Theist cooks atheist on rationality argument

Рет қаралды 1,883

CatholicHavoc

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 149

@user-gp7bw1fn9e Ай бұрын

The tiktok account doesn't exist anymore did she get banned or something?

@CatholicHavoc Ай бұрын

@@user-gp7bw1fn9e idk 🤷🏾‍♂️

@JScholastic Ай бұрын

Kacen did really good in this debate

@delphic2522 Ай бұрын

This atheist is so lost

@CatholicHavoc Ай бұрын

@Kiltley Ай бұрын

I'm not, as atheist! But I belong to the Rational Thinkers! All Rational Thinkers are atheists, but not all atheists are rational thinkers!

@titusgray4598 Ай бұрын

Hi, I'm an atheist. I think it's a different argument to say that you don't think theism is rational vs saying that theism is irrational. I don't think theism is irrational. But I can't say that it IS rational. I think the main problem is that there has not been (to my knowledge anyway) any philosophical argument FOR THEISM that doesn't make some fundamental error in its argument, either by informal fallacy,, or being structured incorrectly (formally fallacious.) If you are aware of one, I would welcome it.

@niblick616 Ай бұрын

The Catholic church has never demonstrated that any particular god thing has ever existed. During the Eucharist Catholics literally claim to eat the literal body and blood of the literal creator of the literal universe. That is demonstrably absurd and a lie.

@CatholicHavoc Ай бұрын

pov ape argues without reading scripture or knowing what transubstantiation is:

@Thedisciplemike Ай бұрын

My boy sounds identical to Edward Norton

@Dominick7 Ай бұрын

As a Theist, because as it says in Romans 1 that its self evident and udeniable, but am led to believe that the theist is using very poor arguments and seems to be confusing things as much as the atheist. The Theist is conflating the process of logical deliberation, defining it as a consideration over competing or optional beliefs with reason.. that rational activity = reason or rationality?? Is his point to show that there are arguments people might use for God, that dont necessarily mean conclude its true..? Why would he need to believe in or argue for the supernatural to believe in theism.. isnt God a supernatural being...thus isnt arguing for theism = to an argument for the supernatural?? And the alleged theist curses? This is so frustrating to listen to. They're both awful, the atheist has more common sense than the theist, which is unbelievable, the theist just sounds like he's intelligent. What the theists i believe should say is its reasonable to believe in theism for the reasons he argued, because he seems to be saying validity = rationality (which makes no sense) not that its rational which implies soundness and validity. I think the reason theyre talking past each other is because theyre defining reason or rational differently. The theist seems to be defining reason as if someone could possibly or practically come to the conclusion via deliberation and evidence that God exists, then because they've engaged in rational deliberation and because its possible God could exist then that means its reasonable.. ie its possibly valid to conclude God exists based on some kind of evidence = theyre being rational. The Atheist is defining rational as being what I think is a more commonly understood way as something concluded as true based on evidence and rational principles. The theists seems to think reason = logic, which I dont get how he does this and also concludes with theism, unless its by accident or arbitrary preference, the atheist seems to understand what reason is better than the theist, but their echo chamber and materialistic narrow and reductive assumptions, besides definitional word games, they conclude theism isnt rational. This is a train wreck. Very low quality debate. The end was so cringe, this was not a win for theism or for the theist for the atheist to concede. You theists and atheists trying to pressure and bully the atheist into your incoherent arguments and ideas about theism being rational for the reasons the theist argued is pretty angering to be frank. I guess I shouldnt be surprised by that mk ultra moth tat on what seems to be the hosts neck. Shameful.

@extremelylargeslug4438 Ай бұрын

Isn’t the question whether it’s true? There’s a variety of positions that are rational to hold but are false. Rationality comes cheap

@MaK-13- Ай бұрын

do you have an example of a position that uses reason and logic but is false?

@LignumVerus Ай бұрын

@@MaK-13- Most scientific theories that are disproven now were rational at the time, but we now know them to be false

@mehmetsimsek4794 Ай бұрын

@@MaK-13- That's totally false. Rational things can be false. If you want examples, don't ask just look at some court cases. Even just having more than one defendant/suspect proves that

@extremelylargeslug4438 Ай бұрын

@@MaK-13- hundreds of years ago, believing the earth was flat was a rational position to hold given the evidence they had at that time.

@MaK-13- Ай бұрын

EDIT: apologies. i see my error. i was running off a different definition/understanding of rationality. thanks for the help.

@jawley Ай бұрын

This was so difficult to listen to

@Dizerner Ай бұрын

This is not a well balanced discussion. I would encourage some deeper thoughts here in the following article: *The problem of justified true belief* _"evidence"-"reason"-"proof"-"logic"-"demonstrate"-"show me"-"rationality"_ I think the way all these words are often used presumes an unjustifiable path to ultimate certainty in knowledge using circular argumentation. Many atheists say they don't believe because they need confirmable, evidential reasons. The whole idea of evidential reasons presupposes a path to verifiable justification of belief. The whole idea of "confirmable" assumes an unproven method of confirmation. When it comes to logical validations the only rational conclusion is hardcore skepticism, the belief that nothing can be known. I'm not sure what an ultimate justificatory path to absolute assurance about the fundamental nature of reality could ever be. I would make the claim that nothing is falsifiable. There is no path to certainty in knowledge because of four main reasons. *1. The senses could mislead.* If I saw a miracle or heard a voice, if I was lifted up flying through the sky and every bird started flying around me like a Disney princess, it would be startling and maybe prove to me something exists beyond what I had previously experienced. but without absolute knowledge of every thing that could possibly exist I'm still not sure how I could know the real source of the experience. *2. Any logic might be faulty.* How do you know your mind works perfectly in all regards to understanding logic and nowhere makes any mistake? You say, well I can prove my reasoning is sound by double checking it against logical rules. But every crazy person thinks they are following the rules and understand the rules perfectly. You say, well I can double check by asking other people if they agree-but this assumes you even understand what the other person is saying instead of making it already agree. Also, how do you know that other minds even exist when you can't subjectively experience them, and why do you suppose that subjective experience is absolute truth when anything can be an illusion? *3. Unknown might contradict known.* How do you know that out of all of the vast majority of things you don't know, somewhere in that set of unknowns are truths that radically alter the things you already believe? What percentage of all knowledge that possibly exists in the entire universe can one assume one has? Certainly not 100%, and with some epistemic humility, not even 10%-and out of all the unknown things there always exists the possibility that something that one thinks one knows would be drastically altered or changed. If one simply argues a utilitarian or practical view of knowledge (I don't have to be "certain" to know), one is engaging in a big guessing game where the basis of ultimate probabilities are unknown, and any belief is as valid as another. *4. Undetectable things could exist* This is similar to 3, but again produces epistemic humility. There is absolutely no valid logical reason to suppose that one can detect all the things that exist, leaving limitless possibilities out there. And again, if you cop out of the idea of certainty (which logically begs the question of actual knowledge instead of just a guessing game), and go for a utilitarian "whatever works for me" view of knowledge, there is no justification to say one view is better than another if the knowledge is claimed to somehow "help" the person knowing. For example, if I claim to "know" my friends want to be with me because they think I'm cool and not because I'm rich, and that "helps" me get along with them and feel better about myself, I don't need "certainty" to "know" they really like me. I hope you can begin to even realize what ad hoc absurdity that kind of view looks like from someone outside the belief. All meaning and words require metaphysical referents and concepts, and there is no path to external justified knowledge under logic alone. The word "evidence" as used is charged with presuppositions of a logical path to justified belief, of which there are none. There is no evidence like that-and with the logic of hard skepticism being unimpeachable, nothing can be truly known through sensory means. It's a logical fallacy that science can somehow be separated from all philosophical ideas. Sensory perception is not a path to ultimate justified true belief, under science or philosophy. So logical arguments and even miracles don't really prove anything. There are some things you cannot prove to others, indeed there is no real path to ultimate justified knowledge anyway. "Rational" beliefs so-called, are only beliefs which seem to accomplish things in the physical perceptual world, which can never be ultimately verified. Often these type of beliefs don't work in the domain of relationships and personalities, which function more with emotional IQ. Many beliefs can be justified that cannot be proven, like believing that one experiences self-awareness, which cannot be demonstrated to anyone, yet is one of the most fundamental things that could possibly be known (an AI could mimic all signs of self-awareness). Experience is really the only justification to believe anything, and even then, logically it can’t be guaranteed. One is logically justified in believing an experience that cannot be logically shared, like self-awareness. _"I have experience, that’s not a belief, that’s just a descriptive fact of a thing that exists."_ - TJump Does this mean the only way to know God is to directly experience him rather than be argued into a belief? I would say a definitive yes. _"I often get asked, what would change your mind? I don’t know. I don’t have to know. If there is a God, that God should know exactly what would change my mind and should be capable of doing it, and the fact that this hasn’t happened means that either that God doesn’t exist or doesn’t want me to know he exists… yet. Not my problem._ - Matt Dillahunty Strangely enough as a convinced theist I have to partially agree with Matt here in that the means and method of persuasion and belief are unknown to us, to anything less than the Divine, and I don't think either side of this debate should feel arguments are enough to persuade. Strangely enough, though, Matt doesn't seem to abide by what he says here, and runs one of many similar Atheist shows that seem to just be a couple of skeptics sitting there, hands folded, waiting for a caller to "demonstrate" God to them, when Matt already said he doesn't even know what he's looking for. Since the only thing Matt is really looking for is completely undefined by him, I assume the show is just for entertainment. I use to hear more often "just show me a miracle, that's all I ask," and an atheist KZbinr PineCreek is famously known for asking Christians to pray for matches to combust on stream, while another atheist has asked Christian debaters to boldly drink antifreeze on stage. But even if a miracle occurred the only thing it would really prove is that a current understanding of naturalism is insufficient to explain reality, it really doesn't do more than that. It could be aliens, it could be the matrix, it could all be a dream, it could be advanced scientific techniques, it could be unknown physical laws, it could be some deceiving supernatural entity, it could be anything. And even Christians should agree miracles are insufficient in and of themselves alone, because Scripture warns us of Satan deceiving in the end times through some kind of miracles, and that Pharaoh's magicians were able to do magic as well as Moses. So then, are we at an impasse where believers/non-believers are across each other in an impossible divide that can never be crossed by any known method, and all debate about it is just a pointless exercise in futility that often just ends in bad feelings? I think my answer is... partly. I think there is something believers can do besides arguing or calling down fire from heaven, and that is to continue to pray for and show the love of God to those they think don't "see the light" and encourage anyone who feels some desire for something more in their life or some kind of dissatisfaction, by exhorting them that it could very well be God doing something in their motivations. But as for the demeanor of many Christians arguing with skeptics, I am heartbroken by the uncaring attitude I often see interacting with skeptics. We are supposed to be the salt and light and turning the other cheek, blessing when we are cursed, but I know I've failed that standard many times too. People who don't believe in Christ are not the ones we should be expecting a standard from, and sometimes they are more polite than Christians. So I apologize on behalf of people that stand for Christ. I hope we can all seek to be more understanding and charitable in our quest for ultimate knowledge. And I hope some of these thoughts have seemed interesting. Peace

@Luixxxd1 Ай бұрын

"I often get asked, what would change your mind? I don’t know. I don’t have to know. If there is a God, that God should know exactly what would change my mind and should be capable of doing it, and the fact that this hasn’t happened means that either that God doesn’t exist or doesn’t want me to know he exists… yet. Not my problem. - Matt Dillahunty The issue with Matt is, he is using the same argument theist makes, but with the opposite result. Contrarianism basically. "We cannot know everything, but nothing could be knowable at all without a (insert religion) God, therefore God" is the theist side, "We cannot know everything, but science can, therefore no God" atheist side. Now, you could argue "that just means your argument is faulty since it can be used to argue against your own point" and youd be right, had i not done a sleight of terms trick. I changed "(insert religion) God" for "science" because that's what atheist appeal to, their faith in the idea that one day, with enough money and scientists, science will explain miracles, therefore, no God. You can even see the hubris and entitlement in the phrase "If there is a God, that God should know exactly what would change MY mind and SHOULD be capable of doing it, and the fact that this hasn’t happened means that either that God doesn’t exist or doesn’t want ME TO KNOW he exists… YET." implying: 1) Any God has the ultimate mission to convince him personally and directly, using his own measurement of truth. Like a single soldier demanding proof from the President of the Nation as to why he is the President. 2) God hasn't already given an answer, just not to him personally, and just not in the exact perfect Matt way that unless he is convinced by, he wont be convinced by (yes, i made that redundant for a reason.) 3) This is the one that makes me the most frustrated, He humbly says "I often get asked, what would change your mind? I don’t know. I don’t have to know. " which on the surface sound not only commendable but wise even... once you start understanding it's simply word games. Plausible deniability. If the post dont have to be drilled solidly to the ground, then moving the goal is not a bug, is a feature. Skepticism for the sake of skepticism is like belief for the sake of having a free ticket to heaven. They will never be convinced because they are not even asking the correct question. You cannot ask metaphysical inquiries and expect empirical, physical, testable and replicable in the material world answers. That is akin to asking your wife to explain why she likes warm things and expecting her to deconstruct the concept of "love" using colors, otherwise, as Matt always says "Im not convinced"

@Idishrkdmd Ай бұрын

I agree with the previous Reply if you truly are a sceptic then you should be sceptical of your scepticism and realise that logic is impossible from your viewpoint without a deep use of presumptions that you couldn’t effectively prove it’s essentially an unliveable philosophy if put into practice it’s impossible to function as truly being sceptical presuppositions apply and more logical ones are present then from the materialist worldview.

@ericdenilson9687 Ай бұрын

Siig is here I bet...

@CatholicHavoc Ай бұрын

maybe he was idk

@spongebobseyelashes8548 Ай бұрын

Rationality does not run contrary to Theism. God is reached by logical necessity by the 5 ways, it’s not mere superstition. Also to ignore religious evidence is very interesting standpoint

@marcolorenti9637 Ай бұрын

Never heard of any argument for the necessity of any god.

@spongebobseyelashes8548 Ай бұрын

@@marcolorenti9637 God (a supreme creator beyond the bounds of time and matter, one of infinite and pure causation, the uncaused cause) is reached logically and immediately by the first way. Also by gradation. However the branch from that to a God that answers prayers is still another journey we aim to support

@marcolorenti9637 Ай бұрын

@@spongebobseyelashes8548 That's nowhere near worthy of being called an argument for gods and, deep down, I bet you know it too.

@Sweeti924 Ай бұрын

wild title

@Kiltley Ай бұрын

Funny title! As religions require Emotional Thinking, per definition!!!

@MCJustJ420 Ай бұрын

This was an excellent debate(From the theist side) I've made similar arguments to people before on KZbin and tend to get the same response, you definitely broke it down better than I would and still got the same response

@MachineElf_Official Ай бұрын

If faith is irrational, then theism is also irrational, as theism is a faith-based belief. Since faith is just belief for belief's sake, faith is not rational. Therefore, theism is not rational.

@Dizerner Ай бұрын

Faith is arational, it is not against rationality nor based on it. Faith is not belief just for the heck of it, it is rather the acknowledgement that something could be out there and contact us.

@MaK-13- Ай бұрын

@@Dizerner people have different definitions of faith tho. and we dont know if something could be out there? possibility needs to be demonstrated.

@Thedisciplemike Ай бұрын

Where on earth are you getting the idea that "faith is just belief for belief's sake"???

@MaK-13- Ай бұрын

@@Thedisciplemike well, i didnt actually say that did i? i avoided giving a specific definition because that is just one other definition that people use and im not going to go through all the different uses that people go by. if you want to give me your definition, we might actually get someplace. but for arguments sake, i could get that from any number of theists that say faith is something along those lines. or we could go directly from the bible (hebrews 11:1). are you denying that there are theists that define faith that way? or are you telling the people that do define it that way that theyre wrong?

@Thedisciplemike Ай бұрын

@MaK-13- when did i say you said it? Im replying to the initial post. And yes, id say they are wrong. Hebrews 11 doesnt say anything about "feelings"

@peezieforestem5078 Ай бұрын

As an atheist, I agree with the theist. What he's saying in his first argument is that it can be optimal to believe in false things, and that makes belief a rational behavior. An example I would use is placebo - believing in placebo makes it more effective, so in the absence of useful medication, it makes sense to believe placebo will work, instead of trying to scrutinize it. Other examples include believing you would win, even when victory is not guaranteed. In his second argument he says that it can be rational to believe in false things, like flat Earth, if you have not heard good arguments in favor of round Earth. Now, once you have heard a better argument in favor of round Earth, then it would become irrational. But until then, you can be rational and still believe in false thing. I think the problem here is that things in themselves are neither rational nor irrational, as it obviously depends on reasoning faculties of a person. So, an example would the following: there are some people out there who find everything irrational, let's say due to brain damage. Now, that cannot be used to prove that everything is irrational, just that the person is. Similarly, just because someone can reasonably believe in false things due to, let's say, lack of accurate data, doesn't really tell us anything about these things. In conclusion: it's possible to be a rational theist, but theism itself is neither rational or irrational.

@ajsirch Ай бұрын

"In his second argument he says that it can be rational to believe in false things, like flat Earth, if you have not heard good arguments in favor of round Earth. Now, once you have heard a better argument in favor of round Earth, then it would become irrational. But until then, you can be rational and still believe in false thing." Is there evidence for a flat Earth? Is there evidence for a round Earth? So if there is evidence for a flat Earth and a round Earth - how does someone differentiate whether the Earth is flat or spherical. The key is that the Earth is only "apparently" flat (the equivalent would be a tangential plane to a sphere). But the only way you can resolve the "apparance" or rather "appearance" of flatness is to gain a perspective that is beyond some of the evidence that is purely for flat earth or for spherical earth. So it's not just hearing "good arguments", you actually need perspective or beliefs that allow you to resolve. In other words, there's no such thing as rationality but only beliefs that allow your to reason within the constraints assumed or imposed by the belief. You have no basis for your Atheism

@johnmonk3381 Ай бұрын

It's possible to be a rational theist but it's even better to be a rational atheist

@MaK-13- Ай бұрын

@@ajsirch so youre admitting you have no basis for your theism? not that i agree with your flawed reasoning anyway . the basis for my atheism (cant speak for others) is that there is insufficient evidence that god exists or is even possible. comparing it to flat earth is a mistake, because people can be fooled by the 'evidence' or 'appearance' of a flat earth, because the earth exists and can be examined. that cant be said for god. if there is a basis for theism its imagination.

@Luixxxd1 Ай бұрын

@@johnmonk3381 i would rather appeal to God's preferences than th preferences of humans tbh

@Luixxxd1 Ай бұрын

@@MaK-13- research TAG and see why your premise is false

@germantuber Ай бұрын

holy yap

@saxon6749 Ай бұрын

M-M-M-M-MUH EVIDENCE

@remischmitt9308 Ай бұрын

fake also being better at discussion does not mean you are right

@CoachWhillock Ай бұрын

But understanding the subject, the terms, propositions etc definitely helps

@Sweeti924 Ай бұрын

imagine

@Kiltley Ай бұрын

Indeed! All Rational Thinkers are atheists, but not all atheists are rational thinkers!!!

@emjayy1233 Ай бұрын

some goes for atheists who win debates

@Eclipse1983 Ай бұрын

🥺 I only made it 4 minute in...I know where this is going. I have no idea why a theist feels the need to argue rationality in theism, but sure you win if you need that concession. This debate been settled years ago. Obfuscating and constructing arguments in a way that it basically ends up being meaningless but sounds is not how I would go about it. If you want to believe in God and religion go for it, but rationality argument is already lost.

@ajsirch Ай бұрын

Wut? Rationality argument is lost? Please

@johnmonk3381 Ай бұрын

@@ajsirchthere is no rational argument warranting a belief in a supernatural, invisible and untestable entity called god

@kv-31researchdivision Ай бұрын

But it IS rational to believe in God, because it's beneficial to people who believe in Him. Rationality in this way is not the same as having evidence for or even proof of God's existence. That's a completely different discussion.

@ajsirch Ай бұрын

@@kv-31researchdivision We should have that very completely different discussion. We have plenty of evidence for God's existence - in fact, a whole Universe of evidence.

@catholicpapi Ай бұрын

Brain dead take.

@Kiltley Ай бұрын

Religions require Emotional Thinking, per definition!!! Rational Thinking = Consider, assume, or accept depending on evidence, with as least interference by emotions as possible. Emotional Thinking = Believing or not-believing based on feelings/needs, with no evidential backup. If you think Rational about all religions you can't get further than assuming it's true or assuming it's not true, as all religions lack conclusive evidence!!! And since they BELIEVE something that can only get as far as ASSUMING, it is called Emotional Thinking!!! N.B. All Rational Thinkers are atheists, but not all atheists are rational thinkers!!!

@MaK-13- Ай бұрын

you cant get to god thru reason, logic or rationality. fact.

@Lucerna999 Ай бұрын

@@MaK-13- ??

@ajsirch Ай бұрын

You've disproved your own statements Your definition of Rational Thinking = Consider, assume, or accept depending on evidence, with as least interference by emotions as possible. Here you insert "as least interference" - so you admit that emotions could conceivably interfere with your rationality. So you've no way to separate Rational Thinking from Emotional Thinking. Why would you even expect that the same brain that produces rational and emotional "thinking" can neatly separate the two modes. Maybe your emotively thinking that you're rational. FAIL

@ajsirch Ай бұрын

@@Kiltley Do all atheists not respond to direct invalidation of their arguments? As for your question : “Did all religious people … hearsay?” That be a NO

@ajsirch Ай бұрын

@@Kiltley Must be that vaunted Atheist rationality short circuiting all over