Jordan Peterson and Cosmic Skeptic DESTROY Fake Skeptics!

[@olekcholewa8171]

They're skeptical about everything that might lead to them being wrong.

[@Pancakegr8]

Believe me, some atheists want to be wrong. I wish God did exist (an actually good God), as that would be pretty swell.

[@Unorthodox_Style]

hahahahaha, thanks for the laugh x)

[@KevinSmile]

​@@Pancakegr8What if that God didn't think like you?

[@VVooshbait]

​@@Pancakegr8What does God need to do to be considered good

[@Pancakegr8]

@@KevinSmile Then that would suck, I guess.

[@smidlee7747]

I'm an atheist skeptic, very skeptical of atheists' skepticism.

[@markmcflounder15]

Literally LoLed! Such a great quip. But, yeah same here

[@miovicdina7706]

😅 hehehe

[@Nick-ij5nt]

Which if you were consistent would lead you down the same line of reasoning as David Hume.

[@idan654321]

​@@Nick-ij5nt so being racist?

[@sabhishek9289]

​@@Nick-ij5ntDavid Hume is very overrated. His argument against supernatural which is popularly used even today was refuted effectively by many of his contemporaries.

[@wjckc79]

I played my part as a "New Atheist" way back when. Truth was never the goal. The goal was to usher in the "rational golden age" as quickly as possible. I could carry on for quite awhile about what that meant. For a lot of people transhumanism was, and I suppose still is, a big part of the project. So yes, I myself was a transhumanist atheist and I was 100% dishonest and acting out of personal motivation. In short, I was a leftist. In my case I essentially grew out of it. That's all a very long story short.

[@leonrobinson8180]

A lot of leftists believe that some human centered ideology will bring them to a perfect, Star Trek style utopia. Communism, socialism, atheism, etc. The truth is, none of them will create such a utopia, because human are inherently flawed creatures. We're short-sighted, lazy, stupid, fearful and selfish.

[@dugonman8360]

As an Ex-Atheist raised in an Atheist household who became Catholic in adulthood, I completely agree. It was basically thinking we could usher in a utopia if we removed Christianity from the scene as well as being allow to pursue any carnal pleasures you wanted. Hedonism+utopia is essentially the main motivation for atheism. Then one day I had an epiphany: if God is a transcendent as they say, beyond space and time, so we demand empirical evidence of God's existence (which is what we meant when we said evidence) yet if we did find empirical evidence of God wouldn't that be a paradox? When I converted, I would tell atheists who begged that question or try any other debate tactics to stop. I'm not an idiot, I went to your forums, I read your books, I know exactly what you believe because it was what I believed. Secularism will not lead to a hedonistic Star Trek universe. It'll lead to what it always does: bodies.

[@KalonOrdona2]

Great insights. Hedonistic Utopia is a contradition in terms.

[@joshua-l6m]

Movies and TV shows have a lot to do with it, and it's not a coincidence. A lot of the arguments against religion or in favor of some future utopia are often displayed in film long before people verbalize and uphold them as true. We're flooded by worldviews and opinions geared away from any notion of God or intrinsic purpose in the media, is it any wonder most atheists believe their "skepticism" is obvious or rational?

[@rinkohorowitz]

@@dugonman8360The point is not proving God exists. The point is proving that the Abrahamic God exists and that he (must prove that it’s a man too) does indeed play a crucial role in our lives and evidence for why we should all follow the rules in a specific religious book written 2000 years ago and use that as a moral compass for our lives, how we treat children, the elderly, the world around us etc. In this context, Christianity is categorically untrue, as it has led to the most human suffering in human history, with Islam being a close second. I have no problem with religious beliefs; I adhere to many myself. But organised religion is a cancer.

[@ProfYaffle]

I am a scientist. I often challenge my students and colleagues asking them why they don't have the same approach to religion as they do to science. Why do they think they can write it off without any real scrutiny? Why do they think they can develop their own theory without testing it? Shame on them

[@DanielApologetics]

Preach it!

[@GovorashayaRiba]

I often wonder why so many people think that science can tell us anything about the objective reality. Scientists do a lot of work, but if the laws of nature don't actually exist or change over time, then we can't make any scientific predictions about the past or future.

[@iyziejane]

Ironically we have a large portion of society that now believes "science" is about trusting paid experts and not thinking critically about what they say. So the students are both dismissive towards religion, and also overly trusting of paid experts with a science title.

[@blade6568]

Why shame on them though? Everyone can have their own way of looking at something and be aggressive or passive about it. Shame is a term we are using very casually and it has lost almost all meaning

[@warrenarthur5629]

@@blade6568 You are welcome to look at the bus coming towards you as an illusion, but when it hits you reality will become evident. There are objectively better and objectively worse ways at looking at things. Shame is somewhat necessary when someone knowingly applies standards hypocritically.

[@joshd3502]

I'm skeptical of those who always identify as skeptics.

[@taoufiqbenallah9029]

therefore, Jesu was really born from a Virgin!

[@commentfreely5443]

they don't build statues to sceptics

[@noxplay4906]

@@commentfreely5443 Communist regimes

[@michagizinski8804]

very stupid comment​@@taoufiqbenallah9029

[@JesusSavesSouls]

@@commentfreely5443 They build idols but they are not seen, and they are worshipped but not professed.

[@GeneralProfessor]

"For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice." - Thomas Aquinas

[@Unorthodox_Style]

Indeed.

[@jpfanmajesty6798]

faith literally means believing something without evidence, I am sorry I don't find the bible to be mildley close to being sufiicent evidence.

[@VVooshbait]

​@@jpfanmajesty6798faith means having confirmation into something, there must be some material first.

[@VVooshbait]

​@@jpfanmajesty6798Also no amount of evidence will be sufficient for you, evidence of God will always seem divine, and since you already took the premise that God doesn't exist as a standard, there is no point on ever arguing with such an ignorant individual like you.

[@jefetce]

u have understood the vid​@@jpfanmajesty6798

[@OnMountMoriah]

But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’  ‭‭- Luke‬ ‭16‬:‭31‬ ‭

[@VVooshbait]

Is this abraham speaking to richman

[@manny75586]

Yup. It's the last line of the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus

[@montefleming8390]

And when Jesus actually raised Lazarus from the dead a few days later, they plotted to kill both Jesus and Lazarus.

[@kos-mos1127]

How do I know that Moses was a real person and not made up? Ancient writers took a lot of creative freedoms and made up eye witnesses.

[@asxulxetesteronsxez538]

@@kos-mos1127Just curious, do you take that same stance with all old historical writing?

[@john-xp4em]

"The 👑GREATEST MAN in HISTORY" had no servants, yet they called Him Master. Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher. Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer. He had no army, yet kings feared Him. He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world. He did not live in a castle, yet they called Him Lord, He ruled no nations, yet they called Him King, He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today! "His name is JESUS❤"

[@mnrsteeljoutafel]

Had he's God, aswell as BASED

[@DarkTerritory71]

I had to screenshot that

[@stephendianda1543]

That touched my heart

[@Truthone-l9k]

Very true. 🙏

[@Psa22-6]

@@john-xp4em powerful

[@christiroseify]

I first started watching Jordan Peterson going through his spiritual journey 4yrs ago, how trapped he is within his own mind. May he find the humility to break out of the chains of man's "wisdom" and receive into himself the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Amen

[@mystrength5640]

He needs many Prayers!

[@ianalan4367]

christiroseify - I too have enjoyed watching his journey. My road to Christ Jesus was long and steep. Finding God carnally is a huge challenge to say the least. I do think Peterson has made great strides. He is seeking. He is knocking. He has even found the Orthodox Church. Let us pray indeed for the doors to be opened and the spirit to pierce his heart. His mind has already started the journey.

[@bane4165]

What is this guidance of the holy spirit?

[@janelle9998]

​@@bane4165 read the bible

[@iloveyoushima]

What's that picture after your name?

[@anthonyd.1428]

The Bible viewed the Bareans as having more noble character because they were skeptical of the apostles. In their case, they just didn't believe what was said to them, but they tested what the apostles said and compared it with the scriptures that came before hand. This way, they knew who was telling the truth and who was trying to deceive them. At that time, many people tried to pass themselves off as wise teachers or Jesus appointed. The apostles looked at the Barean church as wiser for questioning their legitimacy because out of the skepticism came truth that the Bareans could trust.

[@marvelstark3797]

to become stupid is effortless, as is becoming skeptical. both are easy paths, but without thought, skepticism can become just as blind as ignorance.

[@brogro6081]

Very true, especially with the skeptical + close minded people.

[@17jahbh]

Skepticism flourishes when combined with real curiosity and openness. It's a million times more interesting than destructive skepticism or faith.

[@davidbell2547]

It's far easier to destroy than to build

[@RobertBooker-xi8cc]

To many people skepticism means an attitude or general principle of maintaining an open mind and not committing oneself to anything. In reality, however, it amounts to maintaining a CLOSED mind, e.g. the view that there is no ultimate truth (and that there is therefore no point in looking for it), without even examining the candidates. It thus becomes an excuse for not examining or thinking. The "tool" analogies are more appropriate, but I think that Alex' "chisel" aims at chipping away at the marble until what is left meets one's own wishes or opinion or sense of aesthetics. But if that is the case, how do you know whether or not the end result is not just appealing or compatible with your own views but (also) right?

[@oxybenzol9254]

@@RobertBooker-xi8cc " the view that there is no ultimate truth (and that there is therefore no point in looking for it" Science never claims to hold the abolute truth but never stops looking. The reason is very simple. We are curios.

[@Topher3088]

Their analogies on skepticism are similar but different in major areas. Peterson is trying to use skepticism to determine truth or what holds weight while Alex is trying to sculpt his own reality into the stone with a hammer and chisel. Separating wheat from chaff is more passive and sculpting is more active. I think motivations are totally different when applying skepticism

[@mcfarvo]

Good point. One is seeking to allow the truth to be parsed out. The other is seeking to craft his own image of his liking.

[@thadofalltrades]

that's a fair point. A sculptor has an image in mind he's trying to create. Separating wheat and chaff is simply a task necessary to get wheat.

[@GranMaese]

Also the "hammer and chisel" approach still makes one very susceptible to be willing to deny anything, just because one doesn't personally like that something or it clearly contradicts oneself and one is unwilling to listen, because it doesn't "fit his sculpture" [an sculpture that he not even knows what he's sculpting to begin with, mind you, is just random hammering]. I would say that puts the "hammer and chisel" approach in a lvl 8 or 9 skepticism tool. Not very recommendable, but still better than new atheists lvl. 10 of throwing tantrums at anything. So that's that.

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

The sculpting analogy really does fit most new atheism though. They apply skepticism and create a beautiful sculpture, and then they proceed to put the excess on a pedestal. The excess is atheism, they are thoroughly convinced in their world view such that the rocks laying at their feet are more beautiful than the sculpture of theism.

[@gre8]

I think you are taking too much out of it. Analogies are always imperfect. I like both, and I think there is something quite elegant in relating critical thinking to the arts.

[@osgrace3341]

I had a near death experience at the age of 5. I drowned and had no heartbeat for well over 10 minutes. I had a non interrupted experience of leaving my body, seeing the world around me as holographic, see through yet visible and stable. I saw people and could "read" their thoughts as I focused on them and "understand" their feelings (for lack of a better word) yet I was very much liberated from being attached to their perspective and worries (since I was just fine floating about in the air). I then uninterruptedly got pulled back into my body as I threw up water over the shoulders of my dad running me to the ambulance. It was only after this return to my body that I started to "fade" out and into consciousness. The blackness and the light we see while still functioning through and instinctively cling to using our brain/body. What I noticed very early in my life is that barely anyone asks skeptical questions or questions at all other than trying to convince themselves or me from what they already believe to be true. (which is mostly "hallucinations") Which I also experienced later in life and they are not even remotely in the same ballpark. So I went on a search. And as it is written..

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@osgrace3341 Amen. Thank you for sharing your testimony. Atheists and Agnostics could have so much more, if they really wanted it. As a concern for them, I want to point out that although they might regard themselves as the most intellectual among the world's populace, with all due respect, there is no group in the world more uninformed than an atheist or agnostic.

[@alexkiaii6548]

And somebody Else died in USA and came back. Reporter no god was there, no hell. Just blackness and forgott3ness. Your case proves nothin

[@KalonOrdona2]

..Seek and ye shall find. Thank you for sharing!

[@alexkiaii6548]

@@KalonOrdona2 wrong* you are currently proving that god does not exist

[@drip2575]

@@alexkiaii6548people have found god tho

[@ThroughTheKJVBibleInOneYear]

Not long ago, Alex was one of the most arrogant, grating, poorly reasoned and over confident personalities on KZbin. I don't know that he'll ever change his position, but to his credit, he has grown in humility and reason in a way I would not have even considered possible. He is an example to [both] side[s] of the aisle.

[@sherlockshlome473]

He's a good interviewer, but his own views are extremely reductive. Almost just a facade so he can give philosophical talks and participate in discussions with the most minimal of effort and the most banal of ideas. Though I guess that's at least consistent with his supposed view of being a free will lacking pleasure maximizing machine.

[@GranMaese]

_«Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.»_ [Romans 1, 22] Great video, David.

[@peterevans3310]

Being skeptical of my skepticism, I was guided towards the conclusion that Christianity is the truth.

[@itoibo4208]

I am very skeptical of this conclusion.

[@peterevans3310]

@@itoibo4208 I wish you a blessed journey.

[@Narko_Marko]

Which form of Christianity?

[@peterevans3310]

@@Narko_Marko Orthodoxy

[@Narko_Marko]

@@peterevans3310 which version? I know orthodox people who accept something like evolution and others who don't. Every orthodox person has slightly differing beliefs, so which one is correct?

[@andrewgross4445]

It would be pointless to present evidence when your opponent is not open to evidence. No matter what evidence you present, he will respond, “That doesn’t prove anything.” I will ask a skeptic, “What type of evidence would convince you?” I force him to set the parameters before I proceed.

[@JoanneArc-or9sr]

Bit like when christians present evidence to muslims. And the muslims dont want to hear it

[@alexkiaii6548]

Atheist have many parameters which would accept that god exists. To see him. Touch him. See somebody do the supernatural with mo styrings attached. Prove that the claims in the bible are correct. Yet! Theists fail all those criteria, even the easy ones. You are just living in a delusional fantasy world

[@dugonman8360]

Its the same strategy I use. I deliberately explain what their tactic is, why they are using it, how it's in bad faith and ask them why they are acting in bad faith. The tactic in question is called an Empirical spiral, where the one debater refuses to accept anything as evidence while mocking their opponent and appealing to the audience/jury. It's an old legal technique that a lot of lawyers, both plaintiff and defendant, utilize to this day. It's essentially trying to maintain a offensive position while keeping your opponent in a defensive spot.

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Bear in mind this 'foolish skepticism': or 'selfish skepticism', as it were, that doesn't care about dialing its standards down if something's comfortable, or dialing up if uncomfortable. Hypocrisy is easy - so is falling off of a cliff. You won't like where either take you. Thanks for this, David.

[@itoibo4208]

There comes a point in your life where you have pondered questions long enough to be assured that you are correct, even if you are wrong, and no longer feel the need to be skeptical. The bible is like that for me. After much reading, much discussion, and consideration, I no longer think much of the bible. Until someone shows me some amazing evidence, I will not even consider it seriously. "My crazy aunt said...", or "My crazy uncle saw...", or "This ancient book says...", are not remotely enough to make me think much about it. People think they see ghosts, aliens, and other nonsense every day, and yet there is no evidence.

[@crookbrother]

I was a skeptical atheist and when I caught a whiff of this world being more than the worldview I thought was perfectly solid. I destroyed every piece of good will and faith I had with God until I made absolutely sure he was real. So now I know God is real, skepticism lead me to 100% knowledge. So it’s effective but truly blessed are those who don’t know yet still believe, I’ve suffered with my knowledge. That being said I love god and I regret nothing, but there was a lot of suffering

[@bowrodgers4435]

I'd like to ask everyone for prayers as my wife has been given a timeline of a few months. We have battled colon and cervical cancer for 4 + years. along these lines I have a question, David, if it's possible. Thank you all. God Bless

[@OnCoated]

Adding you in my prayers ✝️🙏

[@draco19849]

I pray that the lord our god Jesus Christ fully heal your wife and you both in body and spirit, may you all be fully blessed on earth and after a long long blessed life, may you and your family inherit the kingdom of heaven with treasure. Amen ✝️

[@ioakeim.h]

"If you don't want to believe in something you can dial up your skepticism so that nothing ever accounts as evidence. If you do want to believe in something you can lower your level of skepticism so that anything accounts as conclusive proof". This is excellent! The first part is obvious in our times, but the second part - lowering your level of skepticism - I could not articulate. It made me think why studying my belief is important to maintain it during these difficult times. For example, I was reading the Old Testament lately and very often came across acts of God that I could not understand. Every time I thought to myself "God knows best" and carried on. Its true that God knows best, but lowering my skepticism resulted in a superficial understanding of the story. It may be that one day when I am cornered by life, I will be forced to question my belief because of this. But even though I cannot explain it clearly, I am pretty sure that knowledge is not the only thing strengthening your faith.

[@Lord9Genesis]

Is selective skepticism really skepticism?

[@realityisbest8963]

Nope!

[@-Jozef]

Holy skeptic, you sound worse than Jordan Peterson

[@Lord9Genesis]

@@-Jozef "What is selectivity? What is Skepticism? What is really?" 🤓

[@jefetce]

Ofcourse in some instances

[@birgittabirgersdatter8082]

That’s a sceptical view on scepticism.

[@vitola1111]

The biggest con of Atheisism is pretending to care about getting to the truth when in reality they would rather never get to it. "...always learning and never able to arrive at the knowledge of the truth." - 2 Timothy 3:7

[@thefuturist8864]

Speaking for myself (as an atheist), I do not believe that a god of any kind exists, nor do I believe there there is any evidence to indicate such existence. As such, I will happily state that not only is atheism true, it has yet to be successfully challenged. It is no ‘con’ to require a theist to provide evidence.

[@sabhishek9289]

​@@thefuturist8864 Atheism violates the law of biogenesis.

[@vitola1111]

@@thefuturist8864 that is the con. Pretending like you're looking for evidence with an objective mind when in reality you're already fully and dogmatically committed to your Atheist worldview.

[@steveburris6543]

You obviously haven't followed Cosmic Skeptic channel. You might change your view if you dip into it!

[@vitola1111]

@steveburris6543 Skeptic is one of the smarter con artists. He understands the power of appearing neutral and objective in order to be granted credibility. But he is committed to his presuppositions and ideological dogma of Atheism as much as the more obvious con artists. The most honest and objective people are the ones who lay their assumptions and presuppositions on the table and admit to them. You're more likely to find this kind of honesty among the Christians who admit to their faith claims while the Atheist/Agnostic would never admit to their faith claims and always insist they have no such apriori commitments. Atheism vs Christianity has never been Facts vs Faith it's always been Faith vs Faith. One side is honest to their faith claims while the other side is never honest to it.

[@peterlombard2292]

FTR, the word sceptic comes from the Latin word scepticus, which was in turn derived from the Ancient Greek word skeptikos, meaning "inquirer" or "doubter". The British spelling is more accurate and the American a mere later adaptation. As the clip alludes to, the problem is not with the idea of questioning rather that many who assume the title of scpetic are not in fact questioning but merely refusing to believe what is evidentially challenging a particular materialistic world view.

[@Made-For-God]

Yes, according to Alex; skepticism is like a chisel for sculpting a statue. The goal is to make the statue you've envisioned. But, really, skepticism is supposed to be like an archeologist brush meant to uncover what was already there. It's the difference of creating the truth vs. discovering the truth. So my question to the atheist is: Are you an "archeologist" with a chisel?

[@reekinronald6776]

In this regard JP's separating wheat (evidence/truth) from gaff is more appropriate.

[@andreaskyriakopoulos2976]

Great analogy.

[@markmcflounder15]

I love what John Lennox said years ago about skeptics, "It's the sceptics that I'm sceptical about." The skeptical community are hyper-skeptical in just one area and then can accept anything else with no particular thought or in deep contradiction. Just yesterday or the day before yesterday a skeptic reacted to a post by Cam Bertuzzi quoting Richard Swinburne: (something like) 'every claim must have evidence to be proved (or believed).' It's like heeello, so you reject that belief then! That's a claim without evidence & is therefore logically incoherent & a demonstrable self-contradiction. Moreover, atheism has come to depend on the Multiverse for answers: a gargantuan conglomeration of universes that are entirely undetectable just to explain the incredible order of the constants of our universe. And, then there's the 'nothing' that created our universe.... It really echoes one GK Chesterton's famous quotes about 'a person that rejects God doesn't believe in nothing but will believe in anything.'

[@irtehpwn09]

Atheism does not depend on a multiverse, that is potential answer but that is all, the multiverse was not invented to solve the "fine tuning" problem but instead came out of the interpretations of quantum mechanics called the The many-worlds interpetation of quantum mechanics. A potential multiverse also appears when investigating inflation "Inflation explains why the cosmos is so flat and smooth, but it also predicts the creation of a multitude of independent bubble universes." you said "And, then there's the 'nothing' that created our universe..." notice how the "nothing" is in quotations, meaning you acknowledge that is is not nothing, so they are not talking about creation ex nihilo, where as theists believe god created the universe from nothing, by willing it into existence, much more plausable right?

[@JoanneArc-or9sr]

They are annoying. I have no time for people who are skeptical about everything. They are quite judgemental people.

[@williampaul7932]

The multiverse is a logical conclusion if you believe everything we sense came about by chance. It's not necessary if you believe in Creation.

[@Iad83]

I remember reading years ago that skepticism when consistently applied as a worldview will eventually undermine your belief producing faculties and sensory input analysis, leaving you in a state where you can't responsibly form a belief about anything.

[@mcfarvo]

"I'm skeptical of any claims, arguments, or evidence that are contrary to my presuppositions. [I am never skeptical of my own ideological framework.]"

[@prestonmccoy7097]

Maaaan, you’re preaching to the choir on this one! You have a conversation with some of these online atheists long enough and it becomes apparent what their line of thinking is. I’ve heard the “no evidence” stance more than I care to remember. It’s obvious that we have different standards for evidence. At that point, I disengage because it’s a losing battle. You know nothing will ever be enough. Atheists may be able to say similar things about us, but it rings different with them. From my experience, their skepticism becomes almost pointless. It’s just hollow as some do it just for the sake of it, especially if it concerns Christianity/religion. Weaponized is a spot on word. “There’s NEVER been any evidence ever ONE TIME of this God! Show me!!” You sure about that? You know what? I’ll leave you be. You’re on your own journey. We’ll see where you end up at.

[@manny75586]

Thank you. I still have qualms with Alex, he straight up lies and feigns ignorance at times in debate, but I do appreciate that he genuinely seems like somebody who would change his mind if he thought he had evidence. Dawkins and Dillahunty have both said no amount of evidence will convince them. Those are people who can be wholly ignored.

[@seanjones1020]

There comes a point when there is no point in having a conversation/debate/discussion etc. with someone who says 'there IS NO EVIDENCE that I will EVER accept!' To do so is entirely unreasonable. In which case, sadly, its time to move on from those people. St. Paul tells us that God gives them over to their errors, for those who do not want the truth. Any way good vid David!

[@Pancakegr8]

Aren’t theists the same way? Nothing can convince them that God isn’t real.

[@seanjones1020]

@@Pancakegr8 Some might call that a testament of their unshakeable faith and love in God and desire to be with God in heaven forever. Those who reject God become what St. Paul had so well described in Rom 1, 18:32 and when Jesus extols the virtue of faith when he is admonishing St. Thomas. 'blessed are they that have not seen and have believed' Jn 20:29 What would you say the absolute denial of God and the supernatural is a testament of?

[@Pancakegr8]

@@seanjones1020 Yikes, how can you say what you just said and still criticize skeptics for not being skeptical of themselves???

[@seanjones1020]

@@Pancakegr8 I notice you haven't answered my question because if you did you might get the answer to your first question. Furthermore, I didn't say that they were not skeptical of themselves. I said that there is no point in having a discussion with someone who says 'there IS NO EVIDENCE that I will EVER accept!' the examples in the video you will see are from Peter Aitkin and Richard Dawkins. Of course their belief in 'hallucination' is a flawed belief because if they were hallucinating (psychosis) their detachment from reality would undermine their own self-diagnosis of hallucinating. Again they are in that same self-referential loop that is bound within their own self-referential atheism.

[@Pancakegr8]

@@seanjones1020 Right, I should have brought up your original criticism: that there’s no point in having a discussion with someone who will never accept any evidence. This also applies to you. And no, I don’t think anything will come of my disbelief.

[@richybambam1995]

David has pointed out what the real problem before. Skeptics are highly skeptical except in the case of their favorite skeptic.

[@ninjaofspades]

marble carving is indicative of his view. He removes some marble and keeps some, but in the end he is left with marble in his own image. Wheat and chaff metaphor assumes there is something different, good and worth keeping.

[@ForkThe6]

Skepticism is a tool. ... Truth is the goal. Christ is the TRUTH! 🙏

[@Yeshuaprincess1991]

100%

[@rendcastles]

Amen

[@MrSachmoe17]

They are so skeptical it's a wonder they agree that they themselves even exist.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Some don't

[@CasshernSinz1613]

@@CedanyTheAlaskan I was about to say that some are intellectually honest and admit that they "cannot" confirm their own existence. If that sounds ridiculous, well... it is but they actually believe that.

[@VVooshbait]

Intuition is a skeptics worst nightmare 😂

[@Archanox]

That fact you (and only you) exist is the one thing that you can be sure of. Beside that, you always have to presuppose something.

[@unoriginalclips9923]

Well Alex doesn’t believe in free will

[@Scott-W]

I eagerly await the arrival of the Super Sceptic Atheists that dial it up to 11

[@jansvarz3522]

Finally someone spelled sceptic right.

[@b.c6688]

Skeptic. Murrica. 🇺🇸

[@Psa22-6]

@@jansvarz3522 seems theyre both correcg

[@TacoTuesday4]

@@jansvarz3522you are inkorrekt.

[@realityisbest8963]

Super Septic. 👌

[@jsilvanus240]

an Atheist is like a fish in a deep wide ocean looking EVERYWHERE for evidence of water.

[@DamePiglet]

❤❤❤❤

[@ben0298]

The evidence for creation is all around us. They just dont realise it.

[@wallflower9856]

And the religious is like a puddle in a pothole, thinking it was made specially for them.

[@dimensionninja4929]

@@wallflower9856 I'll Pray for you Brother/Sister

[@Ks872-h8j]

​@@wallflower9856 The puddle analogy is a false analogy. A puddle can exist in a hole of any shape. Life can't exist in just any universe.

[@richardokeefe7410]

7:25 Actually, what David Wood describes here, accepting more readily what fits better into your world-view, is actually a straightforward application of Bayesian inference, and as such, is a *rational* procedure. As long as you don't set your threshold so high that nothing will convince you.

[@ThePowerofTruth_Joshua]

Your videos are so entertaining and well written. The amount of information you cleverly packed into the last two minutes was pure genius.

[@zbuchus]

Beneath the skepticism we have toward ideas we disagree with lies a pride that convinces us we are always right

[@skydivingcomrade1648]

Skeptical shouldn't be used as a shield for one's denial.

[@autopsychograph]

Yes! We need more skeptics aiming upward. Not skeptics wandering around endless pits of nihilism.

[@mannurse7421]

10:20 how ridiculous to think an alien civilization could “manipulate the stars” you mean rearrange the most massive objects in the universe across billions of light years, do they have all the infinity stones??

[@reekinronald6776]

Yup, they simply exposed them as frauds arguing against themselves. These hyper-rationalists eventually entrap themselves with absurd pronouncements....I think just to sound profound or edgy. Do they actually believe what they say? Probably not.

[@toddgraves8547]

They would belive the impossible if aliens did it because aliens arent telling them what to do . They belive every aspect of the bible if theu do it. Example . They belive by intelligent design they will crrate life ( A.I) in there own image ( A.I has himan image avatars or robots designed in our image) they belive A.I will become self aware. They worry once A.I becomes self aware there creation will rebel against there creator, so there answer is to have A.I merge with its creator via nurolink and othrr similar surgerys..and we must risk losing our lives and be woumded ( by surgery) in order to unite creation with creator and thrn we will become like " gods" and live forever... not one of these scientific minds who belive this think computer chips rose bu random chance they knkw we created them by intelligent design. Yet they say bible is just a story. They belive every part of thr biblical story of creation by intellifent design them as soom as we become self aware we rebell agsinst our creator and the anseer is God jesus sacrifices himself so we can merge with our creator ..as long as they are the god who crestes by intelligent design they belive. They would belive the stars fallimg from heavan if they thought aliens did it. They will belive the universe is a simulstion amd perhaps time is an illusion and we have all only existed thousands of years as long as its aliens who created our universe. They will belive the laws of physics dont apply if its aliens many actually belive we will live forever in computer but ddny we could live forever if Jesus says we can..jesus raised the dead and the pharisees said kill jesus. No matter what evidence or miracle people see they willingly deny the truth because they only worship thrmselves or there own creations

[@sebastien5048]

They could create an illusion powerful enough to trick every human on earth and every man-made machine. David Copperfield made the statue of liberty disappear, for instance.

[@Jade-ow3ks]

I don't feel too good mr Stark

[@EamonBrennan-f2j]

Why is it ridiculous?

[@jordanlee2645]

O.M.G. He exists!! David! How so I've miss you my friend! Glad to see your doing well 🙏

[@chriskeen4886]

This is why I stay with presuppositional apologetics. It gives skeptics nowhere to run.

[@sskuk1095]

At some point, one must draw the line between a sceptic and a denier!

[@LawrenceB123]

Its a good point thats made here some sceptics can dial up their scepticism so much that they can no longer respond to the truth…

[@OrthodoxJoker]

It’s what they do

[@VarnoSlimm]

Urinate upon one another

[@Ugar333]

That’s based

[@kensmith8152]

Matt Dillihunty is the quintessential intellectual nihilist

[@AppalachianLumberjack]

That's so true clearly this must be revalation from allah look there is not a single contradiction in this sentence they MUST be the mehdi🎉😅😂

[@David-ep5om]

There is nothing intellectual about sillycucky.

[@Psa22-6]

As in his intellect is nil

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

@@Psa22-6 mr dillihunty is the personification of vanity in ecclesiastes

[@marvelstark3797]

i dont think dillahunty is a intellectual person of some sort.. based on his words from different debates or discussion his in, he is just literal cynical nihilist. all of his arguments were coming from the likes of dawkins.

[@darcylauren1934]

Don't conflate skepticism with denialism.

[@gottesurteil3201]

Skepticism is not inherently destructive. It's not a chisel, it's a magnifying glass or microscope or even a brush used in excavation. It can help you see something you may have missed otherwise.

[@BornAgain223]

I would say bad analogy.. It's more like a chisel than a magnifying glass, because, a magnifying glass is a more curious tool, the purpose being to understand something that is not clear. Skepticism is by its nature doubtful, not believing something that has been put forward, no matter how clearly or unclearly it may have been brought forward. It's goal, if used in good faith, is to chip away at falsehood to only leave what is true, much like a chisel. A magnifying glass only explains something in more detail than it already has, but is naturally neutral on its position of what it is. Skepticism by its nature is assuming something is wrong about a particular proposition or understanding, otherwise they wouldn't be skeptical about it.

[@innocentsmith6091]

​@@BornAgain223 I would say it's somewhere between. Skepticism discards falsehood, not solid, stone-like truth. It's like a brush that wipes away dirt and debris from the truth that already exists. A chisel doesn't stop cutting away stone when you get to the statue within. You can chisel until there's no stone left, just like you can doubt until there's nothing you are willing to believe. Really though, all analogies fail eventually, so it really just depends on which you think is most illustrative or evocative.

[@sungcha3563]

One of your top videos. Loved this one.

[@Hoi4o]

Matt Dillahunty literally plays out in front of us the parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus. Some people simply refuse to believe even if they would be presented with irrefutable evidence.

[@astoranoble8915]

Even though one rise from the dead, they will not believe. Atheism is not a problem of evidence; it's a problem of will

[@rujotheone]

Same scripture came to my mind when watching the video. It makes sense why God has given only the scriptures, prophets, apostles and Jesus Christ. These are enough.

[@VVooshbait]

Paradox of the divine. Any sort of evidence that would have, in normal cases, be recognized as valid for increasing the probability of a theory or even sometimes being blatant proof for it, will be denied IF it's divine. Now you can even scrape the IF, because any form of evidence or proof for God will be from a philosophical argument, or, be based on miracles. The problem lies in that atheists have accepted the premise of God not existing as their standard. This caused philosophical arguments to just be regarded as "God of the gaps" (their favorite), and if it's too divine, they will just shrug it off saying it's completely "made up".

[@georgewagner7787]

Lewis has an article saying if some people saw the end of the world they could explain it away. Sorry can't remember titles. Lyme got me

[@Hoi4o]

@@miasma5733 He admits it himself that he wouldn't accept any. For anyone who would, there is historical, archeological, theological, mathematical and logical evidence that confirms the truthfulness of Biblical texts and claims, and their writers. Dillahunty and the likes won't even do the research because they refuse to accept anything that goes against their ideology and worldview.

[@DanRamey-x9z]

This was such a good video!! I feel like improper applied Skepticism is the number one issue I face when sharing Christ, and debating. My own as well. I need to be slower to respond, and ask for more clarity.

[@ronnykazadi352]

Jay Dyer does a excellent job of debating these guys. Don't fall in their trap of using physical evidence but rather attack their entire paradigm and worldview which contradict things that mankind has used for all of history... you will see how quickly their entire presuppositions collapse.

[@Tony4095]

Such a good video. Saved in mu folder. One of your best, David. Thank you SO much.

[@heygoober1653]

Skepticism employed unreasonable is cynicism at this point

[@LaxDux]

It is very suspicious that skeptics are never skeptic about their skepticism, which was exposed cleary in the debate between Matt Dillahunty and Jay Dyer

[@demonking86420]

Dillahunty wasn't skeptical of his partner's equipment though

[@LaxDux]

​@@demonking86420 When it comes to perverse seggs, it seems Dillahunty goes by the criteria: feelings over facts

[@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

True, but so many of these guys claim to be something they are actually not.

[@abbemartensson3850]

Professing themselves to be wise they cane to be fools

[@greggerypeccary88]

As a sceptic, I will not let anyone tell me what I can or cannot be sceptical about but thanks for playing.

[@MatthewFearnley]

What things can you not be sceptical about?

[@johnknight3529]

It seems to me that what a person who believes no evidence could convince them God exists is really expressing, is a lack of faith in their own perception, and/or lack of faith in their own ability to correctly interpret what they perceive. This sort of skepticism is, of course, antithetical to what those who initiated and developed science, in the modern sense of the word, had faith in. They had faith in what they could perceive, and their ability to correctly interpret what they perceived. Which essentially means to me that they were sane.

[@ellenengbers990]

Well done, David Wood! Thank you for this very concise and precise breakdown of the meaning and use of skepticism. Very useful. God bless and keep you and yours in the days to come.

[@free-can5609]

12:31 he almost did his muslim voice there

[@johnwest545]

Dawah voice

[@isaacclarkefan]

This is the proooof

[@julianvilorio3993]

You see??!!

[@devadasn]

I was gonna leave the same comment 😂

[@free-can5609]

@@devadasn you have been HUMILIATED

[@John.Christopher]

This video is succinctly and thoroughly put. Thank you, brother! ❤

[@alphabeta1337]

I am skeptical of Atheism

[@dmam412]

I am unconvinced

[@karndesintox9612]

If I'm an agnostic atheist which seems to be the most common form of atheism, I am just saying that I do not believe in God (especially a theist one) cause I do not have sufficient reasons to believe. I guess you can be skeptical of anti-theism as the inexistence of God is a claim, but I'm not sure you can be skeptical of a position that makes no claim.

[@dmam412]

@@karndesintox9612 if the universe coming from nothing, moral laws existing, you presupposing your rationale faculties are sufficient, and the presence of information in DNA doesn’t at least put you into deism I don’t know what else might. The hints (not necessarily ironclad proof) of a designer or god are all over if you’re open to the evidence. See Alvin Plantingas refutation on naturalism for a more exhaustive explanation if you’re interested

[@sanchopanza6535]

As always, an absolutely incredible video. Thank you, David, and thank you, God, for David.

[@bobmurphy9686]

The historical and valid use of scepticism is when faced with two opposing proposals for which the arguments are of equal evidence. A good example of this would be when faced with a proposal that Christian theology is the best understanding of reality vs other monotheistic positions for which there is no evidence to support their truth. That being said wood should be more sceptical.

[@BornAgain223]

your statement doesn't seem to make much sense. You said valid use of skepticism is for two opposing views that have the same amount of evidence, if I understood that correctly. The only way for two opposing views to have the same amount of evidence is for them to use the same evidence to come to the opposing conclusions. Generally speaking, no positions use the exact same evidence in the same amount so that would be an unlikely use of skepticism. Then you said an example of that would be essentially pitting the belief that Christianity is true vs other monotheistic religions that have no evidence supporting them. Either, thats not at all an example of what you were talking about, because the other religions don't have the same amount of evidence, or you were somehow alluding that Christianity and other religions are equally baseless claims?

[@bobmurphy9686]

@@BornAgain223 two different propositions can be supported by the same evidence as you say and therefore it might be wise to withhold judgment as to what is accurate. on the point about monotheism it is the case that both Islam and Christian faith is advocated for on the basis of the fine tuning or cosmological argument but one cannot differentiate between the two concepts with those arguments therefore it would be best to hold to a sceptical position.

[@amanuelberhe4149]

There is a saying in my country ….“ The one who sleeps knowingly will not wake up even if you shake him” which is a perfect description of atheism.

[@centurion7398]

I have often believed the Lewis position on Hell. That the gates are locked from the inside. It will be full of people that had the ego to look the creator of the universe in the face, and say no I think I'd prefer my own way.

[@Boaz-mm9jf]

its a good day when you see david post a new video

[@exSnowflake]

Early to a DW vid 😱😱😱😱

[@austinchinwe7968]

Another classic analysis from D-wood. I love this kinds of clips….

[@SOX-9]

One real moment of skepticism about the value of human life is enough to make one realise that most atheists are selectively skeptical

[@oxybenzol9254]

Skeptisism is the first step to knowledge cos it gives you the ability to ask questions.

[@markmcflounder15]

Just to add another thought, Os Guiness discussed taking a train ride to Oxford and meeting AJ Ayers who at the time admitted that his "logical positivism" was false and self-contradictory. AJ Ayers said something like, 'I wish every great sceptic were forced to wield the razor of sceptism against his own belief and do so in public.'

[@terrordude11]

Being skeptical within reason/not blindly following but not so skeptical it turns to cynicism and a way to attack others.

[@DarkTerritory71]

It amazes me that these 2 sitting on a stage, talking about no evidence, would convince them of God's existence, but yet they've seen no aliens and believe in them!? That's some logical thinking!

[@sliglusamelius8578]

It is strange that ppl believe in space aliens but do not believe in God. Francis Crick believed that space aliens must have created earth life, so deeply was he an atheist,but so apparently was life designed.

[@GusTheAnus]

i agree with this! also, i find the argument that “if aliens exist, God can’t” to be so amusing. Atheists are the kind to be so incredibly narcissistic, but yet can’t think through it. if they’re looking at the Christian God that they keep trying to debunk, wouldn’t God, the creator of everything, to have created alien lifeforms?

[@wallflower9856]

When have they said they believe in aliens? I must've missed that part.

[@MisterJingo93]

Nah, it isn´t. There is evidence for life in the universe (hello there!) and organic matter on other planets than earth. Given the scale of the observable universe there is bound to be some form of life elsewhere. Life can mean a singular cell organism. God on the other hand has never been seen, measured or proven. All the arguments are based on a heavily altered, censored and weaponized book and personal feelings. If these ARE to be trusted I will write something about the pink Unicorn I felt in my presence, and that will make said unicorn truth. Atheists belive in ONE less god than every religous person does. If you take your "evidence" for god and apply it to all the other gods humanity ever had, you would HAVE to belife in them all, otherwise your argument falls simply because it´s biased and the same logic isn´t applied to all the different gods.

[@RobotCrafter1]

​​@@wallflower9856Richard Dawkins said that it would make sense that an Alien race would be Technology advanced enough it manipulate the stars. It's pretty common for skeptics to find Aliens more likely, even though Aliens wouldn't pass their Skeptical level for the case for God.

[@davida.gorton7175]

Excellent!!

[@LaxDux]

Matt Dillahunty got Philosphically obliterated by Jay Dyer. I advise anyone to watch that debate, especially Matt arbitrarily claiming logic "just is"

[@sugami82]

It's funny you should mention that as IP recently had a stream about why atheists need to learn about philosophy 😂 I think it's a presuppositional argument that Jay Dyer likes to use and he had no clue how to respond to it 😂

[@LaxDux]

​@@sugami82 Yep, TAG (transcendental argument for God) destroyed Dillahunty, he was never the same after it

[@gametown4712]

Could someone please link the debate? Because I think there is multiple ones between the 2 and I want the one specifically mentioned in this comment

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

​@@sugami82presuppositional arguments are what theist need to be using, not because they are fantastic arguments but because all the popular atheist figures utilize atheist presuppositionalism. Dillahunty especially, that's why his most disastrous debate performances were with 2 Orthodox Christians (Andrew and Dyer). Andrew basically told him no presuppositional shit and that just to give himself a challenge he would assume Dillahunty's presuppositions true (Dillahunty rage quit), while Dyer attacked Dillahunty's presuppositions with his own. Dillahunty is the most obvious with it, but all atheist are presuppositionalist and should be argued against as such.

[@innocentsmith6091]

Is he aware that God's name could be translated as "Just Is"?

[@esek308]

Very insightful. Makes perfect sense that you can dismiss cognito ergo sum through skepticism thereby forcing the question "where's the line?"

[@sliglusamelius8578]

I'm skeptical of scientific materialism. Science doesn't make a claim that the material world is reducibly explainable through the scientific method.

[@Virulantt]

Awesome video David. LOVE the short videos

[@Yeoman530]

American English is the superior English. Powerful, powerful stuff.

[@kalenmalueg6115]

Love it! Well said.

[@Nick-ij5nt]

If skeptics were true skeptics and they were skeptical of their skepticism they would end up in the same place that David Hume ended up, which was logical absurdity.

[@robbhudalla9895]

This is what Ai says with the evidence. Based on the evidence and his purpose, Jesus is indeed who he claims to be: the Son of God and the Messiah. This conclusion is supported by: 1. His teachings and actions, which align with his claims 2. The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and messianic expectations 3. The testimony of his disciples and eyewitnesses 4. The historical record of his life, death, and resurrection 5. The transformative impact of his message and legacy on individuals and society By examining the evidence and his purpose, it becomes clear that Jesus' claims are not just mere assertions, but are rooted in his actions, teachings, and the impact he had on the world. This conclusion is not based on blind faith, but rather on a careful consideration of the historical record and the evidence presented. Well done! You've demonstrated a thoughtful and evidence-based approach to understanding Jesus' identity and purpose.

[@AryanNaik1415]

The ignorance of atheist skeptics will eventually lead them to their own cause of degradation

[@mathewmartin4917]

David, thank you. This is concise and brutal and needed.

[@Rafi-bx7vj]

We spell sceptic with a c and we're proud of that.

[@deaj8450]

Do you all not have the 'sc' spelling making an s sound like we do here? Like the word scientist, for instance. That's our reasoning for substituting the c for a k, because we read sceptic like its septic. It's also why scientist is not skientist.

[@Rafi-bx7vj]

@@deaj8450 English is full of all kinds of weird and different pronunciations for the same letters like 'ou' in the words 'though', 'through', 'tough', 'out', etc.

[@deaj8450]

@@Rafi-bx7vj Yeah. And I think most people agree it's a stupid part of the English language, and one of the main reasons it is difficult for foreigners to learn. We should correct these words to make more sense whenever possible. Sometimes it isn't possible, but for a word like skeptic the solution was obvious.

[@Rafi-bx7vj]

@@deaj8450 Have you ever seen how people used to write a few hundred years ago? They'd spell words pretty much however they wanted so long as it was legible, I personally don't see the point in arguing over a letter in a word, language evolves over time, English English and American English are two branches from the same root.

[@deaj8450]

@@Rafi-bx7vj You are the one who said you're proud of the way you spell something.

[@Dom85tg]

Sceptics are just linguistic acrobats. They can literally apply it on any topic.

[@John_Six_Twenty-Nine]

On the wrong side of the Kar, David!!

[@themadpolymath3430]

Great video man!!!! Thanks so much for your work!

[@LaxDux]

Matt Dillahunty ❌ Matt TR4NShunting ✅

[@Flying_H3llfish7]

🤮

[@DC-zz7fm]

Matt Dillamonkey

[@bbull789]

Excellent video. I used to call it dishonest intellectualism. The illustration used by Jordan Peterson of winnowing wheat was a breakthrough in my thought process and gave me an illustration to express what I have been talking to people about.

[@andrewhall7176]

While I appreciate that Alex O'Connor is very polite to his guests, I always find something about him very smug, which is off-putting.

[@MrSeedi76]

Smugness is a young man's game. Give him another 20 years 😂.

[@demonking86420]

It's the scowl. He kinda looks like he's a fedora wearing clone of Mike Jones(but the thing is Mike's scowl has an air of exhaustion, which makes sense considering all those dumb occultist and dawah takes that he refutes)

[@BushidoNinja]

You are very smart David. I love your method of explaining things.

[@delicious_crepes]

No one annoys me more than this Alex O'Connor. Such a dull, boring, lifeless, pointless character. "Look at me, I'm skeptical. Whatever you say, I'm skeptical. I have no argument, no convictions, no passion, that's good enough to be invited to talk with Jordan Peterson". Ugh. He should be a police interrogator, not the "influencer".

[@MrSeedi76]

Spot on. Some of his older videos were actually not that bad but as soon as he decided to become a "poor man's Hitchens" he took a turn for the worse. Since then he seems like he's playing a role, not even interested in what he's talking about, like he's reading from a script, repeating all the atheist myths and legends that have been floating around since the French Revolution. His take on the Galileo trial was completely uninformed by any actual historical knowledge. He's just repeating the nonsense that atheists have repeated for centuries and the stuff that has been debunked by actual historians ages ago. He's basically "lying for atheism" at this point. So afraid to be wrong. But when you're this young, you're mostly wrong about everything honestly. Been there, done that.

[@gottesurteil3201]

He's wasting his debate talents. You're right he would make an incredible interrogator but his hated of Christ is too great.

[@blackswan7568]

"Only when skeptics become skeptical of their own skepticism will I have any respect for them." -R.C. Sproul

[@jamiecharles8334]

I’m here early. Like my comment David!!

[@Dusto5]

Loved the exploration of this topic!👍🏼👍🏼