Andrew Wilson vs Mayt Dillahunty debate debacle.

[Danioover9000]

    IMO, this debate has societal and political ramifications for atheitst, secularists and humanists that follow Matt Dillahunty, a professional debater, who rage quit when pressed by Andrew Wilson and couldn't refute Andrew's argument. Good lessons to learn ignorance, developmental factors and psychology. What and how would you debate and argue your worldview against someone like Andrew, or even Matt?

    Yes, even intelligent people are deluded, especially the aloof ones with hubris and intellectual superiority complexes.

[Danioover9000]

   Nobody wants to post your thoughts? No objections? Gonna let Andrew Wilson steamroll this with no refutation?

[EternalForest]

The debate was supposed to be Christianity vs Secular Humanism. Andrew tried to turn it into Pro-Trans vs Anti-Trans. While I don't think Matt should've walked out, Andrew definitely wasn't debating honestly, holistically or in good faith

[Danioover9000]

@EternalForest

4 hours ago, EternalForest said:

The debate was supposed to be Christianity vs Secular Humanism. Andrew tried to turn it into Pro-Trans vs Anti-Trans. While I don't think Matt should've walked out, Andrew definitely wasn't debating honestly, holistically or in good faith

   How is Andrew Wilson wrong in this debate, and how is he not good faith? He merely reflects the smugness back at Matt, and attacks a ramification of secularism humanism from Matt, right after in Matt's opening speech misrepresenting the Christian worldview and ethics? Seems like Andrew then has the right to misrepresent Matt's version of secularism and humanism no? Also, Andrew even if aggressive he's right pinpointing Matt's cherry picking and selective bias in that he uses secularism and humanism and rationalism to justify why he's dating a trans person. Due to Matt not defining human flourishing, this allowed Andrew to pojnt out Matt's hypocrisy. Yes, it's not in good faith nor good will and isn't charitable, and doesn't fit the definitions of a debate, but Matt attacked his worldview first and misrepresented Christianity which gives Andrew that opportunity to counter. Also, IMO Matt Dillahunty looks the coward when he rage quits like that before open panel even starts.

 

   I do know that based on many  developmental factors like spiral dynamics stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality typing and traits, ego development, life experiences and other lines of development in life and societal domains, ideological differences and indoctrination by family upbringing, culture, social media, newspapers, radio, video, tv programs, and many more information points to manufacturer consent in consumers, that Matt and Andrew are different perspectives with very similar debate and arguing styles. However, perspectives must fight via debates and arguments, even if jt may be losing, lose gracefully.

[Danioover9000]

@EternalForest

4 hours ago, EternalForest said:

The debate was supposed to be Christianity vs Secular Humanism. Andrew tried to turn it into Pro-Trans vs Anti-Trans. While I don't think Matt should've walked out, Andrew definitely wasn't debating honestly, holistically or in good faith

   Also, while it's biased and preferential, this video gives further context to this whole situation, if it's true:

 

[Danioover9000]

   An interesting perspective, and critical against Matt Dillahunty:

 

[zazen]

The flaw of religion and the way its practiced is that it takes myth as literal and a description of historical events (of their prophets) as a prescription for a present where it no longer works - principles that are more timeless can always be used but practices not.

The flaw of secularism isn't so much in the state giving up religion to be a neutral governance system as it is the signal this sends socially to the people that religion doesn't hold value and them in turn giving it up - and not replacing that void with any structure to guide them and instead living entirely in the subjective world of moral relativism or scientific materialism with no spiritual depth.

In both cases, it isn't so much the state or the religion itself that tends to be the problem but how the people use, interpret and react to them.

A secularism that leads people to indulging the subjective world unhinges people from the biological reality they exist in. We can't debase ourselves from reality, the human body is a form through which the formless lives, the mould of our meatsuits allows spirit to unfold, the skeletal structure allows states of being to be. We won't be able to experience the formless without form or states of being without structure.

Sure, these things have their flaws. Moulds become moldy, structures become rickety, forms become frigid, and base reality becomes a basement of dark ignorance when not used for what it is - a base to jump from to the heights of spirit.

Its funny because secularism has sort of given rise to three splintered extremes. The dogmatically religious, the scientific materialist and the subjective moral relativist where all is fair game in the law of attraction, manifestation and identifying however you so please.

- The dogmatically religious = as a result of too much confusion that moral relativity can bring, the flood of information technology supplies and the excess subjectivity wokism puts on display - many people are regressively returning to religion (in its literal form) almost as mental-spiritual refugees. They seek refuge from a dazed world in that which never changes - dogmatic religion. Religion and tradition become anchors in a sea of excess.

- The scientific materialist = science and rationality became a new religion but one which scorched life with a materialist lens looking at the surface of life but blind to any depth to it. And because Being is depth, people who have and deny any depth to life or themselves will never be fulfilled by source. Rationality includes knowing when not to be - in matters of heart and spirit.

-Wokies = they take the domain and world of spirit and subjectivity and missapply it to objective realty denying objective reality all together. Its not that a spiritual subjective world doesn't exist where probably worlds exist that defy the laws of nature we find on this planet - but they deny that they do live on this planet and under its laws. They do not honor the form in which they have incarnated.

 

It's not so much that religion and science are on different paths but on parallel ones trans-versing the same reality - hopefully to converge one day.

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by zazen

[Danioover9000]

@zazen Great post, I'll have a read through...

On 2023-11-22 at 11:17 AM, zazen said:

The flaw of religion and the way its practiced is that it takes myth as literal and a description of historical events (of their prophets) as a prescription for a present where it no longer works - principles that are more timeless can always be used but practices not.

The flaw of secularism isn't so much in the state giving up religion to be a neutral governance system as it is the signal this sends socially to the people that religion doesn't hold value and them in turn giving it up - and not replacing that void with any structure to guide them and instead living entirely in the subjective world of moral relativism or scientific materialism with no spiritual depth.

In both cases, it isn't so much the state or the religion itself that tends to be the problem but how the people use, interpret and react to them.

A secularism that leads people to indulging the subjective world unhinges people from the biological reality they exist in. We can't debase ourselves from reality, the human body is a form through which the formless lives, the mould of our meatsuits allows spirit to unfold, the skeletal structure allows states of being to be. We won't be able to experience the formless without form or states of being without structure.

Sure, these things have their flaws. Moulds become moldy, structures become rickety, forms become frigid, and base reality becomes a basement of dark ignorance when not used for what it is - a base to jump from to the heights of spirit.

Its funny because secularism has sort of given rise to three splintered extremes. The dogmatically religious, the scientific materialist and the subjective moral relativist where all is fair game in the law of attraction, manifestation and identifying however you so please.

- The dogmatically religious = as a result of too much confusion that moral relativity can bring, the flood of information technology supplies and the excess subjectivity wokism puts on display - many people are regressively returning to religion (in its literal form) almost as mental-spiritual refugees. They seek refuge from a dazed world in that which never changes - dogmatic religion. Religion and tradition become anchors in a sea of excess.

- The scientific materialist = science and rationality became a new religion but one which scorched life with a materialist lens looking at the surface of life but blind to any depth to it. And because Being is depth, people who have and deny any depth to life or themselves will never be fulfilled by source. Rationality includes knowing when not to be - in matters of heart and spirit.

-Wokies = they take the domain and world of spirit and subjectivity and missapply it to objective realty denying objective reality all together. Its not that a spiritual subjective world doesn't exist where probably worlds exist that defy the laws of nature we find on this planet - but they deny that they do live on this planet and under its laws. They do not honor the form in which they have incarnated.

 

It's not so much that religion and science are on different paths but on parallel ones trans-versing the same reality - hopefully to converge one day.

 

   Yes, the flaws of religion is that it's a much lower development in terms of Spiral dynamics stages of development, mainly stage blue with some red and purple values in the teachings, cognitive and moral development are simpler in that cognition is mostly binary and simplistic generalizations with a more absolutist moral framework on average, personality typing and traits lean more to conservative minded psyches and liberal minded psyches less favoring closeness, order, introversion/extroversion, agreeableness with disagreeableness down to in group but higher when it's out groups, mainly ego stage opportunist to conformist make up all religions on average(Jane Loevinger's 9 stages of ego development). Due to the absolutist moral and binary cognition, anything that is perceived as threatening to the in-group is not tolerable. Of course it's complicated because it's not just Christianity but all other religions like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, and many other religions each with their own denominations, not just Christian denominations. 

   The flaws in secularism and humanism is related to the excesses of stage green values, and immature greens that blindly believe in new age, humanitarianism, in post modernism, in moral relativism, but blindly believes in them, and believes in an anti establishment anti mainstream ideology, and demonizes theocracy, religions, nationalism and other stage blue to stage orange values such that they rush change and end up opening the door for a more stage blue/red group to take over, with something like Russia's USSR or China's Mau revolution party as opportunities for more radical groups to kill off a monarchy or aristocratic families and establish themselves as the new self determination group with a new country and nation. Another flaw is it's a recent evolution in mankind, such  that when comparing doctrines between humanism and secularism to theocracy, it's easy to see that religions already have an established moral framework that's traditional and objective to the time and place of the doctrine, yet humanism and secularism is modernism, has a more flexible and nebulous ethical framework based on moral relativism and moral subjectivity which is far ore open to changes and interpretations than the theocratic moral frameworks. In terms of cognition, it's more varied that thinking now includes more than binaries but is open to other different ways of thinking although group think still occurs, and personality wise and mind nature wise secularism and humanism have more liberal minded psyches versus conservative minds, and mostly comprises of stage orange to stage green. In terms of egoic development, most would be at stage conformist, some stage opportunist to impulsive, but above conformist is construct aware ego stage, where the open-mindedness and the more flexible morals and thinking allows for higher orders of cognition not available in previous stages. Again, it's also complex because like with Christian denominations there's also versions of secularism and humanism when factoring other countries, nations, or other cultures. For example, technically the USSR and the CCP are secularist countries, yet when Americans think of, and Matt Dillahunty thinks of secularism or humanism that's likely not what they want to think of and advocate for in the USA as that's communism corrupted by autocratic/totalitarian dictatorship of stage red/blue values. This is why it's important to explain each loaded term and each ideology one refers to in a debate or in a conversation.

   Also agree that secularism gave raise to the dogmatically religious, the scientific materialist, and the moral relativist subjectivist. 

[Danioover9000]

   A great example of secularist and humanist bias and preference getting defensive and partial, with a progressive/socialist bias and left leaning bias, which demonizes and downplays Andrew Wilson's arguments to favor Matt's, especially when topic turns to the transgenderism point among others:

   Also showcases the disingenuous and intellectual superiority found in online debates, fallacies and appeals to ethos and pathos far more than appeals to logos are rampant, being bad faith and dogmatic and seeking gotcha moments for views takes priority than truth, questioning and honest intellectual integrity, more immature minds and much less mature minds. More than Andrew Wilson, look also at how James, and the crowd became defensive and group think is triggered. Also funny bit, but Matt demanding Wilson for scientific proof of God is a categorical error as the religious worldview deals with the spiritual and metaphysical, whilst the atheistic and mostly scientific worldview deals with the physical and study of natural phenomena and religion and other spiritual groups deal with the paranormal and supernatural. 

[r0ckyreed]

Gosh. I feel bad for anyone named Andrew now.

[Danioover9000]

@r0ckyreed

4 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Gosh. I feel bad for anyone named Andrew now.

   Me too, I feel bad for anyone with a rocky pic, and from Philly:

 

[Danioover9000]

   Here's another interesting debate a year ago, slightly on the immature side yet plenty of lessons from developmental factors and developmental psychology, also shout out to Mr. Girl as well: