If you can please consider supporting the channel Paypal: www.paypal.me/TomJump Patreon: www.pateron.com/TJump Church of the BPW: churchofthebestpossibleworld.org Start your own church today!
Always remember: There is an invisible man with super powers ruling over the earth from his heavenly kingdom in the clouds. The invisible man is impeccable in every way but he needs a constant supply of praise, love and money from you.
Josh thinks that when he isn't looking at the moon it doesn't exist. Well, that kind of says it all about his Harry krishna mumbo jumbo. What a load of crap he comes out with.
Yeah, when I heard that, I thought, what a waste of everyone's time. His knowledge of material reality is far smaller than his materiel perception of his knowledge.
Atheism is not believing the myths, stories, and legends of theists. The existence of gods is moot without a testable description of what a " god " is.
Exactly. That's why I always demand a clear, coherent and consistent description of the god-thing so that we even know what we're talking about. Those three attributes are never fulfilled in any description if they try at all.
It's very convenient for Josh that he can say anyone who doesn't successfully believe just didn't do it right. Unfortunately that also means he's "reasoned" himself out of having a falsifiable premise, which I think is a bit of a requirement. It's been a long time since I studied introduction level logic, but I'm thinking "no true Scotsman", a "just so" argument, and in general it lacks falsifiability. If I'm using these terms incorrectly I welcome anyone to correct me.
My deist wife died and left me to raise our two children. I claim that as proof there is no god, because if there was it would have taken me and left her to raise our two kids to be believers. They are not. There is no god other than in the fancies of self deluded mankind.
josh is a really nice bloke, but he has the worst arguments for the things he believes and bases his life on. as the man said "man's gotta know his limitations". shouldn't be debating this at all.
7:39 ascending (Aroha-panthA) is not deductive, it's inductive. avarohA-panthA, or the descending epistemological path, is the deductive one. It would descend from logical necessity. The former is ascending through the inconclusive, evolving, process of trial and error. I would debate in 2 on 2 alongside Tom vs. arjuna dAsa and Josh Wulf (why not use your dikSa-nAma?) on the validity of veda-apaursheyatvA, daSa-mula "tattva", nava-prameya, ityAdi. Hmu
18:05 Despite any potential claims to hermeneutic disinterest, the word (shabda-brahma) is proclaimed by honest (respectable) panditas as being non-distinct from brahma. To deny interest in vicAra, misrepresents the philosophical heritage of the Astika-sampradAya. You are interested. Why lie about that?
1:15:08 Finally, same page. First, he said there's no amount of time you can fix to falsify the claim. (বহু জন্ম করে যদি শ্রবণ, কীর্তন । তবু ত’ না পায় কৃষ্ণপদে প্রেমধন bahu janma kare yadi śravaṇa, kīrtana tabu ta’ nā pāya kṛṣṇa-pade prema-dhana) This verse says you can go on hearing and chanting for many births, but not get love of Krishna. Then he said, 2 years. In the '70's they'd often say try for 6 months. Guess it takes longer now. Weird winding path to get to this point of admitting that yes, that would be evidence it is fake. Tom has moved the needle.
1:19:19 2005, I prayed, "Dear Lord, if You exist, please help every living entity, so I can stop worrying about them." 3 days later I met a devotee on my college campus who told me God is suhridam sarva bhutanam (BG 5.29) so on that basis I joined, and didn't stop the "process" until 2017. No helpful change. Resumed my pre-2006 trajectory. So, no, claiming mysticism doesn't at all inoculate a human being from confirmation bias.
You're misusing the term "atheism." You said yourself, it means "without a god belief," so it simply means someone who hasn't accepted any positive claim that any number of gods exist. The positive claim "no gods exist" is separate from atheism.
@@queuecee Theism is a positive belief that some number of gods exist. Atheism is lacking that belief. Theists don't like this, so they try to redefine the word into a positive claim. To try to clear that up, many atheists have conceded to using the "hard" and "soft" modifiers. That doesn't change what I said.
@@KinKnives No. Agnosticism/Gnosticism has nothing to do with whether you believe in a god or not. Agnosticism/Gnosticism is a question of knowledge not beliefs. If you believe in a god you are a theist and if you don’t believe in a god you are an atheist. This is really simple as that. That’s a true dichotomy.
Or you can put it in that way : if you accept that P is true ( that a god exists ) you are a theist and if you don’t accept that P is true, you are an atheist.
Got any evidence for Yahweh? I can accept that a Jesus or Jeshua existed at that time without much evidence, but for any god I would need extraordinary evidence.
Josh Brainwashed himself into believing.
Josh: _"But, but, but... you have to fake it until you can convince yourself that it's true!!!"_
yeah but but it's fun to fake it.. it's fun to play pretend..
Always remember:
There is an invisible man with super powers ruling over the earth from his heavenly kingdom in the clouds.
The invisible man is impeccable in every way but he needs a constant supply of praise, love and money from you.
Josh thinks that when he isn't looking at the moon it doesn't exist. Well, that kind of says it all about his Harry krishna mumbo jumbo. What a load of crap he comes out with.
Yeah, when I heard that, I thought, what a waste of everyone's time. His knowledge of material reality is far smaller than his materiel perception of his knowledge.
Atheism is not believing the myths, stories, and legends of theists. The existence of gods is moot without a testable description of what a " god " is.
Exactly. That's why I always demand a clear, coherent and consistent description of the god-thing so that we even know what we're talking about.
Those three attributes are never fulfilled in any description if they try at all.
@@PhysiKarlz At least with Russell's tea pot, we have a description of what we are looking for.
Everyone has a six pack, you just can’t see it.
Bam! Proof of god!!!
religion, the oldest grift
And STILL!!!!! No evidence for a ‘God’ 😂
Can't you say anything else 😉
@@VeggiesOutFront He thinks he is being funny. Every single time....
I feel you both may be encouraging him.
@@jkaile5677 I am in fact encouraging him
@@PhysiKarlz this is the one comment I look for in every video
It's very convenient for Josh that he can say anyone who doesn't successfully believe just didn't do it right. Unfortunately that also means he's "reasoned" himself out of having a falsifiable premise, which I think is a bit of a requirement. It's been a long time since I studied introduction level logic, but I'm thinking "no true Scotsman", a "just so" argument, and in general it lacks falsifiability. If I'm using these terms incorrectly I welcome anyone to correct me.
This guy is cooked.
My deist wife died and left me to raise our two children. I claim that as proof there is no god, because if there was it would have taken me and left her to raise our two kids to be believers. They are not. There is no god other than in the fancies of self deluded mankind.
These religious types have almost mappable blind spots that short out any acceptance of logical facts. Stunted by dogma.
josh is a really nice bloke, but he has the worst arguments for the things he believes and bases his life on. as the man said "man's gotta know his limitations". shouldn't be debating this at all.
Lol he freaked out and got weed paranoid, then calmed himself down and attributed it to god
josh is just so uneducated and not smart
Hare Krishna followers are certainly out there. Using the bagavad gita as a factual book is amazing to me
I'm sorry what country is South America?
Josh brought absolutly nothing to this debate.
Hairy Krish? Nah.
you could piss in a cup and call it jesus-juice or harry chrisnha juice in his case , he would still get a Boost from it
TJump meets the personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect, Josh Wulf.
7:39 ascending (Aroha-panthA) is not deductive, it's inductive. avarohA-panthA, or the descending epistemological path, is the deductive one. It would descend from logical necessity. The former is ascending through the inconclusive, evolving, process of trial and error. I would debate in 2 on 2 alongside Tom vs. arjuna dAsa and Josh Wulf (why not use your dikSa-nAma?) on the validity of veda-apaursheyatvA, daSa-mula "tattva", nava-prameya, ityAdi. Hmu
18:05 Despite any potential claims to hermeneutic disinterest, the word (shabda-brahma) is proclaimed by honest (respectable) panditas as being non-distinct from brahma. To deny interest in vicAra, misrepresents the philosophical heritage of the Astika-sampradAya. You are interested. Why lie about that?
22:31 Here.
1:01:43 after 12 years, nothing. Also no money back
1:15:08 Finally, same page. First, he said there's no amount of time you can fix to falsify the claim.
(বহু জন্ম করে যদি শ্রবণ, কীর্তন ।
তবু ত’ না পায় কৃষ্ণপদে প্রেমধন
bahu janma kare yadi śravaṇa, kīrtana
tabu ta’ nā pāya kṛṣṇa-pade prema-dhana)
This verse says you can go on hearing and chanting for many births, but not get love of Krishna.
Then he said, 2 years. In the '70's they'd often say try for 6 months. Guess it takes longer now. Weird winding path to get to this point of admitting that yes, that would be evidence it is fake. Tom has moved the needle.
1:19:19 2005, I prayed, "Dear Lord, if You exist, please help every living entity, so I can stop worrying about them." 3 days later I met a devotee on my college campus who told me God is suhridam sarva bhutanam (BG 5.29) so on that basis I joined, and didn't stop the "process" until 2017. No helpful change. Resumed my pre-2006 trajectory. So, no, claiming mysticism doesn't at all inoculate a human being from confirmation bias.
All theists are the same
You're misusing the term "atheism." You said yourself, it means "without a god belief," so it simply means someone who hasn't accepted any positive claim that any number of gods exist. The positive claim "no gods exist" is separate from atheism.
There's soft and hard atheism. Soft atheism is, "I don't believe a god exists." Hard atheism is, "I believe no god exists."
There is a difference between agnostic and atheists and levels in-between
@@queuecee Theism is a positive belief that some number of gods exist. Atheism is lacking that belief. Theists don't like this, so they try to redefine the word into a positive claim. To try to clear that up, many atheists have conceded to using the "hard" and "soft" modifiers. That doesn't change what I said.
@@KinKnives No. Agnosticism/Gnosticism has nothing to do with whether you believe in a god or not. Agnosticism/Gnosticism is a question of knowledge not beliefs. If you believe in a god you are a theist and if you don’t believe in a god you are an atheist. This is really simple as that. That’s a true dichotomy.
Or you can put it in that way : if you accept that P is true ( that a god exists ) you are a theist and if you don’t accept that P is true, you are an atheist.
Mnamnmanmanms
Jesus and his father in heaven, Yahweh, are both Jewish.
well, if they were human. and existed.
Got any evidence for Yahweh? I can accept that a Jesus or Jeshua existed at that time without much evidence, but for any god I would need extraordinary evidence.
Troll
nice of you to warn us.