I also think there is some sick truth in the quote often attributed to Joseph Stalin: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." People often see a single story of something they can relate with to be more "true" than a real statistic.
@THE PEOPLE SING That's kind of disingenuous. It's more important that we have the over all numbers vs the claims of one person. If the choice is "this guy says universal healthcare is bound to fail" vs "statistics show people in countries with universal healthcare have lower mortality rates", I'm gonna go for the latter. I don't care as much about authority as much as the facts. If that was the case, I would believe Trump and Paul Ryan when they say universal healthcare is a death sentence and global warming is fake. You sure the atheist response is search for authority and not the data?
@@Skylancer727 It really comes to how you see the statistics, what is the actual cost of human life in countries with universal healthcare? And what is the variation because some developing countries have universal healthcare but still rather high mortality, the healthcare is really complex problem that has billions of variations but we have only hundreds of countries to compare...
Every time I read that Stalin quote my mind automatically thinks of this insight from the Church. "Murder, considered a crime when people commit it singly, is transformed into a virtue when they do it en masse" - Saint Cyprian (3rd century Bishop)
@@NetAndyCz yeah, and it doesn't help that screwing it up can cause unnecessary death or other consequences. It's a conundrum that can't really be defeated unless you do it right the first time or just don't totally screw it up.
I'm a retired Catholic Priest and now call myself a Christian Atheist-- I follow the very basic teachings of Christ combined with my own thoughts and life experiences and no longer consider there is a spirit world or personal divine being out there among the stars. The change over from theist to atheist was painful but liberating. My morality is based on avoiding as far as possible all damage to other people and the environment and compassion based on my own human weakness for the fauts of others. I'm definitely not a ####### sinner. Your callers are deeply committed Christians need your style of gentle care and compassion often to the point of heroic forbearance. Thanks for your thoughs. Love Ted
I like your wise debate style. Thats refreshing. Its like you engage ignorance with patience, compassion and love. And you really look healthier than in other videos.
Thanks for another awesome video Matt. Could I suggest you maybe do one covering Pentecostalism or the “Charismatic Movement”? This form of Christianity is very common where I live (Ethiopia) and its so hard to convince a person that sees thousands getting “healed” and testifying, that the “prophets” are using psychic tactics that were exposed elsewhere. I can never do it eloquently enough, as you could, among theists and it’s a circle-jerk when I speak to my atheist friends. Thanks
Personal testimony is actually my favorite argument to attack, because so few people know how to address it. And this extends beyond religion, it's a basic debate about sensationalism vs data. The underlying problem is:people tend to hold testimony above evidence. Here's how I address this. When someone gives me a testimony, and I believe them, I've found that 3 basic assumptions are made. Underscoring assumptions people make when they believe stories rather than trust data. 1. They are telling me the truth(assuming humans are always honest). 2. That their account of the experience is correct(assuming the human senses and mind are infallible and not deceptive) 3. That what they experienced actually happened. (Assuming that event is possible). Failing to make any of these assumptions, you fail to believe that person's claim, it doesn't mean you think they are lying, or that you claim that you know why they had that experience.
And 4. The story represents ALL of the cases. If the story is true for the person telling it, but that person is an outlier and almost everyone would fare worse doing as the story suggests, trusting that story leads to a worse situation over 90% of the time
Perfectly timed topic for a video. I just started this kind of conversation with my religious cousin who is catholic like I was. We valued each others opinion on every topic in our lives and respect each other therefore it felt almost natural to dig deeper into the foundations of accepting anything as true and value we assign to it, compared to other values in our lives. I'm glad that my idea was the same that Matt have presented. If someone that skilled in the "art of skepticism" like Matt is recommending it than I am a lot more confident about this direction. Thank you Matt. :)
When you're basing you religion on personal testamony you tend to discount data in favor of more of the same. That's why churches have people share their testimonies rather than their data sets.
The only reasonable medical system must be based on " need of care " not " how much money you got" ..... At this point Dillahunty's intellect has grown almost to the " wise man on the mountain" level.
You're the first person who helped me build a thought process to convince people not that they were wrong,but that I was right to think the way I do. I remember back in the days,I was in a band,and the journalist asked us if we believed in god (why?!) My four friends said "yes",I was like "damn,time to lay my cards on the table😅",so I said "not really,I believe in men instead",they weren't that surprised,but it was the fist time I had to answer this question so directly... It was like,25 yrs from now,but I remember when I discovered TAA,it was a relief,and I listened one episode a day during years, I listened some of them several times,and even now,I listen to each episode at least 2 times... To me,you're the best to explain,to make people understand why were right to think the way we do. Doesn't mean we know everything,far from it,but we don't believe blindly of for bad reasons,and truth matters. Thank you,Matt.
Matt's point at the end about giving people you are arguing with "a safety net or soft cushion to land on" is huge. People do not like to be exposed as being wrong, especially about beliefs that are important and that they hold deeply. If you want someone to change their belief, it helps to make it as safe and easy for them as possible.
This literally happened to me!!! Talking about health care, I provided data, my uncle dismissed data by saying it's hard to trust data and proceded to present a testimony of his Canadian friend enjoying US healthcare system LMAO. It was so infuriating.
Yes, it's very useful to have sources written down or saved on your phone. Before my phone got messed up I used to have graph after graph saved on my phone about climate change and the science behind it and had sources saves as well. Very useful
Matt points out a number of specific cognitive traps that people fall into. One issue common to most of them is that people often have difficulty with abstract reasoning, and therefore can't entirely rely on reason to sanity check their own preferred cognitive shortcuts. Appeal to authority, emotional appeal, habits of thought, use of fallacy, discomfort with uncertainty: all could be called out by someone who is adept at reasoning, provided that they are methodical enough to work through it. But, as with mathematics, this facility takes considerable practice.
Another point about the trustworthiness of data is that information about how it was collected and handled is often presented by the people who did the study. We don't have to take their word for it, we can check ourselves. This transparency is not possible in individual accounts.
I have had an experience in which Appeal to Personal Experience was applicable. I devout LDS college roommate stated, "Humans are the only species that engages in homosexual activity." At the time, I hadn't learned just how many others species are actually on that list, but I did know one thing; I had seen my own dogs do it. I relayed this fact to my roommate and he asked me, "Who are you going to believe, the studies (which he didn't specifically cite...and I now realize he _couldn't)_ or just your own eyes. Now, generally personal experiences (the interpretation of which is loaded with subjective bias) is a dubious...at best...form of evidence, but in _this_ particular case, what I saw with my own eyes served as exculpatory evidence that effectively defeated his sweeping (and factually inaccurate) assertion, even if he refused to acknowledge it.
I did t go to the dentist until I was almost 19 years old and I didn't get to go the doctor much either, because we couldn't afford it. It's ridiculous how in many cases you have to decide do I wanna feed my family or go to the doctor ?
One question about that Canadian friend. Who paid for it? I don't know enough about this specific case, but in many cases if a Canadian needs a treatment that is available in the U.S. that isn't available in Canada, the Canadian public health care system will pay for them to get that treatment in the U.S.
That's what I've heard from friends from Canada too. Even if they come to the US, their universal system still covers the cost, unless they renounce their citizenship. As far as I understand, US hospitals do tend to be more well prepared, but that is more due to population density and manufacturing here in the US, not their system as a whole. Canada has a really small population (Tokyo alone has a bigger population than the entire nation) spread over a huge area so it's no surprise that not all hospitals are up to snuff, and in some cases even transfer people to the US for intensive care if it isn't immediately life threatening. That said, I do think Canadians do have one of the best healthcare systems for what they can get. Places like England have a much lower budget and even can reject care for extraneous issues like basic pain.
@@Skylancer727 Canadian healthcare is valid for the whole year as long as you spend at least 6 months of the calendar year in Canada. I am moving to the US soon and will lose my healthcare before the year is up. To gain it back I just need to spend 3 months in the country. If something happens well I am out of the country (and I have not paid for addition insurance) I either need to come back to Canada for treatment or I can stay in the US and deal with the bill
@@caoilfhionn946 Nice to know. That's about how I thought it would work. Similar to the fact you can't run for president even if you were born in the US if you haven't lived at least half your life here (though I still say that is way more extreme).
The biggest problem with the Canadian healthcare system is the American healthcare system. In Canada, our biggest problem is long wait times for things that require specialists. It can take months to get treatment sometimes. The reason Canada does not have enough specialists is that a lot of Canadian Doctors will move to the United States either for the increased income or the increased funding for research. The United States pays its doctors more and has more money for research because the system is not socialized. If both countries had a socialized system we would not be seeing these issues
Would you rather go bankrupt then wait to see a specialist. My nephew married an American who lost all her savings for University because she needed a minor operation. Our system may have problems but compared to the U.S. we are very lucky.
This is something I worry about going into healthcare. In my experience, the emphasis on personal experience is more prevalent amongst older adults, those who don't have an adequate science education, and those in rural locations. I know I'm committing that exact fallacy by saying that but I need to keep looking up tools for this so I can make sure I'm effective in delivering healthcare to people.
I wonder if people would use this logic in RPGs. I did more damage with this attack once so it will do more damage then all of my other attacks every time from here on out.
A lot of theists ask me have you verified all the evidence science claims to have true personally ..they say that I(me) have not found proof myself and I have FAITH in scientists. How do I respond?
Anil Kumar - They question the finding of scientists so they have to prove when, where and how they are wrong. Science is based on evidence and scientist try to prove each other wrong. Faith is a claim without evidence.
@@TorianTammas thanks they also make weird arguments like ,why do you trust the doctor.its because you're parents say so.i respond saying that you you wouldn't,even if you're parents tell trust a doctor hasn't prooved himself by curing you.is this respond accurate
@@AnilKumar-kg8kz Yes this is an interesting fallacy they present. At first glance it looks like they may have an argument, but when one looks closer it falls apart. They assume it is trust, but we have a system which every doctor to to pass and qualifies him. The methods he uses are tested as well and to is the medication he prescribes. Surely we do not check it out for ourselves that he has a license and all that, but this do other people for us. Q
@@AnilKumar-kg8kz Ask them if they use a telephone, drive a car, or have every had a medical procedure performed. If they answer "yes" to any of them, then tell them to fuck off and stop wasting your time on such imbeciles.
Probably the most important take away for me was the very end, when you talk about what people fear about being wrong. When I feel someone is wrong, particularly if I feel they are being intellectually dishonest, I tend to want to rub their nose in the fact that they are wrong. That’s not a very flattering character trait but I have to be honest. It’s something I need to work on, making my exchanges a less hostile environment for a person to admit their own error.
Regarding health care systems, comparative statistics on longevity and overall health are just as reflective of the populations' diet, exercise, stress, pollution exposure, etc. The problem with _any_ set of Health Care statistics (which I'd still concede are better than any _individual's_ experience) is that there are too many variables for any _one_ data set to paint a clear picture. It's like having to assemble multiple jigsaw puzzles and _then_ figure out how they _all_ fit together. Even within any given health care system, Preventive Care, Acute Care, Surgical Care, Pharmaceutical Care, Prenatal Care...each one embodies entire collections of data sets. Unfortunately politicians (and the lazy, ignorant masses that elect them) generally want everything as simple and easy to digest as possible...which invariably means NOT listening to scientists because they insist on looking at _all_ the available data _before_ reaching conclusions.
I dont know how the health system in Canada is in 2019, but the problem is (or was if it has changed since) that it is not allowed to purchase a private health insurance for the basic services in Canada so it results that if you have the money to buy an (American) private health insurance you can see I doctor much faster in the States. So most of the time rich Canadian people, prime ministers, etc when they have a cancer, for example, they prefer to go to the States because there they can be treated much faster, while in Canada the public health system is really slow.
Personal testimony is one datum. That means that it needs to stand up to the scrutiny of the rest of the data. That's how I tend to view this difference in particular.
Matt, isn't it possible to deal with the outlier case that the person is not getting the health care in one place and instead getting better care (we don't know the real details) else where, and then not broadly paint the system where this person did not get what they wanted, nor to broadly paint the system where they did get the care they wanted? Outliers health care cases can occur in every system. We don't know how they tried to solve it or what they asked was not within the bounds of that or other systems. Further, if one goes to an outlier treatment center and gets what they wanted (good results or bad, or placebo results...), is that not negating the critique on either the Canadian or US general systems?
matt you are losing weight. are you eating healthier? exercising more? or just getting less stressed from talking with idiots all the time? anyway good job
@Cleo Fierro well do you have a good argument for God? Would really like a good reason for once. Everyone I talk to just says because they feel it is true or they were told it is true. If you have a good reason to believe than say it. If you aren't gonna bother than it's pointless to just say "he's an idiot". It just makes you sound butthurt which makes your side look repugnant if you're willing to stupe to that low.
@Cleo Fierro While it's impossible to disprove the non-existence of something, the default position should be to NOT believe until there is evidence TO believe. For example, I bet you don't believe in fairies, unicorns, mermaids, dragons, or werewolves. Do you think we SHOULD start believing in all those things until we have evidence they don't exist? Or should we WAIT FOR EVIDENCE first, so that we're not running around believing in things without evidence?
Hey Matt! I'm a big fan. Your use of logic and reason and your ability to explain it in a way that is easily understandable, helped me get out of religion (Christianity). Thanks for that. It seems to me that you do not, correctly, apply that same logic and reason to your ideas about healthcare, and human interaction in general. I believe healthcare is a service. It must be because another person must provide it to you. Is it not a violation of consent to use the government's monopoly on the threat and use of violence to force someone else to provide healthcare? I have heard your arguments about a woman's right to choose, and I agree. No person has the right to use another person's body without his/her consent, even if it means the termination of a pregnancy, and potentially the death of an embryo/fetus/human. Also, no person should have the right to use another person's body without his/her consent in the providing of any service, even if it means there may be more deaths due to one's inability to afford a service. Although, at least in the case of healthcare, I don't believe treating it as a service (which it clearly is) would result in more deaths. From basic economics, we know that government regulation and licensing in any market causes an enormous decrease in competition; which decreases quality and availability, and increases prices. It seems to me that, logically, we should extend the importance of consent to all aspects of human interaction. All human interaction should be voluntary. I know you're a busy man, but I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Eric Wingrove We received many "services" that are provided by our tax dollars. Many of those "services" are provided to people who do not have the resources to even pay taxes, yet we provide those "services" nevertheless because they are socially necessary for the benefit of our nation. You really haven't thought through your argument. Profiting from another's misery is immoral. Next time you need a policeman, please ask for his consent to aid you. LOL
"government regulation and licensing in any market causes an enormous decrease in competition" - true for a market that is open and not restricted by lack of competitors, physical limits to travel, need for quick choice, and other factors that decrease competition. Medical care decisions generally need to be made in a short time, with a small number of providers, in a restricted area. The knowledge of medical procedures, possible outcomes, and financial factors are beyond the ability of most people. The better outcome for most countries has been to use government regulation in healthcare.
@@rhondah1587 I have thought about these issues for a very long time, and thoroughly. "We received many "services" that are provided by our tax dollars. Many of those "services" are provided to people who do not have the resources to even pay taxes, yet we provide those "services" nevertheless because they are socially necessary for the benefit of our nation" Taxation is also a violation of consent. If I don't pay, I'll be fined, If i still don't pay, I'll be arrested and jailed. If I resist, I'll be killed. "Profiting from another's misery is immoral." This is a straw-man. I am not arguing that it is moral to profit from another's misery. I am arguing that it is immoral to use another person's body for any reason without his/her consent. I am arguing that even if the end result is the death of an embryo, fetus, child, or adult; it is immoral to violate the consent of another. Although, at least in the case of healthcare (and probably other services as well), there is no reason to believe that more people would go without than do so currently. As a matter of fact, I'd argue that a lot less would go without in a truly free society. Without taxes, regulations, and licensing; even a person working at a fast food restaurant wouldn't be losing upwards of 40% of their income, and would now be able afford those "necessary" services because those services are no longer being taxed and regulated and competition is no longer hindered. And because of economics we know prices would drop drastically and quality would increase. For those who are still unable to afford these services there would be family, friends, and charities who would all be more able to help because they are keeping 40-50% of their income: and those people are more easily able to compete in the market because the regulations and licensing are gone. "Next time you need a policeman, please ask for his consent to aid you. LOL" Ironically, even though we are being taxed to pay for the services of the police, the supreme court has ruled on multiple occasions that the police are not obligated to come help you if you call. So even though we are paying for that service, we are not necessarily going to get help when we need it. Even though we are paying for that service, we do still have to ask the police to consent to aid us (just to show how ridiculous your last comment was). That would not be the case if policing were provided by businesses in a free market. That policing company would go bankrupt quickly and be replaced by another. With government as it is today we do not have that option, because we cannot opt out. Just because the government's monopoly on the threat and use of violence is gone, doesn't mean we can't still have schools, roads, police, laws, courts, etc. I want all of those things. All of which can better be provided to us in a free market, with each individual's consent, instead of at the threat of violence.
@@jwagnermail But that is what I'm arguing against. The use of government to violate the consent of others. If you put a gun to a doctor's head and force them to provide care, that would be immoral. It is no less immoral to use the threat of violence by government to do so. It is also immoral to use the threat of violence by government to procure the funds to pay for...well, anything...including healthcare.
@@VoluntaryistSkeptic I think where much disagreement will come is that people don't value consent as the be all end all of ethics, they put human well-being or human rights or [insert ethical value here] before consent, at least in some cases. Why do you value consent above all else (or at least that is my interpretation of what you are saying)? I would like to point out that people didn't consent to be the place in the world they are right now. Ex. Jane didn't consent to be born with X disease that can be treated but she can't cause she was also born poor (which she also didn't consent to). Consent is great and all, but we weren't all given equal hands to negotiate with. You also seemed to express a desire for a society without taxes and regulations. First i would point out that we don't all have time to do research about every company we buy from. Also, without taxes, we wouldn't have a government to ensure freedom (and ensure the consent of individuals be respected), the power would be concentrated to the rich and powerful. The power would shift from the government, which in theory is accountable to the people, to corporations, which is accountable to money and a small number of individuals. No regulation doesn't mean freedom, it means deadly chemicals in your water from pollution. Also, no regulation or taxes also doesn't mean a free market, just look at monopolies. If policing were provided by business in a free market, they would serve the wealthy that pay them (a private army). Try and do a thought experiment: If there was no taxes, what would society look like? who would hold the power and what could they do with it? What checks on power would there be and how effective would they be? I would highly encourage you to watch Rationality Rules' "why I am not a libertarian" (or something like that). The points at the end I find especially good (during his conclusion). If you have a video you would like me to watch, I'd be happy to do so.
The problem with socialized medicine is this: what right or to what degree, does an individual in such a system have with regards to being a drain on said system in order to continue to receive treatment and/or have their life sustained? While I agree that we need some safety net for people who experience an incident that was beyond their control, if it becomes a chronic condition and/or they were complicit in said event, it should become their own responsibility.
The system itself is there for the people. If you have to protect the system from being drained, and you describe humans as a drain when in need, maybe you need to rethink your perspective. Eventually everyone sooner or later becomes dependent. But thats fine. Thats why we created ' a system'.
@@tangerinetangerine4400 yes, it's there for "the people", who also have to fund it. As I said, having a safety net is good, but it is unjust to burden "the people" because some made poor life choices.
@@biostemm poor life choices? Who decides what those are? If we agree that bad diet is a bad choice, what IS a bad diet? Do you think the majority of people in the system have been properly informed and educated to make the right choice? The system should educate and provide people with the tools to recognise and make right choices.
@@tangerinetangerine4400 Sure, we can discuss what constitutes a poor life choice or not. The question is this - is it fair to charge person A for the poor life choices, (whatever those may be), of person B? You cannot have both freedom and universal coverage without also having an unjust system. You either penalize people for eating poorly, not exercising, smoking, drinking to excess, doing recreational drugs, etc, or you charge everyone else more for the person who partakes in those vices, since they are more likely to need additional care.
The state system could cut out the currupt factors, if that is done , you would wonder how easy it is to get the funds if it isnt drained by corruption. That are the factors that cripple the social net uin the US, not the people who would recieve treatment if they need them. Those people along everyone else would happily pay in such a system. "Obamacare" ways crippled by the republicans and matt romney in its execution. Who knows, if the republicans would have given their support, it could have worked. But you know, they did sabotage it to make obama look bad. And to protect the corruption in the medical system. That could be controlled and mostly prevented by giving the state ull access to regulate and control it. Look at europe, it works there. And The us could follow if just the republicans would care genuinly about people once. Its a good system if you cut out corrupt hospitals and give the government oversee of the system, with controls by injurance companies that are in the state overseen system. Again, it works in europe, where it just ensures you get treatment if you need to to an afortable price and the rest is state given. To top that, if people want better treatment, and enough want that, they pay more and get that, but no one gets declined needed treatment, just not as great as the first class where you pay extra. That is included and where much of the money comes from, and taxes. But who doesnt can affort that gets still treatment he/she needs. The system isnt perfect but it works if you cut out or regulate and oversee the factors that would otherwise drain the budget, aka ruthless pharma companies and possible corrupt hospital owner and ruthless injutreance companies. Yes it would be a lot but it would be worth it and indeed once drain a swamp. Thats one reason to vote the democrats at all costs, because the republicans protect those companies, because money. No matter what they say about socialism evil, bla bla bla.
If Canada's healthcare system is anything like Australia's and if this lady wasn't happy with the public health system, she could have just paid for private coverage, and got the operation/ treatment at a private hospital. I genuinely don't understand why she felt it was necessary to travel to a foreign country to use their medical system.
I the Canadian system there are very few privately run hospitals, usually ones that were grandfathered into the system when Medicare was implemented in the early 60s. It's actually a prerequisite as one province wanted to privatize some hospitals and the federal government wanted to cut provincial payments to their system(each province administers it's own system).
@@L98fiero That sounds similar to what we have here. Most are public, with a few private hospitals here and there. There's no difference in the treatments, either, only that the public system doesn't cover elective procedures (procedures that don't affect health [including mental health] at all).
@@Raz.C The province I'min doesn't cover mental health except for in-patient, no drugs(bummer), no vision, hearing or dental and some unproven procedure, other than that, pretty much everything.
@@L98fiero Wow. We get everything except "alternative fact-based medicines." Having said that, some private healthcare providers DO cover alternative medicine/ treatments. However, mental health coverage in the public system is usually limited to 12 sessions with a licenced psychologist/ psychiatrist (which is usually more than enough). Counselling for addiction falls into a different category and is ongoing. So too is the medical treatment and housing for it (not to mean that they pay for a house, but rather rehab facilities). But what I meant by "including mental health" in the previous post was: Plastic surgery is *usually* not included in public coverage, as it's considered an elective procedure. However, if a person is suffering from a disfigurement of some description and plastic surgery would improve their self-esteem/ mental health, then that kind of plastic surgery IS covered.
@@Raz.C I've no real information on what plastic surgery procedures are covered, I do know some are though, probably like in your system and in thinking back a few decades, I think some psychologist/ psychiatrist time is covered but I don't know how much and like your system, addiction counselling is available but I know access here is difficult due to the manpower available and definitely no alternative medical. Now if you decide to go to a naturopath or some such, including chiropractors, you're on your own. Anyway, have a good day, it's getting late, gotta go!
it hurts comming to awareness, that a not-small amount of believers thinks, that luke was written by a guy named luke. sir name luke, father of luke luke jr. i guess. like that is the foundation of scholarship that makes the base of people that know better and dont care to tell.
I’m hoping someone can help. I’m an atheist and have been for some time. Well my wife is a Christian and she wants our daughter to go to church and I really don’t agree with it. How do I address this issue because I would rather my daughter think for herself and make her own choice on what she believes in. Thanks for the help in advance!
ruclips.net/user/ParentingBeyondBelief Parenting Beyond Belief is a live call-in show every 2nd and 4th Saturday at 1pm Central dedicated to peer support and guidance for secular parents
Flint The Dad I wouldn’t be too worry if you keep it out of the house. Also, teach her how to think critically and rationally. Teach her about why believe those things and what you believe. If you teach her logic reason and rationality then I think she’ll turn out alright.
Check out Street Epistemology videos on RUclips. As your daughter learns and grows, you can get her to think more critically about what she is being taught. It may also help for your wife as well.
Im in a similar situation and all i can say is dont fight her going, let her see the religious side, and when she has questions just be honest with her and let her make up her own mind about what she believes
I might try saying: here's some personal testimony that contradicts the personal testimony you have. How do you know or decide which one is right? Ideally they would explain how they'd weigh up each of those, which suggests that they understand that this person could be wrong. Then I might say there are hundreds of millions of other people in the country, which they do not know. Do they think the personal testimonies of all of those people match the one personal testimony they have? If so, how do they know this? Another approach would be to try to focus on this particular nurse, working at one particular hospital, given one particular set of circumstances. I would try to highlight that they may not have had much exposure to other circumstances, or they may be bias - let's say they're right in saying American's health system is better _for them,_ but how do know it's better for some other person? Maybe it's better for someone suffering from cancer, but worse for someone suffering from diabetes. What is that person basing their conclusion on? Don't explain why they should value logical reasoning and data to get them to stop valuing personal testimony so much. Just directly explain why they shouldn't value personal testimony all that much (well, try to avoid directly explaining, and instead ask questions to lead them to that conclusion). Side note: a personal testimony about data is not a personal testimony about whatever the data is about. They may trust your personal testimony about the data, but that just gets them to believing that the data exists. Then you're just back at personal testimony versus data. You can't say you have a personal testimony of those thousands of data points, because you weren't there when each of those data points occurred: those wouldn't be testimonies of your personal experiences.
What’s the best way to respond to people who like to define god in ridiculously vague terms like conciousness, or something abstract? Because of course as an atheist I understand those things exist but that doesn’t mean I can attribute those things to a god. But then they say I’m looking at god too narrow, I just don’t understand people’s justification to label things we know exist as god
God, or higher meaning, the supernatural, the mystical, metaphysics, tries to get smuggled in at every chance. Just a form of God of the Gaps. Once we fully understand consciousness, it will no longer be used as a definition for God, just as surely as when we understood the countless phenomenon of nature we discarded the countless supernatural explanations. Humans have the relentless urge to demand answers and then make them up.
I'm a bit confused about this vid, and his analogy of personal experience of healthcare! When theists speak of 'personal experience' they are speaking of feelings (they say in their heart muscle) and dreams (they say their Jesus came to them in their dream) and being 'touched' (they say they felt 'him') and also the morbid stuff about their particular Jesus cured someone from dying through say praying (ill-informed guesses). You understand: Their Jesus never turns up on sunny beach days when everyone's laughing, nope, its always the morbid death unfounded fears stuff. Just once I'd LOVE to hear a Christian say: Well MY 'personal experience' was my Jesus came to me when I was holidaying with the family in the Bahamas, OH of course we were live streaming RUclips at the time because the kids were doing something funny with sliding down a huge waterpark slide whilst I was sipping on a blue lagoon in my hammock. AND low and behold my Jesus turned up! Seriously this is why I love the guy. NO no, its always horror, fears, end of your rope morbid death personal experiences! Geez Grim Reaper much! Beating around the bush of: Oh they agree with reasoning, its just that they are not reasoning, is just not true. I'm pretty positive I've offered basic simplified definitions of how to reason properly (like mythical scary monsters in your dreams doesn't equal they exist!) Yet they STILL say their Jesus came to them in a -nightmare- dream! Use reason to get them to reason again? Hmm, I don't know about this. Try: You are being deluded and your nonsense jesus filth claims are absurd. OH and are you aware that blasphemy is not a crime in civilized nations anymore?! Your yellowish brownish superstitious and ignorant desert Arab Jesus of 2000 years ago with his: I uphold the old laws of slavery and women obeying their husbands EVEN where they are forced to marry their rapist! Is absurd and makes you sound pathetic and the embarrassment to the evolved human mind. But then again 1/2 of the theists don't 'believe' in evolution right! But no; using this type of stuff to show their flawed feelings of personal experiences is just against the new secular passive atheists of today, what a shame. I don't believe in Jesus sins and Christian hell nonsense, because there's better testimonial evidence of anal probing aliens and even that's ridiculous. If anything their mythical God supplied clowns for all of us to laugh at their absurd Jesus filth. Obviously delete this because its true ;)
Matt, can you talk about how people think that belief in god offers them some sort of positive psychological utility? You seem to be focused on whether or not there's a ghost in the sky, and not about the possible benefits of belief.
Sure... but the truth matters. Utility can arrive from truth or any number of lies. I'm aware of no real benefit of any religion that cannot be achieved through secular means... and more honestly and perhaps more beneficially.
@@SansDeity ...basic desires that we all share: acceptance, curiosity, eating, family, honor, idealism, independence, order, physical activity, power, romance, saving, social contact, status, tranquility and vengeance. How much an individual values each of those desires corresponds closely to what he or she likes and dislikes about religion.
@@SansDeity , Please watch on the FlatEarthDoctrine RUclips channel: FLAT EARTH taught by Nathan Roberts at Baptist Church in Ohio, America (Session 1 of 2) ruclips.net/video/KxWzmD4OEyQ/видео.html At the 12 minute mark: Clip of the NASA's Earth Now app Shows Black Hole for South Pole = No Data for the Freemason imaginary South Pole. When Former NASA employee (12 years working for NASA) David Beverly Senior was asked to create a map of Antarctica, he found out the hard way that the Data was just not there, and no one at NASA or anywhere could help him to get the Data for the Freemason imaginary South Pole. This helped David Beverly Senior untangle the deception of the Freemason imaginary ball earth. Desperate Atheists will no doubt continue the, Atheist Yeah But game, on this information also. Please watch the entire video because there is even more information. Biblical Flat Earth is true, that's why Freemason puppets can't stop this God given truth !
1. If someone makes the claim that they 'do not value reason' they blackout the fact that such a claim is a knowledge claim in and of itself. How did they determine such a claim is true if not using their reason? 2. Personal experience. To analyse a data set requires individuals to first percieve the data and information using their senses. They then process perceptual information using their mind and inductively reason conclusions about the data they've processed by testing it against previously held conceptions. Any knowledge is a product of perceptual data being processed by you, by your personal reasoning process. It's whether a person has performed valid reasoning operations (logic) on the perceptual data that is the key issue. *Any understanding you hold and communicate as your testimony is a product of your reason.* A nurse and a philosopher both use reasoning to come to conclusions. Both rely on their own perceptual experiences, the perceptual data they have gathered which they will hold and operate reason on. If the nurse has a smaller capacity to hold perceptual data on which they will reason, she can still reason perfectly. But only on the data she can hold in focus at any point in time. The philishoper has greater capacity to hold more data in focus at any point in time (his intelligence) but will perform reason no differently than the nurse, assuming the nurse reasons as correctly as the philosopher. In either case, it is the reasoning operations they each perform which is key. Analogy- A PC with 1GB of ram can do the same processing as a PC with 8GB of ram. The subroutines of the former may need to be rewritten to optimise the RAM constraint in order to generate the same output, but both PCs have the same ability to produce the same output given the subroutines they run are optimised.
I always thought people preffered personal testimony because personal testimony includes an opinion and requires no thought, data on the other hand requires thought and effort to form your own opinion
@THE PEOPLE SING Everything you say is wrong. You want to generalize? Christian males (can't really call them men) eat their young. No theist woman has ever had an orgasm. A person who names himself "The People..." is always a pedophile. Get it? Do you get it now, dimwit?
Of course, I think it's a health care issue as well. I'm more concerned about coverage for accidental injuries, for example motorcyclists which don't get medical PIP with liability. This type of care should be fee for everyone, instead ER visits are extremely expensive.
I believe your in the matrix prove me wrong you can't prove the matrix doesn't exist or that it does this is the point of a belief. Belief doesn't need facts. Belief in anything only needs faith in your beliefs
A useful data set in arguments can be opinion polls. For example, polls show overwhelming support for Canadian healthcare among Canadians. Basically thousands of personal testimonies.
Ultimately, data is always processed as personal testimony, if it is going to become part of human knowledge. No matter how sophisticated the scientific protocol is and how automated the process is, it always necessitates someone testifying to his or her own personal observation, even when the data has first been compiled by a machine. When you are reporting what you have observed in the microscope, you are making a personal testimony. Pear review is the exchange and comparative study of different personal testimonies. Or am I missing something ?
Yes, you're presenting a type of reduction fallacy. You might similarly argue that because all matter is composed of subatomic particles, there's no real difference between a vegan and a carnivore. All scientific research is supported by published findings. Those findings and their associated methodology and data are a matter of record. It doesn't fundamentally matter if this material was transported to the publisher by email or pixies, or whether the researcher was a person of impeccable character or a pathological liar. What matters is the material itself, because we are free to interrogate it and try to reproduce or falsify the results. You're conflating the message with the messenger.
@@starfishsystemsI think you misunderstood the intent of my post. I am not saying there is no difference between testimony coming from a strict experimental protocol that is then published for pear review on the one hand and testimony coming from a medieval pensant who claims he saw the Virgin Mary in his potato field on the other. Both testimonies relay data (the sense impressions of the person giving the testimony) which are then interpreted as relaying data outside of consciousness. Maybe I'm wrong though. To help me understand, could you give me an example of a scientific experiment where there is no personal testimony involved (from conception to publishing) ?
If you were truly going by Data you would not be an atheist,even if not a Christian.Until you get Data that shows and is evidence for why you live your life as an atheist a personal testimony will beat you any day. When you have millions and millions of people explaining why they believe in Jesus it is DATA and it is more convince data than you explaining why as an atheist you do not need any data to know you're correct living out your life as an atheist.
abelcainsbrother A lot of people belif in Santa. This does not mean Santa exists. The same applies for Christians. They belief in something without evidence.
@@TorianTammas Wrong! It is atheists who have no evidence they are correct to live out their life as an atheist.Atheism is the only group in the world too that has no evidence.No other group in the world claims they don't need any evidence like atheists. So stop accusing Christians of what applies to atheists.
@@TorianTammas Shot In The Dark. For you as an atheist who thinks he does not need any evidence. Shot In The Dark. ruclips.net/video/Mzyz2egx_0c/видео.html
@@abelcainsbrotherThe Christians make a myriad of claims: You have to show and prove that a non material being created matter out of nothing, you have to show and prove how this non material being created life out of nothing. You have to show and prove how this non material being creates universes. You have to show and prove how this non material being created humans. You have to show and prove that this non material thing is you personal flavor of god. These are just a few of the claims Christianity makes and has no prove for.
@@TorianTammas I don't have to prove anything to atheists because they do not go by evidence and think they do not even need any evidence.So I can just tell them about God and they can accept God without any evidence like with atheism. I no longer get into one sided debates with atheists because they have no evidence to present to compare unlike any other group in the world. Instead, I use evidence strategically to show that I do have evidence for my faith and to point out it is atheists who live out their life as an atheist without any evidence they are correct to do so.
I would love to have a discussion regarding both healthcare and abortion. I don't believe that it is possible to have the type of healthcare system you want.
There is the thing. All this business about convincing or proving to the other person ends up in a catch 22 or dead end. I don't care for the drama, so I don't even begin to engage, because debate and argument seem senseless. An example is that there are those that don't believe Spiritualism is a religion in America. There are churches everywhere to prove it is practiced with its tenets and principles, but so many will dismiss it as a frivolous philosophy. Then upon further study of mediumship there are thousands of books describing the Spirit World and many saying the same things. But it is something that is completely dismissed (such as did Christopher Hitchens) without having ever read or studied the matter. And a whole field of study on near-death-experiences dismissed because it isn't proof enough. Even if it were entertaining or interesting, it appears too many are so lazy they won't take time to read the books. Oh well, everyone learns things in their own ways.
@Steve Filkins Are any of these Spiritualist claims falsifiable? Present some of those falsifiable claims and we can talk about whether we should actually believe them.
Why falsifiable rather than justifiable? Doesn't make sense. And then, as I said in my comment 'I don't care for the drama, so I don't even begin to engage, because debate and argument seem senseless.' Now, another thing to look into is Hollow Earth. Many will still dismiss that as fantasy....but there are too many who have either written about it or been there. I don't have to be the doubting Thomas in it all....I just observe and appreciate, without the debate. Because I haven't been there doesn't make it 'untrue'.
@Steve Filkins If it's not falsifiable, it has no possible impact on our observable reality. If it has no possible impact on our observable reality, then how can you possibly justify it?
Because your own 'observable reality' is not the same as someone else's. Doesn't that make sense? I had already said there are those who have gone to Etidorpha, Agartha, Hollow Earth.....whatever you want to call it. If you are from the 'Show Me' state....then there are lots of things you won't be shown or invited to see. Does that make it unobservable? LOL Try to prove anything false and see where you get....lots and lots of arguments. It's not my game.
@Steve Filkins Science can make very accurate predictions about your observable reality anyway. Much more accurately than any alternative that anyone has proposed. You can have your own theories if you want, but you should at least share what observations you've made so I can see if you're warranted in believing it, and then if you want you can tell me how I can make those same observations so that I can confirm that they apply to my observable reality too.
One thing I can tell you, is that the Canadian Health care is really bad, there are accounts of people diying because of that, but be that as it may, no testimony is avidence against any Health-Care system in general, because it can be made to work if you put some thought into it.
Matt, you have to see this video. You may think it's childish, but if you spend a couple of minutes on it, *you're going to love it.* ruclips.net/video/78bsM7RbK0A/видео.html
@@agnosticatheist7529 Last time I heard his position on veganism it was that animals are incapable of comprehending rights + moral obligation and duties which is the criteria by which we grant people rights. He also explained that his position was in general for a species and not universal for the individual to us caring about those in our species more than not.
we are omnivores, so there is no logic in veganism. veganism, is just an appeal to emotions, so it's irrational per definition. the more meat we eat, the more animals will be bred. it is a zero-sum game :)
@@xsweetx6 "we are omnivores, so there is no logic in veganism." That is the very definition of the naturalistic fallacy. "veganism, is just an appeal to emotions, so it's irrational per definition." Both sides of that sentence mean the same, so you’ve just said "It’s irrational because it’s irrational". In actual fact, you have to *show* that it’s irrational. Then, you get to finish your sentence with "... so, it’s irrational". "the more meat we eat, the more animals will be bred. it is a zero-sum game :) " Gibberish. From your smiley, I infer that you know this. Please exit the discussion and leave it to people equipped to have it.
I also think there is some sick truth in the quote often attributed to Joseph Stalin:
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."
People often see a single story of something they can relate with to be more "true" than a real statistic.
@THE PEOPLE SING That's kind of disingenuous. It's more important that we have the over all numbers vs the claims of one person. If the choice is "this guy says universal healthcare is bound to fail" vs "statistics show people in countries with universal healthcare have lower mortality rates", I'm gonna go for the latter. I don't care as much about authority as much as the facts. If that was the case, I would believe Trump and Paul Ryan when they say universal healthcare is a death sentence and global warming is fake. You sure the atheist response is search for authority and not the data?
@@Skylancer727 It really comes to how you see the statistics, what is the actual cost of human life in countries with universal healthcare? And what is the variation because some developing countries have universal healthcare but still rather high mortality, the healthcare is really complex problem that has billions of variations but we have only hundreds of countries to compare...
@THE PEOPLE SING it would be interesting if it wasn't bs.
Every time I read that Stalin quote my mind automatically thinks of this insight from the Church.
"Murder, considered a crime when people commit it singly, is transformed into a virtue when they do it en masse" - Saint Cyprian (3rd century Bishop)
@@NetAndyCz yeah, and it doesn't help that screwing it up can cause unnecessary death or other consequences. It's a conundrum that can't really be defeated unless you do it right the first time or just don't totally screw it up.
I'm a retired Catholic Priest and now call myself a Christian Atheist-- I follow the very basic teachings of Christ combined with my own thoughts and life experiences and no longer consider there is a spirit world or personal divine being out there among the stars. The change over from theist to atheist was painful but liberating. My morality is based on avoiding as far as possible all damage to other people and the environment and compassion based on my own human weakness for the fauts of others. I'm definitely not a ####### sinner. Your callers are deeply committed Christians need your style of gentle care and compassion often to the point of heroic forbearance. Thanks for your thoughs. Love Ted
The teachings of Christ?
ruclips.net/video/78bsM7RbK0A/видео.html
That sounds good...
But it sounds like a totally new religion.
Christian and Atheist?
How does that work?
Nico Steffen same way atheist Jews work I suspect
i think thats great. Most Christians need a lesson on how to be christ like. who better to teach that than an atheist?
I like your wise debate style. Thats refreshing. Its like you engage ignorance with patience, compassion and love.
And you really look healthier than in other videos.
Thanks for another awesome video Matt.
Could I suggest you maybe do one covering Pentecostalism or the “Charismatic Movement”? This form of Christianity is very common where I live (Ethiopia) and its so hard to convince a person that sees thousands getting “healed” and testifying, that the “prophets” are using psychic tactics that were exposed elsewhere. I can never do it eloquently enough, as you could, among theists and it’s a circle-jerk when I speak to my atheist friends.
Thanks
Personal testimony is actually my favorite argument to attack, because so few people know how to address it. And this extends beyond religion, it's a basic debate about sensationalism vs data. The underlying problem is:people tend to hold testimony above evidence. Here's how I address this. When someone gives me a testimony, and I believe them, I've found that 3 basic assumptions are made. Underscoring assumptions people make when they believe stories rather than trust data.
1. They are telling me the truth(assuming humans are always honest).
2. That their account of the experience is correct(assuming the human senses and mind are infallible and not deceptive)
3. That what they experienced actually happened. (Assuming that event is possible).
Failing to make any of these assumptions, you fail to believe that person's claim, it doesn't mean you think they are lying, or that you claim that you know why they had that experience.
Gods Servant You’re hilarious!
And 4. The story represents ALL of the cases.
If the story is true for the person telling it, but that person is an outlier and almost everyone would fare worse doing as the story suggests, trusting that story leads to a worse situation over 90% of the time
Perfectly timed topic for a video. I just started this kind of conversation with my religious cousin who is catholic like I was. We valued each others opinion on every topic in our lives and respect each other therefore it felt almost natural to dig deeper into the foundations of accepting anything as true and value we assign to it, compared to other values in our lives.
I'm glad that my idea was the same that Matt have presented. If someone that skilled in the "art of skepticism" like Matt is recommending it than I am a lot more confident about this direction.
Thank you Matt. :)
When you're basing you religion on personal testamony you tend to discount data in favor of more of the same. That's why churches have people share their testimonies rather than their data sets.
The only reasonable medical system must be based on " need of care " not " how much money you got" .....
At this point Dillahunty's intellect has grown almost to the " wise man on the mountain" level.
You're the first person who helped me build a thought process to convince people not that they were wrong,but that I was right to think the way I do.
I remember back in the days,I was in a band,and the journalist asked us if we believed in god (why?!)
My four friends said "yes",I was like "damn,time to lay my cards on the table😅",so I said "not really,I believe in men instead",they weren't that surprised,but it was the fist time I had to answer this question so directly...
It was like,25 yrs from now,but I remember when I discovered TAA,it was a relief,and I listened one episode a day during years,
I listened some of them several times,and even now,I listen to each episode at least 2 times...
To me,you're the best to explain,to make people understand why were right to think the way we do.
Doesn't mean we know everything,far from it,but we don't believe blindly of for bad reasons,and truth matters.
Thank you,Matt.
I love that you cover these types of issues. Thank you!
This was amazing Matt, thank you. Very enlightening for me.
Great video once again Matt! This is very good advice for this situation!
Matt's point at the end about giving people you are arguing with "a safety net or soft cushion to land on" is huge.
People do not like to be exposed as being wrong, especially about beliefs that are important and that they hold deeply. If you want someone to change their belief, it helps to make it as safe and easy for them as possible.
People also tend to lie about personal experiences in order "to not be wrong".
Your the best Matt thank you for all your videos!
This literally happened to me!!! Talking about health care, I provided data, my uncle dismissed data by saying it's hard to trust data and proceded to present a testimony of his Canadian friend enjoying US healthcare system LMAO. It was so infuriating.
Yes, it's very useful to have sources written down or saved on your phone. Before my phone got messed up I used to have graph after graph saved on my phone about climate change and the science behind it and had sources saves as well. Very useful
Matt points out a number of specific cognitive traps that people fall into. One issue common to most of them is that people often have difficulty with abstract reasoning, and therefore can't entirely rely on reason to sanity check their own preferred cognitive shortcuts. Appeal to authority, emotional appeal, habits of thought, use of fallacy, discomfort with uncertainty: all could be called out by someone who is adept at reasoning, provided that they are methodical enough to work through it. But, as with mathematics, this facility takes considerable practice.
Another point about the trustworthiness of data is that information about how it was collected and handled is often presented by the people who did the study. We don't have to take their word for it, we can check ourselves. This transparency is not possible in individual accounts.
I have had an experience in which Appeal to Personal Experience was applicable. I devout LDS college roommate stated, "Humans are the only species that engages in homosexual activity." At the time, I hadn't learned just how many others species are actually on that list, but I did know one thing; I had seen my own dogs do it. I relayed this fact to my roommate and he asked me, "Who are you going to believe, the studies (which he didn't specifically cite...and I now realize he _couldn't)_ or just your own eyes. Now, generally personal experiences (the interpretation of which is loaded with subjective bias) is a dubious...at best...form of evidence, but in _this_ particular case, what I saw with my own eyes served as exculpatory evidence that effectively defeated his sweeping (and factually inaccurate) assertion, even if he refused to acknowledge it.
You look healthy Matt ,good for You!!
I did t go to the dentist until I was almost 19 years old and I didn't get to go the doctor much either, because we couldn't afford it. It's ridiculous how in many cases you have to decide do I wanna feed my family or go to the doctor ?
One question about that Canadian friend. Who paid for it? I don't know enough about this specific case, but in many cases if a Canadian needs a treatment that is available in the U.S. that isn't available in Canada, the Canadian public health care system will pay for them to get that treatment in the U.S.
That's what I've heard from friends from Canada too. Even if they come to the US, their universal system still covers the cost, unless they renounce their citizenship. As far as I understand, US hospitals do tend to be more well prepared, but that is more due to population density and manufacturing here in the US, not their system as a whole. Canada has a really small population (Tokyo alone has a bigger population than the entire nation) spread over a huge area so it's no surprise that not all hospitals are up to snuff, and in some cases even transfer people to the US for intensive care if it isn't immediately life threatening. That said, I do think Canadians do have one of the best healthcare systems for what they can get. Places like England have a much lower budget and even can reject care for extraneous issues like basic pain.
Usually you have to make an extra package to get treated in a foreign country by injurence. Ok canada has a really good health care system.
@@jonsnor4313 man, I wish I was Canadian. They get universal healthcare and their minimum wage is nearly $15 an hour.
@@Skylancer727 Canadian healthcare is valid for the whole year as long as you spend at least 6 months of the calendar year in Canada. I am moving to the US soon and will lose my healthcare before the year is up. To gain it back I just need to spend 3 months in the country. If something happens well I am out of the country (and I have not paid for addition insurance) I either need to come back to Canada for treatment or I can stay in the US and deal with the bill
@@caoilfhionn946 Nice to know. That's about how I thought it would work. Similar to the fact you can't run for president even if you were born in the US if you haven't lived at least half your life here (though I still say that is way more extreme).
The biggest problem with the Canadian healthcare system is the American healthcare system. In Canada, our biggest problem is long wait times for things that require specialists. It can take months to get treatment sometimes. The reason Canada does not have enough specialists is that a lot of Canadian Doctors will move to the United States either for the increased income or the increased funding for research. The United States pays its doctors more and has more money for research because the system is not socialized. If both countries had a socialized system we would not be seeing these issues
Would you rather go bankrupt then wait to see a specialist. My nephew married an American who lost all her savings for University because she needed a minor operation. Our system may have problems but compared to the U.S. we are very lucky.
This is something I worry about going into healthcare. In my experience, the emphasis on personal experience is more prevalent amongst older adults, those who don't have an adequate science education, and those in rural locations. I know I'm committing that exact fallacy by saying that but I need to keep looking up tools for this so I can make sure I'm effective in delivering healthcare to people.
I wonder if people would use this logic in RPGs. I did more damage with this attack once so it will do more damage then all of my other attacks every time from here on out.
A lot of theists ask me have you verified all the evidence science claims to have true personally ..they say that I(me) have not found proof myself and I have FAITH in scientists. How do I respond?
Anil Kumar - They question the finding of scientists so they have to prove when, where and how they are wrong. Science is based on evidence and scientist try to prove each other wrong. Faith is a claim without evidence.
@@TorianTammas thanks they also make weird arguments like ,why do you trust the doctor.its because you're parents say so.i respond saying that you you wouldn't,even if you're parents tell trust a doctor hasn't prooved himself by curing you.is this respond accurate
@@AnilKumar-kg8kz Yes this is an interesting fallacy they present. At first glance it looks like they may have an argument, but when one looks closer it falls apart. They assume it is trust, but we have a system which every doctor to to pass and qualifies him. The methods he uses are tested as well and to is the medication he prescribes. Surely we do not check it out for ourselves that he has a license and all that, but this do other people for us. Q
@@AnilKumar-kg8kz
Ask them if they use a telephone, drive a car, or have every had a medical procedure performed.
If they answer "yes" to any of them, then tell them to fuck off and stop wasting your time on such imbeciles.
Probably the most important take away for me was the very end, when you talk about what people fear about being wrong. When I feel someone is wrong, particularly if I feel they are being intellectually dishonest, I tend to want to rub their nose in the fact that they are wrong.
That’s not a very flattering character trait but I have to be honest. It’s something I need to work on, making my exchanges a less hostile environment for a person to admit their own error.
Regarding health care systems, comparative statistics on longevity and overall health are just as reflective of the populations' diet, exercise, stress, pollution exposure, etc. The problem with _any_ set of Health Care statistics (which I'd still concede are better than any _individual's_ experience) is that there are too many variables for any _one_ data set to paint a clear picture. It's like having to assemble multiple jigsaw puzzles and _then_ figure out how they _all_ fit together. Even within any given health care system, Preventive Care, Acute Care, Surgical Care, Pharmaceutical Care, Prenatal Care...each one embodies entire collections of data sets. Unfortunately politicians (and the lazy, ignorant masses that elect them) generally want everything as simple and easy to digest as possible...which invariably means NOT listening to scientists because they insist on looking at _all_ the available data _before_ reaching conclusions.
I dont know how the health system in Canada is in 2019, but the problem is (or was if it has changed since) that it is not allowed to purchase a private health insurance for the basic services in Canada so it results that if you have the money to buy an (American) private health insurance you can see I doctor much faster in the States. So most of the time rich Canadian people, prime ministers, etc when they have a cancer, for example, they prefer to go to the States because there they can be treated much faster, while in Canada the public health system is really slow.
I was born in Florida and moved to canada 5 years ago. Our healthcare is Amazing!! Fast cheap and competent. And since canada, friendly too!
Personal testimony!
Personal testimony is one datum. That means that it needs to stand up to the scrutiny of the rest of the data. That's how I tend to view this difference in particular.
Matt, isn't it possible to deal with the outlier case that the person is not getting the health care in one place and instead getting better care (we don't know the real details) else where, and then not broadly paint the system where this person did not get what they wanted, nor to broadly paint the system where they did get the care they wanted?
Outliers health care cases can occur in every system. We don't know how they tried to solve it or what they asked was not within the bounds of that or other systems. Further, if one goes to an outlier treatment center and gets what they wanted (good results or bad, or placebo results...), is that not negating the critique on either the Canadian or US general systems?
matt you are losing weight. are you eating healthier? exercising more? or just getting less stressed from talking with idiots all the time?
anyway good job
Somehow I doubt the last one.
@Cleo Fierro can you elaborate more on how Matt's an idiot? Do you have any concrete examples?
@Cleo Fierro well do you have a good argument for God? Would really like a good reason for once. Everyone I talk to just says because they feel it is true or they were told it is true. If you have a good reason to believe than say it. If you aren't gonna bother than it's pointless to just say "he's an idiot". It just makes you sound butthurt which makes your side look repugnant if you're willing to stupe to that low.
@Cleo Fierro While it's impossible to disprove the non-existence of something, the default position should be to NOT believe until there is evidence TO believe. For example, I bet you don't believe in fairies, unicorns, mermaids, dragons, or werewolves. Do you think we SHOULD start believing in all those things until we have evidence they don't exist? Or should we WAIT FOR EVIDENCE first, so that we're not running around believing in things without evidence?
The only special kind of stupid I'm seeing is the one trying to beat up a strawman of matt lol
Hey Matt! I'm a big fan. Your use of logic and reason and your ability to explain it in a way that is easily understandable, helped me get out of religion (Christianity). Thanks for that.
It seems to me that you do not, correctly, apply that same logic and reason to your ideas about healthcare, and human interaction in general. I believe healthcare is a service. It must be because another person must provide it to you. Is it not a violation of consent to use the government's monopoly on the threat and use of violence to force someone else to provide healthcare? I have heard your arguments about a woman's right to choose, and I agree. No person has the right to use another person's body without his/her consent, even if it means the termination of a pregnancy, and potentially the death of an embryo/fetus/human. Also, no person should have the right to use another person's body without his/her consent in the providing of any service, even if it means there may be more deaths due to one's inability to afford a service. Although, at least in the case of healthcare, I don't believe treating it as a service (which it clearly is) would result in more deaths. From basic economics, we know that government regulation and licensing in any market causes an enormous decrease in competition; which decreases quality and availability, and increases prices. It seems to me that, logically, we should extend the importance of consent to all aspects of human interaction. All human interaction should be voluntary.
I know you're a busy man, but I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Eric Wingrove We received many "services" that are provided by our tax dollars. Many of those "services" are provided to people who do not have the resources to even pay taxes, yet we provide those "services" nevertheless because they are socially necessary for the benefit of our nation. You really haven't thought through your argument. Profiting from another's misery is immoral. Next time you need a policeman, please ask for his consent to aid you. LOL
"government regulation and licensing in any market causes an enormous decrease in competition" - true for a market that is open and not restricted by lack of competitors, physical limits to travel, need for quick choice, and other factors that decrease competition. Medical care decisions generally need to be made in a short time, with a small number of providers, in a restricted area. The knowledge of medical procedures, possible outcomes, and financial factors are beyond the ability of most people. The better outcome for most countries has been to use government regulation in healthcare.
@@rhondah1587 I have thought about these issues for a very long time, and thoroughly.
"We received many "services" that are provided by our tax dollars. Many of those "services" are provided to people who do not have the resources to even pay taxes, yet we provide those "services" nevertheless because they are socially necessary for the benefit of our nation"
Taxation is also a violation of consent. If I don't pay, I'll be fined, If i still don't pay, I'll be arrested and jailed. If I resist, I'll be killed.
"Profiting from another's misery is immoral."
This is a straw-man. I am not arguing that it is moral to profit from another's misery. I am arguing that it is immoral to use another person's body for any reason without his/her consent. I am arguing that even if the end result is the death of an embryo, fetus, child, or adult; it is immoral to violate the consent of another. Although, at least in the case of healthcare (and probably other services as well), there is no reason to believe that more people would go without than do so currently. As a matter of fact, I'd argue that a lot less would go without in a truly free society. Without taxes, regulations, and licensing; even a person working at a fast food restaurant wouldn't be losing upwards of 40% of their income, and would now be able afford those "necessary" services because those services are no longer being taxed and regulated and competition is no longer hindered. And because of economics we know prices would drop drastically and quality would increase. For those who are still unable to afford these services there would be family, friends, and charities who would all be more able to help because they are keeping 40-50% of their income: and those people are more easily able to compete in the market because the regulations and licensing are gone.
"Next time you need a policeman, please ask for his consent to aid you. LOL"
Ironically, even though we are being taxed to pay for the services of the police, the supreme court has ruled on multiple occasions that the police are not obligated to come help you if you call. So even though we are paying for that service, we are not necessarily going to get help when we need it. Even though we are paying for that service, we do still have to ask the police to consent to aid us (just to show how ridiculous your last comment was). That would not be the case if policing were provided by businesses in a free market. That policing company would go bankrupt quickly and be replaced by another. With government as it is today we do not have that option, because we cannot opt out.
Just because the government's monopoly on the threat and use of violence is gone, doesn't mean we can't still have schools, roads, police, laws, courts, etc. I want all of those things. All of which can better be provided to us in a free market, with each individual's consent, instead of at the threat of violence.
@@jwagnermail But that is what I'm arguing against. The use of government to violate the consent of others. If you put a gun to a doctor's head and force them to provide care, that would be immoral. It is no less immoral to use the threat of violence by government to do so. It is also immoral to use the threat of violence by government to procure the funds to pay for...well, anything...including healthcare.
@@VoluntaryistSkeptic I think where much disagreement will come is that people don't value consent as the be all end all of ethics, they put human well-being or human rights or [insert ethical value here] before consent, at least in some cases. Why do you value consent above all else (or at least that is my interpretation of what you are saying)? I would like to point out that people didn't consent to be the place in the world they are right now. Ex. Jane didn't consent to be born with X disease that can be treated but she can't cause she was also born poor (which she also didn't consent to). Consent is great and all, but we weren't all given equal hands to negotiate with.
You also seemed to express a desire for a society without taxes and regulations. First i would point out that we don't all have time to do research about every company we buy from. Also, without taxes, we wouldn't have a government to ensure freedom (and ensure the consent of individuals be respected), the power would be concentrated to the rich and powerful. The power would shift from the government, which in theory is accountable to the people, to corporations, which is accountable to money and a small number of individuals. No regulation doesn't mean freedom, it means deadly chemicals in your water from pollution. Also, no regulation or taxes also doesn't mean a free market, just look at monopolies.
If policing were provided by business in a free market, they would serve the wealthy that pay them (a private army).
Try and do a thought experiment: If there was no taxes, what would society look like? who would hold the power and what could they do with it? What checks on power would there be and how effective would they be?
I would highly encourage you to watch Rationality Rules' "why I am not a libertarian" (or something like that). The points at the end I find especially good (during his conclusion). If you have a video you would like me to watch, I'd be happy to do so.
There are people who understand the value of data, but they prefer to stick to their current beliefs.
The problem with socialized medicine is this: what right or to what degree, does an individual in such a system have with regards to being a drain on said system in order to continue to receive treatment and/or have their life sustained? While I agree that we need some safety net for people who experience an incident that was beyond their control, if it becomes a chronic condition and/or they were complicit in said event, it should become their own responsibility.
The system itself is there for the people. If you have to protect the system from being drained, and you describe humans as a drain when in need, maybe you need to rethink your perspective. Eventually everyone sooner or later becomes dependent. But thats fine. Thats why we created ' a system'.
@@tangerinetangerine4400 yes, it's there for "the people", who also have to fund it. As I said, having a safety net is good, but it is unjust to burden "the people" because some made poor life choices.
@@biostemm poor life choices? Who decides what those are? If we agree that bad diet is a bad choice, what IS a bad diet? Do you think the majority of people in the system have been properly informed and educated to make the right choice? The system should educate and provide people with the tools to recognise and make right choices.
@@tangerinetangerine4400 Sure, we can discuss what constitutes a poor life choice or not. The question is this - is it fair to charge person A for the poor life choices, (whatever those may be), of person B? You cannot have both freedom and universal coverage without also having an unjust system. You either penalize people for eating poorly, not exercising, smoking, drinking to excess, doing recreational drugs, etc, or you charge everyone else more for the person who partakes in those vices, since they are more likely to need additional care.
The state system could cut out the currupt factors, if that is done , you would wonder how easy it is to get the funds if it isnt drained by corruption. That are the factors that cripple the social net uin the US, not the people who would recieve treatment if they need them. Those people along everyone else would happily pay in such a system.
"Obamacare" ways crippled by the republicans and matt romney in its execution. Who knows, if the republicans would have given their support, it could have worked. But you know, they did sabotage it to make obama look bad. And to protect the corruption in the medical system. That could be controlled and mostly prevented by giving the state ull access to regulate and control it.
Look at europe, it works there. And The us could follow if just the republicans would care genuinly about people once. Its a good system if you cut out corrupt hospitals and give the government oversee of the system, with controls by injurance companies that are in the state overseen system. Again, it works in europe, where it just ensures you get treatment if you need to to an afortable price and the rest is state given.
To top that, if people want better treatment, and enough want that, they pay more and get that, but no one gets declined needed treatment, just not as great as the first class where you pay extra. That is included and where much of the money comes from, and taxes. But who doesnt can affort that gets still treatment he/she needs.
The system isnt perfect but it works if you cut out or regulate and oversee the factors that would otherwise drain the budget, aka ruthless pharma companies and possible corrupt hospital owner and ruthless injutreance companies. Yes it would be a lot but it would be worth it and indeed once drain a swamp. Thats one reason to vote the democrats at all costs, because the republicans protect those companies, because money. No matter what they say about socialism evil, bla bla bla.
I thought the plural of anecdote was data! Lol
Eric M it's not, datum is the singular of data and anecdotes is the plural of anecdote
@@orsonzedd I bet you're a laugh a minute at parties
@@EvieDoesRUclips you know it
If Canada's healthcare system is anything like Australia's and if this lady wasn't happy with the public health system, she could have just paid for private coverage, and got the operation/ treatment at a private hospital. I genuinely don't understand why she felt it was necessary to travel to a foreign country to use their medical system.
I the Canadian system there are very few privately run hospitals, usually ones that were grandfathered into the system when Medicare was implemented in the early 60s. It's actually a prerequisite as one province wanted to privatize some hospitals and the federal government wanted to cut provincial payments to their system(each province administers it's own system).
@@L98fiero
That sounds similar to what we have here. Most are public, with a few private hospitals here and there. There's no difference in the treatments, either, only that the public system doesn't cover elective procedures (procedures that don't affect health [including mental health] at all).
@@Raz.C The province I'min doesn't cover mental health except for in-patient, no drugs(bummer), no vision, hearing or dental and some unproven procedure, other than that, pretty much everything.
@@L98fiero
Wow. We get everything except "alternative fact-based medicines." Having said that, some private healthcare providers DO cover alternative medicine/ treatments.
However, mental health coverage in the public system is usually limited to 12 sessions with a licenced psychologist/ psychiatrist (which is usually more than enough). Counselling for addiction falls into a different category and is ongoing. So too is the medical treatment and housing for it (not to mean that they pay for a house, but rather rehab facilities).
But what I meant by "including mental health" in the previous post was: Plastic surgery is *usually* not included in public coverage, as it's considered an elective procedure. However, if a person is suffering from a disfigurement of some description and plastic surgery would improve their self-esteem/ mental health, then that kind of plastic surgery IS covered.
@@Raz.C I've no real information on what plastic surgery procedures are covered, I do know some are though, probably like in your system and in thinking back a few decades, I think some psychologist/ psychiatrist time is covered but I don't know how much and like your system, addiction counselling is available but I know access here is difficult due to the manpower available and definitely no alternative medical. Now if you decide to go to a naturopath or some such, including chiropractors, you're on your own.
Anyway, have a good day, it's getting late, gotta go!
it hurts comming to awareness, that a not-small amount of believers thinks, that luke was written by a guy named luke. sir name luke, father of luke luke jr. i guess. like that is the foundation of scholarship that makes the base of people that know better and dont care to tell.
I’m hoping someone can help. I’m an atheist and have been for some time. Well my wife is a Christian and she wants our daughter to go to church and I really don’t agree with it. How do I address this issue because I would rather my daughter think for herself and make her own choice on what she believes in. Thanks for the help in advance!
ruclips.net/user/ParentingBeyondBelief
Parenting Beyond Belief is a live call-in show every 2nd and 4th Saturday at 1pm Central dedicated to peer support and guidance for secular parents
Flint The Dad I wouldn’t be too worry if you keep it out of the house. Also, teach her how to think critically and rationally. Teach her about why believe those things and what you believe. If you teach her logic reason and rationality then I think she’ll turn out alright.
Compromise, let her take her every other Sunday.
Check out Street Epistemology videos on RUclips. As your daughter learns and grows, you can get her to think more critically about what she is being taught. It may also help for your wife as well.
Im in a similar situation and all i can say is dont fight her going, let her see the religious side, and when she has questions just be honest with her and let her make up her own mind about what she believes
I might try saying: here's some personal testimony that contradicts the personal testimony you have. How do you know or decide which one is right?
Ideally they would explain how they'd weigh up each of those, which suggests that they understand that this person could be wrong.
Then I might say there are hundreds of millions of other people in the country, which they do not know. Do they think the personal testimonies of all of those people match the one personal testimony they have? If so, how do they know this?
Another approach would be to try to focus on this particular nurse, working at one particular hospital, given one particular set of circumstances. I would try to highlight that they may not have had much exposure to other circumstances, or they may be bias - let's say they're right in saying American's health system is better _for them,_ but how do know it's better for some other person? Maybe it's better for someone suffering from cancer, but worse for someone suffering from diabetes. What is that person basing their conclusion on?
Don't explain why they should value logical reasoning and data to get them to stop valuing personal testimony so much. Just directly explain why they shouldn't value personal testimony all that much (well, try to avoid directly explaining, and instead ask questions to lead them to that conclusion).
Side note: a personal testimony about data is not a personal testimony about whatever the data is about. They may trust your personal testimony about the data, but that just gets them to believing that the data exists. Then you're just back at personal testimony versus data. You can't say you have a personal testimony of those thousands of data points, because you weren't there when each of those data points occurred: those wouldn't be testimonies of your personal experiences.
Canada. And I have the statistics to back it up. =)
A fleshlight is representative of the hole.
What’s the best way to respond to people who like to define god in ridiculously vague terms like conciousness, or something abstract? Because of course as an atheist I understand those things exist but that doesn’t mean I can attribute those things to a god. But then they say I’m looking at god too narrow, I just don’t understand people’s justification to label things we know exist as god
God, or higher meaning, the supernatural, the mystical, metaphysics, tries to get smuggled in at every chance. Just a form of God of the Gaps. Once we fully understand consciousness, it will no longer be used as a definition for God, just as surely as when we understood the countless phenomenon of nature we discarded the countless supernatural explanations. Humans have the relentless urge to demand answers and then make them up.
Tor Strasburg well said, appreciate the response
I'm a bit confused about this vid, and his analogy of personal experience of healthcare!
When theists speak of 'personal experience' they are speaking of feelings (they say in their heart muscle) and dreams (they say their Jesus came to them in their dream) and being 'touched' (they say they felt 'him') and also the morbid stuff about their particular Jesus cured someone from dying through say praying (ill-informed guesses). You understand: Their Jesus never turns up on sunny beach days when everyone's laughing, nope, its always the morbid death unfounded fears stuff.
Just once I'd LOVE to hear a Christian say: Well MY 'personal experience' was my Jesus came to me when I was holidaying with the family in the Bahamas, OH of course we were live streaming RUclips at the time because the kids were doing something funny with sliding down a huge waterpark slide whilst I was sipping on a blue lagoon in my hammock. AND low and behold my Jesus turned up! Seriously this is why I love the guy.
NO no, its always horror, fears, end of your rope morbid death personal experiences! Geez Grim Reaper much!
Beating around the bush of: Oh they agree with reasoning, its just that they are not reasoning, is just not true.
I'm pretty positive I've offered basic simplified definitions of how to reason properly (like mythical scary monsters in your dreams doesn't equal they exist!) Yet they STILL say their Jesus came to them in a -nightmare- dream!
Use reason to get them to reason again? Hmm, I don't know about this.
Try: You are being deluded and your nonsense jesus filth claims are absurd. OH and are you aware that blasphemy is not a crime in civilized nations anymore?! Your yellowish brownish superstitious and ignorant desert Arab Jesus of 2000 years ago with his: I uphold the old laws of slavery and women obeying their husbands EVEN where they are forced to marry their rapist! Is absurd and makes you sound pathetic and the embarrassment to the evolved human mind. But then again 1/2 of the theists don't 'believe' in evolution right!
But no; using this type of stuff to show their flawed feelings of personal experiences is just against the new secular passive atheists of today, what a shame. I don't believe in Jesus sins and Christian hell nonsense, because there's better testimonial evidence of anal probing aliens and even that's ridiculous. If anything their mythical God supplied clowns for all of us to laugh at their absurd Jesus filth.
Obviously delete this because its true ;)
Ok here's the funny thing how much data is based on personal testimony. I'm sure there's a data set about this
I wish Matt Dillahunty was my psychiatrist.
Matt, can you talk about how people think that belief in god offers them some sort of positive psychological utility? You seem to be focused on whether or not there's a ghost in the sky, and not about the possible benefits of belief.
Sure... but the truth matters. Utility can arrive from truth or any number of lies.
I'm aware of no real benefit of any religion that cannot be achieved through secular means... and more honestly and perhaps more beneficially.
@@SansDeity
...basic desires that we all share: acceptance, curiosity, eating, family, honor, idealism, independence, order, physical activity, power, romance, saving, social contact, status, tranquility and vengeance.
How much an individual values each of those desires corresponds closely to what he or she likes and dislikes about religion.
@flavor flaw None of those things are particularly connected to religion. What point are you trying to make?
@@SansDeity , Please watch on the FlatEarthDoctrine RUclips channel:
FLAT EARTH taught by Nathan Roberts at Baptist Church in Ohio, America (Session 1 of 2)
ruclips.net/video/KxWzmD4OEyQ/видео.html
At the 12 minute mark: Clip of the NASA's Earth Now app
Shows Black Hole for South Pole = No Data for the Freemason imaginary South Pole.
When Former NASA employee (12 years working for NASA) David Beverly Senior was asked to create a map of Antarctica, he found out the hard way that the Data was just not there, and no one at NASA or anywhere could help him to get the Data for the Freemason imaginary South Pole.
This helped David Beverly Senior untangle the deception of the Freemason imaginary ball earth.
Desperate Atheists will no doubt continue the, Atheist Yeah But game, on this information also.
Please watch the entire video because there is even more information.
Biblical Flat Earth is true, that's why Freemason puppets can't stop this God given truth !
1. If someone makes the claim that they 'do not value reason' they blackout the fact that such a claim is a knowledge claim in and of itself. How did they determine such a claim is true if not using their reason?
2. Personal experience.
To analyse a data set requires individuals to first percieve the data and information using their senses. They then process perceptual information using their mind and inductively reason conclusions about the data they've processed by testing it against previously held conceptions. Any knowledge is a product of perceptual data being processed by you, by your personal reasoning process. It's whether a person has performed valid reasoning operations (logic) on the perceptual data that is the key issue. *Any understanding you hold and communicate as your testimony is a product of your reason.*
A nurse and a philosopher both use reasoning to come to conclusions. Both rely on their own perceptual experiences, the perceptual data they have gathered which they will hold and operate reason on. If the nurse has a smaller capacity to hold perceptual data on which they will reason, she can still reason perfectly. But only on the data she can hold in focus at any point in time. The philishoper has greater capacity to hold more data in focus at any point in time (his intelligence) but will perform reason no differently than the nurse, assuming the nurse reasons as correctly as the philosopher.
In either case, it is the reasoning operations they each perform which is key.
Analogy-
A PC with 1GB of ram can do the same processing as a PC with 8GB of ram. The subroutines of the former may need to be rewritten to optimise the RAM constraint in order to generate the same output, but both PCs have the same ability to produce the same output given the subroutines they run are optimised.
I always thought people preffered personal testimony because personal testimony includes an opinion and requires no thought, data on the other hand requires thought and effort to form your own opinion
@THE PEOPLE SING Everything you say is wrong. You want to generalize?
Christian males (can't really call them men) eat their young. No theist woman has ever had an orgasm. A person who names himself "The People..." is always a pedophile.
Get it? Do you get it now, dimwit?
@THE PEOPLE SING
Even if what you wrote were true, it wouldn't change the fact that there's no credible evidence that any god(s) exist(s).
@THE PEOPLE SING What do you try to say?
Could have used Street Epistemology instead.
Cancer treatment is cheaper than having your sawed-off finger sewed back on.
This is ass-backwards.
Depends on the cancer treatment and the type of reattachment we're talking about...
Of course, I think it's a health care issue as well.
I'm more concerned about coverage for accidental injuries, for example motorcyclists which don't get medical PIP with liability. This type of care should be fee for everyone, instead ER visits are extremely expensive.
You do look great. Are you going Keto?
I believe your in the matrix prove me wrong you can't prove the matrix doesn't exist or that it does this is the point of a belief. Belief doesn't need facts. Belief in anything only needs faith in your beliefs
A useful data set in arguments can be opinion polls. For example, polls show overwhelming support for Canadian healthcare among Canadians. Basically thousands of personal testimonies.
Ultimately, data is always processed as personal testimony, if it is going to become part of human knowledge. No matter how sophisticated the scientific protocol is and how automated the process is, it always necessitates someone testifying to his or her own personal observation, even when the data has first been compiled by a machine. When you are reporting what you have observed in the microscope, you are making a personal testimony. Pear review is the exchange and comparative study of different personal testimonies. Or am I missing something ?
Yes, you're presenting a type of reduction fallacy. You might similarly argue that because all matter is composed of subatomic particles, there's no real difference between a vegan and a carnivore.
All scientific research is supported by published findings. Those findings and their associated methodology and data are a matter of record. It doesn't fundamentally matter if this material was transported to the publisher by email or pixies, or whether the researcher was a person of impeccable character or a pathological liar. What matters is the material itself, because we are free to interrogate it and try to reproduce or falsify the results. You're conflating the message with the messenger.
@@starfishsystemsI think you misunderstood the intent of my post. I am not saying there is no difference between testimony coming from a strict experimental protocol that is then published for pear review on the one hand and testimony coming from a medieval pensant who claims he saw the Virgin Mary in his potato field on the other. Both testimonies relay data (the sense impressions of the person giving the testimony) which are then interpreted as relaying data outside of consciousness. Maybe I'm wrong though. To help me understand, could you give me an example of a scientific experiment where there is no personal testimony involved (from conception to publishing) ?
Google-Fu! luv it.
My money's on Data. He's an android, after all.
If you were truly going by Data you would not be an atheist,even if not a Christian.Until you get Data that shows and is evidence for why you live your life as an atheist a personal testimony will beat you any day. When you have millions and millions of people explaining why they believe in Jesus it is DATA and it is more convince data than you explaining why as an atheist you do not need any data to know you're correct living out your life as an atheist.
abelcainsbrother A lot of people belif in Santa. This does not mean Santa exists. The same applies for Christians. They belief in something without evidence.
@@TorianTammas Wrong! It is atheists who have no evidence they are correct to live out their life as an atheist.Atheism is the only group in the world too that has no evidence.No other group in the world claims they don't need any evidence like atheists. So stop accusing Christians of what applies to atheists.
@@TorianTammas Shot In The Dark. For you as an atheist who thinks he does not need any evidence.
Shot In The Dark.
ruclips.net/video/Mzyz2egx_0c/видео.html
@@abelcainsbrotherThe Christians make a myriad of claims: You have to show and prove that a non material being created matter out of nothing, you have to show and prove how this non material being created life out of nothing. You have to show and prove how this non material being creates universes. You have to show and prove how this non material being created humans. You have to show and prove that this non material thing is you personal flavor of god. These are just a few of the claims Christianity makes and has no prove for.
@@TorianTammas I don't have to prove anything to atheists because they do not go by evidence and think they do not even need any evidence.So I can just tell them about God and they can accept God without any evidence like with atheism.
I no longer get into one sided debates with atheists because they have no evidence to present to compare unlike any other group in the world.
Instead, I use evidence strategically to show that I do have evidence for my faith and to point out it is atheists who live out their life as an atheist without any evidence they are correct to do so.
Whatis your problem with Data?
He was, is and will be a great Android!
But Lore was cooler... :)
@@hellawaits867 Spock 2.1 i could accept, but data is stronger, smarter and not as easy to kill!
You can tell your friend that a finnish nurse and my wife a finnish doctor agrees with you so canadian nurse lost.:D
Nobody would argue that our Russian healthcare system is one of the worst in the world(
I would love to have a discussion regarding both healthcare and abortion. I don't believe that it is possible to have the type of healthcare system you want.
Do you all think the internet has made people entrench in their positions more strongly?
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"
There is the thing. All this business about convincing or proving to the other person ends up in a catch 22 or dead end. I don't care for the drama, so I don't even begin to engage, because debate and argument seem senseless. An example is that there are those that don't believe Spiritualism is a religion in America. There are churches everywhere to prove it is practiced with its tenets and principles, but so many will dismiss it as a frivolous philosophy. Then upon further study of mediumship there are thousands of books describing the Spirit World and many saying the same things. But it is something that is completely dismissed (such as did Christopher Hitchens) without having ever read or studied the matter. And a whole field of study on near-death-experiences dismissed because it isn't proof enough. Even if it were entertaining or interesting, it appears too many are so lazy they won't take time to read the books. Oh well, everyone learns things in their own ways.
@Steve Filkins Are any of these Spiritualist claims falsifiable? Present some of those falsifiable claims and we can talk about whether we should actually believe them.
Why falsifiable rather than justifiable? Doesn't make sense. And then, as I said in my comment 'I don't care for the drama, so I don't even begin to engage, because debate and argument seem senseless.' Now, another thing to look into is Hollow Earth. Many will still dismiss that as fantasy....but there are too many who have either written about it or been there. I don't have to be the doubting Thomas in it all....I just observe and appreciate, without the debate. Because I haven't been there doesn't make it 'untrue'.
@Steve Filkins If it's not falsifiable, it has no possible impact on our observable reality. If it has no possible impact on our observable reality, then how can you possibly justify it?
Because your own 'observable reality' is not the same as someone else's. Doesn't that make sense? I had already said there are those who have gone to Etidorpha, Agartha, Hollow Earth.....whatever you want to call it. If you are from the 'Show Me' state....then there are lots of things you won't be shown or invited to see. Does that make it unobservable? LOL Try to prove anything false and see where you get....lots and lots of arguments. It's not my game.
@Steve Filkins Science can make very accurate predictions about your observable reality anyway. Much more accurately than any alternative that anyone has proposed.
You can have your own theories if you want, but you should at least share what observations you've made so I can see if you're warranted in believing it, and then if you want you can tell me how I can make those same observations so that I can confirm that they apply to my observable reality too.
I value data but not flawed data.
You're so handsome Matt, especially in person.
One thing I can tell you, is that the Canadian Health care is really bad, there are accounts of people diying because of that, but be that as it may, no testimony is avidence against any Health-Care system in general, because it can be made to work if you put some thought into it.
Here's a perfect example of the error in thinking that Matt carefully pointed out.
Most ironic video I've ever watched lmao
Matt, you have to see this video. You may think it's childish, but if you spend a couple of minutes on it, *you're going to love it.*
ruclips.net/video/78bsM7RbK0A/видео.html
Your logic about veganism sucks, Matt.
P.S. I' m not a vegan.
What is Matt's logic about veganism and why does it suck?
@@franklance9167 That animals are tasty treats that we evolved to eat. Or at least that is what I'd bet on.
@@agnosticatheist7529
Last time I heard his position on veganism it was that animals are incapable of comprehending rights + moral obligation and duties which is the criteria by which we grant people rights. He also explained that his position was in general for a species and not universal for the individual to us caring about those in our species more than not.
we are omnivores, so there is no logic in veganism.
veganism, is just an appeal to emotions, so it's irrational per definition.
the more meat we eat, the more animals will be bred. it is a zero-sum game :)
@@xsweetx6 "we are omnivores, so there is no logic in veganism."
That is the very definition of the naturalistic fallacy.
"veganism, is just an appeal to emotions, so it's irrational per definition."
Both sides of that sentence mean the same, so you’ve just said "It’s irrational because it’s irrational". In actual fact, you have to *show* that it’s irrational. Then, you get to finish your sentence with "... so, it’s irrational".
"the more meat we eat, the more animals will be bred. it is a zero-sum game :) "
Gibberish. From your smiley, I infer that you know this.
Please exit the discussion and leave it to people equipped to have it.