I see two positions regarding bias put forth on a regular basis, yet have never really seen the two positions go head on. The 1st is: be aware of biases in order to minimize them. The 2nd: be aware of biases in order to report them honestly to an audience or to oneself.
I'm not sure what "minimizing biases" would really look like,unless very simplistic, like low level stupidities like, "Since mustaches make me nervous I won't accept anything uttered by someone with one." How minimize biases?
@QualiaSoup These are great videos. It is too bad some people cannot understand them or go through such incredible mental contortions to make the lessons fit their preconceived notions. I give up. The dishonesty of some people is frustrating. The information is out there for those who are interested in learning.
@The1066AI Typical. You fail to understand the concepts presented. You redefine words like Faith. Your definition is wrong, look up the word as it relates to religion. And you still have not provided evidence of your god. You are so desperate to hang on to your delusions that you will ignore your complete lack of evidence. Good thing scientists do not or we would still be in the dark ages. BTW, it is not a straw man. You are committing a fallacy of equivocation.
I consider myself to be a critical thinker, a sceptic, and a freethinker, who seeks to put reason before emotional wishful thinking. That is why, after careful consideration of the evidence, I am not an atheist. So it is sad that so many people seem to assume that scepticism and freedom of thought will lead inexorably to atheism. In fact, freethinking is often considered to be synonymous with atheism. I find the epistemology of naturalism totally incoherent: watch?v=MFmBZBDdvAY
@mderousselle Well done. You obviously paid absolutely no attention to the video. You know, the bit about "false dichotomy"? I suppose you're one of those non-critical thinkers who uncritically assumes that it is a foregone conclusion that atheism is the inevitable result of critical thinking?
@The1066Al Where is your evidence? You only have faith. Faith is belief without evidence. That is not arguable. Watch the rest of the videos and maybe learn something.
@mderousselle Where is my evidence? It's overwhelming. Complexity. Reason itself. Morality. Consciousness. That's a start. Now I know what your reply is likely to be: "Oh, but we can explain all these things naturalistically." To which I will reply: "Where is your evidence that they should be explained in this way?" And then we move on to epistemology, and if we do that, you will lose. By the way... your definition of faith is a straw man. Faith is confidence in the evidence.
@gerontodon You are making the assertion that there is something other that the natural. Where is your evidence? Another fundie with a straw man fallacy. Get an education before replying please. The information is out there for anyone to research.
I'm making the assertion that reality is not completely physical, where's your argument that it *is*? Refering to alleged 'evidence' for philosophical claims, without giving any reasoning as to why the alleged 'evidence' *is evidence* is futile and meaningless.
@gerontodon We can only work on what we have. And we currently have a physical reality. The second somebody presents proper evidence for any supernatural event (like telekinesis, aura detection, etc) then people can actually begin to study those things. Until now every single attempt to seriously prove any supernatural claim has failed. Without any evidence for the supernatural whatsoever, critical thinking points to disbelief as the correct position (because it is the honest one).
It's presumptous of you to claim you know what is the honest position is for every indidividual. I don't believe it's primarily an empirical question, but Rupert Sheldrake has provided empirical evidence for either clairvoyance or telepathy on the part of animals. The 'debunking' of his results by Wiseman and Randi is an example of 'rationalist' dishonesty. Common philosophical arguments for naturalism are so simplisitic that if they're not dishonest, they must be naive.
You are building a strawman, I didn't claim what you said I did. I said that critical thinking points to disbelief when no evidence is presented. If you believe without evidence, you are either not using critical thinking or deceiving yourself. Simple as that. As for Sheldrake, it would be interesting if other scientists could replicate his 'parrot results' (a Nobel awaits him if he's right!). The dog thing is a very simple thing to explain: dogs have a keen sense of smell. Easy.
"if you believe without evidence..." - this is what I mean by 'simplistic'. You can empirically determine the existence of subatomic particles or bacteria and viruses etc, but questions about metaphysical matters can't be decided by just looking at empirical 'evidence', because it's a metaphysical question in itself, whether any particular real world facts support one stance or another.
>"but questions about metaphysical matters can't be decided by just looking at empirical 'evidence'...
You are confounding metaphysics with paraphysics. We are not discussing metaphysics, but supernatural phenomena for which there is no convincing evidence yet. In my opinion (and shared by most scientists) it is healthy NOT to believe on lack of evidence, else we can believe ANY claim.
I think you're right in that I'm confoundig too slightly different questions, but I was originally talking about metaphysics and you brought up telekinesis etc. I know that even if such abilities exist, you could believe in them and still be a physicalist/naturalist, believing that there was ultimately a completely physical explanation. However, I do think mainstream scientists are often dishonest about how they assess evidence.
Well examples abound of mainstream scientists' dishonesty, but like your argument that the owner's molecules went throug the window. The amount of time that the owner was in anything like near enough in range was only a small percentage of the entire journey. I doubt that a pane of glass is anymore permeable than walls are. Neither are totally impermeable, but brick is more porous.
Naturalists conflate the two questions themselves. Define 'supernatural', if you mean, without physical explanation, then as soon as there was a physical model to describe the phenomenon in question, it would be definition not be supernatural. So there can't ever be evidence for the 'supernatural'. However the two questions are linked because naturalism says that physical explanations are the only real and useful ones
We define the natural world as the physical world, the one that we can objectively measure, independent of the one doing the measurement.
You are correct, if tomorrow we find telepathy to be real, then it will be part of the natural world. The problem is that we've built a consistent physical framework (the natural forces, the standard model, etc) and biology, and telepathy, astrology, future telling, etc contradict our current understanding.
..naturalists say physical explanations are the only real and useful ones, and they justify this by saying that only a quantifiable explanation is verifiable-- however this is clearly a tautology. Added to that, not only are all measurable, physical descriptions of reality always open-ended, there is no rational reason to believe that they could ever be complete. Godel's proofs suggest that they can't, so imo consciousness precedes description and so is supernatural.
You haven't read the paper. The miles (7km away) was the initial distance, not the final (else the paper couldn't possibly be called "A Dog That Seems To Know When His Owner is Coming Home"). There was also a window, so it's NOT through walls. So the simple and congruent explanation is the owner's molecules traveling through the window. Besides, if the experiments were at all solid, he would have published in Nature and won a Nobel prize, he'd be all over the news, etc.
I don't believe any of you people who trot out Dawkins-like obnoxious platitudes have really arrived at your opinions for yourself throuth 'critical thinking'. You've just adopted a positions that's been put out in order to facilitate an agenda, and, while it may be fun (and I know it is), to beat people over the head with simplistic reductionistism, if you think it's going to serve anyone except a priviliged few in the long run, you're deluding yourself.
>"You've just adopted a positions that's been put out in order to facilitate an agenda"
That's religion (accepting a set of beliefs with little or no question). I tend to study on my positions of belief.
As for your last sentence, serious skepticism has built the modern society you and I enjoy today through the scientific method and its applications. So it is already serving the whole world, right now.
We can only work on what we have, and we currently have a physical reality. The second somebody presents proper evidence for any supernatural event (like telekinesis, aura detection, etc) then people can actually begin to study those things. Until now every single attempt to seriously prove any supernatural claim has failed. Without any evidence for the supernatural whatsoever, critical thinking points to disbelief as the correct position (because it is the honest one).
Brilliant video! Everyone should see this, as I get, on a daily basis, stunned by the ignorance of most of the people, and I live in Sweden... we are supposed to be progressive...
I have a really hard time trying to teach critical thinking to people with black/white thinkers in my daily social life, because, as it seems, they are unable to see the colors that they are missing. Fuck my life!
This is my favorite video on YouTube. I have watched it so many times, I have nearly memorized it. I think that's a good thing. Can't we get politicians and some of their supporters to watch and practice Critical Thinking"?
I always tell myself. Don't listen to my body, don't listen to my stomach, or my feelings. Instead, listen to the guy upstairs (the brain). He's the one that knows what's right. This has helped me destroy procrastination which left a huge impact on my low GPA in college.
@anythingnew I'm a young, hip twenty-something, studying to become a Game Designer. I dunno what stage of life that is, but probably stage 3 - 3 or something.
@Bunji2k6 We're at the same stage. I've finally made peace with the major that I hated. And now, I really enjoy it. How you will get rid of procrastination will be different from my way. I got through it by hating Jews, practicing Buddhism, and letting my mind dictate what I should be doing. Strange, but it works for me where other methods have not worked. It started way back in 3rd grade and now I finally have control. Heck, I can control when I masturbate. Couldn't do that before.
@iSOisoleucine Do not look for "distractions", as in, something to help you concentrate. That doesn't work (Like music). It's only temporary. You want the effect to last permanently. This is where I can't help you :(
"So how do we know what to think next?" - might be asking a lot... Seems to me like you're over-thinking thinking, whoever said you had to think in the first place ?
Whenever i was depressed, i liked to think and that would make me feel better.
my mind one day said "what if you can't think" and then i myself blocked my thoughts to avoid thinking and then i started panicing, saying that i cant think. I know that i shouldnt be blocking my thoughts so i tried to relax and then my mind said "what do i think next?" and then i panicked again. So how do we know what to think next? Someone Please help reassure me
@thuder30 The answer to thinking about what you should think next? Don't. Don't try to predict biases or closed mindedness and avoid thinking about things that might bring up those feelings, just recognize when you are being closed-minded and irrational and change your thinking then.
@The3nlightened0ne "Is critical thinking synomous with 'outside-the-box' thinking"
I wouldn't say the two were synonymous, no, because there's too little agreement about what's /in/ the box. For some people, 'thinking outside the box' means disregarding evidence. New ways of thinking about a problem can have value, but many established methods have enduring value.
@The3nlightened0ne I would add to what QualiaSoup said that, while I agree it is not synonomous and if we are using what I think is the more common definition of the term, it encourages moving away from "black & white" thinking--actually, that would be defining in-the-box thinking as black & white thinking--or at least move away from limited option thinking (even if there are more than two given).
Thinking critically can help anyone achivie there goals in life thinking irrationally is the oppisite of critical thinking and it's a plauge that can happen to anyone.
For the ones who say "emotions" are hard to separate from critical thinking I would recommend them to study "emotional intelligence" to learn how to manage their emotions.
@cborge I read some article about emotional intelligence recently. It's really interesting stuff. Still, I think one could argue that emotion is NEVER absent from thought, even though it may appear that way at times...
How can one truly be proficient at critical thinking when one is not a logical being. Emotions will always play a role in out thinking habits, it is a difficult thing to avoid.
@TheProntoOne That is why peer review is so highly valued. There is no possible way to escape our emotions interpreting evidence differently. But when there are many different people with varying ranges of emotional interpretations, you can usually cut off the excess and what remains is what is indisputable facts.
@TheProntoOne Critical thinking doesn't mean you remove emotion from your thoughts. If anything it means you factor in your emotional inclinations. If you make a decision based on emotion then you should realize that you may not have thought through the issue well enough. If you're okay with that, then there's no problem.
@CelestialWoodway they do think critically, they think critically in how to sound professional and intelligent by making little sound-bits, cliche or vague words that people can easily remember and finding ways to distort their opponents so they can get elected.
That 'scepticism is not an indiscriminate rejection of ideas' appears to me as a mere claim itself.
That Greek view originated by the historical confrontation with the strange costums of the Indian subcontinent (Pyrrhon of Elis). The central principle was indeed the 'suspension of judgement'.
Therefore I would replace the term 'scepticism' with a most general concept of 'empiricism' (including all sources of experience).
'On what actual experiences do I found my statements' ?
@christophmahler Please note that a suspension of judgment is quite different from rejection. The first withholds judgment, the second makes a judgment (dismissal). It's true that scepticism can refer specifically to philosophers who deny the possibility of knowledge etc. but this is not its only meaning. The broader meaning of 'sceptic' is a person inclined to question or doubt.
@christophmahler That one initially doubts a claim (scepticism) does not mean one has no incentive to progress from that doubt. Some claims that one finds initially implausible may have appropriate support. Other claims may not. Initial scepticism of a claim doesn't mean lack of interest in its validity.
I note your preference for the word 'empiricism', but I brought up scepticism in this video specifically to clear up some misconceptions about what scepticism is.
To initally daubt, that a claim is presented without logical plausibility or factual evidence is not scepticism. That would be the usual approach of disproving sophism as taught by Socrates or Aristotle.
If Your intention really is to correct popular misconceptions of the term 'scepticism', You simply got it wrong. And as I daubt, that You lack capability to discern colloquial uses of a term from a more academic use, I wonder about Your demonstration of 'critical thinking'.
@christophmahler "To initally daubt that a claim is presented without logical plausibility or factual evidence is not scepticism"
I never said it was, so you're arguing with yourself. And the word is 'doubt', not 'daubt'. Also, my first reply to you contrasted the broader meaning I was using with the narrower meaning, so saying I 'lack capability' to discern colloquial from academic use is simply wrong. If you're not aware of the general meaning I was using, then look it up.
I still never gave that definition. My first reply - and the video itself - clarified the broader sense in which I was using the word. It's not 'my' concept. It's a common, accepted use of the term. This short video was intended as an accessible introduction to some basic general ideas about critical thinking. If you wanted explanation of narrower philosophical uses, then you're criticising this video for being something it was never intended to be.
I did not claim, that You 'lack the capability' - I said, 'I doubt, that You lack capability'. Maybe my translation is poor - but 500 characters is quiet limited to discuss fundamental terms.
I would still be interested, if - beside our difference on the term 'scepticism' - You tend to agree, that the next step from withholding judgement towards judgement depends on some form of experience - either sensing proper formal logic or in relation to sensual facts, events, deeds.
I am aware, that my use of the terms 'sensing','experience','empiricism' are problematic as well - as I use them in a far more general scale, than by academic tradition and convention. Though I believe, it is necessary - and valid - to do so.
@christophmahler I agree that if someone makes a truth claim, which I initially question or doubt, then the production of appropriate evidence may allay my doubt.
Fuck you all below, I fucking used critical thinking to get my way out of the dogmatic world of religion. Critical thinking's basic is examine data, and extrapolate from that. dont ask an atheist to prove god, proving a negative is fucking fugly., prove it yourself for claiming it.
I have be awaken for about 1 month now, at first its scary then you start to realize things connect... I mean A LOT of things... words have meanings and at this time Im playing around with using words to persuade people into thinking, its amazing, like magic
As a fundamentalist Christian I have no fear of critical thinking. In fact, the more I consider my position and other options, the more my position is verified. Too many people assume that Christianity and reason are opposites, but that is a false dichotomy.
Ironically, I have noticed that atheists are more dogmatic about their own positions. They refuse to examine arguments against atheism, but rather they attack religion and then assume atheism is proven. They need to think critically.
@formerevolutionist That is completely false. I am an agnostic atheist and yet I constantly examine all religions, and what goes into them. It was very immature move to group all atheists as people that do not examine arguments against them.
@YarblesYarblesYarble Do you examine atheism? I have dealt with enough atheists to generalize them. Most of them claim to be rational thinkers who rely on reason and logic rather than faith and religion. These same "rational" thinkers not only commit fallacies, but they wholly rely on fallacies. Atheists get angry when I point out some of the fallacies they commit. They forcefully assert that atheists commit NO fallacies. They treat atheism as their religion and hate infidels like me.
@formerevolutionist You have committed the fallacy known as 'poisoning the well' a kind of generalised mass ad hominem attack designed to stir up prejudice against an entire group based purely on your own personal bias. I would surmise that you deliberately seek to blatantly misrepresent what atheists think in an attempt to discredit all of them.
@astrophonix You don't understand the fallacy "poisoning the well." Just because I say something negative about a group doesn't mean I am biased. However, atheists are guilty of the exact thing you accuse me of. I don't know how many times I have been called stupid by atheists merely for believing in God. I contend that atheists rely on fallacies. Present your best arguments for atheism and I will show you which fallacies are committed.
@formerevolutionist OK, here you go, the only argument required to justify atheism: there is no evidence that god exists. That's it. That's all that is required to justify not believing in god. You don't believe in Zeus, Odin etc as there is no evidence to support them, but make an irrational exception to that rule with your particular god. God is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence to support it, but there is none at all, ordinary or extraordinary.
1. Negative Proof. Atheists claim there is no proof, so that must mean that God doesn't exist.
2. Bare Assertion. Can you support your claim that God doesn't exist or there is no evidence for God?
3. Red Herring. The existence or non-existence of other gods has little to do with the the existence or non-existence of God. Neither of us believe in these other gods, but you are demanding that I disprove their existence.
@formerevolutionist I checked and those 'fallacies' do not exist in skepticism, you just made them up. You are clearly delusional and irrational so you have distorted the ideas of sketicism to make it appear you have a case. You don't. You believe in something inherently ridiculous without evidence, the same way a schizophrenic believes in their hallucinations in spite of the fact there is no objective proof. I never demanded you disprove gods you don't believe in, so you blatantly lied there.
@astrophonix You obviously didn't check very well if you think I made those terms up. There should be a building in your town called the "library." Go there and look for a book on fallacies like I did. Negative proof is sometimes called "appeal to ignorance" or "arguing from ignorance" or even "shifting the burden of proof." Does God not exist simply because I cannot prove that he does? Does God exist simply because you cannot prove that he doesn't?
Bare Assertion is when you posit a claim but provide no support for it. Atheists are really good at that.
You couldn't find "Red Herring"? If not, then you have no business ridiculing me for being irrational and delusional. Your hate-filled rant and name-calling is just further proof atheists cannot answer logically.
Again. Can you support your claim that God doesn't exist or there is no evidence for God? If so, then you would be the first atheist to do so.
@formerevolutionist I don't need to prove there is no evidence for god's existence, everyone knows there is no evidence except deluded liars like you. You perform the most absurd mental gymnastics to fool yourself it's up to everyone else to disprove god, your logic is turned inside out and upside down in a vain attempt to avoid the simple fact that it is common knowledge there is no evidence of god. I have no hate in calling you a liar, 'cos you have proved that much right here.
@astrophonix If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one who yelps is the one you hit. You sure are yelping pretty hard. I ask only that you seriously examine what you believe. Stop calling me names and making all sorts of ad hominem attacks. Stop projecting your own imaginations of what a Christian is onto me. If you consider yourself logical, then start examining your beliefs with a logical mind.
@formerevolutionist What you're in denial of is there is no evidence for god. The bible claims that god hides himself from man, so his existence has to be taken on faith alone. It is interesting to see how your delusional mind set works in practice, how you willfully fool yourself about even this simple idea and try to turn it into something else. I have seen schizophrenics employ a similar ruse to rationalise their hallucinations. Theism is therefore a form of socially accepted insanity.
@astrophonix You repeatedly assert that there is no evidence for God, but you never provide support. You just call me delusional and such for not seeing the world as you do. Now you are claiming that I am crazy for believing in God. Would you like to support the claim that belief in God is insane? You think that I am crazy, so that proves theism is insane. Read your own post and try to find the fallacies you are using.
@astrophonix You repeatedly assert that there is no evidence for God, but you never provide support. You just call me delusional and such for not seeing the world as you do. Now you are claiming that I am crazy for believing in God. Would you like to support the claim that belief in God is insane? You think that I am crazy, so that proves theism is insane. Read your own post and try to find the fallacies you are using.
You can't prove there is no evidence. Universal claims like "there is no evidence for x", "all swans are white" etc. can only be falsified, not proven.
You claim there is evidence, so just show it!
Its similiar with existence. You can't prove God, Santa Clause or the Loch Ness monster don't exist. You can only prove that you looked and didn't find them. The reasonable thing to do is to disbelief these claims, until there is sufficient evidence to support them.
@primzahl13 If you cannot prove a statement, then admit that it is something you believe and not something that is a verified fact. Saying there is no evidence for God and then demanding that Christians present evidence for God is a clear example of shifting the burden of proof. If you want to avoid the burden of proof, then don't make such a claim.
1. There doesn't have to be a proof. Atheists don't claim God doesn't exist, only that the evidence has never been presented.
2. If you carefully read his comment, you would see there wasn't any claim that God doesn't exist.
3. Belief in other gods have lots to do with 'God', because you are atheist in respect to other gods. Atheists only add one more. This isn't about 'disproving', is about you rejecting claims about other gods, then asking why atheists reject your claims.
@gininginin You are wrong. Atheists often state that God doesn't exist. They often say there is no evidence for God's existence. They reject any evidence presented to them. You can never give enough evidence to someone who doesn't want to believe.
Atheists invoke other gods when talking about evidence for God, but they seem to think that by disproving God's existence, atheism wins by default.
I wish atheists would use logic instead of just saying that they are logical.
>> You are wrong. Atheists often state that God doesn't exist.
Haven't seen a single atheist claim this as fact. If you find one, ask him directly. That would make him a *strong* atheist. Most people around here are weak atheists.
>>They often say there is no evidence for God's existence.
Because every attempt has failed so far. Even prayer studies.
>> They reject any evidence presented to them.
You mean refute. QualiaSoup has another video on all this, watch it first.
@gininginin I have seen atheists make comments like this often. Atheists jump from one branch of the atheism tree to another whenever I start shaking the branch they are on. They start as strong atheists, then jump to weak atheists, then to anti-theists, or maybe agnostics. Anything to avoid losing an argument or leaving their precious atheism tree.
Responding to evidence is not the same as refuting it. Atheists bicker about the details and then say they refuted the argument.
@formerevolutionist What evidence do you have that shows that your personal god is more real than any other god of any other man? Primzahl13 also called you out on this, two days ago as of this comment, and to no response. Along with Astrophonix. If you're going to claim there is evidence then you are under the burden of proof to provide it. Until then, anyone is right in assuming you don't have evidence if you're not willing to provide it.
@crazyinsane500 I have learned the hard way to not present evidence every time someone demands it. Atheists always throw red herrings out by bickering about details I present. They will reject the evidence without giving sound reasons. I have learned it is much easier to ask atheists to support their own statements with facts and logic rather than trying to answer their many accusations. I cannot convince them that Christianity is true until I first convince them that atheism is false.
@formerevolutionist That's a lot of words that basically sum up to stepping around the question. Unlike most, I WILL persist on this question, what proof do you have that your god is more real than Allah, Vishnu, or any other deity? You claimed to have evidence, show it. I'm calling you out on this, show the evidence or admit to not having it. Peer-reviewed articles, scientifically verified tests on holy objects, show the evidence you claim to have.
@crazyinsane500 Saying there is no evidence for God's existence and then demanding others provide evidence is shifting the burden of proof. The Design argument indicates that it could be Allah, Vishnu, or God. However, the Intelligent Design argument refutes atheism, so atheists refuse to acknowledge it. How can I use any other arguments when you refuse to admit the possibility that God created anything?
Show me some peer-reviewed articles and verified tests that prove atheism...
@formerevolutionist To demand evidence is not shifting the burden of proof, when you still have it. If you have proof, then show it. In fact, I have asked you at least 3 times along with other people to stop shifting the burden of proof yourself and to actually provide proof for your specific god.
And I ask you again: you are making the claim you have evidence for God, prove it. Without claiming conspiracy, prove that. I won't let you weasle out of this, provide the proof to your claim.
Critical thinking allow us to scrutinize information shared by people and organizations. Some spread distorted information that has been debunked but many still believe is credible --- this is why even those people that have been discredited still find employment.
Anyone can Google to study my writings especially at Yahoo Answers.
@r3ggi3000 If you were thinking critically, you might have noticed that there are several variations to words; including skepticism (the American spelling broadly used) and scepticism (a version of the word used by the British). lol
For the bit about skepticism, doubting is not the same thing as "spending your judgment". Doubting is a form of judgment and preconceived idea. Skepticism is defined as a doubt, and so in itself it is biased and assuming.
@stimpson65 I never claimed he said "doubting is the same as suspending judgment". Perhaps the one who should be paying attention is you. Read my comment again carefully.
@greycloud24 God is not in a book. God is in loving humans, and in the meek creature of the field. God is in the childlike furries of the furry fandom,and in humans persecuted not speaking against God. The ones in the established Churches caused humans to think there is no God because those churches are godless. God is in loving words from humans, but not in the soul of humans not being like Jesus is. They sow confusion,and give doubt,and fear,and accusations. All the things Jesus does not give
@kobidobidog so we all agree than that jesus is an imaginary friend? its good that you have an internal desire to see justice and happiness spread along with mercy. these are very human things to desire. to not desire them is to show that you lack happiness in your own life. i am glad to see that you are happy. have a good day.
@Standuble One supports the other. Have you ever considered that the human animal is the only animal that speaks against the one who gave us good things? Don't you think it would be wise to be like the beast of the field, and not say bad things against the one who gave us all good things? That God has a place for those that love all including the zoosexual, Pedo, furry, and gay etc. Heaven is a certain as the eternal universe around you. love, and do good to all, and don't miss out
@kobidobidog do you realize that humans are the only animals that we are aware of that have invented the idea of gods? we are also the only animals that kill each other in the name of these fictional gods. critical thinking shows that gods are unlikely to exist.
@greycloud24 We kill each other because of the gods of stone, wood, and cloth, clothes, and the Flag is one of them. Worshiping those idols, and it is no wonder that men war. Humans love the same gems Lucifer was studded with. Lucifer in man wars. In heaven no one will war, and yet want to accuse God of war? Call God fictional, and God will think the same of you, and hell will be your end being as gone as gone can be even as you think of God God will also think of thee. Fair is fair right?
@kobidobidog put on your thinking cap. what evidence is there of a god outside of an old book? (hint an old book is only evidence of an old book, it is not evidence that the book is true). i don't accuse god of anything, i don't think any of the gods are real, including yours. i don't mind if your god doesn't believe in me, that has no real consequences in this world. i don't care what your god thinks or does at all, because in order to effect me he must first be real. his followers though....
@greycloud24 When I see loving words coming from a human despising war, I see God in that person. When I see a living thing in nature I see evidence of God who-is Jesus that made it. When I see a creature of the field calmly eating what God gave them, I see the meek lowly spirit of jeus in them, But when I see humans not behaving like the meek lowly forest creatures or not like the childlike furries of the furry fandom. I see the enemy of God who opposes all that God made speaking against God.
@greycloud24 When I see loving words coming from a human despising war I see God in that person. When I see a living thing in nature I see evidence of God who-is Jesus that made it. When I see a creature of the field calmly eating what God gave them, I see the meek lowly spirit of jests in them, but when I see humans not behaving like the meek lowly forest creatures or not like the childlike furries of the furry fandom. I see the enemy of God who opposes all that God made speaking against God.
@greycloud24 When I see loving words coming from a human despising war, I see God in that person. When I see a living thing in nature, I see evidence of God who-is Jesus that made it. When I see a creature of the field calmly eating what God gave them, I see the meek lowly spirit of Jesus in them, but When I see humans not behaving like the meek lowly forest creature or not like the childlike furries of the furry fandom, I see the enemy of God who opposes all that God made speaking against God.
@greycloud24 God is not in a book God is in loving humans, and in the meek creature of the field. God is in the childlike furries of the furry fandom,and in humans persecuted not speaking against God. The ones in the established Churches has caused humans to think there is no God because those churches are godless. God is in loving words from humans, but not in the soul of humans not being like Jesus is. They sow confusion,and give doubt,and fear,and accusations. The things Jesus does not give.
@Thundercatz0r Or better yet we get rid of the government, make all forms of education free, and allow everyone to participate in decision making based upon the scientific method. We need to do away with this outdated system of politics where we elect temporary dictators who have no knowledge in science and critical thinking and base all their actions on ideological opinions.
@Thundercatz0r We don't need an education system, at least not like what we have today. What we need is free access to education. There is no reason why the best educators in the world cannot record their lectures, lessons, etc. and post them on the internet for free.
As a matter of fact there is a website called KhanAcademy[dot]org where anyone can learn college level math, chemistry, and other subjects for free right now. We could easily do this with all subjects.
@Thundercatz0r More people would be educated at the very least. Anyway voting needs to end. Popular opinion is often wrong, thats why we should arrive at all societal decisions using the scientific method.
Watch Zeitgeist Moving Forward to see what I'm talking about. If we want to stop destroying our environment, have a critical thinking populous, and equality we need a Resource Based Economy, or at least something very similar.
Excellent overview of critical thinking. I just finished reading Carl Sagan's book on the topic "The Demon Haunted World", and I know find myself questioning things which I used to assume was true.
I see two positions regarding bias put forth on a regular basis, yet have never really seen the two positions go head on. The 1st is: be aware of biases in order to minimize them. The 2nd: be aware of biases in order to report them honestly to an audience or to oneself.
I'm not sure what "minimizing biases" would really look like,unless very simplistic, like low level stupidities like, "Since mustaches make me nervous I won't accept anything uttered by someone with one." How minimize biases?
zoobiewa 5 days ago
thank you for helping us see a bit clearer through
MsCooperse 6 days ago
This should be mandatory in elementary school classrooms across the United States.
TheMadBeach 1 week ago
Great Video...Thanks for putting this together
ItsReallyReL 1 week ago
77 sheeple would rather someone else do the thinking for them.
slimSouthern1 1 week ago
@QualiaSoup These are great videos. It is too bad some people cannot understand them or go through such incredible mental contortions to make the lessons fit their preconceived notions. I give up. The dishonesty of some people is frustrating. The information is out there for those who are interested in learning.
mderousselle 1 week ago
@The1066AI Typical. You fail to understand the concepts presented. You redefine words like Faith. Your definition is wrong, look up the word as it relates to religion. And you still have not provided evidence of your god. You are so desperate to hang on to your delusions that you will ignore your complete lack of evidence. Good thing scientists do not or we would still be in the dark ages. BTW, it is not a straw man. You are committing a fallacy of equivocation.
mderousselle 1 week ago
Now if everybody would just watch this..
TheMadBeach 1 week ago
I consider myself to be a critical thinker, a sceptic, and a freethinker, who seeks to put reason before emotional wishful thinking. That is why, after careful consideration of the evidence, I am not an atheist. So it is sad that so many people seem to assume that scepticism and freedom of thought will lead inexorably to atheism. In fact, freethinking is often considered to be synonymous with atheism. I find the epistemology of naturalism totally incoherent: watch?v=MFmBZBDdvAY
The1066Al 1 week ago
@The1066Al 'I find the epistemology of naturalism totally incoherent'....yeah me too
JonnyLikesPie 1 week ago
@The1066Al
The assertion that naturalism is 'rational' would seem more reasonable if there was more tolerance for debate, as it is, it's obnoxious.
gerontodon 1 week ago
Christians would have a shit fit if this was taught in school. You can't have those kids thinking.
mderousselle 2 weeks ago
@mderousselle Well done. You obviously paid absolutely no attention to the video. You know, the bit about "false dichotomy"? I suppose you're one of those non-critical thinkers who uncritically assumes that it is a foregone conclusion that atheism is the inevitable result of critical thinking?
The1066Al 1 week ago
@The1066Al Where is your evidence? You only have faith. Faith is belief without evidence. That is not arguable. Watch the rest of the videos and maybe learn something.
mderousselle 1 week ago
@mderousselle Where is my evidence? It's overwhelming. Complexity. Reason itself. Morality. Consciousness. That's a start. Now I know what your reply is likely to be: "Oh, but we can explain all these things naturalistically." To which I will reply: "Where is your evidence that they should be explained in this way?" And then we move on to epistemology, and if we do that, you will lose. By the way... your definition of faith is a straw man. Faith is confidence in the evidence.
The1066Al 1 week ago
@mderousselle
Where is you 'evidence' that reality is entirely physical? Can you point to a mathematical formula that proves it? Where's your EVIDENCE?!!!
gerontodon 1 week ago
@gerontodon You are making the assertion that there is something other that the natural. Where is your evidence? Another fundie with a straw man fallacy. Get an education before replying please. The information is out there for anyone to research.
mderousselle 3 days ago
I'm making the assertion that reality is not completely physical, where's your argument that it *is*? Refering to alleged 'evidence' for philosophical claims, without giving any reasoning as to why the alleged 'evidence' *is evidence* is futile and meaningless.
gerontodon 3 days ago
Comment removed
gininginin 1 day ago
Comment removed
gininginin 1 day ago
@gerontodon We can only work on what we have. And we currently have a physical reality. The second somebody presents proper evidence for any supernatural event (like telekinesis, aura detection, etc) then people can actually begin to study those things. Until now every single attempt to seriously prove any supernatural claim has failed. Without any evidence for the supernatural whatsoever, critical thinking points to disbelief as the correct position (because it is the honest one).
gininginin 1 day ago
@gininginin
It's presumptous of you to claim you know what is the honest position is for every indidividual. I don't believe it's primarily an empirical question, but Rupert Sheldrake has provided empirical evidence for either clairvoyance or telepathy on the part of animals. The 'debunking' of his results by Wiseman and Randi is an example of 'rationalist' dishonesty. Common philosophical arguments for naturalism are so simplisitic that if they're not dishonest, they must be naive.
gerontodon 1 day ago
@gerontodon
You are building a strawman, I didn't claim what you said I did. I said that critical thinking points to disbelief when no evidence is presented. If you believe without evidence, you are either not using critical thinking or deceiving yourself. Simple as that. As for Sheldrake, it would be interesting if other scientists could replicate his 'parrot results' (a Nobel awaits him if he's right!). The dog thing is a very simple thing to explain: dogs have a keen sense of smell. Easy.
gininginin 23 hours ago
@gininginin
"if you believe without evidence..." - this is what I mean by 'simplistic'. You can empirically determine the existence of subatomic particles or bacteria and viruses etc, but questions about metaphysical matters can't be decided by just looking at empirical 'evidence', because it's a metaphysical question in itself, whether any particular real world facts support one stance or another.
gerontodon 22 hours ago
@gerontodon
>" this is what I mean by 'simplistic'."
Please elaborate. Don't be 'simplistic'.
>"but questions about metaphysical matters can't be decided by just looking at empirical 'evidence'...
You are confounding metaphysics with paraphysics. We are not discussing metaphysics, but supernatural phenomena for which there is no convincing evidence yet. In my opinion (and shared by most scientists) it is healthy NOT to believe on lack of evidence, else we can believe ANY claim.
gininginin 22 hours ago
@gininginin
I think you're right in that I'm confoundig too slightly different questions, but I was originally talking about metaphysics and you brought up telekinesis etc. I know that even if such abilities exist, you could believe in them and still be a physicalist/naturalist, believing that there was ultimately a completely physical explanation. However, I do think mainstream scientists are often dishonest about how they assess evidence.
gerontodon 22 hours ago
@gerontodon
> I know that even if such abilities exist, you could believe in them and still be a physicalist/naturalist,
I agree. I even wish these abilities could be true. But the sad realization so far is that they aren't.
> I do think mainstream scientists are often dishonest about how they assess evidence.
Like whom? What evidence? If the evidence for any religious or the paraphysical was tantamount, it wouldn't even matter what scientists say.
gininginin 22 hours ago
@gininginin
Well examples abound of mainstream scientists' dishonesty, but like your argument that the owner's molecules went throug the window. The amount of time that the owner was in anything like near enough in range was only a small percentage of the entire journey. I doubt that a pane of glass is anymore permeable than walls are. Neither are totally impermeable, but brick is more porous.
gerontodon 22 hours ago
@gininginin
Naturalists conflate the two questions themselves. Define 'supernatural', if you mean, without physical explanation, then as soon as there was a physical model to describe the phenomenon in question, it would be definition not be supernatural. So there can't ever be evidence for the 'supernatural'. However the two questions are linked because naturalism says that physical explanations are the only real and useful ones
cont
gerontodon 22 hours ago
@gerontodon
supernatural = beyond the natural world.
We define the natural world as the physical world, the one that we can objectively measure, independent of the one doing the measurement.
You are correct, if tomorrow we find telepathy to be real, then it will be part of the natural world. The problem is that we've built a consistent physical framework (the natural forces, the standard model, etc) and biology, and telepathy, astrology, future telling, etc contradict our current understanding.
gininginin 11 hours ago
@gininginin
..naturalists say physical explanations are the only real and useful ones, and they justify this by saying that only a quantifiable explanation is verifiable-- however this is clearly a tautology. Added to that, not only are all measurable, physical descriptions of reality always open-ended, there is no rational reason to believe that they could ever be complete. Godel's proofs suggest that they can't, so imo consciousness precedes description and so is supernatural.
gerontodon 22 hours ago
@gininginin
Oh yeah, dogs can smell over miles, through walls, of course they can.
gerontodon 22 hours ago
@gerontodon
You haven't read the paper. The miles (7km away) was the initial distance, not the final (else the paper couldn't possibly be called "A Dog That Seems To Know When His Owner is Coming Home"). There was also a window, so it's NOT through walls. So the simple and congruent explanation is the owner's molecules traveling through the window. Besides, if the experiments were at all solid, he would have published in Nature and won a Nobel prize, he'd be all over the news, etc.
gininginin 22 hours ago
@gininginin
I don't believe any of you people who trot out Dawkins-like obnoxious platitudes have really arrived at your opinions for yourself throuth 'critical thinking'. You've just adopted a positions that's been put out in order to facilitate an agenda, and, while it may be fun (and I know it is), to beat people over the head with simplistic reductionistism, if you think it's going to serve anyone except a priviliged few in the long run, you're deluding yourself.
gerontodon 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gerontodon
>"I don't believe..."
That's too bad, I cannot assist you there.
>"You've just adopted a positions that's been put out in order to facilitate an agenda"
That's religion (accepting a set of beliefs with little or no question). I tend to study on my positions of belief.
As for your last sentence, serious skepticism has built the modern society you and I enjoy today through the scientific method and its applications. So it is already serving the whole world, right now.
gininginin 22 hours ago
@gerontodon
We can only work on what we have, and we currently have a physical reality. The second somebody presents proper evidence for any supernatural event (like telekinesis, aura detection, etc) then people can actually begin to study those things. Until now every single attempt to seriously prove any supernatural claim has failed. Without any evidence for the supernatural whatsoever, critical thinking points to disbelief as the correct position (because it is the honest one).
gininginin 1 day ago
can someone summarize this for me? I find it rather difficult to get it all together.....
maykrepay 2 weeks ago
They should teach this in school... every day.
So often I hear things like:
"When will this ever apply in the real world?!?" (most often with math)
This is how, right here.
TheoryOfThought 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
Brilliant video! Everyone should see this, as I get, on a daily basis, stunned by the ignorance of most of the people, and I live in Sweden... we are supposed to be progressive...
I have a really hard time trying to teach critical thinking to people with black/white thinkers in my daily social life, because, as it seems, they are unable to see the colors that they are missing. Fuck my life!
rBennich 3 weeks ago
good
TZMrazvitie 3 weeks ago
I prefer a green banana. Tangy!
McDaidMartin 1 month ago
This is my favorite video on YouTube. I have watched it so many times, I have nearly memorized it. I think that's a good thing. Can't we get politicians and some of their supporters to watch and practice Critical Thinking"?
zastro52 1 month ago
I always tell myself. Don't listen to my body, don't listen to my stomach, or my feelings. Instead, listen to the guy upstairs (the brain). He's the one that knows what's right. This has helped me destroy procrastination which left a huge impact on my low GPA in college.
anythingnew 1 month ago
@anythingnew Congratulations on defeating procrastination! I aspire to do the same, one day.
Bunji2k6 1 month ago
@Bunji2k6 What grade are you in, or what stage of life are you at?
anythingnew 1 month ago
@anythingnew I'm a young, hip twenty-something, studying to become a Game Designer. I dunno what stage of life that is, but probably stage 3 - 3 or something.
Bunji2k6 1 month ago
@Bunji2k6 We're at the same stage. I've finally made peace with the major that I hated. And now, I really enjoy it. How you will get rid of procrastination will be different from my way. I got through it by hating Jews, practicing Buddhism, and letting my mind dictate what I should be doing. Strange, but it works for me where other methods have not worked. It started way back in 3rd grade and now I finally have control. Heck, I can control when I masturbate. Couldn't do that before.
anythingnew 1 month ago
@anythingnew Procrastination is my greatest plague. I am glad to hear your story.
iSOisoleucine 1 month ago
@iSOisoleucine Do not look for "distractions", as in, something to help you concentrate. That doesn't work (Like music). It's only temporary. You want the effect to last permanently. This is where I can't help you :(
anythingnew 1 month ago
Great presentation...
mjbailey25 1 month ago
@thuder30
"So how do we know what to think next?" - might be asking a lot... Seems to me like you're over-thinking thinking, whoever said you had to think in the first place ?
spiltmilkmaniac 1 month ago
Someone please help!
Im so anxious about my thinking
Whenever i was depressed, i liked to think and that would make me feel better.
my mind one day said "what if you can't think" and then i myself blocked my thoughts to avoid thinking and then i started panicing, saying that i cant think. I know that i shouldnt be blocking my thoughts so i tried to relax and then my mind said "what do i think next?" and then i panicked again. So how do we know what to think next? Someone Please help reassure me
thuder30 1 month ago
@thuder30 The answer to thinking about what you should think next? Don't. Don't try to predict biases or closed mindedness and avoid thinking about things that might bring up those feelings, just recognize when you are being closed-minded and irrational and change your thinking then.
MrMaxwelldl 1 month ago
Is critical thinking synomous with 'outside-the-box' thinking, sir?
The3nlightened0ne 1 month ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
@The3nlightened0ne "Is critical thinking synomous with 'outside-the-box' thinking"
I wouldn't say the two were synonymous, no, because there's too little agreement about what's /in/ the box. For some people, 'thinking outside the box' means disregarding evidence. New ways of thinking about a problem can have value, but many established methods have enduring value.
QualiaSoup 1 month ago
@The3nlightened0ne I would add to what QualiaSoup said that, while I agree it is not synonomous and if we are using what I think is the more common definition of the term, it encourages moving away from "black & white" thinking--actually, that would be defining in-the-box thinking as black & white thinking--or at least move away from limited option thinking (even if there are more than two given).
TheMidwestAtheist 3 weeks ago
lol give the man industrialism and watch him kill off the fish and starve
linkforever92 1 month ago
@linkforever92 Ha, exactly.
AtonalTherapy 1 month ago
Nice point!
ebevidencia 1 month ago
Thinking critically can help anyone achivie there goals in life thinking irrationally is the oppisite of critical thinking and it's a plauge that can happen to anyone.
Armorfordreams 2 months ago
Ah, how I love food for thought!
sledgehog1 2 months ago
Wow that's a lot to think on. ^^
SashikuChan 2 months ago
Nice video!
Occamed 2 months ago
(Sounds like some cult) <--- you don't have to read me because I don't think critically. Critical thinking (supercilious thinking)
I'd still say two heads are better than one.
DistortedV12 2 months ago
Man... I've really enjoyed your videos, thanks!!
tonyfalca 2 months ago
For the ones who say "emotions" are hard to separate from critical thinking I would recommend them to study "emotional intelligence" to learn how to manage their emotions.
cborge 2 months ago
@cborge I read some article about emotional intelligence recently. It's really interesting stuff. Still, I think one could argue that emotion is NEVER absent from thought, even though it may appear that way at times...
tonyfalca 2 months ago
Yet another great video. Thank you.
GoDrex 2 months ago
How can one truly be proficient at critical thinking when one is not a logical being. Emotions will always play a role in out thinking habits, it is a difficult thing to avoid.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video.
TheProntoOne 2 months ago
@TheProntoOne That is why peer review is so highly valued. There is no possible way to escape our emotions interpreting evidence differently. But when there are many different people with varying ranges of emotional interpretations, you can usually cut off the excess and what remains is what is indisputable facts.
pat5168 2 months ago
@TheProntoOne Critical thinking doesn't mean you remove emotion from your thoughts. If anything it means you factor in your emotional inclinations. If you make a decision based on emotion then you should realize that you may not have thought through the issue well enough. If you're okay with that, then there's no problem.
estevancarlos 1 month ago
Attempt to explain same, instruct in it's practice alone and together, in shorter form and with simpler words:
koti.mbnet.fi/maxt/Communication/communic.txt
(though thus lacking some of the points above, especially on 'why to practice such habit')
MaxTperson 3 months ago
Great video. Polticians should learn to think critically and our country would be so much better off.
CelestialWoodway 3 months ago
@CelestialWoodway they do think critically, they think critically in how to sound professional and intelligent by making little sound-bits, cliche or vague words that people can easily remember and finding ways to distort their opponents so they can get elected.
MrBigEnchilada 3 months ago
i still don't understanding what Critical Thinking is...
891127forever 3 months ago
That 'scepticism is not an indiscriminate rejection of ideas' appears to me as a mere claim itself.
That Greek view originated by the historical confrontation with the strange costums of the Indian subcontinent (Pyrrhon of Elis). The central principle was indeed the 'suspension of judgement'.
Therefore I would replace the term 'scepticism' with a most general concept of 'empiricism' (including all sources of experience).
'On what actual experiences do I found my statements' ?
christophmahler 3 months ago
@christophmahler Please note that a suspension of judgment is quite different from rejection. The first withholds judgment, the second makes a judgment (dismissal). It's true that scepticism can refer specifically to philosophers who deny the possibility of knowledge etc. but this is not its only meaning. The broader meaning of 'sceptic' is a person inclined to question or doubt.
QualiaSoup 3 months ago
@QualiaSoup
I understand, that You intend to achieve a state of 'unprejudiced' attention as Your withholding of any judgement is only temporal.
But don't You agree, that Your next step would be to inquire into some form of evidence ?
I would still deny, that a sceptic - though there can be mild forms - will have an incentive to progress from doubt to any knowledge:
'Critical thinkers had been here before, but had they found tranquility ('ataraxia') ?'
Therefore I would prefer 'empiricism'.
christophmahler 3 months ago
@christophmahler That one initially doubts a claim (scepticism) does not mean one has no incentive to progress from that doubt. Some claims that one finds initially implausible may have appropriate support. Other claims may not. Initial scepticism of a claim doesn't mean lack of interest in its validity.
I note your preference for the word 'empiricism', but I brought up scepticism in this video specifically to clear up some misconceptions about what scepticism is.
QualiaSoup 3 months ago
@QualiaSoup
To initally daubt, that a claim is presented without logical plausibility or factual evidence is not scepticism. That would be the usual approach of disproving sophism as taught by Socrates or Aristotle.
If Your intention really is to correct popular misconceptions of the term 'scepticism', You simply got it wrong. And as I daubt, that You lack capability to discern colloquial uses of a term from a more academic use, I wonder about Your demonstration of 'critical thinking'.
christophmahler 3 months ago
@christophmahler "To initally daubt that a claim is presented without logical plausibility or factual evidence is not scepticism"
I never said it was, so you're arguing with yourself. And the word is 'doubt', not 'daubt'. Also, my first reply to you contrasted the broader meaning I was using with the narrower meaning, so saying I 'lack capability' to discern colloquial from academic use is simply wrong. If you're not aware of the general meaning I was using, then look it up.
QualiaSoup 3 months ago
@QualiaSoup
Thank You for correcting my spelling, I also note, that I misconstructed my sentence.
I meant to say:
To initally doubt, that a claim is presented with logical plausibility or factual evidence is not scepticism.
But I assume, You will stick with Your concept of 'scepticism', which is not more general, but more colloquial - and therefore a common misconception.
This can be proven if one looks into a common history of philosophy. I checked Brentano and Ranke. What is Your source ?
christophmahler 3 months ago
@christophmahler "To initially... scepticism"
I still never gave that definition. My first reply - and the video itself - clarified the broader sense in which I was using the word. It's not 'my' concept. It's a common, accepted use of the term. This short video was intended as an accessible introduction to some basic general ideas about critical thinking. If you wanted explanation of narrower philosophical uses, then you're criticising this video for being something it was never intended to be.
QualiaSoup 3 months ago
@QualiaSoup
I did not claim, that You 'lack the capability' - I said, 'I doubt, that You lack capability'. Maybe my translation is poor - but 500 characters is quiet limited to discuss fundamental terms.
I would still be interested, if - beside our difference on the term 'scepticism' - You tend to agree, that the next step from withholding judgement towards judgement depends on some form of experience - either sensing proper formal logic or in relation to sensual facts, events, deeds.
christophmahler 3 months ago
@christophmahler
I am aware, that my use of the terms 'sensing','experience','empiricism' are problematic as well - as I use them in a far more general scale, than by academic tradition and convention. Though I believe, it is necessary - and valid - to do so.
christophmahler 3 months ago
@christophmahler I agree that if someone makes a truth claim, which I initially question or doubt, then the production of appropriate evidence may allay my doubt.
QualiaSoup 3 months ago
interesting video but I don't think it did anything for me really.
batyoung 3 months ago
Fuck you all below, I fucking used critical thinking to get my way out of the dogmatic world of religion. Critical thinking's basic is examine data, and extrapolate from that. dont ask an atheist to prove god, proving a negative is fucking fugly., prove it yourself for claiming it.
3dimensionalJoe 3 months ago
I have be awaken for about 1 month now, at first its scary then you start to realize things connect... I mean A LOT of things... words have meanings and at this time Im playing around with using words to persuade people into thinking, its amazing, like magic
seks03 3 months ago
bullshit..blah blah blah
HardCoreProgrammer1 3 months ago
do you own the other youtube channel called Theramin Trees?
TheKingShakaZulu 3 months ago
@TheKingShakaZulu TheraminTrees is my brother.
QualiaSoup 3 months ago
facinating, too bad most people arent critical thinkers.
yabitchonmydikk 3 months ago
As a fundamentalist Christian I have no fear of critical thinking. In fact, the more I consider my position and other options, the more my position is verified. Too many people assume that Christianity and reason are opposites, but that is a false dichotomy.
Ironically, I have noticed that atheists are more dogmatic about their own positions. They refuse to examine arguments against atheism, but rather they attack religion and then assume atheism is proven. They need to think critically.
formerevolutionist 4 months ago
@formerevolutionist You're wrapped in a ball of contradictions guy.
MyOnlyFarph 4 months ago
@formerevolutionist That is completely false. I am an agnostic atheist and yet I constantly examine all religions, and what goes into them. It was very immature move to group all atheists as people that do not examine arguments against them.
YarblesYarblesYarble 3 months ago
@YarblesYarblesYarble Do you examine atheism? I have dealt with enough atheists to generalize them. Most of them claim to be rational thinkers who rely on reason and logic rather than faith and religion. These same "rational" thinkers not only commit fallacies, but they wholly rely on fallacies. Atheists get angry when I point out some of the fallacies they commit. They forcefully assert that atheists commit NO fallacies. They treat atheism as their religion and hate infidels like me.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist You have committed the fallacy known as 'poisoning the well' a kind of generalised mass ad hominem attack designed to stir up prejudice against an entire group based purely on your own personal bias. I would surmise that you deliberately seek to blatantly misrepresent what atheists think in an attempt to discredit all of them.
astrophonix 3 months ago
@astrophonix You don't understand the fallacy "poisoning the well." Just because I say something negative about a group doesn't mean I am biased. However, atheists are guilty of the exact thing you accuse me of. I don't know how many times I have been called stupid by atheists merely for believing in God. I contend that atheists rely on fallacies. Present your best arguments for atheism and I will show you which fallacies are committed.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist OK, here you go, the only argument required to justify atheism: there is no evidence that god exists. That's it. That's all that is required to justify not believing in god. You don't believe in Zeus, Odin etc as there is no evidence to support them, but make an irrational exception to that rule with your particular god. God is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence to support it, but there is none at all, ordinary or extraordinary.
astrophonix 3 months ago
@astrophonix List of fallacies you committed:
1. Negative Proof. Atheists claim there is no proof, so that must mean that God doesn't exist.
2. Bare Assertion. Can you support your claim that God doesn't exist or there is no evidence for God?
3. Red Herring. The existence or non-existence of other gods has little to do with the the existence or non-existence of God. Neither of us believe in these other gods, but you are demanding that I disprove their existence.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist I checked and those 'fallacies' do not exist in skepticism, you just made them up. You are clearly delusional and irrational so you have distorted the ideas of sketicism to make it appear you have a case. You don't. You believe in something inherently ridiculous without evidence, the same way a schizophrenic believes in their hallucinations in spite of the fact there is no objective proof. I never demanded you disprove gods you don't believe in, so you blatantly lied there.
astrophonix 3 months ago
@astrophonix You obviously didn't check very well if you think I made those terms up. There should be a building in your town called the "library." Go there and look for a book on fallacies like I did. Negative proof is sometimes called "appeal to ignorance" or "arguing from ignorance" or even "shifting the burden of proof." Does God not exist simply because I cannot prove that he does? Does God exist simply because you cannot prove that he doesn't?
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@astrophonix
Bare Assertion is when you posit a claim but provide no support for it. Atheists are really good at that.
You couldn't find "Red Herring"? If not, then you have no business ridiculing me for being irrational and delusional. Your hate-filled rant and name-calling is just further proof atheists cannot answer logically.
Again. Can you support your claim that God doesn't exist or there is no evidence for God? If so, then you would be the first atheist to do so.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist I don't need to prove there is no evidence for god's existence, everyone knows there is no evidence except deluded liars like you. You perform the most absurd mental gymnastics to fool yourself it's up to everyone else to disprove god, your logic is turned inside out and upside down in a vain attempt to avoid the simple fact that it is common knowledge there is no evidence of god. I have no hate in calling you a liar, 'cos you have proved that much right here.
astrophonix 3 months ago
@astrophonix If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one who yelps is the one you hit. You sure are yelping pretty hard. I ask only that you seriously examine what you believe. Stop calling me names and making all sorts of ad hominem attacks. Stop projecting your own imaginations of what a Christian is onto me. If you consider yourself logical, then start examining your beliefs with a logical mind.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist What you're in denial of is there is no evidence for god. The bible claims that god hides himself from man, so his existence has to be taken on faith alone. It is interesting to see how your delusional mind set works in practice, how you willfully fool yourself about even this simple idea and try to turn it into something else. I have seen schizophrenics employ a similar ruse to rationalise their hallucinations. Theism is therefore a form of socially accepted insanity.
astrophonix 3 months ago
@astrophonix You repeatedly assert that there is no evidence for God, but you never provide support. You just call me delusional and such for not seeing the world as you do. Now you are claiming that I am crazy for believing in God. Would you like to support the claim that belief in God is insane? You think that I am crazy, so that proves theism is insane. Read your own post and try to find the fallacies you are using.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@astrophonix You repeatedly assert that there is no evidence for God, but you never provide support. You just call me delusional and such for not seeing the world as you do. Now you are claiming that I am crazy for believing in God. Would you like to support the claim that belief in God is insane? You think that I am crazy, so that proves theism is insane. Read your own post and try to find the fallacies you are using.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist
You can't prove there is no evidence. Universal claims like "there is no evidence for x", "all swans are white" etc. can only be falsified, not proven.
You claim there is evidence, so just show it!
Its similiar with existence. You can't prove God, Santa Clause or the Loch Ness monster don't exist. You can only prove that you looked and didn't find them. The reasonable thing to do is to disbelief these claims, until there is sufficient evidence to support them.
primzahl13 3 months ago
@primzahl13 If you cannot prove a statement, then admit that it is something you believe and not something that is a verified fact. Saying there is no evidence for God and then demanding that Christians present evidence for God is a clear example of shifting the burden of proof. If you want to avoid the burden of proof, then don't make such a claim.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist
1. There doesn't have to be a proof. Atheists don't claim God doesn't exist, only that the evidence has never been presented.
2. If you carefully read his comment, you would see there wasn't any claim that God doesn't exist.
3. Belief in other gods have lots to do with 'God', because you are atheist in respect to other gods. Atheists only add one more. This isn't about 'disproving', is about you rejecting claims about other gods, then asking why atheists reject your claims.
gininginin 3 months ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
@gininginin You are wrong. Atheists often state that God doesn't exist. They often say there is no evidence for God's existence. They reject any evidence presented to them. You can never give enough evidence to someone who doesn't want to believe.
Atheists invoke other gods when talking about evidence for God, but they seem to think that by disproving God's existence, atheism wins by default.
I wish atheists would use logic instead of just saying that they are logical.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist
>> You are wrong. Atheists often state that God doesn't exist.
Haven't seen a single atheist claim this as fact. If you find one, ask him directly. That would make him a *strong* atheist. Most people around here are weak atheists.
>>They often say there is no evidence for God's existence.
Because every attempt has failed so far. Even prayer studies.
>> They reject any evidence presented to them.
You mean refute. QualiaSoup has another video on all this, watch it first.
gininginin 3 months ago
@gininginin I have seen atheists make comments like this often. Atheists jump from one branch of the atheism tree to another whenever I start shaking the branch they are on. They start as strong atheists, then jump to weak atheists, then to anti-theists, or maybe agnostics. Anything to avoid losing an argument or leaving their precious atheism tree.
Responding to evidence is not the same as refuting it. Atheists bicker about the details and then say they refuted the argument.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist What evidence do you have that shows that your personal god is more real than any other god of any other man? Primzahl13 also called you out on this, two days ago as of this comment, and to no response. Along with Astrophonix. If you're going to claim there is evidence then you are under the burden of proof to provide it. Until then, anyone is right in assuming you don't have evidence if you're not willing to provide it.
crazyinsane500 3 months ago
@crazyinsane500 I have learned the hard way to not present evidence every time someone demands it. Atheists always throw red herrings out by bickering about details I present. They will reject the evidence without giving sound reasons. I have learned it is much easier to ask atheists to support their own statements with facts and logic rather than trying to answer their many accusations. I cannot convince them that Christianity is true until I first convince them that atheism is false.
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist That's a lot of words that basically sum up to stepping around the question. Unlike most, I WILL persist on this question, what proof do you have that your god is more real than Allah, Vishnu, or any other deity? You claimed to have evidence, show it. I'm calling you out on this, show the evidence or admit to not having it. Peer-reviewed articles, scientifically verified tests on holy objects, show the evidence you claim to have.
crazyinsane500 3 months ago
@crazyinsane500 Saying there is no evidence for God's existence and then demanding others provide evidence is shifting the burden of proof. The Design argument indicates that it could be Allah, Vishnu, or God. However, the Intelligent Design argument refutes atheism, so atheists refuse to acknowledge it. How can I use any other arguments when you refuse to admit the possibility that God created anything?
Show me some peer-reviewed articles and verified tests that prove atheism...
formerevolutionist 3 months ago
@formerevolutionist To demand evidence is not shifting the burden of proof, when you still have it. If you have proof, then show it. In fact, I have asked you at least 3 times along with other people to stop shifting the burden of proof yourself and to actually provide proof for your specific god.
And I ask you again: you are making the claim you have evidence for God, prove it. Without claiming conspiracy, prove that. I won't let you weasle out of this, provide the proof to your claim.
crazyinsane500 3 months ago
Critical thinking allow us to scrutinize information shared by people and organizations. Some spread distorted information that has been debunked but many still believe is credible --- this is why even those people that have been discredited still find employment.
Anyone can Google to study my writings especially at Yahoo Answers.
Thank you from Max Rafael Waller
airforcemax 4 months ago
Skepticism is spelled wrong.
r3ggi3000 4 months ago
@r3ggi3000 If you were thinking critically, you might have noticed that there are several variations to words; including skepticism (the American spelling broadly used) and scepticism (a version of the word used by the British). lol
007Productionsmacbth 4 months ago
@r3ggi3000 is spelt wrong.
kram83au 4 months ago
What On Earth Would Compel The Vatican & Washington DC
To Schedule A Memorial Service At Ground Zero In New York
On Adolf Hitlers Birthday April 20th ? Light A Candle & Think About That.
44AlphaMale44 4 months ago
@44AlphaMale44 are you really posting conspiracy theories on a video about critical thinking? please say this is a joke
Smownage 4 months ago
@Smownage
Pope Benedict xvi - "Nazis Were Robbers Driven To The Edge of The Abyss"
So What Drove The Vatican & Washington DC To Schedule A 911 Memorial
Service At The Edge of The Pit In New York On Adolf Hitlers 119th Birthday
April 20th 2008 And What Compelled Them To Do It During The 7th Year ?
~ Church & State Religion Makes People Do Weird Shit ~
44AlphaMale44 4 months ago
@Smownage
Its Not A Conspiracy Theory or A Joke,
Evidence Suggests Its A Historical Fact.
Watcha Think About That ?
44AlphaMale44 4 months ago
For the bit about skepticism, doubting is not the same thing as "spending your judgment". Doubting is a form of judgment and preconceived idea. Skepticism is defined as a doubt, and so in itself it is biased and assuming.
NoelBlueheart 4 months ago
@NoelBlueheart You need to watch the video again and listen more closely.
He did not say "Doubting is the same as suspending judgement". Be careful.
stimpson65 4 months ago
@stimpson65 I never claimed he said "doubting is the same as suspending judgment". Perhaps the one who should be paying attention is you. Read my comment again carefully.
NoelBlueheart 4 months ago
@kobidobidog
The fact that all your posts, addressing the subjects they do, are posted under THIS video, addressing the subject that IT does, speaks volumes.
What it says ISN'T what you'd hoped.
stimpson65 4 months ago
@stimpson65 I push myself hard. I saw errors in my writing.Is this better?
kobidobidog 4 months ago
@kobidobidog is what better?
stimpson65 4 months ago
why cant i view this on mobile?
Zryuken 4 months ago
@greycloud24 God is not in a book. God is in loving humans, and in the meek creature of the field. God is in the childlike furries of the furry fandom,and in humans persecuted not speaking against God. The ones in the established Churches caused humans to think there is no God because those churches are godless. God is in loving words from humans, but not in the soul of humans not being like Jesus is. They sow confusion,and give doubt,and fear,and accusations. All the things Jesus does not give
kobidobidog 4 months ago
@kobidobidog so we all agree than that jesus is an imaginary friend? its good that you have an internal desire to see justice and happiness spread along with mercy. these are very human things to desire. to not desire them is to show that you lack happiness in your own life. i am glad to see that you are happy. have a good day.
greycloud24 4 months ago
@Standuble One supports the other. Have you ever considered that the human animal is the only animal that speaks against the one who gave us good things? Don't you think it would be wise to be like the beast of the field, and not say bad things against the one who gave us all good things? That God has a place for those that love all including the zoosexual, Pedo, furry, and gay etc. Heaven is a certain as the eternal universe around you. love, and do good to all, and don't miss out
kobidobidog 4 months ago
@kobidobidog do you realize that humans are the only animals that we are aware of that have invented the idea of gods? we are also the only animals that kill each other in the name of these fictional gods. critical thinking shows that gods are unlikely to exist.
greycloud24 4 months ago
@greycloud24 We kill each other because of the gods of stone, wood, and cloth, clothes, and the Flag is one of them. Worshiping those idols, and it is no wonder that men war. Humans love the same gems Lucifer was studded with. Lucifer in man wars. In heaven no one will war, and yet want to accuse God of war? Call God fictional, and God will think the same of you, and hell will be your end being as gone as gone can be even as you think of God God will also think of thee. Fair is fair right?
kobidobidog 4 months ago
@kobidobidog put on your thinking cap. what evidence is there of a god outside of an old book? (hint an old book is only evidence of an old book, it is not evidence that the book is true). i don't accuse god of anything, i don't think any of the gods are real, including yours. i don't mind if your god doesn't believe in me, that has no real consequences in this world. i don't care what your god thinks or does at all, because in order to effect me he must first be real. his followers though....
greycloud24 4 months ago
@greycloud24 When I see loving words coming from a human despising war, I see God in that person. When I see a living thing in nature I see evidence of God who-is Jesus that made it. When I see a creature of the field calmly eating what God gave them, I see the meek lowly spirit of jeus in them, But when I see humans not behaving like the meek lowly forest creatures or not like the childlike furries of the furry fandom. I see the enemy of God who opposes all that God made speaking against God.
kobidobidog 4 months ago
@greycloud24 When I see loving words coming from a human despising war I see God in that person. When I see a living thing in nature I see evidence of God who-is Jesus that made it. When I see a creature of the field calmly eating what God gave them, I see the meek lowly spirit of jests in them, but when I see humans not behaving like the meek lowly forest creatures or not like the childlike furries of the furry fandom. I see the enemy of God who opposes all that God made speaking against God.
kobidobidog 4 months ago
@greycloud24 When I see loving words coming from a human despising war, I see God in that person. When I see a living thing in nature, I see evidence of God who-is Jesus that made it. When I see a creature of the field calmly eating what God gave them, I see the meek lowly spirit of Jesus in them, but When I see humans not behaving like the meek lowly forest creature or not like the childlike furries of the furry fandom, I see the enemy of God who opposes all that God made speaking against God.
kobidobidog 4 months ago
@greycloud24 God is not in a book God is in loving humans, and in the meek creature of the field. God is in the childlike furries of the furry fandom,and in humans persecuted not speaking against God. The ones in the established Churches has caused humans to think there is no God because those churches are godless. God is in loving words from humans, but not in the soul of humans not being like Jesus is. They sow confusion,and give doubt,and fear,and accusations. The things Jesus does not give.
kobidobidog 4 months ago
Comment removed
kobidobidog 4 months ago
There's a nice pallette of bizarre, irrelevant religious referencing and casual, endearing commentary in these youtube comments :)
jam11049 4 months ago
THIS IS NOT A FUCKING RELIGIOUS VIDEO SO PLEASE STFU THANKS :D
Chrisiishere 4 months ago
I watched this today in class :D
DarkZerkerX 4 months ago
Postmodernist, sitting out on a tree branch, sawing away :D
Oct195 4 months ago
@Oct195 Hahhahahahaha. Briliant comment.
Just made my day :D
Rtv03 4 months ago
with all the stupid shit on youtube,this is one of the few things that make me feel smarter
sailornaruto39 5 months ago
This video combines well with Open-minded!
RebelManCam 5 months ago
24. Then let man look at his food,
25. That We pour forth water in abundance,
26. And We split the earth in clefts,
27. And We cause therein the grain to grow,
28. And grapes and clover plants (i.e. green fodder for the cattle),
29. And olives and date-palms,
30. And gardens, dense with many trees,
31. And fruits and Abba (herbage, etc.),
32. (To be) a provision and benefit for you and your cattle.
belacanbest 5 months ago
surah 80 (Abasa)
17. Be cursed (the disbelieving) man! How ungrateful he is!
18. From what thing did He create him?
19. From Nutfah (male and female semen drops) He created him, and then set him in due proportion;
20. Then He makes the Path easy for him;
21. Then He causes him to die, and puts him in his grave;
22. Then, when it is His Will, He will resurrect him (again).
23. Nay, but (man) has not done what He commanded him.
belacanbest 5 months ago
lol liked the moving to austrailia
eightonefour1 5 months ago
I am Only 12 But I think Critical Thinking Is A Very Important subject That Should be Taught In State School's in The U.K And The U.S
GoldKhaos 5 months ago
this is the reason why many corporations recruit exclusivly out of private and home schools, and ignore traditionally educated applicants.
Many employers even hire private schooled high school grads over university grads.
rustyscrapper 5 months ago
Ok, now tell your wife that critical thinking was behind all the flowers, chocolates and movies.
tuin103 5 months ago
@tuin103 what?
FlCl3000 5 months ago
@FlCl3000 It's an inside joke between me and another viewer.
tuin103 5 months ago
I really believe that if Critical thinking and skepticism were taught to every child our societies would be so much better off.
IHighLikePlane 5 months ago
@IHighLikePlane Then governments would actually have to do everything for the people, because people wouldn't take all the bullshit they tell us.
Thundercatz0r 5 months ago
@Thundercatz0r Or better yet we get rid of the government, make all forms of education free, and allow everyone to participate in decision making based upon the scientific method. We need to do away with this outdated system of politics where we elect temporary dictators who have no knowledge in science and critical thinking and base all their actions on ideological opinions.
IHighLikePlane 5 months ago
@IHighLikePlane But a good educational system is necessary.
Thundercatz0r 5 months ago
@Thundercatz0r We don't need an education system, at least not like what we have today. What we need is free access to education. There is no reason why the best educators in the world cannot record their lectures, lessons, etc. and post them on the internet for free.
As a matter of fact there is a website called KhanAcademy[dot]org where anyone can learn college level math, chemistry, and other subjects for free right now. We could easily do this with all subjects.
IHighLikePlane 5 months ago
@IHighLikePlane See, not everyone would be willing to get educated. Ignorant people like that would just vote for something stupid...
Thundercatz0r 5 months ago
@Thundercatz0r More people would be educated at the very least. Anyway voting needs to end. Popular opinion is often wrong, thats why we should arrive at all societal decisions using the scientific method.
Watch Zeitgeist Moving Forward to see what I'm talking about. If we want to stop destroying our environment, have a critical thinking populous, and equality we need a Resource Based Economy, or at least something very similar.
IHighLikePlane 5 months ago
@IHighLikePlane Popular opinion is often wrong because a lot of people aren't educated :p
Thundercatz0r 5 months ago
Excellent overview of critical thinking. I just finished reading Carl Sagan's book on the topic "The Demon Haunted World", and I know find myself questioning things which I used to assume was true.