4 ms·

They both are areas of thought which promote ideas (sometimes framed as facts) without sufficient demonstrable evidence (otherwise validating the so called fram

They both are areas of thought which promote ideas (sometimes framed as facts) without sufficient demonstrable evidence (otherwise validating the so called framework of facts). But I would add neither should be taken down unless the videos promoting such ideas are also promoting violence. Misinformation, disinformation -- whatever -- the onus is on the audience to educate themselves and arrive at hopefully an informed conclusion. If someone walks away from a video with the belief, that god or some god is real, or that the earth is flat, then so it goes. Youtube is ofc welcome to moderate how they see fit here. However it is a laughable double-standard to selectively allow one faith-based belief system (religion) over another (flat-earth).

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
> They both are areas of thought which promote ideas (sometimes framed as facts) without sufficient demonstrable evidence (otherwise validating the so called framework of facts). "Sufficient" (emphasis mine) for what? If you're applying a particular approach to epistemology, I think you'll have a hard time defending it as unquestionably superior to the epistemologies held by others.
- _proofs 6y ago
  i am not exactly sure i understand your question -- are you asking if i think the perspective (mine), which thinks the two do not provide sufficient reasoning/knowledge/whatever, is unquestionably superior? if that is your question, then my answer is: i do not hold the notion, that an approach (employed by me or by anyone), is unquestionably superior -- i do think, however, and am happy to point out, that via known, reliable approaches, these perspectives do not provide anything more than just words and reasoning (perhaps more specifically, philosophical argument). nothing quantifiable, observable, measurable, reproducible; just philosophizing. therefore, i consider them equivalent in this regard and moreover think it strange for YouTube to moderate them differently (as if, because one is theological, therefore it must be regarded as a loftier, more sophisticated (?) pursuit, and untouchable). in short, i think words are just words, and i'll continue to ask both camps to demonstrate, that their words are actually something more, via known approaches, or alternative ones.
  - hug 6y ago
    I agree with your point, but it was hard to come to that conclusion. Mostly because I'm constantly distracted by it being voiced in my head by Christopher Walken due to how many commas you just jammed on in there.
    - _proofs 6y ago
      haha, word. legit made me laugh. will try to dial it back. commas have always been my kryptonite. thanks for the feedback. https://youtu.be/XQ7z57qrZU8 https://youtu.be/XQ7z57qrZU8
- ajuc 6y ago
  Some religions (including most variants of Christianity) proposed models of universe equally as absurd as flat Earth. Most updated their models when science proved they are wrong. But the holy scripture which specified these models in the first place remained and many of them declare holy scripture to still be 100% truth. That's a self-contradicting stance and you cannot defend it without hardcore mental gymnastics (which is what theology mostly does - "proving that in fact 1 can be equal to 0").

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago

> They both are areas of thought which promote ideas (sometimes framed as facts) without sufficient demonstrable evidence (otherwise validating the so called framework of facts). "Sufficient" (emphasis mine) for what? If you're applying a particular approach to epistemology, I think you'll have a hard time defending it as unquestionably superior to the epistemologies held by others.

_proofs 6y ago
i am not exactly sure i understand your question -- are you asking if i think the perspective (mine), which thinks the two do not provide sufficient reasoning/knowledge/whatever, is unquestionably superior? if that is your question, then my answer is: i do not hold the notion, that an approach (employed by me or by anyone), is unquestionably superior -- i do think, however, and am happy to point out, that via known, reliable approaches, these perspectives do not provide anything more than just words and reasoning (perhaps more specifically, philosophical argument). nothing quantifiable, observable, measurable, reproducible; just philosophizing. therefore, i consider them equivalent in this regard and moreover think it strange for YouTube to moderate them differently (as if, because one is theological, therefore it must be regarded as a loftier, more sophisticated (?) pursuit, and untouchable). in short, i think words are just words, and i'll continue to ask both camps to demonstrate, that their words are actually something more, via known approaches, or alternative ones.
- hug 6y ago
  I agree with your point, but it was hard to come to that conclusion. Mostly because I'm constantly distracted by it being voiced in my head by Christopher Walken due to how many commas you just jammed on in there.
  - _proofs 6y ago
    haha, word. legit made me laugh. will try to dial it back. commas have always been my kryptonite. thanks for the feedback. https://youtu.be/XQ7z57qrZU8 https://youtu.be/XQ7z57qrZU8
ajuc 6y ago
Some religions (including most variants of Christianity) proposed models of universe equally as absurd as flat Earth. Most updated their models when science proved they are wrong. But the holy scripture which specified these models in the first place remained and many of them declare holy scripture to still be 100% truth. That's a self-contradicting stance and you cannot defend it without hardcore mental gymnastics (which is what theology mostly does - "proving that in fact 1 can be equal to 0").