Posted: Nov 09, 2018 10:50 am
No, not really. That's a non-sequitur.
Kafei wrote: And if I make a recommendation, we've discussed these things thus far for a while now, and yet like this research, these arguments are "on-going." I will leave these references, but these are links you may already be familiar with as I've posted some them throughout the "Ground of Being" thread. I recommend referring to the second half of my second to last encounter with Matt Dillahunty which I feel more accurately addresses these topics. Matt, in my opinion, went off into a tangent of semantics rather than addressing the more salient points I was attempting to emphasize.
Matt was asking you to clarify because you keep using weasel words and shifting the goal posts.
Either that's true and you've repeatedly lied about the results and conclusions, or your statements show that you aren't familiar with the research at all.
Kafei wrote: and I did make this mistake in my original call with Tracie and Russel back in 2016. I believe that was the very first time I had called in, and I don't really discuss this stuff in person with really anyone outside of my own friends, family, co-workers, etc.
Completely irrelevant. No-one mentioned that first call, there's no point in bringing it up here.
Kafei wrote:
I mean, if I hadn't mentioned that, not even TAE would've sifted through their episodes to find that clip. They didn't publish it.
Stop lying Kafei. They upload every single episode and are continually on the look out for and restoring older episodes that were lost for a while.
Kafei wrote:
I don't like listening to it, because Matt got hung up on a semantic argument when I said the Perennialist view is neither atheism or theism which at that moment I didn't know how to address.
You called into an atheist show, not a 'I have an idea and want to discuss it' show.
If you call into an atheist show and try to assert that there is a third option between atheism and theism, you better be prepared to back that up.
You can't do that however, since theism/atheism is a true dichotomy.
Kafei wrote:
What I should have said which would have avoided that silly semantic entirely is that Perennialism isn't necessarily mainstream theism or atheism.
That's a completely different claim. So either you're once again shifting the goal posts or failing at precisely formulating your claims.
Kafei wrote:
I mean, if you want to address anything in those clips, that's fine with me. I've repeated that one of the reasons I attend this forum is because I wish to sharpen my ability to speak on these topics, and so I don't run into that kind of nonsense with Matt.
Again, it's no nonsense. It's to get you to stop dodging questions and shifting goal posts.
Kafei wrote:
I appreciate the very fact that The Atheist Experience published these more particular clips in their YouTube channel at all, and in their entirety.
Like I said, they do so with all their episodes, so that's to be expected.
Kafei wrote:
You actually found a clip I wasn't aware of published March, 2017 by a different user I admit I was unfamiliar. You see, TAE published that same clip in Aug. of 2017. I've also called into the Talk Heathen show with Eric and Jamie, but somehow my call was dropped, and I believe the fault was on their end, because before they took the call they mentioned issues with their lines that day... and yes, I took Jamie's advice he offered after the dropped call. If you find any points there you'd like to address, please post them here.
This is completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion Kafei. I only posted that video because it provides clear examples of your disingenuous dodging behavior. It wasn't about the claims you made.
Kafei wrote:
All apologies for going on this tangent, but I will add that I would rather not comment on the on-going study involving the atheists until it's published.
Then stop making assertions based on it.
Kafei wrote:
If you'd like to make that the focus of the discussion, I don't mind discussing it, but it's a study that's still in progress and while Griffiths has given lectures on the research as its progressed thus far, the results so far have been met with some confusion thus far among these threads between the survey study done over the internet vs. the psilocybin study.
There is no confusion, there's you repeatedly conflating the studies to make claims that do not reflect what has actually been discovered or claimed.
Kafei wrote: I do find it interesting that you'd even bring up these clips, and then couch them as me somehow being "dishonest."
Dodging the question is dishonest behavior by definition.
Kafei wrote:
I was being as honest as possible with Matt.
Then you seem to be quite incapable of acting in an intellectually honest manner.
Kafei wrote:
<snip> more irrelevant drivel <snip>
Not the topic of the discussion Kafei.
Kafei wrote:Thommo wrote:Does that look like decade long precise familiarity? Is lack of familiarity to any degree (and we know that Dillahunty has some familiarity since Kafei has spoken at extreme length to him on the subject, and we've seen Jordan Peterson misrepresent aspects of it to him) all it takes to disqualify any and all criticism?
You would think that were so, huh?
He knows it isn't, as do I, as does anyone with a basic understanding of logic.
Kafei wrote:
<snip> more irrelevant and dishonest attacks on TAE <snip>
Stop bullshitting Kafei.
Kafei wrote:Thommo wrote:Does one have to be familiar with research to understand why assertions not present in that research don't follow from that research? To understand experimenter bias? Selection bias? Or are some criticisms valid even without precise familiarity?
Well, what in specific are you referring to? I'm up for the discussion or even debate, wherever this leads towards.
QED. Thommo asks you a very simple question and once again, as in the video I provided, you completely dodge the question with a non-sequitur response.
