The Argument From I Win Because I Say So | Brian (he/him) - FL | Skeptic Generation S1E19
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- A sneaky presuppositionalist calls in to talk about how skepticism is not good for society. The call quickly spirals as Brian attempts to throw the entire apologetic lexicon at the hosts. Eric and Vi try to parse through his arguments in good faith, but Brian is playing his own game. And he’s winning, no matter what anyone says.
Warning: The ending of this call devolves as Brian begins screaming “Don’t allow atheists to **** kids” over and over. We’ve bleeped it out from the clip, but were taken aback by it as well. Apologies to everyone who has to deal with that.
________
Skeptic Generation is LIVE every Sunday at 11:30am-1:00pm CT
Call on your phone: 585-LA-MURPH (585-526-8774)
Call online: tiny.cc/callSG
Love the show?
Become a patron: tiny.cc/donate...
Buy merch: tiny.cc/SGmerch
Help with our studio: tiny.cc/SGwish...
You can also join our Discord: tiny.cc/SGdiscord
To find out more, visit www.skepticgen...
Copyright © 2021 Skeptic Generation. All rights reserved.
Presuppositional apologetics is the single most dishonest and cowardly cop out of any apologetic argument
The thing is all apologies arguments are weak because they all boil down to an argument of incredulity. `How else could we be here?`. A completely honest religious person will state, I have no tactile proof, This is my belief and I am OK with it. I know religious people who are like that, and they are an absolute pleasure to be around.
This honest answer rankles the more authoritarian within that religious flock. If you admit there is a gaping hole of proof, you open up the door to your lack of authority. Of all the hundreds of arguments I have heard over many years, it always at the end boils down to arguments of disbelief and authority.
When I say "hmmm, I really don't see anything convincing yet, I'll withhold my judgement", there is a certain class of religious folks that have a violent emotional reaction because 'they cannot be wrong'. They can just chill, or.... actually provide me with something tangible and useful from their amazing world view that could not be created otherwise.
The single most dishonest, cowardly, and lazy apologetic. It starts and ends with "I assume I'm right, therefor I am".
If anyone has ever watched the battle with the black knight in "Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail", they have the exact picture of the presuppositional religious apologist.
@@zsoltszabo6482 - I find when it reaches that stage, these people trot out their sky bully card suggesting that unless there is capitulation to their position I will be forever damned to hell.
@@douglasrasmussen480 that is a spot on discription
Theists: "You guys just aren't smart enough to understand."
Atheists: "You are an idiot."
Theists: "Now, there is no reason to be rude."
Hypocracy at it's finest.
You can't directly say anyone IS a thing that is rude. Thus "Let's Go Brandon" rather than saying anything REAL.. I prefer to listen to a great song: F*** Donald T rump
Theists: "You guys just aren't smart enough to understand."
Atheists: "You're right, the depth of your idiocy is incomprehensible."
That’s called an ad-hominid attack & is actually very common for atheists to fall back on when the rest of their arguments fall flat on their face.
Atheists: I believe in a magical explosion that somehow created complex life.
Theist: The odds of that occurring are less than 1 in 10^85 power probability, that’s 10 with 85 zeros.
Atheists: Well you’re mean and you have a big nose!
Presuppers see m to have a wide streak of malignant narcissism running thru them.
Poor Brian.
He’s so angry that he’s been conned and we evaded the same fate.
Perfectly put
Desperate religionism calls for Desperate measures...
i think it goes much deeper than that
Sure what it seems like.
Presuppositionalism is the lowest form of argumentation. It is kindergarten theology.
Theology IS kindergarten mentality
It goes along with faith just more honest. Faith is just assuming god etc is real.
Presup is really just an argument technique
@@davids11131113 ....a reeeeally bad one though.
Lose an argument, throw a tantrum....only Christians.
Brian has cured any residual skepticism I held that religious beliefs can be harmful.
and this guys been trolling on other atheistic venue comment sections trying to sell his snake oil religionism with no buyers ...
The entire presup argumentation can be reduced to a simple: "heads I win, tails you lose".
These people are so incapable of rational reasoning and their fragile ego is so terrified of losing an argument, that they will not allow themselves near any situation that leads to a potential loss.
The funny thing is that all their fight to appear right accomplishes the exact opposite, making them look very very foolish.
They also think they are smarter than they are
They're stuck in that same frustrating and annoying stage of childhood as those bratty kids who answer every question with another question, then smirk because they think they're so damn clever. Conversations with such a person become impossible.
@@annk.8750 I think it's a very particular kind of child, too. What do you make of this idea? Its always a man, in fact, who is stuck in infantile rage. For most of us, it's a stage we pass through as we learn coping strategies. For the typical Presupp, their infantile attempts to cope failed (for whatever reason) and they have been left with this toxic rage where they continue to demand others meet their needs - but they cant articulate those needs except in this kind of distorted, displaced way. Women with a similar history turn inwards and get depressed. Men get angry, very angry. And we can't satisfy them now because the rage and the loss belongs somewhere/sometime else. Plausible?
When I was young like 7 or 8 , my dad drove me crazy with the heads I win tails u loose thing. I wondered for years why I always lost for years until I worked it out.
I predict there will soon be a christian copy/pasting the same crap all over every comment and call it a win over atheists
The presup argument is what I call the "real doll" worldview. If the question was to show who was the perfect woman, and someone were to present a real doll, they could give it all the best attributes "she's a great listener", "she is very tolerant", "she's the most beautiful", "she has the most perfect body" and so on, and then ask you to present a woman who is as great as the real doll, while ignoring the fact that they were still just presenting a fabrication, not an actual woman. This is what they do, they present this fabricated worldview that they claim solves all problems, and then require you to present something that does the same, while ignoring that what they are presenting is entirely made up.
Your analogy is too charitable, it would be more like they would present the concept of a doll but they've never seen it.
Nice analogy
Yeah, Brian is a preacher. Or a priest. And he's projecting one of his kind's immoral acts. People need to keep their children away from religious leaders.
@@kentonbaird1723 I still wouldn't let any child near Brian.
Have you ever stood at a street intersection, watched the pedestrian light turn from red to green, yet glance towards the traffic to confirm that no car is rushing through the intersection, in order to ensure it is safe to cross? That is skepticism in action, something we do continually in our everyday life. From checking your bank balance, to investigating a child care you may enroll your child in, to hearing the weather report on the radio, yet glancing outside to confirm, all of this is skepticism we practice continually in our daily lives. Heck, Yelp exists because of skepticism.
Yet when it comes to religion, all of a sudden the rules change? The basic truth is that skepticism is an enemy of religion, because people are unwilling to be gullible, and instead decide to investigate or challenge assertions.
Trust, but verify.
Yeah, its validating what is going on in the world. Like other day light turned green after work, but since the light I'm at is next to a underpass, I waited just a few seconds because there is a huge blind spot, and bam, car came out of it (that I initially didn't see because of pillars in the way) and he ran the red light. Taking that two seconds possibly kept me from getting T-Boned.
Exactly
This was a great definition
Come on Vi and Eric, when Brian is talking about animals being more violent than humans he's obviously talking about all the animal wars!! Have you not seen the 2001 documentary Cats & Dogs, and it's sequels!! Great video!!
Or the prophecy Planet of the Apes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
The Army had machine guns. The Emus still won.
Human kill because they like it, animals kill to survive
@@petermeichan3160 actually there are many species on this planet that engage in surplus killing, from Stoats to Elephants to Orcas.
Chimpanzee War of Gombe. Interesting to read. All males and at least one female of one side were killed. The surviving females were intergrated ( as spoil?) into the winning group. Remembers me of Hebrew warfare in the bible.
The one thing which debunks his diatribe about where religion came from... Is he not aware of the entertainment industry at all? Human ability to make shit up is incredible.
He's aware, he just thinks it requires a god. Was that not clear?
@@seanbirch9663 does that imply that the sex worker industry would also be impossible without god?
@@rueh69 ha ha
what do you mean???? OBVIOUSLY all the great movies are representing reality and how things work!!! I m 100% certain of this and you are wrong.
@@rueh69 well, we did have fertility gods for a while, until Christianity came (ha ha)
There was a reason this caller has been banned from other shows and he proved it here once again
It's terrifying
But I sorta want to witness his previous train wrecks
Can you please give me the titles of the episodes he’s in
@@Jasoframptonyt bumping this cuz i want links too lol
Me too. Links
The conversation ended w/ the caller repeating; “don’t allow atheists to ________ children”.
An empty slogan based on nothing which is spouted as if it is a rational accusation / demand. Instead it came off as delusional ranting.
It's a pretty ironic statement as well
He seems to have forgotten Catholic priests among other religious authority figures.
Ugh, do presups truly believe they live in their own little universe with their own little rules of logic, and everything they say goes?.... Because that sort of sounds like narcissism
Yeah they are usually big narcissists
Yes
Yes. Yes they do.
I read your comment as "pressups" instead of presups. Lol
I'm thinking why are they talking about excercises here?
Yes they absolutely do.
Wow, Brian totally going out of his mind in the end when he couldn't actually put forth a good argument.
Since we can't creatively think up religions, all must be divinely inspired. Nailed it.
I find it funny how Brian pretends to be calm for most of the call while inside he is burning with rage. And shouldn't the hosts have told him that free will is just an illusion?
But I think from this call I finally realized what is the most annoying thing with this kind of callers (and also with the shows that indulge in dealing with these callers).
It is that for Brian this was like a chess game. Maybe he doesn't even care if his God really exists or not, it just wants to beat the "evil" atheists at this long game of pseudo-philosophical arguments because religion is the ideology he prefers. I really prefer theists that say that God must exist because the Bible says so, they are more honest. At the end Brian did not like the result of the game and metaphorically overturned the board making the pieces fly all over the place.
Yet, 99.9% of the religious people are not presuppositionalists, they believe for very different reasons, so I am not sure that spending all this time discussing presup arguments is really so interesting.
So much YES!
Yup he is always on the brink of hysteria 😒 this presup troll should be banned from all skeptic / atheist platforms!!
@@k8cking except that his convos are mui entertaining lol - check out his call from 2 mos later as “Chad”
Brian: Two words. Free will.
Me: Three words. Does not exist.
Me: four more words. Along with his brain.
Yes. I've always thought that if we had free will, I could teleport to a beach in Australia.
We obviously don't have free will.
@@slyjokerg I guess it also renders everything you said irrelevant for the same reason
@@slyjokerg Indeed, everything you said was actually paradoxical.
@@slyjokerg Naah, even if free will existed it still would be paradoxical. That is why everything you said was irrelevant.
I always appreciated Eric’s ability to feed rope until they hang themselves.
Not gonna lie, Vi asking for a debunking was awesome. Highlight of my night so far!
That "third party" thing is classic. He made this huge gotcha, saying "you just acknowledged a 3rd party", when there was absolutely ZERO third parties in that example.
I don't know what he thinks he heard but vi clearly said that he was the one that said "no" in the example.
He says the third party said no.
His form of pressup wasn't any good. Not to talk shit, but his points weren't really points. His script didn't even hit the points where he was supposed to get reactions from them. He's just bad
I listened to this three times and never heard Vi acknowledge a third party. He was so gleeful over something that didn't even happen. 🙄🙄
@@TruthSika Sounds par for the course for Presups, and outraged theists who can't drop their bizzare assumptions about atheists
Reminds me of my sister who can read something that refutes her assertion but somehow the words on the page transform to agree with her. It's scary.
I believe the orange juice or the door was the 3rd party.
This is the part of presup I do not understand. Where did this third party come from? Why does acknowledging the fact that someone believes it mean it's actually exist? It came from the imagination. Do fictional characters actually exist in some platonic realm? Where is the evidence for this platonic realm? Can presups really just be boiled down to platonic realms? Is that really the disconnect here? I don't understand.
Brian is like the guy who challenges you to a duel, shows up on time, waits for the countdown to end, and then shoots himself in the foot before passing out.
In the hospital
Brian: "Did I win? Did I debunk them?"
@@kenbee1957 😂
Eric called it “Resorting to Baba booey” and my sides went into orbit
Is there such a thing as an honest presup?
To date, I haven't found one.
@@kentonbaird1723 But, you have to presuppose logic to get to that conclusion, so you must be being dishonest, which means you don't think it is logically impossible, which means you don't need to presuppose logic, so you could be being honest, but then you're back to presupposing logic again!
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad." -Spock
@@kentonbaird1723 "logic is demonstrable." Well, according to Spock (again): "Logic is a little tweeting bird, chirping in a meadow."
Magical deities, on the other hand, can be presupposed. And it can be presupposed that said deities are required for logic to function.
"Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly? Your ears are green." -Spock, a paragon of logic.
Saying honest presupp is like saying fresh frozen
@@bicameralmind6785 The distinction needing to be made here is the idea that you should have as few presuppositions as possible to start out with.
Presup apologists presuppose the same things that pretty much everyone does. They're real. The world is as real as anything is. That logic/reason is logical/reasonable. The problem comes when presups add on an extra one that god is real and is the foundation of everything. That's the problem.
We have no choice but to presuppose some things but multiplying assumptions is a sure fire way to be wrong most of the time. Thus it's a bad idea.
@@bicameralmind6785 Bro you know Spock was not a real person, correct?
One could argue the opposite of a skeptic is a gullible or naive person because they accept everything at face value.
Oh wow he went down a very deep rabbit hole.
That ending, what a turd!
It's also worth mentioning, especially today, in some misguided attempt to not be gullible, people are denying countless demonstrable true things as well. Which, if you think about it is doubly naive. At least believing false things requires an open mind. This is why we skeptics should always remind people it works both ways.
@@theriffwriter2194 - It's true that some people who claim to be skeptics are actually just oppositional. They don't want to question. They want to reject. For example people opposed to certain public health measures who use the language of skepticism but who clearly have a closed mind.
Then again there's a pretty big overlap between those people and people who call others "sheep." :-)
Ironically, many religious people cannot distinguish between a skeptic and someone who just rejects religion. Thus the old tired, "you just want to sin."
@@theriffwriter2194 sounds good until your brain flows out the hole...
I need a reason to believe a concept before I can reasonably believe it is true/correct..
My belief is proportional to the evidence...
@@c.guydubois8270 I didn't mean to advocate believing in false things. My poit was I find it laughable when people who deny the moon landing, climate change or the safety of vaccines somehow convince themselves they're not twice as naive as the people who claim every dot in the sky is an alien or that God found their car keys. They're on equal footing. Because, either way, evidence is an afterthought.
@@c.guydubois8270 thats irrelevant, mate, we weren't even talking about that... we are talking about things that have been proven to these same people, and yet they still reject it, reread the original comment again.
"The skeptic community never justifies why they need evidence."
Yeah you're right Brian, we should all just go ahead and start accepting any claim anyone makes without requiring a lick of evidence for any of it. I can't possibly imagine how that could ever go wrong.
Its funny in a sad way how the religious sink down to the level of purile insults when they find out they are losing the argument.
Plus if he looks into it at the moment it's generally the religious leaders who are spending time with kids in illegitimate ways for the past few years.
So much for being holy men...
“Premise 1, there is a door”
“Okay, how do you know what’s behind the door?”
“You don’t know there’s a door”
…
Matrix music intensifies
Haha - What are we gonna do today Brain?
We’re gonna take over the world Pinky.
Vy and Eric are gems. So educational and articulate and polite at the same time.
Is the caller arguing against evidence? I've been watching these kind of shows for almost four years and I gotta say, that's a new one.
...it's the entire presup position...the "self authenticating" experience...
Someone else tried to use the idea on another show. Matt Dillahunty wasn't nearly as patient.
If you want the full presup experience, watch the debate between dillahunty and sye ten bruggencate, and then look up Darth Dawkins.
The whole idea is so far down the 'not even wrong' rabbit hole that it can be difficult to argue with someone running this script on the spot, since they keep tight reins on the conversation and have memorized responses several layers deep.
@@joelhenderson3723 was he the "head in a vat" guy?
But you're right. Their argument is along the lines of "since you presuppose reality is real I can presuppose an invisible donkey with dragonfly wings lives in my ear." I just never thought of it as an argument against evidence before.
And Darth Dawkins: no thanks. Are you ready to hear his entire technique simplified?
"What's 2+2?"
"4."
"Wait. What, now? What's 2+2?'
"4."
"Okay. I really don't think you understand. So I'm going to ask one more time..."
And there it is. No matter what words come out their opponents mouths to from a sentence, him and his clones feign dissatisfaction, in an attempt to make their opponents feel foolish and then repeat the question. Ad fucking nauseam!
Once you realize it, It's so transparent, predictable and obnoxious. The opposite of a conversation. You won't be able to unsee it and they never stray from it.
@@theriffwriter2194 Yep, that's Sye.
The argument isn't so much that I or you presuppose something, as 'x belief presupposes y.' Essentially, it is a claim that you cannot suppose or accept that some belief is true without acknowledging that another proposition's truth is prerequisite to the one in question. The problem is that they don't supply any reason at all to believe 'x belief presupposes y.' In fact they can't, even if it's true, because their specific claim is "reason itself presupposes God." So the argument devolves into "Do you Believe in God? No? Then you don't believe in reason? Oh, you do? Then you believe in God?"
Presuppositionalism is in the same category as Transcendental arguments for God. But common self-identified presuppositionalists try to make a stronger claim still, and assert that the God of the Bible is the necessary presupposition. Some arguments revolve around reason, others around truth, knowledge, or logic. The differences are subtle, but arguments revolving around truth are hardest to push back in my experience, since people tend to have nebulous understandings of it.
What other animal is actively causing the extinction of countless other species?!
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog But they aren't contributing to their extinction. They did this for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years.
I am really impressed by how Eric has a conversation. I could learn a lot about how to listen & respond & time when to interupt because the conversation is derailing.
The DD School Of ‘Winning’. Kick the toys over like a toddler and proclaim.
Pigeons playing chess, strut around the board knocking over the pieces and pooping all over the board...
When Eric said ok well, if you're going to be a prick? I had a mouth full of wine... HAD...
“The atomic bomb could be used for good” I’m done. I’m out of this fing planet.
Maybe he’s of the same mind as a certain former President that dropping one in a hurricane would be a good idea lol
It has been used for "good." I would argue it saved a lot of lives honestly.
@@godlessrecovery8880 got evidence of that?
@@zatoichiMiyamoto If they had not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki then the Japanese army would have just kept fighting until every last man in their forces was dead. This was at a point in time where they would have conscripted every fighting age man in their nation. Do you know how many people lived in Japan at that point in history?
I'm not saying the atomic bomb was a force for good, but it ended the war practically immediately. So they aren't wrong when they say it saved lives.
@@nathanielthomson6600 that is an assumption not evidence
He clearly won!
Because that's how a real winner acts.
It was utterly pathetic when the caller kept repeating "she", even after being corrected 4 times in a row in the span of 15 seconds by Eric. At that point his behavior cannot be excused as misspeaking anymore, it's being intentionally malicious. You guys acted way too civil towards this pathetically bigoted, dishonest caller. The way he ended the call also shows his intention for coming on your show. You should have dropped him a lot sooner, please don't invite him back to the show. Presuppositionalists are the lowest hanging fruit of all theist callers and they are an utter waste of time
Whatever, you cannot control others and you cannot be thin skinned about trivial nonsense when encouraging debate and controversy.
@@mrscience1409 If someone can't be bothered to treat someone with the extreme basics of respect in a conversation, then they aren't worth talking to.
@@mrscience1409 What do you mean with your "whatever"? Are you saying "whatever" out of apathy or do you completely disagree with everything I've said?
It is true that Vi and Eric cannot control the callers, but they have full control of who they want to platform and how long they want to continue a conversation with that caller. If the caller devolves into toxic behaviour and also doesn't honestly participate in the conversation anymore, there is no benefit in keeping them on the air. I do partially agree that you need to be thick skinned to debate others. However, this doesn't mean that you should platform someone for more than half an hour that doesn't even have the decency to call you by your name or pronoun, even after correcting them multiple times!
I would also like to reply on your last comment about "...when encouraging debate and controversy". You are correct about the fact that this show encourages debate, but I don't ever remember the hosts saying anything about encouraging controversy. If you want controversy, there are many trashy YT channels and reality shows that focus exclusively on that!
Are there callers out there that want to discuss controversial topics from time to time? Yes! Vi and Eric are giving these callers the benefit of the doubt when platforming them, hoping that the conversations will remain civil. It is not the intention of the show to seek out controversy, but to promote better discourse on difficult topics.
@@htpkey I object to this. "it's being intentionally malicious"
It is very difficult for some people to grasp the idea of preferred gender pronouns. Using a plural to refer to a single. Referring to someone who demonstrates a degree of femininity as she is automatic for many people. And he may be a person who does not accept the "new norm" as is his right. And its Eric and Vi's right to drop the call. No issue there.
However, there may have been no malicious intent what so ever. Labeling malicious and labeling him a bigot is a way to dismiss his argument without even addressing his argument. It seems to be a modern trope and its disgusting. Free speech seems to be a punch line for the younger generations. Unless you want to use fuck every other word, then its "Deal with it boomer"
How about this? Everyone promises to use preferred pronouns and you never say fuck in front of strangers. Deal?
BTW, I am not defending his argument. IMO his argument was wrong, fallacious, and ignorant. But highly entertaining.
@@htpkey As far a controversy, if you are going to have a channel that questions the very core of one's indoctrination, er, I mean belief system, One that makes up the very foundation of their life, then controversy is a given. And if you want to make it entertaining, you need to drill down, otherwise every call would go like this:
"Hello and welcome to Skeptic Nation."
" I believe in god"
"Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, thank-you, next caller?"
Eric is so firm and factual about Vi's pronouns and that really was such a wonderful moment. Only one of really trashy ways this caller was rude, but I appreciate it so much
These two are one of my favorite teams. Their patient and clear ‘radio voices’ create an aural warm spot to help callers stay on the line to explain themselves. That comfortable place for exploring doesn’t really affect callers who have little to say. I am always surprised at the resistance of people to define their basic terms they want to use. They crumple at the slightest “Explain that please.”
I live the new show. I'm glad I found you again! Your chemistry is great!
This clown did the same thing on The Atheist Experience and Matt banned him.
Can you give us the link? Brian is comedy gold!!!
@@jonparker5728 rats, can't find it right now. Will keep looking,
@@malundy appreciate your efforts
Was it this call? th-cam.com/video/I8dBj4epMGA/w-d-xo.html
@@Simon.the.Likeable No not this one. In the one I heard the call went off on a foull mouthed rant, Matt muted him, read him the riot act about his pathetic behavioir, and banned him. I'm trying to remember which show with Matt I heard it on.
"I don't see that the essential premises behind skepticism are helpful to society."
So, you get to express skepticism that skeptical thought has benefits for society, and you don't see how that benefits society.
This is what they made the facepalm emoji for.
Multiple actual LOLs in that clip. Well done, Vi & Eric! Debating presups is actually pretty difficult, but you two did a great job.
I just joined a presuppositionalist chess team and we are dominating all other teams and they are so dishonest, they won't admit the are getting pwned.
Game Starts
Me: "Check mate in 128 moves:
Them: "How do you know that?"
Me: "The very fact that you asked that question proves me right and the winner"
The fact that they want me to provide 'evidence' about this 128 moves is so dishonest while at the same time proving my point that I won.
Next on the agenda, I am joining a presuppositionalist bridge building company. We will use no scientific evidence that our bridges are safe. We assert instead we hold the correct position they are safe because the scientists have no grounding for their proposals.
Life is so easy when you don't have to answer for anything. I should have been a presup a long time ago. Then I could claim religious bigotry every time I get fired.
If you guys read this, I was Luke warm on your show until now. Outstanding! You have a new fan.
It just kills me how the hosts can roll out the red carpet and work to hard to engage sincerely with their callers.
And their kindness is returned with this...
33:10 Did anyone else catch his attempt at a joke regarding Vi's pronouns? He clearly learned absolutely nothing from Eric explaining, and had no intention of having an honest conversation.
We are just meat and bones.... along with a piece of powerful, yet buggy hardware.
Animals don`t have relationships? My sinbling cats absolutely adore each other they are so loving. They also really like my old cat who in tern is happy to have action and company while I work but isn´t too kean on having other animals around. They have strong personalities and are way less violet and humans who start wars. (although they do enjoy torturing flies)
My two favorite horses were best buddies to the point their shared a stall. It was so sweet. When the older boy died in his sleep from old age, my younger one stopped eating, stopped living and died a week later. He was old too, just younger. They had been together 30 years. No doubt they had a relationship.
Check out the clips about Koko the gorilla and her kitten.
If you think there's some thing like a soul, watch them and then try to argue that a gorilla doesn't have one
Wolves hunt in packs. Whales and dolphins collectively hunt prey to feed. Lions as well. Elephants raise their young in groups. They'll mourn when a member of the herd goes off to die, and gather when a baby elephant is introduced. And as you said, they're even capable of forming genuine relationships with other animals outside their species, and us as humans. Animals have more honest relationships than people do.
So, that’s it then Eric; you’re finished. I guess you’ll be moving on to a new show and Brian will be running things from now on. Can’t wait 😜
Lol this idiocy is your brain on Darth Dawkins. Specifically when you're not smart enough to repeat his (extremely flawed) arguments hahaha
I am amused as a Brian that the description of the video misspelled Brian as brain
Right with you there, brother! ; )
I had to go looking for you two! You dissapeared, but I have found you! Two of my favorite people!
I think you show way to much respect for ideas like this. These people need to be brought into the zone of cognitive dissonance.
Presups have build their entire argument around them not having to answer questions.
I've listened to this maybe a dozen times and still can't figure out how he thought Vi was referring to a third entity.
Eric and Vi, this channel rules. I'm so glad the algod-rithm put you in my recommendations.
Eric, I don't want to make this weird but your voice has a very soothing quality to it that I normally associate with ASMR TH-camrs. Have you considered giving that a spin in your free time (of which I'm sure you have a surplus)?
*algod-rithm* good one!
Oh my goodness, you guys are very on top of these arguments.
24:00 did that just regress to a seven-year-old gotcha escape clause?
LOVE the Calvin ball reference!!
What color is your hair, Brian?... I let out an audible YES... lmao... That was awesome... That's why I love this show, because I'll never be that quick.... Hahaha
This is logically painful... my logical processing centers are fried. I hate presups and their arrogance.
GREAT SHOW....... ONE OF THE BEST YET !
I’ve never heard a good supernatural explanation for brain damage affecting memory, cognition, personality, speech and motor control. The brain is an antenna is about the best they have but then why do animal brains also have the same outcomes.
That was one of the biggest crash and burns I've heard in awhile.
I really dont see how these 2 do this every week. Hats off 2 yall.
Yes animals have names for each other. Dolphins will designate a specific sound as their name and parrots will give their babies names. Yes some animals have names
You should ban him from the show. His 'last question' was proof he has no interest in an honest conversation.
By far one of the best responses to a caller ever on your show! Thanks y'all. Shout out from Texas.
This was SUCH a great clip...
36:04 _"And you're playing Calvinball"_ More like _Calvanismball_ amaright?!?!
Looked like Eric & Vi got suckered in to playing chess with a pigeon
Brian showing the love his God showers over His creation.
Oh wait...
I have spoken at length with a YEC like this guy before. He is so confident in his own mind that he actually thinks he is doing things without actually doing them. I pity people like him and hope they seek therapy to help them address this mental health issue.
Lol, tandom drink & tandom response of "yes" at 16:00.
I’m an RN. When performing my duties, I would be derelict in my duties, my job, my care of people if I didn’t question the why and the how. We call them “sacred cows”, those things we do because we have always been done it that way. I love having students, because they are always challenges me. I wrote a paper in nursing school 30 years ago that challenged wound care. It became a small part of changing best practices. Without questions, curiosity and a willingness to leave our “sacred cows” in the past
Are you telling me I don't have to take the sincere best guesses of my ancestors as law?
come on guys, dont pick on brian.
he isnt the messiah, he's just a very naughty boy...
he's also the son of naughtius maximus, a friend of biggus dikkus
Florida Man strikes again!
I am a meat popsicle
Leeloo Dallas multipass!
Bowerbirds: In and around the bower, the male places a variety of brightly colored objects he has collected. These objects - usually different among each species - may include hundreds of shells, leaves, flowers, feathers, stones, berries, and even discarded plastic items, coins, nails, rifle shells, or pieces of glass. The males spend hours arranging this collection.
-Wikipedia
PRIME EXAMPLE OF:
RELIGIOUS ARROGANCE
RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE
Yikes! Imagine trying to navigate life with such little capacity for understanding of reality and empathy. I hope he can gain some insight somehow.
The Lottery isn't about harvesting body parts from the victim. It's about stoning someone to death as a sacrifice in order to appease the powers that be so that they will provide a he villagers with a bountiful corn harvest.
Brian: "Do animals have that kind of relationship with each other?"
Vi & Eric in stereo: "Yes."
Brian: "No... no... they don't."
Vi & Eric in stereo: "They do."
Brian: "Okay, moving on."
Fucking embarrassing.
Brian absolutely shitting himself with glee at 24:00 because he thinks he won is such a pitiful noise.
I must be dense, I didn't see the gotcha, that he claims happened. Vi gave an example conversation and suddenly Brian's crowing like an idiot.
It seems like alot of people confuse skepticism with being cynical, while they are both similar in one aspect, the difference them is that skeptics don't stop asking questions, while a cynical person will just dismiss a claim without investigation and gaining more information first. At least that's what I've come to understand.
That seems right to me.
Another way to say it is that skepticism is being open-minded. (This is a great comeback to someone who claims something preposterous and asks you to be "open-minded" about it.)
What does it mean to be open-minded? It means being willing to examine BOTH the possibility that a claim is true AND the possibility that it isn't. If you're only open to it being true, that's being gullible. It's being only HALF open-minded. (And of course the converse amounts to being cynical.)
Presupposition and the absence of real evidence necessitates special pleading, otherwise all unfalsifiable ontologies are on the table, no matter if they contradict other presuppositions or not. This is not a sane basis of knowledge and would not allow any decisions to be made due to infinitely conflicting antecedent criteria.
Special pleading provides no foundation for social integration and often begets conflict and strife, again not a reasonable basis of thought for social health. And the only way presupposition can work is if you effectively kill off any and all counter positions - ala 'burn heretic!'
A presup. society is not a society that I want to be a part of.
PS Put your glass of orange juice inside the event horizon of a black hole, where is your god now? There are plenty of non-agent impositions outside of what we think, there is no evidence that those impositions have agency - gravity does not force you down more if you are a bad person. His gotcha is pointless and useless hyperbole.
JMike. Is that you?
Presupposition is the glorification of Special Pleading.
@@theriffwriter2194 No, but I will take that as a compliment.
Well said.
Not a single presup has ever demonstrated that they can make any logical argument. They have grabbed onto Sye’s tactic. Considering since religion is dying, we have less wars, less religious genocides, and less bigotry and racism.
"hey, there's s glass of orange juice in the next room." **Weird grin**
"Okay..? I believe you but that's a weird thing to randomly tell me"
It’s right up against the wall, go ahead.. give it a few licks 👹
Pssst… 🤫
(It’s my🐓)
This is excellent! Just, excellent content! Great work! 🧐🥤🍊
When I hear something like "How can we have minds or creativity if we're just a piece of meat? Must be god" my immediate thought is "How can computers work if they're just a pile of metal and plastic? Must be god".
Your unwillingness to learn about how computers work does not make them magic.
Your unwillingness to learn about how animal brains function does not make them magic, either.
Please stop trying to support unfounded claims by confusing ignorance with knowledge.
Of course, then you get to the very end of the conversation, which was just...wow, Brian. Does...does he not realize he undermines literally every point he made in the entire call when he ends it with something heinous like that? He may as well have ended the call with 'Actually, forget everything I said this call, I have zero actual points and am really just a adolescent buffoon and want everyone to know how few brain cells I'm working off of. Ook ook!'. I mean....congrats, dude? I guess? Whatever you want to be proud of I guess. Weird flex.
My understanding is that skepticism is the rejection of a claim unless there is sufficient evidence to conclude that it is probably true. What constitutes sufficient evidence depends upon the claim. The degree of probability depends upon the strength of the evidence. As for the orange juice example, one's word might be sufficient because it's such a mundane claim.
Orange juice behind door = god
Door = religion
Atheist = opens door and finds NO ORANGE JUICE
Theist = you have to believe the orange juice is there
im impressed that the algorithm lead me to the same caller twice in a row
That was so painful to watch...
Y'all really are the best at this stuff.
What's accidentally hilarious is right after Vi asked "Where is your Butt Unicorn?!", an advertisement for Asana replied "Over there! (it's....)" as if it was interjecting XD
There's a difference between BELIEVING there's a glass of orange juice in the room and KNOWING there's a glass of orange juice in the room.
I am so impressed that Eric & Vi have the patience to have a conversation with this guy for as long as they did. I can’t do it. Presups just drive me absolutely nuts.
34:29 now I’m getting to the point where Vi and Eric are laughing at his “arguments” and at him thinking that he actually made any point at all.