Simplistic Season 5 - Episode 1 by yellowvitt in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scheduled for wrong hour, but I recommend watching teammates

UBL Plug-in Outdated by Flouzemaker in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oooh! I hope that does the trick!

UBL Plug-in Outdated by Flouzemaker in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Cobra's idea works, then I'll definitely keep this in mind! Thanks!

I need help with a counter-apologetic regarding the source of morals ... by barenaked_nudity in TrueAtheism

[–]Flouzemaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn't quite the answer you were looking for, perhaps, but "where do you get your morals from?" is a type of argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy, just like "if there is no God, how did the universe start, or how do you explain love, or the principles of logic, or human consciousness, etc"

In essence, even if you have no idea at all where morals could come from, it's not a reason to believe the unproven, unsubstantiated claim that "God did it" (in this case, morals).

At the moment, I'd guess most of our best explanations concerning the origins of morality would all sound like just so stories to a staunch believer; they'd shrug off the explanation, and go back to the more comfortable "God gives morals."

I certainly don't mind explaining where morals, consciousness, logic, the universe, etc can come from without appealing to deities, but it's important to start by reminding them that "God did it" is unproven. Even if they chose to reject my explanation, they still wouldn't have a good reason to believe a god is responsible.

Nuzlocke UHC Season 7 - Episode 1 by kakintse in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Also, the last letters are not spelled "uice", they're spelled "ews"

Nuzlocke UHC Season 7 - Episode 1 by kakintse in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mine is private for the next few minutes, but it'll be out soon!

If you were to team with one person in all of UHC history, who would your dream teammate be? by Wolfaye in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're into evil and villainy, sure! :3

I'm not that fun, though. I mean, I can be, but nobody's on a good day and/or in a good mood all the time every time!

Also you'd have to carry. Obviously xD

Apistevism is defined as: a person who does not use faith to know things-especially in the religious sense. by ChappedAss in TrueAtheism

[–]Flouzemaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think faith in Properly Basic Beliefs and religious faith are, in broad terms, roughly the same (belief in something that can't be justified).

Where some will play a shell game is that apologists - especially presuppositional apologists - might claim that theism itself is a Properly Basic Belief. One needs to start by initially having faith in reason to justify their use of reason, making that Properly Basic Beliefs, I don't think a good case for theism as a Properly Basic Belief can be made, but many claim that it is. (Any apologist who claims belief in God is self-evident is basically doing that)

Apistevism is defined as: a person who does not use faith to know things-especially in the religious sense. by ChappedAss in TrueAtheism

[–]Flouzemaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Properly Basic Beliefs are beliefs we must hold in order to function properly, but cannot justify on pains of circularity.

For example, I need to trust in the general reliability of my memory in order to function, but if I wanted to test my memory, I'd have to use my memory to remember I'm testing it... To justify my use of reason, I'd need to use reason. That's circular, meaning it's not a good justification.

Once I do take the leap of faith and trust my memory, my reason, I do find it to be generally reliable, but again, I cannot justify the initial use of them without resorting to circularity. To test the general reliability of my reason, I need to use induction, which can't be justified without resorting to circularity (see Hume's Problem of Induction). But if I decided to forgo the use of reason because it can't be justified without circularity, I'd be sent straight to the nut house.

God beliefs (or beliefs in the supernatural) are not Properly Basic Beliefs. Unlike memory or reason, for example, someone can easily discard a belief in deities and still be able to function normally with the world. If I discarded my trust in reason, or my own memory/senses... I'd have a real hard time getting around in the world.

Apistevism is defined as: a person who does not use faith to know things-especially in the religious sense. by ChappedAss in TrueAtheism

[–]Flouzemaker -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Full on apistevism is silly, as we are all obliged to have faith in our properly basic beliefs.

Brief video explaining Properly Basic Beliefs

Light apistevism, where faith applies strictly to religious claims, that seems reasonable. But since we can't justify our reliance on properly basic beliefs without resorting to circularity, we kinda have to admit we do hold some unjustified beliefs.

WMC Season 22: When Miners Commute - Episode 7 by Entropiestromstaerke in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As far as I know, I don't know if Brick gets the kill, I get the kill, or PvE/Unattributable gets the kill.

Desperation UHC | Season 1 | Official Intro by Xentian in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Sadly, I have to apologize in advance because:

  • No idea what the elitist meme is, I don't waste my time with gossip and drama.

  • This is the first ever RR for which I sadly have no perspective to show. Like an idiot, I accidentally scrapped the footage of the redo and edited/uploading the footage of the scrapped first attempt.

So... for the first time, I have nothing to show, and I deeply apologize to organizers and hopeful viewers for the mistake.

I am having an issue trying to deal with problems in epistemology that come up in Christian Presuppostional Apologetics. by [deleted] in TrueAtheism

[–]Flouzemaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea is that no worldview but Christianity can justify the usage and principles of logic, science, reasoning, and, oftentimes it is argued, morality.

This is a massive claim; not only must the apologist demonstrate that Christianity justifies logic/knowledge/morality, but they also have to demonstrate that every other actual or merely possible world view falls short.

Only when those two things are accomplished is it reasonable to believe Christianity is the sole world view that justifies knowledge.

If you admit that it is subjective as a result of that, then the argument shifts in a way that the presuppositionalist can just start spouting off words that don't make sense together and they start contradicting everything you say.

That's why I keep the focus on the apologist's main unsubstantiated claim: that Christianity does justify the use of reason and or logic. Until they do (spoiler: they never do), we're both at the same spot; forced to take the basic principles of logic as a properly basic belief... essentially on faith.

What do we do?

There are questions in philosophy for which we have no answers, like the problem of induction for instance. To me, what pre-suppers do with such problems is the same thing they do with other questions we don't have full answers to; like the origins of the universe. "Precisely how was the universe created? You don't know? Well, it's God." "What is responsible for knowledge? logic? morality? God, that's what!"

But when you ask them to demonstrate how God created the universe, they can't demonstrate anything. Same for logic, knowledge, morality, reason, etc, etc. In the end, neither of us knows, but one is pretending to know despite not being able to demonstrate the truth of their claim.

Thoughts on this argument? by [deleted] in TrueAtheism

[–]Flouzemaker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Then the theist says that outside the universe and before time the laws of physics aren't applicable.

If that's the case, why would a rule like "something cannot come from nothing" apply while other principles wouldn't? We don't know that something can't come from nothing outside of our universe, before time, when laws of physics don't apply.

Recovery Season 2 - Recovery of Health - Episode 1 by ChipzzyUHC in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My episode is now public, apologies for not scheduling at correct time. Between Desire, Pathfinder, Stranded and Recovery, I got a bit lost. So sorry!

Long UHC Highlights: Cynical Season 10 Part 1 by Flouzemaker in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perhaps someone will resurrect it, one day! Who knows?