As I'm listening to Mr. Reynolds, I know 2 things: 1. He doesn't know WHAT he's talking about. 2. He doesn't want anyone else to know what he's talking about either.
when you drag people into the "mud and fog" talking to them long enough, it might begin to make sense to someone, but not to anybody that I know of.......
So, I'm not alone. I listened for 10 minutes and I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. He sounds like he's trying to sound smart and to be patient because his ideas are so advanced that he must break things down slowly and clearly. But, he doesn't sound very smart at all.
OK. But is a headache a fact? Or a definition of how your head feels? Is propanganda a fact? Or is it a fact that propaganda is a lie? Do we use language to share and learn truth? Or do we use it as propaganda to obscure truth?
@@wesbyEric Obscurantism, yes, but a challenge to our question asking abilities. But I lose hope; they will only topic hop. They have to persevere their joy ln righteousness. Righteousness takes place at very high levels of abstraction.
@@wyett123 most people get into a religion not on the basis of reason but because they are brainwashed into a religion at a very vulnerable age and when they grow up for many of them it is hard to shake it off. Even intelligent people put their reasoning abilities on hold as soon as their religion comes into play!
@@wyett123 That's simply not true. There are countless highly intelligent people who end up as Christians after experiencing and reasoning. Just as happens the other way.
Define going? Is sleep a place? How might one get there? How *alarm goes off*. Well off to work. It would seem he gets no sleep, and so endeavours to make everyone else as exhausted as he is through semantics.
Seriously, dude. If this was Schrodinger's Cat, John would want to sit there and talk about the definitions of "death" or "life" or talk about how one could never truly be honest, or philosophize about how we can never truly know the cat's status. Aron walks up and opens the box.
marinlini historically this has been Christianity's typical (M.O) 1.fights war against progress, 2.lose that war against progress, 3. and when that progress turned out to be good thing after all cliam credit for that progress darkmatter2525 video title" the theft of our values" at 6.52 I highly recommend that everyone should watch the whole video!
Religion has been brought into enlightenment screaming and kicking by good rational people (often times at the cost of their lives). There is still a long way to go, but sometimes they manage to drag us back ...
Kenneth, If i had a superpower, i would make every person attend a course on critical thinking (and twice for religious people). Is the flaw in number (1) of your comment not self-evident ? You are asserting that the unknown is unknown. How do you know that there is "... more to our existence than what we can prove", and if you can prove it, then it will no longer be known "...more than our existence". This kind of non-critical thinking shames religion. If religion is true then you do not need any contradictory verbal gymnastics. Please explain how you know there is an unproven beyond our hesitance, that we can not prove. Here is some help, seriously. It is ok to admit that we, as humans, do not know everything, yet (but do not make up superstitious nonsense to fill the gap). That admission is not a weakness, but a clarion call to seek truth. And not ot simply hide behind religions' demand that we do not need to even think, but accept that we cannot know. How suicidal depressing that thought is. ... i did not even get to (2) and (3), but sincerely, please consider any of the thousands of courses freely available regarding critical thinking. You will realise for (3) it is not possible, and illogical to prove a negative, you will learn on whom is the burden of proof, you will learn how the process of science works, you will learn the many critical fallacy (eg false equivalence). But for now, i would be interested in your reply regarding my response to (1) above, in paragraph 4. Thank you
Kenneth, But of course, evidently, as all religious people, you can make insults. Well done. Try to answer the question. regarding your point (1), it has nothing to do with history.
@daniel letterman aside from all the other "bad" saints, the fact that "mother Theresa" (Hell's Angel) got a sainthood, shows that the term is arbitrary and useless. That said, he would be the closest to what the title should describe.
Wow! The guy is literally just talking in a circle so he doesn't have to answer a question. He is being dishonest with everything he says, props to you for dealing with this guy Aron.
Yeah. This guy wasn't wrong really at any point of the discussion. But he didn't exactly say anything apart from defending mental constructs of language and logic from scrutiny and contradiction. i.e. his philosophy of theology is all about constructing an unfalsifiable set of "truths"
I have run into that line of thinking recently. It is so unproductive and the reason philosophy should not be your tool for understanding the world. It is great for exploring the art of language and finding common language in a conflict. It is not a system to find facts about the world. Just like the guy saying numbers aren't real, philosophy is not real. If Aron had caught that diversion, it may have helped take the discussion somewhere he wanted it to go. Credit to the philosophy major for learning so much. I would enjoy talking to him except when he is trying to reel in bystanders. That was kind of creepy. I hope you have more conversations with him Aron Ra.
This guy was a presup attempting to draw logic being contingent on a god they use what is? Questions to boil everything down to logic and then presuppose a god as the foundation for logic to stand on
Similar thing happened with a theologian I had a series of debates with recently. In all other respects a very intelligent person, well when it came to talking about Christian faith there was a complete refusal to find common ground
Reynolds went through many techniques during this debate: He invoked discussions within a specialist's field, he referenced his academic positions and duties, he asserted his fluency with some of western society's greatest thinkers. When none of that elicited the deference he was used to receiving, he began to witness to the crowd, and by the end, proceeded to talk directly to them about how to think about their faith. It was a master class in presuppositional logic, condescension, and charisma as debate tactics rather than substance.
I agree wholeheartedly, especially when the presuppositions are Ad Hoc Ergo Propter Post Hoc and combined with Circulus in Probando - inclusion of the conclusion as premise. Every argument for God commits these fallacies; incoherence.
Really shows the intellectual gap between the two. While I would have rather heard them debate substance, its nice to understand how Aron is using his language to win instead of the facts and opinions about the topics.
Isn't that what modern philosophy is? Claiming to know everything about subjects you know nothing about; and black belt of the art of MSU "Making Shit Up"
He won’t let you talk! That’s evidence that he does not feel comfortable with his position. He’s afraid that you might be able to provide a compelling argument that he cannot refute.
He does let Aron talk, but he says everything Aron says lacks a definition, boxing Aron into the position of debating what words mean first, stretching the debate to over twice its relevant length.
@@rafeverao4105 i'm a little confused as to what he's actually trying to convey because it seems like the video picks it up halfway through the conversation. but i'm gonna take a guess that he's going on a rant about how our use of words are very limited (normal sane person would call it precise language) and he constantly falls into redefining language. remember the people who use "literally" figuratively? how do i know? because i've already seen enough of Jordan Peterson and his mumbo-jumbo with equivocation fallacies. this is what apologists do, when they cannot reason with you, they attack reason...using reasoning. when they cannot refute scientific findings that contradict their beliefs, they attack scientific methodologies...using science! and now they're doing the same with words.
@@aetherica7453 It's not the fact that they're defining their terms, it's that he's specifically going into unnecessary definitions to derail the conversation. There is a time and place in debate for definitions. The whole debate centering around defining literally everything? It's a way to derail the conversation, nothing else.
I like how his body language started out very animated, talking with his hands, very confident he could talk his way through this encounter and easily fool his audience and opponent. Very quickly it turns into him clutching his binder with arms crossed against his chest in a defensive posture, all the while defaulting to the brain in a vat defense, and purposely disagrees with any given definition of any word Aron offers just to delay any possible fruitful discussion. Why? We all know why. He knows why.
People like this joker can't actually present any evidence in any debate. That's why they surround themselves with other religious nutbags. Makes them feel smart.
All the present energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed? But who created energy? If you say a force did it then where did it come from? Nothing? Or something? We gotta chose to have faith in nothing or something, but it makes more sense that something made everything. Because you can't get something from nothing. God testified that he made all things including time. Since he made time he is not bound to a beginning (something hard to comprehend because we exist in time) but that's why he told Moses "I AM", and he also said he is the "beginning and the end" because time can't exist outside of him. (And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:17 NKJV) I think heaven is going to be awesome man, there will be no more pain or sorrow, and we will live in peace and joy forever. We will have a infinite number of possibilities in experiencing creation, we have things like cellphones in this world just imagine what we can make in the next world!? I would want to make a space ship racing it against others in rugged terrain, if it gets totalled then we gotta Minecraft our way to building another one. Having adventures with others gathering supplies and seeing all the cool things God made. Here's a video man if you want some strength in testament of the truth. Love you and God bless bro th-cam.com/video/f9hoBPWscYQ/w-d-xo.html
@@specilegg Are you just going to paste that infantile comment as an answer to every logical one? I see you. You’re not talking to 6 year-olds here, unfortunately.
@@specilegg no we don't have to chose to have faith because there are things we don't know. you should stop there "we don't know". and all god crap is even worse.
How do you define the word HOW? How do you define the word DO? How do you define the word YOU? How do you define the word DEFINE? How do you define the word THE? How do you define the word WORD? How do you define the word PRICK?
I went so deep into the Bible at a young age because my father and mother abandoned me largely emotionally and I felt very alone in the world starting at just 12 years old. So my entire teen years I spent coping with the Bible and God because I wanted God to exist to save me from all the emotional trauma my parents gave me. It honestly worked because I was under the idea that it was all going to be ok, even though it was just sheer luck and my own perseverance that saved me, got me out of that terrible household, and my own work and cleverness to be able to get the career field I have now, and I’m very fortunate for that at the moment. That being said, once I was independent I sort of didn’t NEED a cosmological father figure anymore (God) and at that point I could suddenly see that since I didn’t NEED God anymore, I could actually start hearing arguments why god might not actually exist. In the end I decided I was an agnostic, and then after watching many videos I can honestly say I’m an atheist. I do think the future is in atheism, simply because its extremely obvious that it’s true, but a strong emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that morals DO NOT come from religion because many people believe if you are an atheist you are somehow an evil person (despite the fact that some of the most horrible people I’ve ever known and got abused by were religious). Indeed God most certainly does not exist and if he does, he doesn’t really give a fuck about his creation unfortunately. Thanks Aron Ra for both your comedy and intelligence in these videos, it’s pretty fun to watch as I look back thinking about my religious days. I used to follow Kent Hovind and I have read the King James Bible over 20 times and taught myself to read Middle English because of Kent Hovind. Because of this I am probably a weapon in an argument against religious people having already read the Bible and fully understood it for years and years. I went deep into different cult groups and interpretations on demons, the sabbath, eating kosher, history of the Bible, I even read the fucking Quran and spent like 3 months of my life reading the Hadith because I was preparing to argue with every single other person both religious and non religious. I was so deathly afraid of atheism back in those days because deep down I knew either God was real or atheism was real. I just didn’t want atheism to be true, that’s why I fought for it so hard. Now that I have lived a little longer, I don’t really want to live forever. I understand how my brain works and how hormones so easily change my desires that I’m not really much more than a brain, much less a free thinking spirit. If my seratonin levels get too low I’ll start craving dopamine activities like eating usually high fat high sugar foods like pizza and ice cream, if my prolactin levels get too high I start getting anxiety and depression and my entire world view becomes very sinister overnight. I’m a victim to my hormone profile and my own health lol. To believe I would want to live this way constantly balancing my hormones for the rest of my life doesn’t sound like a fun existence to me. Especially for all eternity practically doing the same thing worshipping God for simply creating me? Doesn’t sound that fun anymore, not sure what I was thinking. Also a God that doesn’t allow me to enjoy any earthly pleasures but then boasts about heaven having golden streets and walls made from every rare gem in the book of Revelations doesn’t seem very logical to me. I don’t know but I am done with religion entirely I think.
@@CCCBeaumont , the truth that god can not be evidenced or demonstrated. I don't find any argument or evidence by a theist that shows a god exists...in fact it's all nuttery. Prove your god exists first. You can't...and that says everything. Atheism is saying we don't believe your asinine claims. The absolute lack of credible “argument” by anyone making a claim in a supernatural being , event or whatever. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. We’re not making any claims at all. We’re not saying that there’s some god or gods out there that’s responsible for rain, fire, souls, afterlife, and so on. It’s entirely up to the believer to show real proof.
@@dukeblair7792 On all of the classical arguments for God, with the possible exception of the ontological, it is far more likely God exists than He does not. I am personally fully persuaded by (literally) dozens of them. They constitute a formidable cumulative case and, by definition, constitute evidence. Start with the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, then add the argument from contingency. When you have rebutted those successfully (you will be the first) come back and let’s talk some more.
@@CCCBeaumont , oh my Gawd...the failed Kalam Cosmological argument? Really? First off...the Kalam cosmological argument doesn't claim that a god caused anything. I was caused by my mom and dad having sex and I was born...as far as a gawd creating a Universe or causing a Universe...you can logically conclude it happened by natural means or by a Leprechaun or my toaster...because you know my toaster makes toast. That's a failed argument! Prove a gawd made the Universe instead of claiming that a God did...maybe it was Sheba? Biggly fail. I can argue that my soul created the Universe...my physical body couldn't...but my soul is all powerful and created this amazing Universe. By the way...I believe I know the power of my soul. Are you convinced? This is your argument. I am just not convinced that your particular god is a possibility. You still have the burden of proof and the Kalam Cosmological argument fails. Something you make up just doesn't convince me. I am going to cause tomorrow...I will answer your other failed arguments tomorrow!
@@dukeblair7792 I'm sorry Duke, but you are wrong about practically everything you assert. The Kalam is only one form of the cosmological argument, and there are at least a dozen forms. Kalam succeeds. Kalam includes a conceptual analysis as presented, which ends with an immensely powerful, personal, intentional, immaterial cause, which are all attributes reasonably construed to be god-like. Since all matter, space, time, and energy are what is being accounted for it is wholly unwarranted and illogical to suggest that a leprechaun or your toaster are logical candidates, as they are (in one case) animated matter and (in the other) inanimate matter. If your soul was extant 14.3 billion years ago I am open to that, but then your "soul" would be God, which is impossible because you deny His existence and we can reasonably assume you do not deny your own. Further, you are not nearly knowledgeable enough for anyone to plausibly posit you are Him. I hope you will truly become open-minded and reasonable in your pursuit of truth and wish you god speed in that process.
When did everyone start acting like philosophy is just the art of pretending words don't mean anything? a: "What color is the sky today?" b: "Define "sky." And define "color." And is 'today' really today?" That's not philosophy. That's inane sophistry spewed forth by religious and secular alike in order to seem somehow 'enlightened.' Furthermore, waxing poetic about 'the vapor of human understanding' or some such shit does not instantly shatter physics and render measurable facts incorrect. A milliliter of water still weighs a gram. b: "Define "weigh."" FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Sadly, this is what philosophy seems to be... ive argued with philosophers, theyre full of shit, just talking about definitions without any assertion. this video remided me of that:DD.. wearysome. But if youre rly into expanding your understanding of anything, of course you wouldnt waste your time with philosophy, so what to expect;)
@@arthurwieczorek4894 I always preferred Next Tuesdayism. That is, the world will be created in the future, complete with our memories of the fake past. Including the fake present. Can't be disproven, logically equivalent to YECism, only drags the absurdity out in front.
That part was actually true. Math isn't a thing in nature we discovered, it's a construct we created. But the part after that was just ugh. "math just works"??? lol
clayton henrickson Mathematics is a human construct. It is the best example of a system that is verifiably consistent, provided we agree with the rules. Prior to zero, mathematics was limited in application. Zero opened up additional areas of utility. Then imaginary numbers were created to address the problem of calculations involving the square root of negative numbers. Very useful, but none of this is materially true. (Mathematics is an area of thought that doesn't require a link to a physical construct to be valid.)
This guy dodges more answers than Neo dodges bullets. I commend you for the amount of patience it must have taken to have a conversation with such a person.
All the present energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed? But who created energy? If you say a force did it then where did it come from? Nothing? Or something? We gotta chose to have faith in nothing or something, but it makes more sense that something made everything. Because you can't get something from nothing. God testified that he made all things including time. Since he made time he is not bound to a beginning (something hard to comprehend because we exist in time) but that's why he told Moses "I AM", and he also said he is the "beginning and the end" because time can't exist outside of him. (And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:17 NKJV) I think heaven is going to be awesome man, there will be no more pain or sorrow, and we will live in peace and joy forever. We will have a infinite number of possibilities in experiencing creation, we have things like cellphones in this world just imagine what we can make in the next world!? I would want to make a space ship racing it against others in rugged terrain, if it gets totalled then we gotta Minecraft our way to building another one. Having adventures with others gathering supplies and seeing all the cool things God made. Here's a video man if you want some strength in testament of the truth. Love you and God bless bro th-cam.com/video/f9hoBPWscYQ/w-d-xo.html
Aron. Don't waste your time talking to this guy ever again. He is not interested in your conversation whatsoever he wants to avoid the subject at all cost and give you instead a master class on philosophy
Forgive me for being bored. I'm just so bored with these apologists hiding behind word play. That's literally their final bastion to hide their god. I'm just done listening to their mindless babble.
How do you define the word "bored"? How do you interpret the word "literally"? When you use the word "babble" are you referring higher or lower babble,..babble with and accent,.babble that is partially or fully not understood? You modified the word babble with the word mindless,..what form of mindlessness are you stating? Intentional or accidental mindlessness? When you ask forgiveness for your boredom are you being rhetorical or literal?
He did demonstrate great patience. Now if you want to see another example of great patience, and "gentlemanly" behaviour, check Richard Dawkins discussion with a condescending witch. She couldn't even make a word salad with a bowl full of words. I never hit people, but she sure gave me the urge to put my fist through my screen. th-cam.com/video/AekFGksvuDU/w-d-xo.html
Dude: "Define 'evidently'" Aron: *Procedes to try and do so. Gets interrupted. Dude: "You never defined 'evidently'" Aron: *Tries to do it again. gets interrupted. Aron: *Is finally able to give a definition of evidence Dude: "But there's no objective reality" Man, what was Aron's prediction at the very beginning? If AR out-philosophies you... you need to reconsider your career
His definition of evidence is a fallacy of scientism, when you consider the way he thinks "objectively verifiable facts" must be scientifically verified. He's excluding the possibility anything could possibly be supported by any form of evidence beyond the limitations of the scientific method... even logical evidence, systemic evidence, etc.
@@HIsForHawk If you think science is the ONLY way to knowledge, that means you're unwittingly adhering to a self-refuting epistemology (which is absolutely devastating. It means, with your current worldview, you literally can't determine truth about anything properly) Here's why Scientism is self-refuting, in one sentence: The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF. It does not meet it's own requirements of acceptability, so Scientism is self-refuting. All self-refuting claims are false by necessity. I recommend researching philosophy, because philosophy specifically deals with determining truth about topics beyond what science can deal with. For topics beyond the limitations of the scientific method, we approach such questions COMPLETELY differently We use logical evidence, systemic evidence, etc... within philosophy For example, I just showed you how I used logic to determine the philosophy of Scientism is self-refuting, meaning it's definitely false. That is absolutely certain, since absolute truth exists within logic.
@@HIsForHawk Notice I didn't need to scientifically verify anything to demonstrate the philosophy of Scientism is self-refuting? I simply used logic to show it refutes itself logically. No need for scientific verification of physical evidence of any kind. Just logic.
This guy is infuriating. At least he's not the type to get angry and shout, but he just continues to talk and talk and talk not about anything tangible, but just about words. Definitions and words. It's maddening.
boggisthecat If he had trouble understanding, he could wait for Aron to finish speaking. He didn't want him to, he wanted to confuse the topic so much because he knows that the commonly understood words (language) would defeat him. He resorted not to philosophy but to defensive gymnastics.
"Words and definitions are crucial if you expect to understand each other." - They are also important if you simply want to win the argument. Philosophy isn't about winning an argument.
No, he does deserve more credit that that. He was clearly experienced when it comes to philosophical thinking and discussing than Aron was. He was patient and he was trying to explain things to Aron. I really like Aron in a lot of ways, but he can be very rigid and stubborn, and his confident way of speaking makes it difficult to explain to him why things aren't as simple as he thinks. I really dislike the dismissal I see amongst some fellow atheists as being word games employed by religious people. I like philosophy, and I hate it when people make themselves and others look anti-intellectual by dismissing it. As The Messianic Manic said, the way to fight bad philosophy is with good philosophy.
@Nic B Sorry, Nic B, but it's very hard to come up with a clear definition of what constitutes a "fact". This has been the subject of excursions in epistemology for 2500 years. Do you really feel you've got the matter sussed at this point? You could become famous, if you do. Reynolds was fully justified in making sure that he and Aron were "speaking the same language". I'm really surprised at all the blow-back in these comments on his concern over clarifying their usage of ambiguous terms such as these. I have to say, epistemology is NOT Aron Ra's strongest suit, and I've had many concerns of my own on how he uses certain terms. It's not a simple matter at all. I'm fully on board that science provides the ONLY way from the perspective of naturalism.... but even this is far from ideal and far from perfect. Science is NEVER fully in possession of "the facts", nor are our facts fully reliable in many cases.
@@MendTheWorld Are you under some delusion that Aronra spit in the baby formula you had for breakfast this morning? That Reynolds dude was all over the map. Aron and his friends tried reeling him back in several times during the conversation. No wonder Reynolds has such a poor reputation and is becoming less and less relevant even among christian circles.
@Benjamin Park amazing what blind men see ... Jesus also said he would not be mocked ... oh wait Aron just did ..' guess that's one of his supposed contradictions.
All the present energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed? But who created energy? If you say a force did it then where did it come from? Nothing? Or something? We gotta chose to have faith in nothing or something, but it makes more sense that something made everything. Because you can't get something from nothing. God testified that he made all things including time. Since he made time he is not bound to a beginning (something hard to comprehend because we exist in time) but that's why he told Moses "I AM", and he also said he is the "beginning and the end" because time can't exist outside of him. (And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:17 NKJV) I think heaven is going to be awesome man, there will be no more pain or sorrow, and we will live in peace and joy forever. We will have a infinite number of possibilities in experiencing creation, we have things like cellphones in this world just imagine what we can make in the next world!? I would want to make a space ship racing it against others in rugged terrain, if it gets totalled then we gotta Minecraft our way to building another one. Having adventures with others gathering supplies and seeing all the cool things God made. Here's a video man if you want some strength in testament of the truth. Love you and God bless bro th-cam.com/video/f9hoBPWscYQ/w-d-xo.html
@@cincilitigator5108 I'm confident you didn't understand a word he said either. He's talking nonsense trying to sound smart to sucker in unintelligent people like you. Congrats, you fell for a charlatan's bullshit. God bless
@@fibbintiggins2858 I never thought atheist can be very judgemental. Imagine atheism is actually true. This is exactly what it offers to the world. Contempt and indifference.
@@FBI_most_wanted_Grape_dangler atheism offers nothing, not truth, not lies, all that being an atheist means is you dont believe in a god or gods, my neighbor believes in magic, yet hes still an atheist, however the majority of atheists either dont care what you believe, or seek out truth and rationalism, such as aron. what the man in this debate had to offer however, was a fresh word salad with no real filler to go with it
It's actually depressing how smart he has to be to employ this convoluted thinking. Imagine if these people put that brain power toward furthering our world in a productive way. They've spent thousands of years musing over the mental masturbations of bronze age desert dwellers that objective reality shows are demonstrably wrong.
Well first we have to define Satan and creator because well 'definitions' are complex and...well, we better agree on the definition of definition before we move ahead. Oh yeah, just a quick word about using Socratic dialouges.........
Standard religious policy when you are losing an argument, but he starts on with changing the definitions at the beginning so that he never even has to address the obvious flaws in his arguments. This is a lesson for us all - the first time he did this, Aron should have got him to define everything himself, and then argued from the point of view of the other's definitions, and this would also mean that the discussion could have shown up flaws in Reynolds definitions which were many (which I infer from how he was inconsistently using "know", "believe" "true" etc) He is like jordan peterson on religion. This is what Harris called "playing tennis without the net"
I cannot begin to explain how envious I am of your level of patience with this clown, Aron. He's got pedantry down to an art form and it's beyond frustrating. I'd blow my brains out at the insane level of term redefining and goalpost shifting. I want to just listening to him right now.
All the present energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed? But who created energy? If you say a force did it then where did it come from? Nothing? Or something? We gotta chose to have faith in nothing or something, but it makes more sense that something made everything. Because you can't get something from nothing. God testified that he made all things including time. Since he made time he is not bound to a beginning (something hard to comprehend because we exist in time) but that's why he told Moses "I AM", and he also said he is the "beginning and the end" because time can't exist outside of him. (And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:17 NKJV) I think heaven is going to be awesome man, there will be no more pain or sorrow, and we will live in peace and joy forever. We will have a infinite number of possibilities in experiencing creation, we have things like cellphones in this world just imagine what we can make in the next world!? I would want to make a space ship racing it against others in rugged terrain, if it gets totalled then we gotta Minecraft our way to building another one. Having adventures with others gathering supplies and seeing all the cool things God made. Here's a video man if you want some strength in testament of the truth. Love you and God bless bro th-cam.com/video/f9hoBPWscYQ/w-d-xo.html
@@specilegg .. you're not going to heaven - very presumptuous to think that. Angels were created to live in heaven - not humans. Isaiah 45:18 Read the bible properly. Genesis 1:26 Psalm 115:16
Theist “What you’ve done here is open a dictionary and looked up the word animal and then went from there. What I do is I make up words and definitions on my own, so you can say a bird is an animal and I’ll just say that a dongular mongular is a fo fo fongular and you have to be wrong.”
Religious scholar says he's going to be 'very clear and precise' in his language, then proceeds to do nothing but obfuscate. Once again, religion reverses everything.
I actually find the whole conversation (by and large) interesting and intelligent. I'd be interested if you gave an example of where the fundie is obfuscating. (I know it's not really fair to ask someone that 9 months later re: a 48-minute video.) There are times when it might seem like it--e.g. when the fundie states that "one" does not exist in the empirical world, and therefore math doesn't produce verifiable facts, but, strictly speaking, this is a true statement. I'm not saying fundie is right and Aron is wrong here; I'm saying they're coming at certain points from different perspectives, and that's what makes the conversation so interesting.
@@GlorifiedTruth a "verifiable" fact is over that can be shown to correspond to reality (or at least our experience of it.) I believe Reynolds used "empirical" fact which is similar enough but still wrong since mathematics can easily be shown to map to reality; at least the basic arithmetic he is taking about. It's equivalent to saying "you don't know that object is 8 inches long - there's no way to show that an inch is an inch or that 8 inches combined is equal to 8 inches!" 🤦♂️
if we're living inside of a computer simulation then not only do we not exist, but only GOD exist and we are just part of an A.I.s dream. Heaven and Hell and miracles would just be expansion land and program features, like plugins or effects, in unreal engine, version 2021.
To be fair, this is just Cartesian doubt with pure idealism rather than dualism. The real part to criticize is that we know that the mind is purely physical, we can demonstrate that it doesn't affect the physical world (eg, through psychokinesis or prayer) but is affected BY the physical world through medication or brain damage. This disproves the idealist position, if you understand it, because to them the physical world is an illusion of the mind like a dream.
I have a serious question. (because I have seen many people claim it) Is philosophy science? Logically and by definition it is not. But I would like if someone could tell me more information about it.
This is philosophy. Aron was expecting Kent Hovind but he got Bertrand Russell instead. AronRa gets owned here because he mistakes knowledge for religion. Sorry, Aron.
Do you eat your spaghetti with a splaytch or a froon? Seems like you would need to know wtf I'm even talking about to even try to answer. Philosophy is no different. It doesn't make any sense to say you've won an argument based off definitions the other side doesn't accept or acknowledge.
@Youra Beyta That's sounds on point. I've seen Aron in other debates and he is the post-modern poster child for deconstruction/revisionism Listening to his arguments is REALLY frustrating cuz he'll very subtlety get you to agree in one area and then prove himself right by making a similar, yet distinct point WAYYYYY out of context. It's cringe.
39:50 About the steak in the corner: The giving or receiving of the treat isn't predicated on premature belief that the treat exists or is in a particular place. You can have no belief whatsoever that the treat is in the corner, and end up going to the corner for some other reason (e.g., that it's quieter over there, or you can hear better over there, or the light is better there), and still discover the treat and then enjoy it. Imagine the absurdity that would arise if I went around assuming that cookies were in every box, drawer, car, trash-can, suitcase, mailbox, and fire-hydrant, and focused my life on trying to become one with the cookies in the fire-hydrant: it would be a serious distraction from making the most of my life. The fact that most believers in religions that predicate posthumous reward on belief during life don't just rush toward death (suicide-bombers are an exception) shows how huge a lump of salt they use when they subscribe to the 'belief' that the reward _will_ be given to believers and will be given _only_ to believers.
How to always win arguments: 1. Speak a different language than your opponent. 2. Make sure neither of you can understand each other. 3. Be condescending. (NOT OPTIONAL) 4. Keep going until they give up. 5. Declare victory.
@@jonathanh954 don't be too quick to judge. you haven't defined what you mean by the term argument within the proper context. interact? ca you interact with a collection of words or do you mean a personal interaction? What proof do you have that either interaction would be legitimate.
I think the other guy was plenty patient as well. He was more versed in philosophical thinking than Aron, and it wasn't easy trying to explain that stuff to Aron. Yes, I love Aron, his confident way of arguing is great for arguing scientific matters, but he's no fantastic philosopher.
Tobias Hagström Thanks for saying exactly what I was thinking. When this guy was trying to explain to the difference between a fact and definition, and Aaron kept not understanding, I couldn't stop cringing.
niapet I know, right?! I appreciate how Aron doesn't limit his videos to only his shining-est moments. He's clearly conditioned to debating with the Ray Comforts and Ken Hams out there; I don't think he knew what hit him here lol
I'm a Christian, but I found myself constantly wondering what the heck Dr. Reynolds was saying. Word salad after word salad. Also, when he said it is not empirically verifiable that 2+2=4, I immediately went into my bookshelf, pulled out two books, then pulled out two more, and look! Four books. I just empirically verified it. And when he said that he is a young earth creationist but not a fundamentalist, I laughed and laughed and laughed.
Can you first define what you mean by "believe in God"? Are you asking why I think God (in terms of the mere concept of an ultimate divine Creator) exists, or are you asking why I believe specifically in the Christian God?
I first believed because this is the story I was told. I continue to believe because I want to believe that there is someone who is both powerful enough and who cares enough to change the hearts of so many people (including Christians) in this world to better recognize and love their neighbor as themselves. We all have a long way to go in that department.
Interesting bit of grammar there. What that sentence actually means is that theists are doing mental gymnastics to "...prove god is laughable...", as in 'god is worthy of being laughed at'. I understood you to mean the need for mental gymnastics is laughable, but the literal reading of your sentence is humorous :)
Thomas Gregory Actually, pretty sure it’s grammatically sound. They way you’re interpreting his sentence is makes his entire sentence a subject and nothing more, but the sentence actually says “(subject) is (descriptor).” In order for the sentence to say what you think he mistakenly said it would need “that” after “prove.” Double check yourself next time before you wanna try and be cute about it.
James Cunningham I fully concur with you on that one ( fairytale bible believers are just full of shit ) and I’ll add this new slogan ... “Jesus shaves”
I love how he gives Aaron advice to study philosophy of language in order to win arguments without "winning it through confusion" (13:45). I agree people need to understand each other's terms/ definitions but philosophy isn't about defining, it's about QUESTIONING, often to to point of madness, which is exactly what he's doing here. Science gives more precise definitions, which is the basis of Aaron's standpoint. He cuts Aaron off way too much to begin to understand and constantly creates confusion by questioning the definition of each word - which is what he told Aaron to avoid doing! Winning through creating confusion! I just want to sarcastically say, "Can we agree on the word "the"‽ Or do we first have to agree on what "agree" means?" I love philosophy but taken to the extreme the conversation goes nowhere.
I'm only 15 minutes in, and this is seriously the most needlessly tedious conversation I've ever witnessed. Is it really necessary, Dr. Reynolds, to define practically EVERY term (including even the term, "term") as it pops up? Is this how you approach a discussion about ANY other topic? Give me a break.
@Bobby Allen You seem like the "self righteous" one.. Instead of making unhelpful claims make an argument and the reason Ra is defining every other word here is because the person he is debating is making him by asking him to define every other word lol.
@Bobby Allen i believe the context used when he asks is to correct any errors in there definition when they use a word in the wrong instance, not every other word before the sentence has even finished, and asking them to define every word in the given definition, bit of a difference if you ask me
That's apparently his tactics and tactics of some apologists -- argue until you start loosing, then start asking for definitions, in the end make it look like you just disagreed on definitions.
He was just trying to piss off Aron so he can say "see! I was being calm and very forward but he had to degenerate into anger and rage because he thinks he evolved from apes! Who are also crazy and fling shit when they're mad". Change my mind ;)
All i hear is "i am a philosopher and therefore i can redifine the world like i want and just ignore the common definitions and the facts of our reality."
"Would you like soup or beef for dinner dear?" "Well, honey, that depends on the presumption that we can define something according to it's soup-ness or beefology so it will help if we can first agree on what the term dinner means within a common moral constructed universe." "So it's alphabet soup again then?"
Virgil Blue hahaha too funny!! Listening to this moron makes me want to jump off a bridge. Aron Ra must’ve been fuming inside. I hate the fact that he can’t have a normal conversation because he thinks he’s the reincarnation of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. While eating his alphabet soup 🍲 his wife is afraid to ask him if it’s too hot or to ask him how it taste because he will babble away about what she means by hot or taste!!! Hopefully she’s deaf so she doesn’t have to listen to his ignorant ass spewing his philosophical terminology bullshit during sex time.
The fact that christianity requires apologists alone should be enough to convince you that it is dishonest. If you have to resort to ad hoc explanation for your belief systems then they are not strong enough to be taken seriously.
mazingdaddid “The Bible is the word of God. God didn’t make the Bible simple and evidently non-contradictory so Now here’s a hundred people who have their PHD in nonsense so that they can manipulate definitions to pretend their belief is justified.” Spending time studying theology to prove that God exists is the most perfect way for someone to waste absolutely all of their life and make no impact on society.
Not really. All political positions have apologists too. Even science educators could be described as apologists for their topic. Being an apologist does not make what you are an apologist for automatically untrue.
Robert Payne so what we have here is a failure to communicate. A battle of definitions, if you will. I am assuming, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are using this definition. reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine. (Theory here being used in the colloquial form meaning hunch or guess) Where as, my definition of apologetics is slightly different. My definition is something more like this. Ad hoc excused devised to support unfounded beliefs and/or doctrines, usually religious. One thing I can say is that your are waaaayyy off about science being any form of apologetics. Science needs no arguments or justifications. Science only needs evidence to support itself.
Every time I hear a theist talk, I can never understand what they are saying, but when Aron talks, it makes sense. I thought I was losing my mind, but then I remember its just big words used with no meaning. Thanks Aron for helping me understand word soup!
He's constantly challenging Aron's definition of evidence. But at 34:07 he almost uses this definition himself. But then quickly changes his words. Good job Aron 👍.
I've noticed that being done in comment sections. I make a point about a belief, but the only "arguments" I get are questions about what I mean by certain words, while my obvious point is completely ignored. Recently I made a point about many Protestants believing Anne Frank is in Hell because she never accepted Jesus, while many Catholics may believe she could have been saved. Not once did my assertion that such a belief was in contrast to a loving God, instead my sentences were picked apart or I was questioned why I would consider 14 year old Anne Frank burning in Hell since 1945 cruel. I finally gave up and agreed that based on God's track record in the Bible, eternally torturing 14 year old girls falls in line with his MO.
@@emptyhand777 I can prove my god, the flying spaghetti monster exists, the evidence is all around you. Do you think everything just came from nothing? No, so that means my god exists. Checkmate atheists.
So the man talking with AronRa says his ancestor was taught bad information, and continued through her life believing it fact. So why does this man not see his own error, he was taught bad information, and he continues to believe it as fact.
Because he thinks he's being clever by not only saying the atheists could be wrong but it also makes his position even more vague so that he can agree or disagree to anything he wants as long as it sounds good, because as long as your own definition of your own beliefs is so twisted and backwards no one can make you sound wrong
Not even 10 minutes in and my eyes are already glazing over. As much as I like philosophy, I wish theists would stop (mis)using it as a smokescreen whenever their beliefs are being challenged.
He seems to have missed that philosophy can be based on misinformation or outright dishonesty and can be colored as much by how one feels as by what one knows.
“Define it” but “your definition is no good” “That’s a definition, not a fact” but when asked to define a fact he says, “let me ask you a question...” and never answers. And doesn’t realize he’s actually saying a “fact” is just another thing that’s been define as X. Dr Reynolds is trying to be humble, but he is super condescending and slimy; slipping out of actually answering questions. But he gets points for me for using the word “indubitable” - so that’s something.
Yea, if nothing can ever be proved a “fact” and nothing be proven to be “false,” then anything goes. ANY assertion of knowledge has to taken at face value
His tone the entire time: “I know, these are the same arguments used by everyone, and I know I can’t make any reasonable arguments to counter, but I’m just going to say your wrong because I want to be right even though I know I can’t know I’m right until I’m given sufficient evidence, but if I sound smart no one will realize I’m lying to myself so all my time and money at seminary isn’t wasted”
Well, first you have to define 'word salad', is it like a literal salad or words, because some people might disagree on that. Second, God is real, and he loves you and he is a man. Get over it. Now let's talk about definitions instead of proving my claims, because what even is a 'word salad', how do you make a salad with words?
That's not philosophy, it's obscurantism, dishonesty, and denial. Real philosophy is about distilling ideas and getting at their roots, not redefining your way out of answering a difficult question.
Spot on. That's exactly how I feel about his tactics. I think those are exactly his intentions too, since he knows his position cannot be defended any other way.
Yes, very nicely articulated. Reynolds is all about confusing his audience and acting as though they don’t understand what brilliant thing he is trying to articulate. Of course he’s the party guilty of using language in a sloppy manner, and he’s not stating his positions clearly.
It's like an extreme version of denying reality. Not directly denying it but saying "we can't empirically prove 2+2=4" like yes there is no direct relationship between the abstract concept of the numbers and the physical objects that we count but that doesn't disprove it.
What? He’s literally saying the opposite, that a definition isn’t the same as the fact just because someone happened to attach certain values to the definition that also apply to the fact. It’s kind of a stupid argument anyway but that’s how I understood it 🤣
tap dancing is defined tap dancing, word salad Reynolds would, I'm sure, need more definitions. It has been said " it is difficult to win an argument with an intelligent person, but, impossible with an ignorant one".
@@specilegg “we gotta choose to have faith in nothing or something”. Actually we don’t have to use faith at all. All religions justify their belief by faith. Some of them are diametrically opposed to one another because faith is not a reliable means to truth. In fact there isn’t anything that cannot be justified by faith. Where there is evidence faith is not needed. Where there isn’t evidence belief isn’t warranted.
Aron Ra is the modern day Bertrand Russell, who definitely had the gift of debating the existence of God. Lord Russell would have had a field day with Reynolds.
Yes that smugness will win many over to his side. Statements like yours show that the the argument matters not but the feeling of being better than someone else is the main objective. That's not good.
I think the other guy was plenty patient as well. He was more versed in philosophical thinking than Aron, and it wasn't easy trying to explain that stuff to Aron. Yes, I love Aron, his confident way of arguing is great for arguing scientific matters, but he's no fantastic philosopher.
You're giving the other guy more credit than he deserves. Just doing semantic word games isn't impressive. They can't talk on terms of reality, so they gotta go into a bunch of pointless nonsense to avoid it. When you have to say 2 + 2 = 4 is in question, you're finished and I wouldn't even talk to you anymore.
AaronRa: Gives clear and concise definition. Reynolds: Scoffs and acts like memorizing something makes it untrue, then goes on tangent about the nature of definitions only to admit that they agree on Aaron's definition after all.
@Bobby Allen May I get a timestamp? Granted no one is perfect and it is quite possible for someone to slip up in a debate. Just wondering where I missed it here.
To believe there is no God, makes that as religious as any other. To know there is no God means you would have to have infinite knowledge, essentially a god yourself. What is logical in your assertion that there is no god?
@Bobby Allen I agree 100%. We live in a world that everyone seems to think that their personal opinion and definitions of morality are absolute and can not be contested. Its sickening and sad.
@@stephentucker2714 "To know there is no God means you would have to have infinite knowledge, " false. It only requires a basic understanding of physics.
@@Chris_Sheridanhe's trying, doesn't mean he succeeded. Nobody's gonna get confused by some guy being obtuse on purpose. Frustrated? Sure. Confused? Nah.
When you have to work THAT HARD to convince yourself there's a god so you can justify your belief in fiction, it's probably a good time to apply Occam's razor.
"Being wrong is okay! Hurray for being wrong!!!" Then how come I will supposedly burn in hell forever for being wrong even though I honestly believe God does not exist? So much for that bullshit.
Same thing with that intellectually dishonest reward tangent he launched into. What he failed to mention in his steak-in-the-corner analogy, is that if you don't go eat that steak, you will have a bucket of gasoline dumped on your head and lit on fire. Or, if you do go for the steak and arrive to find out that it is actually fish tacos, you get a bucket of gasoline dumped on your head and lit on fire. So I guess if your a vegan and eat neither steak nor fish, you get the gasoline treatment. I'm not denigrating vegans/veganism, just sticking with the food analogy.
Because you know He does exist(Romans 1:18-20). Thus a denial of God(Father,Jesus,Holy Spirit) is a denial of reality. Please consider the gospel: Jesus Christ died on a cross to save people from their sin, according to the bible. You and I broke God's law but Jesus paid our fine. Then Jesus rose from the dead, 3 days later, thus defeating death. Anyone who believes this will not perish but will have eternal life.
To be fair, its as if to compare an x-axis to a zed-axis, in which he acknowledges. Mutual human understanding can be quite ambiguous on a fundamental level.
@@aetherica7453 I had the false impression that Aron Ra's followers were a bit stronger in their critical thinking skills. But this Comments section says otherwise. It's not much more profound than: Atheism, Rah! Theism, Boo! I'm a non-theist, but pretty embarrassed by what I've seen and read here.
He is a philosopher, so very good at arguing and often entirely correct but in a way which is almost entirely not useful. Aaron is not dealing very well with him as I don't think he has a lot of practice with this kind of argument.
27:50 "Scholarship would be impossible if that were true [(that people shouldn't state as fact something that they don't have evidence for)]. In scholarship, all the time, I do the best I can, I look at the world, I look at the text, I look at my experience, I make the best judgment I can, I assert that as far as I can tell something is true". What he seems not to get is that _that_ is relying on what he considers to be _evidence._ His use of the world, the text, and experience, to inform the assertion, is use of a kind of evidence: i.e., he doesn't assert that something is true until he finds that truth in what he thinks is evidence that leads to that assertion. The fault, then, comes in the processing of that evidence to reach a conclusion. There is interpersonal and intrapersonal variation in the quality of this processing. If it happened to be that, while you were out driving, someone crashed his car into your car while a certain song was playing on your car radio, you probably wouldn't think that the song was a cause, or even a predictor, of car-crashes. On the other hand, you may summon a shaman to wave an eagle's feather over your sick loved one while she lies in bed, and to say magic words over her, and you then may notice that she afterward recovers from her illness, and you may conclude (probably erroneously) that the feather-waving and magic words caused her recovery. This is where the value of Aron Ra's assertion (in many of his videos) about evidence as something that (A) is true and (B) indicates what you say it indicates comes in: people often notice things that are true (e.g., that the feather-waving was performed and that the loved one did recover), but fail to make a proper assessment of whether the things that are true indicate what they may seem to indicate (e.g., that feather-waving over the body of a sick person causes the person to recover).
another theist who can say 10,000 words and say nothing at all... you've had a 40 minute discussion, don't end it by saying that you have evidence, if you had evidence you'd present it, you have nothing but wordplay and filler.
In his defense he did make more reasonable arguments than most theists. At the end of the day none came close to proving a God exists but he at least came across as fairly intelligent and didn't resort to the bottom of the barrel arguments most theists do. He was also an even tempered individual that never came across as overtly condescending which is a step for most of these guys.
32:31 "I said there are rules that apply to me that don't apply to-just call 'em 'believers'." I agree with this to an extent. My earlier self is an example. Sixteen years ago, I wrote to someone "I also choose to believe in a nifty meeting-up place for after death-because life is a hell of a lot less scary and much more fun and meaningful to me if I believe in such a place." I wrote "choose to believe", and the stated cause of my belief was not evidence but fear. Having aged since then, I would not make that statement, and I have several things to say against it-but, even back then, I was ready to acknowledge that my 'chosen' belief came not from evidence but from other causes. The critique that my current self makes of my earlier self's statement is (1) I now think there are other causes that tend to result, in many people, in belief in an afterlife (I may list these causes in a reply to this comment later); (2) I don't think this belief is _chosen_ (any more than I _choose_ to believe that the sky is blue or a paranoid schizophrenic _chooses_ to believe that everyone is out to get him); (3) I think that, although belief in an afterlife may have served me well in some ways, it probably also served me badly in other ways (e.g., it may have made me complacent, made me postpone bothering to pursue certain goals because I figured they would be fulfilled, automatically and magically, after I died; I also think it possible that belief in reincarnation causes similar complacency in some people ('I needn't bother with it now; I can do it in my next life')); (4) I would have been smarter to write that belief in an afterlife made _death_ (not life) less scary; and (5) I think it was sloppy (perhaps even meaningless) of me to write that belief in an afterlife made life much more meaningful to me (my guesses about what I meant back then are very tenuous).
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
As I'm listening to Mr. Reynolds, I know 2 things:
1. He doesn't know WHAT he's talking about.
2. He doesn't want anyone else to know what he's talking about either.
What should he have said instead?
You win cause I don't know wtf he's talking about
when you drag people into the "mud and fog" talking to them long enough, it might begin to make sense to someone, but not to anybody that I know of.......
So, I'm not alone. I listened for 10 minutes and I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. He sounds like he's trying to sound smart and to be patient because his ideas are so advanced that he must break things down slowly and clearly. But, he doesn't sound very smart at all.
@@jonathanh954 He should have used the dictionary instead of his own imaginary directions .
I have a headache after watching this. Can I even define a headache???
This man is highly skilled in the art of avoiding substantial debate!
Me too I got a massive headache not even half way through it
OK. But is a headache a fact? Or a definition of how your head feels? Is propanganda a fact? Or is it a fact that propaganda is a lie? Do we use language to share and learn truth? Or do we use it as propaganda to obscure truth?
What did you expect. Has anyone ever been won over by these religious vs atheist bull shit shows
They actually teach this stuff in bible universities. It's shocking that people pay money to become this ignorant. Waste of money
@@wesbyEric Obscurantism, yes, but a challenge to our question asking abilities. But I lose hope; they will only topic hop. They have to persevere their joy ln righteousness. Righteousness takes place at very high levels of abstraction.
The bible is 100% accurate... When thrown at close range.
ROFL! I must remember that one :)
Good think I took those extra skill points for improvised weapons.
That's false, my ex wife threw one at me from less than 3 feet away and missed.
@@kingsman428 Did she roll a natural 1?
Fuck i need to get a bible.
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. ― Jonathan Swift
Brilliant!
And that is why most Jewish noble prize winners list him as a thinker. Imagine that. And yet people don't understand ethnic stupidity 😆😆😆😆
It's a nice quote but it's false. No on gets reasoned into religion but many do indeed reason themselves out.
@@wyett123 most people get into a religion not on the basis of reason but because they are brainwashed into a religion at a very vulnerable age and when they grow up for many of them it is hard to shake it off. Even intelligent people put their reasoning abilities on hold as soon as their religion comes into play!
@@wyett123 That's simply not true. There are countless highly intelligent people who end up as Christians after experiencing and reasoning. Just as happens the other way.
When lawyers go to hell, this is what happens.
Mordant Vistas lol 😂
If Lucifer lets them in, which I doubt, he would throw them out or put them in a perpetual court room battle where they are always being objected to.
@@55Quirll unless they play devil’s advocate.
@@Mauricekaip Like the 1997 movie with Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves?
Already in HELLO
I wonder if he has to define sleep before going to sleep
Define going? Is sleep a place? How might one get there? How *alarm goes off*. Well off to work.
It would seem he gets no sleep, and so endeavours to make everyone else as exhausted as he is through semantics.
Seriously, dude. If this was Schrodinger's Cat, John would want to sit there and talk about the definitions of "death" or "life" or talk about how one could never truly be honest, or philosophize about how we can never truly know the cat's status.
Aron walks up and opens the box.
Kick With Nick depends on what your definition of “definition” is!
This is an important exercise. Like it or not, a lot of talking past each other gets resolved in this way.
😝🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 LMFAO
Religion:
1. fight a war against progress
2. lose that war
3. claim credit for that progress
marinlini historically this has been Christianity's typical (M.O) 1.fights war against progress, 2.lose that war against progress, 3. and when that progress turned out to be good thing after all cliam credit for that progress darkmatter2525 video title" the theft of our values" at 6.52 I highly recommend that everyone should watch the whole video!
M.O isn't main objective lol
Religion has been brought into enlightenment screaming and kicking by good rational people (often times at the cost of their lives). There is still a long way to go, but sometimes they manage to drag us back ...
Kenneth, If i had a superpower, i would make every person attend a course on critical thinking (and twice for religious people).
Is the flaw in number (1) of your comment not self-evident ? You are asserting that the unknown is unknown. How do you know that there is "... more to our existence than what we can prove", and if you can prove it, then it will no longer be known "...more than our existence".
This kind of non-critical thinking shames religion. If religion is true then you do not need any contradictory verbal gymnastics.
Please explain how you know there is an unproven beyond our hesitance, that we can not prove.
Here is some help, seriously. It is ok to admit that we, as humans, do not know everything, yet (but do not make up superstitious nonsense to fill the gap). That admission is not a weakness, but a clarion call to seek truth. And not ot simply hide behind religions' demand that we do not need to even think, but accept that we cannot know. How suicidal depressing that thought is.
... i did not even get to (2) and (3), but sincerely, please consider any of the thousands of courses freely available regarding critical thinking. You will realise for (3) it is not possible, and illogical to prove a negative, you will learn on whom is the burden of proof, you will learn how the process of science works, you will learn the many critical fallacy (eg false equivalence).
But for now, i would be interested in your reply regarding my response to (1) above, in paragraph 4.
Thank you
Kenneth, But of course, evidently, as all religious people, you can make insults. Well done. Try to answer the question. regarding your point (1), it has nothing to do with history.
This man is curing my insomnia. This is a miracle.
Same, literally
😅👍
I got pissed two sentences into this video. I applaud Aaron's patience and tact while being immersed in word salad.
One would be inclined to make a vegetable out of this walking word salad....
He's a total arshole and really needs a slap. And that's a fact.
@daniel letterman aside from all the other "bad" saints, the fact that "mother Theresa" (Hell's Angel) got a sainthood, shows that the term is arbitrary and useless.
That said, he would be the closest to what the title should describe.
Seriously AronRa has immense patience.
@@cyansloth1763 AronRa, god of Cladistics and Patience, patron of skeptics, sluts and other fine people.
Wow! The guy is literally just talking in a circle so he doesn't have to answer a question. He is being dishonest with everything he says, props to you for dealing with this guy Aron.
Exactly
This entire conversation is basically Ra asking “what language shall I use to talk to you?” And the guy deflecting with “but what is language?”.
Yeah. This guy wasn't wrong really at any point of the discussion. But he didn't exactly say anything apart from defending mental constructs of language and logic from scrutiny and contradiction.
i.e. his philosophy of theology is all about constructing an unfalsifiable set of "truths"
I have run into that line of thinking recently. It is so unproductive and the reason philosophy should not be your tool for understanding the world. It is great for exploring the art of language and finding common language in a conflict. It is not a system to find facts about the world. Just like the guy saying numbers aren't real, philosophy is not real. If Aron had caught that diversion, it may have helped take the discussion somewhere he wanted it to go.
Credit to the philosophy major for learning so much. I would enjoy talking to him except when he is trying to reel in bystanders. That was kind of creepy. I hope you have more conversations with him Aron Ra.
Clap
This guy was a presup attempting to draw logic being contingent on a god they use what is? Questions to boil everything down to logic and then presuppose a god as the foundation for logic to stand on
Similar thing happened with a theologian I had a series of debates with recently. In all other respects a very intelligent person, well when it came to talking about Christian faith there was a complete refusal to find common ground
Reynolds went through many techniques during this debate: He invoked discussions within a specialist's field, he referenced his academic positions and duties, he asserted his fluency with some of western society's greatest thinkers. When none of that elicited the deference he was used to receiving, he began to witness to the crowd, and by the end, proceeded to talk directly to them about how to think about their faith. It was a master class in presuppositional logic, condescension, and charisma as debate tactics rather than substance.
@@specilegg You're barking up the wrong tree.
I agree wholeheartedly, especially when the presuppositions are Ad Hoc Ergo Propter Post Hoc and combined with Circulus in Probando - inclusion of the conclusion as premise.
Every argument for God commits these fallacies; incoherence.
Really shows the intellectual gap between the two. While I would have rather heard them debate substance, its nice to understand how Aron is using his language to win instead of the facts and opinions about the topics.
"I'm right because I'm said so".
@@justinludeman8424can you break down your comment into layman's terms? I'm trying to educate myself.
This guy is a good example of how it is dishonesty when you claim to know something you cannot possibly know.
Isn't that what modern philosophy is? Claiming to know everything about subjects you know nothing about; and black belt of the art of MSU "Making Shit Up"
The dude doesn't look like a gymnast but boy does he jump, hop, flip, and skip his way through this conversation.
Good one 😂
True, but I liked him. He seems like he was being as honest as he could.
@@floydthibodeaux1844 As honest as a Somali pirate.
Yes, you’re talking about AronRa right?
He should get a gold medal for his mental gymnastics!😂
He won’t let you talk! That’s evidence that he does not feel comfortable with his position. He’s afraid that you might be able to provide a compelling argument that he cannot refute.
He does let Aron talk, but he says everything Aron says lacks a definition, boxing Aron into the position of debating what words mean first, stretching the debate to over twice its relevant length.
@@rafeverao4105 i'm a little confused as to what he's actually trying to convey because it seems like the video picks it up halfway through the conversation. but i'm gonna take a guess that he's going on a rant about how our use of words are very limited (normal sane person would call it precise language) and he constantly falls into redefining language. remember the people who use "literally" figuratively? how do i know? because i've already seen enough of Jordan Peterson and his mumbo-jumbo with equivocation fallacies. this is what apologists do, when they cannot reason with you, they attack reason...using reasoning. when they cannot refute scientific findings that contradict their beliefs, they attack scientific methodologies...using science! and now they're doing the same with words.
@@GrammeStudio What's wrong with using a definition that both sides can agree on?
@@aetherica7453 It's not the fact that they're defining their terms, it's that he's specifically going into unnecessary definitions to derail the conversation. There is a time and place in debate for definitions. The whole debate centering around defining literally everything? It's a way to derail the conversation, nothing else.
I didn't get that from him at all. I think he kinda held his own in some kind of theistic way
I like how his body language started out very animated, talking with his hands, very confident he could talk his way through this encounter and easily fool his audience and opponent. Very quickly it turns into him clutching his binder with arms crossed against his chest in a defensive posture, all the while defaulting to the brain in a vat defense, and purposely disagrees with any given definition of any word Aron offers just to delay any possible fruitful discussion. Why? We all know why. He knows why.
People like this joker can't actually present any evidence in any debate. That's why they surround themselves with other religious nutbags. Makes them feel smart.
All the present energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed? But who created energy? If you say a force did it then where did it come from? Nothing? Or something? We gotta chose to have faith in nothing or something, but it makes more sense that something made everything. Because you can't get something from nothing. God testified that he made all things including time. Since he made time he is not bound to a beginning (something hard to comprehend because we exist in time) but that's why he told Moses "I AM", and he also said he is the "beginning and the end" because time can't exist outside of him.
(And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Colossians 1:17 NKJV)
I think heaven is going to be awesome man, there will be no more pain or sorrow, and we will live in peace and joy forever. We will have a infinite number of possibilities in experiencing creation, we have things like cellphones in this world just imagine what we can make in the next world!? I would want to make a space ship racing it against others in rugged terrain, if it gets totalled then we gotta Minecraft our way to building another one. Having adventures with others gathering supplies and seeing all the cool things God made.
Here's a video man if you want some strength in testament of the truth. Love you and God bless bro
th-cam.com/video/f9hoBPWscYQ/w-d-xo.html
@@specilegg Are you just going to paste that infantile comment as an answer to every logical one? I see you. You’re not talking to 6 year-olds here, unfortunately.
@@specilegg no we don't have to chose to have faith because there are things we don't know.
you should stop there "we don't know". and all god crap is even worse.
@@tasteful-attitude do you believe in God? If you say "no", then you have faith he doesn't exist. And that faith is illogical.
"You dont define your words well enough"
*defines animal*
"Thats not a fact, thats a definition"
This Guy I know some animals I’d like to introduce him to. Then he would understand what a fact is.
😂😂
He is quite condescending.
@@AikidoTubeSock Which one?
@@aetherica7453 The one to which the subject refers.
How do you define the word HOW?
How do you define the word DO?
How do you define the word YOU?
How do you define the word DEFINE?
How do you define the word THE?
How do you define the word WORD?
How do you define the word PRICK?
Dean Moone First, we need to define “define”...🤦♂️
Thank you lol ooh man what a loser
Ha ha ha
Brilliantly funny
*Jordan Peterson joined the chat*
"you're making this overly complicated" I genuinely laughed.
define complicated
Because it's literally true believers always do that to conflict and twist what your saying.
@@bugsmith9751 Define define.
@@TwiztidJuggla420 define defining the word "define"
@@xyouthe
Define the definition of defining the word define.
I went so deep into the Bible at a young age because my father and mother abandoned me largely emotionally and I felt very alone in the world starting at just 12 years old. So my entire teen years I spent coping with the Bible and God because I wanted God to exist to save me from all the emotional trauma my parents gave me. It honestly worked because I was under the idea that it was all going to be ok, even though it was just sheer luck and my own perseverance that saved me, got me out of that terrible household, and my own work and cleverness to be able to get the career field I have now, and I’m very fortunate for that at the moment. That being said, once I was independent I sort of didn’t NEED a cosmological father figure anymore (God) and at that point I could suddenly see that since I didn’t NEED God anymore, I could actually start hearing arguments why god might not actually exist.
In the end I decided I was an agnostic, and then after watching many videos I can honestly say I’m an atheist. I do think the future is in atheism, simply because its extremely obvious that it’s true, but a strong emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that morals DO NOT come from religion because many people believe if you are an atheist you are somehow an evil person (despite the fact that some of the most horrible people I’ve ever known and got abused by were religious).
Indeed God most certainly does not exist and if he does, he doesn’t really give a fuck about his creation unfortunately. Thanks Aron Ra for both your comedy and intelligence in these videos, it’s pretty fun to watch as I look back thinking about my religious days. I used to follow Kent Hovind and I have read the King James Bible over 20 times and taught myself to read Middle English because of Kent Hovind. Because of this I am probably a weapon in an argument against religious people having already read the Bible and fully understood it for years and years. I went deep into different cult groups and interpretations on demons, the sabbath, eating kosher, history of the Bible, I even read the fucking Quran and spent like 3 months of my life reading the Hadith because I was preparing to argue with every single other person both religious and non religious.
I was so deathly afraid of atheism back in those days because deep down I knew either God was real or atheism was real. I just didn’t want atheism to be true, that’s why I fought for it so hard. Now that I have lived a little longer, I don’t really want to live forever. I understand how my brain works and how hormones so easily change my desires that I’m not really much more than a brain, much less a free thinking spirit.
If my seratonin levels get too low I’ll start craving dopamine activities like eating usually high fat high sugar foods like pizza and ice cream, if my prolactin levels get too high I start getting anxiety and depression and my entire world view becomes very sinister overnight. I’m a victim to my hormone profile and my own health lol. To believe I would want to live this way constantly balancing my hormones for the rest of my life doesn’t sound like a fun existence to me. Especially for all eternity practically doing the same thing worshipping God for simply creating me? Doesn’t sound that fun anymore, not sure what I was thinking.
Also a God that doesn’t allow me to enjoy any earthly pleasures but then boasts about heaven having golden streets and walls made from every rare gem in the book of Revelations doesn’t seem very logical to me. I don’t know but I am done with religion entirely I think.
Native, please provide an example of a convincing argument for atheism.
@@CCCBeaumont , the truth that god can not be evidenced or demonstrated. I don't find any argument or evidence by a theist that shows a god exists...in fact it's all nuttery. Prove your god exists first. You can't...and that says everything. Atheism is saying we don't believe your asinine claims.
The absolute lack of credible “argument” by anyone making a claim in a supernatural being , event or whatever.
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. We’re not making any claims at all. We’re not saying that there’s some god or gods out there that’s responsible for rain, fire, souls, afterlife, and so on. It’s entirely up to the believer to show real proof.
@@dukeblair7792 On all of the classical arguments for God, with the possible exception of the ontological, it is far more likely God exists than He does not. I am personally fully persuaded by (literally) dozens of them. They constitute a formidable cumulative case and, by definition, constitute evidence. Start with the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, then add the argument from contingency. When you have rebutted those successfully (you will be the first) come back and let’s talk some more.
@@CCCBeaumont , oh my Gawd...the failed Kalam Cosmological argument? Really? First off...the Kalam cosmological argument doesn't claim that a god caused anything. I was caused by my mom and dad having sex and I was born...as far as a gawd creating a Universe or causing a Universe...you can logically conclude it happened by natural means or by a Leprechaun or my toaster...because you know my toaster makes toast. That's a failed argument! Prove a gawd made the Universe instead of claiming that a God did...maybe it was Sheba? Biggly fail. I can argue that my soul created the Universe...my physical body couldn't...but my soul is all powerful and created this amazing Universe. By the way...I believe I know the power of my soul. Are you convinced? This is your argument. I am just not convinced that your particular god is a possibility. You still have the burden of proof and the Kalam Cosmological argument fails. Something you make up just doesn't convince me.
I am going to cause tomorrow...I will answer your other failed arguments tomorrow!
@@dukeblair7792 I'm sorry Duke, but you are wrong about practically everything you assert. The Kalam is only one form of the cosmological argument, and there are at least a dozen forms. Kalam succeeds. Kalam includes a conceptual analysis as presented, which ends with an immensely powerful, personal, intentional, immaterial cause, which are all attributes reasonably construed to be god-like. Since all matter, space, time, and energy are what is being accounted for it is wholly unwarranted and illogical to suggest that a leprechaun or your toaster are logical candidates, as they are (in one case) animated matter and (in the other) inanimate matter. If your soul was extant 14.3 billion years ago I am open to that, but then your "soul" would be God, which is impossible because you deny His existence and we can reasonably assume you do not deny your own. Further, you are not nearly knowledgeable enough for anyone to plausibly posit you are Him. I hope you will truly become open-minded and reasonable in your pursuit of truth and wish you god speed in that process.
When did everyone start acting like philosophy is just the art of pretending words don't mean anything?
a: "What color is the sky today?"
b: "Define "sky." And define "color." And is 'today' really today?"
That's not philosophy. That's inane sophistry spewed forth by religious and secular alike in order to seem somehow 'enlightened.' Furthermore, waxing poetic about 'the vapor of human understanding' or some such shit does not instantly shatter physics and render measurable facts incorrect. A milliliter of water still weighs a gram.
b: "Define "weigh.""
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Define every single term in your comment.
Define "define"
@@thefoxamongwolves9843 that's really funny lol
Sadly, this is what philosophy seems to be... ive argued with philosophers, theyre full of shit, just talking about definitions without any assertion. this video remided me of that:DD.. wearysome. But if youre rly into expanding your understanding of anything, of course you wouldnt waste your time with philosophy, so what to expect;)
"I raise you one. What is gamora"
"I'm a young earth creationist..."
Automatic L
Nah
@@devothebot3008 yeah :p
In other words: "I deny reality".
I'm a real young earth creationist---ten minutes.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 I always preferred Next Tuesdayism. That is, the world will be created in the future, complete with our memories of the fake past. Including the fake present.
Can't be disproven, logically equivalent to YECism, only drags the absurdity out in front.
math isn't verifiable? holy fuck nothing is off the table for denial
That part was actually true. Math isn't a thing in nature we discovered, it's a construct we created. But the part after that was just ugh. "math just works"??? lol
algi however.. math is a method we use to measure things numerically. Very honest proven practice.
LOL
clayton henrickson
Mathematics is a human construct. It is the best example of a system that is verifiably consistent, provided we agree with the rules.
Prior to zero, mathematics was limited in application. Zero opened up additional areas of utility. Then imaginary numbers were created to address the problem of calculations involving the square root of negative numbers.
Very useful, but none of this is materially true. (Mathematics is an area of thought that doesn't require a link to a physical construct to be valid.)
clayton henrickson I was screaming two sticks with two more sticks is four sticks, that's not made up and it's verifiable
This guy dodges more answers than Neo dodges bullets. I commend you for the amount of patience it must have taken to have a conversation with such a person.
Who Aron?
I re-watched this after 4 years, gave me a headache then, gives me a migraine now, the dodging from Mr Arm Folds is on another level.
When it comes to religion, when in doubt, deflect.
All the present energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed? But who created energy? If you say a force did it then where did it come from? Nothing? Or something? We gotta chose to have faith in nothing or something, but it makes more sense that something made everything. Because you can't get something from nothing. God testified that he made all things including time. Since he made time he is not bound to a beginning (something hard to comprehend because we exist in time) but that's why he told Moses "I AM", and he also said he is the "beginning and the end" because time can't exist outside of him.
(And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Colossians 1:17 NKJV)
I think heaven is going to be awesome man, there will be no more pain or sorrow, and we will live in peace and joy forever. We will have a infinite number of possibilities in experiencing creation, we have things like cellphones in this world just imagine what we can make in the next world!? I would want to make a space ship racing it against others in rugged terrain, if it gets totalled then we gotta Minecraft our way to building another one. Having adventures with others gathering supplies and seeing all the cool things God made.
Here's a video man if you want some strength in testament of the truth. Love you and God bless bro
th-cam.com/video/f9hoBPWscYQ/w-d-xo.html
@@specilegginally someone the comments defending the faith.
Aron. Don't waste your time talking to this guy ever again. He is not interested in your conversation whatsoever he wants to avoid the subject at all cost and give you instead a master class on philosophy
... This guy could not give a 'master class' on anything except *bullshit.*
Forgive me for being bored. I'm just so bored with these apologists hiding behind word play. That's literally their final bastion to hide their god. I'm just done listening to their mindless babble.
Aaron Parker but thats what atheists do as well, hide behind their words...
as someone who was a serious Catholic almost all my life, reading up on these people. Yes. basically the big picture
Explain?
That is oneofthegoodguys, please explain.
How do you define the word "bored"? How do you interpret the word "literally"? When you use the word "babble" are you referring higher or lower babble,..babble with and accent,.babble that is partially or fully not understood? You modified the word babble with the word mindless,..what form of mindlessness are you stating? Intentional or accidental mindlessness? When you ask forgiveness for your boredom are you being rhetorical or literal?
the fact that you were able to sit through this semantics malarkey for 48 minutes is respectable
He did demonstrate great patience. Now if you want to see another example of great patience, and "gentlemanly" behaviour, check Richard Dawkins discussion with a condescending witch. She couldn't even make a word salad with a bowl full of words. I never hit people, but she sure gave me the urge to put my fist through my screen. th-cam.com/video/AekFGksvuDU/w-d-xo.html
Dude: "Define 'evidently'"
Aron: *Procedes to try and do so. Gets interrupted.
Dude: "You never defined 'evidently'"
Aron: *Tries to do it again. gets interrupted.
Aron: *Is finally able to give a definition of evidence
Dude: "But there's no objective reality"
Man, what was Aron's prediction at the very beginning? If AR out-philosophies you... you need to reconsider your career
His definition of evidence is a fallacy of scientism, when you consider the way he thinks "objectively verifiable facts" must be scientifically verified. He's excluding the possibility anything could possibly be supported by any form of evidence beyond the limitations of the scientific method... even logical evidence, systemic evidence, etc.
@@lightbeforethetunnel if we can't that evidence, it's not evidence... so what do you propose that non scientific evidence could be?
@@HIsForHawk As i said, logical evidence, systemic evidence, etc.
@@HIsForHawk If you think science is the ONLY way to knowledge, that means you're unwittingly adhering to a self-refuting epistemology (which is absolutely devastating. It means, with your current worldview, you literally can't determine truth about anything properly)
Here's why Scientism is self-refuting, in one sentence:
The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF.
It does not meet it's own requirements of acceptability, so Scientism is self-refuting. All self-refuting claims are false by necessity.
I recommend researching philosophy, because philosophy specifically deals with determining truth about topics beyond what science can deal with. For topics beyond the limitations of the scientific method, we approach such questions COMPLETELY differently
We use logical evidence, systemic evidence, etc... within philosophy
For example, I just showed you how I used logic to determine the philosophy of Scientism is self-refuting, meaning it's definitely false. That is absolutely certain, since absolute truth exists within logic.
@@HIsForHawk Notice I didn't need to scientifically verify anything to demonstrate the philosophy of Scientism is self-refuting? I simply used logic to show it refutes itself logically. No need for scientific verification of physical evidence of any kind. Just logic.
This guy is infuriating. At least he's not the type to get angry and shout, but he just continues to talk and talk and talk not about anything tangible, but just about words. Definitions and words. It's maddening.
Renegade Vile
This is philosophy. Words and definitions are crucial if you expect to understand each other.
Renegade Vile yea, this is how philosophers debate. Frustration but fun cause you can weasel out of a lot of tough spots.
boggisthecat If he had trouble understanding, he could wait for Aron to finish speaking. He didn't want him to, he wanted to confuse the topic so much because he knows that the commonly understood words (language) would defeat him. He resorted not to philosophy but to defensive gymnastics.
"Words and definitions are crucial if you expect to understand each other." - They are also important if you simply want to win the argument. Philosophy isn't about winning an argument.
No, he does deserve more credit that that. He was clearly experienced when it comes to philosophical thinking and discussing than Aron was. He was patient and he was trying to explain things to Aron. I really like Aron in a lot of ways, but he can be very rigid and stubborn, and his confident way of speaking makes it difficult to explain to him why things aren't as simple as he thinks.
I really dislike the dismissal I see amongst some fellow atheists as being word games employed by religious people. I like philosophy, and I hate it when people make themselves and others look anti-intellectual by dismissing it. As The Messianic Manic said, the way to fight bad philosophy is with good philosophy.
Every time Aron closes a point the preacher changes his arguments and definitions.
Moreso seeks to find mutual terminology.
David Asproudis dudes full of shit.
@Nic B Sorry, Nic B, but it's very hard to come up with a clear definition of what constitutes a "fact". This has been the subject of excursions in epistemology for 2500 years. Do you really feel you've got the matter sussed at this point? You could become famous, if you do.
Reynolds was fully justified in making sure that he and Aron were "speaking the same language". I'm really surprised at all the blow-back in these comments on his concern over clarifying their usage of ambiguous terms such as these.
I have to say, epistemology is NOT Aron Ra's strongest suit, and I've had many concerns of my own on how he uses certain terms. It's not a simple matter at all. I'm fully on board that science provides the ONLY way from the perspective of naturalism.... but even this is far from ideal and far from perfect. Science is NEVER fully in possession of "the facts", nor are our facts fully reliable in many cases.
@@MendTheWorld Are you under some delusion that Aronra spit in the baby formula you had for breakfast this morning?
That Reynolds dude was all over the map. Aron and his friends tried reeling him back in several times during the conversation. No wonder Reynolds has such a poor reputation and is becoming less and less relevant even among christian circles.
@Benjamin Park amazing what blind men see ... Jesus also said he would not be mocked ... oh wait Aron just did ..' guess that's one of his supposed contradictions.
What a painful conversation to listen to.
Aaron’s patience is legendary.
It's "Aron" :-)
He really should be because he went onto their turf.
All the present energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed? But who created energy? If you say a force did it then where did it come from? Nothing? Or something? We gotta chose to have faith in nothing or something, but it makes more sense that something made everything. Because you can't get something from nothing. God testified that he made all things including time. Since he made time he is not bound to a beginning (something hard to comprehend because we exist in time) but that's why he told Moses "I AM", and he also said he is the "beginning and the end" because time can't exist outside of him.
(And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Colossians 1:17 NKJV)
I think heaven is going to be awesome man, there will be no more pain or sorrow, and we will live in peace and joy forever. We will have a infinite number of possibilities in experiencing creation, we have things like cellphones in this world just imagine what we can make in the next world!? I would want to make a space ship racing it against others in rugged terrain, if it gets totalled then we gotta Minecraft our way to building another one. Having adventures with others gathering supplies and seeing all the cool things God made.
Here's a video man if you want some strength in testament of the truth. Love you and God bless bro
th-cam.com/video/f9hoBPWscYQ/w-d-xo.html
Aron is legendary for being patient.
@@drooten I wish he could be less patient.
"Blah, blah, blah... look at me stringing a bunch of words together and saying absolutely nothing."
Yeah but how do you define the word “LoOk”?
Is that really the best you can do? Apparently you did not understand a word the professor said. He is discussing consciousness.
@@cincilitigator5108 I'm confident you didn't understand a word he said either. He's talking nonsense trying to sound smart to sucker in unintelligent people like you. Congrats, you fell for a charlatan's bullshit. God bless
@@fibbintiggins2858 I never thought atheist can be very judgemental. Imagine atheism is actually true. This is exactly what it offers to the world. Contempt and indifference.
@@FBI_most_wanted_Grape_dangler atheism offers nothing, not truth, not lies, all that being an atheist means is you dont believe in a god or gods, my neighbor believes in magic, yet hes still an atheist, however the majority of atheists either dont care what you believe, or seek out truth and rationalism, such as aron. what the man in this debate had to offer however, was a fresh word salad with no real filler to go with it
When you purposefully obfuscate a point with increasingly complex word junk, you are probably full of crap.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
Exactly, once the 8 minute mark was passed I was done with the nonsense
Exactly. This is what Jordan Peterson does, yet his cultists don't realize it.
It's actually depressing how smart he has to be to employ this convoluted thinking. Imagine if these people put that brain power toward furthering our world in a productive way. They've spent thousands of years musing over the mental masturbations of bronze age desert dwellers that objective reality shows are demonstrably wrong.
And you are correct.
The guy that looks like Satan is much more patient and articulate than the guy that claims to be a mouthpiece for the creator of everything.
Well first we have to define Satan and creator because well 'definitions' are complex and...well, we better agree on the definition of definition before we move ahead. Oh yeah, just a quick word about using Socratic dialouges.........
I didn't once hear anyone mention a "mouthpiece"
Which one looks like Satan?
@@aetherica7453 so what? You can still make that claim or (And I think this is fairer) you can imply it without having to say the word mouthpiece.
@@UUpianoman The "Bible"says that Satan, or Lucifer is the most beautiful of angels, so I say neither of them look like Satan.
That guy really like the sound of his own voice. Aron showed so much patience.
That's what I was thinking the entire time... he not only enjoy listening to his verbal farts but smelling them too!
Man, it is so hard to listen to these people talk. Period. Thank you for what you do, Aron.
How frustrating. You deserve an award, Aron.
Let's change definitions because I don't understand your words. I think this guy is talking in circles
Standard religious policy when you are losing an argument, but he starts on with changing the definitions at the beginning so that he never even has to address the obvious flaws in his arguments. This is a lesson for us all - the first time he did this, Aron should have got him to define everything himself, and then argued from the point of view of the other's definitions, and this would also mean that the discussion could have shown up flaws in Reynolds definitions which were many (which I infer from how he was inconsistently using "know", "believe" "true" etc) He is like jordan peterson on religion. This is what Harris called "playing tennis without the net"
I cannot begin to explain how envious I am of your level of patience with this clown, Aron. He's got pedantry down to an art form and it's beyond frustrating. I'd blow my brains out at the insane level of term redefining and goalpost shifting. I want to just listening to him right now.
Aron Ra is simply acting like an obstinate and ignorant child playing word games.
All the present energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed? But who created energy? If you say a force did it then where did it come from? Nothing? Or something? We gotta chose to have faith in nothing or something, but it makes more sense that something made everything. Because you can't get something from nothing. God testified that he made all things including time. Since he made time he is not bound to a beginning (something hard to comprehend because we exist in time) but that's why he told Moses "I AM", and he also said he is the "beginning and the end" because time can't exist outside of him.
(And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Colossians 1:17 NKJV)
I think heaven is going to be awesome man, there will be no more pain or sorrow, and we will live in peace and joy forever. We will have a infinite number of possibilities in experiencing creation, we have things like cellphones in this world just imagine what we can make in the next world!? I would want to make a space ship racing it against others in rugged terrain, if it gets totalled then we gotta Minecraft our way to building another one. Having adventures with others gathering supplies and seeing all the cool things God made.
Here's a video man if you want some strength in testament of the truth. Love you and God bless bro
th-cam.com/video/f9hoBPWscYQ/w-d-xo.html
@@specilegg .. you're not going to heaven - very presumptuous to think that.
Angels were created to live in heaven - not humans.
Isaiah 45:18
Read the bible properly.
Genesis 1:26
Psalm 115:16
Theist “What you’ve done here is open a dictionary and looked up the word animal and then went from there. What I do is I make up words and definitions on my own, so you can say a bird is an animal and I’ll just say that a dongular mongular is a fo fo fongular and you have to be wrong.”
Religious scholar says he's going to be 'very clear and precise'
in his language, then proceeds to do nothing but obfuscate.
Once again, religion reverses everything.
Cyrus Redgrave: I completely agree, Reynolds is as clear as a windshield full of mud!
I actually find the whole conversation (by and large) interesting and intelligent. I'd be interested if you gave an example of where the fundie is obfuscating. (I know it's not really fair to ask someone that 9 months later re: a 48-minute video.)
There are times when it might seem like it--e.g. when the fundie states that "one" does not exist in the empirical world, and therefore math doesn't produce verifiable facts, but, strictly speaking, this is a true statement. I'm not saying fundie is right and Aron is wrong here; I'm saying they're coming at certain points from different perspectives, and that's what makes the conversation so interesting.
Glorified Truth throughout the fundie wants to redefine such basic things as “fact”.
Pretty much, can you spot where he is NOT obfuscating?
@@GlorifiedTruth a "verifiable" fact is over that can be shown to correspond to reality (or at least our experience of it.) I believe Reynolds used "empirical" fact which is similar enough but still wrong since mathematics can easily be shown to map to reality; at least the basic arithmetic he is taking about. It's equivalent to saying "you don't know that object is 8 inches long - there's no way to show that an inch is an inch or that 8 inches combined is equal to 8 inches!" 🤦♂️
Sounded pretty clear to me, maybe you stopped listening because you didnt like his position.
Lemme get this straight, you're not sure reality exists, but you're sure God does! WTF
That would have made a hilarious argument. But Aron didn't ask it, he should have asked about heaven and hell, instead of truth and correctness.
if we're living inside of a computer simulation
then not only do we not exist, but only GOD exist
and we are just part of an A.I.s dream.
Heaven and Hell and miracles would just be expansion land and program features, like plugins or effects, in unreal engine, version 2021.
@@timespace8753 If we're in a simulation than we do exist as data.
To be fair, this is just Cartesian doubt with pure idealism rather than dualism. The real part to criticize is that we know that the mind is purely physical, we can demonstrate that it doesn't affect the physical world (eg, through psychokinesis or prayer) but is affected BY the physical world through medication or brain damage. This disproves the idealist position, if you understand it, because to them the physical world is an illusion of the mind like a dream.
I have a serious question. (because I have seen many people claim it)
Is philosophy science?
Logically and by definition it is not. But I would like if someone could tell me more information about it.
I'll never understand how Aron has the patience for these people
I love it when he says "Let me finish..." AronRa never made it through a complete sentence...
It was less stressful to be told I was going to Hell, than having my brains scrambled by this apologist.
When you can't defend your position, argue about definitions.
This is philosophy. Aron was expecting Kent Hovind but he got Bertrand Russell instead. AronRa gets owned here because he mistakes knowledge for religion. Sorry, Aron.
Do you eat your spaghetti with a splaytch or a froon? Seems like you would need to know wtf I'm even talking about to even try to answer. Philosophy is no different. It doesn't make any sense to say you've won an argument based off definitions the other side doesn't accept or acknowledge.
@Youra Beyta That's the only way!!!!
@Youra Beyta That's sounds on point. I've seen Aron in other debates and he is the post-modern poster child for deconstruction/revisionism Listening to his arguments is REALLY frustrating cuz he'll very subtlety get you to agree in one area and then prove himself right by making a similar, yet distinct point WAYYYYY out of context. It's cringe.
@Youra Beyta Yeah that's kind of his forté and he ain't ashamed to admit it.
39:50 About the steak in the corner: The giving or receiving of the treat isn't predicated on premature belief that the treat exists or is in a particular place. You can have no belief whatsoever that the treat is in the corner, and end up going to the corner for some other reason (e.g., that it's quieter over there, or you can hear better over there, or the light is better there), and still discover the treat and then enjoy it. Imagine the absurdity that would arise if I went around assuming that cookies were in every box, drawer, car, trash-can, suitcase, mailbox, and fire-hydrant, and focused my life on trying to become one with the cookies in the fire-hydrant: it would be a serious distraction from making the most of my life. The fact that most believers in religions that predicate posthumous reward on belief during life don't just rush toward death (suicide-bombers are an exception) shows how huge a lump of salt they use when they subscribe to the 'belief' that the reward _will_ be given to believers and will be given _only_ to believers.
How to always win arguments:
1. Speak a different language than your opponent.
2. Make sure neither of you can understand each other.
3. Be condescending. (NOT OPTIONAL)
4. Keep going until they give up.
5. Declare victory.
Or declare a different understanding of something lol
Or just actually know what you’re talking about.
Crap on the chessboard, knock the pieces over, declare victory
You know how someone can talk for hours and never actually say anything?...Nothing he says makes sense.
SuitMonkey B. Welcome to religion.
Yeah this is pure sophistry. Pseudo-philosophy.
So this is were Jordan Peterson got his word salad skills from. This is the garden of word salad.
And it needs a big spray of ROUND UP!😃
Also Gish and the Nazis to a lesser extent with the remarketing of the term cultural bolshevism as cultural marxism.
Truth!
The accusation of word salad is a weak one. Shows a lack of concern to actually interact with the arguments.
@@jonathanh954 don't be too quick to judge. you haven't defined what you mean by the term argument within the proper context. interact? ca you interact with a collection of words or do you mean a personal interaction? What proof do you have that either interaction would be legitimate.
Aron, your patience with this guy is astounding.
Such impressive restraint. Good job, Aron!
I think the other guy was plenty patient as well. He was more versed in philosophical thinking than Aron, and it wasn't easy trying to explain that stuff to Aron. Yes, I love Aron, his confident way of arguing is great for arguing scientific matters, but he's no fantastic philosopher.
Tobias Hagström I'll buy that.
Tobias Hagström Thanks for saying exactly what I was thinking. When this guy was trying to explain to the difference between a fact and definition, and Aaron kept not understanding, I couldn't stop cringing.
niapet I know, right?! I appreciate how Aron doesn't limit his videos to only his shining-est moments. He's clearly conditioned to debating with the Ray Comforts and Ken Hams out there; I don't think he knew what hit him here lol
niapet if a definition is not consistent with the facts it's false and meaningless if the definition is correct you'd be a fool a layer or both
I'm a Christian, but I found myself constantly wondering what the heck Dr. Reynolds was saying. Word salad after word salad.
Also, when he said it is not empirically verifiable that 2+2=4, I immediately went into my bookshelf, pulled out two books, then pulled out two more, and look! Four books. I just empirically verified it.
And when he said that he is a young earth creationist but not a fundamentalist, I laughed and laughed and laughed.
Becca Hawkins why do you believe in God?
Can you first define what you mean by "believe in God"? Are you asking why I think God (in terms of the mere concept of an ultimate divine Creator) exists, or are you asking why I believe specifically in the Christian God?
Becca Hawkins no answer?
I first believed because this is the story I was told.
I continue to believe because I want to believe that there is someone who is both powerful enough and who cares enough to change the hearts of so many people (including Christians) in this world to better recognize and love their neighbor as themselves. We all have a long way to go in that department.
How about you? What do you think?
the mental gymnastics Theists have to trudge through to prove god is laughable...and they always fail to stick the landing
Interesting bit of grammar there. What that sentence actually means is that theists are doing mental gymnastics to "...prove god is laughable...", as in 'god is worthy of being laughed at'. I understood you to mean the need for mental gymnastics is laughable, but the literal reading of your sentence is humorous :)
Thomas Gregory Actually, pretty sure it’s grammatically sound. They way you’re interpreting his sentence is makes his entire sentence a subject and nothing more, but the sentence actually says “(subject) is (descriptor).” In order for the sentence to say what you think he mistakenly said it would need “that” after “prove.”
Double check yourself next time before you wanna try and be cute about it.
James Cunningham I fully concur with you on that one ( fairytale bible believers are just full of shit ) and I’ll add this new slogan ... “Jesus shaves”
They still fail.
@@PyonBoy Thomas meant that you could interpret the sentence in two ways, not that the sentence wasn't grammatically sound
I love how he gives Aaron advice to study philosophy of language in order to win arguments without "winning it through confusion" (13:45). I agree people need to understand each other's terms/ definitions but philosophy isn't about defining, it's about QUESTIONING, often to to point of madness, which is exactly what he's doing here. Science gives more precise definitions, which is the basis of Aaron's standpoint. He cuts Aaron off way too much to begin to understand and constantly creates confusion by questioning the definition of each word - which is what he told Aaron to avoid doing! Winning through creating confusion! I just want to sarcastically say, "Can we agree on the word "the"‽ Or do we first have to agree on what "agree" means?" I love philosophy but taken to the extreme the conversation goes nowhere.
Maybe this is because there is nowhere to go?🤷🏼♂️
Aron: "Excuse me, I'm going to use the bathroom."
Apologist: Excuse me, but I don't accept your definition of "use" and "the" bathroom does not exist.
... Mathematicians have to work it out with a pencil :0)
I'm only 15 minutes in, and this is seriously the most needlessly tedious conversation I've ever witnessed.
Is it really necessary, Dr. Reynolds, to define practically EVERY term (including even the term, "term") as it pops up? Is this how you approach a discussion about ANY other topic? Give me a break.
@Bobby Allen You seem like the "self righteous" one.. Instead of making unhelpful claims make an argument and the reason Ra is defining every other word here is because the person he is debating is making him by asking him to define every other word lol.
@Bobby Allen i believe the context used when he asks is to correct any errors in there definition when they use a word in the wrong instance, not every other word before the sentence has even finished, and asking them to define every word in the given definition, bit of a difference if you ask me
That's apparently his tactics and tactics of some apologists -- argue until you start loosing, then start asking for definitions, in the end make it look like you just disagreed on definitions.
He was just trying to piss off Aron so he can say "see! I was being calm and very forward but he had to degenerate into anger and rage because he thinks he evolved from apes! Who are also crazy and fling shit when they're mad".
Change my mind ;)
He didn't define 'define' so I'm out 🤣
All i hear is "i am a philosopher and therefore i can redifine the world like i want and just ignore the common definitions and the facts of our reality."
"Would you like soup or beef for dinner dear?"
"Well, honey, that depends on the presumption that we can define something according to it's soup-ness or beefology so it will help if we can first agree on what the term dinner means within a common moral constructed universe."
"So it's alphabet soup again then?"
Peter Pumpypants then just turn around because u missed your fucking appointment.
Virgil Blue by now the alphabet soup has gone cold...but we can have a word salad!
Virgil Blue hahaha too funny!! Listening to this moron makes me want to jump off a bridge. Aron Ra must’ve been fuming inside. I hate the fact that he can’t have a normal conversation because he thinks he’s the reincarnation of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. While eating his alphabet soup 🍲 his wife is afraid to ask him if it’s too hot or to ask him how it taste because he will babble away about what she means by hot or taste!!! Hopefully she’s deaf so she doesn’t have to listen to his ignorant ass spewing his philosophical terminology bullshit during sex time.
daniel medina I think he would have to spend 2 or 3 hours defining what sex is, first. That said - please no... 😓
This guy loves the sound of his own voice.
The fact that christianity requires apologists alone should be enough to convince you that it is dishonest. If you have to resort to ad hoc explanation for your belief systems then they are not strong enough to be taken seriously.
mazingdaddid “The Bible is the word of God. God didn’t make the Bible simple and evidently non-contradictory so Now here’s a hundred people who have their PHD in nonsense so that they can manipulate definitions to pretend their belief is justified.”
Spending time studying theology to prove that God exists is the most perfect way for someone to waste absolutely all of their life and make no impact on society.
Andrew Ruble I agree whole heartedly.
Jebus Hypocristos meanwhile toting selflessness and humility.
Not really. All political positions have apologists too. Even science educators could be described as apologists for their topic. Being an apologist does not make what you are an apologist for automatically untrue.
Robert Payne so what we have here is a failure to communicate. A battle of definitions, if you will. I am assuming, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are using this definition.
reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine. (Theory here being used in the colloquial form meaning hunch or guess)
Where as, my definition of apologetics is slightly different. My definition is something more like this.
Ad hoc excused devised to support unfounded beliefs and/or doctrines, usually religious.
One thing I can say is that your are waaaayyy off about science being any form of apologetics. Science needs no arguments or justifications. Science only needs evidence to support itself.
"You use language in such a vague way" That's rich coming from a guy that has just vomited bs for 5 minutes.
dam this guy would say the definition of THE is wrong.
to muddy up the picture and blow a lot of fog into the room he works hard to "distract" every one with his total lack of knowledge......
Every time I hear a theist talk, I can never understand what they are saying, but when Aron talks, it makes sense. I thought I was losing my mind, but then I remember its just big words used with no meaning. Thanks Aron for helping me understand word soup!
He's constantly challenging Aron's definition of evidence. But at 34:07 he almost uses this definition himself. But then quickly changes his words.
Good job Aron 👍.
I've noticed that being done in comment sections. I make a point about a belief, but the only "arguments" I get are questions about what I mean by certain words, while my obvious point is completely ignored.
Recently I made a point about many Protestants believing Anne Frank is in Hell because she never accepted Jesus, while many Catholics may believe she could have been saved.
Not once did my assertion that such a belief was in contrast to a loving God, instead my sentences were picked apart or I was questioned why I would consider 14 year old Anne Frank burning in Hell since 1945 cruel.
I finally gave up and agreed that based on God's track record in the Bible, eternally torturing 14 year old girls falls in line with his MO.
@@emptyhand777 I can prove my god, the flying spaghetti monster exists, the evidence is all around you.
Do you think everything just came from nothing? No, so that means my god exists.
Checkmate atheists.
So the man talking with AronRa says his ancestor was taught bad information, and continued through her life believing it fact. So why does this man not see his own error, he was taught bad information, and he continues to believe it as fact.
Easy, he is a christard
Because he thinks he's being clever by not only saying the atheists could be wrong but it also makes his position even more vague so that he can agree or disagree to anything he wants as long as it sounds good, because as long as your own definition of your own beliefs is so twisted and backwards no one can make you sound wrong
Theist used max level Wordsalad on AronRa.
It was not very effective...
Angry Theist wants to battle...
Omnimax salad
How he can manage to be this chill while the bullshit machine twists himself in knots trying to cloud the conversation is amazing to me
Not even 10 minutes in and my eyes are already glazing over. As much as I like philosophy, I wish theists would stop (mis)using it as a smokescreen whenever their beliefs are being challenged.
That's really all they've got now!
Dude, I glazed over at 2. It was just so obviously the myth guy wasn't going to be anything but disingenuous.
He seems to have missed that philosophy can be based on misinformation or outright dishonesty and can be colored as much by how one feels as by what one knows.
“Define it” but “your definition is no good”
“That’s a definition, not a fact” but when asked to define a fact he says, “let me ask you a question...” and never answers. And doesn’t realize he’s actually saying a “fact” is just another thing that’s been define as X.
Dr Reynolds is trying to be humble, but he is super condescending and slimy; slipping out of actually answering questions.
But he gets points for me for using the word “indubitable” - so that’s something.
He speaks like the sort of lawyer who gets murderers and rapists off and thinks they are doing a great job.
Spot on Andy
Yea, if nothing can ever be proved a “fact” and nothing be proven to be “false,” then anything goes. ANY assertion of knowledge has to taken at face value
I think that faux humility is rather rehearsed.
His tone the entire time: “I know, these are the same arguments used by everyone, and I know I can’t make any reasonable arguments to counter, but I’m just going to say your wrong because I want to be right even though I know I can’t know I’m right until I’m given sufficient evidence, but if I sound smart no one will realize I’m lying to myself so all my time and money at seminary isn’t wasted”
Yes Perfect
This guy seems to just want to talk a 'word salad' to not actually say anything or to avoid answering a question.
And tries to claim that he is "speaking clearly", at the same time denying facts as facts.
Lester Amod That always makes me wanna.... Poo Poo
Evan Murphy common tactics in religion. He seems like a smart guy. Too bad he is an idiot.
He's in the wrong place: he should become a politician!!
Well, first you have to define 'word salad', is it like a literal salad or words, because some people might disagree on that. Second, God is real, and he loves you and he is a man. Get over it. Now let's talk about definitions instead of proving my claims, because what even is a 'word salad', how do you make a salad with words?
i know this was six years ago, Aron, but how do you tolerate the nonsense as long as you do? It's actually incredibly impressive.
That's not philosophy, it's obscurantism, dishonesty, and denial.
Real philosophy is about distilling ideas and getting at their roots, not redefining your way out of answering a difficult question.
Spot on. That's exactly how I feel about his tactics. I think those are exactly his intentions too, since he knows his position cannot be defended any other way.
yes, well put. I can't abide these semantic wrigglers. Who exactly is creating confusion in the listeners? Undisprovable arguments prove nothing.
Yes, very nicely articulated. Reynolds is all about confusing his audience and acting as though they don’t understand what brilliant thing he is trying to articulate. Of course he’s the party guilty of using language in a sloppy manner, and he’s not stating his positions clearly.
It's like an extreme version of denying reality. Not directly denying it but saying "we can't empirically prove 2+2=4" like yes there is no direct relationship between the abstract concept of the numbers and the physical objects that we count but that doesn't disprove it.
if i define “eagle” as a large, ocean dwelling, plankton eating mammal with flippers, then it is a fact that eagles cannot fly. i love being a theist.
What? He’s literally saying the opposite, that a definition isn’t the same as the fact just because someone happened to attach certain values to the definition that also apply to the fact. It’s kind of a stupid argument anyway but that’s how I understood it 🤣
@@agustinvega8969 who knows, i watched this 11 months ago and i don’t remember what it was about?! 😂
@@goalski134 Yeah cuz you don't wanna see how you got proven wrong.
@@GiantBluebird i get proven wrong all the time. 😂
This is exactly what the whole trans debate boils down to.
tap dancing is defined tap dancing, word salad Reynolds would, I'm sure, need more definitions. It has been said " it is difficult to win an argument with an intelligent person, but, impossible with an ignorant one".
It’s virtually impossible for these guys to tell us anything we haven’t heard many times before
@@specilegg “we gotta choose to have faith in nothing or something”. Actually we don’t have to use faith at all. All religions justify their belief by faith. Some of them are diametrically opposed to one another because faith is not a reliable means to truth. In fact there isn’t anything that cannot be justified by faith. Where there is evidence faith is not needed. Where there isn’t evidence belief isn’t warranted.
Aron Ra is the modern day Bertrand Russell, who definitely had the gift of debating the existence of God. Lord Russell would have had a field day with Reynolds.
This scholar is exhausting with his facile word silly putty - conversing with him = waste of time
"The word 'fact' means different things to different people and that's a FACT!"
Seriously though what kind of word salad bullshit was that?
Christian faith heads believe in ALTERNATIVE FACTS
I believe I have an answer to your question.....it was the finest word salad bullshit ever produced!
I love Aron’s perpetual “I’m not impressed” face 😂
It's all been said before.
Yes that smugness will win many over to his side. Statements like yours show that the the argument matters not but the feeling of being better than someone else is the main objective. That's not good.
Praise be to AronRa! Demigod of patience!
Seriously, mere mortals would have rage quit.
Michael Canfielt He doesn't usually stay so calm.
I remember he said he was working on being more polite. he did a great job, because I don't think I could have for that long.
I think the other guy was plenty patient as well. He was more versed in philosophical thinking than Aron, and it wasn't easy trying to explain that stuff to Aron. Yes, I love Aron, his confident way of arguing is great for arguing scientific matters, but he's no fantastic philosopher.
You're giving the other guy more credit than he deserves. Just doing semantic word games isn't impressive. They can't talk on terms of reality, so they gotta go into a bunch of pointless nonsense to avoid it. When you have to say 2 + 2 = 4 is in question, you're finished and I wouldn't even talk to you anymore.
Well, actually 2 + 2 = 5 (for large values of 2).
tl;tw: AronRa: "Here's a well thought out and reasonable argument." Other guy: "I don't agree with definitions."
AaronRa: Gives clear and concise definition.
Reynolds: Scoffs and acts like memorizing something makes it untrue, then goes on tangent about the nature of definitions only to admit that they agree on Aaron's definition after all.
This video is good.I CONVERT 4 CHRISTIANS INTO ATHIEST AFTER LEASING THIS GUY.
AronRa: This is reality.
Other guy: But I have logical fallacies I can sound impressive spouting back
@Bobby Allen Uh, no he didn't.
Try again.
@Bobby Allen May I get a timestamp? Granted no one is perfect and it is quite possible for someone to slip up in a debate. Just wondering where I missed it here.
To believe there is no God, makes that as religious as any other. To know there is no God means you would have to have infinite knowledge, essentially a god yourself. What is logical in your assertion that there is no god?
@Bobby Allen I agree 100%. We live in a world that everyone seems to think that their personal opinion and definitions of morality are absolute and can not be contested. Its sickening and sad.
@@stephentucker2714 "To know there is no God means you would have to have infinite knowledge, "
false.
It only requires a basic understanding of physics.
Good grief that Dr. Reynold loves to parse words, meanings, and definitions. Much respect to AronRa for keeping his calm all throughout!
All Anthony does is "defend" his position by hiding behind arguing about definitions.
All Anthony hid behind was AronRa, and he wasn't saying a single word :)
there’s nothing like a theologian who thinks confusion is the key to victory.
.. if you're confused you need to get educated.
@@Chris_Sheridan
Lol ok there champ.
@@Chris_Sheridanhe's trying, doesn't mean he succeeded. Nobody's gonna get confused by some guy being obtuse on purpose. Frustrated? Sure. Confused? Nah.
When you have to work THAT HARD to convince yourself there's a god so you can justify your belief in fiction, it's probably a good time to apply Occam's razor.
That was genius lol
sledderal1016 exactly
sledderal1016 crazy huh this god stuff
"God is regular." I'm relieved to know he doesn't have bowel trouble.
It’s from all the Manna bread. 😄
That makes sense because his book is a steady flow of shit.
I still believe that should god exist, he is full of shit. And if he is "regular" he doesnt have a sphincter as the shit comes pouring out his mouth.
@@patrickaycock3655 but wait wouldn’t that defeat the claim we’re made in his image😮😮
how can he not at full of it
Theist guy talks for *48 minutes* & actually says.... *N O T H I N G!*
This is a new one, Philosophical gaslighting.
Great discussion. Well done
"Being wrong is okay! Hurray for being wrong!!!"
Then how come I will supposedly burn in hell forever for being wrong even though I honestly believe God does not exist? So much for that bullshit.
Same thing with that intellectually dishonest reward tangent he launched into. What he failed to mention in his steak-in-the-corner analogy, is that if you don't go eat that steak, you will have a bucket of gasoline dumped on your head and lit on fire. Or, if you do go for the steak and arrive to find out that it is actually fish tacos, you get a bucket of gasoline dumped on your head and lit on fire. So I guess if your a vegan and eat neither steak nor fish, you get the gasoline treatment. I'm not denigrating vegans/veganism, just sticking with the food analogy.
Because you know He does exist(Romans 1:18-20). Thus a denial of God(Father,Jesus,Holy Spirit) is a denial of reality. Please consider the gospel:
Jesus Christ died on a cross to save people from their sin, according to the bible. You and I broke God's law but Jesus paid our fine. Then Jesus rose from the dead, 3 days later, thus defeating death. Anyone who believes this will not perish but will have eternal life.
@@micahhenley589 So god sacrificed god to save gods creation from gods laws?
Yeah that's not bullshit reasoning or anything...
@@TheFunGun5 Well it's the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Salvation is found in Jesus alone.
@@micahhenley589 Do you have any proof of that claim?
"You're using science words, not philosophical words." This guy is terrible.
😂😂😂😂😂
To be fair, its as if to compare an x-axis to a zed-axis, in which he acknowledges. Mutual human understanding can be quite ambiguous on a fundamental level.
@@aetherica7453 I had the false impression that Aron Ra's followers were a bit stronger in their critical thinking skills. But this Comments section says otherwise. It's not much more profound than: Atheism, Rah! Theism, Boo!
I'm a non-theist, but pretty embarrassed by what I've seen and read here.
@@aetherica7453 🤣🤣🤣🤣
He is a philosopher, so very good at arguing and often entirely correct but in a way which is almost entirely not useful.
Aaron is not dealing very well with him as I don't think he has a lot of practice with this kind of argument.
Aronra has more patience than me.
This is the. Apologetics’s new style just ramble on and on and on.
27:50 "Scholarship would be impossible if that were true [(that people shouldn't state as fact something that they don't have evidence for)]. In scholarship, all the time, I do the best I can, I look at the world, I look at the text, I look at my experience, I make the best judgment I can, I assert that as far as I can tell something is true". What he seems not to get is that _that_ is relying on what he considers to be _evidence._ His use of the world, the text, and experience, to inform the assertion, is use of a kind of evidence: i.e., he doesn't assert that something is true until he finds that truth in what he thinks is evidence that leads to that assertion.
The fault, then, comes in the processing of that evidence to reach a conclusion. There is interpersonal and intrapersonal variation in the quality of this processing. If it happened to be that, while you were out driving, someone crashed his car into your car while a certain song was playing on your car radio, you probably wouldn't think that the song was a cause, or even a predictor, of car-crashes. On the other hand, you may summon a shaman to wave an eagle's feather over your sick loved one while she lies in bed, and to say magic words over her, and you then may notice that she afterward recovers from her illness, and you may conclude (probably erroneously) that the feather-waving and magic words caused her recovery. This is where the value of Aron Ra's assertion (in many of his videos) about evidence as something that (A) is true and (B) indicates what you say it indicates comes in: people often notice things that are true (e.g., that the feather-waving was performed and that the loved one did recover), but fail to make a proper assessment of whether the things that are true indicate what they may seem to indicate (e.g., that feather-waving over the body of a sick person causes the person to recover).
I love your patience AronRa...
You know shit hit the wall when there is more comments then likes and dislikes combined.
Now that's a fact!
Interesting observation! LOL
another theist who can say 10,000 words and say nothing at all...
you've had a 40 minute discussion, don't end it by saying that you have evidence,
if you had evidence you'd present it, you have nothing but wordplay and filler.
Bingo!
Evidence of Noah's ark samson's magical hair, talking snakes, virgin birth, jonahs whale, water into wine, stoning homosexuals?
In his defense he did make more reasonable arguments than most theists. At the end of the day none came close to proving a God exists but he at least came across as fairly intelligent and didn't resort to the bottom of the barrel arguments most theists do. He was also an even tempered individual that never came across as overtly condescending which is a step for most of these guys.
32:31 "I said there are rules that apply to me that don't apply to-just call 'em 'believers'."
I agree with this to an extent. My earlier self is an example. Sixteen years ago, I wrote to someone "I also choose to believe in a nifty meeting-up place for after death-because life is a hell of a lot less scary and much more fun and meaningful to me if I believe in such a place." I wrote "choose to believe", and the stated cause of my belief was not evidence but fear. Having aged since then, I would not make that statement, and I have several things to say against it-but, even back then, I was ready to acknowledge that my 'chosen' belief came not from evidence but from other causes.
The critique that my current self makes of my earlier self's statement is (1) I now think there are other causes that tend to result, in many people, in belief in an afterlife (I may list these causes in a reply to this comment later); (2) I don't think this belief is _chosen_ (any more than I _choose_ to believe that the sky is blue or a paranoid schizophrenic _chooses_ to believe that everyone is out to get him); (3) I think that, although belief in an afterlife may have served me well in some ways, it probably also served me badly in other ways (e.g., it may have made me complacent, made me postpone bothering to pursue certain goals because I figured they would be fulfilled, automatically and magically, after I died; I also think it possible that belief in reincarnation causes similar complacency in some people ('I needn't bother with it now; I can do it in my next life')); (4) I would have been smarter to write that belief in an afterlife made _death_ (not life) less scary; and (5) I think it was sloppy (perhaps even meaningless) of me to write that belief in an afterlife made life much more meaningful to me (my guesses about what I meant back then are very tenuous).