Street Epistemology: Jason | Atheists Can't Know Anything (Divine Revelation)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2019
- Street Epistemology Divine Revelation Presuppositionalist
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Recorded: 12 June 2019
Released: 1 August 2019
Summary: Jason appears to be using a variation of the presuppositionalist argument for Christianity in that no one can know anything until a person has a divine revelation from the Christian God. Interestingly, the confidence in his divinely revealed view also appears to require a mixture of evidence, faith, and hope. While we didn't really get a chance to explore how all of those work in tandem, I'm hopeful that we'll be able to meet again and clear things up, as well as try to answer as many questions he may have for me.
Note Regarding Jason's Response Video: Two days after we spoke on the trail Jason emailed me a link to a 28:28 long video about his thoughts. Jason was kind enough to allow me to include a short portion of his response in my video here, but was reluctant to make the entire video available for others to watch. I left a comment below to give viewers like you a chance to ask Jason nicely if he would be willing to share the link to his video, or allow me to upload a copy of it to my channel. In either case we could make the video Public (so it would appear in RUclips search results) or Unlisted (only people who have the link could view it) and enable or disable video comments.
Twitter: / magnabosco (follow me)
RUclips: / magnabosco210 (tons of Playlists)
Facebook: / magnabosco210 (like my page)
Website: anthonymagnabosco.com (contact me, appearances)
SE Resources: tinyurl.com/abm-se-resources
SE Community: tinyurl.com/abm-se-community
SE Discord Server: / discord
Skip ahead to a desired point in the talk (clickable timestamps can be found in the top pinned comment of this video):
--
Explanation: 01:39
Claim (What): 04:31
Justification (Why): 06:18, 11:37
Repeating: 06:24, 11:10, 14:10
Interrupting: 09:58, 11:44
Pausing: 10:04
Aporia: 11:49
Clarifying: 12:36,18:16, 19:02, 20:14
Questions for Me: 07:20
Method (How): 12:57, 14:03
Encouragement: 15:17
Resetting: 16:36
Closing: 22:59
Response Clip: 32:02
End Cap: 32:47
--
Note: Add 35 seconds to these timestamps if listening to the podcast version of this talk.
Audio Only: / s-wo1eg
Audio correction provided by Philipp Grzemba.
Video game elements provided by Tyrone Wells of Let's Chat.
Outro Music 'Podcast Intro Whateva’ provided by Jim Rhodes.
** Add foreign language captions w/RUclips's community contributions tools **
Mistakes: Sorry for those damn airplanes in the background. Please let me know if you spot anything else.
Recorded w/Go-Pro. Edited w/PowerDirector.
The views addressed here are mine and mine alone, and are not necessarily shared by members of my family and friends.
#StreetEpistemology #Magnabosco #DivineRevelation #Presuppositionalist #PresuppositionalApologetics #Presuppositionalism #Atheism #Christianity #Calvinism #AnthonyMagnabosco
So this guy thinks that once you pretend to know what no one even can know then you can pretend to know more than everyone who knows more than you.
He might aswell be saying, “ bada bing bada boom, gubagool, boom boom, type of thing.
I think he’s very much relying on Descartes’ philosophy, particularly his Meditation.
Honestly, the least favorite thing about this guy is I can tell he knows enough to understand all the bad arguments that support his faith, he's just too cowardly to abandon it and live honestly.
Aron I love your videos man, but your approach to conversations when you met with Anthony to try SE a few years ago was quite confrontational. Have you reconsidered your approach having watched that video back?
AronRa, have you ever considered that you could be wrong about your worldview? Just think about all that arrogance and hostility you've shown people who have been nice to you and who care about what happens to your soul when you die. What a humbling experience that will be when you meet God.
Be encouraged, I was Jason 18 months ago.
Awesome!
How did u change your mind?
"Any likeness or representation of him that is not him is blasphemy"
'ANY'
'REPRESENTATION'
So anything that you point to or claim that represents God to you is actually Blasphemous according to your own Bible scriptures!
Like CHURCHES, CROSSES, BIBLES, STAINED GLASS WINDOWS, "HOLY BREAD" , HOLY WATER"
ALL BLASPHEMOUS ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES!!!
I'm a former Christian myself and I'm always fascinated to hear deconversion stories if you feel like sharing.
I'm encouraged
@@davidhoffman6980 Hopefully you don't wander long enough before you come back to God who is your creator, but this time around, actually know him.
When Jason said "you can't just say something is wrong and replace it with nothing" it made me think of Haruki Murakami's quote on kindness and disagreement: “Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be kind, even if you are right.”
The essence of Anthony's approach. I love it. As a psychologist his approach has parallels with motivational interviewing and Rogerian Counselling. Thank you Anthony.
No, he's right. A falsehood is judged on the basis of it not being true, this necessarily presupposes truth exists, and if it exists, that truth or at least a better explanation of how we know what we know should be the thing we replace the falsehood with; i.e., a better explanation, otherwise, like Einstein notes: it's insanity, doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result.
The fact Anthony rejected out of hand the court case analogy, which is derived directly from scripture and the Christian worldview shows his own bias and unwillingness to discuss the topic on its own merits. He switches to questions that presuppose his own worldview that a single piece of evidence like a smoking gun must be present or everything falls apart. But that's not how we treat a lot of things, including the most important things. Like how do you know your wife loves you? It's likely not just one thing, but a cumulative case. That's totally valid.
How do you know your boss isn't going to poison you at lunch? Same thing.
How do you know the law of gravity is going to remain a constant? Or any of the natural laws... and so on. That's what Jason was getting at. Many things such as the order in creation imply an intelligence, a mind behind its creation. That's just one positive argument. If there's no better explanation as to why such complexity and beauty and utility actually exists, than there's no good reason (epistemologically) to abandon the theological view that an intelligent being with personal agency brought everything into being. Ironically, this is supposed to relate to epistemology, or how we know what we know. If your view on why things are as they are cannot better explain Why they are the way they are, than again, the worldview that best explains it stands. Even against shallow attempts to merely sidestep and atomize the discussion.
It's a shame to see her wouldn't engage more in the discussion at hand and immediately rejected and ran from the court case analogy and cumulative argument without offering any context argument of his own.
@@Adam_A_Christianhis courtroom analogy is backward. It only makes sense if a judge *has* to pick a guilty person from a list of options. That isn’t how it works. You search to find the guilty person and then convict them. Once someone is found not guilty, they don’t just have another option ready to go. You have to start over and reassess your evidence from scratch. That is essentially “replacing it with nothing.”
A *real* courtroom analogy would find god “not guilty* of existing. That doesn’t mean god is “guilty” of not existing. The “evidence” a god exists wouldn’t even make it into court *as* evidence. It’s not up to atheists to disprove a god. It’s not up to anyone to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is on the *positive* claim.
The time to believe something is when evidence points only in one direction.
Yep, found reality - now lonely as those unaware are unable to meet on real ground.
That was pretty hard to watch at times. I had to pause it over & over to re-gain composure. I am very impressed by your sincere compassion for people Anthony. I love that you are so engaged, kind, delicate & patient.
Atheism isn’t “an attempt to achieve moral status”, it’s just the conclusion one comes to when evidence is is not sufficient to believe in a god
raydersonnyrollie yep, just like evolution isn't cats turning into dogs, but their arguments wouldn't work if they understood what these terms meant.
It honestly has NOTHING to do with "morals" lol. Chrissies just love to mess with us by spewing flawed logic at us and strawmen because they have nothing better to do...
I think what he said is that all people no matter their belief try to achieve a "moral status", and gave examples like christians want to achieve that status for god and atheists for other people
@@brialapoint2608 No reason to fear atheism for not having a trait that it doesn't try to have. It's like saying people are afraid of mechanics because they don't try to cure cancer. That's not their purpose.
It's as straightforward as it gets
Jason should thank his God he didn't run into the impatient Matt Dillahunty on the trail.
LoL!
- or Aron Ra.
@@polaide8036
Jason probably wouldn't have stopped for him.
jeffersonianideal STOP STOP FUCKING STOP alright, you’re on hold
Matt has become hard to watch IMO. He's too impatient and grumpy.
Counter-apologetics is intellectually stifling since there are rarely, if ever, new arguments on either side. This might be a source of his frustration.
Street epistemology is probably more effective, and definitely more satisfying IMO than knocking down repetitive and weak apologetics arguments.
You dont have to pick an answer.... the answer can be "I dont know."
His belief seems to, in part, be based on needing an answer.
Without the answers, he's uncomfortable. He brings up some issues in the world, and like most, he needs there to be answers to those issues, including his own.
He needs to feel as though there is something more and better after death, so that he can make up for his past.
If the answers are "I don't know", then he can't make up for his past. People aren't punished, after they die, and people aren't saves either.
Situations like this are the worst. I feel so sad for those that aren't given the tools to deal with reality, life, or death.
Sadly, answers and reality don't need to be more compelling to your feelings and needs. It can be opposite to them. It can absolutely be, that there is no grand justice. It doesn't matter how much you want it.
Edit: his follow-up confirms this as fact. He needs an answer. No answer isn't good enough. He NEEDS one, even a false one.
"The most elementary and valuable statement in Science, the beginning of wisdom is: "I do not know."
@The Sight of Sound hehe thanks man!!
This is usually the best place to start. Not knowing and accepting the fact.
"science does this" ummmm, no it doesn't Scientists are super comfortable doing the good ol' emoji shrug.
Atheists are starting to learn to let religious people talk THEMSELVES out of illogical beliefs. I've been debating the religious for many years and realized a while ago that the more I talked, the less they listened. This guy did a great job keeping the dialogue on what Jason believed and less about why he was wrong. The latter shuts down the conversation before it can really get anywhere.
It's certainly an artform to do this and, to me, appears quite hard, but it can be learnt. The circular logic in belief systems like Christianity is wild, I had a Pentacostal recruiter try to discuss with me, he even asked me why the sun was the exact right distance from the earth (suggesting a supernatural creator) and I remarked that it wouldn't always be and would swallow up the earth (which, by his logic would also be by a supernatural creator)! He brought up the great flood story - which prompted me to say that drowning every man woman and child and almost all the animals on the earth was an act of massive evil! ( As he was approaching me to try to get me to join his cult- I wasn't going to go the gentle questioning route!)
@@alexmousley7213 How do you think you are smart? Circular logic? So you think I am a Christian because I am stupider than you and that if I were as smart as you I would become apostate?
It's curious how often theists will claim that they were atheists before and then reveal that they have a flawed understanding of what that means.
From my experience, it's because they're using a different definition of "atheist" than we are. Their definition is usually along the lines of "I more-or-less believed that there was a God, but I wasn't interested in following His rules or going to church". It's very common with Christians who also like/use Romans 1:18-23.
@@kitgautier1658 And they use a different definition of evolution so they can use it in an argument. Because their arguments just don't work if they use words the way they are meant to be used!
Exactly
When they think atheist they usually think “immoral, hopeless, not caring , being self centred “ ......and in church and Christian books they usually get the teaching that atheists are all about that. So they go to church and then eventually “backslide” and because they don’t feel like calling themselves Christian they get mad at their god and think themselves to be atheist as they are acting out of rebellion.
When I realised Christianity is not true, and realised I was now an atheist......I also realised that I had probably never really met an actual atheist and most “atheists” were just theists with different ideas about their ideas of morals
@@lil-al but the problem with evolution is that it's well defined. if you don't know, don't use it.
So let me get this straight. In order to know anything you need revelation. But to know that its revelation you need to verify it with facts. But you can't know facts unless you have revelation. But you can't know it's true revelation unless you verify with facts. But you cant know facts unless you have revelation....I'm getting dizzy.
It's painful, isn't it?!
you need faith to believe in god, but you don't need faith cos you believe in god cos your belief in god gives you faith cos you know he exists. mindboggling.
When there's no demonstrable evidence to substantiate the claim that your deity exists, inject pressupossition and move on as though you don't need to.
Pressup isn't an argument, it's the avoidance of one.
Circular logic is renown for doing that.
"So let me get this straight. In order to know anything you need revelation. But to know that its revelation you need to verify it with facts."
I've always LOVED this one.
And it crops up in a thousand places.
"No becuz... look at this verse, the one you used isn't the right one, and doesn't mean what you think anyhow".
You need to accept god to properly understand the bible. But the bible is the tool used as the source of arguments to help you accept god.
"I was a drug addict until I switched psychological addiction." Couldn't see THAT line coming. :-\
Hey, Aron, cant wait to see you in future public 'debatescussions' in 2020.
Hey Aron (big fan) I work in an environment of Christian people!!(who actually believe the earth is 4000 to 6000 years old! I want to personally thank you for your wisdom and education of the sciences. I know I can go home after work and find solice in testable evidence vs. magic.. keep up the awesome videos!!!
No pun intended :D
Haha. Small story. Several years ago, a company hired several people, me included. When we were on training, we had some time off while our trainer was needed on the floor. So we had some 15-20 mins here and there. There was this guy very adamant at inviting me to his church. I explained im atheist, that i dont buy that. Well. He continued preaching me. After some 3 months i snapped, and i said "Stop. I dont care what you believe, and dont tell me, i dont want to know, but for you to have this level of comitment, i am very confident that you did something absolutely horrifying and you seek absolution in any way shape or form. Dont tell me, i dont care, but im positive on that" Of course, he denied it.
Anyways, a few months after i went to the cafeteria, and he invited me to sit on his table, he was with his wife (i didnt know her, she was on another dept). They wouldnt talk, and she left early since our lunch time overlapped a bit, but werent equal. So he told me that he was getting divorced and he was trying to avoid it and was suggesting counceling or other solutions. Then he dropped the bomb. "Some years ago i was alcoholic, i used to beat her when i was drunk........" To what i responded, "yeah, i knew you were a shit person".
They are easy to spot.
@@andrewhandelsman834 There was a guy that was talking to a friend. They were chatting and one said that he submitted 10 puns for an online pun contest.
"Did you win anything" the other asked.
"Nope, no pun in 10 did"...
One of my favorite sayings is "I was a christian until i read the bible"
How true that is! cannot believe that is not on a T-shirt!
The road to atheism is littered with bibles.
Study religion and become a fundamentalist.
Study two religions and become an atheist.
It's interesting to me that many super religious people say that they were previously *drug addicts, alcoholics,* and/or in *a life of crime.* It seems that those religious people see their past bad behavior as a selling point for their religion. Implying that their life was terrible and now they've changed, and that I should change to be like them. But I've never done any of those bad things. They seem to think that my life is miserable without God, but I'm not miserable. Their past bad behavior doesn't help to convince me of their claims. I'm happier, knowing that "Big Brother" is not watching me and there's no heavenly system of punishment, so that I can just enjoy life.
I cant help mention my experience of knowing so many people who were actively addicted to drugs ,alchohol etc. yet firmly described themselves as devout x-tians ,no matter how bad their behavior was or how poorly they treated other people, as they are "forgiven" for all of their sins (a superiorist position) and the desperation with which they would cling to this self serving ideation just seems like another comforting addiction
For lack of a better term, Amen.😂🤘
I find that very often, their view of atheists, ir even other religious people, as those bad people.
You say you're not, but they believe you are.
It can be quite hard to convince them otherwise, because their world view, which is part of their recovery, now depends on it.
@@kuuphone3193 Yes. I've met someone like this. It's a form of projection, which to an extent, I think we all do in some way or another. But if left unchecked, it can lead to things like believing all non-Christians are as bad as you were. Thinking others are just like you/deal with your struggles/etc. can kind of be a way to cope with feeling inferior or bad about yourself. But if you inject this thinking into how you interact with non-Christians (implying they are evil/bad/immoral people), it can cause a plethora of psychological issues in those people, especially if they are in a predominantly Christian community or family. You don't even have to say it outright - the people where I came from were very friendly and welcoming on the surface. But this line of thinking caused lots of non-Christian kids to be ostracized, left out, looked down on, and caused many mental health issues that I witnessed personally.
@@johnd.shultz7423 I had a family member who became a Born Again Christian after some deeply challenging personal problems including substance abuse, and he spoke exactly like this. For my uncle, the church provided the blank-slate redemption that he craved. He believed the church's forgiveness of his crimes was more genuine or true than his own family's forgiveness. (And there is some truth to that; we were all skeptical that he was truly recovered from addiction and mental illness.)
Note Regarding Jason's Response Video: Two days after we spoke on the trail Jason emailed me a link to a 28 minute 28 second long video with his thoughts. Jason was kind enough to allow me to include a short portion of his response in my video here, but was reluctant to make the entire video available for others to watch. Here is your chance to ask Jason nicely (in this thread below) if he would be willing to share the link to his video, or allow me to upload a copy of it to my channel. In either case we could make the video Public (so it would appear in RUclips search results) or Unlisted (only people who have the link could view it) and enable or disable video comments. Thanks.
Asking nicely that is your thing Anthony, mine would be to do critical analysis on whatever his video was, pointing out all logical fallacies made (if any) and then demolishing the arguments if any as well, and also complaining about all the things with a bit of comedic effect tossed in. One has to think that, he isn't really that sure about having the "best" world view if he doesn't want to put his ideas up for critical analysis.
If he wants an logical analysis I shall do my best to do that, but I will not hold anything back. If he needs people to ask him nicely, well that isn't me. So...eh.
Here's a question I would ask Jason:
(To Jason) You seem to imply that doubt is a bad thing in general. Why do you think doubt is a bad thing?
The view I've adopted recently is that doubt is good because it is a moment when you can learn something new.
I enjoyed this interview. Honestly though, the little clip he allowed you to include of his own response video was a bit disheartening. I think that whatever a person's beliefs are, being encouraged to critically examine those beliefs should only be viewed as beneficial. Especially when the person doing the encouraging is as respectful as you are, Anthony. I don't agree that "you're the guy sowing doubt" or that you're the guy "sowing confusion".
Hey Jason, I would love to hear your complete thoughts on this, as that short clip just touched on a very tiny specific thing. To je honest, it's a thing you and I disagree about, but it's *because of that* that I would like to hear more from you. See whether there are things we agree on and can use as a base for a shared search for truth.
Finally, someone who’s actually put some real work in what they believe. Thank you, Jason. Most of these conversation just exposes laziness in what people believe.
Loved the pause at 10:06, 'You're getting answers, [but] are these answers true?' And it's like he senses it, the chasm between belief and truth, in a place he didn't expect to see it.
Wow I thought I wanted to learn and do street epistemology until watching this one … not sure I could be as patient as Anthony here listening to all of that lol. No words.
*Exactly!*
Same lol
This guy sounds like hes trying to convince himself in real time.
That's where I was about a year ago.
@@miranda.cooper
Really? What finally snapped you out?
@@miranda.cooper What caused you to see through it all?
Following this response. Very curious.
"This guy sounds like hes trying to convince himself in real time." = Every religious person I've ever met.
Jason just pushed me even further to the Atheist side.
Gott ist tot.
Dan Piano : Inandvertely they're their worst enemy and strangely enough almost our greatest allies, if they're all behaving like this Jason character doing.
Dan Piano Oooh not me. This young man may not be fully able to defend the truth yet, but he's better off than you, for at least he knows the truth.
Jeff Payne : And is that statement true?
@@fredriksundberg4624Which statement? Some are and some are not. I'd need to know which statement you're referring to.
im late as usual but I wanna say I was dying as a Christian. As an atheist I am actually alive. I got clean from years of hard core drug abuse I finally kicked those habits when I let go of faith. Clean 2 years now going strong! There's something amazing about learning how to take personal responsibility and being able to say I don't have to believe I'm broken. I am more whole than I ever was in 44 years of being a Christian believer.
He brought up Anthony Flew, a philospher, (not a scientist) who was fooled by anti-science apologetics propaganda published by the Discovery Institute.
" anti-science apologetics propaganda" ?? Isn't questioning accepted science the hallmark of science?
@@jon__doe Yes, but not DENYING accepted science, especially not as a course of prior bias.
@@AronRa so not only is Discovery Institute anti-science, they are heretics.
Isn't it ironic that you would suggest denial of evolutionary theory is the sin of heresy.
@@jon__doe Rejection of scientific principles is not practicing science. Heresy is a rejection of orthodox doctrine, which does not exist in science. Instead, science has processes which Discovery Institute cannot use as they require supportive or indicative evidence that they don't have.
@@AronRa I know what heresy means, hence the irony.
If by rejecting scientific principles you mean rejecting the absolute truth of ontological naturalism, I don't see how you can call that a tenant of science. Methodological naturalism isn't the same thing, if by methodology you cannot find a single solution without serious flaws, you must include the metaphysical possibilities. Keep in mind, metaphysical is nothing more than reality beyond our ability to define rules for.
You don't seem to understand the argument made by ID. If the purpose of science is to find the best explanation, and intelligent agency _is_ the foundation of that best explanation, being unable to identify or define that agency through scientific study doesn't preclude its existence.
It will take more than appeals to consensus to determine the objective truth of the nature of the universe. Ontological naturalism is a worldview (doctrine), not a scientific principle. Rejecting it does not equate to rejecting science, that's what atheists claim when they don't want to address the nature their own worldview.
"I know there is god, because you need god to know anything." Kinda circular that, isn't it?
"But only if it's the Christian god"... mm hmm......
@@Joe99 Yeah it doesn't work, apparently, if he hasn't got a son called Jesus who is also himself.
You can't prove reason works without using reason, either. The presup thinks they have solved this by saying reason is dictated by God but that just makes even less sense.
@@TwoEcksKay I think you can get around all these issues by saying that observation (meaning experience) is primary, given that you have experiences and so don't have to justify them with anything else. Then, you can derive everything else from the network of data that we build up through observation and using Occam's razor (including logic). This is a philosophical position called pragmatism and following Charles Sanders Peirce's usage.
@@roqsteady5290 I'm not sure how pragmatism isn't more epistemologically dubious than Christianity. It seems to be just as circular to say that observation is primary and the reason for that is because our observations tell us so.
Jason, if you’re reading this; read something other than books on apologetics. “The man who knows only his side of the argument doesn’t even know that”. I don’t mean to be harsh because you seem like a nice, honest person; but you don’t seem to know anything about the rebuttals to the arguments you find so compelling. That’s not a good thing.
Good point. It reminds me of the Hitchslap delivered to Sean Hannity. "You give me the awful impression, i hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever." -Christopher Hitchens
@Enjoy and Travel The World! Yeah, it's called confirmation bias. And you don't have to be religious to ignore facts that aren't consistent with one's beliefs and ideology. People do it all the time, everyday!
@Enjoy and Travel The World! "Any likeness or representation of him that is not him is blasphemy"
'ANY'
'REPRESENTATION'
So anything that you point to or claim that represents God to you is actually Blasphemous according to your own Bible scriptures!
Like CHURCHES, CROSSES, BIBLES, STAINED GLASS WINDOWS, "HOLY BREAD" , HOLY WATER"
ALL BLASPHEMOUS ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES!!!
@Enjoy and Travel The World!
DNA proves Evolution a long time ago for anyone who acknowledges science or facts
@Enjoy and Travel The World! "those animals still had to evolve after they were alive" Do you read what you write before you press "reply?" One point of many creationists is not that animals do not change (evolve) but that we started with animals that then adapt and change over time. That's precisely what you're admitting.
Jason inadvertently defines "atheist" when he revisits his past as an atheist. He says he was immoral, i.e., had no morals and was only selfish. This brought him misery and pain. After the "divine revelation" he became moral and unselfish. I can tell he is deeply committed emotionally to new life, and afraid to doubt, as he tells Anthony he doesn't want to talk anymore because Anthony sows doubt. Jason has researched Anthony and knows Anthony will ask questions he can't answer and doesn't want to think about. Jason is desperate to not return to his past state of misery and clings to his newfound mental state. He believes as he stated that "we have all been given a death sentence" and he has found a reprieve and will be rewarded with eternal life.To question that reprieve, that promise of immortality, is too frightening to contemplate for Jason. He wants to enjoy his life and forget that he once was fearful of dying. It makes psychological sense to him to focus on peace of mind, escape from fear of death, and his previous confusion. He will not endanger this by thinking, questioning. He claims that his experience is universal, and he went from abject ignorance to divine knowing by revelation and that's the only way, all others are lost, ignorant, and "can't know anything" because he felt that way once. Jason remembers what he felt. He is free from that feeling now and won't risk losing his certainty. He values it over all, over his conscience, his "self", his curiosity. He will use all his powers of evasion to avoid any ideas that threaten his comfort, his belief in his immortality.
"I was an atheist and a bad person before, and did whatever I wanted and had no morality."
No, you were and probably are still a bad person. If a "god" is the only reason you don't do terrible things to other people then your morality is flimsy af.
Exactly! Belief in god does not make people good. On the contrary belief in god has created just as many if not more bad people. His morals dont come from the bible otherwise he wouldn't pick and choose which commandments to follow. Morals come from man.
Yup, most likely he’s following his God out of fear. So there really isn’t a change for better.
People are often not "bad". If that man lived in another place or time mabye things would be different.
but what is the point of caring anyway; behaving good or bad, why does it matter if there isn't a higher level, a metaphysical reality? u can call it afterlife or whatever u want. i mean, why should we care of how we live, if there is no point in existence, and only the inevitable death awaits for us, conscious beings? shouldnt we let, the absolute terror of nothingness to reprogram our emotional side, our inner moral compass, just to not care about anything? at least, for me that is the logical conclusion of a Godless world, where only matter exists. i am really interested how atheists choose not to become nihilists. because it seems irrational to me not to be one. it seems more or less, an "i decide not to" from those part who despite being atheists doesnt become nihilists and want to find morality without the concept of God and metaphysics. which is pretty funny because they are the ones who laugh on religious people for believing without evidence, when they do the same: they believe in "being good" as a truth we all should pursue, while there isn't any real evidence to back them up in this claim. or am i wrong? how so? can anyone help?
Under atheism there is no objective morality. For you to make claims about morality, you have to prove it exists ontologically. Can you see/touch/smell/hear moral values? If not, then its simply faith you have that they exist and that we have some kind of duty to follow moral laws. How is this different from believing that God exists? Why would u think in a material universe that came from nothing, that it really matters how we behave? Its like claiming we should respect physical objects as a duty without them having any owner.
This video needs a subtitle...
ATHEISTS CAN’T KNOW ANYTHING:
A Pre-Sup Bull In an Epistemological China Shop
"Bull" being the operative word. And where does he got the nerve to accuse his interlocutor (at around the 32:08 mark) of only sowing doubt after investing all that time and effort into attempting to sow doubt about every other worldview except his own?
Your patience is remarkable Anthony. Listening to these unreasonable arguments being so confidently made is very hard to stomach. We can only hope Jason cares enough to learn more about the arguments against his position.
I don't think his arguments are made so confidently, he strikes me as someone who has been thinking about it quite a lot and is trying to defend his favourite belief, especially because it helped him quit some destructive behaviour. Still Anthony's patience is utterly cool.
Dr. Wier I’d be interested to know what Jason thought if he looked back at this? It seems to me that having talked about the strength of his ‘evidence’ he instead turned to quite a list of unverifiable and unfalsifiable claims. Those are not evidence. Ultimately every Christian’s position is the assertion as to the existence of something they call God. From that position any other claim becomes possible.
@@jckensway2956 Most good evidence is not falsifiable. Being falsifiable largely only applies to evidence using the scientific method, which is far from the only way to discern the truth.
Jeff Payne but making a claim for something, or indeed almost anything, where there is a) no apparent justification for that claim and b) the ‘justification’ too will in itself also almost certainly be a claim is surely not a defensible position? With no god/gods to examine and analyse plus a strong body of opinion that all gods are the creation of human minds every claim that spins off from this is essentially unfalsifiable. It’s making shit up.
@@jckensway2956 I agree completely that making baseless claims is meaningless, and such is not the nature of arguments for the existence of God and the historicity of the NT.
At 30:55 “The evidence is always there, you just can’t see it.”-Jason
Wow
“We don’t think logically anymore!”
Explains everything illogically.
People forget that you don’t get to jump to conclusions in logic. You have to connect the dots.
He was honest in the parking lot that he was a believer in Christianity first then came on the apologetic justifications later. That is how it always works. The apologetic is just an after the fact rationalization and a way to come up with smart sounding reasons for things that the person came to believe in for non-smart reasons.
Peer pressure is a very powerful force. If you are looking for some kind of belief system to latch onto, you are usually going to adopt some version of the one in your immediate surroundings without much thought. Almost a cliche, I suppose. Then when you have your new worldview, you may start into rationalizing it or not depending on the kind of person you are.
Jason was just following what God's Word says.
1 Peter 3:15 ”...always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you...”
The Greek word for "defense" is apologia (ἀπολογία). It means to make a legal defense in a setting like a courtroom. That's where the word apologetics comes from. Knowledge of God has to come first before you can give a reasonable defense.
What most people don't seem to understand is that God chooses his own people. He makes himself known to them. I never would have believed in God on my own without him first softening my heart and giving me eyes to see and ears to hear.
Jesus said in John 10:26-27
"You do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."
You probably think Christians are crazy for believing in a God that you can't see or feel. But Christians think you're crazy for suppressing the knowledge of Him. In my opinion, Atheist unproportionally hate the God of the Bible more than any other religion or god. Atheist also hold desperately onto [the religion of] evolution. I'm telling you, if evolution were true I would believe it. I used to like the theory until evidence like DNA and the fossil record have been exhaustively studied.
1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
I like Frank Turek's argument, "if I could prove to you that the God of the Bible is true, would you believe in Him?"
@@icypirate11 _"if I could prove to you that the God of the Bible is true, would you believe in Him?"_
versus
_"You do not believe because you are not of My sheep."_
1. But I'm not one of his _"sheep,"_ so how could I believe. Seems that you've stated a conflict.
2. Please provide independently verifiable, falsifiable evidence, so that I can believe.
@@fifthape2119 - You first mentioned Frank Turek's question. It is a hypothetical question.
Jesus said, "you do not believe because you are not of my sheep." If you know the mind God, and you know that you are not, or ever will discover that you are, one of his sheep, then I can give you all the evidence in the world and you will never believe. You already have all the evidence you need.
@@icypirate11 Some thing not quite right here: "God chooses his own people" and "crazy for suppressing the knowledge of Him" So first you say your god doesn't communicate with some people, then that those same people are crazy for not believing in him, sounds like pretty crazy logic even for a Christian...
Evolution is science not religion. The reason you don't believe it has nothing to do with whether it is correct or not (it is of course) it is entirely to do with your religion and the particular interpretation you put on that. Its entirely wishful thinking, you don't like TOE so you claim it is false. Many Christians do accept TOE, perhaps reluctantly since it involves endless suffering, but it is undeniable to any half sensible person including, even the pope.
Of course I would believe in God (or fairies) if you were able to prove his existence, But, I am not holding my breath given that it isn't possible to demonstrate that something exists in reality without that thing actually doing something to make it's presence detectable. Fairies are more plausible given they break far fewer laws of physics.
"You're the guy sowing doubt..."
Interesting accusation from the guy who asserts we need to be a "bit skeptical."
I think if anyone told me that, I'd probably take it as a compliment, and then question them as to why doubt is bad.
Anthony, you do an amazing job of just letting an individual put a lot on the table without countering every point with sound reasoning or logical rebuttals. I believe it keeps your interviewees very comfortable and allows them to continue speaking fluidly and without getting defensive. Thank you for modeling this ability that I struggle with adhering to.
Anthony. You are so good at this. I'm learning so much just by listening to how you ask questions.
Great conversation! But as an atheist, I've never done anything criminal or against well being, and always have morality. I've never been hopeless or pointless, always have meaning.
Mindsets like that are what makes religion poisonous but love the concept of this ! Thanks for sharing!
I think this is an important concept more people should grasp. I might gain meaning and fulfilment from one thing, others gain it from another. My friend gains it from her belief in God, I get it from my relationships and interactions with the people in my life. Neither is more "true" or meaningful - they're both just means to the same end. I might get a lot of fulfillment from writing stories, but by no means do I think that people who don't enjoy writing have a meaningless, pointless life! I can't really understand that stance of thinking that your means to an end of fulfillment and purpose is the only correct one.
@dyuloose good for you! You do you! And I never said anything about perfect..You sound like a theist with that reply lol are you a poe and lying? Yay! You lose by having to resort to belittling but hey, you do you . You are free to live a miserable life and nothing better to do 👍👍
W mindset
You can acknowledge that people have different purposes/paths to fulfillment without also affirming that these paths are entirely self-developed and at the sole discretion of the doer. If you really just say, "I get fulfillment from doing x, Bob gets fulfillment from doing y, let's all just do what makes us happy!" someone can come along and say, "Hi, my name is Ted Bundy, and I derive fulfillment from sexually abusing and murdering people." The second you say, "Ted, you ought not do that" or "Ted, that isn't true fulfillment," you're appealing to a standard outside of individual control.
If you accept the existence of moral imperatives such as "people ought not murder and sexually abuse others for fun," then these imperatives deny the viewpoint that people can gain meaning and fulfillment from whatever they want. And, of course, the existence of these moral imperatives also leads to interesting questions about their nature and their grounding.
Clear, you are missing a fundamental point (if I may be so bold). Thoughtful theists do not maintain that atheists cannot be good people (by man's standards of lawfulness and charity). Nor do theists maintain you cannot have meaning in your life. What theists maintain is that you cannot have OBJECTIVE standards of good or an OBJECTIVE definition of meaning.
I personally have a LOT of problem with "professing christians" - organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church, often the Catholic Church, and almost all prosperity preachers. Might I humbly recommend that you consider the writings in the Bible as your baseline for knowledge of God and not rely on any man or woman too much for their interpretations or as an example - we are all flawed humans, afterall.
Hey Jason, I think you’re misunderstanding the entire court trial metaphor. The prosecution is attempting to convince the jury that God is guilty of existing. They have to prove that beyond some standard. The jury is then not forced to choose between Guilty and Innocent. No, they only decide if the claim of guilt has met its standard of evidence. The defense doesn’t even have to provide any evidence of innocence, only show that the evidence for guilt isn’t strong enough to convict.
If the prosecution doesn’t reach its burden of proof, God is not guilty of existing. That’s the atheist position. You’re not forced to conclude that God is definitely innocent or definitely guilty of existing. There’s no requirement to decide one of those options, even in real life court cases.
Does that make sense?
Yes. His claim that judges are useless if they are not able to come to conclusions is so typical of theists. They need to appreciate that when we don't know, we have to say "I don't know" not invent some arbitrary claim. And that is the whole point of the "not guilty" verdict in court too, as you say.
Makes perfect sense, yes.
Your explanation about the court case is extremely well put.
I think that not only is the God of the Bible on "trial" for the universe existing, but also Allah, the Mormon God, Buddha, Hindu gods, Atheism, etc. are also on trial for creating the universe. Which one, out of all the views or claimed creators is there enough evidence beyond REASONABLE doubt that that is the creator?
Definitely not Atheism. Atheism doesn't explain why things exist. There is overwhelming evidence that there is order to the universe. It's absolutely unreasonable to view the world as purposeless.
icypirate11 atheism is just what happens when you don’t believe those claims. It doesn’t even seek to explain anything. Asking for it to is like saying “Not believing in Santa doesn’t explain how the presents appear beneath Christmas trees. Your position doesn’t explain anything so it’s not a good position.”
Instead we use reliable techniques to investigate how things work. We might discover there’s a better explanation for the presents. The state of not believing in Santa doesn’t explain the presents, but it puts us in the position to investigate more likely causes.
Hope that helps explain why not believing a claim shouldn’t be criticized just because it isn’t itself an alternate explanation. It’s just the starting point for figuring out an explanation.
Anthony, I appreciate your patience. These dialogues help me learn about myself, both as I was and as I am. I seek truth, and it's quite the journey. I see people in your videos on various parts of journeys, and it helps me understand them better, too.
I LOVE listening to Anthony interacting with presups. The pinnacle of patience meets the most assertive hard heads. At least this guy was cordial.
On one level I wish Jason would release the rest of his video because this kind of makes him look like a jerk. To your face he was really friendly and then goes and creates a video saying your life is useless and having conversations with people is leading people astray.
Its rude and childish and still doesn't defend or explain his position.
Yeah. I love how he assume's that Anthony's life is meaningless and he's in despair.
He probably didn't know anything about SE before he looked up Anthony's channel and saw all the religion-challenging content. He likely felt as if HE were being misled. Notice how eager he was to know Anthony's position. But that's not the purpose of the exercise, as it is in a debate. SE is about focusing on the process of idea formation, which most people never address. If the subject internalizes the questioning, it may lead to a more reasonable faith, at least, or it might lead to- in this dude's case- a more reasonable atheism. I say this because he mentioned being atheist and "doing any bad thing I wanted," as if atheists have no moral compass. It's a shame, bc nothing about Anthony's presentation suggested he was being disingenuous or dishonest. He just declined to go the route of "Christian vs. Atheist."
Yeah, i thought he was really nice and then this personal video makes him look like an absolute jerk who projects his doubt onto other people.
@@yakmanyhad I bet there were plenty of "bad things" that he didn't do, because he has the same basic moral compass as any human being, no matter what system they subscribe to. It did not take a belief in a deity to change this.
In the initial talk, I got the feeling that he was quoting his pastor or something. Maybe that last video was the result of that as well. 0% evidence, but it would not surprise.
I love how Anthony can keep steering the conversation back to his original questions.
I don't think he does it strongly enough, often the conversations get so far off track that they don't come back and the subject doesn't get the intention of the conversation.
@@lil-al Sometimes you have to let folks say what they are going to say, before you can get them back on topic.
We are to go out unto the world to be the light and if necessary use words. Jesus never told us to go out and debate anyone
@@lil-al If you want people to keep talking to you, you can't bully them into answering immediately or whatever. The reason he's able to get strangers to stop and talk to him for 40 minutes about some of the most contentious concepts and he's making people confront some of their most deeply held beliefs and often calling them into question.
It's not an easy thing to do without pissing people off in one way or another. Anthony is really truly talented at putting out a vibe that he's truly just interested in what you're saying without any ulterior motives, and that's why we get so many amazing videos on this channel.
@@carolinelabbott2451 Yes, there is that very strong impulse that needs to be de-pressurized before a conversation can actually start.
Anthony, I found your videos a couple days ago and Ive been watching them all. I absolutely LOVE your approach and how you challenge these people.
Glad you found the videos and are finding them useful.
Jason - hope you open your mind and let us know. I was one of you and now I’m on the other side. Interesting journey and happy I found it.
Sounds like he was looking for something to relieve his guilt for past behavior. You don’t need religion to be a better person.
If you can call that a religion.
I call that organized narzissism.
Plenty people think you do.
Kevin Martin No, and that's not what Christianity is about. You need Jesus to fulfill purpose, justice and the ultimate meaning for your life and existence.
@@CCCBeaumont No you don't. Any more than you need Thor, Thoth, Ganesh or the Pillsbury Doughboy. Well, maybe the Pillsbury Doughboy is worth having on board.
@@cliveadams7629 How are these created gods and a cartoon character analogous, in your estimation, to the eternal Creator God?
Whew... This is one confused dude. Logical fallacies right and left, which he seems totally unaware of. Pretty depressing, all and all.
He's got that young man arrogance in full tilt
Just found your channel. This street epistemology thing is awesome! Going to watch everything! Nice work, guys! Keep it up! :)
Thanks. Lots of video examples laying around these days.
Good one Anthony..
I'm slowly getting the hang of this method.
Because I can anticipate their answers, and arguments, before they even say it..
Keep up the good work.
I wish he would have kept talking to you. If his viewpoint is better than any others he has nothing to fear in continuing to meet with you, but the fact that he apparently won't anymore, speaks volumes about his lack of confidence in his position. He was a nice guy though. Hope he comes back to show us just how perfect his position is so I can adopt it as my own.
It’s really interesting to watch someone who thinks he’s leading someone else down a road when Anthony already knows this argument. An expertly handled discussion and I’m only 11 minutes in!
“How do you know you’re not in the matrix?”
Missed opportunity to say “I don’t know kung-fu”
I like this interview because it takes a strikingly different approach than most others you have on the channel. You referred to him as a presuppositionalist, which I think is a great way of describing it. I have a friend who thinks like this and am not sure how to advance the conversation with him other than recognizing that we have different assumptions that we start from (perhaps different personal values). I would love to see more of these kinds of interviews which I think gets at the heart of epistemology.
17:18 I think this is the - real - reason Jason is a Christian today. He went through an existential crisis, but found support from other Christians. Later, he found the presuppositional argument, online or through the same support group, and used it as the reasoning for his belief because it appealed to him.
Nailed it!
@AdamDoes SE:
Winner winner chicken dinner. Couldn’t have said it any better.
I agree. We should not underestimate the power of experiences like that. Human brains are amazing but messy and not wired to be completely rational. We have a variety of social and psychological needs that lead us to form beliefs like this.
Same could be said about atheists. They grew up in an overly pleasant time, with little wars and financial troubles, and have never faced true adversity, leading them to be jaded and believe into 'scientism' but not in an almighty God
You can’t know anything!
I know that for certain!
🤔 Wait?????
He said nothing contradictory there. The atheist can't know anything, but the Christian can. He made that clear, and he rightly references divine revelation and that's precisely what our modern science is recognizing as a "complete" mystical experience. Now here's the rub, it's not exclusive to Christianity, but is a divine source shared by all the major religions à la the Perennial philosophy. That's what modern science is recognizing. That's why he can be confident in his Christian worldview, likewise the Hindu, the Muslim, etc. can also exhibit the same confidence because all major religions share the single divine truth revealed in revelation.
ruclips.net/video/EsgKUglCI7g/видео.htmlm13s
files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf
"Complete" Mystical Experience - CSP Founder - Robert Jesse
ruclips.net/video/HuwkDgyIuao/видео.htmlm04s
Dr. Roland Griffiths on "Complete" Mystical Experience
ruclips.net/video/uxWvIp9XtUc/видео.htmlm
Dr. Alex Belsar - "Complete" Mystical Experience
ruclips.net/video/DUYDjV8lQxo/видео.htmlm36s
Oh but he has Gawd remember, so that gives him the ability to know. Somehow.
@@Kafei ok, so if you claim to know things through of devine revelation, how do you distinguish between that and someone hearing voices in their head due to a psychiatric disorder?
Frankly, then idea that all religious believers share the same single divine truth revealed by revelation is ridiculous. There is some overlap with the Abrahamic faiths because they are all just splinters of the same thing, but Hindus do not share revelations with Christians. The idea that all religious belief is a subset of something greater is just a meta-religion
which is even harder to square with reality that the individual components.
@@richardpayne You didn't watch the lectures I linked, I take it. People are describing a profound spiritual experience which is an experience unto itself, meaning it's a universal phenomenon in consciousness, people are describing content which has nothing to do with their personal history, and which is invariably reported in the so-called "complete" mystical experience.
ruclips.net/video/mhbjKizniOU/видео.htmlm24s
@dyuloose A "complete" mystical experience is well-defined and well-established in the scientific literature over decades worth of scientific research, it's pretty much a scientific concept at this point. It's nothing to do with delusion, these professionals are quick to point out.
Here's some suggestions...
ruclips.net/video/oV3a2G9GS_E/видео.htmlm47s
ruclips.net/video/EsgKUglCI7g/видео.htmlm13s
ruclips.net/video/RT_WjwbSwPU/видео.htmlm48s
ruclips.net/video/_UF5l7wxN-k/видео.htmlm52s
ruclips.net/video/uxWvIp9XtUc/видео.htmlm17s
ruclips.net/video/HuwkDgyIuao/видео.htmlm04s
ruclips.net/video/6bu3q3GMHfE/видео.htmlm36s
www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf
csp.org/docs/psilocybin
I enjoyed the hell out of this one Anthony, I'd love to hear more from this person if you happen to meet him again. Jason, thank you for your views (if you read this).
We differ on a lot of those views, but I really enjoyed the way you presented yours and yourself.
I'm a recovering heroin addict and "God" didn't do shit for me. I pulled myself out of that ditch. 3 and half years sober now and still doing just fine as an atheist.
Seems like a nice, polite guy. Hope he will enable you to share his full response video.
Major Allen Espy He really does seem like a great guy. It was really nice of him to participate in this talk and be so open about things.
@@magnabosco210 But his follow up video alone at home was a bit offputting.
I agree. He did ask himself questions and thought some things through . I would also like to hear more of his thoughts.
@@magnabosco210 His follow up video shows he really isn't a great guy.
What if as an atheist I know that I don’t know everything?
Somehow it seems to be difficult for many people to simply admit that they don't know something and more than that act like they can't deal with not knowing. Even though the same people often pride themselves in not knowing scientific stuff. They act like "not knowing the 'meaning' of the universe" is reason to despair, yet often they aren't really interested in learning even base level physics.
The truth is that they only want to believe in God because they want to believe in the afterlife. They put it into their heads that God = immortal afterlife. They don't want to comprehend that the existence of a creator does not imply the existence of an afterlife, nor that any of their respective beliefs about it are true. God could be real and just there and people would give a fuck about it if it didn't promise afterlife
JJPHILLYLG :
But unless you're having a special revelation that's just happends to be connected to just a certain book concerning just a certain religion then that'll automaticilly solve anything compared with just another special certain book that's just happening to belonging to just another certain religion, because of reasons, right? Right?
;-)
@@maythesciencebewithyou That's an interesting problem. I think as well that it's an issue with public image. People want to paint a picture of their self for other people to interact with. It's saying 'all the world is a stage' taken literally. The "act" really is an act inventing a character that a person plays in real life.
Wow!!! Super awesome interview!! Actually the guy made really good points to make me pause and wonder!!! I really wish he would have taken you up to speak again!! He is super articulate with his beliefs!!
lol at the jogging lady getting the coin. Nice little editing touch there, Anthony!
I'm fairly concerned about why Jason seems to believe that doubt is a bad thing (as is implied with his response), and how he knows doubt to be a bad thing, when it is generally the basis of scientific inquiry and epistemology in general. It just seems kinda contradictory to me.
Not to mention that he was totally cool with it during the conversation and only against it later. I wonder what changed/happened in between...
21:50 the Bible tells us to be skeptical. But apparently don’t doubt?
That was fascinating, Anthony. I like Jason and appreciate his intelligence and openness. But I'm disappointed that the response clip suggests that he is now afraid to talk with you further because you "sow doubt". This in spite of the fact that you never challenged him or invited him to doubt. With all due respect, this suggests, unless I misunderstand, that he's afraid that you have some sort of power over his "doubt". Anyway, very nice interview.
Anne BK I don’t think it came up in the short little clip that I posted here, but Jason ended up looking more into Street Epistemology, the book that started it all, I think he said he read it (or listened to it) twice, and many of my chats and presentations on the subject. So he could be repsonding more to the SE corpus rather than this one short talk.
@@magnabosco210 Have you pointed out that he himself said during this talk that doubt is important and encouraged as part of his belief system? He seems to have backpedaled from that because he's now having some real doubt and finding it daunting.
@TwoEcksKay:
Well you know doubt is good for everyone else as long as it leads them to “the truth” he personally subscribes to.
Anthony you are quite remarkable. You are such a considerate and patient gentleman. While Jason seemed like a very nice and personable guy, there were constant points where I would have interjected to highlight the errors in his reasoning. It’s awesome that you take such a gentle approach - it’s the best way to have a chance of slowly persuading someone that perhaps their ideas aren’t so robust. Anyway, great stuff.
His responce video made a point I have been making for years. When he says "you need something to cope", it shows that the so-called security they feel their religion gives them, is mental pacifier. Which is why it has such a strong grip on people, and why so many people "find" god when they are either depressed or mentally unstable.
Seeing the female jogger get a golden coin was amazing!!! 😂
Definitely did not expect that 😂
Yikes at his video response at the end. Anthony, you have no purpose or meaning! I guess it makes sense he would say that given his background, but Jason please don't assume people who have followed a different path than you aren't living fulfilling, meaningful lives. That is simply not true.
Jason’s response isn’t meant to be hurtful, it’s just fact that atheism is meaningless and purposeless. How can an accidentally organized life form (matter) bumping around the universe have purpose? You have to borrow from Christianity to even have a foundation for morality. Otherwise, why do you care about anything or feel responsible for anything? Even if you might feel some empathy for other life forms, you have no real explanation for why you should. You live, then you’re dead. It’s that simple. You’re gone forever, so what difference would it make if you impacted the world in any way? Even the Bible tells us that sin can be fun for a season, but any true believer in Christ will understand that it’s a lie when people state they live a perfectly happy and productive life without a foundation in Christ. You may have yourself convinced of that today, but live long enough without purpose and you’ll eventually have crisis that will drive you to some kind of despair. Sure, you can convince the average person in a drive by reading of your comments, unlike Jason, who’s spent a lot of time really considering the meaning of life, but forget about it if God’s revealed himself to a person because they see right through the facade that is “street epistemology”, a tool of evil to shake the foundational beliefs of a baby Christian, someone who hasn’t tested their faith (trust) in what they believe, who haven’t researched enough to find their way around all of the counterfeit religions in the world. You’ll never see what we see without honestly and humbly looking at life through the paradigm that is Christ. A drive by approach to the Bible, cherry picking the scriptures atheists love to quote will only accomplish the goal you’ve already set with your presupposition. I challenge my faith almost every day watching videos like this to test my faith. I believe most atheists are unwilling to give an equal effort to consider belief in God and only make a half effort at best while pilfering through the low hanging fruit of false religions to feed the only presupposition you ever truly consider.
@Joey Eng:
When you’re told what your purpose is and that you’re purposeless without said thing long enough; you tend to believe it.
@@byal9000 I have a cousin that stopped drinking and gave all the glory to Jesus and God. He said without them he could not have stopped. I asked him if Jesus or God revealed themselves to him and told him to stop drinking, he said no. I then stated it was all within himself to make the change and to give himself the credit because he actually had the mindset/willpower to stop drinking, which anyone can do without any deistic belief system. If a God did not smack that bottle out of his hand supernaturally, then it was not a God nor Jesus that did anything.
This is standard operating procedure for Yahwallahans: Anyone who won't obey needs to be dehumanized (you don't have morals, you don't have purpose, you can't think without my god thing, etc.) so further abuse and worse is normalized.
Joey Eng On that grounds is Anthony's life of any ultimate purpose?
I love it. Just asking questions and gathering information. Not being hasty and jumping to a conclusion early.
Calling Anthony 'hopeless and worthless' doesn't sound very christian to me.
That's authentic Christian love in my experience 🤕
It sounds like you are talking about a cultural idea of a Christian. The Bible calls humans "hopeless and worthless" without God, so id say it's very Christian.
@@nathangayner7592 so, calling someone ‘hopeless and worthless’ is culturally Christian? Nice judgement!
@@kathyhudson6525 No, the opposite. It's Biblically Christian. Your judgement that it doesn't sound Christian, sounds like it stems from a cultural understanding of what you expect from Christians.
@@nathangayner7592 which is not much.
"Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know" by Dr. Peter Boghossian
Interesting discussion. Thanks, Jason for participating in Street Epistemology.
I would be interested in seeing more discussions with presuppositionalists.
can anyone help me out with the meaning of the red arrows we saw during the video? I think there were 3; 2 very close together, one pointing to his side or arm and then to his face/head... and then one a few seconds later on his forearm, I think... not seen these in previous vids... not that I've seen tons of vids.. and I didn't see any explanation in the video description box unless I am blind and missed it... Thx!!
This guy has been the most respectable presuppositional apologist ive ever seen. Major kudos for that!
Sorry Jason, but asking questions about why you believe what you believe and how you came to the conclusion that it is true is not sowing seeds of doubt, it's sowing the seeds of enlightenment about what is true and how to determine if how you came to the conclusion that it is true is not self delusional.
Well it is sowing seeds of doubt... But why is doubt a bad thing? Jason himself praised being sceptical and reflective.
Doubt is fucking awesome. Helps you lose beliefs sith no grounding in reality. All those well based in evidence are safe from doubt.
@ippos_khloros Exactly how it works. Not sure bout the crucible, though, but that may be as I'm not a native speaker... Isn't that a device for making steel from different kinds of iron? The proverbial 'melting pot'? Basically a mixing device? Or rather... amalgamation, is that the word? Wouldn't want your truths and falsehoods to be amalgamated, though, right?
@ippos_khloros Never heard this one before. Thanks for clarifying!
@ippos_khloros This exactly. Truth is completely unafraid of doubt. Christians are afraid of doubt. Therefore Christians do not have the truth.
Jason's a good talker - but not much of a thinker. He's satisfied with 'revelation' as if it means anything. And it's very sad that he's decided not to pursue a better epistemology.
klhcc Agreed. When asked why he believes, he continues to recite other beliefs (ie. makes new/more claims) rather providing evidence for the original.
J: “I believe X.”
A: “Why do you believe X?”
J: “Because I also believe claims A, B, C.”
A: “Okay. But is there evidence for X?”
J: I believe D, E, and F support A, B, and C. That’s why I believe X.”
Basically a belief built on a tower of claims without evidence.
"Any likeness or representation of him that is not him is blasphemy"
'ANY'
'REPRESENTATION'
So anything that you point to or claim that represents God to you is actually Blasphemous according to your own Bible scriptures!
Like CHURCHES, CROSSES, BIBLES, STAINED GLASS WINDOWS, "HOLY BREAD" , HOLY WATER"
ALL BLASPHEMOUS ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES!!!
@@privatepile762 "Antony Flew"? That and perhaps Miller are "atheists who became Christians"-though Flew was known to be of poor mental health by then and Miller's "Triune waterfall" is really weak-sauce. I expect a lot of his "evidence" is of similarly weak stuff.
I think he is a pretty good thinker, and he has clearly given things quite a bit of thought, but to me it seems that he has not looked into alternative viewpoints and arguments, and is stuck in what he grew up with. I hope he does more research. Until then the cognitive dissonance keeps him coming back in loop.
He seemed pretty intelligent, actually. Sure, he's basically parroting McDowell and Strobel, along with the presuppositionalists, but it's obvious he's made a bit of effort to meld their arguments (even if the result wasn't any good).
I'll never understand how , having NOTHING to back up your claim, you can have ANY confidence in your claim, nevermind massive confidence. Astounding really!
Quick thanks Anthony, for your videos of which I have only seen a handful so far. I find myself passionate in my frustrations in "debating" religious people which does not serve my goal of challenging their beliefs productively. I think your approach is better.
At 29:31 Jason says, "No one thinks logically anymore." Oh my Zeus! That was unbelievable.
brigham2250 Yeah, like more people used to in any other time in history. Facepalm...
Anthony Magnabosco has a lot of patience! I highly commend him!👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Dunning-Kruger effect
thumbs up for oh my zeus
I think more people are thinking logically these days. It's just that it's not his logic.
Skip ahead to a desired point in the talk:
--
Explanation: 01:39
Claim (What): 04:31
Justification (Why): 06:18, 11:37
Repeating: 06:24, 11:10, 14:10
Questions for Me: 07:20
Interrupting: 09:58, 11:44
Pausing: 10:04
Aporia: 11:49
Clarifying: 12:36,18:16, 19:02, 20:14
Method (How): 12:57, 14:03
Encouragement: 15:17
Resetting: 16:36
Closing: 22:59
Response Clip: 32:02
End Cap: 32:47
--
Note: Add 35 seconds to these timestamps if listening to the podcast version of this talk.
Do you have a patreon? I'm overwhelmed by the need to give you something for enduring this over and over.
After all that, it came down to an appeal to emotion. So much for that "evidence"
Great job asking him "when" he came to this argument style. He said 5 years ago, the implication is he had to "learn" it, he didn't presuppose it. His entire argument collapses due to his honesty.
anthony, this is where street epistemology doesn't work. jason is an idiot, and you have to point out all the idiotic things he says.
could you link to his video then it might be interesting to watch or don't you want to?
Love your work and admire your patience.
Anthony--It's been awhile since I've watched your videos. Wow. You have become so amazingly skillful in your conversational interviews. Very impressive. And he was a very thoughtful interesting person. The question that arose for me is how would he, we, the world be any different if there was or wasn't a god and we just couldn't know for sure Which of course we can't despite all the claims for how someone can, in fact, know--faith, divine revelation, what appears to be an act of god or some event that seems miraculous.
I was kind of taken aback by him saying that you can't just replace a false belief with nothing. Like if nothing truly were the case, then if you value truth, then it seems like you would have replace it with nothing. It reminds me of Sam Harris' refrigerator-sized diamond in the backyard analogy.
I also scratch my head at this logic. Certainty and comfort are more important to some people than honesty.
I think that if the question at hand is important enough you can't just shrug it off, say "I dunno" and go about with your life because your mind will try to fill in the gap due to fear of the unknown. Maybe that's what he meant.
@@korbx Mmmm yeah that's a problem for a lot of people. Instead of being excited and curious about the unknown, they fear it. So with nothing to fill the gap, all that's left is fear. But if you're curious, excited, and comfortable with the unknown then you can engage with it without needing to fill any gaps.
Oh dear. As seems typical, he's swapped one addiction with another more illogical one. Smh.
_"No one thinks logically anymore"_ -- Man, the irony is just dripping from that statement.
Lolololol. ..that one got me too...😂😂
Define logic. Explain why the bunch of cells that you are *cares* about logic. Explain why logic matters beyond yourself.
@@kalossimitar _"Explain why logic matters beyond yourself."_ -- Wow. I mean, wow. If you don't know any of this, you are hopeless. I don't care to go into a lecture on epistemology starting at the kindergarten level.
@@kalossimitar _"Define logic."_ -- It's astonishing that this wasn't embarrassing for you to write.
@@dienekes4364 nice ad hominem. That won't fly with me. Maybe you'll get a few claps, however, from other godless "flesh bags".
Can anyone explain to me the purpose of some of the subtle edits in the video? For instance the red arrow around 17:42, or the video game-ish sound when the lady passes in the background a few seconds later?
I'm just discovering this channel so I might not be familiar with the audiovisual language :) thanks!
With red arrows he use to show body language signs.
And its great because, normally, body language says a lot.
Of course, as everything, if you train, you can fake it. .-)
I wish I had more patience and the ability to listen better. It's hard for me to keep my mouth shut. I love how you ask very good, thought provoking, questions. Thank you for the lesson in thoughtful communication.
Jason seems like a super nice guy. It really hurts to see him not understand how flawed his reasoning is.
I am impressed that you are able to follow this so well. This had my brain in knots.
I like that your conversations are very polite and you seem to make a point to let the person you're talking to, be allowed to speak pretty much as much as they want, giving them the room to elaborate on their views, and you're non-combative but just asking honest questions to explore the epistemology, and you're doing your best to steel-man their arguments, not strawman them. It's a passive reminder that we should be civil and care about people for being thinking, feeling beings first, regardless of views that they may have modestly come to adopt (as long as those views aren't blatantly repugnant ones).
I also listen to Matt Dillahunty, he's brilliant but I have a pretty big problem with how he conducts his conversations because I find him to be way too impatient and irate. I get the sense that he unintentionally scares many of his callers into essentially being quiet and just agreeing with him generally (even while they tentatively might push back a little). Not all callers behave the of course, and there are some who are very rude or hold pretty immoral views. But, it's an emotional sway, and people shouldn't be made afraid to tell you what they really think.
"devine revelation" also known as... a book tells me so and it sounds neat to me
...the "evidence" for every religion ever
and the background to why Anthony does this. If "divine revelation" leads to a million different truths then it is not a reliable method of discovering truth!
Well, it's all about books, though. As far as I know, meta-analysis are still texts that you have to put in practice for yourself before fully believing. Same goes for parental advice book or cooking recipe. You have to put faith in that pancake recipe, sacrifice the ingredients, and pray that the result taste as good as expected. Sometimes your faith is misplaced in false cooking prophets. Sometimes it is rewarded, and then you keep the recipe as a sacred scripture.
@@oneoranota if the pancake recipe mentions using a talking snake..... and using fairy dust.... I'll believe it works when someone can demonstrate the truth of getting a pancake from that
if the standard for evidence used is "a book tells me so and it can't be demonstrated to be true" that can and does result in countless beliefs in mostly or completely incompatible deities... its a mostly useless standard for evidence
I heard the core of about 8 different sermons during this conversation. I get the feeling that Jason is a really sweet guy that loves going to church, it gives him a rock to stand on.
I hope he soon sees that it's actually sinking sand.
I think it’s the one thing keeping him in check from his apparent old habits. In that regard, I hope he sticks with it.
Oh snap! That's my friend. We've never talked religion before, glad to know his opinion and perspective.
Maybe you can talk some sense into him.
Love the way you want to know their complete argument. I've learned so much more by listening with your approach. Also see holes in Christianity that I haven't seen before. Looking forward to more content.
diolate I am an Atheist all my live for me is funny and weird when people say they see holes in religion, religion is the biggest holl that men found out!
@@kyaxara7321 haha good one. What I mean is he allows more context to come out rather than most settings where justifications are attacked.
Haha! This one is gold Anthony. Keep up the good work old friend. I hope all is well with you and your loved ones.
Religion (Christianity, in this case) lies in wait, ready to pounce on vulnerable, traumatized individuals such as Jason. Religion can spot these easy marks staggering down the road from a mile away.
What's with the big red arrows ? Sorry for being stupid but I don't get what they are for... Can anyone explain please
Anthony - Another good talk, thanks!
Jason - you always had goodness and purpose in your life. You don't need your religion to take credit for that.
And be mindful that Anthony does not sow doubt. He asks questions to establish how we come to the truth of our claims in our world. Any doubt that you experienced, was not in him, it was in you. And you should investigate that, if you truly care that the claim that you are making is true. (some people just believe because they want to believe, and that's a very honest thing to say)
I love that you stressed an importance on evidence, and hope that you continue to search out new evidence as well as continue to examine the evidence that you are given. If you honestly weigh the evidence that you are given, against inherent bias, (consider the source of the information) you will probably come to the truth... as long as your requirements to prove a claim are balanced with your requirements of evidence to disprove a claim. If you require "reasonable evidence" to disprove a claim, the claim should also be supported by evidence which attains that threshold.
When you are examining your evidence: Is it falsifiable? Is it proof of anything at all? or it it actually proof of Everything?... Does your argument for Christianity make sense when you substitute another belief (or religion) in your claim? If the body of evidence for another religious belief claim is the same, how does one tell which is true and which is not?
21:40 “They might be biased toward their own beliefs”
“right”
“Possibly. But I think it’s going to be that way with...hmm”
(say it! say it!!!!!! “But I think it’s going to be that way with....ALL BELIEFS!)
exactly.
Everytime I hear someone say I used to do drugs and whatever because I had no morals, I wonder what kind of F'd up situation they were raised in to have been able to think like that.
As well if this guy was completely immoral at one point, I am glad he found religion if it corrected that craziness. He clearly needed something, now he just needs to learn to be this way, without it, because it isn't needed.
Interesting... when i hear "I used to do drugs, and now i found god."
I think, "i wonder if they ever fried their brain to the point that thier thought process is permanantly messed up"
This one always gets me. Were you *really* completely immoral? What, did you just kill people? Obviously not. Never feel bad when you hurt someone? I doubt that. Wasn't turning your life around a highly moral choice? Was it nothing to do with seeing the way you affected those around you and deciding to be better?
From my personal experiences with these claims, I think that they're usually BS (or at least greatly exaggerated) to make for a better testimony story.
I've been taking drugs recreationally for 30 years. I think I'm a moral person and my thinking is strict and rational. I think a lot of people who never did drugs should learn some humility.
I just wish they would find Buddha.
Not a God that endorses slavery and other such things.
how come you give a direct answer to the matrix question/solipsism problem?
I’d love to hear the whole response video, I hope Jason believes whatever he has to say is worth sharing with those interested.
It's great he has found his way out of drugs and appears to be leading a better life than previously however it's such a shame he doesn't give himself the credit for this.. it's also very sad to think he could now own a slave and justify using a "Christian world view" as his standard
As with many theists, they just substitute one form of addiction for another. The mental superstructure which creates addition remains unchallenged.
@@dolnick7 What ideology that would prompt someone to overcome addiction *isn't that* though? Literally any self-help book or step plan is lauding something you're want to cling to...
@@coreymiller8940 everyone has that deeply profound aha moment,
For me it was this -
"Any likeness or representation of him that is not him is blasphemy"
'ANY'
'REPRESENTATION'
So anything that you point to or claim that represents God to you is actually Blasphemous according to your own Bible scriptures!
Like CHURCHES, CROSSES, BIBLES, STAINED GLASS WINDOWS, "HOLY BREAD" , HOLY WATER"
ALL BLASPHEMOUS ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES!!!
I have to cast a little shade on some of the commenters here. It seems to me that Jason has a pretty good grasp on basic epistomology, at least in the broad strokes. He is well versed and he's so close to being able to figuring it out. He thinks skepticism is a good thing, he understands biases, intentional and not. He's using all the right tools. There is no reason for truth to not function under doubt. Or be restrained by doubt.
On the other hand, a faith, an unjustified belief, needs doubt because it is likely holding up an artifice which can't support itself. It's a con. Intentional or not. When asking questions will keep God from working you're told.
If a god, any God, cannot show up to the debate with truth that we all can evaluate among all people, it's really then only left up to our own biases. Or the scientific standard. Because if an entity which is supposed to BE the truth refuses to prove so it out loud, it does not sets a different standard. In the flesh or a pillar of fire or something these days is needed for a standard to hold within a common knowledge. The scientific method is the common standard because it proves the truth of nature. We ask better questions with it.
Without that the so-called requirements or revelations varies from God to God. Devine inspiration allows you to believe anything and not need to prove it. It's a dodge in any other social situation.
Fearing doubt is an unnecessarily weak position to argue from if you're omnipotent and so loving that you can't hold it in.
Bring it on, let's do this should be the standard response but none have shown up.
Fearing asking the questions is what the con artist gets the rube to do. Think about it. Can your God withstand doubts? Do you know? Why not? Have you ever considered that religion is a sort of ongoing intellectual con?
Why is it a sin to ask Him to really prove it? Why should he care? If he loves us so much? Because we're so rotten filthy? Why would He care? Wouldn't he have probably lifted rotten, filthy people if they needed to be carried?
Thank you Anthony I think what you do is fantastic!
Any idea what books Jason is referring to in his response video at the end?