Calling Atheists ignorant, while believing in an invisible diety you can't prove ever existed, is literally the FUNNIEST thing I've heard all week. Thanks for the chuckle.
Ignorance is not knowing. He can't know if the deity he believes in exists. Thus he has to, sort of by claiming faith, acknowledge his ignorance. What theists have a problem with, is not that atheists don't believe in God, it's that atheists don't believe the claims of theists. They take it personal.
This has a definite mobile trailer or for-profit online vibe and the philosophy being from the comparative point of the Christian theology or from a biblical apologist, so not philosophy but apologetics. Which would set off the alarm bells before he even gave his name.
Lewis, it's not that people who claim the Earth is flat have a burden of proof, and people who claim it's round don't. Rather, both have a burden of proof. The former fail to meet theirs, and the latter succeed in meeting theirs.
My favourite thing was vi "here comes the argument from popularity" The caller "80 percent of people have believed in God which means that its the majority view" Siiiigh. So well read😒🤦♂️
@@wedding_photography nah he didn't lie, he's just an ignoramus, dunning-kruger at its finest and as someone else said in the comments, a classic pseudo intellectual...
He looked at the illustrations in "Philosophy for Dummies" failed to notice that he was holding the book upside down, so he set it aside, having "mastered" it
It’s taking me quite a few years of watching these channels, but I’ve learned that when a theorist says “right…” it means. “Oh, you’re done. I can talk now”
It's theist code for: "I wasn't expecting you to say that so I don't want to address or respond to it; but I do want to make sure I finish up my script before I get booted off of here so I need to pretend I agree with you and then I can continue in a different direction."
That was exactly what I was thinking. " Theists: "Atheists aren't well read in philosophy. I have a masters in Philosophy and theology " Atheist: has to explain the very first concept theist brings up to...theist
For someone with a “masters in philosophy”, it’s pretty interesting that he knows less about basic philosophical concepts than the “philosophy 101” cliffs notes page.
@Nic B if he has an engineering degree and thinks an argument can prove something then its more like cognitive dissonance. No one in a science based field would use an argument as evidence of anything
In his safe little circle-jerk group, they all do this, and no one challenges anyone, they all cheer each other on and just pull each other Dick harder. It is all about constructing BS that seems to stick to the wall. Here in the real world, it gets slapped hard, standby with the Butt Hurt Cream. 😃😃
Theist don't care about the truth. When I was a super Christian lol all I cared about was not being abused for all eternity bc as a child n an adult , hell was scary. When you are scared, you don't think straight. I felt like I didn't have time to verify the claims. Not as a child. Not as a young adult. Accept god and DON'T LOOK BEHIND YOU👹
@@atme7513 The adults who teach the children really think they are doing a good thing.. it's a vicious circle. Maybe some teaching in epistomology and critical thinking would help future generations.
responsibleparty is it though? If you believe something that isn’t part of reality you can make bad decisions on those beliefs. And those decisions can be harmful to yourself or your surroundings.
I take it as a sign that I'm in for an entertaining call that may or may not end with Matt dropping (the equivalent of) a Dennis Leary, *"SHUT THE FUCK UP! NEXT!" as he slams the phone down. key indicators are an early flashing of the atheist creds (Well, I used to be an atheist...) and immediately sucking the host's proverbial dicks (I love the way you guys...)
Every time Lewis accused the hosts of denying the experiences of theists, the hosts should've responded by saying that he's denying the experiences of every non-Christian religious person. Would've exposed his dishonesty and double standards more quickly.
The guy said he thinks there is overwhelming evidence for god. Vi la Bianca asks him to give some of that evidence. He then says “but you have the burden of proof”
@@NeverTalkToCops1 if you wanna play semantics "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" would be a shorthand for something like "the more unusual the claim the more evidence of better quality it would require". But anyone can play word games. Proper course of action would be to ask, what do you mean by an "extraordinary claim" at which point one would provide a definition and an example.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That will always be true." This is a claim without evidence and as Hitchens would say : "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." However, in this case I can disprove your claim by using an example where it is not always true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because the word "extraordinary" leaves way to much place for subjective interpretation. To someone living in Antarctica, the claim "it's -40 outside today" would be quite ordinary, while to someone living in Cuba, the same claim would be extraordinary. If we applied your aphorism here, the first person would need a certain level of evidence to believe the claim, while the second person would need a different level of evidence to believe the same claim. How can we need two different levels of evidence to support the same claim?
@@nic12344 interesting. thanks for that thought. In my estimation, some *random* person claiming "It is minus 40 outside right now" would not meet the threshold of "extraordinary" b/c Earth regularly reaches those temperatures. Your example of a Cuban talking to someone in Antarctica seems predicated on them NOT knowing about eachother's locales, right? Let's say you were in Cuba, and you *knew* I was in Antarctica, then it wouldn't seem extraordinary at all if I told you it was minus 40 outside because you probably have some basic understanding of what the weather in Antarctica is normally like. And let's say you were in Cuba again, and this time I was some random internet person saying "it's minus 40 outside" -- would that really surprise you? wouldn't you just assume they were in a different hemisphere, and experiencing a cold front? Even in midwest USA it has gotten down to -40. It's just not extraordinary in any comparison to issues in the bible such as talking donkeys, virgin births, fish swallowing men, time being stopped, etc etc.
Lewis, if you tell me you have a tree in your garden, I’m going to take your word for it. I have no reason to doubt your tree. But if you tell me you have an invisible magic tree, forgive me if I ask you for a demonstration. And if you further claim that *most people* know about this tree, and that I’m being unreasonable or philosophically naive to even question it, forgive me once more, but there’s no reason to continue the conversation. Because even if I was the only person who had never confirmed or experienced The Tree in any way, it would *still* be encumbent on Treeists to show me the tree. Declaring theism a done deal on such a basis after beginning the conversation by implying the hosts weren’t cognitively up to the task isn’t very becoming.
Caller: I know what I know, because I know it. Host: how do you know that? Caller: because I know it and you're ignorant. Circular arguments and arrogance is all this caller has to offer.
this guy had to have gone to a Christian university there's no other way to explain how somebody can have so many degrees and have zero understanding of these simple concepts, like burden of proof belonging to the claimant.
Well this caller has made me much more understanding of the saying, “he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground”. So this wasn’t a complete waste of time.
This guy is so desperate to vindicate that what he thinks he felt he experienced he just keeps redefining things. You make the claim, you bear the burden of proof.
Lewis is incredibly condescending. DEMONSTRATING something actually EXISTS is not dependent upon any philosophy. He's dishonest about where the burden of proof lies, trying to equate mundane things like trees in a yard and someone's name to a being that defies the laws of physics. He's special pleading. And he is totally using an ad populum argument: it's true because all these people claim they experienced God and seem trustworthy. When you're in a culture that floods your infant mind with superstitious nonsense and reinforces it throughout your life, it doesn't matter how honest or trustworthy you otherwise are, it doesn't make the belief automatically right; personal anecdote is not evidence.
The issue with the first caller's argument is that when you follow up with people who claim to have a personal experience with God or an angel, they're almost always referring to something else such as a coming to terms with oneself, a semi-conscious hallucination or a dream, a conversation with great personal meaning, a drug overdose, etc. People claiming to have authentic contact is very rare. The second issue is that if a person claims to have authentic contact, people don't take it seriously. It's very rare. Theists are more guilty of this. Scientists disprove things. The third issue is more important. If God requires faith, it's sadistic. There are arguments against this, but...
I love Vi's smirk at the end..! I was also laughing ... BTW, I do not think this guy has post-graduate studies from any reputable university... probably from PragerU
Does my non-experience of God count for anything in Lewis' view ? Being "clever" in philosophy to prove God, is just so much spiritual wankery. A useless exercise and the orgasm has to wait for the next life.
Oh my Gawd the 19:10 mark was hilarious! This guy actually said rationality is defined by the fact "our brain works". That's it. I'm going to start writing down all the unbelievable B.S. these callers say, because there's got to be a sitcom in there somewhere.
Believing in god has been properly basic for millennia. We progressed, we learned more about the world, and we are fed up of religions just asserting that they are right without good reason to believe so. Therefore, believing in god is no more properly basic, even for most believers. That's why there are apologetics, even the believers need to be reassured that a god actually exists. I would have no problem accepting the proposition that the vast majority of believers, when not born and raised in a strict religious environment, are agnostic theists. My parents always thought they were theists until we spoke about what they actually believed, and we discovered that they are agnostic atheists, with a strong hope that a god exists, but no actual belief
Lewis reminds me of a lot of Christians that I see on line. They talk and talk continuously and never let the other person get a word in. They feel like if they just talk forever, that means they must be right.
So when there were more Hindus or the respective people who believed in the Roman or Greek gods, than there were Christians or BEFORE there were Christians, then by his logic those gods were real.
It may be evidencs to self and may sound so to someons who had the similar experiences ... but may not so to you. Subjective or objective. Anecdotal or empirical?
Among other problems he is being dishonest in claiming that 82% of people believe in god as he is lumping together groups that stridently and sometimes violently disagree with each other, because they believe in different gods. There is no god that the majority of humans believe in. So even if his argument was sound, it would still be invalid.
I've never been more suspect of the intellectual prowess of person in my entire life. I have 4 masters, one is in philosophy.....here's 12 fallacious arguments in a row
This guy says the evidence is overwhelming for God, then starts his argument saying he doesn't have the burden of proof? Who cares? Present the evidence if it is overwhelming.
He had said "I have a definite proof of god", and after that the conversation got derailed by some never ending fight for definitions. They should have stopped the nonsense and insist on him to provide the bloody proof.
I question his study claim. “80% claim to have had an experience with god.” Was that really the study, or was it a basic “are you religious” question, and 80% said yes...and then this dude extrapolated the meaning? 🤔
I completed a master degree in philosophy at a Catholic university, specializing in the philosophy of religion. I don't know anybody who gained a deeper faith during the years.
He calls in saying atheists are not well enough versed in what he believes. So how did someone in 200 AD come to accept it? How did someone in 1000 AD conclude it might be true? Who were they reading so they could say, “I’m in!” This strikes me as such a stupid “argument” that I cannot believe someone with any education would seriously make it.
I was wondering the same thing. Its a weak argument because a great many Christians are Christians because their parents are or its a fundamental part of the culture. They didn't think it through and weigh evidence.
Jesus, there are so many obvious, gaping flaw in his epistemology/“philosophy” Because “most” people have “witnessed” a god... can you prove ANY of that, can you link the EXPERIENCE to god - with actual evidence.
When you start using philosophy as "evidence" to justify your belief you know you're on a slippery slope. I had this conversation just the other day, the guy stopped replying though. Actually thinking about it, this guy sounds exactly like the one I talked to. He's using the same straw men and fallacious arguments. Yeah if we follow his logic it is still the burden of proof on the theist because their idea is the one that is out there. Vi destroyed him with logic, loved it! "I don't think the burden of proof lies with the theists.." Yeah you don't want it to be the case, obviously since all your arguments are super dishonest.
That's 82% of the people that have no evidence of their interaction with an invisible deity. No one knows how many are being 'honest' or are delusional.
This conversation is missing a Dillahunty haha. I wouldve just countered with aliens or another version of a diety like allah. Everything he says would apply to those aswell.
Eric hit it on the head, the caller was not an honest interlocutor. They caught him on multiple fallacies , when the caller doesn't care about the truth, anything they say is suspect.
One of the main reasons that I am an atheist is because of shifter of the burden of proof people because when they do that I can only conclude that the person I am talking to does not have evidence.
There is no ignorance like christian knowledge There is no arrogance like christian humility There are no lies like Christian honesty There is no evil like christian good. There is no hate, like christian love
Burden of proof does not lie with the the person making the claim. It only lies with the person wanting you to accept their claim. There is no burden of proof in believing in God or no God, but only in attempting to convince others to accept your belief is true.
"I'm butt hurt because I have the burden of proof" would have been a more honest argument.
Don't make the claim
We'll do the same
@checky monkey My expectations from theists are so low they could base jump out of a snakes butt.
I was thinking the same. His entire point was to avoid having to prove his position using ad populim.
You expecting an honest theist? Don't hold your breath...
Calling Atheists ignorant, while believing in an invisible diety you can't prove ever existed, is literally the FUNNIEST thing I've heard all week. Thanks for the chuckle.
theists are very irrational and strange people
I don't think that you should tell him that because you might offend his imaginary friend.
Ignorance is not knowing.
He can't know if the deity he believes in exists.
Thus he has to, sort of by claiming faith, acknowledge his ignorance.
What theists have a problem with, is not that atheists don't believe in God, it's that atheists don't believe the claims of theists. They take it personal.
No way this guy has a masters in philosophy unless it was from a bible college
Exactly
Agreed.
This has a definite mobile trailer or for-profit online vibe and the philosophy being from the comparative point of the Christian theology or from a biblical apologist, so not philosophy but apologetics.
Which would set off the alarm bells before he even gave his name.
No way this guy has a masters in ANYTHING.
A biology degree from Liberty University! Maybe he is also an obstetrician that believes that babies are delivered from storks! Ha Ha
“Atheists aren’t well read” is what he opened with.... then fallacy after fallacy....
“I’d like to have an argument, please.”
I guess homeboy hasn't read his fairy tales then
He has a piece of paper that says ‘Doctorate in Fillosophee’
I'm sure he's read lots, he just didn't understand any of it.
Lewis, it's not that people who claim the Earth is flat have a burden of proof, and people who claim it's round don't. Rather, both have a burden of proof. The former fail to meet theirs, and the latter succeed in meeting theirs.
I thought that. Flerfers obviously reject or don't understand the evidence presented to them - be it from 2000 years ago or now.
My favourite thing was vi "here comes the argument from popularity"
The caller "80 percent of people have believed in God which means that its the majority view"
Siiiigh. So well read😒🤦♂️
And he even lied right after, claiming that's not an argument from popularity.
@@wedding_photography nah he didn't lie, he's just an ignoramus, dunning-kruger at its finest and as someone else said in the comments, a classic pseudo intellectual...
Also, 80% of what people? USA today? World currently? Human population ever?
@@HumbleTemplar Exactly my point. I have never heard any of my religious friends say they have “interacted” with their god!
This guy should get a refund for his “Master’s in Philosophy”
He bought it using coupons and Monopoly money, so no refund.
He looked at the illustrations in "Philosophy for Dummies" failed to notice that he was holding the book upside down, so he set it aside, having "mastered" it
He can't get the money back. The Patriot University of Truth-ology has moved to a new Trailor Park.
Or he should actually attend school and stop lying like every christian does.
News flash Lewis: The people you love lie to you every day. And the person that lies to you the most, is you.
It’s taking me quite a few years of watching these channels, but I’ve learned that when a theorist says “right…” it means. “Oh, you’re done. I can talk now”
💯
Astute observation.
He only answers with: Yea but, sure, or right. Is this a universal code that theists use to avoid answering difficult questions?
It's theist code for: "I wasn't expecting you to say that so I don't want to address or respond to it; but I do want to make sure I finish up my script before I get booted off of here so I need to pretend I agree with you and then I can continue in a different direction."
To be fair I think most humans use these deflection words when unprepared/uncomfortable etc
Philo Judaeus of Alexandria like a knee-jerk reaction to cognitive dissonance.
They are not listening just waiting for their next chance to speak again
Yeah but, see, right, but, it's like, just your opinion or whatever
Edit: /sarcasm
This guy: “Atheists just aren’t well read” smug chuckling
Also this guy: doesn’t know the meaning of things he’s discussing
It sounds like his qualifications are from the U of Facebook
He doesn't need to know what hes talking about cause jesus.
Two words........ Christopher Hitchens
That was exactly what I was thinking. "
Theists: "Atheists aren't well read in philosophy. I have a masters in Philosophy and theology "
Atheist: has to explain the very first concept theist brings up to...theist
This guy should give back his philosophy degree because he misunderstood a lot
Of course he doesn’t have to prove his degree. LoL
Philosophy degrees from religious institutions have as much merit as a degree in astrology or Mother Goose.
He didn't even get his first very "basic" idea right...
He can't, degree mills don't give refunds.
For someone with a “masters in philosophy”, it’s pretty interesting that he knows less about basic philosophical concepts than the “philosophy 101” cliffs notes page.
My bet is that he is one of the six or seven people that troll these videos with around 100 accounts
This guy is a perfect example of the dunning kruger effect
I came here to say this.
Maybe I'm stupid but what is the dunning kruger effect
Peter Rivera Jr it’s a tendency for people to think that they are smarter than they really are
@@plavyn thank you
@@peterriverajr6899 Interesting how you are displaying the exact opposite in the question lol.
Classic pseudo-intellectual.
Yep, arrogant and loves to hear himself talk.
@Nic B Amen
Master of tap dancing.
It’s all that book learning.
@Nic B if he has an engineering degree and thinks an argument can prove something then its more like cognitive dissonance.
No one in a science based field would use an argument as evidence of anything
Lewis: "...many atheists..."
Please drop in to the Comments Section and try it on the "many atheists" here. 😉
He won't do it.
Poor Lewis he is not aware that he is a salad shooter.
Non Cents Funny! 😎👍
Holy shit! I plan on using “salad shooter” every chance I get now; love it!
Is that the same as word salad ?
@@doneestoner9945 Salad shooter: He whose main fallacy is Arguments from Salad Bar.
In his safe little circle-jerk group, they all do this, and no one challenges anyone, they all cheer each other on and just pull each other Dick harder.
It is all about constructing BS that seems to stick to the wall. Here in the real world, it gets slapped hard, standby with the Butt Hurt Cream. 😃😃
Lewis doesn’t care about the truth.
Theist don't care about the truth.
When I was a super Christian lol all I cared about was not being abused for all eternity bc as a child n an adult , hell was scary. When you are scared, you don't think straight. I felt like I didn't have time to verify the claims. Not as a child. Not as a young adult. Accept god and DON'T LOOK BEHIND YOU👹
@@atme7513 The adults who teach the children really think they are doing a good thing.. it's a vicious circle. Maybe some teaching in epistomology and critical thinking would help future generations.
What's important is that you believe something that comforts you.
responsibleparty is it though? If you believe something that isn’t part of reality you can make bad decisions on those beliefs. And those decisions can be harmful to yourself or your surroundings.
@@Oddtester I was being facetious.
Every time a theist starts with "I used to be a sceptic/atheist", I wanna scream "NEXT"
I take it as a sign that I'm in for an entertaining call that may or may not end with Matt dropping (the equivalent of) a Dennis Leary, *"SHUT THE FUCK UP! NEXT!" as he slams the phone down.
key indicators are an early flashing of the atheist creds (Well, I used to be an atheist...) and immediately sucking the host's proverbial dicks (I love the way you guys...)
When a Theist becomes an Atheist, people ask, why did you lose your faith? When an Atheist becomes a Theist, I ask, why did you lose your reason?
@@johnsperry9494touche’
19:04 "Let's define 'rational' as 'our brain works'."
Okay. This phone call has just proved by definition that the caller is not rational.
This call proves the caller is a buffoon.
And uneducated
Every time Lewis accused the hosts of denying the experiences of theists, the hosts should've responded by saying that he's denying the experiences of every non-Christian religious person. Would've exposed his dishonesty and double standards more quickly.
So true, I didn't even think of that.
@@steveyuhas9278
It would have gone over his head because he was only interested in vomiting nonsequiturs and not having a discussion.
Vi was on fire on this one. And Eric, apparently, is a banana...
The guy said he thinks there is overwhelming evidence for god.
Vi la Bianca asks him to give some of that evidence. He then says “but you have the burden of proof”
"Yes, I can give positive claims and arguments"
"Cool, we'd love to hear them"
"Well let me erroneously talk about other things"
He sounded pretty dumb for such an "intelligent" guy.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That will always be true.
That statement was never true. The word "extraordinary" is not in the scientific lexicon. The proper statement is simply, "Claims require evidence".
NeverTalkToCops1 who talks like that outside of scientific circles though? Don’t be that guy
@@NeverTalkToCops1 if you wanna play semantics "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" would be a shorthand for something like "the more unusual the claim the more evidence of better quality it would require". But anyone can play word games. Proper course of action would be to ask, what do you mean by an "extraordinary claim" at which point one would provide a definition and an example.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That will always be true."
This is a claim without evidence and as Hitchens would say : "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
However, in this case I can disprove your claim by using an example where it is not always true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because the word "extraordinary" leaves way to much place for subjective interpretation.
To someone living in Antarctica, the claim "it's -40 outside today" would be quite ordinary, while to someone living in Cuba, the same claim would be extraordinary. If we applied your aphorism here, the first person would need a certain level of evidence to believe the claim, while the second person would need a different level of evidence to believe the same claim. How can we need two different levels of evidence to support the same claim?
@@nic12344 interesting. thanks for that thought. In my estimation, some *random* person claiming "It is minus 40 outside right now" would not meet the threshold of "extraordinary" b/c Earth regularly reaches those temperatures. Your example of a Cuban talking to someone in Antarctica seems predicated on them NOT knowing about eachother's locales, right? Let's say you were in Cuba, and you *knew* I was in Antarctica, then it wouldn't seem extraordinary at all if I told you it was minus 40 outside because you probably have some basic understanding of what the weather in Antarctica is normally like. And let's say you were in Cuba again, and this time I was some random internet person saying "it's minus 40 outside" -- would that really surprise you? wouldn't you just assume they were in a different hemisphere, and experiencing a cold front? Even in midwest USA it has gotten down to -40. It's just not extraordinary in any comparison to issues in the bible such as talking donkeys, virgin births, fish swallowing men, time being stopped, etc etc.
Lewis, if you tell me you have a tree in your garden, I’m going to take your word for it. I have no reason to doubt your tree.
But if you tell me you have an invisible magic tree, forgive me if I ask you for a demonstration.
And if you further claim that *most people* know about this tree, and that I’m being unreasonable or philosophically naive to even question it, forgive me once more, but there’s no reason to continue the conversation.
Because even if I was the only person who had never confirmed or experienced The Tree in any way, it would *still* be encumbent on Treeists to show me the tree.
Declaring theism a done deal on such a basis after beginning the conversation by implying the hosts weren’t cognitively up to the task isn’t very becoming.
I want to know where he got these “degrees” so they can be publicly shamed for it.
Likely the academic institutions that granted his qualification/s are just as nebulous as his made up deity.
Same place Kent hovind got his "phd"
He printed them out? Or Prager U?
Clown College is always proud of its graduates.😂
@@donsachsemaybe liberty u lol
I've experienced a gardening angel. I told him, "GET THE HELL OUT OF MY PEONIES"
Grab him by the pussywillow!
A home isn't a home without a gnome.
Caller: I know what I know, because I know it.
Host: how do you know that?
Caller: because I know it and you're ignorant.
Circular arguments and arrogance is all this caller has to offer.
Critical thinking skills: took a sharp left turn out of Lewis's head and died.
That's philosophy, baby.
🤣🤣🤣
This guy was dunked by 2 atheists with a vastly superior grip on logic and the rules of logic. I bet he found those 'degrees' at a yard sale.
this guy had to have gone to a Christian university there's no other way to explain how somebody can have so many degrees and have zero understanding of these simple concepts, like burden of proof belonging to the claimant.
And this is why a jury trial in the USA should terrify everyone. People like him on a jury is frightening.
There's a type of college called a diploma mill. If you buy your degrees then you tend to skip the whole burden of proof thing.
This guy: I have a degree in philosophy!
Also this guy: The definition of “rational” is “your brain works.”
"I don't believe this just because everyone else does, I believe it because they believe they experienced it."
Well this caller has made me much more understanding of the saying, “he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground”. So this wasn’t a complete waste of time.
😂
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA XD
He's the reason pop tarts have directions
my (late) grandfather would have said, "He doesn't know shit from paint"
The stranger claim. Is a magic sky wizard spoke a spell and made the world.
Yeah, he doesn't see this as a strange claim, despite noone has ever witnessed such an event... EVER. Pretty weird huh? lol
This guy is so desperate to vindicate that what he thinks he felt he experienced he just keeps redefining things. You make the claim, you bear the burden of proof.
I feel dumber having listened to him, smarter by listening to Vi and Eric, so it evens out
Calling your opponent ignorant is sometimes a sign that you have no idea what the opposing position is based upon.
'I know what I know' is what this boiled down to. As if the brain isn't capable of being tricked.
The existence of apologetics should be enough evidence that gawd is not “properly” OR “philosophically basic”
Lewis is incredibly condescending. DEMONSTRATING something actually EXISTS is not dependent upon any philosophy. He's dishonest about where the burden of proof lies, trying to equate mundane things like trees in a yard and someone's name to a being that defies the laws of physics. He's special pleading. And he is totally using an ad populum argument: it's true because all these people claim they experienced God and seem trustworthy. When you're in a culture that floods your infant mind with superstitious nonsense and reinforces it throughout your life, it doesn't matter how honest or trustworthy you otherwise are, it doesn't make the belief automatically right; personal anecdote is not evidence.
some people will do whatever it takes to protect their fairytale beliefs
I like the aphorism, "The road to atheism is littered with bibles that have been read cover-to-cover."
Caller: I believe it because a lot of people I know saw something and believed.
Salem witch trials: let’s go!
Nothing surprising here. Making nonsense up is the definition of being theist
Lewis: " Let's define rational as our brain works" Also Lewis: I have a masters degree in philosophy.
The issue with the first caller's argument is that when you follow up with people who claim to have a personal experience with God or an angel, they're almost always referring to something else such as a coming to terms with oneself, a semi-conscious hallucination or a dream, a conversation with great personal meaning, a drug overdose, etc. People claiming to have authentic contact is very rare.
The second issue is that if a person claims to have authentic contact, people don't take it seriously. It's very rare. Theists are more guilty of this. Scientists disprove things.
The third issue is more important. If God requires faith, it's sadistic. There are arguments against this, but...
4th, most people are not Christians, I'm surprised that did not come up becuse it completely destroys the properly basic belief.
@@TheQuantumAthiest I guess. I feel I can argue for God much more efficiently, but I honestly think people don't care
"No I'm not about to use an argument ad populi"
*proceeds to give the most textbook ad populi argument I've seen in my whole life*
Dude needs to call his college and get his money back.
“...it is to some degree ad populum...” That’s the problem. He’s just philosophyzing his way out of his responsibility.
Also, the majority of humans are not Christian, so with ad populum you you have to say more people don't belive.
He has a masters in philosophy and he just said "the burden of proof are on the people with the strange view"
I love Vi's smirk at the end..! I was also laughing ...
BTW, I do not think this guy has post-graduate studies from any reputable university... probably from PragerU
If Lewis has a Masters in Philosophy, I'll eat my hat!
Does my non-experience of God count for anything in Lewis' view ? Being "clever" in philosophy to prove God, is just so much spiritual wankery. A useless exercise and the orgasm has to wait for the next life.
Spiritual wankery? That made me laugh!!
That's the kind of edging I am looking for !
So confident in ignorance, this is exactly how religion keeps alive
Oh my Gawd the 19:10 mark was hilarious! This guy actually said rationality is defined by the fact "our brain works".
That's it. I'm going to start writing down all the unbelievable B.S. these callers say, because there's got to be a sitcom in there somewhere.
M Jonesy At least write a book, “The Sh** Believers Will Say...”
You could compile a book of random apologist quotes. no need for context because they wouldn’t make sense either way.
Believing in god has been properly basic for millennia. We progressed, we learned more about the world, and we are fed up of religions just asserting that they are right without good reason to believe so. Therefore, believing in god is no more properly basic, even for most believers. That's why there are apologetics, even the believers need to be reassured that a god actually exists.
I would have no problem accepting the proposition that the vast majority of believers, when not born and raised in a strict religious environment, are agnostic theists. My parents always thought they were theists until we spoke about what they actually believed, and we discovered that they are agnostic atheists, with a strong hope that a god exists, but no actual belief
No chance this guy has any degree in philosophy.
Taking logic right now, I appreciate citing the fallacies and errors in reasoning. Thanks for pointing them out by name and why they don't work.
I enjoyed hearing his education, this guy may think hes above us all
Wait, wait....God is that you?
Lewis reminds me of a lot of Christians that I see on line. They talk and talk continuously and never let the other person get a word in. They feel like if they just talk forever, that means they must be right.
So when there were more Hindus or the respective people who believed in the Roman or Greek gods, than there were Christians or BEFORE there were Christians, then by his logic those gods were real.
What an absolutely bizarre position. There are so many fundamental basic misunderstandings, it's mind boggling.
Lewis doesn’t understand that people calling an experience a god is not evidence. It’s a claim.
It may be evidencs to self and may sound so to someons who had the similar experiences ... but may not so to you. Subjective or objective. Anecdotal or empirical?
I'm so glad this is so long it's like a window into the inner monologue of people who lie to themselves. How tf does this guy have a philosophy degree
Among other problems he is being dishonest in claiming that 82% of people believe in god as he is lumping together groups that stridently and sometimes violently disagree with each other, because they believe in different gods. There is no god that the majority of humans believe in. So even if his argument was sound, it would still be invalid.
This guy is the classic definition of the Dunning Krueger effect!!
I've never been more suspect of the intellectual prowess of person in my entire life. I have 4 masters, one is in philosophy.....here's 12 fallacious arguments in a row
"We're all agreed on certain things."
I haven't heard anything from this caller that I agree with.
This guy says the evidence is overwhelming for God, then starts his argument saying he doesn't have the burden of proof?
Who cares? Present the evidence if it is overwhelming.
He had said "I have a definite proof of god", and after that the conversation got derailed by some never ending fight for definitions. They should have stopped the nonsense and insist on him to provide the bloody proof.
So Lewis is big time indoctrinated? I say yes.
Masters in philosophy from PragerU
This guy is lying about his education.
This guy has singlehandedly convinced me that a college degree can be worthless in some cases.
Vi La Bianca, so glad to see you on this show:-)
I question his study claim. “80% claim to have had an experience with god.” Was that really the study, or was it a basic “are you religious” question, and 80% said yes...and then this dude extrapolated the meaning? 🤔
6:35
We're insects that dreamed we were human, but now the insect is awake.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The burden of proof falls on anyone who makes a claim.
Thank you for taking this on so cleanly.
This is much better from Eric than some clips I've seen 🙂 Looks like he's growing
I completed a master degree in philosophy at a Catholic university, specializing in the philosophy of religion. I don't know anybody who gained a deeper faith during the years.
He calls in saying atheists are not well enough versed in what he believes. So how did someone in 200 AD come to accept it? How did someone in 1000 AD conclude it might be true? Who were they reading so they could say, “I’m in!” This strikes me as such a stupid “argument” that I cannot believe someone with any education would seriously make it.
I was wondering the same thing. Its a weak argument because a great many Christians are Christians because their parents are or its a fundamental part of the culture. They didn't think it through and weigh evidence.
X-D
Comes in with the most arrogant claim ever… and then essentially makes an argument from popularity for his god! That‘s hillerious!
“Is it properly basic that all circles are round?”
Most circular reasoning I’ve ever heard
Jesus, there are so many obvious, gaping flaw in his epistemology/“philosophy”
Because “most” people have “witnessed” a god... can you prove ANY of that, can you link the EXPERIENCE to god - with actual evidence.
Lewis learned enough to use big words, and is just self-dishonest enough to think he knows what they mean
When you start using philosophy as "evidence" to justify your belief you know you're on a slippery slope.
I had this conversation just the other day, the guy stopped replying though.
Actually thinking about it, this guy sounds exactly like the one I talked to.
He's using the same straw men and fallacious arguments.
Yeah if we follow his logic it is still the burden of proof on the theist because their idea is the one that is out there.
Vi destroyed him with logic, loved it!
"I don't think the burden of proof lies with the theists.." Yeah you don't want it to be the case, obviously since all your arguments are super dishonest.
That's 82% of the people that have no evidence of their interaction with an invisible deity. No one knows how many are being 'honest' or are delusional.
This conversation is missing a Dillahunty haha. I wouldve just countered with aliens or another version of a diety like allah. Everything he says would apply to those aswell.
Eric hit it on the head, the caller was not an honest interlocutor. They caught him on multiple fallacies , when the caller doesn't care about the truth, anything they say is suspect.
One of the main reasons that I am an atheist is because of shifter of the burden of proof people because when they do that I can only conclude that the person I am talking to does not have evidence.
Lewis's brain: 0/10
09:08 Dementia, brain tumours, depression, epilepsy ... "it's all just in your head".
There is no ignorance like christian knowledge
There is no arrogance like christian humility
There are no lies like Christian honesty
There is no evil like christian good.
There is no hate, like christian love
Burden of proof does not lie with the the person making the claim. It only lies with the person wanting you to accept their claim. There is no burden of proof in believing in God or no God, but only in attempting to convince others to accept your belief is true.
I’ve learned “trustworthy” people are not always trustworthy.
19:27 -- Whoa... that's deep, man.
Fuck. I can't roll my eyes enough at this sophist