tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post828287685795259530..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: How to mismanage a call on live TV...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger181125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37879557506948229662010-11-05T05:39:14.435-05:002010-11-05T05:39:14.435-05:00Charles is a walking talking example of the Dunnin...Charles is a walking talking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...<br /><br />The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence: because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about othersAnimalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13753501181718699213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7551567541553020612010-08-22T09:27:36.110-05:002010-08-22T09:27:36.110-05:00Kazim you are awesome! :D
Charles I hope you wat...Kazim you are awesome! :D <br /><br />Charles I hope you watch inception one day because you are one crrrazzy ass mother fucker.jackiesaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007270083790016724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6660151891111078222010-06-16T12:17:51.149-05:002010-06-16T12:17:51.149-05:00I finally caught up and listened to the episode. ...I finally caught up and listened to the episode. "You're a SOLOPSIST?!" from Jeff and Matt in tandem has to be the single greatest moment I have heard on TAE. Absolutely freaking hilarious.Guy Umbrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18090409013919624823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12912451851009596322010-06-04T22:37:10.807-05:002010-06-04T22:37:10.807-05:00Great work, aNadder.
Along with my other criticis...Great work, aNadder.<br /><br />Along with my other criticisms on how this call was responded to, I think that when C said he was a solipsist, the fair response from the hosts should have been to ask him what HE meant by 'solipsist'; there's more than one definition, and only one of them would merit that reaction from M & J.Permafrosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02449481689152555938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37519281033305024552010-06-01T04:45:46.929-05:002010-06-01T04:45:46.929-05:00I thought this was the most epic call I've eve...I thought this was the most epic call I've ever seen on AETV, with the most facepalms. So I just had to transcribe it. If you're interested, <a href="http://anadder.com/youre-a-solipsist" rel="nofollow">here it is</a>. If not sorry for flogging the dead horse!a Nadderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06945133706520377518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33797323028333064002010-06-01T00:01:54.125-05:002010-06-01T00:01:54.125-05:00Chuckles?
ahahahahahhahaha
Chuckles.....Chuckles?<br /><br /><br />ahahahahahhahaha<br /><br />Chuckles.....magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84046517175033843022010-05-31T21:05:06.888-05:002010-05-31T21:05:06.888-05:00Mag,
Now that remark is a logical phallacy.
Ahem...Mag,<br /><br />Now that remark is a logical phallacy.<br /><br />Ahem.<br /><br />aNad,<br /><br />Spot on recap. Again, you cover in just a few plain sentences what Chuckles could not make clear in all the paragraphs he wrote.George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5597943926308384882010-05-30T22:50:04.600-05:002010-05-30T22:50:04.600-05:00Charles, for someone with such illusions of grandi...Charles, for someone with such illusions of grandiosity and intellectual superiority, you sure do one FUCK of a good job not being able to grasp the fallacious nature of generalizations.<br /><br />You're also a dick.magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55285714834081235792010-05-24T20:12:57.727-05:002010-05-24T20:12:57.727-05:00Oops, by "now know it" I meant "not...Oops, by "now know it" I meant "not know it"a Nadderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06945133706520377518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36591790487292050082010-05-24T17:16:45.493-05:002010-05-24T17:16:45.493-05:00Looks like I got to the party a few days late -- j...Looks like I got to the party a few days late -- just heard the call on my way to work and did the spit take at the "you're a solipsist?!" bit.<br /><br />As a reductionist transhumanist, let me outline what I think the caller was getting at. Even though there's no point engaging with him this particular argument is at least worth thinking about, if only to see how best to refute.<br /><br />I think this is what he was presenting:<br />1. There are souls and therefore mind uploading only creates a zombie-like creature that mimics your behaviour without the real "you" being present.<br />2. Evil philistine reductionists like Ray Kurzweil create mind uploading technology and convince billions to upload themselves, shedding their bodies.<br />3. However because of #1, this will effectively be the greatest mass suicide in history. Although those who have not uploaded themselves will now know it there is still a fact of the matter and if there is a soul they are likely to have killed themselves.<br />4. Therefore, hey presto, reductionist materialism is dangerous.a Nadderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06945133706520377518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70056622520027245072010-05-24T09:30:13.339-05:002010-05-24T09:30:13.339-05:00On TAE show, instead of fishing for logical contra...<i>On TAE show, instead of fishing for logical contradictions in the way believers explain themselves... the hosts could propose thought experiments through which the callers’ underlying political and social motivations are brought to the surface...</i><br /><br />...And if those personal motivations are used instead of addressing the caller's claims, then that would be an <i>ad hominem</i>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52182347473803175572010-05-23T23:02:00.596-05:002010-05-23T23:02:00.596-05:00You're actually asking whether I think there&#...<i>You're actually asking whether I think there's no practical, political use in atheists' publicly questioning and attacking those claims.</i><br /><br />You're squishing practical and political together there. It doesn't need to be political to be practical (even by wide definitions). I don't think question was necessarily about a 'practical political' purpose, but any purpose at all.<br /><br />You're talking about people as groups or demographics, and as such political purpose is probably the only thing you can see, but groups are made up of individuals - and when you're talking to one person, rather than addressing them as a group then there is a very clear purpose in addressing the points that <i>they</i> think are important. If those points are philosophical/metaphysical rather than political in nature then it may well be a big waste of time to go around arguing about consequences (political outcomes) of the beliefs.<br /><br />Again, the obvious purpose is to address an individual's perspective, not the perspective of the group he/she belongs to. There is usually a vast difference between the two, as to how people rationalise their beliefs rather than how they <i>actually</i> came to believe them. After all, you can't go back and change how they were brought up.Paukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08254574123678456537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86523604899600044692010-05-23T09:55:55.198-05:002010-05-23T09:55:55.198-05:00George,
I wouldn't go so far as the second par...George,<br />I wouldn't go so far as the second part, though the first part is certainly a taunting question. One of the points put forward by atheists is that broadly speaking one's religion is an accident of birth – meaning it's geo-politically determined. Therefore, if most people tend to go along with the specific doctrinal and truth claims which are prevalent in their environment, then it doesn't really matter what those claims are for people to uphold them, as long as they fit into a human-scale narrative (because if all religion is an attempt to rationalize the world, to fit it into a system, then there's no place for a belief that doesn't sound minimally plausible in the middle ground where we exist). So I tend to answer that the specific doctrinal and truth claims of any given religion don't matter as long as those claims are able to bond people together as political forces. (On the other hand, it does matter what those claims are specifically: for instance, I cannot imagine a show like TAE in a "Muslim" country. But all this does is to reinforce the interpretation that each religious doctrine does have its own political consequences.)<br /><br />But I guess you're not really asking me about that aspect. You're actually asking whether I think there's no practical, political use in atheists' publicly questioning and attacking those claims. Again I tend to answer no, there isn't, though it's a lot of fun. My point is, if you do not believe those claims, then your explanation to why they exist HAS to be mundane, and you have to attack the source reason(s) for why they are made in the first place, as well as their expedient political use. Any group of people will grab hold of any minimally plausible abstraction within its grasp if it helps preserve its unity and further its mundane goals; but while the group confuses the abstractions themselves with the group's mundane goals, it's a big mistake on the atheists' side to confuse them too. Science in general and Darwin's theory and its behavioural consequences in particular have been demonstrating that the mundane IS the norm, and it should be obvious by now that interpreting a believer's claims on their face value will rather confirm their relevance than serve to debunk them.<br /><br />On TAE show, instead of fishing for logical contradictions in the way believers explain themselves (that is, instead of just *responding* to supernatural claims), the hosts could propose thought experiments through which the callers’ underlying political and social motivations are brought to the surface, and then look at those according to their acceptability or desirability in a democracy.Permafrosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02449481689152555938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76595523876523059192010-05-23T08:08:45.364-05:002010-05-23T08:08:45.364-05:00Why is Reductionism Rude? asks Katja Grace on her ...<a href="http://meteuphoric.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/why-is-reductionism-rude/" rel="nofollow">Why is Reductionism Rude?</a> asks Katja Grace on her blog "Meteuphoric". She highlights many of the objections to what is called "reductionism" (I think "reductionism" is the most absurdly misused term--at least as it is used commonly--especially when considering that the alternate hypothesis to so-called simplistic reductionism is, "God did it, now shut up!" I've never understood how refusing to even <i>attempt</i> to understand something is somehow to be seen as honoring it.).Ron Streleckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13497476944399752097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26648771400267924932010-05-22T18:43:19.185-05:002010-05-22T18:43:19.185-05:00Perma,
Just to clear something up...
Is it your ...Perma,<br /><br />Just to clear something up...<br /><br />Is it your position that the actual, specific doctrinal and truth claims of a given religion don't matter, or are irrelevant to its social impact or the behavior of its adherents?George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30961452162036305912010-05-21T09:19:24.400-05:002010-05-21T09:19:24.400-05:00"I'm thinking there is some kind of kriss..."I'm thinking there is some kind of kriss-krossing going on in your definitions or something."<br /><br />It may be because I'm not limiting the definition of politics to "government politics" or "party politics". I hinted at this when I half-defined politics as "negotiating for the future". All politics is a negotiation between two or more parties in order to decide how to allocate resources for the future. The parties bring to bear mainly three things: their interpretation of the past, their assessment of the present, and their own interests. The parties can be just two people deciding whether to go south or north in a desert, or it can be a couple deciding whether or not to go a birthday party. So politics doesn't start when two people meet; it starts when they have to decide something jointly. This includes most of what we do with other people, and I grant it is a somewhat Frenchy 1968-ish definition, but there you are.<br /><br />My beef with the way calls are handled on the TAE show is that the hosts fail to recognize that most of the calls have a political bent (in both the narrow and the broad sense) most often motivated by fear of the future. Often, the hosts themselves will wander off into a philosophical or theological wilderness while failing to recognize their own political motivations and the importance of *insisting* on their bid for a completely secular dispensation.<br /><br />I grant it's a lot of fun to go into that wilderness, and I'd be the last person to get rid of it OR tell the hosts what to do in their own show. I'm just suggesting that the very <i>raison d'être</i> of the TAE show could be brought to the fore more often, and kept clearly in mind while responding to callers like Charles.Permafrosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02449481689152555938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77750405494832910642010-05-20T16:49:41.764-05:002010-05-20T16:49:41.764-05:00any two people get together and they'll start ...<i>any two people get together and they'll start doing politics, regardless of their reason for associating.</i><br /><br />Then your definition of 'politics' is, in my opinion, too broad. It starts to lose meaning when you can basically call any interaction between people politics. If we were to use this definition, then how could you possibly complain about TAE approaching theist claims philosophically? Because, as you say, as soon as they start interacting with a theist (even if they are discussing philosophical things) they are interacting 'politically'!<br /><br />Seriously. I'm thinking there is some kind of kriss-krossing going on in your definitions or something.<br /><br /><i>The objective reason is ALWAYS the political aim of amassing the greatest number of people under a cause, no matter what that cause is. Looking at religion from the believers' perspective will take you nowhere. Do you mean to say that if today a completely new religion is born, with different but equally preposterous claims, then tomorrow atheists will be discussing one more set of philosophical and existential pros and cons, and so ad infinitum?</i><br /><br />Well, yes. As long as people make these claims, and believe them to be true, then it doesn't really matter if they're being unwittingly 'politicised' by the religion-machine, it is still valid to approach their belief philosophically and thereby cut out their particular cog. If they realise their belief is flawed, they may abandon the machine. Clearly this isn't the only approach to take, but it is effective at times (yes, on the individual level).<br /><br />I fully support a political approach (my narrow definition) to this as well, but it is not the only approach. The goals may be the same (to reduce the presence/power of religion) but the task involved in political attack is no less difficult in actuality. I'd suggest that we should be approaching it both ways. Different people are better suited to different approaches, TAE (in particular Matt D) are good at the philosophical approach because they know their bible... what is wrong with doing this? If it doesn't interest you as much, that's fine. But personally, I like that they vary their approach from episode to episode, sometimes they approach things on a political level and talk about church-state separation and particular causes, other times they discuss the philsophical side. It makes for a varied and interesting show.Paukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08254574123678456537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82622947721443761182010-05-20T12:13:58.456-05:002010-05-20T12:13:58.456-05:00" Do you mean to say that if today a complete..." Do you mean to say that if today a completely new religion is born, with different but equally preposterous claims, then tomorrow atheists will be discussing one more set of philosophical and existential pros and cons, and so ad infinitum? "<br /><br />Since the key issue is that faith is a stupid way of getting information, no it's the same issue that people aren't thinking critically. Besides there are entirely apolitical sects such as the Amish that are still as dumb as any other.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57464247983056840092010-05-20T09:27:35.372-05:002010-05-20T09:27:35.372-05:00"They share a delusion which tells them to do..."They share a delusion which tells them to do those things. There's no political motive involved per say. They don't need a supernatural reason to ACT like they have a supernatural reason. Their beliefs ARE the objective explanation for their assembling, organizing, and proselytizing. How is this even a question? They believe something, so they act like they believe it."<br /><br />Ing,<br />Take Pavlov's experiment. A dog can be conditioned to believe that a bell ringing means there will be food available. The bell rings and the dog starts to drool. Two dogs could even start a fight after hearing the bell. Following your train of reasoning, they don't need actual food to ACT like they have actual food, so their belief is the objective explanation for their drooling and fighting. <br /><br />Here's what's wrong with that reasoning: *YOU* know there's no food, and you know the bell is being rung by Pavlov; therefore the objective explanation for the drooling and fighting is Pavlov's manipulation, not the dogs' beliefs. Looking at the facts from the dogs' perspective will take you nowhere.<br /><br />Pavlov here is like human politics: it makes people do things believing they're doing them for other reasons. The objective reason is ALWAYS the political aim of amassing the greatest number of people under a cause, no matter what that cause is. <i>Looking at religion from the believers' perspective will take you nowhere.</i> Do you mean to say that if today a completely new religion is born, with different but equally preposterous claims, then tomorrow atheists will be discussing one more set of philosophical and existential pros and cons, and so <i>ad infinitum</i>? How many new bells and new religions will it take before you realize there are Pavlovs and political motives behind it all?<br /><br />"What changed?"<br />The subject.Permafrosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02449481689152555938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59771254403351884542010-05-20T08:17:08.332-05:002010-05-20T08:17:08.332-05:00Pauk,
My conception of the word "politics&quo...Pauk,<br />My conception of the word "politics" is broader than that. You're looking at it at the individual level, where personal emotions and duties prevail. But any two people get together and they'll start doing politics, regardless of their reason for associating. Two people lost together in a desert, with only one canteen of water, deciding whether to go south or north are already doing politics, that is, negotiating their future. Include a third person and you'll have a party of two against a party of one. A Baptist teenager deciding whether or not to befriend a Pentecostal teenager is doing politics. It's everywhere.Permafrosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02449481689152555938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-19459100063788845902010-05-20T07:57:01.216-05:002010-05-20T07:57:01.216-05:00"So if YOU as an atheist do not believe their..."So if YOU as an atheist do not believe their supernaturalistic claims, you MUST assert a down-to-earth, behavioural, realistic, objective explanation (not for their personal beliefs but) for their assembling, organizing and proselytizing."<br /><br />They share a delusion which tells them to do those things. There's no political motive involved per say. They don't need a supernatural reason to ACT like they have a supernatural reason. Their beliefs ARE the objective explanation for their assembling, organizing, and proselytizing. How is this even a question? They believe something, so they act like they believe it. <br /><br />"The atheist's base position should be that an individual may believe whatever strikes his fancy, but the moment he links up with others of the same persuasion the resulting association automatically becomes a political stance, and should always be attacked at that level – not at the philosophical, theological or logical level."<br /><br />A) Fuck you, you don't get to tell me what *I* should hold as my base position. If you can argue it fine<br />b)No, because there are believers who don't act politically. There's no reason to politicize someone calling in saying "Jesus done gone healeded my diabetus!". Ray Comfort has plenty to object to and politics need not enter it. Since atheism isn't any positive statement, there is no atheist political stance so how the fuck could you even argue that. No, the issue is clearly philosophical and intellectual and the political is the level atop that. The political is people acting on their philosophical and intellectual stances. Going to the root is the correct way. <br />C) Also NOW you explain your points? now you're willing to be a chew toy? What changed?Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79793707900682804122010-05-20T03:11:02.714-05:002010-05-20T03:11:02.714-05:00The atheist's base position should be that an ...<i>The atheist's base position should be that an individual may believe whatever strikes his fancy, but the moment he links up with others of the same persuasion the resulting association automatically becomes a political stance</i><br /><br />No it doesn't. It could be social, emotional, or out of obligation to family. It could simply be because it makes him/her feel good. Although political effects are a possible outcome, it isn't automatic at all. Not even proselytising is automatically political if all they are doing is telling people they should repent (or whatever). It doesn't become political until they start trying to impose their views by political means.<br /><br />It may even be possible that the most common result is indeed political in nature, but this 'ALWAYS MUST ONLY' stuff is just plain wrong.Paukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08254574123678456537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52350071761950219582010-05-19T12:25:17.086-05:002010-05-19T12:25:17.086-05:00"They could be delusional and sincere despite..."They could be delusional and sincere despite the non-truth of those beliefs."<br /><br />This has no bearing on what I said. Please let me make MY point clearer for you.<br /><br />From an ATHEIST's perspective, the ONLY reason you can possibly find for belief-based social activities (assembling, organizing and proselytizing) is to do grassroots politics; and this is EVEN if believers are delusional OR sincere – because the way each believer relates to the supernatural necessarily happens at the individual level, not at the social level. So if YOU as an atheist do not believe their supernaturalistic claims, you MUST assert a down-to-earth, behavioural, realistic, objective explanation (not for their personal beliefs but) for their assembling, organizing and proselytizing.<br /><br />The atheist's base position should be that an individual may believe whatever strikes his fancy, but the moment he links up with others of the same persuasion the resulting association automatically becomes a political stance, and should always be attacked at that level – not at the philosophical, theological or logical level. But because the latter is exactly TAE's usual level, what happens is that when a call (such as Charles's) has clear political underpinnings, the show hosts (and the rest of you) miss the politics and squander the opportunity of using the call to their favour.Permafrosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02449481689152555938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17857355522655145082010-05-19T09:17:20.335-05:002010-05-19T09:17:20.335-05:00On this planet, if atheists do NOT believe any of ...On this planet, if atheists do NOT believe any of the transcendent claims of any religion, then they as a group SHOULD hold that the deep reason believers assemble, organize themselves and proselytize can ONLY be political or, by their social nature, have immediate political effects. <br /><br />They could be delusional and sincere despite the non-truth of those beliefs. Id explain all about it more and how you're wrong, but I'm not going to give you the satisfactions of becoming your punching bag.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75317400146366383192010-05-18T17:16:01.147-05:002010-05-18T17:16:01.147-05:00Ron,
Ok, fair enough.
(Pulls ConDefSys plug out ...Ron,<br /><br />Ok, fair enough.<br /><br />(Pulls ConDefSys plug out of the wall.)<br /><br />Your comments on authoritarian discursive modes reminded me of an old divinity school joke:<br /><br />A theologian is a man who studies that which does not exist.<br /><br />A bit much, perhaps. But one could fairly compare his job to being an ichthyologist on the planet Arrakis.<br /><br />When people find themselves having (or desiring) to defend a position for which there is no good supporting evidence, certain communication styles invariably occur - such as the one you highlight.<br /><br />At this point in my life, my view of religious apologia has gone beyond skepticism into weary contempt. I'm not irked by them employing this or that rhetorical trick to make their case - but there is nothing else.<br /><br />Religious apologia is the ouroboros wyrm of epistemology. Rhetoric is the entirety of the message. "I'm being clever to show you how clever I am." <br /><br />It's like a vertically-integrated marketing agency without any product to sell beyond advertisement itself.<br /><br />What does this have to do with Charles' call? I dunno. Just felt like venting...George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.com