Page 1 of 3
AeroRocker
I'm too old for this ****
Join date: Oct 2007
1,019 IQ
#3
Is faith reasonable?

Seriously? These guys talked out of their asses for hours about something, that by the very definition of the question, is already false?
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████
█████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████
██████████████████████████
██████████████████████████


LET'S GO BUCKS
Rawshik
Homophobic Racist
Join date: Oct 2010
2,276 IQ
#4
You didn't watch it.
For how can I give the King his place of worth above all else
when I spend my time striving to place the crown upon myself?
TunerAddict
Real Ass Nigga
Join date: Aug 2008
1,184 IQ
#5
You have an agenda with this video, OP.

I don't like blatant agendas, at least be decent enough to cover up and have some modesty!
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
Rawshik
Homophobic Racist
Join date: Oct 2010
2,276 IQ
#6
I don't have an agenda. In fact, I don't expect any of you to watch it and was worried that if you did would think that very thought.
For how can I give the King his place of worth above all else
when I spend my time striving to place the crown upon myself?
snipelfritz
Senior Fun Correspondent
Join date: May 2006
1,554 IQ
#7
I like debate and rhetoric in form.

But this just does not seem like a great subject. Especially as an absurdist who believes faith as being both impossible and pointless to consider "reasonable" on "not reasonable." It might be "useful" or "worthwhile" but in the end, I'm not gonna touch it.
BOOM-SHAKALAKALAKA-BOOM-SHAKALAKUNGA
slipknot5678
UG Monkey
Join date: Jul 2009
670 IQ
#8
I like debate but I'm not watching a three hour debate on that subject.
Jon777
Assbender
Join date: Feb 2009
1,137 IQ
#9
I hear from my friends that William Lane Craig is an alright dude (if I'm thinking of the right person). Also, I used to do debate in high school.

Too bad this is 3 hours long. I don't think I have the patience for that.
MAC2322
UG's Twilight Sparkle
Join date: Feb 2009
59 IQ
#10
I turned it off as soon as I saw it was William Lane Craig. That guy is an idiot.
My signature lacks content. It is, however, blue.
TooktheAtrain
Banned
Join date: May 2012
184 IQ
#11
Quote by MAC2322
I turned it off as soon as I saw it was William Lane Craig. That guy is an idiot.

that
Rawshik
Homophobic Racist
Join date: Oct 2010
2,276 IQ
#12
Quote by MAC2322
I turned it off as soon as I saw it was William Lane Craig. That guy is an idiot.


Subjectively you may think so, but objectively he's not. Anyone who's spent decades of their life studying philosophy and theology is most certainly full of knowledge and would be considered intelligent.

Also, I understand that because I'm the pretty much the "resident Christian" around here that I will probably get a lot of crap for this but that's not the purpose of the thread.
For how can I give the King his place of worth above all else
when I spend my time striving to place the crown upon myself?
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
153 IQ
#13
A three hour debate about a self-refuting proposition, what?

Quote by Rawshik
Subjectively you may think so, but objectively he's not. Anyone who's spent decades of their life studying philosophy and theology is most certainly full of knowledge and would be considered intelligent.


He's full of knowledge, but that's no guarantor of intelligence. His arguments are painfully full of non-sequiturs and holes in logic.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Last edited by Todd Hart at Feb 3, 2013,
Rawshik
Homophobic Racist
Join date: Oct 2010
2,276 IQ
#14
He seemed to make some pretty logical points this time around. I'm not here to argue though.
For how can I give the King his place of worth above all else
when I spend my time striving to place the crown upon myself?
MAC2322
UG's Twilight Sparkle
Join date: Feb 2009
59 IQ
#15
Quote by Rawshik
Subjectively you may think so, but objectively he's not. Anyone who's spent decades of their life studying philosophy and theology is most certainly full of knowledge and would be considered intelligent.


Not really. His arguments are absolute garbage and display either a very flawed grasp of logic or a willful ignorance of facts.

He is clearly not stupid, since he has knowledge, but his failure to use that knowledge to craft intelligent arguments makes him an idiot.
My signature lacks content. It is, however, blue.
vIsIbleNoIsE
The Asian-Viking Paradox
Join date: Feb 2006
1,540 IQ
#16
after a certain age, we all bend our beliefs the way we want to, and knowing the truth won't matter in the end anyway. i enjoy debating about stuff like this with friends, but doing it all serious-like in the public forum seems kinda novel.
Quote by archerygenious
Jesus Christ since when is the Pit a ****ing courtroom...

Like melodic, black, death, symphonic, and/or avant-garde metal? Want to collaborate? Message me!
jrcsgtpeppers
Tab Contributor
Join date: Feb 2009
4,843 IQ
#17
I like debates because I like tests and i like rethinking my thoughts and relearning.
But i wont watch that. Iv debated it many times and you always end up with a girl and a guy both saying their gender is better because it just is.
MadClownDisease
Just a Turing Machine.
Join date: Apr 2006
982 IQ
#19
Quote by Rawshik
He seemed to make some pretty logical points this time around. I'm not here to argue though.

Then why did you post a video of a debate on the topic?


But ultimately the answer is... no, it's not reasonable. It's only reasonable if you already assume the existence of God, not working in the other direction. All the arguments given that I've seen (which is a good number, I spent a portion of my degree studying this) at best show that God might be compatible with the arguments given against him, they rarely offer any positive reason for that position.
Saying the God might be possible is by no means saying it is reasonable to believe so. In fact, an atheist could accept that theism may very well be true whilst still thinking that until there is any positive argument for God, it's not reasonable.

The classic tale to illustrate this is the story of the Indian prince (I can't remember who came up with it). A prince lived in a hot area of India in his palace and one day some traveller comes along and tells him about his travels. He tells him in some places in the world, it is so cold that water suddenly turns solid, with no intermediate state. In fact, it even falls from the sky in this solid form.
Of course the Indian prince doesn't believe him, and he is completely reasonable to do so. Why on earth would he believe that? We know now he was wrong, but that wouldn't make his belief reasonable.


All the cosmological arguments I've seen for God, although they get very complex with talk of modal logic and causation, essentially boil down to the same thing...
Here's the world. Why is it here? It can't just be! God did it.

...and of course the response every time is "Well then why can God just be?". These debates get very long winded and complex, but to be honest never really get any further than that.
God may be compatible, but that doesn't make it reasonable to believe in him.

EDIT: watching the video, I definitely read a paper from this guy. I remember the way he keeps saying that a "transcendent personal being" is what we mean by God, as if that shows that any argument for a prior cause of the universe also proves that it is God and he is like that. Even allowing cosmological arguments on the origins of existence you don't get any further than possibly the existence of a prior thing with causal power. That's it. That does nothing to show that any resembling the Christian God.
Last edited by MadClownDisease at Feb 3, 2013,
willT08
Banned
Join date: Jul 2009
2,923 IQ
#21
Is that David Wolpe one the one with the "When I look at you, I see Elvis" bit?
CoreysMonster
Banned
Join date: Apr 2005
8,557 IQ
#23
I love debates. I very rarely see good ones, though, because most debates devolve into name-calling, ad hominems and purposely misunderstanding the other side's arguments. If two sides have researched their shit, don't become overly emotionally invested, and simply put facts, research and rhetoric against each other, then I'm all ears.

Another thing I never see in debates is one side conceding a point to the other, like in the old Lorax movie:

The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
The Lorax: I see your point. But I wouldn't know the answer.

Because that shows the person acknowledges the shades of grey in an argument.

Only Siths deal in absolutes.
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
153 IQ
#24
Quote by willT08
Is that David Wolpe one the one with the "When I look at you, I see Elvis" bit?


Yes.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
MadClownDisease
Just a Turing Machine.
Join date: Apr 2006
982 IQ
#25
Quote by CoreysMonster
I love debates. I very rarely see good ones, though, because most debates devolve into name-calling, ad hominems and purposely misunderstanding the other side's arguments. If two sides have researched their shit, don't become overly emotionally invested, and simply put facts, research and rhetoric against each other, then I'm all ears.

Another thing I never see in debates is one side conceding a point to the other, like in the old Lorax movie:

The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
The Lorax: I see your point. But I wouldn't know the answer.

Because that shows the person acknowledges the shades of grey in an argument.

Only Siths deal in absolutes.

Definitely the best way to argue with someone's points is to concede as much of what they want as you can, but still show it doesn't work.

The video TS posted has the atheist start arguing against there being a first cause of the universe by talking about quantum mechanics... it would've been a lot more useful and applicable if he'd accepting for arguments sake the theory of sufficient cause and shown it not work on its own grounds.

Even if you don't fully accept someone's point, you can accept it for arguments sake as a much more powerful tool that denying everything they say.
willT08
Banned
Join date: Jul 2009
2,923 IQ
#26
Then I'm glad I'm watching it. I quite like Wolpe as well so it's a laugh.
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
153 IQ
#27
Quote by willT08
Then I'm glad I'm watching it. I quite like Wolpe as well so it's a laugh.


Wolpe's one of my favourite commentators, especially as a defender of religion. He's funny and witty and intelligent to match. He's sort of what Hitch would have been if he'd been raised a Jew, and not been completely cynical.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
264 IQ
#29
I like debates, but I prefer taking part in them rather than watching them.

That said, I've got quite a bit of entertainment from watching Christopher Hitchens debating.
willT08
Banned
Join date: Jul 2009
2,923 IQ
#30
I think all of us on UG are much more Hitch blokes than Dawkins guys. Which I like.
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
264 IQ
#31
Quote by willT08
I think all of us on UG are much more Hitch blokes than Dawkins guys. Which I like.

Dawkins is a souless debater, he knows some great facts but he just doesn't match up to the sheer passion that Hitch brought to the game.
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
153 IQ
#33
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Dawkins is a souless debater, he knows some great facts but he just doesn't match up to the sheer passion that Hitch brought to the game.


I think the reason Dawkins seems dull in debates is because he isn't politically minded, and oratory is an art entirely embedded in and dependent on politics, and Dawkins disappoints. Dawkins is clearly more intelligent than Hitch was, but Hitch argued against religion on political terms (and, a personal point, was fantastically well read) and understood debate and rhetoric as he had lived and breathed it since university. Dawkins is a scientist who became an orator.

Dawkins does, due to being a scientist, though, have a much more incisive and somewhat lateral mind.

Quote by captainsnazz
I don't like debates about religion, that's for sure. If you're in one of those debates, regardless of which side you're on, you're most likely retarded beyond all hope.


"If you're debating one of the most important and defining questions of our assistance then you're a ******."

This is you.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Last edited by Todd Hart at Feb 3, 2013,
girlgerms007
mostly harmless
Join date: Nov 2011
133 IQ
#34
I don't like debates in general: there always seems to be a nasty/smarmy undercurrent no matter what the topic.
not going viral


Hot E-Cousin of rjaylaf

Non Evil E-Twin of stealstrings

E-NEMESIS of deathdrummer
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
264 IQ
#35
Quote by captainsnazz
I don't like debates about religion, that's for sure. If you're in one of those debates, regardless of which side you're on, you're most likely retarded beyond all hope.

Retarded? Simply for stating an opinion on the question of religion?

You're saying that only people without opinions are not retarded?

Quote by Todd Hart
I think the reason Dawkins seems dull in debates is because he isn't politically minded, and oratory is an art entirely embedded in and dependent on politics, and Dawkins disappoints. Dawkins is clearly more intelligent than Hitch was, but Hitch argued against religion on political terms (and, a personal point, was fantastically well read) and understood debate and rhetoric as he had lived and breathed it since university. Dawkins is a scientist who became an orator.

Dawkins does, due to being a scientist, though, have a much more incisive and somewhat lateral mind.

Agreed completely.
CoreysMonster
Banned
Join date: Apr 2005
8,557 IQ
#36
Quote by girlgerms007
I don't like debates in general: there always seems to be a nasty/smarmy undercurrent no matter what the topic.

That's usually only when people become overly emotionally invested in what they're talking about. There's a big difference, for instance, in how Americans debate, vs how Germans debate. Germans tend to be much more emotionally removed from a subject matter due to the culture, and thus debates very rarely get as heated as, well, this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

It was shocking for me to learn that discussing politics and religion is more or less considered a social taboo in the USA, and I was even more shocked to see people get very angry at the mere mention that their political party made mistakes. Very different over here.
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
153 IQ
#37
Quote by CoreysMonster
That's usually only when people become overly emotionally invested in what they're talking about. There's a big difference, for instance, in how Americans debate, vs how Germans debate. Germans tend to be much more emotionally removed from a subject matter due to the culture, and thus debates very rarely get as heated as, well, this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

It was shocking for me to learn that discussing politics and religion is more or less considered a social taboo in the USA, and I was even more shocked to see people get very angry at the mere mention that their political party made mistakes. Very different over here.


Yeah, I learnt that Americans are a lot more bottled up about politics when talking to an American friend from uni who was talking about his disgust at the Iraq war and I told him that that was silly. It seems like he'd never really had his view challenged before, which struck me as quite odd. Religion, though, is very guarded in the UK too; possibly not as much as in America but having never been I can't comment. People don't take offence, but almost everyone would rather you didn't ask, and if in the process of a seminar you discuss some literary work and say that something silly in it is taken from religion there's a certain ominous silence that descends on the room.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
264 IQ
#38
Quote by Todd Hart
Religion, though, is very guarded in the UK too; possibly not as much as in America but having never been I can't comment. People don't take offence, but almost everyone would rather you didn't ask, and if in the process of a seminar you discuss some literary work and say that something silly in it is taken from religion there's a certain ominous silence that descends on the room.

The English often tend to have a bit of a hang-up with not wishing to cause offence, (it's a politeness thing) so they often try to avoid situations in which they can possibly be construed as being offensive, and regardless of what you say about religion, there's always someone who will claim to be offended by it.
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
153 IQ
#39
Quote by SlackerBabbath
The English often tend to have a bit of a hang-up with not wishing to cause offence, (it's a politeness thing) so they often try to avoid situations in which they can possibly be construed as being offensive, and regardless of what you say about religion, there's always someone who will claim to be offended by it.


Certainly, it's incredibly infuriating. Although, it does have the upside of meaning that those over-earnest drunken conversations you have down the student bar always end up being about space and time and quantum physics, and I'm down for that. Would be nice to be political/theological every now and then though.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
264 IQ
#40
Quote by Todd Hart
Certainly, it's incredibly infuriating.

Most definately. It's really hard to get a valid point across to someone who instantly freaks out whenever they hear it rather than actualy thinking rationaly about it.