The Atheist Experience call-in

[Brian63]

Anyone else a watcher of "The Atheist Experience"?

Most weeks I watch, and about a month ago even managed to get in a very brief call myself. Links found through the link here:

https://www.facebook.com/brian.george.507464/posts/1176524312688768


I had just mis-understood the host's, Matt Dillahunty, views on whether or not a god likely does not exist.



ETA: Just recalled that those without a Facebook account are unable to view the texts or links. Here is the text of the first post there:

“The Atheist Experience” is a personal favorite podcast that I usually watch, and this evening managed to be even a caller on it. Yay! In recent weeks I had become unclear about some things Matt Dillahunty (the main host, appearing on the right side of your screen) was saying about whether God likely does not exist, and had trouble reconciling his statements. The relevant link is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFwgERzC6wg

39:50 to 41:00

That is the very brief portion that I was on speaking with both hosts. Afterwards they then discussed the matter among themselves, from:

41:00 to 45:15

At a certain point shortly after I was chatting with them, my call became disconnected (intentional or unintentional?). Some of their answers still surprise and confuse me a bit, and I wish I could discuss in more detail in person with them. Oh well. I think he is confused a bit, partly due to some semantics.

I experience stage fright and have a public speaking phobia as well, and was surprised that during the call I actually did not have those. Though there was a moment of stutter, it was not the result of nervousness. It was just my usual speaking difficulties from some cognitive deficits. My nervousness actually kicked in *after* the call ended, when I realized I was just on the show! So I will never host a show myself. Kewl to have this experience though.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yeah, he (Matt) is just sticking to the party line that atheism means whatever you want it to mean at the time.

When it comes to burden of persuasion, he's a non-stamp collector.

When it comes to proselytising and presuppositional atheism - denying the existence of a Higher Power - he's got a plethora of reasons and science and atheology etc etc. And he would never say..."I have faith that there's no God. Or "I believe that there's no God". Because that would put him (and his counter-apologetics) in the same category as religion.

 

[abaddon]

Yeah, he (Matt) is just sticking to the party line that atheism means whatever you want it to mean at the time.

When it comes to burden of persuasion, he's a non-stamp collector.

When it comes to proselytising and presuppositional atheism - denying the existence of a Higher Power - he's got a plethora of reasons and science and atheology etc etc. And he would never say..."I have faith that there's no God. Or "I believe that there's no God". Because that would put him (and his counter-apologetics) in the same category as religion.

More importantly, if he said any of the things you think he should say, it'd be a misdescription of his position. He wouldn't be religious about it so much as wrong about what skepticism is.

Not understanding what Dillahunty is saying, is not understanding what skepticism is.

Neither "I have faith there is no God" nor "I believe there is no God" is what atheism is. An atheist can ADD the anti-theism stance (I believe there is no God) into the mix, if he wants to. But atheism in and of itself is not a knowledge claim. It describes people, not the universe (which is science's job).

The semantics matter a huge deal, because not following the clarifications is to fail to comprehend the stance of skepticism. People look for "believe or don't believe?!" and want to skip over the epistemological stance. Which is to skip over the skepticism which is to skip over the atheism. Atheism's just a small aspect of a general skepticism - the withholding assent to ANY belief until convinced. It's the instance of that general skepticism applied to a specific topic: theism.

Ask me "why are you an atheist?" the only truthful answer I can give is because I'm not convinced so I withhold believing in God.

If the question is: Do I deny the existence of Lion's bible-god? the answer is Yes and I have reasons I can explain. Faith plays no part in it.

If the question is: Are you an atheist for denying the existence of Lion's bible-god? the answer is NO. Atheism and denying the existence of Lion's bible-god are not the same thing.

 

[Brian63]

Neither "I have faith there is no God" nor "I believe there is no God" is what atheism is. An atheist can ADD the anti-theism stance (I believe there is no God) into the mix, if he wants to.

I think that relates to where I was misunderstanding Matt's position, hence the call. He defines "atheism" as something like "absence of a belief in a god." I was attributing that as being the entirety of his position, when really he goes further into strong atheism and thinks there is no god.

So I was mixing up how he defines the term "atheism" (when he does not break it down to weak versus strong atheism) and what his position was about the non-existence of a god.

 

[atrib]

Yeah, he (Matt) is just sticking to the party line that atheism means whatever you want it to mean at the time.

When it comes to burden of persuasion, he's a non-stamp collector.

When it comes to proselytising and presuppositional atheism - denying the existence of a Higher Power - he's got a plethora of reasons and science and atheology etc etc. And he would never say..."I have faith that there's no God. Or "I believe that there's no God". Because that would put him (and his counter-apologetics) in the same category as religion.

While I don't watch every weekend, I have been following the Atheist Experience postings on Youtube for several years. Matt is very clear on his position: he does not believe in gods because nobody has provided evidence to convince him that gods exist. He makes no absolute claim that Gods do not exist, just that he remains unconvinced of their existence. Which is a reasonable position that begs the question, why do you disagree with his position?

There would be no atheists if nobody believed in gods. Atheism exists only as a response to claims that gods exist. And as we all know, the burden is, or should be on the person making the claim. Which in this case is the theist making the claim that his god exists. This has been explained to you many times, and has been ignored by you just as many times, likely because this inconvenient fact does not support your position.

All you have to do is produce the appropriate evidence to support your claim, and atheists would be convinced. Why won't you produce the evidence?

 

[Lion IRC]

I was interested in his co-host's remarks about the strong atheist who can assert the certain claim that god "A" definitely does not exist but admits that another god "B" may be plausible, which would thus dilute their strong atheism into open-minded weak atheism/agnosticism.

The difficulty here is that...

Show

[picture of blind men feeling different parts of same elephant goes here]

 

[atrib]

I was interested in his co-host's remarks about the strong atheist who can assert the certain claim that god "A" definitely does not exist but admits that another god "B" may be plausible, which would thus dilute their strong atheism into open-minded weak atheism/agnosticism.

The difficulty here is that...

Show

[picture of blind men feeling different parts of same elephant goes here]

Different people define their skepticism in different ways, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I am personally convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the god of the Christians does not exist. Just as I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that if I were to step off the top of a tall building I would fall to my death. There is a very tiny but still finite probability that a fluctuation in the local spacetime continuum would prevent me from accelerating towards the planet's surface at about 32.2 ft/sec^2, thereby splattering my organs all over the pavement, just as there is a very small but finite possibility that the authors of the Bible got it right, but I wouldn't bet on those odds in either case.

I don't claim absolute certainty, and if the appropriate evidence were provided, I would likely change my mind. That is, I would believe that this god exists, even if I didn't worship it as my lord and master. Many atheists I know, including Matt Dillahunty appear to hold a similar view. What is your problem with a position like this?

 

[abaddon]

I was interested in his co-host's remarks about the strong atheist who can assert the certain claim that god "A" definitely does not exist but admits that another god "B" may be plausible, which would thus dilute their strong atheism into open-minded weak atheism/agnosticism.

The difficulty here is that...

Show

[picture of blind men feeling different parts of same elephant goes here]

Let's see if I understand the conundrum right:

If one theist defined God this way, and another theist defined God that way...

And then, if a person said "I'm strong atheist about that one god but an agnostic atheist about the other god"...

He's saying both NO and MAYBE to the same God (because the disagreeing theists are confusing).

So, you conclude, that's a problem for the strong atheism stance.

Here is why that's not a problem for either strong or weak atheism:

Atheists must go by theist's definitions since there's no nonverbal evidence for God. It's why we ask "What do you mean by God?" We don't do that as a trick or because we're stupid. It's because the only thing theists offer up to say Yes, No or Maybe to, is to the definitions.

But can we be wrong and there is an elephant out there? Yes, being 'agnostically' open-minded about it, I suppose there's a chance of it. But the AvT arguing is about being convincing. To be convincing, a theist must stop acting like any of those blind men... He'll need to describe something that 1) isn't riddled with logical problems and 2) corresponds with observations of the earth and universe.

 

[atrib]

Here is why that's not a problem for either strong or weak atheism:

Atheists must go by theist's definitions since there's no nonverbal evidence for God. It's why we ask "What do you mean by God?" We don't do that as a trick or because we're stupid. It's because the only thing theists offer up to say Yes, No or Maybe to, is to the definitions.

But can we be wrong and there is an elephant out there? Yes, being 'agnostically' open-minded about it, I suppose there's a chance of it. But the AvT arguing is about being convincing. To be convincing, a theist must stop acting like any of those blind men... He'll need to describe something that 1) isn't riddled with logical problems and 2) corresponds with observations of the earth and universe.

Well put. Lion IRC claims that an elephant exists, and that he knows what the elephant looks like, how it behaves, and how it wants us to behave. The problem is that everyone with the exception of Lion IRC is blind in this analogy, and so we must take his word. Which, strangely enough, he is unwilling to share, since he cannot bring himself to actually describe the elephant to us, much less demonstrate its existence with evidence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Anyone else a watcher of "The Atheist Experience"?

Most weeks I watch, and about a month ago even managed to get in a very brief call myself. Links found through the link here:

https://www.facebook.com/brian.george.507464/posts/1176524312688768


I had just mis-understood the host's, Matt Dillahunty, views on whether or not a god likely does not exist.



ETA: Just recalled that those without a Facebook account are unable to view the texts or links. Here is the text of the first post there:

“The Atheist Experience” is a personal favorite podcast that I usually watch, and this evening managed to be even a caller on it. Yay! In recent weeks I had become unclear about some things Matt Dillahunty (the main host, appearing on the right side of your screen) was saying about whether God likely does not exist, and had trouble reconciling his statements. The relevant link is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFwgERzC6wg

39:50 to 41:00

That is the very brief portion that I was on speaking with both hosts. Afterwards they then discussed the matter among themselves, from:

41:00 to 45:15

At a certain point shortly after I was chatting with them, my call became disconnected (intentional or unintentional?). Some of their answers still surprise and confuse me a bit, and I wish I could discuss in more detail in person with them. Oh well. I think he is confused a bit, partly due to some semantics.

I experience stage fright and have a public speaking phobia as well, and was surprised that during the call I actually did not have those. Though there was a moment of stutter, it was not the result of nervousness. It was just my usual speaking difficulties from some cognitive deficits. My nervousness actually kicked in *after* the call ended, when I realized I was just on the show! So I will never host a show myself. Kewl to have this experience though.

Matt Dilahunty is a sophist, not a philosopher. He's the atheist equivalent of a preacher. He spreads other people's words. He's a communicator. I love the guy. I think he's great. But you got to see him for what he is. He is intelligent, but not a deep thinker. And we (the atheists) need people like that to. But that means is that now and again he will contradict himself, or have opinions that won't really hold up. But that's fine. Philosophy is hard. And very many religious people are dumb as bricks with a paper thin religious faith. For people like that his mission is effective and easy. Go go Matt.

 

[Brian63]

I do not see as sharp a distinction between being intelligent and a deep thinker. Those are for practical purposes synonymous. As long as someone has good justification for their beliefs, that is what counts. Matt has researched his beliefs to a healthy extent, and he is open minded as well to change them if better evidence comes along. No theists have provided any, however, to justify a god belief.

Agreed that he is a great communicator as well. In past years not as much, but he has definitely improved significantly over time.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I do not see as sharp a distinction between being intelligent and a deep thinker. Those are for practical purposes synonymous. As long as someone has good justification for their beliefs, that is what counts. Matt has researched his beliefs to a healthy extent, and he is open minded as well to change them if better evidence comes along. No theists have provided any, however, to justify a god belief.

Agreed that he is a great communicator as well. In past years not as much, but he has definitely improved significantly over time.

Deep thinkers have read a lot of books. They have a rich library of contexts and patterns stored in their mind to draw from.

I don't think Matt has researched that much. Everything I've read about him and what he's written it's all about attacking fundamentalism, ie the most shallow form of theism.

He's very American. USA is a bit special, because there's such a sharp tilt towards evangalical Christianity and fundamentalism. He's very focused on arguing against that form of theism. Outside USA religion is often more sophisticated. So for a European Christian they are less likely to have their faith threatened by Dilahunty.

My current Danish girlfriend is Christian. When I challenged her on why she was Christian her answer is "it works for me". Matt Dilahunty has nothing to say against that form of Christianity. My girlfriend is a very liberal and very sensible Christian IMHO. She'd never claim to know for sure that the Bible is true, accurate or have faith in that she will go to heaven. She has a form of Christian faith that I respect 100%.

 

[Brian63]

On the show they take plenty of calls regarding more liberal religious beliefs or various other paranormal and woo and superstitious sorts, and debunk those as well. Matt himself is a magician and has personal experience of how easy it is to trick people, and has frequently invoked his knowledge there to debunk other pseudoscience claims. It is far from being exclusively anti-fundamentalist versions of Christianity that they address.

 

[Treedbear]

I do not see as sharp a distinction between being intelligent and a deep thinker. Those are for practical purposes synonymous. As long as someone has good justification for their beliefs, that is what counts. Matt has researched his beliefs to a healthy extent, and he is open minded as well to change them if better evidence comes along. No theists have provided any, however, to justify a god belief.

Agreed that he is a great communicator as well. In past years not as much, but he has definitely improved significantly over time.

Deep thinkers have read a lot of books. They have a rich library of contexts and patterns stored in their mind to draw from.

I don't think Matt has researched that much. Everything I've read about him and what he's written it's all about attacking fundamentalism, ie the most shallow form of theism.

He's very American. USA is a bit special, because there's such a sharp tilt towards evangalical Christianity and fundamentalism. He's very focused on arguing against that form of theism. Outside USA religion is often more sophisticated. So for a European Christian they are less likely to have their faith threatened by Dilahunty.

My current Danish girlfriend is Christian. When I challenged her on why she was Christian her answer is "it works for me". Matt Dilahunty has nothing to say against that form of Christianity. My girlfriend is a very liberal and very sensible Christian IMHO. She'd never claim to know for sure that the Bible is true, accurate or have faith in that she will go to heaven. She has a form of Christian faith that I respect 100%.

Perhaps sophistication is a measure of a culture's ability to acknowledge different viewpoints and the willingness to tolerate them. Having gone through centuries of brutal inhumanity based on differences of opinion and what works for some people but not others I imagine Europe has developed a lot of deference for divergent positions. Not so in the USA. We have a penchant for the never-ending war. We still haven't resolved the one about who qualifies as being human.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Perhaps sophistication is a measure of a culture's ability to acknowledge different viewpoints and the willingness to tolerate them.

Yes, ie paganism, Catholicism, Christianity for the educated elites, Liberal protestantism.

These traditions are very old indeed and widespread. This tradition is older than Christianity itself.

In Europe religious wars aren't. They have, in each case, always been about something very secular indeed. European religious leaders have often been supremely pragmatic and accommodating when necessary.

Having gone through centuries of brutal inhumanity based on differences of opinion and what works for some people but not others I imagine Europe has developed a lot of deference for divergent positions. Not so in the USA. We have a penchant for the never-ending war. We still haven't resolved the one about who qualifies as being human.

Why Americans are so fundamentalist (and frankly so fucking nuts) is explained in Karen Armstrongs "the Battle for God".

There's complicated reasons. But the short version is that Europe kicked out their religious extremists and sent them to the colonies, especially the Americas. These formed the core of what became USA. This historical background matters.

 

[southernhybrid]

It's not that we have that many fundamentalists in the US, we don't. It's that fundamentalists have obtained too much power in government. As far as I can tell, this began in the 80s, when Republicans in power realized they could manipulate this group by being anti abortion, homophobic etc. But, Trump has gone way overboard in manipulating and giving power to evangelicals. I was just reading an article a few days ago about how Pompeo and Pence believe that the end times are coming and in the meantime, the country must ramp up the number of extremely conservative religious judges with the goal of ending gay marriage, and abortion etc. They have even asked older conservative judges to retire so they can try and fill the court system with much younger conservative judges. These people are devious. Hopefully, they won't be in power much longer. They are a threat to what's left of our democracy.

Since evangelical Christianity has continued to decrease, those who cling to these beliefs now claim that they are being persecuted by the non religious. This of course is nonsense. Nobody is keeping these people from practicing their religion. Only about 15% of Americans identify as evangelical, and the number varies depending on what part of the country you're considering.

Oddly enough, my childhood indoctrination to evangelical Christianity was in the northeast, but most of my school friends were Catholics. Most of the Catholics who I knew when I was younger, didn't follow all of the Catholic beliefs. For example, most of them used birth control.

There are also a of Jewish believers in the northeast and in large urban areas. There are Bahai's scattered around the country. My ex was a Baha'i. There are a small percent of other religious believers as well, from Muslim to Hindu etc.

While Christianity remains the dominant religion, it comes in many varieties. Some are far more tolerant than others. Most don't condemn those who don't believe. It's more about community and doing charity work in my small city. While the northeast is full of Catholics, my city has one tiny Catholic Church. While Atlanta has quite a large Jewish population, smaller Georgia towns have very few Jewish people. Non believers are everywhere, but we aren't a majority. There are many organized atheist groups in Georgia. Atlanta has most of them, from The Atlanta Freethought Society to the Black Non believers and others.

And, while it's true that Europe kicked out the religious extremists, the US was also highly influenced in the early days by Deists and probably non theists who may not have used a specific term to describe themselves.

 

[Ruth Harris]

It's not that we have that many fundamentalists in the US, we don't. It's that fundamentalists have obtained too much power in government.

THIS!!!

And not just government; they have considerable power in the media and public arena as well. They are willing to do anything to obtain this power, unlike the vast majority of Christianity. Most of us just want to live in peace with those of differing beliefs, rather than demand everyone walk in lockstep with our personal beliefs.

Ruth

 

[Lion IRC]

...Matt Dilahunty is a sophist, not a philosopher. He's the atheist equivalent of a preacher. He spreads other people's words. He's a communicator. I love the guy. I think he's great. But you got to see him for what he is. He is intelligent, but not a deep thinker. And we (the atheists) need people like that to. But that means is that now and again he will contradict himself, or have opinions that won't really hold up. But that's fine. Philosophy is hard. And very many religious people are dumb as bricks with a paper thin religious faith. For people like that his mission is effective and easy. Go go Matt.

Yes, and you correctly observe, by spreading other peoples' words this means there are a lot of other atheist preachers. Apologists for atheism.

Like this guy.

 

[abaddon]

Lion IRC,

Does that mean atheism is a religion?

What if the book were named "A Manual for Creating Doubters?" Is doubt then a religion? If defending the value of practicing doubt is being a preacher and apologist for doubt, then don't you still have to name the traits of doubt that make it a religion?

 

[DrZoidberg]

While Christianity remains the dominant religion, it comes in many varieties. Some are far more tolerant than others. Most don't condemn those who don't believe. It's more about community and doing charity work in my small city. While the northeast is full of Catholics, my city has one tiny Catholic Church. While Atlanta has quite a large Jewish population, smaller Georgia towns have very few Jewish people. Non believers are everywhere, but we aren't a majority. There are many organized atheist groups in Georgia. Atlanta has most of them, from The Atlanta Freethought Society to the Black Non believers and others.

And, while it's true that Europe kicked out the religious extremists, the US was also highly influenced in the early days by Deists and probably non theists who may not have used a specific term to describe themselves.

What matters is what group is the political elite. The political elite will have whatever beliefs they need to have to keep the power. It doesn't really matter if most of society isn't evangelical Christian. What matters is what subgroup you belong to that gives you access to the political elite. It's pretty clear what flavour that has in USA. The idea that any American can become the president is obviously a lie.

Here's an example from Sweden. In the 19'th century the pro democracy movement sprung from the sobriety movement. Top politicians in Sweden are still predominantly being reqruited from the sobriety organisations. 40% of Sweden's politicans today, 150 years later, have never touched any mind altering substance ever in their lives.

History matters.