On this episode I have a very…. Well let’s just call it interesting conversation with David Smalley, the infamous host of Dogma Debate.... It started on the topic of if Atheism is a belief or a worldview then spirals from there. Have your popcorn handy for this one!
Toward the end of the discussion we start discussion Peter Boghossian and whether or not he said theism/Christianity should be classified as a mental illness in the DSM. You'll here how that goes...
But look, even Jerry Coyne read it how pretty much EVERYONE read it... oh and see the comments on this blog and you'll see all the atheists saying exactly what David claims to never see...
The quote in question was: "There is perhaps no greater contribution one could make to
contain and perhaps even cure faith than removing the exemption that prohibits
classifying religious delusions as mental illness. The removal of religious
exemptions from the DSM would enable academicians and clinicians to bring
considerable resources to bear on the problem of treating faith, as well as on
the ethical issues surrounding faith-based interventions. In the long term,
once these treatments and this body of research is refined, results could then
be used to inform public health policies designed to contain and ultimately
eradicate faith.” Peter
Boghossian A Manual for
Creating Atheists (Kindle
Locations 3551-3555).
But look, even Jerry Coyne read it how pretty much EVERYONE read it... oh and see the comments on this blog and you'll see all the atheists saying exactly what David claims to never see...
For a previous article I wrote on on David's views, visit http://freedthinkerpodcast.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-response-to-david-smalleys-top-10_9.html
Enjoy the show!
Tyler,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for sharing your gifts and for using them for the advancement of the kingdom. I learn tons from every episode.
On your most recent episode, with David Smalley, I do think you beat the horse to death multiple times on the last point. Since this wasn't his point to begin with, you spent an inordinate amount of time getting him to try to admit something that he never claimed. If I had been him, I also would have hung up (hanged up?). Even though I use presuppositional apologetics, I see this as a flaw in the approach of many who argue presuppositionally - pick one point and just keep drilling. You would have done much better to move on to something he said earlier or pick another topic. This would have likely kept the door open for future discussions.
In love I have to say not only did you lose the battle on this, but that you may not get to engage in the war with him in the future. A goal should be how do I keep the door open for more discussion. If they get frustrated or offended, it should be with the gospel and not with my argument style.
Keep up the great work!
Rejoice Always,
Tom
I am a listener of Dogma Debate and self-identify as atheistic.
ReplyDeleteI thought you had some good points, but they didn't get through. I think there are two reasons for that.
First, you David were in different discussions. He was there to debate his beliefs. You were there to discuss some issues with leaders of the movement. He wasn't interested in having your conversation, and you weren't interested (within this podcast) in having his conversation.
Second, your language was inappropriate for a general audience. I was able to follow it, but a lot of the Dogma Debate listeners are either unable or unwilling. I think you would have had a more beneficial conversation had you stuck to general terminology. Matt Dillahunty would be a much better guest for the conversation you wanted to have.
I do think that you erred with Begosian. Your interpretation was reasonable up to the point where the author clarifies and says that is not what they meant. It's then an error to say - yes that is what you meant. You can say - well then you chose your words poorly. But the tactic you took just resolves to a false equivocation. Again, that's just because Begosian was contacted during the interview and specifically stated that your interpretation is not what he meant.