Steve Jobs is known for his effective speeches and presentations in narrative form, but twice in his career he leveraged the ceremony as a unique communication tool to get his point across. Duarte's latest book is "Illuminate: Ignite Change Through Speeches, Stories, Ceremonies, and Symbols" (http://goo.gl/FxGyGD).
Interview:
https://youtu.be/F85iyGvcTZQ
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Stephen Fry: The Importance of Unbelief
If you assume there's no afterlife, Stephen Fry says, you'll likely have a fuller, more interesting life.
Interview:
https://youtu.be/CqibqD4fJZs
Interview:
https://youtu.be/CqibqD4fJZs
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Problem of Skepticism [HD]
Is knowledge humanly possible? In this video, Jennifer Nagel (University of Toronto) looks at skeptical arguments, starting with Ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy, and moving forward into contemporary brain-in-a-vat scenarios. We’ll review a variety of reasons to worry that knowledge might be impossible, and we’ll examine the difference between global and local forms of skepticism.
https://youtu.be/PqjdRAERWLc
https://youtu.be/PqjdRAERWLc
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Sunday, February 7, 2016
The "Moral Argument" for God (The Atheist Experience)
A caller attempts to make a moral argument for God's existence.
Interview:
https://youtu.be/-8ipzPDD3Xs
Interview:
https://youtu.be/-8ipzPDD3Xs
Friday, February 5, 2016
Debate: Atheists vs Christians (Krauss + Shermer vs D'Souza + Hutchinson)(Intelligence Squared U.S. Debate)
Debate Topic: Science Refutes God
3:20 Introductions of the participants
Opening Statements:
8:24 Lawrence Krauss (Atheist)
15:45 Ian Hutchinson (Christian)
23:34 Michael Shermer (Atheist)
31:02 Dinesh D'Souza (Christian)
Q+A Period:
40:03 Question 1
54:11 Question 2
59:59 Question 3
1:05:45 Question 4 (audience)
1:09:50 Question 5 (audience)
1:11:13 Question 6 (audience)
1:12:11 Question 7 (audience)
1:14:44 Question 8 (audience) - Actor Andie MacDowell
1:16:54 Question 9 (audience)
1:18:16 Question 10 (audience)
1:22:41 Question 11 (audience)
1:24:25 Question 12 (audience)
1:28:35 Question 13 (audience)
1:29:44 Question 14 (audience)
Closing Statements:
1:33:24 Ian Hutchinson (Christian)
1:35:36 Michael Shermer (Atheist)
1:37:55 Dinesh D'Souza (Christian)
1:40:10 Lawrence Krauss (Atheist)
1:47:01 Debate Voting Results
https://youtu.be/L7vEB6FXtbs
3:20 Introductions of the participants
Opening Statements:
8:24 Lawrence Krauss (Atheist)
15:45 Ian Hutchinson (Christian)
23:34 Michael Shermer (Atheist)
31:02 Dinesh D'Souza (Christian)
Q+A Period:
40:03 Question 1
54:11 Question 2
59:59 Question 3
1:05:45 Question 4 (audience)
1:09:50 Question 5 (audience)
1:11:13 Question 6 (audience)
1:12:11 Question 7 (audience)
1:14:44 Question 8 (audience) - Actor Andie MacDowell
1:16:54 Question 9 (audience)
1:18:16 Question 10 (audience)
1:22:41 Question 11 (audience)
1:24:25 Question 12 (audience)
1:28:35 Question 13 (audience)
1:29:44 Question 14 (audience)
Closing Statements:
1:33:24 Ian Hutchinson (Christian)
1:35:36 Michael Shermer (Atheist)
1:37:55 Dinesh D'Souza (Christian)
1:40:10 Lawrence Krauss (Atheist)
1:47:01 Debate Voting Results
https://youtu.be/L7vEB6FXtbs
Monday, February 1, 2016
Abridged Debate: Matt Dillahunty VS Sye Ten Bruggencate
Save yourself 2 hours and a lot of facepalms... this is gist of the recent "debate" between atheist Matt Dillahunty and Christian apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate.
https://youtu.be/U8q0hxqdq8A
https://youtu.be/U8q0hxqdq8A
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
The Refining Reason Debate: Dogma Debate Livecast
After the May 31, 2014 debate between Matt Dillahunty and Sye Ten Bruggencate in Memphis, David Smalley did a "Dogma Debate" livecast from the venue. Guests included Sarah Morehead, David Silverman, Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind.
https://youtu.be/XANwGPaAxcc
https://youtu.be/XANwGPaAxcc
AronRa vs Sye Ten Bruggencate on Dogma Debate Radio
AronRa debates Sye Ten Bruggencate on presuppositional apologetics on the Dogma Debate radio show. This was way more direct and one on one than their debate on the Magic Sandwich. All audio belongs to Dogma Debate.
https://youtu.be/YoBUdwfQFX4
https://youtu.be/YoBUdwfQFX4
Presuppositional Apologetics Destroyed
A very short overview of a fraction of the dumbest argument for the existence of a god:
Epistemology, the branch of philosophy that deals with the question of how we obtain and justify knowledge, has a well known infinite regress of justification. That is, any justified belief must be justified by a further justified belief which must be justifed by another justifed belief and so-forth.
Most toddlers discover and grow tired of demonstrating this infinite regress of justification by the time they enter elementary school asking an infinite number of Why questions to which the only finite answer is as Lawrence Krauss puts it: "Go to bed."
One slightly more satisfying attempt to escape infinite regression is foundationalism, which asserts that there are certain beliefs or axioms which can be used to justify other beliefs but don't themselves require justification with the caveat that these axioms are self-evident, incorrigible, or pragmatically indespensible. These axioms are sometimes called 'properly basic beliefs'. Christian apologist Dr.William Lane Craig explains:
Now, William Lane Craig follows a slightly different version of Foundational Epistemology called Reformed Foundational Epistemology in which belief in God is included (unnecessarily I would argue) among other properly basic beliefs but only in addition to the other properly basic beliefs, not as a way to justify other properly basic beliefs.
-But for now let's leave the question of whether or not belief in God can be included as an axiom and talk about knowledge. Knowledge is defined as a justified true belief. This I think is a source of confusion.
In order for any justifiable belief to even have the possibility of being true, it must by definition be falsifiable. It is literally impossible to hold a justified true belief that isn't falsifiable. Knowledge and certainty are mutually incompatible because certainty excludes falsifiability rendering that belief unfalsifiable which is as Wolfgang Pauli put it: Not even wrong.
Now, once any claim has been investigated and verified, it becomes perfectly rational to hold that belief tentatively
and with the understanding that further investigation could alter or modify the veracity of that belief.
https://youtu.be/WyeiJrzSZZY
Epistemology, the branch of philosophy that deals with the question of how we obtain and justify knowledge, has a well known infinite regress of justification. That is, any justified belief must be justified by a further justified belief which must be justifed by another justifed belief and so-forth.
Most toddlers discover and grow tired of demonstrating this infinite regress of justification by the time they enter elementary school asking an infinite number of Why questions to which the only finite answer is as Lawrence Krauss puts it: "Go to bed."
One slightly more satisfying attempt to escape infinite regression is foundationalism, which asserts that there are certain beliefs or axioms which can be used to justify other beliefs but don't themselves require justification with the caveat that these axioms are self-evident, incorrigible, or pragmatically indespensible. These axioms are sometimes called 'properly basic beliefs'. Christian apologist Dr.William Lane Craig explains:
Now, William Lane Craig follows a slightly different version of Foundational Epistemology called Reformed Foundational Epistemology in which belief in God is included (unnecessarily I would argue) among other properly basic beliefs but only in addition to the other properly basic beliefs, not as a way to justify other properly basic beliefs.
-But for now let's leave the question of whether or not belief in God can be included as an axiom and talk about knowledge. Knowledge is defined as a justified true belief. This I think is a source of confusion.
In order for any justifiable belief to even have the possibility of being true, it must by definition be falsifiable. It is literally impossible to hold a justified true belief that isn't falsifiable. Knowledge and certainty are mutually incompatible because certainty excludes falsifiability rendering that belief unfalsifiable which is as Wolfgang Pauli put it: Not even wrong.
Now, once any claim has been investigated and verified, it becomes perfectly rational to hold that belief tentatively
and with the understanding that further investigation could alter or modify the veracity of that belief.
https://youtu.be/WyeiJrzSZZY
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Monday, January 11, 2016
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Click Older Posts above to see more.
