• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I wouldn't call them cuz im a pagan and a demonolatrist. My beliefs aren't well known and i find most who try to argue with me on them can't wrap around the way I think as a pagan and demonlatrist who follows a left handed path. They don't understand it or get it or know enough to really argue on it.

A rather strident claim, though of course since it is your belief why would anyone be under any obligation to understand it unless you can accurately explain it, and demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support it?

I also have no desire to prove my beliefs to anyone.

Oh wow, that's just hilarious after the previous claim, and in a debate forum as well.

However. I worship nature. At least one of my deities in that case you can easily prove as it is nature itself.

Oh good grief, that's just a false equivalence fallacy.

The thing wouldnt be to argue that nature exists but why one would see it as a god.

Yet you are not only content to post just the bare claim, but have stated plainly you have zero interest in explaining or evidencing it.
 

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
A rather strident claim, though of course since it is your belief why would anyone be under any obligation to understand it unless you can accurately explain it, and demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support it?



Oh wow, that's just hilarious after the previous claim, and in a debate forum as well.



Oh good grief, that's just a false equivalence fallacy.



Yet you are not only content to post just the bare claim, but have stated plainly you have zero interest in explaining or evidencing it.
Eh. I don't care enough to really go into depth about my beliefs here.

I was just replying to the OP. Even if it's in the debate forum doesn't mean I have to or have a desire to debate
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Why would you call an obviously biased channel where no matter what you say, their answer will be " you are wrong.?"


I'm guessing you have never set foot in a church then? Or watched the atheist experience either come to that. Though the strident antipathy to rational and critical argument is to be expected when all they're holding is the empty bag of anecdotal unevidenced superstition. FYI telling those with opposing views they are wrong, is pretty much de rigueur in a debate, as for doing it in a biased strident way, you have got to be kidding right?:rolleyes::D

Not a pane left in your glass house, and all the irony sucked out of the atmosphere.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
I'm guessing you have never set foot in a church then? Or watched the atheist experience either come to that. Though the strident antipathy to rational and critical argument is to be expected when all they're holding is the empty bag of anecdotal unevidenced superstition. FYI telling those with opposing views they are wrong, is pretty much de rigueur in a debate, as for doing it in a biased strident way, you have got to be kidding right?:rolleyes::D

Not a pane left in your glass house, and all the irony sucked out of the atmosphere.
Churches welcome everyone. They aren't there to argue... they are there to offer salvation to those who choose to respond.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Eh. I don't care enough to really go into depth about my beliefs here.

I was just replying to the OP. Even if it's in the debate forum doesn't mean I have to or gave a desire to debate

Yes I got it the first time, you want to preach and make claims, but are not interested in debate.

irony-irony-everywhere.jpg
 

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
Yes I got it the first time, you want to preach and make claims, but are not interested in debate.

irony-irony-everywhere.jpg
Preach? The hell? I wasn't trying to preach I was just answering the question. The OP isn't about my beliefs but on whether or not I'd debate the Athiest experience. I said i wouldnt and explained why. If it came off as preaching i apologize that wasn't my intent I try never to do so as I have no desire to convert people to my belief system it's not for everyone.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Preach? The hell? I wasn't trying to preach I was just answering the question.

Straw man since I never said it was, and no you weren't just answering the question, you made several unevidenced and strident claims about your beliefs, while glibly adding you had no intention of debating them, in a debate forum.

The OP isn't about my beliefs

straw man number two, it was YOU not me, who introduced strident claims about your beliefs.

If it came off as preaching i apologize that wasn't my intent I try never to do so as I have no desire to convert people to my belief system it's not for everyone.

Then why introduce it at all? Let alone make strident claims about others being able to debate or understand it, then claim you had no intention of debating it anyway? If I held any belief I couldn't make anyone else understand it would set alarm bells off.
 

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
e, you want to preach and make claims
Straw man since I never said it was, and no you weren't just answering the question, you made several unevidenced and strident claims about your beliefs, while glibly adding you had no intention of debating them, in a debate forum
You said preach


If I held any belief I couldn't make anyone else understand it would set alarm bells off.
Folk can understand my beliefs. It's just my belief system isn't well known so it's not known by most folk. I meant most folk dont know enough about my belief system to properly argue against it. I'd have to give a whole speech on my belief system first and aint no one got the time
 

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
@Sheldon
Im not going to message more. I'm not feeling well im nauseous and am in pain and running on 3 hours of sleep. I think i screwed up my wording in the first post.

Imma jus pm Subduction Zone make sure they understood it and stop replying to this thread.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes, the "low hanging fruit" arguments. :) I've tried raising the bar of discussions with many atheist debaters on this many times. Occasionally I find those who hear the arguments and offer valid points of view that differ, but the norm is more just assuming what I am saying is the same low-hanging fruit arguments they are skilled at swatting down.

I've pretty much been convinced that's because that is the limit of their own understandings of these things, and that is why they are "unbelievers". But then so am I. The god they don't believe in, and the reasons for it, is the same god I don't believe in either. I am a rationalist, but I don't stop there. Richard Dawkins' god for instance, is pretty much the God of fundamentalist beliefs and nothing more elevated than that. I'm an atheist too, if that's the standard.

As I said, I've not listed to these folks, and maybe they have deeper more philosophical views, rather than the typical Noah's Ark can't be really real type debunking beliefs. While those are useful for a fundamentalist questioning those types of beliefs for themselves, they don't speak to anything deeper than that for me.

It's not a done deal once you accept the earth isn't 6000 years old and that donkeys can't really talk in human language. Deconstruction is the easy part. But where do you go from there? A purely physicalist view of reality is functionally as mythological as flying horses are.

Maybe you can point me to some time markers in the video, as I really don't have the inclination to listen to 1 1/2 hour videos.
That was just a random episode of theirs. It was fairly recent and I wanted Matt Dillahunty on it since he is the main host for that show. It is a call in show and they far too often have low hanging fruit call in. They have no control on who calls in and even with screeners that is the best that they get quite often.

But you made an interesting statement. Why is "A purely physicalist view of reality is functionally as mythological as flying horses are." How would you support that claim? It seems that you think that a God is necessary. I have never seen that belief properly supported.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It was a while ago now, but remember that lunatic with the Sottish accent, madder than a box of frogs, and they paid his asinine claims due deference. Credit to them for the patience, though I haven't watched it for a while. I never saw a single caller who didn't ultimately resort irrational or unfalsifiable anecdotal claims though, not a one.
I don't remember that particular caller. But if you want to see some truly self deceived crazies you cannot beat a presuppositionalist.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The title says it all. Has anyone called the Atheist Experience? Who was the host that day? How did you think that you did? And if possible can you link the video?


I've never called in, although I have envied Dillahunty his gig, and have learned several things from him that I still use here on RF.

He was the first one I heard use the phrase justified belief, and to comment that he wants to believe only correct ideas. I held similar opinions implicitly, but hearing them in words made it possible for me to see that more clearly, making the ideas explicit in my head and available to use in discussion.

He also introduced the idea that Christian morality is flawed to me with the loophole trope. I shorten and reword it when I write something similar:

"Let's say somebody goes around and rapes and murders somebody, and after they're done, they get saved. What's the punishment for them? This is the problem with Christian religion. It establishes unrealistic and irrational and immoral criteria by which to live. And then it creates a loophole so that you don't ever have to be responsible for those actions. Christianity is not a moral system. It is an immoral system. Because it specifically says that there aren't necessarily consequences that you have to pay because of a loophole. And what is the loophole? It has nothing to do with how good you are or how morally you act. It has to do with whether you are willing to be a sycophant to an idea. And if you are, then there is an exception by which you no longer have to suffer a penalty for this. The idea that secular morality offers no guarantee that people will ever pay for their crimes and their atrocities is not an argument against secular morality because that is a tenet of Christianity. The idea that the Christian god is just is directly contradicted by the idea that the Christian god is merciful. Perfect justice and any mercy are necessary directly in contradiction, because mercy is a suspension of justice. Do not pretend that your religion is moral and just." - Matt Dillahunty

The following idea, which I first heard on that show, appeared in an RF post I left this morning: "There's no good thing that a church or religion does that cannot be achieved by a purely secular means. And there is no positive benefit of churches and religions that necessarily demonstrates the truth of their supernatural claims." - Matt Dillahunty.

Here's another trope I first heard from Dillahunty. Later, I saw the famous Weinberg quote: "The fact that [the Catholic church] can do good is a testament to the fact that there are good people who will do good, but the organization is corrupt. It is poisoned to its core and it serves no essential good purpose, no true purpose, it is lie after lie, promoting harm to real people....the Catholic Church is not a force for good."- Matt Dillahunty.

Here's another linguistic turn of phrase that I have made my own: "Atheism is a single answer to the general question, "Do you believe in a God/god/gods?" For atheists, the answer is no. For theists the answer is yes. Apart from a position on the concept of God, there are no tenets, dogma, creed or code associated with atheism." - Matt Dillahunty

And another: "If there is a god, that god should know exactly what it would take to change my mind...and that god should be capable of doing whatever it would take. The fact that this hasn't happened can only mean one of two things: 1. No such god exists. 2. Whatever god exists doesn't care to convince me, at this time. In either case, it's not my problem and there's nothing I can do about it. Meanwhile, all of those believers who think that there is a god who does want me to know that he exists - are clearly, obviously, undeniably... wrong." ~Matt Dillahunty"

You can see that I've collected a lot from him for my files.

Regarding the video, I lasted ten minutes. Isn't that the way these discussions usually go? The hosts are clear thinking and articulate. Their comments are responsive and focused. The caller just stumbles. He can't make an argument. He can't answer a question asked to him even if asked to repeatedly. He appears to have no thesis. He refers to secular humanism, but there's no evidence in his words that he knows what that is. Yes, he's obviously not a native English speaker, but his vocabulary and grammar were fine. This isn't a linguistic issue. It's a cognitive one. It's a thinking problem. His thinking is disordered. Contrast his garbled content with the words of the hosts.

And that isn't a one-off thing. Isn't that what we see here on RF repeatedly - skilled critical thinkers in conversation with people with chaotic thinking like the one in the video? Many of the conversations here are just like that one.

That show is atheist school, just like RF. I consider the words of other critical thinkers the lecture part, and the parade of religious (and other) thought the lab, or field work. Dillahunty was a mentor for me 15-20 years ago, before I engaged in those types of discussions myself on the Internet, and I hope to pass along some of that kind of thought myself in this venue. It's always been my purpose to state explicitly for other skeptics to consider what I believe they agree implicitly with as I did Dillahunty, so that they can make better arguments using whatever appeals to and resonates with them as Dillahunty (and others - big Tracie Harris fan as well) did for me.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I've never called in, although I have envied Dillahunty his gig, and have learned several things from him that I still use here on RF.

He was the first one I heard use the phrase justified belief, and to comment that he wants to believe only correct ideas. I held similar opinions implicitly, but hearing them in words made it possible for me to see that more clearly, making the ideas explicit in my head and available to use in discussion.

He also introduced the idea that Christian morality is flawed to me with the loophole trope. I shorten and reword it when I write something similar:

"Let's say somebody goes around and rapes and murders somebody, and after they're done, they get saved. What's the punishment for them? This is the problem with Christian religion. It establishes unrealistic and irrational and immoral criteria by which to live. And then it creates a loophole so that you don't ever have to be responsible for those actions. Christianity is not a moral system. It is an immoral system. Because it specifically says that there aren't necessarily consequences that you have to pay because of a loophole. And what is the loophole? It has nothing to do with how good you are or how morally you act. It has to do with whether you are willing to be a sycophant to an idea. And if you are, then there is an exception by which you no longer have to suffer a penalty for this. The idea that secular morality offers no guarantee that people will ever pay for their crimes and their atrocities is not an argument against secular morality because that is a tenet of Christianity. The idea that the Christian god is just is directly contradicted by the idea that the Christian god is merciful. Perfect justice and any mercy are necessary directly in contradiction, because mercy is a suspension of justice. Do not pretend that your religion is moral and just." - Matt Dillahunty

The following idea, which I first heard on that show, appeared in an RF post I left this morning: "There's no good thing that a church or religion does that cannot be achieved by a purely secular means. And there is no positive benefit of churches and religions that necessarily demonstrates the truth of their supernatural claims." - Matt Dillahunty.

Here's another trope I first heard from Dillahunty. Later, I saw the famous Weinberg quote: "The fact that [the Catholic church] can do good is a testament to the fact that there are good people who will do good, but the organization is corrupt. It is poisoned to its core and it serves no essential good purpose, no true purpose, it is lie after lie, promoting harm to real people....the Catholic Church is not a force for good."- Matt Dillahunty.

Here's another linguistic turn of phrase that I have made my own: "Atheism is a single answer to the general question, "Do you believe in a God/god/gods?" For atheists, the answer is no. For theists the answer is yes. Apart from a position on the concept of God, there are no tenets, dogma, creed or code associated with atheism." - Matt Dillahunty

And another: "If there is a god, that god should know exactly what it would take to change my mind...and that god should be capable of doing whatever it would take. The fact that this hasn't happened can only mean one of two things: 1. No such god exists. 2. Whatever god exists doesn't care to convince me, at this time. In either case, it's not my problem and there's nothing I can do about it. Meanwhile, all of those believers who think that there is a god who does want me to know that he exists - are clearly, obviously, undeniably... wrong." ~Matt Dillahunty"

You can see that I've collected a lot from him for my files.

Regarding the video, I lasted ten minutes. Isn't that the way these discussions usually go? The hosts are clear thinking and articulate. Their comments are responsive and focused. The caller just stumbles. He can't make an argument. He can't answer a question asked to him even if asked to repeatedly. He appears to have no thesis. He refers to secular humanism, but there's no evidence in his words that he knows what that is. Yes, he's obviously not a native English speaker, but his vocabulary and grammar were fine. This isn't a linguistic issue. It's a cognitive one. It's a thinking problem. His thinking is disordered. Contrast his garbled content with the words of the hosts.

And that isn't a one-off thing. Isn't that what we see here on RF repeatedly - skilled critical thinkers in conversation with people with chaotic thinking like the one in the video? Many of the conversations here are just like that one.

That show is atheist school, just like RF. I consider the words of other critical thinkers the lecture part, and the parade of religious (and other) thought the lab, or field work. Dillahunty was a mentor for me 15-20 years ago, before I engaged in those types of discussions myself on the Internet, and I hope to pass along some of that kind of thought myself in this venue. It's always been my purpose to state explicitly for other skeptics to consider what I believe they agree implicitly with as I did Dillahunty, so that they can make better arguments using whatever appeals to and resonates with them as Dillahunty (and others - big Tracie Harris fan as well) did for me.


One good thing about a video of an entire show is that you can skip forward if you get tired of one particular caller.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
He also introduced the idea that Christian morality is flawed to me with the loophole trope. I shorten and reword it when I write something similar:

"Let's say somebody goes around and rapes and murders somebody, and after they're done, they get saved. What's the punishment for them? This is the problem with Christian religion. It establishes unrealistic and irrational and immoral criteria by which to live. And then it creates a loophole so that you don't ever have to be responsible for those actions. Christianity is not a moral system. It is an immoral system. Because it specifically says that there aren't necessarily consequences that you have to pay because of a loophole. And what is the loophole? It has nothing to do with how good you are or how morally you act. It has to do with whether you are willing to be a sycophant to an idea. And if you are, then there is an exception by which you no longer have to suffer a penalty for this. The idea that secular morality offers no guarantee that people will ever pay for their crimes and their atrocities is not an argument against secular morality because that is a tenet of Christianity. The idea that the Christian god is just is directly contradicted by the idea that the Christian god is merciful. Perfect justice and any mercy are necessary directly in contradiction, because mercy is a suspension of justice. Do not pretend that your religion is moral and just." - Matt Dillahunty
That is a false description of biblical morality.
 
Top