In this video, I explain how to search through all YouTube comments using Google’s search engine. YouTube’s “Comment Search” utility does not function well, if at all. When attempting to use YouTube’s comment search, I found no results when searching for my username.

The method for searching and finding comments on YouTube is actually quite easy. It just took a bit of luck stumbling upon how it was actually done. The basic format for a Google search is as follows:

“Your search term here” site:www.youtube.com/all_comments

In the quotation marks, you include what you’re searching for in the comments section. The trick is what follows the “site:” command. You include “www.youtube.com/all_comments,” and this is what tells Google to search in the comments section of YouTube.

If you’ll notice, when you watch a YouTube video and you look in the comments section, you’ll see a link saying, “See all.” If you click that link, you will be brought to a page which contains all of the comments for the video you are watching. Upon seeing that address was similar for each and every video, I decided to try including that web address in my Google search and it worked!

The only problem is that it takes Google a long time to index the results for every single comment on YouTube. In Google’s search tools, you have the option to search for results within the last 24 hours, last week, last month, etc. If you search for comments in the last 24 hours, you’ll probably have a tough time because they probably won’t be indexed yet. Same with comments posted within the past week. It isn’t until you get into the last month and later that you get consistent results.

So, I hope that’s helped some people out with searching for comments. I know a lot of people have been complaining that YouTube’s “Comment Search” doesn’t work, and I’ve come to the same conclusion. Just use Google instead.

TheNobodyPMK And The Meaning & Future Of Humanity

In this episode of “Your Question(s) Answered,” I got 2 questions from TheNobodyPMK. His first question was…

What is the purpose of human existence?

In my response, I claim that because life wasn’t created or designed for a specific purpose, life in and of itself doesn’t have a “purpose.” It’s up to us to find our own purpose, to make our own purpose. Purpose is really just a byproduct of our psychology and is not an inherent property of existence, or life in general.

His second question was…

If we as a species were forced to leave this planet and go colonize on another planet would that be immoral? Unnatural? Are we even intelligent enough to not make the same mistakes we made on this planet?

This question occupied the bulk of my response to him. I claim that humans aren’t intelligent enough to avoid the same mistakes we’ve made in the past. Not only that, but that due to the very nature of existence, struggle and strife are the very basis upon which survival rests.

In terms of the moral question, not only do I think that it wouldn’t be an immoral decision to occupy another planet, but I believe the opposite to be true. It would be immoral not to seek out new planets to colonize. The bottom line is that our planet Earth is going to run out of resources, and if we do nothing to solve that problem, we are at fault for not fixing it. Not fixing it will only lead to mass suffering.

Watch the video to see my responses in all of their glory.

That’s all.

So, apparently Shimkus (whoever that is) eats cocks.

To be honest, I had no idea anyone would even want any additional information. I am completely blown away by all of the positive feedback and support my wife and I have received from the tight-knit community of women who breastfeed. With that being said, I want to give you her account (she doesn’t blog) of what actually happened at American Girl Place (609 Fifth Avenue at 49th Street, New York, NY 10017). This is what she posted on her Facebook account immediately after it happened…

So, we were at American Girl today and Lainey was really needing to be nursed. She was way overstimulated and inconsolable. So, Sundi found a place with comfy chairs in a semi-private area. Well, this rude woman comes over to me and says, "You need to do that somewhere else. Try the fitting rooms," and walked away.

Well, I went downstairs to the fitting room and asked the woman there, “Can I nurse her here,” referring to my screaming-bloody-murder child at this point. She says, “I need to find out.” She comes back a few minutes later and says, “Go ahead, whatever.” She then continued to talk about me to another worker just outside the fitting room door I was in.

I was crying. I have heard of this happening to other women but have never experienced it myself. How awful…

I’ve read some comments about this story and I have to say that, while I understand some of the skepticism, I feel pretty offended that some people would say that she was probably being “obnoxious,” or that she was being an “exhibitionist.” My daughter was hungry and needed to be soothed. This woman at the store told her that she needed to “do that somewhere else.”

I’ve also read comments about how women need to “get some spine” and stand up for themselves. I don’t know that it would be as easy to do it as it is to say it. Unfortunately for me, I was home because I had to work this weekend, so I wasn’t capable of defending her and her right to breastfeed wherever she decided, and I’m not sure that she knew that it was illegal to force her to feed somewhere else. I didn’t know the law either!

So, while I am disappointed at some of the undue criticism toward my wife, I can understand due to the fact that the whole story really wasn’t made public. I’m hoping that by posting this, some of the more pertinent details have been made clear.

I also, again, want to say thank you to everyone who responded with encouraging words, support and all of the positive feedback. It was really inspiring seeing so many people come together for my wife.

If you’re interested, you can follow my wife on Twitter. She doesn’t use her account that often, but she has been using it lately to read all of the feedback about this. Her account is @jotography. Mine is @XepticalAtheist.

Again… Thank You!

A Question From TOMMYfromtheBRONX

So, this time around I got three questions from 2 different users! I’m moving up in the world! The first question came in from TOMMYfromtheBRONX. Somewhat of a humorous question:

Why am I the coolest, sexiest man on YouTube? I know, but do you? lol

I did my best to answer that one…

ManlySlut, Christians VS Atheists On YouTube, And Debate

The next two questions came from YouTube user ManlySlut. Here’s what he asked…

Question: Since a lot of atheists make fun of Christians on YouTube, there has to be a goal to put all this effort in. The goal, I assume is to rid Christians from the world. So, my questions are, “What is the best means for this?” and “What are the best arguments against Christianity?”

I basically respond by saying that I don’t think that, as atheists or skeptics, our goal should be to rid the world of any type of religious belief or idea. It should be to analyze every claim based on its own merits and determine whether or not it contains any truth value.

One of the major points I address is the fact that no one who is entrenched in a belief system is going to be convinced by any amount of reasoning, evidence or facts if they aren’t willing to change their mind on their own. I talk about how when I was a Christian beginning to question my own beliefs, it wasn’t through any reasoning or evidence explained to me be someone else. It was only through my own desire to understand other points of view and a willingness to open my mind to other ideas that I was able to walk away from my previous beliefs.

When it comes to the True Believers, it’s really pointless to try to persuade them to change their minds. We need to focus on the fence-sitters. People who aren’t sure about what they believe. These are the people who are willing to consider all of the evidence and arguments.

I think that if we (skeptics, atheists, etc.) focus our message on the fence-sitters, we will be much more successful. Not only that, but by making these arguments, evidence, etc., available, they also serve to possibly plant seeds in the minds of the True Believers. Hopefully, over time, the constant exposure to these ideas will chip away at the hardened mindset of these people.

Conclusion

Anyway, watch the video and get a better idea of what I mean.

And, finally, if you’ve got any questions for my next “Your Question(s) Answered” video, you can submit them with this form. I’d be glad to make an attempt at answering them.

Oh, and don’t forget to visit my YouTube Channel (TheSkepticalAtheist) and subscribe! And, if you’re interested, you can visit my fan page on Facebook. I’m “The Skeptical Atheist.”

What is it about the sight of a person missing a tooth (teeth) that makes us cringe? Isn’t it interesting that we can see an individual with a large scar, a missing limb, or some other type of disfigurement and not have the same reaction as we do to a person with dentition concerns? Someone with an unfortunate circumstance in their mouth is much more likely to be looked down upon by their peers.

This isn’t merely an opinion, either. Research has actually been done on this subject, albeit very little. There was a study done in the journal Perceptual and Motor Skills, back in 2008 entitled “Social Perceptions of Individuals Missing Upper Front Teeth.” The only information about this study I could find was the abstract, but there was some interesting information there.

What was discovered was that a person who was lacking in the dental department was much more likely to be viewed negatively in terms of a whole slew of traits including aggressiveness, attractiveness, educational attainment, etc.

So, what is it about being in an edentulous state that causes us to look so negatively upon another individual? It seems to me to be more of an instinctual reaction which occurs before thought can even really be registered. I’ve experienced this, myself, upon seeing people who are missing teeth. The moment I see the lack of dentition, I immediately begin to formulate a negative perception of the individual – unfairly, I should stress.

So, why is this?

Why Does Gravity Suck? (TheNorwegianSkeptic)

In this first part of the video, I take two different approaches to answering this question. First is the metaphorical angle in which gravity seems to be a hindrance to humans. We’re jealous of winged creatures who can, at will, take up flight and leave terra firma. The second angle is the physical reason that gravity works (sucks us down). I’m not an expert in this topic, and only give a very brief explanation of how gravity works.

Pope Benedict & The International Space Station Crew (TheNorwegianSkeptic)

In this section of the video I discuss my thoughts on the recent “conversation” between Pope Benedict and the crew on the International Space Station. Essentially, I found the discussion to be pretty futile and what looked to be more of a PR move on the part of the Vatican than anything really substantive.

There are also some very interesting contrasts when watching this video in terms of the surroundings which the Pope is in, and the oasis of technology which surrounds the crew of the ISS. It’s an interesting contrast, almost a metaphorical representation of two very different worldviews.

Watch the video for all the details. And, if you’re interested in asking any questions for my next questions video, you can fill out this form and I’ll see what I can do!

I may have already done episode #2 by the time you read this post, so you can get a list of current episodes here. In any case, I hope to hear from you!

“In the doldrums, eyeing trade winds, idle these city streets to-and-fro. Low albedo, constantly peddling uphill and applying myself. Wax and wane, ebb and flow, destructive interference, I’m out of phase as I go.

A girl I used to love calls me only when she’s drinking and lonely. She found a job as a waitress at a local brewpub, but prefers the term “bartender.” Still, she wants more. I’ve given her my heart though it is an unrequited love – a resonance of what was. She keeps my morale low.”

“Fever blister kissing my gums now bleeds when I brush my teeth. You’re constantly sick, and drink too much to drown out feeling – just deserts of emptiness, self-absorption left forsaken others, and your mind has become a prison apathy can’t out-run.

My heart is a reservoir pouring into a cold sink. Adiabatic process – no transfer of heat. In no way can energy output exceed energy put into a system. Order tends to disorder; greater entropy. I can’t give you want either, but we’ve got to hang on to each other.”

“Portland, Oregone. Feb. 20 2009 #1″

I tried to get better pictures of this piece, but I couldn’t just because of how close the cars sit next to each other. The angle is kind of awkward, but I think I was able to capture everything. It would be interesting if the person who wrote this actually found this blog post. If this piece of writing sounds familiar, or if you actually know who wrote this, please leave a comment. Pretty good piece of writing.

Here’s a better shot of the whole thing that I was able to snap the next day. The car was in a better position.

This was just a quick video I did bringing attention to a comment I recently received on my old blog (In Case You’re Interested…). The post in which I received this comment is titled “There Are No Such Things As Ghosts.”

If you’d like a direct link to the comment in question, it’s right here.

Other than that, you’ll have to watch the video to find out what all the fuss is about! Trust me, it’s worth it. If you’re in need of a good laugh, this will do the trick.

Just Google It…

I’ve been giving some thought recently to how we acquired information prior to having the Internet. When considering these things, what comes to mind is libraries, card catalogs, magazines, newspapers, books, etc. More importantly, what comes to mind is the reminder that information was not available at your proverbial fingertips.

In order to obtain information, one had to venture out into the “real world.” You couldn’t just Google the answer to a question you had. If the question you’d been pondering wasn’t part of the current news cycle, or dealt with in the current issue of whatever magazine you’d been reading, seeking an answer to that question meant a lot of footwork.

Research took on an entirely different meaning. It didn’t mean pulling up PubMed in your browser and searching for whatever you’re looking for. It meant talking to an actual human being (e.g. a librarian). This person would then point you in the correct direction where you could look for more information on the topic at hand. You then scoured through books, microfiches, magazines and journal until you found the answer you were looking for.

The question then became how accurate was the information you were looking at? Was this this most recent research available?

As you can see, this web gets increasingly complicated, and prior to the Internet, learning and finding things out was a lot more difficult than it is today.

Implications

So, what are the implications of this ease of access to information? When one can get information on absolutely anything at all, not only from one’s home computer, but right on one’s handheld device (cellphone, PDA, etc.), wherever one happens to be, at any point in time? The rapid spread of information would seem to have a drastic impact.

Think about what this means to the sciences and how much more quickly research can be accomplished by cutting out a lot of that extensive legwork of travelling to libraries and other warehouses of information. The rate of progress must be accelerating at an incredibly rapid pace.

Ultimately, this vast amount of easily accessible information would lead to a drastic increase in the quality of life for everyone who has access to it. The question then becomes not where is this information, but what do we do with it?

Information Altruism

I feel that it is important to share information freely. I use my blog(s) (TheSkepticalAtheist & In Case You’re Interested), as well as my YouTube channel to, among other things, share information about problems which I’ve experienced and the solutions to those problems – whether they be of a technical, technological nature, or otherwise. If I’ve had a problem with something, it’s for certain there has been (or will be) someone else out there with the same problem… looking for a solution.

Since we have this medium of the Internet with which to share information, why not use it to help others? And what better way to do that than to spread useful information freely?

I can’t count the number of times I’ve received comments on my blog posts from people thanking me for helping them to fix a problem they’ve struggled with for days or weeks. It feels good to know that the information I put out there for those who need it really has made a difference in people’s lives… free of charge (Exhibit A & Exhibit B).

Conclusion

The Internet has done so much for us in terms of providing easy access to information. But, it only works when we all share the information we have. We should be taking advantage of this medium and using it to the best of our abilities, which includes sharing what we know about whatever it is that we think others would find useful or interesting. Helping to solve problems is ultimately the goal.

In any case, watch the video included in this post and subscribe to my YouTube channel as well. Thanks for stopping by!

There is nothing about this event that was miraculous in any way. Nothing about the natural order of things was disrupted when these people were saved. It’s really a slap in the face to the people who put in the hard work to save these miners by giving the credit to “God,” saying that it’s a miracle.

To say that something is a “miracle” is to imply that there are some supernatural forces at work. Nothing that happened to those miners, or anything which occurred during the rescue process required any supernatural intervention. Not only this, but I challenge anyone who claims this event to be “miraculous” to point out where something supernatural could have occurred.

People often times refer to events as miraculous. Mundane, regular, everyday occurrences. One of the most common of these is the birth of a child. I am a father, so I know firsthand the beauty and the astonishment that comes with seeing your child being born. But, there is nothing miraculous about this process. It’s how nature works. It falls in line with the natural order of things and how these natural processes work.

I realize that there are also many people out there who use the word “miracle” and don’t literally mean that there was any type of supernatural intervention. This is not directed toward those people. To those people, I would merely suggest using a different term. But, for those who literally believe there was some type of magic involved in this event, I would challenge them to explain, and provide evidence to support that claim.

Is it possible to live forever? Is it possible that we are living forever? That we’re actually in the process?

Maybe it’s possible that our Universe has been going through a series of coming into existence and dissipating into nothingness, and we’ve lived our lives many times over.

My idea is that when the final heat death of the Universe arrives, and if it’s possible that all particles like protons and other subatomic particles decay, we end up with the “nothingness” that was present prior to the Big Bang. At this point, another Big Bang occurs and another Universe is formed. This seems to be an infinite process, which would lead me to believe that, given an infinite number of “cycles,” we would be ultimately guaranteed to live again in a different Universe.

Watch the video to get more of my thoughts on this idea and please respond. I’d be curious to know whether or not this theory holds water.

So I had an interesting thought the other night. Is it the case that spiders don’t actually understand why they weave their webs? I would venture to guess that they don’t. Spiders don’t possess the reasoning skills necessary to see the correlation between spinning a web and using that web to catch food.

Taking this spider analogy, is it possible that we, as humans with reasoning abilities, also find ourselves in this same predicament? We believe that we understand what our wants, needs and desires are, and we seek to fulfill them. But, what if our reasoned and logically sound reasons for doing what we do aren’t really the reason why we behave the way we do?

The spider probably feels some sort of anxiety when he is not perched upon a web, and is driven to weave it. What if our very needs, wants and desires are the result of something completely unconscious and unknown to us? And what does this mean for the idea of Free Will? We think we know what we want, what decisions we should make… but do we really?

I’d be interested in hearing what you think about this.

This is a video response to Corey Anton (Professoranton). I talk about his videos on the gift character of life and the possibility that not only is there a gift character to life, but also that we as humans feel that we are owed an afterlife. I think that the idea of there not being an afterlife is a gross violation of the sacredness of life, at least from what I believe to be the point of view of many people.

There seems to be something very wrong in the idea that we live on this Earth for such a short time, and then we die… leaving nothing behind. We simply cease to be. We stop experiencing life and the Universe moves on without us.

Revelation 21:2

2 And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:10-11

10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.

Metaphor is significant to us for many reasons. One of the most significant of these reasons is to aid in the understanding of complex concepts or ideas. In this case, to say that a city is like a jasper stone, as clear as a crystal is to merely convey an idea for which there is no literal, accurate description.

In John’s account, we learn that not only is Heaven like a woman adorned for her husband, but also like a valuable jewel, clear as a crystal. Now, obviously Heaven isn’t a woman dressed in fancy clothes, who also happens to be made of jasper, as clear as a crystal. This is a metaphor meant solely to hint at something which cannot be described.

For believers, this is the only description of Heaven available. There are no photographs or video of this place. Heaven’s beauty is considered to be so beyond the imagination of any person that only metaphors could even begin to approach the subject.

Now, let us consider the potential of metaphor in this context. Obviously, no one has ever actually seen Heaven; no one has ever been able to confirm that these metaphors are accurate. But, that isn’t the point. The use of metaphor in this instance makes it possible for one to conceive of a place like Heaven, even without having ever seen it, despite any evidence confirming that such a place even exists.

And this gets to the heart of the point that I want to make here. Most people, when asked, will state that they believe there is an afterlife. What may differ is how each person explains what this afterlife is like. Like John in the book of Revelation, they may resort to analogies and metaphor; they may speak about joy and happiness and the fact that they will meet all of their relatives and loved ones who have passed on; or they may simply say that they don’t know what it will be like – only that it will be wonderful.

I think that the reason belief in an afterlife is so strong in so many people, the reason that these metaphors speak so powerfully to the hearts of people is because the simple fact of the matter is that we have no metaphor for nothingness.

We know from the continuing advances in medical technology and neuroscience that the brain is the source of what might be called “the mind.” Our memories are stored there, it’s where our emotions come from, it’s the source of our reasoning processes – the brain makes up who we are. The logical conclusion one arrives at when considering these facts is that when one dies, when the processes which keep the brain functioning cease, everything which takes place in the brain ceases. This means that everything which makes up the human experience ceases.

But how could one explain nothingness? How could it be possible to relate to another person the idea that when you die, there is nothing? We do not have a metaphor to explain nothingness. Even in sleep, we dream. There is even a slight experience of the passage of time. Nothing can even come close to describing nothingness in terms of what we would feel after death.

I think that belief in an afterlife is, in a way, inherent in humans because it is nearly impossible to believe otherwise. All we have known since we were born is this “somethingness” which we call life. We have never experienced nothingness, and cannot experience it. To experience it would be to experience something. There is no way to convey non-experience to another person, or to conceive of it in one’s own mind.

And so, it seems only natural that people would believe in an afterlife simply because it matches what we experience right now so closely. It’s an easy metaphor. It’s just like what we experience right now, except better; more perfect.

Thinking about nothingness is disturbing, uncomfortable and not at all soothing to the mind. How can this world in which we live, full of smells, sights, sounds and tastes just cease to be… to no longer exist to us?

It’s inconceivable that we could live for such a short time on this Earth, only to disappear forever. It seems so unfair.

But, if we try to grasp at understanding what it means to cease to exist, we shouldn’t be afraid. There should be no reason to fear death. There is no eternal place of torture, no wondering if some of your loved one’s failed to make the grade and ended up there while you sit in bliss in the city which is likened to a fine gem. There is nothing. The ultimate resting place. Everything vanishes completely.

So, yes, the idea of Heaven is comforting, and the metaphors used to describe it are beautiful. But, they don’t line up with reality. The fact is that our brains decay when we die; the center of our experience no longer exists. When the brain ceases to function, our experience also ceases. It doesn’t transfer to a different plain of existence. The very neurons where our memories are stored, the emotional centers of our brain, the parts of our brain which synergized to make every single decision we made in life ceases to be. There is nothing left.

In conclusion, I think that if there were a metaphor for nothingness and what that would be like, there may be more people on this planet who reject the Heaven hypothesis and embrace the idea that when we die, we simply cease to be.

In a way, it’s beautiful. We all get our shot at life, and we hopefully make the best of it. We all get our day in the sun. But, when that sun sets, we’ve reached the end. The best that we can hope for is to make the world a little better for those who come after us, to immortalize ourselves through the memories of others. We don’t get the privilege to witness a sunrise after the night.

Maybe someday science will discover a way to prolong life indefinitely. If that day comes, then we will live our lives under the shadow of the impending heat death of the Universe, from whichever planet we find ourselves on. Then, on that fateful day, trillions of years into the future, we will watch that final sunset and embrace the nothingness that was destined from the very beginning.

I would like to start this video off by saying that I happen to be a big fan of System Of A Down. In fact, they happen to be one of my favorite bands. My issue with them stems from a single song they did on their 2001 album, Toxicity. It’s called “Science.”

In this song, lead singer, Serj Tankian writes…

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth.

He continues on later in the song to claim that “spirit moves through all things,” implying that science fails to recognize this assertion.

I think Tankian is misguided in his understanding of science, and what function it serves. To say that science has failed our world because of the fact that it doesn’t recognize or account for faith and the role it plays in people’s lives is ignorant. Science does not concern itself with the realm of faith. To have faith is to accept a claim which may not have evidence to support it or, in some cases, despite evidence pointing to the contrary of the claim.

Science does not operate in this way. At the very least, science requires that evidence be presented for a claim before it can be accepted as true. That’s not even taking into consideration the fact that experiments need to be replicated in order to verify the results.

And this brings me to my second and final point. Tankian makes the assertion that “spirit moves through all things.” Firstly, the term “spirit” needs more clarification. What is “spirit?” Is it a form of energy? Is it kinetic or potential energy? Is there any evidence to support the claim that this mysterious spirit energy flows through all things?

I’m assuming Tankian would assert that this mysterious “spirit energy” cannot be measured because of some special property it has. In many instances people claim that spirit energy is outside of space and time and, therefore, undetectable. If this is the case, then there is no reason that science should account for it. If it can’t be measured and has no observable effect on the physical world, then there’s no reason to account for it or to even care whether or not it exists. It really doesn’t matter.

Tankian’s assertion that science has failed our world because it doesn’t account for the role of faith and spirit energy in the physical world is logically equivalent to saying that mathematics has failed our world because it doesn’t explain why elephants have trunks.

Not only is Tankian’s position unjustified, but he also fails to provide a better methodology for assessing truth and discovering the Universe’s true nature. He merely states that science is not good enough, which basically amounts to empty criticism. It’s one thing to say that a certain method for solving a problem isn’t good enough and to offer a better solution. But, to simply say that the method in question isn’t adequate, but offer nothing as a substitute doesn’t really add anything to the conversation.

To conclude, I’ll just say that System Of A Down is a great band and that I appreciate what they’ve done for music. It may very well be the case that they really don’t take any interest in science and are not acquainted with scientific methodologies and how the scientific method works. This obviously doesn’t excuse the unjustified criticism of science, but it may explain the “why” of this criticism.

And, finally, even though I am leveling a bit of heavy criticism toward System Of A Down, I do appreciate what they’ve done for music, and I continue to be a big fan. I doubt that any of the members of the band will actually see this video, but, if they do, I would urge them to consider the points I’ve presented here.

Thanks for watching.

Introduction

In my journey through Atheism and, more importantly, Skepticism, I’ve found myself in a state of constant flux. More recently, I’ve come to realize that even my position of Atheism is really nothing more than a side-effect of my Skepticism. Furthermore, and in this same vein, I’ve realized that any position which I arrive at will ultimately be a result of my Skeptical mindset.

In coming to this realization, I’ve had to acknowledge the fact that no matter what conclusions I arrive at, I must abandon any inclinations I have toward certainty. And before I get too much into this idea of certainty, I should probably do a bit of explaining.

On Expertise

Obviously, no one can possibly be an expert on everything. Most of us are lucky to be an expert on a very few select things. A select few of us are even fortunate enough to be an expert in a handful of topics. In considering this fact, it stands to reason that there will be things which an individual cannot come to know given his own capacities. He must acquire this knowledge from someone who is an expert in the particular field in question.

Because one inevitably will be required to consult experts for information, there is a certain responsibility that comes with seeking that information. This responsibility is in understanding how to filter information in an intellectually honest way.

The Internet has done much for the proliferation of information; both good and bad, correct and incorrect. It’s now possible for anyone to create a website and claim to be an expert on anything and be capable of garnering a worldwide audience. Because of this, it becomes easy to choose a position, search for information which confirms that position, and to reject any evidence that conflicts with that specific information.

So the question becomes, “How does one arrive at “correct” information?” The first step in this process is having a willingness to consider all of the evidence. Now, as I said, there is a vast amount of information out there, and to consider “all” of the evidence would be nearly impossible. Because of this fact, one must engage in a balancing act. One must consider how important the issue at hand happens to be and the amount of time one is willing to invest in researching the topic.

But, I think before this research can take place, and realistically, before one can even begin one’s journey in searching for “correct” information, there must be a foundation one can build from. Now, I am far from an expert, but I want to share what I’ve learned about this foundational knowledge.

Foundations

I’ve found that at the very least, a basic, fundamental knowledge of logic is required. Without this, it is easy to be fooled and deceived by faulty arguments. Think of this understanding of logic as a defense mechanism. One who is disseminating faulty information must rely on bad logic in order to persuade others that this information is correct.

I’ve also found that it is very important to be acutely aware of one’s own emotional reaction to evidence which conflicts with one’s own perspective. If you find yourself having a strong emotional reaction to information which conflicts with your own point of view, you should be very wary of this. It is a sign that your position is not founded upon evidence, but on how the position makes you feel.

Now, I will admit that there are situations in which an emotional reaction is warranted. I’m not saying there aren’t. I’m merely saying that emotional reactions need to be monitored, and the causes of which need to be assessed. Essentially, I’m making the case that evidence should not elicit an emotional reaction. I think the bottom line is that intellectual honesty should be the goal.

On Certainty

And now I come to this issue of certainty. The simple fact of the matter is that one can ever be 100% certain about anything. This is because to assert 100% certainty is to assert absolute knowledge. And, to assert absolute knowledge is an argument from ignorance – a logical fallacy. It works like this…

Person A says, “I am 100% certain that statement X is true.” Person B asks person A, “Have you considered every other possibility?” Person A must admit that he’s only considered a finite number of alternatives. Person A’s position ends up being, “After considering a finite number of possibilities concerning statement X, none of these possibilities have persuaded me to change my opinion. Therefore, statement X must be absolutely true.”

Do you see the problem with this line of argumentation? By asserting that statement X is absolutely true based on a finite amount of information, person A has committed the argument from ignorance fallacy.

It is for this reason that one can never be absolutely certain of anything. All positions must be held tentatively. In other words, there is never a point one can reach where all of the data has come in, where one can arrive at a final conclusion.

There are times when one can be fairly confident in where the evidence points. But, even in these circumstances, there will always be possibilities which haven’t been considered. Take evolution, for example.

There is a vast amount of evidence to support Evolutionary Theory. In fact, there is enough evidence out there for it to be unreasonable to deny that evolution has taken place, and continues to do so. But, the evidence is still coming in. What we know of the evolutionary process is still limited, regardless of how much we do know.

Put simply, there is never a “final word” on anything. While we are confident in asserting that evolution is the mechanism for how life adapts and changes, it is also possible that some unforeseen evidence could come in which changes how we view this process. While it is highly unlikely that such evidence would come to light at this point in our understanding of evolution, it is not intellectually honest to disregard the possibility offhandedly. Again, there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. We can only consider the evidence at hand.

Conclusion

I want to conclude by saying that absolute certainty should be completely abandoned, and anyone who claims to be absolutely certain about anything should be taught about the “argument from ignorance” fallacy. I think that the only possible intellectually honest position one can take is to align one’s self with the state of the available evidence at hand.

One of the hallmarks of the skeptical mindset is the ability to openly consider all ideas, regardless of their implications. A skeptic does not reject or accept ideas offhandedly and should not be quick to dismiss a claim without first considering the evidence. With that being said, I’d like to address a certain problem that I see taking place on YouTube, and, quite disturbingly, in the skeptical and atheistic communities, in general.

I believe this problem is the result of the relative success of the spread of skepticism and the “New Atheism,” which I’m largely pleased with. As memes spread, and are accepted by a larger and larger audience, there will inevitably be a greater number of extremists in that group. These extremists that I speak of in the skeptical and atheistic communities are those who merely use the term “Skeptic” or “Atheist” as a cover for hatred and bigotry toward a specific group of people or ideas. This is particularly true in the realm of religion. Christians and Muslims take the greatest amount of flak from these extremists.

Due to the very nature of Skepticism; constant vigilance, intolerance for illogical conclusions, eternal, rigorous scrutiny of that which varies in the slightest from empirically verifiable evidence, the Skeptic is susceptible to developing a self-righteous attitude. The Skeptic finds himself looking down his nose at those whose opinions differ from his own.

It is for this reason that Skepticism must be tempered with a sense of humility. Unwarranted self-confidence, arrogance and closed-mindedness can easily be masked by feigning rigid skepticism – a complete refusal to accept opposing ideas in the name of misapplied skepticism and supposed “critical thinking.”

In taking this unwarranted self-confidence and haughtiness a step further, the alleged Skeptic may choose to target any idea or philosophy with the sole intent of “debunking” it – having formulated one’s conclusion beforehand about its truth value. This person will invest only enough time and energy in learning about a topic in order to discredit it – nothing more.

This is what I mean when I speak of learning with the intent to discredit, or criticize. There are those who consider themselves “learned” because they know enough about a topic to undermine it, call it pseudoscience, or simply refer to its adherents “stupid” or “ignorant.” There is no genuine desire to understand the idea, or to reach any common ground with the holders of the opposing position.

And it is this mindset which I am speaking against. A true Skeptic is not someone who is constantly on the lookout to put down the ideas of others or to simply engage in wholesale criticism merely for the sake of criticism. A Skeptic doesn’t thrive on proving others wrong. A Skeptic thrives on understanding the world around him, irrespective of the direction which his journey takes him. A Skeptic embraces ideas which are contrary to his own when he is confronted with opposing evidence.

To call yourself a “Skeptic” because you were able to prove someone else wrong is no better than calling yourself an auto mechanic because you know how to put gas in your car.

With all of this being said, I am here and now disassociating myself with anyone who claims to be a Skeptic or an Atheist, and whose goals are merely to criticize others or to discredit ideas which they don’t agree with for reasons other than evidence-based concerns. Only claims unsupported by evidence deserve criticism and ridicule. Not only is this attitude of knee-jerk criticism destructive, but it alienates the Skeptical and Atheistic communities from the people we wish to engage with the most – those who disagree with us.

When I began writing this, my intent was to talk about Atheism. But, what I found to be the case was that I really didn’t have much to say about it. I’ve come to a point in my life where, as opposed to when I first became an Atheist, disbelief in God really isn’t important to me any longer.

Of course, I still speak out when people make outrageous religious claims, or act ridiculously in the name of God. But, outside of that framework, being an Atheist doesn’t matter all that much to me.

I think what matters more to me is how I arrived at Atheism. I didn’t come to disbelieve in the existence of a God as a result of a traumatic experience, I wasn’t rebelling against the culture which I lived in, nor was I doing it because I was “angry at God.”

I came to be an Atheist through a genuine search for Truth. Had my search lead me to be a Christian, a Muslim or a Hindu, I would have been equally satisfied with the results.

For me, Skepticism trumps all other philosophies or ideas that may play a role in my life. As has been said by many who are wiser than I, “I love the process, not the results.” Critical thinking, adherence to reliable evidence, utilization of the scientific method – I can see no other way of approaching life.

So, when asked why I’m an Atheist, I tend not to focus on Biblical contradictions, logical fallacies or classical arguments against His existence. I ask the person curious about my Atheism to state why they have belief in a god. Scientifically speaking, a claim can only be accepted as true when evidence is presented to confirm it.

I use the same standards of proof and evidence for the existence of God, psychic abilities, dowsing, alternative medicine and every other claim that I must assess. I make no special cases for any claim, regardless of how true I wish it were.

By maintaining one standard of proof, regardless of what it is applied to, I feel that I have a much more firm grasp on reality than one who compartmentalizes their knowledge, easing their standards of proof for things which they find emotionally appealing or satisfying.

In conclusion, I would say that the further away we get from -ism’s and labels, and the closer we get to a place where every claim is considered on its own merits, and held to one standard of proof, the closer we will get to a world where people don’t want to kill each other over disagreements. There would be no reason to kill another person over interpretation of scientific data…

Instead of dogmatic, unquestioning adherence to Holy Books, using them as the source of inspiration and Truth, we could all look toward the evidence together, with the common goal of seeking Truth, no matter how offensive it may be to our most strongly held convictions.

Visit my YouTube channel and subscribe!

In this video I offer a possible solution to the rampant false flagging of YouTube videos and false DMCA claims made against YouTube users based simply upon the fact that the person making the claims, or flagging the videos simply doesn’t like what’s being said.

It’s obvious that YouTube and Google don’t plan on doing anything to fix the situation, so it’s time for users of YouTube to begin taking care of themselves. It’s time that we take a proactive stance and do something to protect ourselves because it’s becoming obvious that YouTube isn’t really interested in free speech as much as it is in protecting its own interests.

My solution involves using Peer-To-Peer technology as a backup system in case videos get taken down. It may even be a viable option to leave YouTube altogether and migrate to a purely P2P system where our video content cannot be falsely flagged or taken down due to a few individuals who have nothing better to do than flag videos or file false DMCA claims against them because they don’t like what’s being said.

So, if you’re interested in this solution and think this option is viable, spread this blog post and video around. If we can get enough people on board, maybe it will show the people at Google and YouTube that not standing for free speech is going to cost them in the long run.

Finally, visit my YouTube channel and subscribe! And, if you’re on board with this new solution, here’s the link to my P2P channel. Just add the link to your favorite torrent client as an RSS feed and you’ll automatically download any new videos I post even if you don’t use YouTube.

Book Culture, Book Worship And Speed Reading [Part 2]

Introduction

There’s been a lot of talk lately on YouTube about “book culture” and the importance of reading “good books.” There’s also a lot of discussion going on about the relevancy of YouTube as compared with books. I wanted to talk about a few things here that I felt were important to this discussion. Three things, to be exact: book culture, book worship and “speed reading.”

Book Culture

As far as book culture is concerned, I wanted to talk a little about Ebooks. In particular, whether or not Ebooks could possibly ever replace paper-based, physical, printed books. I honestly don’t believe they can. I can’t imagine printed books going out of style, or becoming obsolete.

There’s just something about the printed page that I don’t think can ever be replaced. I’ve tried to read Ebooks on my computer, and I think that it’s nearly impossible. Reading text on a screen is so much more difficult, hard on the eyes, and aesthetically displeasing than reading printed text on paper.

I suppose I could be wrong, and it’s possible that Ebook readers like the Sony Reader or the Amazon Kindle could improve in technology enough to where you couldn’t tell the difference between the printed page and reading on one of their screens. But, until then, I have to say that I’m sticking with printed books.

Book Worship

What is book worship? I think, for me, it started when I was little. There was some type of mysticism, a strange attraction to owning books. I think I was really into books before I could even read. I’m not really sure what the appeal was, but there was some type of intrigue behind owning a book.

Even now, I collect books. And still, I can’t really put a decent description behind what I call “book worship.” It’s almost as though the mere act of owning a book bestows knowledge upon the possessor. But, I can’t really say this in a literal way. It’s not like I really believe that just by owning a book that I’m somehow magically acquiring knowledge.

I’m probably not doing a very good job of explaining what I mean. I don’t want to give the impression that I believe there to be more to books than the material contained in them, in the text itself. I guess you could say that “book worship” is a type of expectation from books, an overreaching expectation that books can somehow, I guess, change your life without having to put any actual work into understanding the material contained in it.

Speed Reading

A lot of people, including myself until recently, believe that the number of books you read is somehow correlated with how intelligent one is, or can become. Starting from this assumption, the next logical step is to consider how one could read more books. Obviously, one must learn to read faster.

But, is there any real reason to believe this? YouTube user professoranton makes a case for slow, deep study of books to be more admirable than the ability to plow through books in a single sitting. The video is titled “Impatience, Study & Self-Transformation.” I agree with him. To really gain an intimate understanding of the contents of a book, you aren’t going to do it by reading it as fast as possible, plowing through it in a single sitting, no matter how good your comprehension is.

In our fast food culture, we want everything immediately. We want our pizza in 30 minutes or less, our cheeseburgers in 5 minutes or less, and we can’t be bothered to spend more than a couple hours with a book. If it takes more time than that to read, most people will say that it’s “not worth the effort.” But, is that really the case? Is it really not worth the effort?

In his article, “The Practice of Reading Good Books,” Professor Anton states… (Alternate PDF Download Link)

In class, I sometimes ask my students if they ever listen to a song or a CD more than once. Students always look at me so shocked. How could I ask such a stupid question? They all know that they listen to these things again and again. What most of them usually fail to grasp, however, is that some people read that way.

And I think this says a lot about how most people approach reading. That somehow, reading is a means to an end. Anton says, I and I rightly agree, that reading should be an end in itself. Not something you have to trudge through in order to “get to the end.”

Conclusion

To conclude, I’d recommend that people take a look at Professor Anton’s article by clicking the link. It’s an eye-opener. It seemed as though he took these pages right from my life. I think that a lot of people will see themselves in it, as well.

Thanks for reading. Feel free to visit my YouTube channel and subscribe. Visit Professor Anton’s YouTube channel and subscribe, as well.

Determinism And Choice [Part 1]

Determinism And Choice [Part 2]

This is a transcript. Grammatical, spelling, and other errors may occur.

Introduction

This is a video response to Intrigue1987 and his response to my videos on Determinism. I want to start out with some kind of a definition of Free Will, at least as far as what I consider it to mean. The idea of Free Will is to be able to make choices, and to qualify that I’ll say not only to be able to make choices, but to be able to make choices outside of external influences.

I know you mentioned in your video about, ya know, people make choices depending on how they were raised, their environment, things like that. And these types of things would only lead one to believe that the world is deterministic because if your decisions are based upon the outside influences upon you, then you really aren’t making the independent choices as free will would sort of claim that you would be able to do. You’re right, you would be making choices based on how you were raised, the environment that we live in, things like that.

What Is Choice?

Now I wanted to break down and unpack this idea of a choice and what exactly is a choice? And as you said, people can respond differently under stress and I guess that’s to be expected because that’s the way the world is. People respond differently differently to stress, you know, every ball that you bounce on the ground is not going to bounce the same way, any car that comes off the manufacturing lot is not in the run for the same amount miles. I mean, that’s just the way things happen. But, where was I going with this?

What is a choice? So, I know you’ve mentioned that people respond differently. But what exactly is a choice? I think that a choice is kind of like a label we put on a series of events. Just like anything really. You could say I made a choice, I went for a walk, ya know, I’ve decided to make a video. But each of these things, a choice, a walk, making a video, they’re all made of separate parts and they can all be individually broken down into smaller and smaller events.

Take going for a walk, for instance. That’s a label for something that you’ve done. But, when you look at it, you’re looking at the person’s body, they’re moving in a certain way. Taking a step, the muscles in your thighs contract and relax and they propel you forward. And then if you, I guess, zoom in even on the muscle of the thigh, you look at the small tissues that are moving back and forth and these are all made up of cells. You can zoom into individual cells and watch what’s going on in there. You look at the nucleus, the individual parts of the cell and you can zoom in individually on each one of those until you get down to the molecular or the atomic level.

Everything we do can be broken down into these individual parts, and this is where the the idea of Free Will is broken down because it’s the same thing happens in the brain when you make a choice. You can look at the individual’s brain and kind of see what’s going on in there, maybe through an fMRI machine, or some other type of scan. And even when you get down to the neuronal level, each neuron is made of cells. You can break these cells down to the individual pieces until you get down to, again, either the atomic or the molecular level.

And because everything is made of the same material, essentially, I see no mechanism to which an individual could be free to make a choice, not only free to have the option to pick one of two things, but to make a decision that is not based on external influences. Because, as I said in my other videos, these atomic reactions are unavoidable. They happen.

I think that when people say that they have Free Will, again this is from my perspective – from my understanding, but they’re using the term “choice” almost as like a shortcut. Because we can say that we’ve made a choice, but, in reality, you have to break it down. Like I said, you look at the brain and you can see what’s happening in the brain, then you break it down to individual neurons that are firing. And then you break that down, again, individually into the atoms and the molecules. I can’t see a reason to believe that in this molecular process there is some type of independency or external force acting upon these atoms which would cause, in an upward motion, from the atoms to the neurons, directing the individual to make a decision in such a way that is independent from these forces.

And…

Watch the videos for the rest. I talk a lot more about Quantum Mechanics and that pseudoscientific movie “What The (Bleep) Do We Know,” among other things. I was having trouble with the transcription software and actually going through and typing this all out would have been more trouble than it’s worth.

You can also visit my YouTube channel and subscribe.

Note: This is actually a transcript of my YouTube video. If the writing style seems a bit off, it’s because this is in a speaking style. Also, there may be slight errors in transcription. This was not written beforehand.

Introduction

So I had the opportunity the other day to watch the ABC Nightline face-off… face-to-face… whatever it was called… with Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston – called “Does God Have A Future?”. I wanted to talk a little bit about Deepak Chopra and his method of argumentation, just to point a few things out.

I like what Sam Harris said. That the God Deepak Chopra talks about is not the God that, as Harris said, the God that our neighbors believe in. Jehovah or Allah. The God that causes all the troubles in the world today. Chopra’s God is kind of like a the nebulous term. Throughout the whole debate he talks about this “unknown,” this “consciousness,” the “infinite” and the whole idea behind those words… I think the basic motivation behind why he uses those words is because in the way that he uses them, they are meaningless. They don’t mean anything.

Consciousness

I mean, this term consciousness… never once has he defined what that means. What consciousness means.  I like the part when he was on there with the the theoretical physicist when he got up and said, “You know, I’d like to give you education on the incorrect way that you’re using non-locality,” because the terms that Chopra was using were completely ambiguous, they didn’t mean anything.

And I think that’s kind of why he uses that technique. Anytime someone tries to call him on it, anytime someone tries to say, “No you’re wrong on this point,” he can say, “That’s not what I mean by consciousness.” It’s like a bomb shelter that he can hide in, and anytime someone tries to to call him on something that’s incorrect about what he’s saying, he can jump to the excuse that, “That’s not what I mean by that,” and by completely removing the meaning from the language, he is essentially hiding behind that. So it’s not that he has a valid point, but that he can hide behind the ambiguity and never actually commit to definition of anything. And by not committing to that definition, essentially he can never be shown wrong.

Ambiguous Language

He, by using ambiguous language, by using ambiguous terms like “the unknown,” “consciousness,” “infinite,” he can leave these words open to interpretation because, as he uses them, them they have no meaning. So people that he’s trying to influence, essentially what happens is, essentially, the things that Chopra says can mean only as much as the most intelligent people that he’s trying to influence can muster.

So, let’s say he uses the word “consciousness.” Like I said, it means nothing when he uses that word. What ends up happening is that the people that he’s trying to explain these ideas to will take those words and interpret them to mean whatever they want them to mean. So, someone can take his word “the unknown,” or “the infinite,” and the hearer of those words will interpret it as meaning something that they felt before. They can say, “Oh, I know what he means by ‘the infinite’ because one day I was having this experience where I felt connected to this strange feeling. So, that’s what he means by ‘the infinite.’”

And essentially, it’s like a blanketing statement because there’s no concrete way to test what he’s saying, just by using a term like “the infinite” or this “consciousness.” There’s no way to pin down what he’s saying and so you are open to interpret it in whatever way you want. And so people who usually have an emotional basis for reasoning will interpret this consciousness or this unknown as being this, maybe, religious feeling that they’ve had and they will insert meaning where it’s convenient and I think Chopra understands that you can use these terms so ambiguously and use it in such a way that people will insert their own meaning.

Ambiguity, Music And Word Games

I think that’s something that happens a lot with song lyrics. Bands use ambiguous language and will use that so that, you know, the hearers of the music will take that ambiguity and apply it to their own life. It sort of give it its own meaning, which initially the song may not have had that original intention. But the person hearing it takes those words and applies it to their own life in a completely different way.

I think that’s a lot of the word games that the Deepak Chopra plays. Like I said, he takes the meaning out of the words and lets the people listening to him put their own meaning in because I think if you watch that debate, he never defines what he’s talking about. It’s always referred back to it this “unknown,” or the “mysterious,” the “consciousness.” And it’s such a nebulous term that he never actually defines.

Conclusion

That was kind of the basic idea wanted to get across in this video. Just this idea of this nebulous use of language that Chopra uses. It’s basically word games that he plays. There’s really no substance to anything that he says during the debate. It’s all just talk. He doesn’t with any substance behind his arguments. So let me know what you think. I guess that’s all I’ve got for now. Thanks

It seems like there are people out there who have absolutely no trouble conveying ideas verbally. I find myself being on the opposite end of that spectrum. I can convey my ideas in writing. But, when it comes to speaking, I feel like I have a difficult time articulating the ideas that come to me.

I guess in some ways, maybe it’s a lack of confidence in the knowledge that I have. But, at the same time, I realize that verbal communication has not been a big part of my life. It’s always been through writing that I’ve communicated my thoughts. Whether that’s via IM, email, text messaging, or any other form of writing.

And, since I’ve been doing these YouTube videos, being involved in the YouTube community has introduced me to a lot of people who are the intelligent type who can (seemingly) easily articulate their thoughts. It’s a bit intimidating in that I compare myself to them, wondering what exactly I have to offer when there are people much more intelligent out there than me who do have a lot to offer the intellectual community.

To get more of an idea of what I’m talking about, watch my video. And, after you watch it, visit my YouTube channel and subscribe. Leave a comment or two if you feel so inclined. Let me know what you think about this. Do you have a similar perspective on this?

Introduction

So I’ve been giving some thought lately to the idea that belief in Hell involves what Orwell wrote about in his novel, “1984,” doublethink. Many Christians believe that there is a place of eternal torment for those who have rejected Jesus Christ as their personal savior. At the same time, they also believe that Jehovah loves everyone, that He created us in His image.

It would seem to me that love of an individual completely contradicts the idea that if that person fails to perform some act (being “born again”), then this person is consciously tormented for all of eternity. These two ideas cannot both be equally true.

Doublethink Or “Reality Control”

Orwell used the term “doublethink,” or “reality control” to describe thought processes like this. One trains their mind to not only accept, but believe two contradictory ideas to be equally true.

In Orwell’s novel, for instance, the burden of the Party member was to immediately accept and wholeheartedly believe everything that was said by the Party and Big Brother. For instance, Oceania (the country in which the story takes place) may have been at war with Eastasia. But, at the drop of a hat, Big Brother says that they are actually at war with Eurasia. It was then the burden of the Party member to accept this as reality – that Oceania was at war with Eurasia, and has always been at war with Eurasia.

The Party member was obligated to forget that Oceania was ever at war with Eastasia. The bottom line was that whatever the Party and Big Brother said were true had always been true, no matter what was said before.

But, how does this tie in with belief in Hell and an All-Loving God?

Jehovah: All-Loving, Or A Tormentor?

We have to consider the ideas on their own merits. In its most simplest form, can we reconcile the idea of love with a being who intentionally submits his creation to everlasting, conscious torment? A being who, from the very beginning, had a place in his Creation set aside for the sole purpose of actively torturing His children forever? I challenge someone to say that this is so.

Doublethink comes into play because one has to train their mind to accept these two contradictory ideas, to entertain them simultaneously. But how is this done?

This involves the act of “forgetting” about the offending belief when the point being made makes having that belief inconvenient. For example, when attempting to convert a non-believer, the Christian has to dwell on the idea of eternal conscious torment. To bring up the idea that Jehovah is all-loving would not compel someone to convert. Why convert if He loves me anyway? This is not a convincing argument.

It isn’t until the Christian is talking amongst fellow believers that the idea of Jehovah being all-loving comes into the picture. This is when the talk of Him being such a positive, loving force in their life is discussed. The idea of Hell is conveniently put aside because this does not fall in line with a being who supposedly loves us.

In effect, the idea of Hell does not exist in these conversations. It only resurfaces when the subject of non-believers comes up. Then it assumes the same truth value as Jehovah being all-loving. But, more than this, the idea of Jehovah being all-loving doesn’t exist. This idea is forgotten until, again, conversation with fellow believers takes place.

Conclusion

I simply cannot fathom the idea that a Creator could be, at the same time, all-loving and a tormentor. Without doublethink, the ability to convince ourselves of the equal truth value of completely opposing ideas, we would not swallow such a patently false contradiction.

What makes it such a dangerous thing is that we can convince ourselves of such things without even realizing it. The capacity to compartmentalize knowledge is a serious flaw in the structure of the human brain. Not only can we convince ourselves of such things, but in the face of these contradictions, we view others who see the reality of the situation as ignorant.

We all possess the ability to deceive ourselves.