Well stated Matt. You are human as well as the rest of us, but few have advanced the concept of free thinking as you have. Cheers to you from my place.
I so much appreciate the video and your activism. As another commenter said, you are lightyears ahead of the average thinking mindset, preconceived bias is practically impregnable. Seeking the truth with as little mental baggage as possible is the only way. Thanks Matt
Hi Matt, just found your channel this morning, and am loving it! *binge watching now* An approach I like to use when starting a ‘discussion’ is to stat that I know I don’t know everything. I haven’t travelled the entire world, and I haven’t lived forever, so my knowledge is based upon what I have experienced and learned. So when I go into a discussion, I enter it prepared to learn something new and prepared to change my preconceived ideas. And I make the other person promise to do the same, to enter the debate with an open mind and an intention to listen to understand, not to listen to respond. If they don’t, then it is just an argument between two people who both believe they are right and won’t be changed. I don’t have the time, energy or patience for that. But, to discuss something with the chance that I, or the other person, might learn and grow, then that’s good.
The most constructive thing I can add is that, like most fallacies, there is a double-edge to the blade - in philosophical or social discourse, the 'evidence' of concern is not usually of a clear nature in its presentation - and because of this, in every single apprehension we have the opportunity to construct a straw-fallacy. This will often lead to a failure to recognize that the burden of proof has been shifted - to keep it to this particular fallacy - if you interpret there to be a claim that's simply not being made, and then criticize it for lack of evidence - this is especially dangerous if you do not immediately address it but merely assume it as a tacit presumption - essentially poisoning your own well without telling your interlocutor. We're all human and knowing fallacies does nothing to aid us in avoiding them - because our active and effective pattern matching is clearly insufficient to cover all of the fallacious forms and our application is manifold. That we can avoid the ones we're trying to avoid would amusingly be a fallacious appeal in defense of the idea that we can avoid them =D Identify, address, review, reflect etc.
One thing that I have noticed about many of the people who argue for why we should all believe in the existence of a God and the Bible as this Gods inspired word is they seem to have bad memories....well, not so much bad memories but more like selective and convenient memories, eg, they might say to you as a non-believer at the start of a conversation with them something like "hey, you need to stop trusting your own mind and trust totally in Gods mind to give you the right answers to everything". Yet, maybe a good 5 or 10 minutes down the line you might ask them a question like "if there really is a God that wants us to know he is there and wants us to have the right understanding, why doesn't this God just come down and give us the answers directly?" and they will reply "hey, God wants you to work it out for yourself, he doesn't want you to be like a child that depends on their parents for everything, he wants you to grow", can you see the conflict there? Of course, they are hoping that you will forget what they said before and won't pull them up over it (unfortunately for them there is no chance of that happening with Matt Dillahunty when they call in lol), so they can sneak in all of these "answers" to your points which are actually not answers at all, they are gap fillers, designed to make it seem as if they are "answering all of your points" and in some cases, skeptics who might be a bit weak in their skepticism, could be fooled into thinking that they have "lost the argument" and have no further reason to disbelieve anymore, it's a mind game that they try to play with people. This is why Matt is absolutely right to stop theists in their track to clarify points they make, because otherwise, even they themselves might conveniently forget what they said before, they appear to me to be far more interested in winning people over than being consistent, because they are already convinced and forget they are talking to people who are not, this is one of the biggest problems with debating theists when you're a non-believer trying to explain to them why you are non-believer and why you don't think their beliefs are sufficiently warranted.
"he doesn't want you to be like a child" That's not what the Bible says though. For example, in Matthew 18:1-9 NIV it says "1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, *unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.* 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. 6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."
@@stefantherainbowphoenix I know but you seem to be missing the point I was making, I was referring to the way that some Christians will say one thing to a non-believer to try to answer their point and then, later on, they will say something else in answer to another point which conflicts with what they said before and they seem to forget they said it or perhaps hope that the non-believer they are talking to forgets they said something previously that was the opposite of what they are then saying THAT was what I was getting at, I know what the Bible SAYS but that's another problem, the Bible appears to say many things but how different Christians interpret what it says is a whole other can of worms, many disagree with each other.
Sermon on the Mount ( you- total disregard for the beauty of the text, in favor of presupposition ) It is the basis for all nonresistance, non-violence protests throughout our modern history
Some if the most frustrating times is trying to debate a person who refuses to debate in a manner that doesn't fall under fallacy or retardation. To inject logic into a conversation that is not logical in the first place. So I understand where you are coming from on how to deal with this conundrum.
I think Matt gets angry when the caller is being dishonest and arguing in bad faith. Their God belief is set in stone and they will only accept the evidence that gets them there. If they're going to call in they need to be a little bit openminded.
Well, you're wrong! Actually I don't think so, but I just wanted to say that about Matt :p Matt said it seems that the world slips further away from rationality and I think that it mostly seems that way to Matt because he is progressing so much faster than the world around him and people on his show seem to be at a complete stand still, so relative to his position it's almost as if the world is in reverse, but I think we're actually progressing quite well. Thanks largely to the internet we can bug each other about evidence and logic and reason a lot more and we can look things up pretty much instantly and from my perspective the people who enjoy absorbing knowledge and making sense of it is increasing like mad and when I then hear politicians, who I remember as being smart educated people, being stuck in simple logical fallacies, I'm thinking it's not the world that is slipping further away from rationality but our acceptance of irrational arguments that is slowly diminishing and I think that that is a good thing and I think one of the next steps we should be taking is to annoy politicians with our rational arguments and pointing out when and where they are using logical fallacies to push their points. If you need logical fallacies to convince something then you haven't worked out your idea well enough. You can still throw out your partial idea and just let it bounce around and see if it grows or breaks. We're in this together and no one person has to come up with a perfect idea.
@finalfantasy8911 " challenge the efficiency of life"... I don't even know WTF that means. Life is worth living based on SUBJECTIVITY... If you can't find a reason to continue living, maybe you're doing shit wrong. Maybe you're an asshole... That's about all I have to say about that
@finalfantasy8911 Being alive we attribute value to being alive and we make the very best of it, took is 14 billion years to get here, best to enjoy it while we can. We haven't deluded ourselves into believing we have eternity to play with.
Who do you throw first from the boat, the priest, the old lady.. Predictive programming and pre-decided argumentation, manufactured consent, they don't allow for personal interpretation
This is true of any debate on science. At risk of sounding pretentious, when a political debate is founded in science, most people assume facts that’s simply have never been established or at least exist in a way they don’t understand, but their 10th grade biology education makes them feel adequately equipped for a high level discussion. For example, pro-lifers will claim “life begins at conception, it’s science and embryology!” When questioned they google the definition of “life” and run with that. Meanwhile, the entirety of the scientific community understands that the formal definitions “life” is simply a categorical interim definition of an abstract concept put into physical means. We don’t have a real definition of “life,” and the fact they assume this as fact is frustrating
here is a-assumed fact of mine, i thought youd find interresting: if i could believe something - i would also do it. explains a-lot. take your journey: being a believer (able to believe) - till studien-to-proof - and then not being able to believe - and therefore not doing it.
that will seriously part of my speech before going to hell, if god grands me the-minute: you must know that i was unable to take *that* as correct for all that is good and holy. you created my brain, after all.
As soon as one equips any god with the attributes of omnipotence (can do and knows everything), omnipresence (is everywhere) and transcendence (acts in mysterious ways), he shelters this alleged god from the question about its existence. Simply because this question becomes pointless, since the believer can then always retreat into the hypothetical, eternally expandable space of "the unknown". When somebody questions the existence of this god, the believer can just reply: "You can not know that!" At the same time, the believer can dogmatically assert whatever wants. Thus, "the unknown" conveniently becomes a creative canvas for divine claims and a shield against doubts. This is a rhetorical sleight of hand, found in all religions. Certainly in the monotheistic ones.
It's not that the world is slipping further and further into irrationality. It's that, much like an animal that has been backed into a corner and senses its own impending demise, theists (and their various hate-mongering subsets) see their numbers and influence diminishing, and they're fighting with every last ounce of fury they have to hold off their inevitable irrelevance.
Hi Matt - I have a question for you. Do you think it's appropriate to use court room analogy often in religious debate? I ask because court allows anecdotal evidence so theist may well say something on the lines of 'I have felt God' or 'God talks to me' and they can say that court rooms allow for it, why dont you. Apologize if this is a stupid question and as a fellow atheist, I appreciate what you do. Thanks.
"One of the greatest things ever said" Matt justifiably points out that such a statement is an assumption of facts not in evidence....Now go through UA-cam and look at the "Greatest guitar solo", the "Greatest singer." etc. I wish those being drawn in by such tripe would understand that all of these, "greatest" are no more than click bait.
So you disregard teleological arguments. at least until you are forced to confront them. Then what? Stand behind your defense walls, or address them? Sure, in a chess game, a battle of wits, you attack, attack attack. But, there must come a point where this strategy is confronted and derailed. Yes, I think 😊
You brought up an interesting point, where you said you start with the laws of logic to build different kinds of logical thinking. Maybe I’m overthinking this, but maybe we should ask why those laws are considered laws? It seems to me that they are understood as “laws” because the way that reality works seems to indicate they are true. If they are only true because they present in reality as true, then isn’t reality the real foundation for logic? I’ve spent almost 3000 hours studying philosophy in the last year and a half and it is fascinating to me that reality isn’t mentioned much at all as being the foundation for logic, and saying it is has gotten me some weird looks from philosophy majors and apologists. Usually someone is seen as illogical if their views don’t align with reality (think mental illness, dogmatism, etc.). This next bit is kind of a tangent, but a claim about reality should be supported by reality, and implicit claims should always be proven before the more complex claim is considered. This idea has kinda stumped most apologists I have come across. They say that god seems to have been involved in an event, and because something can’t be involved with something without existing, if it seems like god was involved then he must exist. But it’s putting the cart before the horse, existence comes first, it is an implicit claim in involvement. If I say “my house burned down”, that’s fine. But if I say “a dragon burned my house down”, my house may be burned down but not by a dragon, and the existence of a dragon should come first before we even consider whether it can be involved in some event. Final thing (also venting), circumstantial evidence is often used by apologists. But circumstantial evidence has only EVER been useful for arranging the facts of a situation in a particular order based on previous experience with similar situations. Circumstantial evidence has NEVER been useful for determining if something exists. We waited until we found body parts to even suspect the Giant Squid as anything more than imagination, and waited until we had bodies to really say for sure. And we’re pretty familiar with animals. The supernatural is far less familiar and needs just as firm of footing as what we had for the Giant Squid; so something showing existence in reality as reliably as a physical body is a good place to start. We get to make leaps of logic with familiar subjects (I can guess my spouse will want cookies because they had a rough day without having absolute evidence of it ONLY because it has been reliably true in the past under similar circumstances. Once there’s a pattern which requires repeated occurrences, we can use that pattern to shorten our processes. If a scientific journal is generally reliable in learning new information about a field of science, we can generally rely on it’s conclusions with maybe just minor tentativeness just in case. If math is reliable in helping us count our pennies then that’s great. But for a method to be reliable, there has to be a pattern of reliability. That’s literally how we know something is reliable. And how we perceive the world should be reliable at the very least. So using a tool in a way it wasn’t meant to be used for and isn’t used for now (circumstantial evidence being used for determining the existence of an entirely new plane of existence and the beings in it) is just not reliable. And if I did believe in a god, I would want it to be at least as real as the pajamas in my drawer.
@Oners82 _Wow, so many words to say so little!_ To you maybe, but your dumb ass should consider some critical self reflection. The only thing you got right was the guy's name. _Your first argument for example completely misses the point._ Missing the point doesn't mean it says little. It doesn't follow. Also, Jordan didn't miss his own point, you did. _Yeah, logical laws seem to track reality but that is beside the point._ If you were going to type this sentence then the previous one is redundant... Ironic that you use two sentences to say so little and be wrong on three accounts, while wrongly accusing Jordan of being long winded and mistaken. _The point is, is it even conceivable to have a reality where for example the law of identity does not apply?_ It's most probably not relevant and definitely not the point if we can conceive of something or not and it makes it even sadder that you started the comment with saying that the comment you responded to was missing the point. I had such high hopes and you turn it into a anticlimactic piss stain. So now we know that you personally can't conceive of a universe where our laws of logic don't apply. That doesn't answer the question whether or not reality is the foundation of logic and the point of that question isn't different from the point of that question o_O You must be in a universe where the laws of logic work differently... _It doesn't even seem to make sense that such a reality could exist, so on these grounds..._ On these grounds I call your entire comment an argument from ignorance and I implore you to do some critical self reflection and study logical fallacies and try to recognize them in your own arguments and improve your arguments. _(not on the straw man you presented)_ What straw man? _It doesn't even seem to make sense that such a reality could exist, so on these grounds (not on the straw man you presented) what is the ontological status of the logical laws?_ Ehh.. what? o_O Are you seriously asking the person who is asking about the origin of logical laws what the origin of logical laws are? And are you seriously asking him to base his conclusion on your inability to imagine something? o_O You must really hate education because you're basically telling him to forget what he has learned and act like an ignorant idiot and wildly guess with 'oh... I dunno' as a basis. _The reason philosophy grads look at you funny is because your arguments lack any depth whatsoever._ It's not the lack of depth in his QUESTION, which isn't an argument, but your brain that lacks the ability to perceive depth.
I think you have a good point and I think that logic, like math, is just a reliable tool to describe how reality works and we can use the methods to come to conclusions we can't prove (as easily), like for instance, whether or not it is moral to sleep with more than one person. (In which case the conclusion is obviously: it's not moral or immoral in and of itself, just as slamming a nail in some wood isn't moral or immoral by itself, but if you're using it to nail someone to a wall it's safe to say it's immoral and if you use it to hang up an ornament your wife bought for you it's probably moral, unless of course she bought you a dead cat off of a drunken driver who just ran over it with his car. You never know :p I would just check the gifted horse for any surprises :p) So yes, I think that logic is founded in reality in the same way that math is. They're tools which have shown their reliability. If I have five apples, you can't take nine apples from me and I think logic works in the same way. When applied correctly you won't have impossibilities and contradictions because those are simply impossible. They're not impossible because we say so, but they're impossible by nature and we observe and describe them as such.
would be funny to write a story, where none of the protagonists has seen the other, to show how difficult it is to write a story about what noone was witnessed, not even the participants.
Speaking of assuming facts not in evidence - when people swear on that holy book in a court of law, do we assume that it is the highest source of morality humans are capable of crafting? Or are we just supposed to be scared to lie for fear retribution from the celestial thug? I don't know which is more offensive.
I'm curious, since I haven't looked at a Bible in years. Where in the bible does it say it is the word of god? I always found that to be ridiculous since the bible isn't really a single book but a collection of books written by different authors. The idea that the entire bible is "the word of god" seems more like post hoc spin then anything else.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 is the most clear but also 1 Thessalonians 2:13 Isaiah 34:16 John 5:39 Luke 11:28 Luke 24:45 the list goes on. Simple google search would have shown you that dude
You should definitely be able to articulate your foundations for any belief you have, and if you can't, then some thought needs to put into that. If I have a belief about something, I'm fully aware my own reasons and motivations which lead me to believe as such. I skipped something though. When you think about your own beliefs, I believe there is a sort of rationality that motivates our thinking. Not a perfectly rational sense, but rather a rationality that follows given some additional presuppositions. People do irrational things, but I believe they do them believing that their actions are in fact following a sort of rationally, of the kind like I said before; basically just presuppositions (which could be virtually anything, but I doubt its infinitely mutable, meaning some things are definitely excluded). Anyway, what do you call someone who believes that the existence of gods is a good think, or if they don't believe, they wish god did exist? And the converse?
You might the youtube channel "LegalEagle" worth your time. It's presented by a lawyer who reviews films and tv shows that revolve around or include in some way trials and how they are conducted. He also talks about some hot-button topics but does so from a neutral position.
If a caller is beyond stupid and does not listen to any of your points then you getting frustrated and ending the call is well, logical. We only have so much time here on earth and wasting it on idiots would be a shame. You are only human after all (although an admirable one). I do however feel that perhaps cursing during the call would probably best be avoided if possible (although it is entertaining!) as it kind of drags you down to their level and gives them something negative (however minor) to say about you. Think of yourself as a lawyer during the call as they usually don't curse during a trial.
the facts problem starts early. "the bible is true." isn't even a sound statement, since besides some quite-few direct commandments and declarations, the bible doesn't tell you *what to do with the written*. that is intigral part of practicing faith: to find your interpretations. jesus talked parabels for a reason - to let the truth form in your mind. if you just read-up what they mean, you somewhat miss the point n say jesus couldnt express himself proper. so just declaring the bible is one outspoken truth is disrepectful to the source.
somebody able to assume what happened to the fish yet? i mean when jesus asked for fish and bread to feed the-many. they got a miraculous amount of bread n-- jesus wanted fish or what? sorry to annoy, i don't get over it.
Supporting transphobes not being an LGBT+ ally. The T stands for Trans, not TERF. I never thought I'd have to say it here, let alone unsub, but... wow. Sad day.
@@Yukinoomoni He doesn't strike me as a transphobe. There have been trans women concerned about unfair advantage in sports. Trans women like me. Of course my views have been evolving.
On the "have you stopped beating your wife" question I just say no. To stop doing something you first have to start. Since I haven't started beating my wife i also haven't stopped. Bigger assumption in that question is that I have a wife : )
I remember this dude from the mid 2000s. He is so fucking full of himself now, it’s pretty cringy. He always talks about where he was wrong in hindsight, but he’s almost unapproachable in the moment
not even 1 minute into the video he makes a false statement. The court room is NOT ostensibly about getting to the truth. The court room is about declaring a particular defendant Guilty or Not Guilty and therefore exacting punitive measures. Guilty or Not Guilty. Thats it. lol
I'll listen again but I don't recall saying the courtroom analogy was about getting to the truth... the courtroom analogy is about the burden of proof.
Matt Dillahunty you can say the courtroom is an analogy for the “burden of proof” The courtroom is the original use of the term burden of proof. And it applies to the courtroom. In determining PROBABLE guilt of a specific accusation. It does NOT apply to determining whether or not to accept a claim as true or any other cognitive facet. A more proper analogy to make would be the buying and selling process. Not the court process. That’s why we ask ppl “do you buy that idea?” We do not ask people “what is your verdict or sentencing on that idea?” U cannot properly assess a claim to its fullest , so as to entail absolute knowledge. You can only assess up to the amount of evidence that is available. And you cannot assess a product without looking at the pros and cons. Benefits and costs. The claim that religion is true, is not only a true/false proposition. But it is also a cost/benefit proposition. And an intelligent individual would consider these as well as the evidence, prior to deciding on whether or not to believe or buy the idea.
Hi Matt, I can prove there is "something" to astrology. And I would be willing to bet some money to demonstrate it in a scientific study. Does Randi foundation still offer a million bucks?
If by 'something' you mean people's willingness to make false attributions of prediction to Barnum statements and self-fulfilling prophecies, you are right. However, that's non-controversial, well-established within psychology, and in no way supernatural (so wouldn't be eligible for the Randi prize even if it was still running).
@@sanekabc Then what is the 'something' you think is in it? It had better not be personality types. I'm a psychologist: we've already de-bunked that decades ago.
@@Grim_Beard Don't want to reveal it here. I'm actually a bit hesitant to release this because if I prove "something" then lay people will assume more is there than is actually there and misuse the information. I will say that I know very little about astrology and did not set out to prove anything. It happened quite by accident when I was studying something else in two groups of people.
@@sanekabc Astrology makes two claims: (1) the relative positions of stars and planets at the time of a person's birth determines their personality; (2) the relative positions of stars and planets throughout a person's life influences events in their life. You've stated that your claim is neither of these. If so, your claim has nothing to do with astrology. Unless I'm missing something.
Another pointless and nearly incoherent posting from Matt. Funny, Matt demands “evidence” for all claims except, conveniently, the epistemic framework from which he operates.
no idea, you are entitled to say it. I asked on axp fb site if a man decides to identify as a woman does that mean he is then a woman? no one got back to me!
@@unit0033 Stop asking silly questions then. If you're talking to a person, do you normally ask if they have testicles or ovaries? Zentz29 probably also didn't get ignored for saying that men can't be female in those exact words. Although he would have been better off saying males can't change to being females, but the problem remains that he heavily implies that there is no such thing as transgenders or biological intersex conditions. Noel Plum did a video on Caster Simenya (o_O this might almost be the correct way to spell her name). I know it's not nice to speak about someone's private parts, but she has a vagina and testicles. Now you tell me, is she a man or a woman?
@@stylis666 sounds like she is a medical oddity. The issue that everyone is talking about in identity politics isn't being born intersex. Its the 99.9999% of transgender/queer/nonbinary/whateverthefuck who are born with a perfect set of private parts from one gender or the other and decide they want to switch sides, many of whom don't even do any hormone therapy or surgery. They just want the rest of us to recognize the change, get whatever unique "benefits" we bestow on the gender they want to change to, and even let them compete in official sanctioned sports against that gender. I feel this is assinine and completely against science. I would like an unbiased peer reviewed scientific study that promotes this behavior and differentiates it from a mental illness. There's a girl in the UK that thinks she's a cat. Pretty sure the majority of us would call her crazy or just really into a sexual kink. Why should her thinking she's a man be treated any differently?
@@stylis666 I didn't imply that. I said that men can't be female. It's a straight up factual statement with no implications. I made no assertions or implications about trans people or intersex people. It was a flat out statement that meant exactly what it said. You read into it what wasn't there.
Well stated Matt. You are human as well as the rest of us, but few have advanced the concept of free thinking as you have. Cheers to you from my place.
You are a great speaker Matt👍🏼
I always learn something watching your videos. Keep it up man.
Your mind is beautiful. I class myself as a radical atheist like Douglas Adams or Chistopher Hitchens but I class you as my best motivator
I so much appreciate the video and your activism. As another commenter said, you are lightyears ahead of the average thinking mindset, preconceived bias is practically impregnable. Seeking the truth with as little mental baggage as possible is the only way. Thanks Matt
You were true to your word about making this video. Thank you.
Lmao I literally just came from the video where Matt sings the canadian idiot anthem to a caller, I laughed out loud at that
Hi Matt, just found your channel this morning, and am loving it! *binge watching now* An approach I like to use when starting a ‘discussion’ is to stat that I know I don’t know everything. I haven’t travelled the entire world, and I haven’t lived forever, so my knowledge is based upon what I have experienced and learned. So when I go into a discussion, I enter it prepared to learn something new and prepared to change my preconceived ideas. And I make the other person promise to do the same, to enter the debate with an open mind and an intention to listen to understand, not to listen to respond. If they don’t, then it is just an argument between two people who both believe they are right and won’t be changed. I don’t have the time, energy or patience for that. But, to discuss something with the chance that I, or the other person, might learn and grow, then that’s good.
Hey Matt! It's nice hearing you speaking at leisure, being able to explain a whole topic without having to nail down some theist or another.
I love you Matt, thank you for these!
The most constructive thing I can add is that, like most fallacies, there is a double-edge to the blade - in philosophical or social discourse, the 'evidence' of concern is not usually of a clear nature in its presentation - and because of this, in every single apprehension we have the opportunity to construct a straw-fallacy.
This will often lead to a failure to recognize that the burden of proof has been shifted - to keep it to this particular fallacy - if you interpret there to be a claim that's simply not being made, and then criticize it for lack of evidence - this is especially dangerous if you do not immediately address it but merely assume it as a tacit presumption - essentially poisoning your own well without telling your interlocutor.
We're all human and knowing fallacies does nothing to aid us in avoiding them - because our active and effective pattern matching is clearly insufficient to cover all of the fallacious forms and our application is manifold. That we can avoid the ones we're trying to avoid would amusingly be a fallacious appeal in defense of the idea that we can avoid them =D
Identify, address, review, reflect etc.
Great video Matt!
One thing that I have noticed about many of the people who argue for why we should all believe in the existence of a God and the Bible as this Gods inspired word is they seem to have bad memories....well, not so much bad memories but more like selective and convenient memories, eg, they might say to you as a non-believer at the start of a conversation with them something like "hey, you need to stop trusting your own mind and trust totally in Gods mind to give you the right answers to everything".
Yet, maybe a good 5 or 10 minutes down the line you might ask them a question like "if there really is a God that wants us to know he is there and wants us to have the right understanding, why doesn't this God just come down and give us the answers directly?" and they will reply "hey, God wants you to work it out for yourself, he doesn't want you to be like a child that depends on their parents for everything, he wants you to grow", can you see the conflict there?
Of course, they are hoping that you will forget what they said before and won't pull them up over it (unfortunately for them there is no chance of that happening with Matt Dillahunty when they call in lol), so they can sneak in all of these "answers" to your points which are actually not answers at all, they are gap fillers, designed to make it seem as if they are "answering all of your points" and in some cases, skeptics who might be a bit weak in their skepticism, could be fooled into thinking that they have "lost the argument" and have no further reason to disbelieve anymore, it's a mind game that they try to play with people.
This is why Matt is absolutely right to stop theists in their track to clarify points they make, because otherwise, even they themselves might conveniently forget what they said before, they appear to me to be far more interested in winning people over than being consistent, because they are already convinced and forget they are talking to people who are not, this is one of the biggest problems with debating theists when you're a non-believer trying to explain to them why you are non-believer and why you don't think their beliefs are sufficiently warranted.
"he doesn't want you to be like a child" That's not what the Bible says though. For example, in Matthew 18:1-9 NIV it says
"1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, *unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.* 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."
@@stefantherainbowphoenix I know but you seem to be missing the point I was making, I was referring to the way that some Christians will say one thing to a non-believer to try to answer their point and then, later on, they will say something else in answer to another point which conflicts with what they said before and they seem to forget they said it or perhaps hope that the non-believer they are talking to forgets they said something previously that was the opposite of what they are then saying THAT was what I was getting at, I know what the Bible SAYS but that's another problem, the Bible appears to say many things but how different Christians interpret what it says is a whole other can of worms, many disagree with each other.
thank you matt for your uses of legal based objections
& you are very impactful on logic & reason & argument development
ìam so excited skeptically
Sermon on the Mount ( you- total disregard for the beauty of the text, in favor of presupposition ) It is the basis for all nonresistance, non-violence protests throughout our modern history
You can establish what the opposition is and what the default position is by simply being a good listener.
You are a great thinker. All good dialogues. We all plug our ears occasionally 😀
Some if the most frustrating times is trying to debate a person who refuses to debate in a manner that doesn't fall under fallacy or retardation. To inject logic into a conversation that is not logical in the first place. So I understand where you are coming from on how to deal with this conundrum.
Still you have some super great memorable callers!! Truth is stranger than fiction lol
In the courtroom "FAILURE TO OBJECT TIMELY" can be FATAL!!
I think Matt gets angry when the caller is being dishonest and arguing in bad faith. Their God belief is set in stone and they will only accept the evidence that gets them there. If they're going to call in they need to be a little bit openminded.
Likely if they were open minded they wouldn't be holding onto that belief in the first place.
I like this formula. Very nice.
Do they care about logic and reason or do they just want to win!
Theists or lawyers? Never mind, the answer is the same: to win.
Well, you're wrong! Actually I don't think so, but I just wanted to say that about Matt :p
Matt said it seems that the world slips further away from rationality and I think that it mostly seems that way to Matt because he is progressing so much faster than the world around him and people on his show seem to be at a complete stand still, so relative to his position it's almost as if the world is in reverse, but I think we're actually progressing quite well.
Thanks largely to the internet we can bug each other about evidence and logic and reason a lot more and we can look things up pretty much instantly and from my perspective the people who enjoy absorbing knowledge and making sense of it is increasing like mad and when I then hear politicians, who I remember as being smart educated people, being stuck in simple logical fallacies, I'm thinking it's not the world that is slipping further away from rationality but our acceptance of irrational arguments that is slowly diminishing and I think that that is a good thing and I think one of the next steps we should be taking is to annoy politicians with our rational arguments and pointing out when and where they are using logical fallacies to push their points.
If you need logical fallacies to convince something then you haven't worked out your idea well enough. You can still throw out your partial idea and just let it bounce around and see if it grows or breaks. We're in this together and no one person has to come up with a perfect idea.
Nothing should go unchallenged
Are you sure?
@@toddlazarus5952
Pretty sure
@finalfantasy8911
" challenge the efficiency of life"...
I don't even know WTF that means.
Life is worth living based on SUBJECTIVITY... If you can't find a reason to continue living, maybe you're doing shit wrong. Maybe you're an asshole...
That's about all I have to say about that
@finalfantasy8911
I'm not here to justify anything to you
@finalfantasy8911 Being alive we attribute value to being alive and we make the very best of it, took is 14 billion years to get here, best to enjoy it while we can.
We haven't deluded ourselves into believing we have eternity to play with.
right, the same complaints people have about standardized testing.
Great video love your work.
Don't talk past each other, you know how
Who do you throw first from the boat, the priest, the old lady.. Predictive programming and pre-decided argumentation, manufactured consent, they don't allow for personal interpretation
The priest every day
This is true of any debate on science. At risk of sounding pretentious, when a political debate is founded in science, most people assume facts that’s simply have never been established or at least exist in a way they don’t understand, but their 10th grade biology education makes them feel adequately equipped for a high level discussion. For example, pro-lifers will claim “life begins at conception, it’s science and embryology!” When questioned they google the definition of “life” and run with that. Meanwhile, the entirety of the scientific community understands that the formal definitions “life” is simply a categorical interim definition of an abstract concept put into physical means. We don’t have a real definition of “life,” and the fact they assume this as fact is frustrating
here is a-assumed fact of mine, i thought youd find interresting: if i could believe something - i would also do it. explains a-lot. take your journey: being a believer (able to believe) - till studien-to-proof - and then not being able to believe - and therefore not doing it.
that will seriously part of my speech before going to hell, if god grands me the-minute: you must know that i was unable to take *that* as correct for all that is good and holy. you created my brain, after all.
4 uploads in one day. Hellz yeah :)
It's all true, for a given value of true...
As soon as one equips any god with the attributes of omnipotence (can do and knows everything), omnipresence (is everywhere) and transcendence (acts in mysterious ways), he shelters this alleged god from the question about its existence. Simply because this question becomes pointless, since the believer can then always retreat into the hypothetical, eternally expandable space of "the unknown".
When somebody questions the existence of this god, the believer can just reply: "You can not know that!" At the same time, the believer can dogmatically assert whatever wants. Thus, "the unknown" conveniently becomes a creative canvas for divine claims and a shield against doubts.
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand, found in all religions. Certainly in the monotheistic ones.
It's not that the world is slipping further and further into irrationality. It's that, much like an animal that has been backed into a corner and senses its own impending demise, theists (and their various hate-mongering subsets) see their numbers and influence diminishing, and they're fighting with every last ounce of fury they have to hold off their inevitable irrelevance.
Hi Matt - I have a question for you. Do you think it's appropriate to use court room analogy often in religious debate? I ask because court allows anecdotal evidence so theist may well say something on the lines of 'I have felt God' or 'God talks to me' and they can say that court rooms allow for it, why dont you. Apologize if this is a stupid question and as a fellow atheist, I appreciate what you do. Thanks.
If you commit a crime and say god told you to do it,. It isn't accepted as true.
"One of the greatest things ever said" Matt justifiably points out that such a statement is an assumption of facts not in evidence....Now go through UA-cam and look at the "Greatest guitar solo", the "Greatest singer." etc. I wish those being drawn in by such tripe would understand that all of these, "greatest" are no more than click bait.
Great video, thank you.
And the inductive argumentation, metaphysical .. Ah so muddy...we wait 😊
So you disregard teleological arguments. at least until you are forced to confront them. Then what? Stand behind your defense walls, or address them? Sure, in a chess game, a battle of wits, you attack, attack attack. But, there must come a point where this strategy is confronted and derailed. Yes, I think 😊
You brought up an interesting point, where you said you start with the laws of logic to build different kinds of logical thinking.
Maybe I’m overthinking this, but maybe we should ask why those laws are considered laws? It seems to me that they are understood as “laws” because the way that reality works seems to indicate they are true. If they are only true because they present in reality as true, then isn’t reality the real foundation for logic? I’ve spent almost 3000 hours studying philosophy in the last year and a half and it is fascinating to me that reality isn’t mentioned much at all as being the foundation for logic, and saying it is has gotten me some weird looks from philosophy majors and apologists. Usually someone is seen as illogical if their views don’t align with reality (think mental illness, dogmatism, etc.).
This next bit is kind of a tangent, but a claim about reality should be supported by reality, and implicit claims should always be proven before the more complex claim is considered. This idea has kinda stumped most apologists I have come across. They say that god seems to have been involved in an event, and because something can’t be involved with something without existing, if it seems like god was involved then he must exist. But it’s putting the cart before the horse, existence comes first, it is an implicit claim in involvement. If I say “my house burned down”, that’s fine. But if I say “a dragon burned my house down”, my house may be burned down but not by a dragon, and the existence of a dragon should come first before we even consider whether it can be involved in some event.
Final thing (also venting), circumstantial evidence is often used by apologists. But circumstantial evidence has only EVER been useful for arranging the facts of a situation in a particular order based on previous experience with similar situations. Circumstantial evidence has NEVER been useful for determining if something exists. We waited until we found body parts to even suspect the Giant Squid as anything more than imagination, and waited until we had bodies to really say for sure. And we’re pretty familiar with animals. The supernatural is far less familiar and needs just as firm of footing as what we had for the Giant Squid; so something showing existence in reality as reliably as a physical body is a good place to start.
We get to make leaps of logic with familiar subjects (I can guess my spouse will want cookies because they had a rough day without having absolute evidence of it ONLY because it has been reliably true in the past under similar circumstances. Once there’s a pattern which requires repeated occurrences, we can use that pattern to shorten our processes. If a scientific journal is generally reliable in learning new information about a field of science, we can generally rely on it’s conclusions with maybe just minor tentativeness just in case. If math is reliable in helping us count our pennies then that’s great. But for a method to be reliable, there has to be a pattern of reliability. That’s literally how we know something is reliable. And how we perceive the world should be reliable at the very least. So using a tool in a way it wasn’t meant to be used for and isn’t used for now (circumstantial evidence being used for determining the existence of an entirely new plane of existence and the beings in it) is just not reliable. And if I did believe in a god, I would want it to be at least as real as the pajamas in my drawer.
@Oners82 _Wow, so many words to say so little!_
To you maybe, but your dumb ass should consider some critical self reflection. The only thing you got right was the guy's name.
_Your first argument for example completely misses the point._
Missing the point doesn't mean it says little. It doesn't follow.
Also, Jordan didn't miss his own point, you did.
_Yeah, logical laws seem to track reality but that is beside the point._
If you were going to type this sentence then the previous one is redundant... Ironic that you use two sentences to say so little and be wrong on three accounts, while wrongly accusing Jordan of being long winded and mistaken.
_The point is, is it even conceivable to have a reality where for example the law of identity does not apply?_
It's most probably not relevant and definitely not the point if we can conceive of something or not and it makes it even sadder that you started the comment with saying that the comment you responded to was missing the point. I had such high hopes and you turn it into a anticlimactic piss stain.
So now we know that you personally can't conceive of a universe where our laws of logic don't apply. That doesn't answer the question whether or not reality is the foundation of logic and the point of that question isn't different from the point of that question o_O You must be in a universe where the laws of logic work differently...
_It doesn't even seem to make sense that such a reality could exist, so on these grounds..._
On these grounds I call your entire comment an argument from ignorance and I implore you to do some critical self reflection and study logical fallacies and try to recognize them in your own arguments and improve your arguments.
_(not on the straw man you presented)_
What straw man?
_It doesn't even seem to make sense that such a reality could exist, so on these grounds (not on the straw man you presented) what is the ontological status of the logical laws?_
Ehh.. what? o_O Are you seriously asking the person who is asking about the origin of logical laws what the origin of logical laws are? And are you seriously asking him to base his conclusion on your inability to imagine something? o_O You must really hate education because you're basically telling him to forget what he has learned and act like an ignorant idiot and wildly guess with 'oh... I dunno' as a basis.
_The reason philosophy grads look at you funny is because your arguments lack any depth whatsoever._
It's not the lack of depth in his QUESTION, which isn't an argument, but your brain that lacks the ability to perceive depth.
I think you have a good point and I think that logic, like math, is just a reliable tool to describe how reality works and we can use the methods to come to conclusions we can't prove (as easily), like for instance, whether or not it is moral to sleep with more than one person. (In which case the conclusion is obviously: it's not moral or immoral in and of itself, just as slamming a nail in some wood isn't moral or immoral by itself, but if you're using it to nail someone to a wall it's safe to say it's immoral and if you use it to hang up an ornament your wife bought for you it's probably moral, unless of course she bought you a dead cat off of a drunken driver who just ran over it with his car. You never know :p I would just check the gifted horse for any surprises :p)
So yes, I think that logic is founded in reality in the same way that math is. They're tools which have shown their reliability. If I have five apples, you can't take nine apples from me and I think logic works in the same way. When applied correctly you won't have impossibilities and contradictions because those are simply impossible. They're not impossible because we say so, but they're impossible by nature and we observe and describe them as such.
Hold up, before someone assumes it is the word of God, they must prove that God is real.
Nice monologue!!
At around 12:45 when you mentioned "informal" logic, I think you meant "inductive" logic.
Flawed premise. Defininitely hash that out.
genious
would be funny to write a story, where none of the protagonists has seen the other, to show how difficult it is to write a story about what noone was witnessed, not even the participants.
Speaking of assuming facts not in evidence - when people swear on that holy book in a court of law, do we assume that it is the highest source of morality humans are capable of crafting? Or are we just supposed to be scared to lie for fear retribution from the celestial thug? I don't know which is more offensive.
I'm curious, since I haven't looked at a Bible in years. Where in the bible does it say it is the word of god? I always found that to be ridiculous since the bible isn't really a single book but a collection of books written by different authors. The idea that the entire bible is "the word of god" seems more like post hoc spin then anything else.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 is the most clear but also 1 Thessalonians 2:13 Isaiah 34:16 John 5:39 Luke 11:28 Luke 24:45 the list goes on. Simple google search would have shown you that dude
WOW ! & WOW !
You should definitely be able to articulate your foundations for any belief you have, and if you can't, then some thought needs to put into that.
If I have a belief about something, I'm fully aware my own reasons and motivations which lead me to believe as such.
I skipped something though. When you think about your own beliefs, I believe there is a sort of rationality that motivates our thinking. Not a perfectly rational sense, but rather a rationality that follows given some additional presuppositions. People do irrational things, but I believe they do them believing that their actions are in fact following a sort of rationally, of the kind like I said before; basically just presuppositions (which could be virtually anything, but I doubt its infinitely mutable, meaning some things are definitely excluded).
Anyway, what do you call someone who believes that the existence of gods is a good think, or if they don't believe, they wish god did exist? And the converse?
There isn’t necessarily a single word for everything. In most occasions you have to use qualifiers or full descriptive phrases.
each little goat eyewitnessed the-others. n hanzel saw gretyl.
You might the youtube channel "LegalEagle" worth your time. It's presented by a lawyer who reviews films and tv shows that revolve around or include in some way trials and how they are conducted. He also talks about some hot-button topics but does so from a neutral position.
Pls go to joe rogans podcast someday if you can
God damn. Ugh.
If that ever happened I think you'd be in for a big surprise.
No thanks.
@@biasedlemmings553 what's up?
@@FourDogs1111 What's up with you? =D
If a caller is beyond stupid and does not listen to any of your points then you getting frustrated and ending the call is well, logical. We only have so much time here on earth and wasting it on idiots would be a shame. You are only human after all (although an admirable one). I do however feel that perhaps cursing during the call would probably best be avoided if possible (although it is entertaining!) as it kind of drags you down to their level and gives them something negative (however minor) to say about you. Think of yourself as a lawyer during the call as they usually don't curse during a trial.
Cursing is only a problem for people thinking magically about words. For the rest of us, who care about substance over style, it's just flavoring.
@@SansDeity Oh, I totally agree and cuss myself quite often but you know how most theists are. They get offended quite easily.
the facts problem starts early. "the bible is true." isn't even a sound statement, since besides some quite-few direct commandments and declarations, the bible doesn't tell you *what to do with the written*. that is intigral part of practicing faith: to find your interpretations. jesus talked parabels for a reason - to let the truth form in your mind. if you just read-up what they mean, you somewhat miss the point n say jesus couldnt express himself proper. so just declaring the bible is one outspoken truth is disrepectful to the source.
👍❤
somebody able to assume what happened to the fish yet? i mean when jesus asked for fish and bread to feed the-many. they got a miraculous amount of bread n-- jesus wanted fish or what? sorry to annoy, i don't get over it.
actually it is a translation-thing, with the fish having some symbolic meaning for the chosen folk, but it got utterly-butchered n-- noone notices?
Supporting transphobes not being an LGBT+ ally. The T stands for Trans, not TERF. I never thought I'd have to say it here, let alone unsub, but... wow. Sad day.
Wait. What?
Which transphobe is he supporting?
@@jennoscura2381 RationalityRules.
@@Yukinoomoni He doesn't strike me as a transphobe. There have been trans women concerned about unfair advantage in sports. Trans women like me. Of course my views have been evolving.
i seriously would let my bible say it isn't true if i were god, to rofl about them brains go bluescreen.
Hi.
Are you gay?
No.
Do your parents know you’re gay?
No. Wait.
Response: "Do you realize that was a rhetorical question?"
reaching out for random baldheads already got me into serious trouble. also: no.
I don't even know who you are.
?
I'm me, who are you?
@@roqsteady5290 I see you didn't get the reference.
@@alphakenny1620 Any relation to "Doesn't look like anything to me"?
fact for everyone's being about 99,9 thensome of world's population.
On the "have you stopped beating your wife" question I just say no. To stop doing something you first have to start. Since I haven't started beating my wife i also haven't stopped.
Bigger assumption in that question is that I have a wife : )
I remember this dude from the mid 2000s. He is so fucking full of himself now, it’s pretty cringy. He always talks about where he was wrong in hindsight, but he’s almost unapproachable in the moment
What dude?
Where is this singsong to the Canadian national anthem? I need to see this
False Dichotomy of Theism and Naturalism | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.25
ua-cam.com/video/4vYXETmSv_w/v-deo.html
There you go :) Enjoy! :)
not even 1 minute into the video he makes a false statement. The court room is NOT ostensibly about getting to the truth. The court room is about declaring a particular defendant Guilty or Not Guilty and therefore exacting punitive measures. Guilty or Not Guilty. Thats it. lol
And that guilty/not guilty is arrived at by trying to convince the jury of what the truth is: did the defendant do it or not?
I'll listen again but I don't recall saying the courtroom analogy was about getting to the truth... the courtroom analogy is about the burden of proof.
Aha...I said ostensibly about getting to the truth, and that's accurate
Matt Dillahunty you can say the courtroom is an analogy for the “burden of proof”
The courtroom is the original use of the term burden of proof. And it applies to the courtroom. In determining PROBABLE guilt of a specific accusation. It does NOT apply to determining whether or not to accept a claim as true or any other cognitive facet.
A more proper analogy to make would be the buying and selling process. Not the court process. That’s why we ask ppl “do you buy that idea?” We do not ask people “what is your verdict or sentencing on that idea?”
U cannot properly assess a claim to its fullest , so as to entail absolute knowledge. You can only assess up to the amount of evidence that is available.
And you cannot assess a product without looking at the pros and cons. Benefits and costs. The claim that religion is true, is not only a true/false proposition. But it is also a cost/benefit proposition. And an intelligent individual would consider these as well as the evidence, prior to deciding on whether or not to believe or buy the idea.
Hi Matt, I can prove there is "something" to astrology. And I would be willing to bet some money to demonstrate it in a scientific study. Does Randi foundation still offer a million bucks?
If by 'something' you mean people's willingness to make false attributions of prediction to Barnum statements and self-fulfilling prophecies, you are right. However, that's non-controversial, well-established within psychology, and in no way supernatural (so wouldn't be eligible for the Randi prize even if it was still running).
@@Grim_Beard That's not what I mean. Nothing about predictive powers of astrology in my study.
@@sanekabc Then what is the 'something' you think is in it? It had better not be personality types. I'm a psychologist: we've already de-bunked that decades ago.
@@Grim_Beard Don't want to reveal it here. I'm actually a bit hesitant to release this because if I prove "something" then lay people will assume more is there than is actually there and misuse the information. I will say that I know very little about astrology and did not set out to prove anything. It happened quite by accident when I was studying something else in two groups of people.
@@sanekabc Astrology makes two claims: (1) the relative positions of stars and planets at the time of a person's birth determines their personality; (2) the relative positions of stars and planets throughout a person's life influences events in their life.
You've stated that your claim is neither of these. If so, your claim has nothing to do with astrology. Unless I'm missing something.
Calling someone stupid in a singsong voice. Matt, I know exactly who you're talking about.
It must have been Otangelo...
@@garyweber8201 yup he does act stupid probably every time he gets cornered by Matt
Otangelo, Oooh'tangelo, you just might be...
Another pointless and nearly incoherent posting from Matt. Funny, Matt demands “evidence” for all claims except, conveniently, the epistemic framework from which he operates.
Then call in and dazzle him with your brilliance and expose him on air.
Or just point out what was pointless.
matt does not need to prove the framework he operates on, since you even made it out.
Why on earth should I (or someone else) be ostracized for saying men can't be female?......
no idea, you are entitled to say it. I asked on axp fb site if a man decides to identify as a woman does that mean he is then a woman? no one got back to me!
@@unit0033 Stop asking silly questions then. If you're talking to a person, do you normally ask if they have testicles or ovaries?
Zentz29 probably also didn't get ignored for saying that men can't be female in those exact words. Although he would have been better off saying males can't change to being females, but the problem remains that he heavily implies that there is no such thing as transgenders or biological intersex conditions.
Noel Plum did a video on Caster Simenya (o_O this might almost be the correct way to spell her name). I know it's not nice to speak about someone's private parts, but she has a vagina and testicles. Now you tell me, is she a man or a woman?
@@stylis666 sounds like she is a medical oddity. The issue that everyone is talking about in identity politics isn't being born intersex. Its the 99.9999% of transgender/queer/nonbinary/whateverthefuck who are born with a perfect set of private parts from one gender or the other and decide they want to switch sides, many of whom don't even do any hormone therapy or surgery. They just want the rest of us to recognize the change, get whatever unique "benefits" we bestow on the gender they want to change to, and even let them compete in official sanctioned sports against that gender.
I feel this is assinine and completely against science. I would like an unbiased peer reviewed scientific study that promotes this behavior and differentiates it from a mental illness. There's a girl in the UK that thinks she's a cat. Pretty sure the majority of us would call her crazy or just really into a sexual kink. Why should her thinking she's a man be treated any differently?
@@unit0033
The reason I said that is because of what happened with RationalityRules.
@@stylis666
I didn't imply that. I said that men can't be female. It's a straight up factual statement with no implications.
I made no assertions or implications about trans people or intersex people. It was a flat out statement that meant exactly what it said. You read into it what wasn't there.