Header set Expect-CT: max-age=31536000, report-uri="https://your.report-uri.com/r/d/ct/report" Header set X-Permitted-Cross-Domain-Policies "none" Mastodon
Liquid error: internalAll EpisodesLiquid error: internal
Logic Fight Club: Atheism vs Thiesm *RAW* Edit to come S2E11

Logic Fight Club: Atheism vs Thiesm *RAW* Edit to come

The title says most of it, however, I exit left and take both stances down with pure, unadulterated logic.

· 33:40


Adrian Paschal ‘Yobi the Bear’ Blumberg 0:03
Logic can you validate atheism versus theism? Things that make you go ‘Ah shit,we're talking about what?’ Yeah. So, let's, let's run down our topics. atheism, the absence of belief in the existence of deities, atheist atheism in the broadest sense, and this is from Wikipedia, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted is sorry, contrasted with theism, which is the most general form of the belief that at least one deity exists. There, the etymological root now that means, the history of the word, the root word atheism, or the root of the word atheism originated before the fifth century before common area era from the ancient Greek atheists, meaning without Gods in antiquity, it had multiple uses as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. Isn't that a wonderful word antiquity sounds so? Heavy, it has a lot of gravitas. For those who were forsaken by the gods, those who did not commit to believing in the gods, as a term denoted a social category created by orthodox religious and never even heard that word religion is what tells religious in which those who did not share the religious beliefs were placed. The actual term atheism emerged first in the 16th century that's the 1500s. With the spread of free thought, Skeptical Inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, the application of the term narrowed in scope, the first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist, lived in the 18th century that's the 1700s during the Age of Enlightenment. The French Revolution, noted for its unprecedented atheism, off their heads, let them eat take. Storing the Bastille witnessed the first significant political movement in history to advocate for the supremacy of human reason. In 1967, Albanian declared itself the first official atheistic country according to the policy, its policy of state Marxism. Okay. Arguments for atheism, range from the philosophical, to social to historical approaches and philosophical is just educated opinions. rationales for not believing in deities include the lack of evidence, which is profound and absolute, and the problem of evil, which is to say, how can there be evil if there's a deity? Well, because there has to contrast, I don't understand why it's a problem. But we'll continue the argument for inconsistent revelations, the rejection of concepts that cannot be falsified, and the argument for non-belief. Non-falsifiable arguments are things that you cannot prove, period. And standing on that argument, non-believers contend that atheism is a more persimmon no persimmony a person vs. You know what I mean? Her cinnamon in this purse among men in the most position than atheism, and that everyone is born without beliefs in deities, well done. Everyone is born without beliefs in anything. Even depth perception. So, that's a non-argument. That's a logical fallacy. Therefore, they argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheists to disprove the existence of God, but on the theists to provide a rationale for theism. Well, in logical validity, whoever has the premise that's being challenged. It's the Challenger that asked to prove their premise. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies like secular humanism, that is not a circular humanist. Anyway, there is no ideology or code of conduct to which all atheists adhere except to do Test theists. I added that since conceptions of atheism very accurate estimations of current numbers of atheist are difficult. Gordon a global wind Gallup international studies 13% of respondents were convinced atheists in 20 12% were convinced atheists in 2015 and in 2017 9% were convinced atheists. However, other researchers have advised caution with when Gallup figures since other surveys which have used the same wording for decades have and have had a bigger sample size have consistently reached lower figures. That's the problem with polling in the public general statistics you can skew them if, if you're not careful. An older server server the server server by the name of breakage, just in cooperation in 2004 recorded atheists as comprising 8% of the world's population and not a percentage more. Other older estimates have indicated atheists comprise 2% of the world's population, I think we can probably settle on they don't have a clue. So definitions and types there's implicit and explicit atheism. Weak atheism weak atheism is an implicit atheism strong atheism is considered explicit. So explicit, strong and hard atheists assert that at least one deity exists is a false statement. Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism, contesting that supernatural entities are considered Gods whether atheism is a philosophical position in its own right, or merely the absence one and whether it requires a conscious explicit rejection. However, the norm is to define atheism in terms of the explicit stance against theism. Don't go near that atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism. agnosticism, is leaving that there may be something but it's also been contrasted with range. Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and God. The variety of wildly different conceptions of God and deities lead to differing ideas regarding aliens applicability, the Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshipping the pagan deities, not enough. Gradually, this view fell into disfavor as deism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity. Jai Krishna Hari Hari Krishna, with respect to the range of phenomena being rejected. Atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity to the existence of any spiritual supernatural or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Tao ism. Positive and negative Okay? entomology Okay, that's epistemology, metaphysical arguments, okay, look, I can sum this up pretty simply, with the following anything that cannot be known to any degree of certainty, whatsoever, that means not even point 000000000000 1% Certain are, by definition, those arguments that exist outside the realm of reality in life, where we exist, and therefore, any discussion about any data that exists in that realm is irrelevant to every single thing in existence. And to sit there and banter about back and forth about what is what isn't a God and what is atheism? What is theist and bla bla bla, bla bla, it's all a bunch of navel gazing, really interesting to talk about. But none of it has any real relevance on life, except that people think it does, and therefore use that data to inform their decisions in this reality. And that is where we have a problem. Whereby, in subjective reality, since we don't have any challenges, and nobody's here, I'm just going to put my own logical stance it down. Subjective experience is by definition subjective. It can be entirely and wholly, within the realm of your own experience. Who's to say otherwise, nobody else can crawl inside your head because there's not enough room, all the hot air that's in there. To say one way or another, whether or not what you have experienced or believe, is, in fact, true to reality in any shape, form or fashion. However, we are part of human collective, we are all one species, what that means is, what happens to one of us, or what one of us does, inherently will have a ripple effect and impact every single human at some point, eventually, therefore, anything that's going to impact the collective ought not to be logically anything that has been validated, quote unquote, or drawn upon or any data that helped the decision to be made and the action taken from outside of life is absolute PuppyCat. Public you would have, you'd have better results. If someone every other day for the next five years, Hell 10 Hell 100 years were to pull up to you out of the blue and say, pod name of dropping out of any grid proponent. And you said, No, I don't wear diapers and never had any great fun. That would have a more beneficial, more neutral effect on the human collective then either a aggressively atheist or an aggressively theist stance. Why? Because your belief doesn't make things appear out of nowhere. Because it doesn't matter how many people believe a false thing. It is still a false thing. Even if it's a true thing. You can't prove it to any degree of certainty for anyone within the human collective and therefore to propound or personalize or champion any such ideas is the height of hypocrisy, ego, megalomania and psychosis now you can in a subjective sense believe all you want i i believe that dynamic is demonstrable in the patterns apparent nature that the journey has always been internal and because it's always been internal your subjective experience can boys remain subjective and harming of none as long as you're not affecting or impacting anyone else to any significant degree you have every right to believe anything your little heart desires. If you want to worship your service dog yes your half Datsun and fox terrier pet or if you want to worship the Dark Dawn to shadow the Black Cat you can do that as well. However, there is something that might give you pause and that is love Now hang on your short shorts love is quantifiable? Repetition Oh looking for some interesting way that just simply arises from something that is quite counterintuitive and that is pattern match 100% between safety, refinement or safety, industrial safety culture, communications which require and I say again require For complete open and transparent communication at all times at all levels between all members of any system you know what else requires that? Love? No Yeah, I love you yeah you know all different kinds of love leather just regular leather Do you love the concept that people who ascribe it to a deity don't ascribe the same requirements to the deity as they do unique no one would for a heartbeat? Not one red handed. Oh my God, my hands in the cookie jar moment. Would anybody think it's okay? To have somebody they're partnered with or intimately engaged with on platonic or otherwise level to say, you need to do X, Y, or Z. Or in Java. That's called an ultimatum. Or taking all my toys and going home. ultimatums are not loving, incidentally, and ironically, one of the most well, my method of coming to understand love on an intimate and more basic, logical, fundamental way was not to say that's love. And that's what I want to do. But to observe everything around me and ask myself is that loving? Is that something love? If it were a thing would do? And if it's not been, it's not love. Very easy, nice and simple. Keep things straight. Oh, man, but would you happen to have Grey Poupon? See, that has nothing to do with love. Now Hey, I don't buy depends on home. See, that's what I'm talking about. Love is Love is Love is love, safety and safety, safety, safety. You can't be kind of safe, just like you can't kind of be pregnant. Just like you can't almost have gotten that grenade off. These things are what we call unequivocal and as such, unequivocal is exactly what we want as beginning analysts. And sure every single one of you are beginning system analysts, people who want to know whether or not a thing is true fake gaze is fake news. In large part, fake news is what really lit a fire under my ass to get all this together and figure it out. I spent the greater part of a year year and a half refining my logic being able to quickly identify most logical fallacies at a glance and knowing what they meant and how to counter them because they're so many different is most now you can now come home full Hello, and hello. No darlin. I don't ask for you. Yes, who could you get the Great's alright being if you want to know and integrity now most people when they hear the word dare do you think Don't think that what they think is the knight in shining armor. Someone who is a preacher, you know, a very holy man, or one or up at them, whatever the pronouns are these days. But what, in fact, the thing that defines integrity most completely, and you can use to know if somebody has consistency. That's what integrity stands for having consistency, a high degree of consistency, then that person is probably honest, and authentic and genuine and bla bla bla bla bla. So if you want to know whether a system is Integris, all you need to do is fine. The concept or idea that is core foundational to the entire system upon which the whole system stands or falls. For religion. That's simple. First, John, four, eight, if it is not loving, it is not of God for God is love. That's unequivocal. So therefore, love is God. Anything not love is not God. Now, what I love about this most is, it doesn't matter if you're a theist or an atheist. Especially the theists, to argue with it is to say that the Bible itself is wrong. Well, the Bible shouldn't be able to be consistent enough that you can take any part of it and it should be consistent with all the other parts, especially after 1000s of years of it being poured over by many, many, many, many, many, many fingers, hands, tongs and whatever else people board over with. It should be consistent by now. So if you read anything, and it is not love, you can no you can no no, no, that was written by humans. That was all written by humans. But the point is, is you want to make a point isn't that nice? Now I didn't get to that. How did I figure all that out? I'll tell you what. I'm a complicated, dumbass doofus brain freaking Noid in dork, and the Lord dork, dork, Lord, if this is your way for me to learn anything. So what I like about truth is it's simple. And I always backup and stand on it anytime I can replicate, can't can't replicate anything more than I should. What is the truth, human life? Because human life is anything that we can all experience? Generally the same and referred to and understand. examples. Example number one, the first thing that ties us all together is guess what? We're all live. Yes, that's right, folks, you belong to the generation much clearer understanding when the Live is live is pretty uniform. Throughout much, much alive. Yeah. Because none of us know what being dead is like. Hmm. And why is that? Because nobody can Die your death for you. You're the only one who can do it. And that means that what you thought all of your life is the only thing you matter didn't matter what your mom thought, didn't matter what Buddhist thought didn't matter what you preach thought didn't matter what anybody freaking thought. Because none of them are gonna Die your death for you. You're the one who has to be okay for with your death. And that means you have to sit in front of death right now, with your emotional and intellectual mind. And think about it goes through that door. Nobody's coming back in once you do. You can't come back. You can't stick your toe across and go and answer and imagine everybody else's answer. Truth is what the collective can vet understand and validate all else's manipulation and bullshit. I'll tell you this. Anybody who's trying to get over on you will do a few things that you can easily identify one. They will tell you that the other side is doing exactly what they are about to do. Now, they won't say they're about to do that, but they'll accuse the other side and then they'll go to doing it and then say C to they will flood all information reading areas with more of the bullshit, then the truth is because most people who have truth figure itself out wouldn't, so they don't make constant copies of it left and right and up and down and all over the place. So people get the sense that because there's more of the propaganda, it is true, or more true than the true thing, because the other true thing is just sitting there and it's not arguing. It's just going yeah, sure, whatever. Right. And people go, it's a pompous asshole. It's a snowflake that's liberal, let's conservative, whatever the hell you want to say. That's what they do. And then boom, they've got you. Now I'm gonna do a little rhetorical question on you. I'm going to ask you a question. And then just listen to me. Here's the statement, many people have heard it. Are you here to make molds or break molds? Now that idea is that before your answer thing is, Are you here to make successful molds for people to follow? You're blazing a trail? Or are you so unique that there's nobody ever going to be like you, boom. Okay, so with that in mind, here's the question. Are you here to make molds or break molds? Okay, all of you that just about answered you, you've already decided, I own you. Because you now have stepped into existing within the framework of the definition of the premise that I have dictated. Doesn't matter which way you answer you have submitted to me. Now, those of you who wanted to argue and go, Wait a minute, or some other thing, y'all, there's y'all we're in a different place. There's no right or wrong what there is, accepting or not. Enlightenment is a bullshit quest for something that is bullshit to begin with. Acceptance is accepting your hairy, warty as smelly, bald, bubbly, muffin top itself as absolutely unique. And in being unique by definition, nobody no thing does you better than you, then you. In fact, you do you perfectly. Physics confirms, or at least suggests that there's a strong confirmation Einstein equals MC squared, theory, relativity, no two things can exist same place the same time, energy is not destroyed, it just changes state. Roll one literally. Not only that, but each object within existence is a discrete object unique in and of itself, there could be a million exact copies. Each copy has its own discrete existence, and is discreetly, uniquely perfectly itself. So if there's a judgement day, or if there's a decision whether someone is an infidel or not. Let me ask you this. Who is going to judge us? Because who will we be judged against? By what model? What example is the perfect human? Only Jesus could be Jesus. Jesus didn't exist as a made up name is yet Rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef, most likely, if he historically existed, we have no confirmation of it in historical research terms. Now, Mohammed I have no doubt he had some insights add no doubt, Siddhartha Gautama, all of them had insights. But to pined after those folks to try and be like them, is saying that you are not good enough, that you are unworthy somehow, that you exist in a reality where existence is inherently evil and detestable. And and that you would rather go for your reward the afterlife without meaning to and, you know, your parents did and nobody's nobody messed up. But without meaning to what you're saying is that the life that you've been given by whatever you might believe, is so detestable that you'd rather be dead than why even create life? Why would there even be a reality? Now most creation myths and religious beliefs begin with Light being separated from the dark or humanity coming from the ground in the dark and going into the open landscape and point being is what it's illustrating there is contrast. Without contrast, everything is static. And if everything static, nothing is moving, there's no contrast so you can't discern movement of anything within it because it is static, it's all the same. With contrast, you can begin to have communication understanding, you can make a comparison by which to puzzle out its micro details. So atheism and theism personally, this is my suggestion, atheists and theists. Y'all won't stop arguing at least make it fun because we're about sick of you. Okay, what do I mean? I mean, have a great big televised hoedown party and then a big debate between the head brain of each of the sides who are most knowledgeable in what's unknowable collectively ever, and whoever's the best at stating their nonsense case. wrens their nonsense case for a year and and they get to be if it's atheists or theists, whatever the other side has to cement for a year. But I will see you next year we'll win next year. Make it fun? Because it's not fun. Why are you doing it? If you work? Well that's that's a shame. Because if you enjoyed it, it would never be work.

Unknown 31:47
I enjoy this truth

Adrian Paschal ‘Yobi the Bear’ Blumberg 31:51
the knowledge and understanding of it in and of itself was set free now I know logically the more people who have truth and understand it know it it's all they need. Everything else will see on their own. It's not up to me to guide them. But it is up to me to get some truth out there. Because God dang it. I'll run around like a bunch of little kids not understanding anything. And it's it's ridiculous. You 5060 year olds out there like acting like mature adult humans don't war. They don't violent. Okay? At all. You shouldn't have to spank your kids, you shouldn't have to beat your dog. That means that you have given up on trying to intellectually or emotionally understand the other thing that you were trying to correct. Rightly you should be probably spanking your own damn self because you are. Well, that's tonight's logical Fight Club. Can you validate atheism versus theism? Till next time, try and give a logical Okay, be safe. Save except yourself. Love more. Enjoy what you do. And you ain't got anything good to say. At least say it logically or shut the EFF up later

View episode details


Listen to The E.S.C. Hatch using one of many popular podcasting apps or directories.

Apple Podcasts Spotify Google Podcasts Overcast Pocket Casts Amazon Music
Liquid error: internalAll EpisodesLiquid error: internal