Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@Moist._Robot says : What utter nonsense. Frank is talking in circles here. He’s asserting that you have to have faith to trust anything. Thereby declaring there is no truth.>> <<@2l84me8 says : Faith and reason and completely contradictory terms. Faith is accepting a proposition in spite of evidence and even the bible makes mention that “faith is a belief in things hoped”. There is nothing reasonable about faith at all because faith is a lack of evidence, an excuse.>> <<@chisomokonkwo4361 says : “…the evidence of things NOT SEEN.” One thing I like about biblical writing style is that they always use the best words. Faith is for what you can’t see. But just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not real.>> <<@WelcomeToTwinklePark says : I agree. The religious are the irrational faithful, and the athiest is a rational unbeliever. Well done>> <<@tarkus42 says : Hey Turdk, nice conflating of opposite meanings. Pity you are claiming you have the reason when you clearly have a delusion. Faith is an irrational position to hold!>> <<@CaptainFantastic222 says : Opposite of faith is unbelief????>> <<@joelapplin88 says : Grifter, no truth in anything this man peddles.>> <<@Theo_Skeptomai says : The opposite of faith is NOT unbelief. BELIEF is its opposite. Faith is the excuse not to employ reason to make determinations of truth.>> <<@Theo_Skeptomai says : Faith and reason do NOT coexist. If one applies reason, there is no lo get any need for faith.>> <<@XDRONIN says : Said the guy who wrote _"I don't have enough FAITH to be an Atheist"_ So now Faith and Reason go together? C'mon, Frank, pick a side of the coin and stick to it, don't be such a two-faced clown>> <<@Thyalwaysseek says : Not really, truth exists and it can be shown, the Moon orbits the Earth every 28.5 days, that's reason and it can be proven, it doesn't require faith.>> <<@helpmaboabb says : Did I see someone get up and leave towards the end? I wonder why.>> <<@badgerfactory says : Exactly why Bible calls them foolish thinkers. They know reason>> <<@jackalsgate1146 says : Delusional Faith - Delusional faith is the belief in and loyality towards: dogmas, superstition, fables, and hero worship. In other words: the Abrahamic religions (Chrstnty, Judaism, Islam). Evidential Faith - Evidential faith (Pistis of the Greeks), on the other hand, is a belief based on knowledge, whether supplied by the evidence of physical, or the evidence of intuition.>> <<@Gek1177 says : Faith and reason can coexist but not with like 90% of what Frank preaches.>> <<@somerandom3247 says : It's not reasonable to have faith in anything.>> <<@somerandom3247 says : They can't. Faith is the suspension of reason.>> <<@manuaiipondraken8376 says : We live by faith everyday. We need faith to get married, to see the doctor, to do business and engage in any relationship. This is also true to have a relationship with Christ.>> <<@MrAuskiwi101 says : Of course faith and reason are opposites no matter how much theists lie to themselves about it.>> <<@jamesw4250 says : Faith and reason can't coexist. Faith is irrational to begin with. And no not everything requires some Faith. In fact anything real and based in reality doesn't require faith. You can prove reason by reason. Faith isn't required foe reason. Wow franky boy. You are a liar. And failure.>> <<@hansdemos6510 says : Dr. Turek is equivocating on the meaning of the word "faith". He pretends that having "faith" is the same thing as accepting properly basic assumptions. It is not. Some properly basic assumptions, like the existence of our material reality as real enough to us to matter, are part and parcel of our continued existence; we are, for all practical purposes, born with the realization that the world is real, so no "faith" is involved in this whatsoever. Other properly basic assumptions, like the assumption that we can understand at least part of our material reality, are derived as we try to get to the bottom of our knowledge and thinking, and may be accepted or not based either on faith, or on the provision that if and when the evidence requires it, we will revise or abandon these assumptions. Given what we know, it is clear that the latter method of acceptance complies more with what we understand "rationality" to be than the former.>> <<@jimbob4484 says : That is called an equivocation fallacy. There is a clear difference in trusting systems of logic that are not formally proved but give demonstrably reliable results. As opposed to belief in supernatural claims with scant evidence.>> <<@dominicwilliams7845 says : Thanks frank. Now I understand circular reasoning.>> <<@brianandersen1629 says : Anyone who is attempting to apply logic and reason to come to a belief in a god is not applying them properly.>> <<@mattr.1887 says : Nothing wrong with faith. But some levels of faith have more evidence behind them than others.>> <<@ZacharyAlexanderP says : Q. How big is a mile actually? A. 1760 yards. Q. How do you know how big a yard is? A. 1760 yards = 5280 feet Q. How do you know how big a foot is? A. 1 foot = 12 inches Q. We know 1 is bigger than 0, but what units do we use to determine how much bigger 1 is from 0? A. Decimals of 1.0 Q. So I also have to have faith in sizes of units because mathematical units of measure are infinitely dependent on bigger and bigger or smaller and smaller units of measure that base units on an unending list of divisions or multiplications of units? A. We don't actually know how much bigger 1 is than zero because 1 itself is only defined by multiplications and divisions of itself to define an absolute size of itself from itself, so it takes reason and faith.>> <<@festushaggen2563 says : It's reasonable to have faith that creation has a Creator. The same cannot be said for the great cosmic explosion. The first is regularly observed in life. The second never has or will be.>> <<@anguschiggins2161 says : Lol. Franks whole thing is that Bible Interpretations are not in conflict with the truth but instead they are in fact in conflict with scientific "interpretations". But Frank - not all truth claims are equal. Scientific interpretations (while they could be wrong) are backed with testable, verifiable and demonstratable evidence. I would say it is also a feature and not a bug that when new information comes to light we adjust the interpretation based on that. Aka getting closer to the truth. As opposed to Biblical "interpretations" where people (like yourself) try to think of every which way to make the Bible possibly work in a modern world. So much harder now that humans know so much more than they did 2000 years ago when people decided to write down some of the knowledge that they thought was true at the time. Of course the Bible is never updated when new information comes to light! Instead, a plethora of new and whacky interprations are presented that require more and more faith and suspension of reason. More and more people are not buying, talking snakes, women coming from the rib of a man, people who die coming back to life, man living in a fish, global floods and parting of seas. Did i mention the whole universe getting created in 6 days? Oh but you are interpreting it wrong. A day was a different length of time in the Bible or when the universe was created. Translation issue?? Lol.>> <<@JiraiyaSama86 says : I definitely need to remember this very strongly. That's something that can come up. Thanks, Frank.>> <<@samsamuel2062 says : Well said>> <<@TheContrarian32 says : He needs to define the terms for this to make sense. He doesn’t do that, of course>> <<@AlSteWal says : So, if science is a good tool for determining what is true or false, why don't we just fix the bible? Since it has so many inaccuracies>> <<@DruPetty42 says : Well said.>> <<@larzman651 says : Nice job , crushed it. For GOD so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whomsoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life 🙌>> <<@chloemartel9927 says : Spot on explanation again.>> <<@timothyvenable3336 says : Very well explained. I love it>> <<@gi169 says : Thank you CE>> <<@maxmaximum-sh4bx says : Для алгоритма>> <<@Jaws_52k says : I have reason to believe your faith is unreasonable>> <<@richardalex4682 says : Great job in your explanation.>> <<@Hydroverse says : I don't think that you need blind faith in reason, but that logic is self-evident.>> <<@BlasterMaster80 says : Faith, is pretending you know things you don't know. The opposite of that is not pretending you know things you don't know. Now, which one sounds more reasonable?>>