What do you think of my script?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2011, 03:30 AM
 
Question What do you think of my script?
I have been working on a script for a video that I will be making to clear up the common misconception's of the all important words, gnosticism, agnosticism, theism and atheism.

I was just wondering what you thought of it. Do I need to change anything? Add anything? I am having it proof read by another person, I just really need to make sure I have sound logic. I thought this would be the best place to get that.

Thanks in advanced if you volunteer to help.

Here is a link to the script.
Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2011, 08:54 PM
RE: What do you think of my script?
Your reasoning is pretty much sound, although personally I wouldn't say that people who define atheism in a different way are wrong or using it innapropriately, simply that we define it differently. That's my 2 cents.

Is this for a youtube video?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2011, 03:39 AM
 
RE: What do you think of my script?
(06-06-2011 08:54 PM)daemonowner Wrote:  Your reasoning is pretty much sound, although personally I wouldn't say that people who define atheism in a different way are wrong or using it innapropriately, simply that we define it differently. That's my 2 cents.

Is this for a youtube video?
I see what your saying. I guess that makes sense, since atheism does have multiple definitions. I just think that that definition makes the most sense being the antithesis to theism. I feel as if I should change the last paragraph anyways so I will now for sure. Tongue

And yes this is for YouTube. I am just getting a channel started in preparation for an atheist-theist debate/discussion show I'll be a part of starting in mid-july. It will be uploaded to YouTube and be a little over an hour long. (If everything goes as planned)

If your interested you can subscribe to my channel.
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2011, 09:36 PM
RE: What do you think of my script?
Hey I checked out your channel!

I just wanted to suggest (I no longer have a youtube so I can't comment) that on your abortion video you could add the "qualities of life argument" which suggests that fire is "more living" than an embryo (which by the way is the name of the baby-to-be for the first 10 weeks, not yet considered a fetus). I think it is a very convincing argument that isn't as well used as it should be.

Also you should double check spelling, I noticed a couple of errors. Good videos though, I enjoyed them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2011, 10:06 PM
 
RE: What do you think of my script?
I like your abortion video, although I don't think it would sway many pro-lifers. Very few would accept the initial argument that the embryo/fetus is not a human. It might make more sense to ask the viewer to come up with a definition of human that includes a zygote, embryo, fetus, and actual human while excluding sperm, eggs, skin cells, individual organs, and everything else they don't consider to be human.

I think that's where the major conflict is, many people are incredibly stubborn about every stage of pregnancy being considered human.

I'm pretty tired right now, but I'll try to remember to take a look at the script and give you some feedback when I'm feeling more coherent. I predict it will be very well thought out, and I won't have anything new to add as far as criticism goes Smile
Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2011, 02:49 AM
 
RE: What do you think of my script?
(08-06-2011 09:36 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  Hey I checked out your channel!

I just wanted to suggest (I no longer have a youtube so I can't comment) that on your abortion video you could add the "qualities of life argument" which suggests that fire is "more living" than an embryo (which by the way is the name of the baby-to-be for the first 10 weeks, not yet considered a fetus). I think it is a very convincing argument that isn't as well used as it should be.

Also you should double check spelling, I noticed a couple of errors. Good videos though, I enjoyed them.

No doubt. I would have done so much differently If I could have re-done the abortion video, and I probably will redo it at some point. After posting it I realized the scrutiny it comes under. For this newest video I am spending sleepless nights making sure everything is perfect.


(08-06-2011 10:06 PM)Zach Wrote:  I like your abortion video, although I don't think it would sway many pro-lifers. Very few would accept the initial argument that the embryo/fetus is not a human. It might make more sense to ask the viewer to come up with a definition of human that includes a zygote, embryo, fetus, and actual human while excluding sperm, eggs, skin cells, individual organs, and everything else they don't consider to be human.

I think that's where the major conflict is, many people are incredibly stubborn about every stage of pregnancy being considered human.

I'm pretty tired right now, but I'll try to remember to take a look at the script and give you some feedback when I'm feeling more coherent. I predict it will be very well thought out, and I won't have anything new to add as far as criticism goes Smile

I agree. The abortion video was mostly a practice video but I will most likely redo it later for the sake of accuracy and reputation. Thanks for taking a look at the script. I'm looking forward to your input. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2011, 08:56 AM
 
RE: What do you think of my script?
I like the script, and although as daemonowner said people do define the terms differently, the way you are defining them is arguably the most useful way they can be defined.

In my experience, agnostic is what people call themselves when they lack a belief in gods but think atheist means they have the same faith as a theist that god(s) do not exist. That's what I said I was when I became an atheist. Then there's also the fact that theists often assume atheist means gnostic atheist or "strong atheist"*, when it doesn't. Your video does a great job clarifying that, and explaining what one can tell about someone else based on them describing themselves as atheist.

*I don't consider a strong atheist unreasonable, I think it's always assumed that there's at least an insignificant chance reality is not as it seems (and I think a gnostic or strong atheist is simply ignoring that possibility because of its irrelevance, not denying that it exists). Someone who maintains that Santa isn't real is no more unreasonable than someone who says the Christian God is not real. Both are entities proposed by another human that are supported by demonstrably false evidence or conspiracy theories. If you want to argue over Santa, I can counter any argument that he does not exist, but my position is going to be a conspiracy theory indicative of a very dull Occam's Razor. The same goes for the Christian God, except the conspiracy theory for his existence goes beyond government coverups and delusions to call into question logic itself.

Hm... actually creating that conspiracy theory and explaining why one should not consider it when pondering the existence of Santa Claus might be a good way to explain the purpose of Occam's Razor and defend strong atheism at the same time.
Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2011, 04:26 PM
RE: What do you think of my script?
I'm writing a review of stem cell research, and abortion is closely related (catholics argue that stem cell research is equal to abortion, and ends a human life), so I'm reading through papers on ethics and going through the dishonest arguments against both by the likes of the Institute of Creation Research.

I think the question of whether or not the embryo is human is irrelevant, although I am inclined to hold the position that it gains importance as it develops and I see merit to the position that 14 days into development it becomes one individual (as it can no longer split to become twins or merge with another, it is actually a single individual from thereon).
It seems to me that the question should be one of suffering. With stem cell research, it is obvious that we should be advancing given the treatments we already have and the possibilities still out there. With abortion, think of how many unwanted children would be brought into the world.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2011, 07:22 PM
 
RE: What do you think of my script?
I'm pretty much using human as a substitute for morally relevant and entitled to the same rights all humans have. It becomes an issue IMO when the fetus can feel pain and/or think. But that is still not enough of a reason to treat pregnant women as life support systems instead of humans, and before it develops that capacity there is no grounds for opposing an abortion.

I'm not that familiar with stem cell research, but if I remember right the main argument against it is the notion that it would encourage abortions or place a monetary value on aborted fetuses and therefore an incentive to abort more of them, which to them is killing people. Are there others, perhaps something that doesn't hinge on abortion being murder?
Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2011, 08:22 PM
RE: What do you think of my script?
The main, most common argument against stem cell research is that it kills potential human life forms, and that is if the person objecting does not consider fertilisation to be the defining point of humanity. People think of stem cell research is evil or wrong because you are killing defenseless embryos, that would otherwise one day become a human. People usually don't consider the wellbeing of the patients.

I have actually heard some arguments against it that go along the lines of 'we are growing people to harvest their organs'. We aren't, really.
Some other arguments argue that they are impractical, and are unlikely to produce the results that we want. Meaning that we probably couldn't develop the treatments, so we should stop killing embryos.

I just realised how far we are away from the original topic of the thread. Woops.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: