Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems I have somehow got away with being an atheist but not labeled a militant. Might consider why that is, and as I do so I have to believe it's because the term "militant" is being used instead of adamant or insistent or persistent or something along those lines. I can be described in much the same way along those lines too while also agreeing with your comment entirely, so I for one conclude this term or label of "militant" is for the most part being misused and abused in these threads, especially in a forum like this one that for all practical purposes is one of the most passive ways to spend time that I know of!
Learnme, old Chum, you are perceived as not having picked your side, and the Godsuckers and Goddless bastards are even now contending for your soul...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
On one episode of dancing with stars, Carrie Ann Inaba explained to a contestant that the constant behaved as though they thought they were dancing "bigger" than they really were...she stated to the contestant "I think part of the problem is that you think you are dancing bigger than you really are".
That same concept can be applied to some posters.
I like someone who goes beyond what they would normally do. But I confess I would soon tire of a dancer who kept doing the same step time after time, episode after episode. In fact, I wouldn't watch.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-17-2020 at 02:59 PM..
Sorry, I forgot you already told me you aren't a fan of the Street Epistemology. I do respect your opinion on that. I really wasn't trying to get a rise out of you with that comment about salivating. I actually thought you might find it funny. I'm not interested in a combative exchange with you. I was genuinely offering some links to content that you might find interesting.
Did you look at the Modern-Day Debate or the PineCreek links I provided?
PineCreek: Dillahunty reaches god mode! Dillahunty vs Wood
The Wood/Dillahunty one? Yes. I commented. Street Epistemology does have its' place, I suppose, but it can be unfairly weighted if not rigged. I prefer a discussion (preferably two person) with a chairbod seeing that they don't end up talking over each other. Say a point made, the other gets a chance to rebut without going off on a string of claims-on either side.
I suppose that's why I like online discussion sice all the points are put and each one can be given attention at leisure.
Sorry, I forgot you already told me you aren't a fan of the Street Epistemology. I do respect your opinion on that. I really wasn't trying to get a rise out of you with that comment about salivating. I actually thought you might find it funny. I'm not interested in a combative exchange with you. I was genuinely offering some links to content that you might find interesting.
Did you look at the Modern-Day Debate or the PineCreek links I provided?
PineCreek: Dillahunty reaches god mode! Dillahunty vs Wood
The Wood/Dillahunty one? Yes. I commented (1). Street Epistemology does have its' place, I suppose, but it can be unfairly weighted if not rigged. I prefer a discussion (preferably two) with a chairbod seeing that they don't end up talking over each other. Say a point made, the other gets a chance to rebut without going off on a string of claims-on either side.
I suppose that's why I like online discussion sice all the points are put and each one can be given attention at leisure.
(1) #3807
"Thanks for posting that. It's not a new argument (morality) and basically Good Is because God says so, vs good is because it benefits us as a species and society.
Matt concedes that point that for those who reject their need to assist with working to a better world for everyone including themselves may benefit from belief in a god that will assuredly sort them out if they don't behave (though this doesn't cover getting out of it by some act of repentance or even being convinced that it was what God wanted -like he Norway gunman) but David the theist wouldn't accept that those who go for the betterment of society for rational (not theistic) reasons are doing it for better reasons."
Learnme, old Chum, you are perceived as not having picked your side, and the Godsuckers and Goddless bastards are even now contending for your soul...
I like someone who goes beyond what they would normally do. But I confess I would soon tire of a dancer who kept doing the same step time after time, episode after episode. In fact, I wouldn't watch.
and thats the problem I have with your brand of atheism. You want people to pick a side and make choices based on that side. militant atheism and fundy theism is a fail. just look at countries running on them.
And if we don't pick a side you just want to to let you by even if your statement of belief about is less valid.
The Wood/Dillahunty one? Yes. I commented. Street Epistemology does have its' place, I suppose, but it can be unfairly weighted if not rigged.
The most recent video I posted was a commentary on the Dillihunty/Wood debate by PineCreek (Doug).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I prefer a discussion (preferably two person) with a chairbod seeing that they don't end up talking over each other. Say a point made, the other gets a chance to rebut without going off on a string of claims-on either side.
I suppose that's why I like online discussion sicne all the points are put and each one can be given attention at leisure.
I agree. A more structured discussion format could produce a more gratifying exchange. Not sure it's possible on a forum like this, though.
Last edited by Iwasmadenew; 03-17-2020 at 06:48 PM..
The most recent video I posted was a commentary on the Dillihunty/Wood debate by PineCreek (Doug).
I agree. A more structured discussion format could produce a more gratifying exchange. Not sure it's possible on a forum like this, though.
Wow, Matt simply eviscerated this slovenly fool. He was literally reduced to confused blithering. Absolutely flummoxed. I don’t often feel sorry for theists, but this poor guy was completely outclassed. Like, he had no business being in the same room as Matt.
The most recent video I posted was a commentary on the Dillihunty/Wood debate by PineCreek (Doug).
Oh, a commentary. I'll watch that....
I liked at the beginning it regretted that it left it open that Command Theory can apply to other religions. And then the commentary actually says 'command theory'. The assumption is that not only that there is a god (and one particular one) it that it is Good and even if the reason to obey is fear of punishment, it is the good thing anyway. Matt pointed out that God ordered the killing of the Midianites. David said the 'Covenant' changed that. So it could change back - like into Islam. Still 'God'. It is still 'God says so' rather than 'it is Right'.
The subjectivity of morality is unavoidable, even in command theory. The argument 'why is it wrong to hurt people - because they don't want to be hurt- so why is it wrong to hurt them even if they don't want to be hurt? So why is it valid to say we should do what God says because we should be punished otherwise. This isn't objective morality - this is dictatorship.
...and so on. The commentary is very detailed, but already it's not going well for the Theist.
Quote:
I agree. A more structured discussion format could produce a more gratifying exchange. Not sure it's possible on a forum like this, though.
I think it unlikely, too. It will always become a free -for all.
p.s so, the commentary (by a former Christian, now an atheist) pretty much demolishes David's argument. How do you feel about this commentary?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-17-2020 at 11:05 PM..
I liked at the beginning it regretted that it left it open that Command Theory can apply to other religions. And then the commentary actually says 'command theory'. The assumption is that not only that there is a god (and one particular one) it that it is Good and even if the reason to obey is fear of punishment, it is the good thing anyway. Matt pointed out that God ordered the killing of the Midianites. David said the 'Covenant' changed that. So it could change back - like into Islam. Still 'God'. It is still 'God says so' rather than 'it is Right'.
The subjectivity of morality is unavoidable, even in command theory. The argument 'why is it wrong to hurt people - because they don't want to be hurt- so why is it wrong to hurt them even if they don't want to be hurt? So why is it valid to say we should do what God says because we should be punished otherwise. This isn't objective morality - this is dictatorship.
...and so on. The commentary is very detailed, but already it's not going well for the Theist.
I think it unlikely, too. It will always become a free -for all.
p.s so, the commentary (by a former Christian, now an atheist) pretty much demolishes David's argument. How do you feel about this commentary?
I don't feel much about PineCreek's commentary. I'm familiar enough with Doug to know what to expect from him. No surprises.
I see there are a couple more video commentaries that have come out, if you're interested. Both these are from a theist perspective. (*FYI, I haven't watched either of them, yet.)
David Wood: David Wood vs Matt Dillahunty: Debate Review
"it just seems quite the dismissal and unfair to throw all the other thousands of comments under the bus of not worthy."
Wow, touchy! The purpose of the thread was a debate between TotN and myself. I linked to substantive posts that were made between the two of us before the thread lost it's focus. I was not implying there were no other substantive comments made in the thread. Feel free to link to any other best-of comments that you'd recommend!
Not if simple observation is going to be viewed as "touchy." I think best not to waste more time here instead. Seems you decided the same thing a good while ago...
Learnme, old Chum, you are perceived as not having picked your side, and the Godsuckers and Goddless bastards are even now contending for your soul...
Torn asunder I think they call it...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Learnme, old Chum, you are perceived as not having picked your side, and the Godsuckers and Goddless bastards are even now contending for your soul...
