tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post6831923730505580923..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: The Source of Human Morality debate videosUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger281125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16499669002786952512011-04-02T18:33:11.277-05:002011-04-02T18:33:11.277-05:00Jacobse employs an escalating amount of verbose an...Jacobse employs an escalating amount of verbose and irrelevant blather in his dialog. He failed to directly address most of Matt's and the audience's questions.B-Man9666https://www.blogger.com/profile/15605854927553652580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47594315481554676802011-01-05T02:48:59.477-06:002011-01-05T02:48:59.477-06:00Is it me are most of F. Hans' evidence for God...Is it me are most of F. Hans' evidence for God's hand in the morality of humans actually just human art, human literature, human music (and not the purported word of god, ie. the bible)? So his proof that god gives us morality is that humans have morality (as seen in the so-called 'higher' artistic endeavors of humanity). Further, the fact that such art makes him feel good, or might make him a 'better' person is proof that it is at the least inspired by and at the most purposefully put into us by God. That art is relative too, just like human morality and any other human endeavor doesn't matter to him. Russian literature is for him essentially more moral than Madonna. The former is proof of God and the latter is the ruin brought about by secularism. He ignores the fact that he is necessarily making a moral judgement of the two art forms when he argues that the one form is evidence of God's moral truth. Is it me or is there something wrong with this - it's like he's saying 'this is moral because it's moral' or something. I can't quite put my finger on it but something seems wrong here. If anyone smarter than me can expand on this, I would appreciate it.frejahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13513645103159042315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86556465202624254162010-12-11T12:39:57.070-06:002010-12-11T12:39:57.070-06:00My goodness. I have never seen someone beat around...My goodness. I have never seen someone beat around the proverbial burning bush as much as the "father." <br /><br />Thank you, Matt, for the short and efficient answers.blindmansleepshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15353229728679452286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50042523396656654592010-12-07T19:13:52.477-06:002010-12-07T19:13:52.477-06:00Wow. Get this:
I’ve been arguing with Jacobse in...Wow. Get this: <br /><br />I’ve been arguing with Jacobse in the debate discussion at the <a href="http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2010/11/debate-done-went-well-post-tomorrow/" rel="nofollow">AOI blog</a>, correcting Jacobse again and again about what atheism is, so he comes back with “you clearly don’t understand atheism in any comprehensive way”! <br /><br />So there you have it. If you don’t believe all the things Jacobse, authority on atheists, says atheists believe, that means <i>you</i> don’t understand atheism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13113358989259865484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53173690532561579492010-11-29T22:57:01.658-06:002010-11-29T22:57:01.658-06:00Catherine, thanks. Not surprising. It's not ...Catherine, thanks. Not surprising. It's not much different from who I'm talking with at the other blog. It looks like the conversation there is dead there (the last post was on the 20th). If it wasn't dead, I'd drop a few padded comments there to see who is honest or has the potential of getting a clue.Hermeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06248973396043889035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45117169276522846872010-11-29T22:33:17.512-06:002010-11-29T22:33:17.512-06:00Orthodox chatter about the debate: http://www.aoiu...Orthodox chatter about the debate: http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2010/11/debate-done-went-well-post-tomorrow/<br /><br />Almost every single theist (the Orthodox ones anyway) seemed wholly impressed by Fr. Hans performance. Some of them even felt the need to point out that because they'd heard everything that atheists have to say before, they skipped watching all of Matt's parts to focus on Hans. How unsurprising. -CatherineUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504058696836595883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67521195800470431672010-11-28T16:01:48.276-06:002010-11-28T16:01:48.276-06:00Rosemary, to continue...
When Christopher Hitchen...Rosemary, to continue...<br /><br />When Christopher Hitchens talks about the numinous and when Daniel Dennett talks about his love of music including specifically religious music, both are touching on what the priest is strangely claiming for himself and his group only. Then, he hijacks it as a bludgeon to slam his philosophical enemies with. It is a clown's toy hammer.<br /><br />At best, his actions stems from his lack of curiosity with the world. At worst, he's intentionally manipulating his flock while being keenly disinterested in honesty.Hermeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06248973396043889035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48776993839144416642010-11-28T15:47:04.963-06:002010-11-28T15:47:04.963-06:00Rosemary, fiction is true in the sense that it com...Rosemary, fiction is true in the sense that it communicates a general truth to many people.<br /><br />I -- like you -- don't think it is more true than real life.<br /><br />It is through living that those writers are able to distill what they find true while they make fictional characters and situations. That the writers he promotes still make it up does not seem to matter to this priest. Yes, by all means discuss the issues the writers raise but don't mistake a portrait for a real person.<br /><br />Yet, this is exactly his mistake. He let his prejudice -- his shallow fictional understanding of people -- define his reality.<br /><br />If you notice how he approaches atheists and atheism, though, he treats us as if we are some character in a novel. He's not interested in reality, but in the abstractions he can distill from his limited view of his own presuppositions. In the process, he makes a character of himself, and not an endearing one.Hermeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06248973396043889035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59842870167003550412010-11-28T15:26:59.424-06:002010-11-28T15:26:59.424-06:00The first paragraph should be in quotes. I hope I...The first paragraph should be in quotes. I hope I wouldn't be silly enough to say that. :-)Rosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022043771294966332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13021288895419975552010-11-28T15:25:13.490-06:002010-11-28T15:25:13.490-06:00So something can be imaginary - okay - but still v...So something can be imaginary - okay - but still very true. The novel of Dostoevsky's. All the characters are imaginary they never lived. But they are truer than life.<br /><br />What esoteric meaning does this guy give to the word “truth” and what has it to do with the word “moral”? <br /><br />What is an imaginary truth? And why is it really “true”?<br /><br />What is “true” about life? How, exactly, is it “true”? How can fictitious characters be more “true” than real ones? <br /><br /><br />Further, what is “transcendental truth”? How does it differ from non-transcendent truth?<br /><br /><br /><br />Jacobse’s woolly reasoning about the “transcendent truth” of “good” literature and music could lead to something like this.<br /><br />“Your Honor, I would like to point out that my client is a writer and composer of fine music and so he is therefore telling a transcendent truth that is more valuable than materialistic truth. He is thus, transcendentally innocent of all materialistic charges.“<br /><br />If you were his/her Honor, would you buy this?Rosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022043771294966332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86271526139364883922010-11-28T10:29:51.634-06:002010-11-28T10:29:51.634-06:00dc1983, on point II;
The priest is implicitly cla...dc1983, on point II;<br /><br />The priest is implicitly claiming the presupposational position of some protestants even though he is not a protestant. It's a subjective solipsistic power grab and should be smacked down whenever it shows up. So, he has the truth (small and large t) and he knows by necessity that those who do not are wrong since he's right. That's why he was so strident and had no qualms about atheist bogyman scare tactics that don't address what Matt actually said or what most of the atheists listing to him think.<br /><br />That's why I frequently attempt to get theist to acknowledge the basics and to go from there. Many rank and file theists just don't know or even think about what the issues are, and get dragged off on issues that are irrelevant.<br /><br />Once I get them to acknowledge what is the case as opposed to what they thought before, and that I'm not a stiff puppet taking an inflexible position, I get them to acknowledge those basics;<br /><br />* I'm not unreasonably stubborn. Please, if I'm wrong, convince me what is right and I'll accept it. Really.<br /><br />* Nobody gets special privileges.<br /><br />* Nobody gets to put words in another person's mouth.<br /><br />* Material reality exists. It's up to them to show the extra non-material aspects.<br /><br />* You can't toss out logic and reason using logic and reason.<br /><br />* An argument made in one place can be re-used by your opponent.<br /><br />* Don't argue what is already supported by the specialists in another field. You're wasting your time educating someone in a short conversation, and most people don't have the stamina or honesty for longer conversations where those fields can actually be explored. So, don't do it.<br /><br />The basics. Most bad arguments fall apart if these are addressed firmly but in a relaxed manner.Hermeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06248973396043889035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81820317180049386052010-11-28T09:40:55.376-06:002010-11-28T09:40:55.376-06:00@optifaster "Anyone feel like having a go at ...@optifaster "Anyone feel like having a go at a properly worded response for the "reason/logic doesn't allow for beauty/creativity/wonderment" argument?<br /><br />I know what my response means, but I also know it's flat and unclear for those who don't already agree with me."<br /><br />I think the position is based on personal bias. It is yet another straw man.<br /><br />I see two possible meanings in Fr. What's-his-name's critique.<br />I. Possible meaning: "Emphasis on logic and reason makes one incapable of appreciating beauty, being creative and experiencing wonder."<br /><br />Reason and logic are pathways to discovery. For those able to comprehend the beauty of discovered truth, creativity and wonderment follow.<br /><br />I think whenever somebody follows an author like Stephen Hawking in his popular work "The Grand Design," and begins to comprehend what it is saying, it blows the mind (potentially, anyway). <br /><br />When I read the work and struggled in the concepts I was amazed once I caught a glimmer of what the various scientific endeavors had uncovered about the universe.<br /><br />Ultimately, Hawking may turn out to be incorrect at many points. His whole picture of the universe may fall apart like a jigsaw puzzle tossed to the ground.<br /><br />If I were a more creative person, I might have written a poem or painted a picture. Unfortunately, the images and expressions of wonderment are locked inside me like speech as a mode of expression may be locked up inside a stroke victim. But for others, I know the "path of reason and logic" can lead to great works of creative expression.<br /><br />II. Possible meaning: "The father may be trying to say that appreciation of beauty , engaging in creativity and standing in wonderment may themselves be pathway to truth."<br /><br />The priest not yet shown that Truth is a property of the universe. <br /><br />This leaves me with the impression that he considers the subjective sensations about a moment of comprehending a perceived truth, the private thoughts and unconnected eruptions of internal dialog that may transpire when caught up in an "aha" moment of meditation and study to be just as valid discoveries as the discovery of DNA, black holes or anaerobic organisms living in the hot water vents at the bottom of the sea.<br /><br />The question that Matt posed to him and that he refused to answer was, "Is this truth accessible to everyone?" Do you use reason and logic to come to this universally available truth? Or do you use reason plus something else? What is the something else?<br /><br />Since he could not support his assertions about the nature of Truth, the point of view as expressed in my interpretation in pt. II is rather useless. <br /><br />I think this is what the priest meant by "reason/logic doesn't allow for beauty/creativity/wonderment," but if true, so what? It just doesn't follow that reason and logic NEED to allow for these concepts as pathways to truth.dc1983https://www.blogger.com/profile/17225378137175602581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62022103666494880132010-11-28T08:12:12.748-06:002010-11-28T08:12:12.748-06:00Optifaster, I have a stub of what you're askin...Optifaster, I have a stub of what you're asking for in some comments I've posted here and elsewhere, and I'm not loathe to refine it for popular use.<br /><br />Unfortunately, these people have an infinitely deep list of make believe accusations. It's time to stop defending what defends itself and to point that out. The priest has a social agenda pushed like a politician. Have a response to the nonsense? Yes, of course, yet demonstrate it is nonsense and then step over the flotsam that the unethical theists keep throwing to slow us down and keep us away from the point.<br /><br />That's why I don't defend naturalism, science, logic, nor do I feel the need to prove atheism. I'm entirely willing to agree with people I currently disagree with if they have the goods. In public, the emphasis should be that they do not have the goods.<br /><br />So, I agree with you in principle. Where I disagree is on the emphasis. Do we spend all of our time on their agenda and not hold them accountable for their nonsense?Hermeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06248973396043889035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64444923941286278292010-11-28T07:56:39.578-06:002010-11-28T07:56:39.578-06:00@Hermes: Invariably the burden of proof is on the ...@Hermes: Invariably the burden of proof is on the accuser, but it would be a hard stretch to assume that the majority of audiences realise this fact.<br /><br />It's the reason a few scientific, naturalist and athiest organisations advise against debating - the opposition brings nothing but strawn men so why bother debating? It just gives them a platform.<br /><br />So if you're going to engage in a debate it's important to be able to counter the wishy washy emotional appeals to said strawmen. If you don't, you give the supporters of the likes of Hans no pause for thought - their misapprehensions are confirmed by the lack of response.BloggytheBloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373977167347907630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59405941680883684352010-11-27T23:01:07.952-06:002010-11-27T23:01:07.952-06:00Great debate! Just wanted to give a big "Than...Great debate! Just wanted to give a big "Thank you" to the entire TAE team, y'all have not only presented a heap of helpful information over the years, but have also provided more than a few laughs along the way.<br /><br />Also, i'd like to personally congratulate Matt on and a strong performance, you rock dude. Your direct and "plain English" responses are hallmarks i've come to expected (and admire) from many episodes of TAE. You and AronRa are at the top of my "favorite Atheist activists" list. ;-)<br /><br /><br />ps. i'd bitch about how pathetic Father Jacobse's arguments where, but i believe that avenue of discussion has been throughly exhausted. the debate started good, but got pretty sad towards the end.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761817195997547710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6205670728946010972010-11-27T14:44:31.557-06:002010-11-27T14:44:31.557-06:00Part 2 @ 2:45 Hans says "Does atheism even ac...Part 2 @ 2:45 Hans says "Does atheism even acknowledge the independent existence of the transcendent? Or any being or even principle apart of matter?"<br /><br />Yes, as a concept. A concept/idea/thought may come from the brain which is matter, but the concept/idea/thought itself is non-matter. Thus, if the concept/idea/thought we're talking about is god, or some independent existence, than I would accept that, but only as a concept/idea/thought.mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15717026696490327080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51479685493773256202010-11-27T10:21:01.691-06:002010-11-27T10:21:01.691-06:00Optifaster, just ask an artist that produces art t...Optifaster, just ask an artist that produces art that requires technical abilities. A novelist, for example. The problem is that the priest takes logic and reason for granted or as a gift from his idea of a deity, and not that none is required or used.<br /><br />I could expand on that to make a full argument, but the burden of proof is on his side not ours.Hermeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06248973396043889035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68175700727163754262010-11-27T06:17:04.878-06:002010-11-27T06:17:04.878-06:00Anyone feel like having a go at a properly worded ...Anyone feel like having a go at a properly worded response for the "reason/logic doesn't allow for beauty/creativity/wonderment" argument?<br /><br />I know what my response means, but I also know it's flat and unclear for those who don't already agree with me.<br /><br />So wordy folks, get wordy!BloggytheBloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373977167347907630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36874502134185586902010-11-26T18:42:43.921-06:002010-11-26T18:42:43.921-06:00Is it just me or did anyone else notice when the C...Is it just me or did anyone else notice when the Christian would talk about Atheists he would always make a point to say "Now I don't think this about Matt, he's not like the others" in some way or another?<br /><br />Let's try another statement:<br /><br />I like Bob, he's not like all the other black people.<br /><br />Notice both statements are dripping with prejudice.<br /><br />I'm curious as to how much hate that guy is repressing toward Atheists and how much of his reason is being clouded by it.<br /><br />Another problem was when he began talking about the creation story as a narrative. The Christian stated that he looks at all the other creation stories as narratives and basically decided what jives with him the best. I took this to mean he feels Big Bang Cosmology and Evolution to also be narratives. <br /><br />The problem with this is Big Bang Cosmology and The Theory of Evolution provide empirical evidence to support the so-called "narrative". These other creation stories do not.<br /><br />Thanks for coming to MD. Sucks I couldn't make it down there to watch this live.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12608663741289574410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81289874706640318242010-11-26T14:29:13.298-06:002010-11-26T14:29:13.298-06:00Part 1 of the panel is now up! http://www.youtube...Part 1 of the panel is now up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21w_Nx96Jhc<br /><br />Part 2 is uploading to YouTube right now.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504058696836595883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23063497376237883432010-11-26T10:34:22.017-06:002010-11-26T10:34:22.017-06:00Well, it got me. I posted something last night, c...Well, it got me. I posted something last night, checked on it, and then left. It's not there anymore. Not even a 'post removed' message.Hermeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06248973396043889035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2080550373972575202010-11-26T09:45:49.351-06:002010-11-26T09:45:49.351-06:00Actually guys, I haven't touched the comments ...Actually guys, I haven't touched the comments and moderation has been disabled, allowing freer access. What probably has been going on is the usual Blogger glitchiness. Sorry for that, but unless you're a useless spamtroll like Markuze, your comments won't get plonked.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29621305170038427332010-11-26T09:00:02.665-06:002010-11-26T09:00:02.665-06:00"Odd, I posted a comment yesterday and it has..."Odd, I posted a comment yesterday and it hasn't appeared."<br /><br />It looks like some comments were reset late last night. For example, Mr. Conspiracy Theory at the tail end of the first page of comments had been removed but was restored for a little bit. The moderators seem to have noticed that, and have re-removed him.<br /><br />One of my comments were lost entirely in the shuffle, though.Hermeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06248973396043889035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52550586856845711782010-11-26T06:44:04.392-06:002010-11-26T06:44:04.392-06:00Odd, I posted a comment yesterday and it hasn'...Odd, I posted a comment yesterday and it hasn't appeared.<br /><br />In it I suggested that Matt (and all atheist debaters) have a standard response to that oft brought up "if you use reason/logic you can't account for beauty and music and creativity so therefore you have to connect with God/the Transcendant/the divine/aliens/David Bowie to explain the universe" argument.<br /><br />Matt didn't really address that outlandish claim. The claim itself clearly uses "Spock Logic", where emotions are considered illogical and unreasonable. The confusion here is often that they think because we accept logic and reason as the best way of devising truth, we reject the value of anything emotional or creative. Clearly, this is a Spock based misapprehension.<br /><br />Indeed, I personally love emotional and creative things, and they CAN be an avenue to truth and to superior morals. They are clearly things that exist, and perhaps only nihilists might deny they do and I doubt most of them would. The important thing is that emotional and creative ideas be filtered through the logical and reasoning filter using the best just assumptions to guide that filter we can.<br /><br />Anyway. I'm not eloquent.<br /><br />But I think when this sort of strawman is presented by the likes of Hans it's important that the likes of Matt address this immediately and not let him repeat it unchallenged.BloggytheBloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373977167347907630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43911935170424078262010-11-26T00:52:21.922-06:002010-11-26T00:52:21.922-06:00There would have been more atheists in the audienc...There would have been more atheists in the audience, but many of us had gone to a similar session on Monday night, and with that load of bullshit piled on top of the bullshit from the OCF side of the debate, we were all bullshit-ted out. Only one or two brave souls went to their debate follow-up the next day. <br /><br />The video quality for the debate was really excellent, I was impressed. For both post-events, it could have been way better. Since we didn't have access to any equipment, the OCF guy had to film for us. I would have done a better job, but we all had way too much to do on our end to track down a camera. Future talks and events will likely go up on our channel as well [We're accepting donations of used small HD cameras! :) <br /><br />The SSA follow-up was immediately after the debate, and is rendering overnight and should be up sometime tomorrow, depending on YouTube uploading speed. It was actually more interesting than the debate, in my opinion, because it was more informal. Subscribe to the secularUMBC youtube channel to see it. -CatherineUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504058696836595883noreply@blogger.com