Author Topic: Episode #656  (Read 8867 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15040
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #90 on: February 11, 2018, 07:51:20 AM »
Like most atheist (actually antitheist) podcasters, he's always struck me

unlike most American (actually New Englander) podcasters.

how does 'actually' function, here?
Quote from: Thomas Carlyle
In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3094
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #91 on: February 11, 2018, 09:51:45 AM »
I'm guessing that atheist describes everyone who don't believe in gods, and antitheists are those who actively oppose theism.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12468
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #92 on: February 11, 2018, 10:07:57 AM »
Like most atheist (actually antitheist) podcasters, he's always struck me

unlike most American (actually New Englander) podcasters.

how does 'actually' function, here?

as "specifically" American (specifically New Englander)
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5261
  • mooh
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #93 on: February 12, 2018, 05:16:47 AM »
I'm guessing that atheist describes everyone who don't believe in gods, and antitheists are those who actively oppose theism.

I am a self-described agnostic strong atheist anti-theist. Meaning that I acknowledge that I can't ever "know" there is no God (agnosticism), but I don't see any reason to believe there is a God (atheism), and I think that, in light of all the searching people have been doing, the absence of such positive evidence does actually count as evidence against God existing (strong atheism), and I actively dislike such beliefs (anti-theism) because they have caused tremendous harm in the past (and continue to do so today) and do not have enough benefits in today's world to justify their continued existence.
Mooohn!

Offline Epicurus

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #94 on: February 12, 2018, 08:23:54 AM »
I'm guessing that atheist describes everyone who don't believe in gods, and antitheists are those who actively oppose theism.

I am a self-described agnostic strong atheist anti-theist. Meaning that I acknowledge that I can't ever "know" there is no God (agnosticism), but I don't see any reason to believe there is a God (atheism), and I think that, in light of all the searching people have been doing, the absence of such positive evidence does actually count as evidence against God existing (strong atheism), and I actively dislike such beliefs (anti-theism) because they have caused tremendous harm in the past (and continue to do so today) and do not have enough benefits in today's world to justify their continued existence.

Very fine summary.  I would include a lack of certainty with the hard atheist part in my own description but perhaps that goes without saying around here.

As for antitheists podcasters being dicks I haven't really listened to atheist specific podcast (except out of the ACA, which I would categorize as non-dickish) for quite some time now, I wouldn't know.

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15040
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #95 on: February 12, 2018, 09:03:43 AM »
I'm guessing that atheist describes everyone who don't believe in gods, and antitheists are those who actively oppose theism.

but are they not actually atheists?
Quote from: Thomas Carlyle
In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3094
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #96 on: February 12, 2018, 09:45:02 AM »
I'm guessing that atheist describes everyone who don't believe in gods, and antitheists are those who actively oppose theism.

but are they not actually atheists?

They're a subset of all atheists. So "specifically", like CarbShark said.

Unless they're the kind of theist who believes that the gods are evil, and that they can be defeat if people stop believing in them. Or, interpreting theism to include worship, that they can be defeated if people stop worshiping them.

I could see being an anti-theistic theist, if the Bible is an accurate description of God.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 09:51:30 AM by 2397 »

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9429
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #97 on: February 12, 2018, 02:33:00 PM »
As for antitheists podcasters being dicks I haven't really listened to atheist specific podcast (except out of the ACA, which I would categorize as non-dickish) for quite some time now, I wouldn't know.
No, neither have I, which is why you should take any comment of mine as non-authoritative.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11888
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #98 on: February 12, 2018, 04:12:10 PM »
I consider myself an anti-theist in that I think that religious beliefs are harmful and thus I advocate against religion.

The reason I consider religious belief harmful is because as a central tenant of virtually every religion is the concept of faith.  Faith is the claim that you 'know' something without good evidence, or in some cases in the face of contrary facts.

Even the most progressive theist professes some level of faith in the supernatural, or they water down their 'theistic' beliefs into something that is completely meaningless.  'God is the universe' and other such crap.

#non-belief denialist

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3361
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #99 on: February 12, 2018, 04:49:19 PM »
The reason I consider religious belief harmful is because as a central tenant of virtually every religion is the concept of faith.  Faith is the claim that you 'know' something without good evidence, or in some cases in the face of contrary facts.

I think much of the harm is from diverted resources.

What if all the money spent on gold-plating much of the Vatican had been spent instead on scientific and/or medical research?

What if all the mental energy that goes towards theology or interpreting ancient holy books had been similarly diverted towards ends that actuall advance mankind?

Just seems like such a waste.


Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5261
  • mooh
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #100 on: February 12, 2018, 08:06:24 PM »
I'm guessing that atheist describes everyone who don't believe in gods, and antitheists are those who actively oppose theism.

I am a self-described agnostic strong atheist anti-theist. Meaning that I acknowledge that I can't ever "know" there is no God (agnosticism), but I don't see any reason to believe there is a God (atheism), and I think that, in light of all the searching people have been doing, the absence of such positive evidence does actually count as evidence against God existing (strong atheism), and I actively dislike such beliefs (anti-theism) because they have caused tremendous harm in the past (and continue to do so today) and do not have enough benefits in today's world to justify their continued existence.

Very fine summary.  I would include a lack of certainty with the hard atheist part in my own description but perhaps that goes without saying around here.

Hence the "agnostic" sublabel.
Mooohn!

Offline kschang

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #101 on: February 15, 2018, 08:39:40 PM »
I listened to Brian's explanation... AND I've previously read Ars Technica's explanation. I actually understand eBay's explanation... it's basically wire fraud, from their own viewpoint: someone is cheating them, making them pay out commission they shouldn't have to.

A similar fakery was done with Amazon. A normal Amazon ad drops a cookie in viewer's browser. If the viewer buys something within the next 72 hours, the cookie makes sure the commission goes to the affiliate who served the ad. You can buy on gray market a Wordpress plug-in that blocks the regular Amazon cookie and drops a cookie that lasts 90 days, rather than 72 hours. ALL purchases made through that browser with that cookie has commission goes to the dropper.

I don't know about a criminal complaint. It sounds way too bogus though. I agree he was being made an example of. I don't know if he's railroaded.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9547
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #102 on: February 15, 2018, 11:01:16 PM »
I'm late to this thread because I've been away for three weeks.

Dunning admits that he broke the law, and says that he takes full responsibility, but then he goes on to try to minimize his crime and blame others for it. Was it really a decade ago? Well, it's only news now because he continues to try to blame others even while saying he takes full responsibility and admits that he broke the law.

He had a contract with eBay that clearly set out certain conditions and limitations. He violated those terms. He admits that. But then he says that we shouldn't hold him morally responsible because "someone at eBay" told him it was okay to violate the terms of the contract. Further, he was fully aware that the purpose of the affiliate program was to generate visits to the eBay web site, and that his scheme did nothing to further that purpose.

There is a logical flaw in the implied argument, when he claims to take responsibility but then tries to convince us that he is really clean because "someone at eBay" told him it was okay, as if that person was a legitimate corporate voice for the company.

There are people who are entirely trustworthy in one area but cannot be trusted in another, like the fellow in the book The Good Soldier Schweik who could be trusted with thousands in money, but if you sent him to fetch some food, would eat half of it before he got back to you. I enjoy Skeptoid, and I think Dunning does a good job of presenting expositions of tales of weird happenings. I'm not going to stop listening to his show just because he's a convicted felon. But I would not trust him with money.

Of course, as the regulars here know, I am a convicted criminal. And most of the men I met in prison are better people than many who are loose in society. And FWIW, U.S. federal prisons are neither as bad as Hollywood portrays them, nor as cozy as conservatives like to paint them.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline FigTito

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Re: Episode #656
« Reply #103 on: March 12, 2018, 11:02:42 AM »
After listening to Brian's abysmal defense I decided that I cant listen to him anymore. He came off playing "dumb" to what he did instead of admitting it and owning it. I had to go read the news reports about what he did and it was just flat out wrong. There was no grey area and I just lost all respect for him. Users were being tricked and there was no way he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. For him to try to pull a con on a skeptics show means he isn't really trustworthy or accepting responsibility for his scam.  Shame on him!

 

personate-rain
personate-rain