Steve McRaeI don't even know if what we all saw in the debate between G Man and Dragnauct on macroevolution could even be called a debate. So much cringe, even beyond what I had expected.
G Man vs Dragnauct Debate - Aftershow: Cringe Level Limit Exceeded!!!Steve McRae2017-09-24 | I don't even know if what we all saw in the debate between G Man and Dragnauct on macroevolution could even be called a debate. So much cringe, even beyond what I had expected.
To help support my channel: Patreon- patreon.com/stevemcrae Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/steveaskanyt... Twitter- twitter.com/SteveMcRae_ Pinterest- pinterest.com/stevemcrae PayPal- paypal.me/StevenMcRae Cashme- cash.me/$SteveaskanythingMega-Atheism: Ranting about Atheists tonight on Twitter!Steve McRae2024-10-12 | My Paper: How the Presumption of Atheism, by way of Semiotic Square of Opposition, leads to a Semantic Collapse: https://academia.edu/80085203/How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse
Paper Supplemental (Draft): How the Presumption of Atheism, by way of Semiotic Square of Opposition, leads to a Semantic Collapse: Visual Supplemental https://academia.edu/122167032/How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse_Visual_Supplemental
Another academic review of my paper: https://academia.edu/122067392/Peer_Review_of_How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_a_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse_?sm=b
Under New Management:
reddit.com/r/Woacbofficial #WOACBStruggle Session #2: Transphobia vs Fair CriticismSteve McRae2024-09-29 | Struggle Session #2 LIVE on Twitter and YouTube... Mic is fixed at about 15 minutes in. My apologies. Had wrong mic selected. Join this channel to get access to perks: youtube.com/channel/UC1SzlwfeQ_4-9LuV_00Efuw/join
Truth Tables: https://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga/math-proof/truth-tables/truth-tables.htmlIntro to logic: Laws of logic (Part II)Steve McRae2024-08-22 | Link to natural logic checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org Link to For all x: forallx.openlogicproject.org Please consider becoming a patron if you like educational content like this. Patreon- patreon.com/stevemcrae
My Paper: How the Presumption of Atheism, by way of Semiotic Square of Opposition, leads to a Semantic Collapse: https://academia.edu/80085203/How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse
Paper Supplemental (Draft): How the Presumption of Atheism, by way of Semiotic Square of Opposition, leads to a Semantic Collapse: Visual Supplemental https://academia.edu/122167032/How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse_Visual_Supplemental
Another academic review of my paper: https://academia.edu/122067392/Peer_Review_of_How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_a_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse_?sm=b
My Paper: How the Presumption of Atheism, by way of Semiotic Square of Opposition, leads to a Semantic Collapse: https://academia.edu/80085203/How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse
Paper Supplemental (Draft): How the Presumption of Atheism, by way of Semiotic Square of Opposition, leads to a Semantic Collapse: Visual Supplemental https://academia.edu/122167032/How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse_Visual_Supplemental
Another academic review of my paper: https://academia.edu/122067392/Peer_Review_of_How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_a_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse_?sm=b
😍To help support my channel...any all support is *GREATLY* appreciated!😍 ►Patreon- patreon.com/stevemcrae ►Facebook- facebook.com/steveaskanything ►Twitter- twitter.com/SteveMcRae_ ►Pinterest- pinterest.com/stevemcrae ►PayPal- paypal.me/StevenMcRaeMeta-Atheism Panel SAT Night Discussion: Matt Dillahunty Cant Refute Atheist Semantic CollapseSteve McRae2024-08-04 | This SAT night Adam Mangold joined us to discussed my atheist semantic collapse argument and discussed that neither Matt Dillahunty, Jacklyn Glenn, nor anyone from the Atheist Experience or atheist group ever assailed my argument. I didn't realize my mouse pointer wasn't being captured, but people still were able to follow along just fine.
Spoiler: Mathematician Josh Garver has reviewed and agrees my paper and supplemental is valid and sound logic, and the entire panel of non-believers unanimously agreed my argument is correct.
Panel members (ALL nonbelievers, but I would like to find some theists who want to join next weekend, as will be discussing justifications for atheism)
Josh - Atheist Adam - Atheist John - Agnostic Chris - Atheist Steve - Agnostic
Most atheist groups refuse to discuss my argument honestly or objectively, as most either simply do not understand my paper, resort merely to personal attacks, or are simply apathetic to its implications.
Dr. William Pi has revied my paper and found it valid/sound. "Overall, I find no error in McRae’s objections as written in [4]. His logic appears to be solid and consistent with the other sources I have cited."
Another review was done by Steve Martin who concluded in his review:
"The conclusion succinctly summarizes the findings and reinforces the thesis that Flew’s presumption leads to a semantic collapse. The call to reject Flew’s redefinition is well-grounded and compelling."
I will be trying to have these types of panel discussion on meta-atheism every SAT night to discuss atheism as a subject, at a level above the typical puerile atheist groups and subreddits that clearly know nothing about atheism, and I will touch on justifications for atheism, atheism with respect to morality, arguments for and against atheism, etc.
My Paper: How the Presumption of Atheism, by way of Semiotic Square of Opposition, leads to a Semantic Collapse: https://academia.edu/80085203/How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse
Paper Supplemental (Draft): How the Presumption of Atheism, by way of Semiotic Square of Opposition, leads to a Semantic Collapse: Visual Supplemental https://academia.edu/122167032/How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse_Visual_Supplemental
Another academic review of my paper: https://academia.edu/122067392/Peer_Review_of_How_the_Presumption_of_Atheism_by_way_of_a_Semiotic_Square_of_Opposition_leads_to_a_Semantic_Collapse_?sm=b
😍To help support my channel...any all support is *GREATLY* appreciated!😍 ►Patreon- patreon.com/stevemcrae ►Facebook- facebook.com/steveaskanything ►Twitter- twitter.com/SteveMcRae_ ►Pinterest- pinterest.com/stevemcrae ►PayPal- paypal.me/StevenMcRaeSomeone is impersonating Jaclyn Glenn!Steve McRae2024-07-17 | The other day I challenged YouTuber Jaclyn Glenn to a debate on the constant misinformation that she puts out on atheism, agnosticism, and Gnosticism on a recent video she did about myths about atheism...which is ironic because the very first myth that she tried debunking she got wrong. In response to my challenge somebody made a fake account dated July 14th 2024 in response to try to get me to talk to them on telegram thinking that it would be Jacklyn Glenn. I sent Jacklyn an email back in 2017 in regard to her constant misinformation that she puts out about atheism, to which she did not reply. Today I've had no reply from Jacklyn Glenn to actually provide evidence to her claims from academic and peer reviewed sources.
As a content creator, she has an obligation to support her claims with actual evidence, and not lie to her audience about an actual academic subject: Atheology (which is a subset of philosophy). #atheism #normalizingatheism #agnosticatheist
Let's see how many New Atheist™ even try to show my proof is wrong as I use their own definitions of "atheist" (not atheism!) 🤣
They all incorrectly argue that atheist v theist is a "strict dicotomy', and I prove that by them prescribing Google's defintions as "by defintion" leads to an inescapable condradiction in set theory.
Feel free to share around!
My paper on Academia edu: https://www.academia.edu/121884842/_NonTheist_is_not_the_same_as_set_size_as_Atheist_due_to_sentience_of_members
Atheist: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." (emphsis added)
“Nontheist” is not the same as set size as “Atheist” due to sentience of members- PROOF by Contradiction
STEVE MCRAE JULY 7, 2024 “NONTHEIST” IS NOT THE SAME AS SET SIZE AS “ATHEIST” DUE TO SENTIENCE OF MEMBERS- PROOF BY CONTRADICTION
ASSUMPTION: Nontheist := Atheist
Purpose of proof: To show this relationship is a category error.
Additional assumptions:
Theist: Set of sentient beings who believes in God
Atheist: Set of sentient beings who do not believe in God.
Non-theist (Nontheist) is any element not in the set of theist.
Complementary set relationships:
Set A and A’ are in U”:
A’=U\A
Assume A’ ⊣ A and A ⊣ T
A = (U \ T)
If x ∈ U then x must be (x ∈ T | x ∈ A}:
A = {x ∈ U | x ∉ T}
Let:
U = Universal set of all entities (U)
T = Set of theists (A’)
A = Set of atheists (A)
S = Set of sentient beings capable of holding beliefs (S)
Definitions:
1. Theist: x ∈ T ⇔ (x ∈ S ∧ Believes(x, God exists))
If x is a theist ⇔ x is a sentient being and believes God exists.
2. Atheist: x ∈ A ⇔ (x ∈ S ∧ ¬Believes(x, God exists))
If x is an atheist ⇔ x is a sentient being and does not God exists.
3. Not Theist: x ∈ (U \ T)
x is in U, but is not in T
Proof:
1. Assume for contradiction that A = (U \ T)
(Given by initial assumptions of A’=U\A) where “A” is representing A’ and T is representing A)
2. Consider an entity r where r ∉ S (e.g., a rock)
∀x (x ∉ S → x ∉ A) (from definition of Atheist)
r ∉ S
∴ r ∉ A
(A rock is not a sentient being. A rock does not believe God exists. Being an atheist requires sentience, therefore a rock is not an atheist)
3. However, r ∈ (U \ T) because:
r ∈ U (as U is the universal set)
r ∉ T (as r ∉ S, and all theists must be in S)
∴ r ∈ (U \ T)
(A rock is a nontheist because, a rock is in the Universal set, but a rock is not sentient. All theists must be sentent, therefore rocks are not theists)
4. From steps 2 and 3:
r ∈ (U \ T) ∧ r ∉ A
(A rock is a nontheist and is not an atheist)5. This is a contradiction of A = {x ∈ U | x ∉ T}
(If x is in U, it must be either in T or A)
6. Therefore, our assumption must be false.
Conclusion: Nontheist (the set of entities that are not theists) is not the set as atheist (the set of sentient beings who do not believe in God).
QED
Short version:
“NonTheist” is not the same as set size as “Atheist” due to sentience of members- PROOF by Contradiction Assumptions:
1. Nontheist := Atheist
2. Theist: Set of sentient beings who believe in God
3. Atheist: Set of sentient beings who do not believe in God
4. Non-theist (Nontheist) is any element not in the set of theists
Complementary set relationships:
1.Set A and A’ are in U”: A’=U\A
2. Assume A’ ⊣ A and A ⊣ T
3.A = (U \ T)
Proof:
1. Assume for contradiction that A = (U \ T)
2. Consider an entity r where r ∉ S (e.g., a rock)
3. Since r ∉ S, ∀x (x ∉ S → x ∉ A) (from definition of Atheist), r ∉ A
4. However, r ∈ (U \ T) because r ∈ U and r ∉ T (as r ∉ S, and all theists must be in S)
5. From steps 2 and 3, we get a contradiction: r ∈ (U \ T) ∧ r ∉ A
6. This contradicts the assumption A = {x ∈ U | x ∉ T} (If x is in U, it must be either in T or A)
Conclusion: Therefore, our assumption that Nontheist := Atheist must be false
QEDNOT ALL NONTHEISTS ARE ATHEISTS! Prove me Wrong!Steve McRae2024-07-08 | Taking live calls to defend my latest paper:
“Nontheist” is not the same as set size as “Atheist” due to sentience of members- PROOF by Contradiction https://www.academia.edu/121884842/Nontheist_is_Not_the_Same_Set_Size_as_Atheist_Due_to_Sentience_of_Members
(May delete later)I am the Maximally Greatest Anti-Lacktheist!Steve McRae2024-07-07 | 3 AM PHILOSOPHY NEW ARGUMENTS:
#atheism #philosophy #logic
Reductionism of my WASP (Weak Atheist Special Pleading) Argument in Python:
#athiesm #athiest #agnosticatheistThe greatest (freak)-show on earth: Going into the US election (Audio ONLY from Twitter space)Steve McRae2024-06-29 | Dr. Geostreber, John, and I discuss the political debate and power densities of batteries. Not sure how they are related, but go with it...it was a good discussion so I decided to put in on YouTube if anyone wants to listen in to it while doing stuff around the house this weekend. (Recorded 6/29)
😍To help support my channel...any all support is *GREATLY* appreciated!😍 ►Patreon- patreon.com/stevemcrae ►Facebook- facebook.com/steveaskanything ►Twitter- twitter.com/SteveMcRae_ ►Pinterest- pinterest.com/stevemcrae ►PayPal- paypal.me/StevenMcRaeWOACB VICTIMS HOTLINE: FILL ME IN ABOUT #WOACB!Steve McRae2024-04-29 | So many of you have noticed I've been conspicuously distant from YouTube and much more active on Twitter for reasons I'll explain tonight (don't worry, no serous news, but ongoing medical issues)...but suffice to say I haven't much kept up with all the drama going on with Katie Joy Paulson.
Anything exciting going on?Late Night StreamSteve McRae2024-04-08 | Upcoming events: DNA discussion with Discovery Institute and Solar Eclipse, and rapture imminent?Diddy, Nicke, and Sicke! (Open Hangout on Recent News)Steve McRae2024-04-02 | Join this channel to get access to perks: youtube.com/channel/UC1SzlwfeQ_4-9LuV_00Efuw/join
😍To help support my channel...any all support is *GREATLY* appreciated!😍 ►Patreon- patreon.com/stevemcrae ►Facebook- facebook.com/steveaskanything ►Twitter- twitter.com/SteveMcRae_ ►Pinterest- pinterest.com/stevemcrae ►PayPal- paypal.me/StevenMcRaeMatt Walsh Responds To Prof. Daves What Is A Woman Video - A Review of a Review of a ReviewSteve McRae2024-03-12 | I'm going to do very laid back and casual a review of a review of a review of "Matt Walsh Responds To Prof. Dave's What Is A Woman Video"...what can possibly go wrong there right? #dumpsterfire #mattwalsh #atheism
Evolution: ""Evolution is the gradual shift in the frequency of alleles within a population over successive generations, driven by mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation, influencing the genetic composition and traits of the population."
😍To help support my channel...any all support is *GREATLY* appreciated!😍 ►Patreon- patreon.com/stevemcrae ►Facebook- facebook.com/steveaskanything ►Twitter- twitter.com/SteveMcRae_ ►Pinterest- pinterest.com/stevemcrae ►PayPal- paypal.me/StevenMcRae image from pngtree.comMetaphysical Grounding and Presuppositional RhetoricSteve McRae2024-02-29 | Based Theory (Grayson) asked people to try to steelman MadebyJimBob's arguments he made to him during a discussion from about a month ago. I'm going to be reviewing the first 10 minutes of that discussion or so to try to explain what I think Jimbob was asking, what is actually meant by "metaphysical grounding", and why presuppositionalists try to philosophically weaponize their questions.
That is the new brilliant argument against atheism or naturalism!Flat Earther thinks scientists “presume” gravity exists! #FACEPALM!Steve McRae2024-02-20 | #shorts #atheism Join this channel to get access to perks: youtube.com/channel/UC1SzlwfeQ_4-9LuV_00Efuw/join Please don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe!