Matt, I can’t overstate how important your lessons have been for me in both reconsidering my faith and logic in general. Your simple explanations about being wet and therefore concluding that it must be raining are spot on. Thanks man. I’m glad you exist and I’m planning on supporting you via Patreon until the day one of us dies 🙂
I've learned a lot from Matt over the years, certainly I have learned where I have gone wrong in my thinking when it comes to debating, but I never expected to learn about reptiles. Every day is a school day.
*The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest, and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve anything supernatural, including ''gods'!* I wish everyone a good 2025 . . .
I agree. "Believe" carries baggage. Although I use it in casual conversations, I do not in serious ones. As always, great video. It's comforting to know someone understands 😊
As far as "drama is everywhere", I am active in the amateur astronomy and education thereof, and you wouldn't believe how much drama is involved. A lot of people outside of it are absolutely shocked to hear this haha.
What in the world causes so much drama in amateur astronomy? Does a lot of it have to do with gear, like Apple vs Android for phones, Canon vs Nikon vs Sony among camera enthusiasts, etc?
Thank you Matt for educating us on such vital matters, truly understanding what we are saying is the first step to understand ourselves and others! Great stuff and great joke at the end 😂
A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks the horse if it's an alcoholic considering all the bars he frequents, to which the horse replies "I think not!" The horse disappears. To explain why first would be putting Descartes before de horse.
Dude, that was one of my favourite jokes, some 25 odd years ago when I first started going to Uni. That one as well as "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!" After all, I WAS double majoring in Organic Chemistry... These days, one that I still really like is: "Did you know that there's so much sand in Northern Africa, that if you spread it all out, it would completely cover the Sahara Desert!!??" Though it's possible that this last one was purloined from Jack Handey's _Deep Thoughts._
This is exactly the reason why I spent any time at all revising it to be as accurate as possible. "I have never heard of, or thought of a god concept that I could say "I believe that exists!"" They are uncompelling concepts and some of them are downright irrational. That's not the same, or even close to "Whatever you believe in doesn't exist, because you can't demonstrate it!"
Oh my stars, Matt!! As a Humane Officer and the manager at the Humane Society in WallaWalla, WA in the 90s, I had to, often, spend half my time educating people! I always tried to educate and approve adoption,(they'll get a pet somewhere, anyway) but I admit there were a few who would not listen, and I used my, and the animal control officers' authorities, to make sure they didn't get to keep or replace animals they wouldn't take care of. But I've had the dumb crap thrown at me, too. Like, 'god didn't make dogs to be neutered and confined!" Of course not! We made dogs. "Horses in the wild don't get their feet trimmed!" Of course not, that's why they live less than half as long! As do 'outdoor' cats or stray dogs! "Sheep don't get sheared in the wild!" No, but thousands of years of domestication has taken away their ability to shed! And so on! The horse one was from an attorney who I cited for animal abuse! He lost the case and the six horses. They were overgrown feet and emaciated. Idiot said that in court, to a judge who loved horses! They few cases where animal abuse was intentional, not ignorance, taught me that usually, it also meant CPS , family law were required, too. 👍🏼💙💝💙💖💙🥰✌
I agree with everything you said except the neutering of dogs. I never did it to any of mine, my reasoning being that if I apply the same logic (they can't get cancer in the balls if they haven't got balls) I might aswell remove every part of them that could get cancer as long as they keep living... Now my dogs have all since died and I currently don't own any nor will I ever again because my country made it really difficult to own dogs, but they all died from cancer in the bones and stomach and old age.
Welcome to the system! Broken by Division. Welcome to the Mission... Given life to imprison. Welcome to Existence. Walked on till resistance. Welcome to Persistence. Carry on with insistence.
One of the problems with English is that the subjunctive as become almost redundant. I think differently in Italian for example….. I think this who speak one of the Romance languages have an advantage here ( if they use the subjunctive correctly). I find it an intriguing topic….
I'm enjoying hearing you weave in your other interests. I seem to remember you also have an interest in magic tricks. you could definitely continue this as a series by going there - eg, I may not know how a trick works, but I am not convinced someone got sawed in half and then reassembledr.
This problem exists in various aspects of communication. If I say, "I don't like you," to someone, they would be likely to assume that I dislike them when, on a DislikeLike spectrum, "don't like" in fact ranges from 'dislike' up to 'neutral'. The same sort of spectrum is true for belief: Believe FalseBelieve True.
Very good. Yes, language has baggage and nuance. Thus, as has been said long ago, before we can really discuss - or certainly debate - anything we first must define our terms. I see similar differences between 'think' and 'believe.' Differentiating between what we think and what we believe can get very tricky. I often reflect on the comedy sketch about waking up and finding that everything was now just an exact replica. How could we know ? In fact, there are actual documented mental conditions where people are convinced that everybody they know are imposters. So, we have to realize that what we think we know is largely a product of brain wiring. In the end who knows - maybe it's all an illusion.
When it comes to heat and lighting with keeping reptiles and other animals there is a lot that we have only really known a lot about very recently. 40 years ago people had no fckng clue that their turtle needs natural sunlight. So they thought it just happen to look weird. I dont blame them. But i do blame people that are just stubborn and arent willing to listen to others. I always appreciate people that adjust their way of keeping after learning what they did wrong.
Jean Paul Sartre sits down in a coffee shop and when the waiter comes over he asks for a coffee without cream. "I'm terribly sorry, monsieur, but we are all out of cream. Would a coffee without milk be acceptable?"
Sartre is perhaps my fave philosopher The lines "If you are lonely when you're alone, you are in bad company." and "“Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.” are quite profound I loved how in Rick & Morty "modified" the latter quite into their version
Minor nitpicking: if your premise is "if it's raining, I'm wet", then you are necessarily, always wet when it's raining (modus ponens). I know you know that and you only made a shortcut into informal fallacies, but wanted to stress it for clarity nevertheless. On the topic: in Hungarian, we have the same word for "believe" and "having faith". Also, the Hungarian phrase for "being convinced" hase this weird connotation of a stronger degree of belief, so I always thought "believe" was a very good word for assigning a truth value to a proposition. Oh and Happy New Year!
The preponderance of a lack of results when a god or gods are studied indicates to me that a supernatural deity that directly interacts with our reality does not exist.
Your definition of god is narrow: a supernatural deity that directly interacts with our reality. If that is your definition of god, that is fine. But please do not impose your personal definition of god upon all others. Consider another more symbolic and broader definition of god: god is that which you ascribe greatest value to, or that which you serve. A person’s definition of god doesn’t have to be a literal personified magical interventionist creature.
I think these are good little tutorials. I, myself don't use the 'believe/belief'. to me, it seem to carry some connotation of hope. 'its my understanding' I think is a better way to frame one's position
i mean, you can have both. i was never taken in by the religious rhetoric as a young child, so at 12, i decided that i didnt believe any of the stories that i had been told about god and jesus. my "non-belief" is on the same core level that a devout theist believes at. that said, at 55 yrs of age, i have yet to be convinced that my non belief is wrong.
Yes, I myself have started to learn alot about animals. In this case cats, they are much smarter than I ever thought. There are unique tools we can use to literally talk to them, it is something that I was never taught. In part I blame my parents for this lack of foresight but honestly I think this is societies fault in part. We have some well trained cats, for some unknown reason to me; and I kid you not they were trained to steal in some cases. I have observed how their nature can be predatory when in contact with humans. On the other hand, I have seen particularly curious cats seem (even if trained to steal, I can not confirm if this is true or not) make mistakes the same way a human might. Even panicking and attempting to hide when they feel trapped. I am so happy that you are still here to help educate the people that are listening. I remember now a old lesson that was taught to me but never realized how true it is. That being, to "feed" those who are hungry. Or more literally, help those (in this case with knowledge) whom want to learn and understand. Truly, cat or human; the more I learn about them the less differences I see. They both have capacity to learn, and demonstrate their knowledge. Only humans simply have a more developed brain it would appear. At least in some cases. Some people clearly have a less developed brain, be it that their own choice or genetics.
That joke at the end is interesting to me. I'm pretty sure the name has no relevance (perhaps it does?) but is a double meaning for people whom get drunk. Either they indulge, and don't think about it or they indulge and don't think about it. XD
40 years ago I had a cat that would walk me to the bus for work. 5 min. after my return, the cat would be there too! 5 days a week. Later I discovered that I learned a lot about human behaviour, by watching the chickens I had. The flock mentality is pretty much the same! You can watch the whole scenario: the built up - the drama - and the aftermath. It's much easier to see, as chickens probably has no hidden agenda. Well, who knows ?
Starting at 07:27 It can also be said (and I find the following very annoying) that because we say we don't believe is not an affirmation or that we claim "Therefore there is no God", apologists like to use this as an admission & confirmation that (somehow) we really do believe in their God or accept their God does exist So, we are either making a positive claim that we know no God exists, or we secretly do believe and know a God does exist
Well, the main question in my opinion is "why having a debate at all?" When someone is convinced that i am wrong, the reason is obvious - i care about the truth, he cares about the truth, disagreement means that one of us is wrong, so lets fix it. But when someone is merely "not convinced that i am right", then why should i waste my time on him? How would such debate benefit me? Isnt it more meaningful to talk with someone who has the opposite belief?
"I'm not convinced" is a subset of "I do not believe". Or SHOULD be. One who purports to believe without being convinced appears to be presenting as a gnostic agnostic...
Hey Matt, serious question- since you breed reptiles, do you know much about turtles 🐢, and their care, specifically Red Eared Sliders? Would love to get your advice if you do. Thanks! 😊
8:46 Pretty sure this is actually valid though?? Am I missing something? "If there’s good reason to believe in god, then I’d believe it. I don’t believe it therefore there’s not good reason to believe in god" The difference from the "if it’s raining, I’m wet" example, is that you’re negating the conclusion, which would flip the implication. Or am I wrong?
I find that when I say I don't believe gods exist, people are very quick to argue the point with me. On the other hand, when I say there is nothing that leads me to believe gods exist, nobody seems to be in a hurry to argue the point with me. I don't believe gods exist because there is nothing that leads me to believe such a thing. There is however a great deal that leads me to believe that gods don't exist. Do I believe gods exist? No I do not! Do I know if gods exist or not? No I do not! I don't know that gods exist because I can't know and neither can anyone else. I'm just honest to myself and don't pretend to know that which I cannot and don't know. The gods have poorly equipped the faithful and they have failed to convince me, it will be up to the gods now but nothing leads me to believe that will happen.
A horse walks into a bar and says to the bartender, “Four fingers of Scotch, neat.” The bartender looks at the horse and replies, “I have seen you in here a lot lately. I think you may have a problem with drinking.” The horse is quite offended by this arrogant statement and replies, “I think not,” then promptly disappears from existence. A lot of the time people just don’t get it so then I tell them it’s a reference to Rene Descartes, but if I explain that first it just feels like I’m putting Descartes before the horse.
Playing devil's advocate here, if discussing this with a theist, I can also see these statements going two different ways because of a common misconception within many religions (I'm speaking primarily about Christianity, as I used to be one) with atheism and agnosticism. Since they often don't understand these terms are not mutually exclusive, "I am not convinced" could sound more like your just agnostic, rather than an atheist, whereas "I do not believe" does sound like an atheist. In essence, though you are clarifying you're not making a positive claim, this might just be creating a new issue.
Matt, do you keep Reptiles? You sound knowledgable about the information. Im just curious cause ive had a pair of turtles for 17 years, and the only light theyve ever needed, was a 60watt incandescent bulb for heat. Theyre very content with that and will probably outlive my cats at this rate.
They also need UV lights as well. Though, a full spectrum light 💡 may work. Not a 100% certain. I have turtles as well, and got them as tiny babies back in 2007, so we have had turtles almost the same amount of time! 🐢 😂
I find many theists are unable to construct the question they meant to ask. So many times I hear questions beginning with, "If atheism is true..." and it drives me fucking crazy. What they mean to ask is, "If there is no god..." but they can't seem to figure that out. If atheism is true, that means there are people who don't believe in gods. That's it. It has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a god, and everything to do with the reporting of a subjective mental state regarding a single specific subject.
To say " i am not convinced" can be an intellectually honest statement but to say you see no evidence for a intelligent creator when the only provable creator of highly complex coded information such as we find in all living cells is INTELLIGENCE clearly shows you as being intellectually dishonest! Why? Because there is never a logical reason to discard real world evidence just to maintain your dogma driven view of reality. This just is what it is.
Naturalistic fallacies are not the same as appeal to nature fallacies. What you describe in this video ("A is natural, therefore A is good") is an appeal to nature fallacy, whereas naturalistic fallacies involve inferring normative statements from factual statements alone (e.g., "If you drop your child, it will get hurt, so you shouldn't drop your child," which is a non sequitur in itself; to make a valid argument, you would have to add another normative statement as a premise, namely, "Your child shouldn't get hurt").
p.s. using your lack of logic, you're convinced therfore you don't believe, or you believe tho you're not convinced, you don't believe tho you're convinced, your reasoning is flawed, you're welcome, your post-theist apologetics failed
I do not believe in god = I am not convinced god exists. I do not believe in god does not automatically mean you are convinced god does NOT exist….it may mean that but not automatically. You could simply not be convinced (yet).
There are a lot of white and blue balls in a bottle and you must tell me if you believe that the blue balls are one more or the white ones. You can say that you are not convinced that there are more blue balls and you are also not convinced that there are more white balls. So you don't believe in either untill you get enough evidence to have a rational belief in one of the two.
@martin_323 A belief is just something you're convinced of, or something you feel strongly is the case. Faith is believing something without evidence for it, or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
When this guy started off about passionate disagreements in the reptile community, I was kind of hoping he was talking about the reptiles themselves. Man! Lizards fighting each other! That would be awesome.
@@avishevin1976 Transphobes would like anatomical men to stay out of women's spaces. Transphobes would like activists to stop advocating for the pharmaceutical subversion of the natural human growth phase. puberty. Transphobes believe that an anatomical man can not become a woman. Transphobes make good sense.
Cute joke. But a ∴ b does not mean that !a ∴ !b. We have evidence of people who "think not". We don't have evidence of people disappearing mid-conversation. 49.97% of US voters proved that they "think not" on Nov. 5, 2024. Unfortunately, none of them seem to have disappeared, mid-conversation or otherwise.
One thing that bugs me is this whole idea that agnosticism means "not knowing" and atheism means "not believing." If you break this down, there’s no way to make it work without creating a mess. Using the terms this way creates a maximum of three groups. First, there’s the folks who claim to know either God exists (gnostic theists) or God doesn’t (gnostic atheists). Since those are mutually exclusive, only one of those camps could ever exist at a time. Then you’ve got the agnostics, who’d have to admit they can’t say either way. You could break those down to agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Simply put, gnostic atheists an gnostic theists can't both exists rendering using "Gnostic" here almost pointless and I've yet to see a gnostic who can show their knowledge. But nope, people find a way to complicate it. They redefine gnosticism as a “claim to knowledge” instead of actual justified true belief (JTB). You know, the thing knowledge is supposed to be. What they’re really doing is turning “knowledge” into “strong belief.” That’s where it all goes downhill because now you’ve got this sliding scale where anyone can call something “knowledge” if they believe in it hard enough. Congratulations, you just broke the clean binary of gnostic and agnostic and replaced it with a vague spectrum. Somewhere, Wittgenstein’s shaking his head. Here’s how I see it: agnosticism shouldn’t mean “I don’t know” because that’s way too soft. It ought to mean “I can’t even evaluate this.” If you’re agnostic about God, you’re saying you don’t have the tools to figure it out. That’s different from an ignostic, who’s over here saying, “What are we even talking about? This whole God thing doesn’t make sense to begin with.” It’s a subtle difference, but it matters. Ignostics call the game rigged from the start. Agnostics just refuse to answer questions they don't have the tools to answer. At the end of the day, the belief question is binary. You either believe in a God, or you don’t. That’s it. The rest of this is just people creating philosophical houseplants to muddy up the conversation. They bring in foundherentism or correspondence theories of truth like some kind of academic flex, but it’s overkill. Keep it simple. So yeah, if someone asks me where I stand outside the world of the internet, I just say: I’m a non-believer. It’s clean, it’s honest, and it doesn’t waste anyone’s time with terms we could spend hours debating.
Soul is what separates man from all other animal kingdoms. Soul is the wisdom of HIM who is SHE, sleeping. Soul wisdom sleeping, naturally was drawn to the spirit and so wisdom fell deep into the earth within man mingling with the instinctual spirit manifesting ego from the psyche of the flesh . Ego is man's personal god, he's called the illegitimate son, cannot inherit eternal life since he's attached to the earth through the instinctual spirit and this spirit is spirit of darkness. The true spirit of the Fathers light is Christ whom we receive only through Lord Jesus. Jesus doesn't save spirits, its souls. Soul is wisdom sleeping, soul is female in essence. Wisdom forms the new man within called the body of Christ the bride.
Since belief is simply finding a proposition more likely to be true than untrue true, and that alone informs your actions whether you're convinced or not, being unconvinced is a nothing burger with weak sauce and a side order of cries. This is necessarily true because belief and being convinced are different thresholds of credence. So, some sleight of mouth by rephrasing to "I'm unconvinced" is an appeal to a vacuous truth because while it may be true that you're not _convinced_ of the proposition, you'll be acting on your *belief* whether your credence has met that threshold or not. Regarding the threshold of *belief,* Dr. Eric Schwitzgebel writing for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, states, "We might suppose that every subject holds each of their beliefs with some particular degree of confidence. In general, the greater the confidence one has in a proposition, the more willing one is to depend on it in one’s actions. _One common way of formalizing this idea is by means of a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates absolute certainty in the falsity of a proposition, 1 indicates absolute certainty in its truth, and .5 indicates that the subject regards the proposition just as likely to be true as false._ This number then indicates one’s credence or degree of belief" (Schwitzgebel, 2019). The idea that belief is finding a proposition _more likely_ to be true than untrue is _noncontentious_ (Seitz & Paloutzian, 2023)(Kouchakzadeha, Alikhania, & Gharibzadehb, 2023). Therefore, Finding a proposition to be _more likely_ to be true than untrue at 50.0̅1% is as much *belief* as finding it more likely to be true than untrue at 100%. Conversesly, Logic of Decision (Jeffrey, 1983) illustrates this difference, defining certainty as a state in which one’s belief is so high that it is “rational to ignore the possibility of error” (p. 157). To grasp these thresholds, we turn to probabilistic measures often employed in studies of belief and decision-making. In Bayesian terms, degrees of credence range from 0 (complete disbelief) to 1 (complete certainty). While the threshold for belief may rest at a probability greater than 0.5, certainty requires a probability near 1, with some researchers defining it as 1 - ε (where ε is a very small positive value). Psychological studies further suggest that people are inclined to claim certainty at thresholds around 90-99% confidence (Smith et al., 2013; Windschitl et al., 2015), reflecting a marked disparity between the two distinct thresholds. 50.0̅1% - 90% is a *_MASSIVE_* window in which belief can be present *without* it meeting the threshold for certainty (Kvanig, 2003). Nice try. Stop saying things that are demonstratrably stupid, wrong, and dishonest. References: Bzdok, D., Groß, D., Eickhoff, S.B. (2015). The Neurobiology of Moral Cognition: Relation to Theory of Mind, Empathy, and Mind-Wandering. In: Clausen, J., Levy, N. (eds) Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer, Dordrecht. doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_161. Retrieved from link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_161 Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552-564. doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.552 Giacomo Novembre, Luca F. Ticini, Simone Schütz-Bosbach, Peter E. Keller, Motor simulation and the coordination of self and other in real-time joint action, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 9, Issue 8, August 2014, Pages 1062-1068. Retrieved from doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst086 Huber, F. (2007). The Logic of Uncertainty and Decision. In Philosophy of Probability. Retrieved from philpapers.org/rec/HUBTLO Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Retrieved from gutenberg.org/ebooks/4705 Jeffrey, R. (1983). The Logic of Decision. University of Chicago Press. Kouchakzadeha, A., Alikhania, A. & Gharibzadehb, S. (2023, May). Memory of former beliefs may affect the single belief formation process. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Cognition. Vol. 4. Pp 34-36 Kvanvig, J. L. (2003). The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge University Press. Locke, J. (1689). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved from earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1690book4.pdf Moore, G. E. (1959). Certainty. In Philosophical Papers (pp. 227-229). Allen & Unwin. Pitt Philsci Archive. (n.d.). Conceptualizing and Measuring Belief, Certainty, and Probabilistic Judgments. Retrieved from philsci-archive.pitt.edu Schwitzgebel, E. (2019). Belief. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Seitz, R. & Paloutzian, R. (2023, September 23). Beliefs made it into science: believe it or not. Function, Volume 4, Issue 6 Smith, E. E., et al. (2013). The relationship between confidence and accuracy in perceptual decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1043-1056. doi.org/10.1037/a0032471 Sosa, E. (2009). Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Volume II. Oxford University Press. Vieira, J. B., Almeida, P. R., Ferreira-Santos, F., Barbosa, F., Marques-Teixeira, J., & Marsh, A. A. (2013). Distinct neural activation patterns underlie economic decisions in high and low psychopathy scorers. Retrieved from link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_161 Windschitl, P. D., et al. (2015). The effect of confidence on the relationship between subjective probability and choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(2), 147-158. doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1833
Nice sleight of mouth, here. "I'm unconvinced," actually has a great usage here. It is great to use *when you are uncertain of the validity of the question asked.* That is to say... whether or not you are even sure the question is actually about belief or about certainty or if the question or syllogism being presented is valid. Sometimes, to determine such things, requires you to actually examine, in depth, the syllogism or claim for self-reference or logical fallacies. If it is too complicated for you to do so quickly, and you have evidence or reason to believe your interlocutor is engaging in bad faith... "I'm unconvinced." is a perfectly reasonable and valid response. And as part of the null hypothesis, I don't assume whether the other participant is in good faith or not until they demonstrate such through how willing they are to engage with the format presented honestly. Considering Matt mostly deals with bad faith actors just pushing an assertion like a dealer pushes coke, "I'm unconvinced" remains a perfectly valid *and true* assertion.
There are a lot of white and blue balls in a bottle and you must tell me if you believe that the blue balls are one more or the white ones. You can say that you are not convinced that there are more blue balls and you are also not convinced that there are more white balls. So you don't believe in either untill you get enough evidence to have a rational belief in one of the two.
For me it's the preponderance of evidence does not sustain the notion that Yahweh, the Abrahamic god does not exist. Yahweh was one of hundreds of deities worshipped in the Levant during the middle and late Bronze Age.
You do not use a number of negatives that would not fail to make your case. Evidence of non-existence is not required. Evidence of existence is (normally, by rational people) required for belief to be justified. There isn't a large enough lack of Evidence for you? How much more Evidence would need to not exist in order for you to achieve lack of belief?
Can you believe where your life ended up? Angrily screeching on the internet that having pets is wrong? If you were more intelligent you would be ashamed.
how compassionate are you to the poor mice and rats you feed to your snakes? And yes the snakes have a moral right to eat their prey because they do not know any better, but as soon as you insert yourself as a link in that process you have a moral choice to make.
I wouldn't be able to live feed. I think why cause that fear and suffering. Though I've had a snake years ago, and fed it frozen food that obviously must have gone through suffering. I've also owned pet rats as a kid, and they make great pets.
Jesus dude, follow your train of logic, should we kill all carnivores to save the prey? Should we never step on a cockroach? Rats doesn't matter. They are vermin. You angrily screeching about rats and snakes on everything that Matt does is pathetic, get a life.
@@Locust13so, if some super intelligent alien life came here and started killing people because they see them as “vermin”, that would be fine? 🙄 I’m not a vegan, and eat meat, and recognize that predators need to eat, but your argument and your attitude sucks. Wouldn’t want to hang out with someone like you. 🫤
@Locust13 pathetic, the answer to your dishonest question is given in the second part of my original post! And as for your other question: are you too feebleminded after stuffing all those tortured animals in your facehole to understand that there is a difference between accidentally stepping on an anomal and purposfully killing it for pleasure. Thanks for proving that carnists are the vermin.
Being an Arabic native speaker and teacher , I confirm that we have the very same linguistic problem in Arabic. I'm not convinced conveys the message better than I don't believe
Matt, I can’t overstate how important your lessons have been for me in both reconsidering my faith and logic in general.
Your simple explanations about being wet and therefore concluding that it must be raining are spot on. Thanks man. I’m glad you exist and I’m planning on supporting you via Patreon until the day one of us dies 🙂
So many religious people need to watch this and learn the difference.
Thank you for helping us hone our thinking, verbal skills, and logic. Happy New Year to you, Arden, and y’all’s critters! ❤
Best wishes for the new year, for you and yours, Matt!!
Thank you for all the videos you've made and hope to see many more.
I've learned a lot from Matt over the years, certainly I have learned where I have gone wrong in my thinking when it comes to debating, but I never expected to learn about reptiles.
Every day is a school day.
*The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest, and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve anything supernatural, including ''gods'!*
I wish everyone a good 2025 . . .
I agree. "Believe" carries baggage. Although I use it in casual conversations, I do not in serious ones. As always, great video. It's comforting to know someone understands 😊
"I drink therefore I am."
@M. Python
As far as "drama is everywhere", I am active in the amateur astronomy and education thereof, and you wouldn't believe how much drama is involved. A lot of people outside of it are absolutely shocked to hear this haha.
What in the world causes so much drama in amateur astronomy? Does a lot of it have to do with gear, like Apple vs Android for phones, Canon vs Nikon vs Sony among camera enthusiasts, etc?
Thank you Matt for educating us on such vital matters, truly understanding what we are saying is the first step to understand ourselves and others! Great stuff and great joke at the end 😂
A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks the horse if it's an alcoholic considering all the bars he frequents, to which the horse replies "I think not!" The horse disappears.
To explain why first would be putting Descartes before de horse.
had to reread twice to get it.
Womp womp 😂
Glad I checked the comments before posting this exact same version of the joke Matt told 😂
Dude, that was one of my favourite jokes, some 25 odd years ago when I first started going to Uni.
That one as well as "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!" After all, I WAS double majoring in Organic Chemistry...
These days, one that I still really like is: "Did you know that there's so much sand in Northern Africa, that if you spread it all out, it would completely cover the Sahara Desert!!??" Though it's possible that this last one was purloined from Jack Handey's _Deep Thoughts._
This is exactly the reason why I spent any time at all revising it to be as accurate as possible. "I have never heard of, or thought of a god concept that I could say "I believe that exists!"" They are uncompelling concepts and some of them are downright irrational. That's not the same, or even close to "Whatever you believe in doesn't exist, because you can't demonstrate it!"
Matt just want to say you have taught me a lot and I am grateful for that. Happy new year to you and all the best
Oh my stars, Matt!! As a Humane Officer and the manager at the Humane Society in WallaWalla, WA in the 90s, I had to, often, spend half my time educating people! I always tried to educate and approve adoption,(they'll get a pet somewhere, anyway) but I admit there were a few who would not listen, and I used my, and the animal control officers' authorities, to make sure they didn't get to keep or replace animals they wouldn't take care of. But I've had the dumb crap thrown at me, too. Like, 'god didn't make dogs to be neutered and confined!" Of course not! We made dogs. "Horses in the wild don't get their feet trimmed!" Of course not, that's why they live less than half as long! As do 'outdoor' cats or stray dogs! "Sheep don't get sheared in the wild!" No, but thousands of years of domestication has taken away their ability to shed! And so on! The horse one was from an attorney who I cited for animal abuse! He lost the case and the six horses. They were overgrown feet and emaciated. Idiot said that in court, to a judge who loved horses! They few cases where animal abuse was intentional, not ignorance, taught me that usually, it also meant CPS , family law were required, too. 👍🏼💙💝💙💖💙🥰✌
You seem a good sort. Happy new year from Stonehenge
I agree with everything you said except the neutering of dogs. I never did it to any of mine, my reasoning being that if I apply the same logic (they can't get cancer in the balls if they haven't got balls) I might aswell remove every part of them that could get cancer as long as they keep living... Now my dogs have all since died and I currently don't own any nor will I ever again because my country made it really difficult to own dogs, but they all died from cancer in the bones and stomach and old age.
Welcome to the system!
Broken by Division.
Welcome to the Mission...
Given life to imprison.
Welcome to Existence.
Walked on till resistance.
Welcome to Persistence.
Carry on with insistence.
The joke at the end is a play at the quote from René Descartes, "I think therefore I am".
One of the problems with English is that the subjunctive as become almost redundant. I think differently in Italian for example….. I think this who speak one of the Romance languages have an advantage here ( if they use the subjunctive correctly). I find it an intriguing topic….
The bartender looks over at Werner Heisenberg and says “Did you see that?” … “I’m uncertain.”
Bartender is just part time. His day job: Heis cool principal.
I'm enjoying hearing you weave in your other interests. I seem to remember you also have an interest in magic tricks. you could definitely continue this as a series by going there - eg, I may not know how a trick works, but I am not convinced someone got sawed in half and then reassembledr.
This problem exists in various aspects of communication. If I say, "I don't like you," to someone, they would be likely to assume that I dislike them when, on a DislikeLike spectrum, "don't like" in fact ranges from 'dislike' up to 'neutral'. The same sort of spectrum is true for belief: Believe FalseBelieve True.
Very good. Yes, language has baggage and nuance. Thus, as has been said long ago, before we can really discuss - or certainly debate - anything we first must define our terms. I see similar differences between 'think' and 'believe.' Differentiating between what we think and what we believe can get very tricky. I often reflect on the comedy sketch about waking up and finding that everything was now just an exact replica. How could we know ? In fact, there are actual documented mental conditions where people are convinced that everybody they know are imposters.
So, we have to realize that what we think we know is largely a product of brain wiring. In the end who knows - maybe it's all an illusion.
I am convinced the t in Descartes is NOT silent.
Poor René...lol. He was the architect of his own undoing.
Very good video.
Your big fan from Turkiye. Keep up the good work!
When it comes to heat and lighting with keeping reptiles and other animals there is a lot that we have only really known a lot about very recently. 40 years ago people had no fckng clue that their turtle needs natural sunlight. So they thought it just happen to look weird. I dont blame them. But i do blame people that are just stubborn and arent willing to listen to others. I always appreciate people that adjust their way of keeping after learning what they did wrong.
Jean Paul Sartre sits down in a coffee shop and when the waiter comes over he asks for a coffee without cream. "I'm terribly sorry, monsieur, but we are all out of cream. Would a coffee without milk be acceptable?"
"Woops. I forgot. I'm vegan. Could you make that a coffee without low fat sodium-free almond milk?"
Sartre is perhaps my fave philosopher
The lines "If you are lonely when you're alone, you are in bad company." and "“Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.” are quite profound
I loved how in Rick & Morty "modified" the latter quite into their version
I do not believe, because I am not convinced
🇸🇪:
Would you you like fermented herring or cod in lye for supper?
Descartes:
...I think not 💨
I heard your name mentioned today in regards to the FFRF transphobic statement. Good for you. Always awesome to hear your name mentioned on PBS.
I'm not caught up with some stuff sometimes. What statement are you referring to? Did the Foundation make a transphobic statement? What was it?
Minor nitpicking: if your premise is "if it's raining, I'm wet", then you are necessarily, always wet when it's raining (modus ponens). I know you know that and you only made a shortcut into informal fallacies, but wanted to stress it for clarity nevertheless.
On the topic: in Hungarian, we have the same word for "believe" and "having faith". Also, the Hungarian phrase for "being convinced" hase this weird connotation of a stronger degree of belief, so I always thought "believe" was a very good word for assigning a truth value to a proposition.
Oh and Happy New Year!
The preponderance of a lack of results when a god or gods are studied indicates to me that a supernatural deity that directly interacts with our reality does not exist.
Which studies do you have in mind exactly?
Are you willing to throw out most of current physicists' research on the same basis?
Your definition of god is narrow: a supernatural deity that directly interacts with our reality. If that is your definition of god, that is fine. But please do not impose your personal definition of god upon all others. Consider another more symbolic and broader definition of god: god is that which you ascribe greatest value to, or that which you serve. A person’s definition of god doesn’t have to be a literal personified magical interventionist creature.
I think these are good little tutorials.
I, myself don't use the 'believe/belief'. to me, it seem to carry some connotation of hope.
'its my understanding' I think is a better way to frame one's position
I’m a sad person. I loved that joke at the end!
Rene said "I think therefore I am." Good joke.
i mean, you can have both.
i was never taken in by the religious rhetoric as a young child, so at 12, i decided that i didnt believe any of the stories that i had been told about god and jesus. my "non-belief" is on the same core level that a devout theist believes at.
that said, at 55 yrs of age, i have yet to be convinced that my non belief is wrong.
I did not realiae how good Matt looked without a beard until I saw some of his older videos where he did not have one.
Unfortunately we have the same misunderstanding in Italian
Yes, I myself have started to learn alot about animals. In this case cats, they are much smarter than I ever thought. There are unique tools we can use to literally talk to them, it is something that I was never taught. In part I blame my parents for this lack of foresight but honestly I think this is societies fault in part.
We have some well trained cats, for some unknown reason to me; and I kid you not they were trained to steal in some cases. I have observed how their nature can be predatory when in contact with humans. On the other hand, I have seen particularly curious cats seem (even if trained to steal, I can not confirm if this is true or not) make mistakes the same way a human might. Even panicking and attempting to hide when they feel trapped.
I am so happy that you are still here to help educate the people that are listening. I remember now a old lesson that was taught to me but never realized how true it is. That being, to "feed" those who are hungry. Or more literally, help those (in this case with knowledge) whom want to learn and understand. Truly, cat or human; the more I learn about them the less differences I see. They both have capacity to learn, and demonstrate their knowledge. Only humans simply have a more developed brain it would appear. At least in some cases. Some people clearly have a less developed brain, be it that their own choice or genetics.
That joke at the end is interesting to me. I'm pretty sure the name has no relevance (perhaps it does?) but is a double meaning for people whom get drunk. Either they indulge, and don't think about it or they indulge and don't think about it. XD
40 years ago I had a cat that would walk me to the bus for work.
5 min. after my return, the cat would be there too! 5 days a week.
Later I discovered that I learned a lot about human behaviour,
by watching the chickens I had.
The flock mentality is pretty much the same!
You can watch the whole scenario: the built up - the drama - and
the aftermath. It's much easier to see, as chickens probably
has no hidden agenda. Well, who knows ?
Starting at 07:27 It can also be said (and I find the following very annoying) that because we say we don't believe is not an affirmation or that we claim "Therefore there is no God", apologists like to use this as an admission & confirmation that (somehow) we really do believe in their God or accept their God does exist
So, we are either making a positive claim that we know no God exists, or we secretly do believe and know a God does exist
Well, the main question in my opinion is "why having a debate at all?" When someone is convinced that i am wrong, the reason is obvious - i care about the truth, he cares about the truth, disagreement means that one of us is wrong, so lets fix it.
But when someone is merely "not convinced that i am right", then why should i waste my time on him? How would such debate benefit me? Isnt it more meaningful to talk with someone who has the opposite belief?
"I'm not convinced" is a subset of "I do not believe". Or SHOULD be.
One who purports to believe without being convinced appears to be presenting as a gnostic agnostic...
Hey Matt, serious question- since you breed reptiles, do you know much about turtles 🐢, and their care, specifically Red Eared Sliders? Would love to get your advice if you do. Thanks! 😊
How is anyone holding a view that nature is good, man made is bad, sharing this view on the internet??
8:46 Pretty sure this is actually valid though?? Am I missing something?
"If there’s good reason to believe in god, then I’d believe it. I don’t believe it therefore there’s not good reason to believe in god"
The difference from the "if it’s raining, I’m wet" example, is that you’re negating the conclusion, which would flip the implication.
Or am I wrong?
Unsure of not believing doesn't reflect an unbelief per se, however a lack of unsurity of disbelief also doesn't show belief. Clear?
I find that when I say I don't believe gods exist, people are very quick to argue the point with me. On the other hand, when I say there is nothing that leads me to believe gods exist, nobody seems to be in a hurry to argue the point with me.
I don't believe gods exist because there is nothing that leads me to believe such a thing. There is however a great deal that leads me to believe that gods don't exist. Do I believe gods exist? No I do not! Do I know if gods exist or not? No I do not! I don't know that gods exist because I can't know and neither can anyone else. I'm just honest to myself and don't pretend to know that which I cannot and don't know.
The gods have poorly equipped the faithful and they have failed to convince me, it will be up to the gods now but nothing leads me to believe that will happen.
Sharp, little the joke at end. 😂
A horse walks into a bar and says to the bartender, “Four fingers of Scotch, neat.” The bartender looks at the horse and replies, “I have seen you in here a lot lately. I think you may have a problem with drinking.” The horse is quite offended by this arrogant statement and replies, “I think not,” then promptly disappears from existence.
A lot of the time people just don’t get it so then I tell them it’s a reference to Rene Descartes, but if I explain that first it just feels like I’m putting Descartes before the horse.
Playing devil's advocate here, if discussing this with a theist, I can also see these statements going two different ways because of a common misconception within many religions (I'm speaking primarily about Christianity, as I used to be one) with atheism and agnosticism. Since they often don't understand these terms are not mutually exclusive, "I am not convinced" could sound more like your just agnostic, rather than an atheist, whereas "I do not believe" does sound like an atheist.
In essence, though you are clarifying you're not making a positive claim, this might just be creating a new issue.
Matt, do you keep Reptiles? You sound knowledgable about the information.
Im just curious cause ive had a pair of turtles for 17 years, and the only light theyve ever needed, was a 60watt incandescent bulb for heat. Theyre very content with that and will probably outlive my cats at this rate.
They also need UV lights as well. Though, a full spectrum light 💡 may work. Not a 100% certain. I have turtles as well, and got them as tiny babies back in 2007, so we have had turtles almost the same amount of time! 🐢 😂
Are they Red eared sliders? Or land based tortoises? Sliders live mostly in water, torts live on land
@@theunknownatheist3815 mine are painted turtles, aquatic little guys.
I believe vs I’m convinced…
Ironically, that last joke employs a converse fallacy. I don’t know if that’s part of the joke.
I find many theists are unable to construct the question they meant to ask. So many times I hear questions beginning with, "If atheism is true..." and it drives me fucking crazy. What they mean to ask is, "If there is no god..." but they can't seem to figure that out. If atheism is true, that means there are people who don't believe in gods. That's it. It has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a god, and everything to do with the reporting of a subjective mental state regarding a single specific subject.
BS, almost all the hosts on your show The Line flat-out say "He doesn't exist!" instead of "I'm not convinced he exists."
Besides the point of the video
A person using wordplay to denigrate shows them to be disingenuous and any further debate is pointless.
So funny. Same issues in bird keepers. Humans require conflict I guess. LOL
To say " i am not convinced" can be an intellectually honest statement but to say you see no evidence for a intelligent creator when the only provable creator of highly complex coded information such as we find in all living cells is INTELLIGENCE clearly shows you as being intellectually dishonest! Why? Because there is never a logical reason to discard real world evidence just to maintain your dogma driven view of reality. This just is what it is.
This is just another unsubstantiated claim
I am convinced that people imagine and invent gods. First of all - the God of the Gaps.
Naturalistic fallacies are not the same as appeal to nature fallacies. What you describe in this video ("A is natural, therefore A is good") is an appeal to nature fallacy, whereas naturalistic fallacies involve inferring normative statements from factual statements alone (e.g., "If you drop your child, it will get hurt, so you shouldn't drop your child," which is a non sequitur in itself; to make a valid argument, you would have to add another normative statement as a premise, namely, "Your child shouldn't get hurt").
p.s. using your lack of logic, you're convinced therfore you don't believe, or you believe tho you're not convinced, you don't believe tho you're convinced, your reasoning is flawed, you're welcome, your post-theist apologetics failed
I do not believe in god = I am not convinced god exists.
I do not believe in god does not automatically mean you are convinced god does NOT exist….it may mean that but not automatically. You could simply not be convinced (yet).
The joke also has a logical fallacy. It denies the antecedent of "I think therefore I am".
Isn't the joke that he thinks not? (Like, he doesn't think, therefore he is no more)
If we are talking about the god of Christianity, I do not believe NOR am I convinced that god exists at all.
Hmm, in my head "I don't believe" means "I lack faith". I guess this isn't the meaning you're using in this vid, is it? (not a native English speaker)
There are a lot of white and blue balls in a bottle and you must tell me if you believe that the blue balls are one more or the white ones. You can say that you are not convinced that there are more blue balls and you are also not convinced that there are more white balls. So you don't believe in either untill you get enough evidence to have a rational belief in one of the two.
@@AtheistRedBlue it can get confusing if the language uses the same word for both "faith" and "belief"
@@martin_323 It's not the same thing.
@martin_323 A belief is just something you're convinced of, or something you feel strongly is the case. Faith is believing something without evidence for it, or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Dammit, he stopped existing...
When this guy started off about passionate disagreements in the reptile community, I was kind of hoping he was talking about the reptiles themselves. Man! Lizards fighting each other!
That would be awesome.
Might a skeptic be "unconvinced" that society should treat anatomical men as women?
I am convinced that is rooted in bigotry.
@@avishevin1976 >"I am convinced that is rooted in bigotry."
@@PonyboyGarfunkel
There is no rational reason I can think of to hurt trans people.
@@avishevin1976 >"There is no rational reason I can think of to hurt trans people."
@@avishevin1976 Transphobes would like anatomical men to stay out of women's spaces.
Transphobes would like activists to stop advocating for the pharmaceutical subversion of the natural human growth phase. puberty.
Transphobes believe that an anatomical man can not become a woman.
Transphobes make good sense.
Has Matt lost some weight?
Cute joke.
But a ∴ b does not mean that !a ∴ !b.
We have evidence of people who "think not".
We don't have evidence of people disappearing mid-conversation.
49.97% of US voters proved that they "think not" on Nov. 5, 2024.
Unfortunately, none of them seem to have disappeared, mid-conversation or otherwise.
there's no difference, I don't believe in your magic man vs I'm not convinced your magic is real, Matt is losing this one
Those two statements are very different. To not understand that means you don’t get how words work.
Yup.
(Belief not) god
Belief (not god).
The latter has a burden of proof.
One thing that bugs me is this whole idea that agnosticism means "not knowing" and atheism means "not believing." If you break this down, there’s no way to make it work without creating a mess. Using the terms this way creates a maximum of three groups. First, there’s the folks who claim to know either God exists (gnostic theists) or God doesn’t (gnostic atheists). Since those are mutually exclusive, only one of those camps could ever exist at a time. Then you’ve got the agnostics, who’d have to admit they can’t say either way. You could break those down to agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Simply put, gnostic atheists an gnostic theists can't both exists rendering using "Gnostic" here almost pointless and I've yet to see a gnostic who can show their knowledge.
But nope, people find a way to complicate it. They redefine gnosticism as a “claim to knowledge” instead of actual justified true belief (JTB). You know, the thing knowledge is supposed to be. What they’re really doing is turning “knowledge” into “strong belief.” That’s where it all goes downhill because now you’ve got this sliding scale where anyone can call something “knowledge” if they believe in it hard enough. Congratulations, you just broke the clean binary of gnostic and agnostic and replaced it with a vague spectrum. Somewhere, Wittgenstein’s shaking his head.
Here’s how I see it: agnosticism shouldn’t mean “I don’t know” because that’s way too soft. It ought to mean “I can’t even evaluate this.” If you’re agnostic about God, you’re saying you don’t have the tools to figure it out. That’s different from an ignostic, who’s over here saying, “What are we even talking about? This whole God thing doesn’t make sense to begin with.” It’s a subtle difference, but it matters. Ignostics call the game rigged from the start. Agnostics just refuse to answer questions they don't have the tools to answer.
At the end of the day, the belief question is binary. You either believe in a God, or you don’t. That’s it. The rest of this is just people creating philosophical houseplants to muddy up the conversation. They bring in foundherentism or correspondence theories of truth like some kind of academic flex, but it’s overkill. Keep it simple.
So yeah, if someone asks me where I stand outside the world of the internet, I just say:
I’m a non-believer.
It’s clean, it’s honest, and it doesn’t waste anyone’s time with terms we could spend hours debating.
Soul is what separates man from all other animal kingdoms. Soul is the wisdom of HIM who is SHE, sleeping. Soul wisdom sleeping, naturally was drawn to the spirit and so wisdom fell deep into the earth within man mingling with the instinctual spirit manifesting ego from the psyche of the flesh . Ego is man's personal god, he's called the illegitimate son, cannot inherit eternal life since he's attached to the earth through the instinctual spirit and this spirit is spirit of darkness. The true spirit of the Fathers light is Christ whom we receive only through Lord Jesus. Jesus doesn't save spirits, its souls. Soul is wisdom sleeping, soul is female in essence. Wisdom forms the new man within called the body of Christ the bride.
If you had the slightest shred of convincing evidence for this, the whole world would already know.
Since belief is simply finding a proposition more likely to be true than untrue true, and that alone informs your actions whether you're convinced or not, being unconvinced is a nothing burger with weak sauce and a side order of cries.
This is necessarily true because belief and being convinced are different thresholds of credence. So, some sleight of mouth by rephrasing to "I'm unconvinced" is an appeal to a vacuous truth because while it may be true that you're not _convinced_ of the proposition, you'll be acting on your *belief* whether your credence has met that threshold or not.
Regarding the threshold of *belief,* Dr. Eric Schwitzgebel writing for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, states, "We might suppose that every subject holds each of their beliefs with some particular degree of confidence. In general, the greater the confidence one has in a proposition, the more willing one is to depend on it in one’s actions.
_One common way of formalizing this idea is by means of a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates absolute certainty in the falsity of a proposition, 1 indicates absolute certainty in its truth, and .5 indicates that the subject regards the proposition just as likely to be true as false._ This number then indicates one’s credence or degree of belief" (Schwitzgebel, 2019). The idea that belief is finding a proposition _more likely_ to be true than untrue is _noncontentious_ (Seitz & Paloutzian, 2023)(Kouchakzadeha, Alikhania, & Gharibzadehb, 2023). Therefore, Finding a proposition to be _more likely_ to be true than untrue at 50.0̅1% is as much *belief* as finding it more likely to be true than untrue at 100%.
Conversesly, Logic of Decision (Jeffrey, 1983) illustrates this difference, defining certainty as a state in which one’s belief is so high that it is “rational to ignore the possibility of error” (p. 157).
To grasp these thresholds, we turn to probabilistic measures often employed in studies of belief and decision-making. In Bayesian terms, degrees of credence range from 0 (complete disbelief) to 1 (complete certainty). While the threshold for belief may rest at a probability greater than 0.5, certainty requires a probability near 1, with some researchers defining it as 1 - ε (where ε is a very small positive value). Psychological studies further suggest that people are inclined to claim certainty at thresholds around 90-99% confidence (Smith et al., 2013; Windschitl et al., 2015), reflecting a marked disparity between the two distinct thresholds.
50.0̅1% - 90% is a *_MASSIVE_* window in which belief can be present *without* it meeting the threshold for certainty (Kvanig, 2003).
Nice try. Stop saying things that are demonstratrably stupid, wrong, and dishonest.
References:
Bzdok, D., Groß, D., Eickhoff, S.B. (2015). The Neurobiology of Moral Cognition: Relation to Theory of Mind, Empathy, and Mind-Wandering. In: Clausen, J., Levy, N. (eds) Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer, Dordrecht. doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_161. Retrieved from link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_161
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552-564. doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.552
Giacomo Novembre, Luca F. Ticini, Simone Schütz-Bosbach, Peter E. Keller, Motor simulation and the coordination of self and other in real-time joint action, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 9, Issue 8, August 2014, Pages 1062-1068. Retrieved from doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst086
Huber, F. (2007). The Logic of Uncertainty and Decision. In Philosophy of Probability. Retrieved from philpapers.org/rec/HUBTLO
Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Retrieved from gutenberg.org/ebooks/4705
Jeffrey, R. (1983). The Logic of Decision. University of Chicago Press.
Kouchakzadeha, A., Alikhania, A. & Gharibzadehb, S. (2023, May). Memory of former beliefs may affect the single belief formation process. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Cognition. Vol. 4. Pp 34-36
Kvanvig, J. L. (2003). The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge University Press.
Locke, J. (1689). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved from earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1690book4.pdf
Moore, G. E. (1959). Certainty. In Philosophical Papers (pp. 227-229). Allen & Unwin.
Pitt Philsci Archive. (n.d.). Conceptualizing and Measuring Belief, Certainty, and Probabilistic Judgments. Retrieved from philsci-archive.pitt.edu
Schwitzgebel, E. (2019). Belief. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Seitz, R. & Paloutzian, R. (2023, September 23). Beliefs made it into science: believe it or not. Function, Volume 4, Issue 6
Smith, E. E., et al. (2013). The relationship between confidence and accuracy in perceptual decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1043-1056. doi.org/10.1037/a0032471
Sosa, E. (2009). Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Volume II. Oxford University Press.
Vieira, J. B., Almeida, P. R., Ferreira-Santos, F., Barbosa, F., Marques-Teixeira, J., & Marsh, A. A. (2013). Distinct neural activation patterns underlie economic decisions in high and low psychopathy scorers. Retrieved from link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_161
Windschitl, P. D., et al. (2015). The effect of confidence on the relationship between subjective probability and choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(2), 147-158. doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1833
I’m not convinced your claims are correct
Nice sleight of mouth, here. "I'm unconvinced," actually has a great usage here. It is great to use *when you are uncertain of the validity of the question asked.*
That is to say... whether or not you are even sure the question is actually about belief or about certainty or if the question or syllogism being presented is valid.
Sometimes, to determine such things, requires you to actually examine, in depth, the syllogism or claim for self-reference or logical fallacies. If it is too complicated for you to do so quickly, and you have evidence or reason to believe your interlocutor is engaging in bad faith... "I'm unconvinced." is a perfectly reasonable and valid response.
And as part of the null hypothesis, I don't assume whether the other participant is in good faith or not until they demonstrate such through how willing they are to engage with the format presented honestly.
Considering Matt mostly deals with bad faith actors just pushing an assertion like a dealer pushes coke, "I'm unconvinced" remains a perfectly valid *and true* assertion.
There are a lot of white and blue balls in a bottle and you must tell me if you believe that the blue balls are one more or the white ones. You can say that you are not convinced that there are more blue balls and you are also not convinced that there are more white balls. So you don't believe in either untill you get enough evidence to have a rational belief in one of the two.
If I remember correctly, Matt is not convinced that there are no gods, but he does believe that cetain gods are not real.
TLDR
Nice joke 🙂
For me it's the preponderance of evidence does not sustain the notion that Yahweh, the Abrahamic god does not exist. Yahweh was one of hundreds of deities worshipped in the Levant during the middle and late Bronze Age.
What evidence?
You have NO evidence. You have a book of claims, and your feelings, and some bad arguments. THAT IS IT. YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE
You do not use a number of negatives that would not fail to make your case.
Evidence of non-existence is not required.
Evidence of existence is (normally, by rational people) required for belief to be justified.
There isn't a large enough lack of Evidence for you? How much more Evidence would need to not exist in order for you to achieve lack of belief?
This is easy, I don't believe in Ra the sun god, which is the only god possible.
Keeping snakes is cruel, it isn't an argument.
that's your opinion.
looks like we've got an argument
Can you believe where your life ended up? Angrily screeching on the internet that having pets is wrong? If you were more intelligent you would be ashamed.
Can't believe someone who watches Matt would say something like "isnt even an argument". Are you just assuming you are right?
how compassionate are you to the poor mice and rats you feed to your snakes? And yes the snakes have a moral right to eat their prey because they do not know any better, but as soon as you insert yourself as a link in that process you have a moral choice to make.
I wouldn't be able to live feed. I think why cause that fear and suffering. Though I've had a snake years ago, and fed it frozen food that obviously must have gone through suffering. I've also owned pet rats as a kid, and they make great pets.
Jesus dude, follow your train of logic, should we kill all carnivores to save the prey? Should we never step on a cockroach? Rats doesn't matter. They are vermin.
You angrily screeching about rats and snakes on everything that Matt does is pathetic, get a life.
@@Locust13so, if some super intelligent alien life came here and started killing people because they see them as “vermin”, that would be fine? 🙄
I’m not a vegan, and eat meat, and recognize that predators need to eat, but your argument and your attitude sucks. Wouldn’t want to hang out with someone like you. 🫤
@Locust13 nope all those animals cannot morally analyse their behaviour and are therefor not ethically obliged to stop doing it.
@Locust13 pathetic, the answer to your dishonest question is given in the second part of my original post!
And as for your other question: are you too feebleminded after stuffing all those tortured animals in your facehole to understand that there is a difference between accidentally stepping on an anomal and purposfully killing it for pleasure.
Thanks for proving that carnists are the vermin.
Being an Arabic native speaker and teacher , I confirm that we have the very same linguistic problem in Arabic. I'm not convinced conveys the message better than I don't believe