This is a very very important subject, it's definitely something the Atheist movement needs to do in order to step their game up. I mean, if they really want solutions to the problems, then they need to use good methods.

@GuerillaBunny

7 жыл бұрын

As a vegan, I concur.

I'm so excited to see this... I'm commenting before I've even seen it!

Glad I found the time to watch your talk Anthony. You're doing an outstanding job! Thank you for taking the time to share your insights. If I had any say in the matter, you'd be nominated for the Nobel peace prize. I'm not even joking :)

I understand where he's coming from with what he says at 11:11 in that the conversations are not dramatic, but the popularity of his channel and the comments he gets on his video indicate that many do find these conversations entertaining albeit in a different way. There's something euphoric about a dialogue leading to a change in mind, a eureka moment.

there needs to be many, many, many more people in that audience

wonderful. Many new thoughts worth trying.

Great talk, very well shot, great approach to talking to believers.

I really enjoy seeing young people go from presuppositions they may not have thought through, to a more judicious and conscious awareness. It isn't so important that they see the world like I do, but rather that we all use our faculties well to "believe more true things"

Amazing job

LOL I love the pebble in the shoe metaphore XD

I have been watching your videos and they are very good, thank you.

1:20:54 This is one of the best tips you have given. You might consider extending this to being the main way for SEs to practice before engaging strangers, also. I've learned so much here in the last 24 hours, and I realize that I'm a 'no-longer-angry' atheist, too. I've been pissed off at being made to feel like I was wrong not to be skeptical since 1st grade, when I was asking Sister if, when we died, we would know as much as God, because we could see everything. I saw the panic in her eyes, and stopped believing in everything I was told, although I drifted in and out of faith because of fear. That fear turned to anger, as I think it does for all of us, if even only for a moment, as long as we seek a way from it. Anger is appropriate. Remember when you found out that Santa wasn't real? I'm going to start practicing SE myself, this way, tomorrow at the Farmer's Market, if it doesn't rain. I'm trying to think of an appropriate sign to ease me into it. Maybe Lucy's sign, 'The doctor is in. Opinions: 2¢, Psychiatric Help: 5¢, Thoughts for the day: 10¢, Sound Advice: 25¢.' Start them off happy, and then engage with a question. But, make sure to have the donation coffee can with the slot in the lid. I'm old and tired, and there are a lot of retired Boomers and older living here. It would be fascinating, because I'd be interested in the stories, not only in getting people to think. More might be open to it, because I'm creaky. This sounds more and more like fun. Thanks for lighting me up. The Santa question is what I'm thinking of asking people. You should talk more to women of grey. lol

When I was a Mormon Missionary, we were all trained in a technique of converting investigators called the "Commitment Pattern." This pattern is almost identical to your "Elements of SE Encounter." The Commitment pattern has since been eliminated from the Missionary training. It has its roots in marketing and public relations. It is designed to engage an investigator in commitments, once committed and engaged the investigator gradually incorporates the beliefs into their worldview. (one thing few people understand, atheists and believers alike, is that belief has very little to do with a rational, conscious process, but is more of a fluid, dynamic result of loyalties.) You can also find similar techniques in "how to win friends and influence people." The techniques rely on a principle that when someone identifies with you, allows a modicum of trust and does a favor for you, they will want to serve you as a form of self-validation. The only thing you are missing is a specific invitation to action, unless you count the invitation to email you (technically that would fall under the category of "follow-up"). I enjoy some of your videos of engaging people in discussion. As a missionary I was trained to think in similar strategies you are employing, so it's interesting to review your techniques. Footnote- I am no longer Mormon.

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

are you an atheist? I would like to know what made you decide to leave the church.

@adamskelter973

8 жыл бұрын

I don't identify as an atheist. The best way I can describe my position is I am completely unpersuaded to believe the claims of any church regarding their god. The question of whether there is a god does not factor in any significant way into my thinking. Leaving the LDS Church was a very long process for me. I studied the history thoroughly. For mormons there are restrictions placed on the members to avoid any literature that criticizes or contradicts the correlated narrative of the leadership- it is branded as "Anti-Mormon" because of this I used only church approved sources of its history and historical documents not identified as "anti." I waisted my twenties and some of my thirties living as a devout, unhappy, repressed member. I experienced long bouts of depression, which I tried to hide from members as Mormons have a great deal of pressure from the church to present the gospel as the key to happiness. It is not. Ultimately as I studied other forms of history, the communist revolutions and other tribal communities I began to see the way they abused their power and wielded a great deal of control over their members through psychological coercion, and control of information. Eventually I grew to a point were I realized I was making too many excuses for the bad behavior of church leaders. I began to seriously ask myself if I was not born into the church would I believe any of it's claims. In a long serious time of deep reflection and earnest study, I had to admit that I would not believe these things unless I was trained from childhood to accept them as normal. The chains fell off and I was able to look at the history without the filter of excuses. I realized the leaders I was raised to revere and obey were in actuality men exercising very unhealthy control. Since leaving the church I have never been happier. I now believe the key to happiness is striving to gain control of my own life, rather than submitting to the judgments of self proclaimed authorities. I know street epistemologists and Baghossian believe people are religious because of a faulty epistemology. While that may be a dimension to the real dynamics at works, it fails to adequately describe the true function of faith. In truth the thing that allowed me to begin to apply critical reason to the LDS church was the fact that I had become emotionally and financially independent of the tribe. This is a factor not very well addressed in this street epistemology movement. People are faithful to their churches not for bad reasoning, but because they are emotionally, psychologically, perhaps financially dependent on their tribe. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to ask critical questions when your wellbeing depends on the tribe.

@adamskelter973

8 жыл бұрын

BTW thank you for asking.

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

+Adam Skelter wow dude I didn't expect such a detailed response but thanks for the reply. The reason I ask is because I have been studying the LDS faith for a couple of years now and really have a burden for the people. I am a Christian and I understand the differences between the LDS gosple and the orthodox Christian gospel. If you want I would very much like to have a dialog about this with you. I know how painful it must have been to come to realize that you were lied to for so long by people who you trusted. (I'm talking about the leadership of the church and not necessarily the members or even the bishops. those guys are doing the best they can for being overworked lay people who are trying to serve their calling they believe comes from their heavenly father) The thing is Joseph Smith may have had good intentions in the beginning but his conman past caught up with him and took over his pursuit of power Sex and Money and he used the church to gain all three of those things. The mind control that the church exerts over the membership is so sad to me. I've read a ton of material and the more I search for ways to talk to people I know who are LDS the more frustrated I get. Anyway I would like the opportunity to at least make sure you understand the Christian Gospel as it differs from the Mormon gospel which is truly no gospel at all because the word gospel means good news. Having to learn to be perfect and stop sinning to earn your way to exaltation is not good news it's just a burden that people shouldn't have to carry. I know you say you're not sure that any God exists but at least you should have the right understanding of the Orthodox Christian message in order to make the best decision for you. Because Joseph Smith lied does not mean that the true Christian God does not exist. I'm sure you know that but it's an emotional risk I'm sure to go through what you've gone through just to jump back into another belief system without knowing for sure that it's true. I hope we can at least talk about stuff. There are people who do care about xmos. How is your family accepting your decision? I'm sure you can help me understand what good questions I should ask the missionaries when I talk to them.

@adamskelter973

8 жыл бұрын

Thank you for your kind words. Your desire to share your faith in Jesus out of concern for the wellbeing of others is the part I most loved about being LDS. I was in church leadership before I left and I can honestly say I served in the church with a sincere concern for the wellbeing of the members I served. Like you said, many good people in the church, with genuinely compassionate hearts. I am open to having new friends. Thank you for wanting to have a conversation about your faith. I have studied many other religions and histories including many sects of "Orthodox Christianity." I attended many bible studies, prayer meetings, and sermons. While I appreciated the experiences I had with those churches and enjoy their history and met many wonderful people, I am thoroughly unpersuaded by an of their claims. I enjoy discussing philosophies from many world views. I am intimately familiar with the teachings of Christ. I find the teachings of Christianity to be unhealthy, deeply tribal and deeply disturbing.

I should have learned SE before me and my brother talked about his beliefs

The book that is mentioned at 1:28:50 "I wonder" - just bought this for my daughter a few weeks ago -- highly recommended! Thanks for the talk and thanks for publishing.

@JustinPerea

8 жыл бұрын

+David E Would you recommend it as a gift to my cousin's kid. They're Catholic so could it be seen as offensive?

@dedmo79

8 жыл бұрын

+Justin Perea my wife is religious (I'm not) and this is a book that she's ok with. It's very tastefully done and never mentions religion, or even alludes to a god-belief in any fashion. It simply encourages thought, wonder (at nature mostly) and the ability to say "I don't know" to some of the great mysteries (e.g. "Where does gravity come from?"). It's my 4 year olds favorite book right now but would be perfectly appropriate for kids around 8 or 9 and possibly older. Not condescending, not too kiddy, a very nice book. Hope that helps!

@magnabosco210

8 жыл бұрын

Just picked up three copies myself. I believe Annaka is married to Sam Harris.

@JustinPerea

8 жыл бұрын

David E Okay thank you!

@jeremiahd2209

8 жыл бұрын

+Anthony Magnabosco did James ever follow up?

I'm re-watching now about 5 months later and it's been a huge help. I've been taking this class at my local church called "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist." and the temptation to dive into apologetics is incredible. I've gotten some great ideas from this talk. thanks!

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

are you an atheist? if so what do you think about the class you mentioned? are any of the evidences for God compelling?

@ianyboo

8 жыл бұрын

coachmarc2002 I have not come to the conclusion that any gods exist but I also have not come to the conclusion that no gods exist. If that counts as being an "atheist" then I suppose the label fits in this context. In the class itself they are defining "atheist" as "one who uses faith to conclude that God does not exist" which definitely does not fit me. So in that context I'm not. None of the apologetics they have given are compelling, they are all "god of the gaps" style arguments. They will present a gap in scientific understanding and then assert that their god is responsible. It's all pretty standard apologetic stuff. The way more interesting question is how they arrived at their beliefs and how confident they are, which I've been able to talk with some of them about after classes :)

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

+Ian G is the class based on frank turek and gary habermas' book? I have it on audio format and its pretty good.

@ianyboo

8 жыл бұрын

coachmarc2002 yes it's based on that book. I think it's pretty good when viewed from the perspective of a Christian reading it who is trying to convince themselves that there is evidence for their god. But from the perspective of an atheist reading it is almost laughably bad, the authors constantly misrepresent the positions of the "other side" If it's intentional then they are liars. If it's unintentional then they are idiots. Not sure which is worse but those are the only two options.

@CrimsonVoid

8 жыл бұрын

+Ian G It is really frustrating that they get to define what atheists are to the people in their class.

I don't think I would recognize Anthony without a hat.

Anthony, I really enjoyed your talk. Nice to see the process broken down this way. Great to see you spreading the message.

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

what message? he just asks questions remember?

@myopenmind527

8 жыл бұрын

The message is that the our beliefs even our most cherished beliefs should be open to scrutiny. The socratic method is one of the best ways to explore ones beliefs.

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

+My OpenMind I agree that truth should be able to stand up to scrutiny. The problem is these videos are only trying to break someone's beliefs down based on how they came to those beliefs. That's a fallacy of reasoning called the genetic fallacy. The truth value of a belief cannot be discredited simply based on how someone came to that belief. An atheist needs to come with a positive argument for the non-existence of God if they want to try to change someone's beliefs. If they simply lack a belief in God then why bother believers with this nonsense?

@myopenmind527

8 жыл бұрын

coachmarc2002 I think the point of these videos it to test whether people hold beliefs that are demonstrably true.

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

+My OpenMind what method would you use to demonstrate whether belief in God was true?

Great talk! As an atheist, I'm sad that so many people take on the persona of a dry darwinian, materialist, physicalist scientist. You don't have to be a physicalist to be an atheist, and there is plenty of trancending to be done without a book telling you how.

Suffering is real to the one who experiences it whether you're a human or a farm animal. If you eat meat, then you must therefore believe that causing suffering is morally ok.

D. Where can I get that awesome shirt? Definitely!!!

Hello Anthony Our Constitution begins with "WE THE PEOPLE". America has always been the Greatest Nation in the World. Support “E pluribus Unum", Out of many one, as our National Motto. And by popular demand a World view. Unite Us to build a better tomorrow. Thank you

I"m glad he is considering giving up meat.

Can anyone get me the link to the private Facebook group? I can't seem to find it.

@magnabosco210

7 жыл бұрын

Iuri Grangeiro Here you go: Private Street Epistemology Facebook Study Group Membership limited to atheists only, no conducting SE or role-play, main purpose is to discuss and study SE. Note: there are other SE groups with less restrictive membership rules. facebook.com/groups/streetepistemology

wow Ted The Atheist was in the audience!? I was thinking to myself during the talk: "I wonder what Ted would think of this style if he were in the audience" small world. :)

In the interview with James, I think it would be better (ethically speaking, IMO) to be more up-front in terms of what your purpose/position is. Your initial manner makes it seem like you're doing some sort of official survey/study, which I think is a bit misleading (not saying it was intentional). Simply introducing yourself and explaining what you're trying to do (practicing street epistemology for whatever personal reasons) more up-front would satisfy this issue, IMO. It's kind of like opting for 'full disclosure' just to be on the safe/ethical side of things and to reduce the potential for the appearance of conflict of interest or ulterior motives.

@magnabosco210

6 жыл бұрын

Rob Harwood Thanks. If you watch my most recent conversations, I try to do exactly that.

Terrific presentation Anthony. Thoroughly enjoyed it, particularly the contrast between overview bullet points and when they appear in real-world interviews. Logical, educational, practical - my kind of brain food. Well done. On the improvement side: if you have not read any of Garr Reynold's books or blog articles at PresentationZen, his design principles will make your presentation pop. For example: presentationzen.blogs.com/presentationzen/2005/09/whats_good_powe.html In the Q&A, Anthony mentioned a white supremecist group with a weird twist. The Episode 3 link below is to the KKK but the interview might provide some insight. Bit of background, in Australia, John Safran released a confronting and funny TV series titled John Safran vs. God in 2004: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran_vs_God Safran vs. God Episode 3: despite being Jewish, Safran attempts to join the KKK. The segment is brilliant: educational, scary, serious, hilarious. The moment Safran confesses to being Jewish is captivating and he possibly risked his health to capture the interview. Personally, I never knew the KKK believed the split between the Jews and Christians was at Cain and Abel. kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZWlhj6yrn5myf7w.html&bpctr=1448959689 Finally, as a direct contrast to SE and pure hilarity, watch Episode 5 and the segment where Safran tries some atheistic door knocking to harass local Mormons in Salt Lake City, copy of Charles Darwin "The Origin of Species" in hand. kzread.info/dash/bejne/h2ls2cmnXZy_Y8Y.html Enjoy.

Anthony, I'd suggest rewording "Is it honest to say you are 100%" - that could really offend as the implication is that the person is dishonest (ie, a liar). You might try fair, reasonable, realistic, accurate....

Ruspurgivesthepawsup ※

questioner says hey Anthony how do you think that the universe began to exist? Anthony says "I don't know. " (but it wasn't God)

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

+BlueViolet Alien the point is that a theist can answer the question how did the universe begin. It must have been a personal, non spatial, non-physical, Timeless, all powerful, transcendent being who has the will to decide to create the universe from nothing. The atheist can't account for why anything at all exists.

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

+BlueViolet Alien I believe I can see your entire post. I appreciate your comments and the spirit in which they're given. I'm always open to challenges to my beliefs especially when the challenge comes in a polite discussion instead of condescending ad hominem attacks. Your version of what I was trying to say is pretty much correct. I believe that with the current scientific understanding we have of the origin of the universe that it's a perfectly rational to believe that something created the universe from nothing. This being would necessarily have to be outside of space time and matter in order to bring that into existence. This being is completely compatible with the judeo-christian monotheistic concept of God as the greatest conceivable being. This is probably the first line of reasoning I would use to explain my belief in God but certainly not the only one. There is also the Moral argument for the existence of objective moral values and duties, the argument that life can't come from nonliving material without any intelligent agent involved. There are others but those are the most convincing to me. Regarding your first comments about the knowledge of science increasing (and I believe you're saying but correct me if I'm misunderstanding you) that when it does it somewhat puts God out of a job. I guess my main point would be that with our current understanding of the beginnings of the universe, meaning the standard Big Bang Theory, it states that the universe had a beginning and is not infinite into the past. That goes very well with my belief that time itself cannot be infinite into the past. If it were how would we cross that infinite amount of previous moments of time in order to arrive at the present. Imagine time like a series of dominoes set up in front of you and the one directly in front of you represents the present moment in time and all the ones to your left represent the past and all the ones to the right represent the future. If there is an infinite number of dominoes set up to your left how would the one in front of you ever fall down? It seems to me that for us to ever arrive at the present there must be a finite number of moments in the past. I know that time itself as a deep philosophical subject that I probably don't fully grasp but that is the best brief explanation I can give of my understanding of it. The science of The Big Bang Theory is very compatible with the judeo-christian belief that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. in your second point you said that at the end of the day God demands about as much of this reason for existence as the universe. In this I would disagree in that you would end up with a infinite regress of explanations for every explanation that exists. this simply doesn't make sense to me. It's well known in argumentation that to believe something is the best explanation for an effect you don't have to have an explanation for the explanation. Again you would get into an infinite regress of explanations. There must be one uncaused original cause of everything else that exists. It's like beliefs and explanations for your beliefs. If every belief you have needs an explanation you end up with an infinite regress of explanations for any belief that you hold. You would become incapable of justifying any of your beliefs because every one you have has to have an explanation. This is why evidentialism fails. There simply has to be some basic beliefs to start with as a foundation to build your reasoning upon. God is for me one of those properly basic foundational beliefs that I start with. Until someone can give me a defeater for my belief that God exists I'm perfectly rational to believe in him. I hope I've answered your questions but if not we can continue with the discussion.

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

+BlueViolet Alien Since you seem like a reasonable person willing to have a polite discussion I would like your opinion on this argument against naturalism. 1. If naturalism is true the immaterial human soul does not exist. 2. If the immaterial human soul does not exist libertarian free will does not exist. 3. If libertarian Free Will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist. 4. Rationality and knowledge do exist. 5. Therefore libertarian Free Will exists. 6. Therefore the immaterial human soul exists. 7. Therefore naturalism is false. This is not my argument but I think it is sound. Which of these premises would you deny to maintain your belief in naturalism?

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

+BlueViolet Alien I also listened to the Craig/Carroll debate. Its been a while though. What parts specifically did you find more compelling in Carroll's arguments? If I remember right it seems like I was watching that and thinking to myself here's a guy who simply doesn't want there to be a god so rather than to go where the evidence currently leads he would rather speculate about what might come up in scientific discovery, in the future, that would for him hopefully disprove the need for a god. To your comments about the infinite regress I'm not sure what you mean by "conditions outside the universe." To me the infinite regress means that the Universe cannot be infinite into the past as far as physical existence goes. If there is anything physical in existence it seems to me that it must be spatial and therefore able to move from one point in space to another which would constitute the passing of time. Therefore if the universe exists it would not be possible for it to have existed infinitely into the past physically. I hope that makes sense. You said " Maybe there wasn't an infinite regress of time, but something else that is still natural." I think that what you're meaning by natural is something physical. I hope the above explanation shows how I don't see how that could be possible. You seem to claim a reliability inherent in naturalism but yet seem to admit that it can't yet explain the existence of the natural world. My question would be how could a natural cause bring the natural world into existence? It seems only plausible to me that something must exist outside of nature in order for nature to begin to exist. I don't know how learning more about the natural world could explain how it could by some unguided process bring itself into existence. It seems to me a metaphysical cause is in order. The God hypothesis seems to have more explanatory power and explanatory scope given our current scientific understanding of the world. Some people would rather have faith in the advancement of scientific knowledge over faith in God which is their choice obviously. I often wonder if deep down it's caused by an inherent desire to not have to submit to any type of authority figure. Regarding your question about the God concept and why it has to be a being that can do anything and knows what it's doing my best answer would be this. A necessary and sufficient cause can not exist without the effect also existing unless the cause is a personal agent that can decide when to act and bring about said effect. Rather than to unnecessarily tease out what I mean by that I'll wait to see if you have any comment to the contrary. also my above explanation of why I believe that something physical cannot exist outside of time I hope that answers your question about a natural chaos in a Timeless framework might be sufficient to bring the world into existence. you said "basically I don't accept that a God outside of space-time would deserve no origin while a natural condition outside of space-time would need one." This comes back to the need for an uncaused first cause and it needing to be a personal agent for the reasons given above. I would appeal to your agreeing with me on the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes. I'll cover my thoughts on the argument against naturalism and the premises you had trouble with in a different post to keep them somewhat brief.

@coachmarc2002

8 жыл бұрын

+BlueViolet Alien regarding the argument against naturalism, premise 2 is basically stating that if all we are is matter then our thoughts are determined and not literally our own thoughts. if we are nothing but molecules in motion I don't know how we could even claim to have our own thoughts. this kind of goes into premise 3 because in order to have the ability to weigh the evidence for or against an argument we must have control of our own thoughts. this to me is what rationality and knowledge is. so the conclusions of premise 4 seems intuitive that rationality and knowledge do exist. so on that basis it would seem to follow that libertarian Free Will does exist which implies that we are more then material stuff and therefore have an immaterial essence or soul which would disprove naturalism. please excuse the fact that there are mistakes in capitalization. I'm using a voice type program on my tablet to speed up the process and I got tired of going back and editing them. ;)

I think you are wrong about age playing a role in ability to shift. It is more about intelligence level.

I would love to talk with Anthony about the irrationality of atheism so that I could show him how illogical it is. We can discuss belief, evolution, and a number of things. Perhaps you prefer to talk with people that are not really strong in their beliefs, do not really practice their beliefs, or that are not really educated in their beliefs, but I would love to have a good dialogue with you, unless you fear a Christian minister of twenty plus years that has seen miracles with his own eyes and has a Ph.D. If you want to really have an educated discussion, since you seem to think atheism is more intelligent, then we can do that. Atheism would have been laughable for the entirety of human history up until modern man. Even today, there are very few atheists around the world. There is a reason for that. By the way, if you want to quote Socrates, Plato, Einstein, and the vast majority of the most intelligent people in human history, then you will be quoting believers. I look forward to your reply.

Another problem that I have with modern atheist is that their tactics of conversion are literally just switching the distortions of fact into another Realm. It's a bait-and-switch. These people have absolutely no idea the factuality or opinion, and the difference between the two, when it comes to any of the tenants of atheism. I had a reply to one of my comments below that the leaders hold the same position as me. Well why is it that only the leaders are informed? If all you are trying to do is unplug people from the matrix delusion and in place give them a delusion of atheism, without any way of representing what it is they're talking about, then all you're doing is creating drones. When the leader falls away from drones, the drones just find a new leader and March to its tune. People need to be taught to think for themselves, to understand what knowledge, fact, and opinion are. You guys take this on like it's a simple task, but it really requires caring about somebody you have to actually become their friend and show dedication to them. if you succeed in converting somebody and then just leave them or just try to plant a seed and then just leave them you've never really accomplished anything. the tactics that you guys are using is good for KZread views and for getting people all excited like the Richard Dawkins excited which it seems like you're trying to stop. But how often do you succeed in creating a rational minded atheist at the moment of conversion? To really get somebody to understand what it is requires guiding them or they must stumble upon guiding themselves. If the goal is just create another faction reciting and parroting unverified third hand knowledge then you've succeeded. But then even after you have guided them, are you going to show them how logic is turned on its head by the Semioticians? I suppose educating isn't your specialty?

@jtheexistentialist1221

7 жыл бұрын

ippos_khloros I'm not sure you are ready for this conversation. The tenants of atheism are clear to just about everyone. Suppression of faith, promotion of evolution, promotion of the big bang. I'm sure I could find make up some more but I figured tenants were easy to figure out. These tenants aren't verified. Do you BELIEVE in evolution? What natural laws dictate evolution? Which scientist operates on evolution that doesn't require speculation?

@jtheexistentialist1221

7 жыл бұрын

ippos_khloros You are ready for this conversation. Sorry. :( The reason I decided to do comments on youtube was to try and incite a new dialogue. One that requires academic honesty. When people read these comments it's my hope that they will see that there is more to being rational than mere non acceptance of a supernatural whatever. My being rational extends to everything. Most things people choose to believe, whatever the case may be, like my blind acceptance that English represents the things I see adequately enough to have an informed honest observation and interpretation of my world, acceptance in that idea is pure faith. Rationality would say maybe there is more than what I'm capable of describing or understanding with my limited capabilities. So how far should we let our biased fancies dictate what we believe?

@jtheexistentialist1221

7 жыл бұрын

ippos_khloros I hope you got the part in my reply that said you ARE ready. Sorry. Anyways, I don't assume what people say is a lie. I have to weigh it against what I know through my own experiences. If I do not, and then accept whatever information is being presented, what am I basing that acceptance on? I understand that I'm limited to know anything for sure on a level that I can say 100% certain. So for evolution, conspiracies, the big bang, and all this other "knowledge" that at this point is unverifiable with our minds and technology, they are interesting constructs and they fit the clues, but these words like evolution and big bang are unverified through actual experience. These things may well remain this way. So I find no solace in BELIEVING in them, unless I find other outside motivations for doing so, like a social group, friends, family and a sense of belonging to something bigger than myself. The reasons for believing in the unverifiable are not from academic honesty. It would come from a false sense that it is necessary to chose a side. But the choice is unnecessary.

@jtheexistentialist1221

7 жыл бұрын

ippos_khloros Now that I'm aware of it... I choose to accept that English conveys my ideas adequately. Prior, it was a blind decision that I wasn't aware that I had made. Do I understand this language as well as you do, so that I fully understand you? And do your words adequately express the thoughts your trying to convey? What is lost between your ideas and the language that describes it, and what is then lost when it is filtered through my understanding of what your saying and the images those words create in my mind? Is this why it seems that nobody understands each other? BOOM! I like your comments though.

@jtheexistentialist1221

7 жыл бұрын

ippos_khloros Existentialism, Nihilism, Semiotics. Self taught. That's why my English isn't always proper. Sorry if it causes you to unintentionally commit the fallacy of amphiboly. I'm not intentionally doing it. I'm ignorant of grammar rules beyond what you see me using.

Why does everybody feel the need to convince others about something else?? Why does everything take forms of religion? Religions itself, veganism, vegetarianism, atheism, communism... Just let people be! As long as their belief is not destructive, what's the problem with that? Some people don't have anything else, but their belief. It may be just a dream, but if it's helping them and giving their life meaning, just let it be! Nobody can be 100% sure of anything in this world. There are absolutely no certainties. Life doesn't make sense at all! No matter what you believe! None of us have it all together. We're just trying to cope the best way we can amidst this total chaos that we call existence. Preaching... preaching... preaching... everybody is trying to change the world... but the world will still take its course, regardless... looks like you're no different than the religious street preachers. Besides... the things we hear and see in this world... My goodness... there are things we don't understand, a whole lot of them... I try to be a very "scientific" person, I'm a ph.D student, but I don't think we can totally rule out the "spiritual" realm and delegate everything to psychology or whatever. I really respect agnostics, people who at least acknowledge that we may be missing something... there are billions of missing links... I think we should all humble ourselves and get down from our intellectual pedestals.

@naughtyleopard21

8 жыл бұрын

+Danielle Kum Ning I agree with you 150 % I think that people try to chance each other all the time too much. Like I really don't see what's the point of such atheists who try to chance everybody and prove to all religious people that there is no god, even making courses on how to convince people that there is no god. Why do you need to convince or why do you need other people to be like you? Just live your life and let religious people live theirs (as long as they are not harming anybody). I have friends who are atheists, I even had a boyfriend who was atheist. He was convinced that the is no god, while I do belive but we were still able to have very happy relationship and we are still friends and have contact cause he never tried to change me and I never tried to change him. And I think that's how it's supposed to be.

@CrimsonVoid

8 жыл бұрын

+Danielle Kum Ning Believing things for bad reasons is not a good thing regardless of what the belief is.

@CrimsonVoid

8 жыл бұрын

+NaughtyVEGAN Leopard I think you may have missed the point here. Nothing in this video is about proving that a god doesn't exist. It's about getting people to think about the beliefs that they hold and why it is that they believe what they do. And more importantly, are those beliefs based on solid foundations.

@naughtyleopard21

8 жыл бұрын

CrimsonVoid then why do they obsess over others beliefs and their foundations, why it is sooo important for them? Can't they just go and be atheists somewhere and not worry about what are other peoples foundations for something. That's creepy. This is some atheist team cathering where they learn how to make people think like they do. That's what I see. :) Don't they like, have something better to do?

@CrimsonVoid

8 жыл бұрын

NaughtyVEGAN Leopard Did you watch it? Because that's actually not what it's about. It's honestly just about getting people to consider their beliefs. And the reason it's important is because we live in a society where other individuals have a say on the laws that affect me. And what they believe will affect how they vote. I'm not saying that I want them to believe the exact same things I do, I just want to make sure that they have honestly thought about it and help ensure that their beliefs are well founded. That's better for everyone including them. Is that not important to you?

This guy thinks he knows what he is talking about, but he is totally wrong. He dies not respect people. He contradicts what he is teaching the way he treats people.

@rgibbs421

8 жыл бұрын

Yea, I mean he was treating them so horribly.

Don't give up meat. Look for "Veganism and hair loss" videos. Search for Veganism and b12 deficiency; this is even with supplements and b12 injections.

@consciousconscience7496

7 жыл бұрын

Faust Feynman lol there is no logically sound moral structure for denying non human animals moral inclusion. you're just indoctrinated into carnism at birth just like religion. animals are supplemented with b12 prior to slaughter in case you're lacking a fundamental understanding of b12 being bacteria based and the minerals that must be present for its development.

@oldemail2838

7 жыл бұрын

Conscious Conscience A person can eat hotdogs and not get b12 deficiency. I've seen vegans getting shots in their gluts and still not able to maintain their b12 levels. I've seen vegans whose hair feel out and meat was their only salvation. In fact, that and worse, happened to me--I was vegan!

@KellHallman

7 жыл бұрын

People who have these side effects aren't looking into what they're eating properly, that's all it is. How do you figure that someone can take supplements of B12 (fortified foods, pills etc.) and have a deficiency, but not have that deficiency when taking in the B12 in the exact same manner - just with hotdogs instead? I highly doubt medical professionals would advocate a vegan diet if it was so bad for you.

WRONG!!!

There are of course a number of presumptions inherent in your line of questioning which betray a falsity of belief on your part that Christianity and the Christian Intellectual Tradition, if in point of fact you recognize that there is a Christian Intellectual Tradition, are united monolithically in either affirming or denying certain beliefs held by certain Christians. This unfortunately stems from a position of ignorance on your part. Take for instance the recurring theme in your talks relative to evolution. Now would it be a surprise to you that the largest Christian denomination in the world, the Catholic Church, which represents the worlds one billion Catholics, and its attendant Pontifical Academy of the Sciences, affirms Evolutionary Theory. In point of fact the Evolution and Christian Faith (ECF) Program of the BioLogos Foundation directs its exertions toward expounding the Church's understanding of Evolutionary Theory in conjunction with the Dominican Order who are most notably, from within the Church, the intellectual progeny of my mentor Saint Thomas Aquinas. Thus I think your efforts and recorded engagements seems to be directed toward persons with exceedingly underdeveloped views of the Theism they purport to espouse.

@talktomeaboutlife

8 жыл бұрын

+Anthony Nuzzo Far from it. In fact, you can see in many of Anthony's videos that he talks to a wide variety of people. Some are Christians, some are Muslims, some are pagans, some are Hindus, some are atheists. Some are creationists, some are evolutionary theists. There's no initial assumption about what the person believes - the whole approach of SE militates against making assumptions about beliefs, or about what people mean by terms. The most important thing is clarity about what is being spoken about. Now, of course, the fact that many of the Christians he has spoken to may take a Creationist argument is quite possibly reflective of the widespread belief in America in creationism (there was a Gallup poll from a couple of years ago that found about 40% of Americans believe the earth was 10K years old at most, let alone among Christians), but that's beside the point. Evolution or creationism is beside the point. The point is - how do we know what we 'know'? What is the reason for any belief we may hold?

@anthonynuzzo9512

8 жыл бұрын

talktomeaboutlife Actually I beg to differ. I have yet to encounter an individual interviewed with well developed views about anything at all.

@talktomeaboutlife

8 жыл бұрын

Anthony Nuzzo Well, that's a shame. I'm not sure that's an issue with the method, and perhaps more one with the general population, then. Do you think you would find a discussion of the sort that Anthony typically conducts interesting to be a part of?

@anthonynuzzo9512

8 жыл бұрын

talktomeaboutlife I apologize yesterday I made a short off-the cuff comment because I was running out the door. The example I alluded to in my introductory statement pertains to certain comments Anthony made during the video wherein he stated that when they encounter believers we quote "try to present to them facts," after which he enumerated certain representative facts such as the veracity of Evolutionary Theory as well as the astronomical age of the universe. Interestingly enough he never circumscribed the scope of his otherwise bald assertion to only those quote "believers" that affirm young Earth Creationism or deny Evolutionary Theory. The example I cited provides a clear counter example to the contrary from the largest Christian denomination on the face of the planet which affirms both Evolutionary Theory and the current approximate astronomical measure of the age of the universe. Regarding the method I of course have my concerns, given that I am a Thomist I am always uncomfortable with the post Kantian references to the primacy of epistemology over and above metaphysics as opposed to recognizing the overt dependence relation of epistemology upon metaphysics. Moreover, I am also concerned with the radical equivocity relative to the term "faith' in the exchanges. To posit quote "faith" as an epistemology seems patently absurd in light of the Christian intellectual tradition's recognition of the marriage between faith and reason being so embedded in the Church's understanding. Faith being an end or the final cause of a very rational process. It seems from my perspective to be self serving. "Do you think you would find a discussion of the sort that Anthony typically conducts interesting to be a part of?" I don't mind being involved in any exchange. My fervent hope in engaging in exchanges is to come away having learned something. When I was an Atheist I harbored a strong confirmation bias. In the long road to Christian Theism I have shed that confirmation bias and as such I routinely expose myself to thinkers that are representative of a cross section of diverse worldviews in the tradition of my mentor Thomas Aquinas. What say you?

@talktomeaboutlife

8 жыл бұрын

Anthony Nuzzo Well, it certainly sounds like you are well and widely read. It's always fun to find people in the KZread comments who are actually able to converse :) In terms of what you said about knowing and about metaphysics, would you like to clarify that for me? What do you mean when you talk about "recognising the overt dependence relation of epistemology upon metaphysics"?