Atheist Debates - Thinking about logical fallacies

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 7 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 505

  • @alexvega5756
    @alexvega5756 4 роки тому +13

    This content is pure gold. It’s pretty rare to find people like Matt who are willing to put in the time and effort to teach others. I owe you one, Matt. Thank you! :)

  • @Barbiegirl342
    @Barbiegirl342 3 роки тому +14

    I wish logic was taught in high school. Logic was one of my favorite classes in college. Thank you so much for all of this incredible information. Your analogies/explanations/examples help immensely!!!

  • @DannyNicholson88
    @DannyNicholson88 2 роки тому +6

    blown away by how well Matt can convey information.

  • @tomreeves8370
    @tomreeves8370 8 років тому +125

    Premise 1: Syllogisms are logical.
    Premise 2: Matt is logical.
    Conclusion: Matt is a syllogism.

    • @EmperorsNewWardrobe
      @EmperorsNewWardrobe 8 років тому +24

      +Tom Reeves. That has the same structure as:
      Premise 1: Dogs are furry
      Premise 2: A cat is furry
      Conclusion: A cat is a dog

    • @tomreeves8370
      @tomreeves8370 8 років тому +7

      +tobo86 Yep. I've watched many debates where theists in particular rely on syllogisms (usually to prove the existence of God). Everything may sound logical and reasonable, from the premises to the conclusion, but in the end, they still haven't demonstrated anything tangible. That's why I think philosophy defines what's logically _possible_, whereas science is necessary to prove what's actually _real_.

    • @Bill_Garthright
      @Bill_Garthright 8 років тому +4

      +Tom Reeves
      Recently, I was arguing with a theist who insisted that he had a "logical proof" of his god. Of course, right from the start, I objected to his premise (which was complete bullshit, it really was). All he did was keep repeating it, without ever once demonstrating that it was true, while insisting that his "logical proof" was "valid."
      No matter what I said, I couldn't get him to demonstrate that his premise was true. I couldn't even get him to respond to my objections. He seemed to think it was enough to just keep claiming it.

    • @tomreeves8370
      @tomreeves8370 8 років тому +1

      +Bill Garthright Sounds like the playground equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating, "Na, na, na, na... I'm right, you're wrong... na, na, na, na." Perhaps you should find more mature theists to debate :-)

    • @EmperorsNewWardrobe
      @EmperorsNewWardrobe 8 років тому +2

      +Tom Reeves: "sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating, 'Na, na, na, na... I'm right, you're wrong... na, na, na, na.'" This is surely the finest tool ever made by master craftsmen

  • @orinjayce
    @orinjayce 8 років тому +118

    You have taught me a lot over the past few years. I appreciate the effort.

  • @TheJimtanker
    @TheJimtanker 8 років тому +28

    Absolutely awesome video. Your ability communicate these complex concepts are what made me watch TAE with almost religious fervor. This is a very interesting and important topic and I hope that you make more videos specifically about fallacy spotting. Thank you.

    • @CSEwens
      @CSEwens 8 років тому +4

      I personally think Matt is the entire reason TAE is even on the map.
      The other people are smart, interesting, lucid folks. But Dillahunty is one I consider to be of singular wit and exceptional speaking ability.

    • @pietrotacconelli8311
      @pietrotacconelli8311 7 років тому

      Personally my favorite episodes are when he's accompanied by Jeff Dee or Tracie Harris. They have a way of cutting down arguments at completely different points from Matt after letting the opposition get some ground, quite intentionally I might add.

    • @adamweishaupt2007
      @adamweishaupt2007 3 роки тому

      it's funny because TAE means shit in our language. haha

  • @DarknetDude
    @DarknetDude 8 років тому +80

    I owe you, Matt. Seriously.
    Before I discovered your show, I actually would have claimed to be a theist. That particular breed of ignorance is no longer instilled within me.
    And I'm grateful.

    • @ungertron
      @ungertron 8 років тому +2

      +Superior Scream Hold on now, the ungodly bible & koran misidentifies God as some male ignoramus getting most everything wrong. The real God has been identified by the 100% secular natural sciences, reason & logic as the laws of nature together with forces of physics, the real big bang creator & law of nature ruler of universe. These laws & forces compose the one & only all natural candidate for the role of the genuine God.

    • @Azirahaelx
      @Azirahaelx 8 років тому +6

      +ungertron We already have a word for 'universe'.
      'god' comes with baggage.

    • @ungertron
      @ungertron 8 років тому

      Azirahael "The real big bang creator & law of nature ruler of universe." is not the universe, the laws of nature together with the forces of physics big bang created, evolved, maintain & law of nature rule the universe. That's a scientific fact.
      The word God is absolutely the most important word and the most important reality in all existence because without the laws of nature together with forces of physics composing God there would be no universe.

    • @Azirahaelx
      @Azirahaelx 8 років тому +5

      +ungertron Previous statement still applies.
      by defining the universe as 'god' you can say 'there is a god, science proves it.'
      but what good does it do?
      If i define the word 'tomato' as "the laws of nature together with the forces of physics big bang created, evolved, maintain & law of nature rule the universe."
      Then i can say the 'universe is a tomato.'
      And it's logically accurate.
      But does it do any good?
      'Tomato' has meaning to most people.
      as does 'god'.
      I therefore contend that you are causing yourself problems by defining reality as 'god'.
      Because other people have different understandings of 'god'.
      and not gaining anything.

    • @ungertron
      @ungertron 8 років тому

      Azirahael Reality is not God. God big bang created, evolved actualizes, maintains and rules all reality. The source of all absolute truth is God AKA laws and forces that are continually actualizing all future reality that is inspiring, informing, enlightening & correcting the soon to be obsolete partial truth held by the secular sciences.
      Laws of nature & forces of physics existed before the universe - the universe started 13.77 billion years ago. Laws & forces launched the big bang and that is a provable scientific fact. Read the books "A universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss with after-word by Richard Dawkins and "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow for the details.
      It is a free country and you do have every right to be wrong. Now if you have a new form of cosmology that is better than the standard cosmology in the two books above then give me the references.

  • @joaum2009
    @joaum2009 8 років тому +15

    "When you say argument from ignorance, people take that as an insult"

    • @rukidding-y2c
      @rukidding-y2c 6 місяців тому

      What if both premises are false, and yet the conclusion is true. I love those.

    • @altaydogahan342
      @altaydogahan342 5 місяців тому +1

      Just use "incredulity" instead so it's less direct and comes of more formal and less... "I wana insult you" kinda way

  • @MikeJones-xl3ti
    @MikeJones-xl3ti 4 роки тому +1

    Just what I needed, Matt. Thanks. You got me started on my truth-seeking journey several years ago and for that I’m very grateful. I’ve been avoiding learning about fallacies for too long, and for some of the reasons you mentioned. I understand now that I need to learn to find fallacious arguments, but I don’t need call people out on them, at least not directly. I disliked hearing them called out because, like you said, it sounds like you’re calling interlocutor dumb etc. Because I disliked that I’ve resisted learning logic. But I do sourly need to learn to progress. Once again you’re helping me progress to the next level.

  • @arewhyinoh8595
    @arewhyinoh8595 8 років тому +5

    I gotta say Matt...I'm glad you're on our side.
    I look at what you describe as a negative mindset, It can almost be equated to what a sculptor does. You chip away at this beautiful piece of marble until you find the truth of what lies beneath. That sculpture was always there, but you have to knock away the crap to get to it.

  • @DrayseSchneider
    @DrayseSchneider 8 років тому +11

    11:47 "Argument from Ignorance"
    Yes, I don't know how many times people would take offense whenever I claimed that that was their fallacy. They actually thought I was calling them ignorant and, if they knew a little bit about fallacies, would accuse me of Ad Hominem and I couldn't figure out why. lol

    • @lastofusclips5291
      @lastofusclips5291 8 років тому +3

      +Steven Schneider better to explain what it is instead of naming it

    • @DrayseSchneider
      @DrayseSchneider 8 років тому

      +Peter L Uh, yes I know. That was kind of why I was bringing this up. Thanks though.

  • @josephparedes5686
    @josephparedes5686 4 роки тому

    I saw someone comment about this same train of thought and so i got the urge to do it myself. Matt, you have taught me a lot, more than you can know. If it wasn’t for you i may not be where i am now, on the pursuit of absolute knowledge, your feats of critical thinking and logical reasoning are praiseworthy. Thank you for your noble contribution to mankind, and the pursuit of truth. Thank you so much. Your work... its invaluable...

    • @DanielLee1
      @DanielLee1 4 роки тому

      What’s your view on absolute knowledge? Always an interesting topic, I find.

  • @gregcampwriter
    @gregcampwriter 8 років тому +6

    So many apologists get irritable when I ask them which deity they're referring to. They take it as an affront to their beliefs that anyone might not have exactly their model of god.

  • @mrvoltar
    @mrvoltar 8 років тому +6

    I have little or no interest in debating theists but I love thinking and this series is a great tool for trying to think more clearly. Thanks, Matt.

  • @EmperorsNewWardrobe
    @EmperorsNewWardrobe 8 років тому +5

    "Reading is the best form of active listening". Wow, epiphany moment. I wouldn't be surprised if reading, a form of active listening, is a highway route to empathy & reasoning skills

  • @armadyl1212
    @armadyl1212 8 років тому +1

    I really appreciate these videos you do Matt. You are doing very good work.

  • @Froggsroxx
    @Froggsroxx 2 роки тому

    Thanks to all this I was able to spot a motte and bailey fallacy while talking with someone, and explain where my issue was in their argument... now it didn't do me any good because they didn't care about representing their point honestly, but I at least got some practical experience identifying and deconstructing the fallacy

  • @Chamelionroses
    @Chamelionroses 8 років тому +3

    Yes yes yes...thanks. This stuff helps. Especially like this sort of thing without boring lectures.

  • @cosmogang
    @cosmogang 7 років тому

    After watching a ton of AE I was hoping to get started familiarizing myself with logical fallacies and I was quite pleased to see MD had just the thing. Thank you

  • @arjandenbesten6786
    @arjandenbesten6786 8 років тому

    Man this is just what people need great initative Matt. Untill now i Just watched any video related to the theistic debate. Nice to see that you are kind of embarking on a how do you do it series ;)

  • @InteGritti
    @InteGritti 4 роки тому

    So so so so so so grateful for this my focus right now is working on understanding all of the logical fallacies cognitive distortions and so on. This is extremely helpful as advice thank you so much.

  • @tedgrant2
    @tedgrant2 8 років тому +24

    1. Everything that exists had a cause.
    2. God did not have a cause.
    3. Therefore God does not exist.

    • @skipbellon4342
      @skipbellon4342 6 років тому +3

      Prove that the Universe had a cause.

    • @TheTruthseeker1231
      @TheTruthseeker1231 6 років тому +2

      It's not an argument of any real strength, but it is a valid argument as written.

    • @bououdenahmed779
      @bououdenahmed779 5 років тому

      hahahaha

    • @zer-op2gq
      @zer-op2gq 5 років тому

      I think this went over most of your heads (laugher aside. We're hanging tight). This is the argument given in many cases (it's not a straw man if it's the argument given to you)
      Above all it's just funny. Sometimes jokes really are funny even if they need to be explained

  • @amberjarratt6072
    @amberjarratt6072 8 років тому +11

    "I just saw somebody's eyes glaze over". Woah, Matt... how did you know?!? There must be something supernatural going on here. Maybe you have special powers. XD

  • @sethfullerton1498
    @sethfullerton1498 8 років тому

    Not going to faun over your influence in my life, that's just a bit odd. Not sure why so many people do that. HOWEVER, I do really appreciate your videos. Very helpful, consistently practical, and abundantly well informed. Thanks a bunch.

  • @apsarator
    @apsarator 8 років тому

    A great day today - you published 3 new episodes - i am very exited

  • @TheRationalChannel
    @TheRationalChannel 8 років тому +30

    The most commonly used fallacy by theists is the argument from ignorance IMO. Fallacy by assertion comes in a close second though.

    • @TheRationalChannel
      @TheRationalChannel 8 років тому

      FiniteAutomaton That's a good point actually.

    • @TheMonk72
      @TheMonk72 8 років тому +4

      +UnrationedRationale while I have no need to defend Evolution as an atheist, I do have a position on Evolution that is unrelated to my atheism and that position may require defense. If some theist brings up evolution in a discussion about my atheism then I generally point out that the two are not interdependent and move on.

    • @TruthSausage
      @TruthSausage 8 років тому

      All atheists only tool consists entirely of logical fallacy. Refute me. I dare you to try.

    • @DarthAlphaTheGreat
      @DarthAlphaTheGreat 7 років тому +1

      The Rational Channel the specific version of argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, is most common I've seen. But also among the pseudoscience community and the climate change denying community.

    • @DarthAlphaTheGreat
      @DarthAlphaTheGreat 7 років тому +4

      France S Nobody says that, the conclusion is not WRONG because the premise is fallacious. It is NOT RIGHT. Because correctness need to be demonstrated. If the premise is fallacious, assert the conclusion is true is not even wrong--it doesn't even make sense.
      Matt is all about having good reasons to arrive at truth...if you walked into something true by accident, but couldn't reason or explain it without a fallacy, then you DON'T have good reason to make other people believe i's true, and other people don't have to believe you.
      But I am sure it fall on deaf ears...

  • @cosmocalypse3708
    @cosmocalypse3708 8 років тому +15

    If there were a god(s), it wouldn't be discovered through word-salad structured arguments.

  • @ciera1647
    @ciera1647 4 роки тому +3

    I'm using this video to help with homeschooling. Good job 👍

  • @You87
    @You87 8 років тому

    I enjoyed this video so much, I wanted to save a transcript version for future reference. The automatic captions are reeeeally not bad (You almost gotta teach us a separate class on pronunciation that gets so well recognized by YT :) ), but still will have to edit a few things it didn't catch right. So once I'm done, I can hand over the file to you to add as authorized captions to the video (as not being the uploader I can't add them here, and I understand why you don't want to open that feature for any trolls from the public). I also think it might be extremely helpful for non-native listeners from abroad.
    Huge thanks again for the video!

  • @Bolgernow
    @Bolgernow 8 років тому

    Thanks as usual Matt! Is it your birthday today? If so, hope it's a great one! Most common fallacies I encountered are:
    Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Red Herring, Special Pleading, Appeal To The Stone, & Argument Verboseum. Looking very
    forward to running into way more (Ahem, I committed them way to often when I was younger) and learning more daily

    • @Bolgernow
      @Bolgernow 8 років тому

      +Kombo Breaker Holy shit! I did not know that one. Thanks for teaching me something
      new, and wonderful. As a "student" of Quantum Mechanics I really really like this one ;)

  • @tedgrant2
    @tedgrant2 8 років тому +8

    1. Everything that exists had a beginning.
    2. God did not have a beginning.
    3. You got it.

    • @ElroyMF1
      @ElroyMF1 6 років тому

      ippos_khloros explain?

    • @yusufhelal1387
      @yusufhelal1387 6 років тому +1

      "Everything" refers to objects or beings that "exist" inside the realm of REALITY because we cannot observe or even know about any "thing" outside the realm of reality
      Since people asserting the existence of a god , assert along side it the fact that it is outside the realm of reality , then "God" (Whatever that may be) cannot be judged with the same criteria as "everything" that exists inside the realm of reality

    • @mrdrone4253
      @mrdrone4253 3 роки тому

      Valid and sound

    • @mrdrone4253
      @mrdrone4253 3 роки тому

      @@yusufhelal1387 you're invisible magical man in the sky does not exist in reality

    • @tedgrant2
      @tedgrant2 3 роки тому

      @@yusufhelal1387
      God is invisible, so we can never see his back parts (Exodus 33:23)

  • @lb6479
    @lb6479 8 років тому +2

    I know that Stanford university offer a free logic course through the coursera online platform which teaches you a good grounding in logical arguments and deduction. It's fun and gets you thinking.

  • @HasseMephisto
    @HasseMephisto 8 років тому +6

    Gosh @ spot the fallacies in the media, to train yourself
    I was watching some politicians talk for an hour yesterday night. I was so shocked to hear so many fallacies in just a few minutes. And the audience clapping and agreeing with it all, blindly.

    • @ThomasCranmer1959
      @ThomasCranmer1959 3 роки тому

      Were they Democrats? Because Democrats never lie or commit logical fallacies.

  • @TheBuslaefff
    @TheBuslaefff Рік тому

    Thanks for the content Matt, may God bless you !

  • @MarkSiefert
    @MarkSiefert 8 років тому +19

    There is another problem that comes up when using logical fallacies: the person who just doesn't care that their argument is fallicious. I recall one theist who posted on the online forum for a certain skeptical "educational association" who insisted that the Argumnet from Ignorance was actually structurally invalid AND was a proof for God's existence.
    While such logical tomfoolery may be ignored by us, in this age of solipsism where everyone is figuratively allowed their own reality as a matter of tolerance, it is dangerous.

    • @EmperorsNewWardrobe
      @EmperorsNewWardrobe 8 років тому

      +Mark Siefert: The great ball that's currently in the court of the atheists is about the value of honesty. If there's ever to begin a global shift in consciousness where religion loses its primary grip, it's to put this ball in the court of the theists. As you say, the person who just doesn't care that their argument is fallacious.

    • @JohnCashin
      @JohnCashin 8 років тому +2

      +Mark Siefert Yes, this is in fact the biggest problem when debating with Theists, you see, what you have to appreciate, which I'm sure you do, is that they believe in this magical God/Supreme/Eternal being who can do anything and for whom a thousand years is like a day etc, so little wonder then that when you try to point out all of the blatantly obvious inconsistencies and factual conflicts within the Bible and within even what they are saying and how it doesn't make any sense, they can just fall back on things like 'the natural man cannot understand the things of God' and the age old 'God works in mysterious ways' get out clause.
      As Atheists who are also Skeptics, we value logic and rational thinking because we don't accept the idea of a God that is above it or who can bypass it or that there are any exceptions to the application of logic and rational thinking, if someone does believe there could be such exceptions, then of course they won't care that their argument is fallacious and this as I say is the big problem, until they can see that there is no justification for believing in this being who transcends logic and what is rational, they won't care about it at all, they won't think it matters like you do, this is how I was when I was a 'Born Again Christian' and it was only when I began to strongly question God's actual existence and the divine authority of the Bible that I began to care about whether the things I was telling others and what I was living for made any sense, prior to that, I just went along with the idea that although I might not understand it intellectually, God understands it and all I have to do is trust him.
      Believers will tell you one thing one minute and then in the next breath they will say something that completely knocks out what they said before and they will seem to just forget that, if you try to point it out, they will then try and twist it and claim that you didn't understand what they meant, this is why Matt quite rightly gets Theist callers into his show to clarify point by point, stage by stage, what exactly they mean before they get to their conclusion because as he said himself, if he doesn't do that, by the time they have finished, he will then have to go back to that point where there is a problem that undermines their conclusion and they will then claim 'no...that's not what I meant'.
      What actually happens a lot of the time on The Atheist Experience though is that they often don't get to finish their case because Matt and the other hosts will pull it apart right from that point where it's in error rather than waiting till they finish and he is absolutely right to do that, the day someone can get past all of that and finish their conclusion is probably the day when either they will have a caller who is presenting a very clever, seemingly watertight case for something that is false....or they will have finally got someone on the show who can at least Philosophically demonstrate that their 'A God exists' proposition is correct.

    • @tacticalwarhead0609
      @tacticalwarhead0609 8 років тому

      go watch stefan molyneux video about what is wrong with athiest a lot fallacy in their spread the word

    • @bunnybismuth
      @bunnybismuth 8 років тому

      +Houstonmade1994 Fuck off, basement-boy.

    • @andrewslattum2396
      @andrewslattum2396 4 роки тому

      I’m personally theistic, but an argument like you mentioned isn’t valid. I’m sorry you had to witness that. But, there’s intelligent atheists and stupid atheists, same with theists.

  • @guillermoch
    @guillermoch 8 років тому +1

    Having a guy talking to a camera for 43 min. about logic, and still be very engaging an interesting. Always a pleasure listening to tu you Matt :) !
    Have you read philosoper Mario Bunge (wiki) is an Argentine philosopher, philosopher of science and physicist(wiki)? If you did't, I think you are going to like him very much.

  • @davids11131113
    @davids11131113 8 років тому

    Slick is such a great study case for logical fallacies, such as one of his main arguments 'We can conceive of the logical absolutes, therefore that means they're 'concepts'...he relies on this fooling people who don't think very clearly because a bit of thought shows we can conceive of all kinds of things but that doesn't make them 'conceptual' only like I can conceive of an apple, but apples are not 'concepts'.

  • @Chic01taliano
    @Chic01taliano 8 років тому +2

    Great video as always Matt. For anyone wanting to expand on the topic search for Introduction to Philosophy from Stephan Molyneux that i found very helpful in my rebuttals.
    Also worth looking for is An Introduction to First Principles also from Stephan.

  • @freshairkaboom8171
    @freshairkaboom8171 6 років тому

    The fact that Matt consistently references Star Trek makes him even more awesome.

  • @jneuman6558
    @jneuman6558 6 років тому

    Thanks for your time, Matt.
    🙂

  • @joecerjak9713
    @joecerjak9713 5 років тому

    This has driven me crazy since I started listening to Matt. Validity goes to structure. Well groundless goes to the content of the premises. The argument is valid if the structure is proper. The argument is well grounded if the premises are true. THEN, the argument is sound if it is both valid and well grounded.

  • @gwmcklintock
    @gwmcklintock 5 років тому

    This was a very interesting video and while I reject much of what you're saying, I did enjoy listening to you and the way you presented your information. Without knowing you, you seem to be the type of person, as I am, we can be in total opposition, still walk away having enjoyed dinner!

  • @OrangeDiamond33
    @OrangeDiamond33 8 років тому +1

    I've followed you for years Matt, since the beginning of the Atheist Experience. I really enjoy listening to you speak pretty much on any topic. You are probably the only person I can think of that almost never uses "um" or "aaaahhh" while speaking. This is something I have tried to train myself to not use and I find it very difficult. Are you aware of how you don't do that and did you have to train yourself to get to this point?

  • @bhalobangali1179
    @bhalobangali1179 3 роки тому +1

    great lecture! but when you mentioned your wife's great suggestion to reframe from pointing out the ignorant fallacy to other people, i think this is something you have experienced with your wife yourself. Allmost all wives often angage in all kinds of fallacys, I know mine does!!

  • @imDrew21
    @imDrew21 7 років тому +3

    You're the kind of dude I'd like to have a pint with! Thanks for existing, try to keep doin that. :)

  • @Frie_Jemi
    @Frie_Jemi 5 років тому

    I love it, you're talking about how we think about claims and their truth value...and say, "We KNOW, from even the purist Vulcans, that they HAVE emotions." totally like everyone watching has to know this. I ask you, "could a Vulcan be a sociopath?"

  • @darkbunglex
    @darkbunglex 8 років тому

    I remember when I first found the Atheist Experience on UA-cam I had a bunch of objections, most statements I can now reconcile but it included Matt saying "That is an argument from ignorance" and I would always comment how rude it was because it sounds intentionally rude to people unfamiliar to logical fallacies. It is one example of many that comes from living in an debating atheist bubble where you forget that for many people the lingo is unfamiliar. I always remember the time it took to understand the atheist arguments on first pass, even as an atheist myself.
    My point is, it is important to remember the person you are talking to might not understand your terminology you are using and just naming a fallacy may just create more confusion, it is more important to explain why it is a fallacy in layman's terms than being able to identify it by name.
    I don't even know the fallacy names, I just remember the structure of fallacies.

    • @TheZooCrew
      @TheZooCrew 8 років тому

      +DarkBungleX
      Fuck the kid gloves. This is not difficult stuff to understand. And I don't find discussions with people who take offense in knee-jerk fashion to the word "ignorance" to be productive at all.

  • @DarthAlphaTheGreat
    @DarthAlphaTheGreat 7 років тому +1

    Socrates verified them being right in classical logic. In certain modal logic (analogous of "real world application logic") where not (not A) does not imply A, certain things that would be valid in classic are not in this

  • @amazingbollweevil
    @amazingbollweevil 8 років тому +1

    I'm really glad you're on the side of reason, Matt. I'd hate to think what you could do if you were working for the other side. ;-)

    • @amberjarratt6072
      @amberjarratt6072 8 років тому

      +amazingbollweevil to think he once was....

    • @Bill_Garthright
      @Bill_Garthright 8 років тому

      +amazingbollweevil
      Heh, heh. Of course, he'd be stuck with some pretty terrible material to work with, if that were the case. On our side, at least he can use the truth.

  • @piq-dg3vz
    @piq-dg3vz 8 років тому

    i wanna watch more of these lectures! thanks matt!

  • @originaljayno
    @originaljayno 8 років тому +1

    1:06 Almost sounded like you said "Argument from Scott Bakula" OH BOY

    • @LughSummerson
      @LughSummerson 8 років тому

      +originaljayno If he leaps from life to life, setting right what once went wrong and changing history for the better, it follows that there is a benevolent force guiding his jumps, thus proving that there is a god and he is good. QED.

  • @brucecook502
    @brucecook502 6 років тому

    it takes someone who formerly believed in false beliefs who found thier way out to know how a person of faith falls for that particular idealogy. Thank goodness for people like matt who understand how to explain these things so precisly like this. I understand it all because I was deep into fundamental religion and remember why i held onto these beliefs so strongly and deeply, but at those times never considered what was wrong with them. I got lucky in that I figured these things out to be wrong on my own because if I had heard arguments from the other side I would have a bias for rebutles from my side and only poison my mind into excusing logical arguments agianst my beliefs.
    the biggest factor in why I would never fall for faith agian is because I did much research on different religions, and the foundations of these religions like what caused the founders to believe they were recieving instructions from divine spirits, and it all became so clear to me why we have religion in the world, and with the gullability of humans in general it is easy to indoctrinate anyone who doesnt know better. the mind loves to learn and embrace information, and this is easily why people take these faith systems so seriously, and even reject any outside criticism and become defensive even in the facre of factual evidence to prove the religion is just as bogus and manmade as the last one made up or the next. Its clear to me that humans are a very dellusional species and sadly as intellegent as we have become these days that we are still stuck in a primative mindset to believe in superstition when that should have went out the window with our ancestors, but its still a flawed feature we have today. I really hope we outgrow this someday because religion like islam and sharia law that wants to take the world will put an end to the beautifull things we can be capable of.

    • @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr
      @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr 3 роки тому

      Or an atheist might have fallen for a particular ideology

    • @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr
      @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr 3 роки тому

      Yeah so why would so many people think they were getting information from divine spirits if there was nothing supernatural? I think the ancient egyptians really did have their "gods" but they were fallen angels. Above them, yes, but not the God of creation. We have our gods today, those above us that we believe and follow. Government, scientific consensus, the United States is our God now that people will give their lives for. They are martrys for their God the United States. Sacrifices of blood just like in ancient times.

    • @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr
      @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr 3 роки тому

      Yes people are very easily deluded with beliefs. The gospel is all about belief. Who do we believe and follow? So we're all born into a belief and God wants to know if we want the truth. Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Do we want the truth, or do we want to be atheists mostly? What if the truth hurts? Do you want the truth no matter what? If you do, then the bible says that God will give you saving faith. Happened to me. I don't know your heart. Most people don't want the truth, they want what makes them comfortable. Mormons want to be Mormons and Catholics want to be Catholics and atheists want to be atheists. Agnostic seems like the more open version of atheist, one with a heart that would accept the truth no matter what it was. Just by calling yourself atheist on something that you really can't be sure on, sounds like hardening your heart right there.

  • @HasseMephisto
    @HasseMephisto 8 років тому

    +Matt Dillahunty
    Instead saying _"that is an argument from ignorance"_ and similar fallacies ... if appropriate, I would say _"that is an assumption (and add why I think this)"_ instead. I do this mostly because I can recognize alot of fallacies, but I too do not know them all by name.

    • @lastofusclips5291
      @lastofusclips5291 8 років тому

      +Hasse Mephisto an unjustified assumption is not a fallacy since there is no reasoning involved (with fallacies being defined in terms of reasoning gone wrong). you don't need to know the name of the fallacy, just what the fallacy is about.

  • @MarkWrightPsuedo
    @MarkWrightPsuedo 5 років тому

    Logic: simply means consistency and coherence, things naturally follow, they are related. That's it. No need to overcomplicate it. Of course you can drill down into logic a lot deeper, but the overarching concept is internal consistency and coherence.

  • @zacharycates5485
    @zacharycates5485 8 років тому

    Maybe you could do a series of short videos in which you dissect a popular meme that might be an example of one or more fallacies. That could be useful to explain in further detail what you've said here, it could be controversial and interesting, and it might be fun for you to do!

  • @waelben2000
    @waelben2000 4 роки тому

    Can you make a long video on fallacies? At least the ones you think are most common in the arguements for the existence in a deity.

  • @JJCage78
    @JJCage78 8 років тому

    Great video Matt!

  • @t1mel1ne-42
    @t1mel1ne-42 8 років тому +1

    didn't catch the name, someone Kruger effect, where you overestimate how much you know about something because you don't know how much there is to know. is there a fallacy like that that relates to someone else overestimating what you know, because you know a bit and that's impressed them because they don't know the subject at hand and therefore don't know how little you in fact know?

    • @TheZooCrew
      @TheZooCrew 8 років тому

      Dunning-Kruger effect.
      What you're describing isn't a logical fallacy. It's merely being baffled with bullshit.

    • @t1mel1ne-42
      @t1mel1ne-42 8 років тому

      Well not really. I know a bit of computer programming, programmers think I'm OK, my workmates think I'm a genius.

    • @TheZooCrew
      @TheZooCrew 8 років тому

      T1mel1ne -
      ???

    • @t1mel1ne-42
      @t1mel1ne-42 8 років тому

      It's not then being blinded by bullshit is my point, they are overestimating my knowledge based on their own

    • @TheZooCrew
      @TheZooCrew 8 років тому

      T1mel1ne -
      Oh. Well, it depends on the motivation. What I posted is the back half of a WC Fields proverb.
      Religious apologists gamble on their audience knowing nothing about anything, so they insert tiny kernels of fact and then pad them with five feet of outright lies.
      Either way, it's not a logical fallacy; it has nothing to do with logic. It's just a form of ignorance.

  • @TheSpaceInvaderer
    @TheSpaceInvaderer 8 років тому +1

    "Credulous bafoon who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag." he was referring to Matt Slick right?

  • @mikeziter501
    @mikeziter501 3 роки тому

    Cynicism: an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.
    This is the definition I operate with. Why is it claimed that this is a "bad" mentality to have?

    • @Kyeudo
      @Kyeudo 2 роки тому

      Because people aren't motivated only by self-interest. Yes, someone who helps someone else feels good for doing so, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to help.

  • @backstabber765
    @backstabber765 8 років тому +1

    I'm really stoned, Matt.

  • @ahouyearno
    @ahouyearno 8 років тому +2

    Can you do one on misusing fallacies?
    A few examples:
    - using god as the simplest explanation as per occam's razer
    - Matt Slick creating a dillahunty fallacy
    - calling no true scotsman when the definition of feminist is used correctly (anti-feminists are very prone of this)
    - William Craig claiming that Krauss quote mined Valenkin (probably the most dishonest thing he ever said ...)
    How do you respond to this? In the last example, Krauss was stunned for seconds.

    • @Bill_Garthright
      @Bill_Garthright 8 років тому

      +ahouyearno
      Heh, heh. When I call someone an idiot on UA-cam - which, admittedly, isn't a very nice thing to do (and doesn't advance a debate very much!) - they frequently respond by claiming an ad hominem fallacy.
      Of course, it's not. I don't argue that they're wrong because they're an idiot. I'm just calling them names (while, usually, arguing against what they're saying, too, elsewhere in my comment). And if I want to be a real jerk, I can point that out. Sadly, I can't always resist. :)
      That's a pretty simplistic example, but I thought I'd mention it. I really like your idea. I have no education in philosophy, and it doesn't interest me very much, but religious people keep claiming that they have a "logical proof" of their god, so I think it helps to have some knowledge of this stuff.
      Just recently, I was arguing with a guy who claimed that his "logical proof" was "valid," despite the fact that his premise was complete bullshit. Of course, "bullshit" probably isn't a recognized philosophical term, while "valid" apparently has a rather specific meaning. Oh, well. I've learned a little bit here, at least. :)

    • @ahouyearno
      @ahouyearno 8 років тому

      Bill Garthright oh yeah you're right. Wrongly claiming ad hominem fallacy is very common too.

  • @CSEwens
    @CSEwens 8 років тому

    I absolutely respect you, sir. In fact, I consider you as one of my very few role models.
    I just wanted to ask you what your thoughts are on the Atheist Experience's response to the anti-islamic callers. I watch all the time, almost religiously (buah!), and I've noticed some strange trends.
    When you've been asked about Islam, you've said that Christianity was your primary focus; as that was closer to the center of your personal experience. This seemed like a perfectly rational response.
    But recently, I heard Russel and Jen take one of these calls. They went the route of, 'all extremism is equally bad.' This bothered me a bit..
    I was just curious what your thoughts were on this. I also noticed that you do not disable comments, as they have. I personally consider an atheist program disabling comments to be profoundly disagreeable.
    I respect them, I respect you. I was just curious what, if anything, you thought of this.
    Loved this video, btw, and I'm sorry to leave an unrelated comment. Keep fighting the good fight, brother!

  • @calliebriggs9021
    @calliebriggs9021 4 роки тому +1

    Matt is the best

  • @youweechube
    @youweechube 8 років тому

    awww come on Matt you totally should talk like the opening through the whole video ! (maybe for april fools or something ! ) That laid back approach took me back to watching endless episodes of Bob Ross painting trees and mountains.

    • @lyndawilliams8434
      @lyndawilliams8434 8 років тому

      +youweechube and behind him... many many happy little trees....

  • @straubdavid9
    @straubdavid9 8 років тому

    How does your head not explode when dealing with someone like Sye Ten Bruggencate, and would you really want to debate William Lane Craig ( I think my eyes are still rolling from watching him over a year ago)? Aren't the two of them the poster children for the impetus of this video, and perhaps for all your videos?

  • @scienceexplains302
    @scienceexplains302 6 років тому

    Another excellent video. But cynicism is more specific than just naysaying everything, it is about how you think the other person thinks. It is a disbelief in their belief due to their supposed motivated belief, which, Yes, you implied in your details

  • @SuperFamiKing
    @SuperFamiKing 8 років тому +2

    I come across Argument from Ignorance, appeal to authority and appeal to popularity often.

  • @scepticchristian
    @scepticchristian 7 років тому

    Hi Matt et al. Really helpful, thanks.
    At about the 37 minute mark, you seem to be critical of someone’s standpoint where s/he believes that God could see into the future but chooses not to and yet can prophecy. As a former evangelical, I had a similar view that God did not see the future or need to (not sure if this compromises his Omni-presence though) in order to prophecy. Consider this.
    The argument (certainly for humans) may come under the concept of
    determinism/free will (philosophical and theological) but I’ll just give
    examples, to enable anyone not familiar with the concept to engage too. You
    predict that a cup falling to the ground, beaks. The fly trap will catch flies
    and your baby will wake up and cry at about 3am. A very observant mum/dad can
    be much more accurate about certain things and the more you know, the more you
    can know. Of course none of these can be prophesied, only guessed at, albeit
    with good odds, because they are all susceptible to the unpredictable, outside
    change and other agencies like the angle dropped, the absence of flies that
    cold night or an ill baby. The thing which stops the guesses from becoming certainties
    is our highly limited human understanding of surrounding events which affect
    all of this. Now God of course knows everything down to the atoms and so all of
    the mechanical effects, including the weather, the butterfly effect, supposed
    free will, our thought processes and actions, accidents, decisions, are
    entirely predictable to Him, when He has such perfect knowledge of all things.
    This only sounds unbelievable because of our own limited knowledge, as with
    evolution and how many simply can’t accept it because it seems too impossible.
    Hence, God can make 100% accurate prophecies and predictions without having
    actually been there in the future. This isn’t cheating because He hasn’t looked,
    it’s like card counting, it’s using what you know to make a claim. There are no
    doubt many scriptural problems with this and varied thoughts on the attributes
    of God and theological aspects to challenge this, not to mention the problem of
    a genuine free will. Any thoughts/criticisms welcome.

    • @hackeritalics
      @hackeritalics 7 років тому

      Hmmmm... I think he was criticizing the statement.. my thoughts are that you've just shifted the way in which god predicts future events from simple magic to something more physical. It still wouldn't invalidate arguments where you ask "if god knows, why didn't he stop the heart attack in that child? He knew it would happen before it happened."
      Yeah, I think you may have just come up with a way of -predicting- the future based on information instead of simply seeing it.

    • @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr
      @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr 3 роки тому

      @@hackeritalics God allows suffering if you haven't noticed.

  • @justynh1321
    @justynh1321 3 роки тому

    Maybe their name IS frank but they prefer to go by Joe since it's their second name, my great grandfather went by Al but his first name was John but went by his second name

  • @KingdomOfNoise1
    @KingdomOfNoise1 2 місяці тому

    Great video. Thank you.

  • @plaguedoct0r
    @plaguedoct0r 7 років тому

    I got confused on purpose because I don't like being told what to do.
    ...It was harder than I thought.

  • @jinxy72able
    @jinxy72able 6 років тому

    Argument from ignorance fallacies are very easy to spot, whenever a Christian says "What else could it be", or "How else could it have happened" or "How else could it be" or "who else could have done it" etc... those are red flags. The person is more than likely engaged in an argument from ignorance.
    I actually run into this fallacy being committed by theists more than any other. It is also often a sort of god of the gaps argument. It seems to be at the core (or foundation) of why they believe in god (at least among a great deal of theists I have debated with).

    • @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr
      @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr 3 роки тому

      Well if you give me a billion years then I guess it could happen. Why? What magic does a billion years do? What proof do you have that a billion years can do anything at all? You're argument is, we don't know what a billion years can do so MAYBE it can create incredibly complex living things. That's a very weak argument. Billions of years is just your God, but billions of years can't save you, also it's a lie from the Father of Lies.

  • @01coyote13
    @01coyote13 8 років тому +2

    the one with which i have trouble understanding is"absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

    • @wesleybrock315
      @wesleybrock315 8 років тому +3

      +01coyote13
      A way to think about it is "What would we expect to see if a specific thing didn't exist?"
      Well you'd expect to find no evidence wouldn't you?

    • @SansDeity
      @SansDeity  8 років тому

      working on that

    • @wesleybrock315
      @wesleybrock315 8 років тому

      truth1901
      "everyone agrees with them"
      "Also, i have"
      Answered your own question.

    • @wesleybrock315
      @wesleybrock315 8 років тому

      truth1901
      It would depend upon the context and understanding of the situation. Often we will agree for the sake of argument or governance that some set of given rules should be treated as though they are "objective". This is what Matt probably means when he says "temporarily objective". So if we all agreed that god's rules were "objective" it would only be a case of us all agreeing they are and treating them as though they are even if they actually are not. Which is a idea covered by the Thomas Theorem of Sociology which states that if we define a situation as real it's consequences will be treated as real.
      It would not necessarily follow that the rules would be objectively good for us even if we agreed they were objective.

    • @wesleybrock315
      @wesleybrock315 8 років тому

      truth1901
      "Government has been given the authority to set rules by God."
      An unverifiable claim that I have zero reason to lend credence to.
      Yeah, I'd agree that most rules are subjective. But that doesn't prevent us from treating a given set of rules as objective in a context or for a specific reason.

  • @SuperFlanders007
    @SuperFlanders007 6 років тому

    Do you recommend or suggest books for further study on logical fallacies?

  • @timothymorrisii7165
    @timothymorrisii7165 4 роки тому +1

    Premise 1; All Matts have a last name.
    Premise 2; Dillahunty is a last name.
    Conclusion; All Matts are Dillahuntys.

    • @DanielLee1
      @DanielLee1 4 роки тому

      Just for laughs, I’ll argue that with you. I don’t accept either premise! Not everybody has a last name, and not all last names are Dillahunty. 🧐

  • @Stevevick-ve6kh
    @Stevevick-ve6kh 5 років тому +1

    What if when u die & find out there is a Hell ?

    • @rovert46
      @rovert46 5 років тому

      ...and it’s crammed with theists!!

  • @sleepyd1231
    @sleepyd1231 8 років тому +2

    Most fallacies I notice very easily, Except equivocation fallacy. Ive really got to sit down and think about that one ]

    • @charlx8979
      @charlx8979 8 років тому +3

      +Dylan Ost and its a really common fallacy, its real tricky wich is why apologists use it A HELL OF A LOT
      and i mean a lot, all the time

    • @Bill_Garthright
      @Bill_Garthright 8 років тому +1

      +luke V
      Wow. You're right. I run into it all the time. I guess I just never knew what it was called.

    • @charlx8979
      @charlx8979 8 років тому +3

      FiniteAutomaton and that is the prime example of a equivocation fallacy
      the runner up to that is when they equivocate the common usage of theory with the scientific one
      but yes the faith equivocation is the most common usage of that fallacy in religious debates

    • @laurabramhall7863
      @laurabramhall7863 5 років тому

      charl

  • @AnHonestApe
    @AnHonestApe 8 років тому

    Any movements to get this stuff taught in secondary school?

  • @vegane_athee
    @vegane_athee 7 років тому

    Hi sir dillahunty. Is there an ebook, a PDF or something that you would suggest for a kind of complete list and explanations of logical fallacies?

    • @HDmeems
      @HDmeems 7 років тому

      renerelire www.don-Lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

  • @darkphoenix7225
    @darkphoenix7225 4 роки тому

    Some people really need to watch this video, I had a flat earther the other day try to claim "Oh that's funny, he thinks he hasn't been proven wrong" was a fallacy. The best part to it was he called it a non argument. He was super close to figuring it out XD

    • @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr
      @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr 3 роки тому

      I think the earth is flat. It's funny because the logical fallacies are all globers have. Appeal to antiquity, appeal to authority, bandwagon.... no actual proof the earth is moving or has a curve. Amazing but true! We just believe it because that's what we're taught as children. We're ALL indoctrinated with the globe. It actually takes a ALOT to break out of it. It's extremely strong brainwashing.

  • @tommylarrett7679
    @tommylarrett7679 8 років тому

    Matt's weed pipe is funny looking....how do you carb it?

  • @charlieclark2609
    @charlieclark2609 5 років тому

    Who is socrates? Or however you spell it

  • @jaymercha3859
    @jaymercha3859 5 років тому

    Matt saw my eyes glaze over....He is a prophet and soothsayer...Long live the prophet MATT. ....I M A big fan:)

  • @WA-ge3vz
    @WA-ge3vz 8 років тому +2

    Hey Matt, I would like a group of these types of discussions or lectures in audio form that I could have on my phone and listen to like a podcast. I would pay money for something like that and I think others would to.

    • @CSEwens
      @CSEwens 8 років тому

      I second that!

    • @You87
      @You87 8 років тому +2

      Why don't you just make/save a mp3 (or other audio format) out of the Yotube videos for private / personal use? Would save Matt any additional work and time ...
      Unless he really wishes to market a separate product with these (which I doubt, otherwise they wouldn't be on UA-cam but behind some paywall on other websites. So just supporting patreon and enjoying is okay, I hope.)

    • @CSEwens
      @CSEwens 8 років тому

      You87 I second that as well!

  • @KitchenOne-California
    @KitchenOne-California 7 років тому

    Matt! I would love if you hook up with an visual team for your presentation! Can I volunteer?

  • @sharonv1548
    @sharonv1548 8 років тому

    I love you so much, sir.

  • @clifflutz155
    @clifflutz155 6 років тому

    Hey Matt I’ve always wondered how you were introduced to formal logic and if you had maybe a favorite book on the subject?

    • @MetalWolfz
      @MetalWolfz 6 місяців тому

      Informal Logic A handbook for Ciritcal argumentation by Douglas N. Walton is a good introduction to logic, types of dialouge and fallacies.

  • @JillStJohn-qj8gs
    @JillStJohn-qj8gs 4 роки тому +2

    If atheist don’t believe in God why do they spend so much time talking about God. I don’t talk about things I don’t believe in.

    • @cowboyneverdycowboynevercr2027
      @cowboyneverdycowboynevercr2027 3 роки тому

      Same exact thing l always wondered. 😆😆😁

    • @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr
      @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr 3 роки тому

      Because if they're wrong they're screwed so in their own minds they can't be wrong, and yet maybe just maybe there's something there because there are billions of people that believe in God, and you can't really be sure... It's like smokers that try to get you to smoke. It makes them feel less bad about themselves if they can get others on their side.

    • @Artman1
      @Artman1 Рік тому

      In my case i got sick of me and my wife and children being lied to and force fed about your crazy impossible myth.

    • @wyldink1
      @wyldink1 Рік тому

      "As an activist, I continue to hear this line: "Why do atheists talk so much about God and religion?" Or, "Why would someone speak so often about a deity he/she doesn't believe in?"
      In truth, I suspect that these questions are deflections designed to make the questioner seem self-consciously obsessive...the sinner that "doth protest too much."
      But the reality is that atheist activism exists because religion exists. Religion permeates our culture, shows up on our doorsteps with literature, scriptures and threats of eternal damnation, influences our science books, contaminates our political systems, indoctrinates our children and postulates that its doctrine must be followed, lest we be destroyed in body, in soul, or both.
      Non-believers are simply responding to the avalanche of religious messages that bears down upon us daily. And they do so by (surprise!) speaking on the subject.
      Religion gets carte blanche to be as vocal as it wants, to knock on our doors and accost us in our homes, in our places of work, in our personal and professional lives. Believers are charged with a life mission to preach, teach, disciple, shout it from the mountaintops and to "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Religion...is everywhere.
      Ask yourself. When's the last time an atheist rang your doorbell with the Good News of Humanism? How often do you find Richard Dawkins books in the dresser drawers of your hotel rooms? When was the last atheist temple erected in your neighborhood? Have you ever attended an atheist revival? Has atheism demanded 10% of your household income? How many dedicated atheist television channels come through your satellite dish? How many atheist verses were you instructed to memorize as a child? When's the last time someone thanked a FARMER (or even the cook) at the dinner table instead of God?
      On a more radical front, what's the name of the last atheist who sawed the head off of an "infidel?" Or sentenced a shrouded woman to death for displeasing an oppressive husband? Or strapped explosives to his belt in order to kill hundreds in a public square? Or publicly executed someone for being gay?
      It's everywhere. Religion is a pounding drum that has gone mostly unanswered for a long, long time. And religion is not satisfied with merely existing quietly in the homes and hearts of the faithful. Its very nature compels the believer to proselytize, preach, promote, convince, convert and prevail. If you play on the team of the religious, your game plan is to stay, always, on offense.
      Throughout our history, those who raise a simple hand of protest against these advances have been portrayed as the real problem. Religion has attempted to marginalize and defeat legitimate questions and concerns by indignantly portraying any resistors as misguided, immoral, rudderless, angry, miserable, lost and alone.
      And when skepticism challenges wildly improbable (or impossible) stories found in the Bible, the Qur'an and other holy books, the religious wail, "Why do atheists talk so much about religion?"
      It's often like asking cancer survivors why they're advocates for cancer cures.
      We ask, we challenge, we battle, we care because it matters. The facts and fiction of religious claims matter. The larger question, "Is it true?" matters. The countering of religious privilege matters. And the building of a superstition-free future matters.
      The next time a religious person labels you as obsessed with religion and God (pick one...there are thousands to choose from), just remember that religion began the discussion. It amplifies itself before the world. It targets the vulnerable and ignorant. It often threatens all humankind with punishment upon its rejection. And it's making Truth claims that - despite all of the fluffy platitudes about "faith" - must meet the burden of proof.
      Religion started this mess. And if an atheist speaks out against religious claims, it's likely the speech wouldn't be necessary if the claims weren't made in the first place."
      - Seth Andrews

  • @lolbored801
    @lolbored801 8 років тому

    So I have an issue where someone on my Facebook posted a meme mentioning chemtrails. I had posted "chemtrails? lol" and he had replied with "Chemtrails may not necessarily kill us, but I challenge you to make the case that they increase our lifespan." I am not sure where to go with this. What the hell kind of fallacy would this be? How can I prove or disprove they increase our lifespan. That's like saying everyone who has ever drank milk has died so therefore milk is bad. So don't drink milk. I am at a loss.

    • @maty5152
      @maty5152 8 років тому

      Tell them the milk thing. Correlation doesn't equal causation. They seem to be making an Argument from Ignorance.
      Or tell them "I challenge you to make a case that they shorten our lifespan" and ask for peer review studies that show actual causation, not some random website that spills nonsense without evidence.

    • @You87
      @You87 8 років тому

      Typical shifting of burden of proof. He was the first one to claim something about them, then instead of proving their point piling on you something you never claimed/meant this way (increase lifespan) and demanding to justify yourself.
      But frankly this level of conversation doesn't look like you're going to get a sane and meaningful discussion out of it, and it looks like both of you have very little knowledge of the topic at hand to judge the quality of arguments.

  • @diroxmusic5433
    @diroxmusic5433 8 років тому

    I heart u Matt.

  • @MalBishop18
    @MalBishop18 6 років тому +1

    Am I the only one who is dismayed and disappointed with and by our society (at least in the US) that this is not in the core curriculum along with math and reading in our education system? It seems to me that this should be a class on its own near the beginning of the education process.

    • @LATEXXJUGGERNUT
      @LATEXXJUGGERNUT 5 років тому

      As George Carlin once said: the government doesn't want critical thinkers, they want obedient workers. Smart enough to press the button but dumb enough to accept their ever increasing shittier circumstances

  • @PretiumLibertatisEstVigilantia
    @PretiumLibertatisEstVigilantia 4 роки тому

    Thank you spiritual father.

  • @gilbertramirezpt
    @gilbertramirezpt 8 років тому

    For those like Chris McFadden, who don't seem to understand logical reasoning and rhetoric.

  • @flyingmonkey7327
    @flyingmonkey7327 8 років тому

    Herald was not a Medical student was he?

  • @Eimerian
    @Eimerian 8 років тому

    37:00 God does know into the future when it's convenient, and he doesn't if it would be inconvenient.

    • @RunescapePro
      @RunescapePro 8 років тому

      +Eimerian I guess it not convenient for him to show himself :/

  • @blazinblasphemer7500
    @blazinblasphemer7500 4 роки тому

    Inspired by you and obviously the bong tokes this morning, I've written a couple of barz.....You pissed cuz I pillaged your Bailey?
    Bitch imma knock down your Motte on the daily!
    You been deploying them strawmen lately
    Motha fucka I'm a treat ya breakfast and eat you like biscuits and gravy! 😂💨
    Love ya Matt, you've impacted my life in a very enlightening and positive way. Thank you,
    Blazin Blasphemer

  • @thatperson0013
    @thatperson0013 7 років тому

    That opening though

  • @Brickerbrack
    @Brickerbrack 8 років тому

    You know what that pipe is missing? Bubbles.

  • @robloxmodz7199
    @robloxmodz7199 7 років тому +1

    Is Matt dillahunty god?