I know. Everyone says that now. “I’m using ChatGPT for work.” “I made a custom GPT.” “I got Claude to help me write emails,” “yeah I have OpenClaw too!” That’s not what I mean. I mean I spent six weeks building an actual software system that runs 24/7 on a dedicated Mac in my house, has its own email address, its own phone number, its own personality, and actually does stuff on my behalf without me asking. And no, it’s not openclaw.

I named it Jarvis. Yeah, obviously.

Right now as I’m writing this, Jarvis is doing the following:

• Watching my Carson James platform for problems (the horse training business I run with my brother — 3,000+ paying members, revenue that keeps a lot of people employed)

• Managing four different email inboxes with different policies for each

• Auto-unsubscribing me from newsletters I signed up for in 2017 and never read

• Monitoring my short-term rental bookings via the property management API

• Filing a quarantine log of all the sketchy emails that tried to reach my work address this week

• Sitting on standby to answer a phone call in a British butler voice if anyone calls one specific number

He runs on my Mac. He uses Claude as his brain. He’s plugged into about fifteen different services I already pay for. Stripe, Hospitable, Railway, Neon, Cloudflare, GitHub, AWS, Twilio, Google Workspace, a bunch more. He has about forty memory files that tell him who I am, what my businesses do, who my wife is, what my kids’ names are, how I talk, and what I’ve told him to never do.

None of this is theoretical. It’s running right now. I built it in four weeks of early mornings and late nights, and the working version has been live for about three weeks.

I want to tell you what I built, how it works, and, more importantly, what I learned about working with AI that almost nobody writes about. Because the model isn’t the interesting part anymore. The discipline is.

What Jarvis Actually Is

Let me kill the most common misconception right away.

Jarvis is not a chatbot. ChatGPT is a chatbot. You open a website, you ask a question, you get an answer, you close the tab. The entire lifespan of your interaction is bounded by you paying attention. The AI does nothing when you’re not looking. It has no body, no presence, no life outside your browser tab.

Jarvis has a body.

His body is a Mac Studio that sits on my desk. It’s plugged into the wall. It has a power light. When my wife walks past my office she can say “hey Jarvis, what’s the weather” and he answers, because there’s a mic on the desk and speakers in the room and a bunch of Python code running a voice stack that’s always listening for the wake word. When I leave the house and walk my dog, Jarvis is still there, watching the stripe dashboard for charge failures, classifying my inbound email, firing a monthly Fannin County tax calculation on the 15th and emailing me the numbers.

He has his own email address. He sends emails from it. I’ve seen him compose a reply to a friend of mine, CC me on it, and tell me he kept the tone casual because the contact profile I wrote said this particular friend uses bar-buddy phrasing. I can call a Twilio phone number from anywhere in the world and talk to him, he picks up, authenticates me with a PIN, and I’m in the middle of a conversation with my own AI butler.

He has a Telegram bot. I can text him photos of guest notes from the cabin and he reads them. He built a Python script last week to calculate my March lodging taxes. When I asked him what he did yesterday, he summarized it.

None of this is one component. It’s a stack. It’s about eight services running as background processes, each with a specific job, all coordinated through memory files and a shared vocabulary.

The closest mental model isn’t “AI assistant.” It’s “a small software company that works for me, except the whole company is one Mac and the whole labor force is one AI.”

What He Does On A Normal Day

Let me walk through what Jarvis touches in a typical 24-hour cycle. Not to impress you, to make the “agent” concept concrete, because “agent” is a word people are using in a way that doesn’t mean anything anymore.

Overnight. Around 3am my time, a monitoring daemon wakes up and checks my production business. Is Stripe processing payments normally? Is Railway still serving the site? Is the database healthy? Are any of my four hosted email sender domains flagging as blacklisted? It runs probes against eight different services and writes logs. If anything goes wrong, it texts me. If something goes really wrong, it calls my phone.

Morning. A triage agent classifies the ~50 new emails that came into my personal Gmail overnight. Marketing emails get one-click unsubscribed (using the RFC-compliant header, not by clicking a random link. I don’t let my AI follow arbitrary URLs). Receipts get labeled and archived. Anything that looks like it needs a reply gets a label I can review. Newsletters get archived. Alerts get archived. By the time I pour my coffee, my inbox has ten actual emails in it, not seventy.

On the 15th. A scheduled job computes my Fannin County lodging tax for the prior month. It pulls every reservation at the vacation rental from the property manager’s API, sums up what I owe, and emails me the form numbers. Before this existed I spent an hour with a spreadsheet every month. Now it’s an email at 8am and I file in about two minutes.

On the 1st. Another scheduled job calculates what I owe my property manager on-site. It breaks down every reservation from the prior month, computes her cleaning fee plus management percentage, and emails both of us the reconciled number. We used to do this in a Google Sheet. Now we don’t.

During the day. If I want to know the Wizard Hideout’s occupancy for next month, I ask in Telegram. Jarvis has access to the Hospitable MCP, a conversational API layer, and answers in about 3 seconds. If I want to know what my Carson James API costs are looking like this week, I ask. If I want to post an image to my visualizer on my second monitor, I ask him to generate a picture of a horse walking through fog, and thirty seconds later there it is, overlaid on the radial starburst pattern that means Jarvis is “speaking.”

If the business breaks. This is the one that still makes me emotional. If something fails (Stripe webhook times out, the database pool exhausts, a deploy goes bad), Jarvis calls my phone. I pick up. He tells me what broke in plain English. Then he sends an email with the details. Inside that email is a single terminal command. I run it on my phone via SSH through Tailscale to my Mac, and I’m suddenly inside a running Claude Code session with Jarvis. He’s already working on the problem. From bed. From a hotel. From anywhere.

What I Actually Built (The Honest Version)

Let me be honest about what “building Jarvis” actually means. It’s not one piece of software. It’s a LOT of small pieces that cooperate. Here’s the rough inventory:

Core services (running as background daemons on my Mac):

• cj-sentinel (James) — 24/7 monitoring of the Carson James platform. Watches Stripe, Railway, Neon, ActiveCampaign, Cloudflare, GitHub, SendGrid, AWS. Alerts me on P0/P1 incidents.

• Mailer (Molly) — sends and receives email from Jarvis’s email account. Has its own OAuth token, its own rules, its own identity.

• Alfred — email triage agent for my personal Gmail. Classifies everything that lands. Auto-unsubscribes marketing. Archives receipts and alerts.

• Phone Server — Twilio webhook handler. When someone calls the Jarvis line, this answers with STT + Claude + TTS.

• Wizard Hideout Reviews — auto-ingests new Airbnb/Google reviews every 6 hours, drafts replies in a specific voice.

Scheduled jobs:

• Lodging-tax report — monthly, 15th of the month, 8am.

• Property manager payment report — monthly, 1st of the month, 8am.

• Log rotation — weekly, Sunday 3am.

• Quarantine digest — weekly, Sunday 9am.

• Backup snapshot (Brewfile, app list) — weekly, Sunday 9am.

Capabilities invokable on-demand:

• /see — take a screenshot, analyze it.

• /generate_image — create an image via OpenAI, overlay on the visualizer.

• Voice stack — always-listening mic for wake-word “Hey Jarvis,” full voice conversation.

• Telegram bot — text and photo conversation.

• Phone line — call a number, talk to him.

• Hospitable MCP — conversational access to the rental property data.

• Home automation — Philips Hue lights via the bridge.

• Image generation — OpenAI DALL-E pipeline.

Infrastructure:

• Memory system — ~40 markdown files Jarvis reads at every session boot. Contains project state, behavioral rules, reference pointers.

• Vault — my Obsidian notebook. ~300 notes covering business strategy, contact profiles, design decisions. Grep-searchable.

• Action Password Gate — a macOS password dialog pops before any destructive terminal command. Prevents a compromised Jarvis from rm -rf‘ing my life.

• Security v2 — four layers of defense: inbound email injection scanning, outbound secret scanning (blocks sends that contain API keys, credit card info, any sensitive info), URL reputation checking via Google Safe Browsing, behavior-contract memory rules.

• Backup stack — Time Machine plus Arq encrypted to S3. Full recovery procedures documented.

I’m leaving out maybe ten things but you get the idea. It’s a stack.

The Real Insight (The Part Almost Nobody Is Writing About)

Here’s the thing I actually want to write about. The build above is impressive, and I’ll take some credit for pulling it off, but the build isn’t the insight. The insight is what I learned about working with AI in the process.

The models aren’t the bottleneck anymore. Discipline is.

If you want an AI that actually knows you, that actually compounds in usefulness over time, you have to build the memory yourself.

Not through some clever prompt. Through files. Boring, disciplined, text-file documentation that the AI reads at the start of every session.

I have about forty of these files. Each one is a specific rule, fact, or context that I’ve codified as a memory. They’re written in a particular format with a name, description, and type. The AI reads the full list at every session boot via an index file. So every time a new Jarvis session starts, he knows that my wife’s name is Rebekah, that I run three businesses, that I hate when people tell me to rest, that Julie is my mom and also my customer service lead, that reminders need to have breadcrumb links to vault notes, that mailer sends should never include secrets, that I prefer bar-buddy tone, that “new conversation” in Telegram means reset the session.

That’s the compounding mechanism.

It’s not complicated. It’s just disciplined.

And it is the thing that almost nobody is doing.

Here’s What Almost Nobody Tells You About AI

Most people use AI like a vending machine. They walk up, ask a question, take the answer, and walk away. Every interaction is isolated. The AI never gets smarter about them.

The AI never learns their context. The AI never becomes a collaborator.

I use AI like an employee. And like any employee, they need documentation to do their job well.

Imagine you hired a brilliant contractor to help with your work. First day: you’d explain what you do, show them the relevant files, tell them about the team, share som history. After a month: they’ve internalized your context and can operate with minimal prompting. They just know.

Now imagine that contractor had partial amnesia. Some things stick overnight…preferences, stray facts, pieces you mentioned enough times that they lodged. Most things get forgotten. That’s closer to the default experience with Claude today. Its built-in memory catches some stuff automatically, which is better than nothing. But it’s not the same as being properly onboarded with a real filing system.

Without you deliberately feeding it the context that matters, every serious session starts mostly cold. You re-explain. The AI delivers a slightly-wrong answer because it’s missing half the context. You re-explain again. Eventually the person concludes that “AI is overhyped” or “AI doesn’t really work for me.”

The fix is writing the context down yourself, in files the AI reliably reads, so past-you hands off to future-you through the AI. That’s it. That’s the secret. I spend maybe ten minutes at the end of most sessions updating my memory files. That ten minutes returns hours. Multiple times in this past week alone, a fresh Jarvis session

has made a decision correctly on the first try because a memory file I wrote three weeks ago gave him the exact right context. Without those files he would’ve needed twenty minutes of back-and-forth to get there.

That’s why Jarvis is useful. Not because Claude is smart. Claude is smart for everyone, that’s the baseline. Jarvis is useful because past-me wrote context for future-me, and the AI reads it reliably every time.

It’s documentation as infrastructure. It’s the thing nobody talks about because it’s boring. It’s also the entire game.

The Specific Patterns That Make It Work

If you’re reading this and thinking “okay fine, I’ll try harder,” here’s what actually moves the needle:

Push back when something sounds off. Most people accept the first answer from an AI. Don’t. When the number seems wrong, ask where it came from. When the plan seems generic, ask what you missed. Every correction makes the next answer sharper and the relationship better, the AI learns what you care about. I caught Claude code underestimating a cost by 50x this week just by asking “wait, did you factor in X?” That correction is now in a memory file. Every future Jarvis session has the right number.

Steelman the other side. When Julie (my mom, customer service lead) said she thought my new pricing plan would hurt Pro signups, I could’ve dismissed it. Instead I asked Jarvis to write her an email laying out our reasoning and inviting her rebuttal. Her response made the design better. That conversation is now context Jarvis has for all future pricing discussions.

Codify corrections as rules. When you correct an AI and the correction would apply to future sessions too, write it down as a memory file. “Never do X” or “Always do Y.” These compound. One correction today saves ten future corrections.

Give concrete context, not abstract specs. “Build me an email triage agent” produces a textbook answer. “Build me an email triage agent for my inbox where 65% is newsletters I signed up for in 2017 and never opened” produces a tailored one. Specificity wins.

Ask for tradeoffs, not recommendations. Asking “what should I do?” gets you a generic best-practice answer. Asking “what are the tradeoffs?” gets you a framework you can actually reason with. Different conversations entirely.

Decide fast once informed. Once I have the information I need, I commit. “Proceed.” “Locked.” “This is the law.” Analysis paralysis kills momentum, and AI sessions reward momentum — long multi-step work stays in one coherent context.

Give examples. I always follow-up my requests to the AI with use cases and scenarios of what I would be using the feature for. Clarity is key.

That’s it. That’s the playbook. It’s not magic. It’s professional collaboration applied to a new kind of collaborator.

What Surprised Me

A few things I didn’t expect.

Cost is mostly theoretical. I’ve spent maybe $40 total on Claude API calls across all my Jarvis services running 24/7 for three weeks. The inference costs are rounding errors. Fear of “running up a huge bill” is usually fantasy for personal-scale usage. Enterprise workloads are different, but for a personal agent watching your business, negligible.

Speed is unreal. Alfred classified 4,241 emails in my backlog overnight. I woke up to an inbox that was three years of chaos reduced to the ten emails that actually needed me. Time elapsed: about two hours. Cost: about $6.

The phone line is the single most impressive capability. Everyone gets email. Everyone gets notifications. A phone number that a person (or AI!) can call and have a fluid voice conversation with is a completely different mental model. I’d thought I was building a convenience; I was building something that feels more like a service.

The compounding is ruthless. Every rule I codify saves future corrections. Every memory file I write eliminates future re-explanations. Three weeks in, fresh sessions start at a level that used to take hours of context-setting. It just gets better.

Where This Is Going

I’ll bet against anyone on this: five years from now, everyone who uses a computer for anything serious will have something like Jarvis. Not a subscription to ChatGPT. Not a “prompt they found on Twitter.” An actual personal operating layer that knows them, that has permission to act on their behalf, that runs 24/7 and handles the background tasks that currently eat their attention.

The technology is already here. The models are good enough. What people are missing is the stack, the cooperating services, the memory discipline, the rules-as-infrastructure framing, the willingness to treat AI like a real collaborator instead of a vending machine.

We’re at a moment. The gap between what’s possible and what most people are doing is enormous. The gap will close. You can be early or you can wait.

I stand by what I said on Facebook a few weeks ago: I still think AI hype is going to crest and burn some people. Physical assets will always matter more than software. Land, property, relationships, skills, community…those are what compound through human lifetimes.

But for the task-work that eats my day-to-day attention? For the small thousand things a business operator handles? For the connective tissue between my actual projects?

Jarvis is the most useful piece of software I’ve ever owned.

And I built it myself. At a desk, in a house, on a Mac, using tools anyone can buy.

The discipline is the moat. Not the model.

If you want to see the sausage being made (the architecture docs, the memory files, the actual rules I’ve written for Jarvis), I’m happy to share. Reply or comment.

They may claim to hold other beliefs in faith, but they do not. For example, one may argue they have faith in another person; this is not faith but confidence. This confidence was established through their existing knowledge of the person, which is, in fact, evidence. One could claim they have faith that the sun will rise in the morning. But this is not a belief of faith. Why? Because they have evidence the sun rose every morning prior. One could claim they have faith that their children will become decent human beings, but this is not faith; this is hope.

We could believe anything on faith, and we could be right. We could also be wrong. I could believe, through faith, that Bigfoot was real. I could be right, and I could be wrong. Evidence is the only way we could determine if Bigfoot was real. If we have no evidence, what can we use to assess its likeliness to be true? Faith provides absolutely no utility in the pursuit of truth. 

On September 11, 2011, hijackers intentionally flew two planes into the World Trade Center. This event would be one of the most significant terror attacks ever on American soil. Over 2,700 people died that day in New York City, with 343 of those being firefighters attempting to save innocent people. The terrorists who committed this atrocity believed, through faith, that Allah was the true God.

I was a Christian up until my late 20’s. My culture and the people I associated with influenced what I thought to be true, similar to the 9/11 terrorists. Had those terrorists been born and raised in a culture that practiced another religion, the likelihood that they’d be Islamic is far less. Similarly, if I’d been born in a country like Iraq, my chances of believing in the Christian god would not be very high.

Many claim they are convinced that their god is the only true god, but they are convinced with faith, the same reason others with a different god are convinced. They may think they have good reasons for their beliefs, and others, such as Islamic terrorists, have bad reasons for their beliefs, but they think the same. They are just as convinced that their god is the only real god. Their faith is so strong that they will sacrifice their lives and kill others.

It is ironic how the Christian religion harps so much on faith. Yet, there are many accounts of the Christian god allegedly using power to persuade people, such as the plagues of Egypt, the burning bush, and the blinding light that appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. These events wouldn’t have required faith if they had happened. One of the reasons Jesus reportedly performed miracles was to prove that he was the son of God. Even Jesus, the alleged author and finisher of our faith, knew that he’d have to provide evidence before anyone would be convinced of his claim. Faith is useless, even to a supposed god.

Often, when people can’t think of a better reason for something they deem unusual or miraculous, they jump ahead with faith and claim God must have done it. The other day, I talked to someone who claimed that God healed a woman from a condition that almost always clears up on its own over time.

I personally know several people who have been having treatments for cancer. One, in particular, is seeing major improvement. Does he credit the years of chemotherapy? No, he credits God. I am often very puzzled by people like this because if they believe their god is healing them, why are they receiving medical treatment?

Some even claim their god lives inside them. They believe, through faith, they can feel his presence, and he guides them through their daily life. How do they know it's their god and not another god? When someone says they “feel god,” they base that on something they cannot possibly know. How did they rule out it wasn’t internal joy, sadness, confirmation, conviction, or something else?

Early Greeks believed that lightning was a weapon of Zeus because they didn’t understand science and electricity. Poseidon, the god of the sea, was also called "Earth-shaker" and was believed to cause earthquakes when angry. In many cultures, even relatively recently, solar eclipses were seen as omens or divine displeasure. Before understanding psychological and neurological disorders, conditions such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, or even depression were attributed to possession by demons or divine punishment.

When one jumps ahead and assumes they know the answer to their unknowns without sufficient evidence, they are operating on faith. We have already established that faith is not a pathway to truth.

Many never even consider there could be other known or unknown reasons for their unexplained experiences. There could even be scientific explanations that haven’t been discovered. Yet, people still credit their god for healing, blessings, curses, and many other happenings. Our universe may have gods, but we don’t get a rational pass to add god to the list of possibilities until we have evidence. Until then, we’re acting on faith, like the Islamic terrorists. They believe what they believe for the same reasons - faith.

Truth is objective, which means it is either true or not true. There is no middle ground, and there is no gray area. For example, if I claim I’m legally married, there would be an objective truth. I’m legally married, or I’m not. Another example is the claim that we landed on the moon. That either happened, or it did not. I cannot “sort of” be legally married, and we cannot “kind of” land on the moon. 

Now, if I claim I’m legally married, it is possible that I will no longer be legally married at some point in the future. So, the objective truth, in this case, could change depending on when the objective truth is sought. Alternatively, the moon landing in 1969 is an objective truth that cannot change without discovering time travel.

The debate around vaccines and their alleged cause of autism presents another opportunity for an example of objective truth. The argument is not whether vaccines cause autism in all children or no children. The debate is about whether vaccines cause autism in some children or no children. The objective truth is vaccines cause autism in some children, or they do not.

Objective truth is true despite individual beliefs or personal truths. For example, suppose there was a man who robbed a convenience store wearing shorts. Two people claimed they saw the man rob the store. One claimed the robber wore shorts. The other claimed he wore jeans. These are their “personal” truths. Despite both claims, there is an objective truth. The robber was wearing shorts. Now let’s pretend the robber started the robbery wearing shorts but changed into jeans sometime during the process. In this case, the objective truth would be that he changed clothes.

Objective truth excludes individual preferences, emotions, and sensory experiences because these are unique and subjective to each individual. These are subjective truths. Preferences are individual inclinations or choices based on personal likes, dislikes, and values. They are shaped by a person's unique experiences, background, and psychological makeup. Since preferences differ significantly among people, they are not universally consistent and, therefore, not considered objective truths.

Emotions are complex psychological responses to various stimuli, events, or thoughts. A combination of biological, psychological, and environmental factors influences them. Emotions are inherently personal and can vary significantly from one individual to another. Because they are subjective experiences, emotions cannot be universally validated as objective truths.

Sensory experiences are perceptions of the external world through the senses—sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. Individual sensory sensitivities, cultural influences, and cognitive interpretations influence these experiences. Given the variability of sensory perceptions among individuals, they are not considered objective truths.

Objective truths, in contrast, are facts that can be verified independently and are not contingent on individual perspectives, opinions, biases, interpretations, or preferences. While preferences, emotions, and sensory experiences are valuable aspects of human experience, their subjectivity prevents them from being classified as objective truths.

Someone’s favorite color, food, or design style are all examples that represent preferences. If someone wins the lottery, they are more than likely going to feel happy. Their happiness is an emotional response. Furthermore, if a doctor asked a patient to rate his pain on a scale of 0-10, and the patient replied with a 5, that would be a sensory experience. Finally, if Jim gets “butterflies in his stomach” when he sees Jan, that’s an example of sexual attraction.

Is Truth Desired?

Remember that scene from “A Few Good Men” when Tom Cruise is interrogating Jack Nicholson, and he yells, “I want the truth!”? Remember Nicholson’s reply? He said, “You can’t handle the truth!” These two movie quotes accurately represent the state of many people.

Before looking for truth, one must determine if truth is desired. Some people are happy living in their own world and don’t care if their beliefs are true. As long as their beliefs make them feel good or justify their outlook on life, they are happy to continue believing them. Many people say they desire truth, but if that truth contradicts their current beliefs, they cannot reconcile it. 

To find the truth, we must be willing to examine all available evidence to the best of our ability. We must keep a consistent standard of integrity and attempt to set aside our biases, not allowing them to affect our conclusions. This combination is the most reliable way to ensure we believe as many true things as possible.

Believing things that aren’t true can have potentially dire consequences on our decisions and our lives. For example, if one believed vaccines caused autism in children, and this belief prevented them from vaccinating their child, it could cause the child to become sick and possibly die. Conversely, if someone believes vaccines are perfectly safe and they proceed to vaccinate their child, it might inadvertently lead to harmful effects, such as autism.

And finally, we must be willing to be wrong. Our opinions, emotions, and current beliefs have to take a backseat and allow the evidence to drive. They can observe and be part of the ride but cannot control the vehicle. If we allow them to overrule the evidence, we are not allowing the evidence to speak for itself and could more easily believe something false.

Suppose someone held a belief that all Democrats are stupid. If that person allowed their opinion to continue driving their belief, it might cause them to make irrational decisions. If two people were running in an election, with one being a Democrat and one being a Republican, and this person allowed their bias against Democrats to cause them to vote for the Republican, it could result in the vote for a less qualified candidate. This belief exemplifies why evidence must be front and center instead of our emotions.

Finding Truth

When I took a statistics class in college, my professor said, “When we look at data, we’re not attempting to determine absolute certainty. We’re determining a level of confidence, and once we reach that level of confidence, we either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.”

I will define each term to demonstrate how my professor's quote helps discover truth and continue my theme of being honest. Let’s begin with confidence. Confidence is a level of certainty that is supported by evidence. It is a spectrum that can and will shift depending on how convinced we are in a claim. For example, if we held a high level of confidence in the claim that man landed on the moon, then we are convinced this claim is likely true. Alternatively, if we weren’t convinced man landed on the moon, we would hold a low confidence level in the claim. 

We can determine a confidence level in several ways because of multiple data types and evidence. Some claims are more straightforward, and others have a range. To more easily demonstrate a confidence level, I will use an example with a range of data.

If we were researching the number of Grizzly bears living in Montana and found good evidence to suggest that between 1,800 - 2,000 bears live there, we could be very confident there weren’t 3,000 because this is well outside the range. Now, there could be more than 2,000 or less than 1,800; however, the farther we get from the range, the less confident we become in the number of bears. Are we absolutely certain how many grizzlies live in Montana? No, but we have confidence about the number of bears because of our evidence. 

However, our uncertainty of the exact amount doesn’t mean there isn’t an exact number of bears. The number of Grizzlies living within the borders of the state of Montana is an objective truth, even though we may not know that exact number. That objective truth could change because bears don’t have borders. Bears. Borders. Battlestar Galactica. This uncertainty is one reason this data is presented as a range and not an exact number. I imagine another reason is likely because whoever is tracking this data doesn’t have a method of ensuring they’ve accounted for every bear living in Montana.

One thing to remember is that new evidence can always come forward. Suppose we came back a year later and examined the evidence again, and the data now revealed that between 1,500 and 1,700 Grizzly bears live in Montana. It would be fallacious to remain confident in our original data because it changed. If this were the case, and we had new data on the bears, we’d have to adjust our confidence level to match the new, more accurate data. This change of data is why it’s okay for our confidence levels to vary over time if we acquire new or better data. 

For this reason, others may poke fun or claim that we don’t hold consistent views. If this happens, it’s because others are conditioned to believe something and stick to that belief, and they do not comprehend the standards of evidence. Anyone who argues that beliefs must stay consistent is ignorant. Politicians often fall on both sides of this fence. They never change their views regardless of new evidence, or they change them and get called “wishy-washy.”

Now, let’s discuss rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis. A hypothesis is defined as a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation, and null is defined as “invalid.” So, a null hypothesis is an invalid proposed explanation, basically a claim. In statistics, we start with a null hypothesis and then gather data (evidence) to see if our null hypothesis is correct. For example, if I thought climate change was warming our earth, that would be my null hypothesis. I would then need to gather data to support my null hypothesis. If I didn’t find enough data (evidence) to support the null hypothesis (claim), I would have to reject it and remain unconvinced it was likely to be true. Alternatively, if I can find enough evidence, I wouldn’t be absolutely certain of my null hypothesis; I would simply fail to reject it, which means I am convinced it is likely to be true.

Jury trials are an excellent example to help paint a clear picture. When a suspect is on trial, they are innocent until proven guilty. After reviewing the evidence, the jury returns with a guilty or not guilty verdict. There is no innocent verdict. The jury is either convinced or not convinced of the suspect’s guilt. While examining claims, we should use the same standard. When someone makes a claim, they place that claim on trial. The default position is that the claim is not true (innocent of being true). This innocent verdict is why whoever makes a claim holds the burden of proof. The claim maker must provide evidence for the jury to reach a verdict of truth (guilty of being true).

For example, let’s pretend Randy told John that Bigfoot was real. That claim (null hypothesis) is now on trial, and Randy holds the burden of proof. The existence of Bigfoot is innocent (not true) until Randy can convince John to reach a guilty (is true) verdict. Randy then provides evidence for his claim, but it’s not enough for John to be convinced. John would then reject the claim (not believe it) and return with a not-guilty verdict. This verdict doesn’t mean that John has absolute certainty that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. It means his confidence isn’t high enough to warrant a verdict of truth. The possibility of Bigfoot’s existence is still there, however small it may be, but John remains unconvinced. 

Similar to jury cases, our verdict can be incorrect. This unsureness is why we should avoid absolute certainty and instead rely on our confidence level. The higher our confidence, the more convinced we can be that the claim is true. When our confidence is high enough, we ultimately reach a verdict of truth and fail to reject the claim. When we fail to reject a claim, it essentially means we believe it because we have found enough evidence to warrant belief in the claim.

We can apply this same method when looking at a range of data. Let’s revisit our bear example. Assuming we found reliable data that between 1,800 - 2,000 Grizzly bears live in Montana, let’s imagine Sharon claimed there were 2,500 bears (her null hypothesis). That claim (null hypothesis) is now on trial, and Sharon holds the burden of proof. The claim is innocent of being true until Karen can present enough evidence to convince the jury to return with a guilty verdict. If she cannot, the jury remains unconvinced, returns with a not-guilty verdict, and rejects the claim. Alternatively, if she can provide enough evidence, the jury would return with a guilty verdict and fail to reject her claim.

This process is how we should determine the likelihood that something is true. We are never absolutely certain. We are either convinced or unconvinced. It depends on our confidence in how likely it is to be true. Once again, our confidence can change with new data, and it should. We may initially reject (be unconvinced) or fail to reject a claim (be convinced), but if new evidence comes forward, we should be willing and able to change our verdict.

I’m going to share with you the process that we use to generate this income.

Most people charge a lot of money to teach the stuff you’ll learn in this article. I’m sharing it with you because I have enough money, and I don’t want your money.

Plus it’s my way to help and give back.

In this article, you’ll learn how to build a sales funnel that will automate your business, increase revenue, and give you freedom. If you follow the process, and take the time to implement these steps, I’m convinced it will change your life.

So buckle up, and let’s get started.

First, It’s Not About You

Instead of focusing on what you do, focus on what people desire.

For example, if you sell makeup, your customer wants to look good. If you’re a painter, your customer wants a fresh, new look for their home that will make it more enjoyable for them when they walk into a room.

If you’re a tree trimmer, your customer probably wants to ensure a tree isn’t going to fall on their home…or they are tired of picking up sticks in their yard.

The most important aspect to remember about marketing is that it’s not about you. It’s not even about your product.

It’s about the end result and how customers feel when they get it.

Most (not all) people buy on emotions, not logic. Ask yourself these questions: How will they feel? How will their life change?

I’d advise that you make a list of your answers.

It’s not about solving the problem, it’s about the change of state in the customer after the problem is solved.

I sell online horse training, and when I write my sales copy, I focus on what I know our customers want to feel due to whatever they may be buying from us.

I know they want…

• To be able to get on their horse and enjoy the ride

• To avoid dealing with problematic behaviors

• To have confidence in themselves and their abilities

• To have a good relationship with their horse

• To be able to trust their horse that he won’t hurt them

There are more, but those are pretty standard across the board for us, no matter what we’re selling in the horse niche.

If you’d like to see an example of some of my best sales copy, go here: https://sp.carsonjames.com/horsetracks

Once you’ve made a list, and determined the desired outcomes for your customers or clients, you’re ready to start your first sales funnel.

The Sales Funnel

The sales process looks like this:

Content -> Lead Magnet -> Tripwire -> Core Offer -> Profit Maximizer

I will break each of these down in detail and do my best to give great examples of how to apply them to your business.

The idea behind a sales funnel is to introduce people to you/your product and move the relationship forward.

Ryan Deiss, the founder of DigitalMarketer.com, relates marketing to human relationships.

You’d first introduce yourself (content), then maybe go out for coffee (lead magnet), then go on a date (tripwire), then start a relationship (core offer), and finally you’d get married (profit maximizer).

This is the reason sales funnels work so well.

Instead of running ads and immediately asking people to buy your stuff, you establish goodwill by creating a relationship with your leads and customers.

Trust and relationships also create repeat customers.

The Content (Introduce Yourself)

What are the questions your customers ask you the most? What is most misunderstood in your niche? What does everyone in your niche need to understand before making a purchase?

Once you’ve answered these questions, create some content answering these questions. Your content could be in the form of a podcast, blog post, or video.

If you’re uncomfortable with writing, ask chat gpt to do it.

Here are some examples of content that could be created from different niches:

• A roofer makes a video explaining the signs of a roof that needs to be replaced

• A real estate agent explains the importance of having a virtual tour

• A hairstylist shows how to do a unique and easy hairstyle

• A tree trimmer makes a video explaining the difference between a healthy and unhealthy tree

• A yard maintenance man demonstrates how to water your grass properly

• Someone who sells makeup makes a video on how to apply a good foundation

• Someone who sells paintings makes a video showing off their skills

• Someone who sells pies writes a recipe for the perfect key lime pie

Once you’ve come up with some ideas for content, it’s time to start putting it out in the world.

Next, install the Facebook pixel on your website.

You can do this manually; however, most website builders now have an integration with the Facebook pixel. You still have to do the initial setup with Facebook, but you don’t have to install any code.

Just plug in your pixel ID and your website does the rest for you.

Once you have the pixel installed, create a Facebook ads account, and promote your content with a Facebook ad to an audience that would most likely be interested in your product or service.

For example, if you’re a local hairstylist, you would ideally target women who live within a certain radius of your location. You could also narrow your targeting by specifying an age and income level range.

Facebook has many different ad objectives to choose from and your medium (video, blog article, podcast) will determine what you should use.

If you’re using video, choose the awareness objective. If you’re using a podcast or blog post, choose the traffic objective.

If you want to go to the extra effort, you can create different ad sets and target groups of people individually to determine which group yields the best results.

The goal of creating content is not to make sales…yet. It’s to raise awareness of your brand and help people.

When people watch your video, and/or go to your website to read your blog, or listen to your podcast, Facebook will pixel their device.

A pixel is a small piece of code that allows you to track when people interact with your content.

Once your ad has run for a few days, and you’ve seen some video views and click-throughs to your website, it’s time to create an audience of people engaged with your content.

You can create custom audiences from people with pixels installed on their devices.

This allows you to re-target (send a different ad to the same people) your audience.

Creating an audience is crucial for the next step.

The Lead Magnet (Coffee)

A lead magnet is an irresistible bribe offering a specific chunk of value to a prospect in exchange for their contact information.

DigitalMarketer.com does a good job of explaining the lead magnet and giving some great examples. 

I recommend reading it here: https://www.digitalmarketer.com/blog/lead-magnet-ideas-funnel/

A lead magnet could be a…

• video

• checklist

• report

• cheat sheet

• resource list

• template

• discount

• quiz

It needs to be specific and answer one big question.

The main difference between a lead magnet vs. content is that people now need to give you their email address (or phone number).

In my business, this is one of our best-converting lead magnets: https://sp.carsonjames.com/mental-soundness-checklist45887069.

A good way to determine whether or not your lead magnet is relevant to your audience, and something they want, is to look at your opt-in rate.

For example, if 100 people visit your web page where they can sign up for your lead magnet, and 35 of them submit their email addresses, then you’d have a 35% opt-in rate (which is pretty standard).

Anything below 25% needs work and anything above 35% is a home run.

Setting Up Your Lead Magnet

A lead magnet performs best on a squeeze page.

A squeeze page is a page where the website visitor only has two options.

They can opt-in (submit their email) for your lead magnet or leave the page. That’s it.

There are no other links for them to click and nothing else on the page for them to do other than opt-in.

You can set up a squeeze page on your existing website or use a dedicated funnel builder like ClickFunnels.

To collect their email address and send them the thing they signed up for (the lead magnet), you’ll need some type of email autoresponder.

Some website builders have built-in autoresponders, but I highly recommend ActiveCampaign. 

I’ve used almost every autoresponder out there, and I can confidently tell you that ActiveCampaign is the best one.

Most website builders have a native integration with ActiveCampaign and will allow you to connect your website form to your ActiveCampaign account via API.

Once you’ve got your autoresponder connected to your web form, you’ll want to set up an automatic email that delivers the lead magnet to the person who opted in for it.

In this email, you’ll also want to make them aware of your tripwire offer.

Additionally, on the thank you page (the page they land on after they submit their email address) of your lead magnet, you want to pitch your tripwire.

Once you have set up your lead magnet, it’s time to return to your Facebook ads and retarget the people who interacted with your content.

This time; however, you’ll be running ads promoting your lead magnet instead of your content.

Remember, at this point, you’ll also be automatically building an email list crucial for your business.

The Tripwire (Your First “Official” Date)

A tripwire is a splinter of your core offer (the main thing you sell).

It’s a piece you can pull from your product and sell for dirt cheap to convert leads (people who opted into your lead magnet) to customers.

The only purpose of a tripwire is to get your leads to open their wallets and buy from you.

It’s an irresistible offer that they simply can’t say no to.

Here are some examples of great tripwires:

• A guitar company sells 50 guitar picks for $5

• One section of an online course for $7

• McDonald’s sells a hamburger for $.99

• A makeup company sells a sample kit for $9.99

• Godaddy offers your first domain registration for $1.00

Service-based businesses will often give a steep discount on services to get new customers in the door.

If you’re familiar with Groupon, it’s a huge collection of tripwire offers.

It’s also a great place to go and steal ideas.

Also, it’s important to note that a tripwire’s primary purpose is to break even (or even lose some money on the front end).

You are not trying to make a profit here.

You’re trying to get people to open their wallets and buy from you.

When someone opens their wallet for the first time, even if it’s just $1, they are far more likely to open it repeatedly.

A financial transaction moves the relationship between you and your customer to the next step.

You’ve introduced yourself (content), bought them coffee (lead magnet), and now you’re going on an actual date.

I hope you can begin to see why it’s called a funnel.

Finally, it’s also a good idea to re-target the people with Facebook ads who opted for your lead magnet but did not purchase your tripwire.

You can set up this audience using Facebook custom audiences.

The Core Offer (An Official Relationship)

This is the main thing you sell. 

If you have a business, then you have a core offer.

The best time to pitch the core offer is immediately after your customer purchased your tripwire.

They are in the right mindset and are more likely to make a second transaction.

One-click upsells are ideal because customers don’t have to enter their contact and payment information again.

The more barriers you can remove, the more likely they will buy.

And since they just bought a portion (splinter) of your product via the tripwire, it would make sense that some will want the complete package.

Additionally, you should pitch your core offer in the thank you email sent to those who purchased your tripwire.

It’s just another opportunity to buy.

And just like every other step, you can run retargeting ads to people on Facebook who purchased your tripwire but did not purchase your core offer.

The Profit Maximizer (Marriage)

This is something that is a supplement to your core offer but offers tremendous value for both you and your customer.

For example

• A group consulting class offers a one-on-one with the coach

• A pool installer offers a monthly maintenance plan

• A makeup company offers a bundle of all its products

• A vitamin company offers a recurring subscription

• A VIP pass at a concert

• Desserts at restaurants

Some businesses don’t have a profit maximizer, and if yours doesn’t, you are missing out on a ton of potential revenue.

Just like before, you want to ideally offer your profit maximizer directly after the core offer, retarget with Facebook ads, and follow up with emails.

Conclusion

I just provided a ton of information, and if you feel overwhelmed, it’s understandable.

However, please don’t allow that to stop you from building at least one sales funnel. The more you build, the better your chances of making money.

It may not work initially, but that’s no reason to quit.

This is how you turn your business into a money-making machine, build automation, and allow yourself to have freedom.

There are 24 different logical fallacies, and they are continuously committed every day in every part of life, especially in politics and religion.

I will attempt to break down each fallacy and give an example of how it is currently used.

Spotting a fallacy is helpful because it can help prevent deception and help identify lousy logic.

The Strawman Fallacy - When you misrepresent someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. For example, Amy says we should not be involved in the war in Ukraine. Glenda then accuses Amy of not caring about the citizens of Ukraine. Just because Amy disagrees with the war, it doesn’t mean that she lacks empathy for Ukraine citizens.

The Fallacy Fallacy - You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, the claim itself must be wrong. For example, John claims that climate change is affecting the world in a negative way, but his argument is poor and full of fallacies. This isn’t proof that climate change is or isn’t negatively affecting the world. It’s proof that John is not well-educated on the topic.

Appeal To Nature - You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal. For example, Karen tells her friend that there are some new forms of natural treatments for cancer and those are better than chemotherapy because they’re natural. Just because something is natural, that doesn’t automatically make it better.

Slippery Slope - You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen. For example, if we ban bump stocks then the government will eventually take our guns. Although this could be an actual scenario, a slippery slope fallacy assumes certainty of an unknown future pattern and takes the focus off the topic.

The Texas Sharpshooter - You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument or found a pattern to fit a presumption. For example, someone is arguing for the goodness of God, and points to the scriptures in the Bible where God is good, but ignores the scriptures where He murders innocent children, condones slavery, and justifies rape. Outlying patterns or facts don’t always represent the complete data.

Composition/Division - You assume that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts. For example, someone says that police are racist, and since James is a police officer, he must be a racist too. James’ job as a police officer doesn’t represent who he is. He could have joined the force to help stop the occurring injustices.

Personal Incredulity - Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true. For example, a creationist doesn’t have a firm grasp on the theory of evolution or “can’t see how that could happen,” so they claim it’s not likely to be accurate. Someone’s lack of understanding of something does not prove it’s true or false.

Appeal To Emotion - You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. For example, someone argues that we shouldn’t be allowed to carry firearms publicly because it’ll make them feel scared. You could better present your argument with facts and data on the use of firearms in public.

Tu Quoque - Bringing up negative aspects of an opponent or their situation to attack their viewpoint. For example, Leonardo DiCaprio advocates for slowing down the effects of climate change. Yet, he flies around in a private jet that releases chemicals into the air which have been proven to have a negative impact on our climate. DiCaprio’s hypocrisy doesn’t determine whether his facts about climate change are accurate.

Ambiguity - You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth. For example, the priest told Susan she should have faith. Susan believes she will strike it rich on the stock market this year. The priest uses the word “faith” to mean that one must believe in the existence of God. However, the person talking to the priest understands the word “faith” to mean “hope that something will happen”.

Begging The Question - You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise. For example, Susan claims the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. This is circular logic and would need to include some form of evidence other than the Bible to argue the claim logically.

Ad Hominem - You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. For example, Joe Biden gives a speech about the economy, but instead of focusing on the substance of his speech, a biased news anchor comments on Biden’s inability to complete full sentences. Attacking someone’s character is shifting the focus from the argument.

Special Pleading - You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false. For example, Paul claims that God heals the sick, and then Jimmy asks Paul why God doesn’t cure childhood cancer. Paul replies that God’s hands are tied because of sin, lack of faith, mysterious ways, etc.

No True Scotsman - You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument. For example, Bill claims that no true conservative would support the legalization of gay marriage, and since Donald Trump supports it, he’s not a true conservative.

Burden Of Proof - You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. For example, John claims that he saw an alien in his backyard. Tony doesn’t believe him and asks for sufficient evidence of his claim. Instead of providing evidence, John tells Tony that he must prove he didn’t see an alien. Tony is not making the claim, John is. Therefore, John holds the burden of proof.

The Gambler's Fallacy - You said that 'runs' occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins. For example, Mary claims that in the past we’ve had a recession nearly every five years, and since we haven’t had one in four years, we should expect to have one in the coming year. Evidence of past occurrences doesn’t always predict the future.

Loaded Question - You asked a question with a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. For example, Mary and Susan are discussing a court case they’ve been watching on TV about Justin the serial killer. Susan tells Mary she doesn’t believe Justin is guilty of the crime. Susan responds, “So you think Justin is a good person?” Mary’s position wasn’t that she thought Justin was a good person. Her position was that she thought he was innocent of that particular crime.

Anecdotal - You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence. For example, Jack claims he hears instructions in his head from the prophet Muhammad. Personal experiences are not sufficient forms of evidence.

Genetic - You judged something as good or bad based on where it comes from, or from whom it came. For example, Mark blindly supports Donald Trump and believes everything he does is good because he’s Donald Trump. Alternatively, Ronald hates Donald Trump and believes he can’t do anything good because he’s Trump.

False Cause - You presumed that an actual or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. For example, someone claims that video games contain violence, so if someone plays a video game, they are a violent person. The problem here is the presumption. Providing data that compared people who played video games to their history of violence would be a logical argument.

Bandwagon - You appeal to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted validation. For example, Harold claims that there are a lot of people out there who believe in aliens, and they can’t all be wrong, so there must be aliens. The number of people who believe something doesn’t affect the likeliness of it being true.

Appeal To Authority - You said that because an authority thinks something, it must be true. For example, a creationist says that some scientists believe in creation; therefore, evolution is false. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution.

Black-Or-White - You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities when more possibilities exist. For example, Steven claims that his friend Gabe has to vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. There are other options such as not voting or voting for a third party candidate.

Middle Ground - You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes, must be the truth. For example, Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that vaccinations must cause some autism, just not all autism.

Related: How To Think Logically

And today I had a fantastic opportunity to answer this question.

A couple of friends and I have been meeting over the past few weeks to discuss different viewpoints on various topics.

We’ve named our group “The GAP” which is an acronym for the gay, the atheist, and the preacher. We aim to have deep conversations and fill “gaps” in each other’s understanding.

The topic of today’s discussion was homosexuality within Christianity.

I’m not including their perspectives on this topic because I haven’t asked their permission, and I don’t want to misrepresent them in any way unintentionally.

However, what I will write about is my perspective as “the atheist.”

The question was asked,

“Hypothetically, do you think an atheist and a preacher could come together and create rules of morality that they agreed on?”

My answer was yes which was somewhat of a surprise to one of my friends in the meeting.

I believe we could find common ground because there are portions of the Bible that encourage good morals.

For a very extreme example, we would likely agree that murder should not be allowed. This is a principle that any Bible-following preacher and I both probably share, and I’m sure there are more.

However, I believe we do not need the Bible to understand that committing murder is not something we should do. It’s evident, from living in our world, that murder has adverse effects on the majority of parties involved and doesn’t benefit society.

It’s only those “morals” found in the Bible, that aren’t evident in life, in which we would staunchly disagree.

For example, my 10-year-old daughter is good friends with my gay friend’s adopted sons, and they play together pretty often. She notices that having two dads instead of a dad and a mom is unique because gay couples are a minority.

But here’s the thing…

She has never once considered the morality of her friends having two dads.

She hasn’t been indoctrinated with the idea that their lifestyle is a “sin.” Her default position, as an innocent, non-indoctrinated member of society, is that her friends have two dads instead of a mom and a dad.

That’s it.

This is because these two men are good fathers, outstanding citizens in our community, and would go out of their way to help us in any way they could.

There is no evidence to suggest that their lifestyle is harmful or affects our life negatively. You would need the Bible to come to that conclusion.

Alternatively, if my daughter and I were walking down the sidewalk and we witnessed an assault, she would know something wasn’t right. She would recognize that one human physically assaulting another was a problem.

Now granted, my gay friends don’t represent the entire homosexual community. My claim that they are good people is not a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I’m well aware that there are both moral and immoral members of any sect.

My point is that morality is independent of sexuality outside of religion.

In the fashion of Martin Luther King Jr., I have a dream that members of the LGB community will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their sexuality, but by the content of their character.

During our meeting, I went on to say that the only reason there’s even a debate about LGB rights is because of religion.

If everyone were an atheist, the number of people opposed to LGB rights would greatly diminish.

Why do you think this is?

Because there isn’t any actual evidence to support the religious claims that your sexual identity has any bearing on your morality.

If everyone were atheists, we’d have people doing good and bad things. Some would be members of the LGB community and some wouldn’t.

Religion is the rope that has tied morality and sexuality together.

Steven Winberg once said,

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

The intolerance for homosexuality, originating from people’s religion, is a prime example of “good people doing evil things.”

And yes, even if everyone became atheists, we’d still have bigots. Religion is not the source of intolerance for all people.

Some people are just terrible people.

However, if everyone became an atheist, it would eliminate a widely accepted justification for the negative thoughts and actions toward people of the LGB community. People would no longer be able to hide behind religion and their true colors would show.

Alternatively, I am convinced many religious people are genuinely good.

It would probably be a massive relief for them if God showed up and said, “All that gay stuff in the Bible is inaccurate, and I don’t care who you screw.”

Because then they could stop feeling guilty for having thoughts and feelings that contradict the Bible. Plus they could have interactions with LGB people without having to constantly block out the little nagging reminder that they’re a “sinner.”

But let’s face it….God showing up is highly unlikely to happen.

So, how do we determine what’s moral without religion?

Penn Jillette sums up morality outside of religion very nicely:

“The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine.”

Just a side note here…

If you do happen to be the type of person who would “go on killing, raping rampages” without your religion, then it’s probably best you keep on keepin’ on with whatever you believe.

And since we’re on the subject, do you know what book condones rape, killing, incest, and even slavery?

The Bible.

I wrote about this in more detail in my article, “Top 5 Problems With The Bible.”

In closing, I’d like to provide a summarized answer to the hypothetical question mentioned at the beginning of this article:

“Do you think an atheist and a preacher could come together and create rules of morality that they agreed on?”

I believe we could and my conditions would be as follows…

The rules of morality must be based on evidence from both the positive and negative impacts observed from both actions and the lack of actions committed by members of our society.

I’m confident that at least a few of the rules generated from this principle would coincide with the genuinely moral portions of the Bible, and that’s where we’d find our common ground.

So, where do I, an atheist, get morals? From evidence or lack thereof.

“Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason.”

- James Randi

The first step in finding the truth is determining if the truth is desired. Some people are happy living in their own world and don’t care if their beliefs are true.

As long as their beliefs make them feel good, or justify their outlook on life, they are happy to continue believing them. Many people tell themselves they desire truth, but when that truth contradicts their beliefs, they cannot reconcile it in their minds.

If truth is desired, intellectual honesty must be the standard across the board. Every claim, no matter how we feel about it, must be examined with the same integrity. This is the only way to safeguard ourselves against false beliefs.

Truth is vital because believing things that aren’t true can have dire consequences on our decisions and our life.

What Is Truth?

When I say truth, I mean objective truth.

An objective truth is either true or false. There is no middle ground. There’s no grey area. For example, if I say I own a dog that is either true or false.

This is not to be confused with a personal truth — a personal truth is rooted in preference and/or feelings.

The problem comes in when people confuse personal truths with objective truths.

For example, a color-blind person could look at a Coca-Cola can, call it green, and call that a personal truth.

However, when we observe a Coca-Cola can without an impairment, it is definitively what we call the color red.

The can is not green; therefore, the color-blind person would be incorrect.

Alternatively, someone’s favorite color, food, or design style are all accurate representations of personal truth.

For example, if someone claims their favorite color is red, we can generally assume they are telling the truth. They could be lying, but unless we have a reason to believe they are lying, it’s pretty trivial to reject their claim.

If we were petty and wanted to investigate a personal truth claim further, we could try to gather evidence and probably reach a more rationalized conclusion on whether we were convinced.

For example, we could look at the shirts they wear and see if the majority of them contained the color red. But even if they didn’t, this doesn’t disprove the claim.

They may favor red but don’t prefer how it looks on their apparel.

So it’s generally best to take people at their word on a claim of personal truth unless it’s essential, or you have a reason to believe they are dishonest.

Preferences and feelings are subjective for each person.

And finally, the amount of people who believe something to be true does, in no way, prove whether it is true. This is a Bandwagon fallacy.

For example, there are approximately 1.9 billion people who believe in Islam and approximately 2.38 billion people who believe in Christianity. Both cannot be correct. One or neither must be true.

Absolute Certainty

When I took a statistics class in college, my professor said,

“When we look at data, we’re not attempting to determine absolute certainty. What we’re determining is a level of confidence, and once we reach that level of confidence, we either reject or fail to reject the premise.”

So, when we‘re trying to find the truth, it’s better to hold a level of confidence and allow that level of confidence to shift if and when we acquire new information.

Our level of confidence should be the determining factor in how convinced we are that something is true or false.

If we’re being logical, we attempt to avoid positive and negative claims because they assert certainty.

An example of a positive claim is that Bigfoot exists.

An example of a negative claim is that Bigfoot doesn’t exist.

Both are claims that assert certainty. Although only one can be correct, the more intellectually honest person could say they are not convinced that Bigfoot exists rather than making a negative claim.

This is because the person making the claim, whether negative or positive, always holds the burden of proof.

For example, if I claim that I can run 60 mph without the aid of anything mechanical, it’s up to me to prove it. It would be foolish to ask you to prove I can’t run 60 mph. You’re not making a claim. I am.

Good Vs. Bad Reasons For Belief

A good reason for belief would be backed by adequate and/or testable evidence, and a bad reason would be a belief based on inadequate evidence and/or evidence that couldn’t be tested.

Take note that both of these examples require evidence.

The difference is whether that evidence is good (sufficient) or bad (insufficient). The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be.

For example, if I claimed I owned a dog, that wouldn’t require extraordinary evidence. Lots of people own dogs. It’s somewhat safe to assume that I’m telling the truth. Could I be lying? Absolutely.

If there were a reason for me to lie about owning a dog, that claim would require further evidence.

On the other hand, if I claimed I had a dog that could fly, that would be an extraordinary claim. This type of claim would require extraordinary evidence because, as far as we know, dogs cannot fly.

What Is Sufficient Evidence?

It depends on the claim.

Would a video of my dog flying around my backyard be sufficient evidence? Can we alter video footage through special effects and AI? Yes, we can.

So one could technically refer to a video as evidence, but it’s neither good nor sufficient in this case.

Would a photo be sufficient evidence? Do we have image editing programs like Photoshop that can alter subjects and their environments? Yes, we do.

Would a live, public demonstration of the flying dog be good evidence? It would certainly be better than a video or photo. But is it sufficient?

What if the dog is attached to invisible wires? What if there’s a hidden underground fan that blows the dog into the air?

These would probably not be likely scenarios at a live demonstration, but they cannot be ruled out.

What if we took the dog to a controlled environment, called in world-renowned non-biased biologists, and held a public demonstration?

That’s even better.

This type of evidence would be more extraordinary, and if the dog did fly in this scenario, it would be much more difficult to reject the claim.

This is because the more reliable the test and/or data, the more confidence we can have in the claim.

History Claims

Winston Churchill said, “History is written by victors.”

We all have to accept that our history, whether American or World, is probably not 100% accurate.

A few factors that could affect our confidence level in any historical claim would include how the claim was made, if the claim was extraordinary, and the number of sources that help verify the claim.

For example, the claim that George Washington existed and was our first president holds a lot of sufficient evidence.

It’s not extraordinary, it’s well-recorded in history from multiple, verified sources, we can visit his grave, and we can go to Mount Vernon and visit his home.

Do we know that everything from history about Washington is 100% accurate? No, and, likely, it’s not.

However, through evidence, we can hold a level of certainty about his life and presidency.

On the flip side, let’s examine the claim that a man named Jesus was the son of God, had powers, and rose from the dead. Now we’re throwing in some extraordinary elements.

The claim that Jesus existed is not necessarily extraordinary, but the supernatural elements are. We would need some extraordinary evidence to be convinced of the claim.

Some historical claims are more reasonable to believe than others.

Supernatural Experience Claims

Much like personal preference claims, our first reaction should not be to reject that someone has had an experience unless we have a reason to believe they are being dishonest.

However, what we can reject is the conclusion of the experience.

This is because a supernatural experience is an anecdotal fallacy.

A supernatural conclusion would require extraordinary evidence.

For example, if someone said they saw a ghost, we would probably not deny that they saw something, but we would need sufficient evidence to have confidence in their claim that it was a ghost.

Can we recreate what they saw? Can we test it? Can we verify it? Have we, in any way, proven in the past that the supernatural exists? Have we ruled out schizophrenia, medication, or substances?

How can we be sure we’ve eliminated all known or unknown reasons one might believe they saw a ghost?

In these instances, I often refer to “the god of the gaps.” Early Greeks believed that lightning was a weapon of Zeus because they didn’t understand science and electricity.

Just because you can’t think of a better explanation for what you experienced, doesn’t give you a rational pass to slide something in there.

You also have to consider that there could be scientific explanations for your experience that haven’t yet been discovered.

The most rational answer is, “I saw something, and I don’t know what it was.”

It may have been a ghost, but you don’t get to add that to the list of possibilities until it’s proven that ghosts exist.

There may be ghosts in our universe and science could one day prove they exist. There could be ghosts in our universe and science never proves they exist. Or there may not be ghosts at all.

In any case, when you jump ahead, and assume you know the answer without sufficient evidence, you are no longer being rational.

Does Our Belief Lack Good Reason?

When our brain receives new information, it forms an initial assumption based on our life experiences. This assumption could be true or false.

Your job, as an intellectually honest person, is to determine if that assumption has insufficient or sufficient evidence.

If the evidence rejects your assumption, you must change your belief and vice versa.

If you’re a legitimate truth seeker, you’re operating within the evidence you have researched about the belief instead of your emotions.

Your data (or evidence) that you found to support or reject the belief could be incorrect, but if you’re at all concerned about intellectual honesty, then how you arrived at the conclusion is far more important than the conclusion itself.

For example, someone may be convinced that Bigfoot exists even though there is no sufficient evidence to support its existence; therefore, the reason for being convinced that Bigfoot exists is bad.

On the flip side, if one were convinced that Bigfoot did not exist, and it was proven in the future that Bigfoot does exist, their conclusion would have been incorrect. However, they still held rationality in their original conclusion because the reason was based on the lack of sufficient evidence available to them at the time.

Operating within the information we have, if gathered honestly and without bias, is rational.

How Can We Ensure We Believe As Many True Things As Possible?

I want to start by saying that you don’t have to take a firm stance on anything that neither interests nor directly affects you. You technically don’t have to take a firm stance on anything at all.

That may seem obvious, but I’m convinced that many people feel the need to have an opinion on everything so they don’t seem uneducated or lacking in empathy.

There’s nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know. I don’t have enough information on this subject to form an educated opinion.”

This is often the most intellectually honest answer you can give.

However, if you want to become well-informed on a topic, claim, or interest, follow the path of sufficient evidence. If you can’t find it, don’t take a firm stance.

When researching, always get as close to the source(s) as possible. Sometimes it’s impossible to investigate the source which is all the more reason not to hold a firm belief.

What About Faith?

Faith and logic are opposites. If one holds a faith belief, that belief is not founded in good reason.

It is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something. If you have good reason to believe something, then you don’t need faith. If you need faith, then you don’t have a good reason for believing something.

Faith is not a pathway to the truth because it’s not reliable.

You could believe something in faith, and you could be correct. You could also be incorrect. We can’t use good evidence to help us determine if it’s correct or incorrect because, if we could, we wouldn’t hold the faith-based belief in the first place.

We would instead have good evidence to support our belief.

I feel the need to add that faith and hope are different. It’s OK to hope for something. I think it’s good. Hope doesn’t require a belief, nor does it require any type of evidence.

Hope is simply something you wish for.

And finally, confidence is often substituted for the word faith, but it’s not the same. Confidence is a measure of certainty about something. Confidence has evidence to back up your certainty and faith does not.

The examples above are reasons why I’m an advocate for using accurate language when engaging in conversation.

Conclusion

Two intellectually honest people can examine the same claim and come to different conclusions. This usually happens when one has found evidence the other hasn’t. This is why it’s essential to ask questions, have conversations, and understand where people are coming from.

Even if I disagree with someone, I still hold them in high regard if they hold their belief(s) for good reasons. Discussing with someone who isn’t intellectually honest, and doesn’t understand standards of evidence, is usually futile.

Additionally, suppose someone arrived at their belief using logic and intellectual honesty. In that case, there’s a good chance they will convince me to shift my confidence level in the topic of discussion, as I should be able to do for them.

I am convinced some people simply lack the ability to think critically. This is not an intentional derogatory or demeaning statement. I mean they cannot do it. Their brain will not compute. I believe this is important to understand and remember because if we don’t, it can lead to unnecessary anger or resentment.

To find the truth, ignorance must be lost.

Related: Fallacies In Todays World | Logical Fallacies Being Used In Current Religious And Political Environments