Containment Protocols, Possibility of God, & Word Traps | EF - TX | Talk Heathen 02.05
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 02. 2018
- Talk Heathen 02.05 for February 11, 2018 with Eric Murphy & Jamie.
Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
NOTES
Opening Theme:
Ethan Meixsell "Takeoff"
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
"I'm not being rude" has the same ironic energy as "I'm a nice guy, why don't any girls want to date me?"
Haha so true
Perhaps don't dangle your willy out of your trousers. Try that
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Oh you know this guy in an incel! No woman would tolerate this fool long!
I am a nice guy I just keep telling you useless information untill your ears bleed
caller: takes 15 minutes to ask a vacuous question
hosts: breathes
caller: "Can i finish my question?!!"
this goes on for 40 minutes
Best comment. 😂
Imagine if someone else spent an hour to build up their question for darth. 😅
@@andreaskarlsson5251
You’d be accused of filibustering.
Caller: I have specific questions I want you to answer a specific way. If you don’t do exactly what I want, I throw a tantrum. I will continue to repeat my question without listening.
It's somewhat frightening, when Eric, one of the most gentle and sympathetic guys I ever witnessed, with seemingly endless patience, finally snaps.
Yes. That was unnecessary and frankly disappointing.
@@efk3733 I must admit, I still admire him for the level of patience he has shown with that person.
And I think I like him even more: he is a human like the rest of us :D
@@HumbleTemplar bro, EFK was the caller. He's literally the only one disappointed.
STFU EFK
@@efk3733 wtt how was that unnecessary the caller was dishonest irrational and rude.
Caller: Asks question
Hosts: "What do you mean by..."
Caller: "No follow up questions, no definitions, just answer!"
Scripts are easier to write when yes and no are the only options. Even easier when you can argue cyclically that one of those leads back to the other. Ergo, "yes" is the only answer.
I disagree with caller on his main point, but the hosts gave really bad answers and avoided the question repeatedly.
@@kisnney1 They answered the best they could. They just couldn't get much out with someone who isn't physically capable of shutting up.
@@oxidize11
It’s easier to bamboozle someone and lead them along your scripted interrogation when you talk over them ,demand a binary response and don’t answer any questions.
you guys are WAY TOO patient with this rude caller, get the mute button going way earlier!
BigCooter.com uggghhhhh... 43 minutes of cringe! Well, maybe this show will improve with time. Hopefully the boys will learn how to handle asshole callers like this better and faster.
That guy was trying to trap Eric into asserting something the whole time. Shifting the burden of the proof. He was asserting the whole time there's a god. And Eric fell for the dishonesty. I would've mentioned burden of proof long time ago already
he does sound like an arrogant "know it all" prick. I know a guy like that, they can't think, they can just repeat, rewind, repeat, rewind.
The laws of causality, nature and logic are not necessary pre-requisites for reasoning, they refine reason, they emerge as Jamie says, they've been arrived at by an iterative process. We use them because they work, are verified a myriad of times.
When the caller says: the laws of logic are defined as absolute and universal, he doesn't realise that that's a tentative descriptive definition, it holds so far in all observed phenomena within given parameters. It's not prescriptive, as the caller assumes. If at any time we conclusively observed them not to apply we'd have to rethink them.
Indeed, the law of non-contradiction (A is A and not B) is contradicted all the time, depending on frame of reference. For example A car is a car and not a truck. What about a pick-up truck (a nice slick one with two rows of seats and an open rear loading area)? What about one of those big SUVs, they're huge, as big as a pickup truck.
What about hermaphrodites?
Amazing that darth has been using the same argument all these years and he still keeps getting owned
also...when did darth move to texas....his god wouldnt allow him to lie ...would he?
"I know everything and you don't, so... I WIN!", humility surely isn't a part of Darth's world view.
He owned himself the other day by showing his face on camera
@@oxidize11 Where can i see that?
@@kumulsfan8090 tom rabbit
I love it when Gary Milne (aka Darth Dawkins), a man dogged by failure in every endeavour of his life, starts accusing people of 'overtalking' him. There may be such a verb but it would surely be intransitive. It perfectly describes his own behaviour - he simply cannot shut up, so besotted is he with the sound of his own unlovely voice.
Push him off his prepared script and he disintegrates in a torrent of spluttering, impotent
and incoherent rage.
He is the tragic result of a man allowing himself to be misdiagnosed - by himself - as intelligent. No wonder he has been thrown out of a succession of chatrooms across the internet. He is absolutely obnoxious and, in a strange way, just another example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.
Don't you just love it when they call in to quiz the hosts rather than actually converse?
I like when Eric says that elves crawl out his ass and then then Jamie gets embarrassed but then checks under the table just to make sure
giggle giggle
"Can I finish my statement?"
"No."....click.
And be done with it, there's no reason to deal with people who behave like this.
Sorry, once the person you are arguing with turns to presuppositionalism the conversation might as well be over. “Can I finish what I’m saying?” Nope. Might as well turn to hard solipsism at that point. “I’m a brain in a vat creating the whole universe. How do you know it’s not true. Can you prove it?” 😡
No, Eric did hang up, and they lost it. The answer to the question: is it possible? is: I have no idea.
So it it possible
I don't know.
So you don't know.
I know that I don't know the answer to that.
Therefore Sri Lanka!
Ok. You win.
@@stupidtreehugger
You just posted the same comment over and over. The hosts waited far too long before hanging up. That's the most common argument. Not wether or not the callers argument is valid or not.
mymathmind his answer would be “your not Jesus” lmao
@@TheLegend-oy2sg Yeah Ken whatshisface has said multiple times "You're not God are you?" "So how do you know?" and people just look at him like, lol what?
This call could have been over in like two seconds.
"Do you believe that religious people should be deemed insane and we should institute shariah law"
"No"
"What do you think is the ultimate form of being in the universe"
"I don't believe there is one and there's no evidence for one existing."
I remember when these sort of arguments convinced me wholeheartedly. It still pisses me off thinking I was gullible enough to fall for such basic word games, but I guess it’s like Eric said, we do the best we can with what we have to make judgements about the world around us, and if we come across something that doesn’t work, we dispose of it and move forward. Keep up the good work, guys!☺️
It's been 5 years (give or take). May I please ask where you are now?
The proper answer to "Is it possible that a creator God exists?" has to be "I don't know." If that causes the caller any problems, the further response then has to be "Can you give me any evidence it is possible?"
yeah. that's it.
Ding-ding-ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
@@polasboek
There's no Truth in the bible, it offers nothing but unjustified claims and assertions none of which have ever been proven. Furthermore the more we find from archeology the less reason there is to take the Bible at it's word.
The exodus never happened not did moses exist outside the story. The hewbrews were never slaves and the pyramids were built by hired workers.
@@polasboek, your comment is irrelevant to this thread. We weren't discussing Biblical accuracy. But since you raise the question... :o) When I see fundamentalist christians trying to claim the Bible is literally true, the whole thing falls flat because some parts of the Bible are "historical", others are allegorical, such as Daniel and Revelation. And it is down to interpretation as to where that line is drawn in many, many cases. For instance, was Job "real", or is it a story with a moral? Who is to say? And when the fundamentalist Biblical claims are compared with what we know to be the facts, from science, they don't line up. We know that the Earth is not 6,000 years old. We know all life is related and can be traced back to a single common ancestor. We know we are descended from an ape - in fact, we ARE apes. We know that the world is not flat (contrary to what some felt earth's claim to be evidence from the Bible). Your claim that the Bible is "true" (whatever you mean by that) is difficult for a sane person to accept. And I am speaking as a christian myself, but one who accepts scientific truth as to "what" God has created (using evolution as the method), and the Bible as "why" he created it. For me, the two go together, hand in hand. If you accept the Bible as "true" and presumably reject science to do so, then you are guilty of accepting 1 historical document and dismissing 10 million new ones.
No it does not, I don't know the percentage but evidence out side of the bible shows very little of it to be factual. If you're saying that Rome existed because that's also in the book of myth (bible) proves nothing, we have a lot of evidence showing this to be true. There is O% showing that two humans stated living anywhere on earth were the progenitors of mankind, that the earth is 6 thousand years old, that unicorns are going to come down from on high and smite the enemies of gods chosen goat hoarders. The earth is not covered by an iron dome, or stands on four legs on some kind of celestial table. If you don't see that to be a axiom of reality then we don't have a starting point where one would know that you have any logical idea of science, math, history, or how such is recorded, so as the next generation can learn and grow. Not some myth made up in some deserted bronze age village to scare little children and subjugate woman, or justify the genocidal slaughter of the surrounding villages, or the enslavement of their virgins.
EF/Darth Dawkins is a massive troll. Stop wasting time with him.
Aka Matt Slick
@@lynneshale7443 Gary Milne
@@lynneshale7443 aka greg bahnsen. all darth/ef does is regurgitate greg bahnsen talking points. and greg bahnsens schtick has been shown to be incredibly dishonest.
I recognised the voice but couldn't put a name to it.
also known as robin on septic generation
Man Darth really has nothing besides his script. Which makes him useless against people who have heard it before, because as seen here he needs answers to move through it and y'all just shit it down. I love it.
Was this Darth Dawkins?
Sure sounds like him. 🤔
Yes
VERY yes, lol
It is, and he's still a moron.
We think so .
What other names has he showed up by in the talk show, aside from EF and evolution falls?
This guy is his own terrible remix.
the tension between Eric and Jaime is hilarious lol
but that's an honest relationship, better than fake politeness lol
Is that why Jamie left the show?
"Don't bring that weak ass shit in our house." Said so calmly gave me a laughing fit. Thank you for that.
For fuck sake. The answer is.... I dont know if its possible because I have no data to analyze. However under the reality which we exist and our understanding of our observable reality it appears that minds require brains. So if I were to lean towards a side of the arguement I would tentatively say it appears to be not possible.
Maybe _you_ can save them!
They were making the question so much harder than it had to be. Either go with a pure philosophy answer - yes - or a more reasonable answer - I don't know. It isn't that hard. Its like they were so afraid of getting trapped somehow that they were very tentative in just answering the damn question. The caller on the other hand was a pure dick.
I don't know. Get used to it. By the way, other commenters, please be patient; I am not perfect and do not expect it of others, atheist or theist.
hehe i find it funny the you say Where is Matt (Matt delahunty right?) and the guy that is on the phone i bet money is Matt Slick.
that was Darth Dawkins enough said
Where’s Admiral Akbar when we need someone to say “It’s a trap!” A trap laid by Darth Dawkins, a Shit lord.”
@@chakuseki Nothing wrong with using logical traps. Matt uses them all the time. They are only a problem if the trap is not based on logic and reason.
This guy is coming from a solipstical viewpoint which makes any discussion pointless. In a solipstical view anything is possible so it breaks the rules of logic and reason thus is nonsensical.
Have the hosts forgot what Matt always says?: "Possibility has to be demonstrated". Next question.
Matt is not doing it the right way either. "Possibility has to be demonstrated" is a fallacy of begging the question.
@@eklektikTubb I don't think it is. You have to demonstrate possibility by definition. You can only say something is possible if you can demonstrate it is possible.
@@rohitkudre3792 Why? Why you have to demonstrate possibility by definition and why you can only say something is possible if you can demonstrate it is possible?
@@eklektikTubb That is literally the definition of the word "possible". It means "able to be done". For me to accept a claim about possibility you need to demonstrate that it can be done.
How else can you say something is possible?
@@rohitkudre3792 No no no. Firstly, word "done" doesnt belong there, it is just "able to be" or "may be". And secondly: why would you need a demonstration or a reason to say it, can´t you just be open-minded right from the start?
"What is the ultimate nature of reality?" - Reality. So simple. I stop at reality. Why do I need God?
It exists, therefore it exists. If someone can demonstrate non-existence, I'll change my belief.
U see what this guy is trying to do right? He wants to ask a series of yes or no questions with one or two goals: tell them they are illogical for not believing in God or try to trick them into agreeing god exist it's a tactic used by apologetics all the time. I'm glad they refused to go down that rabbit hole and play into his hands.
@Fred Burger I can logically disprove god.
There are many religions that have invoked magical entities throughout times to explain the things that they don't know, the concept of the christian god has been repeatedly falsified and is only rescued by constantly shrinking the domain of his powers, redefining him and arguing for why parts of the big book of bullshit don't count.
Since this trend is on going and there is no evidence for his existence logically there is no reason to believe he exists and many reasons to doubt he ever existed in the first place, in addition the god the people worship now IS NOT THE SAME GOD IN THE BOOK, that one was falsified.
All this guy did is call in and make shit up, he posited platonism and evaded any questioning of his ridiculous foundation, but gullible simpletons like you think this is a win.
His position was totally illogical, using the same logic you can literally prove anything must exist in a platonic sense which is ridiculous.
@Fred Burger Wrong. If you make a proposition as ridiculous and self-contradictory and paradoxical as "God" Then YOU need to prove it. I can logically disprove God. NO ONE has proved that it exists. Until you do or can, there is no need or advantage to believe in your proposition.
@Fred Burger lol just change god for trolls, pixies, Santa Claus and ask the same questions god isn't any different to the above invented characters.
@Fred Burger Gosh, Fred, for all of your eloquence and conviction, you unwittingly betray both the depths of your conceit and the limits of your intelligence by one phrase alone: "God as the theory for existance is the only theory that correlates to the natural functions we see in existance" (misspellings are yours). Once again, (yawn) WRONG. Your statement there is just one more variation of the pitiable religious default of "I can't explain it, I don't understand it; therefore, 'God'". Oh Fred! Don't you see it? You dare to speak of a "4th dimension" God (really now?) and yet after proposing something so patently silly, you then betray your prejudices by letting slip the telltale mindset of the uber-religious-minded in the phrase previously mentioned while fancying yourself as some kind of "detached observer" who is merely searching for some profound truth by denying your fealty to religious-based concepts when you accuse the atheists of "faith" -- which of course is always uttered against atheists as a cloaked slur -- when you know that "A-theism" means exactly "WITHOUT belief" or "faith". You apparently have dressed up your faith in emperor's clothes constructed of facetious pseudo-philosophical jargon while denying your underlying confirmation bias in the answers you're desperately looking for. I find it interesting that you're trolling (so yes, there ARE trolls, Fred, look in the mirror) an atheist podcast site and trying to refute their patient dissemblance of the previous caller by simply regurgitating well-known poorly-executed religious apologetics as if we haven't honestly just heard it all before, and found it just as disingenuous and false.
@Fred Burger Man, you can't even see your own blatant bias and lack of true insight, can you Fred? Again, a pleonastic reply which basically re-states "I (or you) can't explain it so it MUST be God". I mean, say that in essence in your last statement! Are you honestly going to tell me and expect me to believe that you believe your own crap? Here's something to consider, Fred -- we know what gravity is, it can be tested, and confirmed, as is a common rebuttal on this and other atheist blogs, podcasts, etc. On the other hand, you can't "test" a god or prove it exists, so for all intents and purposes, it doesn't. Your very first mistake is assuming that we know what "creates" universes. In your limited view, the only thing that could answer the question is that is HAS to be God. You even go as far off the farm to claim that "he" "transformed his energy" into the universe -- WHAT? WTF is that kind of creative bullshit? Once again, WRONG. Have you ever considered that perhaps the universe has ALWAYS existed? That truly there is NO "creator" but a repetitive series of events that creates and destroys at random, with no "personality" behind it AT ALL, just a force that we will (hopefully) never understand or comprehend (because we would just try to weaponize it). And when people like you put forth this lame idea that God created the universe, an honest person cannot possibly get away from the question that asks "Who created God then?". And in pondering that question, an intellectually honest person has to see and admit what a silly quest this is to find or name a "creator". There's just no evidence for that whatsoever, so you might as well be babbling word salad.
I listened to the first half of your broadcast. The man who called in depended too heavily on your accepting his argument based on his definitions. Your are absolutely correct Eric, his question didn’t even make sense. In his world everything is possible and we are justified in believing in anything at all. That is what christians need us to believe.
14:20 - You DID in fact make a fallacy here. It is incorrect to say "I haven't seen it, so it's impossible"
The correct statement here is:
I haven't seen evidence for it (a mind without a brain), so the default position is to not believe one way or another, but given the current understanding of physics, and what we have observed to be possible, I think it's safe to say it's not possible to have a mind without a brain/physical form. Until such evidence is presented to ACTUALLY prove one way or another, this is the most rational position that correlates with reality.
Agreed, Eric was very close and we understood that’s what he meant, but the caller seemed to get stuck on this, although the fact that he seemed to have his head to far up his rear when talking with Jamie and Eric May have been more to blame for that
every conversation with EF is like pulling teeth with your bare fingers
His fallacy is also a fallacy. Incredulity or inductive argument doesn't prove this guy's god is true. Where is his proof?
If they had gone down that path with him, he claims that a combination of natural revelation (look at the trees!) and special revelation (read the bible!) combine to prove that his God exists. If really, really pushed, he will flat out lie and claim “that God has revealed to me - in a way that I cannot be mistaken - that he is real and the foundation for everything”.
It’s all bullshit and it’s really not even worth engaging with this guy. He doesn’t care about having a productive conversation - he just wants to win the conversation so he can berate and belittle whoever he was arguing with.
@@Tenly2009 The intellectual lightweight wants someone to talk at, not talk to.
I agree, its never productive and incredibly predictable to engage with him.
This caller is a pseudo-intellectual. It's like he looked up a few definitions and decided he could win. The actual playback is so painful and I imagine actually talking to him was like death.
it didn't have to be. unfortunately they were ill prepared.
Wish Jamie and Eric hadn't collapsed into swearing and frustration at the end. They were as equally arrogant and irate as the caller. I expected better from them.
This caller should get a job with an aspirin company. I'm confident he gave most listeners headaches, including myself. He would be a necessary component in product testing.
@@efk3733 are you the caller trying to win pseudo intellectual points
My friends do this all the time. I have a friend who thinks he created backward language in the form of song lyrics and I can tell you this, even if you did make that up, it's fucking dumb and deserves no attention. If you guys want to hear what it sounds like I'll drop a link but, be prepared cause it's bad.
"You cant see below the table"... LOL Eric that was priceless.
I LOVED the "I didn't say you needed to believe in it, I said they were a prerequisite..."
Yeah. That was hilarious. Might as well say he doesn’t get to just believe it. He has to accept it as fact in this hypothetical. DD is embarrassing
He's a child of terrible or terribly disappointed parents.
This is a great reason why Matt hang up on ppl at times!!!!
@@destronia123 true, they deserve the douche too lol lol
I don’t know if it’s possible to have a conversation with this guy.
I am wondering if he is capable of listening.
Well, not when you overtalk him like that 🙄
The irony of this caller constantly claiming he's being interrupted, while CONSTANTLY interrupting, is genuinely infuriating. I'm truly impressed at their patience. There's no way i could've talked to this person anywhere near that long...
This guy was not respecting your ages! He was acting like you were students and he was the professor. He was confusing your tolerance of his ridiculous logic as a weakness which further encouraged his belligerency.
I think the guy was full of shit, but if you're being honest, they really were doing an utterly terrible job of giving a direct answer to his question. If you want to take the upper-hand in this particular debate, you give the philosophical answer, which is "Yes, it is possible", THEN you move on to whether there is any justification for believing it is true. They kept answering the question they anticipated he would ask later, and wouldn't answer the question he actually asked, which actually gave the caller the rhetorical advantage. That was actually kind of painful to watch.
He want's them to fall into the trap of (I don't know) (which is in fact, a good answer) then he would say, "well if you don't know then how can you say your a atheist"....
In the Christian mind, a atheist = "there is no possibility a god can even exist at all". He was dishonestly presuming that was their stance, by applying this narrative to them.
And if you can't distinguish between "your" and "you're" then you have some basic learning to do
Doesn't mean you're stupid, you are possibly very intelligent. Just means one shouldn't neglect one's foundations when building a tower. Let's all be wise to that
And you RandyHI, welcome to the new age. It is a shame in many ways that age is not given the respect it was. The village elders have moved on. They joined the masons. They don't need our respect anymore. Respect is good, but power trumps respect.
Where before us croutons, us petite mignions paid due respect, now the game is on for "truth", based on facts, that's to say, the interpretation of data
The ultimate nature of reality is simply 'reality'
I've heard this before, but this time I watched it, and starting at 35:05, when Eric says what he says, then Jamie acts out "Finding a universal theory of everything on the spot", that had me busting up laughing !!!!
"I'm not overtalking you, I'm not being rude!" He cries right after overtalking Eric and Jamie constantly before and being REALLY fucking rude
Guys y'all could've easily answered him with, "I don't know"
And that guy would have said therefore God, you just can't win with "these people"
@@jimmiebarrett2866 OK . SO !!!
@@flatearth9140so, that's not an argument for anything.
@@flatearth9140 I can just as easily replace God with Smurfs if I please with that kind of argument.
They did, he refused to accept it
thank you so much. your anger raised to mine and you said everything I wanted to. thank you Eric.
That's Darth Dawkins, the biggest troll of em all. He should try this on Dillahunty!
I love how people throw around esoteric phrases like ultimacy of reality as if everyone knows what that means and that it’s so simple and elegant that there is no room for error in their reasoning.
When really it’s an awkward and boneheaded repackaging of an old fallacy
The caller asked if logic and reason was needed in order to say there is no god. He is trying to offload his burden of proof. He is tricky.
What an insufferable arrogant douche.
There lies the point of this debate. An atheist can not truthfully say there is no god. It can only be said that there is yet no proof of a god existing.
@@efk3733 Only for a certain definition of God. We can say for certain that the literal Abrahamic God of the Bible does not exist. But it would be fallacious to claim that no at all exists. Especially if that God is defined as the underlying energy of all things or the cause of the Big Bang.
@@efk3733 The chances of one existing and being the one from the bible are slim to put it mildly.
@@efk3733 The problem becomes whether that's even a remotely common definition that is used to describe atheism rather than a strawman created by apologists to tear down in terms of the logical contradictions that could be pointed out in their viewpoint
Oh wow the pride and assumptions from this caller...y’all both did well keeping your cool.
They did not keep their cool.
@@efk3733 They did a lot better than this guy, he was going off the rails every time he was interrupted and he was only interrupted for good reason. On the other hand he only interrupted them when he thought he knew where they were going with the conversation. Even though he obviously didn't know and wasn't listening.
I've never heard Darth Dawkins sound polite or even remotely happy. He always sounds like he walks around with a chip on his shoulder, and doesn't carry any interest in actually hearing people ask him questions. I feel bad for him.
Holy shit. This was the most beautiful checkmate I've ever seen. You both were so patient and tried so hard with this knob but it was so good to see you lose it. Well done to both of you. Thanks
I love it when Eric becomes Matt!
You don't have an opposition to my imaginary friend therefore I'm right .
Darth Dawkins is exhausting.
This video needs a Darth warning label.
Thank you, caller, for guiding me to Peter Boghossian.
What he's asking at around 9:00, is "What is your personal TOE (Theory Of Everything)"
You know its bad when even Jamie loses his zen 😂
The answer is YES, Eric.
"Does blue orange tomato" is such a great quote.
Oh look, its Gary Milne again. I already know where this will go, he's mentally disturbed.
Nutty as a fruit cake
Darth Dawkins
@@Adam-John His real name is Gary.
@@lyndonbauer1703 yes, the same guy with those sickening arguments who thinks that he is smarter than everyone else...
Caller is more concerned about sounding intelligent than being intelligent
@Steve Akia Nope.
@Steve Akia Ty :)
Eric rant at the end got me moist as hell dude
That. Was. Amazing.
It's Dunkin' Atheism - he's using the same script on modern day debates. Shannon Q points that it very nicely
Beast mode Eric there on this bullshit. Loved it.
"I've only ever seen white swans, therefore black swans don't exist" is completely different to "I've only ever seen white swans, so I have no reason to conclude that black swans exist."
It’s so nice that he implied he knows the ultimate nature of reality
Finally..... at the end of this video Eric steps up to the plate to rip in to one of these idiot theists. It's so much better not to fluff around explaining misunderstandings etc. From now on just cut these people off at the door and dont allow them to blabber their way through nonesense. Well done Eric!
The reason no one likes to talk to Darth Dawkins is solely because he'll never answer questions without a question. And he restates your answer as a strawman absolute before trying to refute you. Every single time never fails.
Love the end of that!
This was great. Thx.
I love it when he continuously asks the same question over and over and over like a 3 year old. He will then go on his discord and tell his listeners how he owned them. He is juzt a sad little man.
During his 10 hours a day he spends on there talking to his teenage minions
The answer: I do not know if it is possible for a non contingent immaterial mind to exist. It sounds unlikely because it's unclear what would even constitute evidence for such a thing.
Ah, but once you add the property that it reveals itself in scripture....
@@danieljulian4676 how are you able to determine which bit of writing is "scripture", or how reliable that writing is?
@@leslieviljoen I'm not trying to sell you on the idea of a god. So, if you're selling me god, not that I claim you are, it's up to you to tell me what scripture is. Shift the burden of proof all you like. I'll identify it here in public. For all I know, scripture includes Cornelius van Til. Put up, or shut up, is my advice. This is not an instruction directed at you; it's on the apologist to do this. You're asking a fair question.
@@danieljulian4676 my confidence that gods exist is very low. I too am open to evidence though.
@@leslieviljoen The evidence is that the concept of deities and the supernatural is at least very old, just about as old as the historical record. The people who invented this set of concepts were pre-scientific, and just wanted to settle their own hash regarding stuff for which they could not connect the dots. Look at it as an anthropologist instead of as as a theoretical epistemologist. There is actual evidence in the historical record. Unless you want to treat these people as noble savages who had more insight into the universe than you do, you'll dismiss their concepts as immature. What later theology does is simply to embellish the old and immature concepts with post hoc rationale in the face of existing evidence (e.g., non-contingent immaterial mind). Is maturity thereby derived? Trying to dream up the sort of evidence you would accept is intellectual masturbation. We don't have to entertain these ideas as truth-apt or subject to evidence, but YMMV. Does the potential search space for deities really increase with our empirical knowledge of the world? Let that be your theology, then.
You did an amazing job showing restraint as long as you did. For a guest who got so terribly offended for being "talked over" all the time, he sure hypocritically engaged in the same practice with consistency and regularity. You guys are a great representative sample of what rationalist, compassionate, intellectual civilians (emphasis on civil) should look like.
Good one! -You guys are doing a great job : )
I'm tired of this guy trying to shift the burden of proof. "Is it possible that a creator exists?" I don't know, seems unlikely based on what we know about minds, but I can't definitively say "no." Why SHOULD I believe there can be a noncontingent incorporeal mind?"
Heavy , innit? Atheists aren't usually ruling gods out, the theists have to demonstrate a god deserves to be ruled IN.
It is an unanswerable question
1.) Why does there need to be an "ultimacy"? 2.) Why would it need to be conscience? 3.) You can't draw conclusions about whether or not something is possible without evidence. I don't know if it's possible that creator exists, I would need to see evidence that it is possible before drawing that conclusions. That doesn't mean I think it's impossible, either, I just don't know if the laws that govern everything would allow for that.
I think you're wrong. That a thing is possible, doesn't need proof.
Since we are not all knowing, anything is possible. Now, is it probable? Now probability needs proof.
Just looking at quantum physics alone, who could say something is definitely not possible. And what's beyond the quantum world? And beyond that?
Note I'm talking about theoretical possibility here. From sciences we don't yet see or know.
Like Steve Martin the comedian once said "it's impossible to put a Cadillac up your nose"
@@efk3733 Ok, seriously look at what you just said. "Since we are not all knowing, anything is possible." So, with that being said, could "anything" be that God is not real at all? If so, now you have to prove me wrong, God is not real. Go ahead and try you will definitely fail.
This dude sounds just like Glenn Beck.
Just watched the whole thing. Great job, Eric. A very well-worded ending.
This conversation is super important considering the current situation in Texas
Dude is definitely reading from a friggin flow chart, he didn't actually answer a single asked question which didn't directly follow the last statement he personally made.
He sounds like Matt Slick, talks like him, quacks like him. Probably it is him.
Well done Eric
Woooo oooh Eric that was so badass!
Sye Ten Bruggengate much?
You mean Sa-tan Bruggengate! :)
@@littlesmith5005 Ya it's definately Milne.
This man makes Sye look well-spoken by comparison. Not that I like Sye at all. Best candidate ever for being a Vat in a Brain.
And yes, I put that correctly.
Fucking clone of brokengate
Can you observe "Scientific Method"? That is the type of question he is asking.
Could I just say I really felt the holy spirit on this one and am closer to converting to [insert caller's religion] more than I have ever been. Hallelujah allah be praised
“The ultimacy of reality”: trying to explain a mystery with a greater (or vaguer) mystery.
In my country this gux would be just laught at :) Cheers from Slovenia.
EF/Darth Dawkins/Gary Milne is maybe the biggest tool on the internet. If someone can name a bigger one I'm interested to know who it is.
I admire your patience. You handled his intolerance with maturity and logic. It is understandable why you guys got upset. He wanted to be "right", not discuss. I have alot of respect for you all at the ACA and look forward to visting your place at some day in the future. I wish you all the best in everything.
He was over talking the hosts!! "I'm not over talking you" AHHH I wanna pull my hair out!
This EF joker called a year later 2-18-2019. I just listened to the exact same BS on the call with Jamie looking so different. Lol
I'm new to the channel. What's EF?
@@DJTony993 EF is Darth Dawkins and Dunkin Atheism. He is a presuppositional apoplectic that is a troll and does not want a conversation. He wants to "win" and have the other person follow a Dialogue tree/script.
I recommend checking out Tom Rabbitt chanel to see more of this presup argument style.
Anybody watch this just to make you feel frustrated
You guys are simply too kind and polite.
He gets so mad whenever hes asked a clarifying question, but doesnt let the hosts finish a single sentence!
31:25 beautiful! Reason, logic, and the laws of the universe are ideas humans use to describe how the universe works. They are not universal, they are not a part of the universe. They are descriptions and inaccurate descriptions are discarded.
SMH. Christians and word salad. Yes let's use big words to make us sound smarter. Y'all at talk heathen deal with these people better than I could.
He uses big words to make himself sound more photosynthesis. It's really sad
Every time I hear Darth Dawkins, I always imagine a cartoony old prospector type character 🤣🤣🤣
Really well handled
Summary: Do it to Julia, don't do it to me.
That sounded like Slick's voice. Anyone?
Its Darth Dawkins
I like going with my door to door salesman bit: If a salesman forgets his product, do you accept that the product works on his world alone? No . . . you'd expect him to both have it, AND demonstrate it. Failure to do so is the failure of the salesman, NOT the customer. Same applies to the religious: You claim your god, you prove your god . . . it's not my position to prove your god exists for I"m not the one pushing the idea.
Gotta love Darth. Changing his name dies make his argument any better.