This challenge relates to my blog and video:
My Video: Interviewing David Silverman a Reversal of My Video Speaking Out Against Him, Now Showing My Support
This challenge below was from facebook messager…
“Due to your maxed out list, ‘can’t send you a friend request. I have been associated with the atheist movement for longer than you are alive and with David Silverman for as long as he’s been with the atheist movement via American Atheists. Madalyn O’Hair was my friend. I watched and even encouraged David’s rise through the ranks. Some of the things he did – such as billboards – were my ideas that AA got from me. Camp Quest was my idea, etc (but that was before David’s time). David has grown too big for his britches; he seems to have lost the ability to accept positive criticisms and continues to use his ‘power’ to abuse both bed partners and groups he aligns himself with to bolster his own ego. You’ve been suckered.” – Challenger
My response, Thanks for your opinion.
“Much more than mere opinion. I accepted David’s recent friend request to offer him the benefit of the doubt because I also know from past experience what unreasonable a-holes some AA leaders can be. AA went downhill fast after Madalyn, Jon & Robin were abducted, tortured & murdered. When it comes to being kind & creative human beings, atheists fail the test no less than theists do. The only real advantage to being a nonbeliever in myths is in being able to live out one’s temporary lifespan experiencing reality as it is.” – Challenger
My response, So would you consider that what you have said to be specific facts about David or opinions about David? If you want me to considered differently please provide particular facts.
“I know, I know, only too often the obvious is nearly impossible to see. If you share David’s bedroom desires to dominate bed partners in sadistic ways (as he has revealed in recent video interviews), you will never grasp what I am saying. But if you do not share those attributes, you should at some point begin to understand what I am saying. David appealed to you because you are someone in a position of influence over large numbers of individuals and he is desperate not just to survive as a living being but as one with power over others. David isn’t entirely about freeing the planet from myth, he’s about doing it in a manner consistent with filling his perverse desires. He thinks primarily with his penis and his bedroom activities reveal that he is not a kind & gentle human being. But, again, if you are like him, you will never grasp what I am saying. Btw, I was once like you were – a strong theist headed for a ministry – until I realized I was a sucker for fairytales that had zero bases in scientific fact. Seeing reality as it is and living live accordingly is the difference between eating a fish dinner and swallowing the bones and learning to spit out the bones. Obviously (or at least it should be obvious). It isn’t rocket science and requires no impressive college degrees.” – Challenger
My response, I have a degree in psychology and am a rationalist. You are conflating BDSM with one’s ability to do pro-social behavior. This is not true. One is a sexual play with consenting adults and the other is their social life. It reminds me of the thinking some people say that gay men are more likely to be sexual predators of children so they should not be able to be around them. This is emotional thinking, not reasonable thinking. The truth is that heterosexuals are more common than the sexual abuser of children. I feel you need to rethink what is an emotional or rational argument. How do you claim to know what I like about David? I like his firebrand atheism as I said in the video. If you watched it and then claim different again you are adding your opinion or feelings, not a fact.
My response, “BDSM Are they sick? For Freud, the answer was a clear yes: Anyone interested in S&M was in need of treatment—treatment that, by fine coincidence, he and his contemporaries were qualified to provide. But recent research tells a different story.
Pamela Connolly compared BDSM practitioners to published norms on 10 psychological disorders. Compared to the normative samples, BDSM practitioners had “LOWER” levels of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), psychological sadism, psychological masochism, borderline pathology, and paranoia. (They showed equal levels of obsessive-compulsive disorder and higher levels of dissociation and narcissism.) Similarly, Andreas Wismeijer and Marcel van Assen compared BDSM practitioners to non-BDSM-practitioners on major personality traits. Their results showed that in comparison to non-practitioners, BDSM practitioners exhibited higher levels of extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and subjective well-being. Practitioners also showed lower levels of neuroticism and rejection sensitivity. The one negative trait that emerged? BDSM practitioners showed lower levels of agreeableness than non-practitioners. – facts.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-wide-wide-world-psychology/201502/the-surprising-psychology-bdsm?fbclid=IwAR23H0WnNUaBSTumSg5c7cL73azFLqLGfYxgd6tTCMN2K1QX6DZIV24Z6OA
My response, If you want to make claims about something learn more about it first or all you have is an uninformed opinion.
“Psychology was my bag, too, until I began to realize that some inherently insecure people with very low self-esteem go into it in order to develop ways to dominate & control others. They are easily recognized by their attempts to dominate by overwhelming with repeat comments & copy/pastes. Who are the best rationalizers on the planet? Psychologists can be.” – Challenger
My response, So again you offer more options about psychology. It seems like you don’t get what is needed to persuade a rationalist thinker like me. I will tell you I am motivated best by facts and least by opinion.
“You deem yourself “rational”. But are you?” – Challenger
My response, Yes, I am a rationalist and strive to think rationally.
“We will see. Was your original opinion of David’s situation based in rationality? Or is your current opinion of him based in rationality? Something changed.” – Challenger
My response, So are you going to provide facts or now switch to making it about me? Do you think that will make me more persuaded or less sure of your arguments holding worthy thinking? My first thinking was that America Atheists removed him because of the sexual claims against him. I didn’t see that they later stated that was not the reason. Also, David didn’t defend myself at first so I further assumed his guilt. He now has not only come out against them he has others that have written statements saying they saw how it didn’t match what the women claimed. I before thought the women had gone to the police as they did go to the news. I was wrong they never went to the police. Also, someone, I trusted the famous atheist Matt Dillahunty said he knew things that added to David being a bad person. But David recorded Matt saying that he still thought David was a person who he would be proud to share the stage with. I am persuaded by known facts and like science when new facts change the old thinking a rational person should update their thinking as I did. But it is not on me to have to prove my rational thinking it is on you the holder of the burden of proof to establish your claims. Please offer facts as I will change only for them or valid reason.
Here is my Video with Matt: Damien Marie AtHope Chats With Matt Dillahunty on Atheism and Philosophy
“YOU made it about YOU by APPEALING to your OWN ‘authority” by pointing out that you had a degree and consider yourself rational.” – Challenger
My response, Wrong, I explained that I have a degree in psychology as you were making psychology claims without facts then I offered facts.
“My old and dear friend Madalyn Murray O’Hair had a small sign on the wall directly across from her desk that read “Question Authority.” – Challenger
My response, Again you are not providing facts for your claims against David, just opinions and alternative ideas.
“Well, you offered the opinions of a psychologist.” – Challenger
My response, Wrong, they were not opinions, it was research results by experts in that field. And again as I have told you to provide facts against David to make your claims worthy.
Here is some helpful info from RationalWiki:
“An argument from authority refers to two kinds of arguments:
- A non-fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, insofar as the authorities in question are, indeed, experts on the issue in question, their opinion provides strong inductive support for the conclusion: It makes the conclusion likely to be true, not necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true — not prove it.
- A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues.” ref
“Correct uses of argument from authority involve deferred justification: Insofar as your claim accords with what experts on the issue believes in, then your claim is also supported by the evidence the experts are relying on, even if you may not yourself be aware of what that evidence in fact is.” ref
“What “facts” did you have when you first rejected David and what “facts” do you have now? Just your acceptance of the opinions of others is what I’m seeing.” – Challenger
My response, You are interested in wasting my time or providing facts for your arguments against David? You are making it about anything but your burden of proof obligation to offer facts.
“The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. The burden of proof is an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Once participants in discourse establish common assumptions, the mechanism of the burden of proof helps to ensure that all parties contribute productively, using relevant arguments.” ref
“Ahh…., you consider Psychology Today mag to be base on sound research, I like that mag – always have – so I’ve read it a lot. In doing so, I have observed many changes in viewpoints.” – Challenger
My response, There is a name for the behavior you keep doing by not addressing your burden of proof and try to make it about anything else, it is called logical fallacies.
“Avoiding the Issue. Description: When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument. Unlike the strawman fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.” ref
“Did I ever say I had “facts”? I base my opinion of David on his admitted behavior and the FACT that he didn’t have the balls to speak with me about any of it despite him knowing me from way back when I was known as PeskyAtheist and was in the fight to right the wrongs committed against atheists by theists long before either of you were born.” – Challenger
My response, Well, you said you had something more than opinion. What else is there for you if what you offer is not options? I also have asked over and over for facts from you which you didn’t say anything about not having facts or the like but rather avoided by switching the argument to me.
“I did say that my opinion is more than just opinion. You assumed something else.“ – Challenger
My response, Here is what option means: “An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another, by analyzing the supporting arguments. Though not hard fact, collective opinions or professional opinions are defined as meeting a higher standard to substantiate the opinion. Distinguishing fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be agreed to by the consensus of experts. Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they agree on the same set of facts.” ref
My response, If you knew that you didn’t have facts and where being intellectually honest should have just said you didn’t have facts.
My response, Here is what intellectual honesty means: “Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception” Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:
- One’s personal faith, beliefs, or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
- Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis;
- Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
- References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.
- Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.” ref
My response, What is an option more than opinion but not a fact? If it is devoid of evidence thus not a fact it is an opinion.
“I do not think that a quote from Psychology Today “research” would hold up in a court of law as “fact.” – Challenger
My response, Now again you are back to logical fallacies, Psychology Today did not do the research it posted info from “research.” Thanks for your non-fact opinions but I am done wasting my time as you show the lack of response that is worthy to change my mind and refused to stop the unworthy arguments. Take care.
“David may not have thought that he – the then President of AA – was exploiting an intoxicated friend, but the courts may not see it that way. I am not a fan of AA these days, but the AA board has the right to fire anyone from leadership for any reason. That David is now trying to sue AA is silly. AA does have an image to uphold in the community. Even Madalyn O’Hair was under scrutiny by the board for certain of her behaviors before she was killed.” – Challenger
My response, I hope the person making the claim of being taken advantage of when to intoxicated does go to court and then we will have more information on both sides and judgment to reason from. As far as you not liking AA, okay, but I still do like them as they still do good for atheists. David taking then to court is on him and we will see what happens.
“As you said, AA didn’t fire him that or money. Do you know why they did? I do, but I gave my word I would not repeat. David knows…“ – Challenger
My response, You just have non-fact supported opinions, opinions ad nothing but opinions. S Just a waste of my time. Come back when you have facts.
He eventually blocked me after trolling my page first!
Sometime later, David started changing and sharing toxic conservative thinking, and thus I blocked him as well.
While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.
The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:
Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!
Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO
Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO
Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO
Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO
Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO
I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.
The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.
An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”
My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?
I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.
I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.
This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO
Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy“
Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)
Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)
Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)
Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)
Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)
Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)
Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)
The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”
Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.
Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?
Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.
I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.
Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.
At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.
Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)
Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft
Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.
Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie
Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.
Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”
I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.
To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.
My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?
Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago.
Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):
Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism
My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com