We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-10-2016, 01:51 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(14-10-2016 02:07 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Looks like I was sufficiently not displeasant enough to be asked back for Round 2.

We'll be recording over the weekend and topics for discussion are (from their 15 "proofs" for god(s) video):

Really looking forwards to a link so I can hear how things went. Thumbsup

Much cheers !
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
15-10-2016, 10:40 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Might I recommend making your own recording of at least what you say (on your end), in case they change, edit, or take stuff you say out of context. The initial "let's be friendly with an atheist to get them on the show" honeymoon phase may have ended.

Remember, you're talking to a group of people who often think Lying For Jesus™ is okay. Undecided

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
19-10-2016, 05:35 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
DLJ - Any news on your interview?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 05:54 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(14-10-2016 02:07 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Looks like I was sufficiently not displeasant enough to be asked back for Round 2.

We'll be recording over the weekend and topics for discussion are (from their 15 "proofs" for god(s) video):

1) The Cosmo Argument
2) Design (Teleological Argument)
5) Degrees of Perfection
6) Abiogenesis
7) Consciousness

Thanks to all the guidance I've received over the years on TTA, my responses will be, in detail:

Really?
Nope
Hahaha, don't think so.
Nah!
Oh! Come on!

Did I miss anything?

Big Grin

Laugh out load Have you been studying Chas' terseness technique?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fireball's post
19-10-2016, 07:24 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(19-10-2016 05:54 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Laugh out load Have you been studying Chas' terseness technique?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Blush

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
19-10-2016, 09:09 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(19-10-2016 05:35 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  DLJ - Any news on your interview?

It hasn't happened yet.

I haven't had a reply to my last email so perhaps they read my last post and decided that too much tersenessosity won't be good radio.

Sad

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
19-10-2016, 09:22 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(19-10-2016 07:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-10-2016 05:54 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Laugh out load Have you been studying Chas' terseness technique?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Blush

Thumbsup Not trying to bust your chops! I learned terseness myself from reading all those math and physics texts during my uni days. How many pages does it take to prove Green's Theorem in the plane? One, if you write small. Big Grin

I remember when I took a class in English Lit, we were asked to answer a couple of questions about the reading assignment. Questions asked, questions answered. Both of my answers were one sentence. The person next to me used both sides of a sheet of paper, and got a lower grade. If you had read the assignment, you knew the answers. I didn't look at my classmate's paper, but did wonder what all that writing was about. I would never cheat. What if the prof asked what I had in mind when I made the response I had made? If I make a mistake, I own it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2016, 01:46 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(19-10-2016 09:09 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-10-2016 05:35 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  DLJ - Any news on your interview?

It hasn't happened yet.

I haven't had a reply to my last email so perhaps they read my last post and decided that too much tersenessosity won't be good radio.

Sad

Well, if they're reading this page, it might be my fault, too. *shrug*

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 11:27 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Well, we finally got around to doing part 2.

Here it is. Recorded at the end of October, published today.

Like the first one, there was minimal editing... they added the intro and the wrap-up and there was a jump-cut at 17:30 to remove some repetition because Andy was getting going on the first topic (Cosmological Argument) but I wanted to establish some ground-rules first. Other than that, it's a faithful Laughat rendition.

For me, the arguments themselves were almost irrelevant. I had two objectives:
1) Their point was that one would have to "disprove" their arguments. I wanted to pass back the burden of proof to them.
2) To reduce each argument to its nub and fit that nub into one (or more) of four epistemologically dodgy categories.

Given that I can't control the flow of the discussion (mainly for technology reasons) my preferred technique was to guide Doug and Andy towards those categories by questioning some of their subconscious assumptions.

As much as I wanted to keep interjecting with "that's wrong because..." I had to resist that temptation... a sometimes frustrating but potentially fruitful approach, I hope.

These are the four categories (in the style of the Words I Want To Remember thread):

[Image: 2087myt.jpg]

Part 1

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like DLJ's post
26-11-2016, 11:40 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(26-11-2016 11:27 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Well, we finally got around to doing part 2.

Here it is. Recorded at the end of October.

Like the first one, there was minimal editing... they added the intro and the wrap-up and there was a jump-cut at 17:30 to remove some repetition because Andy was getting going on the first topic (Cosmological Argument) but I wanted to establish some ground-rules first. Other than that, it's a faithful Laughat rendition.

For me, the arguments themselves were almost irrelevant. I had two objectives:
1) Their point was that one would have to "disprove" their arguments. I wanted to pass back the burden of proof to them.
2) To reduce each argument to its nub and fit that nub into one (or more) of four epistemologically dodgy categories.

Given that I can't control the flow of the discussion (mainly for technology reasons) my preferred technique was to guide Doug and Andy towards those categories by questioning some of their subconscious assumptions.

As much as I wanted to keep interjecting with "that's wrong because..." I had to resist that temptation... a sometimes frustrating but potentially fruitful approach, I hope.

These are the four categories (in the style of the Words I Want To Remember thread):

[Image: 2087myt.jpg]

Thanks for posting! Also, dashing pic Wink

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: