Posted: Nov 09, 2018 9:34 pm
The fact that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise does though.
Just because someone is unfamiliar with something doesn't mean they cannot offer any valid criticism whatsoever.
Kafei wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.
I wasn't using "weasel words" or "shifting goal posts.
Counterfactual horseshit. You might actually deluded yourself due to your intense bigotry on this subject, but you did in fact keep changing your claims and/or subject whenever Matt tried to get you to commit to something.
Kafei wrote: I was sincerely responding to Matt.
Another counterfactual assertion.
Kafei wrote:
Matt never showed any effort to understand this stuff.
And there's your typical MO again of baselessly accusing your interlocutors of ignorance and disinterest.
Just becauses someone disagrees with you Jimmy, doesn't mean they dont understand or don't want to understand.
Kafei wrote:
I mean, his reactions have been very much like your own.
And rather than even considering the possibility that Matt, myself and many others make the same points, because you are wrong, instead of all those other people, you must stick to the notion that everyone else is wrong and does not understand.
Again Jimmy, you have not, in the slightest, demonstrated that I don't understand or am not interested. You just declare it over and over in a desperate attempt to discredit me.
Kafei wrote: Matt even admitted he was unfamiliar with the study on my most recent call with him on The Atheist Experience, and then he asked me when was he supposed to familiarize himself with this research. Hmm. Gee. I don't know. Maybe when I attempted to e-mail about it in 2013 or with my call with him in 2017? Now, here he is in 2018 saying he was "unfamiliar with the study." Like I said, go figure.
I don't what's worse, your incessant need to make shit up about your interlocutor or your inability to process what your interlocutors post.
I never denied that Matt said he's not familiar with the research. Yet you keep bringing it up as if that's supposed to prove something. It does not.
Then you are not familiar with the research at all as you keep making claims that are not supported by said research.
Kafei wrote:
I made it quite clear that the study involving the self-confirmed atheists who volunteered into this psilocybin research is, in fact, on-going. Yes, Dr. Roland Griffiths has spoken on its status as of his lecture given 2017. Understand each one of these studies takes some time to complete. The initial pilot study done back in '99 wasn't published in 2006.
Jimmy, you cannot argue at the same time, that you dont want to discuss the study because it is not finished yet, while also appealing to it constantly. Even more so when what you claim isn't reflected in the sources you cite.
Kafei wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.
You're responding to a post that I left for him.
Also irrelevant.
Kafei wrote: He quoted me where said that I called in more recently, the point of these earlier mentions is that TAE had plenty of time to research this stuff, and they didn't.
Such astonding arrogance. Do you think the people at TAE have nothing to do besides the show?
Are you that selfabsorbed that you don't realise these people have jobs, other callers and question they want to answer?
That your complete failure to present a coherent and sound argument did nothing to provide an incentive to look up what you were citing?
Kafei wrote: Like I said, my initial e-mail exchange with Matt on this stuff took place in 2013.
Like I said, the world doesn't revolve around you and your interests.
Kafei wrote: If you ask me, there should be no excuse for him 2018 unless the reason why he's still unfamiliar is because he shares your own "genuine interest" in these topics.
Get your head out of your ass Jimmy.
It's clear to anyone who reads this thread and the one I linked to that you're either incredibly dishonest or delusional. Or worse, both.
Kafei wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.
Maybe you need to read more carefully before just flat-out and falsely accusing people of lying.
Nope, because my point is in direct response to what you posted.
Kafei wrote:Like I said, you have knack for that.
You know fuck all about me, so this is yet another desperate and dishonest accusation.
Kafei wrote: I didn't say episode.
QED more semantic dishonesty.
Kafei wrote: I understand they upload every single episode. I'm saying they didn't clip my first call when Tracie and Russell. However, they've clipped every single call of mine ever afterwards.
FFS, Kafei this is what you actually posted:
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.
Kafei wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.
Sure, you can say atheism/theism is a true dichotomy,
It isn't just me saying so, it's what those words describe and how the english language works.
Kafei wrote:
but as I should said, what I should've told Matt so he wouldn't have gotten into that silly semantic argument that, in my opinion, simply wasted time is that the Perennial philosophy is not necessarily mainstream atheism or theism as ordinarily conceived of today.
And like I said that is a completely different point/claim, once again demonstrating your tendency to tap-dance.
Kafei wrote:
Now, if atheism and theism is a dichotomy,
They are.
Kafei wrote: then obviously the Perennial philosophy, if we're going to have to categorize it in either "A" or "B," it is, indeed, a form of theism.
Yes, which is why we keep asking you why you think the drugs study demonstrates something supernatural.
Kafei wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.
No, it's actually what I meant to say.
Again then you are incredibly bad at experessing yourself as what you actually said is not something similar but a completely different claim.
Kafei wrote: Like I said, I'm not a professional at this,
Irrelevant, neither am I, but when I misspeak it's at least something similar to what I intended to say, not a completely different point.
Kafei wrote: I've only spoken to Matt a total of three times on The Atheist Experience, and I told Matt that, sure, atheism and theism is a dichotomy, but my point to Matt is that point is only relevant depending on how you define theism
No it isnt. Not in relation to atheism, which is the dichotomy that is the point of the discussion and your initial statement.
Kafei wrote: But what was his response? "That's not a definition of God."
Which is correct and which he pointed out to make it clear to you that, not only is perrenialism in the same category as (a)theism, it is a hypothesis about theism.
Kafei wrote:
He even told me "make one up." After he just finished saying, "Pick any definition of God."
To which you responded by waffling about a hypothesis for the origin of theistic beliefs, rather than answering the question.
Which is why he objected to your answer not being a definition of god.
Kafei wrote: So, if you ask me, Matt Dillahunty contradicted himself in this instant.
And given your abysmal record in responding to the actual points being raised, and misrepresenting constantly, I have long since given up on taking your word for something.
Kafei wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.
I've done no such thing.
Like I said, delusional or dishonest.
More rectally extracted bullshit.
Kafei wrote:
That was never clipped, and I'm fine with that, it was my initial attempt, and certainly it was when I was probably less articulate on these topics.
You're making this up Jimmy. They've always taped their entire episode, so if your first appearance has indeed been recorded and hasn't been recovered yet, or something must have gone wrong with the recording equipment at the time.
In either case, it wasn't a concious decision on their part, which you keep asserting.
Kafei wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.
And yet they weren't clear examples of what you claimed.
Reality fortunately does not operate based on your blind counterfactual assertions.
Kafei wrote: They're clear examples of what I've said, that I'm simply attempting to sharpen my ability on these topics.
You kept doging very straightforward, simple questions, you kept playing word games to avoid making a coherent claim which could then be criticised.
Except Thommo has already demonstrated otherwise, your delusional assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
Kafei wrote: I was quoting what's been established thus far in that study as Griffiths has given the status of that particular study in his 2017 lecture.
Bullshit.
Kafei wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.
Like what in particular? Why make an accusation, if you can't back it up?
You still haven't answered the question Jimmy, would you keep presenting evidence and arguments if your interlocutor keeps ignoring them or disimissing them out of hand so they can pretend you haven't presented any?
Blind counterfactual assertion #156344623
Kafei wrote: It was Matt that got hung up on semantics,
I've already corrected you on this earlier in this post, so I won't bother again, as you're just going to pretend it didn't happen.
Of course someone who incessantly lies, misrepresents and acts dishonest will reply with 'No, you!'.
It won't work Jimmy, my detailed rebuttals and demonstrations of your dishonesty are still present in this thread.
No ammount of ignoring and pretending they don't exist will magically erase them out of existence.
Kafei wrote: You just seething nonsense to spew.
Another baseless and personalised accusation and a demonstration of a failure at basic English as well.
Kafei wrote: You come off as a very negative person. Do you have friends irl?
Again, since you know fuck all about me, your assesment of me is both irrational and dishonest. As is your inflammatory question.
QED more unsupported accusations.
Kafei wrote: I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this post when I my original reply was left to Thommo.
This is not your personal blog Jimmy, it's an open forum and you don't get to dictate who responds to your posts or how.
Kafei wrote: You hijacked it,
Bullshit, I pointed out that you were once again engaging in irrelevant attempts to change the topic.
Kafei wrote: and just started spewing your seething nonsense of which you seem to do with all your posts here.
Again, nothing but personalised invective that is based on fuck all.
Kafei wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.
It isn't what? You were vague here.
It's a direct answer to your question. If you can't figure it out, don't ask it.
Blind counterfactual assertion #482521
Kafei wrote: Like I said, I've been quite sincere.
The only way this is true if you're dealing with a fantastical version of this thread. Because you keep misrepresenting what other people post, making shit up about the studies you cite, and generally performing all manner of mental gymnastics to avoid admitting being wrong about anyting.
Kafei wrote: If anyone here is bullshitting, it's you, especially with these content-free posts filled with nothing but baseless insults.
That's a 1000 hypocrisy meters you owe me now Jimmy.
Kafei wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.
What assertions?
Once again you either completely miss the point or focussing on the wrong aspect to avoid answering the question.
Thommo and I are asking you about your assertion that someone has to be familiar with something to offer valid criticism on it.
You keep dodging this question Jimmy.
It is irrelevant what assertions, what matters is the general question of whether someone needs to be familiar with something to offer valid criticism.
Do they Jimmy, or do they not?
Kafei wrote: I don't know how you could think Matt had any valid criticism at all when he's not even familiar with this research, and he hung up before the dialogue got to any meaningful clarification of these terms involved in the study. When I first mentioned it to Matt and Jen, they let out a booming laugh. When I said there's been "peer-reviewed studies," Matt's response was, "No, there fuckin' hasn't." Well, guess what? There has!
Bullshit. Matt was referring to peer-reviewed studies that prove that mystical experiences actually map to a supernatural experience. There are none.