Sick of playing against wayward queen

In that game, 4...d5 likely wins a bishop.

Yeah, 3rd video the guy has a very rigid way of thinking and doesn't seem to understand the concept of a lack of a belief. He also seems to not understand that a person could answer "I don't know" to the question "why does something exist." He also seems to misunderstand the nature of religion. Religion is not an explanation for the natural world. Well, not beyond "God did it" anyway.

And then yes, his final example was incorrect, although I can see what he's getting at. If someone only ever argues against an idea without offering anything of their own, then that's usually a sign of bad faith. Ok, poor choice of words... it's a sign they're argumentative and not actually interested in the ideas... but his analogy was very poor. For example in court the defense only has to prove a person's innocence, it doesn't have to find the murderer.

Anyway, it boils down to "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Theists, well the dumb ones, really struggle with this because the only thing atheists have to do is say "I don't believe that" and all the burden of proof is on the theist. For someone who has only ever assumed God exists it feels like a trick has been played on them, and they don't understand. They think the atheist should have to prove why God doesn't exist. The smart theists don't struggle with this. They understand they have the burden of proof, and after a certain amount of arguing it always boils down to "based on my experience I choose to have faith" and no one can argue with that. That's fine. Have faith.

I'm sure I didn't say it in the best way, and even if I had, maybe you'd still disagree, but yeah, sounds like overall we agree.

Most of the arguments you'll find in videos like these are very poor...

1) The Bible says ____ which is true because of the prior assumption that the Bible is true.

2) You don't literally know everything, therefore you're wrong and I'm right.

3) The universe exists, therefore God, Q.E.D.

magnus did it one time

The first video had a version of #2

The 3rd video touched on #3 when he said he considers things like intelligence and fine tuning are strong evidence or proof of God. These are, IMO, childish arguments.

As for personal vs transmittable reasons, I disagree that we can't label people as irrational. Rationality is simply a standard. You aren't able to bypass it simple because you're deciding for yourself vs trying to convince others.

Of course I can be respectful of another person's decision to be irrational because in most cases it's none of my business what someone chooses to believe.

Oh I see "it's wrong to name me an irrational person for believing it, just because I can't transmit my proof"

Sure, that's not the standard for what's rational.

Religious people can't transmit their proof. Some of them are rational, while others are irrational.

Schrodinger's food? 

Deep stuff...I may read the previous pages to discover how a beginner players frustration with facing the wayward queen attack led to this. 

I was raised religious. At some point as a teenager I decided that whether or not God exists is one of the most important questions, so it deserves serious thought. So I tried to find the best arguments for and against while also giving it thought on my own. Luckily there was a nearby monastery so it was easy for me to talk to some people who had gone to seminary school, who were very intelligent and studied.

Of course... I was just a teenager, so my ability to understand and think about these things was limited, but I did take it seriously.

And even today, decades later, I take the topic seriously. My atheism isn't for show, or to appease my friends or something dumb like that.

I was watching the Colbert late night show at some point (he is a Christian) and the very liberal audience booed someone for mentioning their faith in God. Colbert chastised the audience that they booed for Christianity but not for some other topic that had come up earlier... and I agreed with him. Acting like all theists are stupid or horrible people is not taking the topic seriously. I wonder how many believers in the audience booed just to feel like they were fitting in.

Too bad quantum theory is extraordinarily well supported experimentally.

It's like saying you don't believe in gravity because it doesn't make intuitive sense to you that just because something has mass that it would attract other masses.

It's fairly arrogant to believe the world is something your intuition is capable of understanding.

I think you're getting at the hidden variable idea (if we only had more information, then there would be no uncertainty), but this is proven to be untrue, and you can prove it with a very simple experiment.

-

I’ve seen a 1600 play wayward queen. When you get to 1800 or 1700 you’ll stop seeing it.

Sure, I meant an experiment gives evidence, and then subsequent analysis and experiments give proof.

Anyway, it's there for you if you want to learn about it. If not, that's fine too.

Objections like that have been made for about 100 years, since the inception of quantum mechanics, and are fairly well explored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

Even though quantum mechanics is not intuitive, it's experimentally validated... so again, it's arrogant to think the world is something that your intuition is able to understand.

ok

There is a line you need to watch out for though:

But that shouldn't be too hard to stop

The trickier one is:

You can speculate and offer philosophical objections, but the proof that the scientific method achieves real knowledge is all around is in the modern world. Planes fly, medicine heals, etc.

By the way, the idea that humans are untrustworthy is at the core of scientific methodology. It's an enormous false equivalence to hint that religious people are engaged in the same process.

Sure, let's talk about limits.
How many people were cured of blindness during 1000s of years of superstition?
How many in the last 100 years with science?

Religion has cultural value, but let's not pretend it has epistemic value.

If it works ...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky-quantum-mechanics-180953494/

"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” - Mike Tyson's lesser known brother

As for humility in science, I'd refer to Feynman.

'I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.'