Why hello there @shinnyblurry, we meet again (sort of). You know, it's kind of funny that while I was watching this video I was suddenly struck by the memory of our last encounter and expected that I'd see your responses to this video (and other people). Either way, no hard feelings about our previous encounters or anything.

If you can believe it, you've inspired me in a way. Not in the way that I imagine you might hope though. I don't really get into debates/arguments with died-in-the-wool believers anymore. Especially those who claim person divine revelation. There isn't a whole lot to be said at that point because most people aren't interested in attempting to falsify their own experiences. They especially aren't interested in attempting to falsify experiences that they deems profoundly meaningful to them personally, giving them new meaning to their life which I can understand. That kind of debate/argument cannot bear fruit unless something like education standards or public policies are at stake.

I'm sure you remember my whole standpoint on the god(s) thing, so I wont repeat myself, I mostly wanted to say Hi

I will say this though; personal revelations aside, "I don't know" followed up by skeptical inquiry is a far better answer and process to interacting with questions that we simply cannot, or haven't yet, verify objectively. I just can't accept that personal revelation is good enough to determine whether or not something is true. The probability of being incorrect about an experience is astounding. Humans are pattern seeking and creating machines. The answer "I don't know" is extremely hard to rest on for most humans because there is a biological need to fill in the blanks of our knowledge, and we do that by looking for patterns which may or may not be there. It was far better to believe that a predator is in the bushes when they rustle than to employ investigative powers thus taking the risk of being eaten. The studies on these phenomenon are amazing and it's amazing to see how easily humans will accept an an answer that doesn't make logical or empirical sense in order to avoid being in the position of "I don't know". It requires a lot of mental rigor to maintain "I don't know" as a placeholder. It goes against human biology. There is also less cognitive dissonance felt if investigation can be halted. When a belief is strongly held, it's fascinating how many self justification techniques are used to maintain that belief. There is a lot of literature and research that strongly suggest that superstitions follow from the urge to provide an answer rather than resting at "I don't know".

Anyone can say that they "know" because of some personal revelation, but does that mean that what they believe is actually true? Is personal revelation actually good enough?

Either way, it's all very fascinating stuff and there are a lot of books out there which cover all of the techniques that humans use in fooling themselves, to self justify beliefs, and in preventing cognitive dissonance.
>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^A10anis:
It is NOT a choice between "god and nothingness," It is a choice between childish myth, wishful thinking, and divine slavery based upon brain washing and fear, or the choice of reality, based upon logic, free thought, education and common sense. Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.

That's a very unsophisticated analysis, A10anis, and very biased as well. It's really a big surprise that you've attributed rationality solely to your viewpoint. Based on what? You've made all sorts of claims here, but nothing to substantiate them.
It is a clear choice between a Universe that was created intentionally, with meaning and purpose, and a Universe that is a product of chance, without meaning and purpose. What other choices are there?
Another question is, how would you know which one you were in?
Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.
That's a false dilemma, A10anis. A couple of them, actually. Clearly God can exist and require our faith at the same time.

>> ^VoodooV:

I never understood why creationists don't adopt theistic evolution. It would end this stupid argument so fast.
Theists have always said "god did it" for every scientific explanation known to man, It's silly that they don't just accept evolution and just say god created evolution. They are no strangers to cognitive dissonance, why would they stop now.


Probably because religious extremists will accept nothing less than a total victory over science and rational thinking, so theistic evolution would still be admitting that those crazy evolutionists were still essentially correct.

I never understood why creationists don't adopt theistic evolution. It would end this stupid argument so fast.

Theists have always said "god did it" for every scientific explanation known to man, It's silly that they don't just accept evolution and just say god created evolution. They are no strangers to cognitive dissonance, why would they stop now.

Perhaps this will shed some light on the subject:

"We posted the cut-from-real-life short drama Cicada a fortnight ago, and now we have the teaser trailer for Amiel Courtin-Wilson's feature follow up, simply titled Hail.

Hail is the evolved beast-cousin of Cicada, and is another docu-drama based on the real life stories of actor and ex-con Daniel P. Jones. The Hollywood Reporter describes it much better than I could:

Daniel P. Jones is an artistically inclined ex-convict playing a lightly fictionalized version of himself in Aussie auteur Amiel Courtin-Wilson's out-there docu-drama. Dissonant and brutal, but also unexpectedly tender, Hail melds coarse reality, extreme close-ups, nightmarish montages - including one featuring a dead horse falling from the sky - and a soundtrack that's alternately jarring and lovely.

Hail was the first Australian dramatic feature in nearly a decade to screen at the Venice International Film Festival and today we have word that the film has also been selected for Rotterdam, which starts later this month.

Now to that dead horse. As you can see in the teaser trailer below, the film features a sequence with a horse being dropped from a plane and falling slowly towards earth. It's pure madness, and 100% real. And I'm hoping makes sense in the final film. Tarsem eat your heart out!"
http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/01/horses-rain-from-the-heavens-in-hail.php

>> ^radx:

"Why don't more people know about this?"
Well, why didn't more people know about the existence of the Mafia previous to Joe Valachi's testimony before Senate? The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking? Police brutality? Climate change? Peak oil? Torture camps? Civilian casualties of drone strikes?
It was/is not part of the major consensus narrative.
Similarly, churches are entities of morality, protectors of the weak. At least that's what the narrative still says. So when people hear about these atrocious acts of child abuse, they don't buy it. It doesn't fit their world view, and overcoming the inevitable cognitive dissonance would require them to a) re-examine their own beliefs/perceptions and b) act upon it. That's not an easy thing to do.
Once they cross that threshold, "I don't buy it" turns into "I've known all along". Happens all the time.

Paedophilia in the Catholic church is part of the "consensus narrative"; so much so that it's the first thing I think of when I think of the Catholic Church.

"Why don't more people know about this?"

Well, why didn't more people know about the existence of the Mafia previous to Joe Valachi's testimony before Senate? The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking? Police brutality? Climate change? Peak oil? Torture camps? Civilian casualties of drone strikes?

It was/is not part of the major consensus narrative.

Similarly, churches are entities of morality, protectors of the weak. At least that's what the narrative still says. So when people hear about these atrocious acts of child abuse, they don't buy it. It doesn't fit their world view, and overcoming the inevitable cognitive dissonance would require them to a) re-examine their own beliefs/perceptions and b) act upon it. That's not an easy thing to do.

Once they cross that threshold, "I don't buy it" turns into "I've known all along". Happens all the time.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jon stewart, the daily show, cognitive dissonance' to 'jon stewart, the daily show, cognitive dissonance, donald rumsfeld, mitt romney' - edited by xxovercastxx

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by messenger:
*promote the cognitive dissonance!

*promote the cognitive dissonance!

Horrible song, bass out of tune, generic sounds that makes me think fruityloops 2.0, complete with sustain bass that's not properly cut leaving dissonances... Just awful.

I love how the last shot has a guy on the right clapping whilst wearing a sweatshirt with a University of Michigan logo. Oh, the sweet cognitive dissonance.

That's terrible music. It's so dissonant and there are so many flats it's just. Ugh.

I always feel a bit of cognitive dissonance when you say "shutting down megaupload hurts independent artists" and then "they'll always be 10 more megauploads".

Not that I disagree, its just, you know, sort of comes across contradictory.

I'll release my tax returns... AFTER I'm the only candidate.

He's got a lot of faith in the republican talent for repressing Cognitive dissonance.