ill look for the video where he tries to explain his beliefs surrounding religion and the mental gymnastics he tries to justify it.
i actually love his "facts dont care" quote its great but he often thinks hes smarter than he is just because he talks fast. he often uses this to gishgallop and dodge
If religious people were intelligent, they wouldn't be religious to begin with. Self-awareness is the last thing this dumbfuck has.
share
Some of the most brilliant minds who ever lived on this planet have been what you might call "religious".
The fact is that no one who ever lived on this planet knows why a universe even exists at all, which means belief in a god-like creator is no more or no less "intelligent" than belief that something popped from nothingness (yes, including any gods who would have had to pop from nothingness).
Questioning anyone's intelligence for a stance on a subject with no answers isn't thinking this through..
I think what the OP is getting at is that religious people believe the things they believe because believing those things makes them feel good.
If Shapiro was sincere in his facts-don't-care-about-your-feelings philosophy he wouldn't indulge in wish-thinking.
I think what the OP is getting at is that religious people believe the things they believe because believing those things makes them feel good.
If Shapiro was sincere in his facts-don't-care-about-your-feelings philosophy he wouldn't indulge in wish-thinking.
[H]is point about facts and feelings are that feelings don't trump facts in our physical world, but religion or lack thereof is an area with no facts at all.Shapiro usually backs up his arguments with facts and evidence, but when it comes to his religious ideology, he refuses, or fails, and fall on the tired old Well-you-can't-DISPROVE-my-claims crutch.
Besides, can we be sure that Shapiro's belief isn't in fact true? There isn't any more evidence disproving his faith as there is to prove it.
Shapiro usually backs up his arguments with facts and evidence, but when it comes to his religious ideology, he refuses, or fails, and fall on the tired old Well-you-can't-DISPROVE-my-claims crutch.
"Besides, can we be sure that Shapiro's belief isn't in fact true? There isn't any more evidence disproving his faith as there is to prove it."
And there's no evidence that there's a magical invisible leprechaun in the middle of the Earth who controls the universe... but hey, "we can't be sure", can we? This type of mentality could be applied to literally any insane claim, it means nothing.
"within a physical world, not metaphysical."
So I can just say whatever nonsense I want under the guise of "well, it's 'metaphysics'" and all is well? It honestly sounds like you're just trying to be an apologist for his irrational beliefs, by moving them into some netherworld which has zero falsifiability. As if that somehow changes anything.
Hey, maybe it's 'metaphysics' that people are sometimes born into the wrong bodies. Maybe they "believe" it, so it's all super cool. I mean, we're talking about something beyond the physical world, right? Their souls are different genders... we can't be sure it's not true.
This is the problem with this type of thinking, and people like Ben conveniently only want to apply rigid logic in certain areas, and put the blinders on for others (their own faith-based beliefs, which do in fact affect their political beliefs as well). I'm personally against all forms of nonsense.
And there's no evidence that there's a magical invisible leprechaun in the middle of the Earth who controls the universe...
This is the problem with this type of thinking, and people like Ben conveniently only want to apply rigid logic in certain areas, and put the blinders on for others (their own faith-based beliefs, which do in fact affect their political beliefs as well).
I can just say whatever nonsense I want under the guise of "well, it's 'metaphysics'" and all is well? It honestly sounds like you're just trying to be an apologist for his irrational beliefs, by moving them into some netherworld which has zero falsifiability.Exactly. What can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence, and if your argument fails--for that or any other reason--to hold up to scrutiny, then you have no authority to put it forward. share
Not to speak for Shapiro certainly, but it seems pretty clear that his point about facts and feelings are that feelings don't trump facts in our physical world, but religion or lack thereof is an area with no facts at all.
If Shapiro was sincere in his facts-don't-care-about-your-feelings philosophy he wouldn't indulge in wish-thinking.
but the burden rests on shapiro when he makes claims about god which he does
"It would if he was advocating public policies and laws regarding religion,"
WRONG. he simply has to be making claims about god. No one has ever said the burden only rests when people "advocating public policies and laws regarding religion". that is not part of the burden at all. maybe research more. all ben has to do is make claims about god, the nature of god or humans and god and he has the burden. advocating public policies has nothing to do with the burden. who told you that???
https://youtu.be/E6avFpC5APs
here is ben making plenty of claims. all based on feelings that he has no facts for.
One could also argue that the burden of proof rests on those who say the universe popped out of nothing or always existed. But they don't need to prove anything either unless they make laws or policies that are directly related to (say) banning religion.
Jesus (LOL) you're all over the place here..
The argument against Shapiro is that he's religious and that somehow contradicts his "feelings don't trump facts" statements. It doesn't.
And so what if the religious say their sky daddy is a fact? I don't care, and neither should anyone unless it comes down to policy or law.. It's pretty simple. Shapiro may believe in his god, and that's fine as long as it stays secular. Those who are atheist often say that it's a fact the sky daddy doesn't exist. But it's unimportant and it's off topic.
Further, even those who say they "know my god exists" are still proclaiming personal beliefs. I've heard many such people express doubts at times.
Risking dragging this back off topic, I will add that there ARE theoretical physicists who have conducted some experiment or simulation that that say proves the big bang happened out of nothingness.
im not all over the place. i stayed on topic and address the two main points you brought up. you were the one who tried to argue things i never said and veer off topic. but nice try
Yes what he has said about religion and that he is religious, does contradict this. Since its not fact based and is feeling/faith based.
And so what if the religious say their sky daddy is a fact? .
I don't care, and neither should anyone unless it comes down to policy or law. It's pretty simple.
(the burden rests on Shapiro) " if he was advocating public policies and laws regarding religion,"
Those who are atheist often say that it's a fact the sky daddy doesn't exist. But it's unimportant and it's off topic.
Further, even those who say they "know my god exists" are still proclaiming personal beliefs. I've heard many such people express doubts at times.
Risking dragging this back off topic, I will add that there ARE theoretical physicists who have conducted some experiment or simulation that that say proves the big bang happened out of nothingness.
going to skip over that huh and pretend you never said it and admit your mistake? i see
no offence but apparently you are.
"And so what if the religious say their sky daddy is a fact? I don't care, and neither should anyone unless it comes down to policy or law."
the burden rests on Shapiro) " if he was advocating public policies and laws regarding religion,"
LOL, and how are those in any way contradictory?
So yes, the burden is on Shapiro (or any religious zealot) to prove their god with facts *only* IF it involves making policy or law, otherwise they're under no obligation to do so.
Any also yes, even if Shapiro and any religious zealot has the burden and can't present evidence or fact, no one should care if Shapiro or any religious zealot believes in a god as long as it doesn't affect policy or law.
You're really splitting hairs here.
they arent a contradiction, they dont have to be. they just arent the same. which is the issue.
So yes, the burden is on Shapiro (or any religious zealot) to prove their god with facts *only* IF it involves making policy or law, otherwise they're under no obligation to do so.
Any also yes, even if Shapiro and any religious zealot has the burden and can't present evidence or fact, no one should care if Shapiro or any religious zealot believes in a god as long as it doesn't affect policy or law.
You're really splitting hairs here.
You are really just shucking and jiving now... Good god.. LOL.
ya im precise and called you out on your comments not making sense. and now you have nothing.
https://moviechat.org/nm5458588/Ben-Shapiro/64d37cad9124f36cb3d49044/if-facts-dont-care-about-your-feelings-why-is-he-religious?reply=64d51a0b2c4eee11895034a9
again you dodged 60% of my post here (where is that scientist who "discovered nothing again??") to hyper focus on your burden of proof and changing claims about it and shapiro.
it is not my fault im more precise, accurate and smarter than you and you cant keep up and are objectively making stuff up like your burden of proof comment.
show me a single source on the burden of proof applying "*only* IF it involves making policy or law, otherwise they're under no obligation to do so."?
He'd just make bald assertions and deflect.
shareHari krishna
share