tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post1878186481044416862..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Open thread about AE #672Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89727891833438312902010-10-19T12:52:38.196-05:002010-10-19T12:52:38.196-05:00This is a situation, like so many others, where a ...This is a situation, like so many others, where a fundamentalist Theist uses the "offence" at someone dropping an F-bomb as an excuse to cower away from an argument where she is being cornered into throwing her hands up and saying "Believe what you want".<br /><br />I too would have liked to know why the F-Bomb she called, but given her Victorian attitude to simple words which only have the power to offend if people are weak-willed enough to allow them to, I doubt we'll ever get an answer to that, although I can speculate that she was trying to present an argument that might be convincing to more of the weaker-willed viewers of the show who might be convinced by such paltry "logic" as what she was trying to present.NoToPseudosciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02068008603603206289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4862604104923060142010-09-13T18:20:04.001-05:002010-09-13T18:20:04.001-05:00Well, the biggest part of such an exchange is to s...Well, the biggest part of such an exchange is to show the viewers of such an exchange why this or that is wrong. Rarely will you ever get through to the person you are actually talking to. They're invested in the conversation and trying to save face. Why work like crazy to get that to that one person you're talking to (with such a low chance of getting through to them) when by other methods you can show any number of believing audience members why this or that idea is wrong or messed up?<br /><br />You guys did good, and all Denise wanted to do was preach. She would have found some weak excuse to flounce away offended no matter what you did. And this is still the best atheist podcast EVAR!!!HarveyRequiemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211338272331419373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45229734825272254982010-09-11T11:32:14.718-05:002010-09-11T11:32:14.718-05:00That discussion with Denise was another big fail f...That discussion with Denise was another big fail from the AETV crew. It wasn't that big a deal, so there was no real reason to swear. The entire conversation was yet another example where the Atheist Experience crew aren't being "dicks", theyre just failing co communicate effectively. When Denise claimed that atheists send themselves to hell, you both simply went "nuh huh", "yuh huh" at one another without really explaining anything. What you should've done is stepped back and say "ok so by what process do I arrive in hell due to my atheism...lets play a scenario. I'm an atheist, I don't want to go to hell. When I die, what's the process of things that happen to me?" Leading her down the logical road you can bring her to the point of cognitive dissonance and point at that and say "ah HA, there is the problem".<br /><br />This applies to many previous calls too. When someone disagrees with you, simply pointing out the truth sometimes doesn't cut it. If they fail to understand from your simple stating of something, you don't need to rephrase yourself a zillion times, you need to step back and go into things in more detail!<br /><br />The last time AronRa and Matt were on the show together, when the theists called in you both (but Aron in particular) gish galloped after gish gallop! It was painful to watch! Sure, you pointed out all these logical and moral inconsistencies in the bible. Look at this, look at this, look at this! Yes, we all know that you're right, and it may be effective at showing other viewers that this person is a fool, but you do nothing to help the person being gish galloped understand why they're wrong! Don't make a zillion points at them without hearing their reply. Look at what they've said, and break it down point by point, through a process that will ensure that they understand what you're saying. Do not go off onto tangents, that simply introduces possibilities to side track or add confusion.<br /><br />The Atheist Experience has been seriously frustrating me recently, so I hope you guys can turn it around.Aardvarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03515210663985590456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89642240135452388732010-09-05T08:12:22.012-05:002010-09-05T08:12:22.012-05:00Since this is an open thread about AE #672; Just a...Since this is an open thread about AE #672; Just a couple of interesting details about Kevin from the UK's call regarding what was said about English money.<br /><br />1."God save the Queen" is the national anthem and does not appear on the money.<br /><br />2.A picture of the Queen however does appear on one side of Bank of England notes.<br /><br />3. Charles Darwin appears on the reverse side of a £10 note.<br /><br />http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim/darwin.htmlRaymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16439248183580550162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54619170953814434442010-09-05T00:30:31.941-05:002010-09-05T00:30:31.941-05:00Episode #668. Time 0:08:15 to 0:09:45.
AronRa:...Episode #668. Time 0:08:15 to 0:09:45. <br /><br />AronRa:<br /><br />"... about being vitriolic with believers. I'm totally down with that. There is no reason to be hostile." ...<br /><br />"The most outspoken advocates of ... rational thinking, skepticism ... are all ex-believers." ...<br /><br />"Some peoples' minds do change." "The one you might be tempted to throw hostilities at right now might turn out to be an ally later on." ...<br /><br />"Try to keep the vitriol down, because that very often may be the only thing holding them back from realizing that their position is unstable and not on solid ground."<br /><br /><br />xoxox SueSuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09004693922783338240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56257701806473479922010-09-04T10:46:04.915-05:002010-09-04T10:46:04.915-05:00"If your goal is to get discussions going, yo..."If your goal is to get discussions going, you to lay off the f-bomb sometimes. I love you Matt but I think it would benefit the show if you chilled out a little. "<br /><br />Denise killed discussion when she insisted on just preaching.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53896830822191947142010-09-03T19:31:14.623-05:002010-09-03T19:31:14.623-05:00I don't think I've ever seen a better exam...I don't think I've ever seen a better example on the Atheist Experience of someone noticeably and clearly experiencing the conflict between reason and faith in their mind.<br /><br />Denise was lead on a path from point A to point B, and upon reaching the destination and realizing where she'd been lead, you could almost hear the clang as her comprehension of the conclusion and her religious beliefs collided in her mind.<br /><br />It's not often we get to witness a religious person being forced to apply <i>their</i> reason to <i>their</i> faith, but in this instance we did, and the result was beautiful. You can pinpoint the moment where malfunction occured...That split second between Matt stopping talking and her exclaiming "that's so messed up!". They are the moments from which atheists are made.Vanchahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16365428387364149785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11226785707074577572010-09-03T09:25:12.968-05:002010-09-03T09:25:12.968-05:00Let me preface this by saying that the f-word does...Let me preface this by saying that the f-word doesn't offend me, and I don't think Matt D is a dick.<br /><br />But when Matt dropped the f-bomb on Denise, that killed the conversation dead. Yeah, it was her fault the conversation ended, but you gotta understand who your audience is.<br /><br />If your goal is to get discussions going, you to lay off the f-bomb sometimes. I love you Matt but I think it would benefit the show if you chilled out a little.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17619386106287809101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69402024815299345212010-09-02T13:56:18.821-05:002010-09-02T13:56:18.821-05:00Also for all the tone whining, they went easy on h...Also for all the tone whining, they went easy on her...Jeff didn't make her cry.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44991580286493518742010-09-02T13:52:37.607-05:002010-09-02T13:52:37.607-05:00@magxo1
It follows from the same "that's ...@magxo1<br />It follows from the same "that's messed up tree" replace as the last step that GOd sends people to hell that GOd is just and thus anyone who goes to hell needs to go there. Thus only the deserving go to hell. Again because she doesn't' realize she's being rude is no reason to cut her a break and not inform her that, yes she is damn fucking rude.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5673783237247532792010-09-02T12:57:26.989-05:002010-09-02T12:57:26.989-05:00Denise didnt realy have a reason for calling, and ...Denise didnt realy have a reason for calling, and seemed very surprised at Matt and Jeffs intelligence! I got the impression she had never had her faith challenged before, she got in too deep and was looking for a way out. Matts use of the f-word was her perfect excuse for getting her ass out of there! Her arguments were BS and Matt and Jeff saw right through her immediately.The Dimeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12562121729338630822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16548701932017140822010-09-02T12:56:37.540-05:002010-09-02T12:56:37.540-05:00@Mark B
"So what if Jesus died on the cross?...@Mark B<br /><br />"So what if Jesus died on the cross? So did Spartacus, and he was opposed to slavery..."<br /><br />I like the way you put that!Hairy Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11447200409981332335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27730776771947106522010-09-02T12:16:30.387-05:002010-09-02T12:16:30.387-05:00Isn't dismissing people as uneducated and unin...Isn't dismissing people as uneducated and unintelligent because of occasional fucks just like dismissing them because they have a southern drawl? <br /><br />It's classismInghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54924393544697755602010-09-02T10:57:03.035-05:002010-09-02T10:57:03.035-05:00I admit that I was shocked when Matt swore at her,...I admit that I was shocked when Matt swore at her, and I saw it coming when she hung up; mostly because, as has been mentioned, she was already looking for a way out of the conversation. It might have been better if she had bailed on her own, obviously defeated. Could Matt have handled it better? Yep. Could I have handled it better? A big <b>Fuck No</b>.<br /><br />But look at it this way; I think there is value in letting theists know when they are wasting our time. We need to let them know that we aren't obligated to sit quiet while they natter on and on about their nonsense, that there are rules to having a dialog, and that when they're talking about their beliefs they might want to keep in mind that there are those who don't agree with, and don't respect, their cherished assumptions.<br /><br />So what if Jesus died on the cross? So did Spartacus, and he was opposed to slavery...Mark Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12082856602483276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-91827633473339107612010-09-02T10:23:01.596-05:002010-09-02T10:23:01.596-05:00@ Ing:
"You are disgusting and deserve to go...@ Ing:<br /><br />"You are disgusting and deserve to go to hell for spitting in the lord jesus's face when he throws you a life saver" <br /><br />To be fair, the nutjob did answer 'no' when queried as to whether or not she thought they deserved hell. Whether or not she was being honest, I can't say for certain, but I only have her word...her crazy, crazy word...magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47180667468789906562010-09-02T07:30:58.062-05:002010-09-02T07:30:58.062-05:00The conversation would have been over whether Matt...The conversation would have been over whether Matt said 'fuck' or not. She would have found some other excuse because she was defeated. This sort of tactic is so common, especially with text based debates. Here are some other common excuses used to run away by theists I have encountered.<br /><br />-You spelled a word wrong, that means you're wrong.<br />-You wouldn't understand.<br />-I just don't have time to explain it to you.<br />-You're just being hostile.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09225225270954728250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55149552154114876412010-09-02T06:35:52.066-05:002010-09-02T06:35:52.066-05:00I was not gonna comment on the language issue BUT
...I was not gonna comment on the language issue BUT<br /><br />Sue said<br /><br />"When someone starts using sailor swears....I sense that I am not dealing with an enlightened individual.."<br /><br />I am sorry that you like to jump to conclusions about people based on the fact that they use robust langauge.<br /><br />The claim that by not using the the full range of English vocabulary somehow shows that you are more enlightened, intelligent etc. always amuses me.<br /><br />Incidently Matt is a former navy man so he is no doubt well practised in the use of 'sailor swears'.Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16439248183580550162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83409256019687874912010-09-02T06:05:52.357-05:002010-09-02T06:05:52.357-05:00@Sue:"No. She answered questions. She was dif...@Sue:<i>"No. She answered questions. She was difficult but she answered questions."</i><br /><br />At the risk of sounding patronising, I fear you're being a tad naive. She answered the questions she found easy. But there came a Rubicon moment where she resorted to, as another put it, 'bumper-sticker platitudes'.<br /><br /><i>Whoa. No. Why should we get angry when someone is demonstrating their irrationality right in front of No God and everybody?</i><br /><br />Because:<br />1) Many ex-theists criticise their atheist friends for not having been forceful <i>enough</i>.<br />2) Many people don't like being played for 'silly buggers' by having their input swept aside with repeated proselytizing.<br />3) The 'let them make their own noose' approach only works if there are substantial fence-sitters listening in. Perhaps that was the case here. Often it is not.<br />4) We're only human ;-P<br />5) I did say "eventually" lose their temper - perhaps you have the patience to put up with predictable evasions... I'm afraid I don't.Pombolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16735540265123793662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29888538506395039492010-09-02T04:37:36.486-05:002010-09-02T04:37:36.486-05:00@Sue-"Yeah, the F-bomb prevented Matt from ex...@Sue-"Yeah, the F-bomb prevented Matt from exposing Denise's almost certain next fallacy"<br /><br />That may be so, but Denise was blabbering the same cliché over and over again and after a while it gets tiresome and one gets impatient, especially since she was cutting the hosts systematically (and I think in bad faith) to repeat her credo. I find Matt's impatience perfectly understandable.Guillaumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376749604845793465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77517706960246518062010-09-02T00:42:38.655-05:002010-09-02T00:42:38.655-05:00(from above)
Ugh. Sorry to rant, but I just got ...<i>(from above)</i><br /><br />Ugh. Sorry to rant, but I just got out of a discussion with an intelligent design freak who, after about exactly twenty-five minutes of failing to make a solid point, gave me the "well, it's all just your belief" line and walked out with his nose in the air. Honestly, I'll say that the Denise conversation would have gone better without the "fuck." However, she's the one in the wrong here; a real advocate would have marched right on with renewed vigor after that. <br /><br />Really, I have very little problem with her taking offense; <i>prima facie</i>, civility's not an onerous request. My problem is with her taking her offense and walking out with it. In formal debate, a critique of language, form, or procedure is usually employed to gain breathing room and to get the other party to ratchet back their rhetoric, not to expedite a hasty exit from the room. It's a verbal parry, and as such, it's valid and useful so long as it's followed by a riposte or rebuttal of some sort. Even if she'd said, "let's all cool our heads and talk about this next week," she'd have actually taken some high ground -- I don't think there's a lot Matt could have said to that, save, "lookin' forward to it." Except...well, now I'm beating a dead horse to death, after seventy others have had their say. <br /><br />In short, I hope she calls again. She automatically gets to claim to her flock that she has "reformed" the behavior of the hosts, because TAE hosts won't give <i>her</i> that particular opening again. She'll get plenty of advice back in her little enclave, if she doesn't ban or ignore everyone that tells her she could have done better. Heck, maybe she'll call in sober, now that she's aware (if not in a paradigm-shifting way) that she was on the track to quickly losing a very basic argument. <br /><br />Keep it up, TAE. I'm watchin' the next one live.ribidonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08973791281339001923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-41549038425424553612010-09-02T00:42:02.406-05:002010-09-02T00:42:02.406-05:00The religious are explicitly taught to argue in ba...The religious are explicitly taught to argue in bad faith. It's why religious discussion has gone precisely nowhere despite thousands of years of activity. There's no policing and no accountability. They can run the gamut of rational fallacy from <i>ad absurdum</i> to wishful thinking with impunity -- who the <i>fuck</i> (yes, <b><i>who the fuck</i></b>) is going to call them on it? In science, if someone makes a boneheaded claim, their paper gets filed under "birdcage fodder" and their employment may well get terminated. If some devout good-for-nothing pushes mushy-headed tripe at the pulpit, at worst, they'll get shuttled off to do outreach work. More likely, and especially if they were boisterous in their sermonizing, they'll attract a big fat flock of authority-seekers, join the regional circle of like-minded cajolers, and spend the rest of their working career drinking good bourbon and playing golf five-and-a-half days a week. <br /><br />The religious just <i>love</i> to wax philosophical about how those that lack a God lack a moral compass. Guess what? The people WITH a God <i>demonstrably</i> lack a moral or ethical compass, since what they have< amounts to a series of childish "because I said so" unqualified appeals to authority. Denise is like someone who came to play chess, lost five pieces in ten moves, then turned over the table in a huff when the opponent had the gall to say "you fucked up." That doesn't make her righteous; that makes her stuck-up, short-tempered, and outright craven -- wasn't she supposed to be witnessing for a just god under attack? <br /><br /><i>(cont'd -- if the first, unbroken one got through in spite of the error, then moderator, please ignore this post and the next)</i>ribidonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08973791281339001923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80735577092542503862010-09-02T00:39:19.315-05:002010-09-02T00:39:19.315-05:00The religious are explicitly taught to argue in ba...The religious are explicitly taught to argue in bad faith. It's why religious discussion has gone precisely nowhere despite thousands of years of activity. There's no policing and no accountability. They can run the gamut of rational fallacy from <i>ad absurdum</i> to wishful thinking with impunity -- who the <i>fuck</i> (yes, <b><i>who the fuck</i></b>) is going to call them on it? In science, if someone makes a boneheaded claim, their paper gets filed under "birdcage fodder" and their employment may well get terminated. If some devout good-for-nothing pushes mushy-headed tripe at the pulpit, at worst, they'll get shuttled off to do outreach work. More likely, and especially if they were boisterous in their sermonizing, they'll attract a big fat flock of authority-seekers, join the regional circle of like-minded cajolers, and spend the rest of their working career drinking good bourbon and playing golf five-and-a-half days a week. <br /><br />The religious just <i>love</i> to wax philosophical about how those that lack a God lack a moral compass. Guess what? The people WITH a God <i>demonstrably</i> lack a moral or ethical compass, since what they have< amounts to a series of childish "because I said so" unqualified appeals to authority. Denise is like someone who came to play chess, lost five pieces in ten moves, then turned over the table in a huff when the opponent had the gall to say "you fucked up." That doesn't make her righteous; that makes her stuck-up, short-tempered, and outright craven -- wasn't she supposed to be witnessing for a just god under attack? <br /><br />Ugh. Sorry to rant, but I just got out of a discussion with an intelligent design freak who, after about exactly twenty-five minutes of failing to make a solid point, gave me the "well, it's all just your belief" line and walked out with his nose in the air. Honestly, I'll say that the Denise conversation would have gone better without the "fuck." However, she's the one in the wrong here; a real advocate would have marched right on with renewed vigor after that. <br /><br />Really, I have very little problem with her taking offense; <i>prima facie</i>, civility's not an onerous request. My problem is with her taking her offense and walking out with it. In formal debate, a critique of language, form, or procedure is usually employed to gain breathing room and to get the other party to ratchet back their rhetoric, not to expedite a hasty exit from the room. It's a verbal parry, and as such, it's valid and useful so long as it's followed by a riposte or rebuttal of some sort. Even if she'd said, "let's all cool our heads and talk about this next week," she'd have actually taken some high ground -- I don't think there's a lot Matt could have said to that, save, "lookin' forward to it." Except...well, now I'm beating a dead horse to death, after seventy others have had their say. <br /><br />In short, I hope she calls again. She automatically gets to claim to her flock that she has "reformed" the behavior of the hosts, because TAE hosts won't give <i>her</i> that particular opening again. She'll get plenty of advice back in her little enclave, if she doesn't ban or ignore everyone that tells her she could have done better. Heck, maybe she'll call in sober, now that she's aware (if not in a paradigm-shifting way) that she was on the track to quickly losing a very basic argument. <br /><br />Keep it up, TAE. I'm watchin' the next one live.ribidonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08973791281339001923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49829279923642158562010-09-02T00:05:29.870-05:002010-09-02T00:05:29.870-05:00... part 2
(Sorry, I didn't realize this was ...... part 2<br /><br />(Sorry, I didn't realize this was so long. But I hope you think it<br />is worth posting.)<br /><br />".. petulance." No. When someone starts using sailor swears, whether it is about atheism or federal reserve policy, I sense that I am not dealing with an enlightened individual and that the conversation has deteriorated to an unproductive level.<br /><br />"politeness from us is just and invitation for [theists to] carry on.." Let them. Let them carry on making asses of themselves. Let them win the race to the bottom. We are gaining the high ground. Secularism is on the rise. Kitzmiller v. Dover drove a stake in theocracy's heart. The recent Prop 8 decision drove it in harder.<br /><br />--------------<br />My two cents:<br /><br />Your typical theist only thinks one fallacy ahead. They will often admit one fallacy when they think they have the corresponding apology in their pocket. But of course the apology is also fallacious. Let them lay out and commit to the apology before pointing out its fallacy. Rinse and repeat.<br /><br />Let them lay out their whole string of apologies. Layout the whole string of fallacies without demanding the theist accept them. (The audience will decide for themselves.)<br /><br />If Matt had gotten to the mafia boss extortion analogy I believe Denise would have apologized that God tortures non-believers for "right" and "good" reasons. Then Matt could have countered citing the special pleading fallacy.<br /><br />There are honest theists. I've only encountered two. Their only honest argument is "I like this story. It makes me feel good." I say, Go in peace my friend (but don't try to convert my kids).<br /><br /><br />xoxox SueSuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09004693922783338240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47387246535198698082010-09-01T23:58:32.048-05:002010-09-01T23:58:32.048-05:00@Ing
"What sort of attitude should we give h...@Ing<br /><br />"What sort of attitude should we give her?" Rational, civil, and unshaken. Let her win the race to the bottom.<br /><br />@Guillaume<br /><br />"... I understand Matt's anger." (playing believer's advocate:) Of course. He's an atheist. Atheists are angry.<br /><br />Yeah, the F-bomb prevented Matt from exposing Denise's almost certain next fallacy: the special pleading that it is good/right/OK when God enforces torture.<br /><br />@Jarahdai<br /><br />"I've noticed a theists only tactic..." The tactics of dishonest theists are legion. (There are honest theists, e.g. Martin Gardner.) <br /><br />@Pombolo<br /><br />"Denise ... had no intent to ... respond..." No. She answered questions. She was difficult but she answered questions. She acknowledged that God created hell. She acknowledged that God made the rules. (And kudos to Matt for getting that far. He could have gotten farther.)<br /><br />"When, inevitably, the [atheist] loses their temper..." Whoa. No. Why should we get angry when someone is demonstrating their irrationality right in front of No God and everybody?<br /><br />(end of part 1........Suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09004693922783338240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33906845995891204832010-09-01T22:21:31.147-05:002010-09-01T22:21:31.147-05:00The thing I noticed is that Denise was clearly loo...The thing I noticed is that Denise was clearly looking for an excuse to hang up before the f-bomb dropped--hence the "get a word in edgewise" comment. She expected a soapbox and a couple of rubes who would be impressed with her bumper sticker platitudes, and instead she got Matt and Jeff. <br /><br />She called them "ridiculous," said that rejecting Jesus was the "dumbest thing you could possibly do," but she got high and mighty over <i>their</i> incivility? Yeah, screw her and the horse she rode in on.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.com