Atheism is a Result of Ignorance of Philosophy | Lewis-MI | Talk Heathen 04.37
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 06. 2024
- SHOW TIME-STAMPS
00:00 Intro
4:53 RAO-WY | Figured Out What Omnipotence Is
18:49 Lewis-MI | Atheism Is A Result Of Ignorance Of Philosophy
49:48 Louis-(PH) | Creation And Evolution Are Related Evidence For God
58:56 Meercat-UT | Atheists Don't Want To Accept The Truth, So Why Try?
1:08:31 Chris-TX | Documentation Is Evidence Of Miracle Claims
1:18:10 Judy-IN | Persistent Thoughts Of Life After Death Pull Towards Religion
1:29:06 Mark-DC | The Kalam Has Interesting Theistic Implications
SHOW NOTES
Greetings Heathens! Hope you all are staying safe, to our West Coast friends, please know we hope you are staying as safe as possible. In today’s episode, Eric Murphy is joined by Vi La Bianca again! #LaMurph!
Our first caller is RAO in Wyoming, claims to have an understanding of omnipotence and it’s not God. Is it Math or something else? He is confused about the argument, math can certainly be descriptive, and is also very similar to language to describe things. And, you’ve lost me.
Next up, Lewis in Michigan, wants to talk about how he has determined that most Atheists aren’t well read on evidence proving God. Then he tries to shift the burden of proof from the claimant to the respondent as well. He tries to dance around the ad populum fallacy. Ooooh, this should be fun!
Louis in the Philippines can prove God exists. He jumps to arguments against evolution using fallacies to explain why. It definitely sounds like he is only pausing long enough to allow Vi and Eric to talk and goes right back to his script.
Next, Meercat in Utah enjoys talking to Atheists and tries to convert them during his conversations. He is wondering why Atheists say no to his condescending arguments of “why don’t they want to see the truth that God exists.” Hmm… I wonder.
Chris in Texas would like to talk about how the Jews and Romans testimony are reliable, but not when it comes to the “miracles documented” in the Bible. Why isn’t the Bible enough? Vi breaks it down for him.
Lovely Judy in Indiana is slowly deconverting and has a couple questions about free will in heaven and other end of life questions that her pastor would never answer. This keeps pulling her back into Christianity. She’s a real sweetheart and is absolutely delightful! Keep asking questions and thinking through these, it’s definitely worth it! Welcome to the other side Judy, it’s really nice here.
Mark in Washington DC believes the Kalam Cosmological argument is a good first step to a theist’s case for God and the beginning of the Universe as we know it. But it’s not a great way to explain where and how the Universe actually began. Philosophy isn’t always the best tool to explain everything all the time.
Thanks for joining us today! Please be safe out there, especially all of you on the West Coast.
If you’d like to donate to help battle the West Coast’s apocalyptic wildfires, here’s a comprehensive link that lists a couple great ways to help: traveloregon.com/things-to-do... and www.calfund.org/wildfire-reli...
Call the show on Sundays 1:00pm-2:30pm CDT:
-Use your ☎ and call 1-512-991-9242
-Or use your 💻 and click tiny.cc/callth
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more:
/ talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/talkhea...
Talk Heathen merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
-------
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.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of 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.
CONTACTS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram:
Eric Murphy: Erictheheathen
Vi La Bianca: vilabianca
Twitter:
Eric Murphy: @dirtyheathen
Vi La Bianca: @AuthorConfusion
Facebook.com/talkheathen
Reddit.com/r/talkheathen
NOTES
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Ethan Meixsell "Takeoff"
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2020 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
No way this guy has a masters in philosophy unless it was from a bible college
Exactly
Agreed.
This has a definite mobile trailer or for-profit online vibe and the philosophy being from the comparative point of the Christian theology or from a biblical apologist, so not philosophy but apologetics.
Which would set off the alarm bells before he even gave his name.
No way this guy has a masters in ANYTHING.
A biology degree from Liberty University! Maybe he is also an obstetrician that believes that babies are delivered from storks! Ha Ha
"I'm butt hurt because I have the burden of proof" would have been a more honest argument.
Don't make the claim
We'll do the same
@checky monkey My expectations from theists are so low they could base jump out of a snakes butt.
I was thinking the same. His entire point was to avoid having to prove his position using ad populim.
You expecting an honest theist? Don't hold your breath...
Calling Atheists ignorant, while believing in an invisible diety you can't prove ever existed, is literally the FUNNIEST thing I've heard all week. Thanks for the chuckle.
theists are very irrational and strange people
I don't think that you should tell him that because you might offend his imaginary friend.
Lewis, it's not that people who claim the Earth is flat have a burden of proof, and people who claim it's round don't. Rather, both have a burden of proof. The former fail to meet theirs, and the latter succeed in meeting theirs.
I thought that. Flerfers obviously reject or don't understand the evidence presented to them - be it from 2000 years ago or now.
This guy: “Atheists just aren’t well read” smug chuckling
Also this guy: doesn’t know the meaning of things he’s discussing
It sounds like his qualifications are from the U of Facebook
He doesn't need to know what hes talking about cause jesus.
Two words........ Christopher Hitchens
That was exactly what I was thinking. "
Theists: "Atheists aren't well read in philosophy. I have a masters in Philosophy and theology "
Atheist: has to explain the very first concept theist brings up to...theist
“Atheists aren’t well read” is what he opened with.... then fallacy after fallacy....
“I’d like to have an argument, please.”
I guess homeboy hasn't read his fairy tales then
He has a piece of paper that says ‘Doctorate in Fillosophee’
I'm sure he's read lots, he just didn't understand any of it.
Dude calls all atheists out for not being ’well read’ and then proceeds to make a fool of himself.
Oh boy i was not prepared for how true this is
Yeah, he truly had not heard the last 20 years of debate. To think agonistic is the in between position is very a long time ago.
i was about to comment the same lol
Oh, but he has a saving grace. He's ill-mannered.
My favourite thing was vi "here comes the argument from popularity"
The caller "80 percent of people have believed in God which means that its the majority view"
Siiiigh. So well read😒🤦♂️
And he even lied right after, claiming that's not an argument from popularity.
@@wedding_photography nah he didn't lie, he's just an ignoramus, dunning-kruger at its finest and as someone else said in the comments, a classic pseudo intellectual...
Also, 80% of what people? USA today? World currently? Human population ever?
@@HumbleTemplar Exactly my point. I have never heard any of my religious friends say they have “interacted” with their god!
Classic pseudo-intellectual.
Yep, arrogant and loves to hear himself talk.
@Nic B Amen
Master of tap dancing.
It’s all that book learning.
@Nic B if he has an engineering degree and thinks an argument can prove something then its more like cognitive dissonance.
No one in a science based field would use an argument as evidence of anything
As an ex-evangelical christian who reluctantly left Christianity as a direct result of my realisation that there really was no good evidence at all to think that any of my previous religious convictions were true, I am gobsmacked when I hear a theist say there is "overwhelming" evidence for their particular god, or sect. How is it possible that I can hold the view that there is basically no compelling evidence while a Theist claims there is overwhelming evidence?
I can only think it comes down to the standards of evidence that a person has. It seems to me that Theists generally have set the bar extremely low for this one topic, while non-Theists have the bar considerably higher.
If there really were overwhelming evidence for god there would be significantly less atheists and believers of different religions in the world. They only claim that as a tactic to heap the blame on us--that we somehow "refuse" to see the obvious and embrace atheism just to spite a god that we "know" exist. Not unlike their portrayal of Satan. All I can say is that these theists really have a poor model of how human minds work.
You expose a problem there that I can't quite find the correct description for, When you say for example that there is no satisfactory extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed they retort that Jesus is more attested than Julius Caesar but that simply isn't true and they could prove it to themselves with 15 minutes Googling.
Also it is lack of fact checking and really caring what is true. This after being told over and over that there is "overwhelming" evidence for their particular god. Strait up propaganda and indoctrination, you like me must have been sold this crap as real.
This guy should get a refund for his “Master’s in Philosophy”
He bought it using coupons and Monopoly money, so no refund.
He looked at the illustrations in "Philosophy for Dummies" failed to notice that he was holding the book upside down, so he set it aside, having "mastered" it
He can't get the money back. The Patriot University of Truth-ology has moved to a new Trailor Park.
Or he should actually attend school and stop lying like every christian does.
He only answers with: Yea but, sure, or right. Is this a universal code that theists use to avoid answering difficult questions?
It's theist code for: "I wasn't expecting you to say that so I don't want to address or respond to it; but I do want to make sure I finish up my script before I get booted off of here so I need to pretend I agree with you and then I can continue in a different direction."
To be fair I think most humans use these deflection words when unprepared/uncomfortable etc
Philo Judaeus of Alexandria like a knee-jerk reaction to cognitive dissonance.
They are not listening just waiting for their next chance to speak again
Yeah but, see, right, but, it's like, just your opinion or whatever
Edit: /sarcasm
It’s taking me quite a few years of watching these channels, but I’ve learned that when a theorist says “right…” it means. “Oh, you’re done. I can talk now”
💯
Every time a theist starts with "I used to be a sceptic/atheist", I wanna scream "NEXT"
I take it as a sign that I'm in for an entertaining call that may or may not end with Matt dropping (the equivalent of) a Dennis Leary, *"SHUT THE FUCK UP! NEXT!" as he slams the phone down.
key indicators are an early flashing of the atheist creds (Well, I used to be an atheist...) and immediately sucking the host's proverbial dicks (I love the way you guys...)
When a Theist becomes an Atheist, people ask, why did you lose your faith? When an Atheist becomes a Theist, I ask, why did you lose your reason?
For someone with a “masters in philosophy”, it’s pretty interesting that he knows less about basic philosophical concepts than the “philosophy 101” cliffs notes page.
My bet is that he is one of the six or seven people that troll these videos with around 100 accounts
News flash Lewis: The people you love lie to you every day. And the person that lies to you the most, is you.
This guy should give back his philosophy degree because he misunderstood a lot
Of course he doesn’t have to prove his degree. LoL
Philosophy degrees from religious institutions have as much merit as a degree in astrology or Mother Goose.
He didn't even get his first very "basic" idea right...
He can't, degree mills don't give refunds.
Lewis: "...many atheists..."
Please drop in to the Comments Section and try it on the "many atheists" here. 😉
He won't do it.
The mix between confidence and ignorance is so... potent.
Earned his Masters degree at Dunning/Kruger University 👍
I don't believe this guy has a master's degree in anything, least of all philosophy.
Someone who has a master's degree in philosophy has no excuse for spouting so many fallacies in such a short time.
This guy is a perfect example of the dunning kruger effect
I came here to say this.
Maybe I'm stupid but what is the dunning kruger effect
Peter Rivera Jr it’s a tendency for people to think that they are smarter than they really are
@@plavyn thank you
@@peterriverajr6899 Interesting how you are displaying the exact opposite in the question lol.
19:04 "Let's define 'rational' as 'our brain works'."
Okay. This phone call has just proved by definition that the caller is not rational.
This call proves the caller is a buffoon.
And uneducated
Every time Lewis accused the hosts of denying the experiences of theists, the hosts should've responded by saying that he's denying the experiences of every non-Christian religious person. Would've exposed his dishonesty and double standards more quickly.
So true, I didn't even think of that.
@@steveyuhas9278
It would have gone over his head because he was only interested in vomiting nonsequiturs and not having a discussion.
Poor Lewis he is not aware that he is a salad shooter.
Non Cents Funny! 😎👍
Holy shit! I plan on using “salad shooter” every chance I get now; love it!
Is that the same as word salad ?
@@doneestoner9945 Salad shooter: He whose main fallacy is Arguments from Salad Bar.
In his safe little circle-jerk group, they all do this, and no one challenges anyone, they all cheer each other on and just pull each other Dick harder.
It is all about constructing BS that seems to stick to the wall. Here in the real world, it gets slapped hard, standby with the Butt Hurt Cream. 😃😃
A summary of his call : I have an un-falsifiable belief...therefore its true and anyone who doesn't accept it is ignorant...and for this reason I have no burden of proof.
It never ceases to amaze me how many 'believers' take a similar type of position ...claiming that atheists ''just don't get it ''
...except we DO get it and sorry but critical thinking and logic destroy your assertions every time.
Lewis doesn’t care about the truth.
Theist don't care about the truth.
When I was a super Christian lol all I cared about was not being abused for all eternity bc as a child n an adult , hell was scary. When you are scared, you don't think straight. I felt like I didn't have time to verify the claims. Not as a child. Not as a young adult. Accept god and DON'T LOOK BEHIND YOU👹
@@atme7513 The adults who teach the children really think they are doing a good thing.. it's a vicious circle. Maybe some teaching in epistomology and critical thinking would help future generations.
What's important is that you believe something that comforts you.
responsibleparty is it though? If you believe something that isn’t part of reality you can make bad decisions on those beliefs. And those decisions can be harmful to yourself or your surroundings.
@@Oddtester I was being facetious.
I want to know where he got these “degrees” so they can be publicly shamed for it.
Likely the academic institutions that granted his qualification/s are just as nebulous as his made up deity.
Same place Kent hovind got his "phd"
He printed them out? Or Prager U?
Clown College is always proud of its graduates.😂
@@donsachsemaybe liberty u lol
Vi was on fire on this one. And Eric, apparently, is a banana...
He sounded pretty dumb for such an "intelligent" guy.
It's hard to believe someone with a masters degree in philosophy doesn't understand burden of proof or ad populum fallacy.
The guy said he thinks there is overwhelming evidence for god.
Vi la Bianca asks him to give some of that evidence. He then says “but you have the burden of proof”
This guy was dunked by 2 atheists with a vastly superior grip on logic and the rules of logic. I bet he found those 'degrees' at a yard sale.
Caller: I know what I know, because I know it.
Host: how do you know that?
Caller: because I know it and you're ignorant.
Circular arguments and arrogance is all this caller has to offer.
this guy had to have gone to a Christian university there's no other way to explain how somebody can have so many degrees and have zero understanding of these simple concepts, like burden of proof belonging to the claimant.
And this is why a jury trial in the USA should terrify everyone. People like him on a jury is frightening.
There's a type of college called a diploma mill. If you buy your degrees then you tend to skip the whole burden of proof thing.
"I'm a banana"
-Eric Murphy
Quotable as fuck.
It's a good exit line.
Assert you're a banana. They demand proof. You split.
Tada!
Critical thinking skills: took a sharp left turn out of Lewis's head and died.
That's philosophy, baby.
🤣🤣🤣
I've experienced a gardening angel. I told him, "GET THE HELL OUT OF MY PEONIES"
Grab him by the pussywillow!
A home isn't a home without a gnome.
"Yes, I can give positive claims and arguments"
"Cool, we'd love to hear them"
"Well let me erroneously talk about other things"
This guy: I have a degree in philosophy!
Also this guy: The definition of “rational” is “your brain works.”
Well this caller has made me much more understanding of the saying, “he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground”. So this wasn’t a complete waste of time.
😂
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA XD
He's the reason pop tarts have directions
my (late) grandfather would have said, "He doesn't know shit from paint"
This guy is so desperate to vindicate that what he thinks he felt he experienced he just keeps redefining things. You make the claim, you bear the burden of proof.
Lewis, if you tell me you have a tree in your garden, I’m going to take your word for it. I have no reason to doubt your tree.
But if you tell me you have an invisible magic tree, forgive me if I ask you for a demonstration.
And if you further claim that *most people* know about this tree, and that I’m being unreasonable or philosophically naive to even question it, forgive me once more, but there’s no reason to continue the conversation.
Because even if I was the only person who had never confirmed or experienced The Tree in any way, it would *still* be encumbent on Treeists to show me the tree.
Declaring theism a done deal on such a basis after beginning the conversation by implying the hosts weren’t cognitively up to the task isn’t very becoming.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That will always be true.
That statement was never true. The word "extraordinary" is not in the scientific lexicon. The proper statement is simply, "Claims require evidence".
NeverTalkToCops1 who talks like that outside of scientific circles though? Don’t be that guy
@@NeverTalkToCops1 if you wanna play semantics "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" would be a shorthand for something like "the more unusual the claim the more evidence of better quality it would require". But anyone can play word games. Proper course of action would be to ask, what do you mean by an "extraordinary claim" at which point one would provide a definition and an example.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That will always be true."
This is a claim without evidence and as Hitchens would say : "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
However, in this case I can disprove your claim by using an example where it is not always true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because the word "extraordinary" leaves way to much place for subjective interpretation.
To someone living in Antarctica, the claim "it's -40 outside today" would be quite ordinary, while to someone living in Cuba, the same claim would be extraordinary. If we applied your aphorism here, the first person would need a certain level of evidence to believe the claim, while the second person would need a different level of evidence to believe the same claim. How can we need two different levels of evidence to support the same claim?
@@nic12344 interesting. thanks for that thought. In my estimation, some *random* person claiming "It is minus 40 outside right now" would not meet the threshold of "extraordinary" b/c Earth regularly reaches those temperatures. Your example of a Cuban talking to someone in Antarctica seems predicated on them NOT knowing about eachother's locales, right? Let's say you were in Cuba, and you *knew* I was in Antarctica, then it wouldn't seem extraordinary at all if I told you it was minus 40 outside because you probably have some basic understanding of what the weather in Antarctica is normally like. And let's say you were in Cuba again, and this time I was some random internet person saying "it's minus 40 outside" -- would that really surprise you? wouldn't you just assume they were in a different hemisphere, and experiencing a cold front? Even in midwest USA it has gotten down to -40. It's just not extraordinary in any comparison to issues in the bible such as talking donkeys, virgin births, fish swallowing men, time being stopped, etc etc.
"I don't believe this just because everyone else does, I believe it because they believe they experienced it."
The stranger claim. Is a magic sky wizard spoke a spell and made the world.
Yeah, he doesn't see this as a strange claim, despite noone has ever witnessed such an event... EVER. Pretty weird huh? lol
His whole 'properly basic' examples don't work, not even remotely.
A tree in his backyard is an entirely mundane claim. What's more, _if_ someone said 'I don't think there's a tree in your backyard', there are a _huge_ number of ways that he could go about proving that he has a tree in his backyard. What's more, trees and backyards can both separately be shown to actually _exist._
His example of the moon follows the same route. If someone didn't think it was true, there are an absurd number of ways one could go about showing the moon to be round.
In _both_ cases, saying 'well, I personally feel like I have a tree in my backyard, I had a personal experience with it' or 'Many people have had personal experiences with trees in their backyard' wouldn't even come up on the _radar_ because why would anyone use such flimsy, nonsense reasons to show an actually 'obvious' statement to be true?
I don't have to just 'have faith' that he's got a tree in his backyard, I can go there and _see_ it.
Absolutely ridiculous argument.
Right, I mean if I knew this guy lived in Death Valley and he said he has pear trees in his backyard I would have very good reason to not believe his claim, also if I know he’s very prone to dishonesty then I also have good reason to doubt even mundane claims from him.
@@davids11131113 Not to mention the overall idea completely fails at the start, because at the _very_ least we know that _trees exist!_ We can see them, touch them, smell them, whatever, they register on every one of our senses. He's somehow trying to say 'Well, a lot of people 'experience things they can't explain', which people traditionally just call 'guardian angels' if you're living in my specific part of the world, therefore this entirely different thing that's vaguely related that we have no direct evidence of is as self-evident as trees!'
It's just...it's _fractally_ wrong.
@@davids11131113( Sorry if this sounds offensive)
But even then you would need to actually prove it. Someone who is a know lier can say the truth sometimes the same way someone who is honest can say lies.
Being so trusty is a sure way of getting scammed!!!.
Also, i don't know a lot about the death zone, but You could build Pipes to feed water to the tree.. it would be expensive and wastesful but doable, also one of the oldest trees was in the middle of the desert miles away from any water or life. So even your counter example that is pretty netted would STILL be needed to be counter analysed and falsified....
But nah he has a Master in phylosophy i'm sure he doesn't need actual phylosophy.
'I know what I know' is what this boiled down to. As if the brain isn't capable of being tricked.
Calling your opponent ignorant is sometimes a sign that you have no idea what the opposing position is based upon.
The existence of apologetics should be enough evidence that gawd is not “properly” OR “philosophically basic”
"Most atheists are atheist because they have not seen the full spectrum of information out there" - that can be generalized for all people and religions. And I don't see that any information would convince me, I still need evidence. Just information is not evidence.
I guess this brainiac thinks that indoctrinated children are Christian bc they have come across all the info?
Maybe they should have these ex Christian hosts debate a 10 year old who is forced to go to church. That way they can re-convert.
I think any time a theist says their belief is properly basic, the best response is “I have a properly basic belief that you are wrong.”
“Property basic” is a high-sounding way of declaring victory before the contest even starts. It’s what theists always do anyway when you can finally pin them down and are about to whack the last mole - declare that everything you just discussed is irrelevant because of their personal experience.
Lewis: " Let's define rational as our brain works" Also Lewis: I have a masters degree in philosophy.
Caller: I believe it because a lot of people I know saw something and believed.
Salem witch trials: let’s go!
Nothing surprising here. Making nonsense up is the definition of being theist
Ahhh yes. He has read so many books and is so superior to all of us that he says things like this. 18:17. Lmao.
He’s definitely highly educated! LOL!
Yeah, he's really, really smart, and it shows... lol
I feel dumber having listened to him, smarter by listening to Vi and Eric, so it evens out
I like the aphorism, "The road to atheism is littered with bibles that have been read cover-to-cover."
He is an experienced liar. I researched the Pew studies and he is deceptive and quite distant from reality. But I'm not surprised I've never met a christian that wouldn't lie to protect their religion. Never..
To be fair, a lot of people who aren't willing to lie to defend their religion tend to end up leaving said religion.
The problem is that they believe a lie, and have to lie to themselves and others to protect those beliefs. I have never purposely lied to myself or others to protect my beliefs.
I am also now an atheist because of it.
Kit Cumbie I’m not sure I would characterize it as lying. They wiggle out of tight spots; they honestly mischaracterize; etc. They are probably not even aware of their faulty reasoning. Lying means purposeful intent to deceive. They believe in their god so firmly that it is not a lie to them. So any reasoning that helps them explain (or hold onto) their believe is not a lie. That’s MHO.
@@learningisfun2108 They lie and lie and lie. Sugar coat it all you want.
Kit Cumbie Deluded, but not liars, generally. Sorry, I must disagree. I’m sure some religious knowingly lie, but not your run of the mill Christian.
So confident in ignorance, this is exactly how religion keeps alive
“...it is to some degree ad populum...” That’s the problem. He’s just philosophyzing his way out of his responsibility.
Also, the majority of humans are not Christian, so with ad populum you you have to say more people don't belive.
Dude needs to call his college and get his money back.
The issue with the first caller's argument is that when you follow up with people who claim to have a personal experience with God or an angel, they're almost always referring to something else such as a coming to terms with oneself, a semi-conscious hallucination or a dream, a conversation with great personal meaning, a drug overdose, etc. People claiming to have authentic contact is very rare.
The second issue is that if a person claims to have authentic contact, people don't take it seriously. It's very rare. Theists are more guilty of this. Scientists disprove things.
The third issue is more important. If God requires faith, it's sadistic. There are arguments against this, but...
4th, most people are not Christians, I'm surprised that did not come up becuse it completely destroys the properly basic belief.
@@TheQuantumAthiest I guess. I feel I can argue for God much more efficiently, but I honestly think people don't care
Thank you for taking this on so cleanly.
I love Vi's smirk at the end..! I was also laughing ...
BTW, I do not think this guy has post-graduate studies from any reputable university... probably from PragerU
Lewis is incredibly condescending. DEMONSTRATING something actually EXISTS is not dependent upon any philosophy. He's dishonest about where the burden of proof lies, trying to equate mundane things like trees in a yard and someone's name to a being that defies the laws of physics. He's special pleading. And he is totally using an ad populum argument: it's true because all these people claim they experienced God and seem trustworthy. When you're in a culture that floods your infant mind with superstitious nonsense and reinforces it throughout your life, it doesn't matter how honest or trustworthy you otherwise are, it doesn't make the belief automatically right; personal anecdote is not evidence.
some people will do whatever it takes to protect their fairytale beliefs
There are few dozen major religions and thousands of denominations. So religion is not properly basic. Go read more books
This is much better from Eric than some clips I've seen 🙂 Looks like he's growing
If Lewis has a Masters in Philosophy, I'll eat my hat!
So when there were more Hindus or the respective people who believed in the Roman or Greek gods, than there were Christians or BEFORE there were Christians, then by his logic those gods were real.
I enjoyed hearing his education, this guy may think hes above us all
Wait, wait....God is that you?
Taking logic right now, I appreciate citing the fallacies and errors in reasoning. Thanks for pointing them out by name and why they don't work.
He has a masters in philosophy and he just said "the burden of proof are on the people with the strange view"
Oh my Gawd the 19:10 mark was hilarious! This guy actually said rationality is defined by the fact "our brain works".
That's it. I'm going to start writing down all the unbelievable B.S. these callers say, because there's got to be a sitcom in there somewhere.
M Jonesy At least write a book, “The Sh** Believers Will Say...”
You could compile a book of random apologist quotes. no need for context because they wouldn’t make sense either way.
It's simple, if you have to resort to defining the conclusion of your "argument" as "properly basic", thus avoiding presenting any argument, then you have demonstrated that you have no (valid) argument, and that _you know it!_ i.e. *You are trying to cheat on your test.*
Vi La Bianca, so glad to see you on this show:-)
Very interesting video.
Does my non-experience of God count for anything in Lewis' view ? Being "clever" in philosophy to prove God, is just so much spiritual wankery. A useless exercise and the orgasm has to wait for the next life.
Spiritual wankery? That made me laugh!!
That's the kind of edging I am looking for !
Id be curious as to which school Lewis got his degrees
That was awesome.
I admire, like, hugely admire Vi's and Eric's patience. At the end of the call I would have gone full Dillahunty mode
"I wasnt an atheist but I didn't believe" what? ..
Lewis doesn’t understand that people calling an experience a god is not evidence. It’s a claim.
It may be evidencs to self and may sound so to someons who had the similar experiences ... but may not so to you. Subjective or objective. Anecdotal or empirical?
I forgot that this show existed for a bit. glad this popped up in recommended. It's been a while since I've heard someone disagree but hear the full premise without interrupting.
I'm so glad this is so long it's like a window into the inner monologue of people who lie to themselves. How tf does this guy have a philosophy degree
I've never been more suspect of the intellectual prowess of person in my entire life. I have 4 masters, one is in philosophy.....here's 12 fallacious arguments in a row
Among other problems he is being dishonest in claiming that 82% of people believe in god as he is lumping together groups that stridently and sometimes violently disagree with each other, because they believe in different gods. There is no god that the majority of humans believe in. So even if his argument was sound, it would still be invalid.
What an absolutely bizarre position. There are so many fundamental basic misunderstandings, it's mind boggling.
19:27 -- Whoa... that's deep, man.
I question his study claim. “80% claim to have had an experience with god.” Was that really the study, or was it a basic “are you religious” question, and 80% said yes...and then this dude extrapolated the meaning? 🤔
This guy says the evidence is overwhelming for God, then starts his argument saying he doesn't have the burden of proof?
Who cares? Present the evidence if it is overwhelming.
This guy has singlehandedly convinced me that a college degree can be worthless in some cases.
This guy is the classic definition of the Dunning Krueger effect!!
So Lewis is big time indoctrinated? I say yes.
No chance this guy has any degree in philosophy.
Lewis reminds me of a lot of Christians that I see on line. They talk and talk continuously and never let the other person get a word in. They feel like if they just talk forever, that means they must be right.
Believing in god has been properly basic for millennia. We progressed, we learned more about the world, and we are fed up of religions just asserting that they are right without good reason to believe so. Therefore, believing in god is no more properly basic, even for most believers. That's why there are apologetics, even the believers need to be reassured that a god actually exists.
I would have no problem accepting the proposition that the vast majority of believers, when not born and raised in a strict religious environment, are agnostic theists. My parents always thought they were theists until we spoke about what they actually believed, and we discovered that they are agnostic atheists, with a strong hope that a god exists, but no actual belief
He calls in saying atheists are not well enough versed in what he believes. So how did someone in 200 AD come to accept it? How did someone in 1000 AD conclude it might be true? Who were they reading so they could say, “I’m in!” This strikes me as such a stupid “argument” that I cannot believe someone with any education would seriously make it.
I was wondering the same thing. Its a weak argument because a great many Christians are Christians because their parents are or its a fundamental part of the culture. They didn't think it through and weigh evidence.
This guy is lying about his education.
My father invented a drink called 5-UP, but it wasn't successful at all.
So he changed the formula and called it 6-UP, but that failed also, so he gave up.
If only he had tried one more time, we would be millionaires.
I believe it is basic because I think it is obvious... Sweet tautology bud, thank you so much now I am convinced too.