At the end he admitted that he defines objective as an attribute that requires a god, so he could have saved all of us a lot of time by saying that from the very beginning.
//"Since when did an unjustified belief in a deity become a justification for anything?"// Yep - presup is just *fideism* with some obfuscatory smoke and mirrors. :)
Whenever someone gibberates “x accounts for logic” they’re either saying 1. Something is logically prior to logic, which is incoherent or 2. Something causally explains logic, which is a category error. Dribble piled on dribble.
I still don't understand after all these years why they think we can't access intelligibility or information without God. We fucking understand everything they say.
"We fucking understand everything they say." Presup says this is the case because their god exists. The only way that you can understand *anything* is because their god exists and constantly coerces the chaos of his creation to function in such a way that every electron continues to orbit every proton, that every molecule continues to be bonded, that every cell continues to work in harmony with every other cell, that words have meaning, and that the air vibrates in such a way that you can hear The Word. And that you actually know this. And that they could not possibly be wrong. Deny it all you want, this is the ONLY way. Duh.
@@YBbetterRati0 maybe it is then. Whats the problem? Humans ARE irrational and our intuition is flawed. We do our best and it seems to work well enough
Invisible friends, invisible enemies, "buy now and we'll give you the product once you're dead," failed prophecies, a messiah who didn't imminently return, people getting out of their graves and walking around talking to people in Jerusalem, Christians can't agree on what Jesus is like even though they all have a deep personal relationship with him, claiming absolute morality when Christianity teaches moral relativism... only Christianity is rational enough to make sense of the real world.
Josh Pillows is a total clown. I can “justify x” because I made up a concept & then claim “that made up concept solves/justifies x”… 🤣🤦🏼♂️ Same old bag of nonsense. “You have no objective reference point”. Well, neither do you because your reference point is just “God = another subjective mind”… 🤦🏼♂️
Obviously they were used by the giants As Beasts of burden and of war and so Visa v ipso facto sky daddy (uwu) Had to murder everyone On the planet It was the only moral thing to do
So the presup is saying that it's absurd not to assert that you can't be wrong? Conflating objective with certain? It seems to me that they're arguing that atheism is incoherent, but the argument is itself incoherent.
Most of them know the words, but don't understand the concepts. Someone should tell them, that for successful "internal critique" they first need to understand the opposing worldview.
When presuppers repeatedly say "you don't understand the presup position", what they seem to MEAN is, " *I* don't understand (or *I* refuse to address) the glaringly obvious (and repeatedly explained) objections to my position." Since these objections are pretty well understood, presuppers are either revealing a cognitive defect they possess, or - in the absence of such a defect - are simply dishonest and are parroting rhetorical nonsense in the hope that the interlocutor won't notice.
Presuppers are all disingenuous assholes. They know their position is fucked, but they lack the emotional wherewithal to admit it. So they gravitate toward the one argument that insulates itself from any criticism.
Just a very brief and simple overview of how I perceive these matters without overwhelming philosophical terminology. Everything that exists has a fundamental structure and properties. Consequently, our universe has its own fundamental structure and properties. Without these, it wouldn't exist as it does; it would be something else. These structures and properties are essential for the existence of the universe and us. Human minds use different languages-such as logic and mathematics-to describe our understanding of these necessities. If our understanding can be demonstrated to work, it is considered true (objective) relative to the actual universe we inhabit. (Why should we be interested in what would be "true" and "objective" in another kind of universe, presumably grounded in other types of necessities?)
Presupp bullshit. Show how A, B, C.....otherwise, I'm right....because I just assert my thing is true & can justify the things I think it does because does. Sure, friend....sure.
You can only justify your Christian position with EVIDENCE, of which you have sweet FA!! claim, claim, claim, assert, assert, assert. Where's the EVIDENCE???
Ok what I don’t see how admir won, this was just a semantical dispute, and I understood everything the host was saying and it looks admir was derailing from the conversation to go on a semantical dispute, for example the justification semantical dispute everyone knew he was talking about an adequate justification, not just justification
2+2=4 proves that 6-2 cannot equal 4. Because 2+2=4, that expression precludes every other mathematical rational that concludes '4'. Therefore to say '6-2=4' is irrational. THAT'S the stupid argument if I'm understanding correctly.
Claim, claim, claim. No evidence. Therefore, claim.
He's always really tired.....
@@CharlesB-NGNM 😂 yep
Doesn't everyone smoke him though?
It seems
Like a cigarette in prison.
Still a better discussion than any with DD and the script he's been running for over a decade.
At the end he admitted that he defines objective as an attribute that requires a god, so he could have saved all of us a lot of time by saying that from the very beginning.
Do these internet presups learn to be human gibberish generators?! 😳
Since when did an unjustified belief in a deity become a justification for anything?
//"Since when did an unjustified belief in a deity become a justification for anything?"//
Yep - presup is just *fideism* with some obfuscatory smoke and mirrors. :)
His argument is that atheists need to show something outside of reality because the theists say something like that exists .
I never allow religious zealots and other such kooks to "tether" my epistemology to their unhinged metaphysical beliefs.
I haven't watched much of this stuff for a while but I see pressuppers still don't understand the difference between a claim and an argument.
Whenever someone gibberates “x accounts for logic” they’re either saying 1. Something is logically prior to logic, which is incoherent or 2. Something causally explains logic, which is a category error. Dribble piled on dribble.
👌
precisely
Would you elaborate on both explanations?
I love the way he argued atheists have different opinions when he comes from a religion with over a thousand denominations!!!
Fuc*ing comedy gold😂😂😂😂😂
I still don't understand after all these years why they think we can't access intelligibility or information without God. We fucking understand everything they say.
"We fucking understand everything they say." Presup says this is the case because their god exists. The only way that you can understand *anything* is because their god exists and constantly coerces the chaos of his creation to function in such a way that every electron continues to orbit every proton, that every molecule continues to be bonded, that every cell continues to work in harmony with every other cell, that words have meaning, and that the air vibrates in such a way that you can hear The Word. And that you actually know this. And that they could not possibly be wrong. Deny it all you want, this is the ONLY way. Duh.
I don't think presups claim that you can't access intelligibility. I think they say that you can't justify why it exists.
@@timandmonica the next question is why should I be bothered by that?
If Christians are so certain, why do they toss the word "Belief" around so much ?
@@dennis6442 certainty is a type of belief
or rather, what is the use of “faith” if they know without a shadow of a doubt?
We don't have to justify or account for any of that stuff.
Then its irrational LMAO
@@YBbetterRati0 maybe it is then. Whats the problem? Humans ARE irrational and our intuition is flawed. We do our best and it seems to work well enough
This guy does not understand much he talks a lot but he says very little he makes sweeping assertions and claims . You won't get a coherent response .
like a lean brisket. nothing left but char.
KEvron
jmike when the mic cut at the end.
Tears of laughter.
and so forth, so to speak
Invisible friends, invisible enemies, "buy now and we'll give you the product once you're dead," failed prophecies, a messiah who didn't imminently return, people getting out of their graves and walking around talking to people in Jerusalem, Christians can't agree on what Jesus is like even though they all have a deep personal relationship with him, claiming absolute morality when Christianity teaches moral relativism... only Christianity is rational enough to make sense of the real world.
Is this guy talking to us from the inside of a broken air conditioner?
While chewing cough drops. Sounds like two old people having sex in a vat of warm vasoline.
Josh Pillows is a total clown. I can “justify x” because I made up a concept & then claim “that made up concept solves/justifies x”… 🤣🤦🏼♂️
Same old bag of nonsense.
“You have no objective reference point”. Well, neither do you because your reference point is just “God = another subjective mind”… 🤦🏼♂️
Darth and his minions believe the earth is 6000 years old. I wonder if they believe the dinosaurs lives alongside with humans like the flintstones?
Yes. They do.
Yup, he believes the flintstones was a documentary 😂😂
Obviously they were used by the giants As Beasts of burden and of war and so Visa v ipso facto sky daddy (uwu) Had to murder everyone On the planet It was the only moral thing to do
When physical and historical evidence is unconvincing,
the theist then trots out bullshit philosophical "evidence".
this guy is wasting everyone's time talking so much nonsense about this god he can't demonstrate exists
This guy is trying very hard not to say "If God doesn't exist, God doesn't justify our beliefs"
So the presup is saying that it's absurd not to assert that you can't be wrong? Conflating objective with certain? It seems to me that they're arguing that atheism is incoherent, but the argument is itself incoherent.
Most of them know the words, but don't understand the concepts. Someone should tell them, that for successful "internal critique" they first need to understand the opposing worldview.
When presuppers repeatedly say "you don't understand the presup position", what they seem to MEAN is, " *I* don't understand (or *I* refuse to address) the glaringly obvious (and repeatedly explained) objections to my position."
Since these objections are pretty well understood, presuppers are either revealing a cognitive defect they possess, or - in the absence of such a defect - are simply dishonest and are parroting rhetorical nonsense in the hope that the interlocutor won't notice.
Presuppers are all disingenuous assholes. They know their position is fucked, but they lack the emotional wherewithal to admit it. So they gravitate toward the one argument that insulates itself from any criticism.
Godbot wants everyone to believe is fact-less assertion to complete his argument.
Just a very brief and simple overview of how I perceive these matters without overwhelming philosophical terminology.
Everything that exists has a fundamental structure and properties. Consequently, our universe has its own fundamental structure and properties. Without these, it wouldn't exist as it does; it would be something else. These structures and properties are essential for the existence of the universe and us. Human minds use different languages-such as logic and mathematics-to describe our understanding of these necessities. If our understanding can be demonstrated to work, it is considered true (objective) relative to the actual universe we inhabit. (Why should we be interested in what would be "true" and "objective" in another kind of universe, presumably grounded in other types of necessities?)
Presupp bullshit. Show how A, B, C.....otherwise, I'm right....because I just assert my thing is true & can justify the things I think it does because does. Sure, friend....sure.
You can only justify your Christian position with EVIDENCE, of which you have sweet FA!!
claim, claim, claim, assert, assert, assert. Where's the EVIDENCE???
Ok what I don’t see how admir won, this was just a semantical dispute, and I understood everything the host was saying and it looks admir was derailing from the conversation to go on a semantical dispute, for example the justification semantical dispute everyone knew he was talking about an adequate justification, not just justification
@@Smoothie_gzz 💀🤕
This guy is so insufferable
I smell b/s.
Christian b/s!!!
2+2=4 proves that 6-2 cannot equal 4. Because 2+2=4, that expression precludes every other mathematical rational that concludes '4'. Therefore to say '6-2=4' is irrational.
THAT'S the stupid argument if I'm understanding correctly.
Presuppositionalist L
Smug much?