# The Atheist Experience



## bsd3355

(subscribe if your interested)


----------



## Marc1980

Already sub'd! Been watching this show for the past 6months now and would recommend it!


----------



## Knowbody

that bald headed guy looks like the guy who does those All King of Girls porno films


don't ask me how I know this


----------



## The Silent 1

I love that show. The first time I ever watched it, the host made the "God the mob boss" argument, which is the exact argument that I often make and wasn't even aware anyone else had ever said it. Been a fan ever since.

Also heres a great discussion between the Atheist Experience host, a group of atheist writers, and a group of students (its just part one, the rest is on youtube.)


----------



## Jnmcda0

I've been watching the show for a couple of years. Matt is very knowledgable and is quick on his feet when confronted with apologetics, but he is sometimes too brash and too quick to dismiss people. Tracie and Russell are probably my favorite hosts, as both are thoughtful, intelligent, and patient. I enjoy all of the hosts, though. Each of them brings something to the table.

For those who are unfamiliar, they also have another podcast called "The Non-Prophets", in which Matt, Russell, and Dennis (and, more recently, Lynnea and Beth) discuss atheist topics and news.

I often listen to podcasts while I'm at work. Here's some other atheist podcasts that I'd recommend (some of these rarely post new episodes, but have a ton of archived episodes):

Reasonable Doubts - http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/
The Good Atheist - http://www.thegoodatheist.net/
The Bible Geek - http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.htm
Ardent Atheist - http://newdissidentradio.com/ardent_atheist.html
The Thinking Atheist - http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/podcasts
Point of Inquiry - http://pointofinquiry.org/
Ask An Atheist - http://askanatheist.tv/
Irreligiosophy - http://www.irreligiosophy.com/
Equal Time For Freethought - http://www.equaltimeforfreethought.org/blog/
Chariots of Iron - http://www.chariotsofiron.com/
Minnesota Atheists - http://mnatheists.org/
A Christian And An Atheist - http://achristianandanatheist.com
American Freethought - http://www.americanfreethought.com/wordpress/?feed=podcast
Skepticality - http://www.skepticality.com/p_listentopast.php
Unbelievable - http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable


----------



## The Silent 1

Jnmcda0 said:


> I've been watching the show for a couple of years. Matt is very knowledgable and is quick on his feet when confronted with apologetics, but he is sometimes too brash and too quick to dismiss people. Tracie and Russell are probably my favorite hosts, as both are thoughtful, intelligent, and patient. I enjoy all of the hosts, though. Each of them brings something to the table.
> 
> For those who are unfamiliar, they also have another podcast called "The Non-Prophets", in which Matt, Russell, and Dennis (and, more recently, Lynnea and Beth) discuss atheist topics and news.
> 
> I often listen to podcasts while I'm at work. Here's some other atheist podcasts that I'd recommend (some of these rarely post new episodes, but have a ton of archived episodes):
> 
> Reasonable Doubts - http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/
> The Good Atheist - http://www.thegoodatheist.net/
> The Bible Geek - http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.htm
> Ardent Atheist - http://newdissidentradio.com/ardent_atheist.html
> The Thinking Atheist - http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/podcasts
> Point of Inquiry - http://pointofinquiry.org/
> Ask An Atheist - http://askanatheist.tv/
> Irreligiosophy - http://www.irreligiosophy.com/
> Equal Time For Freethought - http://www.equaltimeforfreethought.org/blog/
> Chariots of Iron - http://www.chariotsofiron.com/
> Minnesota Atheists - http://mnatheists.org/
> A Christian And An Atheist - http://achristianandanatheist.com
> American Freethought - http://www.americanfreethought.com/wordpress/?feed=podcast
> Skepticality - http://www.skepticality.com/p_listentopast.php
> Unbelievable - http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable


Thanks for mentioning, that the people from the Atheist Experience also had a podcast, I had no idea. I'll check out some of these other podcasts too. And I agree that Matt can be too brash and quick to cut people off at times, but he has also made me lol on several occasions.


----------



## bsd3355

Jnmcda0 said:


> I've been watching the show for a couple of years. Matt is very knowledgable and is quick on his feet when confronted with apologetics, but he is sometimes too brash and too quick to dismiss people. Tracie and Russell are probably my favorite hosts, as both are thoughtful, intelligent, and patient. I enjoy all of the hosts, though. Each of them brings something to the table.
> 
> For those who are unfamiliar, they also have another podcast called "The Non-Prophets", in which Matt, Russell, and Dennis (and, more recently, Lynnea and Beth) discuss atheist topics and news.
> 
> I often listen to podcasts while I'm at work. Here's some other atheist podcasts that I'd recommend (some of these rarely post new episodes, but have a ton of archived episodes):
> 
> Reasonable Doubts - http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/
> The Good Atheist - http://www.thegoodatheist.net/
> The Bible Geek - http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.htm
> Ardent Atheist - http://newdissidentradio.com/ardent_atheist.html
> The Thinking Atheist - http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/podcasts
> Point of Inquiry - http://pointofinquiry.org/
> Ask An Atheist - http://askanatheist.tv/
> Irreligiosophy - http://www.irreligiosophy.com/
> Equal Time For Freethought - http://www.equaltimeforfreethought.org/blog/
> Chariots of Iron - http://www.chariotsofiron.com/
> Minnesota Atheists - http://mnatheists.org/
> A Christian And An Atheist - http://achristianandanatheist.com
> American Freethought - http://www.americanfreethought.com/wordpress/?feed=podcast
> Skepticality - http://www.skepticality.com/p_listentopast.php
> Unbelievable - http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable


Wow, great list!


----------



## bsd3355

The Silent 1 said:


> I love that show. The first time I ever watched it, the host made the "God the mob boss" argument, which is the exact argument that I often make and wasn't even aware anyone else had ever said it. Been a fan ever since.
> 
> Also heres a great discussion between the Atheist Experience host, a group of atheist writers, and a group of students (its just part one, the rest is on youtube.)


Cool video. It's cool to see it in a different context with other "professional" people. Thanks.


----------



## fredbloggs02

I used to think Matt Dilahunty the main host was a great liar; untill he professed he'd reasonably commit his son to prison if he ever commited murder. Then I began to view him as a rather cynical sort of person. He either provogates a Martyr's reason till it takes precedence over the genocidal God the show alledgedly aims at halting, along with indoctrination; or he's a liar. I find it more contemptible a man should found a philosophy on hypocrisy and having his cake and eating it too than sincerely offering up what mattered most to him, even if the prior promoted a mediocre freedom for the greatest number in the long run, which is the notion of progress the show promotes. I don't trust anyone who tells me having read Voltaire as Matt has that he'd honor the law over his heart. There is something contemptible about willfully leaving people in the dark as to your own view while obsequiously serving a Humanitarian end, whatever it asked of him. What is a Humanitarian view yet unrealised? A faith infested with reason. Reason is a hydra, possessed by many heads, let's not say one dominates it to the exclusion of others where an underlying ideology subsides, I'd rather see this guy admit where he kept his own.


----------



## The Silent 1

fredbloggs02 said:


> I used to think Matt Dilahunty the main host was a great liar; untill he professed he'd reasonably commit his son to prison if he ever commited murder. Then I began to view him as a rather cynical sort of person. He either provogates a Martyr's reason till it takes precedence over the genocidal God the show alledgedly aims at halting, along with indoctrination; or he's a liar. I find it more contemptible a man should found a philosophy on hypocrisy and having his cake and eating it too than sincerely offering up what mattered most to him, even if the prior promoted a mediocre freedom for the greatest number in the long run, which is the notion of progress the show promotes. I don't trust anyone who tells me having read Voltaire as Matt has that he'd honor the law over his heart. There is something contemptible about willfully leaving people in the dark as to your own view while obsequiously serving a Humanitarian end, whatever it asked of him. What is a Humanitarian view yet unrealised? A faith infested with reason. Reason is a hydra, possessed by many heads, let's not say one dominates it to the exclusion of others where an underlying ideology subsides, I'd rather see this guy admit where he kept his own.


I really don't understand what your saying. If I'm thinking about the same clip that your talking about, a caller asked Matt if his son committed murder would he take him to prison. Matt responded that he would, but he would not lock him in the basement and torture him forever for any reason, unlike the Christian god. But why exactly do you feel Matt is a liar and a hypocrite? Your wording kind of confused me.


----------



## fredbloggs02

The Silent 1 said:


> I really don't understand what your saying. If I'm thinking about the same clip that your talking about, a caller asked Matt if his son committed murder would he take him to prison. Matt responded that he would, but he would not lock him in the basement and torture him forever for any reason, unlike the Christian god. But why exactly do you feel Matt is a liar and a hypocrite? Your wording kind of confused me.


"I will show no compassion for murderers. If he were my own son, I would still condemn him to prison." So I wonder wether religion still sticks to his fingers, that's all. He never said under any circumstances he would excuse murder... Which is misleading because I don't believe he'd qualify anything his son did as murder, not preaching compassion in the same breath, which demonstrates what I already said: "reason is a Hydra." Murder is wrong, he would accept that without question; but there is no connection between murder and the act of murdering by my logic, nothing that draws it into the context he was discussing. Nothing despite the law drawing the connection regardless of circumstances, which are important to me. "He will be tried as a murderer" is what the law says. That isn't what Matt said. Prison is far worse than death in my view and is in no way equivalent to the act commited, or justice served.

So what you hear is in no way explicit, it's tarnished by circumstance and the individual's preference to accept murder by name as distinct from circumstance, or not. That doesn't equal the caller's philosophy and I have a problem with people being mislead. Like a Martyr silently walking the scaffold when caught contradicting his own moral philosophy, or not. He leads credulous people to believe in a fixed position: "I would condemn my own son to prison, if he killed anyone", when he really means: "If my son ever met the criteria for murder I would condemn him"... That's fine; but he then goes on to say "that is the law." That's not true, the law makes no distinction nominally between condemning someone for murder and the abstract term "murder" before trial and they certainly don't send murderers straight to prison. What he says is misleading and subject to interpretation.

Reason isn't good enough for him? Surely a father's love for his son, whatever he does supercedes reason? So, what he says is either of nominal consequence alone or an expression of colder logic than the Marquise De Sade.

Hypocritical through preaching a rational Humanist philosophy live on air, while ostensibly embracing infallible reason to the detriment of compassion, or at least misleading people to believe he embraced reason distinct from compassion. I also heard him in another debate on morality, he said he believed in moral absolutes there to and the Orthodox Priest he was debating applauded him for it..

What do you think he meant?


----------



## The Silent 1

fredbloggs02 said:


> "I will show no compassion for murderers. If he were my own son, I would still condemn him to prison." So I wonder wether religion still sticks to his fingers, that's all. He never said under any circumstances he would excuse murder... Which is misleading because I don't believe he'd qualify anything his son did as murder, not preaching compassion in the same breath, which demonstrates what I already said: "reason is a Hydra." Murder is wrong, he would accept that without question; but there is no connection between murder and the act of murdering by my logic, nothing that draws it into the context he was discussing. Nothing despite the law drawing the connection regardless of circumstances, which are important to me. "He will be tried as a murderer" is what the law says. That isn't what Matt said. Prison is far worse than death in my view and is in no way equivalent to the act commited, or justice served.
> 
> So what you hear is in no way explicit, it's tarnished by circumstance and the individual's preference to accept murder by name as distinct from circumstance, or not. That doesn't equal the caller's philosophy and I have a problem with people being mislead. Like a Martyr silently walking the scaffold when caught contradicting his own moral philosophy, or not. He leads credulous people to believe in a fixed position: "I would condemn my own son to prison, if he killed anyone", when he really means: "If my son ever met the criteria for murder I would condemn him"... That's fine; but he then goes on to say "that is the law." That's not true, the law makes no distinction nominally between condemning someone for murder and the abstract term "murder" before trial and they certainly don't send murderers straight to prison. What he says is misleading and subject to interpretation.
> 
> Reason isn't good enough for him? Surely a father's love for his son, whatever he does supercedes reason? So, what he says is either of nominal consequence alone or an expression of colder logic than the Marquise De Sade.
> 
> Hypocritical through preaching a rational Humanist philosophy live on air, while ostensibly embracing infallible reason to the detriment of compassion, or at least misleading people to believe he embraced reason distinct from compassion. I also heard him in another debate on morality, he said he believed in moral absolutes there to and the Orthodox Priest he was debating applauded him for it..
> 
> What do you think he meant?


If you have a link to the video your talking about, please post it because I'm not quite sure what your talking about. I've seen a similar clip where Matt talks to a caller about what he would do if his son committed murder. Now when people use the word "murder" they usually use it to specifically refer to a killing that they view as unjust. He is saying that it would be right in his view for his son to go to prison if he unjustly killed someone. Matt has also said several times that he is the one making these moral choices. I'm not seeing the problem here, but maybe we are talking about two different things.

Also reason and compassion do not always have to be separate. There are times when compassion is reasonable and logical and other times when it is not, I still don't see the problem.


----------



## bsd3355

fredbloggs02 said:


> I used to think Matt Dilahunty the main host was a great liar; untill he professed he'd reasonably commit his son to prison if he ever commited murder. Then I began to view him as a rather cynical sort of person. He either provogates a Martyr's reason till it takes precedence over the genocidal God the show alledgedly aims at halting, along with indoctrination; or he's a liar. I find it more contemptible a man should found a philosophy on hypocrisy and having his cake and eating it too than sincerely offering up what mattered most to him, even if the prior promoted a mediocre freedom for the greatest number in the long run, which is the notion of progress the show promotes. I don't trust anyone who tells me having read Voltaire as Matt has that he'd honor the law over his heart. There is something contemptible about willfully leaving people in the dark as to your own view while obsequiously serving a Humanitarian end, whatever it asked of him. What is a Humanitarian view yet unrealised? A faith infested with reason. Reason is a hydra, possessed by many heads, let's not say one dominates it to the exclusion of others where an underlying ideology subsides, I'd rather see this guy admit where he kept his own.


Big words and woven literature doesn't make you right; just more confusing. Matt tells it how it is. The world isn't a pretty place so whoever told you that is stupid or lying.

Btw, what are you talking about? You seem to be making claims based upon nothing. A martyr? A faith infested with reason? Matt isn't a martyr and atheism isn't a faith like religion.


----------



## kev

I don't have sound on my computer, but the name of the program turns me off. 

I'll let bloggs speak for himself if he wants to. I think I have an idea of what he is saying but I don't want to put words in his mouth.


----------



## bsd3355

kev said:


> I don't have sound on my computer, but the name of the program turns me off.


Meatloaf is a name I am turned off to but I ended up liking it after all.  jk


----------



## kev

Lol, I knew that was coming.

What I meant was I don't like being a "part of" - even though religion is not a faith, it acts like a faith sometimes. That makes no sense but you know what I mean.


----------



## bsd3355

kev said:


> Lol, I knew that was coming.
> 
> What I meant was I don't like being a "part of" - even though religion is not a faith, it acts like a faith sometimes. That makes no sense but you know what I mean.


Religion is not a part of faith, at least in the Christian sense? Christianity is based upon faith.

I understand the "part of" aspect that you speak of though. Personally, I'm not going to fight for someone to ditch the belief in supernatural beings because I feel in the end it doesn't matter. Just don't push me in a corner and make me do things because it's what you believe and I disagree with. I won't do that to anyone else unless I feel it is bad for them, and ironically religious people feel the same on their end so there probably will never be an end to the voice of both sides. These commentators do not think of themselves as a sect or group or w/e, and they mention that even in this video.

**But I will admit they'd like to see more people stop believing in religion. There is no arguing that.


----------



## fredbloggs02

bwidger85 said:


> Big words and woven literature doesn't make you right; just more confusing. Matt tells it how it is. The world isn't a pretty place so whoever told you that is stupid or lying.
> 
> Btw, what are you talking about? You seem to be making claims based upon nothing. A martyr? A faith infested with reason? Matt isn't a martyr and atheism isn't a faith like religion.


Atheist: "Murder is wrong; and noone has the right to take life away.. unjustifiably".

Theist: I'm inclined to agree with you sir but what, is, murder?"

Atheist: Come now, everyone knows what murder is *patts theist on the head*...Murder is: to kill with the intent to kill".

Theist: Ahhk! The wisdom, the perpetual light, the inspired infallibility of your logic sir! I have JUST THE SAME view on the matter! ...Still, our God has a very severe view of murder. Smite the heathen, banish the wicked! My faith is assured,. God deals swift righteousness to sinners who sin: with INTENT!
A thousand pardons sir but sin... and intent is very, very important to our God. Might I inquire as to how you qualify intent in your worldview?"

"Atheist": "Intent is intent to kill."

Theist:* puzzled now*.. But sir, what does intent to kill look like in your grand universal utopia of peaceful rationality and humanism? I know you speak the truth, as do I. I wish for the fruits of your loins that I might share your views with others who walk in the divine brightness as you and I?"

Atheist:"I'm not sure how much clearer I can be sir... Intent, is intent to kill and that's all there is to it..... I would send my son to prison for such an intent."

*Later that day Matt Dillahunty runs over a ragged tramp with his H2 Hummer*

Theist: Sir, what have you done!!! I thought we were clear on this! Have mercy on the soul of universal justice, for intent to kill is intent to kill as clearly as the nose on my face! You are guilty sir, and may God deal swift vengence upon you unto a thousand generations... of crops!

Matt Dillahunty: "Come come my sweet child of God, as you can see, this murder, was in no way intentional.....For a start, my intent to kill wearing my purple sweater, my head on the dashboard saves me from this, as you well know that clears my intention! As I made clear in the studio, only murder with intent convicts me."

Theist: You are a fraud sir! I've a good mind to press charges on you, with the authority of the Vatican!

Matt Dilahunty: "And good luck to you, for murder with intent is wrong! I was under the impression they shared my views."

Now you see lol, however perverse it was, the theist isn't the only one defending himself from a position of thin air.

If my justification, reason, existed in my head entirely, if my conception of murder were entirely my own, I could easily justify myself with the abstract term "intent" substitited for evidence and kill people with a different view of "intent". Now I'm as guilty and have just as much blood on my hands as a God of the Old Testament. If you asked one of the Atheist folks on the show to defend their Humanist position on murder, where where they stood from their neutral position, I imagine the conversation would go similarly to the dialogue above. Their position of neutrality jumps from demanding evidence based support to affirming a positive morality abstractly.. It's strange to listen to it sometimes, it's Kafkaesque, you aren't quite sure what you've heard or what they're really saying. So I listen to the way they speak more than what they say.

My impression of a Martyr of reason is a man whose rational absolutes exist in his head alone, they are an absolute conviction, just as the logic the atheist experience employs without justification, defended from a neutral standpoint, which could in turn be used to justify any action at all. There is no reason to suppose reason sufficient justification without elaborating further, lest it's propogate a view disdaining evidence to affirm any positive outlook. You dont' ask reason for a position, you ask a conscience, obviously.


----------



## bsd3355

Basically, what I get from you is that your saying from a neutral standpoint an argument or "reason"/logic can go anyway and be justified either way? Really, I wish you would of said that from the beginning instead of writing a novel. I wonder how long it takes you to make a peanut butter sandwich for goodness sake! I would hate to have to ask you for directions! Could you just tell me how to get to K-mart? Is it really half a millenia away from Jupiter or can I just take a right on Elm Street!?? jk

I don't think Matt would run over someone with purposeful intent and say it wasn't intentional unless he was a clear murderer or a liar. Why would you think he would lie about him not believing in a God? Why do you think so many people do? We must all be on that "neutral" ground waiting to run over pedestrians, right?

What is your point? I have no idea if your defending a side or if your just trying to prove a point to show how smart you are?


----------



## fredbloggs02

bwidger85 said:


> Basically, what I get from you is that your saying from a neutral standpoint an argument or "reason"/logic can go anyway and be justified either way? Really, I wish you would of said that from the beginning instead of writing a novel. I wonder how long it takes you to make a peanut butter sandwich for goodness sake! I would hate to have to ask you for directions! Could you just tell me how to get to K-mart? Is it really half a millenia away from Jupiter or can I just take a right on Elm Street!?? jk
> 
> I don't think Matt would run over someone with purposeful intent and say it wasn't intentional unless he was a clear murderer or a liar. Why would you think he would lie about him not believing in a God? Why do you think so many people do? We must all be on that "neutral" ground waiting to run over pedestrians, right?
> 
> What is your point? I have no idea if your defending a side or if your just trying to prove a point to show how smart you are?


You asked me to be clear, I wasted a long time explaining it. I've repeated myself about a zlllion times already so I thought I'd be clear. I diddn't mean to make you feel slow off the mark. It just struck me as odd. They're normally good on expanding but on the question as to wether murder was wrong he replied straight away "If my son committed murder, I'd send him to prison." Then silence, no elaboration. Does someone in good conscience say that; I don't know? I just don't like going into things half-heartedly, I'd rather assume the worst from someone who professes a belief in absolutes from logic or from God. Nothing appalled Matt after 25 years of studying the bible. He doesn't go into slavery straight away when he explains what convinced him it couldn't be true from my experience watching the show, he employs the law of non-contradiction which I don't find all that convincing. I think some people are in a neutral position in ways you wouldn't expect untill they elaborate and I don't think it's possible to take an artist's brush and paint the world of morality without making mistakes. My point was, the show tries to do away with God because he is a murderer and promotes some things they consider nasty, not because he imposes absolutes.

I prefer Hitchens of all the new Atheists in that respect, he doesn't argue against absolutes particularly, he takes the position that if all were permitted, we wouldn't take that... despite ourselves for the sake of everyone.


----------



## The Silent 1

fredbloggs02 said:


> Atheist: "Murder is wrong; and noone has the right to take life away.. unjustifiably".
> 
> Theist: I'm inclined to agree with you sir but what, is, murder?"
> 
> Atheist: Come now, everyone knows what murder is *patts theist on the head*...Murder is: to kill with the intent to kill".
> 
> Theist: Ahhk! The wisdom, the perpetual light, the inspired infallibility of your logic sir! I have JUST THE SAME view on the matter! ...Still, our God has a very severe view of murder. Smite the heathen, banish the wicked! My faith is assured,. God deals swift righteousness to sinners who sin: with INTENT!
> A thousand pardons sir but sin... and intent is very, very important to our God. Might I inquire as to how you qualify intent in your worldview?"
> 
> "Atheist": "Intent is intent to kill."
> 
> Theist:* puzzled now*.. But sir, what does intent to kill look like in your grand universal utopia of peaceful rationality and humanism? I know you speak the truth, as do I. I wish for the fruits of your loins that I might share your views with others who walk in the divine brightness as you and I?"
> 
> Atheist:"I'm not sure how much clearer I can be sir... Intent, is intent to kill and that's all there is to it..... I would send my son to prison for such an intent."
> 
> *Later that day Matt Dillahunty runs over a ragged tramp with his H2 Hummer*
> 
> Theist: Sir, what have you done!!! I thought we were clear on this! Have mercy on the soul of universal justice, for intent to kill is intent to kill as clearly as the nose on my face! You are guilty sir, and may God deal swift vengence upon you unto a thousand generations... of crops!
> 
> Matt Dillahunty: "Come come my sweet child of God, as you can see, this murder, was in no way intentional.....For a start, my intent to kill wearing my purple sweater, my head on the dashboard saves me from this, as you well know that clears my intention! As I made clear in the studio, only murder with intent convicts me."
> 
> Theist: You are a fraud sir! I've a good mind to press charges on you, with the authority of the Vatican!
> 
> Matt Dilahunty: "And good luck to you, for murder with intent is wrong! I was under the impression they shared my views."
> 
> Now you see lol, however perverse it was, the theist isn't the only one defending himself from a position of thin air.
> 
> If my justification, reason, existed in my head entirely, if my conception of murder were entirely my own, I could easily justify myself with the abstract term "intent" substitited for evidence and kill people with a different view of "intent". Now I'm as guilty and have just as much blood on my hands as a God of the Old Testament. If you asked one of the Atheist folks on the show to defend their Humanist position on murder, where where they stood from their neutral position, I imagine the conversation would go similarly to the dialogue above. Their position of neutrality jumps from demanding evidence based support to affirming a positive morality abstractly.. It's strange to listen to it sometimes, it's Kafkaesque, you aren't quite sure what you've heard or what they're really saying. So I listen to the way they speak more than what they say.
> 
> My impression of a Martyr of reason is a man whose rational absolutes exist in his head alone, they are an absolute conviction, just as the logic the atheist experience employs without justification, defended from a neutral standpoint, which could in turn be used to justify any action at all. There is no reason to suppose reason sufficient justification without elaborating further, lest it's propogate a view disdaining evidence to affirm any positive outlook. You dont' ask reason for a position, you ask a conscience, obviously.


Did you just make those quotes up? If not please post the video, where you got them from.


----------



## fredbloggs02

The Silent 1 said:


> Did you just make those quotes up? If not please post the video, where you got them from.


I can't remember which number it was. He was discussing the story of Abraham with a caller who argued for God's infinite moral authority; I haven't quoted him word for word. As I remember, he got into a competition with a caller on absolute knowledge and asserted that prison wasn't just preferable to eternal torment, it was the responsible thing for a parent to turn in his son and neglected to explain further. Now, if he meant the correct thing to do abstractly I've no contention; but to say the sentence is justified is slighltly odd to me.. The idea that people should possess two moralites, one we preach and another we practice seems dishonest to me. It doesn't tell me anything about the person, only that they do one thing when people are watching them and another alone, which doesn't lend itself to the optimistic view people on that show seem to share: "people are generally do the right thing."


----------



## The Silent 1

fredbloggs02 said:


> I can't remember which number it was. He was discussing the story of Abraham with a caller who argued for God's infinite moral authority; *I haven't quoted him word for word.*


Thats what I thought, and to be honest, I really feel that you are misrepresenting Matt and what he actually believes. Your arguments against him are essentially straw man arguments then. You should take a look into what he actually says.


----------



## kev

never mind - not enough information yet


----------



## bsd3355

fredbloggs02 said:


> You asked me to be clear, I wasted a long time explaining it. I've repeated myself about a zlllion times already so I thought I'd be clear. I diddn't mean to make you feel slow off the mark. It just struck me as odd. They're normally good on expanding but on the question as to wether murder was wrong he replied straight away "If my son committed murder, I'd send him to prison." Then silence, no elaboration. Does someone in good conscience say that; I don't know? I just don't like going into things half-heartedly, I'd rather assume the worst from someone who professes a belief in absolutes from logic or from God. Nothing appalled Matt after 25 years of studying the bible. He doesn't go into slavery straight away when he explains what convinced him it couldn't be true from my experience watching the show, he employs the law of non-contradiction which I don't find all that convincing. I think some people are in a neutral position in ways you wouldn't expect untill they elaborate and I don't think it's possible to take an artist's brush and paint the world of morality without making mistakes. My point was, the show tries to do away with God because he is a murderer and promotes some things they consider nasty, not because he imposes absolutes.
> 
> I prefer Hitchens of all the new Atheists in that respect, he doesn't argue against absolutes particularly, he takes the position that if all were permitted, we wouldn't take that... despite ourselves for the sake of everyone.


All I can say is religion in itself is full of absolutes so it makes sense as to why atheists must defend their position based upon that - you either worship God or you go to Hell. What more of an absolute do you want? How can someone not talk in absolutes regarding this subject?

I don't see what else you want to hear from Matt when he says he'd send his child in for murder? That seems pretty clear to me. There are no subtleties in what he said. In other words, he does think murder is wrong regardless if a book told him so or not and he would commit his son in for that. I don't see why you need him to speak further and elaborate any more than that, personally. And yes, someone in good conscious would say murder is wrong and the guilty are to be tried and punished. I'm sure Matt didn't mean a murder by accident but intentional obviously. Also, speaking of committing someone for murder isn't an absolute if it has been proven already either by evidence, witnesses or the court.

If you actually watched and listened to other shows you'd hear Matt talk about slavery regarding the Bible and how he disproves. It is becoming ever more clear to me your picking stuff from the air now with little background knowledge of the show at least. Yes, the show does try to do away with God because his story is of a murderer in many cases and also for many other reasons than that. They almost ALWAYS talk about God referencing him in terms of "nasty" absolutes and even further break it down for people. All you have to do is stop contradicting everything they say and watch more shows and you'll see what I mean.

Really, your points aren't valid and sounds like your defending something out of nothing. If you want to keep talking about this I hope you make more valid arguments because already I see this discussion going in circles very fast.


----------



## bsd3355

fredbloggs02 said:


> The idea that people should possess two moralites, one we preach and another we practice seems dishonest to me. It doesn't tell me anything about the person, only that they do one thing when people are watching them and another alone, which doesn't lend itself to the optimistic view people on that show seem to share: "people are generally do the right thing."


Because when atheists think of punishment by God or punishment by people these things are two different things. First off, punishment by people is a true punishment because it actually happens. Because atheists do no believe in God then there are no "two morals" you speak of - they do not believe there is a deity in the sky that punishes you. With that said, there is only one moral for them if that is what you want to call it, and in this instance it is to punish those who commit heinous crimes such as murder. They do not leave it up to God because they don't believe there is a God to do anything about it.

Even if your example of morals are representing something entirely different from what I've explained, I still have no frickin' idea where you are getting this "two morals" thing from. What two morals?


----------



## fredbloggs02

bwidger85 said:


> Because when atheists think of punishment by God or punishment by people these things are two different things. First off, punishment by people is a true punishment because it actually happens. Because atheists do no believe in God then there are no "two morals" you speak of - they do not believe there is a deity in the sky that punishes you. With that said, there is only one moral for them if that is what you want to call it, and in this instance it is to punish those who commit heinous crimes such as murder. They do not leave it up to God because they don't believe there is a God to do anything about it.
> 
> Even if your example of morals are representing something entirely different from what I've explained, I still have no frickin' idea where you are getting this "two morals" thing from. What two morals?


The theist says "God was right to confine man to hell for for murder" the host argues "if my son committed murder I would confine him to prison", when standing in opposition to God only asks he go so far as to say: "noone has the right to torture a man forever." I don't feel comfortable being the guilty man condemning guiltily as soon as someone reaches the criteria for murder because that's as good as it gets in this world. That's as good as it gets for a limited imagination and if it isn't what someone feels they should either elaborate or express their own feelings. You ask for evidence he said this.. I know what I heard.

Murder is a crime when the evidence is in; and murder is wrong outright. That is the dual-morality, he proposed infront of others, the other when questioned. He never said "there are mitigating circumstances for a man who kills" or implied trial to discern a murderer, he refrained from elaborating. Is nature finding space to judge nature justified on account of pragmatism? He implies: "no sooner does the person reach the criteria for man's justice do I judge him morally inferior to others on account of my humanism"... I don't condemn murderers or turn my nose up at them because they reach that criteria, to me it's more important to tell the truth than preach a guilt ridden morality that doesn't stand up behind closed doors. I would never say murder was wrong. I could never send anyone I loved more than life to prison, whatever he/she did. Or does he imply(out in the open) a father should love a son less than the law? That to me, is relevant to the question of God. Can I love a murderer? I couldn't condemn or hate him without knowing him. I worry that's what people on that show promote, they have a view of outrightly condemning specific, practical, intollerance, yet would alone listen to the people they'd condemned... That isn't what they imply and furthermore, "I would sent my own son to prison because murder is wrong." I heard that, out in the open. Good, positive, atheism. "I don't have to disagree with something to condemn it", they say.

Don't do unto others what you wouldn't put up with yourself are two moralities that presuppose a fear of others. No sooner than a man escapes retaliation does he find himself justified to take a swing at others. That is the morality propounded by the Atheist Experience, a shameless pallor of a morality. That is the morality of someone who gave up looking for absolute truth. A morality that proposed "life is inherently preferable to death", my own life to the point I swing my fist to another man's face, not his, should the time arise when I and another found ourselves compelled to commit murder for our freedom, I fail, the other pulls it off, I am noone to imprison him on the basis of his immorality, I have nothing better to blame than my weakness. In that situation, murder is the moral imperative.

I couldn't condemn someone because they thought they had a right I diddn't grasp for myself for no better reason than my own weakness, not embracing that morality. Suppose people saw that moral imperative every day, it was part of their nature without a higher inspiration to seek something beyond their immediate desires. The morality above, I don't like it, to me it does away with any higher notion of justice... Just Wrong...Of the two of us, wether we both survived or not, he would be punished, not I and Matt from the point of view of that blanket statement finds him morally inferior to me on a contradiction and a dispassionate, pessimstic contradiction at that. I don't think that's fair, humanism or particularly creative thought.


----------



## RyanJ

I think what the verbose poster above me is trying to say is that this Matt person was unthoughtful in his hypothetical decision turn his son in for murder.

The idea behind this (maybe), is that if you would always turn in your son for murder, then you probably subscribe to some kind of strict duty-based moral system where such acts are categorically wrong without exception. The question here could be: are there situations where what could be classified as murder is morally justified by unique and extenuating circumstances (and would it no longer be defined as murder in that case?)? From killing to stop a greater evil (utilitarian justification?) to revenge, there are many possible situations that fall into an ethical gray area. At the very least, I think it's fair to say there are exceptions to the rule.

The other thing that seems clear is that Matt trusts the legal system to ensure justice is done. Certainly not everyone would feel this way.


----------



## The Silent 1

RyanJ said:


> I think what the verbose poster above me is trying to say is that this Matt person was unthoughtful in his hypothetical decision turn his son in for murder.
> 
> The idea behind this (maybe), is that if you would always turn in your son for murder, then you probably subscribe to some kind of strict duty-based moral system where such acts are categorically wrong without exception. The question here could be: are there situations where what could be classified as murder is morally justified by unique and extenuating circumstances (and would it no longer be defined as murder in that case?)? From killing to stop a greater evil (utilitarian justification?) to revenge, there are many possible situations that fall into an ethical gray area. At the very least, I think it's fair to say there are exceptions to the rule.
> 
> The other thing that seems clear is that Matt trusts the legal system to ensure justice is done. Certainly not everyone would feel this way.


I think you guys are kind of misconstruing Matt's views. He has frequently said that he is the author of his own morality and when the caller brought up murder, it was clear that he meant a killing that you would deem as unjustified. In this case Matt said that if such a killing happened and his son was guilty he would think it would be right for him to go to prison. When someone else later asked, "right by whos standard?", he clarified that it is his own standard, no one else. Its not about the law, in fact Matt has spoken on this before.


----------



## The Silent 1

fredbloggs02 said:


> The theist says "God was right to confine man to hell for for murder" the host argues "if my son committed murder I would confine him to prison", when standing in opposition to God only asks he go so far as to say: "noone has the right to torture a man forever." I don't feel comfortable being the guilty man condemning guiltily as soon as someone reaches the criteria for murder because that's as good as it gets in this world. That's as good as it gets for a limited imagination and if it isn't what someone feels they should either elaborate or express their own feelings. You ask for evidence he said this.. I know what I heard.


I'm still having trouble understanding you. What do you mean by your not comfortable being the guilty man? Guilty of what? Thats as good as it gets in this world? What are you talking about? All hes saying is that by his own personal standard, if someone is unjustly killed, then he would feel it is right for them to be imprisoned.



fredbloggs02 said:


> Murder is a crime when the evidence is in; and murder is wrong outright. That is the dual-morality, he proposed infront of others, the other when questioned. He never said "there are mitigating circumstances for a man who kills" or implied trial to discern a murderer, he refrained from elaborating. Is nature finding space to judge nature justified on account of pragmatism? He implies: "no sooner does the person reach the criteria for man's justice do I judge him morally inferior to others on account of my humanism"... I don't condemn murderers or turn my nose up at them because they reach that criteria, to me it's more important to tell the truth than preach a guilt ridden morality that doesn't stand up behind closed doors. I would never say murder was wrong. I could never send anyone I loved more than life to prison, whatever he/she did. Or does he imply(out in the open) a father should love a son less than the law? That to me, is relevant to the question of God. Can I love a murderer? I couldn't condemn or hate him without knowing him. I worry that's what people on that show promote, they have a view of outrightly condemning specific, practical, intollerance, yet would alone listen to the people they'd condemned... That isn't what they imply and furthermore, "I would sent my own son to prison because murder is wrong." I heard that, out in the open. Good, positive, atheism. "I don't have to disagree with something to condemn it", they say.


Your really reaching here. Your putting all sorts of words into his mouth based off of one conversation. The word "murder" carries with it, certain connotations, the most obvious one is that the killing was not justified. Matt has spoken before on how he makes moral decisions based on each situation. He didn't say anything about how a father should love his son, nor did he say anything about dual morality. He didn't even say you couldn't love a murderer.



fredbloggs02 said:


> Don't do unto others what you wouldn't put up with yourself are two moralities that presuppose a fear of others. No sooner than a man escapes retaliation does he find himself justified to take a swing at others. That is the morality propounded by the Atheist Experience, a shameless pallor of a morality. That is the morality of someone who gave up looking for absolute truth. A morality that proposed "life is inherently preferable to death", my own life to the point I swing my fist to another man's face, not his, should the time arise when I and another found ourselves compelled to commit murder for our freedom, I fail, the other pulls it off, I am noone to imprison him on the basis of his immorality, I have nothing better to blame than my weakness. In that situation, murder is the moral imperative.


No the golden rule doesn't presuppose anything other than the fact that the average person does not want to be harmed or have their stuff taken from them. Again your putting words into their mouths.



fredbloggs02 said:


> I couldn't condemn someone because they thought they had a right I diddn't grasp for myself for no better reason than my own weakness, not embracing that morality. Suppose people saw that moral imperative every day, it was part of their nature without a higher inspiration to seek something beyond their immediate desires. The morality above, I don't like it, to me it does away with any higher notion of justice... Just Wrong...Of the two of us, wether we both survived or not, he would be punished, not I and Matt from the point of view of that blanket statement finds him morally inferior to me on a contradiction and a dispassionate, pessimstic contradiction at that. I don't think that's fair, humanism or particularly creative thought.


It really seems like your projecting onto Matt, rather than just accepting whats there.


----------



## RyanJ

The Silent 1 said:


> I think you guys are kind of misconstruing Matt's views. He has frequently said that he is the author of his own morality and when the caller brought up murder, it was clear that he meant a killing that you would deem as unjustified. In this case Matt said that if such a killing happened and his son was guilty he would think it would be right for him to go to prison. When someone else later asked, "right by whos standard?", he clarified that it is his own standard, no one else. Its not about the law, in fact Matt has spoken on this before.


Fair enough. I'll freely admit that I don't watch the show (saying nothing of the quality of the program and everything about the quantity of my free time at this moment), and my knowledge of Matt is solely based on what has been said in this thread (certainly some of it could be wrong). I was more trying to figure out what bloggs was attempting to say (aren't we all) and translate it into something intelligible. In other words, if the "if" was incorrect, you can feel free to ignore the "then".


----------



## kev

Never mind, once again.


----------



## fredbloggs02

I have a problem with anyone who says they have the answer, more so with people who say surrounded by culture that their society has "the best answer available". If reasonably, we were all guilty but never acted, where would that leave us?

Which is most frightening; a noise that deafens your ears once and an end to all silence or; having heard and knowing what was lost, consciously dispelling it in eternal blindness and silence? A flash of thunder or perpetual scrabbling in the dark without ever accepting it's blackness?

The show believes fervently it has the best idea of practical truth that escapes fundamentalism, that it found categories and consensus as to the "normal way of seeing". It condemns the stake enshrouded by fire, viscerally, as though that were the only way to do voilence to a person. It speaks quietly as though that decided it a milder form of justice, rarely dealing with the hardest questions. I realise I'm not making a point particularly... The sort of caricature I see there allows just as much dehumanizing despair as a religious zealout, who looks more like a drunk boxer as opposed to the assassin who cloaks his views behind a mask of passivity. The only true joy I see in their faces, when they rise above a drunken boxer who professes his drunken despair to them, them in their sick laughter. Socrates would have been proud. I don't like that, I have no better answer but I know a lack of a contradiction isn't important when you recognise it, knowing how little you know and still believing could at least be argued practical even if their beliefs disgusted them. People have to risk a contradiction themselves to be open to being contradicted, if they diddn't, they'd never move or know no more than themselves. Loving my reasons to live and a reason I have to live are different... "It's only a personal opinion" doesn't make it wrong or a joke for it's having been open enough to admit it. It's only natural people care more for the man who introduces the system than his critics who speak for their own inadequacies and inabilitt to share a passion, they also take the time to ring on people's doors to prove how ridiculous they are. One takes creativity, the other, common as muck.


----------



## RyanJ

kev said:


> My personal opinion is that bloggs' posts are not always intended to be interpreted literally. Yes, he does have plenty of very clear points within the words, if you take the time to read through it, and he does have some very concrete points if you take the time to read through it. But, overall, I see it more as a kind of stream-of-thought writing that I find a nice welcome distraction from the cut-and-dry arguments that often take place here. Sometimes I feel like this "is" the argument itself.
> 
> I do a somewhat different thing sometimes. Sometimes, when I get fed up with shallow bickering, I will make some illogical remark that I don't really believe, simply because I know people won't know what to do with it. This is how I interpret "stopping reason dead in its tracks" from one of his other posts.
> 
> Okay, this is way off-topic. I just feel like bloggs gets ganged up on sometimes for no good reason.


That is an opinion. I suppose one man's art is another's pretentious pseudo-intellectual self stimulation. I would also be keen to join the forum you mentioned where there are concrete points within flowing language. I'd even settle for cut-and-dried arguments. Either would be nice to have here.

I suppose it's only natural for those who are afflicted by delusions of superiority of thought and moral reasoning to dismiss without consideration any mention of hubris or pomposity. Only the 'great ones' are blessed with the gift of criticism from lesser intellects which only further confirms their status as special and set apart from the simple-minded proletariat. If only they could see the emperor in his new clothes that have been fashioned by the tailors of a postmodernism of his own enlightened design. Maybe then they could see the creativity of pride - a characteristic that is undoubtedly unique to only a few heroic thinkers.


----------



## fredbloggs02

kev said:


> My personal opinion is that bloggs' posts are not always intended to be interpreted literally. Yes, he does have plenty of very clear points within the words, if you take the time to read through it, and he does have some very concrete points if you take the time to read through it. But, overall, I see it more as a kind of stream-of-thought writing that I find a nice welcome distraction from the cut-and-dry arguments that often take place here. Sometimes I feel like this "is" the argument itself.
> 
> I do a somewhat different thing sometimes. Sometimes, when I get fed up with shallow bickering, I will make some illogical remark that I don't really believe, simply because I know people won't know what to do with it. This is how I interpret "stopping reason dead in its tracks" from one of his other posts.
> 
> Okay, this is way off-topic. I just feel like bloggs gets ganged up on sometimes for no good reason.


I know what you mean by that. It doesn't reflect me necessarily, me trying to allign myself for the most part. What makes me write a lot of the time is when I'm not sure of all I've heard. When I feel something inside me I don't like, when I share a view with people I want to explore why, sometimes by contradicting it absolutely. I never expect many polite responses or understanding lol, nor did I ever profess to be " a great writer" so... I do it for the sake of it to make sense of things I've heard, to see it on the page infront of me and see if it's really everything, not just the the facts but the feeling behind them. If I've made a mess in the past, I'm just about big enough to admit it loll. I've made a hell of a mess to see something different from everything I've heard and see if I can convince myself to feel differently. It works to get me to do things a lot of the time: "absurd logic" as I've heard it described. When you look back at it, it oftentimes vanishes. Just enough truth to convince yourself you could translate it into action or a position. What I say isn't truth at face value necessarily, I never said it was but of course I'll say whatever I like. I'm not so stuck up as to imagine I know all the answers, nor do I consider my writing massively successful lol, I regret most of it. It is as I was, that's all.

Looking forward to see what sort of tortures people consider useful for kids on the other thread lol.



RyanJ said:


> That is an opinion. I suppose one man's art is anothers pretentious pseudo-intellectual self stimulation. I would also be keen to join the forum you mentioned where there are concrete points within flowing language. I'd even settle for cut-and-dried arguments. Either would be nice to have here.


Yep, your opinion is your own too, be glad to hear it when you have one I can relate to. Surely though, pseudo-intellectual self-stimulation can't be the case as you admit yourself, you barely understand the substance of what I say; so how would you recognise it when you saw it? Unless you stood expressly rooted yourself; but you don't, you're just a critic, and people only give a damn what critics think when they show them something they haddn't considered themselves....

I only demand that what I say has some effect for me, beyond that it's surplus. Pretentious is true lol. I demand when I write: I demand it marks me, that is has the effect I tried to convey*shrugs*. It's my taste and writing doesn't always flow easily for me. The thing is with taste though wyan, it's not so much what you don't like, more so what appeals. I demand that my writing effect me and though it doesn't always appeal as I'd like most of the time looking back, you're partly there with the self-stimulation...maybe


----------



## RyanJ

fredbloggs02 said:


> Yep, your opinion is your own too, be glad to hear it when you have one I can relate to. Surely though, pseudo-intellectual self-stimulation can't be the case as you admit yourself, you barely understand the substance of what I say; so how would you recognise it when you saw it? Unless you stood firmly rooted yourself; but you don't, you're just a critic, and people only give a damn what critics think when they show them something they haddn't considered themselves. I only demand that what I say has some effect for me, beyond that it's surplus. Pretentious is true lol. I demand when I write: I demand it marks me, that is has the effect I tried to convey*shrugs*. It's my taste and writing doesn't always flow easily for me. The thing is with taste though wyan, it's not so much what you don't like, more so what appeals. I demand that my writing effect me and though it doesn't always appeal as I'd like most of the time looking back, you're partly there with the self-stimulation...maybe


This of course assumes there is substance there to understand.









I reject (for reasons stated in the next paragraph) the idea that critiques cannot be made without submitting my own creative writing entry. Such a thought seems like a variation on this theme.

I can understand the need to write with no restrictions, but when this happens to coincide with a dig or critique of someone or some dearly held idea, it is only reasonable to expect a counterargument. However, when the writer, once leveling the attack, then retreats behind a fortress of impenetrable verbiage, it severs the possibility of meaningful exchange. I could be wrong, but to me this suggests a disrespect for those who are attempting to engage in a conversation of the topic at hand.

I don't mean to tear down or become excessively annoying in raising this topic. I only hope to do essentially the thing that kev mentioned in his post which, as I see it, is to take some action to bend the conversation in a constructive direction when conventional methods of doing so appear useless.

And it's entirely possible that I do enjoy it in a way not so different from you.


----------



## The Silent 1

fredbloggs02 said:


> I have a problem with anyone who says they have the answer, more so with people who say surrounded by culture that their society has "the best answer available". If reasonably, we were all guilty but never acted, where would that leave us?
> 
> Which is most frightening; a noise that deafens your ears once and an end to all silence or; having heard and knowing what was lost, consciously dispelling it in eternal blindness and silence? A flash of thunder or perpetual scrabbling in the dark without ever accepting it's blackness?
> 
> The show believes fervently it has the best idea of practical truth that escapes fundamentalism, that it found categories and consensus as to the "normal way of seeing". It condemns the stake enshrouded by fire, viscerally, as though that were the only way to do voilence to a person. It speaks quietly as though that decided it a milder form of justice, rarely dealing with the hardest questions. I realise I'm not making a point particularly... The sort of caricature I see there allows just as much dehumanizing despair as a religious zealout, who looks more like a drunk boxer as opposed to the assassin who cloaks his views behind a mask of passivity. The only true joy I see in their faces, when they rise above a drunken boxer who professes his drunken despair to them, them in their sick laughter. Socrates would have been proud. I don't like that, I have no better answer but I know a lack of a contradiction isn't important when you recognise it, knowing how little you know and still believing could at least be argued practical even if their beliefs disgusted them. People have to risk a contradiction themselves to be open to being contradicted, if they diddn't, they'd never move or know no more than themselves. Loving my reasons to live and a reason I have to live are different... "It's only a personal opinion" doesn't make it wrong or a joke for it's having been open enough to admit it. It's only natural people care more for the man who introduces the system than his critics who speak for their own inadequacies and inabilitt to share a passion, they also take the time to ring on people's doors to prove how ridiculous they are. One takes creativity, the other, common as muck.


The show never claims to have the "best idea" or the "answer" to anything. They are interested in finding out what people believe and then challenging those beliefs. They are interested in promoting rational ways of thinking and looking at evidence. They are interested in providing a community for other atheists, many of whom have none (hence why the often have public dinners after shows). They are are interested in speaking out against religious people who impose there views on others. You speak of a contradiction, but you have yet to point out one thats really there.


----------



## Reg Barclay

The Silent 1 said:


> The show never claims to have the "best idea" or the "answer" to anything. They are interested in finding out what people believe and then challenging those beliefs. They are interested in promoting rational ways of thinking and looking at evidence. They are interested in providing a community for other atheists, many of whom have none (hence why the often have public dinners after shows). They are are interested in speaking out against religious people who impose there views on others. You speak of a contradiction, but you have yet to point out one thats really there.


Indeed, none of those guys and gals that host that show have it fully correct, no one does, absolute certanty is an illusion in its own right, which is obvious. They will somtimes, base their assertions off of arbitrary suppositions, indeed they are only human. They are not philosophers, and are certainly not theologians. They are what they claim to be, atheists, nothing more. If Dilahunty wants to claim that he would turn in his son for murder to be prosecuted under current laws, and that to him seems morally right, then I can't really argue with him even if we came to a common ground over how to define murder. Also I'd have to wonder weather that statement holds any real weight in his mind considering that he has no children. It would be interesting to understand how his point of view would change on the topic if and/or when he procreates.


----------



## bsd3355

wow, are we still talking about this?

who cares? i don't feel like this deserves that attention. don't' see why people make stuff harder than it was meant to be.

let these people think what they want. wow man, moving on....


atheist = someone who doesn't believe in God because they feel there is insufficient evidence.period. that's it. done.


----------



## fredbloggs02

It's one thing to say "I don't believe in absolutes" and leading people to believe in a neutral position in practice. That is all. Much of what I write is for myself. If feels far healthier to demolish everything that isn't mine on paper and forge a new path each time. I stand in evidence for myself and I could be wrong. I will find myself wrong though.

Take jury duty for example. I find it hypocritical a hysterical jury reads effects backwards to an intent while this slapdash tv show promotes a worldview of neutrality and reason never afforded the criminal: all the while feeding the "impartial jury" with popular opinion. It feeds into everything. There is no more justice in that to my mind than the way sects of Christians would kill eachother over the nature of divinity and the soul. At least many, many of them believed it themselves! This partitioned justice doesn't believe a word of itself. If you took an aspect of this show in a vacuum, inocuous, I agree. when you consider it also lends weight through to the authority of another, it's different. It lightly muses on justice abstractly when I couldn't care less what they thought as human beings under the veil of leading people away from prejudice, people who believed themselves free for who they were, not because of "truth" as the host frequently says. I don't mind them refuting people with a belief so easily persuaded but it ends negotiating the rabble away from indoctrination. It has no reason to be respected beyond that.


----------



## The Silent 1

fredbloggs02 said:


> It's one thing to say "I don't believe in absolutes" and leading people to believe in a neutral position in practice. That is all. Much of what I write is for myself. If feels far healthier to demolish everything that isn't mine on paper and forge a new path each time. I stand in evidence for myself and I could be wrong. I will find myself wrong though.
> 
> Take jury duty for example. I find it hypocritical a hysterical jury reads effects backwards to an intent while this slapdash tv show promotes a worldview of neutrality and reason never afforded the criminal: all the while feeding the "impartial jury" with popular opinion. It feeds into everything. There is no more justice in that to my mind than the way sects of Christians would kill eachother over the nature of divinity and the soul. At least many, many of them believed it themselves! This partitioned justice doesn't believe a word of itself. If you took an aspect of this show in a vacuum, inocuous, I agree. when you consider it also lends weight through to the authority of another, it's different. It lightly muses on justice abstractly when I couldn't care less what they thought as human beings under the veil of leading people away from prejudice, people who believed themselves free for who they were, not because of "truth" as the host frequently says. I don't mind them refuting people with a belief so easily persuaded but it ends negotiating the rabble away from indoctrination. It has no reason to be respected beyond that.


Leading people to believe in a neutral position? Whos doing that? You mean leading people to consider things in a rational and logical manner? And what do you mean they don't afford reason to criminals? Again theres what your saying Matt says, and then theres what he actually says.


----------



## Carolyne

I used to watch this show a lot on youtube but then I forgot about it. They're still going so I think I'll check out the new episodes and see if it's still good.


----------

