INR5: Matt Dillahunty "Hyperbole Will Destroy The World"

[@Slenderchunk]

Brilliant. Definitely more of a Dillahunty fan after this one. Great insights into objectivity.

[@livdog2]

Matt, thanks for all your work on this. Someday we'll be a majority. you're a true pioneer.

[@0okamino]

Gary Lively Do we really want a majority? I'd be satisfied with just bringing it all down to more equal portions.

[@DirtyPoopers]

0okamino why would you want an equal amount of people believing stuff that isn't true? Shouldn't we get rid of anything that cannot be demonstrated as true?

[@0okamino]

Ross Champion I actually wouldn't, but sometimes it's more important to compromise on certain things just to make some progress. It's a temporary satisfaction, but a good start. _"Shouldn't we get rid of anything that cannot be demonstrated as true?"_ No, we should keep fiction around, but have a better sense of what is fictional.

[@DirtyPoopers]

0okamino of course we should have fiction. When I said "anything" I meant any belief that cannot be demonstrated as true.

[@0okamino]

Ross Champion I don't know if we should necessarily 'get rid of' it, but I do think that those beliefs shouldn't hold such high esteem and privilege in society as they do.

[@youweechube]

How to prove prayer works- Praying I win the lottery Praying to end world hunger Praying before I make it safely to work driving my car results - didnt win the lottery - people still starving - made it work safely tho = prayer works !

[@youweechube]

PHILL SHIVELY seems water tight confirmation of prayer working to me !

[@DJB1017]

PHILL SHIVELY I think you misspelled your name... Shill Phively. I fixed it for you.

[@10072018]

+youweechube Prayer totally works. I pray every day that shitty stuff will keep happening to me and everyone else in the world.

[@carlpen850]

[phone] -- So it's YOU and your praying that I can thank for this river of shit, here I thought it was just too many idiots in the world. Thanks for putting me straight... not that I was every gay, hell most of the times I'm barely happy let alone gay.

[@thelonelysponge5029]

youweechube nigga you got to work for it

[@jasonbrocious6527]

I'm really looking forward to seeing Matt in Pennsylvania in September!

[@differous01]

22:25 "....there are times when if you are not angry at what was just said, you're not paying attention." Hone your anger on your wit. Good precept. "But wit is a sword; it is meant to make people feel the point as well as see it. " [Samuel Clemens]

[@animatorgeek]

Fantastic talk. Matt's is a shining example for atheist thought and debate. More people need to understand and act on the things he's talking about.

[@therugburnz]

Thank for the post Bill, Matt has excellent points in this talk. I think I will take it to heart.

[@kd1s]

Regards preachers and priests - I've seen em; from the small scale to the big scale. it's all about the money.

[@jackdelaney6633]

feel somewhat chastened by this video, learnt a lot about my own poor attitude, very very good. Thank you Matt.

[@that1grappler]

Absolutely agree!!! I hate it when people say "religion is just an excuse/ cover up for their REAL intents!". they definitely need to sign up to the James Randy test to prove their mind reading powers.

[@0okamino]

that1grappler Yeah, but even though it fails as a blanket statement, it is a reasonable accusation in some cases.

[@_BADCHESS]

Thanks for the video!

[@jackhuston5119]

This and Sam Harris's "The Problem with Atheism" maybe the two best atheist speeches aimed at an atheist audience I've seen on KZbin.

[@8bit_pineapple]

17:09 - after looking around, it looks like the "Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects" is originally from the comedian Dave Barry. (Source: articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-03-15/features/9803150481_1_cows-japanese-fishing-boat-falling-chunks-problem ) . It's a pretty funny read. Checking Matt's twitter, the original figure he quoted at the time from minister was also 73% ( twitter.com/Matt_Dillahunty/status/435143842262548480 ), he miss-remembered it as 78 here. I guess the minister found this quote somewhere... and didn't realize it was satire? ...

[@babybluesnowden]

Humility, for myself, is my greatest attraction when listening to the intellectuals speak.. Of course they don't know everything, but they know a hell of a lot more than I do on many topics and I cannot possess enough knowledge and understanding... Christopher Hitchens opened my thinking about free speech, it isn't just so that I may say what I want to, it's being able to hear what others have to say so that I may then process that information and make a less biased, one-sided, closed-minded decision/ conclusion on a given topic. If I am left to disseminate, solely, the information that I have learned, I am eliminating the opportunity to see things from another's perspective. The great Richard Feynman said; "There are many things which I know absolutely nothing about." Truly, one of the most brilliant minds, our generations have ever had bequeathed upon them!

[@CyeOutsider]

Nice talk. Some really good points made.

[@photobobo]

"Fuck" is an obscenity, "god damn" is a profanity.

[@Tedpac1]

Fantastic speech. You're an extraordinary guy Matt.

[@TheLordHodne]

This guy keeps impressing me... Everyone should see this.

[@aurora123borealis]

Brilliant speach.

[@kittensdaisies6364]

The definition of faith, hope for things unseen, that is the essence of a scam.

[@mikegreiling]

Matt needs to present this speech to his friend Aaron Ra. I love him and his videos but he is really prone to this sort of hyperbole.

[@marcussherlock6318]

Michael Greiling He was there. He gave a talk on the same stage.

[@Wistful77]

***** the p is actually silent, so you start with a prolonged fuh sound, end with a hard t. Pfffffffffffffffffft

[@stephblackcat]

Leisa Irwin I would be fine with the live and let live way of life if they religious weren't constantly at the gates trying to make this a Christian country with ID or creationism taught in the schools.

[@Wistful77]

Stephanie Lovik I agree, I guess my philosophy of late has been, if they're obnoxious, walk away, because they make themselves look bad, I don't need to. Like that Christian guy who said those horrible things to me, I did not prolong the fight by going in for revenge. I just let him wear his own ugliness. Others noticed and were offended, the other part of it is, equal rights are given, not taken. I want to be able to speak freely to them, so I must grant them freedom to speak, too. We all want that, and to think as we please. The red box test shows, the god they imagine is not all the same god. it changes all the time...If you ask someone to imagine and describe a red box, well, the variations are endless. is it shiny, dull, wooden, metal, square, rectangle? Any box imagined will be different from moment to moment and each description. just like god. I want to be free of their whining, and retributions, yes. But I don't want to hurt them. Learning something usually changes a religious person's mind. It did mine! :D

[@stephblackcat]

Leisa Irwin I think you are wrong on what you think freedom of speech means. You aren't and shouldn't be free to say whatever you want wherever you want. There are proper things to say in the setting. In my private home I can tell you to shut up. In a public place it's indecent to talk about somethings and it's improper to say "Hail Satan!" in a church. For this reason no we don't have to put up with hate speech. It's indecent. It doesn't belong in the public forum.

[@harkema8090]

Thank you, Matt! I became more wiser....

[@lDrownded2]

Re: Sam Harris: Part of being a skeptic is understanding that no one gets a free pass. If you're looking for unquestioned authority I'm sure there are any number of churches that would love to have you and your money.

[@lDrownded2]

J Gairns Thanks.

[@captaingrub2228]

Marc Norton I want to agree in principle but Sam just so thoroughly kicks ass in every instance.

[@youweechube]

***** i think its pretty clear he didnt, but i can see why he responded the way he did

[@captaingrub2228]

Wasn't Matt's objection simply that Sam admitted that it was possible that pi was in the Bible? Given that Sam has made it abundantly clear on every occasion that he feels there is definitely nothing divinely inspired or magical in the Bible (even where it could be right about something in theory, such as pi) and that it is simply a man-made artifact I find Matt's objection specious. I love Matt but I found it amusing that I was able to find a couple of exaggerations in his talk on lamenting exaggerations.

[@youweechube]

J Gairns i was doing a little research on this and came across this article www.strangenotions.com/bible-pi/ .... what i found most amusing (and sad) was the comments made by "Linda" down the bottom.. complete credulous thinking!! sorry had to share with someone !

[@theriffwriter2194]

Aah. I see what cha did there with the title.

[@MartinMcDarren]

Yesterday night, I meet God ... he told me that he is an atheist... what can i say... the word of god rules.

[@WilbertLek]

Funny thing is "god" would actually be an Atheist. It _knows_ it exists...

[@jensandersen7011]

@@WilbertLek kzbin.info/www/bejne/aH7NpappnKqAraM

[@Ken-fv3sx]

It took me a few seconds to get the intent of the title. Clever! ;)

[@michelemcdaniel6032]

Sounds hyperbolic to me

[@ruhap9311]

I have this question in response(great talk I'm with you). Getting rid of religion because it his some antiquated rules misinterpreted badly by it's modern users may be like getting rid of contact sports because of bad refs, injuries, and poor management. There is an intrinsic use for it in society take it away and you frustrate the people/society, you can only improve and mitigate religion not do away with it (i suppose it has always been for a reason, which has to do with identity) Any ideas?

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

name a sports institution who want to inact laws to decide if women can have an abortion or not

[@ruhap9311]

@@SNORKYMEDIA OK then government. Molesting kids is an unmitigated sin. Killing somewhere between a fetus to unborn babies has a reality of deep moral/psych problems like similar "necessary" social issues like slavery/class, prostitution, alchahol/drugs. Ideally there would/should be none, strive for none, but it's pie in the sky and does greater harm to force it without some balance. "Religion", or seems, has a legit place to make the ideal social arguement but reality/history shows it should not have power to.

[@daswasich1147]

@@SNORKYMEDIA if they could Profit off of it FIFA would definetly do it ngl

[@nicosmind3]

"We can all be stupid at some time about something" Ive had this opinion for a few years now. I call it the fuckwit hypothesis. Because ive seen professors and doctors say some of the stupidest shit ive heard in my life. And if the intellectual heavyweights of humans can be idiots then we can all be idiots without exception. Yet people are so sure about their opinions and "knowledge" on politics or economics, and a lot of the time they will have beliefs which contradict themselves yet be completely oblivious to that fact. If youre reading this comment right now you probably hold beliefs which are logically inconsistant but you dont know because you havent done enough thinking and research to reveal that flaw in your thinking. So "have an open mind but dont be guliable.". Probably the hardest skill ive worked to aquire and im still not sure im there yet, but one thing i "know" is that most people arent close.

[@youweechube]

nicosmind3 maybe you dont "know" and everyones playing a huge trick on you ! ;)

[@cloudoftime]

6:20 - Jesus, Matt. Again with the Sam Harris and Pi = 3 thing? Though I see what Matt is getting at, this seems to be a misrepresentation of what Sam's point actually was. Sam's point in this passage is that if God wanted to impress upon the world that he was real, he could have given the simple people of the time (that he supposedly spoke to) some mathematical insight beyond what we would expect them to have, YET god doesn't take this opportunity. Obviously, Sam understands that these people were primitive in their understanding of mathematics. He is not "presuming that these people were coming up with a mathematical description of the universe" (what a weird strawman for Matt to make), he is showing where things could be more accurate, which one might expect from a such a "divine" document. And sure, Sam could have put it in a better way. MAYBE Sam could have chosen "better" arguments, as well. But Matt has said himself that people respond to different arguments and styles of argumentation, and that people should approach these discussions from all angles. So, he is being a bit hypocritical here. It could be said that there are "better" arguments that Matt could be making in the time that he has, as well, but perhaps he didn't think of them, or didn't think they were "better". And to that point, it could be said that Matt's time would be much "better" spent on issues other than picking apart, and ultimately misconstruing the greater concept of what Sam Harris has said. I want to make it clear that I see where Matt is coming from. I too, personally find issue with HOW Sam states this in the book, though I do understand his overall point. In the sentence preceding Sam's claim about pi being represented as 3, Sam states, "the bible contains no formal discussion of mathematics and some obvious mathematical errors" (which is also a terribly constructed sentence, but I digress). What exactly is Sam saying the error is here? That it was wrong because pi wasn't represented to any decimal places? The second decimal place? The third? The tenth? How many decimal places would you need to represent pi to, in order for it to not be considered an error? But that's just it. Sam could have worded this in a better way, in order to make his main point stand out more. Also, he could have prevented people from getting so caught up in this idea that he was trying to say that the intention of these bible passages was to accurately represent a mathematical concept. But yeah, he slipped up. So, like I said, I get it, but while Matt is pointing out a flaw in Sam's writing, he is guilty of problems in his own argument.

[@upplsuckimcool16]

The problem with "not saying any of those" is that it doesn't work any other way with people of this level of intellect. You HAVE to talk the way they think for them to BEGIN to START to think critically. You can't go out there and expect them to have a revelation just because we explained to them OUR revelations........ I mean, think bout who we're taling about here... fox news views.... people who think glenn beck was brilliant

[@christinemichele8575]

I think he's right about assumptions, but he has the worst one. By my calculations very few "true believers" actually really believe that shit. MOST of them are lying and pretending. I respect Matt for being sincere, but he's too optimistic about everyone else. No, most preachers aren't in it for money. They are in it for POWER.

[@sleepyd1231]

great talk

[@coyhampton3087]

I like what Matt said about calling Christians stupid. Thomas Edison thought he could talk to the dead and tried to invent a machine to do so. Was Edison stupid? No, he was brilliant but he failed at producing the evidence that talking to the dead was possible.

[@davers1953]

Coy Hampton I talk to the dead often. The only trouble is they never answer me!

[@0okamino]

Nigel Davenport Have you tried building a machine for that? You might be the next Edison. You might even come into some conflict with the next Tesla.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

+Nigel Davenport Try talking louder, perhaps they just can't hear you.... 😜

[@carlpen850]

+Nigel Davenport -- I've never talked to the dead but I've talked to a few vegetables in my day. I quit doing that when I was "stalked" by a bunch of celery, I finally had to tell her to "beet" it.

[@coyhampton3087]

Carl Pen That's corny.

[@JessyDoyle]

matt brings up the sam harris pi thing so often

[@shanewilson7994]

Jessy Doyle He does, and I hear it quite a bit from atheists. Not as much as I did, say a year or so ago, but it seems to not be thrown around as often.

[@SeanDDaily]

Hyperbole won't destroy the world. Silly Matt. *HYPERBOLE WILL DESTROY TEH UNIVERSE*

[@mattroxursoul]

Religious people are not stupid. They have been reasoning

[@dragonfiremalus]

I feel I should step in and defend one of the comments made by a preacher he mentioned. It is entirely reasonable for you to be unable to know in any specific instances if God answered a prayer, but be very confident that it happens sometimes. It's all a matter of probability. If the favorable thing happened 78% of the time with prayer and only 50% without in a large study, then we could be very confident that prayer works sometimes, but still be unable to say which exactly of those 78% turned favorable because of prayer. That's the whole basis of control groups and large studies. The real problem is that such studies have shown zero improvement in the prayed for group over the control, so there's no reason to say that prayer works even sometimes.

[@richardgates7479]

+dragonfiremalus Yes, 78% really only amounts to 28% because 50% (50/50) would be the expected normal. If prayer really did give you an advantage, then it would have to be a pretty significant figure.

[@qwadratix]

If there's 'no reason to say that prayer works even sometimes', then how can anyone claim that 'It's reasonable to be confident that it happens sometimes'? Clearly it's unreasonable by definition. A thing cannot be both 'A' and 'not A'.

[@anthonygrimaldi8768]

Citation please for the peer reviewed study that says prayer works better than random chance. There was a Study several years ago that Matt Dilahunty refers to many times in other talks, that study showed that prayer was as good as random chance and less than random chance when the people knew they were being prayed for by others. Kinda the exact opposite than what jesus said in the gospels.

[@SDW175]

"sometimes god's answer to prayers is no"

[@0okamino]

SDW175 Very often it seems.

[@allenmontrasio8962]

SDW175 most times, apparently. 😁

So it is the concensus of the left that there is free will in all we do except who we use our reproductive systems on? That it is beyond one's control? A male is born to crave vaginal reproductive activity, anal reproductive activity, or pharyngeal reproductive activity (since the sex drive is imputed to akk sexually reproductive creatures, whether they know it or not, to make more). Then, if one or both of the latter, then he will further specialize regarding whether he will give or receive the reproductive by-products of the male with whom he is engaging. The whole concept of sexual orientation as a programmed preference carries no more weight than a meat-eater who is not also a cannibal. Meat is meat - its all skeletal muscle whether it is the muscle of a cow, a pig, a chicken, a horse, a goat, a human. There is no way to certainly know that one has ever eaten human meat without actually witnessing the entire process from slaughter to skillet. A man who says that he is heterosexual may very well and unbeknownst to him become sexually attracted to a female impersonator. Is he really a heterosexual? How could he be born a heterosexual and still be attracted to a male masquerading as a female? Does the heterosexual gene work through the visual system? And how can he no longer be sexually attracted to what he was just minutes ago sexually attracted to only after finding out that the person is not the sex that he was born to be sexually attracted to? Does he choose to no longer be sexually attracted to what he thought was what he was suppose to be sexually attracted to, or does his DNA throw the no-longer-sexually-attracted-to switch?

[@cybernitemusic]

You da man

[@tomf.3304]

I hate hyperbole, it's great to agree with geniuses Haha

[@allenmontrasio8962]

Why do believers get so worked up? Can't they just accept that most people do not share their belief? Get over it, please, and let us live our lives without trying to bash us into submission.

[@upplsuckimcool16]

don't say religious people are stupid, I agre.... say they're ignorant.

[@brodericksiz625]

That is also an exaggeration: it is easy for people who are often in contact with creationists and fundies to forget that, in the rest of the western world, there are plenty of knowledgeable religious people. At least half of the people that I know have some kind of religious belief but I wouldn't call most of them ignorat, heck the most embarrassingly religious individual that I know recently got a major in a prestigious non religious British university (btw, he's not a creationist). "Fundies are usually very ignorant" is a demonstrable fact, "religious people are ignorant" at best just isn't and at worst is demonstrably false.

[@johno9098]

Grammar and spelling being notably erroneous elicits the response of that person being poorly educated especially in an email. Somewhat unfairly the language impaired individual is too easily dismissed.

[@richardgates7479]

+John O (mensajohn) A couple commas would make your comment easier to comprehend, but I think I understand you. Other than those with a language barrier or disability, poor spelling and grammar shows a lack of interest in good communication, the worse it is the more it shows how little they care about an argument. It is reasonable to dismiss unintelligible communications.

I call the originator of all things "God." The atheist calls the originator of all things "?".

[@ciaareinthecommentssection9575]

Rip Van And then you augment 'the originator of all things,' that you implied is a meaningful term, hates gay people and has angel pets.

[@0okamino]

Rip Van "?" is one of those gaps in which you seem very fond of hiding your god. We're not just leaving it at "?", though. We're just being honest enough to admit that we don't know yet.

[@youweechube]

0okamino well said

[@gaiusbaltar7975]

I don't think that preachers that just doing for the money. They're doing it for access to kiddies.

[@dannysnee4945]

Gaius Baltar And a sense of power

[@psiclops521]

Yawner. Here's Matt talking down to everyone.

[@The_Gallowglass]

good

[@captaingrub2228]

Matt disagreed that losing one's temper in debate was a bad sign (he claims it is "justified" and doubles down with "if you're not angry you're not paying attention"). Seconds later he says "Don't confuse passion with anger" (meaning the former is good and the latter bad). In other words his first statement was 'hyperbole"! Doh!

My fingers are too big for typing long messages on my smart phone. Sorry about the typos. Can't seem to undo them on my phone without losing my post. Hopefully, the context will help.

[@mulheron1]

Rip Van I am having trouble following your point,are you in a conversation with someone or are you just ranting in general. You seem to have problems with common descent,anything i can help you with just give me a shout.

[@nelsdoeleman4685]

Oops. I meant to write ten billion billion billion to one. Anyway a number large enough to convince me that it won't happen without supernatural intervention.

[@0okamino]

Nels doeleman Your mistake will negate everything, ever. My hyperbole destroys the world, your mistake takes out everything else. Completely. And utterly.

[@chrishakala528]

Nels doeleman I don't know who you meant to respond to, but your comment is clearly bullshit.

[@kiwicalibre]

Hey Matt.. love u dude but the beard has to go

[@simbeau]

John Murray The Matt shall Matt in any way that the Matt sees fit.

[@lDrownded2]

John Murray Site your source. I want ten peer reviewed articles from non partisan sources (anything from Schick and I will end you) proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Matt's beard has to go.

[@3101010]

John Murray I love the beard.. Its a mans man beard.

[@SansDeity]

John Murray Some like it, some don't. I like it and my wife likes it...I wasn't really concerned about whether or not you like it. :) Sorry.

[@3101010]

what about my feelings? :)

[@AzimuthTao]

I have a feeling Matt has at one time or another, used all those arguments that he scoffs at now. Really easy to look back in hindsight and ridicule because you think you have reached a better understanding than everyone else. If anyone should be embarrassed about the way they've conducted themselves with theistic arguments, it is Matt - on every Atheist Experience show he's hosted.

[@kieroncadey730]

Raoul Borans This whole thing was about over exaggerating and using hyperbole ... and you just did it in that comment. Yes Matt has said stupid things, we all have. But something that he accepts (because I have seen him do it) is that he was wrong, and so changed his position because, people can change their minds you know.

[@AzimuthTao]

Kieron Cadey That would have been great if he had admitted that he was guilty of it but instead he lambasted other people like Sam Harris & Richard Carrier for using flawed and hopeless arguments. I think he's gotten to a point where he takes himself far too seriously.

[@svvish6898]

Raoul Borans I'm pretty sure he said he is only giving reasons to not pick up the burden of proof, He isn't claiming to know more than anybody or to have a better understanding than everyone. hes not saying you HAVE to listen to him, just listen, if you agree, cool, fact check it. if you disagree, fact check it. sure maybe hes made a bad argument or two, who hasn't.? Is that impossible for you to grasp.? Its just who we are as humans to have fallacies, but hes trying his best to overcome that by letting you know HE CAN BE WRONG. And hes clearly not afraid to admit it.!!

[@AzimuthTao]

Matthew Swisher Lighten up with the,"we're all human" speech. All I'm saying is for someone like Dillahunty, who might single-handedly be responsible for the label 'angry atheist', he has a long way to go before assuming he is the voice of reason among atheists. I just think the presentation was pompous and not very helpful.

[@leechap3]

Raoul Borans You mean you don't think he made valid points or you don't think he is entitled to make them? I thought he made some good points which I found helpful. I don't find it particularly relevant that he has been guilty of not always following that advice, especially since he admitted it up front.

There is no science or laboratory where it has been shown or can be shown that there was nothing and worlds spawned from a blank slate. The math and equations look good on paper but nothing has ever come off the paper to support those suppositions. It takes as much faith fir you to accept unproveable writings from contemporary scientist as it does for someone like me to accept the theistic writings of antiquity. Calling ot science but yielding no fruit puts you back at"faith". I am a medical doctor and a master degreed engineer. In spite of all tgat learning and theorizing by the so-called scientific fields, I am more convinced today than I was when I started that they are clueless about the origin of life and the celestials. A lot of fancy words but no proof to me sounds like faith without works ( the Bible calls that combination "dead").

[@0okamino]

Rip Van Wow, you must have a lot of reverence for faith since you're willing to throw around accusations of it as is it's a fart.

[@ElsbethMai]

Wow, the politicians should watch this. Both Dems and Reps.