Atheist Debates - Thinking about logical fallacies

[@alexvega5756]

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! :)

[@Barbiegirl342]

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!!!

[@DannyNicholson88]

blown away by how well Matt can convey information.

[@orinjayce]

You have taught me a lot over the past few years. I appreciate the effort.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

+orinjayce: Hear hear!

[@DanielLee1]

Agreed

[@tomreeves8370]

Premise 1: Syllogisms are logical. Premise 2: Matt is logical. Conclusion: Matt is a syllogism.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

+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

[@tomreeves8370]

+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_.

[@Bill_Garthright]

+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.

[@tomreeves8370]

+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 :-)

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

+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

[@DarknetDude]

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.

[@ungertron]

+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.

[@Azirahaelx]

+ungertron We already have a word for 'universe'. 'god' comes with baggage.

[@ungertron]

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.

[@Azirahaelx]

+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.

[@ungertron]

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.

[@TheJimtanker]

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.

[@CSEwens]

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.

[@pietrotacconelli8311]

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.

[@adamweishaupt2007]

it's funny because TAE means shit in our language. haha

[@arewhyinoh8595]

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.

[@joaum2009]

"When you say argument from ignorance, people take that as an insult"

[@rukidding-y2c]

What if both premises are false, and yet the conclusion is true. I love those.

[@altaydogahan342]

Just use "incredulity" instead so it's less direct and comes of more formal and less... "I wana insult you" kinda way

[@armadyl1212]

I really appreciate these videos you do Matt. You are doing very good work.

[@josephparedes5686]

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...

[@DanielLee1]

What’s your view on absolute knowledge? Always an interesting topic, I find.

[@mrvoltar]

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.

[@arjandenbesten6786]

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 ;)

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

"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

[@Chamelionroses]

Yes yes yes...thanks. This stuff helps. Especially like this sort of thing without boring lectures.

[@cosmogang]

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

[@ciera1647]

I'm using this video to help with homeschooling. Good job 👍

[@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

Indoctrinating with atheism at your school?

[@You87]

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!

[@InteGritti]

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.

[@gregcampwriter]

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.

[@TheBuslaefff]

Thanks for the content Matt, may God bless you !

[@apsarator]

A great day today - you published 3 new episodes - i am very exited

[@Bolgernow]

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

[@Bolgernow]

+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 ;)

[@Froggsroxx]

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

[@jneuman6558]

Thanks for your time, Matt. 🙂

[@sethfullerton1498]

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.

[@DrayseSchneider]

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

[@lastofusclips5291]

+Steven Schneider better to explain what it is instead of naming it

[@DrayseSchneider]

+Peter L Uh, yes I know. That was kind of why I was bringing this up. Thanks though.

[@guillermoch]

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.

[@piq-dg3vz]

i wanna watch more of these lectures! thanks matt!

[@TheRationalChannel]

The most commonly used fallacy by theists is the argument from ignorance IMO. Fallacy by assertion comes in a close second though.

[@TheRationalChannel]

FiniteAutomaton That's a good point actually.

[@TheMonk72]

+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.

[@TruthSausage]

All atheists only tool consists entirely of logical fallacy. Refute me. I dare you to try.

[@DarthAlphaTheGreat]

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.

[@DarthAlphaTheGreat]

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...

[@lb6479]

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.

[@gwmcklintock]

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!

[@Chic01taliano]

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.

[@amberjarratt6072]

"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

[@KingdomOfNoise1]

Great video. Thank you.

[@imDrew21]

You're the kind of dude I'd like to have a pint with! Thanks for existing, try to keep doin that. :)

[@calliebriggs9021]

Matt is the best

[@davids11131113]

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'.

[@amazingbollweevil]

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. ;-)

[@amberjarratt6072]

+amazingbollweevil to think he once was....

[@Bill_Garthright]

+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.

[@HasseMephisto]

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.

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

Were they Democrats? Because Democrats never lie or commit logical fallacies.

[@joecerjak9713]

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.

[@OrangeDiamond33]

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?

[@JJCage78]

Great video Matt!

[@Frie_Jemi]

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?"

[@bhalobangali1179]

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!!

[@originaljayno]

1:06 Almost sounded like you said "Argument from Scott Bakula" OH BOY

[@LughSummerson]

+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.

[@MarkWrightPsuedo]

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.

[@freshairkaboom8171]

The fact that Matt consistently references Star Trek makes him even more awesome.

[@mikeziter501]

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?

[@Kyeudo]

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.

[@waelben2000]

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.

[@HasseMephisto]

+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.

[@lastofusclips5291]

+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.

[@darkbunglex]

I remember when I first found the Atheist Experience on KZbin 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.

[@TheZooCrew]

+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.

[@cosmocalypse3708]

If there were a god(s), it wouldn't be discovered through word-salad structured arguments.

[@tempusnostrumest]

And?

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

If there is not a god which god does not exist and how do you know?

[@zacharycates5485]

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!

[@DarthAlphaTheGreat]

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

[@sharonv1548]

I love you so much, sir.

[@t1mel1ne-42]

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?

[@TheZooCrew]

Dunning-Kruger effect. What you're describing isn't a logical fallacy. It's merely being baffled with bullshit.

[@t1mel1ne-42]

Well not really. I know a bit of computer programming, programmers think I'm OK, my workmates think I'm a genius.

[@TheZooCrew]

T1mel1ne - ???

[@t1mel1ne-42]

It's not then being blinded by bullshit is my point, they are overestimating my knowledge based on their own

[@TheZooCrew]

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.

[@tedgrant2]

1. Everything that exists had a cause. 2. God did not have a cause. 3. Therefore God does not exist.

[@skipbellon4342]

Prove that the Universe had a cause.

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

It's not an argument of any real strength, but it is a valid argument as written.

[@bououdenahmed779]

hahahaha

[@zer-op2gq]

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

[@brucecook502]

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.

[@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

Or an atheist might have fallen for a particular ideology

[@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

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.

[@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

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.

[@vegane_athee]

Hi sir dillahunty. Is there an ebook, a PDF or something that you would suggest for a kind of complete list and explanations of logical fallacies?

[@HDmeems]

renerelire www.don-Lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

[@youweechube]

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.

[@lyndawilliams8434]

+youweechube and behind him... many many happy little trees....

[@MarkSiefert]

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.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

+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.

[@JohnCashin]

+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.

[@tacticalwarhead0609]

go watch stefan molyneux video about what is wrong with athiest a lot fallacy in their spread the word

[@bunnybismuth]

+Houstonmade1994 Fuck off, basement-boy.

[@andrewslattum2396]

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.

[@scienceexplains302]

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

[@TheSpaceInvaderer]

"Credulous bafoon who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag." he was referring to Matt Slick right?

[@tedgrant2]

1. Everything that exists had a beginning. 2. God did not have a beginning. 3. You got it.

[@ElroyMF1]

ippos_khloros explain?

[@yusufhelal1387]

"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

[@mrdrone4253]

Valid and sound

[@mrdrone4253]

@@yusufhelal1387 you're invisible magical man in the sky does not exist in reality

[@tedgrant2]

@@yusufhelal1387 God is invisible, so we can never see his back parts (Exodus 33:23)

[@Stevevick-ve6kh]

What if when u die & find out there is a Hell ?

[@rovert46]

...and it’s crammed with theists!!

[@01coyote13]

the one with which i have trouble understanding is"absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

[@wesleybrock315]

+01coyote13 A way to think about it is "What would we expect to see if a specific thing didn't exist?" Well you'd expect to find no evidence wouldn't you?

[@SansDeity]

working on that

[@wesleybrock315]

truth1901 "everyone agrees with them" "Also, i have" Answered your own question.

[@wesleybrock315]

truth1901 It would depend upon the context and understanding of the situation. Often we will agree for the sake of argument or governance that some set of given rules should be treated as though they are "objective". This is what Matt probably means when he says "temporarily objective". So if we all agreed that god's rules were "objective" it would only be a case of us all agreeing they are and treating them as though they are even if they actually are not. Which is a idea covered by the Thomas Theorem of Sociology which states that if we define a situation as real it's consequences will be treated as real. It would not necessarily follow that the rules would be objectively good for us even if we agreed they were objective.

[@wesleybrock315]

truth1901 "Government has been given the authority to set rules by God." An unverifiable claim that I have zero reason to lend credence to. Yeah, I'd agree that most rules are subjective. But that doesn't prevent us from treating a given set of rules as objective in a context or for a specific reason.

[@AnHonestApe]

Any movements to get this stuff taught in secondary school?

[@diroxmusic5433]

I heart u Matt.

[@tommylarrett7679]

Matt's weed pipe is funny looking....how do you carb it?

[@KitchenOne-California]

Matt! I would love if you hook up with an visual team for your presentation! Can I volunteer?

[@charlieclark2609]

Who is socrates? Or however you spell it

[@ahouyearno]

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.

[@Bill_Garthright]

+ahouyearno Heh, heh. When I call someone an idiot on KZbin - 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. :)

[@ahouyearno]

Bill Garthright oh yeah you're right. Wrongly claiming ad hominem fallacy is very common too.

[@SuperFlanders007]

Do you recommend or suggest books for further study on logical fallacies?

[@WA-ge3vz]

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.

[@CSEwens]

I second that!

[@You87]

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 KZbin but behind some paywall on other websites. So just supporting patreon and enjoying is okay, I hope.)

[@CSEwens]

You87 I second that as well!

[@SamGirgenti]

brilliant!!!! lost for words.

[@clifflutz155]

Hey Matt I’ve always wondered how you were introduced to formal logic and if you had maybe a favorite book on the subject?

[@MetalWolfz]

Informal Logic A handbook for Ciritcal argumentation by Douglas N. Walton is a good introduction to logic, types of dialouge and fallacies.

[@scepticchristian]

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.

[@hackeritalics]

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.

[@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

@@hackeritalics God allows suffering if you haven't noticed.

[@thatperson0013]

That opening though

[@justynh1321]

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

[@jaymercha3859]

Matt saw my eyes glaze over....He is a prophet and soothsayer...Long live the prophet MATT. ....I M A big fan:)

[@plaguedoct0r]

I got confused on purpose because I don't like being told what to do. ...It was harder than I thought.

[@sleepyd1231]

Most fallacies I notice very easily, Except equivocation fallacy. Ive really got to sit down and think about that one ]

[@charlx8979]

+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

[@Bill_Garthright]

+luke V Wow. You're right. I run into it all the time. I guess I just never knew what it was called.

[@charlx8979]

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

[@laurabramhall7863]

charl

[@straubdavid9]

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?

[@darkphoenix7225]

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

[@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

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.

[@jinxy72able]

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).

[@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

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.

[@SuperFamiKing]

I come across Argument from Ignorance, appeal to authority and appeal to popularity often.

[@flyingmonkey7327]

Herald was not a Medical student was he?

[@CSEwens]

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!

[@lolbored801]

So I have an issue where someone on my Facebook posted a meme mentioning chemtrails. I had posted "chemtrails? lol" and he had replied with "Chemtrails may not necessarily kill us, but I challenge you to make the case that they increase our lifespan." I am not sure where to go with this. What the hell kind of fallacy would this be? How can I prove or disprove they increase our lifespan. That's like saying everyone who has ever drank milk has died so therefore milk is bad. So don't drink milk. I am at a loss.

[@maty5152]

Tell them the milk thing. Correlation doesn't equal causation. They seem to be making an Argument from Ignorance. Or tell them "I challenge you to make a case that they shorten our lifespan" and ask for peer review studies that show actual causation, not some random website that spills nonsense without evidence.

[@You87]

Typical shifting of burden of proof. He was the first one to claim something about them, then instead of proving their point piling on you something you never claimed/meant this way (increase lifespan) and demanding to justify yourself. But frankly this level of conversation doesn't look like you're going to get a sane and meaningful discussion out of it, and it looks like both of you have very little knowledge of the topic at hand to judge the quality of arguments.

[@arjandenbesten6786]

Matt. How do you deal with the claim that the evangelists just speak about the same event but from different angles? I tried pointing out for instance the 2 guys crucified with jesus are presented by one gospel as both cursing him and in the other one as one cursing and one defending. I didnt get much further. It seemed the person in question just didnt want to believe there couldt be a contradiction. On other points he exactly said that he didnt believe there were any contradictions. Its basicly they think because of context the bible explains away any seemingly contradictions. How would you advice tackling this denieng of reallity? It feeds in to the whole point you make about a claim that if accepted would force reconsidering of many other core believes.

[@TheZooCrew]

+Arjan den Besten Walk away. Pointing out cognitive dissonance is all you can do. Horses to water.

[@arjandenbesten6786]

TheZooCrew in making the point i began doubting if there might be anymore of a backstory to it. for example that before the one guy began defending he cursed. But that isnt mentioned in that text. In hindsight i should have hammered it home. But now i know the story better so i will not relent next time because of selfdoubt. I will make the cognitive dissonance point if i get this case again.:P

[@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

People can change their mind. It was right at the end that the one thief believed. If he believed much earlier, he wouldn't have been a thief. So he must have had a moment at some point very close to the end where he began to believe. He probably hadn't spent much time with Jesus until they were hanging on the cross together. So it's possible that he was against Jesus in the beginning and came to believe by the end, of which part was only recorded in one gospel.

[@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

How about this denial of reality: The world tells us that the earth is closer to the sun in the north's winter, and yet the small difference of a tilt makes winter and summer. How would you tackle this denial of reality? They tell us the earth is moving faster than the speed of sound but this is never evident even in a lab. How would you tackle this denial of reality? They tell us that the earth curves about 3 miles away if you're standing on a beach, and yet you can see things at sea level much further away. How would you tackle this denial of reality? The answer is that people just believe what they are indoctrinated into and that's it.

[@davidsharlot67]

Are you under particular spot arrest

[@backstabber765]

I'm really stoned, Matt.

[@robloxmodz7199]

Is Matt dillahunty god?

[@MalBishop18]

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.

[@LATEXXJUGGERNUT]

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

[@PretiumLibertatisEstVigilantia]

Thank you spiritual father.

[@84Ccate]

Nice PoE reference, Tabula Rasa. ;) I saw what you did there.

[@timothymorrisii7165]

Premise 1; All Matts have a last name. Premise 2; Dillahunty is a last name. Conclusion; All Matts are Dillahuntys.

[@DanielLee1]

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. 🧐

[@gilbertramirezpt]

For those like Chris McFadden, who don't seem to understand logical reasoning and rhetoric.

[@ArnoldTohtFan]

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.

[@brucebaker810]

+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."

[@ArnoldTohtFan]

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.