Monday, September 26, 2011

Open thread on Episode #728

Russell and Jeff in the self-described "awesome episode."  One theist caller gets 20 minutes, while another gets summarily dumped after his opening statement.  A new study shows that belief in God is linked with intuitive thinking, or to put it another way, preferring to choose the answer that sounds good over thinking carefully about what's probably correct.  Be there!

Also, as I mentioned on the show, Lynnea and I have plans to hang out in a bar with Orlando-based fans on a weeknight in November.  Check out this page for planning if you're nearby.

24 comments:

  1. Alternatively you could go with the way Matt Taibbi wanted to headline that study:
    PEOPLE WHO DON'T THINK, GET SHIT WRONG, TEND TO BELIEVE IN GOD

    ReplyDelete
  2. Inb4 whine about Jeff hanging up on the professional quack broadcaster.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do think it (dropping the quack) was the proper course of action - both in that they potentially gave the person some insight into what's required for discussions with other sentient life, and in that it would have been a colossal waste of time (more than usual for theists).

    It'd be like two teams coming to a field to play soccer, and one of the teams declaring that they're not going to play by the rules - that they don't have to get the soccer ball into the opposing team's net to score points, and that there's no way for the other team to score any points against them.

    I'm not sure how long it would be entertaining to watch two different teams trying to play two different games in the same place at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ..and when he was talking about being able to guess peoples' names, I just kept thinking about the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

    ReplyDelete
  5. The first callers version of God at time sounded at first similar to the Indian philosophical/spiritual idea of Brahma. Interesting but impossible to reconcile with the God of the books (Bible, Koran, Torah).

    ReplyDelete
  6. That was one of the strangest shows I've seen in awhile. I approve of the quick hang-up though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I tend to agree with JT on the hang-up. I like to give callers the benefit of the doubt in my mind (and I imagine hosts do too) but he went on for quite a while and it's hard to imagine him listening rather than just picking right back up and talking past Jeff had he been given the opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Couldn't help but notice that both AE facebook pages are unavailable. Let me guess - they got "reported"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hanging up on the guy was good. All useful discussion had already happened..they would have just started going in circles.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Observation: The Quack said he was an Atheist AND involved in the Occult. True that could be at different times but I'm more inclined to think he's one of those "Ministry" Atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "It'd be like two teams coming to a field to play soccer, and one of the teams declaring that they're not going to play by the rules - that they don't have to get the soccer ball into the opposing team's net to score points, and that there's no way for the other team to score any points against them."

    So Aussie rules football?

    ReplyDelete
  12. As far as the guy that was hung up on, it sounded like he was just interested in giving a monologue consisting of nothing but assertion after assertion. It might have ended up a good conversation but since he didn't even bother to pause to see if you had any remarks until Russel and Jeff stopped him I doubt he wanted more than what I said above.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yeah, I was waiting for you guys to step on that guy and tell him to focus on one point, but the course you took was probably better. The Gallopers drive me nuts because they just jump all over the place and I think Jeff has heard enough of them that he knew exactly where it was going (which was basically nowhere).

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Ing: I don't have time to re-listen to the show right now but I remember him saying [something to the effect of] him being an ex-atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 9 times out of 10, when someone says "I used to be an atheist," they don't know what "atheist" means.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Brian

    Whenever I hear that, what I think in my mind is "I used to be rational...". While I would agree, I'm just not sure why they think it wins credibility points with me.

    I don't start any conversations with Christians saying "I used to be a Christian" because I wouldn't think they'd care.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I delayed posting for a while because I'm not sure if my comments would be constructive but here goes. Also, I'm kind of concerned about people creeping into my own life (or Joseph's life) unawares. I know Joseph because I was the guy who told him to call. Yeah, his arguments are looney which is part of the reason I told him he should call. I knew him when he was a dormmate in college; so let us see if I can elucidate some matters.

    1. Yes, he was a legitimate atheist as far as I could tell. I met him after his conversion but conversations with him at the time revealed he was some sort of nihilist.

    2. Jeff was probably right to hang up. I was disappointed in Joseph's argument from the beginning. Joseph might've been convinced to argue his point constructively but it would've been a waste of time trying to get there. Needless to say, I was hoping for me.

    3. His "gifts of prophecy" are laughable. This was my primary reason for wanting Joseph to call: his gift is a total joke and has been wrong in the past and he's not always certain if it's God or the devil talking to him. Had Russell gone through with his wish to ask Joseph to prophecy, we all might have gotten a real treat.

    4. As for JT's sharpshooter thoughts. I too have wondered if any delightful logical fallacies are going on. My personal (totally unconfirmed) guess is that for every "hit," Joseph has a few dozen "misses".

    Anyways, those are my two cents. I'll be happy to address any questions as long as it doesn't get too personal into Joseph's life.

    ReplyDelete
  18. *...I was hoping for more.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just a comment on the semantics of the term 'theist' ~ I have to say that I disagree with what Jeff and Russell were saying on this topic (Jeff made a comment to the effect that 'if someone believes that a totem pole is 'God', i can touch that totempole and i believe it exists, therefore one could call me a theist in relation to the totempole') Russell made a similar comment about Julius Caesar (if someone thinks Julius Caesar is 'God', i believe that Caesar existed, so i could be called a theist in relation to Caesar).....

    To me, this kind of reasoning renders the term 'theist' completely meaningless. Here's an example to demonstrate:

    There are people who believe that Jesus Christ existed AND believe he's 'God'

    There are people who believe that Jesus Christ existed but DON'T believe he's 'God'

    Given the reasoning that Jeff and Russell use, BOTH groups would be classified as being 'theists in relation to Jesus'......

    But are those two groups the same? I don't think so. If the 'believing this thing is God' part is absent, it's only _confusing_ to label such a person a theist, imo.

    And good luck trying to tell a Christian that you're a 'theist' regarding Jesus but DON'T BELIEVE he's God :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. @AxeGrrl
    You will forgive me if I am wrong here; I have not had a chance to listen to the last episode.
    The line of argument you described is usually in response to a pantheistic god, or when someone redefines god to be the universe itself. The line of reasoning you used then leads to the question “why bother to call it god?”. Or in the case of the totem pole, if it has no supernatural powers and does not do anything but sit there, why would you call it a god?

    So if the theist wants to move the goalposts and define something un-godlike as a god, that is where you go. If they want to be weird about it, then it is easier to just admit, “OK I believe in your god then, why should I bother to worship it?”.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @axegirl
    I started to write a response that contradicted your point, but as I wrote and thought, I understand what you're saying and have changed my mind. The only reason Jeff would consider himself a theist regarding the totem pole is because it obviously exists. But as soon as the assign any "godly" powers to it, he's no longer on board (nor would I). Same would go for Jesus. He might have existed, but no one considers it theism until he is assigned godliness of some sort. Thus at no point would you consider yourself a theist in either example.

    I doubt he would disagree once it's put in such a way. I understand the point he was trying to make. I may believe something exists that you think of as a god. But it requires more evidence (that has never been provided) to go along with any magical or supernatural claims of said object or person.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think Jeff's point was mostly to address when a theist tries to "corner" an atheist into admitting that they DO in fact believe in a God! Hah!

    It's stupid semantic dicking around, but it comes up from time to time, mostly when they start redefining god to mean already existing mundane things.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Although a good episode it failed to address the infinity project's diametric opposition to the theory propounded by those who krytenise it's expenditure. I was dissapointed in this. If TAA believe they are a vanguard of specialism then can they at least try to deffenistrate their punctions in a more eventual manner? It was bordeline Wagnerism and should, as normal, be avoided, Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.