Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 15th July 2017, 12:23 PM
wadaye wadaye is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,408
Default Re: Do the gospel accounts of Jesus paint a Prophet of Cult Leader?

Quote:
trustyoursources said View Post
Quote:
wadaye said View Post
Any character in history can be subjcted to this kind of analysis where the details have been added later on to a bare bones real or fictional character.

Its not like we don't know that the Hadith is all 9th or 10th century polemics and argument embodied in the character of Muhammed.

What is there to gain by a new Muhammad cartoon by somebody who has not earned the scholarly credentials to make a serious comment?

What relevance does it have to insert it into todays arguments where there is so much killing going on in the name of Islam or against Islam or against Muslims or against Shias or against Sunnis or against Copts or against Bahais or Kurds or Yazidis or so on.
I mean we could show the incorrectness of Yazidi beliefs in a scientific context but it is impolite and effectively fascist as some fundamentalists do to claim that they have been allowed to suffer by God because of their beliefs beibg blasphemous according to Christian doctrine.

Seriously what you are talking about is worse than useless, the kind of stuff that gets used by the Identitarians and other neo fascists and you get to try to be a martyr for the cause with a second grade video. No thanks
Look I am not a accredited scholar I am a film maker and I did do research and I site my research and I made an honest depiction as to how I understand Jesus there is nothing wrong with me making an animation on a mythological character. I understand I may not have been right on many things but that's why I sited things and made it easy for anyone to point out how and why. This all will lead to discussion and itll further our understanding of the subject.

Why would it be wrong if I made a literary character analysis of the Muhammad in the Koran? The answer is it would not be wrong in any way, shape, or form. I am entitled to make art and have an opinion and no one will ever take that away from me. If people commit violence because of things like that I beg you take issue with them.

Seriously think about what you are saying for one second if people commit violence over a cartoon are you really blaming the guy with the pen or the guy with the gun? (Your logic is equivalent to asking a woman to dress less provocatively or else she is just asking for it.)
No. What I am saying is to ask yourself why you are making the documentary and for whom. Who is your proposed audience. What do you want to achieve with the film. Its worth a bit of self interrogation before you go seeking a martyrdom operation.
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 15th July 2017, 02:50 PM
trustyoursources's Avatar
trustyoursources trustyoursources is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 17
Default Re: Do the gospel accounts of Jesus paint a Prophet of Cult Leader?

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
No. What I am saying is to ask yourself why you are making the documentary and for whom. Who is your proposed audience. What do you want to achieve with the film. Its worth a bit of self interrogation before you go seeking a martyrdom operation.
Hardly martyrdom cops, lightning, bees kill more people then terrorists where I live its not what so ever a concern as it shouldn't be. I am making these movies to make people think about familiar subjects differently and most importantly to entertain.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 15th July 2017, 03:42 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is online now
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,005
Default Re: Do the gospel accounts of Jesus paint a Prophet of Cult Leader?

Quote:
trustyoursources said View Post
Quote:
Goldenmane said View Post
To the OP:

You're qualified to psychoanalyse this semi-mythical figure how exactly?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a cunt (I just am one, no effort required) but I'm hoping that you've at least got some appropriate background in psychology or psychiatry as well as textual analysis and perhaps linguistic and historical qualifications that place you in a position to reasonably be able to claim the ability to perform such a psychoanalysis.

Because here's the thing: There are far too many people utterly bereft of anything remotely resembling such backgrounds and skills who nevertheless seem to think that carnival barkery will stand them in good stead as substitutes, and unfortunately there are enough "atheists" who are happy to jump on the provided bandwagons to both provide such charlatans with a lucrative font of funds (not to mention adoring fuckbunnies) and to give me a constant low-level fucking headache.

So my advice is that you maybe establish your credentials. You've got the relevant degrees, you speak the appropriate languages fluently, you're across all the relevant literature, the usual shit. The sort of shit that anyone seeking to set themselves up as an authority on a subject has to fucking do before being taken seriously.

Now, you may (if you're being clever) say, "Well, who the fuck are you to demand such things? Where is your proof of authority?" And the answer is quite simple: I have no fucking authority. I have no academic qualifications worth mentioning. I'm a fucking pool boy. I dropped out of uni. Twice. My highest academic qualification is that several academics will happily call me a cunt in public.

But that doesn't matter one iota. I'm not the one claiming the ability to psychoanalyse a myth.

I am, however, the one who called Christianity "a cult that got lucky". You can google that shit.
You do not need credentials to psychoanalyze anyone people do it with every single person they meet everyday everyone analyzes everyone elses behavior. You realize im looking at mythology no treating a patient, no credentials needed.
Ok, I'm going to stop you right there.

Psychoanalysis is a technical term, referring to a very specific discipline within psychiatry, and not something "people do ... with every single person they meet every day".

Whilst it is true that there is a branch of literary criticism that uses the psychoanalytic approach, this again is a specialist field, and not what you're actually engaged in.

I'm not pointing this out merely to be pedantic or a prick. The issue is that ostensibly, you're on my side, publicly putting yourself out to be an atheist voice. This means I'm going to hold you to account for the level of work that you do in that regard, because when people on my side do a shit job, it gives those who stand in opposition a fucking foothold.

Quote:
It sounds like tell me your credetials is your way of saying I have nothing valid to offer to this discussion so Im going to try to ask for a bunch of paperwork just to even allow this conversation to happen. LOL your oratory tactics are adorable.
It's nothing of the kind, and your attempts to analyse me demonstrate a singular lack of ability on that front alone.

The problem, as stated above, is that there are more and more 'atheist' voices filling the fucking air with ill-considered and intellectually unrigorous babble, and it's pissing me off. In claiming to engage in psychoanalysis, whilst demonstrating not the faintest grasp of what that claim actually means, you are making my life more difficult because I guaran-damn-tee you that some pain-in-the-arse fighting on the side of religion is going to seize on it as weakening my fucking position.

The key here is that atheism, as an intellectually-derived position, for the purposes of influencing society, relies upon intellectual honesty and - and this is what we've built the entire fucking global movement on - intellectual rigour. Our position has always been that atheism is the only intellectually honest and rigorous position to hold in response to the imposition of religious fucknuttery, and it is becoming increasingly important that we keep that in mind. When we stop employing intellectual rigour, we open ourselves to easy pushback.

That's why some of us are extremely critical of prominent atheist voices who start to disappear up their own arses. The recent example with Peter Boghossian (sp?) et al and their attempt at a Sokal hoax to discredit the entire field of gender studies is a case in point. Boghossian achieved some prominence with his work developing the notion of Street Epistemology, and that was fine work. But this hoax bullshit was fucking infantile and the way he doubled down when called on it was a textbook example of refusal to apply intellectual rigour to one's own cognitive biases. It fucking weakened our position, because now any theocrat-in-waiting can point to it as discrediting the entire fucking movement. "You claim atheism is intellectually rigorous, but that Boghossian bloke makes a right arse of that assertion."

It's also why Dawkiins has copped a lot of flack from many of us when he's tweeted yet another privilege-blind bit of fucking drivel that the religious can grasp and wave about as discrediting the atheist position. The more prominent you are, the more important it is to make sure you both know what you're talking about and demonstrate that fact.

So, I'm not trying to shut you down. I'm not telling you to stop what you're doing, and I'm not saying your lack of qualifications mean you are undeserving of having your voice heard. I'd be a right fucking hypocrite if that were the case. I've got a certificate in storyboarding and a long history of being a mouthy cunt. My concern is that you don't inadvertently give religion more fucking ammunition.

Quote:
From your description of qualifications I basically match you in my qualifications I dropped out of college I work as a video editor but make very little.
'Tis a field I've worked in, and one I was unable to make a living at, so I feel ya there.

Quote:
However unlike you I am not under some delusion that only certain people can discuss literature.
And at what point did I make that inane assertion?

I'll answer that for you: I didn't. What you've just done there is ascribe to me a position that I neither hold nor have stated. It is, in short, dishonest, and representative of precisely the issue I'm fucking highlighting.

The position that I have made crystal goddamned clear is that you aren't engaging in psychoanalysis, and claiming that you are is both transparently untrue and a fatal flaw in your presentation, one that any theist with an ounce of rhetorical acumen will sieze on in a fucking heartbeat to dismiss you entirely.

You don't have to have a degree to discuss literature. I don't have a degree, and I fucking discuss shit like that all the time. I've been responsible for some of the most scathing screeds attacking Christianity and its central figures that you're likely to fucking find, and I write with a distinct eye toward the funny. I'd lay odds that more than a few of the people reading this precise post right here will laugh out loud purely because I'm going to write the word "cock". As in, "cock-a-doodle-do, time for an awakening".

Look, I'm the first to say that we need more irreverent voices, if only because I'm one of them. My criticism isn't that you are unqualified to discuss literature, but that your discussion falls down when you lay claim to an activity that you don't demonstrate any knowledge of.

I'm a mouthy cunt, with no qualifications, and I am often wrong about shit. If you want to just be another mouthy cunt making fun of religious bullshit, then by all fucking means have at it. The more the merrier. But arrogating shit to yourself that you clearly don't understand undermines what you seem to be attempting to do.

Quote:
I made a case, I sited my case, and I explained how I got to my conclusion. Yes this is not science its literature there are no right answers but I gave my point of view reasoning and if you disagree with it or agree with it tell me why. Do not tell me I can read and talk about a book. Do you expect only submarine experts to talk about red October do you not see how stupid that sounds.
It might sound stupid if that was remotely what I was saying, but it wasn't. To take your example, I'd probably criticise someone with no qualifications or appropriate background who, in talking about The Hunt for Red October, claimed to be engaging in structural engineering analysis or the application of a postmodernist dialectic (I don't even know if that latter thing is a thing, but it sounds good, no?)

Look, go ahead and make funny videos lampooning religion. They're a worthwhile activity to engage in, and I'm a fan of Potholer54's work and others.

Just be aware that your work will face scrutiny, and not only from the religious. Cunts like me will critique it out of self-defense.
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

Reply With Quote
Like DanDare liked this post
Thank The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  #24  
Old 15th July 2017, 04:46 PM
trustyoursources's Avatar
trustyoursources trustyoursources is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 17
Default Re: Do the gospel accounts of Jesus paint a Prophet of Cult Leader?

Quote:
Goldenmane said View Post
Ok, I'm going to stop you right there.

Psychoanalysis is a technical term, referring to a very specific discipline within psychiatry, and not something "people do ... with every single person they meet every day".

Whilst it is true that there is a branch of literary criticism that uses the psychoanalytic approach, this again is a specialist field, and not what you're actually engaged in.

I'm not pointing this out merely to be pedantic or a prick. The issue is that ostensibly, you're on my side, publicly putting yourself out to be an atheist voice. This means I'm going to hold you to account for the level of work that you do in that regard, because when people on my side do a shit job, it gives those who stand in opposition a fucking foothold.



It's nothing of the kind, and your attempts to analyse me demonstrate a singular lack of ability on that front alone.

The problem, as stated above, is that there are more and more 'atheist' voices filling the fucking air with ill-considered and intellectually unrigorous babble, and it's pissing me off. In claiming to engage in psychoanalysis, whilst demonstrating not the faintest grasp of what that claim actually means, you are making my life more difficult because I guaran-damn-tee you that some pain-in-the-arse fighting on the side of religion is going to seize on it as weakening my fucking position.

The key here is that atheism, as an intellectually-derived position, for the purposes of influencing society, relies upon intellectual honesty and - and this is what we've built the entire fucking global movement on - intellectual rigour. Our position has always been that atheism is the only intellectually honest and rigorous position to hold in response to the imposition of religious fucknuttery, and it is becoming increasingly important that we keep that in mind. When we stop employing intellectual rigour, we open ourselves to easy pushback.

That's why some of us are extremely critical of prominent atheist voices who start to disappear up their own arses. The recent example with Peter Boghossian (sp?) et al and their attempt at a Sokal hoax to discredit the entire field of gender studies is a case in point. Boghossian achieved some prominence with his work developing the notion of Street Epistemology, and that was fine work. But this hoax bullshit was fucking infantile and the way he doubled down when called on it was a textbook example of refusal to apply intellectual rigour to one's own cognitive biases. It fucking weakened our position, because now any theocrat-in-waiting can point to it as discrediting the entire fucking movement. "You claim atheism is intellectually rigorous, but that Boghossian bloke makes a right arse of that assertion."

It's also why Dawkiins has copped a lot of flack from many of us when he's tweeted yet another privilege-blind bit of fucking drivel that the religious can grasp and wave about as discrediting the atheist position. The more prominent you are, the more important it is to make sure you both know what you're talking about and demonstrate that fact.

So, I'm not trying to shut you down. I'm not telling you to stop what you're doing, and I'm not saying your lack of qualifications mean you are undeserving of having your voice heard. I'd be a right fucking hypocrite if that were the case. I've got a certificate in storyboarding and a long history of being a mouthy cunt. My concern is that you don't inadvertently give religion more fucking ammunition.



'Tis a field I've worked in, and one I was unable to make a living at, so I feel ya there.



And at what point did I make that inane assertion?

I'll answer that for you: I didn't. What you've just done there is ascribe to me a position that I neither hold nor have stated. It is, in short, dishonest, and representative of precisely the issue I'm fucking highlighting.

The position that I have made crystal goddamned clear is that you aren't engaging in psychoanalysis, and claiming that you are is both transparently untrue and a fatal flaw in your presentation, one that any theist with an ounce of rhetorical acumen will sieze on in a fucking heartbeat to dismiss you entirely.

You don't have to have a degree to discuss literature. I don't have a degree, and I fucking discuss shit like that all the time. I've been responsible for some of the most scathing screeds attacking Christianity and its central figures that you're likely to fucking find, and I write with a distinct eye toward the funny. I'd lay odds that more than a few of the people reading this precise post right here will laugh out loud purely because I'm going to write the word "cock". As in, "cock-a-doodle-do, time for an awakening".

Look, I'm the first to say that we need more irreverent voices, if only because I'm one of them. My criticism isn't that you are unqualified to discuss literature, but that your discussion falls down when you lay claim to an activity that you don't demonstrate any knowledge of.

I'm a mouthy cunt, with no qualifications, and I am often wrong about shit. If you want to just be another mouthy cunt making fun of religious bullshit, then by all fucking means have at it. The more the merrier. But arrogating shit to yourself that you clearly don't understand undermines what you seem to be attempting to do.



It might sound stupid if that was remotely what I was saying, but it wasn't. To take your example, I'd probably criticise someone with no qualifications or appropriate background who, in talking about The Hunt for Red October, claimed to be engaging in structural engineering analysis or the application of a postmodernist dialectic (I don't even know if that latter thing is a thing, but it sounds good, no?)

Look, go ahead and make funny videos lampooning religion. They're a worthwhile activity to engage in, and I'm a fan of Potholer54's work and others.

Just be aware that your work will face scrutiny, and not only from the religious. Cunts like me will critique it out of self-defense.
Look I might have use psycho analyze wrong but you know what I meant I went into detail how its me looking at the gospel for aspirations and motivations of Jesus. If you your argument is semantics we've reached a conclusion.

If your argument is I give ammunition to Christians because I got something wrong and WE ATHEISTS THE MOVEMENT OTHER ZEALOUS RELIGIOUS SOUNDING BULLSHIT let me stop you right there. I am an atheist, you are an atheist and all we now know is that you and I lack a belief in god. There is no we, we share a belief we are not on the same team. This isn't a religion, there are no doctrines, there are no standards WE all hold up to. You want that shit go to church.

Let me know if there is anything specific that you think I got wrong other then semantics thanks then we can have a discussion and get some where.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15th July 2017, 04:54 PM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
"Tiny be as tiny do" - Zappa
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 1,746
Default Re: Do the gospel accounts of Jesus paint a Prophet of Cult Leader?

TYS, you can defend your work till you're black and white in the poorly-drawn face, but let's face it: you've hatched a turkey.

It might be best to pull that video and take time to make a better one.

If that was your best possible analysis of the story (and if you are concerned about your credibility), get a few collaborators in for the remake.

Don't let the work be a total waste. Learn from your mistakes.
__________________

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. -- Plato

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 15th July 2017, 05:03 PM
trustyoursources's Avatar
trustyoursources trustyoursources is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 17
Default Re: Do the gospel accounts of Jesus paint a Prophet of Cult Leader?

Quote:
Goldenmane said View Post
Ok, I'm going to stop you right there.

Psychoanalysis is a technical term, referring to a very specific discipline within psychiatry, and not something "people do ... with every single person they meet every day".

Whilst it is true that there is a branch of literary criticism that uses the psychoanalytic approach, this again is a specialist field, and not what you're actually engaged in.

I'm not pointing this out merely to be pedantic or a prick. The issue is that ostensibly, you're on my side, publicly putting yourself out to be an atheist voice. This means I'm going to hold you to account for the level of work that you do in that regard, because when people on my side do a shit job, it gives those who stand in opposition a fucking foothold.



It's nothing of the kind, and your attempts to analyse me demonstrate a singular lack of ability on that front alone.

The problem, as stated above, is that there are more and more 'atheist' voices filling the fucking air with ill-considered and intellectually unrigorous babble, and it's pissing me off. In claiming to engage in psychoanalysis, whilst demonstrating not the faintest grasp of what that claim actually means, you are making my life more difficult because I guaran-damn-tee you that some pain-in-the-arse fighting on the side of religion is going to seize on it as weakening my fucking position.

The key here is that atheism, as an intellectually-derived position, for the purposes of influencing society, relies upon intellectual honesty and - and this is what we've built the entire fucking global movement on - intellectual rigour. Our position has always been that atheism is the only intellectually honest and rigorous position to hold in response to the imposition of religious fucknuttery, and it is becoming increasingly important that we keep that in mind. When we stop employing intellectual rigour, we open ourselves to easy pushback.

That's why some of us are extremely critical of prominent atheist voices who start to disappear up their own arses. The recent example with Peter Boghossian (sp?) et al and their attempt at a Sokal hoax to discredit the entire field of gender studies is a case in point. Boghossian achieved some prominence with his work developing the notion of Street Epistemology, and that was fine work. But this hoax bullshit was fucking infantile and the way he doubled down when called on it was a textbook example of refusal to apply intellectual rigour to one's own cognitive biases. It fucking weakened our position, because now any theocrat-in-waiting can point to it as discrediting the entire fucking movement. "You claim atheism is intellectually rigorous, but that Boghossian bloke makes a right arse of that assertion."

It's also why Dawkiins has copped a lot of flack from many of us when he's tweeted yet another privilege-blind bit of fucking drivel that the religious can grasp and wave about as discrediting the atheist position. The more prominent you are, the more important it is to make sure you both know what you're talking about and demonstrate that fact.

So, I'm not trying to shut you down. I'm not telling you to stop what you're doing, and I'm not saying your lack of qualifications mean you are undeserving of having your voice heard. I'd be a right fucking hypocrite if that were the case. I've got a certificate in storyboarding and a long history of being a mouthy cunt. My concern is that you don't inadvertently give religion more fucking ammunition.



'Tis a field I've worked in, and one I was unable to make a living at, so I feel ya there.



And at what point did I make that inane assertion?

I'll answer that for you: I didn't. What you've just done there is ascribe to me a position that I neither hold nor have stated. It is, in short, dishonest, and representative of precisely the issue I'm fucking highlighting.

The position that I have made crystal goddamned clear is that you aren't engaging in psychoanalysis, and claiming that you are is both transparently untrue and a fatal flaw in your presentation, one that any theist with an ounce of rhetorical acumen will sieze on in a fucking heartbeat to dismiss you entirely.

You don't have to have a degree to discuss literature. I don't have a degree, and I fucking discuss shit like that all the time. I've been responsible for some of the most scathing screeds attacking Christianity and its central figures that you're likely to fucking find, and I write with a distinct eye toward the funny. I'd lay odds that more than a few of the people reading this precise post right here will laugh out loud purely because I'm going to write the word "cock". As in, "cock-a-doodle-do, time for an awakening".

Look, I'm the first to say that we need more irreverent voices, if only because I'm one of them. My criticism isn't that you are unqualified to discuss literature, but that your discussion falls down when you lay claim to an activity that you don't demonstrate any knowledge of.

I'm a mouthy cunt, with no qualifications, and I am often wrong about shit. If you want to just be another mouthy cunt making fun of religious bullshit, then by all fucking means have at it. The more the merrier. But arrogating shit to yourself that you clearly don't understand undermines what you seem to be attempting to do.



It might sound stupid if that was remotely what I was saying, but it wasn't. To take your example, I'd probably criticise someone with no qualifications or appropriate background who, in talking about The Hunt for Red October, claimed to be engaging in structural engineering analysis or the application of a postmodernist dialectic (I don't even know if that latter thing is a thing, but it sounds good, no?)

Look, go ahead and make funny videos lampooning religion. They're a worthwhile activity to engage in, and I'm a fan of Potholer54's work and others.

Just be aware that your work will face scrutiny, and not only from the religious. Cunts like me will critique it out of self-defense.
I want my work to be the best possible and the most entertaining I realize it will be scrutinize and I do not wish to further religion what so ever and I will get things wrong but ultimately I will do my best not too.

My claim
"It sounds like tell me your credetials is your way of saying I have nothing valid to offer to this discussion so Im going to try to ask for a bunch of paperwork just to even allow this conversation to happen."

Came from my misunderstanding of the word psychoanalysis in your claim from your first post. I understand the way you meant the word now you would expect proof of expertise.
"You're qualified to psychoanalyse this semi-mythical figure how exactly?"

I was not being dishonest just misinformed.
Reply With Quote
Like Goldenmane, yowie liked this post
  #27  
Old 15th July 2017, 05:52 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,656
Default Re: Do the gospel accounts of Jesus paint a Prophet of Cult Leader?

Quote:
trustyoursources said View Post
Look I might have use psycho analyze wrong but you know what I meant I went into detail how its me looking at the gospel for aspirations and motivations of Jesus. If you your argument is semantics we've reached a conclusion.

I suspect this is it in a nutshell. Have you ever argued with a religious person about faith? You see they claim we all have faith, they have faith in god, we have faith in our partners etc. But when I use the word faith I don't mean "believing things without evidence" which is the religious use, when I use the word faith as in "I have faith in my partner" I use it in reference to something more akin to trust.


When you say, "you know what I meant" yes we do know what you meant, but every fucking religious person is going to look at you and say "are you a qualified psychiatrist?" And when you say "no" they are going to say "aha", as in "another atheist twat who talks about things he's not qualified to discuss."


Rigour in this sort of endeavour basically requires not leaving gaping big holes where theists can poke their heads through. I no longer use the word faith because you seemingly can't explain to the theists that the word faith has multiple meanings, you let the word "faith" slip out and they yell "AHA" and from there on in you end up arguing about what you meant by faith rather than whatever the fuck it was you were discussing previously. It's a very common problem, you need to avoid opening yourself up to it.
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15th July 2017, 06:12 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is online now
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,005
Default Re: Do the gospel accounts of Jesus paint a Prophet of Cult Leader?

Quote:
trustyoursources said View Post
Quote:
Goldenmane said View Post
Ok, I'm going to stop you right there.

Psychoanalysis is a technical term, referring to a very specific discipline within psychiatry, and not something "people do ... with every single person they meet every day".

Whilst it is true that there is a branch of literary criticism that uses the psychoanalytic approach, this again is a specialist field, and not what you're actually engaged in.

I'm not pointing this out merely to be pedantic or a prick. The issue is that ostensibly, you're on my side, publicly putting yourself out to be an atheist voice. This means I'm going to hold you to account for the level of work that you do in that regard, because when people on my side do a shit job, it gives those who stand in opposition a fucking foothold.



It's nothing of the kind, and your attempts to analyse me demonstrate a singular lack of ability on that front alone.

The problem, as stated above, is that there are more and more 'atheist' voices filling the fucking air with ill-considered and intellectually unrigorous babble, and it's pissing me off. In claiming to engage in psychoanalysis, whilst demonstrating not the faintest grasp of what that claim actually means, you are making my life more difficult because I guaran-damn-tee you that some pain-in-the-arse fighting on the side of religion is going to seize on it as weakening my fucking position.

The key here is that atheism, as an intellectually-derived position, for the purposes of influencing society, relies upon intellectual honesty and - and this is what we've built the entire fucking global movement on - intellectual rigour. Our position has always been that atheism is the only intellectually honest and rigorous position to hold in response to the imposition of religious fucknuttery, and it is becoming increasingly important that we keep that in mind. When we stop employing intellectual rigour, we open ourselves to easy pushback.

That's why some of us are extremely critical of prominent atheist voices who start to disappear up their own arses. The recent example with Peter Boghossian (sp?) et al and their attempt at a Sokal hoax to discredit the entire field of gender studies is a case in point. Boghossian achieved some prominence with his work developing the notion of Street Epistemology, and that was fine work. But this hoax bullshit was fucking infantile and the way he doubled down when called on it was a textbook example of refusal to apply intellectual rigour to one's own cognitive biases. It fucking weakened our position, because now any theocrat-in-waiting can point to it as discrediting the entire fucking movement. "You claim atheism is intellectually rigorous, but that Boghossian bloke makes a right arse of that assertion."

It's also why Dawkiins has copped a lot of flack from many of us when he's tweeted yet another privilege-blind bit of fucking drivel that the religious can grasp and wave about as discrediting the atheist position. The more prominent you are, the more important it is to make sure you both know what you're talking about and demonstrate that fact.

So, I'm not trying to shut you down. I'm not telling you to stop what you're doing, and I'm not saying your lack of qualifications mean you are undeserving of having your voice heard. I'd be a right fucking hypocrite if that were the case. I've got a certificate in storyboarding and a long history of being a mouthy cunt. My concern is that you don't inadvertently give religion more fucking ammunition.



'Tis a field I've worked in, and one I was unable to make a living at, so I feel ya there.



And at what point did I make that inane assertion?

I'll answer that for you: I didn't. What you've just done there is ascribe to me a position that I neither hold nor have stated. It is, in short, dishonest, and representative of precisely the issue I'm fucking highlighting.

The position that I have made crystal goddamned clear is that you aren't engaging in psychoanalysis, and claiming that you are is both transparently untrue and a fatal flaw in your presentation, one that any theist with an ounce of rhetorical acumen will sieze on in a fucking heartbeat to dismiss you entirely.

You don't have to have a degree to discuss literature. I don't have a degree, and I fucking discuss shit like that all the time. I've been responsible for some of the most scathing screeds attacking Christianity and its central figures that you're likely to fucking find, and I write with a distinct eye toward the funny. I'd lay odds that more than a few of the people reading this precise post right here will laugh out loud purely because I'm going to write the word "cock". As in, "cock-a-doodle-do, time for an awakening".

Look, I'm the first to say that we need more irreverent voices, if only because I'm one of them. My criticism isn't that you are unqualified to discuss literature, but that your discussion falls down when you lay claim to an activity that you don't demonstrate any knowledge of.

I'm a mouthy cunt, with no qualifications, and I am often wrong about shit. If you want to just be another mouthy cunt making fun of religious bullshit, then by all fucking means have at it. The more the merrier. But arrogating shit to yourself that you clearly don't understand undermines what you seem to be attempting to do.



It might sound stupid if that was remotely what I was saying, but it wasn't. To take your example, I'd probably criticise someone with no qualifications or appropriate background who, in talking about The Hunt for Red October, claimed to be engaging in structural engineering analysis or the application of a postmodernist dialectic (I don't even know if that latter thing is a thing, but it sounds good, no?)

Look, go ahead and make funny videos lampooning religion. They're a worthwhile activity to engage in, and I'm a fan of Potholer54's work and others.

Just be aware that your work will face scrutiny, and not only from the religious. Cunts like me will critique it out of self-defense.
I want my work to be the best possible and the most entertaining I realize it will be scrutinize and I do not wish to further religion what so ever and I will get things wrong but ultimately I will do my best not too.

My claim
"It sounds like tell me your credetials is your way of saying I have nothing valid to offer to this discussion so Im going to try to ask for a bunch of paperwork just to even allow this conversation to happen."

Came from my misunderstanding of the word psychoanalysis in your claim from your first post. I understand the way you meant the word now you would expect proof of expertise.
"You're qualified to psychoanalyse this semi-mythical figure how exactly?"

I was not being dishonest just misinformed.
And that is a display of intellectual honesty I can fucking respect.

I'll argue with the earlier contentions of "religious sounding bullshit" separately, if you'd like to explore the subject.
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 15th July 2017, 07:28 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is online now
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,005
Default Re: Do the gospel accounts of Jesus paint a Prophet of Cult Leader?

Ah. Turns out you've some history we might need to address too.

I don't want to be too personal, but it doesn't look like you're very good at any of this. A little disappointing, from someone who grew up in the digital age.

Now I'm pissed off again.
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

Reply With Quote
Thank The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  #30  
Old 15th July 2017, 08:00 PM
stylofone's Avatar
stylofone stylofone is offline
I am no feeble Christ, not me.
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 978
Default Re: Do the gospel accounts of Jesus paint a Prophet of Cult Leader?

I quite like the videos made by the youtuber QualiaSoup, although he's been inactive for a while. His arguments seem to me to be superbly researched and very compact. He crams a lot into his videos and illustrates them nicely with simple graphics and animations. His language is impeccable. No grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.

But even the excellent QualiaSoup has trouble with the medium of video. His pieces clock in at around ten minutes, but often half way through I find my attention is wandering. He has a mellifluous voice, but it becomes soporific after a while.

To make something that's going to sustain for 10 minutes (let alone 39!) takes a lot of work, skill and/or raw material. I once thought about trying to emulate the work of QualiaSoup and started to write a script, but I got bored with it, and then I knew for sure I would end up making a boring video so I gave up. Video is better done collaboratively, for a solo work, writing is better.
Reply With Quote
Thank The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 03:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.