5 Things Christians & Atheists (DON'T) Agree On (Greg Koukl Tactics)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason has updated his "Tactics" manual giving Christians strategies to talk to non-Christians. In his podcast, he spoke about a new chapter called "Inside Out" where he claims non-believers will reveal secret belief if you want their language closely. In this video, I walk through Greg's suggestions to see how it would fare with me, to perhaps help future conversations on both side of the book.
What Everyone Knows about Reality, Even the Ath3ist
www.str.org/po...
Thanks to Shannon Q
/ @shannonq
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
teespring.com/...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
I always get annoyed with the "I know what you REALLY think" BS. Dude, you can't read my mind, stop telling yourself you can and join the rest of us in reality.
*Dev B* Ditto, and one day someone may smack Greg in the face for this, then will he say that he knows what they think?
@Dev B One day even out thoughts may be read. Equipment is being developed for that.
I’m totally psychic I could read your mind but your negative energy is blocking it
@@ProjectEchoshadow 🙂😁
@@BigHeretic Plot twist: Greg thinks about sniffing donkey farts all day long. It doesn't matter if he would want to say differently because regardless of that, I know this to be a fact.
“I can win an argument against you if I tell you what your side of the argument is!”
-Greg Koukl, essentially
😂
this guy sounds sleazy and not somebody if I had any kids want around them.
I can win an argument because I can read your mind?
Surely he's just being helpful. Just like when I offered to race Usain Bolt, as long as he let me tie his shoes the way I know he'd prefer them.
The essence of the straw man attack. I like your restatement of what is essentially the straw man fallacy. 😂
Tactics, when facts aren’t on your side.
Well, there are no facts for winning competition. Only suggestions
You can use the facts of the competition you are competing to inform good suggestions
But competitive suggestions are good for challenging people with pressure. They aren't good for truth claims.
I've seen a competitor that is really good with evidence and making his case. But that was because his competitive nature transferred into his work ethic and research. But he stuck to the evidence
Edit: in the context of an entirely different conversation. He wasn't arguing theism
He clearly thinks the "tactics" angle is a clever one. He doesn't see how he looks from the outside.
The online skeptic/atheist community is constantly reflecting on how to have better conversations: don't make assumptions about peoples beliefs; listen ; ask questions; explore arguments together; don't use prepared answers; don't try to "win" the argument.
Then we over the wall and we see: remember these ten arguments; this is what atheists believe; don't listen to atheists when they tell you what they believe; use these tactics to win the argument.
@@maninalift I agree I think mostly. I would say that many people engaged in skepticism are interested in truth claims. I can't speak for the Atheists who believe in spirits or engage is sophistry.
I would say that you can have prepared answers also. If you answers are on a chart not a script. I can right down my conclusions on a board to see if their are any fallacious reasonings or assumptions in them.
People who have been arguing for years like Aron Ra or Mike Dillahunty have very complex charts. That probably means they are making oversights in heir logic at some point. Like chess players who don't see the simple move they can make because they are so engaged in rock paper scissors of a specific situation.
Like how cosmic skeptic pointed out that Christopher Hitchens doesn't ground his morality and actually dodges the question.
I would say a script is one dimensional thinking. But we can still model the complexity of our arguments on a chart
@@ninjaturtletyke3328: Sophistry is your middle name.
@@Johnboy33545 sophistry is hiding fallacious reasoning in your arguments and acting like they are good arguments.
How did I do that?
"God" didn't claim anything, people claimed that a god claimed something.
Well that has to be an uncontroversial claim, but I would go further. I claim we created god in our own image. It would have been a tad surprising in fact if we hadn't.
@@tonycook7679 Oh no, there are a lot of believers who will insist the the bible absolutely is the word of God. The writers just held the pen, but God moved it, or some similar phrase.
@@jursamaj Yes, my good sir. The human prophet Bobby Henderson may have physically written the Gospel, but his hand was guided by the noodly appendages of the one true creator of the universe, The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'm so tired of theists playing word games and thinking that proves something. Paul, you said it beautifully at 4:26 "pouncing on the imprecise nature of the English language for communicating nuanced topics and then, rather than asking our conversation partner to clarify what they mean, we're going to insist on our own definition, in order to assert that they are contradicting themselves." You nailed it.
Isn't that the first question Greg has in his book?
"What do you mean by that", Greg has addressed that issue already, which he calls it "gathering information" in order to NOT misrepresente someone's view, what are u referring to when u say that?
@@theterminator8854 And what did Greg do with the answer after asking "What do you mean by that"? He pounced on an imprecise wording, insisting that the definition Greg likes is the one the interlocutor must have meant, instead of going with what was meant (or asking a clarifying question). This was the tactic over and over again. So to answer your question of what was being referred to, see all 39 minutes of this video for examples.
Employing sophistry
Confusion through equivocation is the tactic.
Winning the argument is the goal.
The "truth" is the position held by the winner of the argument.
Fabulous. The sum total of the "debate" in 21 words. Somebody put this on a T-shirt.
And winning the argument is hollow. Once the "loser" walks away and thinks about what was said more slowly and carefully, it won't be long before they reach the "hey, wait a minute..." point.
Baffle em with bullshit.
And the apoligist will never admit losing, and thinks he can win by wearing out his opponent.
Wow this guy knows our thoughts and draws conclusions about how we would act in a situation and tells us it’s wrong. I choose to dismiss his thoughts because he offered no evidence for this ability
That is a great christian skill offering zero evidence
@@gowdsake7103 don't forget the second part of that; "... While demanding, loudly, that any dissent must be able to provide mountains of unarguable proof to be seriously considered."
It's the skill of the annoying Uncle to twist your words and tease you about the thing you didn't say. He's a charlatan, liar, and morally devoid shit stick.
@Sam Bacon I think I ran into him last week!
I want to cover two things on the whole "life has a purpose" thing
First, I personally have never once asked myself "what is the meaning of life?" I've only ever thought about it when others bring it up. Even when I was a Christian, I never thought about a purpose or a reason that I was alive. I'm here, I experience life, I set my own goals. That has always been the way I thought.
Secondly, does being Christian give you a purpose of life? I've heard two main answers, and I'm going to try not to strawman them.
First is that you have a purpose just by being alive and doing what God intended you to: You are a cog in his ineffable plan. But while that gives God a purpose in you existing, it doesn't give YOU a purpose. You can base no plan of action on this thought, because whatever you decide to do is undoubtedly what God intended you to do. By this logic Paulogia is doing God's will and fulfilling his purpose by being an atheist TH-cam personality.
The second one I've heard is that our purpose in life is to worship God and be a good Christian. But is that really a purpose? Who benefits? God is perfect, so he doesn't need our assistance, or our prayers. So our "purpose" in life is just to sing praises to a being who does not actually benefit from it. You could say it's our purpose because then we get to go to heaven, and life an eternal life, but what is the purpose of THAT life? It still doesn't provide one.
You are always going to do a better job of fulfilling your own purpose in life than fulfilling someone else's.
I've always heard it's the second one, which makes more sense. God doesn't NEED your love, but he WANTS it... he wants you to spend your time on your knees in front of him, loving him. That is, supposedly, the only reason he made humans.
Which is why I wouldn't be a Christian even if I had certain proof their God did exist.
The whole purpose of life thing confuses me. It was hard when I was a Christian, I cried a lot about this. Finally after 20 years of "God" not "living up to His word", I just let all that stuff go. I've been free for 5 years now and it's nice not living with the biblical presuppositions, they are emotionally exhausting beyond reasonable expectations.
Very well stated Owen. If gods "plan" cannot be altered in any way, then you fulfill your purpose doing anything at all. If it can be altered, ie intercessory prayer, then is your purpose to beg for changes in the plan that you desire? What if the plan was already perfect? Funny how free will is held up to be very important however for all eternity there is basically none as your options are certainly limited in the afterlife, all this rendering "purpose" a vague unsatisfying concept.
Jesus summed up the Christian life: love God above all other categories and love neighbor as another self. This makes life meaningful in 2 ways. Firstly, to love God above all other categories is not to reject other interests, but not to mistake them for what they are not: God. God, being the origin of every category of what is good is lovable and frankly more interesting than anything that derives from Him. By loving your neighbor as if he/she were another self like you, you love them according to their full development as persons, and not according to their present estate. That is to say, not on account of how much education they have, or talent, or status, or what have you. Rather, love them as someone who is another you-struggling, beset by troubles, limited, etc.
Paulogia is so nice. 🥰 I’d absolutely love to have lengthy discussions with him. Maybe it’s the way he presents things but it’s so calm and inviting. No insults. No arrogance of knowledge. It’s such a breathe of fresh air after having conversations with the everyday people who struggle with articulating themselves precisely and seem to interject emotions unnecessarily.
I agree with you. But I listen to Paulogia, and I listen to the Scathing Atheist, too. I love both of them. Both have value to me.
I like how Paulogia is so calm and inviting. But I get angry - for good reason, I'd say - and I like how the Scathing Atheist people express my anger in a humorous fashion. It's all good. We need both of them - and more than just those two, as well.
Bill Garthright true, balance is important.
This is some fancy bait and switch God smuggling here. He seems a more condescending version of Sye Ten in my opinion. If that's possible.
Every time you think religious apologists and apologetics can't get worse, someone takes it as a challenge!
Why did you have to remind me that Sye Ten exists...
@@connordemo8043 To be fair, he didn't remind you of the ones that Logicked addresses.
@@archapmangcmg So much wasted effort to create the next twisted, ad hoc argument.
@@greense65 Pretty much. "Let me set the starting conditions and rules and I can win any game!"
Yeah, real impressive, Greg.
Greg does not "believe" in science. He will accept _some_ things that come out of science, but he also arbitrarily rejects science when it's convenient for him and his arguments. Nor does it actually understand science, in any meaningful way.
What does it even _mean_ to "believe in science"? I've heard Christians say that before, but when I ask them to explain what they mean, I typically get nothing.
Ok now that I was first.... Greg Koukl drives me insane!!! I've contemplated covering his book
He is an arrogant cuss aint he.
Greg wants the company. That's why he drives us insane.
His kind of Christianity is the worst (now at least, it's obviously not worse than the 'kill people for blasphemy' days.) So many of my childhood friends and family have this same mentality of knowing my thoughts better than I do, to the point they don't even feel the need to engage in conversation. They just know. With how many conversations he claims to have had with atheists, and to have never listened to a single one is a travesty and shows a complete lack of character on his part.
Cover it... in feces.
What are you, stupid?
"Bullets hurt me, I've contemplated walking across this shooting range."
This is you. This is what you sound like.
But I'll watch it.
I'm very glad you've taken on Greg's set of dodges and obfuscations, Paul. He's frustratingly reasonable-seeming when he gets to set the conditions of the conversation, and that, as you showed so well, is all of his appeal. When his smoke and mirror tactics are exposed, his massive duplicity is obvious.
I hate to say it the creationist doesn't sound Rock fuck stupid. He obviously is but he articulates efficiently.
will you be my grandpa?
I'm thinking of the phrase which says something about polishing turds.
I once argued somewhat regularly with a theist who happened to be a writer, so he had a way with words. That meant, however, you had to cut through his flowery language to get to his ultimately weak arguments.
@@Shake69ification Polishing a turd? Yup, you can. Still shit, but SHINY! th-cam.com/video/yiJ9fy1qSFI/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=CoolBannanas13579
“When our thoughts and reality conflict, reality wins!”
Spot on.
15:00 Nobody ever ACTUALLY wants to die, they only want to end the suffering they are in/prevent suffering in the immediate future. When the potential for suffering is outweighed by the potential for positivity in the future (usually because the pain is temporary), suicide removes a lot more potential good than bad from their life. We know that many people who are prevented from committing suicide are later glad that they went on living. Hell, some people just need someone in that moment to prove that they care enough about them to prevent them from killing themselves to make them realize that their life is worth living.
"Stand to Reason" ... I bet they have hidden an "up" somewhere. I am sure they put it back once the video is over.
Stands Against Reason would be an honest name for their channel.
I've been saying that forever! Stand 𝐮𝐩 to reason is more fitting.
Stand to reason.
But, Id hope, sit the fuck back down when you realize that, as a theist, youve been sequestered from logic. Though perhaps instructed in apologetics.
Hey...just popped into my head. Apologetics is Cargo Cult Logic.
I think there's one thing that Christians and atheists can agree on: Evangelical Christians think they're "special". To paraphrase "The Omen"-- "It's all for YOU, Christian!"
There is no such thing as an honest apologist. And this guy is proof of that.
Apologetics is basically: "I will spew lies, nonsense, fallacies, poison the well, emotionally manipulate, change the meaning of words, try to make shit fit where it doesn't, etc. In order to keep the religious ppl happy and in hopes that naïve/ignorant/week minded people will buy my bullshit."
Great video as usual, Paul. Thank you!
I win because of...word games.
Right....
Lying charlatans like this guy rely on tactics like word games because they don't have facts on their side, at all. They also reply on their victims being sequestered from information like modern psychology, critical thinking skills, physics, and the like because a general knowledge of these topics completely shatters the illusion that word games and pseudoscience babble are convincing.
Basically without these tactics, guys like him can't fool the victims they have trapped in their echo chamber.
If he had conversations like this with groups of philosophy students, they'd have shredded him, so his little "story" is also a tactical stupid nuke.
Michael Burton I agree. Though, most of us love our echo chambers. Otherwise I’d be watching Christian, Muslim, Hindu, reiki, etc...videos.
@@losttribe3001 validation is nice. But learning to meet people where they are instead of othering them to loan oneself an illusion of safety is nicer.
You guy's kinda miss the whole point of the book on what he's doing. Makes me wonder if you guys just critize without even studying or reading it? 👀
Is that how you guys do it? Criticize a book without reading it and just go on your own way? Because of your merits?
@@MultiBigAndy he presents his arguments here, no reading required. Or is your argument based on not even watching the video? Huh.
If Christianity is true then there's a Christian way of living? Sounds like a tautology.
If it's false then there's not.
@VideoAudioDisco09 it's because we see thousands of denominations that we might be able to infer that it isn't true.
Hi. The "Christian way of living" is blindly ignore real people and situations around you while "walking in the light of Jesus, oblivious to my surroundings" I'm not kidding, my friend told me this in a conversation about why she isn't noticing the crime on her doorstep.
I didn't know how to handle that, so although I feel badly, I simply ghosted her.
@@southernsal3113
Holy ghosted 👍
"Everyone agrees that genocide is wrong and we shouldn't do that!"
Literally everyone before like 1930: >.>
And every Christian after that, too, if you ask them about the genocide in the Bible.
It’s not wrong if God does it
"Everyone" does not agree that genocide is wrong. I've met quite a few people that think it is a genuinely good idea and it is not a new idea, as humans have been practicing it since the dawn of time.
I love listening to guys like Greg. I like the clever use of pitch and tone in his diction. The couched humility, the smoothness of using loose associations to tight facts and self assuring confidence. Perhaps we could suggest Greg's book of tactics are simply a manual on how to become a confidence man for god.
@Hans Hanzo Agreed. I'm not sure most people understand the importance of story telling is to forming human inferences. It would make sense that all the techniques of story telling be incorporated into religious world views because we are all predisposed to find them a compelling method for learning or explaining the unknown. Of course, the subtle application of critical thought must be applied to separate fiction from non fiction for without it, we become vulnerable as 'marks' in a confidence game.
the ENTIRE educational target of a "professional apologist", is nothing more than an educated Con-man...similarly, all education with the intent of becoming clergymember, is nothing more than con-man training....
@daniel letterman I somewhat agree. I do not believe religions were created with a purpose (by man or deity). I suspect they originally emerged from natural cognitive functions centered around the human condition after our consciousness evolved to a level (as you allude to) where we became sufficiently self reflective to pose questions about who and what we are. It would make sense, in lieu of empirical knowledge, that we would fill cognitive gaps with imaginative concepts during this evolution.
In essence, asking someone to reevaluate their god beliefs is akin to asking them to keep their eyes open during a sneeze or fix other physiological anomalies we posses. Cognition took thousands of years to form amid naturalistic pressures, so we should expect this innate 'gap filling' to remain for some time to come.
@@waynemills206 You are half right. Religion as an organised thing IS intentional. It was the tool of the leadership to control the people. Belief in a god or gods, however, WAS organic.
FYI, not everyone closes their eyes when they sneeze.
@@protoborg Perhaps it morphed into an organization where it became politically and socially convenient to exploit human frailties by those who stood to benefit by wealth and influence. We certainly see that being played out in most religious organizations today and could also be an extension of the self domestication influences that may have kicked it off initially.
I stand corrected on the sneeze. Thanks.
Sagan never fails to move me to tears. He saw such overwhelming beauty in our universe.
The suicide argument rubs me the wrong way quite a lot I lost a friend last year to suicide someone who I've known for almost two years at the time and the entire time I had known her I knew that was probably how I was going to lose her some people are fighting things so much bigger in their own head that anyone has any clue about. She was in and out of hospitals and facilities. Due to her health conditions she had a hard time holding a job. For anyone to say but she hadn't rationally come to her decision would be for someone to not understand what her situation was I loved her and I still do and even though it hurt me I completely support understand her decision. Sorry for the rant thats just kind of a hard one for me
It hits me in a different way, because I actually have talked someone down from suicide. Multiple times. Sometimes with help, sometimes on my own. They were a friend, sort of. More of a friend of a friend, honestly. A bad family life, probable and possibly genetic mental health issues (hence the bad family life), and no real attempts to deal with either took their toll. I got most of this context from a friend, piecemeal, pretty far into the friendship, after I'd been talking them down for a while.
In the end, the relationship ended up imploding, and they cut me, plus all other friends of his I was friends with, out of his life, all at once. I don't recall ever being apologized to or thanked, either, not that I asked, or even really care. I still don't know if it was "legitimate", or for attention. Given that I strongly suspect they had bipolar, and seeing as I have it too, I'm painfully aware that the line between hypothetical and actual can be razor thin when you're manic enough. Unlike your friend, there was not anything rational in the way he was acting in those moments.
Any way it slices, I don't regret it my actions.It wrecked havoc with my mental health, but I couldn't have lived with myself if anything had happened while I could stop it. And that is why Greg's hypothetical answers to his question piss me off. Because it had nothing to do with it being stupid, wrong, or a waste, or whatever the fuck he's on about. I did it because of the actual, tangible fucking *consequences* to myself and others. I did it because the guilt I'd feel if I was wrong would be horrific, and because I don't want to be someone who lets a friend in need die. Because I am *not* someone like that, at my core. I might not be able to save the world, or stop every suicide, but what I can stop, I will.
It was was not a choice built on a calm, rational decision. It was build primarily on my own character and feelings, in those moments. Or, in Greg's terms, because it's my "preference". And I'm fine with that. I really don't care about the "objectivity" of my emotional reactions with this sort of serious situation. I am who I am, and I couldn't let that happen, if I could do something about it. Plain and simple.
I don't know your friend's situation. I can't really comment on it. What I'm saying is that Greg apparently thinks that people stop suicides out of some deep moral reasoning. No, they don't, not unless they're part of a suicide hotline or something. People do it because that person's life matters to them, or because they'd have a heavy conscience if they didn't. Because we don't like the consequences.
And, conversely, in cases where the consequences are ones we like, or we understand the reasons, we don't see suicide as nearly so immoral. Tragic, perhaps, but not immoral. Hell,. forget situations like your friend, or cultural stuff like seppuku/ritual suicide. We honor people who give their lives for others every day, and that's basically just suicide with a goal. Either way, they took actions they knew could kill them. There's no objective morality in our judgements, just our subjective preferences,
As a person with several mental health issues, I can talk at the other side of the coin.
It might sometimes look like it's for attention, but unless you're talking about it everyday or everytime you don't get your will, it prob isn't.
I've had to have several people talk me out of suicide, it's not fun, but it has also made me more supportive to others contemplating the same as I did and sometimes still do.
In short: it's a highly subjective thing, just like most human claims.
30:10 “What in the world is Mind Machinery?” I saw them at OzzFest back in ‘07, great guitar harmonies.
Another fast talking charlatan. Can't wait for his rebuttal. I wish we could post this to amazon book reviews.
I've been thinking about this lately. It seems very often, people who know they are conning/lying (consciously or unconsciously) talk very fast so you do not have time to think of obvious flaws in their thinking. And sometimes, people who hold a position on purely emotional or psychological reasons do this too, as it is almost as if they are running away from emotional or psychological pain or weakness. It's possible to do this while talking very slowly and earnestly also, but usually only one-on-one when the talker is very charismatic and the listener is in a weaker position emotionally or psychologically (found in emotional abuse, cults, etc). But in groups where some listeners could potentially disagree, talking faster and faster and throwing as many things at the wall as possible can be convincing (Gish Gallop). And I also notice that Paologia talks very slowly, but with a wide audience, lol. Of course, many very smart people can talk very fast also, but nothing they say is less effective spoken more slowly, or even in writing where you can read it at your own pace.
@@greyeyed123
Its same thing as magicians fast moving hands.
I'm glad you're covering him....keep it up!
0:36:03 "Never mind answering the question Greg just asked, he has a tactic he's trying to employ and no time for your silliness"
I watch this video repeatedly just so I can keep hearing that line :)
As for guilt, there seems to be a total lack of it in regards professional apologists using *_dishonest rhetorical tactics_* when defending their book sales.... oops, I mean, their religious faith.
Repackaged pre-suppositionalism. Is this the apologists favorite new toy?
Brett Brewer Yes, . . . Yes it is!
with the republication of his book, it will be now.....
Brett Brewer once I hear “necessary preconditions” my red alert starts going off. Here we go with more presup horseshit / logical absolutes = god
@notaneoliberal one on that note, when you hear somebody say that they don't give a fuck, does he assume that it's just a really emphatic declaration of abstinence?
Paulogia, this is one of your very best. Funny & sharp with no sympathy for Koukl's disingenuous word games.
4:00 _"Somebody says, there is no objective morality. It's all relative. Therefore, it's wrong for you to push your morality on me. Now, do you see the contradiction there?"_ -- No, I do not.
_"If the first statement is true, then the second statement has got to be false."_ -- No, it doesn't. If your favorite color is subjective, then you shouldn't try to force me to accept that as MY favorite color. This is how stupid Greg is. This is such an obviously invalid statement. Even if my morality is subjective, I can voice my morality while acknowledging that said morality is my own worldview.
The issue of morality is not about the morality itself, but rather the _ACTIONS_ that come out of that morality. No one is trying to force you to internally accept same-sex marriage as "moral". However, if you impose your idiotic, childish beliefs on _OTHER PEOPLE_ for no valid reason, then that is unacceptable behavior. The action of murder is not acceptable because, once again, you are imposing your DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR on other people. It's not the "mere fact" that it is morally unacceptable to most people, it's about the action itself and how it impacts other people's lives.
It's really simple: if you don't like same-sex marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex. That is a personal, internal action based on your own _subjective,_ personal set of morals. If you object to someone going around and murdering people, that is an acceptable imposition of morals because it is defending people against an _external threat._ Why is this so hard to understand?
Dienekes Nothing is easy to understand if you don’t want to.
@@Griexxt -- or if your income, like Kouki's, depends on not understanding.
Here's the problem they think they are saving you from an external threat Eternal threats in fact but at the same time though it's not really useful
@@borttorbbq2556 meh. It also seems like they can't wrap their heads around free will, grown-assed adults making their own minds up, and that imposing one's will on others to force adherence to subjective beliefs is about as immoral as it gets.
Maybe the idea was that if you use the phrasing "it's wrong", you are subconsciously alleging "it's objectively wrong". Does not make this less of a BS.
Everybody knows:
A turkey and some mistletoe
Help to make the season bright
No god required.
Everybody knows the dice are loaded.
English teacher here.
Sorry, but "evil" is most certainly a noun. We often use it that way, especially in fiction.
Of course, it's also an adjective, as you said.
Anyway, love you Paulogia!
@Andrew Brent
I use evil as a pronoun
I still haven't seen them give meaning to an eternal live. I'd rather be dead, than having to suck up to a dictator forever.
God's not a dictator, dumbass.
@@cosmicvantage1027 Name even one single minuscule way in which he is not. The entirety of religion is scrupulously following everything you are commanded under pain of eternal punishment:what to do, how to think, how to feel.
I have to agree, an eternity praising some god with an overinflated ego sounds like something worse than hell. Give me eternal damnation over that any day. At least down there I would be with friends.
@@cosmicvantage1027
Yes, he is. He doesn't allow others to rule in his place and punishes those that don't accept his rule. Sounds like a dictator to me.
@@tonycook7679 That id the dumbest thing ever. You won't get to have fun with friends in hell. Duh.
Wow! "Mind...Blown!" I realy, realy have to watch this when I am more...sober. By which I mean, more focused on how truly important it's level of logic is. For now...WOW!
Interesting that while it is hard to appreciate the level of your logic, it is SOOOO easy to see the absurdities in Koukl's "tactics". I really, really need to watch this over and over - which only tells me how important and GOOD it is! Very nice! Thank you!
Excellent response. Found myself nodding in agreement the whole way through.
Definitions of words are only a valid argument when arguing semantics.
Aeroplane: A tool of terrorism used to murder over 3,000 people.
And only when not switching definitions mid-argument, even mid-sentence. Or telling someone that a word they have used can only mean what you want it to (rather than asking which definition they're using) and not allowing them to choose a "better" word when you disallow their meaning to that one. Words can be used to communicate or to confuse; English can be very confusing.
@@masscreationbroadcasts 0.5 airplanes are more deadly than 1.0.
@@masscreationbroadcasts Probably not, but I have heard it done. Takes practice.
Hi, thx for the video, keep the good work.
36:37 In other words emotional abuse. One og the things that made me deconvert was finding out my very good friend is was abused by her partner. First I couldn't understand how she, a very intelligent person, could stay with him for so long, but then I realised he controled her by making her feeling guilty. Than I realised that my pastor was doing the exact same to me...
Excellent video, Paul! I love the way you broke this down!
11:01 That fast and subtle goalpost movement, because you know, natural organizing principles exist, they just are not personal
So glad I stuck around for the bit about guilt at the end, very insightful
Every time someone says “Everybody Knows”, I think of that Leonard Cohen song...and that maybe they should listen to that song. because ‘everybody knows the deal is rotten’ makes more sense over what this guy is saying.
Greg Kou Kou is at it again. Great work as always, Paul.
I love it when people tell me what I think.
No you don't.
You think you do but I know deep down inside you don’t.
@@merikijiya13
Are you reading people's minds here?
Dubious! Yea. I’m thinking about starting my career in mind reading. I’m dyslexic though so thoughts look like Nordic symbols sometimes.
I appreciate your calm deconstruction of his rhetoric. He has invested years of his life in learning arguments and rhetorical tactics. It's
all just debate team stuff where verbal dominance is paramount.
I always pronounce Greg's last name as Kook.
Thank you for this. Your explanation of guilt equivocation has undone years of harm in a few seconds!
In my days as an evangelical Christian, I held in very high regard the teachings of the movements leading apologists, including Greg Koukl. I'm embarrassed to confess that I never investigated any of their claims. I accepted them, and then used them to prop up my faith. It was enough for me to know that these brainy guys (always guys) with nice clothes existed. Listening to them now as an atheist, I'm actually surprised how weak their arguments are.
They are masters at presenting themselves as having some tangible knowledge, which a position based entirely in faith desperately needs to bolster it, if questioned, obviously.
WLC is spectacularly good at presenting himself as someone who has access to real knowledge that the great TH-cam unwashed doesn't have access to; certainly those lay TH-cam atheists don't. So, don't listen to them, they don't know enough to criticise the terrible philosophical sophistry posing as intellectual, worthy debate. Phew. Word games played with confidence means there's a solid argument proving god.
'Uploaded 9 seconds ago' I've never been this early to anything.
That's not what your wife says.
@@axer3515 beat me to it 🤣 lol 😂
Brilliant. As always. Thanks.
I'm deeply comitted to the notion of mutual aid, not "objective morality" (whatever that is).
@ajs1031 ..and get the usual -excuse- reply "nonononono, it's objective when gaaaawd says it, because gaaawd is the ultimate good!!!!"
(you might look up "special pleading" in any lexicon, I'm sure the entry will have a link "see also: god")
ajs1031
And if they can’t prove that god exists which they can’t it’s only their subjective opinion that morals are objective , universal or absolute .
*Paulogia* Excellent dissection, thank you.
Alien clip at "there is something inside you" got a snort out of me. I am pleased.
21:20 even the whole splendor and grandeur is pretty subjective. Not everybody finds the same aspects of nature beautiful. Snow is a good example. Lots of people think snow is beautiful. I do not. On the other hand, I think deserts are beautiful but not everyone likes deserts.
I HATE snow. Wet, messy, slippery and I really miss my car.
i personally dont like sand. its coarse, its rough, its irritating, and it gets everywhere. at least snow is soft and smooth.
I love deserts AND snow.
otrame1 sand is the snow of the desert
Excellent work!!! Indispensable information for humanity! You’re a great human 👍🏽
Great work, as per usual. Thank you.
Greg is incredibly difficult person to listen to. Paulogia, you are a very patient person to calmly respond to such frustrating ideas.
"Every time I say that, I can feel something moving inside of me."
There's an obvious scatological answer, Greg. And it fits you like the puddle fits the hole.
Love the channel. Great stuff.
Thank you for your careful reasoning and hilarious approach!
This is my favorite episode so far.
Great video. Your efforts are appreciated. Thanks
Excellent video! Paulogia wins by a landslide!
I say to the class ‘we have different points of view’. Do Atheists and Christians have different points of view? Would a Christian think they had a different ‘point of view’ from someone who believed in Egyptian Gods or Greek Gods or Norse Gods or would they just think that person was delusional for believing in something imaginary?
A scientist says ‘I and many others have done several different tests which all correlate that these dinosaur bones are millions of years old’. A young earth Christian says ‘That’s just your point of view? I have a book with stories that were originally passed on by word of mouth that were eventually written down but we have no original documents that has been translated from an ancient dead language by someone I don’t know and then has been interpreted by me and the fact is those dinosaur bones are only 6000 years old'.
What gets me about this guy's book "Tactics" is how transparent its purpose is right down to the title. He doesn't even pretend to care about anything more than winning arguments. It's not about having honest dialogue in the pursuit of truth, rationality, wisdom etc. It's about _winning._ The only purpose of reason here is to cleverly outmaneuver the enemy.
"Humans are wonderful because we gas termites and not Jews"
Boy did he ever miss some headline news.
Liked, commented, and happily watched to the very end. Thank you for doing what you do.
Does Greg feel guilty about being dishonest?
i read "games people play" in my late teens, the goal is to attempt to be game free, to act in an adult and honest manner, to derive your pleasure from honesty and equality, it also gives great insight into how people maipulate situations to their own advantage, so, being armed with this game play, you can turn the tables, if someone starts playing games with you, you can shut them down or play a better game more advantagous to you. my personal favourite is "gee mr murgatroyd" - having more accurate, up to date information about a subject someone else claims to have expertise in.
gawd, if you can't see through Greg Koukl's carnival act, you need this video. whenever believers start bringing science in to the arena, you know all they want to do is use science to disprove science - frank turek is a master at this, and jordan peterson tries it on too.
Ah, I remember reading that 1 after "Transactional Analysis" -- both of which my best friend Jeff introduced to me yrs ago.
Some of my fondest memories were of watching Jeff being confronted by a (former) mutual friend who had a very bad habit of being emotionally & verbally manipulative (such as using emotional blackmail) instead of being upfront w/ Jeff -- i.e.: "game-free". To me, watching Jeff deal w/ this person's rhetorical machinations was like watching a martial arts instructor facing an extremely overconfident challenger who proceeds to throw themselves @ the instructor -- & get repeatedly blocked, deflected, thrown off, knocked back, shut down ... over, & over *& over* again. It was only yrs later that Jeff introduced me to "Transactional Analysis" & "Games People Play" -- both of which I found greatly interesting books, especially as they provided insights which dovetailed nicely w/ what I'd already learned from "Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" as well as game theory -- & then I understood just how supremely prepared Jeff was to deal effectively w/ rhetorical tactics & emotional manipulation.
I went on another account and gave this video a 2nd thumbs up for Carl Sagan 👍👍 Hail Sagan 🤟
Great job Paul. All this guy does is talk in circles. It’s just maddening.
Sounds to me that this guy forgot to add "Dishonest" to the title of his book.
Good video, Paul. Thank you.
24:18 - you meant to say, wrong is a label that we give to the actions that will most likely result in the things we least desire.
I could do things that will not result in the most good that are still not wrong.
Um, those things in your final statement AREN'T "least likely to lead to outcomes we desire," so yeah they wouldn't get labelled "wrong" even by Paulogia's approach. Maybe the rephrasing should be "will most likely result in undesirable things" -- not necessarily LEAST desirable.
Thank you for helping to define an Honest Conversation.
What out Frank Turek, Greg Koukl is coming after your _"Most Inane Apologist"_ crown!
You're awesome Paulogia!
Isn’t his argument just a refried Sye Ten without the vomit inducing condescension?
It's all presuppositional, yeah. Koukl is just as condescending as Sye Ten is, however.
Nah, he's got plenty of condescension to spare.
Agreed, his voice is practically quivering with his glee at how he's winning at prepping his target audience with more tactics for outgrouping, reality denial, and strengthening the unfalsifiability of the god claim. His giddiness makes me think he knows exactly how dishonest he is, but doesn't care because it adds up to dollar signs.
Paul, I love when you talk back to videos during your intro! Lmao, lost it over this one, "I hope not THAT many.". Perfect dry humor.
What was that bit about "clips on TH-cam" at the end? Was that just Koukl having a Boomer moment?
Knock knock
Who's there?
Ariana Grande
Ariana Grande who?
Ok boomer
I literally shouted "Whoa!" out loud at that gassing remark. What an incredibly effed up comparison to just throw out of nowhere.
Not to mention that it’s a great (or really horrific) example of the problem of evil,
Every time this (something deep down inside) argument is used, my mind wonders to the 'Alien' movies and some tiny Jesus trying to bust out
That mental image made my day. Here's a cookie 🍪
I think of that whenever I hear Christians asking Jesus to come into their heart.
bg6b7bft right through the Y hole
@@bg6b7bft gross
A good subtitle for his book: "The Art of Sophistry Applied to Christian Apologetics."
FIRST
God Damn It You Beat Me To It.
Insider trading, I call a foul :-)
27,250th! Woo!
I have watched this several times and have finally found the words that have been bugging me for a year and a half.
"I am shadeblind (a type of colorblindness) and don't have the ability to "see" pictures in my mind. The "inner-eye" isn't something I have. I still use words that others that _do_ have an inner-eye and _aren't_ colorblind use. Why? Because I use words that I have a fairly good idea others can understand. I don't use them because I can secretly see shades or picture things in my mind. "
In other words, just because you use words that others have ideas about doesn't mean that they have "secret" thoughts.
Apologists create this question of what is the meaning of life in order to answer it with their god. People are busy living life and trying to solve their personal problems and problems of those they care about, they don't walk around asking themselves what's the meaning of life, even believers. The thing is apologitics is a career, they create fake conundrums that they try to answer with their god and still fail.
A good explanation and dissertation of stand to reason's word game. Thanks
You should call into his show
Get Matt Dillahunty to call. He likes debates.
@@turboguppy3748Dillahunty is abrasive and overly emotional for my taste. Paul is calmer and more rational. He definitely isn't a comfortable debater, but I think he makes a better conversation.
Always hard to have a meaningful conversation when your opponent just continues to accuse you of believing things you dont, or that you MUST accept a premise or be irrational/lying to ourselfs.
I am a christian who was exposed to this book, which I was deeply skeptical of immediately from reading the title. I just wanted to express my deep appreciation for your method of critique of the theistic world view. It is important to me because I value respecting other people. I want to be able to understand people as they view themselves and experience their life and the world we are apart. Thank you.
So he wrote a book to help Christians not sound stupid when they explain why they are Christian.
And what would impress me is if these guys talked to adults about this stuff and not school kids.
Yup. I'd be impressed if Christians would read that book and then want to talk to _me,_ an atheist, about this stuff. But although Christians buy that book - and, I assume, read it - they appear to be _terrified_ of actually talking to an adult atheist, even when they've supposedly got the arguments they supposedly need.
Even the missionaries who come to my door can't run away fast enough when I tell them I'm an atheist. And online, it's the rare Christian who wants to talk to an atheist at all - and _none_ of them seem to be willing to talk for long. As soon as they discover that their script doesn't work, they're gone.
What a very sound take on suicide by Paulogia. Very enjoyable video :)
Superb video, Paulogia. Perhaps all your followers can go to Amazon and write a review of Koukl's book?
Why does one need to use tactics in order to say that which is true?
It's all about the art (fallacy)of equivocation, used to confuse, misdirect , and sidetrack the conversation...
Religious "truth" is presupposed.
Even if the Apologist is unwilling to admit it.
Aka: "if I can play enough word games I can keep my interlocutors confused into thinking I actually made a valid point, thus staving off those who disagree while at the same time strengthening my echo chamber. Winning!"
If you want an honest answer, it is typically used to allow the other person to analyze their own position. Some people never really consider what the foundations of their conclusions are based on and bringing them to light can often be very revealing. Some of the tactics in his book are simply used to get to the meat of a conversation quicker. Which is their reasoning for coming to their particular view in most cases. A lot of his "tactics" are good practices for anyone to adopt whether you are a Theist, Athiest, or Agnostic.
I personally found his Columbo Tactic to be an easier approach to dialoging with people that hold views that differ from my own in a more cordial way.
@@wheretruthleads there are techniques for having conversations, things like active listening, steel manning, charitable listening, etc. They aren't tactics, they are conversational techniques.
Tactics are something you use in combat, gaming, or other forceful ventures. You don't use tactics in a genuine conversation, you use tactics to bludgeon or confuse someone, to play word games to strengthen your position.
If you think this guy's dishonest tactics are a good way to "bring people to the light," I'm just sorry for you. I bet you never stopped to consider why people don't react well to these dishonest techniques, and why they call them dishonest. Have you? Have you examined what it is you're doing here?
Seriously, this dishonest shit isn't convincing anyone. You might feel like you are scoring points when you corner someone with some word game, but you're not actually accomplishing anything except lying for Jesus.
But what did we expect? Dishonest horsebull seems to be all apologetics Fanboys can manage. If you can't win them over with honest talk, try threats and trickery.
@@turboguppy3748 , I am actually going through his book now and I have not come across anything dishonest at all so far. Dispite what you may think of me, I would not endorse what I have read so far if it was anything like what you claim it to be. I would actually love for others to use these tactics when talking to me as it only aids the discussion to be more fruitful. Now in reguards to the video itself that was presented, I can understand how assuming anything before asking can miss the mark. Much like how you are assuming a lot about me in your comment. I do appreciate your willingness to respond to my comment tho even if we hold different opinions on the topic.
I liked the video’s addressing the limitations of language to express and differentiate between subtle philosophical points. Paul identifies the verbal strategies used by his guest to convince by exploitatively taking advantage of our limited language and subtle changes of meaning tossed free of context.
I love when You turn them into paper cut-outs, lol
This is definitely one of your best videos yet.
A (supernatural) deity that interferes with nature would make a universe inconsistent. Which would also counter the notion of free will.
Great video! 👍🏻