ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Atheist Debates - Thinking about logical fallacies
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ส.ค. 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
While we may go through specific, common fallacies and how to spot them in future videos, this video offers a quick review of validity and soundness along with some thoughts on the sort of heuristic processes our brains might use when evaluating claims. I've included some tips on how to practice analyzing arguments - because you're not going to be an expert overnight!
This content is pure gold. It’s pretty rare to find people like Matt who are willing to put in the time and effort to teach others. I owe you one, Matt. Thank you! :)
I wish logic was taught in high school. Logic was one of my favorite classes in college. Thank you so much for all of this incredible information. Your analogies/explanations/examples help immensely!!!
blown away by how well Matt can convey information.
You have taught me a lot over the past few years. I appreciate the effort.
+orinjayce: Hear hear!
Agreed
Premise 1: Syllogisms are logical.
Premise 2: Matt is logical.
Conclusion: Matt is a syllogism.
+Tom Reeves. That has the same structure as:
Premise 1: Dogs are furry
Premise 2: A cat is furry
Conclusion: A cat is a dog
+tobo86 Yep. I've watched many debates where theists in particular rely on syllogisms (usually to prove the existence of God). Everything may sound logical and reasonable, from the premises to the conclusion, but in the end, they still haven't demonstrated anything tangible. That's why I think philosophy defines what's logically _possible_, whereas science is necessary to prove what's actually _real_.
+Tom Reeves
Recently, I was arguing with a theist who insisted that he had a "logical proof" of his god. Of course, right from the start, I objected to his premise (which was complete bullshit, it really was). All he did was keep repeating it, without ever once demonstrating that it was true, while insisting that his "logical proof" was "valid."
No matter what I said, I couldn't get him to demonstrate that his premise was true. I couldn't even get him to respond to my objections. He seemed to think it was enough to just keep claiming it.
+Bill Garthright Sounds like the playground equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating, "Na, na, na, na... I'm right, you're wrong... na, na, na, na." Perhaps you should find more mature theists to debate :-)
+Tom Reeves: "sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating, 'Na, na, na, na... I'm right, you're wrong... na, na, na, na.'" This is surely the finest tool ever made by master craftsmen
I owe you, Matt. Seriously.
Before I discovered your show, I actually would have claimed to be a theist. That particular breed of ignorance is no longer instilled within me.
And I'm grateful.
+Superior Scream Hold on now, the ungodly bible & koran misidentifies God as some male ignoramus getting most everything wrong. The real God has been identified by the 100% secular natural sciences, reason & logic as the laws of nature together with forces of physics, the real big bang creator & law of nature ruler of universe. These laws & forces compose the one & only all natural candidate for the role of the genuine God.
+ungertron We already have a word for 'universe'.
'god' comes with baggage.
Azirahael "The real big bang creator & law of nature ruler of universe." is not the universe, the laws of nature together with the forces of physics big bang created, evolved, maintain & law of nature rule the universe. That's a scientific fact.
The word God is absolutely the most important word and the most important reality in all existence because without the laws of nature together with forces of physics composing God there would be no universe.
+ungertron Previous statement still applies.
by defining the universe as 'god' you can say 'there is a god, science proves it.'
but what good does it do?
If i define the word 'tomato' as "the laws of nature together with the forces of physics big bang created, evolved, maintain & law of nature rule the universe."
Then i can say the 'universe is a tomato.'
And it's logically accurate.
But does it do any good?
'Tomato' has meaning to most people.
as does 'god'.
I therefore contend that you are causing yourself problems by defining reality as 'god'.
Because other people have different understandings of 'god'.
and not gaining anything.
Azirahael Reality is not God. God big bang created, evolved actualizes, maintains and rules all reality. The source of all absolute truth is God AKA laws and forces that are continually actualizing all future reality that is inspiring, informing, enlightening & correcting the soon to be obsolete partial truth held by the secular sciences.
Laws of nature & forces of physics existed before the universe - the universe started 13.77 billion years ago. Laws & forces launched the big bang and that is a provable scientific fact. Read the books "A universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss with after-word by Richard Dawkins and "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow for the details.
It is a free country and you do have every right to be wrong. Now if you have a new form of cosmology that is better than the standard cosmology in the two books above then give me the references.
"When you say argument from ignorance, people take that as an insult"
What if both premises are false, and yet the conclusion is true. I love those.
Just use "incredulity" instead so it's less direct and comes of more formal and less... "I wana insult you" kinda way
Absolutely awesome video. Your ability communicate these complex concepts are what made me watch TAE with almost religious fervor. This is a very interesting and important topic and I hope that you make more videos specifically about fallacy spotting. Thank you.
I personally think Matt is the entire reason TAE is even on the map.
The other people are smart, interesting, lucid folks. But Dillahunty is one I consider to be of singular wit and exceptional speaking ability.
Personally my favorite episodes are when he's accompanied by Jeff Dee or Tracie Harris. They have a way of cutting down arguments at completely different points from Matt after letting the opposition get some ground, quite intentionally I might add.
it's funny because TAE means shit in our language. haha
11:47 "Argument from Ignorance"
Yes, I don't know how many times people would take offense whenever I claimed that that was their fallacy. They actually thought I was calling them ignorant and, if they knew a little bit about fallacies, would accuse me of Ad Hominem and I couldn't figure out why. lol
+Steven Schneider better to explain what it is instead of naming it
+Peter L Uh, yes I know. That was kind of why I was bringing this up. Thanks though.
I gotta say Matt...I'm glad you're on our side.
I look at what you describe as a negative mindset, It can almost be equated to what a sculptor does. You chip away at this beautiful piece of marble until you find the truth of what lies beneath. That sculpture was always there, but you have to knock away the crap to get to it.
"Reading is the best form of active listening". Wow, epiphany moment. I wouldn't be surprised if reading, a form of active listening, is a highway route to empathy & reasoning skills
I have little or no interest in debating theists but I love thinking and this series is a great tool for trying to think more clearly. Thanks, Matt.
Just what I needed, Matt. Thanks. You got me started on my truth-seeking journey several years ago and for that I’m very grateful. I’ve been avoiding learning about fallacies for too long, and for some of the reasons you mentioned. I understand now that I need to learn to find fallacious arguments, but I don’t need call people out on them, at least not directly. I disliked hearing them called out because, like you said, it sounds like you’re calling interlocutor dumb etc. Because I disliked that I’ve resisted learning logic. But I do sourly need to learn to progress. Once again you’re helping me progress to the next level.
So many apologists get irritable when I ask them which deity they're referring to. They take it as an affront to their beliefs that anyone might not have exactly their model of god.
I'm using this video to help with homeschooling. Good job 👍
Indoctrinating with atheism at your school?
Gosh @ spot the fallacies in the media, to train yourself
I was watching some politicians talk for an hour yesterday night. I was so shocked to hear so many fallacies in just a few minutes. And the audience clapping and agreeing with it all, blindly.
Were they Democrats? Because Democrats never lie or commit logical fallacies.
"I just saw somebody's eyes glaze over". Woah, Matt... how did you know?!? There must be something supernatural going on here. Maybe you have special powers. XD
I saw someone comment about this same train of thought and so i got the urge to do it myself. Matt, you have taught me a lot, more than you can know. If it wasn’t for you i may not be where i am now, on the pursuit of absolute knowledge, your feats of critical thinking and logical reasoning are praiseworthy. Thank you for your noble contribution to mankind, and the pursuit of truth. Thank you so much. Your work... its invaluable...
What’s your view on absolute knowledge? Always an interesting topic, I find.
I really appreciate these videos you do Matt. You are doing very good work.
Yes yes yes...thanks. This stuff helps. Especially like this sort of thing without boring lectures.
Thanks to all this I was able to spot a motte and bailey fallacy while talking with someone, and explain where my issue was in their argument... now it didn't do me any good because they didn't care about representing their point honestly, but I at least got some practical experience identifying and deconstructing the fallacy
The most commonly used fallacy by theists is the argument from ignorance IMO. Fallacy by assertion comes in a close second though.
FiniteAutomaton That's a good point actually.
+UnrationedRationale while I have no need to defend Evolution as an atheist, I do have a position on Evolution that is unrelated to my atheism and that position may require defense. If some theist brings up evolution in a discussion about my atheism then I generally point out that the two are not interdependent and move on.
All atheists only tool consists entirely of logical fallacy. Refute me. I dare you to try.
The Rational Channel the specific version of argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, is most common I've seen. But also among the pseudoscience community and the climate change denying community.
France S Nobody says that, the conclusion is not WRONG because the premise is fallacious. It is NOT RIGHT. Because correctness need to be demonstrated. If the premise is fallacious, assert the conclusion is true is not even wrong--it doesn't even make sense.
Matt is all about having good reasons to arrive at truth...if you walked into something true by accident, but couldn't reason or explain it without a fallacy, then you DON'T have good reason to make other people believe i's true, and other people don't have to believe you.
But I am sure it fall on deaf ears...
1. Everything that exists had a beginning.
2. God did not have a beginning.
3. You got it.
ippos_khloros explain?
"Everything" refers to objects or beings that "exist" inside the realm of REALITY because we cannot observe or even know about any "thing" outside the realm of reality
Since people asserting the existence of a god , assert along side it the fact that it is outside the realm of reality , then "God" (Whatever that may be) cannot be judged with the same criteria as "everything" that exists inside the realm of reality
Valid and sound
@@yusufhelal1387 you're invisible magical man in the sky does not exist in reality
@@yusufhelal1387
God is invisible, so we can never see his back parts (Exodus 33:23)
After watching a ton of AE I was hoping to get started familiarizing myself with logical fallacies and I was quite pleased to see MD had just the thing. Thank you
Slick is such a great study case for logical fallacies, such as one of his main arguments 'We can conceive of the logical absolutes, therefore that means they're 'concepts'...he relies on this fooling people who don't think very clearly because a bit of thought shows we can conceive of all kinds of things but that doesn't make them 'conceptual' only like I can conceive of an apple, but apples are not 'concepts'.
If there were a god(s), it wouldn't be discovered through word-salad structured arguments.
And?
If there is not a god which god does not exist and how do you know?
I know that Stanford university offer a free logic course through the coursera online platform which teaches you a good grounding in logical arguments and deduction. It's fun and gets you thinking.
There is another problem that comes up when using logical fallacies: the person who just doesn't care that their argument is fallicious. I recall one theist who posted on the online forum for a certain skeptical "educational association" who insisted that the Argumnet from Ignorance was actually structurally invalid AND was a proof for God's existence.
While such logical tomfoolery may be ignored by us, in this age of solipsism where everyone is figuratively allowed their own reality as a matter of tolerance, it is dangerous.
+Mark Siefert: The great ball that's currently in the court of the atheists is about the value of honesty. If there's ever to begin a global shift in consciousness where religion loses its primary grip, it's to put this ball in the court of the theists. As you say, the person who just doesn't care that their argument is fallacious.
+Mark Siefert Yes, this is in fact the biggest problem when debating with Theists, you see, what you have to appreciate, which I'm sure you do, is that they believe in this magical God/Supreme/Eternal being who can do anything and for whom a thousand years is like a day etc, so little wonder then that when you try to point out all of the blatantly obvious inconsistencies and factual conflicts within the Bible and within even what they are saying and how it doesn't make any sense, they can just fall back on things like 'the natural man cannot understand the things of God' and the age old 'God works in mysterious ways' get out clause.
As Atheists who are also Skeptics, we value logic and rational thinking because we don't accept the idea of a God that is above it or who can bypass it or that there are any exceptions to the application of logic and rational thinking, if someone does believe there could be such exceptions, then of course they won't care that their argument is fallacious and this as I say is the big problem, until they can see that there is no justification for believing in this being who transcends logic and what is rational, they won't care about it at all, they won't think it matters like you do, this is how I was when I was a 'Born Again Christian' and it was only when I began to strongly question God's actual existence and the divine authority of the Bible that I began to care about whether the things I was telling others and what I was living for made any sense, prior to that, I just went along with the idea that although I might not understand it intellectually, God understands it and all I have to do is trust him.
Believers will tell you one thing one minute and then in the next breath they will say something that completely knocks out what they said before and they will seem to just forget that, if you try to point it out, they will then try and twist it and claim that you didn't understand what they meant, this is why Matt quite rightly gets Theist callers into his show to clarify point by point, stage by stage, what exactly they mean before they get to their conclusion because as he said himself, if he doesn't do that, by the time they have finished, he will then have to go back to that point where there is a problem that undermines their conclusion and they will then claim 'no...that's not what I meant'.
What actually happens a lot of the time on The Atheist Experience though is that they often don't get to finish their case because Matt and the other hosts will pull it apart right from that point where it's in error rather than waiting till they finish and he is absolutely right to do that, the day someone can get past all of that and finish their conclusion is probably the day when either they will have a caller who is presenting a very clever, seemingly watertight case for something that is false....or they will have finally got someone on the show who can at least Philosophically demonstrate that their 'A God exists' proposition is correct.
go watch stefan molyneux video about what is wrong with athiest a lot fallacy in their spread the word
+Houstonmade1994 Fuck off, basement-boy.
I’m personally theistic, but an argument like you mentioned isn’t valid. I’m sorry you had to witness that. But, there’s intelligent atheists and stupid atheists, same with theists.
So so so so so so grateful for this my focus right now is working on understanding all of the logical fallacies cognitive distortions and so on. This is extremely helpful as advice thank you so much.
Not going to faun over your influence in my life, that's just a bit odd. Not sure why so many people do that. HOWEVER, I do really appreciate your videos. Very helpful, consistently practical, and abundantly well informed. Thanks a bunch.
You're the kind of dude I'd like to have a pint with! Thanks for existing, try to keep doin that. :)
Logic: simply means consistency and coherence, things naturally follow, they are related. That's it. No need to overcomplicate it. Of course you can drill down into logic a lot deeper, but the overarching concept is internal consistency and coherence.
Having a guy talking to a camera for 43 min. about logic, and still be very engaging an interesting. Always a pleasure listening to tu you Matt :) !
Have you read philosoper Mario Bunge (wiki) is an Argentine philosopher, philosopher of science and physicist(wiki)? If you did't, I think you are going to like him very much.
I enjoyed this video so much, I wanted to save a transcript version for future reference. The automatic captions are reeeeally not bad (You almost gotta teach us a separate class on pronunciation that gets so well recognized by YT :) ), but still will have to edit a few things it didn't catch right. So once I'm done, I can hand over the file to you to add as authorized captions to the video (as not being the uploader I can't add them here, and I understand why you don't want to open that feature for any trolls from the public). I also think it might be extremely helpful for non-native listeners from abroad.
Huge thanks again for the video!
Thanks for the content Matt, may God bless you !
I love it, you're talking about how we think about claims and their truth value...and say, "We KNOW, from even the purist Vulcans, that they HAVE emotions." totally like everyone watching has to know this. I ask you, "could a Vulcan be a sociopath?"
Great video as always Matt. For anyone wanting to expand on the topic search for Introduction to Philosophy from Stephan Molyneux that i found very helpful in my rebuttals.
Also worth looking for is An Introduction to First Principles also from Stephan.
Man this is just what people need great initative Matt. Untill now i Just watched any video related to the theistic debate. Nice to see that you are kind of embarking on a how do you do it series ;)
Socrates verified them being right in classical logic. In certain modal logic (analogous of "real world application logic") where not (not A) does not imply A, certain things that would be valid in classic are not in this
This has driven me crazy since I started listening to Matt. Validity goes to structure. Well groundless goes to the content of the premises. The argument is valid if the structure is proper. The argument is well grounded if the premises are true. THEN, the argument is sound if it is both valid and well grounded.
I'm really glad you're on the side of reason, Matt. I'd hate to think what you could do if you were working for the other side. ;-)
+amazingbollweevil to think he once was....
+amazingbollweevil
Heh, heh. Of course, he'd be stuck with some pretty terrible material to work with, if that were the case. On our side, at least he can use the truth.
A great day today - you published 3 new episodes - i am very exited
Thanks for your time, Matt.
🙂
Thanks as usual Matt! Is it your birthday today? If so, hope it's a great one! Most common fallacies I encountered are:
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Red Herring, Special Pleading, Appeal To The Stone, & Argument Verboseum. Looking very
forward to running into way more (Ahem, I committed them way to often when I was younger) and learning more daily
+Kombo Breaker Holy shit! I did not know that one. Thanks for teaching me something
new, and wonderful. As a "student" of Quantum Mechanics I really really like this one ;)
+Matt Dillahunty
Instead saying _"that is an argument from ignorance"_ and similar fallacies ... if appropriate, I would say _"that is an assumption (and add why I think this)"_ instead. I do this mostly because I can recognize alot of fallacies, but I too do not know them all by name.
+Hasse Mephisto an unjustified assumption is not a fallacy since there is no reasoning involved (with fallacies being defined in terms of reasoning gone wrong). you don't need to know the name of the fallacy, just what the fallacy is about.
great lecture! but when you mentioned your wife's great suggestion to reframe from pointing out the ignorant fallacy to other people, i think this is something you have experienced with your wife yourself. Allmost all wives often angage in all kinds of fallacys, I know mine does!!
This was a very interesting video and while I reject much of what you're saying, I did enjoy listening to you and the way you presented your information. Without knowing you, you seem to be the type of person, as I am, we can be in total opposition, still walk away having enjoyed dinner!
I remember when I first found the Atheist Experience on TH-cam I had a bunch of objections, most statements I can now reconcile but it included Matt saying "That is an argument from ignorance" and I would always comment how rude it was because it sounds intentionally rude to people unfamiliar to logical fallacies. It is one example of many that comes from living in an debating atheist bubble where you forget that for many people the lingo is unfamiliar. I always remember the time it took to understand the atheist arguments on first pass, even as an atheist myself.
My point is, it is important to remember the person you are talking to might not understand your terminology you are using and just naming a fallacy may just create more confusion, it is more important to explain why it is a fallacy in layman's terms than being able to identify it by name.
I don't even know the fallacy names, I just remember the structure of fallacies.
+DarkBungleX
Fuck the kid gloves. This is not difficult stuff to understand. And I don't find discussions with people who take offense in knee-jerk fashion to the word "ignorance" to be productive at all.
The fact that Matt consistently references Star Trek makes him even more awesome.
1. Everything that exists had a cause.
2. God did not have a cause.
3. Therefore God does not exist.
Prove that the Universe had a cause.
It's not an argument of any real strength, but it is a valid argument as written.
hahahaha
I think this went over most of your heads (laugher aside. We're hanging tight). This is the argument given in many cases (it's not a straw man if it's the argument given to you)
Above all it's just funny. Sometimes jokes really are funny even if they need to be explained
Matt is the best
awww come on Matt you totally should talk like the opening through the whole video ! (maybe for april fools or something ! ) That laid back approach took me back to watching endless episodes of Bob Ross painting trees and mountains.
+youweechube and behind him... many many happy little trees....
it takes someone who formerly believed in false beliefs who found thier way out to know how a person of faith falls for that particular idealogy. Thank goodness for people like matt who understand how to explain these things so precisly like this. I understand it all because I was deep into fundamental religion and remember why i held onto these beliefs so strongly and deeply, but at those times never considered what was wrong with them. I got lucky in that I figured these things out to be wrong on my own because if I had heard arguments from the other side I would have a bias for rebutles from my side and only poison my mind into excusing logical arguments agianst my beliefs.
the biggest factor in why I would never fall for faith agian is because I did much research on different religions, and the foundations of these religions like what caused the founders to believe they were recieving instructions from divine spirits, and it all became so clear to me why we have religion in the world, and with the gullability of humans in general it is easy to indoctrinate anyone who doesnt know better. the mind loves to learn and embrace information, and this is easily why people take these faith systems so seriously, and even reject any outside criticism and become defensive even in the facre of factual evidence to prove the religion is just as bogus and manmade as the last one made up or the next. Its clear to me that humans are a very dellusional species and sadly as intellegent as we have become these days that we are still stuck in a primative mindset to believe in superstition when that should have went out the window with our ancestors, but its still a flawed feature we have today. I really hope we outgrow this someday because religion like islam and sharia law that wants to take the world will put an end to the beautifull things we can be capable of.
Or an atheist might have fallen for a particular ideology
Yeah so why would so many people think they were getting information from divine spirits if there was nothing supernatural? I think the ancient egyptians really did have their "gods" but they were fallen angels. Above them, yes, but not the God of creation. We have our gods today, those above us that we believe and follow. Government, scientific consensus, the United States is our God now that people will give their lives for. They are martrys for their God the United States. Sacrifices of blood just like in ancient times.
Yes people are very easily deluded with beliefs. The gospel is all about belief. Who do we believe and follow? So we're all born into a belief and God wants to know if we want the truth. Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Do we want the truth, or do we want to be atheists mostly? What if the truth hurts? Do you want the truth no matter what? If you do, then the bible says that God will give you saving faith. Happened to me. I don't know your heart. Most people don't want the truth, they want what makes them comfortable. Mormons want to be Mormons and Catholics want to be Catholics and atheists want to be atheists. Agnostic seems like the more open version of atheist, one with a heart that would accept the truth no matter what it was. Just by calling yourself atheist on something that you really can't be sure on, sounds like hardening your heart right there.
i wanna watch more of these lectures! thanks matt!
Argument from ignorance fallacies are very easy to spot, whenever a Christian says "What else could it be", or "How else could it have happened" or "How else could it be" or "who else could have done it" etc... those are red flags. The person is more than likely engaged in an argument from ignorance.
I actually run into this fallacy being committed by theists more than any other. It is also often a sort of god of the gaps argument. It seems to be at the core (or foundation) of why they believe in god (at least among a great deal of theists I have debated with).
Well if you give me a billion years then I guess it could happen. Why? What magic does a billion years do? What proof do you have that a billion years can do anything at all? You're argument is, we don't know what a billion years can do so MAYBE it can create incredibly complex living things. That's a very weak argument. Billions of years is just your God, but billions of years can't save you, also it's a lie from the Father of Lies.
Premise 1; All Matts have a last name.
Premise 2; Dillahunty is a last name.
Conclusion; All Matts are Dillahuntys.
Just for laughs, I’ll argue that with you. I don’t accept either premise! Not everybody has a last name, and not all last names are Dillahunty. 🧐
Another excellent video. But cynicism is more specific than just naysaying everything, it is about how you think the other person thinks. It is a disbelief in their belief due to their supposed motivated belief, which, Yes, you implied in your details
I've followed you for years Matt, since the beginning of the Atheist Experience. I really enjoy listening to you speak pretty much on any topic. You are probably the only person I can think of that almost never uses "um" or "aaaahhh" while speaking. This is something I have tried to train myself to not use and I find it very difficult. Are you aware of how you don't do that and did you have to train yourself to get to this point?
OrangeDiamond33 I know this message is 2 years or so old, but I think there is a good reason a lot of people have the habit of "uuum"s and "aaahs"; when speaking to people or answering questions, many (with me at least) tend to assume I didn't understand a question or something else they said if I don't nearly immediately start replying, when in fact I am just heavily considering what they say or trying to find the perfect words to express most accurately, the concepts I'm trying to convey....the people don't seem to realize this, and continue talking, or get annoyed with me because they don't think I'm listening (this has mostly been family members and old friends), So filling any possible silences in a conversation with umms and ahhs seems to let the other person know that you're listening. Of course when you're the only one who is speaking it doesn't give any advantages.
I'm really stoned, Matt.
Great video Matt!
Theists are world class bullshit artists. I'm sometimes left stunned by the responses I get after making a logical argument. My favorite - "If you're an atheist, you're the god in your universe." That's not even a logical fallacy! What the fuck does that even mean??? My brain just does not compute.
Matt saw my eyes glaze over....He is a prophet and soothsayer...Long live the prophet MATT. ....I M A big fan:)
Can you do one on misusing fallacies?
A few examples:
- using god as the simplest explanation as per occam's razer
- Matt Slick creating a dillahunty fallacy
- calling no true scotsman when the definition of feminist is used correctly (anti-feminists are very prone of this)
- William Craig claiming that Krauss quote mined Valenkin (probably the most dishonest thing he ever said ...)
How do you respond to this? In the last example, Krauss was stunned for seconds.
+ahouyearno
Heh, heh. When I call someone an idiot on TH-cam - which, admittedly, isn't a very nice thing to do (and doesn't advance a debate very much!) - they frequently respond by claiming an ad hominem fallacy.
Of course, it's not. I don't argue that they're wrong because they're an idiot. I'm just calling them names (while, usually, arguing against what they're saying, too, elsewhere in my comment). And if I want to be a real jerk, I can point that out. Sadly, I can't always resist. :)
That's a pretty simplistic example, but I thought I'd mention it. I really like your idea. I have no education in philosophy, and it doesn't interest me very much, but religious people keep claiming that they have a "logical proof" of their god, so I think it helps to have some knowledge of this stuff.
Just recently, I was arguing with a guy who claimed that his "logical proof" was "valid," despite the fact that his premise was complete bullshit. Of course, "bullshit" probably isn't a recognized philosophical term, while "valid" apparently has a rather specific meaning. Oh, well. I've learned a little bit here, at least. :)
Bill Garthright oh yeah you're right. Wrongly claiming ad hominem fallacy is very common too.
I come across Argument from Ignorance, appeal to authority and appeal to popularity often.
Some people really need to watch this video, I had a flat earther the other day try to claim "Oh that's funny, he thinks he hasn't been proven wrong" was a fallacy. The best part to it was he called it a non argument. He was super close to figuring it out XD
I think the earth is flat. It's funny because the logical fallacies are all globers have. Appeal to antiquity, appeal to authority, bandwagon.... no actual proof the earth is moving or has a curve. Amazing but true! We just believe it because that's what we're taught as children. We're ALL indoctrinated with the globe. It actually takes a ALOT to break out of it. It's extremely strong brainwashing.
1:06 Almost sounded like you said "Argument from Scott Bakula" OH BOY
+originaljayno If he leaps from life to life, setting right what once went wrong and changing history for the better, it follows that there is a benevolent force guiding his jumps, thus proving that there is a god and he is good. QED.
Maybe you could do a series of short videos in which you dissect a popular meme that might be an example of one or more fallacies. That could be useful to explain in further detail what you've said here, it could be controversial and interesting, and it might be fun for you to do!
Matt Dillahunty for President 2020.
Cynicism: an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.
This is the definition I operate with. Why is it claimed that this is a "bad" mentality to have?
Because people aren't motivated only by self-interest. Yes, someone who helps someone else feels good for doing so, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to help.
What if when u die & find out there is a Hell ?
...and it’s crammed with theists!!
Am I the only one who is dismayed and disappointed with and by our society (at least in the US) that this is not in the core curriculum along with math and reading in our education system? It seems to me that this should be a class on its own near the beginning of the education process.
As George Carlin once said: the government doesn't want critical thinkers, they want obedient workers. Smart enough to press the button but dumb enough to accept their ever increasing shittier circumstances
Most fallacies I notice very easily, Except equivocation fallacy. Ive really got to sit down and think about that one ]
+Dylan Ost and its a really common fallacy, its real tricky wich is why apologists use it A HELL OF A LOT
and i mean a lot, all the time
+luke V
Wow. You're right. I run into it all the time. I guess I just never knew what it was called.
FiniteAutomaton and that is the prime example of a equivocation fallacy
the runner up to that is when they equivocate the common usage of theory with the scientific one
but yes the faith equivocation is the most common usage of that fallacy in religious debates
charl
I heart u Matt.
"Credulous bafoon who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag." he was referring to Matt Slick right?
I love you so much, sir.
I absolutely respect you, sir. In fact, I consider you as one of my very few role models.
I just wanted to ask you what your thoughts are on the Atheist Experience's response to the anti-islamic callers. I watch all the time, almost religiously (buah!), and I've noticed some strange trends.
When you've been asked about Islam, you've said that Christianity was your primary focus; as that was closer to the center of your personal experience. This seemed like a perfectly rational response.
But recently, I heard Russel and Jen take one of these calls. They went the route of, 'all extremism is equally bad.' This bothered me a bit..
I was just curious what your thoughts were on this. I also noticed that you do not disable comments, as they have. I personally consider an atheist program disabling comments to be profoundly disagreeable.
I respect them, I respect you. I was just curious what, if anything, you thought of this.
Loved this video, btw, and I'm sorry to leave an unrelated comment. Keep fighting the good fight, brother!
Can you make a long video on fallacies? At least the ones you think are most common in the arguements for the existence in a deity.
Hi Matt et al. Really helpful, thanks.
At about the 37 minute mark, you seem to be critical of someone’s standpoint where s/he believes that God could see into the future but chooses not to and yet can prophecy. As a former evangelical, I had a similar view that God did not see the future or need to (not sure if this compromises his Omni-presence though) in order to prophecy. Consider this.
The argument (certainly for humans) may come under the concept of
determinism/free will (philosophical and theological) but I’ll just give
examples, to enable anyone not familiar with the concept to engage too. You
predict that a cup falling to the ground, beaks. The fly trap will catch flies
and your baby will wake up and cry at about 3am. A very observant mum/dad can
be much more accurate about certain things and the more you know, the more you
can know. Of course none of these can be prophesied, only guessed at, albeit
with good odds, because they are all susceptible to the unpredictable, outside
change and other agencies like the angle dropped, the absence of flies that
cold night or an ill baby. The thing which stops the guesses from becoming certainties
is our highly limited human understanding of surrounding events which affect
all of this. Now God of course knows everything down to the atoms and so all of
the mechanical effects, including the weather, the butterfly effect, supposed
free will, our thought processes and actions, accidents, decisions, are
entirely predictable to Him, when He has such perfect knowledge of all things.
This only sounds unbelievable because of our own limited knowledge, as with
evolution and how many simply can’t accept it because it seems too impossible.
Hence, God can make 100% accurate prophecies and predictions without having
actually been there in the future. This isn’t cheating because He hasn’t looked,
it’s like card counting, it’s using what you know to make a claim. There are no
doubt many scriptural problems with this and varied thoughts on the attributes
of God and theological aspects to challenge this, not to mention the problem of
a genuine free will. Any thoughts/criticisms welcome.
Hmmmm... I think he was criticizing the statement.. my thoughts are that you've just shifted the way in which god predicts future events from simple magic to something more physical. It still wouldn't invalidate arguments where you ask "if god knows, why didn't he stop the heart attack in that child? He knew it would happen before it happened."
Yeah, I think you may have just come up with a way of -predicting- the future based on information instead of simply seeing it.
@@hackeritalics God allows suffering if you haven't noticed.
Maybe their name IS frank but they prefer to go by Joe since it's their second name, my great grandfather went by Al but his first name was John but went by his second name
I got confused on purpose because I don't like being told what to do.
...It was harder than I thought.
Oversimplifications aren't always right but there is one thing that has been proven right over the course of my life over and over and that is: people suck!
others lay eggs.
That opening though
Yo I wrote this rap from the perspective of Odin a most underrated God imo and possibly my favourite of all the top Gods interested to hear your feedback pls -
My is name Odin
I'm olden Norse god
My noble folk never heard of this holy ghost ya talk of
In the morning in the lonely orchard
I'm busy wardin off warlorks in the lower portion
they get bored up
Skull thrust
Sword in the mud
Bones and blood
Conjure up a flood
Gushin up in the month of August
Lokey marauders
Order Thor to turn your boats into saw dust
All at odds when your hollow Gods don't listen
Got pissed off done put Appolo in a prison
Jehovah
Catched him slippin on his day off
Chucked him in there with him just to see what there both made of
I'm in hazy mist when the fog stops you setting sail
Feel my grip cut ya jib the wind becomes a gale
I'm in the thunder when it comes to rail
The one to hail
Wodin
I run the world!!!!!
+JimmaJamma2006
In my head, the Beastie Boys throw this down. Gnarly.
Matt, I would like to see you confront the issue of anti-natalism. Specifically the kind advocated by professor David Benatar and the authors Colin Feltham, Jim Crawford, Chip Smith and Sarah Perry. I consider anti-natalism as being fundamentally linked to atheism, and an honest atheist who can see the human condition for what it is would surely be an anti-natalist, which is why I am one.
+ArnoldTohtFan I have no clue what "anti-natalism" is. And don't particularly care. But your last sentence, at least, is ironic given the subject of the video.
Premise 1: atheist.
Premise 2: honest
Conclusion: Also anti-natalist.
Atheism is the answer to one question. Expecting, ipso facto, any second point...is not supported. Doesn't mean it's wrong. Any given atheist...oops, HONEST atheist...will also have reached this (coincidentally MY) conclusion. Sorry, but reaks of "if you're smart...and honest...you'll agree with me". Which is entirely too "I think this. and God agrees. So I'm right."
Bruce Baker but you, like 99% of people on this planet, have no idea what anti-natalism is. I suggest you do some research. begin with "better never to have been: the harm of coming into existence" by professor david benatar.
Hey Matt, I would like a group of these types of discussions or lectures in audio form that I could have on my phone and listen to like a podcast. I would pay money for something like that and I think others would to.
I second that!
Why don't you just make/save a mp3 (or other audio format) out of the Yotube videos for private / personal use? Would save Matt any additional work and time ...
Unless he really wishes to market a separate product with these (which I doubt, otherwise they wouldn't be on TH-cam but behind some paywall on other websites. So just supporting patreon and enjoying is okay, I hope.)
You87 I second that as well!
How does your head not explode when dealing with someone like Sye Ten Bruggencate, and would you really want to debate William Lane Craig ( I think my eyes are still rolling from watching him over a year ago)? Aren't the two of them the poster children for the impetus of this video, and perhaps for all your videos?
I recommend anyone interested in this should get hold of Steven Novella's series of lectures by 'The Great Courses' called 'The Deceptive Mind'. Essential for anyone wanting to boost their critical thinking skills.
Is Matt dillahunty god?
brilliant!!!! lost for words.
From now on I shall think that Matthew 23: 1-12 describes Jesus' condemnation of the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Fallacies...
Is somebody having a birthday today? lol
humans we are such fascinating beings where born,we live,we fight,and then if you figured out how to live life truthfully and make it or try to make it a good one let's be truthfully livings much harder we all know this deep inside dyings the easy part just let go.but to find the real truth the ultimate truth along the way to that old age if possible I think it's a beautiful thing.
Matt growing up! If he gets rid of the 'F' word and keeps calm he may even change the world. He needs to simplify more and get a TV documentary series.
Nice PoE reference, Tabula Rasa. ;) I saw what you did there.
Reductio ad absurdum stalemates with Credo Qua Absurdum . let us project Tertullain into say those running a reductio in a post Enlightement materialist paradigm . What do we have ? the showdown of absurdums . this makes mince meat out of reason showing it to be lacking at best and unreasonable at worst .
Thank you spiritual father.
didn't catch the name, someone Kruger effect, where you overestimate how much you know about something because you don't know how much there is to know. is there a fallacy like that that relates to someone else overestimating what you know, because you know a bit and that's impressed them because they don't know the subject at hand and therefore don't know how little you in fact know?
Dunning-Kruger effect.
What you're describing isn't a logical fallacy. It's merely being baffled with bullshit.
Well not really. I know a bit of computer programming, programmers think I'm OK, my workmates think I'm a genius.
T1mel1ne -
???
It's not then being blinded by bullshit is my point, they are overestimating my knowledge based on their own
T1mel1ne -
Oh. Well, it depends on the motivation. What I posted is the back half of a WC Fields proverb.
Religious apologists gamble on their audience knowing nothing about anything, so they insert tiny kernels of fact and then pad them with five feet of outright lies.
Either way, it's not a logical fallacy; it has nothing to do with logic. It's just a form of ignorance.
For those like Chris McFadden, who don't seem to understand logical reasoning and rhetoric.
When I heard the word fallacy (before reading it) I thought it implied phallic meaning.
“This dickhead doesn’t get it how he’s wrong” is what I thought.
Inspired by you and obviously the bong tokes this morning, I've written a couple of barz.....You pissed cuz I pillaged your Bailey?
Bitch imma knock down your Motte on the daily!
You been deploying them strawmen lately
Motha fucka I'm a treat ya breakfast and eat you like biscuits and gravy! 😂💨
Love ya Matt, you've impacted my life in a very enlightening and positive way. Thank you,
Blazin Blasphemer