Don't Disparage FAITH! | Talk Heathen: Throwback
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Weird reason this caller says we shouldn't knock faith. #religion #debate #bible
Call the show on Sundays 1:00pm-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-991-9242
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
► Find all of our links here: linktr.ee/athe...
The podcast may be found at:
tiny.cc/podcastph
Talk Heathen merch can be found at: tiny.cc/merchaca
Note: We request pronouns as part of the call screening process on our shows, and we display the pronouns our callers provide. If you see a caller with no pronouns indicated, this is because they chose not to provide us with any, and we respect that decision.
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
NOTES
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2024 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Semantics isn't going to make your god exist my man
He thinks if he can screech and whine on atheist talk shows enough, maybe he can delude himself into believing it, I suppose.
I wish someone would tell Jordan Peterson that 🤣
@pizzagogo6151 it's kinda hard to convince a grifter of anything considering you don't know their actual beliefs.
Peterson has no incentive to change what he says when it's his cash cow. And grifting to the right + religious people is where the big bucks are.
Dean is so intellectually dishonest it made my head spin.
it’s a requirement in order to defend their beliefs.
Yeah he is, it is really an incredible level dishonesty
If it weren't for double standards, they would have no standards at all.
The core problem I have with faith - equating beliefs with truths erodes your understanding of both. They have a different definition of truth, a different definition of honesty, to the rest of us.
This caller wants to redefine the word faith to relieve himself of the burden of proof
Mental matt ,demented dave, and tricky ricky should go on an atheist comedy tour for fools! Time to get a new gig atheists! Holy bible and dean odles biblical flat earth presentation destroys atheist beliefs and globe beliefs! Time to wake up! Jesus saves sinners! Use that brain God gave you my friend!
Exactly!
Perfect. Nothing more to be said, and I think the caller knows this, deep down. Hence the pleading and stammering.
A lot of Christians conflate the colloquial use of faith with the religious use of faith.
It is rage inducing how dean says im just disagreeing with you at the end, as if he was being honest for even a minute of that conversation
Why is all of this nitpicking conversation needed to determine if this god Dean believes in exists? Dean purports that this god ACTIVELY wants a PERSONAL relationship with all of us. Apologists such as Dean should be wholly unnecessary.
They are not currently wholly unnecessary?
@pmtoner9852 Not from Dean's perspective. He certainly believes he is necessary.
"B-b-buuuuuuuuut you don't use my specific weird definition, therefore GAAAAAWD!"
Dean must be friends with my ex
Faith that is defined as "reliable evidence" is an oxymoron.
Noah!!! My worlds are colliding!
A better reworking of Dean’s argument might be something like, “The Greek concept ‘pistis’ is not identical to the everyday English concept of ‘faith.’ This difference means that when you refute a contemporary Christian’s view of ‘faith,’ you’re not refuting the early Christian view of ‘pistis,’ which is commonly translated as ‘faith.’”
On its own that’s a totally reasonable place to start a conversation that has to do with reading ancient texts through a contemporary lens.
Dean’s mistakes include the following:
1. This call-in show is about the views of contemporary individuals, Christian or otherwise, and not a conversation with Greek-literate early Christians about their views. As the hosts point out, the average Christian caller’s views are based in contemporary understandings of “faith,” not “pistis.”
2. Because of the authority Dean gives his interpretation of the Bible, he can’t simply leave it at a difference between “pistis” and “faith.” He’s certain that the only true definition of the English word “faith” is his interpretation of “pistis.” He’s engaging in something like the No true Scotsman’s fallacy that the only true Christian would mean his definition of “pistis” when discussing faith and that (oddly enough) no one is even correctly using the English word “faith” unless they hold Dean’s understanding of early Christians mean by “pistis.”
…and then there’s the problem with assuming all early Christians hold an identical concept of “pistis” whenever any of them use the word…
I would argue that there's a third point:
3. Regardless of what pistis means, the Bible itself very specifically explains what it means when it uses the word, so the term necessarily has roughly the same definition as English "faith" regardless of what pistis would normally mean. If we can't trust the Bible to use a word coherent to the standards it itself provides, we cannot trust that it is articulating its own texts with reliable coherence.
“Faith is the word use when you don’t have a good reason to believe in whatever it is you believe.”
His meaning of faith is worse for his argument. This went nowhere.
Dean is one of the most dishonest callers i have ever seen on these shows
Dean: I have to say that faith means truth, because otherwise I might be wrong and I can't have that!
Dang they need to get David Lee Roth back on the show more often lol
Faith is a useless word. A word that feels like it means a lot but actually means nothing
I have never heard a theist win an argument. That makes me so happy.
They'll still claim it was a win 😂
My experience has been that Faith means unjustified belief and is also used as a synonym for stubborn Loyalty
I remember twisting myself in knots over terms. Yeesh. Reality rocks!
I had the misfortune of listening to this on my drive home.
Does the steering wheel now have two defined squeeze marks or even denture marks? :)
Seems as If Dean is scrambling to preserve his reasons to hold on to his beliefs by any desperate means necessary.
From the Oxford Dictionary...
Faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof
The old twist the definition of the word faith trick.
So... if we want to criticise someone for having faith in the form of belief without sufficient evidence, we aren't allowed to use that definition, and instead we need to first convince that person to use a different definition, before we're allowed to continue with the discussion?
What a pointless and nonsensical appeal to semantics and etymology. How humans communicate is through common understandings of terms. If you can agree on a particular understanding of a term, you can continue the discussion. What the word meant a few thousand years ago is not particularly relevant to that.
Theists regularly, preferentially choose to use word games, and dishonest discussion tactics, in order to tear down positions against them, without ever attempting to prove why what they believe is actually true..
I have "faith" I will win the Powerball this weekend. See! I can also use semantics to justify ignorance.
Dean wants to define the word, quote something from his book then jump to saying that establishes both its meaning & that the the meaning is true. Without a foundation that 'faith' is good or justified, the definition is just a proposal.
Faith how he is defining is more like confidence in a set of data that allows you to come to an accurate conclusion, i.e. faith that gravity will cause things to fall toward Earth.
Exactly. He using it wrong.
I bet Dean doesn't speak Greek!
Damned if he won't try to use any stupid slimy means to try to wiggle out of acknowledging that the burden of proof is on him for his claims.
Just tell him to use the Greek word.
Hell, just ask him what the word even is!
"Faith" has a meaning in English. Whatever the other word is has the meaning he wants. Just... use the word that means the thing rather than trying to hijack another word.
Dean is working off a script; in which he presupposes Faith to mean knowledge, based on a Greek word, however that word was being used by the Greeks in the same way we do today, when we have faith/trust the sun will rise in the morning based on past verifiable evidence of the sun rising. Dean's misuse of this Greek meaning of Faith; is the same way modern Christians try to claim the non-Religious have faith, have hijacked the word faith to only mean faith in the religious sense, while ignoring the trust/faith based on strong evidence.
By presupposing only his own definition of faith is correct; Dean is trying to equate the use of the word Faith in Scripture to mean it's based on strong trust based on valid evidence, like the sun rising. Similarly to trying to define God I to existence; Dean is trying to define the Bible into being true/valid.
Dean ignored the hosts pointing out; his definition of faith isn't how Christians use it today, and the hosts pointed out how even in the Scripture it was used the way Christians use it today. So, Dean is being dishonest in insisting the hosts use faith as he defined it.
Dean isn't the only Christian who does this; many callers have tried to equate faith/trust in that which has strong evidence; like the sun rise, to religious faith, so they can wrongly claim Atheists and Agnostics have the same sort of faith as Christians do. This is also why they also claim Atheism is a religion, that Atheists have faith in Atheism, etc. This is an attempt to equate Atheism with religion; so they can claim the difference between the two is simply a difference in belief, so as to avoid Atheism and Logic from undermining the validity of the religious claims of Christianity and other religions.
I like Noah.
God wants a personal relationship with me? Well he'll have to do what I need to make me believe in him in the first place. If he's all knowing he knows what that is. If he's all powerful he can make it happen. If I am that important to him, why doesn't he?
Sealioning is a hell of a drug.
Hes trying to redefine words universally so it will always fit his narrative. Its like me redefining the word "Species" as "Kinds" and expecting the entire scientific community to suddenly disregard every fact in evolutionary science.
Dean, using your definition you still have to show that the being is real
Twenty minutes on my odd definition is the only right one
caller understands he is being irrational about his deity belief and wants to rig the game by giving his definition for his affliction.
Someone poke me in the eye with a fork! 🤦♂️
Am I mistaken, or is “Dean” a repeat caller who changes his name each time? If so, it really makes this call ironic given that he says we’re using the wrong term. 🤔
I wouldn't even worry about trying to define faith I would say go ahead and give me the good reasons for your faith that lead to a god
Pistis was the personification of good faith. The idea that you assume that the other person has good motives and isn't aiming to deceive or harm you. It's spesifically NOT evidence based trust. Though obviously language is organic and malleable so people could very well have used it that way. Though it's only later Christians who came to use it as informed trust as they realised that the original use is a terrible reason to worship someone as God. Only apologists use this definition of pistis.
Caller exemplifies an exercise in muddying the water.
Love the 80's Jheri curl!
Dean is the cure for insomnia.
The real and best use of faith for all humans is in the future for which there is no direct evidence and wish no one knows it will come out the way they wanted to or that their experiment will succeed but.... Through something they call Faith and I call Faith as a secular person says that there is a future that will work out. I don't have evidence for this. But I believe it. And it helps me live a secular life.
Wow Dean! Speed it up buddy!
This is so sad
Just go with his definition and tell him that
By his own standard ,
his faith in the Bible,is *more* ridiculous than the average Christian
All of that just to say by definition faith is always fact if it's from a special book?
It's just a the book says it's true therefor it's true thing with more pedentry.
Dean doesn't like the common usages of the word Faith, either in English, or in the Bible.
That is a him problem.
Faith is for the WEAK!
Every scholar is wrong, and Dean is right.
I'm sorry but this time around I think this conversation was just a waste of time. Perhaps only for a few moments there was an attempt to direct it towards production but it was not carried out. In my opinion the best path was to grant him his personalism in the interpretation of terms and send him hitting a wall in an attempt to demonstrate his unsubstantiated belief even by using the terms he preferred.
I just love how theists uses WORDS that no one can agree on to define things in the bible. When the ALMIGHTY GOD is supposed to be a SUPER POWERFUL SUPERNATURAL BEING. Why the need for words at all??
Faith is the most meaningless excuse to believe in something.
It’s one of the most dangerous words around.
It allows someone to act out atrocities without any pushback because it’s personal.
This confusion could have easilly been avoided if this book was translated correctly. Translate your book correctly. If its THE MOST important book on earth, you people would've done this by now.
5:58 Yea I bet it IS frustrating Dean. Because you want to define faith as if it's justified and then when the tires hit the road in the heat of the conversation, you are using it (as most Christians do) AS the justification.
Example: You define faith differently such that it is evidence based and very similar to what we call knowledge. Then when the pressure is on and we get to a point where it's time to provide evidence...this is what you hear. "Well I have faith in god, and that's why I believe it's true"....
You've completely changed the usage. So what you are doing here is EXTREMELY dishonest because this doesn't save time or produce better conversation... This essentially BLOCKS conversation because when we get to that point, now we have to redefine or clarify faith because you use it completely differently when the conversation requires evidence.
Dean is as slimy as they come. Supremely dishonest, while smiling and polite. His motives are not pure. Trying to poison the well and manipulate language to make this crap seem reasonable when none of it is.
wonder if Dean's still out there wasting time huffing his own farts over definitions.
DEAN IS TRYING TO DEFEND THE UNDEFENDABLE. HE BELIEVES IN A GOD BASED ON FAITH ALONE . HE HAS TO DO THAT BECAUSE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT ANY GOD EVER EXISTED . ALL THAT TAP-DANCING AROUND WHAT 'FAITH ' MEANS IS HIS JUSTIFACTION FOR HIMSELF BELIEVING NONSENCE
Who believes in Lord beerus
This guy must be agonising at parties.
So after all that we now know that Faith is BS and the noise made when someone has NO EVIDENCE.
Just having to do such calisthenics with words to try and define a god into existence shows why the god concept it is such indefensible, unsupported rubbish.
If it was true in any way apologists would not be needed, they only serve to reassure the already convinced believer, not anyone thinking or questioning.
Playing with words and wasting this much time to prove a belief system that it has talking snakes.
15 minutes to just try to agree what one word means, what a waste of time
He still never got to a point.
Was Job's faith based on evidence.......Yes
Was Noah's faith based on evidence.......Yes
Was Abraham's faith based on evidence.......Yes
Was Moses faith based on evidence.......Yes
Was King David's faith based on evidence........Yes
Was the prophets faith based on evidence.......Yes
Was the Apostles faith based on evidence.......Yes
Was Jesus faith based on evidence.......Yes
When Apostles from John The Baptist came to ask Jesus if he was the Messiah or should they look for another. Jesus pointed to evidence as proof.
Can fictional characters have faith based on evidence that is confined to the fictional narrative and doesn't exist in reality......Yes
@@bradmathis8196 It isn't presented as fiction. That is your worldview assumption. And that is a different argument.
So please, what evidence - that exists independent of the bible - were all these people's faith based on? And have fun trying to prove Job, Noah, Abraham and Moses exist anywhere in history aside from stories that have been acknowledged that no one wrote them down from hundred's to thousands of years after the events described supposedly happened.
@@RobertCampsall Not the argument. The argument is..... What is biblical faith? Did they base their faith on evidence?
My God this guy is boring. Why did they waste their time and our time on this person for this long?
Repent of your sins. Believe in Jesus Christ for salvation and become a new person in this life. John 3:16, Luke 13:3, 1 Peter 1:23 KJV
Repent of your sins. Believe in Vishnu for salvation and achieve moksha. Bhagavad Gita
Exodus 21
I can spam too.
We don't have sins sorry.
Can’t sin if you don’t believe in a god(s)
The king James version? So a kings specific version of the Bible is superior why?
If your God is real why doesn't he just show up, seems like that would be ezy peazy for an omnipotent being and it would end all discussion...so, he has had all of eternity to do so, and haven't..so that's an answer isn't it...he most likely is just a mind distorsion made up by superstitious people..
Dean…you have horrible argumentative skills!
Not only does faith not mean that in common speech but it doesn't mean that in the bible either, he just wants to be able to use the word faith without being questioned on it or ridiculed
Theists must have a special language that they use amongst themselves, like twins or triplets.
Exactly. All the more recent apologetics I've seen, seem to revolve around rehabilitating their tired worn out arguments, so that they're harder to falsify, not that they're actually trying to positively prove their position in any real sense.
Ten minutes in and I give up. It's all Greek to me.
hey, it's great that y'all are working on driving algo engagement with these highlights and such - but please can you put links to the original episode the clips come from in your description?
it would be very helpful.
Agreed
We're not arguing usage of the word "Faith". We want evidence that your god exists. Caller is doing mental gymnastics.
Dean seems incapable of understanding that there's a difference between discussing whether or not a bible verse was translated correctly from Greek, and discussing what a Christian means when they invoke a bible verse that uses the word faith. If someone says "I have faith in..." then the only thing that matters is that person's definition of faith. If an atheist is making a broad declaration about how faith is bad, then all that matters is how that atheist is defining the word faith. The original Greek word that was translated as faith in the bible only matters if we're discussing a specific verse and you want to argue against someone's understanding of that verse because of the definition of the word faith.
I feel that you're being too charitable. I think that most apologists purposefully misunderstand arguments against their position, so that they can hold onto their chosen pet beliefs, rather than honestly considering them, and applying critical thinking.
It depends on what the definition of IS is
When he says "let's agree on the definition of faith" he means " You have to agree with MY definition of faith".
That is one great example of religious reasoning. 😅😅
How dean saw this going:
"I have faith in god, which means I believe proven, factual things based on evidence."
"Okay, sure. You're right. God exists and we cant refute that, because you said it's a fact. We are all christians now. Thanks for saving us, Dean."
Saying you're not reasoning in a circle doesn't make it so you're not reasoning in a circle.
There's no reason to have faith. That being said, if I had to put my faith into a god the christian god would be one of the last gods I would choose. But if I had to put my faith into something christian, it'd be satan. But I don't have to have faith in anything, there's simply no reason to.
Let’s use the word faith to mean knowledge. How do we gain knowledge? Evidence would be a minimum and you can’t provide it. So the word automatically reverts to belief without knowledge.
Dean can play with the word however he wants. It doesn't actually change how it comes into play. If the fairh Christians have is illogical, it's illogical because of what it is. The definition can say "and I'm right", but nobody's right when they use their word... until they were already right to start with
I was really hoping that the hosts would just ask Dean in what way does his definition of faith actually lead to real, verifiable knowledge. Also, the expression "agree to disagree" is BS. No one who is speaking rationally ever starts off (or ends) a discussion (or debate) with the expression "let's agree to disagree." In what way is that an agreement? If two parties disagree, that's a factual matter of their positions regarding the debate. It is not in any way an agreement.
It's funny to me that the caller had a problem with those two definitions when those definitions are FAR more inclusive than the super reductionist take I heard a long time ago: "faith is the belief in something for NO good reason." I'm wondering just how much more upset he would be if he heard that one! 😅
Faith (pistis) is merely being convinced of a matter and in the Christian sense, it is merely being convinced of something hoped for. It's being convinced of something that is by no means apparent and therefore without evidence for belief. Faith in a Cristian god is no different than faith in a Hindu god.
Erick was being way too nice and charitable, and totally undeserved. That person is a total fraud and charlatan
If he is claiming that the Bible means people should have something other than what we define as "faith", that just means that the vast majority of Christians are not following Biblical scripture - possibly including Dean.
I'm not going to follow the Deantionary.
The Greek word for "faith" is pistis (Πίστις), which means "trust, confidence, or faithfulness". In Greek mythology, pistis is the personification of good faith, reliability, and trust.
More metal wrangling by the christian.... total fail.
The ancient Sanskrit word for _fabricated, made-up, bullshit_ is 'bible' (pronunciation: buy- *BULL* ) -do you get where I'm going with this, Dean‽ Oh, and that's the only point I wanted to make.
Dean's argument appears to be:
1. The word "faith" in the bible is from a Greek word that means "trust in information from a reliable source".
2. People have faith in the claims made in the bible.
3. Therefore, the bible is a reliable source of information.
He's trying to define the bible into being true.
There is evidence that the faith in Jesus is wrong. Philo of Alexandria lived a little before and about 10 years after the life of Jesus and he never mentioned Jesus once even though he had been to Jerusalem and to roam for the Jews and he was a leader and Alexandria. He never mentioned Jesus once. And Josephus home. All the Christians loved" was never quoted regarding his mentions of Jesus from the time of his writing in '90 to nearly 250 years later. Even though many Christians spoke about Josephus, it wasn't until 250 years, when one of the church leaders made up a sentence and put it in his work, that the famous testimonial became well known. That's obviously a lie. So you don't need Faith to know that Jesus is a lie. He just needs some facts.
Goku be with you Father, son, true father's namekian spiritbomb
In Finnish language there is only one word - "uskoa" - which means both, to believe and to have faith. Does that mean that Finnish Christians have a totally different religion than Dean? Or does English language, which is younger than Finnish, determine the religion that, by Bible, is older than the Universe?
english is the most imprecise language ever spoken or written.
I looked up the the word faith and the Greek dictionary and I just still got belief and trust... he definitely is not an honest interlocutor.. I went to like five different Greek sources, and none of them said anything about knowledge or having belief in a reputable source.
Saw through this within the first minute of the video. Dean wants everyone to think he's monumentally dense, but that's his whole game. He's recognized there's no sufficient evidence for belief and thinks he can convince people through his nit picky, pedantic word salad
Love the throwbacks, always makes me want to watch the whole episode. Put links to original in the thingy? Be cool if you did.
The desperation and disonesty of these apologists to convince themselves publicly (they must know that the hosts and any atheists listening won't be convinced!!) that they their belief and definition is true!! To do all this for an 'omniscient, omnipotent' god, that seems incapable of proving itself.
Funny and sad at the same time!
I don’t think they ever got to the heart of it. Let’s say the original definition of the Greek word was closer to “knowledge”. Ok fine. That leads naturally to the question of how the Bible qualifies as knowledge. They nearly touched it then went circling back to the useless semantic argument. The hosts were just as frustrating as the caller in this case.
Dean has the gift of gab.. 20 mins and he didn't say a damn thing
Dean is so intellectual I cannot understand how he’s a believer in Christianity! His proof is only working for his view so it’s not debatable so therefore worthless as a point of proof.