Such was what the Atheist TJump aka Tom Jump wrongly titled the video on his channel when he had me on for a discussion. Well, the video Ken Ammi, Evidence for God? has gone mysteriously missing from his channel and the hyperlink leads to, “This video isn’t available anymore.”
I suppose it was good foresight that I posted it on my channel shortly after it aired, as Atheist TJump & Messianic Jew Ken Ammi AGREE!!!
When it was on Mr. T’s channel, a certain Brian Manzolli commented
The amount of words Ken uses to say absolutely nothing is awe-striking. This sounds more like a conversation about planning a meeting to have a conversation about evidence for God rather than just a conversation.
He’s like a kid who can’t swim that hosts a pool party. And all of his friends show up and hop in and he’s standing there, poolside, talking about all of the different dives he has to choose from to get in the water. And fast forward five hours later to see him still standing there talking while the last of his guests have long since left. We know you can’t swim, Ken. It’s really not that big of a deal. Some accidental apes will be jerks to you about it and that sucks. But you DID willingly enter the ape cage, to be fair.
Péter Balogh noted
So it will be just like that till the end? Oh my…
I, Ken Ammi, replied
If you watched the video you would know that I have no idea why the video is titled as such since we never agreed to discuss that.
Now, it’s not surprising that you left a jerk comment since if you’re a Jumperian Atheist then you realized that you are literally incapable of condemning me or claiming that I did anything objectively wrong–or even that I am objectively wrong. Thus, you are stuck with a failed worldview according to which all you have are subjective personal preferences so that you have discredited yourself from any actual critique which beings us full circle to why you decided to merely emote.
Dark replied
Objective morals and objective meaning is nonsense theist garbage. Morals for a theist is just subjective commands from God on how to behave and at the drop of a hat a God could command u to commit acts that civilised people find immoral, like i dont know, like whats in the majority of holy books including the jewish bible and meaning is always subjective since meaning in things is found by beings. This entire video u just evaded talking about your own beliefs and reasons for them but u asserted that an athiest worldview has to be nihilistic because if no God nothing matters including truth. Which is an obviously terrible argument, if u were really that dense that u couldn’t see any reason that an athiest would want to survive and know the truth then just fucking ask them, like for example ask Tjump why an athiest would value truth or morals, instead of wasting everyones time by asserting that athiest have to be nihilist, but ill give u credit, at times u were a great clown for the live chat
Rafał Łabuda note
Will I send you some cream for that hurting butt? It’s free…
The Time Capsule of Patrick and Asia Harris commented
@Rafał Łabuda dude is cutting and pasting this same comment for everyone. Holy crap this guy is trash
Scott Withington
ken, he was being a jerk but then you try and respond with a concept that is way beyond your capabilities at this point. In listening to the debate, The frustration for us listeners mostLy lies in that you didn’t bring anything to the table
Ken Ammi
@Dark Let’s examine the bed you just made to see if you’ll sleep in it: “Objective morals and objective meaning is nonsense theist garbage” so it’s all subjective personal preference, right? And if it’s all subjective personal preference then you just disqualified yourself from ever condemning anything, al you can say is that you have personally, subjectively, emotively, decided to not like something.
Ken Ammi
@The Time Capsule of Patrick and Asia Harris Have you ever tested the waters to see which of dozens and dozens of people are interested in actually engaging in a discussion? I just did and we’ll see who was just making a drive by. BTW: you appear to be incapable of counter-arguing and so are just being childish.
Ken Ammi
@Scott Withington You’re kidding, right? I argued, up front, that 1. On Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, 2. as is our ability to discern it, 3. there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, 4. nor to demand/expect others adhere to it. Tom ended up agreeing with me on each point and admitted that for him it all comes down to subjective personal preferences du jour.
Dark
@Ken Ammi incorrect, the most important of my personal preferences align with the majority of every human being on the planet, for example, not wanting suffering and injustice. news flash we have laws against assault and injustice because it harms peoples lives. While u just have an ancient primitive book that has a god commanding and commiting notrositys.
Cygnus Ustus
I don’t know how you could make up any title for the video, post-facto, and not still end up looking like a fool.
Schiwi M
That guy is totally frustrating, the first hour was already useless
Ken Ammi
@Dark And yet, on Atheism the most important of my personal preferences is still just a subjective personal preference and proposing an argumentum ad populum (not that it matters on Atheism) is no remedy.
You are jumping to conclusions, “we have laws against assault and injustice because it harms peoples lives” but you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.
You are jumping to conclusions in committing a genetic logical fallacy (not that it matters on Atheism) by stating, “have an ancient primitive book” but you don’t bother saying how or why having an ancient primitive book is problematic, on Atheism.
You are jumping to conclusions by merely asserting, “god commanding and commiting notrositys” but you don’t bother saying how or why that’s problematic, on Atheism—speaking of “notrositys”: do you believe that morality evolved?
Ken Ammi
@Cygnus Ustus I know but, such is what Tom did.
Ken Ammi
@Schiwi M Yet, what you find subjectively frustrating is not a standard. My primary points were: 1. on Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, 2. as is our ability to discern it, 3. there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, 4. nor to demand/expect that others adhere to it. Tom ended up agreeing with me on each point and admitted that. That’s why he took the fallback position that it all comes down to subjective personal preferences based fun du jour.
Ceasetoknow
@Ken Ammi 1. either being accidental has nothing to do with the impossibility of discerning truth. 2. the imperative exists for those who care about that truth and being intellectually honest, something you’ll likely never be.
Schiwi M
you’re frustrating because you’re talking a lot without saying anything, you’re running in circles because you can’t agree on the most basic things.
This conversation was basically like
Tom: “The sky looks blue”
You: “What do you mean by blue?”
Tom: “The color blue”
You: “but that’s totally subjective and just made up by us humans”
[****] like that is annoying
Cygnus Ustus
…and you still ended up looking like a fool.
Dark
ok first of all, never in my reply did i say something is good or right because the majority says so, i said that “the most important of my personal preferences align with the majority of every human being on the planet, for example, not wanting suffering and injustice.” no where in that did i use an adpoplum fallacy, i was pointing out a fact and then i said “news flash we have laws against assault and injustice because it harms peoples lives.” no where in that did i use an adpoplum which shows you dont understand the fallacy. 2nd of all you confuse me when you said “but you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.” this is a very confused statement, Athiesm has nothing to do with morality or what some ones preferences are, its just the nonbelief in deities, beings are the ones that moral endeavors matter to, and for most beings like humans, pain and unfairness is something the majority of us hate and actively make decisions to avoid them, which is why we have laws that punish those that cause these things. so stop saying things are problematic for atheism as if athiesm is a being, unless you had good evidence for a God which would be problematic for the athiest position. and for your last question, i would say morality did evolve because through out time humans have been reasoning for how they should treat each other and i would say its gotten progressively better from the past up till now so far.
Ken Ammi
@Schiwi M Please mind your manners.
I see that you decided to utterly run away from THE main issues.
Friend, “it’s not a problem on atheism” is a mere assertion.
Now, you merely assert I’m being intellectually dishonest but don’t bother saying what’d be wrong with that on your world-view.
Also, what subjectively annoys you is not a standard.
So, how about you focus on the main issue, the 4 points with which Tom agreed, the 4 which instantly reduced him to claiming that for him it’s all about having subjective fun based on personal preferences du jour.
Ken Ammi
@Cygnus Ustus Are you only able to make assertions or can you elucidate?
For example, what, on your world-view, does it matter if an accidentally existing ape ended up looking like a fool?
Also, you seem to have missed that I made 4 points at the outset, Tom agreed, and it instantly reduced him to claiming that for him it’s all about having subjective fun based on personal preferences du jour.
Ken Ammi
@Dark Friend, this is one of the very, very few (maybe the only) discussions in this comments section that is on point and interesting and for that, I thank you.
On Atheism logical fallacies are not a problem so you don’t have to waste my time attempting to run away from the fact that you committed one. You most certainly committed an argumentum ad populum when you asserted that your subjective personal preferences “align with the majority.”
Now, whether a subjective personal preference is held by one person of the majority still means it’s just a subjective personal preference so imposing it on me is incoherent (not that incoherence matters on Atheism—nor does it matter if I’m wrong about your fallacy).
One way to look at it is that “Athiesm has nothing to do with morality” which is the problem in the first place.
Yet, of course Atheism has to do with morality and ones preferences since it’s a world-view.
But, if “its just the nonbelief in deities” then in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you accept God’s existence?
As for that you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.
You merely moved the goalpost (even if accidentally and not that it matters on Atheism) by now merely asserting, “most beings [another argumentum ad populum?] like humans, pain and unfairness is something the majority of us hate” so you you don’t bother saying how or why pain and unfairness are problematic, on Atheism nor why what the majority hates is any sort of standard.
Keep in mind that on Atheism pain and hate are the accidental byproducts of accidental bio-organic neural-reactions accidentally determined by the accidental laws of physics and as interpreted by accidentally existing apes within an accidental universe wherein there’s no universal imperative to not cause pain or be unfair—which his why you appeal to the majority in the first place.
As for “good evidence for a God” as you well known, the first step is for you to justify your demand for evidence, on your world-view (and then we can discuss your subjective idea of what is “good” evidence).
If you think that “morality” has “gotten progressively better” you must live a very cloistered life in a modern first world country.
But more importantly, if “morality did evolve,” and so is actually still evolving, then you have disqualified yourself from ever condemning anything since you can’t condemn any past actions (since what’s immoral today could have been moral back then: and visa versa, actually), nor could you really condemn anything today (since for all you know the moral zeitgeist is even now turning into a poltergeist and so what was moral now will be immoral one second later: and visa versa, actually).
But then again, you can’t ever actually condemn anything anyhow since your view is pure subjectivism—which you seek to bypass by appealing to the utter subjectivism of the majority.
Also, you hold to a world-view according to which there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes adhering to accidentally evolved morality in the first place.
Sorry for the verbosity, I will seek to be a lot more succinct next time.
Dark
(MISUNDERSTANDING ADPOP SECTION) if u dont understand a fallacy then look it up, i never commited adpop, because i never said something is right because the majority says so. And morality has nothing to do with atheism and that isint a problem, atheism is purely the nonbelief in deities, it does not count as a world view because its not claiming how the world works or that god doesnt exist, its only saying that someone doesnt currently believe in a god. (PROBLEMATIC FOR ATHEISM RAMBLE U KEEP DOING) i only said evidence of gods existence is problematic for atheism, because that would render atheism unjustifiable and i never said pain is a problem for atheism because as i believe i said before, the nonbelief in god has nothing to do with pain or morality, pain and morality are concerns for beings because alot of us feel pain and want to avoid it and want to be treated fairly, which is why we have a legal system and why we have people that dont want to cause harm to others, no matter if theres a god or not because some people have empathy for others. I as an individual have a moral code and want to avoid pain, because pain and injustice negatively impacts me and the people i care about, which again has nothing to do with my nonbelief in a god, it only has to do with my subjective goals and wants. And for my justification for evidence of god, my justification is my preference for wanting truth, becuase knowledge leads to progress and understanding, which are 2 things i prefer because they help my life. (FOR YOUR MORALITY SECTION) yes i live in a first world country, and i know that some other coutries have it like hell, which is irelevant to my point. And just beause morality has evolved (which i would also argue that the usage of the word “morality” is different between theist (especially abrahamic theist) and athiest because one side says we shouldn’t or should harm others because god says so and the athiest side harms or not harms others because of their individual codes and desires, but for the sake of the team im on, im a secular humanist, which at its most basic level is treating others kindly and fairly because it helps everyone thrive.) But i can still condem past, present, or future actions because they come in conflict with my moral code and ill correct myaelf because i didn’t mean to come off as someone that is a pure subjectivist, for example, if a group of people can agree that their moral code is not to harm eachother, or treat eachother unfairly like (secular humanist), then we can objectively say that some actions are to be condemned because they come in conflict with not harming or not treating eachother unfairly.
Ken Ammi
Friend, I appreciate the detailed interaction but I won’t be able to trade essays with you henceforth (your comment was just under 500 words).
Oh, you “never said something is right because the majority says so” you only said, “my personal preferences align with the majority of every human being on the planet” even when they’re wrong—got it!
Atheism is 100% “claiming how the world works” that’s follows from rejecting God so you are restricted by it to think in terms of an accidental universe, accidental life, etc.
But since you deny it’s a world-view (which means you disagree with Dawkins) in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually accept God’s existence?
That “no matter if theres a god” regarding that “alot of us feel pain and want to avoid it and want to be treated fairly” and “some people have empathy for others” ranges from fallacious to on point, ironically.
See, “if theres a god” then pain is just an accidentally existing ape’s interpretation of accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions that are accidentally determined by the accidental laws of physics. Want to avoid it would merely be an a-ethical subjective personal preference as would be wanting to be treated fairly: don’t you ever incorporate your world-view’s implications into your world-view?
Yet, you nailed it with that only “some” people have empathy for others while on Atheism one might very well conclude that if people seek to avoid pain then they’ll be easy to oppress so as to avoid pain.
You hit the Atheism nail on the head again by continuing to evidence that this is solely about subjective personal preferences (as Tom had to admit) since you write in terms of how it “impacts me and the people i care about” which you also do as a subjective personal preference, “subjective goals and wants” as you rightly put it. But, beware, if I seek to deny your subjective goals and wants well then, that would be my subjective goals and wants and may the fittest win!
Now, another lesson to learn from the implications of you worldview is that since you admit that your justification for evidence of God is your “preference for wanting truth” then, guess what, if my preference is to be unconcerned for your preference than that’s all folks!
Besides, why do you have a preference for an accident? Why prefer supposed progress and alleged understanding in an existence wherein there is no objective progress and understanding—oops, right, because this is not about that, it’s about you emoting your subjective personal preferences like telling me which ice-cream flavor you prefer (which is an utterly impotent exercise).
Your juxtaposition of Secular Humanist vs. Abrahamic theists is a false dichotomy (not that it matters on Atheism) since on that view we shouldn’t harm others because God says so and because we are called to treat others as we want to be treated, because we are to love our neighbor, etc., etc., etc.
Now, since you demand that Atheism isn’t a world-view I’m unsure how you can so confidently speak for all Atheists when you write in terms of “the athiest side…the team” but consistency is not a universal imperative on Atheism.
In any case, on Secular Humanist “is treating others kindly and fairly because it helps everyone thrive” (even though people who actually call themselves “Humanists” tend to support the brutally violent serial murder of millions of beautiful, healthy, innocent, and defenseless human babies for money) as a mere subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions).
Now, the concept of condemning is not like you’re thinking of it: you merely asserting you don’t like something. Thus, since you hold to that “morality has evolved” (past tense? When did it stop?) no, you can’t even say past actions were wrong if those past people were like you and appealed to their subjective “moral code.”
No, you don’t get objectivity via, guess what, an argumentum ad populum, “if a group of people can agree.”
Dark
i disagree with alot of what you said and some of what you said is very ignorant, so if you want to voice chat on some app preferably discord ill be happy to.
jwkivy
“1. On Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental,”
False. I don’t think anything is accidental. Not believing ‘god’ things exist says absolutely nothing about what that person believes about reality. Just that they don’t think a supposed ‘god’ thingy is part of it.
“2. as is our ability to discern it,’
False again since, I don’t think anything is accidental.
“3. there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it,”
False AGAIN. Reality forces me to adhere to reality.
“4. nor to demand/expect others adhere to it.”
Reality ‘demands’ you adhere to reality, not atheists.
“And yet, on Atheism the most important of my personal preferences is still just a subjective personal preference”
Which is just a it is under theism.
“but you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.”
Because people PREFER not to be harmed. What’s your SUBJECTIVE reason that makes harming people ‘problematic’?
“Atheism is 100% “claiming how the world works”
Obviously false. What a bizarre statement. If anything, it’s claiming how the world DOESN’T work.
“I appreciate the detailed interaction but I won’t be able to trade essays with you henceforth (your comment was just under 500 words).”
Ummmm, you then proceeded to ‘trade’ an essay of over 500 words. Too funny.
Thanks for the laughs. Too bad you couldn’t evidence your imaginary friend exists.
Ken Ammi
It matters not if an accidental ape made “False” statements, on Atheism, right?
Also, you just typed a bunch of assertions (not that, that matters, on Atheism).
- “I don’t think anything is accidental” isn’t an elucidation.
- “I don’t think anything is accidental” isn’t an elucidation.
- How is it that “Reality forces me to adhere to reality”? I thought that all of us live in reality but some of us don’t adhere to it.
- “Reality ‘demands’ you adhere to reality, not atheists” see 3. above.
“Which is just a it is under theism” means you agree with me and is a tu quoque and is false and is contradictory since you also asserted “Reality forces me to adhere to reality.”
This time around you don’t bother saying why we ought to adhere to what people subjectively PREFER: especially when you agreed that “on Atheism the most important of my personal preferences is still just a subjective personal preference” thus, they are expressing personal subjective personal preferences and so can you if you don’t adhere to theirs.
Of course “Atheism is 100% “claiming how the world works” since it begins by merely asserting “how the world DOESN’T work” and then fill that gap with subjective personal preferences.
“henceforth” as in after that one.
As for “evidence your imaginary friend exists” well, since I don’t have an imaginary friend then that’s true but, in any case, did you not listen to the discussion: step one is for you to justify your demand for evidence.
Ken Ammi
“Can you counter-argue against Ken’s points? (the bulk of which were agreed to by Tom)?”
“No, I’ll just invent a quote and pretend that Ken said it.”
Interesting comment section strategy…
Alpha. Beta
You’re right, i had meant that to be a hypothetical conversation but it could be interpreted as a quote. My bad
Ken Ammi
Appreciate it, friend. My primary points were: 1. on Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, 2. as is our ability to discern it, 3. there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, 4. nor to demand/expect that others adhere to it. Tom ended up agreeing with me on each point and admitted that. That’s why he took the fallback position that it all comes down to subjective personal preferences based fun du jour.
Ken Ammi
@Karl Žuvela You’re clearly incapable of counter-arguing and seek to distract form that by being a childish jerk so you discredited yourself.
Ken Ammi
@Tony Noduskie Logic and philosophy 101 is that if an argument or question is faulty there’s no imperative to counter-argue or answer but it must be dissected and corrected or ignored (not that any of that matters on Atheism).
You subjectively refer to my supposed, “complete dishonesty” but unless you’re a mind reader (in which case you’d be a terrible one) then how could you know I was dishonest. Also, you merely imply there’s something wrong with dishonest by don’t bother saying how or why, on Atheism.
Karl Žuvela
I don’t have to and had no intention of making a counter argument. I can and did make an observation of you.
There’s no point even trying to argue with you anyway because you only pretend at first you want to argue a topic then start weasling about. YOU discredited YOURSELF already. Get a life.
Alpha. Beta
I’m having trouble seeing where exactly Tjump agrees with each of those points. If you could provide some quotes or timestamps that would be a big help.
Ken Ammi
Beta Not that it matters, right, if I do or don’t or he did or didn’t.
If you follow our discussion, he only took issue with wanting to swap “accident” with “random” or “change” and then was reduced him to claiming that for him it’s all about having subjective fun based on personal preferences du jour—that’s the whole reason he did that.
Alpha. Beta
“Not that it matters, right, if I do or don’t or he did or didn’t.”
You don’t think it matters if he did or didn’t agree with you? Would you mind if i assume he didn’t agree with you at all then?
Ken Ammi
If you follow our discussion, on his worldview it doesn’t matter: nothing does objectively.
Bert thompson
- No, realiry can be determined to exist by the first cause, in this case a quantum state that we know can be both a cause and effect 2. Cogito ergo sum is a fact and I can discern it simply by existing so youre wrong there.
- This is human nature. Theres so many types of theism that it seems even theists dont have an imperative to accurately represent what you thing is true.
- This is also irrelevant. Whether a person can convince others of truth wouldn’t change under your world view and is actually evidence of atheism.
Ken Ammi
What are you numbering? To what are you referring?
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.