Darth Dawkins Tries to Take Over Room Then Gets Bored and Leaves
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Darth Dawkins comes back from being afk and tries to take back the room and then gets bored and leaves.
Join us at discord.gg/politics for more great conversations!
Please like, comment, share, and subscribe for more amazing videos!
#religion #christianity #islam #metaphysics #buddhism #christianphilosophy #christian #islamic #metaphysical
Good God, it’s hard to tell who’s more insufferable: DingDong or those who try to act like him.
It’s incredible how desperate they are to turn any statement or belief into an argument for a certainty claim
No truer statement has ever been spoken.
Gregory is def #1. xD
Sounds like Darth had a stroke or lost his teeth.
Maybe he was drunk
It is definitely possible!
This is probably just as likely!
Why not all three?
With headphones you can hear Darth pounding his dashboard in his car in anger 😂
Man, what amazes me is actual adults are using Discord in this manner. The internet is amazing.
Yes, the internet is awesome.
Sammy is hysterical. He tried engaging with me on a Standing for Truth video. Then, when he got his ass handed to him, he deleted comments. Sadly (for him) I took screenshots to preserve the record. Sam is a joke.
Sammy?
I also just emailed you back.
@@realBreakfasttacos Redefine Living….his name is Sam
@@realBreakfasttacos great!
@@micheal-thecanadianatheist Oh, yup. He is pretty horrible.
YOU GUYS KEEP TALKING ABOUT DARTH'S TEETH. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW NORMAL AGED PEOPLE LOSE TEETH TOO!
“Normal aged people” 💀
Man redefine living really dropped the ball trying to run the presup the script instead of letting James give his argument for Naturalist worldview.
Yes he did!
Redefine living is very stupid, angry and dishonest.
I don't like him at all.
@@realBreakfasttacos he will edit conversations on his channel, ones where he lost, to make it look like he won.
And he deletes comments. He’s a total POS.
@@realBreakfasttacos It's ok to not like unlikeable people.
He's pretty bottom of the barrel as far as the Darth stoolies go, which is really saying something.
Speaking of the Redefine, I asked him for his argument that supports his claim “God is objectively proven to exist”
After numerous attempts to get it, he finally presented his first premise.
P1. There can only be one metaphysically necessary worldview.
I disagreed, and asked for an argument to support p1
Any assistance would be appreciated, thx!
What's the point of having a proprietary dictionary?
At that point pressups are talking a different language.
Very true
"Who created this?" is a loaded question.
LOL
If God didn't do it then who do you think did?
@@billysnooze6608Yeah! If God didn't magic it into existence then which god actually did it?!
@@billysnooze6608 No one, , its chemistry in nature..... The shot version...
No one..."created this"... chemistry in nature is the shot answer.....
"What's your justification that reality can exist independent from God?" -- Loaded question; it presumes God's existence. And if God doesn't exist, then reality existing independent from a non-existent thing is self-evident.
As an aside, I like how Darth is told his mic is screwing up so he switches them out (you can hear the major change when this happens), then scolds the atheist for "not listening" back when he was still using the crappy mic.
As a second aside, I love them attacking Taco for "mutes and boots" right after Darth literally muted somebody.
They just made that mute and boot part up, I am overly fair when it comes to moderation.
and.. if you know your question is loaded, why would you still ask it? seems really dishonest to me
@@jcjc4314 Right
So funny… there is a ton of evidence that humans predicate intention and anthropomorphize incorrectly.
What he’s referring to are childhood intuitions that things like rocks are alive. If anything what he’s bringing up is evidence against theism…. Why wouldn’t theism be one of these false predications?
Yes
Presup is stupid. I claim reality comes from an undetectable unicorn.
Nice!
But you don’t have an old book .
As long as it's pink
It's absolutely amazing just how Arrogant the Theistic stance is.
Absolutely no justification for the assumption of a god, yet the assertion that it's a valid response is just... repeated over and over.
Yes, atheism is Justified because we have Existence all around us, which is the Epitome of Self-Evident. Solipsism is just arbitrarily rejecting basic common sense, no matter how much you want to Believe Reality is a simulation, you cannot escape the Fact that you are currently trapped in that simulation without any means of escape, which makes it the ONLY Reality you have to deal with.
All other suggestions of possible realities are empty without evidence, and can be ignored until evidence is found.
Religion is the assertion that "There is something beyond that which humans can Know, and I Believe in it."; so absolutely yes, they bear the burden of proof; Atheism does not.
I don't have to prove that something that we cannot detect, doesn't exist. If that was the case, then every single Theist has to disprove ALL other worldviews until theirs in the only one that could possibly be True; which is why Presups have to just Assert that their empty assumptions have equal validity to the null-postiion of atheism.
Atheism is Justified by Reality and Theism is NOT. We exist and Reality is Self-Evident, which kicks solipsism to the curb immediately; want to test solipsism, then ask all solipsists to volunteer to have their brain removed so we can check if it has a significant effect on the rest of Reality.
We can therefore discard solipsism as pointless nonsense, and then ask why a god concept has any real value. There could be an Infinite amount of possible non-god solutions that would lead to this Universe, and we have absolutely no way of narrowing that basic "initiation cause" down to any particular human created concept.
It's very possible that our entire Universe, is caught in the event horizons of two supermassive black holes. We have no way of determining that is or isn't the case, but it's more likely than ANY god concept that humans have ever come up with. Every single god concept, is a unique thought of a single human, none of those individual concepts are actually the same, because there isn't a Thing there for them to understand. It's just their own personal definition of "god", which really exposes that the term is nearly meaningless.
They can presume what they like it doesn’t prove the existence of a god .
Very well put.
@@realBreakfasttacos I keep thinking about trying to talk at the Atheist Helpline, but I'm nowhere near as articulate when communicating directly.
@@13shadowwolf
I think you under estimate your abilities 👍
"baby knows how to suckle" yeah, says the dude that speaks like he's well experienced, with his inability to reach his teeth with his tongue
LOL! Everyone keeps mentioning the teeth thing.
Atheism definitely IS the default position, no matter how angry dopey Darth is about it.
LOL great point.
Darth says his 14 year endeavor is ‘total cringe’ ….well you said it boomer.
Yes he did!
Al that are saying with presup is "I have a stance".
That is correct!
Atheism isn't a positive claim that requires justification. The only positive claim within Atheism is "I don't have a belief that a God exists" Which is 100% verifiably true.
Any positive claim requires justification to be justifiably believed. Atheism isn't a positive claim, unless you're a hard Atheist, meaning you say "No Gods Exist". Which I'm not, and most people are not, because I'm not sure how I could ever investigate any other dimensions in which these Gods are supposed to exist. These Gods are unfalsifiable, so I could necessarily never say they do not exist.
Atheism (Aside from Hard atheism, which most people are not) requires zero justification.
We don't believe in any God as babies. Atheism is literally the default. Holding zero beliefs period is the default of every single human in their beginning years. God is a concept that we get taught later, and as a positive proposition it requires justification. Which no one has ever obtained in regards to a God.
Atheism is a negative response to the god claim. It is still a claim generally that no gods exist, but it is generally targeted towards classical theism. New atheists or lacktheists are kind of dumb.
@@realBreakfasttacos I mean maybe you think it’s a pedantic definition, but I feel like it’s still accurate?
I guess yes, I could say No Gods Exist, in the same way, and for the same reasons that I could say No purple aliens inside Mars exist.
But they’re unfalsifiable claims, so how could I ever say with certainty that they are false?
There are zero reasons to believe they are true though, yes.
What are your thoughts
Edit: Though, I do see where you’re coming from, and I definitely would classify myself more towards a Gnostic/hard atheist in regards to the obviously contradictory mythological Gods that have been proposed by the different religions.
So I guess we probably mostly agree
"Overdosed on stupid pills" yooooo I'm stealing that 😂
That is a pretty good one.
I confess I'm not a logician or philosopher, but it seems crazy to me that anyone has a burden of proof to explain how their worldview functions independently of any kind of supernatural being for which there is no verifiable evidence. It just seems bizarre to me that we have to rule out an inexhaustible list of imagined creatures/entities/whatever.
It is very bizarre
What does "secure" mean? Darth seems to think God carries each photon in his hand, so does "secure" mean that God is personally carrying each photon from its origin to its destination? Because without God, nothing works, right? We can drive cars, because God is pushing the car? He "secures" that the car can go.
I think Darth is just very confused.
The description of tacos debate tactics and behavior is exactly what Darth does the hypocrisy is astronomical
Thank you!
he really just clings to the word "stance" like that's the justification... nah dude't stance is just a position on a topic. that's not a justification. the justification is the evidence that affirms that stance. like the fact that everything we observe appears to be naturally determined and there's been no evidence of a god doing anything.
Absolutely.
In my feed, what a bunch on non-sense. It is really simple. Define your god, provide evidence and see if you can convince me.
Very good point!
“Prove to me that my insane delusions about invisible realms and creatures that cannot be investigated or explored in any way are not true. Betcha can’t!”
-some dork who is entirely out of ideas about how to justify his childish beliefs to himself who thinks he’s “winning” at life
If someone needs to prove their worldview then any stance would need to be proven- so a theist would still need to support their claims
That is correct, but they never attempt to prove any of their claims.
There is actually a sensible answer to Redefine Living's opening question.
Proposition A: "The physical universe exists and has properties that establish regularities and intelligibility."
Both theists and atheists believe A. We all believe that the physical universe exists and that it functions in a law-like fashion and we can reason about this universe.
Christians wrap this shared belief in a god.
Proposition B: "The physical universe was created by a triune God who created the Garden of Eden, flooded the Earth, gave tablets to Moses, came to Earth as God-made-flesh, died for our sins, rose again 3 days later, and salvation is available only through Him."
We all already believe A, so what's to prove??
Christians add onto A all of those bits of Proposition B... Gee, wouldn't it be nice if they could provide evidence or rational support for _any_ of it? 😂
Yes, but they never will.
@Ape-shapedCarbon You make a good point... and you highlight one of the goofiest things about this online presup garbage. They insist that we provide an "ultimate context" for intelligibility. We DO need a context or a framework, but we DON'T need an "ultimate" context.
Reasoning happens in an environment of _local_ regularities and intelligibility. All we need is for "uniformity of nature" to extend in the space and time around us.... just like you said! So long as our local environment is some uniformity and intelligibility, we can gain knowledge about our environment. We can extend our knowledge into more distant times and places as long as there is a broad "bubble" of regularity and intelligibility to explore.
So yes, we need a "framework" for our knowledge gathering... but no, we don't need a "framework for our framework," as the presuppers insist we need.
I've explained the enterprise of knowledge gathering (epistemology) this way... Imagine waking up in a hospital bed with no memory. The room has gravity that I can learn about it. I can find buttons that make the bed go up and down... a light switch on the way that affects the overhead lighting... and so on.... I can gain knowledge about my intelligible environment even if I don't know "where" or "when" this environment exists!!
Maybe I'm in a building supported by concrete pillars in San Francisco.... Maybe I'm in an underground bunker... Maybe I'm on a spinning orbital space station! The point is, I can determine that the switch makes the light turn on and off even though I don't know the "framework for my framework."
Literally not one online presupper has taken even one epistemology class... literally ever.
It is very simpel drawin,...iam an atheist cos' i never seen a god, or heard a god, that way iam an atheist ☺️
Good point!
@@realBreakfasttacos thank you,..it is the only point ...show me evidence, or shut up Darwin 😅
“Contradictory with evolution” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yes it is!
@@realBreakfasttacos true
Many such cases
This meta analysis of 3 studies actually shows the innate belief hypothesis is probably nonsense. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678111/
Why does the atheist not have a burden to justify that his particular non-theistic worldview is true? And he thinks that only the theist has a burden to justify his theistic worldview. I don't get it. That makes absolutely no sense. It's equivalent with saying, "i don't have a burden for my model of reality but everyone else does for theirs."
No
He said he made no claim of a worldview. You dont need to. Everyone has to implicitly affirm a worldview just to speak intelligibly at all.
So the burden in paradigm-level debates arent determined by what anyone explicitly claimed. It's Worldview VS Worldview, regardless of what anyone explicitly claims.
People don't "claim" their worldview, they assume it.
The theists are the ones claiming that something exists outside of our shared naturalistic/atheistic reality that has been revealed to all of sound mind through both natural and special revelation. If I offer you black dragon acid breath insurance at a discounted rate, you are going to ask me for evidence that black dragons exist and breath acid on homes.
@@realBreakfasttacos I'm a theist. I didn't claim anything. How did you determine your particular non-theistic worldview is true?
@@realBreakfasttacos I define my theism as just not being convinced that any non-theistic worldview is true. (So there is no explicit claim in the definition). I just lack belief in any non-theistic worldview and don't include any claim in how I define my position.
And I'm just wondering what evidence convinced you that your particular non-theistic worldview is true?
@lightbeforethetunnel I believe the reason for this is due to the debate over something that cannot be defined, agreed upon, tested, proven, unproven etc.
It seems as if the atheists who reject all 4000 God claims have a valid reason (lack of evidence) that also exists for unicorns, magic, ghosts etc
@@lightbeforethetunnelYou claim that the Christian god is the necessary precondition for intelligibility every day of your life.
You're disingenuous and a liar.
What's wrong with you? Seriously. I want to know how you become you?
The profile pics make sense
So sad
Haha!
@@realBreakfasttacos
Don't haha that i'm insulting all of you!
Roughly 10 years ago somewhere around 2011+ I was stuck in debate bro echo chambers adjacent to the whole alpha male bubble, this is BEFOR TATE and long before any of you decided to put a fidora on your balding heads while calling yourself intellectual. To be clear, that was just a bunch of kids and 20 year olds talking about video games so whatever level of cringe that whole situation was operating you lot are THAT but you're in your 30's and 40's talking about real life issues like educated Academics eventho none of you are....
Mate, how are you or any of your buddies any better than Twitch streamer Destiny from 10 years ago? It's the exact same schtick but less convincing and much more cringe.
God I hate everything about this video.
The way you guys look (fidora + trying to come across as educated with those cringe profile pics. You're not Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle!
The way you guys act with this whole crap about muting people for not answering your questions quickly enough for f*cks sake. Whoever muted that guy should get the sh*t kicked out of him because that type of behaviour is THE MOST ANTI INTELLECTUAL AND ANTI DEBATE you could ever be... there's literally nothing worse than a person who thinks they're so intelligent that they don't need to listen to you and can just mute you for it... I'm actually debating whether I should sign up for this sh*tshow to teach every single one of you something about the reality you are obviously missing out on but that would obviously be a lost cause and a waste of my time so that will never happen. I don't care enough to drag you out of the cesspool.
The way you guys sound I mean if I had to guess I would wager that a majority of people on that call are highly over weight and havn't left their house in a month. It sounds like ya'all are breaking a sweat just responding to discord chatter.
I don't know ANYTHING about ANY of you but this one video alone perfectly demonstrates why these type of online debate bro echo chambers should be burned with hellfire.