|SteamPoweredKleenex - 2014-06-03 |
For those who aren't familiar, Bruggencate is a Presuppositional Apologist, which Wikipedia defines as "a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews."
In other words, his book o' fairy tales says it's the ONLY TRUE book o' fairy tales, therefore everything else is wrong, because it says so in his book o' fairy tales.
This debate is significant more for the events leading up to it than the debate itself which is embarrassingly horrible (especially the Q&A which consists of Sye literally refusing to answer legit questions because the people posing them are atheists). Basically, for about 2 years now Sye Ten has been very publicly claiming that Dillahunty has been dodging his requests for a debate despite Dillahunty agreeing to the debate on at least two occasions, on-air during the Atheist Experience show. In a display of insane dishonesty, Sye even attempted to take an email from Dillahunty attempting to arrange a time/place and make it looks like he was saying his schedule would "never" allow a debate by snipping out portions of the email. After basically having to call out Sye on the internet and insist that the debate take place, he was essentially forced into because he no longer had excuses (the entire thing was even arranged and paid for by secular organizations, Sye refused to put any money into it and initially wanted all the rights to distribute the video for himself alone for only him to make money off of...this did not happen)
Stories go that Sye was a complete asshole to almost everyone involved in the event and didn't even rise to the level of professional courtesy that even people like Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort showed when debating Dillahunty.
My mistake. It looks like Sye will be selling his own version of the debate, but he was not allowed to be the sole person filming it. He also apparently was super-pissed that the event organizers would not let him film the audience.
|Bort - 2014-06-03 |
Well this was painful to listen to; I made it only to 21:52.
One thing Matt touched upon in the portion I listened to: knowledge is a subset of belief. I do wish atheists would admit that their belief in science is belief, but (very importantly) it differs from religious belief in that science actually delivers and religion does not. When religious types argue that science must be a religion because people believe in it, the most effective rebuttal is that there are practical, demonstrable reasons to believe in science, but none to believe in religion. Basically, the question is why you believe, not whether it's belief.
But that's hardly the same thing. You're asking for ALL uncertainty, no matter how small, to be equated.
If someone doesn't understand electronics, its not "faith" or "belief" that makes their cell phone work. Science doesn't give a shit if you believe in it or not.
If someone claims there's a giant entity living in the sky that created everything and demands you worship it and teach about it in schools or the globe will explode, then that's not even close to not knowing the principles behind a Lithium Ion battery.
"You're asking for ALL uncertainty, no matter how small, to be equated."
No I'm not. I never said, and I don't even think I implied, that blind faith is anywhere near as sound as faith rooted in a solid track record. Belief is still at work, but not all belief is of comparable quality.
Is global climate change real? Can you personally prove it? At some point you're taking the word of other people, but you trust them because they've done right by you (and me and everyone else) time and time again. Even then, there's only like 97% consensus, so you're still having to make the choice of whether to believe the 97% or the 3%.
|ashtar. - 2014-06-03 |
blah blah blah epistemic sophistry
Apologists bring this shit out (like the ontological argument) in order to change the topic and impress people without philosophy degrees. Anyone who has read Descartes has already heard this shit and knows the standard responses.
Matt, with pragmatism FTW! Go deflationary theory of truth!
This failed the hopper because you are all bad people and should feel ashamed.
|memedumpster - 2014-06-03 |
I figured them out.
People like this think that their thoughts manifest and work exactly like real feces. Let's reduce it to mechanics.
1.) Ape sits behind podium smearing feces on itself proclaiming "you can't touch me, I am covered in feces."
2.) Other ape comes up and says "you're an idiot who has covered himself in feces."
3.) Feces covered ape shits in its own hand and throws the feces on the other ape, then proclaims "how dare a shit covered ape judge me, I am clean because now you are not."
4.) Grossed out ape leaves territory and doesn't come back.
Now, apply this to thought constructs, philosophies, religions, and ideologies, and this is how they all behave when their minds are engaged on topics like this.
1.) "I believe in God and since you believe in reality, you must believe that my reality is whatever I say it is, therefore true."
2.) "Just because you believe it doesn't make it true."
3.) "You're a solipsist, you don't believe in reality outside your head, whatever you think you believe you think is true! So you must be wrong!"
4.) "Fuck this, I'm out. Idiot."
|Jet Bin Fever - 2014-06-03 |
Not going to watch this. Rating anyway.
|ashtar. - 2014-06-04 |
I watched the whole thing. It's really quite nice if you're interested in this sort of thing. Matt delivers a *spectacular* beatdown.
Sye: In order to know anything for certain, you have to presuppose God.
Matt: I don't know anything with absolute certainty, and you haven't said how God knowing things with certainty translates into you knowing things with certainty.
Sye: God can do that because he's God. I'm going to try and pretend that you're saying you do know things with absolute certainty because I don't and position other than my own enough to give an meaningful response to it. ::jerks off for half an hour::
"because I don't understand any position other than my own enough to give a meaningful response to it."
I should really read what I write.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|