Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Atheist Experience
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 4 of 283 (839548)
09-10-2018 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
09-05-2018 11:46 AM


Recently, as reflected in links within a few of my posts, I have been watching The Atheist Experience television broadcast on YouTube and also watching some of the debates between the atheists and the Christian apologists and philosophers.
Has anyone watched this show? Comments??
That show has been around since the late 90s and became quite popular around the time that Richard Dawkins was voicing his objections towards teaching creationism alongside evolution during the Bush Presidency.
The one member of the Atheist Experience group that has gained the most popularity is Matt Dillahunty. His background is he was actually raised in a Baptist household and he was studying to be a baptist priest. But as he started researching, he became aware of a lot of the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods that were being spread as part of Christian doctrine. So he eventually became a vocal member of the atheist community.
He has his own channel on Youtube if you want to check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/user/SansDeity
Also, if you are interested, one of the more interesting debates that Matt Dillahunty participated in was the one where he debated Matt Slick, a known Christian philosopher. The debate is also available and I encourage anyone to view it. It is handled respectfully and professionally and I applaud both Matt's for how it was handled. That debate is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKlycI9ZKsY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 09-05-2018 11:46 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 09-10-2018 12:58 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 14 of 283 (839568)
09-10-2018 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
09-10-2018 1:59 PM


Re: The Discussion is not as simple as Tangle concludes
I'm not asking which is superior. I'm asking how you can even make a comparison.
Phat is only making the comparison because that was the actual title of the debate link I provided. Whether they are worthy of comparison, hard to say. But Dillahunty and Slick seemed to think so. Enough that they did a two hour debate on the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 09-10-2018 1:59 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 23 of 283 (839609)
09-11-2018 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
09-10-2018 3:22 PM


Re: In Brief
My argument is that not all of reality can be explained through evidence
This is an erroneous statement. If one can't demonstrate evidence of something, they cannot make any claims as to its existence. There are certainly things which we still don't understand from a scientific perspective. But the counter to that can't be that they are simply 'un-explainable'. It simply means we don't have the details on their function yet.
You choose to require evidence for everything you accept. My evidence was subjective and internal.
If evidence is subjective, it isn't technically evidence. It is just a subjective viewpoint. To draw an analogy, art is often subjective. Someone may look at a particular work of art and think it attractive while someone else may look at the same piece of art and not find it appealing. Subjective measures are not quantifiable and as such, cannot be utilized as any form of evidence.
If one could demonstrate a method whereby they can demonstrably demonstrate why a piece of art looks good, then that becomes objective. Not subjective.
I think part of the issue is you are attempting to conflate the two as equivalent. If something is objective, it by definition means that it is 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.'
However, if something is subjective, it is 'based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.'
Those two are not equivalent.
I don't think there is anything wrong with someone requiring actual, tangible evidence for a particular claim. It is how our whole society works. It's how our legal system functions. If you are viewing the world through your subjective lens, that is fine. But as stated, something being subjective versus being objective are two entirely different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 09-10-2018 3:22 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 09-11-2018 10:04 AM Diomedes has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 26 of 283 (839614)
09-11-2018 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Phat
09-11-2018 10:04 AM


Re: In Brief
The more that I think about it the more I realize that having a goal of getting everybody to believe in God is unrealistic.
Perhaps I do waste too much time in these arguments, but I feel that they sharpen my perspective. The church tells me to quit wasting time watching videos by atheists such as Matt Dillahunty, but it is inescapably within my nature. If I had simply spent the last years at a Christian Forum, I would have learned the belief and dogma quite well..(though I know it already) but I quite possibly would have been unaware of how the atheists think...which for some reason I feel compelled to learn.
Nothing wrong with being inquisitive Phat. I think that is a strength.
If I can provide a suggestion from my perspective: there is a fundamental demarcation between belief and knowledge. Religion often functions in the former while science operates in the latter. There are people on this forum which are not atheists but are still scientifically minded. As an additional example is my own mother, who has a PhD in biochemistry and was a university professor. Yet she is also a believer. But the difference with her that I noted is that she fully recognizes that the two are mutually distinct. As per the example on art I provided: one can still appreciate a piece of art even if it is by subjective measures. And just because someone else might not see that same piece of art the same way doesn't in anyway detract from your own experience.
Asking atheists how they view the world is fine. We are happy to share our thoughts. But the dialog will go better if we follow specific ground rules: i.e. if a measure is subjective, it is subjective. If it is objective (fact and data based), it is objective. But there isn't any point in trying to convince an individual via subjective evidence. Better to just discuss your thoughts but recognize that they are more feeling based as opposed to fact based.
I know religious individuals sometimes don't want to make that distinction. But it needs to be made for dialog to proceed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 09-11-2018 10:04 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 42 of 283 (839737)
09-14-2018 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by LamarkNewAge
09-13-2018 8:44 PM


Re: What differences between Christianity and Atheism
Atheism might be a monolith but does it have any real roots?
When did it start?
How much did it borrow from other movements?
Are its followers a monolith today?
Atheism is just a response to a claim. i.e. Do you believe in a god or gods?
In an of itself, it is nothing more than that. In the same way theism is a response to the same claim. But theism in an of itself does not have any specific tenets or concepts since it isn't a religion.
Certain religions are theistic. Or polytheistic. And for that matter, there are some religions like buddhism that are atheistic. Whether someone is a theist or an atheist does not say anything about their specific belief system.
For atheists like myself, the only reason that label even exists is I live in a society where religion has a large presence. But being an atheist doesn't in any way affect my worldview since it has no core tenets or philosophies.
A better description of myself as it pertains to specific beliefs is that I am a secular humanist. Although deists can also be secular humanists.
In short, atheism is merely a response to a claim. Secular humanism is a a philosophical stance that focuses on the value and agency of human beings.
Edited by Diomedes, : Fixed typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-13-2018 8:44 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-14-2018 10:48 PM Diomedes has replied
 Message 49 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-14-2018 11:50 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 51 of 283 (839771)
09-15-2018 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by LamarkNewAge
09-14-2018 10:48 PM


Re: What differences between Christianity and Atheism
So it is like the Pagan Romans calling Christians "atheists"?
I think they would actually refer to them as 'heretics'. That would be more applicable.
You don't follow the classical myth then so you are called an "atheist"?
You don't find the popular myth today (Christianity) so you are "atheist"?
Not exactly. As I mentioned, atheism is merely a response to the question of 'do you believe in a god or gods?'. The question is not asking my opinion on a specific religion. Now if someone asked me if I believe that Jesus is the son of god, I would also answer no. But that answer wouldn't necessarily label me an atheist. Muslims would answer the question the same way.
Or you just haven't found convincing evidence, so you are "atheist"?
(I am having trouble seeing why this should be seen as distinct from agnosticism, but is the issue simply that the term "agnostic" lacks the word related to deity, deus, theology, theos, deva, etc?)
I will state that I haven't found convincing evidence of the claims for a god. But more to the point, when reviewing the myriad of religions out there, I have found substantial counter-evidence to their claims. Such as visible evidence that there was no global flood, that we were not descended from Adam and Eve, that the Earth is not 6000 years old. And so forth.
Regarding atheist and agnosticism, the labels are actually somewhat distinct. Theism/atheism delves into beliefs while gnosticism/agnosticism speak of knowledge and certainty.
If one looks at it from a purely logical argument, then they actually operate in corollary to each other.
For example, someone can be an 'agnostic theist'. What this essentially means is that they have a belief in a deity, but they do not claim certainty with that belief. And in conjunction, an 'agnostic atheist' would be someone who does not believe in a deity but does not claim absolutely certainty that there isn't one.
The main rational for an agnostic stance in either direction is without testable mechanisms to leverage, there is no experiment that can be derived that can ascertain proof one way or the other. Now there are some individuals who would label themselves as 'gnostic atheists'. Which in my opinion makes no sense since there isn't any test they can reference to claim absolutely certainty that their stance is accurate. The same can be said for a 'gnostic theist'. As per my dialog with Phat earlier, he acknowledged that his stance is subjective. Which means it is more based on emotions and feelings than evidence. Which is why it can't be measured or tested in any way.
One issue with individuals who say they are purely 'agnostic' is that they are actually making an error in logic with their view. A common statement mentioned is that they will state that 'the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable'. This statement is actually logically invalid. It is ironically, actually making a claim about something (in this case god), and then ascribing a characteristic to that claim which makes any form of testing impossible. In common logical parlance, this would be a 'meaningless standard'. It is a claim that anyone can make and it is impossible to refute. You could replace god with Thor, Odin, The Loch Ness Monster, Cthulhu or The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-14-2018 10:48 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by caffeine, posted 09-15-2018 4:26 PM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 62 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-15-2018 10:28 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(2)
Message 81 of 283 (839871)
09-17-2018 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Phat
09-17-2018 2:38 PM


Re: Holding On To Rationality At All Costs
your insistence on objective evidence blinded you to allowing change
This was brought up before Phat. But to reiterate, you cannot chastise people for insisting on objective evidence. As indicated, anything that is fact or data based is objective while anything that is feeling or emotion based would be subjective. But only one can be effectively used as evidence. If you were about to have a critical operation performed by a surgeon, would you want that individual to utilize objective or subjective methods?
but understand that when I did let go of my rational mind, I gained inner peace
Then the stance here is that you are effectively asking people to be irrational. That is essentially the opposite of rational. Honestly, does that make sense to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 09-17-2018 2:38 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(2)
Message 105 of 283 (864707)
10-15-2019 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Theodoric
10-15-2019 9:02 AM


Re: Matt Dillahunty & his fundie family feud.
Critics seem to equate belief in God as a belief that is as irrational as belief in Odin, or Spaghetti Monsters or Bigfoots. But when was the last time you even heard an argument from *anyone* defending the viability of a premise that any of them existed?
成人综合婷婷五月激情综合-国产AV天堂亚洲国产AV刚刚碰一-丝袜好紧…我要让麻麻舒服-国产尤物网站尤物AV在线看
There are many people that profess a belief in Bigfoot.
Pastafarianism is a religion that has lots of followers. Are you saying their beliefs are not worthy of respect, because you think their beliefs are silly?
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Let me add one more to the pot:
Hellenion
Those are Greek pagans, who still worship the ancient gods such as Zeus, Apollo, Hera, etc. They even had to fight in Greece to get their religion recognized by court order:
Greek Paganism legally recognized as 'known religion' in Greece - News, World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Theodoric, posted 10-15-2019 9:02 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Phat, posted 10-15-2019 3:17 PM Diomedes has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 117 of 283 (864758)
10-16-2019 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Phat
10-15-2019 3:17 PM


Re: Matt Dillahunty & his fundie family feud.
The reason being, invisible Deities are not evident. But why does this mean that they should thus be objectively dismissed?
From a scientific perspective, yes. If something is non-detectable, cannot be validated through experimentation and does not manifest in any discernible way, than it should be objectively dismissed. That is the underlying notion of objective evidence.
Quite a clever trick, but hardly the final word.
It's no trick. It is the scientific method.
You can't simply say that all believers are delusional simply because they don't have any objective evidence. After all, if God exists, it does not mean that God needs to be objective towards the human population. Belief seems to be a discovery...an epiphany on the journey of life that causes one to believe.
I don't believe I ever used the word 'delusional'. But ultimately, the burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. Belief without evidence is subjective. It can be ascribed to anything. Some people believe Elvis is still alive. Some believe Bigfoot roams the Pacific Northwest. In the end, anyone is free to believe anything they like. However, without evidence, the claim is not objective.
It appears obvious that belief is not objective nor was ever meant to be objective. Granted this gives you every right to question it and doubt it. What is does not do is give the default position as a responsibility for any rational mind to objectively dismiss.
Actually, yes, one can objectively dismiss that which does not have any objective evidence associated with it.
You seem to be conflating subjectivity and objectivity and attempting to merge the concepts to provide validation for your belief. Which you somewhat contradict in the earlier portion of your paragraph.
Ultimately, the concept is simple. A belief without evidence, based on conjecture, innuendo, gut feelings, etc is subjective. A belief with evidence that can be tested and validated is objective. The former can be dismissed as not being objective while the latter is acknowledged as being objective.
Reading back over my post, I sometimes wonder why we take all of the effort to win this argument. Put yourself in my shoes. What would you do if you were trying to convince a group of people that your belief was rational and yet had no objective evidence...would you simply give up and talk about football and politics with them?
If I had specific beliefs that I acknowledged were entirely subjective and could not be objectively verified, than I would acknowledge that. Then the discussion can be more about philosophy or philosophical concepts as opposed to attempts to convince individuals about the veracity of your beliefs.
If you want to try a thought experiment, rather than explaining your subjective beliefs to a forum of atheists or non-believers, try the following: find someone who has faith in a religion different from your own. Perhaps Buddhism or Hinduism. Now, put yourself in their shoes. Listen to them describe their beliefs, their personal journey, how they came to be into the belief system that they are part of and ask yourself: does the explanation provided to me by this individual or individuals give me the necessary information to abandon my current beliefs and adopt theirs? That will give you an idea of how things operate from an atheist's point of view when having religious discussions with a Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Phat, posted 10-15-2019 3:17 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024