It also works the other way around with the God debate. Atheists often make arguments in which they can't understand how God could exist when suffering exists, or they just can't understand how something like God could exist, etc... and presume that means God can't exist. I've noticed appeal to incredulity fallacies seem to be extremely common when someone questions the mainstream / official narrative in any way. Most people are so accustomed to that narrative they often have trouble even hypothesizing any other view of reality. Of course, that doesn't mean the person questioning the mainstream / official narrative is automatically wrong, yet most do reason this way.
Agreed, however I haven't discussed this with another atheist that thinks that way nor do I know any. I am sure there are some, but it isn't the usual. Perhaps a definition of a particular god being discussed would clear up confusion? My take is the simple notion that there is insufficient evidence to convince me of the existence of any claimed god. The lack of evidence is telling, but not conclusive. Thank you for the comment.
It would be easy to discount cell phones as being possible with all the wonderful things they can do if they weren't so ubiquitous. I think they are easily as technologically marvelous as the Moon landings.
Arguably, the expressions of incredulity and sardonic shade here were conceptually as logically significant as anything I've learned from the movie "Back to the Future". (how's that?)
All Grey Matters I dont know.. I cant work out what it is you are on about.. its 3 mins of Marty McFly and then you make a statement.. Are you trying to prove something or make a statement ?
@@allgreymatters9341 Absurd. Meaningless. I repeat. You are wasting your time although someone like you probably doesn't believe in "wasting" time. Do you believe that time actually exists? Can you prove it? Do you even believe that you exist? Can you prove to me that you really exist on the other side of this computer conversation?
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hfil34ayaEU/mqdefault.jpg)
It also works the other way around with the God debate. Atheists often make arguments in which they can't understand how God could exist when suffering exists, or they just can't understand how something like God could exist, etc... and presume that means God can't exist.
I've noticed appeal to incredulity fallacies seem to be extremely common when someone questions the mainstream / official narrative in any way. Most people are so accustomed to that narrative they often have trouble even hypothesizing any other view of reality. Of course, that doesn't mean the person questioning the mainstream / official narrative is automatically wrong, yet most do reason this way.
Agreed, however I haven't discussed this with another atheist that thinks that way nor do I know any. I am sure there are some, but it isn't the usual. Perhaps a definition of a particular god being discussed would clear up confusion?
My take is the simple notion that there is insufficient evidence to convince me of the existence of any claimed god. The lack of evidence is telling, but not conclusive. Thank you for the comment.
Love the green spaghetti monster.
I’m just an everyday alien with 5 tentacles. Nice to meet you!
I love your green thing
Thank you! I don't look so nice in "person" but it is OK because I am only about 2 microns tall.
Wow, this really helped. Thanks!
I live that you keep the videos quick and to the point. I am having hard times watching longer videos lately
Thomas Borawski me too. I like to keep them ADHD friendly because I can relate :) thank you for the comment!
Evolution is not the origin of life. That subject is reserved for abiogenesis. Evolution is what happens after life.
It would be easy to discount cell phones as being possible with all the wonderful things they can do if they weren't so ubiquitous. I think they are easily as technologically marvelous as the Moon landings.
I appreciate your concise and understandable explanations. Also your cute green thing.
(Blush)
Arguably, the expressions of incredulity and sardonic shade here were conceptually as logically significant as anything I've learned from the movie "Back to the Future".
(how's that?)
lol sardonic shade?
ridiculous video..How long did you waste making this?
What is your issue with it? Did I get something wrong?
All Grey Matters I dont know.. I cant work out what it is you are on about.. its 3 mins of Marty McFly and then you make a statement.. Are you trying to prove something or make a statement ?
It is what it says it is, an explanation and example of an incredulity fallacy.
@@allgreymatters9341 Meaningless video. You are wasting your time. Simply watching it is 4mins and 47 secs I shall never get back
@@allgreymatters9341 Absurd. Meaningless. I repeat. You are wasting your time although someone like you probably doesn't believe in "wasting" time.
Do you believe that time actually exists? Can you prove it? Do you even believe that you exist? Can you prove to me that you really exist on the other side of this computer conversation?