You've got to get into the narcissist mindset. Darth doesn't mind reasonable disagreement, it's just that nobody reasonable would disagree with him. In his mind, that's how he can justify it all.
@breakfasttacos can you help set up a debate with Darth Dawkins vs Manar Reports? I feel this debate would be interesting to watch lol, and could be a classic to listen to
the instant a debate or conversation involving darth dawkins threatens to get interesting, he starts crying for mods to mute or kick the other person, and if he doesn't get it, he leaves
I'm at 6 and a half minutes. Geez. These arguments pertaining to whether or not you can prove the existence of god through mere wordplay, definitions, and classical logic modalities are always horrid. Dependency is not a "thing" in and of itself. It is an abstract word of pragmatic convenience which humans have invented to explain certain phenomena which we experience and observe. This phenomena is caused by nature, natural is the mechanism by which dependency happens. Therefore, the origins of dependency ought to be natural.
Take a step back and really look at all the arguments for theistic viewpoints, all of them are based in human perspective errors. They think Language is Definitive, they think the word games have meaning outside of the word games.
The real question that needs to be answered: Is FoY "pretending" to be that $thupid? Or is he actually that way in his everyday life? Seriously, given how he interacts with other people, I wonder if he needs slip-on shoes...
Its throughly frustrating to hear Faces make an implicit positive claim (e.g., that the laws of classical logic apply to real world objects rather than the structure of arguments) and the entire room play along even though its clear a few people there *understood* this was the actual disagreement.
What have we learned that we didn't already know by calling the reason why things are, and why we know about them, "God"? It's not as though this reason has anything in particular to do with the being described in the Bible; and while at one time "God" might have been an explanation for, say, plagues, we now have explanations that are grounded in our accumulated knowledge. So maybe we should take the same approach when it comes to why things are- either "This is what we already know", or "We don't know".
“How can I assume I’m right to prove I’m right?” Said the presup… I simply cannot with these people. Edit: Yah was so proud that he proved the role play was illogical. That was the damn point!
I have asked multiple people who run these silly arguments wtf it is that they think they're doing... Given that according to them _literally everything_ exists *only* because their preferred creator god created it, and this "fact" is the captain obvious "explanation" for the how and why of any and all of the existing things... (Their claim, not mine!) Just exactly how tf can they point to bits of this 'obviously it's all created by a god' existence and meaningfully say: 'Hey, atheist, you see _that_ bit, over there? Well _that_ bit over there is pretty god damned amazing isn't it? Whew it _obviously_ stands out to me as being evidence that the creator god created it... And you can't explain it in your world view. Checkmate atheist! Like, no. How tf could you possibly point to any specific thing and claim that it *in particular* stands out as special, and needs to be explained? If _everything_ was custom made for us, and everything serves as the obvious, revealed evidence of, and undeniable explanation for, everything, how do these things stand out to the theist exactly? It's very telling that these guys _consistently_ seem to coinkydinkily think the bits that somehow stand out are the bits non theists simply recognize as shrinking 'gaps' in our scientific knowledge of the natural. And again, what are the odds, eh, these guys seem to be able to pick out these nebulous philosophical concepts we've navel gazed our way to creating; theists really want to claim some evidential win exists because their god can and does 'answer' all the philosophical questions we've duhpiphanied our way into devising.. No.
Poor Jrobin, still putting his foot squarely in his mouth after all this time. He got fully dismantled on the engaging in bad faith shit, that's literally all he does.
Why do you guys love allowing the theist to shift the burden of proof ? Is it ego that you can’t help yourself trying to answer anything and everything. Why not force the Bible thumpers to justify their claim other then saying the same nonsense of revelation.
He’s obviously trolling doing a Darth Dawkins impression. It’s pretty good actually 🤣 What makes this even funnier is when Mr. Batman starts talking about how good and professional he is. 😂 unwittingly nodding along with a complete troll saying g the most idiotic things 😂 These discord debate dorks are the worst.
@@realBreakfasttacos they can object, but "father, son and jrilly spirit" sure sounds to me like a set with three members. i'd like to see them explain their way out of it. KEvron
If the Trinity is a set, that leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that either the set is God (that is, "the Trinity" is God but "the Father/Son/Spirit" are not properly God), in which case God is not actually a person (because sets aren't people); or the set isn't God because sets are abstract things that aren't real, and the three members of the set aren't unified by any real thing. Mainstream theologians wouldn't admit to this, but some Unitarian Christian philosophers of religion would because the absurdity of God being a set is exactly the sort of thing they think demonstrates the Trinity is false. They're correct that the Trinity is false, of course, they just don't realize Yahweh as a whole is false.
When Ben Affleck played Batman, was he actually Batman or not? Are there real people that are so painfully stupid or is it put on for some kind of faux clout among Internet trolls?
29:00 "If you don't know, would X be equal to X?.... Dude, that's the whole point of axioms. Without them we can't know if X is equal to X... SMH.
Great point!
He talks about how patient he is, then does an annoying voice when he is challenged 5 seconds later. 🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂
Haha... yeah..... That is how the conversations with face usually go.
You've got to get into the narcissist mindset. Darth doesn't mind reasonable disagreement, it's just that nobody reasonable would disagree with him. In his mind, that's how he can justify it all.
@@Altitudes That is an excellent point!
@breakfasttacos can you help set up a debate with Darth Dawkins vs Manar Reports? I feel this debate would be interesting to watch lol, and could be a classic to listen to
Darth Dawkins refused to talk to me lol
@realBreakfasttacos damn lol
the instant a debate or conversation involving darth dawkins threatens to get interesting, he starts crying for mods to mute or kick the other person, and if he doesn't get it, he leaves
“Because you don’t have evidence that your god exists, baffle them with BS.” - every presup
Excellent observation!
That guy with the bizarre, compression -smashed voice is psychotic.
LOL
Stuck @09:30, these clowns give gibberish a whole new meaning,
LOL
faces of yah serving up some word salad par excellence
Yes, Face is very majestic.
Is it extra for blue cheese dressing?
I'm at 6 and a half minutes.
Geez. These arguments pertaining to whether or not you can prove the existence of god through mere wordplay, definitions, and classical logic modalities are always horrid.
Dependency is not a "thing" in and of itself. It is an abstract word of pragmatic convenience which humans have invented to explain certain phenomena which we experience and observe. This phenomena is caused by nature, natural is the mechanism by which dependency happens. Therefore, the origins of dependency ought to be natural.
Great observations!
Take a step back and really look at all the arguments for theistic viewpoints, all of them are based in human perspective errors.
They think Language is Definitive, they think the word games have meaning outside of the word games.
That teabag imitating Gary is some of the most terrifying shit I’ve ever heard.
He is a real person.
@@realBreakfasttacos Do you make that claim based on the existence of blah-blah-blah-absolute-blah-blah-categories-blah-blah?
@@Timkast LOL
The nerd voice guy at the start can't comprehend mutual dependency.
The theists in this video weren't able to comprehend much to be fair lol
I love when Face tries to be rude. It's like a puppy growling
Excellent observation!
In the immortal words of Sir Pterry Pratchett, 'It was deeply unnerving, like being savaged by a duck.'
@@alexritchie4586 That is super funny.
Ground of everything.. unless its made up in which case his argument is everything is secured in fiction. Yay
He is just talking about the universal quantum field and claiming it is called god and has a mind for some reason.
The real question that needs to be answered: Is FoY "pretending" to be that $thupid? Or is he actually that way in his everyday life?
Seriously, given how he interacts with other people, I wonder if he needs slip-on shoes...
Face is not pretending.
he's australian
Its throughly frustrating to hear Faces make an implicit positive claim (e.g., that the laws of classical logic apply to real world objects rather than the structure of arguments) and the entire room play along even though its clear a few people there *understood* this was the actual disagreement.
Excellent point! The issue is Face doesn't understand what he was saying.
What have we learned that we didn't already know by calling the reason why things are, and why we know about them, "God"? It's not as though this reason has anything in particular to do with the being described in the Bible; and while at one time "God" might have been an explanation for, say, plagues, we now have explanations that are grounded in our accumulated knowledge. So maybe we should take the same approach when it comes to why things are- either "This is what we already know", or "We don't know".
Excellent points Peter!
I have a newfound respect for Face
Yes, he is a tank ;)
Why didn't you advertise that Jane Robin made an appearance?
Because it's 2 hours in lol
“How can I assume I’m right to prove I’m right?” Said the presup… I simply cannot with these people.
Edit: Yah was so proud that he proved the role play was illogical. That was the damn point!
Yep!
Face of Yah is mentally challenged. I don't get why people engage with him.
He is actually just a presupp
@@realBreakfasttacos that's just a synonym.
@@skynet3d LOL
Jose was doing so good then it just imploded. For fuck shake they are so dishonest.
Agreed. They always do this unfortunately!
Face of yah is my favourite
Faceofyah is always funny
I have asked multiple people who run these silly arguments wtf it is that they think they're doing...
Given that according to them _literally everything_ exists *only* because their preferred creator god created it, and this "fact" is the captain obvious "explanation" for the how and why of any and all of the existing things... (Their claim, not mine!)
Just exactly how tf can they point to bits of this 'obviously it's all created by a god' existence and meaningfully say:
'Hey, atheist, you see _that_ bit, over there? Well _that_ bit over there is pretty god damned amazing isn't it? Whew it _obviously_ stands out to me as being evidence that the creator god created it... And you can't explain it in your world view.
Checkmate atheist!
Like, no. How tf could you possibly point to any specific thing and claim that it *in particular* stands out as special, and needs to be explained?
If _everything_ was custom made for us, and everything serves as the obvious, revealed evidence of, and undeniable explanation for, everything, how do these things stand out to the theist exactly?
It's very telling that these guys _consistently_ seem to coinkydinkily think the bits that somehow stand out are the bits non theists simply recognize as shrinking 'gaps' in our scientific knowledge of the natural. And again, what are the odds, eh, these guys seem to be able to pick out these nebulous philosophical concepts we've navel gazed our way to creating; theists really want to claim some evidential win exists because their god can and does 'answer' all the philosophical questions we've duhpiphanied our way into devising..
No.
That statement you said they make conflates epistemology and ontology.
Poor Jrobin, still putting his foot squarely in his mouth after all this time. He got fully dismantled on the engaging in bad faith shit, that's literally all he does.
LOL
Why do you guys love allowing the theist to shift the burden of proof ? Is it ego that you can’t help yourself trying to answer anything and everything. Why not force the Bible thumpers to justify their claim other then saying the same nonsense of revelation.
Some people like to demonstrate how they are wrong!
It's philosophical jousting.
there's no such thing as a burden of proof. there is no null hypothesis. only rival rhetorical goals.
He’s obviously trolling doing a Darth Dawkins impression. It’s pretty good actually 🤣 What makes this even funnier is when Mr. Batman starts talking about how good and professional he is. 😂 unwittingly nodding along with a complete troll saying g the most idiotic things 😂 These discord debate dorks are the worst.
Face isn't trolling, he runs the same argument Darth does. Face is a real person.
@ He’s obviously doing a bit. You can hear the sarcasm in his tonality. He changes his voice when he says “Listen sir” lol
@@Evolved_Primate Faceofyah is a real person that actually believes what he is saying even if you don't believe that he is being serious.
@@realBreakfasttacos No. They are clearly doing a bit. I’m not going back and forth with you on this anymore.
@@Evolved_Primate You are confused. It's called christian presuppositional apologetics.
isn't the trinity a set?
KEvron
I'm not sure if theologians would claim that. I don't think they would.
@@realBreakfasttacos
they can object, but "father, son and jrilly spirit" sure sounds to me like a set with three members. i'd like to see them explain their way out of it.
KEvron
If the Trinity is a set, that leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that either the set is God (that is, "the Trinity" is God but "the Father/Son/Spirit" are not properly God), in which case God is not actually a person (because sets aren't people); or the set isn't God because sets are abstract things that aren't real, and the three members of the set aren't unified by any real thing.
Mainstream theologians wouldn't admit to this, but some Unitarian Christian philosophers of religion would because the absurdity of God being a set is exactly the sort of thing they think demonstrates the Trinity is false. They're correct that the Trinity is false, of course, they just don't realize Yahweh as a whole is false.
When Ben Affleck played Batman, was he actually Batman or not? Are there real people that are so painfully stupid or is it put on for some kind of faux clout among Internet trolls?
Everyone knows that the one true Batman was Kevin Conroy 🦇
BATFLECK
Is Darth RIP?
I think he is on PMars TikTok sometimes still.