Atheist Debates - First Believe
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 жов 2017
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
"You must first believe and then you will see the evidence..."...may be one of the most ridiculous claims from religious defenders, but it's surprisingly common in different forms.
I use this quote in my argument with Christians all the time. It is:
"You say all I need to do is believe in God,
then, after I believe in God,
I will believe in God?"
Sometimes when i feel particularly saucy i say "Already done that, started with belief in Cthulhu though. So now i am convinced that He sleeps in sunken city of R'Lyeh and sends me dreams and visions, fhtagn!"
Love this thankyoi
The rational person says "I'll believe it when I see it". Once you find yourself saying "I'll see it when I believe it", you've taken a wrong turn somewhere
No the rational person says “ill believe it when i get sufficient evidence to believe it”. Ive never seen the higgs field but im pretty convinced it exists, ive never seen a black hole but im convinced they exist. The eyes can lie and deceive which is why flat earthers are such an interesting group, they also believe themselves to be rational and will only believe when they see it.
You all probably dont give a shit but does anybody know of a tool to log back into an Instagram account..?
I stupidly lost my account password. I love any tricks you can offer me.
@Richard Mathew Instablaster :)
@@probablynotmyname8521 I don't need to see something if I'm presented sufficient evidence that it exists. I haven't "seen" gravity but I have seen evidence for it. I haven't seen Hocking radiation but I trust Dr. Hocking and the reputations of other astrophysicists who say it exists and can provide calculations justifying their assertions.
"believe first" is an idea that made me feel uncomfortable as a believer. Perhaps if someone had elucidated the fallacy to me, I might have found the truth (atheism & skepticism) sooner. This is good content, Matt.
The "First Believe" argument is basically telling you to indoctrine yourself before you look at the evidence.
“My names eleven.” Stranger Things reference 👽
And Astro Particles is a common name?
"You must first believe...." seems like the height of desperation, on the apologists part.
Laura Carson
It seems to work for me...I've assumed there are no gods, and now I see the evidence for it is now bloody obvious.
I'm getting old, on recollection I think I may have seen evidence (or the lack of it) for god - first, but I can't be sure.
Listen and believe...
Hmmm...deja vu.
Desperation is all they have, without indoctrination, without peer pressure, misinformation, threats and so on, without the machinery of preventing people from thinking critically, any reasonable person would have trouble accepting the unreasonable.
F
+strange lee Some claims are more believable than others.
“Hi my name is 11”
Been watching Stranger Things, have we Matt?
I am of the mind that most people who say that belief is a choice, really mean that they can choose not to expose themselves to evidence that would counter their currently held beliefs...
When I first heard the words from Jacknickson's character in the movie - 'A Few Good Men' say - "You can't handle the truth!", I was head-scratching: I can't handle lairs why can't I hear the truth? Today it still perplexes me, I enjoy following science and have learn't a lot, and I've had to discard my theories when they were wrong - so out they went, I've always preferred the truth.
Unlike the majority, who cheat on themselves, to lie, to hear selectively and snuggle in their comfy cloak of ignorance.
Thanks for these videos Matt.
"Sentencing first -- then the trial": Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland.
I live in the UK and the sky is grey quite a lot :(
I've been hearing this argument for more than 25 years from my parents and other family members. It's so frustrating. My general stock response is that evidence informs my beliefs not the other way around.
These people start with a conclusion and then tap dance and twist logic to fit that conclusion because they want it to be true.
I love that "logic": "If something reminds me of the content of my conspiracy theory, then the conspiracy must be true and if there is nothing reminding me of it then it must be true, because the evidence is being erased by the conspirators." Fail-safe!
My favourite confirmation biases are Brian and the denied divinity and the miracle of the juniper bushes.
BRIAN: I'm not the Messiah!
ARTHUR: I say You are, Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.
FOLLOWERS: Hail Messiah!
BRIAN: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly!
GIRL: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
ARTHUR: There is no food in this high mountain!
BRIAN: Well, what about the juniper bushes over there?
FOLLOWERS: Hhhh! A miracle! A miracle! Ohh!...
SHOE FOLLOWER: He has made the bush fruitful by His words.
YOUTH: They have brought forth juniper berries.
BRIAN: Of course they've brought forth juniper berries! They're juniper bushes! What do you expect?!
ELSIE: Show us another miracle!
Life of Brian, perfect. 😂😂😂
"First lend me ten thousand pounds... and then you will know I will be able to pay you back."
Ridiculous? Oh - but the Christian version isn't?
Bro, I LOVE these videos! So insightful, reasonable, and just plain fantastic advice!!! I'm definitely going to add this to my argumentative arsenal lmao #OD9
I call it the "Power of Christmas" defense. As in, you can't see Santa's workshop unless you believe in the power of Christmas.
I've seen this belief pop up a lot lately too. Also Pascal's Wager. People think the beliefs they were raised with are the "safe" option, and don't want to risk losing what they were promised. It's difficult for these people to reason about whether those promises were empty.
19:20
This. I can relate very much to this. I often deal with somebody that whenever challenged resorts to "You just think you know everything. You think you're always right."
Well, no, I'm under no illusion that I think I know everything. I do not know everything. Far from it. But in this instance, in the context of our discussion, I do think I am right, just as you do. That's the entire reason we are having a disagreement to begin with.
I wouldn't argue a point that I knew or thought was wrong. That's insanity.
I was the 1000th like, also this is gold, thanks Matt :)
I will forever be haunted by whether or not Matt actually has a glass of tea or a pen and notepad on the table beside him when filming this.
nice video Matt. .
A good narrative Matt. I suspect we could fold in the neurobiological reasons or functions that are at work when we advocate what we like - regardless of its veracity. When we speak of objective thought, critical thought or rationale, we are actually affording extra energy to analyzing a sensory input through our PFC that was initially processed in our emotional amygdala which is the primary point of cognition and is where we decide if we like or dislike something. The PFC employs memories, and experiences to form models of comparison to validate or question that position. Ardent believers likely employ the PFC to justify their likes while dismissing their dislikes because liking something is more compelling to our neural reward systems. Bias as work. Perhaps practice at having our brains trigger rewards for critical evaluations would help dissolve bias tendencies. Evolution has tinkered with human development and is therefore prone to error, yet we still have mechanisms available to make corrections.
"Believe first" seems like the first step in auto-brainwashing and self-delusion.
*Edit: 10:48 I commented too early; he already said it. :P
“My name is eleven.” Somebody been watching Stranger Things
Yeah. It's like what my dad always says, "You gotta start somewhere." It's a very word crafty way of saying that I need to choose to believe.
Um... no. I don't _have_ to start _there,_ not that I could will myself to believe anyways. But if it's true then sure. The method, presumably given by god, requires that I have to start believing first... _IF_ it's true.
So how do we take the "if" off of the premise? If we determine it's true by some external means, then what's the point of starting with faith? It becomes irrelevant. But if we actually _do_ start with faith, then how could we tell the difference between deceiving ourselves into thinking we got an answer from a non existent god and _actually_ getting a witness from god who _actually_ exists?
Since the method asks you to start with faith and eradicate doubt, it's asking you to deceive yourself.
And if every challenge to your beliefs is seen as "a trial of faith", you've already decided that you _can't_ be wrong, and the challenge is essentially null and pointless.
Such intellectually bankrupt ideas that unfortunately work all too well.
6:36 Matt is a "Stranger Things" fan: confirmed.
"And you just gotta remember, Sparky - no matter what they tell you - you can NEVER have too much sugar."
- the movie Michael (1996)
I don't know Matt... that's John Frigg'n Travolta saying that (as an angle!!) right there on the big screen!!.. what more proof is needed! ;)
This video always makes me want a glass of iced tea.
I am always impressed at Matt’s logical abilities.
Hey Matt I just wanted to say thank you for your suggestion to read the book the better angels of our nature. It's an amazing book, it promotes the idea that it is reasonable to have a positive outlook for the future. Not finished it yet, but i will suggest it to all my friends.
Reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson deciding to adopt a new religion as true every week or month or however frequently it was, as a psychedelic experiment. He made it through the dictionary of religions before he died.
hi my name is eleven, hang on thats different. although i have heard...stranger things
19:04
So true. I lost my faith after my first break-up. It took me being disillusioned about reality to finally let go of my belief in God.
14:20 I've done that with regard to my parents since age 6-7: it mutated into a crippling distrust for [perceived] authority. It's a nasty habit to pick up.
A man has to believe in something.
I believe I'll have another drink.
I'll drink to that.
Yeah but... is there a glass of ice tea on the table?
Some people think that we all have two options to choose from - to allways believe first or to allways disbelieve first - and one of them is right and the other one must be wrong. And since it somewhat seems logical, it is usually very hard to explain that they are not just two of them, we dont get to choose from them and "right" and "wrong" depends on situation.
Something that worries believers about this topic is that you can say everything someone believes was assumed a priori. For example, you can say God is assumed a priori, materialism is assumed a priori, anything. This scares them a lot, I think. It's a call to abandon their relative certainty in exchange for a chaotic mess of things we can't really know to the very core.
4:00 the glass was filled from Russell's teapot
I appreciate the stranger things "eleven" reference. Whether consciously or unconsciously chosen
This topic is actually the first thing that helped me get out of religion. I was raised as a Mormon, and for those who don't know, there's this passage at the end of the book of Mormon that gives an "experiment" to test if the book is true. All you have to do is pray and ask sincerely, and the holy ghost will tell you. Oh yeah, but the caveat is you have to pray with faith in Christ.
It's the same problem with James 1:5, another really common scripture in Mormon circles. You can get an answer, but only if you already have faith. I spent years questioning how i could believe, and all i was told was that i had to believe first. So glad i escaped.
I think it's also worth pointing out that part of skepticism is making an effort to keep attached to everything you believe the evidence that justified your accepting it. That way, should you encounter contrary evidence, you can adjust your beliefs appropriately.
So if someone tells me their name is Jeff, I'll believe it because people generally provide their correct name. And should someone ask me what that person's name is, I'll say "Jeff". But if someone asks me *why* I believe their name is Jeff, I can explain my rationale and if they provide contrary evidence, I can adjust my beliefs.
Belief is not all or nothing. And belief is not irrevocable. If you want your beliefs to be true, you have to engage in a correcting process because you are capable of error and other people can lie even in circumstances where you would not expect it.
There's no direct control over one's belief, but there are plenty of things one can do to form self-induced delusions.
Please, Matt make a book on how to counter most typical theistic arguments. PLEASE!~
This is so similar to what I hear in AA meetings. If one can't believe in a power greater than themselves then they haven't reached a sufficient point of desperation. If I can't find God, I'm just not doing it right. Matt, please consider putting together a video on recovery programs. I realize it may be tough to comment on this topic without actually being an alcoholic or addict. I have plenty of info to share if you need it.
Isn't the fact that rational atheists even exist overwhelming evidence for strong atheism, when the God being proposed is all powerful and has a goal of having a relationship with everyone?
Good point. Though I'm not sure any religious person would be comfortable saying the God they worship is insane.
Similar to how Matt has pointed out that the Westboro Baptist Church preaches things consistent with the Bible, even though they are outrageous things, the idea of “believe first” is consistent with parts of the Bible (and contradictory to other parts). “Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11v6). Does this passage imply that a person must believe first before seeking God?
The Bible teaches that the best kind of faith is when a person believes without evidence. “Then the Pharisees came and began to argue with Jesus, asking for a sign from heaven to test him. He sighed deeply and said, ‘Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it” (Mark 8v11-12). Jesus appears to criticize, “Unless you people see signs and wonders you will never believe!” (John 4v48).
There are examples in the Bible of individuals wanting to believe, but they seem to either not be fully convinced, or recognize that there is a scale of faith, from little to complete faith. Either way, it is clear that there was a great deal of pressure for people to have faith first. “Jesus said to him, ‘If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.’ Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, ‘Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!’” (Mark 9v23-24). In another passage, “And the apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith” (Luke 17v5). So why didn’t the Lord increase their faith, or did he?
Prayer is shown to be answered only if there is belief first. “this man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, ‘Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked away” (Acts 14v9-10). And in another passage, “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be healed of your affliction” (Mark 5v34). Does this mean that her faith alone healed her, or that God was able to heal her because she already had faith?
The Bible states that people should not trust the evidence of miracles “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Mark 13v22). What is the difference between signs and wonders from a false prophet and those from a true prophet?
The preferred method of believing, according to the Bible, is when it’s based solely on testimony (preaching), not evidence. “How, then can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” (Romans 10v14).
According to the Bible evidence comes after belief, and belief comes after hearing preaching. “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; (etc.)” (Mark 16v15-17).
The Samaritans recognized the problem in believing a woman’s first-hand testimony when she said that Jesus told her everything she ever did, and they seemed to feel it was better to believe when they heard from Jesus directly. “Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me everything I ever did’... They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world” (John 4v39, 42).
Another part of the Bible would support Matt’s explanation of belief not being a choice; it says that faith is a gift from God and not something a person can create in themselves. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2v8).
If faith, according to these passages, is supposed to come first without evidence and is a gift from God, why would Jesus be confounded when people did not have faith? Was he surprised that God hadn’t given them faith, or was he surprised that they didn’t have it before seeing evidence? “Now He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He marveled because of their unbelief. Then He went about the villages in a circuit, teaching” (Mark 6v5-6). Again this shows that miracles were considered a result of faith, and not intended to be used to generate faith, otherwise Jesus would have done "mighty works" first, then faith would have resulted. In this case, faith was not there first, so Jesus was prevented from doing the mighty works.
It's more like they try to pretend they convinced, and in their arguments, assertions and statements you can clearly feel this desperate attempt to convince themself, in the first place.
I had this mentality of believe first for a while when I desperately wanted to believe. For me it usually went like this: I see the sexism, homophobia and so on but I put it in a box which I will open when I believe and then it won't be an issue anymore.
Looking back at it I guess I understand why I did it, but still it's weird.
"Well, once you believe that my worldview is probably true then you will accept the evidence for it"
I get this garbage all the time.
In the Book of Mormon, Alma 32 is basically all about believing first, nourishing that belief, and then knowledge will follow. Sadly, this is referred to as an "experiment", as if science really proceeded this way. Asking for evidence before believing is considered seeking a sign, an indication that you are not being humble enough.
Belief first is the motto of cults. Just look at how Scientology or Mormonism works. People leave these organizations once they reach high enough in the orders to "learn the truth" and find it's BS, dumb and something to reject.
Love your work. Just one tiny bit of constructive criticism: Try to avoid saying "ya-know".
What do you mean some people don't like broccoli? My worldview is crumbling...
Great video. Everyone should make copies onto cd's and pass them out to the world. Spread the gospel (of Matthew (Dillahunty)).
How did you know that wasn't common, I'm 19 and I've heard it a thousand times.
AKA "Why don't y'all just believe in god?" argument.
I usually respond with - "no, this is stupid".
One has to craft a hypothesis before one can test it and that is a statement of belief, without which there is no scientific method. The argument that one cannot choose a belief would seem to be an argument against the scientific method?
"Hi my name is Eleven"
Oh no you didn't !
Goddamnit Matt, you have stumbled upon some truth.
Imagine a Hindu telling a Christian, "you need to believe in Krishna in order to experience him". That's how it works.
There's a word for things that don't seem real unless you believe in them: placebos.
It isn't, because placebos even tend to work when people know they are placebos.
Actually there do seem to be things that go away if we stop believing in them.
I once watched a video of a woman who decided to stop believing in copyright and she felt much more free to create. Unfortunately as long as the world outside keeps on believing in copyright she won't be easily allowed to release her work legally until all the copyrights involved expire or everyone stopped believing in copyright.
Sesame T. Seeds You're equivocating taking a gamble on an innovation and believing in your own product with the belief in god. Which is not reasonable. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates had reasons they believed in their inventions and those beliefs were testable. They knew what they were doing. It's fine to say you believe a product is going to be a success and giving good reasons for it, but even then you are not justified in claiming to know it will be a success until it has become one. Innovators don't know if their inventions wil succeed until they do.
And, if they are one of The Three Tenors, they are Placebo Domingos.
"Rejecting the first one, does not mean you are accepting the second one. But accepting the second one does mean that you are rejecting the first one."
You did not mention that accepting the first one means you are rejecting the second one.
So, a better way to put this, which is simpler and describes it in full, is:
- Accepting one of the 2 means you are rejecting the other one. But Rejecting one of the 2, does not mean you are accepting the other one -
Shouldn’t the proposition be, “Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!”?
Because, Hebrews 11:6. "And without faith it is impossible to please god, because anyone who come to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Some of us are just not meant to find truth.
Confirmation Bias is right. I was watching a street preacher who said "If God says no, it's because it's not good for me. If God says yes, it's because he's the god of yes and amen. If God says wait it's because he's working on my patience". Either way, God wins.
Have any of these videos been captioned or dubbed into Spanish? It would be wonderful if I could share these with my Spanish-speaking family.
There ARE people who believe what they wish without evidence, guided by wishful thinking or human nature. In human relationships, very often people believe what they wish. Obviously none of this is a good idea.
Belief, courage and creativity, do we have a choice in any of these?
That fence needs a few coats of stain
How do you respond when someone says I have a bias due to my being an atheist?
Blaise Pascal made the argument that people can choose to believe in God. His logic has been soundly denounced as logical fallacy ever since he first offered his argument. For those interested in learning more, simply do a seach for Pacal's Wager.
I know some people don't care about what is true. My mom is one of those people. She straight up told me she doesn't care about what is true she just wants to believe because it brings comfort. I tried to persuade her to read the entire bible to know what it says but she said that she prefers to only read the parts that bring her comfort and if she encounters a part that's saying things she doesn't like she just won't read it.
Personally when asked if I believe in a god, in response I say "I don't think there is a god but I do accept the possible probability that a god (what ever one's definition is of a god) could exist but I don't hold a belief system.
was "11" on purpose? is it linked to Netflix Series? :D
I would like to see you make a definition between believing in science and believing in an invisible friend, but the belief in science changes when the evidence shows something new. (when the same word is used and for someone who does not have English as the first language, it becomes difficult to distinguish which definition of faith/believing should be used, but it also seems Americans have trouble distinguishing
And scientific findings can be independently confirmed.
I mean using the same words for something that is proven as a scientific theory that for something more like a mental illness makes it a little hard to know which one is for someone who does not have English as a native language
Belief just means 'accepts to be true.' You can accept something proposed is true for bad reasons, with no evidence, or because there is a good reason and evidence to support the proposition. Thus belief can refer to irrational propositions (ones lacking evidence) and rational propositions (ones supported by evidence) since it just means you THINK it is true.
Another word could be 'assume.' You can assume something is true because you have evidence to indicate it is true. Or you can assume something is true even without evidence. The latter is irrational by definition and is what we call 'belief based on faith,' or assumptions with no supporting evidence.
Something sufficiently backed by evidence that we can call it 'scientifically proven' means we can say we KNOW it is true, not just believe that it is true. That is, we not only accept the proposition is true, but we can SHOW how/why it is true.
Something we have evidence for but cannot be highly certain about might still qualify as a rational belief, but may not be established well enough to call knowledge. We would say we have good REASON to believe it is true, but not enough evidence or data to conclude we KNOW it is true.
Hopefully this translates well.
You don't have to believe in science, you can test it for yourself, the trouble is that you do need at least a bit of scientific knowlege to know how to test it.
I prefer to say i trust science
Well the distinction is whether things can be independently verified or falsified. If something cannot be *falsified* , we shouldn't declare it true, because we can't tell that it's _not_ false.
Science has a rigorous method to do this which can be independently verified, which is why it works. Religion doesn't, which is why it doesn't work.
This is so relevant with todays political arena and it’s relationship with mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, FOX)and oligarchs like Bill Gates who has donated 300 million to various news outlets
What is the likelihood of the
News outlets who are sponsored by the corporations or Bill Gates that are associated with the state of affairs maybe biased?
These days I carry my bullshit detector around on my back like midget wrestler.
When magic does not work without believing... then is not magic.
Is belief still not a choice if the person outright doesn't care about truth? What if the person says they want to believe because the belief itself makes them feel like they're living a valuable life?
That is conscious self-delusion.
So...was there a notepad and pencil there or....?
well, the first indicates something following as a second, which would be-? continuing to believe? for experiencing what enables me to do so in the first place? this isnt smart, this is the fallout 3 of intellectuality.
Goes beyond broccoli? :O
"listen and believe"
I believe in the sacred tea pot orbiting around Earth, and then, yes, I can feel its presence !!! Open your mind, ye of little faith...
Hey,
Is there a way I can listen to these in a downloaded format? Podcasts etc?
There are many tools for downloading UA-cam audio.
i believe everything, unquestioned. can't wait to immediately dig the next seemingly fact diconnected from what i blindly thought reality. try it, tell me some bullshit, ill go all woah boutit.
Believe first, it makes so much sense.
Mary can you explain further?
ido, from the bottom of my heart. and know what i think, brother? that you do in fact not know what i think. also i lied to you, kinda showing one should be sceptic first, if believe ever is to follow.
You and I coincide in a large portion of our assessments of the world. However, most people don't like me. I'm "disrespectful" towards religious beliefs, and people tend to conflate hostility towards nonsense with an attack on themselves... and when I've clearly laid out a perfectly crafted rebuttal, and then they pretend my refutation doesn't actually mean anything... I, consequently, call them stupid... so maybe I do attack their lack of intellectual acuity occasionally.
Example:
Me: "The bible says X is moral."
Religious person: "You're an Atheist, why should anyone care about what you say about the bible?"
Me: "I'm only relaying the contents of the bible. It doesn't matter if I believe in god, I can still tell you what the bible says... Does the bible believe in god?"
Religious person: "No one cares about what you're saying."
Me: "You may be too stupid to continue hold up your end of this conversation."
I digress. I like this kind of loosely-scripted freeform-essay-style video. You appeared to skirt around stating whether, or not, you believe humans have freewill. from what you presented it's safe to assume you lean towards an absence of the aforementioned trait.
I agree with the overall message of your video. I can't think of anything from which you will be benefited by believing without any thought. "Oh, just believe that being a suicide bomber is the right way to be a human, and have no doubts, and then the evidence will reveal itself... it may be as you explode, but don't worry"
John Hightower probably because the audience were kids so he didn't want to come as the asshole athesit
John Hightower young adults not kids correction
So you're hearing from people who 'haven't really thought it through'.
Imagine that....
lol matt's been watching stranger things
"you must first believe"??...So if someone said I am an amaterialist. I simply did not believe that materialism sufficiently explains ???...do I have a claim to defend?
If you believe in the Harry Potter books you start seeing wizards and witches in hiding everywhere I guess.
Eloquent.
t=6:36, Matt is a Stranger Things fan, confirmed.
Damn you Matt you laggy sack of buffering
It is incorrect usage to use “usage” when you mean “use”.