A public impromptu discussion between John Mark Reynolds and AronRa about facts and truth during an Apologetic Conference at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. March 4, 2017
This is hard to watch. Clearly the Christian dude is well trained in Philosophy and seems to want to create some kind of semantic joust out of this discussion. And AaronRa unfortunately doesn't seem willing or able to battle in that arena. It's super frustrating, because they never get into any kind of meaningful debate. Fucking theist wants to nitpick definitions and meaningless tripe! Perhaps AaronRa's next field of study should be philosophy and fucking sophistry!!
looks like you are a fucking bright. Try to use the word more often, ideally in every sentence. Also capitalise is to others can immediately see the intellectual strength of your argument :-)
fourteatwo It might be bad form or what have you, but the sentiment is true. I will always be on the side of Socratic investigation - never on the side of sophists and theologians who already apparently possess knowledge of the gods and “know” how everything functions.
That's what these professional Apologists are good at it. They whip up an argument to look good, but there is nothing but air and fluff if you look at their argument objectively.
I always find it interesting, because I feel the same way about scientist’s explanations for the existence of the universe, just as strong as you hold your position. It is really interesting to me that two people could look at the same evidence and be so convinced of opposing conclusions.
@@QuesoSlam The difference being that a theist will have the conviction to say what DID happen, because of faith, and a scientist (or at least a skeptic) will hold out belief until there is [good] evidence.
The comments on Ra's side are astounding to me. This is a summary of the video. Aran Ra's scientistic sloganeering crashed into the cement wall of legitimate philosophical scholarship. This is the consensus of anyone in the scholastic, philosophical community. These people (to include Matt Dillahunty) would be eaten alive at a professional, philosophical conference. If you can't see this, you're just ignorant. These people make a name for themselves by crushing laymen, fundamentalistic pastors, pseudo-intellectuals, career polemicists, and obnoxious apologists. I'm okay with this! Seriously! Such people need to be put in there place. But when they get from this that the whole of Christian scholarship is bunk and retarded, this video is just proof that it's just . . . . never . . . . that . . . . naively simple. If you think you're so amazingly awesome at shutting down Christianity, visit a Christian philosophy conference and be prepared to be humbled. Christian philosophers attend with a preparation to be humbled by other Christian philosophers. Slogans NEVER work. Ever.
The guy rambled about how to engage with proper definitions so much that you can never attack him with an argument. He is ducking and dodging aron so hard that he assumes what aron means several times to go back to definitions. The thing is the guy still had no evidence for god and Aron was being very patient with the word salad man. Matt D. Would have crucified him in minutes.
If this is a prime example of “Christian Philosophy” then these conferences you speak of must place great value on the ability to obfuscate via word salad.
I'm about 15 minutes in and it seems that John Mark Reynolds keeps trying to force the difference in word definitions as the basis for his argument presented. For example, Aron speaks about the moon of Neptune and John asks for the definition of what a fact is. Aron starts to explain and uses the word data and before even finishing his statement John says that data and fact have to be defined differently right there on the spot. Typically, word definitions are often times defined by other words. Data has a slightly different definition yes but the two are often times very related and Aron was trying to explain that which is objectively verifiable and couldn't even finish. Also, as I am continuing John keeps interjecting word definitions as a priority in this debate but that shouldn't be the core of a debate.
Henry said: _"it seems that John Mark Reynolds keeps trying to force the difference in word definitions as the basis for his argument presented"_ Yes, This is exactly what he, and many like him do. No matter how often you tell them: _"Let's first at least agree on what we mean by THE TERMS we use"_ , they'll just fill in what _they_ want it to mean, anyway, no matter if you said that that ISN'T what you mean by it... And then there's folks like Andrew Crocker, who say it's _the scientist_ who _"plays with words"_ ... (Unlike god-believers, science is VERY CLEAR in its wording, Andrew; You're yet another nice example of a god-believer, accusing others of EXACTLY their own traits and behaviors. (I'm keeping a list of these examples, so thank you for that (the list is getting pretty extensive).
That's what trying to prove the improbable is about, claim that definitions are not clear, move words around a little, try to catch as many things that you later can cling on, and then argue on the basis that the other person hasn't been truthful on this or other thing. Which, if you go by what arguably most christian believe, is the technique that demons would use against their faithful.
To confuse philosophy with (physical, natural) science and scientific _'truths'_ is exactly what's wrong with god-believers. (the guy starts shoving in _gawd_ right from the get go of his _'phylosophsing'_ , and then he sets off talking about how sad it would be if it _wasn't_ true...(among a whole lot of strawman stuff about none-believers) sigh....
ps: so No: Aron _didn't_ get _'a lesson'_ . (btw: at about 5:00 in we get the old: _accuse others of exactly your own traits and behavior_ routine of the god-believer; accusing _the other one_ on being _too loose_ and/or _too vague_ in his choice of words... Un-freakin' believable!)
better have another cheese omelette. what differentiates humans from non human. He could as well have said Humans are stardust of made from the dust of this earth, that is also a "fact". However it does not define a human by saying humans are dust. This is deliberate word salad.
Knowledge is a type of belief. How can religious beliefs or ideas ever be knowledge beyond its existence as a concept? They’re merely beliefs if they’re not correct and verifiable through any reliable framework. What can they practically do? Religious beliefs promise rewards they can’t promise truthfully. Whether you’re correct or incorrect in a religious belief, there are still rewards that can be had for being incorrect. The only thing being avoided is a demonstrable truth, which it cannot BE until the supernatural shows itself to be demonstrable or testable. In contrast, a scientific belief cannot do much of ANYTHING, unless it is correct.
John mark Reynolds on his definition of FACT: "It is a mind independent reality that may or may not be knowable by me." AronRa "Okay, I don't see that to be significantly different from what I am talking about" John " It will turn out to be." This is where I tune out because I don't have time for this jargon. Of course it will turn out to be a different definition of truth. A theist's quasi absolute morality constantly is in a state of flux do to their agenda. Think of the malleable "absolute morality" in the bible such as incest, women's rights, slavery, dispossession of land, need I go on? It is constantly being more enlightened! For example: Galileo and the arrangement of the planets. God said his creation was good and yet arminianiestic christians pray for a suspension of natural laws to compliment their whimsical desires. When you conscientiously look throughout history, especially the history of religions, the big picture shows that their religion conveniently fits perfectly with their selfish desire at that time and say the good god in heaven is using them as his (notice the gender pronoun) vessel. Wake up and realize that the delusional battle semantics to distract from empirical truth. Religion is a way to marginalize in order to categorize in order to gain power and then digress by denying the facts that present themselves in history as well as their own text. Why are there are so many denominations? A bunch of sociopaths that suffer from folie a duex along with the barnum effect.
@@rifleattheplayground Except that's false, because the other guy is a YEC, one of the dumbest positions it's possible to hold, more ridiculous than a Flat Earther.
@@mattsmith1440 yet somehow he still makes Aron look like an idiot because Aron doesn't understand philosophy. Aron is the kind of guy who says rocks are atheists.
@@rifleattheplayground I'm not seeing that, but then again I know the Earth is 'slightly older' then 6k years. I mean, depending on your definition of years, of course ;)
JMR is arguing with special pleading , because we are going to use reason like we all agree on. But not on my experience because it's GOD.. that's what you do.
Does anyone know how/why Aron is there? Was he invited? Was it open to the public? I see his badge, so...were "tickets" sold to anyone? I ask because someone is using this as a example of an atheist "harassing" a believer. His claim was that atheist go door-to-door proselytizing just as much as theiest. Seriously? This was his best evidence. Do you think Reynolds was offended/bothered by Aron at all? Seriously...
This same video is posted at AronRa's youtube channel "A Snippet from my visit to Baptist Theological Seminary". In the description AronRa says he was invited by Anthony Magnabosco ( street epistemologist ). Anthony is the guy at the beginning in the gray sweatshirt center-left onscreen. He has some really interesting stuff at his channel.
@@trombone7 Wow. 4 years just to find out it was in the description all along! Man, I'd feel stupid, but I forgot I even posted this! Wait...where are my Brain Pills™...
This JMR is like a toddler when he can't have his lollypup. , if you argue like him you can as well answer a question like, how much is 2 x 3 ? then you say blue. and then have the same discussion like presented here. so what do we do ? If we can't agree about the language we try to use. By the way Aron, RESPECT for your calmness during this insufferable AND I MEAN INSUFFERABLE ARROGANT animal ;-) here ! funfact, when he says ' i am not at all sure that Christianity is true'
Did you understand a single thing John said? I realized the second time watching what he was on about. Aaron was way out of his league. He is a absolute materialist and his rigid black and white view was hampering him intellectually. He's not a very deep thinker. John did cut him off a lot but he was trying to get Aaron to realize that most of reality is formed by definitions....not fact. That was fascinating. I think this is playing out right before our eyes between the far left and right. They are not disputing the facts (what happened) but how they define it! Crazy.
Wish it didn't end short... I found this interesting, but ultimately the philosophical angle is really getting in the way of productive conversation where you get to the actual point of what is being said, instead of getting hung up every few words.Looking past that can be beneficial overall. It helps keep it more on track in a way that John would like it to, which is fair enough.. but boy it's slow and often derails the specific general point being made to such a degree that Aron often forgets what the point he was bringing up even was in the first place lol. Could of been done better there, and John should try and keep that in mind. When I have a dialogue with a theist, I don't pull them up on everything I think is weird compared to how I personally view things.. like if they use the word "theory" wrong, or some silly understanding on evolution or morals or whatever.. I just hear out what they are trying to say, then I reply afterwards, and always remember the point they are actually trying to make overall, even if the language and things they said to get there weren't so great. Otherwise you just get too bogged down in semantics when the bigger picture is often more important to listen for and address (not that you can't clear smaller things up afterwards too). 46:38 - Ultimately I'd like to just hear John's justification for his god-belief.. the Ontological argument is poor.. so hopefully there's something better to justify John saying that he does think he has evidence for his god, in response to Aron saying that John is convinced of something without the evidence to indicate it. Hence theists being unreasonable. Could of gotten to that point a lot faster without all the largely pointless semantics. Then the camera died or some shit not too long after.
Your problem seems to be that you simply accept god doesn't exist, so you are already not willing to truly hear what John is trying to say. The reason he has to stop so often is because Aron is so reckless with his language. To a philosopher Aron sounds like a high school student. "Ultimately I'd like to just hear John's justification for his god-belief.. the Ontological argument is poor.. so hopefully there's something better to justify John saying that he does think he has evidence for his god, in response to Aron saying that John is convinced of something without the evidence to indicate it. Hence theists being unreasonable." -John did do this. John was being entirely reasonable. Aron was unreasonable when he would not accept that John uses the same methodology to come to his religious belief. Aron won't accept this because his mind is already made up that religion is always unreasonable. You seem to think semantics aren't important, and that the only thing that matters is if someone believes in god or not, rather than how they came to that belief. They came to it the same way we all come to all of our beliefs.
Aaron isn't deep thinker. John tried to make him realize that most of our reality is formed /framed by definitions....not fact. That was fascinating. I think this is playing out right before our eyes between the far left and right. They are not disputing the facts (what happened) but how they define it! Crazy.
@@rifleattheplayground - What it doesn't address, and in fact avoids, is whether the God they believe in is real or not. No matter how well spoken, philosophers can't talk God into existence with semantics. Accounting for the beginnings and development of religious thought, no matter how nuanced or complex, isn't the same thing as providing evidence for the existence of God. "You seem to think semantics aren't important, and that the only thing that matters is if someone believes in god or not, rather than how they came to that belief. They came to it the same way we all come to all of our beliefs." That depends on what the belief is and whether or not that belief is based on evidence. All beliefs are not arrived at in the same way or on the same basis.
@@snaphaan5049- If that puts religion in the same category as those who think who won an election is "a matter of opinion" then I would agree; they're both invented narratives based on the idea that what one wants to believe is more important than what is actually true. By extension, I think that puts John in the same category as those who think their "deep thoughts" somehow create a reality of their own.
Because I watched this and I cannot fathom how a non-god believer would agree with much of anything that was said. Hence, someone who swallows Christian propaganda is not a good atheist. In fact, he's a shitty one. In other words, I don't believe he is an atheist for a second because he just bought a whole tank of word salad with a side of shit.
Probably because this dude knows how to discuss the topic and isn’t an idiot like Aron is used to talking to. Aron is a fool that is completely idiotic in these discussions.
@@TheMindIlluminated Talking around things. Why does it mean to KNOW….bla bla bla playing the skeptic about everything except his own peculiar brand of Christianity.
@@tgrogan6049 He’s not talking around things; asking Aron what it means to know something is a legitimate question, and he didn’t even really mention Christianity that much.
The apologist seems to forget about the book of James chapter 1 verse six and following: “But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.”
Facts are irrelevant to Aron. He sees his opponent, and he sees him as the bad man. Cannot agree with bad man regardless what the topic, or the facts are. Aron's ego and Smugness so large, there isnt enough room for it, and facts. 5:28 sums it all up, the terms are so loose and imprecise.
@@stansmith3144 The Jewish Arab hasn't come back and you didn't answer the question. YOU guys boasted a Second Coming, if Jesus did exist, I doubt he really talked about it in such literal terms.
JMR YOU ARE REALLY INSUFFERABLE TO SAY TO ARON GO READ THIS BOOK OF MODERN FILOSOFIA, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DEFINE THOSE TERMS EITHER YOU JUST PRETEND YOU CAN.
Can you even do science with out God, without design and order, uniformity in nature...? Laws= law giver. So atheist, nothing exploded created everything, non life brings life, and your nothing, going nowhere, with zero purpose but let's look for truth, and try to demonstrate it, and argue as if there is meaning. That is what God calls a fool Psalm 14:1
“Nothing exploded”: Nobody really says that. That’s a straw man. “Non life brings life” Something which agrees with genesis, considering humans were made of dust in the story. Meaning is imposed internally. A god cannot impart meaning, as it would be nebulous and arbitrary - unless the aspects of the god were used as a striving point - in which case the meaning is equal in each version of reality, as God is yet to demonstrate itself. We eagerly await.
So, it looks like you have to work very hard, as an 'intellectual' to convince oneself of the truth of one's belief system. I wonder why (insert deity of choice) made it so tricky for your 'standard' rational human mind to come to a belief in him/her/it/them? Synthetic arguments and outright sophistry are all very well but if believing is so important (and presumably it is since our immortal souls are usually imperiled by a lack of such) then why not make a very clear and obvious revelation? Some would probably argue that such revelations are indeed apparent but the problem is, it's tricky to choose from all the competition who all seem to have the same level of compelling arguments and evidence. I'd be a muslim, christian, hindu, jew etc. etc. tomorrow if some god being spoke to me like that lucky sod paul on his damascene road trip or saw mohammed being lifted up to heaven on a winged horse and I suspect many others would too.
And why dangle the revelation on a rod held aloft by the clergy for the better part of its history? Where was their God when people were being jailed and tortured for reading the Bible for themselves? “Oh tsk tsk, God had morally sufficient reasons for allowing that.”
It’s actually the reverse. He’s interrogative and wants to find provable answers. Theology, philosophy, linguistics in this case does nothing but obscure the goal.
Aron always wants to be right. He couldn't understand that his definition for "animal" is subjective. He wants his definition to be the only and correct one. lol
@@Programm4r You missed the point. His other interlocutor apparently agreed he possessed all the necessary characteristics of an animal, but then tried to claim he wasn't one. And no, the usage of the word doesn't depend on Aron Ra's opinion, it's an established scientific term, like 'planet'. Either the item fits in the category or it doesn't, based on facts about reality. Humans _are_ animals, scientifically speaking, whether creationists like that or not.
Rewatching an 10 min in and I forgot just how painful it was listening to John Mark Reynolds and Aron discuss facts. Aron could NOT grasp the difference between a material fact and definitional fact. He thinks by prescribing a word to describe a certain set of properties then it now becomes a fact if something meets those conditions...regardless if someone accepts that definition or not! I love Aron, but man he just refuses to or just simply unable to get certain philosophical concepts even when they are explained as simplistically as possible.
Let's stop beating around the bush, and ask: why do god-believers (often) take some kind of offense to the notion that we're indeed _animals_ (of the homosapien kind) ? Or is it just because of _the other_ meaning the word has? (like savage , brutal, unhinged; all traits, btw, found in us too all the time.....'cause....well, we're animals with rather primal brainparts still making up our makeup and *_only to recognize this, is to curb it_* , right? And you don't do so, by DENYING it, believing we're something different, something _special_ (which each one of us of course is, but so is every Bonobo), and that all that primal stuff _comes from the devil_ or was caused by _the fall of man_ , the _original sin_ , for which we've somehow _all_ held accountable for, _still_ (and that all the animals were vegetarian before that rotten apple too: Lions chewing on grass... (poor plants) It's ridiculous.
Expanding our knowledge is being open about possibilities and realizing that we may be wrong. This is what Reynolds was stating. There is nothing wrong with having a belief in something which you believe to be true through your own experience and by conclusions you have come to up until that point in time. Science was founded on the search for truth. When we close out possibilities...which could include the existence of a creator....we are limiting our own growth. We become close minded and unwilling to accept anything which contradicts what we already made up our mind about.
So by this statement, since my only experience with god is one of abandonment are you fine if I believe that if god does exist he doesn't love me, as I have no reason to believe that he does?
God is perfectly capable of leading EVERY person, who diligently seeks Him and His word, to His absolute truth, regardless of millennia of time, upheaval, wars, translations, dishonest men who distort or hide truth, etc. This is often missed by both creationists and atheists, who erroneously place human limitations on the Creator.
Definitions, words, this and that . If a god existed, guess what? He wouldn't need anyone to explain anything about him. (Choose your god of choice). God is a belief ..a religious belief. That's a fact.
i define mulitcellular as any organism with only one cell. therefore, i'm not multicellular, and thus not an animal, and neither is any other animal anymore. that's basically what his argument about definitions boils down to.
End of the video John says that they follow a similar logic but that Aron disagrees only with the conclusions (there is a god/there is no god). Aron then says that he disagrees because there is no evidence supporting that there is a god or that supports creationism. John still has no evidence to support his case and jumps back into the definition of faith and fact debate. Moral of the debate is that you can define terms differently if you so choose (don't understand how a fact or faith would be defined differently then what you find in a dictionary) but you can't use that as the basis for your argument as to why there is a god being objective fact. He also makes the argument of how faith is a good thing. I think that would be an interesting debate and even Aron doesn't dispute that but that takes away from the debate about creationism.
Aron is an empiricist as he stated before. This means that the evidence he would accept comes through sensory perception. John stated that he doesn't accept only empirical evidence. This point was touched on early in the discussion.
Jack Burton Sorry, just for clarification, are you assuming I’m a flat earther? I’m not. However, though wrong, you are walking dangerously close to another logical fallacy. More importantly, you’re diving head first into the shallow side of the pool when it comes to how we ought to discuss ideas. Rather than attaching an individual, address their ideas/claims. Instead of assuming the worst about me, assume the best and engage in a meaningful fashion. Otherwise you’re only contributing to the problem with online dialogue. Or not. Whatever.
@@QuesoSlam there's no dialogue to be had. You don't choose what you believe. If you think the biblical creation story is the literal truth, there's no evidence I can offer which will convince you otherwise. You will regurgitate or manufacture whatever reasons you need in order to refute or deny anything which threatens to negate your beliefs. That's not bad faith assumptions on my part, it's just a prediction based on experience.
_Well,_ Mr. John Mark Reynolds, you can apply your voodoo circular philosophy one hundred million times, BUT it still won't make God appear even ONCE.... 😏
......Reynolds in my opinion , is arrogant, make him self important, disrupting, and is unjust taking for him self , much more time , stealing time which belong to Aron Ra.....I think Reynolds is another mind speculative lier....
I love when Aron says miracles are the same as magic because it ALWAYS angers the Christian. If Jesus was a woman, he would have been burned at the stake for being a witch... by Christians xD
"It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure and the Mother of our Lord. More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without corruption, thou gavest birth to God the Word: True Theotokos, we magnify thee." Yeah, I'm going to go with a "no" on that one.
just simply we are like animals because we are all a living life form, and the Point was not to say we are animals are like animals but that to god, all life forms are important to him they are his creation, would you not have love for other living things you brought into existence even plants, it's that simple it's just gods love for all living things. and to not abuse it just because we are the superior creation, I believe that was another point, not to step on a plant, not to abuse a pet, not to kill an animal for no reason. because they live maybe not like us but they have a life like us.
*Bully380* I'm not seeing it. How does committing world wide genocide, wiping out ALL plant, pet, animal and human life make god Loving? It's like suggesting Hitler ordering the death of Millions of innocent people caught up in a war of his creating makes him a humble HUMANITARIAN...?
Zgg ah yes the flood, did you forget he ordered some one to make a boat big enough for plant and animals and even other people who wanted to come, as the book describes all animals even snakes so goes to show not even a snake god would kill if he didn't have to. But to you he is heartless hu? He had insects and bugs and all kinds of animals most of us can't even be in the same space with out passing out. Not to mention he told the family to spread the word, it's not gods fualt no one listened and his dustruction was not for men but other evil beings as it described. I mean that's what I get from the true creator, other might describe it different and do even preachers they use it to show god can kill, but instead it was mercy so much mercy that he knew it was going to be bad that he even offered snakes to get on bored and any one else even if they didn't believe in him which they didn't so he actually knew he was leaving the door to safety open. Even to those who didn't believe in him. The flood my friend was for the nephelim and their parents, and the humans that did follow them, now those humans who followed them were canibols, rapist, and they were the ones actually doing the mass genocide with human enslavement. So again what you call genocide I call genocide being used on genocide with mercy for snakes and all animals and plants to get on board even none believers now that is amazing. Only if humans were that way if we go into a nuke war only the elites will survive, their in the flood god made room for every one in fact the boat described was half empty it had so much room. Again I'm sorry for who ever taught you that the creator was a killer that is religions fault and the fault of pastors and preachers that use things like the flood and the plagues of Egypt to scare people or even encourage people. They are not teaching of the creator but of cain. Even the creator stated he takes no pleasure in punishing the wicked so neither should we, we are better off hoping the enemy will some day change.
*Bully380* And that's the problem with religious retards you all think with your heart, which is incapable of thought. If you honestly possess a brain use it to investigate your religion rather than following it zombie like.
Zgg yes religion is wrong and it is why I study for my self like you I question it's origin and the origins of the names but unlike you I don't question spirits, realms, entity, and ones own soul, that is why I can believe in a creator I can believe in entiligent life I might not know his name and and his name is not in any religion. their is nothing wrong using your heart and mind, their is a problem however when you use neither. Again I brought up the jews and all the false name that you bring up, which I study and agree on many things how ever it does not disprove spirits or realms or ones own soul at the least. It only disproves many false names claiming to be the creator and false stories to go with it but based of a story that would of been true if changes didn't happen to it, to my study his name is lost in history. But again the true creator wants to use you aron. You keep talking of religion yes expose the lies in it and how even if it were true, these so called gods in any religion would not be the actual creator or most intelligent life form. I can assume you can agree on this last part atleast, that even if true, he is not the one being spoken of in any religion. It is some one else who is claiming to be a creator. But never the less with different views i always respect the next man.
*Bully380* You are human so there can be no doubt that you always respect the next man. Your life expectancy wouldn't' be very long if you didn't. God and religion DON'T respect human life or will. Calling a wild lion 'LOVE' does not make it more cuddly than the wild Lion called 'TERROR!'
So, to avoid an actual discussion, John Mark Reynolds argues over definitions. Yup, he's a Christian alright... Do anything to avoid admitting that you're wrong.
J.M.R like him every so often comes and tries to sneak his way manipulate his way about Christianity. How is not believing having a reward? JMR just a snake.
Oh my gosh, this is why I never get into a discussion with a philosopher. They will spend a ridiculous mount of time lecturing and blabbing about philosophical view points, going in circles, accusing of using the wrong terms/words even though what ever is being spoken about meets the criteria/definition on several levels/variables. "Your" truths don't matter in the eyes of science at the end of the day. Fat L for the philosopher.
I am watching this Jon Mark Reynolds body language throughout this discussion, and from what I have seen, even he is not buying into the BS he is trying to spin.
26.00 The number 1 does not exist?
2 plus 2 does not equal 4?
How can you even try to talk with a person who uses language like this?
This is hard to watch. Clearly the Christian dude is well trained in Philosophy and seems to want to create some kind of semantic joust out of this discussion. And AaronRa unfortunately doesn't seem willing or able to battle in that arena. It's super frustrating, because they never get into any kind of meaningful debate. Fucking theist wants to nitpick definitions and meaningless tripe! Perhaps AaronRa's next field of study should be philosophy and fucking sophistry!!
looks like you are a fucking bright. Try to use the word more often, ideally in every sentence. Also capitalise is to others can immediately see the intellectual strength of your argument :-)
Ha. Fair point. That was bad form of me, thanks for pointing it out!
fourteatwo It might be bad form or what have you, but the sentiment is true. I will always be on the side of Socratic investigation - never on the side of sophists and theologians who already apparently possess knowledge of the gods and “know” how everything functions.
That's what these professional Apologists are good at it. They whip up an argument to look good, but there is nothing but air and fluff if you look at their argument objectively.
Aron for f... sake talk to the person in front of You, not the box You want to put him in.
Found the triggered Christian crybaby.
What this guy is saying is the only way I could think of creationism being possible, if reality itself is a lie and all deceptive by a god
I always find it interesting, because I feel the same way about scientist’s explanations for the existence of the universe, just as strong as you hold your position. It is really interesting to me that two people could look at the same evidence and be so convinced of opposing conclusions.
@@QuesoSlam The difference being that a theist will have the conviction to say what DID happen, because of faith, and a scientist (or at least a skeptic) will hold out belief until there is [good] evidence.
This was like a child trying to reason with a roman emperor about battle strategy. Lmao.
Aron got schooled.
@@DefenderoftheCross what did Prometheus do to you to make you want to defend his torture device?
@@DefenderoftheCross aron always gets schooled, guy is a dumb dumb, just followed by dumb dumbs
@@JordyHistorianidk what you yapping about but you'll never be a woman
Wow Aron got schooled
The comments on Ra's side are astounding to me. This is a summary of the video. Aran Ra's scientistic sloganeering crashed into the cement wall of legitimate philosophical scholarship. This is the consensus of anyone in the scholastic, philosophical community. These people (to include Matt Dillahunty) would be eaten alive at a professional, philosophical conference. If you can't see this, you're just ignorant. These people make a name for themselves by crushing laymen, fundamentalistic pastors, pseudo-intellectuals, career polemicists, and obnoxious apologists. I'm okay with this! Seriously! Such people need to be put in there place. But when they get from this that the whole of Christian scholarship is bunk and retarded, this video is just proof that it's just . . . . never . . . . that . . . . naively simple. If you think you're so amazingly awesome at shutting down Christianity, visit a Christian philosophy conference and be prepared to be humbled. Christian philosophers attend with a preparation to be humbled by other Christian philosophers. Slogans NEVER work. Ever.
The guy rambled about how to engage with proper definitions so much that you can never attack him with an argument. He is ducking and dodging aron so hard that he assumes what aron means several times to go back to definitions. The thing is the guy still had no evidence for god and Aron was being very patient with the word salad man. Matt D. Would have crucified him in minutes.
All these Christian philosophers never seem to call in to the atheistic experience. Funny that.
If this is a prime example of “Christian Philosophy” then these conferences you speak of must place great value on the ability to obfuscate via word salad.
I'm about 15 minutes in and it seems that John Mark Reynolds keeps trying to force the difference in word definitions as the basis for his argument presented. For example, Aron speaks about the moon of Neptune and John asks for the definition of what a fact is. Aron starts to explain and uses the word data and before even finishing his statement John says that data and fact have to be defined differently right there on the spot. Typically, word definitions are often times defined by other words. Data has a slightly different definition yes but the two are often times very related and Aron was trying to explain that which is objectively verifiable and couldn't even finish. Also, as I am continuing John keeps interjecting word definitions as a priority in this debate but that shouldn't be the core of a debate.
Henry said: _"it seems that John Mark Reynolds keeps trying to force the difference in word definitions as the basis for his argument presented"_
Yes, This is exactly what he, and many like him do.
No matter how often you tell them: _"Let's first at least agree on what we mean by THE TERMS we use"_ , they'll just fill in what _they_ want it to mean, anyway, no matter if you said that that ISN'T what you mean by it...
And then there's folks like Andrew Crocker, who say it's _the scientist_ who _"plays with words"_ ... (Unlike god-believers, science is VERY CLEAR in its wording, Andrew; You're yet another nice example of a god-believer, accusing others of EXACTLY their own traits and behaviors. (I'm keeping a list of these examples, so thank you for that (the list is getting pretty extensive).
That's what trying to prove the improbable is about, claim that definitions are not clear, move words around a little, try to catch as many things that you later can cling on, and then argue on the basis that the other person hasn't been truthful on this or other thing. Which, if you go by what arguably most christian believe, is the technique that demons would use against their faithful.
AronRa is literally getting a lesson in philosophy 101
True
and so are the ones that idolise him. It is funny to see them to try to defend their idol and the orgasms of their intellectual efforts.
To confuse philosophy with (physical, natural) science and scientific _'truths'_ is exactly what's wrong with god-believers.
(the guy starts shoving in _gawd_ right from the get go of his _'phylosophsing'_ , and then he sets off talking about how sad it would be if it _wasn't_ true...(among a whole lot of strawman stuff about none-believers) sigh....
ps: so No: Aron _didn't_ get _'a lesson'_ .
(btw: at about 5:00 in we get the old: _accuse others of exactly your own traits and behavior_ routine of the god-believer; accusing _the other one_ on being _too loose_ and/or _too vague_ in his choice of words... Un-freakin' believable!)
better have another cheese omelette. what differentiates humans from non human. He could as well have said Humans are stardust of made from the dust of this earth, that is also a "fact". However it does not define a human by saying humans are dust. This is deliberate word salad.
Yeah. Im only 5 minutes in and I'm done. I can't handle listening to word salad from the theist
What the fuck, did the battery died on the recorder?
The mental gymnastics is fucking amazing from Reynolds.
I can’t believe people listen to his dumbass 😂
@@peter0712 I can't believe people listen to Aron Ra for anything apart from biology.
He's very condescending for a guy who believes the universe is 10,000 years old.
Do you act on beliefs?
Aron "yes"
Do you get rewards by acting on beliefs?
Aron "only when i'm correct"
Religion and atheism has the same thinking.
Knowledge is a type of belief. How can religious beliefs or ideas ever be knowledge beyond its existence as a concept? They’re merely beliefs if they’re not correct and verifiable through any reliable framework. What can they practically do?
Religious beliefs promise rewards they can’t promise truthfully. Whether you’re correct or incorrect in a religious belief, there are still rewards that can be had for being incorrect. The only thing being avoided is a demonstrable truth, which it cannot BE until the supernatural shows itself to be demonstrable or testable.
In contrast, a scientific belief cannot do much of ANYTHING, unless it is correct.
@@ALRuble Do you even know what a theory of knowledge is?
About 37.00 did Aron ra just say he believes 🤔 what was it you said to matt slick about you not holding Any beliefs 😂😂
You need a new camera person.
Aron Ra seems ignorant of philosophy.
at the start he said that first someone invented god then later they invented reasons for god ,,,theology!!!!
We can say "I do not accept the term multi-cellular". Give me a fucking break.
Ra was severely outmatched
I like the topic of theology and philosophy but it always turns into some childish way of defining terms and setting word traps
John mark Reynolds on his definition of FACT: "It is a mind independent reality that may or may not be knowable by me."
AronRa "Okay, I don't see that to be significantly different from what I am talking about"
John " It will turn out to be."
This is where I tune out because I don't have time for this jargon. Of course it will turn out to be a different definition of truth. A theist's quasi absolute morality constantly is in a state of flux do to their agenda. Think of the malleable "absolute morality" in the bible such as incest, women's rights, slavery, dispossession of land, need I go on? It is constantly being more enlightened! For example: Galileo and the arrangement of the planets. God said his creation was good and yet arminianiestic christians pray for a suspension of natural laws to compliment their whimsical desires. When you conscientiously look throughout history, especially the history of religions, the big picture shows that their religion conveniently fits perfectly with their selfish desire at that time and say the good god in heaven is using them as his (notice the gender pronoun) vessel.
Wake up and realize that the delusional battle semantics to distract from empirical truth.
Religion is a way to marginalize in order to categorize in order to gain power and then digress by denying the facts that present themselves in history as well as their own text. Why are there are so many denominations?
A bunch of sociopaths that suffer from folie a duex along with the barnum effect.
If you tuned out then you missed where the theist uses the exact same methodology for his beliefs as Aron does.
Lots of words - no gods.
@@rifleattheplayground
Except that's false, because the other guy is a YEC, one of the dumbest positions it's possible to hold, more ridiculous than a Flat Earther.
@@mattsmith1440 yet somehow he still makes Aron look like an idiot because Aron doesn't understand philosophy. Aron is the kind of guy who says rocks are atheists.
@@rifleattheplayground
I'm not seeing that, but then again I know the Earth is 'slightly older' then 6k years. I mean, depending on your definition of years, of course ;)
JMR is arguing with special pleading , because we are going to use reason like we all agree on. But not on my experience because it's GOD.. that's what you do.
Does anyone know how/why Aron is there? Was he invited? Was it open to the public? I see his badge, so...were "tickets" sold to anyone? I ask because someone is using this as a example of an atheist "harassing" a believer. His claim was that atheist go door-to-door proselytizing just as much as theiest. Seriously? This was his best evidence. Do you think Reynolds was offended/bothered by Aron at all? Seriously...
If only god had not drowned all those unborn babies I might have become a Christian.
@@JamesRichardWiley I’m not sure what makes you think that god was the one who drowned these babies to whom you are referring to
This same video is posted at AronRa's youtube channel "A Snippet from my visit to Baptist Theological Seminary".
In the description AronRa says he was invited by Anthony Magnabosco ( street epistemologist ).
Anthony is the guy at the beginning in the gray sweatshirt center-left onscreen.
He has some really interesting stuff at his channel.
@@trombone7 Wow. 4 years just to find out it was in the description all along!
Man, I'd feel stupid, but I forgot I even posted this!
Wait...where are my Brain Pills™...
Did he say he was a young earth creationist...lol. that says a lot.
This JMR is like a toddler when he can't have his lollypup. , if you argue like him you can as well answer a question like, how much is 2 x 3 ? then you say blue. and then have the same discussion like presented here. so what do we do ? If we can't agree about the language we try to use.
By the way Aron, RESPECT for your calmness during this insufferable AND I MEAN INSUFFERABLE ARROGANT animal ;-) here ! funfact, when he says ' i am not at all sure that Christianity is true'
Did you understand a single thing John said? I realized the second time watching what he was on about. Aaron was way out of his league. He is a absolute materialist and his rigid black and white view was hampering him intellectually. He's not a very deep thinker. John did cut him off a lot but he was trying to get Aaron to realize that most of reality is formed by definitions....not fact. That was fascinating.
I think this is playing out right before our eyes between the far left and right. They are not disputing the facts (what happened) but how they define it! Crazy.
Aron Ra is actually very dumb. He ran trying to debate me very quick. It just takes like 3-4 questions to demolish atheist.
My god Aron does not hear. He is so boxed in in his mental gymnastics.
Lolwut
Wish it didn't end short... I found this interesting, but ultimately the philosophical angle is really getting in the way of productive conversation where you get to the actual point of what is being said, instead of getting hung up every few words.Looking past that can be beneficial overall.
It helps keep it more on track in a way that John would like it to, which is fair enough.. but boy it's slow and often derails the specific general point being made to such a degree that Aron often forgets what the point he was bringing up even was in the first place lol. Could of been done better there, and John should try and keep that in mind.
When I have a dialogue with a theist, I don't pull them up on everything I think is weird compared to how I personally view things.. like if they use the word "theory" wrong, or some silly understanding on evolution or morals or whatever.. I just hear out what they are trying to say, then I reply afterwards, and always remember the point they are actually trying to make overall, even if the language and things they said to get there weren't so great.
Otherwise you just get too bogged down in semantics when the bigger picture is often more important to listen for and address (not that you can't clear smaller things up afterwards too).
46:38 - Ultimately I'd like to just hear John's justification for his god-belief.. the Ontological argument is poor.. so hopefully there's something better to justify John saying that he does think he has evidence for his god, in response to Aron saying that John is convinced of something without the evidence to indicate it. Hence theists being unreasonable.
Could of gotten to that point a lot faster without all the largely pointless semantics. Then the camera died or some shit not too long after.
Your problem seems to be that you simply accept god doesn't exist, so you are already not willing to truly hear what John is trying to say. The reason he has to stop so often is because Aron is so reckless with his language. To a philosopher Aron sounds like a high school student.
"Ultimately I'd like to just hear John's justification for his god-belief.. the Ontological argument is poor.. so hopefully there's something better to justify John saying that he does think he has evidence for his god, in response to Aron saying that John is convinced of something without the evidence to indicate it. Hence theists being unreasonable."
-John did do this. John was being entirely reasonable. Aron was unreasonable when he would not accept that John uses the same methodology to come to his religious belief. Aron won't accept this because his mind is already made up that religion is always unreasonable.
You seem to think semantics aren't important, and that the only thing that matters is if someone believes in god or not, rather than how they came to that belief. They came to it the same way we all come to all of our beliefs.
Aaron isn't deep thinker. John tried to make him realize that most of our reality is formed /framed by definitions....not fact. That was fascinating. I think this is playing out right before our eyes between the far left and right. They are not disputing the facts (what happened) but how they define it! Crazy.
@Snaphaan I only found this video yesterday, and like you found it fascinating.
@@rifleattheplayground - What it doesn't address, and in fact avoids, is whether the God they believe in is real or not. No matter how well spoken, philosophers can't talk God into existence with semantics. Accounting for the beginnings and development of religious thought, no matter how nuanced or complex, isn't the same thing as providing evidence for the existence of God.
"You seem to think semantics aren't important, and that the only thing that matters is if someone believes in god or not, rather than how they came to that belief. They came to it the same way we all come to all of our beliefs."
That depends on what the belief is and whether or not that belief is based on evidence. All beliefs are not arrived at in the same way or on the same basis.
@@snaphaan5049- If that puts religion in the same category as those who think who won an election is "a matter of opinion" then I would agree; they're both invented narratives based on the idea that what one wants to believe is more important than what is actually true. By extension, I think that puts John in the same category as those who think their "deep thoughts" somehow create a reality of their own.
omg I agreed everything the Christian said and I'm an athiest
Best Gamer75 haha!
Then you're a shitty atheist.
Alexander Korbin I'm crying 😢
Yeah, you've got problems all right.
Because I watched this and I cannot fathom how a non-god believer would agree with much of anything that was said. Hence, someone who swallows Christian propaganda is not a good atheist. In fact, he's a shitty one. In other words, I don't believe he is an atheist for a second because he just bought a whole tank of word salad with a side of shit.
i think it was time to part ways at the 20 min mark
Arron got his ass schooled on this video
Nonsense
I wonder why he didn’t try his usual definitions of faith and what God is. 🤣
Probably because this dude knows how to discuss the topic and isn’t an idiot like Aron is used to talking to. Aron is a fool that is completely idiotic in these discussions.
Logic chopping philosophical bs! Christian obfuscation on display! 😮
@@tgrogan6049 how is he obfuscating things?
@@TheMindIlluminated Talking around things. Why does it mean to KNOW….bla bla bla playing the skeptic about everything except his own peculiar brand of Christianity.
@@tgrogan6049 He’s not talking around things; asking Aron what it means to know something is a legitimate question, and he didn’t even really mention Christianity that much.
Still no evidence for God
Bottom line is someone coming from a science only perspective would always be confounded by the philosopher.
The apologist seems to forget about the book of James chapter 1 verse six and following: “But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.”
but nobody is saying that fucking plato is giving especial revelation to them, that switch between examples muddles the point completely
Facts are irrelevant to Aron. He sees his opponent, and he sees him as the bad man. Cannot agree with bad man regardless what the topic, or the facts are.
Aron's ego and Smugness so large, there isnt enough room for it, and facts. 5:28 sums it all up, the terms are so loose and imprecise.
When will the invisible unknowable Hebrew god Yahweh appear in the form of Jesus to bring the pork chops?
Still waiting.
@@JamesRichardWiley you get to decide how long to wait. seems like a waste of time.
@@stansmith3144 The Jewish Arab hasn't come back and you didn't answer the question. YOU guys boasted a Second Coming, if Jesus did exist, I doubt he really talked about it in such literal terms.
@@JamieRobles1 Yes JC cant ever come back cause hes a fairy tail.
What facts? There are no facts on the side of the theist
This guy obviously believes that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
No theist has ever produced Yeshua or his father in heaven, Yahweh.
Instead I get quotations from a collection of ancient Hebrew stories.
That's the problem with philosophers, they frequently don't agree on terms.
12:50 ff Ask the Christian “What is a fact“? Answer Der Der Der.😮
JMR YOU ARE REALLY INSUFFERABLE TO SAY TO ARON GO READ THIS BOOK OF MODERN FILOSOFIA, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DEFINE THOSE TERMS EITHER YOU JUST PRETEND YOU CAN.
I'd that Anthony magnabosco in the back??
Can you even do science with out God, without design and order, uniformity in nature...? Laws= law giver. So atheist, nothing exploded created everything, non life brings life, and your nothing, going nowhere, with zero purpose but let's look for truth, and try to demonstrate it, and argue as if there is meaning. That is what God calls a fool Psalm 14:1
“Nothing exploded”: Nobody really says that. That’s a straw man.
“Non life brings life” Something which agrees with genesis, considering humans were made of dust in the story.
Meaning is imposed internally. A god cannot impart meaning, as it would be nebulous and arbitrary - unless the aspects of the god were used as a striving point - in which case the meaning is equal in each version of reality, as God is yet to demonstrate itself. We eagerly await.
@@ALRuble God is life broski, please tell me what exploded and where did it come from?
A pity they couldn't have moved to a quieter place and closed captions are not available on this video.
Yeah, it was a totally unplanned interaction in the lobby at a conference, so, some of that wasn’t even on anyone’s mind at the time.
So, it looks like you have to work very hard, as an 'intellectual' to convince oneself of the truth of one's belief system.
I wonder why (insert deity of choice) made it so tricky for your 'standard' rational human mind to come to a belief in him/her/it/them?
Synthetic arguments and outright sophistry are all very well but if believing is so important (and presumably it is since our immortal souls are usually imperiled by a lack of such) then why not make a very clear and obvious revelation?
Some would probably argue that such revelations are indeed apparent but the problem is, it's tricky to choose from all the competition who all seem to have the same level of compelling arguments and evidence.
I'd be a muslim, christian, hindu, jew etc. etc. tomorrow if some god being spoke to me like that lucky sod paul on his damascene road trip or saw mohammed being lifted up to heaven on a winged horse and I suspect many others would too.
And why dangle the revelation on a rod held aloft by the clergy for the better part of its history? Where was their God when people were being jailed and tortured for reading the Bible for themselves? “Oh tsk tsk, God had morally sufficient reasons for allowing that.”
I am an atheist and I am huge fan of Aron Ra but he got his ass kicked here.
You can tell Ra doesn’t want a genuine discussion
He's a bitter angry man and he has no problem invoking unseen untestable universes.. but God is still impossible
It’s actually the reverse. He’s interrogative and wants to find provable answers. Theology, philosophy, linguistics in this case does nothing but obscure the goal.
@@ALRuble Assuming there is a goal sounds like blind-faith to me. Can you prove there is a goal?
Aron always wants to be right. He couldn't understand that his definition for "animal" is subjective. He wants his definition to be the only and correct one. lol
@@Programm4r
You missed the point. His other interlocutor apparently agreed he possessed all the necessary characteristics of an animal, but then tried to claim he wasn't one.
And no, the usage of the word doesn't depend on Aron Ra's opinion, it's an established scientific term, like 'planet'. Either the item fits in the category or it doesn't, based on facts about reality. Humans _are_ animals, scientifically speaking, whether creationists like that or not.
The atheists think Aaron "won", the theists think John "won". Shocking.
The viewer wins
Yep
There was no actual debate, and therefore nothing to 'win'. This looked like agreeing on ground rules.
Fact is no one provided any evidence for God that's not opinion
Rewatching an 10 min in and I forgot just how painful it was listening to John Mark Reynolds and Aron discuss facts. Aron could NOT grasp the difference between a material fact and definitional fact. He thinks by prescribing a word to describe a certain set of properties then it now becomes a fact if something meets those conditions...regardless if someone accepts that definition or not! I love Aron, but man he just refuses to or just simply unable to get certain philosophical concepts even when they are explained as simplistically as possible.
John is confusing to himself
Wow. No not even close
Let's stop beating around the bush, and ask: why do god-believers (often) take some kind of offense to the notion that we're indeed _animals_ (of the homosapien kind) ?
Or is it just because of _the other_ meaning the word has? (like savage , brutal, unhinged; all traits, btw, found in us too all the time.....'cause....well, we're animals with rather primal brainparts still making up our makeup and *_only to recognize this, is to curb it_* , right? And you don't do so, by DENYING it, believing we're something different, something _special_ (which each one of us of course is, but so is every Bonobo), and that all that primal stuff _comes from the devil_ or was caused by _the fall of man_ , the _original sin_ , for which we've somehow _all_ held accountable for, _still_ (and that all the animals were vegetarian before that rotten apple too: Lions chewing on grass... (poor plants) It's ridiculous.
Expanding our knowledge is being open about possibilities and realizing that we may be wrong. This is what Reynolds was stating.
There is nothing wrong with having a belief in something which you believe to be true through your own experience and by conclusions you have come to up until that point in time.
Science was founded on the search for truth. When we close out possibilities...which could include the existence of a creator....we are limiting our own growth. We become close minded and unwilling to accept anything which contradicts what we already made up our mind about.
Than what do you do about the people who think there creator god is the true and only one.
So by this statement, since my only experience with god is one of abandonment are you fine if I believe that if god does exist he doesn't love me, as I have no reason to believe that he does?
God is perfectly capable of leading EVERY person, who diligently seeks Him and His word, to His absolute truth, regardless of millennia of time, upheaval, wars, translations, dishonest men who distort or hide truth, etc. This is often missed by both creationists and atheists, who erroneously place human limitations on the Creator.
.....htt://www.biblebelievers.org.au/panin.htm.....
Definitions, words, this and that . If a god existed, guess what? He wouldn't need anyone to explain anything about him. (Choose your god of choice). God is a belief ..a religious belief. That's a fact.
i define mulitcellular as any organism with only one cell. therefore, i'm not multicellular, and thus not an animal, and neither is any other animal anymore.
that's basically what his argument about definitions boils down to.
I am a multicellular organism.
Before this I was formless energy.
End of the video John says that they follow a similar logic but that Aron disagrees only with the conclusions (there is a god/there is no god). Aron then says that he disagrees because there is no evidence supporting that there is a god or that supports creationism. John still has no evidence to support his case and jumps back into the definition of faith and fact debate. Moral of the debate is that you can define terms differently if you so choose (don't understand how a fact or faith would be defined differently then what you find in a dictionary) but you can't use that as the basis for your argument as to why there is a god being objective fact. He also makes the argument of how faith is a good thing. I think that would be an interesting debate and even Aron doesn't dispute that but that takes away from the debate about creationism.
Aron is an empiricist as he stated before. This means that the evidence he would accept comes through sensory perception. John stated that he doesn't accept only empirical evidence. This point was touched on early in the discussion.
Most arguments for a god try to “define” it into existence. It is sophistry.
Larry Ra just dies when he has to listen for a minute or two 😂
His name isn’t Larry. You believe that Kent Hovind is trustworthy, I gather?
@@ALRuble Larry got schooled
His name is Aron, like on his official ID it says Aron. Either you are confused or you have watching WAAAAY too much Kent Hovind.
His name was never Larry
@@ogreman-lll-957 are you sure?
I can't take a young earth creationist serious when it comes to science or philosophy. They are only one step removed from flat earthers.
Jack Burton I mean, it’s a logical fallacy, but you’re welcome to your opinions. No one can’t be right all the time.
@@QuesoSlam Yes, big evolution and big spherical earth are just deceiving us all for all that funding.
Jack Burton Sorry, just for clarification, are you assuming I’m a flat earther?
I’m not.
However, though wrong, you are walking dangerously close to another logical fallacy. More importantly, you’re diving head first into the shallow side of the pool when it comes to how we ought to discuss ideas. Rather than attaching an individual, address their ideas/claims. Instead of assuming the worst about me, assume the best and engage in a meaningful fashion. Otherwise you’re only contributing to the problem with online dialogue. Or not. Whatever.
@@QuesoSlam there's no dialogue to be had. You don't choose what you believe. If you think the biblical creation story is the literal truth, there's no evidence I can offer which will convince you otherwise. You will regurgitate or manufacture whatever reasons you need in order to refute or deny anything which threatens to negate your beliefs. That's not bad faith assumptions on my part, it's just a prediction based on experience.
Jack Burton So, judge without knowing some one. It’s not productive, but you’re welcome to take that path of you really want to.
_Well,_ Mr. John Mark Reynolds, you can apply your voodoo circular philosophy one hundred million times, BUT it still won't make God appear even ONCE.... 😏
Who Once said anything about trying to make God appear? Stay on point.
......Reynolds in my opinion , is arrogant, make him self important, disrupting, and is unjust taking for him self , much more time , stealing time which belong to Aron Ra.....I think Reynolds is another mind speculative lier....
You have some low standards if you think aronra is intelligent.
JM Reynolds defeats every TH-cam atheist ever in less than a hour.
I love when Aron says miracles are the same as magic because it ALWAYS angers the Christian. If Jesus was a woman, he would have been burned at the stake for being a witch... by Christians xD
"It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure and the Mother of our Lord. More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without corruption, thou gavest birth to God the Word: True Theotokos, we magnify thee."
Yeah, I'm going to go with a "no" on that one.
just simply we are like animals because we are all a living life form, and the Point was not to say we are animals are like animals but that to god, all life forms are important to him they are his creation, would you not have love for other living things you brought into existence even plants, it's that simple it's just gods love for all living things. and to not abuse it just because we are the superior creation, I believe that was another point, not to step on a plant, not to abuse a pet, not to kill an animal for no reason. because they live maybe not like us but they have a life like us.
*Bully380* I'm not seeing it. How does committing world wide genocide, wiping out ALL plant, pet, animal and human life make god Loving? It's like suggesting Hitler ordering the death of Millions of innocent people caught up in a war of his creating makes him a humble HUMANITARIAN...?
Zgg ah yes the flood, did you forget he ordered some one to make a boat big enough for plant and animals and even other people who wanted to come, as the book describes all animals even snakes so goes to show not even a snake god would kill if he didn't have to. But to you he is heartless hu? He had insects and bugs and all kinds of animals most of us can't even be in the same space with out passing out. Not to mention he told the family to spread the word, it's not gods fualt no one listened and his dustruction was not for men but other evil beings as it described. I mean that's what I get from the true creator, other might describe it different and do even preachers they use it to show god can kill, but instead it was mercy so much mercy that he knew it was going to be bad that he even offered snakes to get on bored and any one else even if they didn't believe in him which they didn't so he actually knew he was leaving the door to safety open. Even to those who didn't believe in him. The flood my friend was for the nephelim and their parents, and the humans that did follow them, now those humans who followed them were canibols, rapist, and they were the ones actually doing the mass genocide with human enslavement. So again what you call genocide I call genocide being used on genocide with mercy for snakes and all animals and plants to get on board even none believers now that is amazing.
Only if humans were that way if we go into a nuke war only the elites will survive, their in the flood god made room for every one in fact the boat described was half empty it had so much room. Again I'm sorry for who ever taught you that the creator was a killer that is religions fault and the fault of pastors and preachers that use things like the flood and the plagues of Egypt to scare people or even encourage people. They are not teaching of the creator but of cain. Even the creator stated he takes no pleasure in punishing the wicked so neither should we, we are better off hoping the enemy will some day change.
*Bully380* And that's the problem with religious retards you all think with your heart, which is incapable of thought. If you honestly possess a brain use it to investigate your religion rather than following it zombie like.
Zgg yes religion is wrong and it is why I study for my self like you I question it's origin and the origins of the names but unlike you I don't question spirits, realms, entity, and ones own soul, that is why I can believe in a creator I can believe in entiligent life I might not know his name and and his name is not in any religion. their is nothing wrong using your heart and mind, their is a problem however when you use neither.
Again I brought up the jews and all the false name that you bring up, which I study and agree on many things how ever it does not disprove spirits or realms or ones own soul at the least. It only disproves many false names claiming to be the creator and false stories to go with it but based of a story that would of been true if changes didn't happen to it, to my study his name is lost in history. But again the true creator wants to use you aron. You keep talking of religion yes expose the lies in it and how even if it were true, these so called gods in any religion would not be the actual creator or most intelligent life form. I can assume you can agree on this last part atleast, that even if true, he is not the one being spoken of in any religion. It is some one else who is claiming to be a creator.
But never the less with different views i always respect the next man.
*Bully380* You are human so there can be no doubt that you always respect the next man. Your life expectancy wouldn't' be very long if you didn't. God and religion DON'T respect human life or will. Calling a wild lion 'LOVE' does not make it more cuddly than the wild Lion called 'TERROR!'
So, to avoid an actual discussion, John Mark Reynolds argues over definitions.
Yup, he's a Christian alright... Do anything to avoid admitting that you're wrong.
J.M.R like him every so often comes and tries to sneak his way manipulate his way about Christianity. How is not believing having a reward? JMR just a snake.
He talks with the speed of a snail and the cunning of a weasel.
There are no gods.
;~)
Right, there is only one GOD!
Aron nailed this guy to the wall. He was on the defensive the whole time and tried to Dodge questions.
Haha...did you watch the same video I did? Aron was way out of his league.
@@DefenderoftheCross Lol, Aron was so far in left field that he was no longer in the ball park
Oh my gosh, this is why I never get into a discussion with a philosopher. They will spend a ridiculous mount of time lecturing and blabbing about philosophical view points, going in circles, accusing of using the wrong terms/words even though what ever is being spoken about meets the criteria/definition on several levels/variables. "Your" truths don't matter in the eyes of science at the end of the day. Fat L for the philosopher.
22:41 “ I am a young Earth creationist”😂😂😂
Aron is so dishonest he makes me sick. All his messed up insults about faith. He’s for sure going to hell if God doesn’t intervene in his life.
And how would he fair with Buddha?
@@JamieRobles1 Buddha’s dead man
I am watching this Jon Mark Reynolds body language throughout this discussion, and from what I have seen, even he is not buying into the BS he is trying to spin.
What body language ques suggest what you said?
@@AncientLogos None. The anti theist is just spouting accusations.