Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts

Friday, September 25, 2026

Atheism Cannot Be Wrong - July 7 (Jon Cohen, Unconvinced on YouTube)

It can't be morally wrong to fail to be convinced by a claim.
Come and discuss this one!

Timsstamps 

0:00:00 Intro and introduction of 5×5×5 bingo board.

0:03:26 - Lloyd - Muslim caller that Claims the earth was created with humans for the sole purpose of worshipping God

0:18:11 - JDV2022 - Argues for the non physical nature of God. Claims God is abstract and NOUMENAL (he didn't use that term but that's what he implied) like math.

0:35:25 - Superchats

0:36:21 - Bingo

0:37:08 - The Artist 6 - clarifies the nature of atheism and what it means and if it exists on a spectrum. Good faith christian caller that has humane views and respects choice in choosing religion or atheism. Supports his children to make a choice for themselves. Prepared to fight jesus for his children if they become non believers. Rare christian caller.

0:50:29 - Superchats

0:53:11 - Ap Spencor - claims Science and facts are discoveries? Gets educated on Evidence vs proof by jon. Bad audio cuts the debate short.

0:58:50 - Fellonious punk - Claims Belief is not a choice and argues information diet & epistemic discipline/choices for it which Jonn and Sean agree are actions/environmental nurtures

1:18:11 - Bingo and superchats

1:20:51 - Nacho - Asks to define atheism and debates what it means

1:32:10 - Dillon - Admits he is Anti science and finds meaning in theism. Argues for the utility in theistic beliefs for individuals.

1:43:43 - Bingo

1:44:58 - Adam - Clarifies definition of atheism and uses life, abiogenesis, DNA, code, information, emergent intelligence, etc for lroof of God. Guest appearance by Dr.digg and Ella(Scientific Snitch) demolish

2:21:02 - Bingo & superchats

2:24:23 - Blake - Claims God exists, clarifies what atheists believe and holds a softer view of theology

2:57:13 - Bingo & Superchats

3:02:30 - God's favourite/Chris - Argues theism is not wrong and that we don't have the definition of atheism.

3:20:33 - Superchats

3:24:17 - Brenda debates - Claims theism is a propositional attitude like atheism. Uses a personal esoteric definition of theism & atheism.

3:40:33 - Bingo

3:45:32 - Saviworld - Claims the hosts are misreading the biblical text that talks about the punishments God inflicts upon non-believers.

4:08:52 - Bingo & Superchats

4:13:51 - Brad - Parks his vehicle for the debate after being told he can't participate whilst driving. Tries to defend the atrocities in the bible by God as being epistemically beyond human understanding. Claims that slaves were treated well in the bible.

4:32:05 - Bingo & Superchats

4:34:30 - Chopped inquisitor - Debates the definition of agnosticism, atheism & theism. Tries to argue/gaslight that involuntary disbelief is not punishable in christianity. Tries to defend the misogyny & atrocious acts in the bible.

4:57:21 - Superchat

4:58:16 - Alex - Clarifies definition of atheism & debates topic of morality and the punishing of involuntary non-belief. Tries to debate christianity being a cult.

5:03:17 - Superchats & Bingo

5:06:11 - Uses a german shepherd analogy to say there is evidence for God and Atheists are "choosing not to believe". Uses other analogies to argue the same.

5:31:46 - Superchats

5:34:36 - JE - Questions what standard Jon uses to label God as evil and debates against the subjective nature of morality. Proceeds to defend stoning women to death as morally sound and subjective.

5:54:00 - Bingo & superchats

5:58:12 - Doc Pepper - Asks if Atheism is inherently nihilistic, debates the fact how our emotional, cognitive & mental attributes are tied to our brains. Conversation moves to defending biblical genesis

6:12:49 - Superchats

6:15:01 - ISI777 - Tries to argue that Atheism is wrong because of christian scripture. Tries to defend the bible fundamentally.

6:51:12 - Superchats

6:54:21 - Church of James - muslim calle that claims there is evidence for God in nature and debates against the epistemic stance of atheism. Conversation moves towards debating the atrocious acts in the quran.

7:12:46 - Superchats

7:14:31 - OHheyman - Debates Jon's stance that God did not provide evidence for his own existence because he does not exist. Claims jon and Sean are misreading the hell punishment.

7:43:13 - Superchats

7:47:28 - Mr.B - Ex Muslim Agnostic that gives tips on how to critique the quran.

7:50:16 - Elijah - Possible Poe's law that defends human slavery and treating humans as objects.

8:02:26 - Superchats

8:04:14 - DMS online school - Tries to argue that people need to revere God for their own existence. Holds non-normative christian beliefs.

8:25:12 - Inner circle credits and continuation of DMS call.

8:27:07 - Superchats

8:30:31 - Cathleen - Non religious theist caller that tries to argue that there is a God and atheism cannot be valid. Uses consciousness & emergence of intelligence life as defence for God's existence.

8:35:32 - Superchats

8:36:36 - Chronicler - Clarifies the prompt. Asks if there can be possibility for a non omnipotent God to exist.

8:41:06 - Josh - Clarifies definition for atheism & humanism

8:42:43 - Home with Debbie - Asks if Jon and Sean believe in jesus and agrees with the hosts on historical accuracy of jesus.

8:46:38 - Superchats

8:47:42 - 5×5×5 Bingo winner (le me - yippee🤘🎊🎉)

8:50:04 - Member questions

8:53:02 - John Stone - Supports hiroshima attacks and israel attacks on palestine and in the bible. Tries to argue and defend the infanticide in the bible as collateral. Possible troll that talks about emf frequencies.

9:05:04 - Superchats

9:06:11 - Note on pseudoscience and Conclusion
Interview: 

Sunday, September 13, 2026

LIVE DEBATE [Your God is Fiction] 5-5-2026 (with ‪@VolcyThoughts‬ ) (Justin at DZ Debates on YouTube)

TIMESTAMPS

2:05 Volcy’s intro

Skipped a few non-calls

29:35 Matthew - Caller rambles a lot but it settles on a discussion of entropy and energy; Caller crashes out over Volcy talking

54:42 Brian - Bad faith from the start; Can we choose what we believe? Do we have free will? Can God be wrong about he knows?

1:23:25 Jimmy - Caller is likely “Johnny/John” but changed their name; All of the bad faith; Did Jesus exist? Do the laws of logic exist? Caller tries to derail to trans issues; Once Justin IDs caller, hosts spend the rest of the call clowning on them

1:46:08 Brandon - What is current consensus of the Big Bang? Is God possible and is He in time? Are morals objective?

2:26:25 Superchats and wrap up
Interview: 

Sunday, January 4, 2026

Johnny's call to DZ Debates, 11/19/2025

I recommend this select portion of this video because:
  • Johnny asks good questions that religious people have of non-believers, 
  • Justin and Sarah are good at explaining, and 
  • Included is a demonstration of how sloppy and misleading ChatGPT can be in answering theological questions.
Johnny is a theist, calling in to Justin's show. The topic is "Your god is imaginary. Prove me wrong." Among the points Johnny raises and Justin and Sarah respond to:
  • How can you not believe in a creator? How can something come from nothing?
  • The universe runs on laws. How can there not be a law-giver?
  • How do you explain consciousness?
  • Where do our concepts of right and wrong come from? 
  • Doesn't the fact that I know right from wrong mean I have a soul?  If not, how do you explain that?
  • What is spirit?
  • What do we need science for?
  • Didn't Jesus fulfill prophecies? (Hint: No. None.)
  • What about the trinity? (Hint: It breaks the laws of logic.)
Justin explains how the trinity is logically impossible and does not make sense. In particular, Jesus did not have the attributes of God, so he cannot be identical to God or fully God. 

Justin explains the fundamental laws of logic:
  1. The Law of Identity: A thing cannot be "A" and "not A" at the same time and in the same way.
  2. The Law of Non-Contradiction: A thing cannot be both true and false at the same time.
  3. The Law of the Excluded Middle: Every proposition or claim must be either true or false. It cannot be both true and false. There is no in-between.
Can God be identical to himself and also not himself? The God of the Christian Bible has contradictory properties, which therefore, by definition, cannot be true. Conclusion: The God of the Bible cannot exist. You have to drop some properties. Therefore, either the God of the Bible does not exist entirely, or the description of the God in the Bible is wrong.

Johnny calls upon ChatGPT for help. Did Jesus fulfill any prophecies? ChatGPT says yes; Justin proves it wrong, by showing that if you use a loose definition of "fulfill" that ChatGPT uses, and ignore the context of verses, then Justin himself fulfills the same prophecies in the same way Jesus did. Sarah and Justin explain why ChatGPT will never reliably give the correct answer because it has no ability to evaluate the quality of its sources of information; it just guesses based upon what is most popular.

The following questions are asked of ChatGPT:

Q: Is Jesus 100% God?
Q: Can you be 100% of something while not having all of its attributes?
Q: What are the essential properties of God?
Q: Are the Omni properties essential properties of the God of the Bible?
Q: Is Jesus omniscient?
Q: How is Jesus omniscient if he does not know the day or the hour (Matthew 24:36)? 
Q: How can an omnipotent being be limited? 

At first, ChatGPT agrees with Johnny by saying Jesus only seemed to not be God because he turned off his all-knowingness temporarily. Justin suggests Johnny keep pressing ChatGPT with detailed follow-up questions, and ultimately, ChatGPT agrees with Justin, that Jesus could not logically be identical to God because he was not omniscient or omnipotent; it just a Christian mystery. 

One big take-away is the astonishing degree to which ChatGPT has been trained to defend Christian theology unless you force it to acknowledge its logical inconsistency.
Interview with Johnny begins at 4:40:06 in the video: 

Sunday, January 26, 2025

Flaws in Religious Arguments You Should Know

Have you ever questioned the reasoning behind religious arguments? In this video, we uncover the most common flaws in religious reasoning, breaking down the logical fallacies that are often used to defend organized religion. From circular reasoning to appeals to fear, we explore how these tactics fail to hold up under scrutiny. Whether you’re curious about the validity of these arguments or looking for thought-provoking content, this video provides a clear and rational perspective on the topic.

📌 What You’ll Learn: 
 • The logical fallacies behind popular religious claims 
 • Why these arguments fail to convince under critical analysis 
 • Real-world examples that expose the flaws in reasoning
Interview: 

Friday, May 12, 2023

The thinking error that makes people susceptible to climate change denial

Close examination of the arguments made by climate change deniers reveals the same mistake made over and over again. That mistake is the cognitive error known as black-and-white thinking, also called dichotomous and all-or-none thinking. As I explain in my book "Finding Goldilocks," black-and-white thinking is a source of dysfunction in mental health, relationships – and politics…

Sunday, July 31, 2022

‘You can’t say that!’: how to argue, better | Friendship | The Guardian

In disagreements, too many of us think like preachers, prosecutors and politicians. In preacher mode, you're trying to proselytise your views. In prosecutor mode, you're attacking someone else's. And in politician mode, you don't even listen to people unless they already share your views. 
When I hear someone talk like a preacher or politician, I often snap into prosecutor mode. There are few things that offend me more than ignorance masquerading as knowledge. If I think you're wrong, I feel it's my professional responsibility as a social scientist – and my moral responsibility as a human being – to correct you. I've been called a logic bully. It took me too long to realise that hammering people with facts rarely wins the argument and sometimes loses the relationship. Whether you're preaching, prosecuting or politicking, you've already concluded that you're right and they are wrong. You've flipped a switch that shuts down your capacity for critical thinking…









Click Older Posts above to see more.