this one took me like 10 tries to finish, not easy to follow while working, but hopefully it sticks. Thanks a lot.

I love Father Zechariah. I was blessed enough to be able to attend a Divine Liturgy at Saint Michael’s church when visiting my mom. He’s a wonderful man of God. Great interview God bless ☦️🤍

Very good interview. She’s a real scholar!

This was so eloquently articulated, and a powerful word-for-word brief and concise demonstration of how devastating TAG/presup argumentation is to all false worldviews. Awesome video! Very sharable and digestible too. Thank you 🙏

Based

Barbara Lerner Specter was interviewed and is seen on KZfaq speaking on importing Muslims and other non-European peoples into Europe. She said Europe mustn’t remain “monolithic” as it once was and that “as Jews we must make this happen.” Why are people and not only Jews purposely bent on destroying white societies, and is the discussion with you and Wemhoff going to be moot once they have overtaken our population numbers?

Great video there, Adam! Thanks for having Dr.Jeannie on your channel. She's a goldmine! Super informative video. I have a question though. Doesn't Isaiah 53 seem like it's implying "penal substitution" which is an idea that is not part of the Orthodox faith? I'm kinda confused there...

Amazing podcast, thank you! ☦

In the teaching I have received as a protestant, is the doctrine of suffering, the doctrine of holiness and all the other things that I hear Jeannie pull us down for not believing, and I don't understand why she is casting a pall over us all, generalising. There are so many different shades of teaching and belief. I am not part of the American church, so I can't speak to them, but my core beliefs all align with what she is saying. She may be correct in disparaging our services, but please don't put us all into one bucket. (And I don't hold that we will avoid the Great Tribulation.)

From the Universe Point of View "Private Property" need to be imagined. But this don't make it unimportant if we would erase Private Property from Existence we would need to bite the bullet that even our own physical bodies are not our possetions. Is not true that the continuation of my physicality is out of my control? So in a sense I dont even belong to my own self. Yes, I feel like I do, but is a feeling. I plane can fall upon my house know and no matter what I feel,both my land property and body will be gone, and my entitlement of possetion vanish in a second.

True. To make the choice of being Neutral is already a choice. Choice is unavoidable.

Great work guys

thanks, finished listening just in time for the 2bp stream

Thanks, Adam!!!

Thanks for another great one!!!

*PromoSM* 😂

OK, most importantly, you cannot "disprove" atheism. The concept that I am not convinced by your arguments, evidence, or emotional pleas is not belief structure or worldview, it's a statement defining my position on a single question. Neither you, nor I, can change what I believe or disbelieve. So, I am starting this rambling response at the beginning of your video and I plan on responding to each point you bring up. I am not watching ahead and this is the first time I've seen Manion's...paper, although it seems to be rambling nonsense. But, who knows, maybe you'll make me a theist. 1: We can show, with evidence, that the "mind" and sense of self are manifestations of the physical brain because damage or modification of that physical brain causes direct and measurable changes to the personality and functions of that self. 2: Your weak description of what I "have" to believe or disbelieve about the material is very, very wrong. Making these huge, sweeping statements about a supposed interlocutor and making the argument seem ridiculous is classic straw-manning. Do better. 3: His description of intentional and accidental worlds is a classic black-and-white fallacy. You then followed up his logical fallacy by straw-manning, again. 4: I reject his assertion that the entire idea of epistemology must be grounded in god or ourselves, whatever nonsense that is supposed to mean. Scientific epistemology is grounded and explained in the Scientific Method and the search for real truth, defining truth as "that which comports to reality". It is an imperfect system, which is why our knowledge is always both expanding and being revised for precision. But, after a lot of effort, the Scientific Method has led to a lot of knowledge foundational to our civilization. If you don't believe this methodology, combined with peer review, works, you should probably stop using your computer, microphone, and every other piece of human-invented equipment you have. But, even in the EXTREMELY unlikely situation where modern science is proven completely broken and functionally worthless, it gets you no closer to proving a god, only that we have to find a better method to the truth. Theistic assertions must be proven with facts and evidence. 5: Your straw man throwing solipsistic positions on every atheist is just flat wrong. Solipsism (what you call the problem of the "One and Many") is an interesting theory and fully capable of being argued successfully by either side of a debate but in practical science and the real world is useless. Solipsism needs to be left to the philosophers unless our understanding of reality changes. 6: I don't care what your or anyone else's holy book has to say. 7: Your rambling after the first reference to your holy book is about as coherent and full of bald assertions as if it were written by Deepak Chopra. "Transcends the physical" is nonsense until you show some evidence. "Deterministic nexus of the material world"? I thought you Christians believe in free will? 8: The next word salad part is just awful. He's trying to define a higher power into existence. That's not how reality works, we have defined traits and requirements for mythical creatures for all of recorded history, but that doesn't make them exist. He talks about inductive knowledge for this "One" but offers no evidence, facts, or logic that gives any basis for that induction. Oh, and bald assertion after bald assertion does not constitute evidence. The book states a LOT of features of this "One" without a shred of supporting evidence or facts, maybe we'll see that later. 9: Yes, we created god in our own image, a self-contradictory mess of omni-qualities that cannot coexist. If you want to convince someone that god exists, you can't start by defining reality by this "One", you have to show your work to get there. This whole section is circular logic, just like any other presuppositionalism. 10: What, ultimately is everything? I'll tell you both the right answer today and our best guess. Right answer: We don't know, but we learn more on the daily. Best guess: Energy, but I'm not familiar enough with many of the current theories to be any sort of expert, so take that with a grain of salt. Claiming to know this answer requires a LOT of evidence, then go collect your Nobel Prize. 11: Wow, good research, maybe you should tell Manion that the philosopher in question is John Locke, not John Lock. I'm a lay-person in philosophy, and I knew that. "Not all rationalists agree on what is clear and distinct...Aristotle and Lock[sic] both expressed concern that such unjustified starting points would color one's observations and destroy objectivity." Oh really? Like presupposing a god would? Funny that. 12: You can't blame Euclid for not understanding the possibility that spacetime is curved and that Euclidean Geometry doesn't take that into account. For most real-world geometry, Euclidean is fine and gives the right answer. It remains "self-evident", but not in all circumstances. This is the beauty of science, we refine our knowledge of the truth through hypothesis, experimentation, and verification. Non-Euclidean Geometry adds to our knowledge and supplements Euclidean, it's not a replacement. The same thing happened with Newton's Laws of Physics being added to and expanded with Einstein's Theory of Relativity and later his Theory of Special Relativity. This is science building on the knowledge of the past and refining our knowledge of the truth that comports with finer and finer points of reality. For example, while numerical addition still works, we have devised how to divide numbers. Addition still has its uses while division is necessary for different needs. 13: The idea that Empiricism makes knowledge of either self or reality nonsense is quite the claim. It's proof that two Philosophers will agree only that they don't agree. Again, he falls into pure solipsism and applies it to any naturalist as if it is a given. I am a naturalist but I am not a solipsist. His entire philosophical rant is proven false, at least for me because, in his assertion, I cannot exist. I know I exist, therefore I know he is wrong. Letting this idea of painting all naturalists with a broad brush is both crude and insulting. 14: You're thinking of the "Ship of Theseus", I had to look it up as well. I know the thought experiment, but I forgot the name as well. These are all fun to think about, but to tie that into disproving one's sense of self is a stretch. As we replace cells over the years, neurons don't have the same fate. We do add neurons, but many are with us our entire life. As the sense of self originates in the brain, the Ship of Theseus doesn't apply. 15: "You can't study logic itself." That's funny since this entire section on Rationalism and Empiricism does exactly that. While we may not have refined everything, and I posit that there's always more to learn, we have been able to practically apply our current understanding of logic and the Scientific Method to get all the wonderful knowledge and technology in the world around us. While even I stated earlier that it's not perfect, its practicality and explanatory power is better than anything else. If you have a better method, prove it and collect your Nobel Prize. 16: As for your assertion that the mind is the center of self, see #1 above. 17: Oh, boy, his entire rant to assert that philosophically we can never know anything is right back to solipsism. But, in the end, philosophically asserting things is pointless as practically, we perceive the world around us and our minds interpret what we see. His entire argument seems to revolve around the imprecision of language and the fluid nature of philosophy. It seems that in the real world, we utilize both rationalist and empiricist concepts to better understand and function in the world around us. The rest is mental masturbation and inapplicable to practical features of reality and the truth (because it's what comports to reality). Oh, I got it now. I am officially stopping my analysis and response now. You aren't arguing in good faith. You already think you know me and every other rational naturalist? You don't know a thing about me and your explanation of what I am and how I think is both reductive and insulting. Go stay in your echo chamber, I'm done with you.

Hi guys!!! Great discussion. At 1: 47 you had just talked about Fr Stephen DeYoung or someone else on LOS making a challenge that nowhere in the Fathers or possibly in scripture do we see Christians chastising pagans. Ps 134:16 “they have eyes, but they cannot see;” is close enough to that imho. And also, though not in Scripture or the Fathers, we see time and time again in the lives of martyrs how they vehemently berate pagan officials & rulers for idol worship. Perhaps these are slightly different cases, but certainly along the same lines. And then also consider John the Forerunner…. Your thoughts?

3 comments 1. Matt’s discourse on the theology of iconography was absolutely fantastic!!! 2. I’m 66 yo and have now been on a carnivore diet with very few cheats for 6 years. The diet helped get rid of diabetes, cholesterol and hypertension. Not averse to hearing different perspectives, but gonna be real skeptical when listening to the diet stuff Matt was talking about at the end. 3. Great job as always, guys!!!

Thanks for the work

This was great, yet another episode I'll revisit in the future. THANKS ADAM AND JASON

1:43:05 at my lowest point my Mother looked at me with utter distraught helplessness and told me "I just want you to be happy" and when I responded with "I'm not searching for happiness, I crave the absolute truth of reality" it was a departure point. They have since told me that since that moment they were getting ready for the day they get a call that I'm not alive anymore. I Traumatized them in my pursuit down rabbit holes and folder chasing. I'm left with MUCH anger towards my Male ancestors for the vacuum I was born into

1:31:25 that part

1:29:35 😅😅😂

1:02:50 I'm w Adam on this one

1:18:00 Exactly this... Thank goodness for the KingPilled discord, wish you were on there Adam! I am clawing my way back from gnostic induced insanity to level ground. As much as attending liturgy seems to be building towards something it's been a very impersonal experience so far

😂 lol 47:00 The ginger catholic youtuber guy with long hair is THE WORST

19:46 The realization that Worship happens, no matter what, and the Religious nature of all human behaviour struck me at the same time over the same issues re Floyd and Facemasks... The Semiotics of 2020 are funny. No wonder I enjoy you two so much. Except I was a anarcho-lefty raised by a Star-Trek Carl Sagan Athiest

Great Duo, looking fwd to this

i think FDDA knows Manion

great stuff

Start 29:50

keep em coming

top notch work

This confirms I’ve been mispronouncing Didache. Thank you sir you are an invaluable resource.

I love this, Adam! Great resource. This is Jeremy from Cloud of Witnesses! God bless!

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jNygbLSe1tixmXk.htmlsi=WXHPPLGMCVl-A-XQ

Thanks for the show. I am also a former Mormon, now Orthodox. I am also born and raised in Salt Lake. Great chat! May god strengthen you both.

As Christian presuppositional arguments are hated almost as much by Christians as non-Christians, this idea of ‘competitive presuppositionalism’ I’ve always found a bit of an odd one. Both Christian and non-Christian are stuck dealing with axiomatic knowledge whether they like it or not. At minimum, the three logical absolutes and a lack of solution for hard solipsism. Having an overarching ‘God’ presupposition would seem to just add to the list unnecessarily. If the idea is that the single ‘God’ presupposition explains the rest, I see no good reason to accept this. Especially as it is possible to postulate a ‘cause’ that isn’t a God (as usually defined) that can explain the other ‘presuppositions’ just as well. As an aside, I find your belittling of people you don’t agree with a bit wearing after a while.

The referenced debate between Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell was in 1948.... And the book by Thomas Kuhn is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", 1962.... :)

It always comes back to Fr. Seraphim Rose’s quote for me - “The absolute cannot be attained by means of the relative, that is to say, the first principles of any system of knowledge cannot be arrived at through the means of that knowledge itself but must be given in advance. They are the objects not of a scientific demonstration but of faith.” Excellent video Adam. I had many aha! moments throughout.

thanks, slowly catching up

I have a lazy eye, and I'm pretty lazy myself, so I'm very thankful for these readings, the commentary also helps me to follow along.

The Roman catholic church should be proud of the Goa Inquisition .

Nice concise little video good work!

Good stuff, Adam!

Can you enable captions for the hard of hearing, by chance?

Love these quick hit videos on philosophical concepts from you Adamx thanks

To be fair, the Greek church in America doesn't have a conformed Divine Liturgy to the Greeks in the parish. But rather the Greeks are conforming. Most non-Greeks don't grasp how different the Koine Greek of Saint John Chrysostom is to the modern Greek spoken by older Greek immigrants in America. None of those Greeks in the parish could have a conversation using the same Greek used in the Liturgy. It'd be as odd as hearing 2 people from London speaking Shakespearian to each other in casual conversation. Most Greeks don't even fully understand the Divine Liturgy when they attend it. It takes study and concentration to even follow along. I do think there is merit in embracing the Divine Liturgy in the language it was written in. It's obviously not a requirement of Salvation, and there's nothing lesser about a Slavonic Divine Liturgy, but every Bishop Rocor some have an understanding of Koine Greek and know follow along well with the original Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. It is quite beautiful when it's understood. In a way that modern Greek could never be.