I now that Cameron is regarded as a fair person in the more philosophically minded atheist circles, but while he has been more fair than most other apologists, the bar is pretty low. This is just absurd.

The fact that his guest said "Atheist say YOLO instead of carpe diem" is just....wow. The cringe hurts.

@CounterApologist

Жыл бұрын

I honestly had no problem with that, I thought it was funny and it kinda makes the same point, albeit in an unsophisticated way.

New rule for my comments, if I see someone post a reply which is basically just ignoring the topic of the video and just posting evangelizing messages, I'm deleting them. My comment section is not for dumb evangelizing (ie. quoting the gospel at people), it's for discussing the topic in the video.

@valinorean4816

Жыл бұрын

Hi! What do you think of the detailed "Nature"-praised (!) debunking of the resurrection of Jesus, called "The Gospel of Afranius", that recently came out in English? I have tested it on some professional apologists (Matt Bilyeu and Tim Bayless from Reasonable Faith) and they don't know what to say!!

Cameron Bertuzzi is the Dave Rubin of McApologetics.

@Sebastian-hg3xc

Жыл бұрын

Oh wow. I don't think anyone would want to be called a Dave Rubin. Stay classy. :-)

I'm an absurdist. For me, life has no meaning and I don't care. I just live the way I enjoy.

At least Cameron is being open and honest now about being a brainless charlatan with no pretensions to intelligence or fairness lol. Seriously though, very glad to see you back CA! Loved the video

When a theist begins with ".. logic ..." in their opening, be assured there is no logic other than in their imaginations; exactly as here ..

First: atheism =/= disbelief in afterlife. By the same logic some people believe in theist afterlife there could instead be natural afterlife. In the natural afterlife theist might get infinite suffering and atheist infinite happiness. Second by our current best knowledge all of us have equal(unknown) change to get afterlife if there indeed is that thing. There is no valid reason to believe to that but changes are equal. Third I'm so glad that I don't believe christian afterlife anymore the concept of hell(for anybody) is horrifying and depressing, heaven sounds like eternal North Korea and their god is basically monstrous impulsive dictator. Sometimes when I think what it would be like if Christianity were true this emulated wave of depression and horror goes though me and I'm so glad that claims of Christianity are just fiction.

Finally there is no purely logical reason that one ought to feel or not to feel anything. Feelings are their own thing and you feel them only and only if you feel them. One can control ones feelings by training, manipulation of external world or even brain chemistry. If one for example would fell despair from inability to optimize they would but it is pointless to demand that one OUGHT to fell so if they don't. If one would feel despair but then were able to remove that sensation it is pointless, silly and self disproving to demand that by "logic" you ought to feel something you objectively don't even in the circumstances that piece of "logic" describes. This all sounds like "mind over the matter" dualist or idealist christian pseudo psychology that denies that history of evolutionary forces made majority of us to be able to be happy and content in grand majority of circumstances(ITOW. happiness is not about their fictional magic man or rest of their fiction). They are assuming that psychology of people not only corresponds their fable but their silly "logically" extended fan fiction version of it. But if they are making a prediction and it fails this would be evidence against all the dependent assumptions made in the claim and this just might be the case.

It really seems like this argument would only work for obsessive perfectionists. Now, I can understand why a Christian might be driven toward such obsessive perfectionism - after all, Jesus told his followers to be perfect in the same way God is perfect, and the penalty for being less than perfect is hell. When I was a Christian, this is exactly the sort of thing that fed my anxiety and self-loathing. However, what motivation would an atheist have to adopt such an unrealistic ideal, short of something innate and possibly even pathological? I see no reason for someone who is not naturally disposed to such perfectionism to hold themselves to such a standard in the sort of atheistic worldview being described. Even if my life has less than the maximum amount of "meaning" (whatever it even means for life to have meaning), that's okay. Why aim for an impossible standard instead of a realistic one?

@SystemLordNemo

Жыл бұрын

Specially because one knows that aiming the impossible goal gives you on total less than the realistic one. As always they are either insulting of the intelligence of the atheist. ...Or all those illogical arguments are aimed to their own flock to keep their sheep to pay their bills.

Twitter is ill-suited for longer conversation, so I'll reply here. First, let's consider what the problem is exactly. McIntosh notes that the problem involves _practical_ rationality as in what do you have the most reason to do given the circumstances. Basically, if cessationism is true (if death is the end) the goal of life should be to maximize meaning, because the temporal resource is so extremely limited, and a wasted moment is a devastating and unrecoverable loss. Moreover, it takes time to find out one’s best ideas of what will maximize meaning (and even then you can’t know for sure that it will in fact maximize meaning), and all that time is time not spent on doing something maximally meaningful. The worth of one's life as a receptacle for meaning exceeds the time one has to maximize it. The despair is the likeliness that one is not maximizing one's meaning. I think it's a philosophically interesting problem. Practically speaking, there does seem reason for despair in the likeliness that one is not maximizing one's meaning with the extremely limited temporal resource one has. Could the cessationist find _some_ meaning? Yes, but that hardly refutes the hopelessness of _maximizing_ it. _First, he agrees that death is what makes life valuable, and yet his "solution" to the supposed "problem" is to live as if death is not the end. That's contradictory._ No it isn't. Unfortunately it's as if you didn't understand the argument or watched the entire video. Dr. Chad McIntosh never says death is what makes life valuable in the sense that if an eternal afterlife did exist, mortal life would not be valuable. Also, _he never says this "solution" is an actual solution to the problem!_ Instead he talks about what the most sensible thing is for the cessationist to do. McIntosh thinks the most sensible thing for the cessationist is to consider evidence of what people say gives them the most satisfaction and fulfillment in life and live accordingly. In 33:10 to 36:13 of Capturing Christianity's video, Chad McIntosh talks about evidence of what gives people the most satisfaction in life, and notes that in practice, one consistent finding on the literature of well-being is that religious people report higher satisfaction, well-being, and report having a greater sense of meaning and purpose in life than non-religious people. There's no contradiction with this and the problem McIntosh describes in the video, for several reasons. One, McIntosh never said or implied anywhere in the video that life wouldn't be valuable if cessationism were false, nor did he say or imply anywhere in the video that life wouldn't be valuable if you _believed_ cessationism is true. Also, McIntosh _never says this strategy is a solution to the problem._ The despair that one probably isn't maximizing one's meaning with the extremely limited temporal resource one has is still there as long as cessationism is true and believed. Notice also that the following two statements are not logically contradictory; where C represents cessationism. (1) If C is true, that makes life more meaningful. (2) If you _believe_ C is false and adopt a religious life, then your life will be more meaningful even if C is true. The conjunction of (1) and (2) may seem paradoxical, but the conjunction is not logically contradictory.

@thomasfplm

Жыл бұрын

The point I'm going to make is not the one CA does, just to point out. My solution to all of this is: Life has no meaning and no one needs to care about it. Just enjoy life and don't worry about it. Obs.: I'm a happy absurdist.

@CounterApologist

Жыл бұрын

Your construal of the two statements is not accurate. Around the 20:00 mark in Cam's video, which I literally play in this video, Dr. McIntosh says that death is perhaps the greatest reason that makes life more meaningful. So 2 is in direct contradiction because you have to believe the most important reason that we have to make this life meaningful is false, and yet this somehow is to make life meaningful? I have little interest in trying to get into the data and methodological problems with the wellbeing surveys correlating religion and wellbeing other than to note that some of the most happiest places on earth tend to be the most atheistic (western Europe) and that "religion" is not equivalent to Christianity, so if there is something common to religions that increase wellbeing then it's not something specific to one religion - and that it's still possible to be as happy in life without theism or religion in general. You're also not addressing the problem with satisficing (that's such a weird word) and how it solves the problem here, because it's about finding meaning that's "good enough", solving the problem of not being able to "maximize it" - life isn't perfect and never will be, and that's OK.

@MaverickChristian

Жыл бұрын

@@CounterApologist _Your construal of the two statements is not accurate. Around the __20:00__ mark in Cam's video, which I literally play in this video, Dr. McIntosh says that death is perhaps the greatest reason that makes life more meaningful_ That doesn't contradict anything I said. It's still the case that Dr. Chad McIntosh never says death is what makes life valuable in the sense that if an eternal afterlife did exist, mortal life would _not_ be valuable. Even if it is the case that C is the greatest reason for making the most of the time we have, does not at all imply that life cannot be valuable if cessationism is false. _So 2 is in direct contradiction because you have to believe the most important reason that we have to make this life meaningful is false, and yet this somehow is to make life meaningful?_ I don't understand what you're saying here. At any rate, there's simply no contradiction between these two statements: (1*) If C is true, that makes life more meaningful; and C is the greatest reason for making the most of the time we have. (2) If you believe C is false and adopt a religious life, then your life will be more meaningful even if C is true. There's no contradiction here (note that "meaning" in this context means having a sense of fulfillment). One reason is that it's logically possible that knowing C and understanding its practical applications could lead you into despair in knowing that you're not making the most of your extremely limited time, that even one wasted moment is a devastating and unrecoverable loss etc. whereas being religious will produce more fulfillment in practice. _You're also not addressing the problem with satisficing (that's such a weird word) and how it solves the problem here_ It doesn't solve the problem, nor did Dr. Chad McIntosh every say it did, as I said before. The despair via the implications of cessationism is still there, even if it is possible for the cesssationists to acquire _some_ meaning and fulfillment. Regarding satisficing: again, McIntosh talked about what the most sensible thing is for the cessationist to do. McIntosh thinks the most sensible thing for the cessationist is to consider evidence of what people say gives them the most satisfaction and fulfillment in life and live accordingly. Hence, his talk about living like a religious person for well-being. _I have little interest in trying to get into the data and methodological problems with the wellbeing surveys correlating religion and wellbeing other than to note that some of the most happiest places on earth tend to be the most atheistic (western Europe)_ Any social scientist worth her salt knows you'd have to compare individuals and _not_ countries (preferably religious individuals and non-religious individuals in similar environments, e.g., same country!) to address questions like "does being religious contribute to feeling more fulfilled?" Confer Mill's Method of Difference.

@CounterApologist

Жыл бұрын

@@MaverickChristian It's true Dr. McIntosh isn't following the normal optimist route in that death is what makes life meaningful, so if we don't ever die then life isn't meaningful - he only goes up to the edge and says it is the greatest reason that life is meaningful which is at once odd but it still results in the contradiction. This is because (2) is saying to give up the greatest reason life is meaningful (if C is true, which you're granting) and then get some amount of meaning by adopting a religious life (which isn't necessary) - yet you're still giving up the one thing that is the greatest reason that gives life meaning - yet still end up with more meaning. This is necessarily false, because you can still achieve meaning for yourself through satisficing, even while doing so as a non-religious person AND keep the greatest reason that gives life meaning on C. As far as satisficing, I never claimed Dr. McIntosh said it solved the problem, I'm saying he didn't answer the objection it brought forward. Just like I don't agonize over not finding the perfect wine for dinner, I merely go to the liquor store and buy a wine that is good enough, I don't have to agonize over not being able to perfectly maximize the meaning of every moment - I merely maximize it to the extent that I can given my limited capacity and knowledge. Satisficing solves the despair problem by definition by acknowledging our limitations and maximizing according to that. And who decides if I'm maximizing enough? Me, because I'm the one giving my life meaning in the first place on this view.

@CounterApologist

Жыл бұрын

@@MaverickChristian Also as far as religion and well being, we have good reason to doubt religiosity is a necessary component of well being - precisely because how highly countries that are largely non-religious rank on wellbeing surveys. Also the fact that some non-religious people can rank as highly as religious people on an individual level means it's not a necessary or sufficient condition for wellbeing.

And we don't have to personally sacrifice lot of our time to figure out what makes humans happy. We have science for that job and the results are accumulating. The next generation will always be better of than the one before.

@azophi

Жыл бұрын

Well I mean . There’s a lot of study done on happiness…. And it can take a lot of self reflection sometimes to find a spot you are mostly content at Again I mean everyone is always striving for something (if you live healthily) but I feel like I am mostly satisfied with my life at the moment because I put thought into what I like to do etc

Where have I seen someone similar to this guy Chad. He reminds of a midget from Lord of the Rings or Hobbit. I can't remember who is the character though.

@jakek.403

Жыл бұрын

Damn, dude, I see your video on Krause’ nothing is down. What happened, if I may ask?

Capturing Christianity leads to despair.

Interesting. I had not watched that original video since I assumed it will be the usually apologetic drivel. I would say life can only have meaning because it is limited, if one would have infinite time, in this life or another, then every moment would become meaningless since it doesn't matter what people do with their brief life. Things become more valuable when they are scarce. Thus it feels the despair is only an issue for theists who are greedy and want more than one lifetime.

This is excellent, but please increase the volume next time. This isn't the kind of video where I need to watch the screen, so I like to listen while I'm doing something else - like fixing something to eat. :) But it's very hard to hear this - especially when Chad McIntosh is speaking - when I'm not right at the keyboard. And I've got the volume set at maximum. Just a suggestion. Thanks! PS. Oh, I love Milky Way candy bars. But I like Butterfingers, too. Which is best? I don't know, but I know I wouldn't want a steady diet of just _one_ of them. We don't always do only what we enjoy most - partly because we have other responsibilities, partly because we have to consider short-term vs long-term benefits, partly because variety is good,... and all sorts of other considerations. But how much do I even want to _worry_ about that? I agree with you here. If I drove myself nuts always wondering whether I was doing the one thing that would _absolutely_ maximize my pleasure or my 'meaning,' I wouldn't be happy _at all._ There's such a thing as taking yourself too seriously. After I watch this, I might watch another video before playing a computer game. Or maybe I'll read a book. Which one will 'maximize my meaning'? I don't know, and I don't care. :)

@CounterApologist

Жыл бұрын

Honestly I thought of your previous comments, so when recording I turned off Voicemod software, made sure my mic volume was max on OBS and on the physical dial, the gain level is set to where I talk to my friends and on recording on my system it sounds normal. I don't know what else I can do TBH. I do normally listen with headphones, but even when I re-listened to the video at work everything came through fine.

@Bill_Garthright

Жыл бұрын

@@CounterApologist That's OK. Thanks for checking. It's quieter than most of the videos I watch, but I can hear it well enough when I'm right at the keyboard. It's just when I'm trying to listen as I'm doing something else that I have a problem.

Be careful responding to Cameron: he mutes people who tag him in their responses to his arguments... like a child.

Capturing Clicks (for Jesus) is just throwing stuff on the wall so that he can make a "100 Arguments for God" kind of video again - as if all the arguments mathematically add up and it magically becomes 100% true. e.g. Latest video: Music Proves God LOL

Cameron is no different than other apologists. Recycled PRATT arguments behind a pretentious, condescending veneer.

These people are like ungrateful spoiled brats, as long something doesn’t last forever or isn’t available in an infinite number, it isn’t good enough for them! The majority of people in history didn’t and still don’t have the luxury to think about those philosophical questions because they are busy thinking about to keep their loved ones save and how to feed them. Another amount of people don’t care about wether there is an afterlife or not. Christians are the ones who should despair, after all they never know how many of their family and acquaintances end up in hell. Anyway, fact is WE ALL GOING TO DIE, deal with it like an adult not like a spoiled brat! I have learned that the greatest feelings of happiness have arisen from a previous lack, for example when I can sleep properly again after a few sleepless nights. „The foolish renounce this world and pursue an imaginary world to come." ~Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer

@chewxieyang4677

Жыл бұрын

There are some Christians who, when asked about the hell problem, actually said that those in heaven would rejoice over those who are tormented in hell, so that's much worse. Not caring that others are damned, so long as you had your share of paradise. It's theologically condoned sadism.