Michael Shermer with Peter Boghossian - How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide 

you possessed through the gills already though

100% agree

marry him

@@robertaboagyevantrout2215 why?

@@RonnieD1970 "can't get enough"

For Islam, I think the problem is entrenched in the communities because it is a political religion like judaism : theocracy is welcomed. Questioning their beliefs is destroying their identity and their belonging to the Oumma. Certainly this happens for all religions but I think Islam is way more prone to this problem.

@@salimalloun6413 that's why beleifs themselves are bad just have ideas

There's a high probability apostasy will get you dead in Islamic countries and ostracised from one's family and community in secular societies or societies with other religions.

I know people who try to assert that there's no difference between centrists and far right extremists. That's how deluded some people are becoming.

On the contrary; I think people that were centrist are now considered to be lefties. The country has lurched to the right. Now your average right-wingers are actually fascists.

You’re all right 😋

Look at the 1956 Republican Platform. Just enter that in the www...

@@JasonLewisjasonlewis The problem is that people who discuss being centrist online can tend to say "wait and see" when it comes to right-wing extremism, downplaying it. That is possibly where this stereotype is formed.

Not a great argument. There is a difference between a non human lifeform that may cause damage to us and a potential human. The argument involving it's lack of sentience and pain receptors up to a point is a better one, or the moral discussions about whether it's ok for a human to parasite another human for survival

@@RenegadeContext Not great grammar: the verb form of parasite is parasitize. My argument is better than than the lack of pain receptors etc .. in my opinion, and we're all welcome to opinions on arguments.

God and feminists.

People will often use militant to mean incredibly strict and devoid of variation as though they were in a military style boot camp. I personally have never associated it with violence only withe strictness and lack of flexibility of a militia

​@@RenegadeContext The more precise description, "vociferously opinionated" will suffice.

@@jeffersonianideal I like that, think you could make it stick?

@@RenegadeContext Depends upon whom I am attempting to influence.

Fair but, why so many religious people approach others saying they know the truth and they will show the others the right pathway?..

@@FannyAnzai They mistake faith for fact, which seems to be the intentions of the con artists who started religion in the first place to control and manipulate the masses... remember never take anyone's B-lief S-ystem too seriously.

*"i don't believe, i know."*

So what do I mean when I say "I have complete faith that one day the scientific community will discover a cure for this disease". Apply Twains definition and see if the sentence still means what you understand it to mean.

Yeah, I think that example was essentially making an equivocation fallacy (though I'm not sure who committed it). There's different ways of talking about "life" and not all imply moral status. If Peter was insisting that the embryo wasn't alive, then it's a good counterpoint. I think it's fairly obvious that an embryo is alive...one could even argue that the sperm or egg alone are alive - the definition of life is pretty fuzzy. The real question is whether the embryo ought to have moral status to the point where you will bias its life sufficiently to overrule the mother's choices with respect to it. While there are some that extend moral status very far to most living things, it seems like the extreme vegan types usually fall on the pro-choice side so you're probably not dealing with someone like that...so they still have all their work ahead of them even if they get you to admit that they're living human cells.

@@ericpatterson8794 Agreed

many a soul hath raved about "fiddler on the roof', too

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nHdKxRAVrHA.html

Iron manned or STEEL manned? Never heard it called Iron manned but I LIKE IT!

@@RonnieD1970 yes thanks, steel-manned

@@patharvard actually I use the phrase 'steel personed' now to avoid being attacked by misogynist claims. It such slimy tatict. Here we are tryiing to do or best in a conversation, extending charity and addressing the strongest part of tbe argument then have the other person claim a completely non related issue like the usage of "Man" to red herring a new argument to invalidate the original one.

*have not examined the evidence in full.* The _evidence_ is overwhelmingly pointing to an accelerated climate change. We can argue all day long whether or not it's caused by man, but right now the evidence overwhelmingly that _man_ can do something about it. I invite you to present an evidence-based reason why man should not try to do something about it.

AGoodBuzz I have no objection to our conducting research to improve alternative energy sources and energy storage. However, just as whale oil replaced tallow candles for indoor lighting, kerosene replaced whale oil, tungsten lightbulbs replaced kerosene, fluorescents replaced tungsten and LEDs have replaced most previous lighting technology, via natural market forces, the government should stand back and allow the most efficient, cost effective and practical energy technologies to develop and find their places. I know of no one who objects to clean, low cost energy. We find the cleanest forms of energy being used in the most highly developed nations. As developing nations, such as China and India rise in wealth, they have begun the evolutionary process of gradually improving their energy and environmental standards. In the US, our extraction and use of natural gas has lowered our national carbon footprint. However, the arguments that CO2 emissions are the sole source or a major source of driving an acceleration of global warming is not, to my mind, compelling. Today’s CO2 levels, of 415 ppm, are 14 times lower than they were during the Permian Era, when CO2 was at 7,000 ppm and Earth saw its greatest profusion of life. Carbonaceous sea creatures such as corals and shell fish arose at this time, putting the lie to the idea that increased atmospheric CO2 will cause the extinction of corals and shellfish. Tropical reefs were common in the shallow seas of this period, formed by tabulate and rugose corals, stromatoporoid organisms, bryozoa and calcareous algae. Trilobites, cephalopods, gastropods, and echinoderms. These Paleoclimate facts suggest that doubling and tripling preindustrial CO2 will nothing to pose an existential threat to humans or the planet. You suggest that we can do something about global warming. I guess this belief presupposes that reducing our use of fossil fuels will accomplish that end. I don’t know of any empirical evidence that demonstrates that the CO2 produced from using fossil fuels is having any negative impact on the planet. With more atmospheric CO2, plants and, animals thrive. Today, due to the undeserved influence of computer modelers, it is difficult to discuss future climate scenarios. Claims of CO2 leading to runaway warming and catastrophic climate change are based on speculative climate models that include additional drivers of warming besides the greenhouse effect. It’s important to keep in mind that these models often contradict each other, both in their assumptions about key elements of climate like cloud formation and the role of aerosols, and in their predictions. Even more important, though, is that the models that include these speculative drivers of warming have a terrible track record when it comes to predicting actual climate trends. Our best long term strategy, for human and planetary survival, I believe, is to get as many humans out of poverty, get them well educated and put our collective energy and brain power toward research and development of all the technologies of the future that will allow us to adapt to climate extremes. We may have centuries more of gradual warming or we may gradually (or suddenly) plunge into another glacial period. Both conditions will test the adaptability of our species. Both are inevitable, over time. During the last glacial period, nearly all of the north and the south were buried under ice sheets two kilometers thick. 13,000 years ago, New York, Chicago and the Great Lakes were buried under mountainous glaciers. We should prepare for all eventualities. Climate variability is only one issue of many that we will face in the millennia to come.

Nonbelievers refer to the Abrahamic god mostly because it is the one most commonly believed in. However, we know that a great deal of apologists will argue for a deist god or a generic god and then claim it leads to the Abrahamic god belief. LOL If the majority of believers believed in some other god than the Abrahamic god, then that would be the one most referred to.

brilliant

It should probably be made clear that "god" in this context strictly refers to an actually existing agent that interacts with reality in measurable ways (answering prayers for examply). It is only this kind of god that Atheism is unconvinced by. If a person's conception of god is not that, but rather some vague sense of a First Cause, then there isn't necessarily disagreement with atheists. If a god does not interact with our reality in any way, then, from our perspective, it is identical to a god that does not exist.

In philosophy, every proposition has a negational proposition: the negation of “God” is “Not God”. This is useful - in philosophy. However in non-academic dialogue, and in the context of personal beliefs and social interaction, there are many possible reactions to the God proposition. It is in this broader conceptual world where many actual atheists hang their mental hat.

What are the issues that democrats want to make into law that will remove your liberties? I can tell you that Republicans want to make abortion and even birth control illegal. Talk about affecting a private matter!!! Republicans keep trying to put religion into public schools. That's certainly affecting people who are free thinkers and people of non Christian faiths. On the other hand, democrats do want common sense gun laws to try and reduce the number of mass murders. This particular law will not prevent you from getting guns. So, i can't see how this could be an issue. Perhaps you are concerned about limits on social media. If someone is being banned, perhaps there is a reason like lying. Lying cannot be tolerated. Lying is very much like murder. Killing the truth is not victimless. So what is your list?

No, it's a shallow argument. Her actions brought the baby on board. Also, the father and mother are just as enslaved for years after the baby is born.

and you calls your selft an pillhoposer

Libertarian Free Will is an illusion. I'm happy to explain why I think this is true.

@@pooounderscoreman I agree.

Empirically untrue that want always has to precede choice. A subject can choose something, be given the other thing "by mistake" (deliberately by the experimenter) and then the subject explains why they wanted that particular thing, unaware that their want has flipped from one thing to another. That shows that want, in some cases, is a result of choice or happenstance, not its cause. There is not a little man behind your eyes composing your wants ex nihilo and driving you like a meat robot. That is a sensation caused by a consciousness whose actual job is to make some kind of useful story out of perception and instinct.

@@LughSummerson Every time options are presented to us we must first want one option over the others before we can pick anything.

stay there before it grows, sure

@@allentomas3417 Huh?

@@naturalisted1714 before the follow-up grows, whatever that would be

@@allentomas3417 All periods of non-experience are simply skipped over, just like when we go unconscious from anesthesia and we "skip" that hour or so...

@@naturalisted1714 Death and Its Aftermath If a person dies, the life force he had is gone and he no longer exists anywhere in any form. He stays dead (figuratively, “asleep”) until he is “awakened” from the dead by the Lord Jesus. All dead Christians will be awakened at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to meet the Church in the air and be judged for rewards. Old Testament and Tribulation believers will be awakened at the coming of the Lord to the earth. Everyone else who has ever lived will be awakened after the Millennial Kingdom and judged for either everlasting life or everlasting death. The only hope for all those who have died is their resurrection from the dead by the Lord Jesus Christ, himself the “firstborn from among the dead” (Col. 1:18).

Your getting skeptical of skepticism because one guy made that decision for himself? That he can't even think of what evidence for god would look like. Richard Dawkins is one of the great athiest thinkers of our time, but he is far from infallible. He even admits he is going against normal scientific process by even thinking that way; as a true scientist and true critical thinker MUST be open to changing their conclusions based on new evidence. Dawkins doesn't seem to be going all all in on the absolute that he never would, just that he doesn't know what that evidence would even look like. Personally, I don't either. Unless God popped up right in front of me and said, "I'm real!!" What else is there? And no - Scripture is not an answer.

@@01What10 You‘re quite right, Dawkins is being open and honest about his position, and as a Christian I sincerely appreciate Boghossians promoting civil discourse between the "world view" groups. I just wonder whether this particular aspect of scientific atheism, "doxastic openness" as Dr. B. calls it, is an option that Dawkins is free to choose or reject as it suits him - on the contrary, it is often presented as the heart and soul of scientific atheism (and also Boghossians Street Epistomology movement, if your familiar with it), i.e. the willingness to alter world view pending „new evidence“. And its the one thing that religious types are accused of not having, at least with respect to God. So strictly speaking a theist could say „I can‘t think of a single thing that would compel me to change my mind,“ and cite Prof. Dawkins. I‘m just saying it works both ways.

yup

What is that evidence?

It doesn’t matter what you believe; all that matters is why you believe it, and how accurate you can show your beliefs to be.

Yes, the question here is a matter of suffering, not being alive. A single cell (or even a cluster of a few hundred) are not capable of suffering, and so the issue of morality does not apply.

i think religion is essential for dualism,it certainly has its place in the mechanics of evolution,but i disagree on your comparison of time relative to value,due to the absence of time within reality...imo of course :)

We don't know what would happen in a free society where 100% of the people were 100% atheistic/non-religious/non-spiritual/non-superstitious because that never happened. So it may be more accurate to say that religion is an inevitability in any free society over time. Maybe. Maybe not, only time will tell. As for non-free societies where atheism would be enforced, such a society wouldn't "work properly" anyway just because the amount pressure required to do that would cripple it.

you nazi too?