Skepticism is NOT the Same as Atheism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- "Skepticism" is a method, not a conclusion, and whilst it certainly leads many people to atheism, it can just as easily lead to theism, should a person find that reason point towards it. So long as a person is able to justify their beliefs (or justify why a belief is properly basic), they are behaving like a skeptic.
If you like Cosmic Skeptic content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic
Nothing says "this bookcase is just for show" like building a podium right in front of it so you cannot physically remove the books anymore....
It's just one of those movable stages we all used as kids for the school play.. I think.
im sure it moves.
Apply some scepticism… what reason do you have for assuming it’s a permanent fixture?
@@sithius99 It is the same carpet and it looks permanent. So what method did you use to determine it was a movable stage? I mean a skeptic wouldn't be so arrogant as you as to make the claim it is a movable stages, a skeptic would say I don't know.
@@ocean34560 I skeptic would say I am not sure until we see such evidence it does move. What is your evidence it moves? Until you have some a skeptic would say I don't know. That is what a skepticism is. You might be right, you also might be wrong but until you know you should hold off belief. Don't just start making excuses, doing that you can believe anything, including that an invisible man in the sky watching you every minute of every day, knows what you are thinking and if you break any of his rules he has a torture chamber he will send you to were you will suffer in the most possible way for eternity, but he loves you.
I agree that skeptics and atheists are not the same. You could be a skeptic towards your atheistic beliefs for example. Well put Alex.
Still wouldn't make you a theist...
Cosmic Skeptic, Alex, I'm so glad you settled on that name for your channel, way back when. And we got to vote on it, lol. Love the direction to greatness you've taken. As I knew back then, you would. 👍🥰💖✌
I feel the same
yesss ive been watching alex for so long and seeing him come this far is so amazing. :)
The books on the bottom shelf behind Alex are blocked by the rise in the floor. How do they get those books out of there?
Moveable podium?
Nobody reads these books anyway
👍 #BoycottMeat and all other animal products of cruelty and exploitation in any way possible!
Love your work Alex, and I think you're spot on. In my case, it was through skepticism that I had gone back to Catholicism.
I always wonder why people think that a lack of free will undermines the justice system. Our reaction to crime (the justice system) is itself a conclusion born out by a lack of free will. Our acknowledgement of a lack of free will might inform that justice system but it nonetheless naturally arises without any intervention by free will.
Well he is wrong on both accounts. We do have free will, as it actually exists. A lack of free will is no reason not to hold something responsible for a consequence. I can hold a flat tire responsible for causing an accident. No free will involved.
You can’t truly “acknowledge” a lack of free will. It’s implicit in all we do. I’m not sure it exists in a real sense, nor am I making a case for it. My only point is just how silly it is that one can deny free will and yet live their whole life as if it is true. It undercuts the whole endeavor more than people like Alex want to acknowledge if you will.
@@rethinking_reality
The same applies to fictional characters.
@@willguggn2 I’m an agnostic atheist so what’s your point, Einstein?
@@rethinking_reality
Is your reply in any shape, way or form related to mine?
I said your argument could be applied to a fictional character just the same way. Just imagine a fictional character saying the same things about free will and apply your argument again. It doesn't work. I don't know where your agnostic atheism comes in.
Let's drop all bad, outdated practices. Religion, harming animals, harming the planet. Let's live altruistically and practice the golden rule. ❤️
@@divyanshjoshi6667 understandable. Let's anyway.
Ain't gonna work. You're probably young and idealistic.
The golden rule being: treat people how they want to be treated
@@stenthesnake98 Treat *others* how you would want to be treated. Don't be so pedantic. It comes off as disingenuous.
The golden rule (more like the categorical imperative) only covers interactions between moral agents and thus doesn't include animal suffering (to the extent such suffering doesn't cause other rational agents to suffer).
I think I'm naturally skeptical. Unfortunately, that seems to be perceived by others as being 'negative'. For instance; if I've been made aware that everyone is convinced about a specific 'thing' or that someone tells me that a particular restaurant has the best steaks, I have a natural desire to think that they're probably wrong. Maybe it's because I sub-consciously think that people are full of shit?
I am so much like this 😀
Populair opinion on things (any thing) always seem to be way too extreem and Reality is nearly always more moderate.
Speaking this out is't always negatieve but it is not populair in the masses.
Sounds more like cynicism.
@@Solutionsarejustcompromises Yes; the certainty of others tends to get me questioning.
@@riffhammeron It probably leads to that after a while.
@@riffhammeron Google defines cynicism as skepticism, and I don't know why.
Are 'carnivorism' or even 'carnism' the right terms to describe the dietary habits of people who are not vegetarian or vegan?
Are we not 'omnivorous' if we consume animal products as we also still enjoy fruit, vegetables and nuts etc...?
Carnism in the ideology of many non-vegans. It refers less to diet and more to speciesist practices and ideas
@@mihaimarcu4435 thanks for the reply. I consider myself now educated! :)
@@mihaimarcu4435 What about "fruitism"? Fruitism in the ideology of many non-frucians (like vegans). It refers less to diet more to the speciesist practices and ideas of vegans, and others.
As eloquent as ever, many skeptics need to apply their methods to diet. As they are currently living with ethical corruption.
I did, and I find Alex's position ridiculous.
@@brianmacker1288 explain?
@@s.williams3214 A skeptical analysis of utilitarianism quickly reveals that it is full of absurdities. These issues are only compounded when one tries to expand utilitarianism to include other species. Organisms are both self interested and have divergent interests. When considering the interests of a zebra vs a hungry lion it is clear there is no common interests upon which to build a moral system let alone a utility function base on minimizing suffering, happiness, nor any other metric.
There are many know problems that already exist for utilitarianism (applied solely to humans).
@@brianmacker1288 besides the fact that any practical implementation of utilitarianism is bound to be self-contradictory, the very ideological foundation of utilitarianism (the idea that welfare should be maximized, or suffering minimized) is an arbitrary moral dogma that one should apply scepticism to
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet Yes, absurdities like using the minimization-of-suffering as a criteria then banning all sports because "No pain. No gain." is causing needless suffering. Or giving out trophies to everyone so no one suffers from losing.
Skepticism just means not believing something that you have been told. I think we are all be skeptical about something.
Atheism just means not believing in any deities.
One could actually not believe in deities because they have never heard of them.
What do you think of Majesty of reason UA-cam channel?
Skepticism is not synonymous _with_ atheism; however, is there any sensible basis for atheism _other than_ skepticism?
The sensible basis for atheism is, human beings have never been able to prove a God exists, the religious can’t even agree on what this God wants, how it thinks, how it came about, how it created a universe or men or women all good or evil, almost everything is contradictory. A baby that is born has no concept of God until someone tells them about God, therefore we as atheists believe the sensible position to be the default position that all religions are wrong and that there’s no good reason to believe, so we don’t. Before the Americas were found, the sensible position was to believe they didn’t exist, because why would you? The majority of people thought that sailing west from Europe would lead you to India. Maybe just like the Americas, a God does exist, atheists are just saying, I will believe it when I have good reasons and evidence to and not before. To take the analogy further, right now you have a bunch of people who have never visited the Americas, absolutely convinced that they exist even though nobody is ever been there, and not only do they know the America’s exist, but they know what kind of plants and animals live in the Americas, they know how big the coastline is. All of this from people who have never been there and who can’t agree with one another. We is atheists are just saying, I don’t believe any of you. Bus when the Americas were found, people who believed sailing west from Europe led you to India changed their mind and they could even visit for themselves so they didn’t just have to take someone else’s word for it. It’s simple. I will believe in a God‘s existence when I hear a logical, rational coherent answer that doesn’t have more holes and contradictions in it than swiss cheese. And when it’s actually backed by evidence, not just a bunch of people who think the same way
First, atheism does not require a sensible basis. For example, see the Marxists. Secondly, one can have a sensible basis for not believing in any specific god without the schools of thought we label skepticism. Christians do it with polytheist gods, and vice versa. You don't need a well structured system of though to recognize sensibly that Christianity is baloney. I did so qt seven years old when it was first described to me.
There is a difference between genuine skepticism, and failed attempts at skepticism, contaminated by bias. Traditional Christianity cannot survive genuine skepticism. Neither can carnism.
My scepticism led me to adopting christianity. I was a typical atheist since I was 6 years old🤷♀️ Now I'm a christian because I have questioned my beliefs.
My man, don't worry about that suit, you are rocking it! 😂
Skepticism is definitely not the same as atheism. However, I do think an agnostic skeptic must be atheist. Here’s my reasoning:
Premise 1: An agnostic is one who does not know if a god exists.
Premise 2: An atheist is one who does not believe a god exists.
Premise 3: A skeptic is one who believes only that which they know.
Conclusion: Every agnostic skeptic is an atheist.
But to believe that God does not exist, is a belief that even a skepticist could be skeptical of. If you can’t be sure of any belief, you can’t then say that you believe God doesn’t exist.
@@infiniteinfinity5233 To not believe a god exist and to believe god does not exits are not the same thing. You changed the argument.
@@infiniteinfinity5233 RanEncounter is right. The reason atheism is better defined as “nonbelief” rather than “believing not” is because the latter is a positive claim which requires proof. Nonbelief does not require proof.
Also, theists like to claim a god can ground their ability to know things, but I honestly don’t see how that works. In my opinion, epistemology is completely distinct from whether a god exists.
I disagree. Should we be open minded about all magics and outrageous claims in the world? Or is it okay to say I don't belive in smurfs being real?
Edit. Okay I might have been to quick on the trigger here. Just I heard people claim many time that agnostics makes more reason, because atheism is close minded
@@TheBarser Well I don’t really understand what you’re criticizing. My argument was simply that agnostic skeptics are atheist. Or were you criticizing my response to infinite infinity?
I like to think of Atheism as "i have no gods" or "i worship no gods" and Agnosticism as "i have no belief in gods" or "i have no experience of gods"
I prefer people use actual definitions. Theist means belief, atheist means non-belief, Gnostic means knowledge, agnostic means no knowledge. So it’s very possible to be an agnostic atheist for example. Remember, the religious claim is not about the knowledge of God, the religious claim is about a belief in a God, atheism is just not believing, having knowledge of a God is another thing entirely. I don’t know if there is or isn’t a God, but I also don’t believe any of the God claims put forward by religions. Therefore I would be considered an agnostic atheist
Nothing is exactly the same as anything else. But skepticism and atheism are surely kindred souls.
Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thanks!
Pretending to give a fuck is immoral as it's lying
Scepticism is useful but should not fly in the face of probability. I most commonly see this failure with the moral argument and I was slightly guilty of this at one stage.
We first start with the two ideas - what better corresponds with reality? That there are things objectively right and wrong, or that there aren't. Most people react as if there are things objectively right and wrong and we have legal systems formed on this basis, etc., etc., so many naturally give greater probability to objective morality.
However, then many see that a consequence of this could be the existence what some call God - morality is prescriptive, nature is descriptive and we can only be obligated to personal entities and so such a standard would likely be immaterial and personal. Of course if we already think the existence of such an entity to be unlikely, then we are more likely to reject the initial conclusion and revert to subjective morality.
Many people at this step commit the appeal to consequences fallacy. We should not reject a conclusion on the basis of not liking the consequences. Instead we must have good evidence that the consequence is false (i.e., that God does not exist) or alternatively that subjective morality better corresponds with reality. Many seem to skip this and roll with what they already believe before encountering the argument.
Regardless of what position one takes, the vast majority act as if there are things truly right and wrong making the actions of many atheists today (including Alex) inconsistence with their beliefs.
I’m sorry, you’re probably a lovely person but you really don’t have a good grasp of the predicament you just tried to break down. You are assuming right and wrong comes from God there for anyone who believes in right and wrong and called them self and atheist must be a hypocrite, never considering the fact that why do you get to presuppose that right and wrong com some God when we have multiple different areas of data which completely fly in the face of an objective reality. You don’t get to make assumptions you can’t prove and then claim that other people are wrong by a standard you just made up. Especially when the worlds religions can’t even agree on the objective morality or if they do they agree on 10 or 20% and the other 80% goes off into wildly different places. So please, where is this objective morality which apparently everybody knows of and is completely consistent. Murder or killing people is excepted in many places around the world based on context, stealing is permitted in many cultures for the idea of ownership is not even considered to be a thing so you can’t steal in the first place, rape is legitimised in plenty of countries and even was in the western world until the last century where it wasn’t considered a rape if a husband forced himself on his wife even if she didn’t want it. So I’d love to hear where this objective morality is? Forcing everybody to agree to the instructions in the same book isn’t an objective morality, it is an enforced morality. Chopping foreskins or clitorises of little boys and girls isn’t moral just because everybody agrees it is or somebody tells you it is or else. That’s why I do very fundamental level the only morality we can really pinpoint in human beings is the golden rule, which existed long before any of the worlds major religions who try to claim that is their own teaching. You will try and claim that this golden rule therefore comes from God, on the evolutionary science and history of human beings easily demonstrates that such a rule would be very useful for beings that survive better together because they would have to come to some kind of agreements on how to operate. Such a thing doesn’t require a God. Put two people in a room who don’t like each other but they are forced to survive, they will very quickly negotiate and compromise on rules that suit them both in order for them to cooperate together so they can individually survive. It’s simple.
@@conors4430 You seem to have misunderstood me. I logically inferred that an objective moral prescription could not likely be found in matter and impersonal entities (and so would be found in an immaterial and personal entity).
You seem to be arguing that morality is subjective which I of cause agree would not require a God (though I think other philosophical arguments like the contingency and Kalam point to God).
Essentially your view is that there being nothing objectively right or wrong better corresponds with reality. Whereas I said, regardless of what people claim to believe, they act as if there are certain things that are objectively right and wrong and so therefore objective morality is more probable.
There only needs to be one thing objectively right or wrong to confirm it. How do you explain international law and human rights, or that the vast majority act as if torturing a baby for fun is wrong, or if someone murders someone they know or steals from them?
Also you should follow through with your conclusion - nothing is objectively right or wrong and so anything goes. If you don't like it, that's just your preference. There is no such thing objectively speaking of love or justice. A great definition of love is willing the good of another. Since good is subjective, I can say that I am loving babies by torturing and killing them and you can't say that it isn't love, but rather that's not your version of love. Does that really better correspond with morality?
it is way easier than that. you don't even need the good vs bad topic.
you need 1 testable claim. If the test is successful, you can start a long and tedious journey towards (the not guaranteed) evidence.
without a testable claim, you cannot even start this journey.
that's why sane adults are agremlinists, aunicornists and atheists. Even those who find unicorns awesome
@@JD-wu5pf Objective truth is independent of what anyone believes. By your logic, the earth doesn't objectively revolve around the sun because people have argued and changed their minds about it.
Objective morality doesn't require everyone to be on the same page just as the existence of truth in general doesn't. However, how people react rather than what they claim to believe does give us insight into the probability of objective vs subjective morality.
@@istvansipos9940 Technically sane adults have a much wider range of beliefs :)
That girl checking her phone right in front of him. How rude!
To you it's rude, to her generation it's normal and perfectly acceptable.
@@chuckybang I don't know the content of this clip, but it's not tolerated in education. If she can't give him her attention long enough to stop texting and checking her phone, she shouldn't be there.
At 3:36 he checked his phone too
@@ianbanks3016 In education the student is being evaluated on whether they pay attention, learn the material, and cannot be disruptive of others. It is disruptive to the teacher when someone does not pay attention and material has to be repeated.
it is rude. well, kinda rude. Unless potentially incoming, really bad / really good news. F.e. a loved one in I.C.U. Or a call giving her a great new job. Calls / messages she HAS TO react to immediately at all cost. Don't be so quick to judge
Thanks for sharing
There is a problem, being vegan, with a child, and such minimum vage, i would be left with very little option. Vegan food and goodies, are much expencier. Otherwise it is a good choice. Perfect, not good... But, that we are all born with options, that's BS.. Only someone, born in higher classes( middle or high) can say that, i bet that one.
I am sceptical. I cannot question everything, that would take up all my time. So what should I question?
Thinking for yourself is part of scepticism. Maybe start there.
First and foremost, be skeptical about things that affect the most people.
Like the things that politicians say, and the justifications that they claim, and the things they do, because the words and actions of politicians are highly influential on a lot of people's lives.
And I mean _all_ politicians, not just the ones you currently disagree with. Limiting your skepticism to only those who disagree with you isn't skepticism, that's pure hypocrisy.
@@chuckybang , good advice. I will think about what to question. But not obsessively question things that seem obvious or, more importantly, unimportant.
@@pauligrossinoz , my national politicians rarely, unfortunately, say anything interesting. It is all extremely shallow and designed to appeal to the masses. Everyone talks about justice but no one defines it, and so on. I don’t get my views from politics, I have my views and try (in vain) to find a party that somewhat match my views.
@@mockupguy3577 - yeah, in a democracy its like having to choose the least-worst option.
I will say one thing - a politician's stated policy is often a poor guide. I judge them, and their party, by past actions above what they tell me to try to win any upcoming elections.
They're generally just lying, cheating bastards.
I have been in the process of scepticism for at least two years, since I was 25 now I am 27, the issue I became Sceptical about is islam, I can say that I am close to an end to this process regarding islam, but there are some residues, which keep appearing in my thoughts as a post traumatic disorder I am not even exaggerating, but overall I am much more comfortable now than when I adhered to that faith
You are probably already familiar with Nabeel Qureshi and his process of rigorously evaluating his own beliefs in Islam for truth while at the same time evaluating and criticizing Christianity and where that lead him but if you haven't I encourage you to look up his story: Seeking Allah finding Jesus.
Much love my friend. Pursue truth above all else ...but don't throw the baby out with the bath water due to the bath water. ;)
@@wheretruthleads thank you man, I appreciate it, and yes I followed what qureishi went through, it is admirable.
@@mohammedphilonous6856 anytime! I have a lot respect for you and anyone who is willing to put their cards on the table and follow truth wherever it leads even if it means leaving a belief they previously held dear. Just being willing to entertain that speaks volumes of you.
I also went through the same steps in order to follow truth wherever it leads but what I discovered as I criticised my own beliefs and other worldviews always led me back to Christianity standing alone as the one view of reality that does not break down under fair criticism.
I don't expect you to see things the same way at the moment but if you ever want to have a chill conversation with someone like me who loves talking to people like yourself ... I'm always up to making a new friend and talking about these important topics. Let me know if you ever want to chat more and I'll send you my email. Best of wishes to you in your pursuit of truth!
@@wheretruthleads you last paragraph is really compassionate and well intended sir, I appreciate your will to peacefully lead people to safety. I really appreciate it and will keep your words in my mind in case I need any information, Thanks a lot.
@@mohammedphilonous6856 until then. It's been great talking to you!
He's a skeptic about reality
Where was this filmed?
Cambridgeunion
Of course skepticism isn’t atheism it why every Christian apologetics loves to target skeptics. Apologetics want to use manipulation and other tactics to pull skeptical Christians back to blindly believing the unproven claims of their religion.
I want someone that looks to me like that girl looks to you
What? Bored and checking her phone?
A bit preachy.
Fucking beautiful
It’s like when people say Liberal means leftist. Yes leftists are usually liberals, but liberalism just means you’re open to new ideas. Great video!
If your a true sceptic you will end up with just being it self.
I think you could very easily change the title to, Skepticism does not mean Antivax. Love the videos Alex!
I am highly skeptical about that sound effect near the end ot the video. It cannot be good for life forms with ears.
well said cosmic!!!
Skeptics aren't atheists ... but if you are an atheist you're probably a skeptic.
Can you morally condemn someone whilst repudiating the existence of free will for that person?
Great question. I don't know the answer. But at least I do believe you can morally condemn actions, if not people. And that's an important distinction to make. On the other hand, like Alex has said in one of his videos, the fact that free will does not exist doesn't mean that its illusion will disappear.
Still, determinism gives, in my opinion, an interesting perspective on the role of justice in societies: to eliminate or change the circumstances that propitiate crimes in the first place, rather than punish individuals on the sole basis of their personal actions.
@@gabrieltonatiuandrade8941 Whether or not the illusion will disappear seems irrelevant. I don’t know what it means to morally condemn actions. It seems you can take a utilitarian approach to ethics in such case that you’re allowed to deem one set of actions as conducive towards maximal utility and one set as not, but just don’t step outside of such a paradigm and condemn others morally. To whether or not your perspective on the role of justice in a society eventually actualizes or not, I guess we can just hope in the meantime the universe permits such a thing (on a deterministic framework that is).
@@JohnnyHofmann I wouldn't define determinism as the predetermination of everything in the universe. I understand it as dealing exclusively with animal action (with a prominent focus on human action).
I want to clarify my position on the moral condemnation of actions, and veganism is a good example. As of today, the vast majority of people in the world consumes animal products, and I do believe that to be an immoral action. But it is not the case that non-vegans, today, are immoral people, because of their circumstances, in this case, mainly, social/cultural conditioning and normalization.
Nonetheless, when the global consensus comes to be the acceptance of animal exploitation as immoral, the person who consumes animal products will be judged in a different, harsher, manner. And this does not mean that the action itself is "more immoral", but that social normalization is one of the many ways in which conditions predetermine our actions. Global consensus, of course, is not always "correct", I'm just using it as an example for one of these conditions.
That said, one can morally condemn a person; my point is that the morality of an action does not dictate the morality of the person by itself.
And, veganism is just one example. Think of slavery, homophobia, human sacrifice. All these actions are wrong, and is easy to accept this with todays standards. But whether the action is part of the dominant culture or is socially normalized changes how we morally condemn the person.
And yes, you're right. I now see that whether or not the illusion of free will disappears, in this instance, is irrelevant.
But then again, I really don't know the answer to you initial question. If there is no free will, it really becomes hard to decide how should we morally condemn people. I've struggled with this ever since I realized I believed in determinism.
@@gabrieltonatiuandrade8941 I don’t think it’s a question of how one should morally condemn another at all simply because on a predetermined framework with regards to humans you undercut the very mechanism by which your able to adjudicate moral significance.
So he's saying that skepticism is an approach not a stance? That may be so but some people use it to mean the same thing as atheist.
You need to apply some skepticism to your ridiculous utilitarianism based on a imaginary suffering minimization equation. In a few minutes of reflection one can come up with examples which falsify this idea. This because suffering is subjective, and there is no way to come up with an objective universal perspective on it. The lion and zebra have fundamentally different interests and perspectives on suffering, and there is no way to create some third person view for an ethical system between them. That is true between all species with conflicting interests. Which is true for humans and every species.
You are thinking fallaciously. Just like with those economic quacks who believe that the value of goods are intrinsic, and not based on the values of the participants involved. It is the subjective value that various market participants place on a good vs money that results in a price for a good. There is no "true price" independent of the actors.
If you murder someone then you should go to prison, doesn't matter if it was free will or determined.
Wheres the problem?
Without the concept of free will how do you determine it was a murder and not merely a killing ?
@@brianmacker1288 because they murdered someone.
if you did not want to kill the person, it is manslaughter, not murder. So if free will does not exists, neither does murder. Killing does.
problem? not really. I mean, the debate about the existence of free will is so philosophical, it won't affect the justice system any time soon.
@@istvansipos9940 if free will does not exist it is still murder.
@@iseriver3982 If it was a murder and not merely a killing then they must have killed of their own free will. However you claimed it didn't matter if it was free will or determined. I am not sure what you fail to understand. They must have a mens rea prior to the killing and then act on that intention during the killing for it to be murder.
Faith is not the same as atheism either, but atheism is based on faith even if scepticism lead people to atheist faith.
Not only is that irrelevant to this video, but you seem to grossly misunderstand what faith means.
Faith is just like skepticism, the method in which you believe but not what you believe.
Just like Alex said, you could arrive to atheism through faith or skepticism, the same way you can arrive to theism through faith or skepticism.
Also, if you mean atheism, by its actual definition that most if not all atheist often use. Which is lack of believe, then it is the opposite of faith. Because the only thing atheism says is "I am not convinced a God exists". If you mean atheism, as apologists often use, which means the active assertion that there is no God, then you are right. But very few atheists take that stance and it is stance that both me and Alex do not hold. Making your comment even more irrelevant.
@@farrex0 What you are describing is more like psychological atheism not philosophical atheism.
@@lucasheijdeman2581 Which, is not a position me or Alex holds. So again, it is irrelevant.
It is the definition apologists love to use, but it is not the definition most atheists use.
And using the definitions intercheangably is incredibly deceptive and disingenous. There is even a fallacy to describe that, called Equivocation fallacy.
Breaking down what this comment is saying using generic word-meanings rather than the words, it's clear that this statement doesn't actually make any sense: "[Coming to believe something using a certain method] is not the same as [not believing something] either, but [not believing something] is based on that [same method of coming to believe something] even if a [different method of coming to believe something] leads people to [the state of being someone who doesn't believe something that's based on that first method of coming to believe something]
How can atheism be a faith? Is lack of faith
Yes , it takes a lot of faith to be an atheist
How?
...does it?
Na it actually takes a lot of guts
Oh no, not this tired old parotted hollow phrase again.
Not believing in unevidenced god thingies takes faith?
and "OFF" is a TV channel.
sigh...
can you at least try to explain why people need faith to achieve the lack of faith?
justify skeptism dectorine...you can not it is an ideology as atheism
No, skepticism is a method similar to the scientific method which is the single most reliable method known by humans to achieve verifiable knowledge.
skepticism: not believing just because they say so.
any bullsh!t you don't find convincing, even if billions say so? Alien abductions, Zeus, Vishnu, god?
if you find anything, bOO00M, your brain justifies your skepticism. You just have to forget good ol' special pleading, and look your beloved and not so loved things with the same amount of skepticism.
no testable claims for Artemis. I might feel sad for a moment. No testable claim for god. Based on the bible, I am happy. We'd be all fuggd, if that dude existed.
but the bottom line is: they are equally non-existent. For I have 0 reason to THINK they exist.
THINK. Writtnen in ALL CAPS. Because beliefs are for children
The whole point of skepticism is you can't limit it to only _some_ beliefs.
If person won't apply skepticism to _all_ of their own beliefs, then they are just pretending to be a skeptic.
This was demonstrated quite aptly with the 'Atheism+' debacle and the various drama from The Atheist Experience.
@@Ergeniz That was quite the ambiguous statement.
@@brianmacker1288 Not at all.
@@Ergeniz Of course it was ambiguous. You never stated why you thought Atheism+ and "The Atheist Experience" were examples of not applying skepticism. What do you even mean by "The Atheist Experience". Do you mean the UA-cam channel which as so many videos I don't know which you are referring to. Do you mean the entire channel?
Do you understand that you can be a skeptic on a topic and come up with the wrong beliefs anyway? Skepticism is not a tool for gaining infallibility. I think the Atheism+ crowd can be counted as skeptics and as having even applied it to Atheism+, yet still came to the wrong conclusion. Skepticism is not a magic bullet.
@@brianmacker1288 No, it wasn't. You can see it however you like; I don't care to go over the history of those topics in a YT comment. I'd link a few things, but YT forbids URLs. So oh well. Those who know what transpired are aware of what I refer to.
When will your debate with mikhaila peterson be uploaded?
No way. They had a debate?
I became an Athiest at 16 and a Vegan at 26. I became a sceptic and started questioning things once I experienced idiotic stuff like racism and homophobia at a young age. I've never stopped questioning. It seems that many people are happy just accepting what they're told even if they're told that supernatural stuff like demons and miracles are real.
Have you ever questioned yourself why racism or homophobia are idiotic? Or why never before in time those were considered such?
Interestingly I kept asking questions and went the opposite way. Arguments like the contingency, Kalam, and moral led me to the conclusion of an uncaused first cause that created all of space, time, and matter, a necessary entity from which all contingent entities come, a personal entity whose nature is objectively good (moral argument).
Alex recognises the strength of some of these arguments in a sense - he believes that nothing is objectively right or wrong (as do other consistent atheists), and he seemed to agree (discussion with Bishop Barron) that something must be necessary but thought it could be anything such as the universe. Besides the Big Bang, the problem is that the universe is fundamentally space, time, matter, energy, and the laws of physics, far too many necessary entities for probability. Occam's razor would suggest that only 1 entity is necessary which would lead one to conclude that all of these entities must be contingent as they could not have created each other. And thus you have an entity that must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial as it caused these things to come into being. By definition, the cause of nature is supernatural so it is quite logical to believe in such a thing. As for what that entity is, well... many call it God.
Personally I think we all have our biases that lead us to require more evidence for some things and less for others. It took me more evidence to believe than anyone I have met because I am quite sceptical. It's hard not to be these days...
This is not an argument against you, just comparing your experience with skepticism to mine, and telling a story that will probably end up being way too long.
When I was very young my mom brought home an arm-full of 5 different tattered science textbooks from her school. Those became my favorite objects. Looking at macro-pictures of insects and the structures/functions of cells freaked me out very badly. The complexity of a single cell was mind bending and still is; I couldn’t get it out of my head that ants were tiny robots and that my body was made of trillions of differentiated molecular nanotech cell units working together. Sir Isaac Newton said “In absence of all other evidence, the human thumb is enough to convince me of God’s existence.” My “thumb” was a single cell.
I grappled with the idea that some kind of supreme intelligence made everything.. for a while, until I got a good way through public education. I became atheist at age 12 and suicidal by 15, not because I was a stupid moody teenager, but because I had enough intellectual integrity to live out that worldview. When you accept the implications of atheism being true, the only question you have left is why not k*ll yourself? That’s coming from all the great respectable atheist philosophers, not me. You are a stranger to me but I’m pretty certain you do not live as if atheism is true.
I am Christian today, and it’s not because I needed hope or comfort, not because I was manipulated. I am Christian because of the evidence and my experience, and because Christ describes the world and the human condition better than anything else.
I’m not here to say you’re wrong I’m right… really just telling my own story for fun, but I do hope you understand the pitfalls of skepticism and continue to search every avenue tirelessly, even the ones you’ve already been down. If you want to become an even better skeptic I would suggest the video “The Case of the Silly Skeptic” by Dr David Wood, it’s very funny and insightful
@@D1sc0rd- One question; how would the existence of an all powerful dictator change the value of life?
why would k*lling yourself be a question, do you not enjoy being alive?
"you do not live as if atheism is true." what does this even mean?
"Christ describes the world and the human condition better than anything else." can you elaborate.
@@seekingtruth4045
"uncaused first cause that created all of space, time, and matter, a necessary entity from which all contingent entities come..."
That's how phycisists think the universe started, and they're working hard trying to figure out what that uncaused cause was.
If you wish to argue for an Abrahamic God get a theological argument.
I like the distinction between skeptic and atheist. I do think we should bring all of our believes into tests of skepticism, and honestly, the thing that annoys me about most about skeptics is that they only bring skeptical philosophies to religion and not anything else, and especially never against science.
For me, the thing that got me into skepticism was actually questioning the shape of the earth. I don't know why, but I suddenly became interested in flat-eartherism. It was a fun mindgame to test if I could prove with my own senses that the earth was spherical. In the end, I concluded the earth is spherical, and there is not a single flat earth model that works. But that mindgame got me interested in skepticism.
I have similarly then gone on to question various elements of religion, causing me to delve into different theological views, philosophical arguments, and research into the historical evidence (particularly of Jesus). Like my belief in the spherical earth, I concluded that the evidence is significant enough to maintain most of my views that Christianity is true.
So yes, I do think we should be skeptical, but think we should apply skepticism everywhere. Not just the mainstream talking points and philosophies of the day. But even questioning the vastly accepted views like the sciences. If it is true, it can withstand being questioned. This does not mean we will land on the truth, however. Your skepticism destroyed your belief in Christianity whereas mine built stronger assurance.
By the way, I love the beard.
Truth is, if you advocate scepticism too much, while some Christians will become stronger in faith, others will reject it. Advocating scepticism defeats the purpose of preaching the Word of Christ
I think science is not 'challenged' by skeptics as science is based on skepticism. A progress in science is based on challenging and questioning our already existing understanding of the world. If you are testing a scientific hypothesis you always should start with 'null hypothesis' which assumes that there is no patter/evidence/correlation. While religion does the opposite in my opinion. Of course the scientists are just humans and it's not always easy to be skeptical about your ideas, however that's the aim.
@@oosmanbeekawoo Nothing wrong with that. If skepticism requires us to reject beliefs we cannot justify than we will be better off. I try to remember that it is my duty to reject a belief I cannot justify.
Entire scientific method is scepticism. It’s one person saying I think I found this out, and it’s somebody else who is there competitor saying prove it to me, show me your working out, let me see if I can replicate it. So I don’t know where you get this idea that science isn’t sceptical, it’s literally the main mechanism of how sides operates
@@conors4430 But wouldn't you say that science has only been viewed as such after Popper and co.? In the past it might have been viewed differently, no?
I can’t wait for Alex to write a book. I’ll be first in line to buy and to attend the tour. He’s really one of the most promising minds of the generation.
This guy should run for member of parliament.
Parliament shouldn’t exist
Nobody would listen because of his "vegan agenda"
he's too moral for politics
From where was this clip extracted? Do any of you have the full video please? :)
According to many Apologists a Skeptic is someone who questions the Truth of Christianity.😂
I've met many skeptics who were believers in their god. The best ones I engaged with did not compartmentalise; they freely admitted their theology was largely an irrational pursuit, but a pursuit they find worth doing. A very practical stance, in my opinion.
Everything in life is a choice and for atheists it’s down to the beliefs of the individual and can change from person to person and day to day, a theist believes in a god and they follow his example and this brings unity.
In the world today theists are basically atheists, they believe in god but don’t follow his example and follow their own beliefs and they change from person to person and day to day.
Is there any difference between skepticism and agnosticism?
Nobody must have ever equated skepticism with atheism but atheism has to be a part of skepticism. A skeptic can't be a theist in any way possible. You took it way too far for no important reason .
Now if we could just get a few more folks skeptical of Neoliberalism.
Nts 3:45
I think he was getting death threats from the local sheep farmer on his phone
Oh my god hahahaha
Ayi that made me laugh😂😂 thank u 😂😂
Where can I find the complete version of this talk/discussion?
Absolute Legend!!
😑
Solid points indeed.☘
I'm skeptical towards naturalism, which is why I'm still open to the supernatural, about which I'm also skeptical.
I've grown up in an atheist household, lucky to say I would like to add... but recently my girlfriend committed suicide and she was actually a believer, I've found myself, hoping! and looking into more spiritual stuff and for her Christian things but all I'm left with is hope she's right and I'm wrong.
I've seen nothing whatsoever that says she is but I hope I'll see her again.
And surely that'll just be my loophole into heaven if such a place exists... she can't be in heaven without me, and her heaven wouldn't be complete without me soo...
That girl likes Alex.
She likes him so much, she looks bored and starts checking her phone.
Good observation. I'd have to say that skepticism is compatible with agnosticism, since I'd been agnostic for nearly a decade.
0:40 Alex would you expand further on the problems of scepticism, as to the kinds of justifications we could reach.
Love listening to Alex J' O'Connor..
Could it be said that science is a method and if so, why?
Basically science is only a method. That’s why it was so revolutionary. Before the scientific method you just had somebody who was in a position of power who proclaimed what the truth was and that might just be what some guy thinks is the truth. The beauty of science is you have a person who wants to test some things out to find out how things work, if he finds something, he writes down exactly what he found, how he found it, how he came to his conclusion step-by-step and why he thinks he is correct, he then shares that with people who are his competitors and they try and see if they can follow the methods that he used and come to the same conclusion, when this happens enough times and is consistent every time, the original finding is considered a fact because it’s not just the proclamation of one person, there has been thousands, hundreds or thousands of people who have every incentive to disagree to further their own career who have replicated the first person‘s work and found it to be true. That entire methodology is the self-correcting peer reviewed evidence of science. And that’s why it works much better than just what one guy thinks and has the power to inflict on everybody else.
@@conors4430
I was hoping Cosmic Skeptic was going to respond.
No matter.
You have defined what science is quite well. I have only three slight criticisms of your answer.
1. If someone has a hypothesis they will usually try to repeat the experiment themselves before presenting their results to the scientific community so as not to appear unprofessional or that their hypothesis can be easily disproved.
2. I don't know any scientific theory has ever been claimed to be a fact. Colloquially maybe but not in serious debate. All theories are subject to change when new information becomes available or research shows the previous theory was inadequate.
3. I don't think there are "thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who have every incentive to disagree to further their own career". I don't think that there are so many scientists motivated purely by self-interest.
@@fpcoleman57 what I mean is that, when something goes through the Peer reviewed scientific method it is considered a scientific fact. That doesn’t mean that it’s not changeable with new evidence, but until that new evidence arises it is the current factual understanding. On the last point. Plenty of people get into science because they love it but also for the recognition, because they want to be the person who finds something out and gets the publicity. Which is their incentive to compete with their scientific peers and not just agree with whatever somebody else says. That’s why it’s much more self-correcting than anything else. But you have people who want to be the one with their name on the article that changes our understanding of reality. It’s not perfect, but if something can get past thousands or hundreds of similarly qualified people without finding any contradictions in it or problems with the methodology then that’s a much better standard for fignding things out. It’s a difference between the one mechanic telling you there’s a problem with your car and 50 other mechanics agreeing with the first guy.
@@conors4430
I would almost concede your first point regarding a scientific fact. Facts are normally things that are beyond contradiction. The Earth orbits around the Sun is a fact. Einstein's theories on relativity are not facts because they don't explain everything about how objects, matter and light move but they are the best explanations we have so far. Evolution is probably 99.99% true but is it a fact which is permanently irrefutable and beyond contradiction? I don't know. We still don't understand everything about how gravity works even though we intuitively recognise the theory of gravity as a fact but the current theory does not explain everything about gravity.
I still don't accept your response to my third point. I just don't accept that so many people who choose to make scientific inquiry their life's work are as mercenary as you portray them to be. (Mercenary as in solely seeking fame and/or fortune.)
yes. because it is. a method to ask the correct questions, and then to get better answers than we currently have
I think Sabine Hossenfelder puts it rather well on her video regarding free will, or the lack thereof, that although a criminal might not fundamentally have free will to carry out crimes, society will deem it necessary for them to be removed to prevent further harm, e.g. via the criminal justice system.
"We're all just running software that is trying to optimise our well-being. You are responsible not because of free will, but because you are the embodiment of the problem and locking you up will solve that problem."
basically: The criminal may not have free will, then neither do the people locking him up. (Thus solving the issue)
"Justify why a belief is properly basic." Alvin Plantinga has entered the chat with his dissertation on "Reformed Epistemology" in hand.
Are any beliefs basic? What does that even mean?
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
-Bertrand russell
@@keithboynton scepticism regarding some issues like meat eating, and animal rights, must lead in most cases to taking a position, and simply being convinced. But in the case of religion and God, I don't know how anybody can be anything but sceptical forever, at least that's what I think, I hope I don't have a misunderstanding as well lol.
Atheism is an position derived from the application of scepticism, to the question of gods existence.
But, as he said, skepticism can lead to a religion as well. To me, the result was atheism too.
This is a pretty good summary. I think of it more generally like this: Atheism is a word we use to describe people who don't currently believe certain supernatural beliefs that are popularly accepted as true. Because of this, atheism is merely a label based on belief-popularity that's applied to a special subset of all other things that that person currently doesn't believe.
@@grantdillon3420 I like your insight because it appeals to the "non-stamp-collector" analogy.
@@3stepsahead704 sure. I should have said "a" position, not "an" which was a typo, but you get the idea.
@@PianoDentist I don't agree. The process involved in being a skeptic thinker is not conducive to theism. Believing in gods or the supernatural involves the direct opposite. You have to use doublethink, compartmentalization, shy away from difficult questions and/or rationalize them with special pleading, etc.
Think therefore I am, confused.
You cant be sure if everything is determined if there is no 100% agreed quantum or true theory of everything. Many words is mathematical perfect and allows for free will.
Free will can’t be that easily defined, because it doesn’t explain hunger. There is no free will when it comes to the natural urge to eat, that is determined. Maybe you can choose what you want to eat, but you can’t choose to not eat in definitely. Same with your bladder, you may not want to P, but your body doesn’t really give a dam what do you want because it has a predetermined thing that it must do. That’s why free will and determinism can’t be so easily boiled it down to a sentence.
@@conors4430 You can even involve methapysics into this. As in there is no you and me but only one being which wills everything i to existence. Then our will is just that will.
The point is if we do t know the nature of reality and existence you can claim one or the other to be true.
Copenhagen's interpretation, most accepted quantum theory, says that nature is not determined but probability based. Einstein said this could not be true because God doesn't play with dice and everything is determined. But current science says it might not be.
U need a bigger god than veganism Alex
no one "needs" a "god" for anything.
@@redpillpusher ok buddy keep telling yourself that 👍
@@protestanttoorthodox3625 I don't "tell" myself that ...its a lifestyle ...I don't concern myself with the concept of a "god" and you know what ...its been great ...buddy.
@ian philip God bless you Ian. I just said a prayer for you man. May you come to know God and find the peace and love you are craving
@@protestanttoorthodox3625 yah keep telling yourself that ...buddy.
Hi Alex. How can you make any moral claims when you affirm that objective morality doesn't exist? It seems you want to be skeptical of everything except this fact. Thanks.
Go watch his previous debates on animal ethics. He explained how objective morality exists in secular worldview.
@@redmatrixx can you summarize them here. I'd rather not search through an hour long video. Also he's said in multiple videos that objective morality doesn't exist. Maybe he's changed his opinion but those videos are still up on his profile so....
@@redmatrixx That was a descriptive ethical theory not an prescriptive theory. He just explained that it can objectively be established if someone is being right or wrong about a belief about pleasure maximalisation. Ok sure that has nothing to do with right or wrong unless you explain what the metaethicaly speaking the good is. Pleasure is for Alex the metaethical good. Pleasure is what is desired when experienced. And what is desired is always pleasure. This is a simple tautology that does not explain anything. He does not establish the existence of the good nor the existence of an objectively existing prescription that is pertaining to behavior.
@@boxman_ninja0819 I can or you can look it up. I will advise you hear it first from him not my version of what he said.
It was a debate with a Muslim (not Mohammed Hijab). Just such his debates on animal ethics or morality.
@@lucasheijdeman2581 and yes, objective morality doesn't exist in the sense of why should one care.
And that cuts across all moral basis anyone can pose.
Objective morality doesn't exist in prescriptive sense anywhere. Not with theist model or a secularist model.
But as he said, there axioms we all share as sentient beings which is pleasure/pain. Now our views on the maximization of pleasure and avoidance of pain are subjective but there are objectively right and wrong assessment of those subjective views.
So you can say subjectively killing an infant is moral or right.
But using an axiom of pleasure and pain which is a universal trait amongst all sentient beings, he can objectively show why killing a child is immoral or wrong.
So he said we all share this universal traits as sentient beings and upon this axiom an objective case morality can be founded upon.
He is the guy who tries to prove that what he thinks is accurate on the basis of the knowledge he attained through his five senses, but he is utterly unable to locate the other sources of information that, too, make sense and provide a gargantuan body of knowledge; for instance putative metaphysics. Epistemology needs to be exercised in its proper way when it comes to knowing how to know.
do you have na actual point beyond your word salad?
@@istvansipos9940 At least it makes more sense that what he is saying. Hmm 🤔
Skepticism is a method that only leads to Atheism when you use the method on your religious beliefs. See, most people use skepticism for most important decisions in their lives, when you buy a car or maybe buy a house you are going to not just take someone's word for it or believe what you read about it, you will want to inspect it for yourself or hire an impartial expert to inspect it for you and not just believe what the seller says or writes about it, that is being skeptical. Now if you use skepticism with your religious beliefs you will find that faith is a terrible, unreliable method, personal experience is an terrible unreliable method and holy books that need apologist to make excuses(they call it interpretation, but it is just excuse making in the highest degree) for the errors and contradictions in them are terrible & unreliable. What a skeptic will want is demonstrable empirical evidence for the super natural extraordinary claim. Unfortunately all religions have is terrible bad evidence for their claims and not one piece of evidence that can be falsifiable. Evidence that can't be falsified is unreliable, which no skeptic would accept. Please remember theist may be using skepticism to form their other beliefs, just not their religious beliefs.
Agreed. I see no way that skepticism applied to theism cannot lead to atheism. The mindset required to hold god belief is directly in opposition to the process.
@@Ergeniz
How so?
“Skepticism is a method that only leads to atheism” not quite since skepticism leads to sophistry; but you are sort of right since atheism is sophistry…
Thats what the philosopher Al-Ghazali experienced when going skeptic he lost trust in his mind and everything around him because he doubted everything so he couldn’t eat or talk properly for about 6 months then thanks to Allah who saved him and made him trust his mind again then he started using it (read his book “Deliverance from Error” he explains his journey there)
so saying skepticism leads to atheism is wrong since it returned Al-Ghazali back to being a muslim; but only because unlike you he was an actual skeptic searching for truth and doubted everything from his mind to himself to the existing of everything!! That put him in trouble since he fell into sophistry so if it weren’t for Allah’s mercy who made him trust his mind again he would have stayed a sophist (which what Alex was in the past when he was a nihilist before studying philosophy; he still use sophistry in his videos though)
You aren’t a good skeptic since you trust your mind to see wether an evidence is good or not (btw who gave you the right to do that?!) but what about your mind it self !? Why unlike Al-Ghazali who questioned it and everything else; you on the other hand trust it blindly and use it arrogantly to question faith and call it a “terrible, unreliable method” yet you have faith in your mind and aren’t skeptical about it at all ?? That’s pathetic honestly
“What a skeptic will want is demonstrable empirical evidence for the super natural claim” yup; only a stupid skeptic would ask for that..
Your last sentence is wrong because we have Al-Ghazali as an “empirical evidence” also I can tell you are ignorant about other religions yet treating them like your religion of the past and thats sophistry …
If you want to be a good skeptic then start where Al-Ghazali did and start doubting your mind first then everything else
Good luck with that 🥱
@@ga4214 Actually, if you really think deep about it the only thing you can trust is your mind. I mean "I think therefor I am" means the only thing we can really be sure of is we exist, everything else could be an illusion. I mean all your senses(eyes, ears, nose, touch, Etc. Etc.) might be fooling us. We could be hooked into a computer like in the movie The Matrix. However, there is no empirical evidence that our sense are not real, and since they have continually been reliable throughout my entire life I trust them. In other words all the empirical evidence shows me that we are the animal we call human beings.
Now that that is out of the way please tell me what was the empirical evidence that Al-Ghazali that lead him to Islam?
I am willing to change my mind as being a skeptic if someone has empirical evidence I have no choice but to change my mind.
I do admit I don't know that much about Islam but if it is like every other religion it relies on 3 main components. That is faith, a holy book and personal experience(personal testimony). What I don't believe it has is even one piece of empirical evidence, if it did it wouldn't use faith, it would use empirical evidence. Now if it is like Christianity it probably has a ton of bad evidence and a ton of bad reasons which equals zero good reasons to warrant belief. It might be true, so please give me just your one best piece of empirical evidence, if you don't have any then I am not going to believe your claim. Again, I am not saying you are wrong & I hope you understand I am not attacking your religion, I am not attacking you, I just don't believe your claim. You are probably a good person, we just disagree on this one subject and you could still be my friend as I am friends with many theist.
Peace
@@SalemK-ty4ti Wow what a hypocrite ! Oh so now there is no need for empirical evidence on why is your mind trustworthy yet you demand from us an empirical evidence on the “super natural” !! Why the hypocrisy here ? Also you called our faith a “terrible, unreliable method” yet here you are with no shame in having nothing but blind faith in your mind !!
“I think therefore I am” is a circular argument therefore invalid, and I can say the same thing “I think therefore God exist” how is that for an argument !!
“There is no empirical evidence that our senses are not real” there is no empirical evidence prove they are real 🥱 also saying your mind is reliable due to past experience is such a subjective view so it is an irrelevant argument here
Nope, I won’t give you any evidence on why islam is the Truth since you didn’t bring any evidence that your mind is trustworthy (and the subjective view doesn’t count in the real world); so why would I waste my time putting the evidences for you when your mind is unreliable in analyzing any evidence? Bring me evidences your mind is trustworthy first if you want evidences of islam in return
Al-Ghazali is an evidence that your first claim is wrong the “Skepticism is a method that only leads to atheism” because when he was an ACTUAL skeptic it brought him back to islam after a while; again read his book if you are into philosophy and skepticism since he documents his journey there
If you are interested in knowing more about islam then the best way would be to read The God’s final revelation which is the Quran instead of demanding evidences shouldn’t you look for them yourself? That of course if you actually care about the truth of why are we here and whats next after we die; then you will shut down all your social media and start searching for answers in the real world instead of demanding them !!! Knowledge don’t come because you ask for it; rather you need to go and learn how to preserve knowledge the correct way …
how I see it skepticism is the act of abolishing all of your beliefs, and rebuilding them all but exclusively based on good reasons/evidence while trying to minimizing the number of assumptions being made
the problem with abolishing all of your beliefs is that we arent omniscient.
there have been studies showing that plants can essentially 'scream'.
does that mean we should eat plants? probaly not, it isnt ruled out though, just highly unlikely.
when you abondon all of your beliefs you will not be able to tell wheter it is morally correct to go vegan for example.
you need to take some things for granted in order to function as a human being, there isnt any empirical proof of anything if you abandon all of your current beliefs. the only thing that would be certain at that point would be: 'I think, therefore I am'
it raises a lot of epistimological questions.
the only thing that is realistically possible is doing your best and correcting as much of your mistakes as possible.
after all, we'll most likely never figure out wheter we're a brain in a vat. It doesn't hurt to answer some questions with 'I don't know"
@@langedarm1775 well when I say abolish all beliefs I mean to do it and and rebuild it with some assumptions cause some assumptions are needed (but it should be as reasonable and simple assumptions as possible) then you can build a moral framework based on those assumptions etc
The presence of skepticism indicates the absence of conviction. If you are skeptical, you are not convinced. If you are not convinced there is a god, you are an atheist.
Then you take a leap of faith, which is what atheism is based on. Or if you are not convinced there is no god, then you take a leap of faith to theism maybe. Simple, atheism and theism are both positions based on faith, not on known fact.
@@ministryofarguments5257
My lack of conclusion makes me an atheist. No faith involved.
@@rimbusjift7575 Hi Karen. Your lack of conclusion makes you an atheist with faith obviously duh. Your lack of conclusion is not atheism anymore than it is theism.🤣😂🤣. Learn what atheism is, not what you think it is because of social media.
@@ministryofarguments5257
Dear moron:
Quick IQ test...
Solve: 4, 5, 14, 185, ...
@@rimbusjift7575 Hi Karen!
Imo it seems more logical that skepticism would lead you to agonsticism than than atheism since skeptics often hold the belief that can not know anything for certain.
need more debates, man.
In America skeptic is equivalent to cynic or someone who refuses to believe regardless of the arguments or evidence.
I disagree.
A sceptic is someone who requires evidence before they can assent to a belief in something.
A cynic is someone who always focuses on the negative outcomes of a proposition.
Yes, this is the "everyday" definition of the American skeptic. I agree it means something like "being doubtful of, and cherry-picking disconfirming evidence of, all popular evidence-based claims that disagree with a presupposed worldview" This is why I don't use this term since this is what many Americans will immediately think of.
Hi Alex! The "no free will" topic shouldn't change our criminal justice system alone (or at all). Because regardless of the reason, society wants to have justice for the victims. The argument of no free will tends to lead people in to thinking "what I do doesn't matter", when in fact it is all that matters. I'd like to have a conversation about this topic because in my opinion it can and will lead to very bad decisions by people not understanding the concept. Although if this truly is real that we have no free will, rather than a perhaps constructed free will, then we're going to see a very disturbing society with the realisation becoming a norm. Then again by the no free will argument I just had to write this. Right or wrong, I believe it is a destructive mind game.
Do you believe that the criminal justice system works well (or, at least, “well enough”) as it is currently instantiated? If you do not, then any changes you might advocate for, will best be informed by understanding the nature of (the lack of) free will. If you think things are good as then are, then I agree that no change is needed, but I will question your assertion that society wants justice for the victims. In the USA at least, (and I suspect this is true in other countries as well) the criminal justice system is built around punishment and retribution, not “justice for victims.”
What purpose would/does justice serve?
@@jpe1 I can only speak for how it currently works in Sweden were we've tried to go easy on criminals, and in short it doesn't. They come out (if ever convicted) after a few months and return to their previous occupation, which includes stealing, killing, raping and more. No system is perfect, but people tend to become less violent as they age. And for the safety of others, those with violent behaviour, who have committed atrocities, should be kept locked up until they are no longer a threat to others.
@@blueredingreen There is comfort in knowing that you will not meet the rapists who almost killed you 9 months after they commited the crime.
@@sockerbeta I'm not sure I'd be happy to strip someone of their freedom (either at all, or for years longer than they otherwise would've been locked up) only for the sake of the comfort of others. Would you be happy with that? Deciding that the comfort of the innocent is more important than the freedom of former criminals sounds like the beginnings of a dystopia, if I'm being honest. Comfort seems like it should be a side-effect, at most.
But then you did also said "those with violent behaviour, who have committed atrocities, should be kept locked up until they are no longer a threat to others", which is something I agree with (safety and comfort are very different things), so I'm inclined to just go with that instead.
In any case, reasonable arguments for locking someone up might consist roughly of: punishment, deterrent and for the safety of others. Punishment would be flawed if free will doesn't exist. Deterrent and safety should be unaffected by whether free will exists and those could still be valid arguments, and of course a crime and a criminal should still be evaluated with respect to those factors. We can decide to drop punishment as a possible reason for locking someone up, and in theory still end up with exactly the same sentences we have now.
Nice one... But is scepticism a process of analysing and finding an explanation, I think it's more of questioning an explanation rather than finding one... You may just destroy an existing explanation and not find an alternative one... Like agnosticism...
As for veganism, as usual, factory farming is what you are attacking, while using meat eaters in general , it's the same faulty generalization of Dr.Joy
Normal farming is also immoral, there is no moral way to unnecessarily kill an animal
All animal agriculture is immoral, factory, free range, organic, home farms. Everything.
@@samvandervelden8243 - The problem I have with that line of thinking is your use of the word “unnecessarily”, often repeated by vegan thinkers such as Alex O’Connor and Ed Winters. The implication (and sometimes, the explicit statement) being that if harming animals were necessary for our survival, then we would be morally justified in doing it.
But why? If it were true that we would die absent the consumption of animal products, that fact still wouldn’t make it “necessary” for us to harm animals. We would be left with the options of starving or committing suicide. Why do we morally get to do whatever we want (to whomever we want, it seems) so long as it’s for our survival? Wouldn’t that mean that if you were to encounter a starving lion in the wild, you would be morally obliged to let her eat you so she could live?
@@Nesendreabecause when survival is on the line, many things can be justified morally that wouldn't be justified in non-survival situations. For example, killing another human is typically seen as not morally justified. However, if someone is attacking you and you kill them simply because if you do not you will not survive, the case could be made that you were morally justified in doing so.
@@Nesendrea When you say "we" would die of.... who is "we". For people living in very privilaged circumstances living on a vegan diet is entirely possible without serious health issues (although I am not yet certain this is true of young children) but I am FAR from certain the same holds true for people living in pverty-stricken nations.
In those cases, ironically, meat is actually very rare and most people's diets are forced to be vegan by circumstance. But, they also suffer hugely form their diets and would, when the opportunity presents itself delight in eating a little chicken or fish or anyhting else. And doing so would be of huge benefit to them.
I am on the cusp of accepting that I should become vegan, speaking as someone living in the Uk. But I am far from ready to tell the Sami people they must not eat walrus or raindeer or fish, or that Amazonian native tribes should not hunt birds, monkeys, porcupine or tapir.. Or that a subsistance farmer in Africa should not keep a few chickens for eggs or boiling-fowl.
"Carnism...the underlying ideological force behind eating meat."
My eyes just rolled OUT of my head.
Overthinking it, buddy.
2:50 is my position. It is just food. Applying moral valence to food-getting is something, it seems, unique to a specific subset of one species of ape.
almost as if we're the only species with moral agency 🤯🤯 we're also the only species to apply moral valence to murder and rape, guess we should stop doing that?
I mean, of course. If you haven't seriously considered the question of whether eating meat is moral (or whether it's contributing to climate change and the spread of disease), then naturally it would be "just food". That's the whole point Alex is making.
"It is just food" is not a counter-argument to any of the arguments for veganism, it's just a blatant dismissal of them. Any of those arguments would be reaching the exact conclusion that it's _not_ "just food". What's the argument that leads you to conclude the opposite? Or do you just assert it as fact, without justification?
If we were imprisoned, tortured and eaten (i.e. what we do to animals) by some higher species (or... other humans), would you consider them saying "[humans] is just food" to be an acceptable justification for doing so?
You're under-thinking it, buddy. You're proving the point he was making about how most people don't question things that should be questioned.
I disagree with the claim that there is an underlying "ideological force behind eating meat." Most meat eaters likely spend near nil energy on contemplating "carnism" (sic). There is, in large part, NO underlying ideological force behind the food choices made by most people. That Alex ( or others) insist that there is does not make it so. It's a fiction. Like asking an atheist "if you don't believe in god, what DO you believe?" Similarly, " If you don't treat specific practices of food-getting as having moral implications, then what food-getting practices DO you treat with moral implications?"
"None" is an acceptable answer.
@@godlessheathen100 I might agree with you that there generally isn't any "ideological force" behind eating meat (depending on how we define that), but this doesn't undermine anything Alex said outside of that one small phrase he quoted/paraphrased from someone else. If anything, there being no ideological force actually makes his case a lot stronger, because you don't think about it, and that's the point.