Wow, before this, I've never seen Michael Shermer get annoyed at anyone. About half-way through, I detected some annoyance in Shermers voice. I think it was JMR's constant lecturing Shermer on what Shermer thinks, only to have Shermer come behind him and clean-up the mess JMR just made.
chansetwo ...I think there’s a debate he did with frank turek ..MS kinda came unglued at one point lol. don’t get me wrong I’m a fan of his but just goes to show anyone can get emotional.
John Mark Reynolds has a very peculiar habit of pointing out legitimate philosophical issues-uncertain epistemology on Shermer’s part, say-and, after lining up a row of valid philosophical points, proceed to make a bald theological assertion as though it followed, even though there is no connection back to his valid points. I cannot help but suspect a certain degree of dishonesty, trying to smuggle unsupported points in by hiding them in the crowd of valid ones.
Petter Häggholm I think that, for brevity sake, he makes jumps which he assumes everyone will follow. not everyone does and it can feel like he hasn't really thought it through. he usually has. that's his job after all.
Xeno's paradox is proved false mathematically quite simply as it is a geometric diminishing of velocity. The hare's velocity does not diminish at all. Tom Stoppard has one of the best lines in one of his plays to cut to the heart of this argument. It goes something like "Using Xeno's paradox the arrows shot at Saint Sebastian never reached him, thus proving that he died of fright".
Alexander Korbin I think he would say that it was the deficient theism of laymen that caused witch hunts. this it evident in the fact that the high clergy definitely tryed to correct the problem. educated theists weren't witch hunters.
Alexander Korbin He also “corrected” Shermer stating that the trials were not at the height of Christianity in the Middle Ages right after Shermer said they were due to the need to “prove” Christianity by proving there were demons, etc. He either intentionally or due to misunderstanding corrected something Shermer never said.
In response he says something weird: _"If I wanna study mathematical logic, do I go to philosophy class or math class'_ (or words like that). Why on earth would you go to philosophy class if you wanna study math?
Jmr contradicts himself many times. He says he believes things based on the best evidence and cohesion and yet in another breath he said he believes things he wishes were true. All the best evidence and cohesive arguments don't point to a God. No man has ever come back from the dead. jmr believes Jesus did this because of an original premise that Jesus was God incarnate, but what evidence or cohesive reasons does he have to believe that?. Without the original, unreasonable premises the whole argument falls. He would be more consistent if he was a deist but he obviously thinks it is reasonable and rational as a Christian to claim he knows the mind of God through a bronze age book. A deist would say there is a creator because of consciousness and a fine tuning of the universe. Jmr claims he knows the mind and intentions of that very creator. That is not evidence based and contradicts most of what he said
Levi Dodge because people like Shermer, Krauss, Ra, have predetermined scripts and expect certain answers. When they don’t happen they fumble to change direction and redirect their arguments.
1:04 - what does he mean by materialism? He keeps using this term as a catch-all. And when he claims 18th century materialism (science?) negated 17th century, 19th negated 18th, 20th negated by 21st - - what the hell is he talking about? Yes, eventually science can change a whole paradigm of thought, but more often it simply refines it. The classic example of course being Newtonian to Einstein to Quantum physics. Quantum physics doesn't 'negate' Newtonian physics, it just places it into a much (much) broader landscape, if you will.
Shermer says that he doesn't do philosophy, but he debates philosophical and theological topics. In other debates, I've heard him ask, "If everything has a cause, what caused God?" What's wrong with that question? First, the first-cause argument he's alluding to never says that everything has a cause. Second, a purpose of the question seems to be to launch a vicious infinite regress when first-cause arguments imply that the first cause prevents a vicious infinite regress.
"...we believe Zues lives on Mt. Olympus, we go to Mt. Olympus, we see he isn't there..." says the Christian who believes in heaven and hell. He hasn't established his god, yet he's arguing as though god exists, and then saying faith isn't the belief in something without evidence. Circular, slippery reasoning.
Just because witch hunts happened during the Enlightenment doesn't mean anything. Theologians who were burning witches were not among the enlightened, clearly.
Whether or not I agree with his interpretations... JMR is incredibly intelligent and has a deeply consistent worldview. Fascinating discussion and excellent presentations by JMR and Mr. Shermer. Thank you for posting.
Can you guess why the emphasis on witch hunting dates? The fact is that witch hunting has been around in some form or another since the dawn of history. Christianity begat Science?? Sounds like another virgin birth story. Science predates Christianity. Shout out to Anthony Magnabosco (tinyurl.com/PL-AM-SE-TOP10) who at 1:51:55 asked a great question that was totally avoided.
"I agree with you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well, given who Jesus was, it isn't extraordinary that he could rise from the dead." Are you kidding me? This is pathetic, circular, AND dishonest. It doesn't sound to me like JMR studies Plato. More like he studies the Sophists.
So when it comes to philosophy one should not use terms in such a loose imprecise way, but when it comes to faith the worst thing of all is to get into definitional games. I don't get it.
People throwing the word EVIDENCE as true or valid statement. Example, I have evidence of an octopus turning green. The problem here is that I can have GOOD evidence or BAD evidence.
It's really hilarious the way theists argue that their god is absolute truth, and yet they then turn around and start arguing about relative truth with their insidious line "we both have the same facts, it's our INTERPRETATION of the facts that's different." Hm. So who decides who has the correct interpretation? The person who has the more convincing EVIDENCE. Their arguments are hopelessly circular.
Sometimes you may be trustworthy, even when you only think you know something or other. Suppose you put an apple on your kitchen table. Seconds later, you know that it'a there because you see it. Then, while you're in another room, your roommate eats the fruit 10 minutes after you leave it there. It's reasonable to believe it'll be there when you walk back to the kitchen because you believe you're the only one at home at that your roommate is at the grocery store. But now that the apple is in his stomach, you don't know that it's on the table. Why? Because it's not there anymore. Knowledge is justified, warranted true belief. A belief is true when it matches the way things are. If you're right when you say that there's an apple one the table, that's because it is on it. The apple and the table cause your belief to be true.
Young Earth Creationism is intellectual dishonesty, and religion is child abuse..."A belief is true when it matches the way things are"...so I guess you just called JMR dishonest too, because the way things are is that there is no god and JMR is nothing more than a snake oil salesman.....
John Mark Reynolds is the worst variety of apologist. He's practiced a word salad that back pats under educated believers. He's a talker. But if you have even a cursory comprehension of the Bible and history,he falls apart.
Another apologist trying to obfuscate his way through a discussion. Arguing over the definition of every word is not an argument for a god. It's just philosophical dishonesty masquerading as debate.
@Elijah Bachrach JMR took 5mins to define faith as exactly what it says in the bible and then dresses it up with a shit load of word salad ...hence "obfuscate". in my opinion to fluff himself up (no pun intended) to sound so philosophically complex. reminds me of the holy grenade seen in monty pythons holy grail.
We atheists are in need of some good debaters. Shermer just let this windbag go on and on. This is the worst I've seen him do. He missed so many opportunities.
I skip him. oops... but couldn't help him utter that god-belief deserves credit for....... having existed for so long? (38:50) Thanks for having us held backwards for so long, sir.. (700 years of dark ages, for one? But I'm sure mister Shermer will be ripping that apart as well (I'm commenting as I go)
I'm sorry, but the FIRST thing a philosopher understands, is that philosophy ISN'T a science, let alone one of the _exact_ ones. It is therefor ridiculous to come up with philosophical ideas, when discussing _factual, empirical_ stuff (I've heard him do so time and time again in other talks and know the behavior well from other god-believers too. (so: even though I's skipping through this video, only hearing Shermer respond, I wanna bet I know exactly what Reynolds' routine is) And it sucks and fails every time, if only for the reason(s) I just gave. So: In short and in direct response to you: His _"arguments"_ aren't original and only demonstrates an utter misuse of philosophy, either caused by genuinely misunderstanding the school and practice of it, or _pretending_ not to get it. (and since I'm sure he must've been explained this about philosophy, probably many times over, the fact that he sticks to it (the routine), kinda exposes dishonest _intent_ as well. Now: since you obviously disagree with me on that, could you please present, maybe _just one_ example of him, demonstrating philosophical understanding and/or an original argument as an illustration (and maybe for me to respond to) ? Cause it IS of course possible that _this_ time he said some really amazing stuff, or you could tell me why, because of what he said, I'm totally wrong... (In fact: I LOVE being wrong, cause only then do I learn something new). Okay?
Steve Lee I experience plenty of phenomenon without come to a full understanding. the claim made about God is never that you can't experience or understand him on ANY level. You you can come to some understanding of God, just not an exhaustive understanding.
This is why in Eastern Orthodoxy, we believe that God is knowable by His uncreated Energies, but unknowable in His Essence. We will never reach the Essence of God, but we interact with Him through His Energies. You can see this illustrated in Exodus 33:18-20. Here, Moses asks God if he can see His face. God says that no man can see His face and live, so instead He places His hand in front of Moses's face while His glory passes before him, then shows Moses His back.
he was trying to say, since he believes that this god has the power to resurrect himself from the dead, therefore the resurrection must have happened, which is a non sequitur. this is not how you prove things to be real.
This is painful to listen to. All JMR does is kick up a cloud of philosophical dust then try to wriggle and squirm his way out of any accusations that could be levelled at Christians: having faith against contrary evidence, being anti-science, being irrational etc... Ok, I lied. That's not all he does. Every time he performs this delicate manoeuvre he claims he represents all of Christianity and has exonerated it from all blame despite the fact that his type of "Christianity" is a tiny minority if there even are any others who share his positions. He also says he is not really sure and is ready for any contrary evidence to change his mind. This is completely heretical to most Christians and he really isn't much of a Christian at all so I don't know why he is speaking for them. In some ways lunatics like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are more honest even when they are lying through their teeth.
Calling those you perceive to be lying to be more honest shows that you lack the concept of logic. Guess it comes from feeling uncomfortable if things are intellectually demanding. Just because you do not understand things does not mean that those you listen to are lying.
To gently borrow from the words of John Mark Reynolds while adding to the ideas that he has shared - Clearly, you can be rational and be a theist. John Mark Reynolds is embodying such a position. I do wish to explore his ideas that miracles as well as that the god that he believes in are not what he would categorize as as being something magical. If real is a term used to describe things which are outside of the scope of a non-believer's experience, then real may not be the best term to describe things which are not universally experienced. Miracles and gods may be reasonably described as being believer dependent.
Monologue on faith: Since it's a fact that we can believe ANYTHING on faith, no intelligent creator god would ever ask/demand of us to be believed in, in that manner; let alone have it noted in its holy book that _faith is EVIDENCE_ of what one has faith in. (Well; Not if this deity is supposed to be _benevolent_ as well, that is)
ps 44:40 Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition (surprise is our weapon; FEAR and surprise and ruthless efficiency are our TWO, are our THREE weapons..: th-cam.com/video/7WJXHY2OXGE/w-d-xo.htmls: O; and mister Reynolds; Philosophy isn't a science. It doesn't PROVE anything. (and there are just as many philosophers that DON'T share your ideas) (thought Schermer kept a bit too silent there...
I love the format. Opening and closing statements with a dialogue in the middle really worked.
J.M.R. WOW! Lots of WOO WOO! Just simply talks in circles.
Wow, before this, I've never seen Michael Shermer get annoyed at anyone. About half-way through, I detected some annoyance in Shermers voice. I think it was JMR's constant lecturing Shermer on what Shermer thinks, only to have Shermer come behind him and clean-up the mess JMR just made.
chansetwo ...I think there’s a debate he did with frank turek ..MS kinda came unglued at one point lol. don’t get me wrong I’m a fan of his but just goes to show anyone can get emotional.
chansetwo I caught that, too.
John Mark Reynolds has a very peculiar habit of pointing out legitimate philosophical issues-uncertain epistemology on Shermer’s part, say-and, after lining up a row of valid philosophical points, proceed to make a bald theological assertion as though it followed, even though there is no connection back to his valid points. I cannot help but suspect a certain degree of dishonesty, trying to smuggle unsupported points in by hiding them in the crowd of valid ones.
Petter Häggholm I think that, for brevity sake, he makes jumps which he assumes everyone will follow. not everyone does and it can feel like he hasn't really thought it through. he usually has. that's his job after all.
Xeno's paradox is proved false mathematically quite simply as it is a geometric diminishing of velocity. The hare's velocity does not diminish at all. Tom Stoppard has one of the best lines in one of his plays to cut to the heart of this argument. It goes something like "Using Xeno's paradox the arrows shot at Saint Sebastian never reached him, thus proving that he died of fright".
JMR makes the claim that it was "better theology" that ended the witch hunts while ignoring that it was theism that CAUSED them in the first place.
Alexander Korbin I think he would say that it was the deficient theism of laymen that caused witch hunts. this it evident in the fact that the high clergy definitely tryed to correct the problem. educated theists weren't witch hunters.
It was a confluence of superstitions but Christianity, properly understood, is not a superstition and educated Christians put a stop to it.
Alexander Korbin He also “corrected” Shermer stating that the trials were not at the height of Christianity in the Middle Ages right after Shermer said they were due to the need to “prove” Christianity by proving there were demons, etc. He either intentionally or due to misunderstanding corrected something Shermer never said.
at 1:51:42 JMR Confuses circular with reciprocal in his 2+2 analogy.
Anthony Magnabusco at 1:52:30!
did I just not catch it or did he just totally avoid Anthony's question on faith?
Damn straight!
In response he says something weird: _"If I wanna study mathematical logic, do I go to philosophy class or math class'_ (or words like that). Why on earth would you go to philosophy class if you wanna study math?
@@BorisNoiseChannel Well, atheists demand for scientific evidence for a non material God.
@@Lerian_V ANY evidence, sufficient enough to warrant belief will do. You got any? (you'd be the first, though, if you do)
Jmr contradicts himself many times. He says he believes things based on the best evidence and cohesion and yet in another breath he said he believes things he wishes were true. All the best evidence and cohesive arguments don't point to a God. No man has ever come back from the dead. jmr believes Jesus did this because of an original premise that Jesus was God incarnate, but what evidence or cohesive reasons does he have to believe that?. Without the original, unreasonable premises the whole argument falls. He would be more consistent if he was a deist but he obviously thinks it is reasonable and rational as a Christian to claim he knows the mind of God through a bronze age book. A deist would say there is a creator because of consciousness and a fine tuning of the universe. Jmr claims he knows the mind and intentions of that very creator. That is not evidence based and contradicts most of what he said
I wonder why Michael Shermer didn't press JMR much. I've listened to lots of Michaels talks/debates. Michael was very passive with him...
Levi Dodge because people like Shermer, Krauss, Ra, have predetermined scripts and expect certain answers. When they don’t happen they fumble to change direction and redirect their arguments.
The way Reynolds defines religious is not the way anyone I’ve ever known has.
1:04 - what does he mean by materialism? He keeps using this term as a catch-all. And when he claims 18th century materialism (science?) negated 17th century, 19th negated 18th, 20th negated by 21st - - what the hell is he talking about? Yes, eventually science can change a whole paradigm of thought, but more often it simply refines it. The classic example of course being Newtonian to Einstein to Quantum physics. Quantum physics doesn't 'negate' Newtonian physics, it just places it into a much (much) broader landscape, if you will.
Shermer says that he doesn't do philosophy, but he debates philosophical and theological topics. In other debates, I've heard him ask, "If everything has a cause, what caused God?" What's wrong with that question? First, the first-cause argument he's alluding to never says that everything has a cause. Second, a purpose of the question seems to be to launch a vicious infinite regress when first-cause arguments imply that the first cause prevents a vicious infinite regress.
"when first-cause arguments imply that the first cause prevents a vicious infinite regress" this is called special pleading
"...we believe Zues lives on Mt. Olympus, we go to Mt. Olympus, we see he isn't there..." says the Christian who believes in heaven and hell. He hasn't established his god, yet he's arguing as though god exists, and then saying faith isn't the belief in something without evidence. Circular, slippery reasoning.
JMR states on how important it is to apply science and reason. Yet he is a self-professed young Earth creationist. What happened here?
+George Velden The word your looking for is HYPOCRITE.
George Velden At least William Lane Craig believes the Earth is in the billions. Young Earth Creationism is a joke.
Lorica Lass only YECs misuse the word evidenced in that manner.
Just because witch hunts happened during the Enlightenment doesn't mean anything. Theologians who were burning witches were not among the enlightened, clearly.
JMR is the best apologist i have heard, what a weasle
Whether or not I agree with his interpretations... JMR is incredibly intelligent and has a deeply consistent worldview. Fascinating discussion and excellent presentations by JMR and Mr. Shermer. Thank you for posting.
Can you guess why the emphasis on witch hunting dates? The fact is that witch hunting has been around in some form or another since the dawn of history.
Christianity begat Science?? Sounds like another virgin birth story. Science predates Christianity.
Shout out to Anthony Magnabosco (tinyurl.com/PL-AM-SE-TOP10) who at 1:51:55 asked a great question that was totally avoided.
Numbers are conceptually demonstrable and used to cause literal change and effect in the REAL world. Nothing at all like 'god'.
God is conceptually demonstrable and makes beste sense of the REAL world...
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
love ur pic, nice one
nice ...thats a great definition of “faith” 👍🏽
I can't help but wonder what would happen if you were to stick him with a pin.
"to answer your question...."
*didn't answer the question at all*
Why does JMR, a Plato scholar(?), mispronounce "Timaeus" when it's pronounced "tim-eye-oose."
William McEnaney so he doesn't loose his audience. most people know it as the "tie-may-us."
He could correct the pronunciation for them.
"I agree with you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well, given who Jesus was, it isn't extraordinary that he could rise from the dead." Are you kidding me? This is pathetic, circular, AND dishonest. It doesn't sound to me like JMR studies Plato. More like he studies the Sophists.
That was the worst part for me
So when it comes to philosophy one should not use terms in such a loose imprecise way, but when it comes to faith the worst thing of all is to get into definitional games. I don't get it.
Nice debate; both did a great job. bravo!
Your mind may say “Buses are not real, jump on the road” , and that doesn’t make buses not real.
When did Jesus become God,at what point 1;09 into with JMR.
People throwing the word EVIDENCE as true or valid statement.
Example, I have evidence of an octopus turning green.
The problem here is that I can have GOOD evidence or BAD evidence.
It's really hilarious the way theists argue that their god is absolute truth, and yet they then turn around and start arguing about relative truth with their insidious line "we both have the same facts, it's our INTERPRETATION of the facts that's different." Hm. So who decides who has the correct interpretation? The person who has the more convincing EVIDENCE. Their arguments are hopelessly circular.
Michael Johnson how many times did JMR say “I could be wrong”. Did you even watch?
I just can't get past "youth earth creationist"...everything else JMR says is moot, how can an accredited philosopher spout such crap?
Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the earth is 8,000 years old forfeits further attention. Any discussion is irrelevant from that point.
Isn't that like saying that since Reynolds is wrong about something, he's wrong about everything else, too?
No, that's not what I said. Reynolds claims to know things he doesn't. Can't trust a man like that at all.....
Sometimes you may be trustworthy, even when you only think you know something or other. Suppose you put an apple on your kitchen table. Seconds later, you know that it'a there because you see it. Then, while you're in another room, your roommate eats the fruit 10 minutes after you leave it there. It's reasonable to believe it'll be there when you walk back to the kitchen because you believe you're the only one at home at that your roommate is at the grocery store. But now that the apple is in his stomach, you don't know that it's on the table. Why? Because it's not there anymore. Knowledge is justified, warranted true belief. A belief is true when it matches the way things are. If you're right when you say that there's an apple one the table, that's because it is on it. The apple and the table cause your belief to be true.
Young Earth Creationism is intellectual dishonesty, and religion is child abuse..."A belief is true when it matches the way things are"...so I guess you just called JMR dishonest too, because the way things are is that there is no god and JMR is nothing more than a snake oil salesman.....
John Mark Reynolds is the worst variety of apologist. He's practiced a word salad that back pats under educated believers.
He's a talker. But if you have even a cursory comprehension of the Bible and history,he falls apart.
Another apologist trying to obfuscate his way through a discussion. Arguing over the definition of every word is not an argument for a god. It's just philosophical dishonesty masquerading as debate.
jlw1965 agreed
jlw1965 no. defining your terms is important. it's a way to avoid talking past one another.
@Elijah Bachrach JMR took 5mins to define faith as exactly what it says in the bible and then dresses it up with a shit load of word salad ...hence "obfuscate". in my opinion to fluff himself up (no pun intended) to sound so philosophically complex. reminds me of the holy grenade seen in monty pythons holy grail.
ian philip It seems like Michael Shermer was able to understand him and agreed about the necessity for defining terms carefully.
yes, I'm sure he did and I'm also sure he understands the assertions and fallacies presented by JMR and does not agree.
We atheists are in need of some good debaters. Shermer just let this windbag go on and on. This is the worst I've seen him do. He missed so many opportunities.
We miss Hitchens.
biggregg5 yeah :(
JMR is very condescending it's rather off-putting.
And it doesn't look like he does a lot of fasting ! , probably worships in Mc Donalds .
Robert Carey that's mean.
LOL
I skip him.
oops... but couldn't help him utter that god-belief deserves credit for....... having existed for so long? (38:50) Thanks for having us held backwards for so long, sir.. (700 years of dark ages, for one? But I'm sure mister Shermer will be ripping that apart as well (I'm commenting as I go)
I'm sorry, but the FIRST thing a philosopher understands, is that philosophy ISN'T a science, let alone one of the _exact_ ones. It is therefor ridiculous to come up with philosophical ideas, when discussing _factual, empirical_ stuff (I've heard him do so time and time again in other talks and know the behavior well from other god-believers too. (so: even though I's skipping through this video, only hearing Shermer respond, I wanna bet I know exactly what Reynolds' routine is) And it sucks and fails every time, if only for the reason(s) I just gave.
So: In short and in direct response to you: His _"arguments"_ aren't original and only demonstrates an utter misuse of philosophy, either caused by genuinely misunderstanding the school and practice of it, or _pretending_ not to get it. (and since I'm sure he must've been explained this about philosophy, probably many times over, the fact that he sticks to it (the routine), kinda exposes dishonest _intent_ as well.
Now: since you obviously disagree with me on that, could you please present, maybe _just one_ example of him, demonstrating philosophical understanding and/or an original argument as an illustration (and maybe for me to respond to) ? Cause it IS of course possible that _this_ time he said some really amazing stuff, or you could tell me why, because of what he said, I'm totally wrong... (In fact: I LOVE being wrong, cause only then do I learn something new). Okay?
A transcendent God, is by definition beyond human understanding and experience, so how can one "experience'' God ? What a joke !
Steve Lee I experience plenty of phenomenon without come to a full understanding. the claim made about God is never that you can't experience or understand him on ANY level. You you can come to some understanding of God, just not an exhaustive understanding.
This is why in Eastern Orthodoxy, we believe that God is knowable by His uncreated Energies, but unknowable in His Essence. We will never reach the Essence of God, but we interact with Him through His Energies. You can see this illustrated in Exodus 33:18-20. Here, Moses asks God if he can see His face. God says that no man can see His face and live, so instead He places His hand in front of Moses's face while His glory passes before him, then shows Moses His back.
Indeed JMR is right that Materialism should be questioned but Young Earth Creationism and the infallible Bible dogma must also be questioned.
thenowchurch I think he would agree
JMR is basically a pre-suppositionalist. His starting point is that god exists therefore its no surprise that Jesus could resurrect himself.
that's not true at all. I don't think you quite understood what he was trying to say.
he was trying to say, since he believes that this god has the power to resurrect himself from the dead, therefore the resurrection must have happened, which is a non sequitur. this is not how you prove things to be real.
This is painful to listen to. All JMR does is kick up a cloud of philosophical dust then try to wriggle and squirm his way out of any accusations that could be levelled at Christians: having faith against contrary evidence, being anti-science, being irrational etc...
Ok, I lied. That's not all he does. Every time he performs this delicate manoeuvre he claims he represents all of Christianity and has exonerated it from all blame despite the fact that his type of "Christianity" is a tiny minority if there even are any others who share his positions.
He also says he is not really sure and is ready for any contrary evidence to change his mind. This is completely heretical to most Christians and he really isn't much of a Christian at all so I don't know why he is speaking for them.
In some ways lunatics like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are more honest even when they are lying through their teeth.
Calling those you perceive to be lying to be more honest shows that you lack the concept of logic. Guess it comes from feeling uncomfortable if things are intellectually demanding. Just because you do not understand things does not mean that those you listen to are lying.
neandrewthal - I didn't read your comment
JMR = philosophical tread-milling, pompous and ultimately disingenuous. oh how he loves the sound of his own voice.
Does Mind exist with no brain,just wondering!
Yep Deal with it.
Very condescending and he talks a lot without saying anything.
My invisible friend is better than your invisible friend
All I heard from mr Reynolds is a philosophical guide to rationalise a delusion.
To gently borrow from the words of John Mark Reynolds while adding to the ideas that he has shared - Clearly, you can be rational and be a theist. John Mark Reynolds is embodying such a position.
I do wish to explore his ideas that miracles as well as that the god that he believes in are not what he would categorize as as being something magical. If real is a term used to describe things which are outside of the scope of a non-believer's experience, then real may not be the best term to describe things which are not universally experienced. Miracles and gods may be reasonably described as being believer dependent.
geez! this o is annoying. cannot have a fair conversation with him
The perils of joining a cult but not reading the literature. All religion!
FFS, Of course there are people who have never heard of Jesus.
Aspect ration is fucked up
Monologue on faith: Since it's a fact that we can believe ANYTHING on faith, no intelligent creator god would ever ask/demand of us to be believed in, in that manner; let alone have it noted in its holy book that _faith is EVIDENCE_ of what one has faith in. (Well; Not if this deity is supposed to be _benevolent_ as well, that is)
ps 44:40 Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition (surprise is our weapon; FEAR and surprise and ruthless efficiency are our TWO, are our THREE weapons..: th-cam.com/video/7WJXHY2OXGE/w-d-xo.htmls:
O; and mister Reynolds; Philosophy isn't a science. It doesn't PROVE anything. (and there are just as many philosophers that DON'T share your ideas)
(thought Schermer kept a bit too silent there...
JMR is a conman.