Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

[Subduction Zone]

The title says it all. Has anyone called the Atheist Experience? Who was the host that day? How did you think that you did? And if possible can you link the video?

 

[Trailblazer]

The title says it all. Has anyone called the Atheist Experience? Who was the host that day? How did you think that you did? And if possible can you link the video?

I have seen the videos but I never called in.

 

[mangalavara]

The title says it all. Has anyone called the Atheist Experience? Who was the host that day? How did you think that you did? And if possible can you link the video?

I haven't. I would never debate with the host of any kind of show because the host will always win, or at least seem to win.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't. I would never debate with the host of any kind of show because the host will always win, or at least seem to win.

That is not always true. It is a challenge, I will admit that.

Are you up to a test run? Here is the one question that they ask to get someone started off when they say that they believe in God:

What do you believe and why?

 

[Ella S.]

I haven't. I would never debate with the host of any kind of show because the host will always win, or at least seem to win.

To be honest, the quality of the Atheist Experience is kind of all over the place. A lot of the times, you're right; the hosts aren't really interested in an honest discussion and can jump the gun quickly.

Other times, there's the exact opposite problem where they're keeping someone who doesn't really have an argument or a point on the line for too long.

Part of it depends on the hosts they have and how they're feeling that day. Newer hosts tend to be a lot more open to having the more drawn-out discussions, but the ones who have been around for awhile tend to have a lot less patience because of how many bad-faith "gotcha" callers they've had to deal with over the years.

I think it's pretty understandable to not want anything to do with the show, especially because it seems to be about as effective as debates in general are; which is to say, it almost never changes anyone's mind.

 

[mangalavara]

Are you up to a test run?

No, not really. The paradigm of a Western atheist is too different from that of a Hindu. It would be more suitable for a Western Christian, Jew, Deist, or even a Muslim to participate in one of those debates.

 

[mangalavara]

To be honest, the quality of the Atheist Experience is kind of all over the place. A lot of the times, you're right; the hosts aren't really interested in an honest discussion and can jump the gun quickly.

This is basically any kind of show anywhere, be it theological, political, etc.

I think it's pretty understandable to not want anything to do with the show, especially because it seems to be about as effective as debates in general are; which is to say, it almost never changes anyone's mind.

Debates of any kind may not change minds, but they do entertain audiences.

 

[Ella S.]

No, not really. The paradigm of a Western atheist is too different from that of a Hindu. It would be more suitable for a Western Christian, Jew, Deist, or even a Muslim to participate in one of those debates.

I don't really think that's accurate. I've seen a lot of discussions between Indian Hindus and Western atheists, and the impression I get is that the Hindus see more of a difference between themselves and Christians than everyone else does.

Do you believe in karma? Do you believe in reincarnation? Do you believe in mental monism or panpsychism? How literally do you read Vedic texts?

Not to mention a lot of Hindu beliefs about spiritual purity, like semen retention and some of the chakra pseudoscience, as well as the various gurus doing magic tricks and publicity stunts. Sadhguru alone has a lot of nonsense (imo) that most Western atheists can tackle.

There's a lot there for a Western atheist to debate. I don't see how Hinduism is really that special.

 

[mangalavara]

I don't really think that's accurate.

Actually, it is accurate. Western ideas about truth are different from Hindu and other Indian ideas about truth. Additionally, we are not creedal/confessional whereas people in Western religions tend to be.

Do you believe in karma? Do you believe in reincarnation? Do you believe in mental monism or panpsychism? How literally do you read Vedic texts?

Asking me if I believe in karma is like asking me if I believe in action.

Asking me if I believe in 'reincarnation' is like asking me if I believe in some New Age idea.

Mental monism? Lol!

Panpsychism? What is this?

I don't read Vedic texts. In my case, I am not required to, and I don't even know how to read them.

Not to mention a lot of Hindu beliefs about spiritual purity, like semen retention and some of the chakra pseudoscience, as well as the various gurus doing magic tricks and publicity stunts.

I have experienced spiritual purification, though not by semen retention. Are Hindus required to believe something about semen retention? I believe it is nonsensical due to experience and therefore not worth practicing.

Chakra pseudoscience? I know about chakras and have sensed them, but I've never heard about chakra pseudoscience. Maybe some group wants teachers to 'teach the controversy' concerning chakras in public schools?

I don't care about celebrity 'gurus.' They are of no importance to me.

Sadhguru alone has a lot of nonsense (imo) that most Western atheists can tackle.

Jaggi Vasudev is of no importance to me as an individual Hindu.

 

[questfortruth]

Has anyone called the Atheist Experience?

 

[PureX]

It's all about ego. And they'd be embarrassed if these people had any degree of self-awareness at all. But they don't.

It's the atheist's equivalent of the MAGA crowd wanting to "own and humiliate the libs".

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's all about ego. And they'd be embarrassed if these people had any degree of self-awareness at all. Burt they don't.

It's the atheist's equivalent of the MAGA crowd wanting to "own and humiliate the libs".

Then why don't you give it a shot?

 

[Windwalker]

Then why don't you give it a shot?

If it's as he says, why would someone want to waste their time? It would be like presenting complex arguments about evolution to Creationists. If they are only looking to be right, and not actually try to understand, then reason be damned.

I know from personal experience debating with neo-atheists proves to be very much of the time, the same as debating with religious fundamentalists. It doesn't matter if they are bible-beliefs, or science-beliefs, they approach and hold and defend those beliefs with the same "believerism". The old saying holds as true for them as any true-believer, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still".

Not that I know that about these folks in the video, per se, but taking PureX's word for it here, like all to many familiar debates I've had with "true believers" over the years, it's an exercise in futility and not about truly exploring deeper understandings beyond what we currently believe and hold to be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it's as he says, why would someone want to waste their time? It would be like presenting complex arguments about evolution to Creationists. If they are only looking to be right, and not actually try to understand, then reason be damned.

I know from personal experience debating with neo-atheists proves to be very much of the time, the same as debating with religious fundamentalists. It doesn't matter if they are bible-beliefs, or science-beliefs, they approach and hold and defend those beliefs with the same "believerism". The old saying holds as true for them as any true-believer, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still".

Not that I know that about these folks in the video, per se, but taking PureX's word for it here, like all to many familiar debates I've had with "true believers" over the years, it's an exercise in futility and not about truly exploring deeper understandings beyond what we currently believe and hold to be true.

I don't think that is what they are trying to do. They are hoping for serious discussion but the only ones that call tend to be more of the creationist types. I would like to see a more serious discussion, but I doubt if it will happen. Most of the callers are of the "I can prove the existence of God" sort. They do get a bit predictable after a while. I would much rather here from somoeone that had a belief and could articulate it properly.

 

[VoidCat]

I wouldn't call them cuz im a pagan and a demonolatrist. My beliefs aren't well known and i find most who try to argue with me on them can't wrap around the way I think as a pagan and demonlatrist who follows a left handed path. They don't understand it or get it or know enough to really argue on it. I also have no desire to prove my beliefs to anyone. However. I worship nature. At least one of my deities in that case you can easily prove as it is nature itself. The thing wouldnt be to argue that nature exists but why one would see it as a god.


Edit: I haven't watched the video yet im basing my comment on the comments here. Ill watch the video later but am i correct in assuming this is to talk about and convince folk of your beliefs?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why would you call an obviously biased channel where no matter what you say, their answer will be " you are wrong.?"

 

[Windwalker]

I don't think that is what they are trying to do. They are hoping for serious discussion but the only ones that call tend to be more of the creationist types. I would like to see a more serious discussion, but I doubt if it will happen. Most of the callers are of the "I can prove the existence of God" sort. They do get a bit predictable after a while. I would much rather here from somoeone that had a belief and could articulate it properly.

Yes, the "low hanging fruit" arguments. I've tried raising the bar of discussions with many atheist debaters on this many times. Occasionally I find those who hear the arguments and offer valid points of view that differ, but the norm is more just assuming what I am saying is the same low-hanging fruit arguments they are skilled at swatting down.

I've pretty much been convinced that's because that is the limit of their own understandings of these things, and that is why they are "unbelievers". But then so am I. The god they don't believe in, and the reasons for it, is the same god I don't believe in either. I am a rationalist, but I don't stop there. Richard Dawkins' god for instance, is pretty much the God of fundamentalist beliefs and nothing more elevated than that. I'm an atheist too, if that's the standard.

As I said, I've not listed to these folks, and maybe they have deeper more philosophical views, rather than the typical Noah's Ark can't be really real type debunking beliefs. While those are useful for a fundamentalist questioning those types of beliefs for themselves, they don't speak to anything deeper than that for me.

It's not a done deal once you accept the earth isn't 6000 years old and that donkeys can't really talk in human language. Deconstruction is the easy part. But where do you go from there? A purely physicalist view of reality is functionally as mythological as flying horses are.

Maybe you can point me to some time markers in the video, as I really don't have the inclination to listen to 1 1/2 hour videos.

 

[Sheldon]

It's all about ego. And they'd be embarrassed if these people had any degree of self-awareness at all. But they don't.

It's the atheist's equivalent of the MAGA crowd wanting to "own and humiliate the libs".

Haven't screwed up the courage then?

 

[Sheldon]

If it's as he says, why would someone want to waste their time? It would be like presenting complex arguments about evolution to Creationists. If they are only looking to be right, and not actually try to understand, then reason be damned.

I know from personal experience debating with neo-atheists proves to be very much of the time, the same as debating with religious fundamentalists. It doesn't matter if they are bible-beliefs, or science-beliefs, they approach and hold and defend those beliefs with the same "believerism". The old saying holds as true for them as any true-believer, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still".

Not that I know that about these folks in the video, per se, but taking PureX's word for it here, like all to many familiar debates I've had with "true believers" over the years, it's an exercise in futility and not about truly exploring deeper understandings beyond what we currently believe and hold to be true.

Not seen many pulpits looking for debate about their beliefs, and broadcasting the results. Maybe it's about the viewers who can keep an open mind, you know the ones not already indoctrinated into religion, or who've retained a shred of critical and rational thinking.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't think that is what they are trying to do. They are hoping for serious discussion but the only ones that call tend to be more of the creationist types. I would like to see a more serious discussion, but I doubt if it will happen. Most of the callers are of the "I can prove the existence of God" sort. They do get a bit predictable after a while. I would much rather here from somoeone that had a belief and could articulate it properly.

It was a while ago now, but remember that lunatic with the Sottish accent, madder than a box of frogs, and they paid his asinine claims due deference. Credit to them for the patience, though I haven't watched it for a while. I never saw a single caller who didn't ultimately resort irrational or unfalsifiable anecdotal claims though, not a one.