Street Epistemology - A Turning Point for Atheism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Anthony Magnabosco is a worldwide promoter and practitioner of Street Epistemology, which is a conversational method for respectfully challenging claims by asking probing questions to uncover the reliability of one's belief formation process.
He has appeared on The Thinking Atheist, The Atheist Experience, The David Pakman Show, Cognitive Dissonance, The Friendly Atheist Podcast and blog, as well as several other podcasts and shows. Anthony has inspected hundreds of people’s beliefs using this approach, frequently uploads videos of those discussions to his RUclips channel, and has given several talks, interviews and workshops on the subject. Be prepared to question your own conclusions on how to effectively engage with a God believer or anyone else who happens to make a claim!
Learn more at: streetepistemo...
His channel: / magnabosco210
AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a national 501(c)(3) organization that defends civil rights for atheists, freethinkers, and other nonbelievers; works for the total separation of religion and government; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy. Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook.
Official Website: www.atheists.org/
Twitter: / americanatheist
Facebook: / americanatheists 
Развлечения
Great presentation. Wish it was longer. Solid point about giving street preachers what they want- a bigger audience. The one on one approach constricts the preacher's blast radius, if only temporarily.
The pic to click is a tease. She’s not in the video.
Specific neurons and neurotransmitters, such as norepinephrine, trigger a defensive state when we feel
that our thoughts have to be protected from the influence of others. If we are then confronted with differences in opinion, the chemicals that are released in the brain are the same ones that try to ensure our
survival in dangerous situations. In this defensive primitive part of the brain interferes with rational thinking and the limbic system can
knock out most of our working memory, physically
causing narrowmindedness.
2
We see this in the
politics of fear, in the strategy of poker players, or
simply when someone is stubborn in a discussion. No
matter how valuable an idea is, the brain has trouble
processing it when it is in such a state.
3
On a neural level, it reacts as if we're being
threatened, even if this threat comes from harmless
opinions or facts that we may otherwise find helpful
and could rationally agree with.
4
But when we express ourselves and our views are
appreciated, these "defense chemicals" decrease in
the brain and dopamine neurotransmission activates
the reward neurons, making us feel empowered and
increasing our self-esteem. Our beliefs have a
profound impact on our body chemistry, this is why
placebos are so effective
pla·ce·bo
/pləˈsēbō/
a measure designed merely to calm or please someone.
meas·ure
/ˈmeZHər/
a plan or course of action taken to achieve a particular purpose.
means
/mēnz/
an action or system by which a result is brought about; a method.
meth·od
/ˈmeTHəd/ a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one.
sys·tem
/ˈsistəm/a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.
Potato Potatoe. Every action has a reaction. Religion is a system of beliefs or Belief System designed to comfort people who fear being alone and dying. What is the first thing that comes to your mind when I say God? What is the first thing that comes to mind when I say Afterlife? One word, one action, can have a profound reaction... It's easier to lure bees with honey than it is vinegar. Just tell them what they want to hear and pull on their emotional strings and you will have them eating out of the palm of your hand if you know what strategy to push although... You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
We don't deal with outsiders very well
They say newcomers have a certain smell
You have trust issues, not to mention
They say they can smell your intentions
You're loving on the freakshow sitting next to you
You'll have some weird people sitting next to you
You'll think "How did I get here, sitting next to you?"
But after all I've said, please don't forget
(Watch it, watch it)
All my friends are atheist, take it slow
Wait for us to ask you, How do you know?
Please don't make any hasty conclusion's
Your pseudoscience is only half of your intrusion. MY FUCKING BRAIN HURTS~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subbed. To his channel. Bet it doesn't work on flat earthers though.
to me the beauty of this technique is that it says "i don't believe, you believe, but although there is a conflict, the fact is we both believe, it's how we arrive at that belief i want to talk about" and it can be applied to anyone or anything, flat earthers are a particular type, like dyed in the wool believers of anything, if you know anything about mental illness delusions are more real to the observer because they come straight from the brain and even ration explanation results in distress for the deluded. i've learned this talking to a friend who is schizophrenic and regulatory has delusions, you have to be very careful how you approach the delusion.
@@HarryNicNicholas with flatards their delusion is best approached from behind with a baseball bat.
This was great
This video needs more views.
i',m viewing as hard as i can....
We disagree...You should be proud of that exchange.
I am not convinced that your approach changes minds better than challenging claims. Most people have no idea how to be introspective. And inciting that inner-critique is extremely difficult.
I love that you're passionate. I respect that you care. Keep doing what you do. I'm going to be more of who you were because I care less about what people believe than what they try to impose on society. That is where my exchanges go...."Do you feel that your beliefs should be a law for others". If the answer is yes... I will fight tooth and nail to ensure it's not unjust or harmful.
It's interesting to see how much more compassionate Anthony's SE approach has made him to the street preacher's reasons for becoming a Christian ...
i've been atheist since about four years old, what surprises me is that it's taken so long, i've watched lots of different atheist shows, but what struck me very early on in my life is that confrontation just makes people dig in their heels, it does that to me too, i've had my fair share of atheist bible thumping, but it was obvious to me from very early that it's more effective to "interview people about their belief" rather than nay say everything they talk about. i love SE, why has it taken so long? i always say "humans don't understand human nature" and they don't.
SE is all about controlling and guiding the interlocutor toward doubt.
Just with Christianity, Thousands of irreconcilable denominations, which one is true as each believe they're true one
Very nice! I like this method. Less demonizing one another and more dialogue.
Watch or read John Lennox.
The sound is a bit rough
I don't see SE doing as much as you were when you were confronting them. Everybody sane would like to avoid confrontation, but these people are NOT sane!! Being polite to them only gives them cover.
i have a friend who is schizophrenic and has delusions regularly, believe me there is NOTHING to be gained from saying "you're imagining things", you get presented with a psychotic episode that can last hours, at best, and extreme anger, possibly violence, at worst. my friend would avoid the question of her mental health at all costs when we first met, and it's actually taken five years for her to be able to say to me "i have this disability", and i'm still trying to get her to open up about the delusions she has, but that's been achieved by FIRST trying to understand what she experiences and how she feels about it, and how she resolves delusion with reality. religious people are delusional, however it might appear and confrontation just leads to shouting matches.
@@HarryNicNicholas
If religious people were all psychotic, you might have been right.
It's Strategy. You're in this case, Baiting a person who is Defensive (Aggressive) with their belief into a position of being Passive with question's. Causing them to let their guard or stop being aggressive long enough to start actively thinking about their belief. E=mc2 and the three major hard counters in strategy are Rock, Scissor and Paper or Passive, Aggressive, and Bait. One always beats the other and is the reaction you should take according to the action taking place. Aggressive beats passive by pointing into a position it doesn't want to be in, same with Bait beating Aggressive by pointing it into a position it doesn't want to be in, Passive beats bait obviously just because it wont bite. So if someone is being overly assertive with their belief, then bait them into a position they don't want to be in, that is being in the position of having to think about it. You will always win if you choose the meta and choose the appropriate reaction to every action. The Socratic method works well, Occams Razor, and Schrodingers Cat principle too. How do you know? ;P What is more likely? What is less likely? What's in the box? Did you look?
I can imagine Anthony as an Uber driver, with a captive audience for his street epistemology.
This could be a show like Taxicab Confessions!
*DING DING DING* "Welcome to the Street Epistemology cab! It's a TV game show that takes place right here in my taxi"
I don't know if you have this in mind when you're doing this but the method works, and rightly for any subject, because the person you're talking to is talking about themselves when they are under the impression that they are talking about reality. The point at which the questions get into their heads such that they now address the "subject" in reality, they'll question their own beliefs but can still, in the end, continue to believe themselves. It's interesting to watch in action.
Is there really a proper way or right way to have a discussion with a theist? Because a true believer will not change!
Also you might find this and Peer Support have a lot in common and Peer Support is something you might want to look into. What you're doing now vs the old videos is sitting in your discomfort also responding instead of reacting. Going from helping to learning or correcting to understanding. From individual to relationship and from fear to hope.
The atheist has faith there is no god
Street epistemology is structured and crafted to steer toward a predetermined outcome. If you control through questions that are based on an agenda you can prove or discredit anything. It's not objective. Which ever side controls wins. It's nonsense. Asserting there is no evidence for example, is not evidence. . Any side in any issue can do that. The live audience is the choir, and the speaker is preaching to the choir. This is just snarky-ness. If atheism wants to prove itself all they have to do is show how civilizations that grown out of atheism is better than western civilization which grew out of (lower case c) catholicism.
Ok then. What's your "evidence"?
A.U., it seems very much like you only watched through to the first video clip he showed (which he actually used as a counter-example). What I saw in this video was not about control but empowerment.
_"Asserting there is no evidence for example, is not evidence."_ Not evidence for what? It can be evidence for an unreliable method. This is what street epistemology is about. It is mentioned in the video that you can believe in the right thing using a wrong method.
_"show how civilizations that grown out of atheism is better than western civilization which grew out of (lower case c) catholicism"_
Are you saying a religion is true when it gives rise to the most successful civilization? Is this a circular argument against atheism that goes like this: If God exists, he makes the civilization that believes in him the most successful. Catholicism gives rise to the most successful civilization, therefore a God (the catholic one) exist? Unless you believe in circular logic, this can't be an argument against atheism. In fact, a reality where religious civilizations are more successful than atheistic ones is perfectly compatible with atheism. If atheistic civilization turn out to be the best in the future, will this "prove" to you that atheism is correct? (Fun fact: Ancient Romans believed the success of their civilization was tied to their religious belief, too.)
@@Theo0x89 Cool post! I missed that part about "atheism proving itself". Your counter argument of course was superb. Lol that he would even think that would prove atheism. Too bad he probably won't respond. These "drive by" commenters are all too common.
"this can't be an argument against atheism" That is a bold assertion; it is also one for which you have not offered evidence. Overall your comment presents a common misunderstanding. I am not debating one side to be true over the another. I am advocating better arguments over fallacious ones, whichever side they are on. If you can argue that your side produces better results that has persuasive value. I also suggest that verbosity is not a satisfactory substitute for historical literacy. It is the atheist regimes that have been the most genocidal, From that one may logically infer that non-atheism is preferable Of course if you like genocide that might not be a good argument.