I grew up in a very devout Southern Baptist family and I wasn’t allowed to have friends who were members of our church’s youth group. When I was 26, I decided to become an ordained minister. I became an ordained minister when I was 29. And I was one of those persistent and determined ministers who was convinced that I had the correct interpretation of the right version of the right denomination of the right religion and I saw it as my religious duty to spread the “Good News” to every single person I came across and I saw it as my religious obligation to warn everyone that if they didn’t accept my particular interpretation of my particular version of my particular religion, they would be deservedly condemned to an eternity of punishment and torture. And then when I was 34, I came across videos of Christopher Hitchens and after listening to the many of his debates, I was forced to reevaluate my religious beliefs. After spending several months on thinking about the validity of my religious beliefs and the lack of rationality and logic behind my religious beliefs, I was able to set myself free from the shackles of religion. After that, everything made so much more sense and I was able to allow myself to learn about my fellow human beings and accept every single person with no reservations. The freedom and compassion and empathy I have gained since throwing off the shackles of religion has been the most profoundly liberating experience I’ve ever experienced.
I'm not sure why any thinking person would give heed to the imperfect opinions of some ignorant psychology professor. There are a handful of EXTREMELY wise sages currently on this planet who can logically and completely answer practically any question that an intelligent soul is likely to ask regarding morals and ethics. The fact that Jordan supports men buggering each other (by which I mean, that he supports homosexuality and other criminal activities, such as the unnecessary consumption of poor innocent animals) is MORE than sufficient proof that he is not as religious as he claims, and that any decent, holy person ought to shun his inane teachings and flee into the loving arms of a teacher of Truth. Furthermore, in a recent interview on Benjamin Shapiro's RU-vid channel, he admitted that his wife figuratively (and I'm sure also LITERALLY) wears the pants in his household. 👖 I would be more than pleased to provide you with links to the RU-vid channels of a few enlightened beings who will quickly set you on the path to perfection, as opposed to the DELUDED moral subjectivism professed by "Doctor" Peterson (pun not intended). Please find below a couple of such ENLIGHTENED masters to which I referred above: Professor Alan Watts (now deceased, so he doesn't have his own RU-vid channel - just search for his videos on numerous extant channels) Swami Sarvapriyananda ( ru-vid.com or search for "Vivekananda Samiti") Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda ( www.youtube.com/@TheWorldTeacher )
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
I, as a part of the target audience of this channel, will obviously have a bias. Even so, in my biased opinion, this debate wasn't even close. The Catholic Church is objectively one of the most destructive organizations in human history. Dr. Zuckerman absolutely wipes the floor with Lewis.
leftism: Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”. In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively). In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit. As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population. According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia). For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male role models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12). Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their births, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator! This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles. Fear not, for God is with you! P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡 N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬 In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
Can you explain why Baghdad was once the greatest city with the most advised ideologies in math and science but after science and math was looked upon as a devils work. The city never gained their foothold of where they once were?
Prof. Zuckerman, keep doing what you are doing! You were snarky about Lewis' beliefs not him as a person; which is the proper way to use snark in my opinion. You did an amazing job! I'd love to hear more from you.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
That was good. Another one was at 1:24:25. Phil forces Lewis to step out of the abstract, heady world of academia, church fathers and philosophy, and answer a very practical down to earth question about gay marriage. Lewis' non-answer is so telling. It is an "emperor has no clothes" revelation.
His interpretation is in line with most theologians though? So that’s not a very fair characterization. Is he supposed to be beholden to what every evangelical espouses?
@@BlakeZeb You missed the point that I was making. It doesn’t matter if his interpretation of his version of his religion may align with other likeminded religious adherents, he seemed to be under the impression that his interpretation of his version of his religion is the one and only true interpretation and everyone who doesn’t align with his particular interpretation of his particular version of his particular religion are just flat out wrong. His humility is quite impressive.
Lewis states that each person should be free to choose his theological path. He is clearly not even close to the truth because if true, children should not be indoctrinated but be allowed to grow up and be educated before choosing whether or not to embrace a religion.
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
Thank you, Prof. Zuckerman. 45 minutes in and he brings up a subject I can't get a straight answer from a theist: How can you govern based on divine revelation when it is necessarily a first person, personal thing?
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
Prof. Phil completely demolished Lewis in this debate - although it seems that Lewis was able, at one point, to bluff his way using scientific-like nonsense on the materiality of God.
I suggest Lewis watch the Intelligence Squared debate, "Is Catholicism a Force for Good," not to change his mind (that's mission: impossible) but to show how the audience were tremendously swayed by the arguments for the negative.
Everyone should learn how to masterbate, especially women. Most men don't care about a woman's needs. Why would they. Under theist ideologies, women are only here for men's pleasure. Women need to learn how to masterbate so they understand their body and what it takes to find their pleasure zone. Women can live without men, but men cannot live without women. I would bring up the LGBT community but theism is against it.
Everyone needs to learn how to masturbate, especially women. Men don't care about women's needs because this little black book of their flying sky daddy makes women their servants for men's pleasure. Women can live without men, men cannot live without women.
… he’s a philosopher, backing up his ideas with the works of great philosophers. Also, this is one of the most debated topics in history lol. Of course most of the ground has been tread. (He also does have original ideas, they aren’t in the scope of this debate. Such as his PhD topic covering why Christians should be vegan, or why Catholics should not be against homosexuality)
I appreciated how Zuckerman pressed Lewis on kitschy syntax like "the father" and "logos." It's vapid fancy talk, and Zuckerman's exasperation with what he got is the most appropriate response imo. I do think Lewis is clearly well philosophically educated and has some good points to make. One major problem in these talks though is that hifalutin Christians are defending this niche, highly detailed account of Christianity, and non-theists are railing against popular beliefs. Zuckerman tried to point it out but it didn't seem to land for Lewis. The point is something like this; I have complaints about fans of a particular sports team fan-base. These 100s of 1000s of fans are real pricks. They pride themselves on a culture of celebrating dirty plays and complaining about the refs no matter what. Their bad behavior escalates into vandalism and violence on a regular basis. Some sports scientist from some University across the Atlantic wants to convince me otherwise by pointing out the sophistication of several plays the sports team made in a big game 50 years ago. Such genius was displayed by the teams coaches and staff! And I'm over here concerned that several department stores are looted and on fire...
Few points from Lewis are philosophically true.... secularism is not the foundation of current society and it is not proven yet, that it is the very best and only foundation, yet on the other hand it is overwhelmingly well proven that (and that to the point of this debate) it is better than christianity to build a society upon. I would compare it to well know saying "Democracy is the least bad way of ruling a state". Similarly we could say "Secularism is the best foundation so far or up to date to build a society upon". Religion is dead. Side note concerning the USA. Even you have a separation of state and church in the constitution, I would argue there is no other country in the developed world that is so under a religious influence or even ruled by it. In USA You cannot get elected into almost any governmental position not commenting presidency to proclaim loudly personal christianity and roar "God with America". This is not possible to be seen even in countries like Poland, Italy or Spain who were literally runned by a church. Even on personal level, in certain USA states coming out as an atheist can lead to real troubles like loosing a job, friends, shunning....in the contrary, in Italy or anywhere in Europe nobody would care... So education guys... until the education will not be runned by scientists but by religiously biased societies, we are going to rise ignorant generations and progressing nowhere except fights...
What I really liked is that Phil started by making it very clear what he stands for, and this was not the case with Lewis - he started attacking human secularism, before even explaining what it is exactly that he stands for. The basis of his ideology became even more and more vague and "word soup intellectual like" throughout the debate. It was good that Phil started to ask some basic questions to find out what it actually is that Lewis understands even by the basic term Christianity. My overall conclusion of the debate is that Lewis not only a) believes there is an "absolute truth" (rather than multiple possible paths to resolve a certain topic), but also b) believes that he personally knows what is the absolute truth, and c) wants a society that is ruled by his religious ideology. All this, while still continuing to claim that he is completely open-minded for other peoples' view-points and beliefs. It is Lewis' belief that all humans will eventually - just by logical and natural thinking - end up to the exact same worldview as he has - because it is the only true one anyway. Yeah, right...
In that little black book. It's tells a guy to go out and take a life away to prove you love the flying sky daddy over your own child. What parent would do this? If you would you're not a good parent.
This idea is the bedrock of Christianity itself. That a sky daddy murdered his own son as a human sacrifice to pay the propitiation of the blood debt from the sins of Adam. It's fucking wild when you strip off all the Lovey prose it contains. It's ritual blood magic and human sacrifice oriented. Insanity.
I can't believe in theistic ideologies because life has meaning. If life never ended it would suck, it wouldn't have meaning. What gives life meaning is it has an ending.
That makes no sense. If you are an atheist then life has no meaning, you create your own meaning. It having an end wont make it meaningful. It makes it more valuable not meaningful. But atheist lifestyle and its relativity is just doesnt work in practice
Lewis should start tailoring his message to the audience. A majority of the time, I didn't understand what he was trying to explain. Maybe he was expecting a PHD academic audience. One part i found funny was when Phil asked him, without giving me a theoretical name, what evidence is there for God or Heaven? He proceeds to explain a theory.😂😂😂 Overall respectful debate.
Grew up Christian Nationalist, and now athiest due to the cruelty in which it accepted. I see G.O.D. as energy. Generator of Dimensions. The ability to accept many on their ability to trust themselves as humans first. ❤.
"the secular society is an opportunity [..] for the Christians to show that our position is the most rational, that it is the most truthful and this free open debate that Prof Zuckerman would like to foster will only be beneficial to Christianity" - Howeth One of the most arrogant statements I've heard made by a believer. Howeth, we've always had open debate. Religions debate each other. There are many other religions around the world other than Christianity. No single religion has been demonstrated to be the most rational, certainly not the most truthful. Come out of your titanium bubble.
Damn, I wish I could have done this debate. I would have written down every one of Lewis's points and picked each one apart, easily. Really big missed opportunity.
55:31 It's annoying how much Lewis tries here to make the discussion into "how much do you actually know" as if having more knowledge about christianity makes his opinion more valid. I don't think Lewis has deeply studied Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam and all the stuff he doesn't believe in before rejecting those as political system.
I'm not going to invest 2 hours to childish proselytizing of Lewis' religion. But I'll point out that we know too much now to accept the religion, even if it *would* be valuable to do so. Beliefs aren't chosen. You have to be convinced. Now if he wants us to *pretend* to believe, on the idea that such pretense will be useful… I still don't think that would work. The pretense would be too obvious.
The theist, in character, opens a thousand cans of worms at once and then leaves the athiest to respond to as many as he can in the alotted time. It's Brandolini's Law in action, yet again.
Since religions contradict each other, ignore TRUTH to accept things through “faith,” and cause constant condemnation and wars, JUST STICK TO THE FACTS!
I would like it better if Phil did not have the uncontrollable urge to talk over Lewi. This show was bearable because I have a Video Speed Controller, and at 1.8 speed, it was still coherent. I man the voices, not the arguments.
Why is it that a professor doesn't understand Lewis but I do. Is academia just completely unserious nowadays and they just abandoned all critical thinking? He's read all these theologians and philosophers but the only response he can come up with is some Richard Dawkins talking point.
This Lewis guy keeps making the guy out as if he is stupid. Telling him he doesn't understand this or that so "he needs" to read these certain books. It's not going to change the others guy ideology. Never once did the atheist ever tell Lewis he doesn't understand Atheism and he should read certain books. Why do people with a flying sky daddy complex have to force their views on others?
It's because atheists are open minded to new ideas, theists are not. He asked for evidence multiple times and i bet he would've gladly accepted it if it existed, but it just doesn't and never will. Meanwhile we could invent time travel to disprove most bible stories and they still wouldn't be convinced.
🤔I don't normally chime in on these but I found Howeth's arguements so vacuous, circular, impersonal and semantic....I just had to highlight in one sample just how poor and infuriatingly insubstantial his answers were. To add, as an agnostic I like to consider all arguements fairly evenly though I would say Howeth failed miserably in making a convincing arguement for the non-laique state in the West. I mean......really though? Zuckerman : Just what's your evidence for God? Howeth : The evidence for God and heaven is what's called the principle of sufficient reason. So that every reason has to have .... either contain its own......sufficiently explain itself, or be explained by another reason. And what we find is that there must necessarily be only one reason which is explained and contains the explanation for its own existence. And that would be God and this was an argument given by Leibniz I would prefer the Leibnizianaccount for the cosmological argument. That's the cosmological argument from the perspective of Hagel we would then take that and we would say that we already assumed truth, which indicates that unity in the first place, so when I affirm an argument, I already affirmed that there is actually this universal reason which I can know. and that implies that God is a normal subject, and is united with us in a manner of speaking. 😑
The history of science does not have a lot of christianity teachings. But you will find a bunch of Islamic scientific teachings. I think this guy keeps mixing up his religions.
Secular countries should not allow theocratic religions like izlam, because it has its own political system. Just like communism and dictatorship are not allowed in secular countries, izlam should also be not allowed.
It's spelled "Islam", and at least in most Western countries, will not be banned. _Because it cannot be banned._ It's just not allowed to be a part of government.
Christianity has it's own laws that are separate from the government so it's trying to be it's own government as well. And the teachings of Jesus were about another kingdom and not the government.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FORMER ATHEIST. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ATHEIST CONVERTING TO A RELIGION. I'm saying this as an ex-christian of 34 years. Now you can have someone who has never believed in the sense they were either not raised to believe or they grew up maybe around a different religion. Or they grew up never being around a specific religion. And they never had a thought about it, but then one day they started believing after what they saw what they think was a miracle or their life was going hard or possibly they had a traumatic event happen. But to have someone who identifies as an atheist, say that they converted is a lie plain and simple. There's no difference than an adult saying that they now believe in Santa Claus after knowing something like that physically couldn't exist. An atheist believes in science and knows magic doesn't exist. To then all of a sudden just "start believing" is impossible without some kind of brain injury. Anyone that says that they were an atheist and converted to any religion is just a flat out liar they were never an atheist.
1:20:15 phil zuckerman: "i just think we are talking past eachother" it seems like the vast majority of debates where people have training in different fields is like this. im not sure of what Lewis is probing Phil for, but i believe he is trying to understand the logic behind Phil's ethics/morals. Phil doesnt undsrstand the philosophical terms he is using so it just goes nowhere. without first agreeing on what good itself is or what makes something good and why, they cant answer the actual question of the debate of whether secularism or christianity is better for the west. Phil needs to learn some basic philosophy as it seems he has no understanding of it whatsoever. i dont know how knowledgable Lewis is on the actual sociological data of specific events, but it seems like not much. if Lewis can't get Phil to understand what he saying, they should skip the philosphy part of the debate. start out with agreed upon axioms and then have a sociological debate, which i think Lewis himself said he wasn't prepared for. Lewis needs to take some time and gather hard data on this stuff.
overall i think Phil's secular humanism and Lewis' interpretation of christianity would both be good for society if we were basing that "good" off of my generalization of their ethics, but if i had to choose i would go for secularism as a base for society. i think the real problem is people who are uneducated and/or closedminded, leading to dogmatism and forcing wrong beliefs on others. i think secularism is slightly better at a reducing that in people. Phil mentioned how he has gone to churches and talked with many christians that have different and wild beliefs that are harmful, I think having these beliefs that come from philosophy without actually undsrstanding the philosophy is a large part in addition to someone using Christianity as an emotional crutch. they believe these things without the reasons and can't be argued with because of that. in comparison to "people finding their own meaning" which forces people to see that their beliefs are theirs and they don't have absolute proof of these things.
@@ryanstockdale3413 The problem is that we, humans are instinctually simply bastards, as soon as we sense a chance to live better we would step over anyone. That's human nature. Now religion and secularism try to reach the same goal, to make us behave better to each other, only theism try to reach it through fairy tales, while secularism through reason. I don't see it as a hard choice.
Woof. Talk about a landslide. The British guy spent his time defending christians instead of making a case for its benefits. Put this video under "self-consciously defensive."
A lady asked me if I believe that she lost her arms and legs and only with her family and friends they did this putting hands together ideology and her limbs just grew back. I said no, not without doctors and modern surgery. She said well it did happen and it's all to this flying sky daddy. I guess she thinks she's better than everyone else who has lost their limbs or has disabilities. Because they tell me they believe in these flying sky daddy's and they never grew their limbs back.
What you're talking about is sophistry, not philosophy. Empirical science itself originates in philosophical thinking, specifically Francis Bacon's nominalist (the idea that metaphysical universals don't exist) reconstruction of Aristotle's logic for empirical inquiry.
Lewis is an example of saying a whole lot of nothin. If you have to speak in flowery language without a clear message your audience can understand, you’ve already lost. It’s not about being smart it’s about being clear.
"we're both good people because we won't vote for Trump:" Thusly alienating literally half of the voting block of America. Lewis then goes on to affirm that politics divides people and no one can figure out how to to bridge the gap. Shit, man, you're the gap.
Lewis you lost the debate Lewis you need to present your worldview how to accomodate other religions and idealogies. Please prepare for future debate come up with better solution
Ill have to agree. A atheist that thinks he knows what hes talking about and a “christian” that doenst know what to say. He cant represent us chrsitians and that atheist never read the bible
Atheist brainrot be like: "Wow this person i dont like is disingenous dishonest liar delusional the fact he spews fallacy fallacy and wordsalad even though i dont know what am i talking about." Debate bros like you are killing the debate community
@@zachio69 Yes, there are many walking subliminal messages around the world, like him, but we are so blind and ignorant😭 Jesus forgive us for our sins🥺🥺
It seems to me that IP tries to criticize someone in the spirit of fairness. BTW, I'm Japanese, a citizen of a country where the vast majority of people (myself included) uphold secular humanism as Dr. Phil does.
@@櫻井篤-l8z "It seems to me that IP tries to criticize someone in the spirit of fairness." I know it may seem so, but he really doesn't. His arguments are chock-full of logical fallacies, and the bad thing is that he knows it, so it's just intellectual dishonesty. For an example of how a good philosopher can reject his arguments, I suggest you watch Kane Baker's brilliant video titled "Moral Anti-Realism Defended: A Response to @InspiringPhilosophy".
