Comments by "Moon Shoes" (@moonshoes11) on "Who GAF About Christmas?" video.

@davidthompson6636 I hope you’re well, and your Christmas was enjoyable. If you don’t mind, may I recommend; Paulogia, PineCreek, and MythVision YouTube channels.
2
@rapson672 Jesus has nothing to do with being American.
1
@davidthompson6636 You’re welcome to demonstrate whether any gods exists, providing you can. But tell me, what does a god need with a gender?
1
@davidthompson6636 That is absurd. Faith is believing without evidence. Science is based on observable evidence. Faith can be used to justify virtually any conclusion. Science only reports what can be shown to to be measurable. As such, yours is an equivocation fallacy.
1
@davidthompson6636 And please don’t pretend to be aware of what is going on in the scientific community. The level of certainty in science, no matter how well or poorly you perceive it, is still the single most reliable method we have for measuring reality, Where as faith can justify Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism….Hinduism…must I go on? So faith adds no value in pursuing truth. And science is still the best method we have. When science is wrong, it is always science that tells us so. It is self correcting. Faith can never provide a matter answer than science.
1
@davidthompson6636 What I mean is, no matter how you slice it, your beliefs are not evidence based. Can you acknowledge my points about faith? Or must you be dishonest to the last?
1
@davidthompson6636 Also, name a method more reliable than science.
1
@davidthompson6636 David, I still hold and can demonstrate that you are not being honest. You won’t acknowledge or address a single point I’ve made. And we are not in agreement. How hard is it for you to be honest? You have multiple points of failure in your dishonest approach. First, science holds tentative positions based on available evidence. Science doesn’t make truth claims. Any elementary level understanding of science holds to this. This isn’t aren’t faith based positions. These are positions based on the best available evidence. Faith is not used. Faith is believing in the absence of evidence. That isn’t what science does. But you know faith is useless in measuring reality. So, you desperately want to create an equivocation to justify using an inferior method. Second, as I have already stated, science is still our most reliable method. I’ve asked that you provide a more reliable method. You can’t. Meanwhile, you don’t have any evidence to support your belief in the supernatural.
1
@davidthompson6636 If science cannot answer phenomena beyond the physical, what method are you using to make conclusions of anything beyond the physical? Do you understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? It would be better if you did.
1
@davidthompson6636 This is all just a distraction because you can’t demonstrate god claims to be true.
1
@davidthompson6636 Accept or deny? So, you pretend to understand science but don’t understand what the null position is? When you make a claim, you own the burden of proof. But there are three positions; accept, deny, or remain null to the claim. Is your last comment a concession that you can’t engage honestly? Why is that? What you believe has everything to do with you. What reality is doesn’t have anything to do with you. In other words, science doesn’t care what you believe. You can’t offer a more reliable method than science for measuring reality. And faith doesn’t have any mechanism to determine whether a belief is true, but it can bolster confidence in a belief whether the belief is true or false. The problem is that you started by being convinced without warrant. Go back and check the math on your epistemology.
1
@davidthompson6636 You’re still trying to conflate faith with trust. Faith is believing in the absence of evidence. Trust isn’t the same. This is an equitation. Faith can be used to justify belief in any position, regardless of evidence. Faith can be applied even when there is evidence to the contrary. Part of the problem here is that you’re so insistent that you’re right, you can’t acknowledge or admit the flaws in your position. This bias makes you dishonest. This is about methodologies. Since science is demonstrably more reliable than faith, then trust is warranted. However, science is based on a methodology designed to eliminate bias as best as possible while remaining tentative in it’s conclusion. Your faith and your religion aren’t based on demonstrably reliable methods. You’re outright suggesting using an unreliable method like faith as if it is as reliable as scientific methods. This is the crux of your failure. You’re suggesting what is measurable should be held with the same regard as things that are not measurable, and cannot be shown to exist. You’re suggesting a false conclusion is equal to a correct conclusion. If emotions are simply chemical responses, and you reject this notion, then you’re just rejecting reality. Here is where the problem lies with your approach; Either emotions are indeed a chemical response, or there is something more. We can demonstrate emotions are indeed a chemical response, but you’re asserting there is something more… Not only are you asserting there is something more,…you’re convinced you know what that something is. And your method to reach the conclusion is to just believe without evidence or any warrant whatsoever. Remember, the mind that changes should be your own. And meanwhile….in this discussion you have still offered exactly ZERO evidence for the existence of anything supernatural.
1
@davidthompson6636 If two faith based positions conflict with each other, how do you determine which, if either, is correct? I will address your incorrect assertions. However, when you can’t/won’t acknowledge the points I obviously have to repeat, it shows how,Disney’s t your approach it. I posit you can’t be honest because of you do, your faith will,naturally diminish, and you refuse to allow that. 1. I am not demanding you use science or anything else. That is dishonest. Why is honesty such a problem for you? Science doesn’t declare itself unfit to examine the realm you claim exists. It is not the fault of science that you cannot provide evidence. Also, what method are you using to make conclusions about this alleged realm and how can you demonstrate it isn’t wrong? 2. I am not denying the use of trust. Again, faith is believing without evidence. Trust can be granted on the basis of evidence. Again, this goes back to methodology. Consider this thought experiment. Please acknowledge and respond: Two people are in a room with five gift baskets. One of the two opens each box, looks inside, and writes down what is in each box. The second person does not open the boxes, and does not look inside. Which of these two people are using a more reliable method? Which person can be trusted to understand what is in each box? 3. I am not demanding you prove any god exists. I am pointing out that you can’t, and as such there is no reason to accept your assertion any gods exist. You’ve repeatedly made assertions about the sign of Jonah. Whatever this means to you, it simply another baseless assertion. You’re also conflating a “sign” with evidence. This is dishonest. No, I didn’t approach anything with willed decision is wrong. But you recognize that would be a problem….but you’re doing the opposite. You’re concluding they are true without warrant. Making another assertion about Josephus weakens your argument. Someone recording there were witnesses doesn’t mean there were witnesses. It means there is a recording which must be verified, and in this case cannot be. 4. I am not demanding an earthly answer. Only honest ones. And you refuse to meet that simple criteria. And in the mean time….you worship the god of slavery….right? You can’t be of any help to me. You could have a more reliable world view, but outright refuse it.
1
@davidthompson6636 Jesus says that the sign will be the sign of Jonah: Jonah's restoration after three days inside the great fish prefigures His own resurrection. He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. So, a fictitious story which cannot be demonstrated to be true is your evidence? Did Jonah exist? Can a person exist inside a fish for three days? Are you just accepting a claim this is true based on hearsay?
1