TheAuger Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Matt Dillahunty has been doing some awesome work on rebutting theist arguments for the existence of deities on his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/SansDeity/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=0 If you're not already familiar with Matt, he is the regular host of the The Atheist Experience and the NonProphets, and recently made the decision to work as a full-time counter-apologist making videos, and traveling and debating theists. You can support his work here: http://www.patreon.com/AtheistDebates I would like discussion to center around debating techniques and tactics -- efficient use of arguments, common traps and dead ends, what to listen for from your opponent, etc. Check out his apologetics/counter-apologetics wiki at http://www.ironchariots.org 1
jpahmad Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Matt Dillahunty is a full-time statist as well. He should be called out for his hypocrisy; He picks and chooses when he wants to use the scientific method when it comes to truth claims. If you are a statist, you are still a mystic. 1
Coinflip Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Starting off with the sky ghosts and then dropping the hammer of logic and reason about the state on him right afterwards would be entertaining
prolix Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Starting off with the sky ghosts and then dropping the hammer of logic and reason about the state on him right afterwards would be entertaining But it would be dishonest of FDR to blindside him with it, would it not? Talk about argumentation and standards of evidence for a 1/2 hour then turn the same skepticism and logic on the state. So, if they gave him the heads up, then he would just prepare liberal talking points and it would be less-entertaining. I would blindside him with it, myself. but somehow I feel like FDR and Stefan would not want to do that...
Libertus Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Stef could maybe moderate a series of debates between Tom Woods (Anarchist, Theist) and Matt Dillahunty (Statist, Atheist). The first debate would be about methodology and epistomology - how do we know what is evidence, how do we determine whether an argument is valid or not. In the second and third debate about anarchism and atheism we will see which one of the two still follows what they themselves were saying in debate number one (of which Stefan will keep track). Let's see who argues himself into a pretzel first. I really like both guys, Tom and Matt, and I would very much prefer it if both were half wrong, half right, instead of one being completely wrong Only problem with this approach may be that Tom might not be ready to defend his theism in a debate and will instead take it down a few notches and claim it's just a personal belief of his and not a public stance. Something like that. If Matt and Stef would debate, I would prefer it to be a moderated one. We don't want one to be able to interrupt the other, and the other one to claim they didn't get fair share. Both, Matt and Stef tend to dominate a discussion, and they should both have a shot at doing it, but within the frame of a moderate back and forth. Anyone who hasn't checked out Dillahunty's videos on atheism should do it. He seems to have answers to all the arguments. He's on point, and much more rigid and logically sound than, say, Richard Dawkins. I'm a fan of atheism, and I wish someone would point out his statist fallacies - it would be best to use his own logic against him. He knows quite a bit about logical fallacies and the structure of arguments, Prep work: watch some of his videos on anarchism. I'm willing to bet, he has never been exposed to a sound argument against the state.
TheAuger Posted November 20, 2014 Author Posted November 20, 2014 Yes, he is a statist -- a self-styled "liberal Democrat" as I recall. In fact a lot of atheists are libdems because they exchange one religion for another. However, by sharing ideas with others outside the anarchist/atheist community, perhaps he and other atheist/statists can begin to apply some of their same arguments against a "cosmic dictator" to real-life rulers. We can't just continue to make our arguments into the echo-chamber of those that already share our beliefs and expect to make "progress". Or by saying, "oh they're a statist, they're bad" (not that that's what jpahamad was saying). Whats the harm in talking with him -- is he going to suddenly convince a bunch of anarchists to worship the state? Maybe he hasn't been exposed to arguments for a voluntarist society? Hey, he changed his mind using reason and evidence after studying theology with the intent of becoming a Baptist preacher -- what's to say he can't also realize the fiction of the state? Maybe there are one or two ideas that Stef could share with Matt that might get him to start thinking about the immorality of the state.
jpahmad Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 Maybe there are one or two ideas that Stef could share with Matt that might get him to start thinking about the immorality of the state. In private, very possible. In public, I don't think so. It would be professional suicide for him. He makes his living from being a internet personality consumed by mostly liberals. I've never seen someone change character "mid-career" in the media. It would be like Rush Limbaugh deciding to turn leftist tomorrow. Some people simply can't afford to change. They've built a career around a certain persona and have gone too far to turn back. Maybe if Stef offered him a job? 1
TheAuger Posted November 23, 2014 Author Posted November 23, 2014 But the point is that you don't know if any, some, or all of your assertions are true, jpahmad...obviously, it's all conjecture... There is one way to find out, however...
Libertus Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 They have made up their minds, it seems: Atheists are on the left, Capitalists of any coleur are supposedly on the right, along with religious homeschoolers, tea-partiers, racists and these people who block Obama from doing so much good.
TheAuger Posted November 26, 2014 Author Posted November 26, 2014 Okay, Libertus -- that may be true -- but how do you know? Do you acknowledge that you seem to be making the exact same assumptions about "the other side"? Maybe I'm missing your point. Anyway, what do any of your views have to do with Matt Dillahunty as a potential guest?
shirgall Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 They have made up their minds, it seems: Atheists are on the left, Capitalists of any coleur are supposedly on the right, along with religious homeschoolers, tea-partiers, racists and these people who block Obama from doing so much good. Let's see, I generally caucus with conservatives, I homeschooled my children for sometime, I identified with the Tea Party, I was a delegate for the GOP... and I'm a third generation atheist and have never been a racist. I've seen Obama do a number of things, and even his golf and basketball can't be considered "good", let alone his policy. Is this one counterexample enough to fix your theory? 1 1
Recommended Posts