[Deereyme66]

Debating whether to bringing the washing in as it’s spitting. Heavier rain due in 2 hours. Clothes are 2/3 dry. What to do?

Currently risk taking and leaving them. Any worse rain and they’re in. What a dilemma.

[Deereyme66]

I share much of those sentiments 50p. Far more interested in engaging with people or content who say ‘what if?’ in a genuine and enquiring way and take the time to appreciate your position rather than an ego fuelled hectoring religious zealot like Turek, intent on trying to crush you. It turns people off. Just like these videos. When I was a philosophy student we had some healthy and humorous exchanges and debates with students and lecturers from the Theology department. No one was particularly rigid in their beliefs to the extent that we shut down the other side of the coin. Being open to ideas led to interesting conversation and a broadening perspective. It was refreshing and enlightening in a way I’m just never going to experience from this type of video content. Who’s the annoying Frank Zappaesque commentator guy in the corner looking all sage like unnecessarily stopping the video and adding nothing new to what’s been said and slavishly agreeing with Turek: ‘without God, without his design, we’re just waste robots’. Aye, and without Santa I’d get no Christmas presents!

[Deereyme66]

With my lagging keyboard on my phone and having to go back and forth to that bloody video twice and carry on posting, that’s taken up far too much time this evening. And I can guarantee you’ll come back with some guff bpg. Talk about Sisyphus’s Rock, ffs…

[Deereyme66]

Pretty soon after he says, hypothetically, that Hitler comes along and says to the student that he wants to kill him. Turek asks ‘is he wrong?’. By strawmanning the student, who is clearlý taken aback by the illogical flow of debate he’s confronted with, he’s just made a mockery of reasoning, totally neglecting man made morality and laws. Tbh, I think the bloke is complete arse. That’s before we even get on to the misnomer of whether the cited philosophers were right or wrong. Which I’ve already answered but which you aren’t prepared to accept. Instead, I’m told I’m nonsensical and Siderite is told he’s foolish. Sorry, doesn’t win any prizes bpg.

[Deereyme66]

Okay bpg, first flaw in Turek’s argument, first 10secs in the video. Student asks him if he thinks one can have a meaningful life if one doesn’t believe in God? Turek says yes but it would be subjective not objective meaning. Student asks what he means. Turek replies that it can only be subjective because objective meaning comes from God, ‘from his purposes’

That my friend is unverifiable, or put not so politely, a load of only pony. His whole argument has fallen at the first hurdle because it relies on him needing to demonstrate Gods existence, which he can only attempt to do through subjective thought. There really isn’t any point in carrying on with the guy after this point. And moving back and forth, gesticulating and grandstanding doesn’t strengthen his argument either.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Heath

[Deereyme66]

I’d agree with that, as said previously, just something quite bizarre and fervent how it played out. Wonder what batshit craziness will occur tomorrow? Entertaining for sure, and I like a good laugh me.

[Deereyme66]

Pretty sure Hiltons defence is a little more complex than that.

[Deereyme66]

Is it because their eyes swivel a bit too much?

[Deereyme66]

Rather than paying lawyers huge fees for a case he may not win, surely the sensible and most cost effective solution would be for Hilton to bite the bullet over the issues he’s raised and just pay Swann what they agreed initially? The elephant leaves the room and long term security of the club assured. It’s what we all want isn’t it? Surprised none of the blokes on the latest Iron Hour Podcast suggested this tbh.

[Deereyme66]

So is the current rent £5k a month? And is it actually being paid? Bit confusing all this.

[Deereyme66]

Matt Slater writes for The Athletic I think. Shame Dave told him to ‘go away’ when he asked him for a comment

[Deereyme66]

Saw that whole episode earlier. Bizarre. I think they meant well but clearly not thought anything through. I thought Mr White’s response insisting they stop and why was very good. This baffling post from someone on there made me chuckle: ‘I’m Dave we trust’. Sums it up well.

[Deereyme66]

‘The truth is no-one on the atheist side is willing to debate. And there is a reason why.’

Ergo, despite any reasons put forward, they are not being faithful and you are right? How do you think that comes across bpg? Aren’t you supposed to ‘leave them wanting more’, not ‘leave them desperate for less’?!

[Deereyme66]

‘Oh yes it does,and you know it.Your unwillingness to comment on the video shows deep down you know.’

I’m unwilling to go in to more depth because I simply can’t be arsed bpg. If it was a uni task or anything that might bring some sort of satisfaction for putting the time and effort in I might. The likelihood is you’ll just dismiss what I say anyway and pedanitcally harp on about my ‘worldview’ and the existence of God presupposing what I say. Listen, I’m pleased for you that you’ve found God if it makes you happy. I’m happy being agnostic / atheist. I don’t feel the need to try and turn people away from their belief in God. I think less badgering from you and those who are desperate to convert people might be more appealing if I’m honest.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[Deereyme66]

Think it is tbh. Nevermind.

[Deereyme66]

Ha ha, admittedly I made the same mistake as I-A. I thought that’s who DI was referring to at first too.

[Deereyme66]

So was he at Leeds yesterday in a SET reporting capacity or not? At present it seems unlikely given nothing’s been published. Awaywego, do you know? You seemed pretty sure yesterday?

[Deereyme66]

Believe it or not, my days aren’t preoccupied with providing a full dissection of a video of a pro Christian like Turek strawmanning a young student, just because you ask me to. Like a lot of your hectoring I’ll perhaps come back to it. I may not. Either way, it doesn’t have a bearing on, or validate your desperate desire to prove absolute truth and ‘objective meaning’ via the existence of a God.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[Deereyme66]

When’s Max’s piece ìn SET likely to be published? Nothing online yet as far as I can tell.

[Deereyme66]

Got sidetracked çooking earlier. Was going to add that it sounds to me like you don’t like my answer to your question as it doesn’t engage in the way you want, which I assume would be saying things and making claims that you could try and trip me up on. I don’t think you appreciate that someone, from the outset, could take issue with the posed question and what this Turek guy is attempting to argue bpg, so I’d suggest you’re branding my post as ‘nonsensical’, when the reality was I watched the video with an increasing frown as it progressed. I wished someone would stop him yapping and take him to task over every flaw in his argument. Quite easy for him to railroad that student in a hushed lecture room surrounded by other students, and bordered on academic bullying.

[Deereyme66]

Not nonsense at all. I’ve answered your question and picked up on the point in the video that you focused on. I’m not going start debating the rest of Turek’s pro Christian warblings.

[Deereyme66]

Said he had a train booked for today and Mr Bell posted that there was a SUFC shareholder present. SNOT?

[Deereyme66]

Yes. Watched it. Made some mental notes and forgot to reply. Ultimately I think it’s too simplistic to suggest Sartre, Camus and Nietszche were either right or wrong. All have different takes on ‘absurdity’ which aren’t merely about Christian objective meaning and a rejection of it. Camus and the myth of Sisyphus is the real focal point for the notion of ‘absurdity’, though both he and Nietzsche were influenced by Kiekegaard and his notion of overcoming it by taking a ‘leap of faith’, as I recall. Sartre, I haven’t much time for academically (poor man’s Heidegger) though his literary stuff I like, particularly Nausea. Bit of a poser really. The bottom line for me is that they attempt to describe the human condition / psyche so questioning whether they’re right or wrong is a misnomer to me. Like a lot of phililosophers, I can relate to and appreciate elements of their thinking. I wouldn’t stridently suggest any are right or wrong. Certainly don’t think Nietzsche was right about an ‘ubermensche’ for instance but think he had something critiquing the invention of good and evil and seeing beyond that-influeced culture for over 100 years that. Marvelous.

[Deereyme66]

Hopefully they have, or their colleagues have, expertise in business and property law.

Scunthorpe United face civil trial in Glanford Park stadium dispute

[Deereyme66]

Either way, it’s cash in the attic and should put the club in a more stable financial footing for the time being?

[Deereyme66]

Not sure the 7p a week is Hilton paying Swann. Might be what the club are paying Hilton to ‘sub lease’ from a comment I read? Though I don’t know how accurate that is.

[Deereyme66]

‘A video you refuse to watch. Why not,and give a sound response to your position?’

You sound like an Old Testament preacher from a Denis Potter drama with all this haranguing.

[Deereyme66]

The row between Scunthorpe Utd’s current/former owners, David Hilton & Peter Swann, over ownership of the club’s Glanford Park stadium will go to a 3-day trial at a TBD date in Jan-Mar, 2024. The ruling was just made by District Judge Royle at a long directions hearing in Leeds.

— Matt Slater (@mjshrimper) August 29, 2023

When asked for comment, Hilton said: “No comment. Go away.” The most interesting line from the hearing was that Scunthorpe Utd are currently paying Swann 7 pence a week rent for use of the stadium.

— Matt Slater (@mjshrimper) August 29, 2023

1 user thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut

[Deereyme66]

[Deereyme66]

[Author]

Posts