Christianity INVENTED Charity? feat. @OwenMorganTelltale

[00:00:00]Hi everyone, thanks for watching. Most of the content on my channel is supported by generous patrons but made available for free to the entire world.

[00:00:09]If you support that, please consider adding your support at patreon.com/theistdates.

[00:00:14]This clip, however, is from one of the many programs that I do on YouTube on the line. And if you liked it, feel free to visit like, subscribe, and watch the line network live. Thank you. We have Robert from Hungary who's a theist friends or he him. Uh Robert's going to explain to us how Christianity introduced charity to the west etc. So hey Robert, how are you?

[00:00:39]>> Hey Matt. Uh first of all I wanted to apologize to you for being a dick last time. Um I was uh very mean uh and was uh trying to uh forgive you at the end of the last call. So, let's not >> Sorry about that.

[00:00:58]>> I I don't even remember you. I don't need an apology. I just need to get the calls.

[00:01:04]>> Okay. So, yeah, I wanted to talk to you about this topic uh because of Bartman's new group, the new book that came out and I >> Whose new book?

[00:01:16]>> Bartman.

[00:01:18]>> Bartman's Bartman. Okay. Yeah.

[00:01:22]>> Yeah. It's uh the title is love die thy stranger and he investigated and uh he discovers and lays out how the first hospitals were Christian in the west uh and how the Roman and Greek culture used to be very um not uh the idea to giving charities to strangers unknown people was uh kind of like a selfish reason to arrandise yourself and not as a moral good uh in in their philosophies.

[00:01:58]>> I haven't read Bart's book, but I don't know why that's relevant.

[00:02:04]>> Well, because the the topic like >> it's not the topic.

[00:02:11]>> It's not the topic. Um, so >> no, >> Christianity may have been responsible for changing a number of different things. That doesn't mean that the core tenants of Christianity are true. It doesn't mean there's a God. It doesn't mean that Jesus was divine. None of that, >> right?

[00:02:35]So why should I care if you know I mean the word charity originates from a term for Christian love?

[00:02:50]>> Yep.

[00:02:52]>> That has nothing to do with whether Christianity is true, does it?

[00:02:56]>> No. But should you care?

[00:02:57]>> No, you don't have to put a butt on there. No. No, you don't have to put a butt on there. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Christianity is true. And that's what I care about. I have no problem with the fact that Christianity has been responsible. The people within Christianity imposing certain doctrines and following certain doctrines have been a positive influence on a number of different areas. They've also been an incredibly negative influence on a number of areas. I only care whether or not it's true. Do you have some way to demonstrate it's true?

[00:03:27]But do you care whether or not people should be Christians or not?

[00:03:32]>> No. I I care whether or not it's true. I Okay. Is it possible for me to be as charitable and more charitable even though I'm not a Christian? Yes or no?

[00:03:45]>> Yes.

[00:03:46]Is it also possible for me by teaching good values and the the value and understanding of how we live cooperatively and how empathy and compassion uh helps people and that charity actually benefits people whether there's a God or not. It's possible for me to teach other people that too, right?

[00:04:07]>> Yes.

[00:04:09]So nobody needs Christianity to be charitable. So we can do the good part, charity, without keeping all the baggage. So as far as Christianity is concerned, I only care whether or not it's true. And to say you should be a Christian because it gives you a benefit you can get without being a Christian is silly.

[00:04:32]>> Yes, but you're lowering it to a personal level. And on a societal level, I didn't No, I didn't. No, I didn't. I didn't lower it to personal level. I literally asked you if it was possible to teach other people. I literally asked you and you affirmed that I can in fact spread and teach these values to others.

[00:04:52]So, I absolutely did not lower it to a personal level. I immediately before you before you decided to lie about what I said took it to a societal level, didn't I?

[00:05:03]>> No, I don't think you did because teaching someone >> No, I absolutely did. I I absolutely did and you agreed. So, here we go. I'm gonna ask you the question. I'm going to put it up on the screen.

[00:05:17]Why do I need to be a Christian?

[00:05:24]>> Why do you need to be a Christian?

[00:05:26]>> Correct.

[00:05:27]>> I don't I don't think you need to be. I think you should be.

[00:05:30]>> Okay. Great. Great. Okay. So, you you've answered that one.

[00:05:36]How can we know Christianity is true?

[00:05:40]>> Um, I don't think we can.

[00:05:43]>> Okay, then you have nothing I'm interested in.

[00:05:48]>> Well, I think that Christianity can be true. Could be.

[00:05:52]>> I didn't ask that. I didn't ask that.

[00:05:55]>> I don't care what I don't care if you think Robert I don't, Robert, I don't care if you think it's possible for Christianity to be true. That doesn't matter.

[00:06:05]Mhm.

[00:06:07]But do you not care if people are atheists or Christians? Do you don't?

[00:06:12]>> No, I don't. I care whether or not people I care whether or not people are rational and good people. And that's not Christianity isn't required for either of those. As a matter of fact, I would argue that in order to be rational, you should definitely not be a Christian.

[00:06:27]>> I see this. I I I So you don't think that you can be a Christian and rational? Oh, I think you can be a Christian and be rational about some things, but I do not think that Christianity is rationally justified.

[00:06:40]>> Um, >> those are not the same things, I think, because you can still be a Christian and be rational about >> about Christianity.

[00:06:54]>> Not about Christianity.

[00:06:57]So, so you just admitted just a minute ago that you don't think we can know if Christianity is true. But in order to be a Christian, you need to believe that Christianity is true. And if you believe something that you cannot know is true, that is by definition irrational.

[00:07:16]>> See, I would I would disagree with that.

[00:07:18]>> I don't care if you disagree. You are factually wrong. It is simply irrational to believe that something is true when you have no way of confirming that it's true. That is the opposite of ration of reason.

[00:07:32]>> Isn't it only irrational if you have a reason to believe that it is not true?

[00:07:38]>> No. And the reason for that is this. Now listen, listen. This is really easy.

[00:07:43]We're going to fix you in a heartbeat here.

[00:07:46]>> You think it's possible for Christianity to be true, but you can't confirm it. Is it also possible for Islam to be true but you can't confirm it?

[00:07:54]>> Yes.

[00:07:55]>> Is it also true for Scientology?

[00:07:57]Possible for Scientology to be true but you can't confirm it.

[00:08:00]>> No. There are bunch of um factual claims made by Scientology like the the soul is from other planet and yada yada yada that can be verified to be false.

[00:08:11]>> I'm sorry. How do you prove that the soul is not from another planet when you can't even prove that there's a soul?

[00:08:18]Let's let's let's stop with that stuff, Robert, because your Bible can't even get the order of creation events right and is wrong inside of the first couple verses. But my point is, if there are a number of different thing, listen, just listen, just listen. If there are a number of different positions that you think are possibly true but can't be confirmed and you pick one, you have now made a decision about which one is likely to be true and you can be wrong. That's possible. But you also would have to agree that the other it is rational to hold those other positions as well. So you think it's rational to believe Christianity and it's rational to believe Islam and it's rational to believe Judaism, but those things are in conflict and they cannot all be true, but they can all be false. That's what reason is. Reason and rational thinking is saying, "Hey, here are multiple possible explanations. I have no way of determining which of them is most likely correct or if any of them are correct.

[00:09:23]Therefore, the rational position is not to accept any of them. You're trying to say that the rational position is to accept any or all of them. That's not reason.

[00:09:37]>> I think it's also rational to not accept any of them. But I don't see how it is irrational.

[00:09:43]It is just accepting it without commitment that it has to be true.

[00:09:51]No, >> it it can be a question.

[00:09:54]>> Robert, Robert, are you a Christian?

[00:09:57]>> Yes, I'm a Catholic.

[00:09:59]>> That Well, okay. Some Catholics would say that Cathol Catholicism or Catholics aren't Christians, but okay. So, you're you're a Catholic. You're not a Protestant, right?

[00:10:09]>> Yep.

[00:10:10]>> Is it rational to be a Protestant?

[00:10:13]>> Yep.

[00:10:15]>> And it's rational to be a Catholic?

[00:10:18]>> Yes.

[00:10:19]and they don't agree on doctrinal positions. Correct.

[00:10:24]>> Correct.

[00:10:26]>> How is it possible for two people to believe two different things about the same thing and for both of them to be rational about it?

[00:10:36]>> They can be rational just wrong. You can be irrational and be a Democrat or a Republican. Just one of >> I disagree. I disagree about that that as well. Yes, it is possible for you to be factually wrong. But being rational is saying I have sufficient reason to conclude that this is true. And if you are a Catholic and you think that that is what reason dictates, then you might be acting within reason internally consistent and just acknowledge that you might be wrong. But if you also say that you're convinced that it's also rational to believe something else, then you are now irrational. Like for example, when I was a Protestant, I would have said that that was the rational conclusion and Catholicism was not a rational conclusion and that the evidence and the weight of the evidence compelled Protestantism over Catholicism. But you are suggesting that it's possible >> to accept either or both of them and and that that's rational. If if it's possible that that I killed somebody and it's possible that Owen killed somebody, is it rational to believe that I did it?

[00:11:49]Is it rational to believe that Owen did it? Is it rational to believe that someone could believe both? And let's make it a little more specific. Is it rational to disagree with the Trinity? Is it rational to think the Trinity is incorrect?

[00:12:10]Yes, it's completely rational. There are good arguments for both.

[00:12:14]>> Your definition of rational is useless.

[00:12:17]Your definition of rational is useless and inconsistent with good reasoning.

[00:12:22]>> Rational definition >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But rational is when we are aligned with reason in a way that most probably leads to an accurate understanding of reality. You have redefined ra reasonable to an internal consistency that does not bear out external warrant just so that you can claim any Can you name a position that isn't rational?

[00:12:48]>> A position that isn't rational.

[00:12:51]>> Sure. Um Nazis that u alans are a superior race of Germans who are from Atlantis like those those What's not >> what what is not reasonable or logical about that position?

[00:13:08]>> What what's not reasonable or logical?

[00:13:10]What's not reason or logical about that position?

[00:13:14]>> Well, they are not nothing in in they are not don't match reality. Nazi Germans have a different genetics than Aryan Indians. Atlantis never existed. U >> how do you know Atlantis never existed?

[00:13:30]like how how do I know Atlantis never existed?

[00:13:37]>> Because it's a morality tale created by Plato, I think.

[00:13:47]>> I need you to demonstrate how it's reasonable to believe that Atlantis never existed. Do you do you understand what the term unfalsifiable means?

[00:13:56]It's unfalsifiable to the existence.

[00:14:01]>> Do you know what the term unfalsifiable means?

[00:14:05]>> Yes.

[00:14:07]>> Is it reasonable to believe that something unfalsifiable has been falsified?

[00:14:16]>> Something.

[00:14:22]So, uh, you're saying >> I think what you're saying is, uh, it's unfalsifiable to know if Atlantis existed or not. We can't know that with absolute certainty, right? Um, I found it interesting that you just said that we know that Atlantis wasn't real because it was an old tale told in an old book, but you don't apply that same reasoning to all of the other stuff that you believe. uh we know the origins of the term or the tale or whatever so you reject it.

[00:14:59]>> No, but sorry. I think there's a clear difference between a morality tale that we know Plato made up to show as an example of his uh philosophy and a scripture that people actually believe is true. And they might be wrong, but like you're comparing Christianity to Looney Tunes or the Lord.

[00:15:25]>> I'm asking you a question. It's on the screen. Is it reasonable to believe that an unfalsifiable claim has been falsified?

[00:15:38]>> Sorry, I don't understand that. Okay. If there is a claim, >> listen, if there is a claim and that claim is unfalsifiable, is it reasonable to believe that it has been falsified?

[00:16:01]>> You mean it has been proven wrong?

[00:16:03]>> Yes. Unfalsifiable means like you can't >> This is why I asked if you [ __ ] knew what unfalsifiable means. Do you know what unfalsifiable means? It means there is no way to Stop talking.

[00:16:16]>> Unfalsifiable I know and I'm [ __ ] giving you the answer. You should just say thanks it to yourself and wait till I'm [ __ ] done.

[00:16:26]Unfalsifiable means that the claim cannot be shown to be false.

[00:16:32]If the claim cannot be shown to be false, then it would be unreasonable to believe that it has been shown to be false. Correct.

[00:16:41]>> Yes.

[00:16:42]>> Cool. Is the claim that Atlantis never existed falsifiable?

[00:16:50]Or sorry, is the claim that Atlantis existed falsifiable?

[00:16:56]>> No.

[00:16:58]>> Then it would be unreasonable to believe that it had been shown to be false, wouldn't it?

[00:17:04]>> Yes.

[00:17:05]Therefore, your claim that it's reasonable to believe that Atlantis didn't exist is not in fact reasonable because your claim is that it has been shown to be false that Atlantis existed.

[00:17:20]>> No, that my claim is that it has been shown that Atlantis was created purposefully as >> No, it wasn't, Robert. This is an equivocation fallacy. There are stories about Atlantis that you can show were invented and are most probably fiction, but you cannot show that the city Stop talking.

[00:17:45]>> Stop talking. There's a difference between the origin of the story and the origin of the city. Correct?

[00:17:54]>> Yes.

[00:17:55]>> Do you have any information on the origin of the city? Not the stories about the city, the city.

[00:18:03]>> But it is the first story about the city.

[00:18:05]>> Do you have any [ __ ] information about the origin of the city?

[00:18:12]>> No, because it's fictional.

[00:18:13]>> No. No. Is the origin of the city a testable claim? Yes or no?

[00:18:23]>> No.

[00:18:24]If the origin of the city is not a testable claim, then it could not be reasonable to conclude that you could say the city never existed. Correct.

[00:18:41]>> Um, yes.

[00:18:45]>> But now, now I don't need No, no, no. Stop talking.

[00:18:52]Is the existence of Jesus something that you can verify >> like the historical Jesus? Yes.

[00:19:03]>> Yes.

[00:19:08]>> Yes. Yes, it is.

[00:19:10]>> You said earlier that Christianity was not testable. Correct?

[00:19:19]>> Yes.

[00:19:21]If Christianity is not testable, then just like the origin of Atlantis, it would be unreasonable for you to believe that it is in fact exists or does not exist. Correct.

[00:19:36]>> No, not just like it.

[00:19:38]>> Oh, [ __ ] [ __ ] All right, I give up, Owen. I I can't.

[00:19:43]>> Okay, >> this guy does not understand reason.

[00:19:45]Stop talking. I'm talking to Owen now.

[00:19:47]Nobody gives a [ __ ] what somebody who does not understand reason and who when led up to the river of reason decides to shut their [ __ ] mouth in order to protect their cherished [ __ ] All right. So yes, let's try let's try another tactic. Um let's just move away from reason for a minute. Why do you believe in God?

[00:20:12]because I think um it leads to moral good and flourishing society.

[00:20:19]>> Okay, that's a reason why you would want to be Christian but not why you would believe in God, right? Why do you actually believe this is real?

[00:20:31]>> Yes. I I think it makes my life better.

[00:20:36]Have more calmness, uh happiness.

[00:20:39]>> Okay. Okay. Interesting. And again, that would be why you would want to be a member of the church and a Christian.

[00:20:47]But what reason do you have? Let me ask another way. Do you think that Jesus was a real historical figure?

[00:20:58]>> That's not in doubt, right? I mean, >> uh, well, it is, but yes, I think I agree with you. He was probably a real figure. Now, do you believe all of the other stuff on top of that about Jesus?

[00:21:09]Do you think he walked on water that he was a son of God and all of the other stuff on top of all of or on top of that?

[00:21:18]>> Yes.

[00:21:20]>> Why?

[00:21:22]>> There is no good reason not to. And >> there is there is no good reason to believe all of that stuff though, right?

[00:21:31]Like you believe that Muhammad was God's messenger and that he all the other stuff.

[00:21:38]I choose not to. I >> You choose not to believe. Interesting.

[00:21:43]Because in my experience, belief isn't something you choose. It's a conclusion you reach. I don't believe that Muhammad was God's messenger because that's the conclusion I reached.

[00:21:54]>> I don't choose not to believe in that.

[00:21:57]>> You choose not to believe in Islam.

[00:22:01]I I I reached the conclusion that Christianity and Islam to one degree or another are unlikely to be true but uh finding the claims not uh impossible or contrary to reality um and seeing the benefits of say I choose to have say I don't think >> I think the problem with you guys and many atheists online is that you come from an evangelical um society that has a very hard uh very strong beliefs of Christianity. But >> shut your [ __ ] mouth.

[00:22:46]>> Shut your [ __ ] mouth and listen to me. I spent 20 years engaging with Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Scientologists. I deal with what is presented to me. I'm not judging your ridiculous criminal organization based on my Protestant background. I've studied all of this beyond just a Protestant background. Instead of sitting here trying to [ __ ] psychoanalyze us and tell us what's wrong with us that we're looking at your religion from a Protestant background, maybe you should learn to [ __ ] defend your beliefs and actually stand up and grow a [ __ ] backbone instead of just saying, "Well, I think it does good things." Nobody gives a [ __ ] if you can do good things and credit the religion.

[00:23:27]I care if it's true. That's what I said at the start of this conversation.

[00:23:31]That's what I said the last time we spoke. You can't demonstrate that it's true. So why are you wasting my [ __ ] time?

[00:23:38]>> Because I think the people you have been arguing with for the past 20 years are morons. The more hardcore >> I'm arguing with you right now, [ __ ] How dare you suggest that everybody else is a [ __ ] but you're not.

[00:23:53]after you just sat on reason and demonstrated that you don't have a [ __ ] clue about what is or isn't reasonable and you don't care what is or isn't reasonable. You're an absolute embarrassment to apologetics. You aren't better than those morons as you like to call them. You should stop using that word as well.

[00:24:16]>> Also, um Matt has debated some very intelligent people. Very intelligent people. Yeah. uh who some of whom left religion uh and then came back or whatever. Yeah.

[00:24:29]>> Yeah. I listen to them. But I think he gets a a bias about who Christians are because most of the people many people he interacts with.

[00:24:41]>> Robert, I'm muting you again.

[00:24:44][ __ ] you.

[00:24:47]You My bias is towards skepticism and logic. My bias is towards humanism. I evaluate the the the claims of the caller. I have given you monumental latitude, asked you repeatedly to justify, handwalked you right up to the edge of reason where you jumped off a [ __ ] cliff and demonstrated that you are too stupid and dishonest to actually give a [ __ ] about reason. You think it's reasonable for people to accept multiple different things because they're possible. You think it's unreasonable after you asserted this this acceptance of an unfalsified position about Atlantis to say, "Oh, it's okay for me.

[00:25:29]It is reasonable for me to accept another unfalsifiable position because that one's about Jesus. You don't get to lecture me on anything about me. You are a clown.

[00:25:44]Are you able to demonstrate the truth of the Catholic Church's position? Yes or no?

[00:25:51]No.

[00:25:52]>> Then go the [ __ ] away. Nobody gives a [ __ ] if you like it.

[00:26:00]>> I think you do give a [ __ ] I think >> I don't give a [ __ ] if you like. I just literally just [ __ ] here. Let me mute you again. And now I'm going to school you again. You obnoxious, annoying, delusional little [ __ ] Listen very carefully.

[00:26:17]I want to know if it's true. If it's true, I may or may not adhere to it, but I will at least believe it's true. But you come in admitting that you have no way to demonstrate that it's true and want the rest of us to pretend like you do, that you're rational, that you have a rational position. You have a rational position that is you like something, so you're going to go with it. Owen's right. You've given a reason to participate in a tradition.

[00:26:48]you have a rational justification that this particular tradition has done some good and therefore you have a reason to participate. But we addressed that at the beginning of the call and participating in that religious tradition is not essential to achieving the goals that you find valuable. You can have charity without the Catholic Church.

[00:27:11]You can actually have charity that isn't accompanied by child gripe. You can have charity that isn't tied to a criminal organization. You can have charity that isn't tied to obscene wealth. You can have charity that doesn't put a strangle hold on prophylactics and treatments for people who are gay in in South Africa.

[00:27:30]You can have you can have charity and accompany it not just with the science that you don't find completely inconvenient, but all of science. You can have charity and not have to pretend that some virgin gave birth or the cracker that you ate transubstantiates into something magical and mystical. You can have charity without stealing children from unwed mothers and creating a graveyard underneath rectories.

[00:27:59]All of those things are part of the Catholic Church's tradition as are, by the way, you wanted to [ __ ] on the Nazis, support for Nazis.

[00:28:12]I don't have to support any of that and I can still support charity. I can be a part of a tradition that supports and encourages charity without the baggage you're trying to bring along with it. If you wanted to make a case that your position was actually better, cool. But you don't you you just want to make a case that it's decent and you like it while you cherrypick and ignore all the things that are bad and problematic. And after I tell you, all I give a [ __ ] about is is it true.

[00:28:41]There are plenty of religions that have people in them that have done good things. And there are plenty of religions that have some doctrine that is good. Ah, forgive. Cool. Turn the other cheek. Cool.

[00:28:56]All good things, you know, with in moderation. Cool.

[00:29:01]Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

[00:29:03]Not cool. If a man lies with another man as he lies with a woman, they've committed an abomination of deserving a death. Not cool. You shall buy your slaves from the heathen that surround you. Not cool. Go you therefore under the world preaching the gospel. Not cool. You're not spreading good information. You're spreading a doctrine. You're spreading the doctrine that comes with all the baggage. Go kill all the Amalachites, all the Midianites, all of everybody. Hey, Jeepa, sacrifice your daughter to me. Not cool.

[00:29:33]I'm not interested in you trying to come in and spend time rationalizing your your horrible, unreasonable, irrational personal decision as if it's good for other people. I only want to know if it's true. And you've already admitted you can't do that. So why should we continue having any conversation with you about things I don't care about?

[00:29:59]>> Yeah. I used to believe that I only care to believe what is true and I also want to care about what is beneficial to me and society.

[00:30:09]>> Nope. I'm sorry.

[00:30:12]Those are true things. Let's try this again.

[00:30:18]is is what's beneficial to is it is what's beneficial to society >> a true thing >> what >> you said that you used to care about what was true but now you care about whether something's beneficial if something is beneficial is that true >> we can know that something is beneficial >> if something is beneficial is that true is that If something is beneficial to society, is it true that it's beneficial to society?

[00:30:51]>> Something can be false or >> if something is beneficial to society, is it true that that something is beneficial to society? Yes or [ __ ] no. [ __ ] >> We cannot something.

[00:31:09]Oh my [ __ ] god. Oh my god. Oh my god.

[00:31:14]Oh my god. Here we go.

[00:31:18]We're going to try this again. We're going to try it with this because you are genuinely the dumbest [ __ ] I've spoken to all week and I've spoken to some dumb [ __ ] [snorts] If X is good for society, is it true that X is good for society? I never figured when I put together my little [ __ ] question posting thing that I would have to actually put up a straightup tautology in order to get some idiot to acknowledge and answer the question. So the question is right above my head.

[00:31:56]Are you ready? If X is good for society, is it true that X is good for society?

[00:32:02]Yes or no?

[00:32:04]That wasn't your question before?

[00:32:06]>> Yes, it was. You lying [ __ ] Listen to me, [ __ ] Answer that question. Yes or no?

[00:32:14]>> Yes.

[00:32:16]>> Thank you. And so that means that if you care about what's good for society, you're still caring about truth, right?

[00:32:24]>> Yes. But not just >> Do you care? Do you care if your God exists?

[00:32:32]>> Yes.

[00:32:33]How can you verify that your god exists?

[00:32:38]>> No.

[00:32:40]>> If you cannot verify that your god exists, is it reasonable to believe that that god exists?

[00:32:47]>> Yes.

[00:32:48]>> No, [laughter] it's not.

[00:32:53]You don't care about truth. You You don't care about truth.

[00:32:57]>> I don't only care about truth. That's not the only thing I care about. What else is there to care about other than truth?

[00:33:07]>> You care about lies. You care about falsehoods. You care about things that are not accurate. Or are you willing to accept those inaccurate, false, >> uh, incorrect things if there's some other reason to accept them other than whether it's true. You should accept things if they are true and reject them if they are false. Right.

[00:33:28]>> Yes. But I don't only care about truth.

[00:33:31]There are other things to also care about.

[00:33:33]>> The fact that you said >> the fact that things are ambiguous or not.

[00:33:39]>> The fact that you said that you don't you don't just care about true things tells me that you don't care fully if it's true or not. Is that is that fair to say? Let me just reword what you're saying. It's okay with me if the thing I believe is false. That's fine. In some cases, I don't care if it's true or not.

[00:34:01]That's what you you're saying here, right?

[00:34:04]>> No, I care I care if it is true or not.

[00:34:06]I >> Is that the ultimate >> I just accept that if something may or may not be true >> and you don't care if it's true or not?

[00:34:19]You're saying you it may or may not be true.

[00:34:22]>> Thus, you don't care if it's true.

[00:34:24]You're willing to accept the fact that it may not be true. That's not a deal breaker for you.

[00:34:30]>> Yeah.

[00:34:30]>> Well, that's the problem. It is a deal breaker for me. I want >> The problem is Go ahead.

[00:34:35]>> Is it reasonable to believe that X is true if you cannot show that X is true?

[00:34:42]>> Yes.

[00:34:43]>> No.

[00:34:44]>> I think it is. [laughter] It is not reasonable to believe for Stop. Stop.

[00:34:50]Stop. If you'd shut your [ __ ] mouth and listen, you might learn.

[00:34:58]There's a difference between believing X is true and X might be true and X is possibly true. Those are three different propositions.

[00:35:14]Correct.

[00:35:16]>> Correct.

[00:35:20]If you do not know if it's possible, then you cannot know if it's probable and you cannot know if it's true. So it would be unreasonable to believe the contingent claim that X is true if you haven't got justification for believing that it's probable or possible. Correct?

[00:35:46]You you can sorry >> you want that rewarded.

[00:35:54]>> Yeah.

[00:35:57]>> Yeah. English as a second language may be a barrier >> if >> yeah sorry >> the claim number the claim is that X is true. The time to believe that X is true is when it's been demonstrated and supported by evidence that X is true.

[00:36:12]It's not justified to believe that X is true merely because you're convinced it possibly might be true, right?

[00:36:21]>> Yes.

[00:36:23]>> Cool. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:36:25]Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jesus.

[00:36:30]So, if we do not have justification to believe that X is possibly true, then it would be unreasonable to believe that X is actually true, right?

[00:36:41]>> What? Wait, why do we have not have justification to >> Holy [ __ ] [ __ ] >> If we do not have reason to believe that X is possibly true, it would be unreasonable to believe that X is actually true. Correct.

[00:36:59]>> How do you have justification for the >> It's a yes or no [ __ ] question that you already agreed to.

[00:37:06]How do you have justification for something in >> X? It's X. I'm speaking in the [ __ ] abstract. You dense [ __ ] You already agreed to this. I am gradually building up to show you that what you've already [ __ ] agreed to demonstrates that you're irrational.

[00:37:30]You don't get to ask me any [ __ ] questions. I'm asking you a yes or no question. You already agreed to this.

[00:37:39]Let's try again because I'm about to drop you.

[00:37:44]If you do not have reason to believe that X is possibly true, whatever X is, if you do not have reason to believe it's possibly true, it would be unreasonable to believe it's actually true. Correct.

[00:38:01]the way you're phrasing it. If you don't have reasons to know you hung up, you said, "Okay."

[00:38:15]>> Yeah.

[00:38:19]I I cannot There is no way to teach reason.

[00:38:26]I know of no way to teach reason more clearly than that. We I mean right down to like we're basically pointing to identity non-contradiction excluded middle. We're talking about hey is it reasonable to believe that X is actually true if you don't have any reason to think it's even possibly true. And once you start that even when even in the abstract the caller's brain puts up a [ __ ] barrier because somewhere beneath the surface he knows he's unreasonable. He knows he has an irrational position. And when he agrees in the abstract, the closer you get to the concrete, the more his brain freaks the [ __ ] out.

[00:39:09]And it's terrifying that he might have to admit that he's And what's weird is I don't know why that would bother you if you've already admitted that you don't care if something's actually true.

[00:39:24]Why would it bother you that you're unreasonable?

[00:39:28]You've thrown reason out.

[00:39:32]>> Yeah, it was kind of odd that the dude just decided to like he couldn't seem to give me an answer for why he believed aside from I just like it and I think it's good for society.

[00:39:47]>> Uh just very odd, very odd conclusions that dude came to.

[00:39:52]>> I just want to cry, >> right?

[00:39:55]>> Hi, thanks for watching. If you enjoyed that or if you think you have better arguments for the supernatural or God, the Sunday show is live at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. every Sunday on the line. Links below