's politics are generally good, as the argument seems to be that the only thing keeping these people from joining Vaush is his criticism of their religion. I don't know how the subject of religion came up on this channel, but it's not very common here. This can be classified as a political debate channel. It's a likely subject to come up when a content creator interacts with his audience as much as Vaush does however. In the event that it does come up, I would expect him to be honest with his opinions, the same way I would wish politicians were more honest when the subject of their religious views are brought up, but all too often, you have a situation where someone like Donald Trump knows what the right-wing wants to hear from him, and for the purpose of coalition building he lies about his Christianity and his love for 2 Corinthians. next thing you know, the religious right is all but deifying him.

[@Eagledude131]

The logic is is circular and relies on a presupposition that one of the topics of the debate is true, so no. It doesn't work. Furthermore, it begs the question of why you are setting the bar for what is and isn't toxic behavior in religion where you did. You gotta back up why that's the line you're drawing aside from it being extremely convenient to the argument you're making. It also disregards the fact that there's a lot of politically progressive religious people who, for easily justifiable reasons imo, wouldn't be super comfy being the political ally of someone who's end goal is to wipe out their faith and agreed with a comparison of that attitude to proponants of colonial cultural genocide So... yeah, the argument needs work

[@megafire7]

I would appreciate it if Ocean could let you finish a point, because so far this has been *very* frustrating to listen to.

[@jazzwizard2800]

I just realized that Heaven's Gate is the ultimate defeater to his argument. Ask him if he thinks the mass suicide was good and when he says no you would say that they were shackled by their earthly bodies and they now live in paradise. You couldn't even make the argument that it caused harm because everyone was unconscious and comfortable when they died so they weren't even in pain.

[@rickyrhodes9008]

The mass suicide of Heaven's Gate was a fair mix of both good and bad: Good for the people who did it because they were willing to go and didn't suffer, bad for the people that they left behind who would miss them and never understand why they did it, good for the collective knowledge of future society regarding the activities of cults and how they form, bad for our collective psyche because our nightmares have found a new resident in Marshal Applewhite's vacant-eyed stare, good for edgy artists because of those creepy ass videos the cult made available to the public, bad for any new religious movement involving UFOs, good for ratings and postmodern drama, and good/bad for being something jackasses on the internet still bring up thirty years later to bolster our arguments.

[@atakanselte1956]

I was raised as a Muslim and I completely agree with Vaush in this debate. I think the reason Ocean cannot engage with the ‘intrinsically bad religious thinking’ argument is that his religion is different than the dominant monotheistic religions (good for him I guess) Anyone who grew up in similar conditions like me realizes that there is a certain point when you are speaking to a religious person and it feels like hitting a wall-the God wall-and no, this wall is not specific to fundamentalists.

[@xgzav3488]

The way Ocean talk about his religion, he already have his set of ethical belief and only choose to believe in gods who won't ask him to go against his ethic. But even then his religion seems at best redundant.

[@LDIndustries]

“Harmful practices” this really is just Vaush talking to someone who rationally knows that these problems exist with religiosity but are essentially a religious pick me (I’m not like other zealots).

[@rainbowkrampus]

Always remember John Calvin. He preached tolerance and understanding. Then he got into power and the blood started flowing.

[@NerdyGuyRanting]

This conversation showed me that religion is correct because clearly purgatory is real.

[@Casual_Stroll]

If you've ever met someone that just says "the lord works in mysterious ways" in response to some objectively horrible thing I don't know how you can possible disagree with Vaush here. The problem isn't that they think god is illogical, the problem is that they think the "logic" of god is beyond any human's comprehension, and so they just say we can't possibly know, we can only blindly follow the teachings of said religion, which supposedly come directly from god, so it follows logic that we can't understand, so we can't question it and instead must follow it blindly. Religious thinking is basically just circular logic. For any uninitiated here btw my use of the world "blindly" is deliberate, the Bible (and I imagine many other religious texts, but I'm most familiar with Christianity) specifically refers to humans being blind and only once they accept god are their eyes opened and they can see.

[@sophiatrocentraisin]

Well at this point they don't care about logic anymore, do they? So it becomes a problem of axiomatics at worst, or a problem of bad faith argumentation at best

[@javiervalenzuela8284]

Yes, the circular logic is the issue. If you believe in a deity outside of reason, then you don't need reason to believe any of the claims from the deity, the scriptures, the religious leaders, or some covid fever dream as the foundation of the said belief is not rooted in reason itself.

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

I don't really find your argument convincing, therefore you're wrong and deluded. (This is a reference :D)

[@fjordojustice]

The malaria thing was wild. This man is blaming consequentialism for religious people performing potentially harmful spiritual practices. Like he's saying that even if it were possible to cure all malaria by sacrificing one person, he would be against doing so? I don't know if he actually believes that, or if he just doesn't want to concede a point Edit: he pivots off the malaria thing one minute later to talk about coalition building. It really looks like he just did not want to discuss that point lol

[@OgrimMetal]

He sounds like he's used to trying to argue extremist into becoming more moderate. Given that extremist tend to be consequentialist in regards to their religious beliefs he cannot concede this point. He's willing to subjugate religious behavior to empiricism, just not religious beliefs. He's accepting of people believing in the benefits of human sacrifice, despite it's lack of empirical justification. He's against human sacrifice because it's empirically harmful to the participants. It sounds like his objection against going full empiricism is because it will alienate people, not because empiricism isn't the most reliable pathway to truth.

[@DarthNicky]

No? He's just not a consequentialist. He stated he does not believe that a bad action (i.e., murdering a person) having a good outcome makes that action good. This wasn't the own that you think it was

[@towablewarrior2426]

@@DarthNicky I mean utilitarianism is an own in itself. I'd argue someone who's offered a clear net benefit of human lives and reduced suffering, but refuses to take it is just a bad person. That action remains bad, but the outcome is good. Crazy how that works huh

[@DarthNicky]

@@towablewarrior2426 wow, you’re so smart for treating a two century-long ongoing philosophical debate like it’s super easy and obvious, good for you. Murdering people bad. Even if ultimate outcome good, murder still bad and you shouldn’t do that. Funny how that works

[@TheLithp]

I'll tell you why he did this: It's absolutely not because he he thinks you can't do something if it harms even one person, that's a ridiculous & insane proposition. Like some proportion of people are going to be allergic to vaccines. This isn't an anti-vax statement, it's why they ask you to stick around for a while after you get one, they want to make sure you don't have a reaction. But Ocean clearly wouldn't say we shouldn't have vaccines because the small amount of harm they do isn't worth it, that's absurd. No, the reason he's against it is a common bias of religious people: They think their OWN beliefs should be taken seriously, but things they don't believe can be ridiculous & beneath discussion. It's the same reason they scoff at being compared to believers in fairies & wizards, even though it's all supernatural.

[@kiambraleflore7537]

I've found myself talking to Ocean a few times before and he is honestly just impossible to talk to. Quite insufferable.

[@intrinsicallylast5246]

Literally the whole argument just boiled down to "I'm offended by Anti-Theists and here's why. No debate, I'm *just* offended."

[@iconsting]

Keltoi arguing "It's possible to change people's minds on morals based on supernatural justifications, I've done it" reads like your friend in middle school who unlocked Sonic in Smash Bros melee.

[@stevereed2472]

Changing minds is hard, give up

[@chucku00]

That's charismatic proselytism 101. Good ol' snake oil sale.

[@rainbowkrampus]

Nah. Most people's beliefs are a duct taped together hodge podge of vibes. Especially so when the underpinnings of their beliefs are already supernatural. Convincing them that their moral beliefs were arrived at through a faulty understanding of their own supernatural premises should be completely achievable in some cases. I see no good reason to contest this claim.

[@zacheryeckard3051]

@@rainbowkrampus The problem is all you've done is move someone from "bad reasons to believe bad thing" to "bad reasons to believe good thing". They're susceptible to having their position moved to other bad things again *because they don't have good or strong reasons to believe a thing even if they do accidentally believe a good thing*

[@lukebonser4899]

The entire time OK was just dodging arguments and refusing to answer any questions. It was so frustrating. It that whole bit about consequentialism was insane. What else other than the outcome of an action would make an action morally wrong? So dumb.

[@JebeckyGranjola]

Deontology posits that moral value should be based on reason. The first principle, the logical imperative is that a moral value cannot be contradictory. Since Utilitarianism is not based on higher reasoning, it can allow for contradiction in such that all possible actions produce zero utility, and that would be considered as moral.

[@ImperialGeneral]

Look, I get it, but if this guy says "supremacy narrative" one more time I'm going to have to watch a compilation of stupid anti-SJW videos just to make sure I remember who is actually more annoying.

[@ergosum5001]

I was like that with Plutarch and Theophrates. I would've gone back in time somehow just to kill them if he would fucking stop throwing them out like fucking poor excuses for Yugioh Trap Cards.

[@d.l.7416]

Maybe a good way to illustrate the point If you have two perfectly rational beings, both assume the basic axioms like "reality exists, logic exists" etc. One of them also assume Odin exists. They will arrive at different conclusions. That's the fundamental problem with religion.

[@airlesscanvas6425]

That is an extremely fucking stupid argument. Are you implying that rational humans naturally will be atheist? If that is true than why does theistic thought exist at all? Why are even today atheists the extreme minority across the board.

[@zacheryeckard3051]

It really is that simple.

[@realitywins9020]

Rationality leads to God. Atheism is irrational

[@beneroni8345]

​@@realitywins9020you're living proof it doesn't but ok

[@duckphone07]

As a fellow anti-theist, I feel the frustration here. You guys barely got to discuss the core of the matter (the shaky mystical foundation), because Keltoi either just didn't understand or was purposefully obfuscating the point. It's also frustrating when some leftists don't see that leftism and anti-theism are reliant on each other. A hypothetical leftist utopia would need to be an anti-theist utopia as well. Leftism and Theism are incompatible at their core, because leftism requires empirical naturalist foundations. Theism can only play "play nice" with leftism when the theism is so neutered and inconsequential that it may as well not exist, like for example, a hypothetical theist who spends 10 seconds thanking their god before bed and that is the only time their theism ever comes up in their thought process or beliefs. Anyways, I appreciate the anti-theism content.

[@JokerDoom]

They did discuss the shaky mystical foundation. Their convo explored it fully, in the only way that could have gone. Vaush said magical thinking is bad because you can use it to justify arbitrary positions. Keltoi said bad arbitrary positions can be argued out of by virtue of them being bad. That’s the most you’re going to get without concessions. If Keltoi agreed that arbitrary positions are fundamentally bad, he would logically have to rid himself of religious thinking altogether and thus become an atheist or an agnostic. His religion is based on arbitrary positions. It is impossible to agree with Vaush on this without giving that up.

[@fro_double_g]

What a weird debate. 1/4 of it is an atheist trying to justify human sacrifice.....

[@AbsoluteUnit333]

from the point of view of someone who thinks if they don't do it their village will be destroyed or that it would cure a disease that kills 100000s of people every year. what a weird comment. 1/1 was an idiot removing all context.......

[@eugenegubbard4017]

I really wish he would have explicitly said the following and constantly hammered down on it here: "People hold beliefs about the world. When those beliefs are based in empirical rationality, there is a real physical anchor to measure them against. When those beliefs are outside of empirical reality (i.e. all 'spiritual' beliefs) they are all definitionally logically equivalent to each other because there is no empirical anchor. They are self-evidencing beliefs for which it is impossible to reliably argue against."

[@dallasmoorenumberone]

Spirituality is like the game of telephone, some people get the message others dont. The fact that it will always lead to some people getting a bad message is the point of the game.

[@jamesg.1144]

It's the lofty way Keltoi talks about how his beliefs are different that exposes exactly why antitheism is so important

[@jamierichardson7683]

Special pleading Keltoi. Learn what it is

[@Eorthedohtor]

@@jamierichardson7683 how is it special pleading?

[@loreleimonn3220]

The *potential* for religious, faith-based thought to lead to harm is ever-present. If I hold a gun to someone’s head, it doesn’t really matter if I never pull the trigger. The potential that at any moment, I *could* pull that trigger is the problem. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if a specific religion doesn’t explicitly call for harm to be done or if its practitioners don’t believe it calls for harm to be done. The fact remains that basing your beliefs on faith opens the door to accepting other notions which validate your presuppositions which creates the *potential* for harm. That’s what makes faith dangerous

[@trithos7308]

There is no religion you can't justify violence with if you do enough mental gymnastics, something you have to do to believe in religion anyway.

[@NottherealLucifer]

Not to mention the holy texts of the Abrahamic faiths involve deity approved killings, so its a small hop to justifying murder.

[@TheMilitantMazdakite]

@@trithos7308Projection. Anti Thiests are genocidal pigs. There is no evidence that religion does any harm.

[@TheMilitantMazdakite]

There is no gun.

[@realitywins9020]

As if you can't do the same with atheism. Jeffrey Dahmer ate people in the name of atheism. He said his atheism inspired his serial killing and cannibalism

[@internisus]

This is so frustrating. Keltoi doesn't seem to realize that one's conception of what is or is not harmful changes based on one's beliefs about the objective reality of the world, which is why Vaush keeps trying to tell him that religion can and often does get used to justify things that we consider harmful by people who believe they are actually beneficial. Religious people practicing human sacrifice thought that what they were doing was good and necessary, and there would have been no method for demonstrating to them that they were wrong. For me, the whole video could have ended when Vaush explained that people who believe in the soul necessarily view death with less weight, including the deaths of others. I think about that all the time. Presidents who believe in the actual existence of heaven as a place where suffering innocents wind up for an eternal, peaceful reward control nuclear arsenals and climate change policies.

[@bicumber]

Gotta love when he just ignores vaush or deliberately misinterprets what he says.

[@robertfrenken4917]

I think a lot of the disconnection in this conversation was from the fact that Ocean Keltoi seemed to almost have a "pre-religious" value of not inflicting harm to others or yourself, where Vaush doesn't hold that assumption, as opposed to the value of not being a solipsist, which they both defined and agreed on right at the start. In case the of human sacrifice or even like say cutting off your pinky to go to Heaven, Vaush would argue that you believe in this religion, you could logically get to the conclusion of harming others or yourself, where for Ocean Keltoi the second you start creating harm, you violate this "pre-religious" principle, and therefore it becomes toxic and a not valid form of religious practice. I'd be curious to see if anyone has any thoughts about this.

[@rainbowkrampus]

The obvious problem is, who defines and enforces what a "valid form of religion" is? Every religious group of sufficient size has branches and splinter groups and they all think the other branches aren't "real" practitioners of the faith. Ocean is doing this out the gate with his claims of "toxic religious practices". He's defining the toxicity. He's defining the "other". His definition for what is and is not toxic appears to be coming from modern liberal secular values. Which, if that's where we're deriving our values from, why even bother with the supernatural dressing? It's just additional calories which run the risk of making you fat. If you don't mind a somewhat strained metaphor. It's only upside is temporary pleasure. Temporary pleasure you can get without all baggage.

[@kiiyll]

Finally, someone in the comments who gets it. I was so frustrated with Vaush during this whole video because he never called Keltoi out on this. If you hold beliefs that supersede your religion, how can you believe in your religion?

[@verager2493]

Ya, he's picked his religion based on his beliefs, not the other way around. And he seems determined to not acknowledge that most people don't do that

[@malum9478]

@@verager2493 or for that matter that his religion is just as evil as the "patriarchal, toxic" christians he rails against. but of course all of that is conveniently just christian propaganda to demonize pagans OR they were wrong for...some reason.

[@ergosum5001]

Yes precisely, but the issue here is that it's inherently odd that Ocean can have 'pre-religious' beliefs in the first place. What's the point of worshipping gods if you can bypass those beliefs whenever you want your own pre-religious ethical and moral beliefs in the first place? That's Vaush's entire point: religion is a mystical grab bag that doesn't have to be tied down to anything real - anyone can choose anything to believe in and justify it in however they want whenever they want in a practically immutable way. Seriously wish Vaush just called Ocean out for having beliefs that supercede religion whenever he wishes.

[@rikospostmodernlife]

People have emotional attachments to their beliefs and traditions and can't accept that pragmatism demands those traditions not be respected. That is, not that all religions and traditions must be thrown into oblivion, but that the concept of *dogma* must be thrown into oblivion and the practices of a religion must be inspected in a case by case basis to weed out those that are useless or counterproductive to the individual and to society as a whole

[@deismaccountant]

The version of pluralism that replaces dogmatism with empiricism is definitely the one I’d prefer.

[@FLE3TING_2NDS]

Can't tell if Vaush is doing these religious debates to punish us for asking him to do more debates or just to promote secularism but either way I'm happy for the content.

[@KolyaUrtz]

this is good since low iq people will turn to secularism and will die out

[@blue5had0w]

Yo fr lol

[@andrewsad1]

32:00 I cannot be convinced that this guy isn't doing a bad faith here. Vaush clearly meant "if you believe that the gods can have a real effect on the world," and this guy got so fucking pedantic about the specific words he was using instead of just engaging with the idea

[@bicumber]

1:25:00 that look of pain is so potent, it perfectly describes how I feel listening to this.

[@themanwithoutaplan9389]

I’m confused this guy talks that he’s a pagan and a heathen, but his only real ‘religious’ position was his belief in gods. When you discard so much of your religion just so it doesn’t interfere with reality, why even bother being religious?

[@rainbowkrampus]

A lot of neo pagans have various rituals they perform. The belief is often less about divine commands and more about ritual observance. Basically acquired OCD. I'm only slightly kidding here. We find comfort in routine and the people who have become predisposed towards viewing religious ritual as a comforting habit are tapping into that same instinct towards familiarity. That routine is the same sort of thing which locks people into more established/organized forms of religion. Which is why I'm skeptical of the whole thing. It's all kumbaya until enough people share the belief. Then they start organizing. Then come the divisions. Then the blood.

[@themanwithoutaplan9389]

@@rainbowkrampus That’s a good point, I’d argue that you can come up with secular rituals to calm down that don’t require the existence of gods to preform. Why other would Neo-Pagans do rituals? It’s not like there are actual gods to appease, and you can easily remove the spiritual/religious components to leave behind a culture that doesn’t need gaps in empiricism to justify.

[@Dr.depression516]

"People were not afraid of their gods' wrath it was a relationship of mutual exchange . . . not sacrificing to the gods only had minor repercussions" *Odysseus has joined the chat*

[@SS-xr7jf]

That was a weird claim to make, particularly when the religion you practice has next to no writing from the people who practiced it. Like how the eff would he know if they feared their wrath?

[@leftunity8627]

@@SS-xr7jf because pagans are almost entirely disaffected Christians who latch onto dead religions with no inherited tradition or history and fill in the blanks with whatever makes them feel comfy. They all pretend to be historical scholars as well, but I have yet to come across one who doesn't engage in highly motivated historical revisionism.

[@rainbowkrampus]

@@SS-xr7jf Source? I made it the fuck up!

[@hellfirdragon17]

@@rainbowkrampus Odin's raven revealed it to him in a dream

[@discordantvole1416]

Odysseus: So it turns out that Helios was serious about the cows. Who knew?

[@LDIndustries]

“Ignore its similarity to Christianity” Not all similarities between religion that this guy finds inconvenient can be chalked up to Christianity changing it. Just because a lot of religions have stories of the end of the world doesn’t mean that they’re all Christian attempts to justify revelations.

[@TheLithp]

Frankly, I don't know if what he's saying is true, but I absolutely do not trust the evidentiary standards of someone who believes in Norse Gods because "I've had personal experiences."

[@AnimeGIFfy]

he's not misunderstanding, he is purposefully not listening or pretending that he doesnt understand

[@matteopoldrugo9535]

I have spiritual beliefs and I didn’t realize how goofy they actually fucking sounded until describing them to someone else

[@iz2333]

That's how everyone in therapy feels all the time. You still get the W for recognizing your goofy ah beliefs.

[@dr17719]

Wow that was hilarious. He’s a pagan that limited his paganism using logic that thinks a religious fundamentalist of another religion will listen to a logic-based assault on closely held, irrational beliefs. Dude wouldn’t last long in a non-internet-based convo with a violently religious person. He basically made up his own version of logically supported beliefs, which is fine, but is just counter to any experience with actual religious people.